Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 39 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 7 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: paul
you only wanted me to define energy.


It doesn't matter they both disappear down the same hole.

Originally Posted By: paul
yes it does mean that there is no energy.


But your no energy could actually be some energy because the whole universe could be moving together how would you know? You can only judge by what you can observe, there is no way to prove it isn't moving and no way to measure zero energy smile

See the issue you aren't a GOD there is no way you will ever be able to tell when there is exactly zero energy under your definition. Your zero energy is just a random position you are calling zero very much like zero degree fahrenheit.

Your whole idea hinges around something you can only guess at unless you can circumnavigate the universe, you may well be going down the flat earth path smile

Last edited by Orac; 07/09/14 10:15 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Paul
yes it does mean that there is no energy.


Are we defining stationary (ie no movement) as including zero motion within subatomic particles?

Paul, I assume that as a "QM denier" you would have no problem with temperature reaching 0K.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
It doesn't matter they both disappear down the same hole.


perhaps your only hope would be if you could bribe the dungeon master into conjuring up the dark lord cashmere to pop something in your favor into existence.

your question to me...

Originally Posted By: orac
if everything in the universe stopped moving does that mean there is zero energy?


your reply to me...

Quote:
the whole universe could be moving together how would you know?


how would I know?
you propose a situation for me to consider , then as a defense
to your proposition you state that I could not know.

when your proposition questioned if there would be any
energy if the whole universe had no motion.

so , your wrong again , I do know because your proposition
requires no motion.

that's like asking someone to add 1 and 1 , then when they
answer with 2 , you say that there is only 1 so you cant add.

you need to remember that I don't concern myself with the
fantasy world that you surround yourself with so when you
ask me a question you need to remember that I don't have
access to the fantasy , so I cant respond with a fantastic
reply as your peers can , due to their lack of logic and
their reality slippage.

Quote:
But your no energy could actually be some energy because the whole universe could be moving


I think the fantasy you surround yourself with is getting entangled with your reality.








3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Bill S

Quote:
Are we defining stationary (ie no movement) as including zero motion within subatomic particles?


exactly.

Quote:

Paul, I assume that as a "QM denier" you would have no problem with temperature reaching 0K.


its not really that I deny QM , its the fantasy included that
I deny , and the math.

I certainly do not deny that the quanta with all of its unknowns exist , but I do not believe that fantasy would be the
proper path to take during the dig to expose the diverse members of the quanta.

as far as temperature reaching 0K , it would be really close to
impossible due to heat transfer.

but 0 Kelvin has almost been achieved.















3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
I think you are trying to avoid the problem Paul smile

All I am saying if you define zero energy as no movement then your zero doesn't exist because there is no way you can tell if you are moving.

You have to be aware sitting at your computer you are spinning and twirling thru space at some horrific speed!!!!!

There is also no device you can make that will tell you that you are moving at constant speed in space.

So your physics you have created around your energy definition is therefore totally abstract you can't relate it to anything because you can't tell when you are moving in space and hence you have no real zero.

Don't feel bad normal classical physics goes down the same rabbit hole, the problem isn't unique to your physics.

The only way to sort of solidify things a bit is to fix the reference somehow. In normal physics they do it by using the speed of light which they say is the same for all observers. I have no idea how you want to do it in your physics but that is what is required if you want your zero to be real.

So explaining done let us ask the question which becomes this, you are out in deep space there is not even any star light you can see it is too dim.

What is the reference for being able to tell if you are moving in your physics?

Last edited by Orac; 07/09/14 04:41 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136


Quote:
All I am saying if you define zero energy as no movement then your zero doesn't exist because there is no way you can tell if you are moving.


that is exactly correct , orac.

without motion , human beings could not tell.

without motion , measuring instruments could not detect.

no thing could work , as even work requires motion.

Quote:
because there is no way you can tell if you are moving.


for starters , orac
your question stated that everything in the universe had
stopped.

do you quacks have some other definition for the word stopped?

ie... does stopped actually mean unstoppable , as in the pulling force that pushes everything away?

you may not realize it , orac , but in science an observer does not need to be a physical being or a physical piece of detection equipment.

and in your question an observer would detect zero energy
because there would be zero motion in the universe.

Im going to guess that you never studied physics before
you started trying to understand the quackery stuff.

this is why you quacks can always be defeated by people
who own logic.

