Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum Back to the question of photons and time!

Sorry can't understand much of that.

It looks a bit like children's painting or abstract art to me.

ORAC => <I removed this comment because of current accusation no joking at the moment to show I am taking the accusation seriously>

PMB I assure you there absolutely no reference to mental health on anyone in the whole thread.

Can you cut and paste me a sentence that does that because I am taking this seriously it doesn't make sense to me and I think you all have completely the wrong end of the stick. I have asked AR2 to do the same.

I will start for example and go back to my last comment to Bill which includes the word "sanity" which seems to be the issue.


Here it is

=>So the message in that example is the same as the Einstein example I need you to fill in some more detail we all agree on sanity rules before I can say anything meaningful

So the use of sanity has nothing to do with people or anyone's mental state it is used in definition two meaning "sound reasoning" so in other words sound reasoned rules which is exactly what was intended. The sentence makes no sense if you try to add a persons sanity or definition 1 of sanity in it's place.

I am not sure of how else I could phrase it to Bill S he is asking me to speculate on something where I have no references and no laws (IE no sanity), so if he wants me to comment lets talk about what we know and define some sanity rules (good & logical) ... that is what I believe that sentence says and it is what was intended.

It has nothing to do with Bill S or anyone else sanity or else I would use the correct form which is insane. You seem to be reading the word sanity as an offensive word and I am stunned by that.

I took the accusation from AR2 seriously because I was shocked, I got a translation service to check several of my sentences so I can hardly say I am not taking the matter seriously and they translate the sentences back to me the way they were intended.

So to me you are accusing me of something that I did not do and I am sorry but now I am offended.

Besides my slight dig at AR2 could you please show me a sentence where I did anything with mental health.

90% of the use of the word sanity appears to be in discussion with Bill S and if he thought I was calling him insane I think he would let me know. I used expression like "put sanity under" "use sanity with" which is quite clear in context I am describing the surrounds (usually physics) not him personally.

I have asked Bill S if he thought I was insulting him and until he answers we are stuck.

So I guess I should ask did I call you insane or question your mental health in any sentence PMB?

I have clearly got your back up but now you are accusing me of something that is totally off the planet because nowhere in the whole thread before AR2's comment was there anything about mental health not even remotely.

So you have made an accusation provide evidence can you please show me the offensive sentence because I am sure you have miss read something?

Orac, you don't understand what Rose and pmb are talking about when they complain about you use of 'sanity'. You say that you are using it in a perfectly normal way. Well, since at least 2 people don't understand what you mean by it that should tell you that it is a poor use of the word. To correct the problem just find a different way to say whatever you are trying to say. Try using words that don't have any negative connotation, even if they have a meaning that you think is appropriate.

Bill Gill

Yes I already did that in a post response above I cut a comment, Bill.

I will avoid the word, I did not know it was a sensitive word to some, I use it routinely at work so it is something that I have to consciously try because "sanity values", "sanity tests on a parameter or result" "put sanity under" etc are standard expressions for me. I wasn't aware it was almost a swear word to some/anyone and hence it's rattled me a bit because I have used it for years without comment before. If I am responding to a post without thinking hard it may slip which actually worries me, I am sure I will have used the expressions historically in other posts.

When AR2 first responded I thought she had just read the word sanity and in skimming through just assumed definition 1. I was still a bit shocked because it was out there to me because if you actually read any sentence which I use the word in, the use of it is clear.

As you say PMB also seems offended and so I need to clear up with PMB the issue because he totally got the wrong end of one of my comments.

So I am trying to

(A) avoid the use of that word
(B) clean up the mess to show I am taking it seriously
(C) find any offensive sentences and work out how I could translate it better.

I don't know how by action I could show I am taking the matter any more seriously even if I am slightly stunned by it all because until the reply post to AR2 the issue of mental health of anyone was not even jokingly referred to by me in this thread.

Why do you assume that I'm so stupid as not to know that? It's the word itself that is offensive since it refers to mental health. First off you've taken a word that refers to mental health and have used it for an altered meaning. That in itself is ridiculous because it tells me that you don't know how to explain yourself using regular English to your using a poor bastardized version of it. I.e. you're not using it as the term is defined in the dictionary. The best I can figure out is that you're referring to reasonableness or logical but for some sad reason, perhaps you have a need to impress someone with what you think is a clever play on words, you have to change it to a use that nobody on earth uses except you.

