The Flat Earth Society
Flat Earth Discussion Boards => Flat Earth Debate => Topic started by: Gabe on February 25, 2008, 11:27:50 AM
-
The other thread I posted this in was ignored and others cluttered it so I am dedicating it to its own thread.
(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff101/Yiak/GREENGLASSREMOVED.jpg)
(http://i237.photobucket.com/albums/ff101/Yiak/GREENGLASSSUN.jpg)
Looking at the sun at all stages in the sky (through the glass) it always appears to be the same size.
The FE explanation for the sun not changing in size is glare and projection on light onto the atmosphere. These pictures disprove such a notion. Is this a flaw in FET?
-
It's all explained here.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/earth/za/za28.htm
-
This was actually in response to that. ;)
Let me elaborate: Since the FE sun has to cover a lot of distance and is very close to the Earth in order to function, it also would have to change in size drastically as it got very far away.
"Glare is causing the size of the sun to stay steady even though it should shrink." explains the size, but you can filter out enough glare to see the actual size, and see it doesn't really change. Because the sun's size doesn't perceptibly change, the distance to the sun must be changing by an insignificant percentage.
-
This was actually in response to that. ;)
Let me elaborate: Since the FE sun has to cover a lot of distance and is very close to the Earth in order to function, it also would have to change in size drastically as it got very far away.
"Glare is causing the size of the sun to stay steady even though it should shrink." explains the size, but you can filter out enough glare to see the actual size, and see it doesn't really change. Because the sun's size doesn't perceptibly change, the distance to the sun must be changing by an insignificant percentage.
Shouldn't someone bump this? It's a very good point...BUMP!
-
A thread will only be answered by a FEer, if an FE answer exists.
-
Bump. This is not rhetorical.
-
How would a dark glass eliminate the sun's projection if the projection of the sun's light is upon the semi-transparent strata of the atmosphere?
-
Exactly. Yet it did! Amazing, huh?
-
Projection is not still nor is it distinct, espesically on an almost invisible medium. FE sun theory only works if glare masks it. The sun cannot be distinct without glare unless it is not being projected.
It doesn't eliminate projection from the equation,
it shows it isn't a significant part in this equation at all.
-
Exactly. Yet it did! Amazing, huh?
No, actually the dark glass did not eliminate the projection upon the atmosphere, which is why the sun is not a tiny dot in the second image.
-
Exactly. Yet it did! Amazing, huh?
No, actually the dark glass did not eliminate the projection upon the atmosphere, which is why the sun is not a tiny dot in the second image.
The atmosphere will only distort the sun once. Will in a consistent medium the object will not change. And for the most part the atmosphere is consistent. The fe sun should get smaller but it never does.
-
And for the most part the atmosphere is consistent. The fe sun should get smaller but it never does.
No it's not. There is more atmosphere in the way the farther the sun recedes from the observer. Therefore there is a greater area for the sun's light to shine upon as the sun moves away.
-
And for the most part the atmosphere is consistent. The fe sun should get smaller but it never does.
No it's not. There is more atmosphere in the way the farther the sun recedes from the observer.therefore there is a greater area for the sun's light to shine upon as the sun moves away.
You don't understand optics.
-
I have a solar filter from my telescope. Maybe I'll take a picture through it and show the true size of the sun...the same size it is all day.
-
The fe sun should get smaller but it never does.
Therefore your perception of the FE model fails.
-
The fe sun should get smaller but it never does.
Therefore your perception of the FE model fails.
Its called reading.
You don't understand optics.
-
And for the most part the atmosphere is consistent.
Since when?
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Atmosphere_model.png)
Straight as a razor, eh Engy?
-
And for the most part the atmosphere is consistent.
Since when?
Since never, but you don't have the gradient like you do between water and air.
-
And for the most part the atmosphere is consistent.
Since when?
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Atmosphere_model.png)
Straight as a razor, eh Engy?
It must be a new soka-rule.
-
Since never, but you don't have the gradient like you do between water and air.
-
So it is not consistent, then?
-
So it is not consistent, then?
No, but it is still consistent enough to null tom's argument. That is why I quoted his argument. That is also why I said for the most part.
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Atmosphere_model.png)
What part of that is mostly?
-
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/de/Atmosphere_model.png)
What part of that is mostly?
The part where you didn't know optics. Waters density is 1 g/cm^3 to airs .000000009g/cm^3. What is bigger, the difference between 1 and 1E-9 or 1E-9 and 1E-6?
-
Fair point, but what are we talking about? It would tend to curve the light very slightly, I suppose, but I'm not sure whether the magnitude we're dealing with is significant to do what Tom claims in the least.
-
Fair point, but what are we talking about? It would tend to curve the light very slightly, I suppose, but I'm not sure whether the magnitude we're dealing with is significant to do what Tom claims in the least.
Tom is claiming something way out in left field.
-
The part where you didn't know optics. Waters density is 1 g/cm^3 to airs .000000009g/cm^3. What is bigger, the difference between 1 and 1E-9 or 1E-9 and 1E-6?
When did I say anything about optics?
-
The part where you didn't know optics. Waters density is 1 g/cm^3 to airs .000000009g/cm^3. What is bigger, the difference between 1 and 1E-9 or 1E-9 and 1E-6?
When did I say anything about optics?
This argument started becasue of optics.
-
Our argument did not.
-
Our argument did not.
You first quoted me talking about optics.
-
And for the most part the atmosphere is consistent.
Since when?
Where did you say something about optics in that quote?
-
And for the most part the atmosphere is consistent. The fe sun should get smaller but it never does.
No it's not. There is more atmosphere in the way the farther the sun recedes from the observer.therefore there is a greater area for the sun's light to shine upon as the sun moves away.
You don't understand optics.
-
So, where is the part that I quoted you saying anything about optics?
-
Engy, when Sokarul say "for the most part", he's pointing out the fact that in 150km of altitude, the density changes from 0.001 g/cm3 to 0.000000000001 g/cm3, a change of 0.000999999999. That's "for the most part" pretty constant.
-
So, where is the part that I quoted you saying anything about optics?
I was clearly talking about optics. It's not my fault you can't comprehend.
-
Engy, when Sokarul say "for the most part", he's pointing out the fact that in 150km of altitude, the density changes from 0.001 g/cm3 to 0.000000000001 g/cm3, a change of 0.000999999999. That's "for the most part" pretty constant.
So, 1,000 is, for the most part, 1,000,000,000,000? Where did you go to school?
-
Engy, when Sokarul say "for the most part", he's pointing out the fact that in 150km of altitude, the density changes from 0.001 g/cm3 to 0.000000000001 g/cm3, a change of 0.000999999999. That's "for the most part" pretty constant.
So, 1,000 is, for the most part, 1,000,000,000,000? Where did you go to school?
How big is 0.000999999999 grams?
-
About 999,999,990 times larger than 0.000000000001. So to you and sokarul, being almost a billion times off is in the ballpark?
-
In the field of optics, however, engy, its negligible when you're attempting to tell about the angular change. Poor word choice, but meh, I can see what he meant. Basically, no matter the density of the atmosphere, its negligible when compared to the kind of refraction Tom was talking about, which pretty much requires water, not air. The IOR of air is 1.0003. The IOR of vaccuum is 1. I would have said the IOR was mostly constant, not the density. Just cede the point soka, that you picked the wrong word, and can we get back on topic?
-
Nine orders of magnitude - "mostly consistent." Wow.
-
Nine orders of magnitude - "mostly consistent." Wow.
(http://www.cs.princeton.edu/~aahobor/Lucy-Day/Images/Covers-50/Mostly-Harmless.jpg)
-
Nine orders of magnitude - "mostly consistent." Wow.
If you have a problem with what I siad, consult physics 101.
-
If you have a problem with what I siad, consult physics 101.
I'm pretty sure that in Physics 101, an answer that is off by nine orders of magnitude is not considered correct. Perhaps you should consult 4th grade math.
-
If you have a problem with what I siad, consult physics 101.
I'm pretty sure that in Physics 101, an answer that is off by nine orders of magnitude is not considered correct. Perhaps you should consult 4th grade math.
Its still a change of less than .001 g/cm^3.
-
It's a change of nine orders of magnitude. I would love you to show me one of you Physics 101 exams where the professor marked an answer as correct when it was off by nine orders of magnitude.
-
Ahhh pointless debate. It makes me horny.
-
It's a change of nine orders of magnitude. I would love you to show me one of you Physics 101 exams where the professor marked an answer as correct when it was off by nine orders of magnitude.
I didn't keep any papers from elementary school.
Also why do you ignore the gradient part? Its a change of less than .001g/cm^3 over a distance of 150 km.
-
Also why do you ignore the gradient part? Its a change of less than .001g/cm^3 over a distance of 150 km.
You are the one ignoring the gradient part. It's a change of nine orders of magnitude over 150 km. That's one hell of a gradient.
-
Look guys, thats enough of this nonsense. What really matters to what we were originally talking about(bending of light) is the IOR variance, which varies about .0003 across the entirety of the atmosphere. The density didn't matter there.
-
Look guys, thats enough of this nonsense. What really matters to what we were originally talking about(bending of light) is the IOR variance, which varies about nine orders of magnitude across the entirety of the atmosphere. The density didn't matter there.
Fixed.
-
Glad to see some things never change: TheEngineer will not make even a half baked mathematical argument, not even to save his life.
In this case, the endless discussion about the philosophical difference between .001g/cm^3 and 0.000000000001g/cm^3 never came to the the use of Snell's law, where you can actually use those numbers for something other than cheap rhetoric.
If you had used Snell's law you would have seen that, big or small, the effect of refraction moves the apparent position of celestial objects in the opposite direction from what FE'rs require: FE'rs need some strange illusion by which the sun appears to touch the horizon even though it is still above the horizon. The refraction of the Sun's light through an atmosphere that is gradually less dense with increasing altitude gets the opposite illusion.
TheEngineer's argument is similar to this one: An elephant has more of a chance to topple the Empire State Building than an ant because the force the elephant can make is a million times stronger.
-
Look guys, thats enough of this nonsense. What really matters to what we were originally talking about(bending of light) is the IOR variance, which varies about nine orders of magnitude across the entirety of the atmosphere. The density didn't matter there.
Fixed.
Oh, OK, so the IOR varying from 1 to 1.0002 is nine orders of magnitude? That's good to know. Read next time, before you post.
-
I noticed that also and was about to post, thanks for pointing it out.
-
Oh, OK, so the IOR varying from 1 to 1.0002 is nine orders of magnitude?
Obviously, duh.
-
Oh, I like engy math.
-
Yep, that's what you get when you don't read the post for content.
-
I guess you'll need to change that signature of yours now, huh Engy?
-
Yep. That sig needs updating...
No matter, sokarul still needs to concede the point there honorably.
-
What does any of this have to do with my sig?
-
What does any of this have to do with my sig?
They proved bob hudson wrong a few pages ago. Or they lack reading comprehension, one of the two.
-
Or three, you two are androids and can't take a joke... I'm inclined towards the latter....
-
Perhaps you should get new material.
-
Or three, you two are androids and can't take a joke... I'm inclined towards the latter....
Since it's a funny quote why would he change it because he is wrong? Fail.
-
Its...a...joke...Raist...
Especially considering that Engy himself has said on one occasion that he can't recall a time when he's ever been wrong. Now he can...
-
Especially considering that Engy himself has said on one occasion that he can't recall a time when he's ever been wrong. Now he can...
So again, what does that have to do with my sig?
I dunno, I guess I just like my comedy to actually make sense...
-
I didn't say that it was a good joke, just the joke that was available at the time...
-
Its...a...joke...Raist...
Especially considering that Engy himself has said on one occasion that he can't recall a time when he's ever been wrong. Now he can...
Yes it was a joke. No it did not make sense. (yes jokes do have to make a certain sense at least to the person hearing it or they are not funny)
and if you think i am an android you don't read many of my posts. You made a lame joke that made little to no sense.
Hey you aren't a droid change your avy.
(see same concept, still not funny.)
-
Meh, the joke was poor because it didn't make sense to others, it sorta plays off an old joke I know...
-
ummmm that would be a hard sell then....
-
I still don't get the joke.
-
Also why do you ignore the gradient part? Its a change of less than .001g/cm^3 over a distance of 150 km.
You are the one ignoring the gradient part. It's a change of nine orders of magnitude over 150 km. That's one hell of a gradient.
If you use your math, than the gradient into the mountains is like 10000000000000000000000000000000 trillion orders of magnitude over 5 miles. Good job.
-
Oh my oh my..kids today
-
Also why do you ignore the gradient part? Its a change of less than .001g/cm^3 over a distance of 150 km.
You are the one ignoring the gradient part. It's a change of nine orders of magnitude over 150 km. That's one hell of a gradient.
If you use your math, than the gradient into the mountains is like 10000000000000000000000000000000 trillion orders of magnitude over 5 miles. Good job.
Like totally!
-
Well, actually, over the distance to the sun, which is important when dealing with optical considerations, its probably insane. Theoretically, it might be considered infinite, but I'm sure there are some molecules floating around over there. Not sure what sokarul is saying though...seriously, the math works...
Although, again, for those who don't like reading back in the page, its the IOR which matters for optical considerations, which changes from 1 to 1.0002, which is completely negligible as in most cases as the angular change is completely beyond our ability to detect, as infinitely more things come into effect, like the humidity, and etc.
-
If you use your math, than the gradient into the mountains is like 10000000000000000000000000000000 trillion orders of magnitude over 5 miles. Good job.
What math?
-
If you use your math, than the gradient into the mountains is like 10000000000000000000000000000000 trillion orders of magnitude over 5 miles. Good job.
What math?
The math you did.
-
What math?
-
The math you did.
-
What math did he do?
-
What math did he do?
Apparently he didn't do any math.
-
then what are you talking about?
-
It's quite amazing how easily the FE's derail threads and how the RE's let them. Why continually respond to off topic posts and taunts? You know they are just drawing your attention away from the inability of their theory to provide answers.
-
What math did he do?
Apparently he didn't do any math.
Step 1) Open mouth.
Step 2) Insert foot.
Nicely done.
-
Step 3) Gobble.
-
What math did he do?
Apparently he didn't do any math.
Step 1) Open mouth.
Step 2) Insert foot.
Nicely done.
Its clearly the math for the 9 orders of magnitude. Its not that hard to figure out. Today must be "be retarded day" on FES.
-
Its clearly the math for the 9 orders of magnitude. Its not that hard to figure out.
Apparently he didn't do any math.
Today was be a retard on FES day.
You sure made the most of it.
-
Today was be a retard on FES day.
You sure made the most of it.
burn!
-
I was drunk for that last one.
I don't get why he posted 3 quotes. I said "apparently he didn't do any math" because he apparently made up his 9 orders of magnitude as he asked
What math?
-
I was drunk for that last one.
What is your excuse for the others?
-
I said "apparently he didn't do any math" because he apparently made up his 9 orders of magnitude as he asked
I read it from a chart.
So please show us how you used 'my math' that you claimed I both did and did not do.
-
I said "apparently he didn't do any math" because he apparently made up his 9 orders of magnitude as he asked
I read it from a chart.
So please show us how you used 'my math' that you claimed I both did and did not do.
I calimed you did until you forgot entirly that you posted. Then I had to change to did not because you had no idea what was going on.
I didn't use any math to get my number other than a change of less than .002 can be 9 orders of magnitude so a changed of 5,000 feet must be huge.
I was drunk for that last one.
What is your excuse for the others?
You post something and then 10 seconds later have no idea that you posted.
-
Sokarul, I hate to say it, but he's right. Re-read his post.
-
I calimed you did until you forgot entirly that you posted.
I in no way forgot that I had posted. Please stop making shit up. It is getting quite tiring.
-
I calimed you did until you forgot entirly that you posted.
I in no way forgot that I had posted. Please stop making shit up. It is getting quite tiring.
EXECUTIVE POWERS GOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!
-
I calimed you did until you forgot entirly that you posted.
I in no way forgot that I had posted. Please stop making shit up. It is getting quite tiring.
If you use your math, than the gradient into the mountains is like 10000000000000000000000000000000 trillion orders of magnitude over 5 miles. Good job.
What math?
So you have no idea what math I'm talking about in above quote. I even drop the word "magnitude" to tell you what math I am using. So I say once again, you forgot what you posted.
-
Your post fails to illustrate where I used math to reach my conclusion. I simply read from a chart. So, how did you use my 'non math' to reach your 'math' conclusion?
-
Your post fails to illustrate where I used math to reach my conclusion. I simply read from a chart. So, how did you use my 'non math' to reach your 'math' conclusion?
Post where you said you did no math before I posted. I falsely assumed you had the ability to do math.
-
I still don't see any maths from Engy. Fail.
-
I still don't see any maths from Engy. Fail.
Thank you captin obvious. Now please try and read.
-
Post where you said you did no math before I posted.
Why would I post just to let you know that I did no math?
-
Post where you said you did no math before I posted.
Why would I post just to let you know that I did no math?
Exactly, that is why I posted "your math". DO YOU UNDERSTAND THIS?
-
NO! IF I DID NO MATH AND YOU KNOW I DID NO MATH THEN WHY WOULD YOU SAY 'YOUR MATH'? ARE YOU INSANE?
-
I still don't see any maths from Engy. Fail.
Thank you captin obvious. Now please try and read.
Glad that you finally admit the error in your way.
-
NO! IF I DID NO MATH AND YOU KNOW I DID NO MATH THEN WHY WOULD YOU SAY 'YOUR MATH'? ARE YOU INSANE?
HOW DID I KNOW YOU DID NO MATH?
-
You could have simply asked.
-
NO! IF I DID NO MATH AND YOU KNOW I DID NO MATH THEN WHY WOULD YOU SAY 'YOUR MATH'? ARE YOU INSANE?
HOW DID I KNOW YOU DID NO MATH?
You can make shit up really really good?
-
NO! IF I DID NO MATH AND YOU KNOW I DID NO MATH THEN WHY WOULD YOU SAY 'YOUR MATH'? ARE YOU INSANE?
HOW DID I KNOW YOU DID NO MATH?
You make shit up really really often?
-
You little kids know I still stand by my claim that I can back up anything I post.
-
Sokarul, I hate to say it, but he's right. Re-read his post.
-
Sokarul, I hate to say it, but he's right. Re-read his post.
You could have simply asked.
Divito why do you even try?
-
You little kids know I still stand by my claim that I can back up anything I post.
Please start with this (if you can even get through your typos):
Acceleration is not a vecter. WhenI go from 0-60 im accelerating. Doesnt matter what direction Im going since its not a vector.
-
Divito why do you even try?
What am I trying?
-
Divito why do you even try?
What am I trying?
Dunno, but try harder!
-
You little kids know I still stand by my claim that I can back up anything I post.
Please start with this (if you can even get through your typos):
Acceleration is not a vecter. WhenI go from 0-60 im accelerating. Doesnt matter what direction Im going since its not a vector.
definition of acceleration is velocity/time. Not speed/divided by time. So acceleration has to have a vector, because velocity has a direction. gb2highschoolremedialphysics.
-
definition of acceleration is velocity/time. Not speed/divided by time. So acceleration has to have a vector, because velocity has a direction. gb2highschoolremedialphysics.
Not to split hairs, but its not velocity/time because one usually doesn't refer to vectors as being divided. However, yes: sokarul is fail.
Edit, hrm maybe i misread what you said. either way sok fails.
-
I'm pretty sure a vector can be divided by a scalar, Username... It just refers to change in velocity per time, so meh...again, not to split hairs.
-
You little kids know I still stand by my claim that I can back up anything I post.
Please start with this (if you can even get through your typos):
Acceleration is not a vecter. WhenI go from 0-60 im accelerating. Doesnt matter what direction Im going since its not a vector.
definition of acceleration is velocity/time. Not speed/divided by time. So acceleration has to have a vector, because velocity has a direction. gb2highschoolremedialphysics.
That quote is old. I also mixed up what is the first derivative and what is the second.
I should ask the engineer to prove gravitation=acceleration.
-
I'm pretty sure a vector can be divided by a scalar, Username... It just refers to change in velocity per time, so meh...again, not to split hairs.
Its multiplied by the reciprocal of the scalar, not divided
-
I'm pretty sure a vector can be divided by a scalar, Username... It just refers to change in velocity per time, so meh...again, not to split hairs.
Its multiplied by the reciprocal of the scalar, not divided
dividing is multiplying by the reciprocal. 1 divided by 1/2 is, 1 times 2/1.
-
That quote is old. I also mixed up what is the first derivative and what is the second.
Mixing up the first and second derivative would, in no way, lead to your ridiculous claim. You need to do a lot better to 'stand by your statement'.
-
That quote is old. I also mixed up what is the first derivative and what is the second.
Mixing up the first and second derivative would, in no way, lead to your ridiculous claim. You need to do a lot better to 'stand by your statement'.
It was to show I was wrong another time. Try and keep up.
-
So, how about backing up your statement?
-
So, how about backing up your statement?
Which one? I already admitted the one listed above was indeed wrong. And also the derivative statement.
Now where's you backing up gravitation=acceleration?
-
I'm pretty sure a vector can be divided by a scalar, Username... It just refers to change in velocity per time, so meh...again, not to split hairs.
Its multiplied by the reciprocal of the scalar, not divided
dividing is multiplying by the reciprocal. 1 divided by 1/2 is, 1 times 2/1.
No. Division is the inverse operation of multiplication. You don't divide vectors, you scalar multiply by the reciprocal. Vector division is not defined.
-
I'm pretty sure a vector can be divided by a scalar, Username... It just refers to change in velocity per time, so meh...again, not to split hairs.
Its multiplied by the reciprocal of the scalar, not divided
dividing is multiplying by the reciprocal. 1 divided by 1/2 is, 1 times 2/1.
No. Division is the inverse operation of multiplication. You don't divide vectors, you scalar multiply by the reciprocal. Vector division is not defined.
Multiplying by the reciprocal is exactly the same as dividing. sorry. different terms for doing the exact same operation.
-
I was wrong. Sorry. I must have read it wrong somewhere.
-
You little kids know I still stand by my claim that I can back up anything I post.
Now do this one:
they beieve the Earth is going up at 9.8m/s/s. The Earth is going like 20 times the speed of light now according to them.
-
You little kids know I still stand by my claim that I can back up anything I post.
Now do this one:
they beieve the Earth is going up at 9.8m/s/s. The Earth is going like 20 times the speed of light now according to them.
lol man you sure have to dig old.
-
lol man you sure have to dig old.
No, I'm just starting from the beginning.
-
lol man you sure have to dig old.
No, I'm just starting from the beginning.
Well keep them coming.
-
You little kids know I still stand by my claim that I can back up anything I post.
Get to it.
-
Why did tom bishop create another account?
-
Why are you here?
-
You little kids know I still stand by my claim that I can back up anything I post.
Get to it.
I will once you post one up thats not blatantly obvious that its wrong, posted one day after I joined.
-
You little kids know I still stand by my claim that I can back up anything I post.
Get to it.
I will once you post one up thats not blatantly obvious that its wrong, posted one day after I joined.
Anything you post, I believe is what you said.
-
I will once you post one up thats not blatantly obvious that its wrong, posted one day after I joined.
You said you could back up anything you post.
Supposedly, you took modern physics. Explain your statement despite your 'education'.
-
Wow, I was so excited to log on and see that my thread got pages and pages of replies in my absence. Skimming through them was horribly disappointing. Did anyone come up with a rebuttal to the freaking sun and not over who said what now? :'(
-
You little kids know I still stand by my claim that I can back up anything I post.
Cry cry cry.
-
I will once you post one up thats not blatantly obvious that its wrong, posted one day after I joined.
You said you could back up anything you post.
Supposedly, you took modern physics. Explain your statement despite your 'education'.
That was easy, my very next post.
I'm interested as to how two orbs when hung side by side will pull towards each other if there is no such thang as gravity in the FE theory.
Also, if the earth is moving upwards at 9.81ms, and you believe in Newtons laws of physics, why when i throw a ball upwards at a greater velocity than 9.81ms does it not appear to "float" in mid-air?
lol they beieve the Earth is going up at 9.8m/s/s. The Earth is going like 20 times the speed of light now according to them.
Lol, you don't know nothing about relativistic physics.
Lol you mean the term gamma? 1 over the square root of 1-v^2/c^2. I know all about relativistic physics. FEers don't. The relativistic Energy equation E=gamma m c^2 leads to the Earth requiring huge amounts for energy that comes from where?
-
I was wrong. Sorry. I must have read it wrong somewhere.
It's cool.
-
That was easy, my very next post.
Lol you mean the term gamma? 1 over the square root of 1-v^2/c^2. I know all about relativistic physics. FEers don't. The relativistic Energy equation E=gamma m c^2 leads to the Earth requiring huge amounts for energy that comes from where?
So gamma allows for an object to travel at 20 times the speed of light? Since when?
By the way, the irony in the 3rd and 5th sentences is deafening.
-
That was easy, my very next post.
Lol you mean the term gamma? 1 over the square root of 1-v^2/c^2. I know all about relativistic physics. FEers don't. The relativistic Energy equation E=gamma m c^2 leads to the Earth requiring huge amounts for energy that comes from where?
So gamma allows for an object to travel at 20 times the speed of light? Since when?
By the way, the irony in the 3rd and 5th sentences is deafening.
Where did I say gamma allows for travel at 20 times the speed of light? Please learn to read.
-
Where did I say gamma allows for travel at 20 times the speed of light? Please learn to read.
You said your very next post explained your prior statement. The prior statement was that the FE would be traveling at 20 times the speed of light. The next post was about gamma. So how does gamma allow for FTL travel?
-
Where did I say gamma allows for travel at 20 times the speed of light? Please learn to read.
You said your very next post explained your prior statement. The prior statement was that the FE would be traveling at 20 times the speed of light. The next post was about gamma. So how does gamma allow for FTL travel?
So once again you made something up.
I said I believe in gamma but fe'ers don't. Thats why they think the earth is going 20 timws the speed of light. I never once said gamma allows for FTL travel.
When you try to find posts where I am wrong, do not take them out of context. That it shitty debating and you will be caught.
Now continue.
-
I said I believe in gamma but fe'ers don't.
Since when do FE'ers not believe in gamma? That's news to me.
It sure does not look like you said that FE'ers don't believe in gamma here:
lol they beieve the Earth is going up at 9.8m/s/s. The Earth is going like 20 times the speed of light now according to them.
Oh, wait, you're making shit up again in order to try to dig your way out of this hole of ignorance you find yourself in...
Thats why they think the earth is going 20 timws the speed of light.
Since when do FE'ers think that the Earth is going 20 times the speed of light?
When you try to find posts where I am wrong, do not take them out of context.
Let me know when I do that.
-
I said I believe in gamma but fe'ers don't.
Since when do FE'ers not believe in gamma? That's news to me.
It sure does not look like you said that FE'ers don't believe in gamma here:
lol they beieve the Earth is going up at 9.8m/s/s. The Earth is going like 20 times the speed of light now according to them.
Try right here. Do I need to speak slowers so you can understand?
Oh, wait, you're making shit up again in order to try to dig your way out of this hole of ignorance you find yourself in...
Nope. The FET does not like physics in general.
Since when do FE'ers think that the Earth is going 20 times the speed of light?
I just picked a number. Consider 20 to be X.
Let me know when I do that.
Ok this one for one.
You: "Look at sokarul" he doesn't know what general and special relativity is."
Me: "Look at the next post."
-
FE'ers don't believe the earth is going past the speed of light. lurk moar.
-
FE'ers don't believe the earth is going past the speed of light. lurk moar.
It was my second day one the forum.
Read more.
-
FE'ers don't believe the earth is going past the speed of light. lurk moar.
It was my second day one the forum.
Read more.
In which case you should have lurked moar...
-
FE'ers don't believe the earth is going past the speed of light. lurk moar.
It was my second day one the forum.
Read more.
So how do you back up the incorrect assumption in your post? You posted flat earthers believe that the earth is going past the speed of light. Back it up. Oh wait you can't. I thought you could back up any post you make? If this was math then I would have proven you wrong. As is the odds of you being wrong are approaching one.
-
FE'ers don't believe the earth is going past the speed of light. lurk moar.
It was my second day one the forum.
Read more.
So how do you back up the incorrect assumption in your post? You posted flat earthers believe that the earth is going past the speed of light. Back it up. Oh wait you can't. I thought you could back up any post you make? If this was math then I would have proven you wrong. As is the odds of you being wrong are approaching one.
You will never prove me wrong. Not every fe'er knows about relativity.
Its funny that Engineer has to dig so long ago to find where I am wrong. According to everyone, everything I post is wrong.
-
FE'ers don't believe the earth is going past the speed of light. lurk moar.
It was my second day one the forum.
Read more.
So how do you back up the incorrect assumption in your post? You posted flat earthers believe that the earth is going past the speed of light. Back it up. Oh wait you can't. I thought you could back up any post you make? If this was math then I would have proven you wrong. As is the odds of you being wrong are approaching one.
You will never prove me wrong. Not every fe'er knows about relativity.
Its funny that Engineer has to dig so long ago to find where I am wrong. According to everyone, everything I post is wrong.
So you assume since, not every flat earther understands the theory, that the theory is incorrect? That is such a douchebag answer. If i was any less drunk I might try to deal with you. That is the worst answer ever, and proves that you CAN'T back up every post. You fail. /thread
if you post anything else not defending this statement then I assume you admit that you can't back up every single post. Sok you are pathetic, get over yourself. I at least admit when I am wrong. (or stop posting)
-
FE'ers don't believe the earth is going past the speed of light. lurk moar.
It was my second day one the forum.
Read more.
So how do you back up the incorrect assumption in your post? You posted flat earthers believe that the earth is going past the speed of light. Back it up. Oh wait you can't. I thought you could back up any post you make? If this was math then I would have proven you wrong. As is the odds of you being wrong are approaching one.
You will never prove me wrong. Not every fe'er knows about relativity.
Its funny that Engineer has to dig so long ago to find where I am wrong. According to everyone, everything I post is wrong.
So you assume since, not every flat earther understands the theory, that the theory is incorrect? That is such a douchebag answer. If i was any less drunk I might try to deal with you. That is the worst answer ever, and proves that you CAN'T back up every post. You fail. /thread
if you post anything else not defending this statement then I assume you admit that you can't back up every single post. Sok you are pathetic, get over yourself. I at least admit when I am wrong. (or stop posting)
You can't comprehend anything can you? My post had nothing to do with SR and GR being wrong because they don't understand it.
-
lol they beieve the Earth is going up at 9.8m/s/s. The Earth is going like 20 times the speed of light now according to them.
Try right here. Do I need to speak slowers so you can understand?
Sorry, but where in that quote do FE'ers say they don't know about gamma? Where do FE'ers say they believe the Earth is going 20 times the speed of light?
Nope. The FET does not like physics in general.
It is quite apparent that neither do you.
I just picked a number. Consider 20 to be X.
Oh, so you just made shit up. That figures. It's funny that you try to dig your way out of this situation you find yourself in but you keep digging down, instead of up.
Ok this one for one.
You: "Look at sokarul" he doesn't know what general and special relativity is."
Me: "Look at the next post."
Then me: "Your next post has nothing to do with the topic at hand."
Its funny that Engineer has to dig so long ago to find where I am wrong.
Like I said, I'm just starting at the beginning. Supposedly you took Modern Physics, yet you have made errors to be expected of someone still in first semester college physics...
You will never prove me wrong.
I have.
-
You can't comprehend anything can you? My post had nothing to do with SR and GR being wrong because they don't understand it.
You can't comprehend anything can you? His post had nothing to do with SR or GR.
-
You can't comprehend anything can you? My post had nothing to do with SR and GR being wrong because they don't understand it.
You can't comprehend anything can you? His post had nothing to do with SR or GR.
lol, it clearly did.
-
Sorry, but where in that quote do FE'ers say they don't know about gamma? Where do FE'ers say they believe the Earth is going 20 times the speed of light?
I wasn't working off a single quote. I was working of there shit physics.
It is quite apparent that neither do you.
Stop making shit up.
Oh, so you just made shit up. That figures. It's funny that you try to dig your way out of this situation you find yourself in but you keep digging down, instead of up.
No, I was picking a random number to show their shit physics. Its funny how you try to own me but it backfires.
Then me: "Your next post has nothing to do with the topic at hand."
Then me: "Stop making shit up"
Like I said, I'm just starting at the beginning. Supposedly you took Modern Physics, yet you have made errors to be expected of someone still in first semester college physics...
I made zero errors. You just can't read. No where was my physics wrong. You took a post out of context.
I have.
nope
-
FE'ers don't believe the earth is going past the speed of light. lurk moar.
It was my second day one the forum.
Read more.
So how do you back up the incorrect assumption in your post? You posted flat earthers believe that the earth is going past the speed of light. Back it up. Oh wait you can't. I thought you could back up any post you make? If this was math then I would have proven you wrong. As is the odds of you being wrong are approaching one.
You will never prove me wrong. Not every fe'er knows about relativity.
Its funny that Engineer has to dig so long ago to find where I am wrong. According to everyone, everything I post is wrong.
So you assume since, not every flat earther understands the theory, that the theory is incorrect? That is such a douchebag answer. If i was any less drunk I might try to deal with you. That is the worst answer ever, and proves that you CAN'T back up every post. You fail. /thread
if you post anything else not defending this statement then I assume you admit that you can't back up every single post. Sok you are pathetic, get over yourself. I at least admit when I am wrong. (or stop posting)
You can't comprehend anything can you? My post had nothing to do with SR and GR being wrong because they don't understand it.
Oh, so u said something incorrect because you assume they are incorrect? Yes assume I don't understand, because YOU are wrong. that makes sense.
-
I wasn't working off a single quote. I was working of there shit physics.
So show me where a FE'er posted some physics that allowed you to calculate that the FE is traveling at 20 times the speed of light.
Stop making shi up.
I'm not the one making excuses for my posts. I am simply quoting your posts. Nothing is being made up, except your pathetic excuses.
No, I was pickign a random number to show their shit physics.
But you claimed that the FE'ers believe that the FE is traveling at 20 times the speed of light. So you now readily admit that you actually used no 'FE'er physics', but instead 'picked a random number'. Glad that was cleared up.
Its funny how you try to own me but it backfires.
I have yet to see a backfire. I see a bunch of whining from you about 'posts out of context', 'making shit up', 'digging up old stuff' plus a bunch of really lame excuses.
Then me: "Stop making shit up"
Show me where I've 'made up' one of your posts.
I made zero errors. You just can't read. No where was my physics wrong. You took a post out of context.
Except the part where you said the FE was now traveling at 20 times the speed of light, even though no FE'er ever claimed that or even gave you the math to make such a claim.
You will never prove me wrong.
I have.
nope
I did right here:
I already admitted the one listed above was indeed wrong. And also the derivative statement.
And here:
post one up thats not blatantly obvious that its wrong, posted one day after I joined.
I find it quite funny that you admitted you were wrong in your statement in your first post after I posted the quote. Then, after you have a few hours to try to come up with an excuse, it became a comprehension problem on my part. Your squirming amuses me to no end.
-
So show me where a FE'er posted some physics that allowed you to calculate that the FE is traveling at 20 times the speed of light.
I will start with the infinite energy.
I'm not the one making excuses for my posts. I am simply quoting your posts. Nothing is being made up, except your pathetic excuses.
Stop being a coward. YOU TOOK IT OUT OF CONTEXT.
But you claimed that the FE'ers believe that the FE is traveling at 20 times the speed of light. So you now readily admit that you actually used no 'FE'er physics', but instead 'picked a random number'. Glad that was cleared up.
Keep trying. I used their physics. I did not make anything up.
I have yet to see a backfire. I see a bunch of whining from you about 'posts out of context', 'making shit up', 'digging up old stuff' plus a bunch of really lame excuses.
Because you did take it out of context. You are a shitty debater.
Show me where I've 'made up' one of your posts.
See this thread.
Except the part where you said the FE was now traveling at 20 times the speed of light, even though no FE'er ever claimed that or even gave you the math to make such a claim.
Oh so now you are changing "My physics" to "what I believe the fe'ers Believe". Now you are also changing the meaning of my posts. That staement was clearly only adressing my phsics as you said my physics sucked. Now you go and change the meaning. Cowardish like always.
I did right here:
I already admitted the one listed above was indeed wrong. And also the derivative statement.
Congrats. Hows that E=pc=(pc)^2=E^2 going?
I find it quite funny that you admitted you were wrong in your statement in your first post after I posted the quote. Then, after you have a few hours to try to come up with an excuse, it became a comprehension problem on my part. Your squirming amuses me to no end.
Once I checked out the original post I saw you had taken it out of context. As the second post clearly deminstraed I knew nothing can go faster than the speed of like. Even though your original claim made it look like I didn't. You were just hoping I wouldn't check my posts. Well I did so you were fucked.
-
I will start with the infinite energy.
So how does that allow you to calculate that the FE is going 20 times the speed of light?
Stop being a coward. YOU TOOK IT OUT OF CONTEXT.
How am I a coward? I took nothing out of context.
Keep trying. I used their physics. I did not make anything up.
This post indicates that you did not know that a constantly accelerating object would never reach the speed of light. It was not until you learned the application of SR from this site that you understood this.
I will once you post one up thats not blatantly obvious that its wrong, posted one day after I joined.
Now you are trying to claim that the number is from the FE'ers:
Thats why they think the earth is going 20 timws the speed of light.
Then you claim that you actually did, 'make it up':
No, I was picking a random number to show their shit physics.
Because you did take it out of context. You are a shitty debater.
And, yet again, nothing I have posted was taken out of context. You are just an idiot. Now that you are being called out on it, all you can do is cry about people being cowards, shitty debaters and taking things out of context.
Show me where I've 'made up' one of your posts.
See this thread.
Which of the quotes did I make up?
Oh so now you are changing "My physics" to "what I believe the fe'ers Believe". Now you are also changing the meaning of my posts. That staement was clearly only adressing my phsics as you said my physics sucked. Now you go and change the meaning. Cowardish like always.
No, you changed the meaning from your physics to what 'I believe the FE'ers believe'. See the above quotes for proof.
Congrats. Hows that E=pc=(pc)^2=E^2 going?
Uh, what?
Once I checked out the original post I saw you had taken it out of context. As the second post clearly deminstraed I knew nothing can go faster than the speed of like. Even though your original claim made it look like I didn't. You were just hoping I wouldn't check my posts.
The second post in no way demonstrates that you knew that nothing can go faster than the speed of 'like'.
-
I will start with the infinite energy.
So how does that allow you to calculate that the FE is going 20 times the speed of light?
The UA is able to apply unlimited energy, exactly what is required to go the speed of light.
How am I a coward? I took nothing out of context.
I caught you and you won't admit it. You took everything out of context.
This post indicates that you did not know that a constantly accelerating object would never reach the speed of light. It was not until you learned the application of SR from this site that you understood this.
THE VERY NEXT POST I TALK ABOUT GANMMA. Thus you are full of shit.
Now you are trying to claim that the number is from the FE'ers:
Which the post itself said it was for the fe.
Then you claim that you actually did, 'make it up':
Because its a meaningless number.
And, yet again, nothing I have posted was taken out of context. You are just an idiot. Now that you are being called out on it, all you can do is cry about people being cowards, shitty debaters and taking things out of context.
Just keep thinking that. You clearly found a post and was like "omgzor hes wrong" and then posted it without reading anything. My very next post shows you are wrong.
Which of the quotes did I make up?
Alot and you keep addidn to it.
No, you changed the meaning from your physics to what 'I believe the FE'ers believe'. See the above quotes for proof.
No, it was clearly in the post. Everyone else but you knows it was.
Uh, what?
You posted yet you don't know what it means. Go figure.
Once I checked out the original post I saw you had taken it out of context. As the second post clearly deminstraed I knew nothing can go faster than the speed of like. Even though your original claim made it look like I didn't. You were just hoping I wouldn't check my posts.
The second post in no way demonstrates that you knew that nothing can go faster than the speed of 'like'.
[/quote]
I don't waste my time checking posts which I still can't do anyways. I'm not checking this one ethier. The second post in the other thread post clearly showed I know what gamma is. Its right in front of you but you are ignoring it. Coward.
-
The second post in the other thread post clearly showed I know what gamma is. Its right in front of you but you are ignoring it.
I'm ignoring it because I never said you didn't know what gamma is. Perhaps you need to learn to read along with how to spell.
The UA is able to apply unlimited energy, exactly what is required to go the speed of light.
So which FE'er said the FE was going the speed of light?
I caught you and you won't admit it. You took everything out of context.
Show us.
THE VERY NEXT POST I TALK ABOUT GANMMA. Thus you are full of shit.
AND WHO CARES IF YOU KNOW ABOUT GAMMA? You stated that 'according to them the FE is going 20 times the speed of light'. How did you arrive at this conclusion, using FE'er physics?
Because its a meaningless number.
Right, so you did, in fact, make it up.
Just keep thinking that. You clearly found a post and was like "omgzor hes wrong" and then posted it without reading anything. My very next post shows you are wrong.
I did read it. I even read your next post, which did not, in any way, validate your prior one. You were wrong, and you even admitted it, twice. But now you are trying to dig your way out, which is very Gulliver like indeed.
Which of the quotes did I make up?
Alot and you keep addidn to it.
Post one that I made up, liar.
You posted yet you don't know what it means. Go figure.
Care to show me where I posted it? Or are you making shit up, again?
-
The second post in the other thread post clearly showed I know what gamma is. Its right in front of you but you are ignoring it.
I'm ignoring it because I never said you didn't know what gamma is. Perhaps you need to learn to read along with how to spell.
Perhaps you need to get a clue. You said your very next post explained your prior statement. The prior statement was that the FE would be traveling at 20 times the speed of light. The next post was about gamma. So how does gamma allow for FTL travel?
You don't even know what shit you post anymore. STOP FUCKING LYING.
So which FE'er said the FE was going the speed of light?
It was over a year ago, I don't remeber my train of thought.
Show us.
lol they beieve the Earth is going up at 9.8m/s/s. The Earth is going like 20 times the speed of light now according to them.
Lol, you don't know nothing about relativistic physics.
Lol you mean the term gamma? 1 over the square root of 1-v^2/c^2. I know all about relativistic physics. FEers don't. The relativistic Energy equation E=gamma m c^2 leads to the Earth requiring huge amounts for energy that comes from where?
[/quote]
AND WHO CARES IF YOU KNOW ABOUT GAMMA? You stated that 'according to them the FE is going 20 times the speed of light'. How did you arrive at this conclusion, using FE'er physics?
See previous statment.
Right, so you did, in fact, make it up.
I already explained it, 20 is a value of X. I could of picked any number.
I did read it. I even read your next post, which did not, in any way, validate your prior one. You were wrong, and you even admitted it, twice. But now you are trying to dig your way out, which is very Gulliver like indeed.
Congrats I owned you so fucking hard you had to change your whole meaning. You attacked me for my shit physicsYou said you could back up anything you post.
Supposedly, you took modern physics. Explain your statement despite your 'education'.
But now you switched your whole argumnet to where I got what the "fe'ers think".
Post one that I made up, liar.
See above.
Care to show me where I posted it? Or are you making shit up, again?
Already posted it once but here you go. Set mass to any positive non zero
E^2=p^2c^2+m^2c^4
Any questions?
Yes. You just said E=pc does not apply to objects with mass. Yet, you have it right there in your equation. Make up your mind, please.
So where is E=pc in my equation? E=pc is only in my equation if E=pc=(pc)^2=E^2.
Give it up already. Move on to the next one.
-
You don't even know what shit you post anymore. STOP FUCKING LYING.
What am I lying about?
So which FE'er said the FE was going the speed of light?
It was over a year ago, I don't remeber my train of thought.
That's probably because you were using your first semester physics to a relativistic situation, and got owned for it. This would go much smoother for you if you would just admit you didn't know it at the time.
Show us.
lol they beieve the Earth is going up at 9.8m/s/s. The Earth is going like 20 times the speed of light now according to them.
Lol, you don't know nothing about relativistic physics.
Lol you mean the term gamma? 1 over the square root of 1-v^2/c^2. I know all about relativistic physics. FEers don't. The relativistic Energy equation E=gamma m c^2 leads to the Earth requiring huge amounts for energy that comes from where?
How does that show that I took it out of context? You are talking about two different things.
I already explained it, 20 is a value of X. I could of picked any number.
Right, you made it up.
I did read it. I even read your next post, which did not, in any way, validate your prior one. You were wrong, and you even admitted it, twice. But now you are trying to dig your way out, which is very Gulliver like indeed.
Congrats I owned you so fucking hard you had to change your whole meaning. You attacked me for my shit physicsYou said you could back up anything you post.
Supposedly, you took modern physics. Explain your statement despite your 'education'.
But now you switched your whole argumnet to where I got what the "fe'ers think".
No, you did that once you had a few hours to find some excuse for your ignorance.
Post one that I made up, liar.
See above.
You did not show any quote that I made up. All quotes of yours that I have posted have had the link to the original post. You must like looking like a liar.
Care to show me where I posted it? Or are you making shit up, again?
Already posted it once but here you go. Set mass to any positive non zero
E^2=p^2c^2+m^2c^4
Any questions?
Yes. You just said E=pc does not apply to objects with mass. Yet, you have it right there in your equation. Make up your mind, please.
So where is E=pc in my equation?
It is contained in the bolded part. You claimed that it did not apply to objects with mass, yet, there it is, in your equation.
Give it up already. Move on to the next one.
Tired of making excuses for this one?
-
Do this one next:
Massless particles dont have any matter so they don't have gravity.
-
What am I lying about?
You are calimed you never said I didn't know what gamma is yet you did.
That's probably because you were using your first semester physics to a relativistic situation, and got owned for it. This would go much smoother for you if you would just admit you didn't know it at the time.
I was never owned. I did know it at the time and you just contradicted yourself again.
How does that show that I took it out of context? You are talking about two different things.
No, the same thing.
Right, you made it up.
Yes I made soemthing up that has nothing to do weather I was right or wrong.
No, you did that once you had a few hours to find some excuse for your ignorance.
I don't attack myself. Try again. I do more than just post on this site.
You did not show any quote that I made up. All quotes of yours that I have posted have had the link to the original post. You must like looking like a liar.
[/quote]
OMGZOR you linked to the original post!!!111. AND?
Set mass to any positive non zero
E^2=p^2c^2+m^2c^4
Any questions?
Yes. You just said E=pc does not apply to objects with mass. Yet, you have it right there in your equation. Make up your mind, please.
So where is E=pc in my equation?
It is contained in the bolded part. You claimed that it did not apply to objects with mass, yet, there it is, in your equation.
To say E=pc is in the above quote is to say E^2=E. This is why you are wrong.
Tired of making excuses for this one?
I'm tired of you ignoring everything that shows you being wrong.
-
Do this one next:
Massless particles dont have any matter so they don't have gravity.
What parts wrong?
-
Do this one next:
Massless particles dont have any matter so they don't have gravity.
What parts wrong?
That part (of course this uses your definition of gravity, being the curvature of spacetime).
-
You are calimed you never said I didn't know what gamma is yet you did.
Show me.
-
Do this one next:
Massless particles dont have any matter so they don't have gravity.
What parts wrong?
That part (of course this uses your definition of gravity, being the curvature of spacetime).
No, it clearly says gravity. Trying to change meanings?
You are calimed you never said I didn't know what gamma is yet you did.
Show me.
I already did. STOP BEING A COWARD.
How was the E=pc ownage?
-
How was the E=pc ownage?
Which part? The part where you don't know what magnitudes and vectors are, or the part where you didn't know what the variables in the equation mean? Cause the ownage on both was pretty awesome.
-
Do this one next:
Massless particles dont have any matter so they don't have gravity.
What parts wrong?
That part (of course this uses your definition of gravity, being the curvature of spacetime).
No, it clearly says gravity. Trying to change meanings?
No, I'm simply keeping with your definition:
Since the mass is still there it A bends spacetime, if thats what you believe gravity its( i do) or B is pulled down by gravity if you think gravity is just that.
So, explain away.
You are calimed you never said I didn't know what gamma is yet you did.
Show me.
I already did. STOP BEING A COWARD.
No, you did not. You keep saying you did, but you have yet to include the post in which I said it. STOP BEING A LIAR.
-
Do this one next:
Massless particles dont have any matter so they don't have gravity.
What parts wrong?
That part (of course this uses your definition of gravity, being the curvature of spacetime).
No, it clearly says gravity. Trying to change meanings?
No, I'm simply keeping with your definition:
Since the mass is still there it A bends spacetime, if thats what you believe gravity its( i do) or B is pulled down by gravity if you think gravity is just that.
So, explain away.
You are calimed you never said I didn't know what gamma is yet you did.
Show me.
I already did. STOP BEING A COWARD.
No, you did not. You keep saying you did, but you have yet to include the post in which I said it. STOP BEING A LIAR.
While back then I seemed to use gravity and gravitation as the same, you difeined gravity in that thread.
The force we feel as 'gravity' is actually the mechanical resistance of the earth as we accelerate.
While we are backing up are statments, why don't you share your knowledge of gravitions with everyone. Apparently you have detected them.
The RE model requires a fundamental assumption that there is some fundamental particle that mediates the 'force' called gravity, which is constantly emitted, with inexhaustible energy, for no apparent reason. There is no rationale behind this, it just seems to fit.
-
While back then I seemed to use gravity and gravitation as the same, you difeined gravity in that thread.
Since you used them interchangeably, explain how massless particles have no 'gravity'.
While we are backing up are statments, why don't you share your knowledge of gravitions with everyone. Apparently you have detected them.
The RE model requires a fundamental assumption that there is some fundamental particle that mediates the 'force' called gravity, which is constantly emitted, with inexhaustible energy, for no apparent reason. There is no rationale behind this, it just seems to fit.
Where in that quote does it say I have detected gravitons?
-
While back then I seemed to use gravity and gravitation as the same, you difeined gravity in that thread.
Since you used them interchangeably, explain how massless particles have no 'gravity'.
They don't accelerate.
While we are backing up are statments, why don't you share your knowledge of gravitions with everyone. Apparently you have detected them.
The RE model requires a fundamental assumption that there is some fundamental particle that mediates the 'force' called gravity, which is constantly emitted, with inexhaustible energy, for no apparent reason. There is no rationale behind this, it just seems to fit.
Where in that quote does it say I have detected gravitons?
You said the re model requires a graviton. Relativity says otherwise, so you must know something others don't.
-
They don't accelerate.
What does that have to do with them producing a gravitational field?
You said the re model requires a graviton. Relativity says otherwise, so you must know something others don't.
Relativity says otherwise? Then how does space know how to bend and by how much?
-
They don't accelerate.
What does that have to do with them producing a gravitational field?
Show the physics where a photon bends spacetime.
Relativity says otherwise? Then how does space know how to bend and by how much?
Already been discussed.
-
Show the physics where a photon bends spacetime.
You hold that it does not?
Relativity says otherwise? Then how does space know how to bend and by how much?
Already been discussed.
Look at that, sokarul avoiding a question, again.
-
Show the physics where a photon bends spacetime.
You hold that it does not?
I just wanted you to show it.
Look at that, sokarul avoiding a question, again.
hahaha IRONY!!!1111one!eleven
-
And for the most part the atmosphere is consistent.
Since when?
Already denminstrated. Less than a .003 change over 150 kilometers.
-
Show the physics where a photon bends spacetime.
You hold that it does not?
I just wanted you to show it.
So you admit that you were wrong? Photons do have a gravitational field.
-
And for the most part the atmosphere is consistent.
Since when?
Already denminstrated. Less than a .003 change over 150 kilometers.
Nine orders of magnitude. You must be the worst chemistry student in your school.
-
Show the physics where a photon bends spacetime.
You hold that it does not?
I just wanted you to show it.
So you admit that you were wrong? Photons do have a gravitational field.
So you can't show it?
-
And for the most part the atmosphere is consistent.
Since when?
Already denminstrated. Less than a .003 change over 150 kilometers.
Nine orders of magnitude. You must be the worst chemistry student in your school.
Says the guy who thinks E=E^2.
Show the chart you used to get 9 orders of magnitude.
-
So you can't show it?
I can show it. Can you show that they do not?
-
Says the guy who thinks E=E^2.
Hmm, when did I think that?
-
Says the guy who thinks E=E^2.
Says the guy that thinks 1=-1
-
So you can't show it?
I can show it. Can you show that they do not?
Show it then.
Says the guy who thinks E=E^2.
Hmm, when did I think that?
Set mass to any positive non zero
E^2=p^2c^2+m^2c^4
Any questions?
Yes. You just said E=pc does not apply to objects with mass. Yet, you have it right there in your equation. Make up your mind, please.
Says the guy who thinks E=E^2.
Says the guy that thinks 1=-1
Never said that. You just can't comprehend phsyics.
-
Says the guy who thinks E=E^2.
Says the guy that thinks 1=-1
Never said that. You jsut can't comprehend phsyics.
[/quote]
I believe you said:
-mv = mv
Dividing by m and v, we see -1=1.
Grats.
-
Says the guy who thinks E=E^2.
Says the guy that thinks 1=-1
Never said that. You jsut can't comprehend phsyics.
I believe you said:
-mv = mv
Dividing by m and v, we see -1=1.
Grats.
[/quote]
If you have a problem with that equation, feel free to write to the people that write textbooks.
-
I believe you said:
-mv = mv
Dividing by m and v, we see -1=1.
Grats.
Pwnd.
-
So you can't show it?
I can show it. Can you show that they do not?
Show it then.
You just did it for me in your post. Grats on your double failure.
-
Says the guy who thinks E=E^2.
Hmm, when did I think that?
Set mass to any positive non zero
E^2=p^2c^2+m^2c^4
Any questions?
Yes. You just said E=pc does not apply to objects with mass. Yet, you have it right there in your equation. Make up your mind, please.
Says the guy who thinks E=E^2.
Says the guy that thinks 1=-1
Never said that. You just can't comprehend phsyics.
pwnd
-
So you can't show it?
I can show it. Can you show that they do not?
Show it then.
You just did it for me in your post. Grats on your double failure.
I showed the physics where a photon emits a graviton?
-
Yep.
-
Yep.
Cool, do I get a nobel prize?
-
No Einstein already got it.
I find it quite telling that you have no idea what I am talking about even though you took Modern Physics.
-
No Einstein already got it.
I find it quite telling that you have no idea what I am talking about even though you took Modern Physics.
The photoelectric effect? What does that have to do with anything?
-
Who said anything about the Photoelectric Effect?
Oh, wait, you still have no idea.
-
Who said anything about the Photoelectric Effect?
Oh, wait, you still have no idea.
Einstien got his nobel prize for the photoelectric effect.
He did not get it for GR.
-
"for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect"
-
"for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect"
Post the whole quote
In 1921 Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics, "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect". This refers to his 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect: "On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light", which was well supported by the experimental evidence by that time.
Funny you had to look it up. I didn't have too.
His nobel prize had nothing to do with GR, thus your statment that Einstein already got the nobel prize for showing a photon emitting a graviton is wrong.
-
"for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect"
Post the whole quote
In 1921 Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics, "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect". This refers to his 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect: "On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light", which was well supported by the experimental evidence by that time.
Funny you had to look it up. I didn't have too.
His nobel prize had nothing to do with GR, thus your statment that Einstein already got the nobel prize for showing a photon emitting a graviton is wrong.
You seem to have missed the bolded part.
So anyway, you realize that you were wrong about the photon, right.
-
"for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect"
Post the whole quote
In 1921 Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics, "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect". This refers to his 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect: "On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light", which was well supported by the experimental evidence by that time.
Funny you had to look it up. I didn't have too.
His nobel prize had nothing to do with GR, thus your statment that Einstein already got the nobel prize for showing a photon emitting a graviton is wrong.
You seem to have missed the bolded part.
So anyway, you realize that you were wrong about the photon, right.
You seemed to miss that part. Photoelectric effect was theoretical physics. He proved it, thus got the nobel prize.
He never proved gravitons.
-
I missed no part of it. He was awarded the prize for his contribution to theoretical physics with an emphasis on the work done on the photoelectric effect.
Now, about the photon not generating a gravitational field, back it up.
-
"for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect"
Post the whole quote
In 1921 Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics, "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect". This refers to his 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect: "On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light", which was well supported by the experimental evidence by that time.
Funny you had to look it up. I didn't have too.
His nobel prize had nothing to do with GR, thus your statment that Einstein already got the nobel prize for showing a photon emitting a graviton is wrong.
You seem to have missed the bolded part.
So anyway, you realize that you were wrong about the photon, right.
You seemed to miss that part. Photoelectric effect was theoretical physics. He proved it, thus got the nobel prize.
He never proved gravitons.
You seemed to miss that red part.
-
"for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect"
Post the whole quote
In 1921 Einstein was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physics, "for his services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoelectric effect". This refers to his 1905 paper on the photoelectric effect: "On a Heuristic Viewpoint Concerning the Production and Transformation of Light", which was well supported by the experimental evidence by that time.
Funny you had to look it up. I didn't have too.
His nobel prize had nothing to do with GR, thus your statment that Einstein already got the nobel prize for showing a photon emitting a graviton is wrong.
You seem to have missed the bolded part.
So anyway, you realize that you were wrong about the photon, right.
You seemed to miss that part. Photoelectric effect was theoretical physics. He proved it, thus got the nobel prize.
He never proved gravitons.
You seemed to miss that red part.
This is not a debatable topic, he got the Nobel prize for the photoelectric effect. He most certainly did not get it for showing photons emit gravitons.
-
I missed no part of it. He was awarded the prize for his contribution to theoretical physics with an emphasis on the work done on the photoelectric effect.
Now, about the photon not generating a gravitational field, back it up.
-
I missed no part of it. He was awarded the prize for his contribution to theoretical physics with an emphasis on the work done on the photoelectric effect.
Now, about the photon not generating a gravitational field, back it up.
Where does it say he got if you showing gravitons are emitted from photons?
-
Where does it say he got if you showing gravitons are emitted from photons?
What? Can you please form a sentence that actually makes sense?
Now, can you please show us how a photon does not generate a gravitational field.
-
Where does it say he got if you showing gravitons are emitted from photons?
What? Can you please form a sentence that actually makes sense?
Now, can you please show us how a photon does not generate a gravitational field.
Show me when Einstein got his noble prize for showing photons emit gravitons.
-
Where does it say he got if you showing gravitons are emitted from photons?
What? Can you please form a sentence that actually makes sense?
Now, can you please show us how a photon does not generate a gravitational field.
Show me when Einstein got his noble prize for showing photons emit gravitons.
The funny thing is no one in this thread has made that claim. You have assumed that is someone's claim.... but.... it was never said.
-
Where does it say he got if you showing gravitons are emitted from photons?
What? Can you please form a sentence that actually makes sense?
Now, can you please show us how a photon does not generate a gravitational field.
Show me when Einstein got his noble prize for showing photons emit gravitons.
The funny thing is no one in this thread has made that claim. You have assumed that is someone's claim.... but.... it was never said.
I don't have to assume. TheEngineer clearly did not know what Einstein got his Nobel prize for. He tried to act like he did but ultimately he failed.
Read the posts in order.
-
Where does it say he got if you showing gravitons are emitted from photons?
What? Can you please form a sentence that actually makes sense?
Now, can you please show us how a photon does not generate a gravitational field.
Show me when Einstein got his noble prize for showing photons emit gravitons.
The funny thing is no one in this thread has made that claim. You have assumed that is someone's claim.... but.... it was never said.
I don't have to assume. TheEngineer clearly did not know what Einstein got his Nobel prize for. He tried to act like he did but ultimately he failed.
Read the posts in order.
I did, he got it for his general work in physics. With an emphasis in your one subject. I think you are the one that lacks understanding.
-
Where does it say he got if you showing gravitons are emitted from photons?
What? Can you please form a sentence that actually makes sense?
Now, can you please show us how a photon does not generate a gravitational field.
Show me when Einstein got his noble prize for showing photons emit gravitons.
The funny thing is no one in this thread has made that claim. You have assumed that is someone's claim.... but.... it was never said.
I don't have to assume. TheEngineer clearly did not know what Einstein got his Nobel prize for. He tried to act like he did but ultimately he failed.
Read the posts in order.
I did, he got it for his general work in physics. With an emphasis in your one subject. I think you are the one that lacks understanding.
HE DID NOT GET IT FOR GR. HE DID NOT GET IT FOR GRAVITONS.
-
Where does it say he got if you showing gravitons are emitted from photons?
What? Can you please form a sentence that actually makes sense?
Now, can you please show us how a photon does not generate a gravitational field.
Show me when Einstein got his noble prize for showing photons emit gravitons.
The funny thing is no one in this thread has made that claim. You have assumed that is someone's claim.... but.... it was never said.
I don't have to assume. TheEngineer clearly did not know what Einstein got his Nobel prize for. He tried to act like he did but ultimately he failed.
Read the posts in order.
I did, he got it for his general work in physics. With an emphasis in your one subject. I think you are the one that lacks understanding.
HE DID NOT GET IT FOR GR. HE DID NOT GET IT FOR GRAVITONS.
Which i never said. Calm down. I have not mention General relativity or gravitons until this post. Your assumptions are much too great.
-
Where does it say he got if you showing gravitons are emitted from photons?
What? Can you please form a sentence that actually makes sense?
Now, can you please show us how a photon does not generate a gravitational field.
Show me when Einstein got his noble prize for showing photons emit gravitons.
The funny thing is no one in this thread has made that claim. You have assumed that is someone's claim.... but.... it was never said.
I don't have to assume. TheEngineer clearly did not know what Einstein got his Nobel prize for. He tried to act like he did but ultimately he failed.
Read the posts in order.
I did, he got it for his general work in physics. With an emphasis in your one subject. I think you are the one that lacks understanding.
HE DID NOT GET IT FOR GR. HE DID NOT GET IT FOR GRAVITONS.
Which i never said. Calm down. I have not mention General relativity or gravitons until this post. Your assumptions are much too great.
READ THE FUCKING THREAD.
-
Where does it say he got if you showing gravitons are emitted from photons?
What? Can you please form a sentence that actually makes sense?
Now, can you please show us how a photon does not generate a gravitational field.
Show me when Einstein got his noble prize for showing photons emit gravitons.
The funny thing is no one in this thread has made that claim. You have assumed that is someone's claim.... but.... it was never said.
I don't have to assume. TheEngineer clearly did not know what Einstein got his Nobel prize for. He tried to act like he did but ultimately he failed.
Read the posts in order.
I did, he got it for his general work in physics. With an emphasis in your one subject. I think you are the one that lacks understanding.
HE DID NOT GET IT FOR GR. HE DID NOT GET IT FOR GRAVITONS.
Which i never said. Calm down. I have not mention General relativity or gravitons until this post. Your assumptions are much too great.
READ THE FUCKING THREAD.
the best thing is neither did they. You read too much into engy's post just like he wants you to. You jump at assumption after assumption until you are the only one that cares what you are talking about. I try to ignore your assumptions and continue on with the actual debate, instead of trying to prove what you assumed someone meant but never said.
-
Where does it say he got if you showing gravitons are emitted from photons?
What? Can you please form a sentence that actually makes sense?
Now, can you please show us how a photon does not generate a gravitational field.
Show me when Einstein got his noble prize for showing photons emit gravitons.
The funny thing is no one in this thread has made that claim. You have assumed that is someone's claim.... but.... it was never said.
I don't have to assume. TheEngineer clearly did not know what Einstein got his Nobel prize for. He tried to act like he did but ultimately he failed.
Read the posts in order.
I did, he got it for his general work in physics. With an emphasis in your one subject. I think you are the one that lacks understanding.
HE DID NOT GET IT FOR GR. HE DID NOT GET IT FOR GRAVITONS.
Which i never said. Calm down. I have not mention General relativity or gravitons until this post. Your assumptions are much too great.
READ THE FUCKING THREAD.
the best thing is neither did they. You read too much into engy's post just like he wants you to. You jump at assumption after assumption until you are the only one that cares what you are talking about. I try to ignore your assumptions and continue on with the actual debate, instead of trying to prove what you assumed someone meant but never said.
The Engineer had no idea what Einstein got his Nobel Prize for. He also claims gravitation requires gravitons. He was wrong, stop being his tool.
-
Where does it say he got if you showing gravitons are emitted from photons?
What? Can you please form a sentence that actually makes sense?
Now, can you please show us how a photon does not generate a gravitational field.
Show me when Einstein got his noble prize for showing photons emit gravitons.
The funny thing is no one in this thread has made that claim. You have assumed that is someone's claim.... but.... it was never said.
I don't have to assume. TheEngineer clearly did not know what Einstein got his Nobel prize for. He tried to act like he did but ultimately he failed.
Read the posts in order.
I did, he got it for his general work in physics. With an emphasis in your one subject. I think you are the one that lacks understanding.
HE DID NOT GET IT FOR GR. HE DID NOT GET IT FOR GRAVITONS.
Which i never said. Calm down. I have not mention General relativity or gravitons until this post. Your assumptions are much too great.
READ THE FUCKING THREAD.
the best thing is neither did they. You read too much into engy's post just like he wants you to. You jump at assumption after assumption until you are the only one that cares what you are talking about. I try to ignore your assumptions and continue on with the actual debate, instead of trying to prove what you assumed someone meant but never said.
The Engineer had no idea what Einstein got his Nobel Prize for. He also claims gravitation requires gravitons. He was wrong, stop being his tool.
I didn't read him say either of those things. And I am not his tool truthfully. I'm just sick of you right now.
-
The Engineer had no idea what Einstein got his Nobel Prize for. He also claims gravitation requires gravitons. He was wrong, stop being his tool.
I do have an idea what he got it for. I even posted it for you and bolded it, since you have a problem with your reading comprehension.
Gravitation requires information transfer.
No, how about you stop avoiding the question and answer it? Why do photons not generate a gravitational field?
-
The Engineer had no idea what Einstein got his Nobel Prize for. He also claims gravitation requires gravitons. He was wrong, stop being his tool.
I do have an idea what he got it for. I even posted it for you and bolded it, since you have a problem with your reading comprehension.
Gravitation requires information transfer.
No, how about you stop avoiding the question and answer it? Why do photons not generate a gravitational field?
You had to look it up. Everyone else knew it was photoelectric effect. My roommate also knew what it was for.
I already answered it. Light doesn't accelerate. If you have to change the meaning of my post for t to be wrong, than something else is wrong also.
Also you can't say shit. All you do is avoid questions.
-
First of all, nobody gives a rat's ass what you claim you and your roommate can remember off the top of your head. If someone has to look it up, so be it. Secondly, you're on the internet. Which means that bullshit claims that cannot be verified abound. So if you could, good for you. Revel in the knowledge that you can remember which of his groundbreaking theories he got the Nobel Prize for. And also STFU. Thirdly, what possible relevance does this have to this discussion?(And I mean that in a sort of "You wish to add something to our discussion, Dr. Ryan?" way).
-
I already answered it. Light doesn't accelerate.
What does that have to do with anything?
If you have to change the meaning of my post for t to be wrong, than something else is wrong also.
I have not changed any meaning of any of your posts. They have been quoted from the original thread so that people can read them directly.
Also you can't say shit.
Shit.
Looks like you are wrong on that point too.
-
I already answered it. Light doesn't accelerate.
What does that have to do with anything?
The force we feel as 'gravity' is actually the mechanical resistance of the earth as we accelerate.
I have not changed any meaning of any of your posts. They have been quoted from the original thread so that people can read them directly.
No you change the meaning. The last quote you posted isn't even the first time.
Shit.
Looks like you are wrong on that point too.
Translation "I was fucking owned".
-
I already answered it. Light doesn't accelerate.
What does that have to do with anything?
The force we feel as 'gravity' is actually the mechanical resistance of the earth as we accelerate.
What does that have to do with it? Why does a photon not have a gravitational field?
No you change the meaning. The last quote you posted isn't even the first time.
What meaning did I change?
Shit.
Looks like you are wrong on that point too.
Translation "I was fucking owned".
You said I couldn't say shit. I said it. Hey look, I even said it again. You fail, yet again.
Now, why does a photon not have a gravitational field?
-
I already answered it. Light doesn't accelerate.
What does that have to do with anything?
The force we feel as 'gravity' is actually the mechanical resistance of the earth as we accelerate.
What does that have to do with it? Why does a photon not have a gravitational field?
No you change the meaning. The last quote you posted isn't even the first time.
What meaning did I change?
Shit.
Looks like you are wrong on that point too.
Translation "I was fucking owned".
You said I couldn't say shit. I said it. Hey look, I even said it again. You fail, yet again.
Now, why does a photon not have a gravitational field?
Show me where Einstein proved a photon emits a graviton.
-
Why does a photon not have a gravitational field? Einstein said they do. Why do you believe otherwise?
-
Did anyone return to the topic yet?.. :-\
I suppose we can rename the thread to "gravitation bickering" and start over.
______________
As for this argument, I was under the impression that the energy in light translated to gravitational pull. Velocity of C for instance. If its is true then gravitation may drastically change, although I don't see how it could be reduced to zero without stopping photons.
http://www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/1999/02.18/light.html
I'm dumb at this stuff so please correct me, but If I had a choice, please return to topic.
-
Why does a photon not have a gravitational field? Einstein said they do. Why do you believe otherwise?
Why do you believe they emit gravitons?
Answer my question and then I will answer your question.
-
The main reason why photons generate a gravitational field: photons have energy and momentum, thus they bend space-time.
-
Why do you believe they emit gravitons?
Because I believe that gravitons are the medium that space and energy use to communicate.
Ok, now answer my question.
-
The main reason why photons generate a gravitational field: photons have energy and momentum, thus they bend space-time.
Why did you have to give him the answer? Now he is going to claim he knew it all along...
-
Why do you believe they emit gravitons?
Because I believe that gravitons are the medium that space and energy use to communicate.
Ok, now answer my question.
Because it was my second day here.
Now why do you think Einstien got a Nobel prize for showing photons emit gravitons?
-
Because it was my second day here.
What does that have to do with anything?
Why don't photons generate a gravitational field?
-
Because it was my second day here.
Why don't photons generate a gravitational field?
Simply put, because they don't have mass. Mass bends space-time and hence any object moving through space in a gravitational field is effectively following a curved trajectory in space-time. When the object has mass then obviously the effect is increased because you have two sources of 'bending', if you follow.
-
Because it was my second day here.
What does that have to do with anything?
Why don't photons generate a gravitational field?
Don't ask questions if you don't want an answer
-
Don't ask questions if you don't want an answer
I do want an answer, that is why I'm asking the question... ???
So, stop avoiding and answer it, please.
-
Simply put, because they don't have mass.
Sorry, but that is incorrect. Why are you excluding things without mass?
-
Don't ask questions if you don't want an answer
I do want an answer, that is why I'm asking the question... ???
So, stop avoiding and answer it, please.
I gave you an answer.
-
Simply put, because they don't have mass.
Sorry, but that is incorrect. Why are you excluding things without mass?
I'm not excluding anything, the question was asked why photons don't generate gravity and its because they don't have mass, they don't interact with the Higgs field... As a supplementary I addressed a common misconception with this in that people often don't understand how photons can't have mass yet are deflected by the gravitational field of massive objects...
-
I gave you an answer.
Right, but it did not answer the question.
Now, please do so.
-
I'm not excluding anything, the question was asked why photons don't generate gravity and its because they don't have mass
First off, I never said anything about gravity.
Second, just because they don't have mass does not mean they don't have a gravitational field.
As a supplementary I addressed a common misconception with this in that people often don't understand how photons can't have mass yet are deflected by the gravitational field of massive objects...
Perhaps with your supplementary addresses, you should find out what causes the curvature of spacetime.
-
Engy's right on this. Energy curves spacetime, and photons most definitely have energy.
-
You accept that photons don't have mass?
-
You accept that photons don't have mass?
Photons don't have rest mass..
-
Not in the standard sense. However, if you apply E=mc^2, they can be treated as having relativistic mass.
-
Sorry guys, I'm a physicist.
I can see how you've gotten confused by this, yes, a photon has energy and E=mc^2 can give you an equivalent mass, but the photon does not have this mass, the photon always travels at the speed of light, and its mass is always zero.
If you were on a bus going at the speed of light and you shone a torch out of the front window the photons would from your point of view move away at the speed of light. This is special relativity.
The photon does have momentum, though it does not have mass ever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
-
For being a physicist, it's surprising that you would say such things.
-
Sorry guys, I'm a physicist.
And you think that a photon does not have a gravitational field?
I can see how you've gotten confused by this, yes, a photon has energy and E=mc^2 can give you an equivalent mass, but the photon does not have this mass, the photon always travels at the speed of light, and its mass is always zero.
Right, it has a rest mass of zero...
If you were on a bus going at the speed of light and you shone a torch out of the front window the photons would from your point of view move away at the speed of light. This is special relativity.
So?
The photon does have momentum, though it does not have mass ever.
Right, therefore, it has a gravitational field.
-
Sorry guys, I'm a physicist.
I can see how you've gotten confused by this, yes, a photon has energy and E=mc^2 can give you an equivalent mass, but the photon does not have this mass, the photon always travels at the speed of light, and its mass is always zero.
If you were on a bus going at the speed of light and you shone a torch out of the front window the photons would from your point of view move away at the speed of light. This is special relativity.
The photon does have momentum, though it does not have mass ever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
Then why are the field equations being non-linear ? All energy counts.
-
Sorry guys, I'm a physicist.
I can see how you've gotten confused by this, yes, a photon has energy and E=mc^2 can give you an equivalent mass, but the photon does not have this mass, the photon always travels at the speed of light, and its mass is always zero.
If you were on a bus going at the speed of light and you shone a torch out of the front window the photons would from your point of view move away at the speed of light. This is special relativity.
The photon does have momentum, though it does not have mass ever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity
Who the fuck gave you an E-PHD? You have no idea about general relativity, which is distinct from special relativity, my dear E-physicist. It's not like we just got this from wikipedia. We actually learned about this. Dimwit. Now go and stop pretending to be a physicist, noob.
-
All of my above post concerned just special relativity and is correct. I have taken courses in both relativities... as part of my masters degree in Astrophysics from one of the most respected universities and research institutions in the world (I had the name there but deleted it, believe it/don't believe it).
I'm not sure I believe in photons though tbh, I've never actually seen one...
I'm not convinced by STM images either really... all they show is charge distribution rather than actual atoms, I think the whole atoms thing is just rubbish the universe is just made of weird lumps of charge...
And rain? I was walking outside in the rain today and came in completely dry, I refuse to confirm the validity of crackpot 'rain is wet' theories...
LOL!
I'm re-deleting my account now, just felt I had to make that point. As I have suggested elsewhere, question why you feel so threatened and you'll move to having a happier life.
I won't read this again, so don't reply to it.
-
I'm not sure I believe in photons though tbh, I've never actually seen one...
-
All of my above post concerned just special relativity and is correct. I have taken courses in both relativities... as part of my masters degree in Astrophysics from one of the most respected universities and research institutions in the world (I had the name there but deleted it, believe it/don't believe it).
Internets is a series of tubes.
I'm not sure I believe in photons though tbh, I've never actually seen one...
(http://www.frederiksamuel.com/blog/images/light_graffiti_3.jpg)
-
I gave you an answer.
Right, but it did not answer the question.
Now, please do so.
I answered the question, what part don't you understand?
Photons have no mass rest or other.
-
I gave you an answer.
Right, but it did not answer the question.
Now, please do so.
I answered the question, what part don't you understand?
Photons have no mass rest or other.
They have a relativistic mass...
-
I gave you an answer.
Right, but it did not answer the question.
Now, please do so.
I answered the question, what part don't you understand?
Photons have no mass rest or other.
They have a relativistic mass...
If you are going to give them relativistic mass then it would be 1/0. How many kilograms is that?
-
Even a photon, a particle which moves at the speed of light, has relativistic mass.
Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity
All of my above post concerned just special relativity and is correct. I have taken courses in both relativities... as part of my masters degree in Astrophysics from one of the most respected universities and research institutions in the world (I had the name there but deleted it, believe it/don't believe it).
I'll take the later choice in belief, seeing as you have no knowledge in any form of physics, let alone astrophysics.
I'm not sure I believe in photons though tbh, I've never actually seen one...
I'm not convinced by STM images either really... all they show is charge distribution rather than actual atoms, I think the whole atoms thing is just rubbish the universe is just made of weird lumps of charge...
And rain? I was walking outside in the rain today and came in completely dry, I refuse to confirm the validity of crackpot 'rain is wet' theories...
This is friggin hilarious. And you claim to have been at a university? High school physics contradicts all of this, as well as mentioning "seeing photons", which really made me laugh...
I'm re-deleting my account now, just felt I had to make that point.
Smartest thing you did today. And stay dead.
I won't read this again, so don't reply to it.
Too bad. And if only you would.
-
Even a photon, a particle which moves at the speed of light, has relativistic mass.
Read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_in_special_relativity
It might say that but you do realize the equation they are using is gamma which is 1/0 for light.
According to Lev Okun,[1] Einstein himself always meant the invariant mass when he wrote "m" in his equations, and never used an unqualified "m" symbol for any other kind of mass. Okun and followers reject the concept of relativistic mass. Arnold B. Arons has argued against teaching the concept of relativistic mass:[16]
-
TBH, like it says, this is all irrelevant, because its the same thing as the energy, and unless you deny that energy curves spacetime, it therefore has a gravitational field, and if gravitons are the carrier, then they probably emit gravitons...
-
I'm re-deleting my account now, just felt I had to make that point. As I have suggested elsewhere, question why you feel so threatened and you'll move to having a happier life.
I love it when a noob gets his E-degree thrown in his face and so he gets all, "Fine, I don't care if you believe me, I'm leaving, and I won't come back!"
It just brightens my day.
-
I'm re-deleting my account now, just felt I had to make that point. As I have suggested elsewhere, question why you feel so threatened and you'll move to having a happier life.
I love it when a noob gets his E-degree thrown in his face and so hi gets all, "Fine, I don't care if you believe me, I'm leaving, and I won't come back!"
It just brightens my day.
Me too. It's always fun...
-
I answered the question, what part don't you understand?
The part where you explained why photons don't have a gravitational field.
Oh, wait, I didn't understand it because you haven't posted it yet.
-
I answered the question, what part don't you understand?
The part where you explained why photons don't have a gravitational field.
Oh, wait, I didn't understand it because you haven't posted it yet.
I already answered it. Don't ask questions if you don't want an answer.
-
Don't ask questions if you don't want an answer.
I do want an answer, that is why I'm asking the question... ???
-
I already answered it.
Perhaps you can quote your answer for those of us that have a hard time following you.
-
Because it was my second day here.
...
-
While back then I seemed to use gravity and gravitation as the same, you difeined gravity in that thread.
Since you used them interchangeably, explain how massless particles have no 'gravity'.
They don't accelerate.
But you posted this three days ago. So, you were uneducated two days after you joined, and you are still uneducated today? We all knew that already.
-
While back then I seemed to use gravity and gravitation as the same, you difeined gravity in that thread.
Since you used them interchangeably, explain how massless particles have no 'gravity'.
They don't accelerate.
But you posted this three days ago. So, you were uneducated two days after you joined, and you are still uneducated today? We all knew that already.
Where did I say it recently?
-
While back then I seemed to use gravity and gravitation as the same, you difeined gravity in that thread.
Since you used them interchangeably, explain how massless particles have no 'gravity'.
They don't accelerate.
-
While back then I seemed to use gravity and gravitation as the same, you difeined gravity in that thread.
Since you used them interchangeably, explain how massless particles have no 'gravity'.
They don't accelerate.
So light does accelerate?
I wasn't referring to that quote. I was referring to the quote you wanted answered.
-
The question I want answered is:
Why does a photon not have a gravitational field?
Which I have asked probably fifteen times now. You should try out for the football team, you are so good at dodging.
-
The question I want answered is:
Why does a photon not have a gravitational field?
Which I have asked probably fifteen times now. You should try out for the football team, you are so good at dodging.
And I answered it, and then you acknowledged the answer adn then made something up. Which is why I asked "Where did I say it recently?"
-
And I answered it
With:
Because it was my second day here.
...
So, what does you only being on the forums for two days have to do with your claim that photons don't have a gravitational field? Was it just discovered by physicists, on the third day you were here, that photons do have a gravitational field?
-
And I answered it
With:
Because it was my second day here.
...
So, what does you only being on the forums for two days have to do with your claim that photons don't have a gravitational field? Was it just discovered by physicists, on the third day you were here, that photons do have a gravitational field?
Maybe. After all it was about the time Einstein was getting his Nobel prize for proving photons emit gravitons.
-
You should try out for the football team, you are so good at dodging.
-
You should try out for the football team, you are so good at dodging.
Irony
I answered the question. As for the second question, I don't know. Maybe I wasn't thinking. Now I ask you, where did I say photons don't have a gravitational field recently?
-
So you admit that that post was wrong and you can't back it up?
Failure, it's what's for dinner.
-
Now I ask you, where did I say photons don't have a gravitational field recently?
-
Where did you say you could only back up recent posts?
-
But you posted this three days ago. So, you were uneducated two days after you joined, and you are still uneducated today? We all knew that already.
-
While back then I seemed to use gravity and gravitation as the same, you difeined gravity in that thread.
Since you used them interchangeably, explain how massless particles have no 'gravity'.
They don't accelerate.
This was your explanation as to why massless particles have no 'gravity'. This was just a few days ago. So, explain please, why they don't.
-
While back then I seemed to use gravity and gravitation as the same, you difeined gravity in that thread.
Since you used them interchangeably, explain how massless particles have no 'gravity'.
They don't accelerate.
This was your explanation as to why massless particles have no 'gravity'. This was just a few days ago. So, explain please, why they don't.
First I was using your definition of gravity. Second, massless particles are moving at the speed of light, they don't accelerate or deaccelerate.
-
First I was using your definition of gravity.
Nice try, but no you were not.
Second, massless particles are moving at the speed of light, they don't accelerate or deaccelerate.
So?
-
First I was using your definition of gravity.
Nice try, but no you were not.
No, actually I was. Thats why you said to use my definition of gravity.
Second, massless particles are moving at the speed of light, they don't accelerate or deaccelerate.
So?
[/quote]
So try and keep up.
-
First I was using your definition of gravity.
Nice try, but no you were not.
No, actually I was. Thats why you said to use my definition of gravity.
Like I said, nice try, but no, you were not:
spacetime is curved by gravity, but it curves down not up. Thats why you fall off a cliff not up it.
-
First I was using your definition of gravity.
Nice try, but no you were not.
No, actually I was. Thats why you said to use my definition of gravity.
Like I said, nice try, but no, you were not:
spacetime is curved by gravity, but it curves down not up. Thats why you fall off a cliff not up it.
I didn't know you could read my mind.
So you never said gravity=acceleration?
Either way I'm still not wrong. Light doesn't accelerate.
You yourself said that had nothing to do with gravitation.
They don't accelerate.
What does that have to do with them producing a gravitational field?
-
I didn't know you could read my mind.
I don't have to read your mind, I've read your posts. You said gravity is the curvature of spacetime, and massless particles do not have gravity since they have no mass.
Light doesn't accelerate.
You yourself said that had nothing to do with gravitation.
They don't accelerate.
What does that have to do with them producing a gravitational field?
Right. What does that have to do with them producing a gravitational field?
-
I didn't know you could read my mind.
I don't have to read your mind, I've read your posts. You said gravity is the curvature of spacetime, and massless particles do not have gravity since they have no mass.
Light doesn't accelerate.
You yourself said that had nothing to do with gravitation.
They don't accelerate.
What does that have to do with them producing a gravitational field?
Right. What does that have to do with them producing a gravitational field?
So like I said, where am I wrong?
-
You said gravity is the curvature of spacetime, and massless particles do not have gravity since they have no mass.
-
So in other words you can't find where I said photons don't bend spacetime recently.
Good to know.
-
I'm still waiting for you to back up your original statement, like you claimed you could.
-
I'm still waiting for you to back up your original statement, like you claimed you could.
Read the thread.
Speaking of backing up posts. Have fun.
You'll all agree with me when I say the personal GPS devices are not programmed to give you wrong numbers when you are flying on a certain route, the system on the plane itself seems possible, but myPocketPC lying as well just is a step too far.
Using a GPS system onboard an aircraft in flight is prohibited at all times. The use of anything that recieves or transmits a radio signal is prohibited... could that be part of the big cover up?
-
I'm still waiting for you to back up your original statement, like you claimed you could.
Read the thread.
I have. I've seen just a bunch of flip flopping.
Speaking of backing up posts.
I made no such claim here.
But here you go, anyway:
Airlines which OFFICIALLY DO NOT APPROVE the use of GPS receivers at ANY time during flight.
(*) Individual Pilots may allow GPS use. (It never hurts to ask the pilot on any flight. Oftentimes, cabin attendants say NO automatically. If the cabin attendant says "no" respectfully ask them to make your request to the pilot.)
* Alaska Airlines (as of 04/01, Yep, they changed AGAIN)
* Air Tran
* America West Airlines
* American Airlines
* Britannia Airlines
* Continental Airlines (as of March 2005, changed AGAIN!)
* El Al Airlines (Israel)
* Hawaiian Airlines(*)
* Horizon Airlines(*)
* Iberia Airlines(*)
* Lufthansa Airlines
* Mexicana airlines
* Midway Express
* Monarch Airlines
* Ryanair (Irish) (as of January 2008)
* SouthWest Airlines (as of November 2007)
* Spirit Airlines
* US Airways (was US Air) (as of December 2007)
* Varig Airlines
* Virgin Airlines (As of March 2007)
-
I'm still waiting for you to back up your original statement, like you claimed you could.
Read the thread.
I have. I've seen just a bunch of flip flopping.
I have not flip flopped. You just cannot read.
I made no such claim here.
Please post in the right thread. You must not of posted the above statement in the right thread as you anyone can follow the link and find where you posted it.
But here you go, anyway:
Airlines which OFFICIALLY DO NOT APPROVE the use of GPS receivers at ANY time during flight.
(*) Individual Pilots may allow GPS use. (It never hurts to ask the pilot on any flight. Oftentimes, cabin attendants say NO automatically. If the cabin attendant says "no" respectfully ask them to make your request to the pilot.)
* Alaska Airlines (as of 04/01, Yep, they changed AGAIN)
* Air Tran
* America West Airlines
* American Airlines
* Britannia Airlines
* Continental Airlines (as of March 2005, changed AGAIN!)
* El Al Airlines (Israel)
* Hawaiian Airlines(*)
* Horizon Airlines(*)
* Iberia Airlines(*)
* Lufthansa Airlines
* Mexicana airlines
* Midway Express
* Monarch Airlines
* Ryanair (Irish) (as of January 2008)
* SouthWest Airlines (as of November 2007)
* Spirit Airlines
* US Airways (was US Air) (as of December 2007)
* Varig Airlines
* Virgin Airlines (As of March 2007)
[/quote]
This does clear some up as I was able to use A GPS on the last flight I took. The safety manual even said so.
-
I have not flip flopped. You just cannot read.
Show us where you backed up what you said.
I made no such claim here.
Please post in the right thread. You must not of posted the above statement in the right thread as you anyone can follow the link and find where you posted it.
Where did I make it?
This does clear some up as I was able to use A GPS on the last flight I took. The safety manual even said so.
When was that?
-
I have not flip flopped. You just cannot read.
Show us where you backed up what you said.
I already explained it. you made the claim I still believed it. I asked for proof, so you found that post that proved nothing. Show where I flip flopped.
Where did I make it?
??? Is it true you have no idea how to use the forum you moderate? You do know you can click on the date in the quote to go to the original post right?
This does clear some up as I was able to use A GPS on the last flight I took. The safety manual even said so.
When was that?
[/quote]
A year ago this month.
-
I already explained it. you made the claim I still believed it.
You said you could back up every post you make. You have been unable to do so in both quotes I have provided so far.
You do know you can click on the date in the quote to go to the original post right?
Right, so where is the quote where I made the claim?
A year ago this month.
And that has, what, to do with my quote?
-
I already explained it. you made the claim I still believed it.
You said you could back up every post you make. You have been unable to do so in both quotes I have provided so far.
You have posted more than two. I caught you taking one out of context and then this one was wrong and then you made the claim that I still thought wrongly, yet you won't show me where.
Right, so where is the quote where I made the claim?
Click on the link to find it. You clearly posted it.
And that has, what, to do with my quote?
Everything.
"When was that"
"A year ago."
Thats an answer. Do I have to say it again? Don't ask a question if you don't want an answer.
-
This does clear some up as I was able to use A GPS on the last flight I took. The safety manual even said so.
The planes I flew in to and from France had a gps screen that I could watch. I also could of used my bros GPS had I had it with me.
I do love catching you in a lie.
Ok, let's hear all your excuses...
-
This does clear some up as I was able to use A GPS on the last flight I took. The safety manual even said so.
The planes I flew in to and from France had a gps screen that I could watch. I also could of used my bros GPS had I had it with me.
I do love catching you in a lie.
Ok, let's hear all your excuses...
Theres no lie anywhere. Please learn to read.
This does clear some up as I was able to use A GPS on the last flight I took. The safety manual even said so.
"Able to use A GPS." So this is saying, if I had a GPS unit I could use it.
The planes I flew in to and from France had a gps screen that I could watch. I also could of used my bros GPS had I had it with me.
"A gps screen." This is the screen that showed movies as well. " I also could of used my bros GPS had I had it with me." This is saying I could use my bros GPS unit had I had it. Thus, I could of uses a GPS receiver.
There is no lie. Please try again.
-
Ok, let's hear all your excuses...
-
There's no lie anywhere. Please learn to read.
I think it's the irony that keeps you from being banned.
-
Ok, let's hear all your excuses...
Translation: I was fucking owned again.
Stop making shit up. You are making yourself look bad.
-
Ok, let's hear all your excuses...
Translation: I was fucking owned again.
Stop making shit up. You are making yourself look bad.
You are either
A: A flame-happy troll that like to masterbate over the fact that he can say he owned people when there is no sign of ownage anywhere to be seen.
B: An angery individual who is mentally challenged that really doesn't have a clue.
-
See, sokarul, no one believes any of what you are saying. You can come up with all the excuses you can, do all the flip-flopping you can and no one buys a single scrap of it. Why is it so hard for you to admit you are wrong and just get over it?
-
See, sokarul, no one believes any of what you are saying. You can come up with all the excuses you can, do all the flip-flopping you can and no one buys a single scrap of it. Why is it so hard for you to admit you are wrong and just get over it?
I already admitted I was wrong a few times...when I was wrong.
I am not wrong here.
I did not flip flop here.
I did not lie here.
Now are you going to back up your claims?
Where did I flip flop? Where did I recently say photons have no gravitation field?
How did I lie? The posts clearly say I didn't.
-
Ok, let's hear all your excuses...
Translation: I was fucking owned again.
Stop making shit up. You are making yourself look bad.
Right, I'm a newcomer here and I've been reading through most of the threads in the part of the Forum, and I certainly did laugh when I read the last sentence of what you put there. I know nothing about either of you, but from what I've read, you're the one making himself look stupid.
-
Jeez, maybe those dudes was right. Everyone makes up multiple names.
-
I have no idea what you're talking about.
-
Massless particles dont have any matter so they don't have gravity.
Photons produce gravitation, end of story.
-
Massless particles dont have any matter so they don't have gravity.
Photons produce gravitation, end of story.
WTLW
-
WTLW
I missed the beginning part or your argument, so I went to see if you actually were wrong again.
-
WTLW
I missed the beginning part or your argument, so I went to see if you actually were wrong again.
Apparently you didn't look to hard.
-
Sure I did, hence I quoted you.
-
Sure I did, hence I quoted you.
So back to what I said, you didn't look very hard. Thats why you got WTLWed.
While your hear though.
How much energy does a 100 kev xray have? In joules.
How much energy does a 2 gram mass have? In joules.
-
While your hear though.
My days of not taking you seriously are certainly coming to a middle.
-
Apparently you didn't look to hard.
Once again, we have evidence that you don't know the difference between 'to' and 'too'.
While your hear though.
And we see that you don't know the proper usage of 'your' and 'hear'.
How can you not get tired of failing?
How much energy does a 100 kev xray have? In joules.
How much energy does a 2 gram mass have? In joules.
What is your point in this?
-
Apparently you didn't look to hard.
Once again, we have evidence that you don't know the difference between 'to' and 'too'.
While your hear though.
And we see that you don't know the proper usage of 'your' and 'hear'.
How can you not get tired of failing?
How much energy does a 100 kev xray have? In joules.
How much energy does a 2 gram mass have? In joules.
What is your point in this?
Respond to the other post, coward.
-
Respond to the other post, coward.
Translation: "I was fucking owned"
-
So back to what I said, you didn't look very hard. Thats why you got WTLWed.
Unless you're referring to your misuse of scientific terms, you haven't remedied the claim that massless particles don't produce gravitation.
-
So back to what I said, you didn't look very hard. Thats why you got WTLWed.
Unless you're referring to your misuse of scientific terms, you haven't remedied the claim that massless particles don't produce gravitation.
PLEASE READ THE THREAD.Respond to the other post, coward.
Translation: "I was fucking owned"
Yes you were.
-
Sokarul, why don't you just give up? Your arguments are defeated over and over again, yet you still want to continue. You couldn't back up any of your claims, so you make up ineffective rebuttals like, for example, "when did I claim that photons don't generate gravitational field recently?" A worthy effort, yet futile. You can't convince anyone because you're being irrational and unwilling to admit your errors. Just stop this so you can save your last few grams of dignity.
-
Sokarul, why don't you just give up? Your arguments are defeated over and over again, yet you still want to continue. You couldn't back up any of your claims, so you make up ineffective rebuttals like, for example, "when did I claim that photons don't generate gravitational field recently?" A worthy effort, yet futile. You can't convince anyone because you're being irrational and unwilling to admit your errors. Just stop this so you can save your last few grams of dignity.
Except for the minor fact that I did back the one that were right up. I already admitted some were wrong.
I'm still waiting for theengineer to back his lies up.
-
Respond to the other post, coward.
Translation: "I was fucking owned"
Yes you were.
How childish.
-
Respond to the other post, coward.
Translation: "I was fucking owned"
Yes you were.
How childish.
Yes he is. He is clearly avoiding my post because he can't back up his claims.
-
Yes he is. He is clearly avoiding my post because he can't back up his claims.
Irony.
-
Respond to the other post, coward.
Translation: "I was fucking owned"
Yes you were.
How childish.
Yes he is. He is clearly avoiding my post because he can't back up his claims.
*slams head off of wall because is using laptop and therefore has no table*
-
Yes he is. He is clearly avoiding my post because he can't back up his claims.
Irony.
QFT
-
Look at the tools everyone.
-
You going to answer the quesdtions?
...
Where did I flip flop? Where did I recently say photons have no gravitation field?
How did I lie? The posts clearly say I didn't.
-
Sokarul, why don't you just give up? Your arguments are defeated over and over again, yet you still want to continue. You couldn't back up any of your claims, so you make up ineffective rebuttals like, for example, "when did I claim that photons don't generate gravitational field recently?" A worthy effort, yet futile. You can't convince anyone because you're being irrational and unwilling to admit your errors. Just stop this so you can save your last few grams of dignity.
-
Sokarul, why don't you just give up? Your arguments are defeated over and over again, yet you still want to continue. You couldn't back up any of your claims, so you make up ineffective rebuttals like, for example, "when did I claim that photons don't generate gravitational field recently?" A worthy effort, yet futile. You can't convince anyone because you're being irrational and unwilling to admit your errors. Just stop this so you can save your last few grams of dignity.
Because I'm not a coward and I wasn't defeated over and over. Why do you think theengineer isn't responding, because he is right?
-
Look at the tools everyone.
When thirty people get sick of a 3 year old shaking his head and all try to explain the truth to him, they aren't being tools. Just they are exasperated.
-
Post it then.
-
Because I'm not a coward and I wasn't defeated over and over.
(http://i140.photobucket.com/albums/r36/Persistenxe/facepalm3.jpg)
Why do you think theengineer isn't responding, because he is right?
So, you think he is wrong because he is not responding?
-
He knows, doesn't matter what I think.
-
Back it up, then.
-
Back it up, then.
I already did, that's why he hasn't responded.
-
I'm said back this up:
He knows, doesn't matter what I think.
It doesn't really matter, since you haven't backed your original claim either. Instead, you gave this:
Now I ask you, where did I say photons don't have a gravitational field recently?
You call that a support? You must've failed your entrance essay, no wonder why you're now attending college.
-
I'm said back this up:
He knows, doesn't matter what I think.
And I just did. If you don't like it, don't ask for it.
It doesn't really matter, since you haven't backed your original claim either. Instead, you gave this:
Now I ask you, where did I say photons don't have a gravitational field recently?
You call that a support? You must've failed your entrance essay, no wonder why you're now attending college.
READ THE FUCKING THREAD.
I have been attending college for awhile.
-
I'm said back this up:
He knows, doesn't matter what I think.
And I just did. If you don't like it, don't ask for it.
It doesn't really matter, since you haven't backed your original claim either. Instead, you gave this:
Now I ask you, where did I say photons don't have a gravitational field recently?
You call that a support? You must've failed your entrance essay, no wonder why you're now attending college.
READ THE FUCKING THREAD.
AS USUAL, YOU FAILED TO COMPREHEND MY POST.
Your backup statements:
Photons have no mass rest or other.
I already answered it. Light doesn't accelerate.
While back then I seemed to use gravity and gravitation as the same, you difeined gravity in that thread.
Since you used them interchangeably, explain how massless particles have no 'gravity'.
They don't accelerate.
How come your backups are different from this?
The main reason why photons generate a gravitational field: photons have energy and momentum, thus they bend space-time.
Oh, is that because you don't understand relativity? Well, your next support is:
Now I ask you, where did I say photons don't have a gravitational field recently?
As Engy've said, it's a loss if the football teams didn't send you an invitation.
I have been attending college for awhile.
Right, because universities are too hard for you.
-
I'm said back this up:
He knows, doesn't matter what I think.
And I just did. If you don't like it, don't ask for it.
It doesn't really matter, since you haven't backed your original claim either. Instead, you gave this:
Now I ask you, where did I say photons don't have a gravitational field recently?
You call that a support? You must've failed your entrance essay, no wonder why you're now attending college.
READ THE FUCKING THREAD.
AS USUAL, YOU FAILED TO COMPREHEND MY POST.
AS USUAL YOU DIDN'T READ THE THREAD. I already admitted the post was wrong. You are just to lazy to read the thread to find that.
Your backup statements:
Photons have no mass rest or other.
I already answered it. Light doesn't accelerate.
While back then I seemed to use gravity and gravitation as the same, you difeined gravity in that thread.
Since you used them interchangeably, explain how massless particles have no 'gravity'.
They don't accelerate.
Above was using their saying gravity=acceleration.
I was actually right. How come your backups are different from this?
The main reason why photons generate a gravitational field: photons have energy and momentum, thus they bend space-time.
Search for momentum and my name. See how many times I have said photons have momentum. NO WHERE DID I SAY IT RECENTLY. That is why his claim and now your claim, that I don't know relativity, is wrong. And that is why I asked him to support his claim. This is one of the things he is ignoring.
Oh, is that because you don't understand relativity? Well, your next support is:
Now I ask you, where did I say photons don't have a gravitational field recently?
As above. I know all about relativity. That is why I said "where did I say it recently."
As Engy've said, it's a loss if the football teams didn't send you an invitation.
Cool, I bet they sent you one. Seeing is all you can't read.
I have been attending college for awhile.
Right, because universities are too hard for you.
O man, you got me.
You are idiot.
-
AS USUAL YOU DIDN'T READ THE THREAD. I already admitted the post was wrong. You are just to lazy to read the thread to find that.
AS USUAL, YOU FAILED TO COMPREHEND MY POST.
Above was using their saying gravity=acceleration.
I was actually right.
That's not the reason. You forgot this part:
Energy
And this part:
Momentum
Search for momentum and my name. See how many times I have said photons have momentum. NO WHERE DID I SAY IT RECENTLY.
But you said you could back up any of your claims, no matter if it is old or recent. Well, you never claimed they have to be old or recent.
Oh, is that because you don't understand relativity? Well, your next support is:
Now I ask you, where did I say photons don't have a gravitational field recently?
As above. I know all about relativity. That is why I said "where did I say it recently."
But you said you could back up any of your claims, no matter if it is old or recent. Well, you never claimed it has to be old or recent.
Cool, I bet they sent you one. Seeing is all you can't read.
Of course they did, so I could watch you play.
I have been attending college for awhile.
Right, because universities are too hard for you.
O man, you got me.
At least I'm not the only one.
You are an idiot.
You are just full of fail. I guess I finally have my reason to not take you seriously.
-
Did I call this one or what?
The main reason why photons generate a gravitational field: photons have energy and momentum, thus they bend space-time.
Why did you have to give him the answer? Now he is going to claim he knew it all along...
-
Did I call this one or what?
The main reason why photons generate a gravitational field: photons have energy and momentum, thus they bend space-time.
Why did you have to give him the answer? Now he is going to claim he knew it all along...
Once again, where did I say photons did not bend spacetime recently? Thats right, you cannot find it.
-
AS USUAL YOU DIDN'T READ THE THREAD. I already admitted the post was wrong. You are just to lazy to read the thread to find that.
AS USUAL, YOU FAILED TO COMPREHEND MY POST.
No
Above was using their saying gravity=acceleration.
I was actually right.
That's not the reason. You forgot this part:
Energy
And this part:
Momentum
Those have nothing to do with gravity, they deal with gravitation.
Search for momentum and my name. See how many times I have said photons have momentum. NO WHERE DID I SAY IT RECENTLY.
But you said you could back up any of your claims, no matter if it is old or recent. Well, you never claimed they have to be old or recent.
If you look at it that way I could back up anything, even if its wrong.
Oh, is that because you don't understand relativity? Well, your next support is:
Now I ask you, where did I say photons don't have a gravitational field recently?
As above. I know all about relativity. That is why I said "where did I say it recently."
But you said you could back up any of your claims, no matter if it is old or recent. Well, you never claimed it has to be old or recent.
Once again, I could back it up. The back up would be wrong too, but I could. Not only that, but I keep saying recently because you keep acting like I still don't think photons have a gravitation.
Cool, I bet they sent you one. Seeing is all you can't read.
Of course they did, so I could watch you play.
They don't invite nobodies to games.
I have been attending college for awhile.
Right, because universities are too hard for you.
O man, you got me.
At least I'm not the only one.
Is that even a real response?
You are an idiot.
You are just full of fail. I guess I finally have my reason to not take you seriously.
It's not my fault you can't read.
-
AS USUAL YOU DIDN'T READ THE THREAD. I already admitted the post was wrong. You are just to lazy to read the thread to find that.
AS USUAL, YOU FAILED TO COMPREHEND MY POST.
No
There are more questions with Yes/No answers in kindergartens, you know. Why don't you attend one of them instead?
Those have nothing to do with gravity, they deal with gravitation.
Who said a gravitational field must be gravity?
If you look at it that way I could back up anything, even if its wrong.
Again,
AS USUAL, YOU FAILED TO COMPREHEND MY POST.
My post said you claimed you could back up any claims, no matter if it is old or recent. Hence, you have to back up that old claim. However, you put all these random backups (photons don't accelerate or they have no rest mass) and concluded with, "when did I say photons don't generate a gravitational field recently?" Which is why I said, "You call that a support?"
Thus, your statement "I could back up any claims" is false.
Once again, I could back it up. The back up would be wrong too, but I could. Not only that, but I keep saying recently because you keep acting like I still don't think photons have a gravitation.
My post said you claimed you could back up any claims, no matter if it is old or recent. Hence, you have to back up that old claim. However, you put all these random backups (photons don't accelerate or photons have no rest mass) and concluded with, "when did I say photons don't generate a gravitational field recently?" Which is why I said, "You call that a support?"
Thus, your statement "I could back up any claims" is false.
They don't invite nobodies to games.
So?
Is that even a real response?
Of course it is.
You are an idiot.
You are just full of fail. I guess I finally have my reason to not take you seriously.
It's not my fault you can't read.
It's not my fault your grammar is filled with fail.
-
AS USUAL YOU DIDN'T READ THE THREAD. I already admitted the post was wrong. You are just to lazy to read the thread to find that.
AS USUAL, YOU FAILED TO COMPREHEND MY POST.
No
There are more questions with Yes/No answers in kindergartens, you know. Why don't you attend one of them instead?
no
Those have nothing to do with gravity, they deal with gravitation.
Who said a gravitational field must be gravity?
You.
If you look at it that way I could back up anything, even if its wrong.
Again,
AS USUAL, YOU FAILED TO COMPREHEND MY POST.
My post said you claimed you could back up any claims, no matter if it is old or recent. Hence, you have to back up that old claim. However, you put all these random backups (photons don't accelerate or they have no rest mass) and concluded with, "when did I say photons don't generate a gravitational field recently?" Which is why I said, "You call that a support?"
READ, I have already answered this attack.
Thus, your statement "I could back up any claims" is false.
Nope
Once again, I could back it up. The back up would be wrong too, but I could. Not only that, but I keep saying recently because you keep acting like I still don't think photons have a gravitation.
My post said you claimed you could back up any claims, no matter if it is old or recent. Hence, you have to back up that old claim. However, you put all these random backups (photons don't accelerate or photons have no rest mass) and concluded with, "when did I say photons don't generate a gravitational field recently?" Which is why I said, "You call that a support?"
Thus, your statement "I could back up any claims" is false.
READ, I have already answered this attack.
They don't invite nobodies to games.
So?
And I can't comprehend?
Is that even a real response?
Of course it is.
Fooled me.
You are an idiot.
You are just full of fail. I guess I finally have my reason to not take you seriously.
It's not my fault you can't read.
It's not my fault your grammar is filled with fail.
[/quote]
It's still not my fault you can't read.
-
Sok here is a hint, you didn't add the an. shhh don't tell anyone i told you.
I'm bored. CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL. YA MEAN?
-
Sok here is a hint, you didn't add the an. shhh don't tell anyone i told you.
I'm bored. CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL. YA MEAN?
Thank you captain obvious.
-
Sok here is a hint, you didn't add the an. shhh don't tell anyone i told you.
I'm bored. CAPS LOCK IS CRUISE CONTROL FOR COOL. YA MEAN?
Thank you captain obvious.
Pfff, i was promoted to general information years ago. But private you can address me as sir, all my friends do. Back to KP duty for you.
-
no
There are more questions with Yes/No answers in kindergartens, you know. Why don't you attend one of them instead?
You.
When did I?
READ, I have already answered this attack.
Thus, your statement "I could back up any claims" is false.
Thus, your statement "I could back up any claims" is false.
Nope
Denial at its best.
READ, I have already answered this attack.
Thus, your statement "I could back up any claims" is false.
And I can't comprehend?
What?
Fooled me.
::)
It's still not my fault you can't read.
It's not my fault your grammar is filled with fail.
-
no
There are more questions with Yes/No answers in kindergartens, you know. Why don't you attend one of them instead?
no
You.
When did I?
When you claimed the statement "gravity=acceleration" was missing energy and momentum.
READ, I have already answered this attack.
Thus, your statement "I could back up any claims" is false.
Nope
Thus, your statement "I could back up any claims" is false.
Nope
Denial at its best.
You don't even know what you are arguing anymore.
READ, I have already answered this attack.
Thus, your statement "I could back up any claims" is false.
Already answered.
And I can't comprehend?
What?
Exactly.
Fooled me.
::)
Cool, you can roll your eyes.
It's still not my fault you can't read.
It's not my fault your grammar is filled with fail.
Still not my fault you can't read.
You started this whole thing because you didn't read the thread.
-
no
yes
When you claimed the statement "gravity=acceleration" was missing energy and momentum.
And how's that any relevant to what I was saying in the other post?
READ, I have already answered this attack.
Thus, your statement "I could back up any claims" is false.
Nope
Yep.
Thus, your statement "I could back up any claims" is false.
Nope
Denial at its best.
You don't even know what you are arguing anymore.
Nope.
Exactly.
What?
Cool, you can roll your eyes.
Nice, you finally understand something.
Still not my fault you can't read.
Still not my fault your grammar is full of fail.
You started this whole thing because you didn't read the thread.
It's because you don't admit that you are wrong.
-
no
yes
When you claimed the statement "gravity=acceleration" was missing energy and momentum.
And how's that any relevant to what I was saying in the other post?
Thats what you said.
READ, I have already answered this attack.
Thus, your statement "I could back up any claims" is false.
Nope
Yep.
Nope. A wrong statement could be backed up. But I already said I didn't back up any wrong posts.
Thus, your statement "I could back up any claims" is false.
Nope
Denial at its best.
You don't even know what you are arguing anymore.
Nope.
Yup
Exactly.
What?
One word can confuse you.
Cool, you can roll your eyes.
Nice, you finally understand something.
To bad you can't.
What?
Still not my fault you can't read.
Still not my fault your grammar is full of fail.
Still not my fault you attack a post that was already discussed.
You started this whole thing because you didn't read the thread.
It's because you don't admit that you are wrong.
I had already admit the post was wrong. You just can't read.
-
Thats what you said.
What did I said?
Nope. A wrong statement could be backed up. But I already said I didn't back up any wrong posts.
Not all wrong statements could be backed up. Your original statement is one of the few examples.
Yup
Nope.
One word can confuse you.
I failed to see any confusion.
To bad you can't.
What?
Man, I am convinced.
Still not my fault you attack a post that was already discussed.
Still not my fault that this is a forum.
I had already admit the post was wrong. You just can't read.
Man, I am convinced.
-
I guess I finally have my reason to not take you seriously.
-
Thats what you said.
What did I said?
I'm not going to follow you in circles.
Nope. A wrong statement could be backed up. But I already said I didn't back up any wrong posts.
Not all wrong statements could be backed up. Your original statement is one of the few examples.
"Someone else was on my computer, not me."
See, you fail.
Yup
Nope.
One word can confuse you.
I failed to see any confusion.
To bad you can't.
What?
Man, I am convinced.
You should be. It's right in front of you. Even though you didn't quote it right.
Still not my fault you attack a post that was already discussed.
Still not my fault that this is a forum.
Not going to go around in a circle.
I had already admit the post was wrong. You just can't read.
Man, I am convinced.
[/quote]
Convinced of what?
I guess I finally have my reason to not take you seriously.
Yet you keep posting.
-
Respond to the other post, coward.
Translation: "I was fucking owned"
Yes you were.
How childish.
Yes he is. He is clearly avoiding my post because he can't back up his claims.
No, I was refering to you, simpleton.
-
Once again, where did I say photons did not bend spacetime recently? Thats right, you cannot find it.
Oh, I forgot incorrectness fades with time.
-
Once again, where did I say photons did not bend spacetime recently? Thats right, you cannot find it.
Oh, I forgot incorrectness fades with time.
Already explained.
-
Are you pissed or high or what?
-
I think we have let sokarul flop around long enough with that last one. So...let's do another!
Gravity does not shift lights wavelenght.
Don't try and pull that 'I was using your definition of gravity being acceleration' argument again:
So what experiment proved gravity?
Well since gravity is space/time bending, there are a few.
Get to it.
-
I think we have let sokarul flop around long enough with that last one. So...let's do another!
Gravity does not shift lights wavelenght.
I think you meant you coward out long enough for people to see how you were wrong.
Now on to the quote.
Yes it’s wrong when you look at gravitational redshifting. Looking at in the quote, the shift would most likely be undetectible.
Don't try and pull that 'I was using your definition of gravity being acceleration' argument again:
So what experiment proved gravity?
Well since gravity is space/time bending, there are a few.
Get to it.
ok, I will do the opposite of what you do when confronted.
-
Wow, you admitted you were wrong rather quickly. The quote says nothing about detectability.
-
Wow, you admitted you were wrong rather quickly. The quote says nothing about detectability.
Because it is wrong. Just like when you said GPS receivers aren’t allowed to be used on planes.
-
And I provided you a list to show this was true. ???
-
And I provided you a list to show this was true. ???
Yes because posting a link to things that happened after your post makes it true.
-
What?
-
What?
O look, you are confused again.
I guess I have to slow down.
You are lying.
Do you understand that?
-
No, I don't. I even provided a list to back my claim up. ???
-
No, I don't. I even provided a list to back my claim up. ???
You said "Using a GPS system onboard an aircraft in flight is prohibited at all times."
This is a lie.
-
I even provided a list to back my claim up. ???
-
I even provided a list to back my claim up. ???
The link you posted did not say every airline has banned GPS receivers.
-
Did I state every airline?
-
Did I state every airline?
Yes
-
Are you actively trying to find out how many times you can get owned in one thread?
-
http://theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=20246.0
-
Are you actively trying to find out how many times you can get owned in one thread?
He said every airplane. That would be every airline.
-
It wouldn't include helicopter only airline companies, your assumptions fail you once more.
-
He said every airplane.
Did I?
-
Yes.
-
Where?
-
No, but you said at all times :D
You didn't say it, but others thought that you meant that...
Meh...
-
Quiet, you! >:(
-
No, but you said at all times :D
Right... :-\
-
You guys have been bickering for 15 pages now. Any idea when you might be getting back to discussing that actual topic of this thread? In case you forgot, it's about FE problems with solar size.
-
You guys have been bickering for 15 pages now. Any idea when you might be getting back to discussing that actual topic of this thread? In case you forgot, it's about FE problems with solar size.
The quick answer is never. The long answer is dongs.
-
No, but you said at all times :D
Right... :-\
You lied.
-
Uh, no I sure didn't. ???
-
Uh, no I sure didn't. ???
You said GPS receivers are not allowed on planes. Some do allow them, thus you are not right.
-
Uh, no I sure didn't. ???
You said GPS receivers are not allowed on planes. Some do allow them, thus you are not right.
Did I say all?
-
Uh, no I sure didn't. ???
You said GPS receivers are not allowed on planes. Some do allow them, thus you are not right.
Did I say all?
yes. If you didn't mean all there would of been no point in posting.
-
yes.
Then why haven't you quoted it like I have asked you to?
If you didn't mean all there would of been no point in posting.
I could not guarantee that there was not some puddle jumper hopping between the Marianas allowing wealthy tourists to use their hand held GPS. Therefore, I made no such guarantee. If you inferred that from my post, that is your mistake.
I do like the way you have tried to turn this on me though. It is quite fun. Unfortunately, you fail at this too.
-
Right here.
You'll all agree with me when I say the personal GPS devices are not programmed to give you wrong numbers when you are flying on a certain route, the system on the plane itself seems possible, but myPocketPC lying as well just is a step too far.
Using a GPS system onboard an aircraft in flight is prohibited at all times. The use of anything that recieves or transmits a radio signal is prohibited... could that be part of the big cover up?
-
Uh, no I sure didn't. ???
You said GPS receivers are not allowed on planes. Some do allow them, thus you are not right.
Did I say all?
-
Uh, no I sure didn't. ???
You said GPS receivers are not allowed on planes. Some do allow them, thus you are not right.
Did I say all?
You either meant all or one. So yes, you did say all.
-
On another note, this thread makes a ton more sense if you ignore sokarul's posts.
Try it out, and not just here!
-
On another note, this thread makes a ton more sense if you ignore sokarul's posts.
Try it out, and not just here!
My kitchen floor is flat so the earth is flat.
-
On another note, this thread makes a ton more sense if you ignore sokarul's posts.
Try it out, and not just here!
My kitchen floor is flat so the earth is flat.
QFT
-
On another note, this thread makes a ton more sense if you ignore sokarul's posts.
Try it out, and not just here!
My kitchen floor is flat so the earth is flat.
1=-1
-
On another note, this thread makes a ton more sense if you ignore sokarul's posts.
Try it out, and not just here!
My kitchen floor is flat so the earth is flat.
1=-1
The tides and diurnal tides on an infinite earth are caused by the gravitational pull of the moon and submoon respectively.
Didn't I tell you to take it up with physics if you don't like it?
-
You either meant all or one.
So like I said, you made an assumption about my post.
So yes, you did say all.
I've asked a number of times now, please post where I said 'all'.
Oh, wait, you are the liar.
-
You either meant all or one.
So like I said, you made an assumption about my post.
Opposed to the 30 you had to make bout mine? Hypocrite.
So yes, you did say all.
I've asked a number of times now, please post where I said 'all'.
Oh, wait, you are the liar.
I only did what you did. You WERE claiming GPS receivers was banned on all planes. You cannot hide from that. Had you thought otherwise, you would not of posted your statement.
-
On another note, this thread makes a ton more sense if you ignore sokarul's posts.
Try it out, and not just here!
My kitchen floor is flat so the earth is flat.
1=-1
Speaking of which, I found this quote of sokarul's:
Go look up spacetime bending again. You will see that there is no ma=-ma.
Don't turn my words around. I don't believe in your stupid physics and I don't believe in your stupid ideas.
So, I guess only recently does 1=-1.
-
Opposed to the 30 you had to make bout mine? Hypocrite.
I've made no assumptions about your meanings. The posts had no ambiguity.
You WERE claiming GPS receivers was banned on all planes. You cannot hide from that. Had you thought otherwise, you would not of posted your statement.
So, you can't provide that quote, huh? By the way, what was your justification in calling me a liar, again?
-
On another note, this thread makes a ton more sense if you ignore sokarul's posts.
Try it out, and not just here!
My kitchen floor is flat so the earth is flat.
1=-1
Speaking of which, I found this quote of sokarul's:
Go look up spacetime bending again. You will see that there is no ma=-ma.
Don't turn my words around. I don't believe in your stupid physics and I don't believe in your stupid ideas.
So, I guess only recently does 1=-1.
I guess you can't stay away from misquoting and taking things out of context. ma=-ma does not apply to the argument in said thread. Try harder.
-
Opposed to the 30 you had to make bout mine? Hypocrite.
I've made no assumptions about your meanings. The posts had no ambiguity.
You WERE claiming GPS receivers was banned on all planes. You cannot hide from that. Had you thought otherwise, you would not of posted your statement.
So, you can't provide that quote, huh? By the way, what was your justification in calling me a liar, again?
I just did.
-
Once again, I challenge you to provide one instance where I have misquoted you.
-
Once again, I challenge you to provide one instance where I have misquoted you.
That was easy.
The moon is never going to crash into us.
What powers your perpetual motion then? But yes, I agree, the earth is flat.
Angular acceleration caused by gravitation. We have seen this, other planets show orbit.
I never said the earth was flat, your retarded ass did. I also said your theory you pulled out of you ass was retarded. You don't even know how tides work.
You're saying the moon will pull on the oceans every day and not be affected by that? Go pull something, you will find yourself oddly accelerated towards that object. If you accept the moon causes the tides by gravitation, you must also accept that the moon will, one day, crash into the earth. You denying this means that you dont believe in that silly theory, but a flat earth instead. So yes, you did say you believe in a flat earth. Or you believe in perpetual motion. I guess I gave you the benefit of the doubt.
Go look up spacetime bending again. You will see that there is no ma=-ma.
Don't turn my words around. I don't believe in your stupid physics and I don't believe in your stupid ideas. They arent even theorys because you have no proof what so ever.
-
Hmm, that looks like the quote I posted. So, how did I misquote it, again?
-
Hmm, that looks like the quote I posted. So, how did I misquote it, again?
Its all the quote. You didn't post everything.
-
On another note, this thread makes a ton more sense if you ignore sokarul's posts.
Try it out, and not just here!
My kitchen floor is flat so the earth is flat.
1=-1
Speaking of which, I found this quote of sokarul's:
Go look up spacetime bending again. You will see that there is no ma=-ma.
Don't turn my words around. I don't believe in your stupid physics and I don't believe in your stupid ideas.
So, I guess only recently does 1=-1.
Ahaha. I owe you a beer.
-
On another note, this thread makes a ton more sense if you ignore sokarul's posts.
Try it out, and not just here!
My kitchen floor is flat so the earth is flat.
1=-1
Speaking of which, I found this quote of sokarul's:
Go look up spacetime bending again. You will see that there is no ma=-ma.
Don't turn my words around. I don't believe in your stupid physics and I don't believe in your stupid ideas.
So, I guess only recently does 1=-1.
Ahaha. I owe you a beer.
The tool fell for the misquote.
-
Here is the whole quote:
The moon is never going to crash into us.
What powers your perpetual motion then? But yes, I agree, the earth is flat.
Angular acceleration caused by gravitation. We have seen this, other planets show orbit.
I never said the earth was flat, your retarded ass did. I also said your theory you pulled out of you ass was retarded. You don't even know how tides work.
You're saying the moon will pull on the oceans every day and not be affected by that? Go pull something, you will find yourself oddly accelerated towards that object. If you accept the moon causes the tides by gravitation, you must also accept that the moon will, one day, crash into the earth. You denying this means that you dont believe in that silly theory, but a flat earth instead. So yes, you did say you believe in a flat earth. Or you believe in perpetual motion. I guess I gave you the benefit of the doubt.
Go look up spacetime bending again. You will see that there is no ma=-ma.
Don't turn my words around. I don't believe in your stupid physics and I don't believe in your stupid ideas. They arent even theorys because you have no proof what so ever.
Now, how were you misquoted?
-
Here is the whole quote:
The moon is never going to crash into us.
What powers your perpetual motion then? But yes, I agree, the earth is flat.
Angular acceleration caused by gravitation. We have seen this, other planets show orbit.
I never said the earth was flat, your retarded ass did. I also said your theory you pulled out of you ass was retarded. You don't even know how tides work.
You're saying the moon will pull on the oceans every day and not be affected by that? Go pull something, you will find yourself oddly accelerated towards that object. If you accept the moon causes the tides by gravitation, you must also accept that the moon will, one day, crash into the earth. You denying this means that you dont believe in that silly theory, but a flat earth instead. So yes, you did say you believe in a flat earth. Or you believe in perpetual motion. I guess I gave you the benefit of the doubt.
Go look up spacetime bending again. You will see that there is no ma=-ma.
Don't turn my words around. I don't believe in your stupid physics and I don't believe in your stupid ideas. They arent even theorys because you have no proof what so ever.
Now, how were you misquoted?
Well you see, in the context ma=-ma doesn't apply. I did not say it never worked.
-
So again, how were you misquoted? It looks just like the quote I posted.
-
So again, how were you misquoted? It looks just like the quote I posted.
Lets go look.
Speaking of which, I found this quote of sokarul's:
Go look up spacetime bending again. You will see that there is no ma=-ma.
Don't turn my words around. I don't believe in your stupid physics and I don't believe in your stupid ideas.
So, I guess only recently does 1=-1.
Yup, just as I thought, everything else is missing.
-
|cv| = |c|*|v|
-mv != mv
-mv != mv
-
Lets start with the basics. What is a mass times a velocity?
-
|cv| = |c|*|v|
-mv != mv
-mv != mv
-
I guess I expected you to know that it is momentum. My mistake. Any further discussion will be over your head so it is not worth it.
-
|cv| = |c|*|v|
-mv != mv
-mv != mv
Do you disagree?
-
|cv| = |c|*|v|
-mv != mv
-mv != mv
Do you disagree?
Yes, now answer this
Momentum is ________.
-
|cv| = |c|*|v|
-mv != mv
-mv != mv
Do you disagree?
Yes, now answer this
What do you disagree with?
-
|cv| = |c|*|v|
-mv != mv
-mv != mv
Do you disagree?
Yes, now answer this
What do you disagree with?
I agree that you have no idea what you are talking about. Now answer the question.
-
Since you are cowering away from the question I will let you dwell on this equation.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/6/3/e63054109044b9ce0ab36dca7d1cf5c9.png)
-
woa woa woa.
That is different. That sub 1 and sub 2 make the p's completely different variables. You fail.
lol learn moar.
-
woa woa woa.
That is different. That sub 1 and sub 2 make the p's completely different variables. You fail.
lol learn moar.
Does it or doesn't it say a positive equaling a negative?
The subscripts don't matter.
-
Since you are cowering away from the question I will let you dwell on this equation.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/6/3/e63054109044b9ce0ab36dca7d1cf5c9.png)
I agree with that equation. Once again, we see you don't know how to read equations.
-
Since you are cowering away from the question I will let you dwell on this equation.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/6/3/e63054109044b9ce0ab36dca7d1cf5c9.png)
I agree with that equation. Once again, we see you don't know how to read equations.
Thanks for wasting my time.
-
Since you are cowering away from the question I will let you dwell on this equation.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/6/3/e63054109044b9ce0ab36dca7d1cf5c9.png)
I agree with that equation. Once again, we see you don't know how to read equations.
Thanks for wasting my time.
I am speechless.
-
Since you are cowering away from the question I will let you dwell on this equation.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/6/3/e63054109044b9ce0ab36dca7d1cf5c9.png)
I agree with that equation. Once again, we see you don't know how to read equations.
Thanks for wasting my time.
I am speechless.
So am I. Christ, every time I think Sokarul has sunken as low as is possible, he finds a new low. :-X
-
sok, I'm sorry you don't know the difference between variables with different subscripts.
p1 != p2
However, that is not my fault for wasting your time. What a laugh.
-
sok, I'm sorry you don't know the difference between variables with different subscripts.
p1 != p2
However, that is not my fault for wasting your time. What a laugh.
mv=-mv comes from (http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/6/3/e63054109044b9ce0ab36dca7d1cf5c9.png)
No where did I say there was only one mass and one velocity. You lost long ago where you took the quote of "mv=-mv from.
Doesn't matter because the quote you are now agreeing with says
1=-1. But wait, that's bad.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
-
Oh, for god's sake, that's like saying x = -y...
Jeez, this is middle school crap...
And if that's the case, you wrote the equation wrong. You need to write in subscripts to make an equation, otherwise I can do loads of fun stuff with math ::)
x != x
I never said there was only one x, eh?
-
sok, I'm sorry you don't know the difference between variables with different subscripts.
p1 != p2
However, that is not my fault for wasting your time. What a laugh.
mv=-mv comes from (http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/6/3/e63054109044b9ce0ab36dca7d1cf5c9.png)
No where did I say there was only one mass and one velocity. You lost long ago where you took the quote of "mv=-mv from.
Doesn't matter because the quote you are now agreeing with says
1=-1. But wait, that's bad.
You have no idea what you are talking about.
so you can cancel P subscript 1 with P subscript 2? No? then that equation does not state 1=-1
how are you in college?
-
Sokarul, GTFO. You don't even understand the equation. I've never seen such ineptness from someone who claimed to be educated in these subjects. I have no formal education in either math or physics but I could see on sight that you were mistaken here.
-
Like I said before, the only thing sokarul does not fail at is entertaining me.
-
Ineptitude. Sorry, its impulsive...I can't stop it... :D
Actually, ineptness is correct. Look it up. :P
-
Yep. I'm usually willing to give people a rather large benefit of the doubt, but I'm beginning to agree with you...
Oh, wow, you're right Roundy...my bad.
-
Sokarul, GTFO. You don't even understand the equation. I've never seen such ineptness from someone who claimed to be educated in these subjects. I have no formal education in either math or physics but I could see on sight that you were mistaken here.
I most certainly do understand the equation.
A mass of 1 with a velocity will cause a mass of .5 to travel at velocity twice of original velocity.
Lets look
1kg*10m/s=-.5kg*20ms
10kg*m/s=-10kg*m/s
how are you in college?
I can start a sentence with a capital.
Oh, for god's sake, that's like saying x = -y...
Jeez, this is middle school crap...
And if that's the case, you wrote the equation wrong. You need to write in subscripts to make an equation, otherwise I can do loads of fun stuff with math ::)
x != x
I never said there was only one x, eh?
mv=-mv comes from (http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/6/3/e63054109044b9ce0ab36dca7d1cf5c9.png) wheather you like it or not.
-
No. -m1v1=m2v2 comes from that, or something like that. mv=-mv does not.
-
No. -m1v1=m2v2 comes from that, or something like that. mv=-mv does not.
Actually mv=-mv still works.
But I was using it as m1v1=-m2v2, I just didn't have the sub scripts.
1kg*1m/s=-1kg*1m/s
Are you saying that is wrong?
-
5 = 500
Oh, I just forgot the extra two digits on one side...
Not writing part of an equation makes it wrong my friend...subscripts are necessary to be written in.
-
1kg*1m/s=-1kg*1m/s
Are you saying that is wrong?
-
Like I said before, the only thing sokarul does not fail at is entertaining me.
He is one of the main reasons why I'm still lurking here.
sok, I'm sorry you don't know the difference between variables with different subscripts.
p1 != p2
However, that is not my fault for wasting your time. What a laugh.
mv=-mv comes from (http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/6/3/e63054109044b9ce0ab36dca7d1cf5c9.png)
As everyone here agrees, that equation has no relevance to 1=-1. How low can you really go?
mv=-mv comes from (http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/6/3/e63054109044b9ce0ab36dca7d1cf5c9.png) wheather you like it or not.
You sure you're really attending post-secondary education?
No. -m1v1=m2v2 comes from that, or something like that. mv=-mv does not.
1kg*1m/s=-1kg*1m/s
Are you saying that is wrong?
Yes.
-
It certainly looks wrong to me. How about you?
It's a vector, and opposing directions are not equal.
-
I most certainly do understand the equation.
A mass of 1 with a velocity will cause a mass of .5 to travel at velocity twice of original velocity.
Lets look
1kg*10m/s=-.5kg*20ms
10kg*m/s=-10kg*m/s
El oh fucking El.
Those equations are not true. Those are opposite momentums not equal ones. the 1 kilogram mass and the point five, would hit and their momentums could cancel, meaning they are not equal. YOU LOSE. Also I know how to capitalize, you do not know how to make an equation, who wins?
-
Sokarul, your maths have dropped below high school physics levels. You fail. I'm off to buy some snuff. Die in a fire y'all.
-
As everyone here agrees, that equation has no relevance to 1=-1. How low can you really go?
It the equation for conservation of momentum. A positive equaling a negative.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/6/3/e63054109044b9ce0ab36dca7d1cf5c9.png) wheather you like it or not.
You sure you're really attending post-secondary education?
Yes
No. -m1v1=m2v2 comes from that, or something like that. mv=-mv does not.
1kg*1m/s=-1kg*1m/s
Are you saying that is wrong?
Yes.
That's because, you like everyone else, doesn't know shit.
-
That's because, you like everyone else, doesn't know shit.
Oh, the irony! ;D
-
Poor, misunderstood, Sokarul. No-one understands his genius.
Let me give you an example of how this equation is supposed to work, dimwit.
Two objects of equal weight have a totally elastic collision. At what velocities/momentum do they bounce off at? (really simple example)
So, m1 = 5kg, m2 = 5kg, and v1 and v2 are their velocities.
m1v1 = -m2v2
5kg*3m/s = -5kg*-3m/s
15kg*m/s = 15kg*m/s
Ta-fucking-da. Opposite velocities, idiot, have opposing signs.
-
As everyone here agrees, that equation has no relevance to 1=-1. How low can you really go?
It the equation for conservation of momentum. A positive equaling a negative.
I'm willing to bet all my chips that a positive will never equal to a negative.
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/6/3/e63054109044b9ce0ab36dca7d1cf5c9.png) wheather you like it or not.
You sure you're really attending post-secondary education?
Yes
Your posts say otherwise.
That's because, you like everyone else, doesn't know shit.
Nice rebuttal.
-
Poor, misunderstood, Sokarul. No-one understands his genius.
Let me give you an example of how this equation is supposed to work, dimwit.
Two objects of equal weight have a totally elastic collision. At what speed/momentum do they bounce off at? (really simple example)
So, m1 = 5kg, m2 = 5kg, and v1 and v2 are their speeds.
m1v1 = -m2v2
5kg*3m/s = -5kg*-3m/s
15kg*m/s = 15kg*m/s
Ta-fucking-da. Opposite velocities, idiot, have opposing signs.
Before I continue what do speeds have to do with anything, we want velocities.
-
Oh, how clever. Answer the point, dodger. Or do you not have one, my dear cornered friend?
-
Oh, how clever. Answer the point, dodger.
Its not my fault you don't know the difference between speed and velocity.
Now, how does what you said satisfy the equation
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/6/3/e63054109044b9ce0ab36dca7d1cf5c9.png)?
-
Oh, how clever. Answer the point, dodger.
Its not my fault you don't know the difference between speed and velocity.
Now, how does what you said satisfy the equation
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/e/6/3/e63054109044b9ce0ab36dca7d1cf5c9.png)
smile you just ruined your point. So we will do you equation. One P has a positive value, the other a negative, it solves down to 1=1. Your example fails, because one of your velocities has a negative value, relative to the other.
I have snuff and sok is dumb. The world is as it should be...
-
Quit dodging. Were you wrong with this? So you don't understand the equation, now do you? So does the negative equal the positive here?
I most certainly do understand the equation.
A mass of 1 with a velocity will cause a mass of .5 to travel at velocity twice of original velocity.
Lets look
1kg*10m/s=-.5kg*20ms
10kg*m/s=-10kg*m/s
And you said: It the equation for conservation of momentum. A positive equaling a negative.
How is that so, now?
-
Quit dodging. Were you wrong with this? So you don't understand the equation, now do you? So does the negative equal the positive here?
I most certainly do understand the equation.
A mass of 1 with a velocity will cause a mass of .5 to travel at velocity twice of original velocity.
Lets look
1kg*10m/s=-.5kg*20ms
10kg*m/s=-10kg*m/s
And you said: It the equation for conservation of momentum. A positive equaling a negative.
How is that so, now?
I'm not dodging anything.
In an isolated system with only two objects, the change in momentum of one object must be equal and opposite to the change in momentum of the other object.
-
WRONG:
1kg*10m/s=-.5kg*20ms
10kg*m/s=-10kg*m/s
RIGHT:
1kg*10m/s=-.5kg*-20ms
10kg*m/s=10kg*m/s
Do you dispute this?
-
I dispute everything.
-
Ok then i agree with you.
-
In an isolated system with only two objects, the change in momentum of one object must be equal and opposite to the change in momentum of the other object.
Right, 10kg*5m/s = -10kg*-5m/s is the opposite. Your example is wrong.
-
Sok, you got an answer in that world of yours?
-
I'm not going to let this one slide, Sok.
-
Before I continue what do speeds have to do with anything, we want velocities.
Irony much?