Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/7


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Existence
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 299 of 1229 (616987)
05-25-2011 1:25 PM


A creationist is having trouble comprehending the finer points of Relativity!?
Gee, what are the odds?

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 347 of 1229 (618221)
06-02-2011 10:17 AM
Reply to: Message 346 by Jaderis
06-02-2011 3:45 AM


more dilatable non-objects
You can use drugs to dilate your mind.
You can use a Taylor Series to dilate a mathematical function.
You can dilate a claim into an argument.
You can dilate the stupidity ICANT spews by responding to him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 346 by Jaderis, posted 06-02-2011 3:45 AM Jaderis has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 353 of 1229 (618241)
06-02-2011 12:10 PM
Reply to: Message 350 by ICANT
06-02-2011 11:39 AM


Re: Existence=?????
If there was non-existence how did existence begin to exist.
Two half-existences combined to make a whole one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 350 by ICANT, posted 06-02-2011 11:39 AM ICANT has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 424 of 1229 (618808)
06-06-2011 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 423 by AZPaul3
06-06-2011 12:08 AM


Re: ICANT's error part one
I just thought of something.
ICANT, are you being deliberately obtuse....
Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ding!
You hadn't realized this yet? I think I find out over a year ago...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 423 by AZPaul3, posted 06-06-2011 12:08 AM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 426 by AZPaul3, posted 06-06-2011 3:33 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 427 of 1229 (618837)
06-06-2011 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 426 by AZPaul3
06-06-2011 3:33 PM


Re: Troll It Is.
So he's not really this stupid but he is pulling our leg?
He's playing dumb and banking on you not fullfilling his unreasonable requests (but still, he's not really that smart).
Recall that he loves to claim that he's been posting something here for X-timeframe and nobody has shown where he's wrong yet. When they do show he's wrong, he backs up the goalpost a bit and plays dumb like he doesn't understand why he's already refuted.
The least he could have done is to put a smiley face in there.
No, no, no. That would break the illusion of sincerity and then he wouldn't get replies to defend himself against.
Unless your saying he is deliberately lying being intellectually dishonest and an insufferable troll.
Sort of, but not really. ICANT is *old*. He's happy with just tricking himself into maintaining the beliefs he's always had. (recall that he loves to claim that he figured this thing out when he was a kid and nobody's proved him wrong yet). He doesn't expect to convince anyone else, he just wants his position to be able to withstand any attack. If that means playing dumb to avoid a direct refutation then so be it.
He gets his jollies from appearing to all the world to be as dumb as a stump?
I figured this all out while debating my grandfather at his kitchen table. When its his turn to make a point, everybody better shut up and listen to him because its serious business and he has something important to say. When its your turn to make your point, its all fun and games and he jokes about whatever your saying and doesn't really pay attention much. Especially if its going to show he's wrong or make him rethink something. Its the same tactic ICANT uses.
Why would anyone do this? Does the man have no pride?
He does it to reinforce his beliefs. He's already got them a priori, now he'll put them up against the onslaught and when they survive and nobody's proved him wrong (because of the dishonesty he employs), then he can remain victorious and feel comfortible in holding a belief that he hasn't seen refuted yet in all these years

This message is a reply to:
 Message 426 by AZPaul3, posted 06-06-2011 3:33 PM AZPaul3 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 433 by AZPaul3, posted 06-07-2011 12:06 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 574 of 1229 (620413)
06-16-2011 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 565 by tesla
06-15-2011 4:45 PM


Re: black holes?
Because our universe is behaving exactly like water bubbles in a current.
Not really. How so? Simply on a superficial level?
You're really stretching on this one....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 565 by tesla, posted 06-15-2011 4:45 PM tesla has seen this message but not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 816 of 1229 (624877)
07-20-2011 2:00 PM
Reply to: Message 815 by ICANT
07-20-2011 1:32 PM


If you are driving down the road and shine a laser beam perpendicularly out of the side window, do you really excect the beam to curve backwards a little bit because you're moving forward!?
Or can you realize that the laser beam will remain perfectly straight?
Now if you had a dector on a pole...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 815 by ICANT, posted 07-20-2011 1:32 PM ICANT has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 964 of 1229 (627950)
08-05-2011 3:38 PM
Reply to: Message 962 by ICANT
08-05-2011 2:48 PM


Re: ICANT on inertial reference frames
Is Newton's first law which is
quote:
Newton's First Law states that an object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless acted upon by an external force.
incorporated and operational in postulate #1 of SR?
If so what external force do you apply to cause the pulse to travel at an angle?
Photons are not objects, they don't have rest mass, and are not subject to this law.
The detector cannot move relative to the car because its attached to it.
But yes, the thought you're having of the light moving at an angle should help. Since its an angle, its going to have to travel a longer distance than a perpindicular line.
Now, Velocity is distance over time. Since the distance is longer, and the velocity must remain constant, then the time component has to become larger. That is time-dilation.
Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 962 by ICANT, posted 08-05-2011 2:48 PM ICANT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 982 by NoNukes, posted 08-06-2011 10:41 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 966 of 1229 (627952)
08-05-2011 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 965 by ICANT
08-05-2011 3:41 PM


Re: ICANT on inertial reference frames
So the pulse will travel in a straight line path from the point it was emitted which will be 2 feet from the pole when the pulse reaches the 4 foot height the detector is from the roof of the car.
Therefore the pulse will miss the detector.
So that's your hypothesis. Now when you actually test it and you find that the puls *IS* hitting the detector, how are you going to explain your results?
You gonna have to use time dilation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 965 by ICANT, posted 08-05-2011 3:41 PM ICANT has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 983 of 1229 (628044)
08-06-2011 11:35 AM
Reply to: Message 982 by NoNukes
08-06-2011 10:41 AM


Re: ICANT on inertial reference frames
Just to be clear, despite being massless, photons do have momentum and changing a photons momentum does require force.
How can something without mass have momentum?
Heh, just add some mentum to it and there you go... Mo'-mentum.
But seriously...
What is going on here is that ICANT is still struggling to understand...
I'm sorry you believe that. I don't think that's what's going on at all. Relish the fact that the lurkers are benefiting so that when you realize that ICANT is playing a game here and has no intention of learning then you won't be so let down.
Within a given reference frame, the photon does not change direction.
Yeah, he seems to think that if you fire a laser out of your car window, then its going to curve off towards behind you. But that's just because he's caught himself up. He's not honest so I doubt he really thinks much of this stuff. I've debated him in the past... he's really old and stubborn and dishonest.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 982 by NoNukes, posted 08-06-2011 10:41 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1009 of 1229 (628761)
08-12-2011 2:51 PM
Reply to: Message 1007 by ICANT
08-12-2011 1:45 PM


Re: NoNukes on Inertial Reference Frames
You claim the pulse will not hit the D but will hit the S instead so please explain how the pulse changes directions, when it is emitted pointed at D.
The reference frame is moving.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1007 by ICANT, posted 08-12-2011 1:45 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1011 by ICANT, posted 08-12-2011 7:13 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1014 of 1229 (628836)
08-13-2011 11:26 AM
Reply to: Message 1011 by ICANT
08-12-2011 7:13 PM


You claim the pulse will not hit the D but will hit the S instead so please explain how the pulse changes directions, when it is emitted pointed at D.
Catholic Scientist writes:
The reference frame is moving.
Which reference frame is that?
The drivers reference frame inside the car?
Yup!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1011 by ICANT, posted 08-12-2011 7:13 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1015 by ICANT, posted 08-15-2011 12:50 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 1017 of 1229 (629064)
08-15-2011 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 1015 by ICANT
08-15-2011 12:50 PM


Re: Re Moving
The drivers reference frame inside the car is moving relative to what?
Everything else that is not within its reference frame.
That reference frame resides inside the car's reference frame and is at rest relative to the car's frame of reference.
And so are the laser and the detector. They are all motionless within the cars reference frame.
According to the laws of inertial that pulse must travel in a straight line from the point emitted in the direction the laser pen was pointed when the pulse was emitted.
Within a reference frame... that's the part you're not getting. And the laser and detector are not moving within the cars reference frame.
Its only when you have an observer in the reference frame of the ground, when they're watching the car go by and the laser beam hitting the detector, that we start to see any wierdness.
The direction that pulse is traveling can not be changed unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.
Within the cars reference frame, there's no need for force because nothing is moving.
Now if you know of some unbalanced force that acts upon the pulse to change it's direction after it is emitted to cause it to hit the S please present that force and it's source.
Think it through just a little bit further...
If the car moving across the salt flats means that the laser will miss the detector, then the fact that the earth is moving through the milky way would mean the same thing. Hell, I shouldn't even be able to read this monitor in front of me because we're both flying through the universe at millions of miles per hour! Why do you think that isn't happening?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1015 by ICANT, posted 08-15-2011 12:50 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1035 by ICANT, posted 08-16-2011 12:28 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1022 of 1229 (629083)
08-15-2011 3:56 PM
Reply to: Message 1021 by ICANT
08-15-2011 3:21 PM


Re: NoNukes on Inertial Reference Frames
I can't figure out how to draw the inside of the car with the tools I have.
It would just look like this:
Y
|
|
|
|
D
Niether the laser nor the detector are moving within this reference frame.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1021 by ICANT, posted 08-15-2011 3:21 PM ICANT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1024 by NoNukes, posted 08-15-2011 4:16 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 1030 by ICANT, posted 08-16-2011 11:25 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 1025 of 1229 (629092)
08-15-2011 4:32 PM
Reply to: Message 1024 by NoNukes
08-15-2011 4:16 PM


Niether the laser nor the detector are moving within this reference frame.
Not quite.
I think your answer is based on the old experiment. You are responding to a thought experiment where sensor S and detector D are both mounted on the tracks.
Oh, I didn't realize it was a different experiment. Whoops.
But you are right about the central issue here. You don't need to show the interior of a car to show the driver's reference frame. A simple X/Y coordinate drawing is all that you need. You can use the same drawing to show either the car's reference frame or the driver's reference frame.
This little animation that Taq provided us with is great!:
http://einstein.byu.edu/~masong/htmstuff/Clock2.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1024 by NoNukes, posted 08-15-2011 4:16 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1029 by ICANT, posted 08-16-2011 11:14 AM New Cat's Eye has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024