On March 31, Paparios wrote:
>> So you PRETEND that the earth is
>> "stationary" and you compute the speed of the rocket away from the
>> "stationary" earth. You call it a "frame of reference." The MATH WORKS
>> because you are just computing the speed away from the earth, not
>> the rocket's actual speed through the universe.
>> Where this turns to TOTAL LUNACY is when mathematicians argue that
>> it also means that the earth is moving away from the rocket at speed x.
>
> The lunacy is totally yours. If a body A is approaching/receding a body B it
> is evident that also the body B is approaching/receding the body A. This is
> not mathematics but it is just common sense!!!

It isn't lunacy, it's misunderstanding.

True, if A approaches B at velocity v, then B approaches A at v.

However, let's say a boat A moves at v, relative to the water.
B is at rest, relative to the water. If A aims for B, he approaches B
at velocity v, but B is NOT MOVING.

What you and everybody else here doesn't get, is that Lake has
a Aristotle/ether view of the universe; light waves are just like
water waves. And he will never abandon that, he CANNOT
abandon it, his brain can't wrap around Einstein's model.

Seen his way, his 'theory' is quite sensible. And he's not in bad
company - James Maxwell had the same mental model.

It makes me laugh, watching the people here argue with him,
as if any communication were possible.

--
Rich

On 3/31/2022 11:36 AM, Ed Lake wrote:
> On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 10:19:21 AM UTC-5, Townes Olson wrote:
>> On Thursday, March 31, 2022 at 7:05:50 AM UTC-7, wrote:
>>> I should have said, "YOU need a STATIONARY frame of reference in
>>> order to do YOUR math."
>> Not at all. There is a system of inertial coordinates in each state of motion, and none of them are regarded as absolutely stationary (whatever that might mean). However, the principle of relativity is that the expressions of the laws of physics take exactly the same form in terms of every system of inertial coordinates. This is what enables us to answer the question you asked, i.e., the pulse of light propagates in a straight line (constant angle) in terms of each system of inertial coordinates, including the one in which the rocket is at rest.
>>
>> If the pulse is directed perpendicular to the rocket's axis in terms of that system, it will continue in that direction in terms of that system, and of course it's path is then not perpendicular in terms of (say) the earth's inertial system.
>
> The earth's inertial system has nothing to do with anything.

Different inertial systems will see the same event in different ways.
>
>>> I do not need any FICTITIOUS absolute rest frames.
>> But you invoke an absolute rest frame by referring to the point where the emission occurred, as if that phrase has unambiguous (absolute) meaning. It doesn't, because the emission event doesn't single out any particular state of motion, so you can't extrapolate it to any other time. This is explained as follows:
>>>> For example, suppose you emit the pulse of light when you are passing a several
>>>> space buoys in various states of motion that all coincided with your rocket at the
>>>> time of the emission. Thereafter, which of those buoys do you regard as being at
>>>> "the point where the photon was emitted"? It would have to be the buoy that is at
>>>> absolute rest, but there is no such thing. So you can't talk meaningfully about "the
>>>> [spatial] point where the pulse was emitted" at any time after the emission. It is
>>>> essential to understand this.
>
> But you don't understand the question. The question is: When an atom
> emits a photon, does that photon travel away from the atom, or does it
> travel away from the point in space where that atom was when it emitted
> the photon?

He already answered that. Emission of a photon is an event, the
coordinates are frame dependent.
>
> If the photon travels away from the point in space where the atoms WAS when it
> emitted the photon, that point COULD BE a point that is at "absolute rest."
> To argue that "there is no such thing" is just stating an OPINION.

Nope. There is no such thing since the existence of such a thing
(absolute rest) would mean a preferred frame, which would violate the
First Postulate.

On 3/30/22 3:05 PM, RichD wrote:
> if a basketballer is at the free throw line, moving quickly to his
> left, he aims directly at the basket. His motion at that moment is
> irrelevant, the ball leaves his hand and travels straight toward the
> basket.

But his motion at the time of the throw is indeed relevant to the angle
at which he must throw the ball to hit the basket. If, while moving
left, he throws the ball directly toward the basket, it will miss
because the player's motion at the instant of throw affects the
trajectory of the ball. The player must throw the ball at an angle to
the right of the basket such that the player's leftward motion is
canceled by the angle of throw.

Basketball players know this implicitly and automatically correct for
such effects, without thinking about it. Human brains are truly
remarkable in their unconscious accounting for the basic physics of the
world around us -- this is not "understanding", but rather detailed
memories of myriad experiences while growing up, integrated into the
ways we manipulate our bodies.

