KASASpace Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 I said V/C=1, because C and V are the same; that applies whatever value they have.It's not 'undefined' or zero.Well, it jsut happens that "V/C" looks like "V and C" and would thus screw up everything you're trying to prove. Then I correlated it with the equation.Now, where'd he get the one?BTW, do you know what undefined is? Where'd you get your math taught? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brotoro Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Photons do not have mass, despite having momentum.Two variables can equal each other.Earth's magnetic field will not render lasers ineffective weapons by changing the trajectories of their beams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brenok Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 The Dunning-Kruger is strong with this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Now, where'd he get the one?He in turn ultimately derived it from Maxwell's equations, but that's not really relevant here. Special relativity is accepted fact with huge amounts of evidence behind it-if you don't believe that, just try and derive your figure for the energy required to acclerate a proton a few pages back using classical kinetic energy equations.BTW, do you know what undefined is? Where'd you get your math taught?It does have a defined value. I'm just not saying what it is because I want to work out at least one thing by yourself here, however small. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KASASpace Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 The Dunning-Kruger is strong with this one.To whom are you referring? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KASASpace Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Photons do not have mass, despite having momentum.Two variables can equal each other.Earth's magnetic field will not render lasers ineffective weapons by changing the trajectories of their beams.Please cite your sources, otherwise I will not accept any of these (save those proven) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KASASpace Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 He in turn ultimately derived it from Maxwell's equations, but that's not really relevant here. Special relativity is accepted fact with huge amounts of evidence behind it-if you don't believe that, just try and derive your figure for the energy required to acclerate a proton a few pages back using classical kinetic energy equations.It does have a defined value. I'm just not saying what it is because I want to work out at least one thing by yourself here, however small.So, some theory that has "proof" in the form of smidges is widely accepted? Explain, please.And you can't multiply anything by zero to get the numerator in such a situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SargeRho Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 (edited) Geostationary Sattelites have to adjust their atomic clocks's rate due to relativistic effects. Also gravitational lensing can be observed with the Sun. Stars seem to shift their position when the line of sight between someone on Earth and that star runs close by the Sun, coincidentally so by EXACTLY as much as Einstein predicted.MoreGravitational Lensing Edited February 8, 2014 by SargeRho Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KASASpace Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Geostationary Sattelites have to adjust their atomic clocks's rate due to relativistic effects. Also gravitational lensing can be observed with the Sun. Stars seem to shift their position when the line of sight between someone on Earth and that star runs close by the Sun, coincidentally so by EXACTLY as much as Einstein predicted.Morehttp://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/11/A_Horseshoe_Einstein_Ring_from_Hubble.JPGGravitational Lensinghttp://astrobob.areavoices.com/files/2011/04/Gravitational-lensing-Abell-383-Hubble-1024x728.jpgThat still doesn't explain how he got his equations. And it could be caused by YET another theory. It's happened before, and WILL happen again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 So, some theory that has "proof" in the form of smidges is widely accepted? Explain, please.It is if nobody has a better explanation, as was the case with maxwell's equations, but that's not really necessary here. There are plenty of tests that have been done to show relativistic effects, such as every single high-energy particle accelerator run since the 20s. Plenty of activities are sensitive enough we even have to precisely account for relativistic effects; for example it's possible to measurably render an atomic clock out of sync just by sending it on a plane journey.And you can't multiply anything by zero to get the numerator in such a situation.You can. There is a value you can multiply by zero to get a real value (in fact any real value), just not a specific one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrewas Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Please cite your sources, otherwise I will not accept any of these (save those proven)Are you seriously arguing that you can't have two variables with the same value? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KASASpace Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Are you seriously arguing that you can't have two variables with the same value?Nor divide by zero. Anything times zero = zero. Unless you "say" infinity.But infinity is zero.As all numbers added are zero.Zero is everything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brenok Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Are you seriously arguing that you can't have two variables with the same value?Just moments ago, he was calling Einstein an idiot, I think anything goes in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Unless you "say" infinity.THEREThat's the answer, finally. It would take an infinite amount of energy to bring a massive object to the speed of light. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KASASpace Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 THEREThat's the answer, finally. It would take an infinite amount of energy to bring a massive object to the speed of light.But did you read the rest? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 But did you read the rest?Yes, it was nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brenok Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 But did you read the rest?What IS your claim, after all? That Einstein and everyone else were wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KASASpace Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 What IS your claim, after all? That Einstein and everyone else were wrong?MY claim?Photons have mass.It's possible Einstein was wrong, like EVERY, OTHER, THEORY.And the math of Einstein in that equation is complete and utter bull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KASASpace Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Yes, it was nonsense.What's 1+(-1)?What's 2+-2?What's 1+2+-2+-1?Now that we went through that, what is all (real) numbers added together?Infinity, which is zero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 And the math of Einstein in that equation is complete and utter bull.Then why have we failed to accelerate massive particles above the speed of light? After all, we've been able to hit 'nearly' the speed of light since the '40s.Now that we went through that, what is all (real) numbers added together?That's not how infinity is defined. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brenok Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 What's 1+(-1)?ZeroWhat's 2+-2?ZeroWhat's 1+2+-2+-1?ZeroNow that we went through that, what is all (real) numbers added together?Undefined, infinity, or -1/12, depending on how you look at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seret Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 MY claim?Photons have mass.It's possible Einstein was wrong, like EVERY, OTHER, THEORY.And the math of Einstein in that equation is complete and utter bull.Ok, pretty sure you're just trolling now. See ya! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KASASpace Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Then why have we failed to accelerate massive particles above the speed of light? After all, we've been able to hit 'nearly' the speed of light since the '40s.That's not how infinity is defined.Limits to power. We need better superconductors!Then how is infinity defined, HMM?Perhaps we need a new definition..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KASASpace Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 ZeroZeroZeroUndefined, infinity, or -1/12, depending on how you look at it.Undefined?Zero.Same as the others.Zero times zero is zero.Thus Einstein, was wrong, about the energy needed to reach light speed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted February 8, 2014 Share Posted February 8, 2014 Then how is infinity defined, HMM?Perhaps we need a new definition.....This isn't even remotely relevant to the point. Reality has been shown to conform to the equation to the limits of measurement, you can't try and disprove the equation with inaccurate definitions your maths teacher gave you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts