On May 9, 1:38*am, "Androcles" wrote:
"Martin Hogbin" wrote in message

...| liketofindoutwhy wrote:

| I once heard that everything is relative, except the speed of light,
| which is absolute...
|
| is that true really?
|
| Pretty well. *According to Einstein's theory of
| relativity, which has been around for over a century,
| is now fully accepted,

HAHAHA!
*By you, maybe.

Relativity says:


Lots of things, but only a simpleton would make the following
statements



the speed of light from A to B is c-v,
the speed of light from B to A is c+v,
the "time" each way is the same.
*IDIOT!

On May 8, 2:21 pm, liketofindoutwhy
wrote:
I once heard that everything is relative, except the speed of light,
which is absolute...

is that true really? if living things cannot see, and therefore not
be able to see light, then maybe we will think everything is relative,
as we don't know light exists.
Well, we could have developed electroreception just like sharks and
some moles. Then we would be measuring things like dielectric constant
and magnetic permeability constant. Eventually, we would get to
measuring dielectric constant and magnetic permeability in a vacuum.
We would be measuring electromotive force, too.
Eventually, I think we would work our way up to Maxwell's
equations even without light per se. Remember, Maxwell did not derive
his equations based on light, it just happened to describe light.
We would get to special relativity anyway via electroreception,
with no eyesight. That is my opinion.

"N:dlzc D:aol T:com (dlzc)" wrote in message
...
| Dear liketofindoutwhy:
|
| "liketofindoutwhy" wrote in message
| ...
| I once heard that everything is relative, except
| the speed of light, which is absolute...
|
| As far as we can tell, yes.

LIAR!

1) I am not "we".
2) You are not Einstein.
But the ray moves relatively to the initial point of k, when measured in the
stationary system, with the velocity c-v, so that



--
This message is brought to you by Androcles
http://www.androcles01.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

"liketofindoutwhy" wrote in message
...
I once heard that everything is relative, except the speed of light,
which is absolute...

is that true really? if living things cannot see, and therefore not
be able to see light, then maybe we will think everything is relative,
as we don't know light exists.

we often hear that when the speed of an object increases (close to the
speed of light), then its mass increases, and its length decreases...
is it "absolute speed" here or "relative speed"? is it true that only
an observer which sees that object moving close to the speed of light
will measure that increase of mass and decrease of length, but let's
say there is an ant on that moving object, the ant won't measure the
object having increased mass and decreased length.

(once i heard that an object cannot move faster than the speed of
light, as the mass will approach infinity and therefore no energy is
enough to make it move faster... so is that not true, since its mass
according to the ant is unchanged).

sorry can things be discussed as if it is explained to a 10-year
old? Thanks very much for answering to such a simplistic question.

So... what have you learned so far about the people
on this forum?

Dirk Vdm

On May 8, 2:21*pm, liketofindoutwhy
wrote:
I once heard that everything is relative, except the speed of light,
which is absolute...

You must distinguish between relative and relational. These are two
different terms.

What you think you mean by "everything is relative" actually means
"everything is relational". Relativity does not imply lack of
absolutes.

Actually, Minkowski, I think it was, proposed to Einstein to rename
the theory of Relativity to Theory of Absolutes but Eisntein said it
was too late but he agreed about the correct name.

For example, acceleration is absolute. If you have two observers and
one is accelerating towards the other, you can perform simple local
tests in their frame of references to decide which one accelerated and
which did not. You may not be able to say wehtehr the acceleration is
due to externa; forces or gravity, locally, but you will know which
one accelerated.

The fact that acceleration is absolute shattered the dreams of
Relationalists. Actually, it is wrong to say "everything is
relative." unless dealing with very simple situations. In complex
situations, "things" are mostly absolute.

Pseudo intellectuals and nostalgics of dialectical materialism and
brutal marxism, along with some degenerates, some gays and lesbians,
still use expressions like "everything is relative". Einstein could
not escape the intellectual fashion of his time and adopted the term.

Yet, the world is absolute in many respects excpet for very simple,
idealistic cases. Whether pseudo-intellectuals, gays (have nothing
against them), lesbians (nothign against them as long as they do not
bother my woman), marxists, communists and other malfunctioning
organisms like it or not.

Mike

On May 8, 4:20*pm, Martin Hogbin wrote:
liketofindoutwhy wrote:
I once heard that everything is relative, except the speed of light,
which is absolute...

is that true really? *

Pretty well. *According to Einstein's theory of
relativity, which has been around for over a century,
is now fully accepted, and for which there is a vast
ammount of experimental evidence, all ineretial
observers will measure light to travel at the same speed.


There is no such thing as an interial observer in a real world you
moron. Acceleration is absolute, inertial observers are only in
thought experiments.

Why don't you try to float 1 ince above the ground like your
Relativists yogies and prove there are inertial frames in your
vicinity?

This si how you treat newcomers to sci physics? By trying to promote
moron physics like Relativity?

Get a life

Mike






if living things cannot see, and therefore not
be able to see light, then maybe we will think everything is relative,
as we don't know light exists.

I do not understand that.

we often hear that when the speed of an object increases (close to the
speed of light), then its mass increases, and its length decreases...
is it "absolute speed" here or "relative speed"?

It is relative speed that matters. *There is no
absolute *speed (except for light in a certain sense).

If I am in motion relative to you then you will measure
me to be contracted along the line of relative motion,
but you will measure me to be contracted. *Weird, but
that how things seem to be.

is it true that only
an observer which sees that object moving close to the speed of light
will measure that increase of mass and decrease of length, but let's
say there is an ant on that moving object, the ant won't measure the
object having increased mass and decreased length.

Correct.

(once i heard that an object cannot move faster than the speed of
light, as the mass will approach infinity and therefore no energy is
enough to make it move faster... *so is that not true, since its mass
according to the ant is unchanged).

No object can travel at the speed of light, measured
relative to any other inertial object.

Martin Hogbin

"Martin Hogbin" wrote in message ...
Mike wrote:
On May 8, 4:20 pm, Martin Hogbin wrote:
liketofindoutwhy wrote:

This si how you treat newcomers to sci physics? By trying to promote
moron physics like Relativity?

Actually this is sci.physics.RELATIVITY

Mike seems to have escaped from alt.armchair.philosophy again.

Dirk Vdm

Mike wrote:
On May 8, 4:20 pm, Martin Hogbin wrote:
liketofindoutwhy wrote:

This si how you treat newcomers to sci physics? By trying to promote
moron physics like Relativity?

Actually this is sci.physics.RELATIVITY

Martin Hogbin

On May 9, 2:14*pm, Martin Hogbin wrote:
Mike wrote:
On May 8, 4:20 pm, Martin Hogbin wrote:
liketofindoutwhy wrote:

This si how you treat newcomers to sci physics? By trying to promote
moron physics like Relativity?

Actually this is sci.physics.RELATIVITY

Sorry, I must have made a mistsake. I thought I was at:
alt.armchair.philosophy

Mike




Martin Hogbin

On May 8, 3:25*pm, liketofindoutwhy
wrote:
On May 8, 12:52 pm, wrote:

Everything is not relative but the speed of light in vacuo is the one
constant in the universe.

Mitch Raemsch

everything is not relative? *is that right -- is that what relativity
is really is? *I thought even in Newton's physics, speed is relative,
so maybe Einstein's theory is different in this regard? *When we say
"something approaches the speed of light", is that absolute speed or
relative to the observer?

Motion through space is absolute.