> The problem is, these mathematicians try to bamboozle you with their
> fantasy world frames and vectors. They don't care about the
> SCIENCE.

Just like Lake, you don't have a clue. You both should stop attempting
to write about subjects you clearly do not understand.

Tom Roberts

On Friday, 1 April 2022 at 17:47:02 UTC+2, tjrob137 wrote:
> On 3/30/22 3:05 PM, RichD wrote:
> > if a basketballer is at the free throw line, moving quickly to his
> > left, he aims directly at the basket. His motion at that moment is
> > irrelevant, the ball leaves his hand and travels straight toward the
> > basket.
>
> But his motion at the time of the throw is indeed relevant to the angle

And we all are FORCED!!!
To THE BEST WAY!!! (which is, of course, the way
of Giant Guru, as interpreted by poor idiot Roberts).

On April 1, tjrob137 wrote:
>> if a basketballer is at the free throw line, moving quickly to his
>> left, he aims directly at the basket. His motion at that moment is
>> irrelevant, the ball leaves his hand and travels straight toward the
>> basket.
>
> But his motion at the time of the throw is indeed relevant to the angle
> at which he must throw the ball to hit the basket.
> The player must throw the ball at an angle to
> the right of the basket such that the player's leftward motion is
> canceled by the angle of throw.
> Basketball players know this implicitly and automatically correct for
> such effects, without thinking about it. Human brains are truly
> remarkable in their unconscious accounting for the basic physics of the
> world around us -- this is not "understanding", but rather detailed
> memories of myriad experiences while growing up, integrated into the
> ways we manipulate our bodies.

Right.
Like, boxers wear padded helmets when sparring in the gym,
which permits them to hit harder, they know it protects against
brain damage.
>> The problem is, these mathematicians try to bamboozle you with their
>> fantasy world frames and vectors. They don't care about the
>> SCIENCE.
>
> Just like Lake, you don't have a clue. You both should stop attempting
> to write about subjects you clearly do not understand.

Swing a ball around on a rope. If the rope breaks, the ball will
continue its circular motion. It's simply Newton's first law.

According to Einstein, however, due to the differing transforms
of space in x vs. y directions, it will follow a hyperbolic path;
asymptotically, it will travel a straight line.

--
Rich

On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 2:56:50 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:

> Swing a ball around on a rope. If the rope breaks, the ball will
> continue its circular motion. It's simply Newton's first law.

Really? Do you actually believe this?

RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On April 1, tjrob137 wrote:
>>> if a basketballer is at the free throw line, moving quickly to his
>>> left, he aims directly at the basket. His motion at that moment is
>>> irrelevant, the ball leaves his hand and travels straight toward the
>>> basket.
>>
>> But his motion at the time of the throw is indeed relevant to the angle
>> at which he must throw the ball to hit the basket.
>> The player must throw the ball at an angle to
>> the right of the basket such that the player's leftward motion is
>> canceled by the angle of throw.
>> Basketball players know this implicitly and automatically correct for
>> such effects, without thinking about it. Human brains are truly
>> remarkable in their unconscious accounting for the basic physics of the
>> world around us -- this is not "understanding", but rather detailed
>> memories of myriad experiences while growing up, integrated into the
>> ways we manipulate our bodies.
>
> Right.
> Like, boxers wear padded helmets when sparring in the gym,
> which permits them to hit harder, they know it protects against
> brain damage.
>
>>> The problem is, these mathematicians try to bamboozle you with their
>>> fantasy world frames and vectors. They don't care about the
>>> SCIENCE.
>>
>> Just like Lake, you don't have a clue. You both should stop attempting
>> to write about subjects you clearly do not understand.
>
> Swing a ball around on a rope. If the rope breaks, the ball will
> continue its circular motion.

Might want to rethink that, Rich.

> It's simply Newton's first law.
>
> According to Einstein, however, due to the differing transforms
> of space in x vs. y directions, it will follow a hyperbolic path;
> asymptotically, it will travel a straight line.
>
> --
> Rich
>
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 4:56:50 PM UTC-5, RichD wrote:

> Swing a ball around on a rope. If the rope breaks, the ball will
> continue its circular motion. It's simply Newton's first law.

Huh?
> According to Einstein, however, due to the differing transforms
> of space in x vs. y directions, it will follow a hyperbolic path;
> asymptotically, it will travel a straight line.

Huh?

You are completely out of your league here.

On 4/1/2022 5:56 PM, RichD wrote:

> Swing a ball around on a rope. If the rope breaks, the ball will
> continue its circular motion. It's simply Newton's first law.

*facepalm*

Michael Moroney wrote:

> On 4/1/2022 5:56 PM, RichD wrote:
>
>> Swing a ball around on a rope. If the rope breaks, the ball will
>> continue its circular motion. It's simply Newton's first law.
>
> *facepalm*

It's the guy pulling the ball, not the rope. You can't read, idiot.

Den 01.04.2022 23:56, skrev RichD:
>
> Swing a ball around on a rope. If the rope breaks, the ball will
> continue its circular motion. It's simply Newton's first law.
>
> According to Einstein, however, due to the differing transforms
> of space in x vs. y directions, it will follow a hyperbolic path;
> asymptotically, it will travel a straight line.
>
> --
> Rich
>

April 1. ? :-D

--
Paul

https://paulba.no/

Paul Alsing <pnalsing@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 2:56:50 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
>
>> Swing a ball around on a rope. If the rope breaks, the ball will
>> continue its circular motion. It's simply Newton's first law.
>
> Really? Do you actually believe this?
>

I think it’s pretty clear RichD is another one of these word-salad wannabes
that is seeking community acceptance in a subject he knows not the first
thing about, but is happy to dress up as though he does, using physics-y
words, citing random article titles, casually name-dropping physicists.

--
Odd Bodkin — Maker of fine toys, tools, tables

On Saturday, 2 April 2022 at 15:36:23 UTC+2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> Paul Alsing <pnal...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Friday, April 1, 2022 at 2:56:50 PM UTC-7, RichD wrote:
> >
> >> Swing a ball around on a rope. If the rope breaks, the ball will
> >> continue its circular motion. It's simply Newton's first law.
> >
> > Really? Do you actually believe this?
> >
> I think it’s pretty clear RichD is another one of these word-salad wannabes
> that is seeking community acceptance in a subject he knows not the first
> thing about, but is happy to dress up as though he does, using physics-y
> words, citing random article titles, casually name-dropping physicists.

I think Bod is another one of these word-salad wannabes that is
seeking community acceptance by kneeling before an insane
religion he doesn't understand a word of.

On April 1, Paul Alsing wrote:
>> Swing a ball around on a rope. If the rope breaks, the ball will
>> continue its circular motion. It's simply Newton's first law.
>
> Really? Do you actually believe this?

Hello, halibut!

Yes, it can be confirmed, easily.
Stand at the center of a speedy rotating platform,
holding a rope and ball. The rope is taut as it rotates
in sync with the platform.

Release the rope, the ball will fly away in a circular path.
You can see it with your own eyes!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHxGUe1cjzM

--
Rich

On April 1, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Just like Lake, you don't have a clue. You both should stop attempting
>>> to write about subjects you clearly do not understand.
>
>> Swing a ball around on a rope. If the rope breaks, the ball will
>> continue its circular motion.
>
> Might want to rethink that, Rich.
>
>> It's simply Newton's first law.

Another halibut!
No surprise, in this case -

--
Rich

On April 2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Swing a ball around on a rope. If the rope breaks, the ball will
>>> continue its circular motion. It's simply Newton's first law.
>
>> Really? Do you actually believe this?
>
> I think it’s pretty clear RichD is another one of these word-salad wannabes
> that is seeking community acceptance in a subject he knows not the first
> thing about, but is happy to dress up as though he does, using physics-y
> words, citing random article titles, casually name-dropping physicists.

The fish bites twice!
Picasso never painted such a work of art.

Listen, Bod, I don't know about word salads, but I
do know something about door knobs. Last night
I tested those in my house for IQ, and six out of eight
outscored you.

But as the sporting type, I'll give you a chance to redeem
yourself. I have a little quiz I spring on unsuspecting
victims, on science, math, economics. Herewith, a question
no one has yet answered satisfactorily:

A bicyclist will dust a runner on foot, whether a peak speed
sprint, or long distance. Explain this, at the Physics 101 level.
Why is a bike faster than Nike?

Show us you know the FIRST THING about the subject -

--
Rich

On April 1, Michael Moroney wrote:
>> Swing a ball around on a rope. If the rope breaks, the ball will
>> continue its circular motion. It's simply Newton's first law.
>
> *facepalm*

Another halibut!

Fishing licenses are in limited supply, folks, get yours
now, they won't last long, the fish are biting!

--
Rich

On April 1, prokaryotic.c...@gmail.com wrote:
>> Swing a ball around on a rope. If the rope breaks, the ball will
>> continue its circular motion. It's simply Newton's first law.
>
> Huh?
>
>> According to Einstein, however, due to the differing transforms
>> of space in x vs. y directions, it will follow a hyperbolic path;
>> asymptotically, it will travel a straight line.
>
> You are completely out of your league here.

Another halibut!

Why is a bike faster than Nike?

--
Rich

On April 2, Paul B. Andersen wrote:
>> Swing a ball around on a rope. If the rope breaks, the ball will
>> continue its circular motion. It's simply Newton's first law.
>
>> According to Einstein, however, due to the differing transforms
>> of space in x vs. y directions, it will follow a hyperbolic path;
>> asymptotically, it will travel a straight line.
>
> April 1. ? :-D

Finally, someone shows a modicum of reading comprehension.
There's hope for humanity -

Though the April Fools date is just a coincidence.

Let me add, Mr. Anderson is one of the few reasons to
subscribe here, one of the few who provides content.

This amusing little sequence began when I was funning
with Ed Lake. He wisely declined to take the bait.

But then a school of fish jumped in, to preen their blazing
intellects. College grads, you know, with high level reading
comprehension, confirmed by their SAT reading scores,
yes indeed.

"I can't give you a brain, but I can give you a diploma."
- the Wizard of Oz, to the scarecrow

Thus Mr. Lake showed more wisdom than the undersea
crowd. Think about that -

--
Rich

On Tuesday, March 29, 2022 at 8:55:46 AM UTC-7, det...@outlook.com wrote:
> When we view light from a distant galaxy, we do not see that galaxy where it is today, we see that galaxy where it WAS when it emitted the light. The light traveled in a STRAIGHT LINE from POINT OF EMISSION to me.
>
> According to many sources, if I am in a rocket ship that accelerates at 1G, and if it continues to accelerate for that rate for close to one year, it will nearly reach the speed of light.
> Link: https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/01/10/238139/can-constant-acceleration-be-used-to-produce-artificial-gravity-in-space/
>
> My question is: If I am traveling at such speeds, and if I send a beam of light from one side of my ship to the other side, will the light travel in a straight line across the room as I see it, or will the light travel in a curved line down toward the floor?
>
> I am emitting light in a direction that is at a right angle to MY direction of movement. Wouldn’t light travel across the room to a point on the wall that is NOT at a right angle to my direction of movement, but in a straight line through space from the original point of emission?
>
> If true, I could mark points on the far wall that would indicate where the light photons will hit when my rocket is moving at different speeds.
>
> Of course, this would only be possible when traveling at a high enough speed so that the trajectory of the photons will measurably change while crossing a room that is only 10 or 20 feet wide.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Ed

We see red shifted Heat from the most distant galaxies
that has been shifted into visible...

mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:

> We see red shifted Heat from the most distant galaxies that has been
> shifted into visible...

Heat can be blue.

Iskander Missile Wipes Out Kharkiv Merc Compound, 100+ Foreign Fighters Dead
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2022/04/02/iskander-missile-wipes-out-kharkiv-merc-compound-100-foreign-fighters-dead/
“As a result of a high-precision strike with th
e Iskander operational-tactical complex on the defense headquarters in the city of Kharkiv on March 31, the elimination of more than 100 nationalists and mercenaries from Western countries was confirmed,” Konashenkov said.
The Russian MoD released footage of the pinpoint strike, which was apparently carried out with an Iskander-K cruise missile.

Witness Describes How the NATO Lie Machine Staged the Mariupol Hospital...
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2022/04/02/blockbuster-witness-describes-how-the-nato-lie-machine-staged-the-mariupol-hospital-attack-white-helmets-style/
https://youtu.be/f0rqHB41__A
Listen to Marianna Vyshemirskaya tell about how the new “White Helmets” used her to stage a fake Russian bombing…one they staged themselves with their own explosives just like done in Syria with Israeli help over and over and over…bombs, gas, no gas, kidnapped kids and doctors at gunpoint…

How NewsGuard, the CIA’s Disinformation Machine, Supports Nazi Atrocities in Ukraine
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2022/04/02/how-newsguard-the-cias-disinformation-machine-supports-nazi-atrocities-in-ukraine/

Ukraine: Who Are the Americans Running Bioweapons Research?
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2022/04/01/ukraine-who-are-the-americans-running-bioweapons-research/
Emails published by the MoD revealed she directly supervised experiments with deadly pathogens, including the UP-2 Project for “mapping highly infectious diseases in Ukraine,” including anthrax; the UP-4 Project, described as a “risk assessment of particularly dangerous pathogens transmitted by birds in Ukraine during migration”; the UP-8 Project studying “spread of Crimean-Congo hemorrhagic fever virus and hantaviruses in Ukraine and the potential need for differential diagnosis of patients with suspected leptospirosis. Previously released documents showed she also oversaw Project P-782, conducting research into the transmission of diseases through bats.

Madeleine Albright’s Epitaph: “Half a Million Dead Children? We Think The Lie It’s Worth It”
https://www.veteranstoday.com/2022/03/23/madeleine-albrights-epitaph-half-a-million-dead-children-we-think-its-worth-it/

RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On April 2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
>>>> Swing a ball around on a rope. If the rope breaks, the ball will
>>>> continue its circular motion. It's simply Newton's first law.
>>
>>> Really? Do you actually believe this?
>>
>> I think it’s pretty clear RichD is another one of these word-salad wannabes
>> that is seeking community acceptance in a subject he knows not the first
>> thing about, but is happy to dress up as though he does, using physics-y
>> words, citing random article titles, casually name-dropping physicists.
>
> The fish bites twice!
> Picasso never painted such a work of art.
>
> Listen, Bod, I don't know about word salads, but I
> do know something about door knobs. Last night
> I tested those in my house for IQ, and six out of eight
> outscored you.
>
> But as the sporting type, I'll give you a chance to redeem
> yourself. I have a little quiz I spring on unsuspecting
> victims, on science, math, economics. Herewith, a question
> no one has yet answered satisfactorily:
>
> A bicyclist will dust a runner on foot, whether a peak speed
> sprint, or long distance. Explain this, at the Physics 101 level.
> Why is a bike faster than Nike?
>
> Show us you know the FIRST THING about the subject -

Well this is fun. I don’t know the answer for sure.

I do not think a bicyclist can stay ahead of a sprinter for the first 20
yards.

But beyond that, I think it is due to an inherent limitation of the speed
of the lower leg’s fast-twitch fibered muscles, coupled with the attachment
point of the muscle to the lower leg bones. This is also related to why an
80 lb chimpanzee is four times stronger than a 180 lb man, but cannot throw
a ball with any speed; the attachment point of the chimp’s muscle is
further away from the joint, trading speed for leverage.

Between the cyclist and the sprinter, when both are ramped up to fastest
leg speed, the bicyclist now has an obvious advantage, because of the ratio
of the radius of the wheel compared to the radius of the pedal crank, which
in turn is about the same as the average radius of the runner’s foot
motion. The tangential speed of the wheel is larger than the tangential
speed of the foot by the same ratio as that of the radii.

>
> --
> Rich
>

--
Odd Bodkin -- maker of fine toys, tools, tables

RichD <r_delaney2001@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On April 2, bodk...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> Swing a ball around on a rope. If the rope breaks, the ball will
> >>> continue its circular motion. It's simply Newton's first law.
> >
> >> Really? Do you actually believe this?
> >
> > I think it's pretty clear RichD is another one of these word-salad wannabes
> > that is seeking community acceptance in a subject he knows not the first
> > thing about, but is happy to dress up as though he does, using physics-y
> > words, citing random article titles, casually name-dropping physicists.
>
> The fish bites twice!
> Picasso never painted such a work of art.
>
> Listen, Bod, I don't know about word salads, but I
> do know something about door knobs. Last night
> I tested those in my house for IQ, and six out of eight
> outscored you.
>
> But as the sporting type, I'll give you a chance to redeem
> yourself. I have a little quiz I spring on unsuspecting
> victims, on science, math, economics. Herewith, a question
> no one has yet answered satisfactorily:
>
> A bicyclist will dust a runner on foot, whether a peak speed
> sprint, or long distance. Explain this, at the Physics 101 level.
> Why is a bike faster than Nike?

Because it isn't. The sprinter will be ahead right after the start,
and won't be overtaken until he tires. (shortly before 100m)
That is because he literally jumps out of the blocks.
The cyclist cannot bring his peak power to bear as efficiently.
Here is a simulation for the Bolt vs Eady:
<https://www.outsideonline.com/uncategorized/who-would-win-100-usain-bolt-or-top-sprint-cyclist/>

> Show us you know the FIRST THING about the subject -

Alas, you don't,

Jan

On 4/3/2022 5:39 AM, Elmer Joss wrote:

> Madeleine Albright’s Epitaph: “Half a Million Dead Children? We Think The Lie It’s Worth It”

How many children has Russia killed so far, nymshifter?
And the difference is that Russia has *deliberately* targeted civilians!

卐Путин卐 хуйло!

Michael Moroney wrote:

> On 4/3/2022 5:39 AM, Elmer Joss wrote:
>
>> Madeleine Albright’s Epitaph: “Half a Million Dead Children? We Think
>> The Lie It’s Worth It”
>
> How many children has Russia killed so far, nymshifter?

none, you stupid immigrant. You don't even know that the IQ test was
invented and distributed by the *eugenicists*, for the sake of you,
immigrants of america and cacanada.