You are not logged in.
The baseball theory for one. If I am on the shuttle traveling 1 mph less than the speed of light, and I throw a baseball at 70 mph in the forward direction the baseball is now traveling near 69 mph over the speed of light. It has exceeded the speed of light.Right or wrong?
Offline
ERRORIST, listen, someone already took the time and the effort to take an advanced and difficult concept and tried try simplify it to educate you about this very thing! If you are not going to read our posts then you are just yelling your crazy ideas at us and expecting us to agree with their flawed Newtonian physics. If you don't understand a post, ask a question about it, referr to it, cite it, quote it in your post, and somebody might be nice enough to help you understand.
But this is not a discussion!
See Sbird's post Mar 29 9:58 in this same thread, only a few posts before this one, on the same page! READ it, and if you don't get it ask, but you are a serious broken reccord repeating the same proven flawed statement over and over.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
Einsteinian Physics are also flawed.
Offline
Einsteinian Physics are also flawed.
Thats a rather broad and brash statement to make, what calculations/study/research have you done to disprove the physics involved?
There was a young lady named Bright.
Whose speed was far faster than light;
She set out one day
in a relative way
And returned on the previous night.
--Arthur Buller--
Offline
The baseball theory.
Offline
The baseball theory.
That does not disprove einstein as you have not proved your theory.
There was a young lady named Bright.
Whose speed was far faster than light;
She set out one day
in a relative way
And returned on the previous night.
--Arthur Buller--
Offline
All they have to do is throw a baseball off of the space station to prove it. A simple experiment. I bet the velocity of the baseball will now be greater than that of the space station. Unless of course they throw the baseball backwards.
Offline
This would not prove Einstein to be incorrect Errorist. Your original example had the Delta-V which would push your ball near or over the speed of light. The space station is obviously much too slow... in fact, it would be a good example of why Einstein is right to those, such as yourself, that are incapable of assimilating the physics of Relativity: the ball isn't moving much faster away from the station, but its still moving at 17,000mph compared to people on the ground. Speed up the ISS to just under 1C, and the same thing will happen, except time will slow down for you and the ball to ensure its velocity (the S in m/s) will remain below the speed of light.
You have now declared that three of the best and most wise physists of our age, DeBroglie, Einstein, and Heisenberg, are all wrong and an anticent one hundreds of years ago is right. You don't know anything about this, so why do you pollute the board with your posts?
Correction, four, if you count Shrodinger and the wave nature of the electron concerning atoms.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
No, those electrons are considered particles, and photons are considered both particles, and waves. Pass the photons over a single slit, and they behave as particles but if you pass photons over two slits that are close together thay behave as waves.
Offline
If you pass electron through the same one/two slit experiment you get the EXACT SAME RESULTS! Electrons also behave as waves - as we've told you about 20 times!
I've used a Transmission Electron Microscope extensively and the electron diffraction patterns you can obtain are a result that elextrons behave as waves as well.
Prtons, entire atoms and even C60 molecules can behave as waves.
Offline
What would happen if you spun the slits very rapidly? Like the shutter on a movie camera? Do particles or waves form?
Offline
And what on Earth would this have to do with anything? Errorist, again you pull another hair-brained and irrelivent idea off the top of your head to try and side-step the basic physics. This is a common theme in your threads. SBird just told you, that electrons will act in the exact same way as photons in this respect. I think its about time you stopped posting about advanced physics and such applications until you know what you are talking about.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
None of us do because man is to stupid. If we weren't so stupid then why can't we even go to the nearest star yet?
Offline
No, man as a whole doesn't know everything, but that doesn't mean he "is to stupid" to know anything. Errorist, you are sliding from enthusiastic ignorant student to a noisy abnoxious board troll who refuses to yield. Its time for you to stop posting.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
What the heck is a troll?
Offline
[=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll]Internet troll
Offline
Ah, the internet has created new meanings in Websters.Well, it is not I who has started this flaming.
Offline
Ah, a classic answer of an armchair troll... "its not my fault"
/Endrant
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
I might be a little out of my league on this topic but I thought the reason the "baseball exceeding the speed of light " theory would and could never happen was because as an object nears the speed of light it's mass increases porportionally, to the point that it's mass becomes infinite and thus requires infinite energy to reach the speed of light. My understanding was the speed of light was impossible to reach but for things with virtually no mass and unlimited energy=EMR.
Offline
That would imply it took up the whole universe. That would be one large baseball.I would never stike out swinging at that one. Where does all that new matter come from to make it so large?
Offline
Errorist, your not a Dr.(self-proclaimed) Dino fan are you?
The MiniTruth passed its first act #001, comname: PATRIOT ACT on October 26, 2001.
Offline
???????Also, If that happened where would all the other mass that was displaced in the universe go, into the baseball?
Offline
I don't think it would take up the whole universe, but in such case the laws of physics don't apply.
The question is, what is velocity? How fast you are moving requires you to be moving in relation to somthing... now here is where Relativity comes in. Time will slow down as needed to prevent anything with rest mass in the universe from exceeding the speed of light from an objective reference.
The extra mass is what is called "apparent mass," and is produced because of the kenetic energy, motion itself will amplify how much you appear to weigh, and when you slow down the effect vanishes just as quickly. This is not mass in the traditional sense of particles and atoms, by the way, which could be converted into other things.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline
I don't think it would take up the whole universe, but in such case the laws of physics don't apply.
Remember it is infinite, and so is the universe.
Offline
What would be infinite, the mass of the object at 1C? If you consider the Heisenberg principle, its volume would not change... In any event, you can't reach the velocity, so it cannot be observed anyway.
[i]"The power of accurate observation is often called cynicism by those that do not have it." - George Bernard Shaw[/i]
[i]The glass is at 50% of capacity[/i]
Offline