The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II

[JudgeRightly]

Obviously if we accept the formula and we add velocity of one car going in one direction at 60 mph with the other car also going 60 mph in the opposite direction we get 120 mph. My problem isn't math it's that the actual 60 mph is in relation to what is not moving which is the earth or ground beneath each car. The 120 mph removes the immovable ground but by doing that we have no bases for the 60 mph that 120 mph depends on.

I hope you get my point. Without "that which does not move" I can't get a speed/velocity for either car

Incorrect. You have a reference point that, relative to itself, is not moving. You don't need the ground to measure distance, just a way to measure distance.

so I have no numbers to add up in order to get a velocity for a relative speed of two cars/things.

SURE YOU DO! you have one car as your reference point, and the other car moving at 120 mph away from it. The ground has nothing to do with the relative velocities of two cars.

All reference points must be "fixed" and that means "immovable".

They ARE immovable, relative to themselves!

To the driver of one of the cars moving at 60mph relative to the earth, the earth is the object that's moving at 60 mph, while the car is stationary.

To an observer watching the car standing on the ground, the earth is motionless while the car moves.

If it were (and it's not) possible to stand on the poles of the sun, an observer at either would see the earth orbit the sun once every 365 days, while the sun wouldn't move.

Motion is relative, Dave.

The one observing, or the reference point he uses, is always considered motionless, even though it is moving.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Yes, in TWO different ways.

The earth does not need to be "immovable" to be used as a reference point.

It does move, it is just used because it's "close enough". It's not "perfect".

Neither point needs to be "immovable". It's simply a chosen reference.

:rotfl:

Dave, Dave, Dave.... you JUST said that they will be 120 MILES apart in ONE HOUR. That is 120 MILES PER (one) HOUR. Distance over time.... remember?

How you cannot understand this is beyond explanation. Even a high school student can understand these things.

A = beginning point for both cars.

B1 = end point for car going west = 60 miles

B2 = end point for car going east = 60 miles

B1<----------A---------->B2

120 miles is the distance between point B1 and B2

It will take both cars one hour at 60 mph to get back to point A

B1---------->A<----------B2

It will take two hours at 60 miles an hour to go from point B1 to B2 or vise versa, or 120 mph in one hour.

B1------------------------->B2

The 120 mph from point B1 to point B2 in one hour is also calculated by the immovable ground beneath each car and is not derived from adding the speed of two cars each moving at 60 mph.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

A = beginning point for both cars.

B1 = end point for car going west = 60 miles

B2 = end point for car going east = 60 miles

B1<----------A---------->B2

120 miles is the distance between point B1 and B2

It will take both cars one hour at 60 mph to get back to point A

B1---------->A<----------B2

It will take two hours at 60 miles an hour to go from point B1 to B2 or vise versa, or 120 mph in one hour.

B1------------------------->B2

The 120 mph from point B1 to point B2 in one hour is also calculated by the immovable ground beneath each car and is not derived from adding the speed of two cars each moving at 60 mph.

--Dave

Relative to B1... B2 is moving 120 MPH (in the opposite direction).
Relative to B2... B1 is moving 120 MPH (in the opposite direction).

Relative to A... BOTH B1 AND B2 are moving 60 MPH (in opposite directions).

It's just that simple.

Also, simply saying that the cars are 120 miles apart in one hour shows that THEY are moving 120 MPH relative to EACH OTHER.

I'm sure glad that you don't work on anything important that relies on understanding motion.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Incorrect. You have a reference point that, relative to itself, is not moving. You don't need the ground to measure distance, just a way to measure distance.

SURE YOU DO! you have one car as your reference point, and the other car moving at 120 mph away from it. The ground has nothing to do with the relative velocities of two cars.

They ARE immovable, relative to themselves!

To the driver of one of the cars moving at 60mph relative to the earth, the earth is the object that's moving at 60 mph, while the car is stationary.

To an observer watching the car standing on the ground, the earth is motionless while the car moves.

If it were (and it's not) possible to stand on the poles of the sun, an observer at either would see the earth orbit the sun once every 365 days, while the sun wouldn't move.

