Questions for Magellan

[magellan004]

My point is that you seemingly believe that the Bible is a revelation of truth, and that it accurately reflects physical reality (I presume). I'm wondering how you reach that conclusion when there are so many other texts that make similar claims. Or do you start with the assumption that the Bible is inerrant revelation? I really don't know how this works.

I deal with that situation in , I would assume , the same way you deal with conflicting, incompatible and differring versions /accounts of things.
'You can't always believe what you read' etc. There is no mystery to my method. Billions of people use my method.

At the risk of sounding corny, I think Truth is like a diamond - multi faceted, and our (Society's) obsession with black and white doesn't get us close to truth.

PS, As to my 'one-liners', I'm a funny guy, it is the nature that God gave me. Do not presume to question the work of God!

Good answer. it made me smile.

Magellan

[magellan004]

Right. 1 kg is the same thing as 9 X 10¹⁶ k-m/sec².

Seriously, Magellan. When you're this wrong, it really is time to just shut up.

A couple of jottings on the Einstein hoax that may interest you -

1. It seems common in various web-sites to talk about 'The Speed of Energy' in relation to relativity. Of course energy, being a capacity for work, has no 'speed'.

eg. http://www.norlabs.org/tor.html

2. Classic howlers about speed of light -
'It is constant and unaffected by the speed of the source of the light and is observed to have the same value regardless of the speed of the observer.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

For light, it would be natural to expect that one could similarly add and subtract velocities. Suppose that I measure a particular light signal's speed, and find the usual value of 299,792.458 kilometers (186,000 miles) per second. If I see a fast spaceship chase right after that signal, moving at half the speed of light (c/2), I would expect that an observer on that spaceship would measure the speed of my light signal at merely c - c/2 = c/2, half the value that I measured.
http://www.einstein-online.info/elem...speed_of_light

The above two quotes are typical of the trouble some 'Einstein experts ' have in grappling with relativity.

Speed is a scalar quantity. It is defined as being independent of sources and observers etc.
The speed of any object is independent of the observer. Light is no exception.

Just thought you might be interested. Some "Scientists' are feeding us bull every day.

Magellan

[pancreasman]

A couple of jottings on the Einstein hoax that may interest you -

1. It seems common in various web-sites to talk about 'The Speed of Energy' in relation to relativity. Of course energy, being a capacity for work, has no 'speed'.

eg. http://www.norlabs.org/tor.html

2. Classic howlers about speed of light -
'It is constant and unaffected by the speed of the source of the light and is observed to have the same value regardless of the speed of the observer.'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light

For light, it would be natural to expect that one could similarly add and subtract velocities. Suppose that I measure a particular light signal's speed, and find the usual value of 299,792.458 kilometers (186,000 miles) per second. If I see a fast spaceship chase right after that signal, moving at half the speed of light (c/2), I would expect that an observer on that spaceship would measure the speed of my light signal at merely c - c/2 = c/2, half the value that I measured.
http://www.einstein-online.info/elem...speed_of_light

The above two quotes are typical of the trouble some 'Einstein experts ' have in grappling with relativity.

Speed is a scalar quantity. It is defined as being independent of sources and observers etc.
The speed of any object is independent of the observer. Light is no exception.

Just thought you might be interested. Some "Scientists' are feeding us bull every day.

Magellan

Um, I'd really like to start a thread on this. These 'howlers' as you describe them are true and have experimentally verified. Speed is an independent quantity but it is NOT defined as being independent. You're confused about frames of reference here.

Let's say you're on a bicycle travelling at 10 km/hr. You throw a ball to me (I am stationary) at 5 km/hr. I will measure the ball's speed as 15 km/hr. You will measure it at 5 km/hr. Which of us is right? We both are because we are both measuring within our frames of reference. All very common sense.

The key to special relativity is this: light's speed does not behave that way! Light travels at c. If you were on a train travelling at speed v and shone a torch at me, you might expect I would measure the speed of light as c + v. But I Don't!! Light behaves in this special way. No matter their frame of reference all observers measure the velocity of light as c. (Experimentally verified.) This opens up the glorious can of worms that is special relativity but I honestly do not believe we are up to that level of discussion. If you'd care to start a new thread on the subject I'm sure our other physics gurus will try to explain it to you. I'd rather we stuck to the OP of this thread for now please.

[magellan004]

Um, I'd really like to start a thread on this. These 'howlers' as you describe them are true and have experimentally verified. Speed is an independent quantity but it is NOT defined as being independent. You're confused about frames of reference here.

Let's say you're on a bicycle travelling at 10 km/hr. You throw a ball to me (I am stationary) at 5 km/hr. I will measure the ball's speed as 15 km/hr. You will measure it at 5 km/hr. Which of us is right? We both are because we are both measuring within our frames of reference. All very common sense.

The key to special relativity is this: light's speed does not behave that way! Light travels at c. If you were on a train travelling at speed v and shone a torch at me, you might expect I would measure the speed of light as c + v. But I Don't!! Light behaves in this special way. No matter their frame of reference all observers measure the velocity of light as c. (Experimentally verified.) This opens up the glorious can of worms that is special relativity but I honestly do not believe we are up to that level of discussion. If you'd care to start a new thread on the subject I'm sure our other physics gurus will try to explain it to you. I'd rather we stuck to the OP of this thread for now please.

I agree that it's interesting stuff and I'd like to see a thread on Einsteinisms. I found the maths set out in 'Announcement' intruiging (for a variety of reasons). It got me thinking. I'd like to examine more Einstein hoaxes in depth before I open up a thread.

So yes, I'll stick to the OP in here .

Magellan

[pancreasman]

I agree that it's interesting stuff and I'd like to see a thread on Einsteinisms. I found the maths set out in 'Announcement' intruiging (for a variety of reasons). It got me thinking. I'd like to examine more Einstein hoaxes in depth before I open up a thread.

So yes, I'll stick to the OP in here .

Magellan

If you admit you don't know enough about it, what convinces you they are 'hoaxes'?

[ericmurphy]

Special relativity is one of the most successful scientific theories of all time. It has passed every observational test it has ever been given.

But Magellan, who thinks you can ignore coefficients and constants in equations, thinks it's a "hoax."

Nobody is this much of an idiot. He has to be faking it.

[ericmurphy]

Speed is a scalar quantity. It is defined as being independent of sources and observers etc.
The speed of any object is independent of the observer. Light is no exception.

Just thought you might be interested. Some "Scientists' are feeding us bull every day.

Magellan

Two people are playing catch on a train, Magellan. The train is moving at 30 MPH. One person throws a ball to the other person at 30 MPH, in the direction opposite to the direction of motion of the train.

What is the speed of the ball relative to someone standing on the platform as the train goes by, Magellan? According to you, its speed 30 MPH, relative to all observers. According to anyone with a brain, it's motionless (except in the vertical direction) wrt to the person on the platform.

Another example: you're driving your car down the freeway at 100kph. What is the speed of the dashboard relative to you, Magellan? What is its speed relative to the pavement?

[Mark Little]

Two people are playing catch on a train, Magellan. The train is moving at 30 MPH. One person throws a ball to the other person at 30 MPH, in the direction opposite to the direction of motion of the train.

Those people movers in the airport are a perfect example of this in action. If you walk against the direction of the movement, you can get to where you are stationary compared to someone standing next to it, but moving in relation to the belt and the people standing on it.

I like this one which shows how observer dependent things like motion are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_36MiCUS1ro

[magellan004]

Two people are playing catch on a train, Magellan. The train is moving at 30 MPH. One person throws a ball to the other person at 30 MPH, in the direction opposite to the direction of motion of the train.

What is the speed of the ball relative to someone standing on the platform as the train goes by, Magellan? According to you, its speed 30 MPH, relative to all observers. According to anyone with a brain, it's motionless (except in the vertical direction) wrt to the person on the platform.

Another example: you're driving your car down the freeway at 100kph. What is the speed of the dashboard relative to you, Magellan? What is its speed relative to the pavement?

We need a new thread to shake off these urban myths about speed of light.

Magellan

[pancreasman]

We need a new thread to shake off these urban myths about speed of light.

Magellan

Why do you insist on making dogmatic statements on subjects you know nothing about? You're either a complete troll or ....... heck, I can't THINK of another explanation!

[ericmurphy]

We need a new thread to shake off these urban myths about speed of light.

Magellan

No. We need a new thread in order to waste more time trying to educate the ineducable, which won't be a complete waste of time because most of the other people reading the thread will actually learn something from it.

Magellan, you believe that d/t results in the same answer as 10d/12t. You're in no position to discuss any "myths" about the speed of light.

But, while we're here anyway, here's another thought experiment:

A train is moving at 50% of the speed of light ~150,000,000 meters per second. Someone shines a laser pointer at a target 10 meters back on the train, so that the light beam is moving in the direction opposite to the direction of the train's motion. Light travels a meter in roughly 3 nanoseconds; therefore on a motionless train it would take 30 nanoseconds from the light to travel from the laser pointer to the target.

To someone on the moving train, how long does it take the light beam to move from the laser pointer to the target? To someone standing on the platform as the train moves by, how long does it take the light to get from the laser pointer to the target, keeping in mind that the train has moved while the light beam is in motion?

[Faid]

Mags, are you related to Theostudent? Just wondering.

[magellan004]

[QUOTE=ericmurphy;3042644]
Magellan, you believe that d/t results in the same answer as 10d/12t. You're in no position to discuss any "myths" about the speed of light.
It does result in the same answer.
You are the one saying that -
1. 10 kilometres per 12 seconds is the same as
2. 10 miles per 12 hours.

But, while we're here anyway, here's another thought experiment:

A train is moving at 50% of the speed of light ~150,000,000 meters per second. Someone shines a laser pointer at a target 10 meters back on the train, so that the light beam is moving in the direction opposite to the direction of the train's motion. Light travels a meter in roughly 3 nanoseconds; therefore on a motionless train it would take 30 nanoseconds from the light to travel from the laser pointer to the target.

To someone on the moving train, how long does it take the light beam to move from the laser pointer to the target? To someone standing on the platform as the train moves by, how long does it take the light to get from the laser pointer to the target, keeping in mind that the train has moved while the light beam is in motion?

I don't know. I would have to Google how to calculate the velocity of light. But you might know, so I'll save my keyboard. Or will we both Google it?

WHile you are at it - here's another one.
A person standing on land telephones his friend in an aeroplane and asks 'WHat is the speed of sound?' What might the friend reply?

That's why I think it's best done in another thread ... but press on if you must.

Magellan

[pancreasman]

[QUOTE=magellan004;3042702]

Magellan, you believe that d/t results in the same answer as 10d/12t. You're in no position to discuss any "myths" about the speed of light.
It does result in the same answer.
You are the one saying that -
1. 10 kilometres per 12 seconds is the same as
2. 10 miles per 12 hours.



I don't know. I would have to Google how to calculate the velocity of light. But you might know, so I'll save my keyboard. Or will we both Google it?

WHile you are at it - here's another one.
A person standing on land telephones his friend in an aeroplane and asks 'WHat is the speed of sound?' What might the friend reply?

That's why I think it's best done in another thread ... but press on if you must.

Magellan

Which I have started.

[ericmurphy]

Magellan, you believe that d/t results in the same answer as 10d/12t. You're in no position to discuss any "myths" about the speed of light.

It does result in the same answer.
You are the one saying that -
1. 10 kilometres per 12 seconds is the same as
2. 10 miles per 12 hours.

No it doesn't. You're doing it wrong.

Let's look at my earlier example: traveling 60 miles in two hours, how fast do you go?

d/t = 30 MPH: 60/2.

10d/12t = 25 MPH: 600/24.

Does 30 = 25?

Of course, in order to figure that out, you'd have to know how to interpret mathematical statements such as "10d/12t" in the first place. "10d/12t" does NOT mean ten miles in 12 hours. It means "ten times the distance d over 12 times the time t." If the distance is 60 miles and the time is 2 hours, it works out to 600/24.

And worse, 10 kilometers in 12 seconds is .83 km/sec. Ten miles in 12 hours is .38 mph.

Does that sound like the same speed to you? .83 km/sec would get you across the North American continent in about an hour and fifteen minutes. Doing it at .38 mph would take almost six months.

I don't know. I would have to Google how to calculate the velocity of light.

Why would you need to do that, Magellan? I already gave you the velocity of light: 300,000,000 m/sec. I even told you how long it would take light to get from the laser pointer to the target, assuming the train were motionless. So why do you need to calculate the velocity of light? Even if I hadn't given it to you, you could just look up the value.

Maybe you think "calculate" means "look up on the Internet."

But you might know, so I'll save my keyboard. Or will we both Google it?

Given you can't tell the difference between half a mile a second and less than a mile an hour, I don't think there's any point in even trying to explain the answer to what is a much more complicated problem. When you can show you can figure out how to determine speed when given distance and time, then we'll progress to more difficult problems.

WHile you are at it - here's another one.
A person standing on land telephones his friend in an aeroplane and asks 'WHat is the speed of sound?' What might the friend reply?

He would probably reply by asking, "in what medium, at what temperature?" You'd kind of need to know those two things before you could give a remotely accurate answer.

And just for fun, Magellan: what's the speed of sound in a vacuum?

That's why I think it's best done in another thread ... but press on if you must.

Magellan

Feel free to move this to the other thread. It will be interesting to watch you try to discuss special relativity when you can't even accurately calculate simple speeds as distance over time.