The reason its offensive is something you’re having a hard time understanding so let me give you an analogy; Suppose there are some posters here who live normal lives and are otherwise highly intelligent but have mental health issues, namely they suffer from paranoia which is a thought process believed to be heavily influenced by anxiety or fear, often to the point of irrationality and delusion. Now suppose that person posts in a forum where some jerk is using the term “paranoid” to refer someone who, perhaps rightly so, questions their behavior. That’s a term people toss around lightly because they don’t realize that people with actual problems are around and are being offended by hearing all this kind of talk. I.e. some jerk calls someone paranoid because they saw right through his veiled attempt at harassing behavior and who tried to cover it up by claiming the other person is “paranoid.” The point is that people can be hurt by it. Same with you. What if there are people posting here who have mental health problems and all they’re seeing you do is using the term “sanity” is a rather light and childish way, while you could be hurting someone who comes here to forget their problems.

The fact is that you don’t need to use that term and you certainly aren’t using it correctly, so knock it off!

Why do we have to keep telling you the obvious???

That is exactly the meaning that is intended where I used the word



Sorry there was no play it is an expression(s) we use in my circle of work and friends routinely and is interpreted exactly as per your meaning above,it may have become a bit like the teens use "cool", "rad" etc by looks.



I have stopped using it PMB because it is blatantly obvious it offends you and others.

You had to tell me because it wasn't obvious to me, I use the expression routinely.

You have now explained it is the word itself is the problem not something contextual within a sentence so I can simply avoid the word. I will do my best but I am slightly worried because if I don't think it may slip because I really do use it a lot.

If you go back to AR2's response it is not clear the word itself was inappropriate so I thought it was something contextual that AR2 was reading.

I can't fix what I don't understand and "using a poor bastardized version" of English is because it is not my first language and I started on this forum expressly to try and improve my English as I am sure Bill and AR2 can verify it was my first thing I explained in my very first post.

You can't improve your language skills without interaction and this is one of those cases where I am trying to understand where it all went wrong.

distance --> 299,792,458 meters

time ------> 1 second

299,792,458 m / s

Orac, you might want to brush up on basic physics.

velocity requires distance , time , and direction.

speed requires only distance and time.

cheers

PMB


I was just wondering , do you have any reservations
about the math below?




ie..do you believe that either of the two equations above
could ever deliver a correct answer due to the underlined math?

ie..

(1-v^2/c^2) = 0 or a number lower than c.

(1-1^2/1^2) = 0

(1-299,792,458 m/s^2 / 299,792,458 m/s ^2) = 0

in the example above the velocity is c
yet the math reduces the velocity to below c.

9,333 x c.

I'd like to make a recommendation. If you want someones advice then don't accuse them of being part of a "pissing contest." It's a sure fire way of not getting what you're looking for.

when you look in a mirror do you see your reflection or
something that you perceive yourself to be?

I call it as I see it , no sugar coating , no cult beliefs
standing in the way of what I say.

I dont fear reprisal from my peers , and when I used the term
pissing contest I meant just that.

I know from past experience what having a pissing contest with
orac looks like.

and if you dont feel comfortable answering any questions of
mine then dont , at least I have provided you a safe way out.

right

you did say you are an expert on SR , and an expert in a
study that has been built on a foundation that consist
of conjured math probably wouldnt feel comfortable discussing
the very thing that allows his expertise to remain valuable.

Paul, That actually looks just exactly right. Although you seem to be slightly misinterpreting the result. What this leads to in the total equation is that you find that you wind up dividing by zero. This of course is not allowed, because it means that your answer is: x/0 = infinity. So the mass m becomes infinite. Since it would take infinite energy to accelerate anything with a mass m_0 greater than 0 to a speed of C then you can't do it. Since light has an m_0 = 0 then you wind up with the mass m still = m_0, or 0. In this case you are still dividing by zero, but what you are dividing by zero is zero, that is; 0/0 = 1, because any number divided by itself is 1. And any number multiplied by zero is zero.

I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that the speed is reduced below C. In fact the speed is canceled out in the division and you have a dimensionless number. There is no speed in the answer, all you have is mass.

Bill Gill

Orac posted provoking comments. I responded out of frustration. That's the difference that you're proving that your unable to understand. Now you're staring in with comments intended to provoke and that's why I've reported them to the moderator. If the day comes when you get back to physics only and cease this childish nonsense, let me know. Otherwise I have nothing to do with people who act like you're now acting.

not that I believe that relativistic mass has anything to
do with reality but you should realize that.

relativistic mass m_r is different from invariant mass m_0

the invariant mass m_0 of a particle is independent of its velocity v, relativistic mass m_r increases with velocity and tends to infinity as the velocity approaches the speed of light c.



LOL , if thats always going to be the answwer then why not
simply use

m = m_0/0

and leave the useless rest of the equation out of it.



the problem is that .999999991 c is really very close to c.

can we actually account for the energy input that accelerates the proton to that speed in the LHC?

not counting any of the energy that is used other than the actual acceleration itself.

in other words does the earth experience a total blackout
when the LHC is accelerating a proton from
.999999990 to .999999991 c?

I really dont think so , in fact a tiny amount of energy is
required to accelerate the proton and all of this fabricated
math requires more energy than any portion of the earths energy that the LHC has ever used.

the energy of the latest record breaking collision was 14 Tev

but lets light that up with a comparison to a 100 watt light bulb.

14 Tev = 0.000014 J

100 watts / second = 100 joules / second

the energy required to light up one 100 watt light bulb for 1 second is enough to perform 7,142,857.14 of the 14 Tev LHC collisions.

so that extra 0.000000001 m/s to reach c would require all the remaining energy in the multiverse?

I dont think so.

the math guides you to believing that the speed can not increase to c , but then it leads you to believe that the
accelerated particles mass can increase infinitely.

thats some pretty far fetched stuff to be believing in.

I havent ever heard of an example of mass increasing due to speed.

do you know of any real world examples of mass increasing due to increasing speed?

now if relativistic mass m_r is not really to be confused
with actual real world invariant mass m_0 then Im ok with it.

because that would mean that all this talk of matter becoming
so massive as it approaches c that there isnt enough energy in the multiverse to accelerate
matter further to c would all be used in a relativistic sense and would have nothing to do with reality.

prehaps the terminology needs clarification.



http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pissing%20contest



I would say that the terminology that I used perfectly aligned itself as a clear and meaningful description
of the post that you and orac were trading back and forth.

I know , because I have traded post with orac in the same manner.

Anyone have problem to add below three drawings

and repeat MICHELSON MORLEY but BRIGHTNESS VERSION

Light it is not flat line but 3D ball !!!





1930 Tolman surface brightness test
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolman_surface_brightness_test





ONE astronomer ESCAPE from point 1 ,2,3,4,
Next astronomer Go opposite to Light

who will register more biger brightness of the same bulb ?

NOT EXIST C + 30 km/s !!!
for distance L2 or L1 light need short time T1 and T2

during light is going to astronomer - astronomer is moving with Earth

VERY IMPORTANT ANIMATION ( in my test I have two astronomers !!! )

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6d/Aberrationlighttimebeaming.gif

ONE simply test

MICHESON MORLEY - BRIGHTNESS EDITION !!!!


Brightness = Energy / Area = Jouls / mm^2

I must have missed that. The answer is no, but I have a thick skin, even Pre didn't succeed in getting an insult through.

We Have Einstein's train and station

inside train is bulb at the end of train we have SENSORS

(to start Senor that will open door we need
energy Estart = A * T [Joules /mm2 ] * sec )

Many people who designe similar sensor know that we can
change sensitive of the sensor by changing Time or Intensity of the signal

What Is it Intensity of the signal ?


More far from place where
the signal started = lower intensity of signal
( "lower brightness" )
1R = brightness X , 2R = brightness X/4 , 3R = X/9
X- brightness, R- radius
the same energy portion but different area


What happen if Bulb is moving in space
below oryginal Doppler's drawing


The bulb is sending 3D wave from each new point in space where is ,was, and will be ..

Rear sensor and Front Sensor inside train is feel in one and the same time different Intensity of the signal



sensor..........bulb...........sensor ++++ motion

The DOORS wait for Sensor signal
;please open
,
,
Senor wait for energy portion Estart Joules-
.
.
the doors will be open for observer inide
train not in one and the same time !!!

Einstein made huge mistake
light it is not FLAT line but 3D Signal
to open door sensor need Energy portion Estart

Intensity of the signal is different for front and rear sensor

first test in HOME 2012 poland
30 km-s Earth around the Sun

C constant determinate direction
below I showed strait line
graph explain what will register Front and Rear sensor
How many joules per mm2