Motion is relative, Dave.

The one observing, or the reference point he uses, is always considered motionless, even though it is moving.

"You have a reference point that, relative to itself, is not moving."​

A reference point by definition is what is not moving relative to what is moving.

Your definition is mere tautology, saying something twice by definition then by explanation as if the two were different things and not just saying the same thing twice in different words.

Let me explain. A reference point is defined by what is not moving. By saying it's in relationship to what is not moving relative to it's not moving self is redundant and meaningless.

Let me repeat, a reference or "fixed" point is immovable relative to what is moving.

The speed/velocity of a moving car cannot be the reference for the speed/velocity another moving car unless we can establish the speed/velocity from a reference point that is not moving for at least one of the cars.

I hope you see the contradiction when you say, "The one observing, or the reference point he uses, is always considered motionless, even though it is moving."

In other words, in order to determine the velocity for anything moving in a universe where everything is moving we must imagine or pretend something is not moving as a necessary reference point. Just how is a necessary thing a non existent thing?

I'm not the only one who thinks this is absurd, irrational, and not what we experience.

--Dave

 

[DFT_Dave]

Relative to B1... B2 is moving 120 MPH (in the opposite direction).
Relative to B2... B1 is moving 120 MPH (in the opposite direction).

Relative to A... BOTH B1 AND B2 are moving 60 MPH (in opposite directions).

It's just that simple.

Also, simply saying that the cars are 120 miles apart in one hour shows that THEY are moving 120 MPH relative to EACH OTHER.

I'm sure glad that you don't work on anything important that relies on understanding motion.

The 120 mph is relative to the 120 miles to get from point B1 to point B2 and that is established by distance and time relative to the earth that is not moving not by another car that is.

I'm glad you're not driving a car telling me when your going to arrive based on the speed of the cars going in the opposite direction.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

"You have a reference point that, relative to itself, is not moving."​

A reference point by definition is what is not moving relative to what is moving.

:dizzy:

It does not matter if the reference point is moving with regard to ANYTHING ELSE BUT the OTHER POINT involved.

Distance can be measured without the earth Dave. Ever hear of RADAR? Or SONAR?

Stunning that you cannot understand such simple things.

 

[Right Divider]

The 120 mph is relative to the 120 miles to get from point B1 to point B2 and that is established by distance and time relative to the earth that is not moving not by another car that is.

I'm glad you're not driving a car telling me when your going to arrive based on the speed of the cars going in the opposite direction.

--Dave

See next post: http://theologyonline.com/showthrea...moon-Part-II&p=5332625&viewfull=1#post5332625

 

[DFT_Dave]

:dizzy:

It does not matter if the reference point is moving with regard to ANYTHING ELSE BUT the OTHER POINT involved.

Distance can be measured without the earth Dave. Ever hear of RADAR? Or SONAR?

Stunning that you cannot understand such simple things.

We were talking about how we determine speed on the surface of the earth but if you want to go to sonar and radar make a point.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

We were talking about how we determine speed on the surface of the earth but if you want to go to sonar and radar make a point.

--Dave

The surface of the earth is irrelevant to how far the cars travel. That's the point.

 

[DFT_Dave]

The surface of the earth is irrelevant to how far the cars travel. That's the point.

That's because the earth is not moving and the cars are.

So how do we determine how fast radar and sonar travels?

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

That's because the earth is not moving and the cars are.

Everything is moving... relative to everything else.

You pick two points and measure the distance. It's just that simple.

So how do we determine how fast radar and sonar travels?

--Dave

Seriously? You have so much learning to do.

Are you not familiar with the speed of light & sound.... etc?

 

[DFT_Dave]

Relative to B1... B2 is moving 120 MPH (in the opposite direction).
Relative to B2... B1 is moving 120 MPH (in the opposite direction).

Relative to A... BOTH B1 AND B2 are moving 60 MPH (in opposite directions).

It's just that simple.

Also, simply saying that the cars are 120 miles apart in one hour shows that THEY are moving 120 MPH relative to EACH OTHER.

I'm sure glad that you don't work on anything important that relies on understanding motion.