Quote:
Don't feel bad normal classical physics goes down the same rabbit hole, the problem isn't unique to your physics.


classical physics has no problems , but the fake physics that
you hold so dear is falling apart at the seams , even the quacks at the top of the cult are positioning themselves for
a type of coup detat that will determine the beliefs that the
followers in the cult will be allowed to believe.

and don't worry yourself about my feelings , orac.

you have never made me feel bad , I have often thought
about how it would feel to be as stupid as you are however and being that stupid would probably make me feel bad , but I don't think its possible that I will ever be as stupid as you are , so you shouldn't worry about my feelings.

Quote:
What is the reference for being able to tell if you are moving in your physics?


my physics does not have constraints on an observation point of reference , I can have an observer at a single point or I can have a observer at any number of points.

this has no bearing on the question that you asked.

because your question requires zero motion.

I don't really need an observer , tell you what ask your
cult friends if they will help you out in the forum , you certainly could use some help , get all the cult members together and form a group that will attempt to disprove
what I say.

I can go ahead and say that just as humpty dumpty has fallen
off the wall and all the kings horses and all the kings men couldn't put humpty together again , so goes your cult down
the rabit hole as you call it.

hows that?




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Again you haven't answered the question or posed a new one I thought that was the new rules. We aren't talking about QM or science or anything else we are talking about your physics. I am not interested in those other ones I understand how they all work and resolve this issue and I even had to clarify it for Bill G and Rede if you bring in dark energy.

Rose would you care to step in and explain the new forum rules again to Paul? His posts above clearly meets all the criteria we aren't allowed to do.

The question is simple Paul under your physics how do I tell if I am moving or not?

The issue is real as you sit there typing your reply on the screen thinking you are stationary and therefore zero energy under your physics. The reality is you are moving and therefore under your same physics your energy is not zero.

So simple question as you sit there do you have energy or not Paul?

So to be clear, I am not remotely interested in QM, Bill and Rede sanctioned science, classical science or any other version of science except your version, I want to see how you resolve the problem of movement since that defines energy for you. Even Marosz knows he has to answer this basic problem and it needs to be addressed.

Last edited by Orac; 07/10/14 03:48 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
not this time , orac.

you ask me a question , then when I answer your question you
pretend that you meant something else.

and you try to make it look as if you were right about it all
along.

we started off with you asking me what energy was.

I answered your question then you proceeded to make it look
as though I was wrong , then you changed the subject to
another question which was would there be any energy if
the universe had stopped.

I answered , and you still proceeded to try to make it look
as though I was wrong , and now your changing the question
again.

Quote:
The question is simple Paul under your physics how do I tell if I am moving or not?


and yet another question below.

Quote:
So simple question as you sit there do you have energy or not Paul?


what needs to happen first if we are going to have a discussion is you are going to have to admit that you
were wrong when you tried to make it look as if I was wrong.

I cant see any point in answering your questions only to
have you dream up another silly question to ask in order
to try and avoid or dodge admitting that you are wrong.

Quote:
Again you haven't answered the question


I have answered all, of your questions so far.

but , I will not answer any more until you stop acting
like a little child when someone tells you something
that you do not agree with.

heres something else that you are wrong about...of course.

Quote:
There is also no device you can make that will tell you that you are moving at constant speed in space.


1) you cant define energy , but I have.

2) you didnt know that there would be no energy if everything in the universe stopped.

3) I never have moved at a constant speed , nor have you.

4) you cant win.




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Ah so I see when when I do exactly what you and Rose asked and just ask questions then I am also doing it all wrong. It's weird everyone wants me just to ask questions and when I do I still get in trouble. Obviosuly I ask the wrong questions smile

I even refined the question down as exactly as I could because you were off on a tangent that really wasn't the bit I couldn't understand. You are trying to explain your argument to me aren't you? I understand all your other stuff that QM and science is fake but I don't get the bit around zero energy in your argument at all.

Remember I am not agreeing or disagreeing with anything you say because that would get a complaint from you. Hell if you want I will agree with anything you say just to avoid the issue, so Paul I believe you, if thats important to you. All I am doing is asking for you to explain your idea so I can understand it and obey the rules I have been given for posting.

So I guess I am sorry I didn't know I was only supposed to ask specific questions. Perhaps you could list what is okay to ask so I don't cause problems.

Now, one I am really interested in is you have suggested that there is some device that can detect constant motion. So that begs a simple answer and so I will give a simple question which hopefully is on the sanctioned list.

Paul, what device do you know of that can detect smooth constant motion?

An interesting observation is I am the only one on the forum ever wrong. Marosz, Paul, Bill G, Rede they are always right so I am struggling to keep up with what I am supposed to believe today so cut me some slack. I am running out of room on my byline smile

Last edited by Orac; 07/10/14 07:58 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Ah so I see when when I do exactly what you and Rose asked and just ask questions then I am also doing it all wrong. It's weird everyone wants me just to ask questions and when I do I still get in trouble. Obviosuly I ask the wrong questions


its not that your asking the wrong questions.

Quote:
I even refined the question down as exactly as I could because you were off on a tangent that really wasn't the bit I couldn't understand. You are trying to explain your argument to me aren't you? I understand all your other stuff that QM and science is fake but I don't get the bit around zero energy in your argument at all.


that's the problem , you refine the question without stating
that your original question was not what you wanted to ask
and you do that because I give you an answer that you don't like or understand.

when someone answers a question that you ask him to
answer , you should acknowledge that either you agree or you disagree and if you disagree you should express why you disagree and the reason you disagree.

you shouldn't simply refine the question without giving a reason for the refinements.

Quote:
Remember I am not agreeing or disagreeing with anything you say because that would get a complaint from you. Hell if you want I will agree with anything you say just to avoid the issue, so Paul I believe you, if thats important to you. All I am doing is asking for you to explain your idea so I can understand it and obey the rules I have been given for posting.


if you don't express that you agree or disagree with the
answers that I supply and all you do is extend or modify or
completely change the question then that tells me that you
are avoiding admitting that you were wrong in your assumption
of an expected answer from me , but you never do acknowledge
the answer you merely change the question as if you are leveraging the previous question in hopes that the current question will receive a answer that you will appreciate or will somehow lessen the impact of your original question.

Quote:
So I guess I am sorry I didn't know I was only supposed to ask specific questions. Perhaps you could list what is okay to ask so I don't cause problems.


your not supposed to ask specific questions.
but you should ask questions that are relevant to the topic.

Quote:
Now, one I am really interested in is you have suggested that there is some device that can detect constant motion. So that begs a simple answer and so I will give a simple question which hopefully is on the sanctioned list.

Paul, what device do you know of that can detect smooth constant motion?


Im not certain , orac , but I believe that the below is what
you based and constructed your above comments and question from.

Quote:
3) I never have moved at a constant speed , nor have you.


I am on a planet that rotates each 24 hour period.
I am on a planet that orbits around a sun each 365 day period.
that sun is located in a arm of a galaxy that is orbiting round its center.
that galaxy is traveling through the universe.


I have never been in constant linear motion.
I have never been in constant angular motion.
I have never moved at a constant speed in one direction.

therefore

I have never moved at a constant speed.

Quote:
An interesting observation is I am the only one on the forum ever wrong. Marosz, Paul, Bill G, Rede they are always right so I am struggling to keep up with what I am supposed to believe today so cut me some slack. I am running out of room on my byline smile


you could save some space in your tag line by simply
putting a one word description in it.

can I supply the word?




3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Orac
Ah so I see when when I do exactly what you and Rose asked and just ask questions then I am also doing it all wrong. It's weird everyone wants me just to ask questions and when I do I still get in trouble. Obviosuly I ask the wrong questions

Orac, it isn't so much what you say as how you say it. I think you would find that if what you said was more conversational and not a bunch of snide remarks then your comments would be much more acceptable.

Also if you made some brief explanation of what you are trying to say it would make it a lot easier for others, including myself, to understand your position. Just saying somebody is wrong doesn't help much without a clear explanation of why they are wrong.

Personally I am here to a certain extent to show off how smart I am. But I want to do that by helping other people understand science in all of its applications. Just dazzling people with my great intellect doesn't do much to help others. I really try not to make comments that are basically a snow job.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: paul
when someone answers a question that you ask him to
answer , you should acknowledge that either you agree or you disagree and if you disagree you should express why you disagree and the reason you disagree.

Ummm if I give my reason for disagreement you complain because a lot of the time it is because your logic makes no sense. This goes back to when you complained to Rose and even she describes it as silly, so how would you like me to deal with such issues?

Originally Posted By: paul
you shouldn't simply refine the question without giving a reason for the refinements.

The reason for the refinement is I don't understand the answer. How do I explain something I don't understand.

Your zero energy thing makes NO SENSE TO ME. It is one of the silly things that can't be argued because you can't tell when you are moving unless you are accelerating or decelerating. Marosz is about the only one who claims different but all his experiments fail.

Originally Posted By: paul
your not supposed to ask specific questions.
but you should ask questions that are relevant to the topic.

Ah so now I am to ask questions but not specific questions. I see so basically as long as I don't ask about the bits in an argument that make no sense it's fine, is that about it.

Originally Posted By: paul
I never have moved at a constant speed , nor have you.

I am on a planet that rotates each 24 hour period.
I am on a planet that orbits around a sun each 365 day period.
that sun is located in a arm of a galaxy that is orbiting round its center.
that galaxy is traveling through the universe.

All of that is true but if you could build this wonderful device it would therefore act like a motion compass. Think carefully it should specifically show you are moving in the motions you describe it is not hard to follow the logic.

So your answer is like saying wow I never know which way I am facing so a compass wouldn't be useful.

So the question stands and I will refine it do you know of a device that could act as a motion compass?

You need to think and reverse problems sometimes Paul to see that the answer matters and may be important. A little lesson in that for you as I catch you out with it a lot. Motion includes a direction so if you can detect it you have yourself a compass which science would be very excited about.


Originally Posted By: paul
you could save some space in your tag line by simply putting a one word description in it.

can I supply the word?
The question is why you think it matters what you think of me smile

Last edited by Orac; 07/11/14 02:23 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill
Orac, it isn't so much what you say as how you say it. I think you would find that if what you said was more conversational and not a bunch of snide remarks then your comments would be much more acceptable.
They are only snide because you guys are never wrong... oh wait smile

Originally Posted By: Bill
Also if you made some brief explanation of what you are trying to say it would make it a lot easier for others, including myself, to understand your position. Just saying somebody is wrong doesn't help much without a clear explanation of why they are wrong.
Oh no not going to fall for that again.

An example I explained in detail to you and Rede the technical problem dark energy gives. Admit it neither of you even bothered to try and understand it you simply brushed it off as piffle I think was the comment. The joke was I was simply detailing the standard cosmology logic (which I actually don't buy either) but it put you and Rede at odds with standard cosmology. It was always going to be wrong just because I said it and so I played a little joke on you and Rede and you took it hook line and sinker.

The other issue I have is not one of you can even correctly get my position. You for example always totally misrepresent my position on GR and QM even when I have corrected you numerous times.

Originally Posted By: Bill
Personally I am here to a certain extent to show off how smart I am. But I want to do that by helping other people understand science in all of its applications. Just dazzling people with my great intellect doesn't do much to help others. I really try not to make comments that are basically a snow job.
The problem is sometimes your answers aren't a help they actually badly wrong and unhelpful and you are prejudging answers by who said them. Both you and Rede fell for my little joke because of that problem.

Paul for all his religious bias etc does sometimes give sensible answers and I feel at times you end up in strange positions just because he said them as well.

For my part I don't ever think there is a right answer or that I know it, it is the way I practice science. There is always just less wrong answers which are the ones you can not falsify. I don't have in and out boxes in science and a standard views, there is only one box which is stuff I know not to be false and throw everything else out. It may not be the way you or Rede want science to work, but I am sorry to say I don't care it is the way I do it and you don't get a vote.

Paul wants his little tantrum rant about how science ate his GOD so I sort of understand how he acts. You have changed over the period and now dig into weird almost totally crazy positions. At times I find it hard to differentiate you from Paul, and so yes all I can often muster is a jibe at you to see if you actually get it that you have become him.

For me the forum is somewhere to practice a bit of English on subjects that may interest me. I will push people to read things if they are interested and try to point out things that have been falsified if people give clearly wrong answers.

Last edited by Orac; 07/11/14 01:32 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
All that reminded me of a Russian school of science joke I will share.

A mathematician, Western physicist and a Russian physicist are challenged to build a fence around a flock of sheep using as little material as possible.

The mathematician forms the flock into a circular shape and constructs a fence around knowing the circle is the most compact shape to boundary of any standard shape.

The Western physicist builds a fence with a massive diameter and pulls it tighter and tighter until it fits the flock because he knows this allows for uneven size and gives the best fit actually possible.

The Russian physicist thinks for a bit then builds a fence around himself and defines where he is standing as the outside.


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
that you have become him.


ok, Bill , if you are now me , then who is rede?

or is rede you and I am rede?

I feel the same , dont I , do I feel ok , uh...Paul?

orac , this is Bill or Rede but not Paul because we havent
yet determined who I am yet , anyway , I started reading your short story above , but my eyes became tired from all the crying.


























(sometimes I cry when I laugh too heavily and too often)








3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Was there a question in that Paul? You know the forum rules don't you smile

So the question I guess I could ask to stay on forum rules is why do you think I would care what you think? Is that too specific do I need to make it more general?

I think that may be the start point to think about if we are going down this path. Funny enough the answer doesn't change if you are Bill, Rede or Paul. So you be whoever you want to be Paul it's perfectly fine with me and I don't mind your crying. smile

If TT is around I am sure he can tell me why I should care and that deep down I really do care etc because of my ego blah blah blah.

Now lets get serious are you ever going to get back to actually explaining about the motion/energy problem and what you know about a motion compass?

That was actually interesting and actually about science and on topic.

Last edited by Orac; 07/11/14 06:04 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: newton
bulb -------150 000 000 km ----------------earth (ZERO motion)..

Marosz POLAND 2012


I dont know what you guys are arguing about. Obviously Marosz has identified zero motion.Its in Poland!!!


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
You haven't missed much it took 2 pages of posts to cover what really is very basic. So count your lucky stars you missed out.

Last edited by Orac; 07/11/14 05:37 PM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
P
paul Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
P
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 4,136
Quote:
Now lets get serious are you ever going to get back to actually explaining about the motion/energy problem and what you know about a motion compass?


what problem? , I wasn't aware that there was a problem.

could you please reveal the problem you are suggesting?


3/4 inch of dust build up on the moon in 4.527 billion years,LOL and QM is fantasy science.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Hmm lets see if I can dumb this down to layman level.

I think you agreed in the end you can't detect constant motion, you haven't offered us the legendary motion compass you sort of suggested exists. Detect motion or not detect motion makes no difference you need to be able to distinguish one state from the other to get a zero reference.

Why, well you are equating energy >> directly and only << to motion as I understand it and if you don't know where zero is then you can't equate two energies. Normal science resolves the reference in a very different way but lets ignore that for now because you have excluded that because of how you have defined energy and you don't believe science.

So if we can't work an common frame for your motion you can't equate energy between two sites. For example someone at the pole of earth is moving at a totally different rate to someone on the equator.

So lets turn this to a very American problem since you do love your guns. The bullet impact energy is due totally to it's energy of momentum and I think you agree with that.

So your theory says interesting things about the energy of a bullet for a gun fire at the pole and the equator. You are either going to have decide on a relative frame for energy or an absolute frame?

If you choose absolute space even our good mate Marosz recognizes the problem and suggests not only is it true but you can measure it. He kind of does a weird graphic most people don't get but it is the above problem he is expressing



Do you see why this would occur?

The bullet speed gets added to the velocity of the person shooting and so the absolute speed of the bullet on the equator is faster than then the person shooting at the pole viewed to some absolute space.

The other choice is a relative reference frame for energy which at least makes the energy of impact the same in both cases but at a cost. The cost is energy is relative so there is no zero except at a local reference to you.

The relative frame probably doesn't sound like a problem initially but to give you the layman version of the problem. Try spending your US dollars in some back street in China which doesn't have foreign exchange capabilities.

Science goes with the relative option but now we have to somehow equate energies. We need foreign currency exchange everywhere even the back blocks of China because energy is everywhere.

You can't solve the problem under your definition do you see why?

Hint: You only have motion to do it because look how you defined energy >> as only motion << smile

That is why your energy is only motion MAKES NO SENSE to me.

I am left with two choices in the end
1.) it's a very silly idea badly thought out
2.) What you call energy is not the same thing I call energy.

Last edited by Orac; 07/12/14 04:39 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Page 7 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokW
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5