Go Back   Science Forums Biology Forum Molecular Biology Forum Physics Chemistry Forum > General Science Forums > Physics Forum
Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Physics Forum Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.


Einstine theories as clumsy as Ptolemaic geocentric system.

Einstine theories as clumsy as Ptolemaic geocentric system. - Physics Forum

Einstine theories as clumsy as Ptolemaic geocentric system. - Physics Forum. Discuss and ask physics questions, kinematics and other physics problems.


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 09-01-2008, 09:47 PM
Starman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Einstine theories as clumsy as Ptolemaic geocentric system.

I think it has been proven that mass tends to infinity WHEN it reaches speed of
light, and to move infinity mass
you need infinty energy, then try to do the math, so as long as you have mass
you can't reach speed of light

but yet im open for hawkins theory that it might be posible, they talk about it
in this radio show:

[Only registered users see links. ]



"Spaceman" <[Only registered users see links. ]> skrev i en meddelelse
news:[Only registered users see links. ]. ..


Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-01-2008, 09:54 PM
Spaceman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Einstine theories as clumsy as Ptolemaic geocentric system.

Starman wrote:

Actually, nothing like the sort has been "proven" and in fact
mass does not change at any speed at all.
Only the energy or kinetic energy changes.
Mass itself is a non variable.
The Energy and Kinetic Energy does rise when the speed of
the mass increases, but there is no actual infinites unvolved
unless you use an infinite in the speed or infinite in the energy parts
of the equations.
So very simply,
With finite speeds and finite energies, you never get any
infinite mass needed nor occuring.
The m in the equations never changes if it is already known,
and if the m is not known it still never reaches infinity unless
you are using infinites in the equations.


--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman


Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-01-2008, 10:05 PM
Timberwoof
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Einstine theories as clumsy as Ptolemaic geocentric system.

In article <[Only registered users see links. ]>,
"Kevin B. Murphy" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:


So are you an expert in physics? Is there some reason we should believe
you instead of someone else? What do you think the "speed of gravity"
is?

Have you seen the recent discussions of the movements and mutual
gravitational effects of nearby galaxies? One big question was how fast
and in what direction the Andromeda galaxy is moving. We can see where
it was 2.5 million years ago. Do you its gravitational effects should be
calculated for that location or for where we think it is "right now"?

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> [Only registered users see links. ]
People who can't spell get kicked out of Hogwarts.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-01-2008, 10:11 PM
Timberwoof
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Einstine theories as clumsy as Ptolemaic geocentric system.

In article <[Only registered users see links. ]>,
"Spaceman" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:


Actually it has, by people smarter than you working at particle
accelerator labs all around the world.


You've just made it clear you don't understand the Lorentz
transformations. That's not a good basis for rejecting them.

Someone who remembers freshman calculus would say "As a massive particle
approaches the speed of light, its mass increases without bound." The
whole point is that because the mass increases without bound, the amount
of energy required to accelerate it to the speed of light also increases
without bound. Thus it will never achieve the speed of light ... and it
will never achieve "infinite mass".

--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> [Only registered users see links. ]
People who can't spell get kicked out of Hogwarts.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-01-2008, 10:16 PM
Timberwoof
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Einstine theories as clumsy as Ptolemaic geocentric system.

In article <pcGdnc4zB88lzSHVnZ2dnUVZ_sTinZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:


You could explain how this works. Other than things like a ship's
rocking interfering with the operation of an on-board pendulum, I'm not
aware of any effects in Newtonian physics than can do what you say.


That's just verbal folderol.

The rule is that since the satellites go through a longer spacelike
line, the experience time slower than the Earth does. It's all in
Penrose's book.


So?


No, it's proof that you don't understand how it works.



I won't be drawn into questions that are posed as two incorrect
alternatives by someone who forgets to actually present his proofs and
tries to bludgeon me by calling me stupid.


However, I will adopt your stupid habit of concluding insulting
sentences with a smiley face.


--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> [Only registered users see links. ]
People who can't spell get kicked out of Hogwarts.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-01-2008, 10:20 PM
Timberwoof
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Einstine theories as clumsy as Ptolemaic geocentric system.

In article <oP2dnSmkl8Mj0yHVnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Spaceman" <spaceman@yourclockmalfunctioned.duh> wrote:


So you're still trying to use the silly proof by assertion.



No, that's a simpleminded proof based on religious adherence to a
simpler Newtonian way of looking at a the world.



If you ignore the rest of what happens, which your religious adherence
to Newtonian physics requires you to do.



So you've said. Is this another silly attempt at proof by assertion?



So you've said. Is this yet another silly attempt at proof by assertion?



So you're religiously adhering to veiws of the world suggested by
Newton, Descartes, and high-school algebra and physics.


--
Timberwoof <me at timberwoof dot com> [Only registered users see links. ]
People who can't spell get kicked out of Hogwarts.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-01-2008, 10:21 PM
Spaceman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Einstine theories as clumsy as Ptolemaic geocentric system.

Timberwoof wrote:

You like to prove you have no clue what is being done at particle
accelerators also now?
You also seem to like to prove you have no clue how to
measure mass either.
I suggest you learn how to measure mass and maybe you
will find out is a non variable measurement system.
Until then, you can remain clueless and think mass changes
all you want, but if you think that you remain being wrong.
Simple as that.




No,
I understand the transforms,
They are simple mathematical tricks that limit addition.
Only fools think they are anything but such.
If you actualyl understood the math, instead of the stupid ass
"theories only" you could also see why the transform is simply
a mathematical trick.




And that would prove they never actually used the damn equations
for real you dingleberry.
Again,
You should stop proving you don't even know how to use the
equations.
E = mc^2 (the mass remains the same and never reaches infinite anything
unless you have infinite speed or energy.
Basic math dude.
Wake up!
Same is true for KE.
Again.
Wake up and smell the math.
The math proves you are wrong and it also proves you don't even
understand it.

--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman




Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-01-2008, 10:29 PM
Spaceman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Einstine theories as clumsy as Ptolemaic geocentric system.

Timberwoof wrote:

I just did explain it.
You need to learn about simple Newtonian forces
simple and factual forces.
freedom of motion = less force involved to allow motion
less freedom = more forces involved to allow motion



No it is simple facts about the frames in question.



Penrose is a dingleberry then also.
He also must have been a clock illiterate that never learned
how clocks work and simply followed the clock illiterate lemmings
to sell a book.




Yup,
So it is faulted beyond repair as the the "reason" the GPS works.
The reason GPS works is because an "absolute" at rest
frame is accepted.




No,
It actually is simple proof you are clueless about how clocks work
and abotu simple newtonian based forces and Euclidian based
3D space.



I don't care how many smiley faces you place in the post,
My smilies are after facts and it is not my fault you can not
understand the most simple facts that physics has to offer
and need to pile bullshit upon bullshit to make sense of the
universe.
I have no need for your bullshit and my universe works just fine
with the simple "basic" physics with no need for any of your
paradox ridden bullshit.


--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman





Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-01-2008, 10:34 PM
Spaceman
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Einstine theories as clumsy as Ptolemaic geocentric system.

Timberwoof wrote:

No,
I have posted many ways to prove such.
You are just too stupid to realize all the ways posted
actually do prove lightspeed is relative.
You really should stop being such a lemming dingleberry.
It only proves you lack logic and physics simultaneously.




LOL
Religion without paraxox is far better than your religion
with paradox galore.

It is not simpleminded, it is called logic.
Too bad you have none of that left in your "religion".


The basic math proves your bullshit wrong.
The logic proves your bullshit wrong.
The reality without paradox being modeled by the
simple math and basic logic prove your bullshit paradox
laden bullshit wrong.
You really should stop eating so much bullshit.
It makes you smell really bad in reality.


--
James M Driscoll Jr
Creator of the Clock Malfunction Theory
Spaceman



Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-01-2008, 11:15 PM
Raghar
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Einstine theories as clumsy as Ptolemaic geocentric system.

On Sep 1, 11:47*pm, "Starman" <[Only registered users see links. ]> wrote:

His point was, when you'd accelerate by a non Lorentzian way, the
increase would be = m*v, as long as vacuum will not impose any drag
at accelerated object. Of course when this specially accelerated
object would hit another, the energy released by a collision would be
in order of = m*v.

The equation that would imply "infinite" energy in certain situation,
could have imaginary energy with speeds larger than c. Of course
nobody from current scientists knows how should imaginary energy looks
like, thus they are largely ignoring this (valid) result.
If that equation could be working, big if, it just implies that there
is something like Pauli exclusion principle. An object can't be at
(stable) resonance with 1/sqrt(permissibility*permeability) of vacuum.

Of course when scientist would get some (undeniable) proof of FTL
effects, they'd be screaming: Elegant equations? We had elegant
equations, not any more.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
clumsy , einstine , geocentric , ptolemaic , system , theories


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
>>> SEGA GAMES <<< Tonia Martinez Forum Physik 0 08-02-2009 02:35 PM
the absolutely final complete collection of ideas blochee Physics Forum 2 06-15-2007 06:31 AM
the absolutely final complete collection of ideas blochee Physics Forum 0 06-14-2007 10:30 PM
THE ETHER, QUANTUM MECHANICS & MODELS OF MATTER Laurent Physics Forum 6 01-09-2004 11:14 PM
Qi: Standard Model Extension or Fifth Force? cinquirer Physics Forum 88 11-21-2003 10:45 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 01:13 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2005 - 2012 Molecular Station | All Rights Reserved
Page generated in 0.22442 seconds with 16 queries