Am Fri, 09 May 2008 01:38:47 +0100 schrieb "Androcles"
in :

"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:
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!

Actually that's *not* what Relativity says. Relativity says that the
speed of light in a vacuum is that same for all observers and equals c.
That fact has been experimentally verified.

Am Thu, 08 May 2008 11:21:08 -0700 schrieb liketofindoutwhy
in
:

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

The speed of light in a vacuum is absolute and is defined as
299'792'458 m/s exactly.

ref
http://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c|search_for=universal_in!

The fact that the speed of light in a vacuum should be self-evident since
one of Maxwell's equations is

epsilon_0 * mu_0 * c^2 = 1

Since epsilon_0 and mu_0 only depend on the nature of space and not the
observer, it follows that c should also depend only on the nature of
space and not the observer.

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

Actually in modern Relativity, we don't say that the mass increases since
that makes for some logic problems. Instead it's the momentum that
increases with speed.

As for length, that only decreases for cotemporal events (cf Lorentz
Transformation).

it "absolute speed" here or "relative speed"? is it true that only an

Relative speed, since you can only talk about speed with respect to
something else.

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.

Relativistic effects become more pronounced as speeds approach the speed
of light in a vacuum. To see a minimum of 10% Relativistic effect you
will need to go at least 17%c.


(once i heard that an object cannot move faster than the speed of light,

Right since going faster would involve providing it more kinetic energy
than the total energy in the universe.

[...]
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.

No problem. I appreciate honest questions so I can give honest answers.

On May 10, 1:51*am, The TimeLord wrote:
Am Thu, 08 May 2008 11:21:08 -0700 schrieb liketofindoutwhy
in
:

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

The speed of light in a vacuum is absolute and is defined as
299'792'458 m/s exactly.

refhttp://physics.nist.gov/cgi-bin/cuu/Value?c|search_for=universal_in!

The fact that the speed of light in a vacuum should be self-evident since
one of Maxwell's equations is

epsilon_0 * mu_0 * c^2 = 1

Since epsilon_0 and mu_0 only depend on the nature of space and not the
observer, it follows that c should also depend only on the nature of
space and not the observer.

Why? Who told you that space can exist without an observer?

What you say may have some minimum value in the case of absolute
space.

Not in relational spacetimes.


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

Actually in modern Relativity, we don't say that the mass increases since
that makes for some logic problems. Instead it's the momentum that
increases with speed.


If that was the onloy logic[al] probelm I would say ok.

What about the rivet-bug logical inconcistenty? What about the othe
rhunderds of them like that? What do you use there?

As for length, that only decreases for cotemporal events (cf Lorentz
Transformation).

Meaning what?





it "absolute speed" here or "relative speed"? *is it true that only an

Relative speed, since you can only talk about speed with respect to
something else.

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.

Relativistic effects become more pronounced as speeds approach the speed
of light in a vacuum. To see a minimum of 10% Relativistic effect you
will need to go at least 17%c.



(once i heard that an object cannot move faster than the speed of light,

Right since going faster would involve providing it more kinetic energy
than the total energy in the universe.

Is the universe finite or infinite, answert this question first and if
it is infinite, what kind of infinity is that?




[...]

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.

No problem. I appreciate honest questions so I can give honest answers.


No, you gave silly answers not acceptable even by 10 years old
students.

Mike

Mike wrote in message

On May 10, 1:51 am, The TimeLord wrote:
Am Thu, 08 May 2008 11:21:08 -0700 schrieb liketofindoutwhy
in
:


[snip]

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.

No problem. I appreciate honest questions so I can give honest answers.


No, you gave silly answers not acceptable even by 10 years old
students.

Shouldn't you be digging a hole or something?
http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...rainHoles.html

Dirk Vdm

On May 10, 10:33*am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
Mike wrote in message

*

On May 10, 1:51 am, The TimeLord wrote:
Am Thu, 08 May 2008 11:21:08 -0700 schrieb liketofindoutwhy
in
:

[snip]

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.

No problem. I appreciate honest questions so I can give honest answers.

No, you gave silly answers not acceptable even by 10 years old
students.

Shouldn't you be digging a hole or something?
*http://users.telenet.be/vdmoortel/di...rainHoles.html

Dirk Vdm

It's time he learns about you:

Immortal fumbles by Dirt of ther Mootel:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...f97e426496efb3

http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.ph...m=ode=3Dsource

The folowing is a gem:

http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.ph...dmode=3Dsource

That is currently examined by top psychiatrists around the world.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeereeeeeeeeeeee is Dork
in action, you know where? at alt.jokes, demonstrating his racist
natu

http://groups.google.gr/group/alt.jo...dmode=3Dsource

More funny, that was cross-posted by the idiot to:
alt.music.kylie.minogue

hahahahahahahahah


But hey, the man has class, he plays chess all day:

http://groups.google.gr/group/rec.pu...dmode=3Dsource

hahahahahahaha

Mike

On May 9, 7:50*am, "Dirk Van de moortel" dirkvandemoor...@ThankS-NO-
SperM.hotmail.com wrote:
"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?

This is hiw much he has to know about Dirk:

It's time he learns about you:

Immortal fumbles by Dirt of ther Mootel:

http://groups.google.co.uk/group/sci...f97e426496efb3

http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.ph...m=ode=3Dsource

The folowing is a gem:

http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.ph...dmode=3Dsource

That is currently examined by top psychiatrists around the world.

Now, ladies and gentlemen, heeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeereeeeeeeeeeee is Dork
in action, you know where? at alt.jokes, demonstrating his racist
natu

http://groups.google.gr/group/alt.jo...dmode=3Dsource

More funny, that was cross-posted by the idiot to:
alt.music.kylie.minogue

hahahahahahahahah


But hey, the man has class, he plays chess all day:

http://groups.google.gr/group/rec.pu...dmode=3Dsource

hahahahahahaha

Mike




Dirk Vdm- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -