On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 5:32:22 PM UTC-6, Paul Alsing wrote:
>
> On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 3:19:22 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 5:19:49 PM UTC-4, Paul Alsing wrote:
> >
> > > ...Nothing can exceed c.
> >
> > I prefer to put 'nothing' in quotes because there are some 'things' that can go
> > faster than c.
>
> Nothing with mass can exceed c...

(I correct you only to get this thread above the sea of spamming foreign stupidity}

Nothing with mass can reach c.

On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 14:36:08 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 5:32:22 PM UTC-6, Paul Alsing wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 3:19:22 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 5:19:49 PM UTC-4, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > >
> > > > ...Nothing can exceed c.
> > >
> > > I prefer to put 'nothing' in quotes because there are some 'things' that can go
> > > faster than c.
> >
> > Nothing with mass can exceed c...
> (I correct you only to get this thread above the sea of spamming foreign stupidity}
>
> Nothing with mass can reach c.

:) Learn your GR shit, poor halfbrain.

On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 7:16:18 AM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
>
> On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 14:36:08 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> >
> > On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 5:32:22 PM UTC-6, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 3:19:22 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 5:19:49 PM UTC-4, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > ...Nothing can exceed c.
> > > >
> > > > I prefer to put 'nothing' in quotes because there are some 'things' that can go
> > > > faster than c.
> > >
> > > Nothing with mass can exceed c...
> >
> > (I correct you only to get this thread above the sea of spamming foreign stupidity}
> >
> > Nothing with mass can reach c.
>
> :) Learn your GR shit, poor halfbrain.

“The more you know, the dumber you sound to stupid people.”
-- Anonymous

On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 15:35:33 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:

> > > Nothing with mass can reach c.
> >
> > :) Learn your GR shit, poor halfbrain.
> “The more you know, the dumber you sound to stupid people.”

Oh, I'm sure I do; they're not hiding it at all, you know.

On 9/26/23 12:44 PM, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 9:18:26 AM UTC-7, Tom Roberts
> wrote:
>> [...] The author is an idiot. By not immediately following with
>> the "almost childish example", they have lost all sensible readers
>> who won't bother to read such a long, obfuscated, and irrelevant
>> screed.
> He did, but you are so anxious to dismiss it that you wouldn't even
> read an abstract:

As usual you are COMPLETELY WRONG about me. I have better things to do
with my time that read long, unrelated screeds.

> Light from two flashlights end to end move apart at 2c:

Yes, given sufficient conditions.

> "When the points of light A and B move in opposite directions from a
> source S, A to the left and B to the right, we must conclude, using
> the simplest accepted laboratory techniques, that the rate of
> separation of these points is 2c.

Yes, measured in the inertial frame in which S is at rest. By omitting
that condition you and the original author confused yourselves. (This
also presumes propagation in vacuum.)

Even though these "points of light" are separating, this is known as
"closing speed" and is specific to the rest frame of S.

Note that a "point of light" does not define a reference frame, so
"relative velocity of one point of light relative to the other" makes no
sense.

As I suspected, this author is arguing against their own MISCONCEPTIONS,
and not the actual theory.

Tom Roberts

On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 2:19:49 PM UTC-7, Paul Alsing wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 2:10:27 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 9:50:08 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 9:16:15 PM UTC-6, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Tuesday, September 26, 2023 at 2:55:45 PM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Relativity is about OBSERVERS. Photons are NOT observers. Jan is correct, Paul is
> > > > > correct, Tom is correct, Rich is correct. You, Schock and Sugar are dead wrong. You
> > > > > are "calculating" the "closing" velocity as seen from an observer stationary wrt the
> > > > > room, only in this case it's a "separating" velocity. Nothing wrong with that. You goof
> > > > > by considering photons, then pretending you can be moving at the same speed as a
> > > > > photon, getting gamma = infinity, throwing out gamma and just adding the separating
> > > > > speed of the two photons together a la Newton and then claim you're using the Lorentz
> > > > > transformation. You're NOT!
> > > > >
> > > > > Try this:
> > > > > Use two balls instead of photons. Let them move at 0.867c in opposite directions. Now
> > > > > use the LT to calculate the speed of p1 wrt p2.
> > > >
> > > > There is no rational reason why there cannot be an IRF without an observer.
> > > You're splitting hairs. An observer can be placed in ANY IRF. Observers are made of bradyons.
> >
> > > > Nor is there why two photons originating from two moving flashlights cannot have relative
> > > > speeds of 3c.
> > > Vacuous assertion.
> > > > The LT is always invoked in vain because all that is required for real physics is Galilean
> > > > transformations.
> > > Refuted assertion.
> > > > Observers introduce the subjective and perspectival and are irrelevant.
> > > Nope. "Observers" are measuring and recording instruments. They are absolutely necessary
> > > if you want to understand reality.
> > > > There are only sources and sinks.
> > > I am a source, you are a sink.
> > > > There is no need for the LT for balls or photons.
> > > Then your whole gambit is phony because YOU brought up unnecessary photons.
> > > > You can use two balls moving at c and have 2c relative motion.
> > > No, you can't. Balls are composed of bradyons, which cannot move at c..
> > > > Nothing in physics forbids this.
> > > Says the guy that doesn't understand physics :-)
> > >
> > > I gave you the chance to find out for yourself, but you ran away from a simple proof,
> > > so here it comes right down your gullet:
> > >
> > > From the perspective of a ball, B1, moving at -u wrt the source, the source is moving at
> > > +u wrt B1. B2 is moving at +u wrt the source. So B2 is moving at u' wrt B1:
> > >
> > > u' = (u + u)/(1 + u^2/c^2)
> > >
> > > u = 0.5c, u' = 0.8c
> > > u = 0.7c, u' = 0.94c
> > > u = 0.9, u' = 0.994c
> > > u = 0.99c, u' = 0.99995c
> > >
> > > As you should be able to conclude, as u approcaches c, u' also approaches c. Your appeal
> > > to the Lorentz transform to "disprove" relativity was fatally flawed.
> > I appreciate the opportunity to see if relativity can defend itself from someone who will try to defend it by reasoning (in addition to the usual pooh-poohing of skepticism).
> >
> > The photons are two different IRFs. Each photon is an IRF because they are moving with uniform linear motion.
> >
> > Anything can move faster than c relative to something else because relative speeds are additive.
> >
> > u'= (-1 +1)/ (1 + 1/c^2)= 0
> >
> > Yet the photons move apart at 2c.
> Yet neither photon ever exceeds c. Nothing can exceed c.

Light can converge on itself at 2c. Its absolute speeds add. c

Gary Harnagel wrote:

> On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 5:32:22 PM UTC-6, Paul Alsing wrote:
> (I correct you only to get this thread above the sea of spamming foreign
> stupidity}
>
> Nothing with mass can reach c.

completely nonsense. You don't even know what mass is. To me 𝗺𝗮𝘀𝘀 is an
𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗹_𝗱𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝗴𝗲𝗻𝘁_𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆. So it's rather how much mass are you going to
put in. All mass are 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗲𝘀𝗶𝗺𝗮𝗹_𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘁𝘆.

On Monday, September 25, 2023 at 8:37:51 PM UTC-7, Laurence Clark Crossen wrote:
> “This paper is concerned with the greatest scandal in the history of science. The theory of relativity can be shown to be counter factual by an almost childish example.

Baloney. Idiotic rants.

--
Jan

On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 6:35:33 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 7:16:18 AM UTC-6, Maciej Wozniak wrote:
> >
> > On Thursday, 28 September 2023 at 14:36:08 UTC+2, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> > >
> > > On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 5:32:22 PM UTC-6, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 3:19:22 PM UTC-7, rotchm wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > On Wednesday, September 27, 2023 at 5:19:49 PM UTC-4, Paul Alsing wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > > ...Nothing can exceed c.
> > > > >
> > > > > I prefer to put 'nothing' in quotes because there are some 'things' that can go
> > > > > faster than c.
> > > >
> > > > Nothing with mass can exceed c...
> > >
> > > (I correct you only to get this thread above the sea of spamming foreign stupidity}
> > >
> > > Nothing with mass can reach c.

How dies light reach light speed?
It has its own motion.
It is the atom that can't accelerate to c...

> >
> > :) Learn your GR shit, poor halfbrain.
> “The more you know, the dumber you sound to stupid people.”
> -- Anonymous

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> On Thursday, September 28, 2023 at 6:35:33 AM UTC-7, Gary Harnagel
>> > > Nothing with mass can reach c.
>
> How dies light reach light speed? It has its own motion.
> It is the atom that can't accelerate to c...

no, yes, it can't, as the atoms emits photons at c. So you can't have a c
+ c. Forbidden by Entropy. Which is an arrow of time. How many directions
does an arrow have?