When Will Evolutionists Confess Their...

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#1706 Jul 18, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
A ring won't be able to go faster than light. But the intersection between two light beams can.
Another situation like this: just shine a flashlight along an arc. if you go a light year out, the end of the beam of light will move faster than light by a significant factor. But, no *information* and no *matter* will be conveyed that fast.
Itís all relative
wondering

Sunset, TX

#1707 Jul 18, 2014
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Itís all relative
you understand it all and why? then explain it since polymath is not here

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#1709 Jul 18, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
you understand it all and why? then explain it since polymath is not here
Imagine 2 beams travelling with light speed c in exact opposite directions.
Neither of the two light beams exceed c (light speed).
But each going to opposite directions will add up their respective speeds.
If you were to travel along one beam, it would appear that the other beam is receding with 2c.
But that is a relative speed.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#1710 Jul 18, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Imagine 2 beams travelling with light speed c in exact opposite directions.
Neither of the two light beams exceed c (light speed).
But each going to opposite directions will add up their respective speeds.
If you were to travel along one beam, it would appear that the other beam is receding with 2c.
But that is a relative speed.
I may be wrong, but as I understand it;
Light speed is not additive or subtractive. You would perceive a phase shift in light travelling the opposite direction, but not a difference in its speed.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#1711 Jul 18, 2014
wondering wrote:
<quoted text>
that is interesting and i admit I am a little lost. when you get time can you explain and thanks.
1. the intersection between two light beams can go faster than light.
2. shine a flashlight along an arc. if you go a light year out, the end of the beam of light will move faster than light by a significant factor. But, no *information* and no *matter* will be conveyed that fast
1. a point along a line can travel faster than c, but that is a point and not a physical object. I can't think of a way an observer would be able perceive that point faster than c, so ftl information is unavailable.
2. If you swing a bat the end travels faster than the pommel. It is the same analogy to "swinging" a flashlight beam. Beyond a given distance the the beam's arc "travels" faster than c, but that is conceptual and not physical.

“Pissing people off since 1949”

Level 8

Since: Apr 08

Lakeland, FL

#1712 Jul 18, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
1. a point along a line can travel faster than c, but that is a point and not a physical object. I can't think of a way an observer would be able perceive that point faster than c, so ftl information is unavailable.
2. If you swing a bat the end travels faster than the pommel. It is the same analogy to "swinging" a flashlight beam. Beyond a given distance the the beam's arc "travels" faster than c, but that is conceptual and not physical.
Excellent analogy.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1713 Jul 18, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
Imagine 2 beams travelling with light speed c in exact opposite directions.
Neither of the two light beams exceed c (light speed).
But each going to opposite directions will add up their respective speeds.
If you were to travel along one beam, it would appear that the other beam is receding with 2c.
But that is a relative speed.
Nope. Relativistic velocities don't add like that.

So, a couple of starting points:

1) Uniform velocity is relative, not absolute. In other words, there is no way to determine how fast you are going, only how fast you are moving with respect to something else. An example of this can be seen when you throw a ball up inside of an airplane. Unless the airplane is experiencing turbulence (non-uniform motion), the ball will appear to go up and down just like it would if the plane were at rest.

2) The speed of light is the same for all observers.

So, suppose you see someone go past you at half the speed of light. They see *you* going past *them* at half the speed of light in the other direction. Only the relative velocity makes sense, though. Neither can say to the other 'you are going at half the speed of light' without any qualifiers.

But now, suppose you see that person as going past you at half the speed of light and there is also a light beam going past you in the same direction. You see that light beam as moving away from you at the speed of light.

But, and this is the kicker,*so does the other person*. They see that same light beam as moving away from them at the speed of light,*not* just half the speed of light!

The reason for this is the differences in the way space and time are measured for two observers who are moving with respect to each other.

Now, to complicate this further, suppose you see person A going past you at 90% of the speed of light and person B as going past you at the same speed, but in the opposite direction. You might think that person A sees person B as moving at 180% of the speed of light, but this is wrong. The actual relative velocity according to A and B will be 99.447% of the speed of light. Yes,*you* see them as approaching each other at 180% of the speed of light, but that isn't actually a speed anything is moving at. You see both of them as moving slower than c, AND they see each other as moving slower than c also.

If you are curious about the formula for adding velocities, I can give it. It has been verified in a variety of ways by measuring particle collisions and decays.
wondering

Sunset, TX

#1714 Jul 18, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
1. a point along a line can travel faster than c, but that is a point and not a physical object. I can't think of a way an observer would be able perceive that point faster than c, so ftl information is unavailable.
2. If you swing a bat the end travels faster than the pommel. It is the same analogy to "swinging" a flashlight beam. Beyond a given distance the the beam's arc "travels" faster than c, but that is conceptual and not physical.
that makes it clearer. thanks chromiuman

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#1715 Jul 18, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>

1) Uniform velocity is relative, not absolute. In other words, there is no way to determine how fast you are going, only how fast you are moving with respect to something else. An example of this can be seen when you throw a ball up inside of an airplane. Unless the airplane is experiencing turbulence (non-uniform motion), the ball will appear to go up and down just like it would if the plane were at rest.
In his question, the apparent speed is defined by the light travelling toward him. 186,000 mps toward a light source.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#1716 Jul 18, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. Relativistic velocities don't add like that.
So, a couple of starting points:
1) Uniform velocity is relative, not absolute. In other words, there is no way to determine how fast you are going, only how fast you are moving with respect to something else. An example of this can be seen when you throw a ball up inside of an airplane. Unless the airplane is experiencing turbulence (non-uniform motion), the ball will appear to go up and down just like it would if the plane were at rest.
2) The speed of light is the same for all observers.
So, suppose you see someone go past you at half the speed of light. They see *you* going past *them* at half the speed of light in the other direction. Only the relative velocity makes sense, though. Neither can say to the other 'you are going at half the speed of light' without any qualifiers.
But now, suppose you see that person as going past you at half the speed of light and there is also a light beam going past you in the same direction. You see that light beam as moving away from you at the speed of light.
But, and this is the kicker,*so does the other person*. They see that same light beam as moving away from them at the speed of light,*not* just half the speed of light!
The reason for this is the differences in the way space and time are measured for two observers who are moving with respect to each other.
Now, to complicate this further, suppose you see person A going past you at 90% of the speed of light and person B as going past you at the same speed, but in the opposite direction. You might think that person A sees person B as moving at 180% of the speed of light, but this is wrong. The actual relative velocity according to A and B will be 99.447% of the speed of light. Yes,*you* see them as approaching each other at 180% of the speed of light, but that isn't actually a speed anything is moving at. You see both of them as moving slower than c, AND they see each other as moving slower than c also.
If you are curious about the formula for adding velocities, I can give it. It has been verified in a variety of ways by measuring particle collisions and decays.
Thanks! Nice information and something to add to my knowledge.

Since: May 14

the Earth Clod

#1717 Jul 18, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Nope. Relativistic velocities don't add like that.
So, a couple of starting points:
1) Uniform velocity is relative, not absolute. In other words, there is no way to determine how fast you are going, only how fast you are moving with respect to something else. An example of this can be seen when you throw a ball up inside of an airplane. Unless the airplane is experiencing turbulence (non-uniform motion), the ball will appear to go up and down just like it would if the plane were at rest.
2) The speed of light is the same for all observers.
So, suppose you see someone go past you at half the speed of light. They see *you* going past *them* at half the speed of light in the other direction. Only the relative velocity makes sense, though. Neither can say to the other 'you are going at half the speed of light' without any qualifiers.
But now, suppose you see that person as going past you at half the speed of light and there is also a light beam going past you in the same direction. You see that light beam as moving away from you at the speed of light.
But, and this is the kicker,*so does the other person*. They see that same light beam as moving away from them at the speed of light,*not* just half the speed of light!
The reason for this is the differences in the way space and time are measured for two observers who are moving with respect to each other.
Now, to complicate this further, suppose you see person A going past you at 90% of the speed of light and person B as going past you at the same speed, but in the opposite direction. You might think that person A sees person B as moving at 180% of the speed of light, but this is wrong. The actual relative velocity according to A and B will be 99.447% of the speed of light. Yes,*you* see them as approaching each other at 180% of the speed of light, but that isn't actually a speed anything is moving at. You see both of them as moving slower than c, AND they see each other as moving slower than c also.
If you are curious about the formula for adding velocities, I can give it. It has been verified in a variety of ways by measuring particle collisions and decays.
At last something sensible thing to discuss instead of the creationist's caboodle and crap.
No, do not need the formulas, it is the basic principle I'm interested in.
Hence this question:I think the clue is in your sayng that "The reason for this is the differences in the way space and time are measured for two observers who are moving with respect to each other".
Does this mean that relative velocity is a measurement artefact?
That is to say, what happens independently from those measurements?

To put this question otherwise: when I travel at walking speed of 5 km/h in one direction and another person in the same speed at the exact opposite direction, their relative combined speed would be 10 km/h. Why do objects at the speed of light do not answer this principle?
wondering

Sunset, TX

#1718 Jul 19, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
At last something sensible thing to discuss instead of the creationist's caboodle and crap.
No, do not need the formulas, it is the basic principle I'm interested in.
Hence this question:I think the clue is in your sayng that "The reason for this is the differences in the way space and time are measured for two observers who are moving with respect to each other".
Does this mean that relative velocity is a measurement artefact?
That is to say, what happens independently from those measurements?
To put this question otherwise: when I travel at walking speed of 5 km/h in one direction and another person in the same speed at the exact opposite direction, their relative combined speed would be 10 km/h. Why do objects at the speed of light do not answer this principle?
being the speed of light is the fastest speed we know, nothing can approach the other at a faster speed or leave the other at a faster speed, it is like an illusion. they are approaching each other at the speed of light and when moving away from each other it is at the speed of light. you are confusing the speed of light with the distance traveled between the two. the distance traveled to and from each other seems like they are moving faster toward each other or away form each other but in reality it is an illusion. the speed in each direction is constant but he distance between them seems faster(which it is faster in gaining or separating distance but not speed) toward each or separated from each. twice as much ground is covered going to or away from each other but the sped is constant in either direction. they are moving toward each other at the speed of light and then moving away from each other at the speed of light. the only thing that is affected which is like a illusion is distance for the speed of each stays constant.
wondering

Sunset, TX

#1719 Jul 19, 2014
my prior post may sound like a lot of blah blah blah but i am tired and in a hurry. i am sure polymath can clean it up to make more sense. have a good one all

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1720 Jul 19, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
At last something sensible thing to discuss instead of the creationist's caboodle and crap.
No, do not need the formulas, it is the basic principle I'm interested in.
Hence this question:I think the clue is in your sayng that "The reason for this is the differences in the way space and time are measured for two observers who are moving with respect to each other".
Does this mean that relative velocity is a measurement artefact?
That is to say, what happens independently from those measurements?
To put this question otherwise: when I travel at walking speed of 5 km/h in one direction and another person in the same speed at the exact opposite direction, their relative combined speed would be 10 km/h. Why do objects at the speed of light do not answer this principle?
Actually, the relative speed here would be very, very slightly less than 10km/h. Let's see, 5 km/h is about 7.5*10^(-9) of the speed of light. The sum of the speeds is divided by 1 plus the square of that, so we get 10/(1+5.6*10^(-17)). This gives a difference in the 16th decimal place. Clearly not a significant aspect.

But, if the two speeds were half the speed of light, the sum would be divided by (1+.25), for a result of only .8 times the speed of light.

So the answer is that lower speeds *do* answer to this principle, but the difference from a simple sum is to small to be relevant.

And this is one aspect of scientific revolutions: the old results results that work don't get replaced so much as they get tweaked. it is in the previously untested extremes that the differences appear. Newtonian physics is a very good *approximation* that works splendidly for low velocities (say, less than 1% of c) or small masses (say, less than twice the sun) and above the atomic level. For ordinary events, it works perfectly well for the jobs we need done (making cars, going to the moon, building bridges). But if you want more accuracy or get away from those conditions, you need relativity or quantum mechanics.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1721 Jul 19, 2014
TurkanaBoy wrote:
<quoted text>
At last something sensible thing to discuss instead of the creationist's caboodle and crap.
No, do not need the formulas, it is the basic principle I'm interested in.
Hence this question:I think the clue is in your sayng that "The reason for this is the differences in the way space and time are measured for two observers who are moving with respect to each other".
Does this mean that relative velocity is a measurement artefact?
That is to say, what happens independently from those measurements?
To put this question otherwise: when I travel at walking speed of 5 km/h in one direction and another person in the same speed at the exact opposite direction, their relative combined speed would be 10 km/h. Why do objects at the speed of light do not answer this principle?
I see that polymath has already answered this, but I will chime in too.

The problem is that we "see" relative speeds adding simply. If object a is going at 30 mph to the north and object b is moving south at 40 mph and they collide it will seem that from any reasonable frame of reference that the two crashed at with a speed of 70 mph relative to each other. The differences that are caused by relativity and smaller than the margin of error for our measurements so it will seem that velocities add simply.

The theory of relativity says that is not true, but the effects are not observable until an object is moving at a significant fraction of the speed of light.

Perhaps one of the first objects observed undergoing time dilation, another result of relativity, were muons and pions from secondary cosmic rays. They are formed when high speed protons and other particles from space collide with nuclei in the upper atmosphere. These are moving at a very high speed too and they exist longer than they would if you measured their existence by classical physics. They "should" not hit the Earth since the reactions that form them are too far from the Earth for them to last until they hit here. Of course that seems right only if you ignore that since they are moving at a high speed relative to the Earth that their time is dilated relative to the Earth.

If you were a meson from space moving at a relative speed what you would observe is that the Earth is dilated. The roughly 100 kilometers of atmosphere would be much thinner, only a few kilometers. so even though by your timeline as the meson you still would not have long to live you make it to the Earth because to you the atmosphere is only a kilometer thick or so.

Relativity has many such seemingly paradoxes. One of my favorites is the ladder in the garage paradox:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladder_paradox

If you have a moving ladder, and very very fast garage doors, you can put a moving ladder all the way into a garage that would be too short to hold the ladder if the ladder was not moving.

The idea is that a ladder is approaching a garage with the entrance opened and the far door closed. It is moving at a relativistic speed and just as it enters the garage the door closes so that for a fraction of second the whole ladder would be in the garage.

The second part of this paradox is that the far door opens just before the ladder crashes into it allowing the ladder to pass through the garage unscathed. The question is what is observed on the ladder? If you were on the ladder you would see a garage, that is even shorter than the ladder when both are stationary approaching at a relativistic speed. You would see the exit door open just before the front of the ladder crashed into it and on the ladder you would observe both the front and the end of the ladder would be outside of the garage at the same time.

What you observe as far as length and even time are frame of reference dependent. We for the most part observe objects moving at such slow relative velocities that we tend to think that we can add velocities simply. That simply is not true.

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#1722 Jul 19, 2014
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Actually, the relative speed here would be very, very slightly less than 10km/h. Let's see, 5 km/h is about 7.5*10^(-9) of the speed of light. The sum of the speeds is divided by 1 plus the square of that, so we get 10/(1+5.6*10^(-17)). This gives a difference in the 16th decimal place. Clearly not a significant aspect.
But, if the two speeds were half the speed of light, the sum would be divided by (1+.25), for a result of only .8 times the speed of light.
So the answer is that lower speeds *do* answer to this principle, but the difference from a simple sum is to small to be relevant.
And this is one aspect of scientific revolutions: the old results results that work don't get replaced so much as they get tweaked. it is in the previously untested extremes that the differences appear. Newtonian physics is a very good *approximation* that works splendidly for low velocities (say, less than 1% of c) or small masses (say, less than twice the sun) and above the atomic level. For ordinary events, it works perfectly well for the jobs we need done (making cars, going to the moon, building bridges). But if you want more accuracy or get away from those conditions, you need relativity or quantum mechanics.
I've the impression that acceleration through space and time relativity are inseparably linked. The "faster" you go, the more KPH, MPH, MPS, et al is weighted by temporal relativistic effect. Does time even exist for a photon? It makes the photon's "H" in MPH a far different thing than what it is to a static observer.

Level 9

Since: Sep 08

Everett, WA

#1723 Jul 19, 2014
ChromiuMan wrote:
<quoted text>
I've the impression that acceleration through space and time relativity are inseparably linked. The "faster" you go, the more KPH, MPH, MPS, et al is weighted by temporal relativistic effect. Does time even exist for a photon? It makes the photon's "H" in MPH a far different thing than what it is to a static observer.
Light does not experience time. This article may help you to understand:

http://www.universetoday.com/111603/does-ligh...

“See how you are?”

Level 5

Since: Jul 12

Earth

#1724 Jul 19, 2014
Subduction Zone wrote:
<quoted text>
Light does not experience time. This article may help you to understand:
http://www.universetoday.com/111603/does-ligh...
That was the point. To a photon or a traveler at c, mpH is meaningless, but it is not meaningless to an observer.

Since: May 14

Europe

#1725 Jul 21, 2014
I told you they ve been feeding you lies. Check this out as you try to imagine how many people and institutions are involved in this big lie. And tell me why it cant be done in other places , like evolution. realitysandwich.com/23226/kubrick_apollo/

“Nihil curo de ista tua stulta ”

Since: May 08

Orlando

#1726 Jul 22, 2014
Kenedy njoroge wrote:
I told you they ve been feeding you lies. Check this out as you try to imagine how many people and institutions are involved in this big lie. And tell me why it cant be done in other places , like evolution. realitysandwich.com/23226/kubrick_apollo/
Break out the tin-foil hats, boys....

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 26 min Paul Porter1 171,514
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 53 min ChristineM 20,448
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 1 hr Paul Porter1 199
Darwinism: Science or Philosophy? 1 hr Zog Has-fallen 1
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 6 hr Dogen 142,469
Terms need to be defined better 9 hr MikeF 7
News Bobby Jindal: I'm fine with teaching creationis... (Apr '13) 21 hr GTID62 247
More from around the web