We are saying that two cars "that are both going 60 mph in opposite directions and begin at the same point" are 120 miles apart in one hour. This means they are moving not in relation to each other but in relation to the same specifications and in relation to the same reality. That reality being a fixed starting and ending point for both cars over ground, or earth, that is not moving.

--Dave

 

[chair]

...

I know I'm not dumb and you know I'm not dumb even though you say it enough. ...

Dave, you are not dumb. You are ignorant. But it is an ignorance that you apparently do not want to fix out of fear that it will weaken your faith. The reason so many people are exasperated with you is that you appear to be fairly intelligent, yet insist on maintaining ideas that are both wrong, self contradictory, and in some cases plain ridiculous.

 

[Right Divider]

We are saying that two cars "that are both going 60 mph in opposite directions and begin at the same point" are 120 miles apart in one hour. This means they are moving not in relation to each other but in relation to the same specifications and in relation to the same reality. That reality being a fixed starting and ending point for both cars over ground, or earth, that is not moving.

--Dave

That is FALSE Dave.... just plain FALSE... they are DOING BOTH.

They moving in TWO DIFFERENT RELATIONSHIPS.

Stop being dumb, please.

P.S. Both relationships are REALITY!

 

[DFT_Dave]

Everything is moving... relative to everything else.

You pick two points and measure the distance. It's just that simple.

Seriously? You have so much learning to do.

Are you not familiar with the speed of light & sound.... etc?

Yes we pick two points and pretend that they don't move in contradiction to "everything is moving." Eventually i hope you'll see that if "everything is moving" then "points" move to.

Lets start with the speed of sound. I've seen and posted jets flying at the speed of sound". Here's one.

Fun to watch. Now how do we get that speed figured out. What is 760 mph in relation to if not an immovable earth?

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

Yes we pick two points and pretend that they don't move in contradiction to "everything is moving." Eventually i hope you'll see that if "everything is moving" then "points" move to.

It seems that you enjoy being wrong.

No, we don't "pretend" that TWO points BOTH DON'T MOVE. We use ONE point as the reference and measure the DISTANCE TO the OTHER POINT.

There is NO contradiction and YES everything is moving.

Lets start with the speed of sound. I've seen and posted jets flying at the speed of sound". Here's one.

Fun to watch. Now how do we get that speed figured out. What is 760 mph in relation to if not an immovable earth?

--Dave

Your fixation on making everything relative to a "fixed and immovable earth" has made you insane.

Note that many times we do use the earth as a reference. That does not mean that the earth is not moving with reference to other things.

 

[DFT_Dave]

Dave, you are not dumb. You are ignorant. But it is an ignorance that you apparently do not want to fix out of fear that it will weaken your faith. The reason so many people are exasperated with you is that you appear to be fairly intelligent, yet insist on maintaining ideas that are both wrong, self contradictory, and in some cases plain ridiculous.

I wouldn't say ignorant either, but just how much one knows is not always obvious to someone else. Some of us don't like to reveal all of our cards. But despite how much one knows here and now there is still an eternity of things to learn.

If you've been reading the latest posts you know I'm resisting the relativity of motion. I have been explaining where and why I see contradiction in the belief that everything is moving. Explain to me why you think I'm wrong.

--Dave

 

[Right Divider]

[MENTION=4980]DFT_Dave[/MENTION]

You're wrong simply because the earth is not the only allowable frame of reference for the motion of all other objects in the universe.

 

[DFT_Dave]

That is FALSE Dave.... just plain FALSE... they are DOING BOTH.

They moving in TWO DIFFERENT RELATIONSHIPS.

Stop being dumb, please.

P.S. Both relationships are REALITY!

But there can be only one reality. Right?

I don't know how we can be going both 60 mph and 120 mph at the same time in the same reality.

Saying in one relationship we are actually going 60 but in another relationship we are also actually going 120 mph at the same time just does not make sense if both speeds are actually real.

The title of the video I posted where I saw this equation "v = v1 = v2" was titled "Rethinking Reality" not "Rethinking Relationships". This was not a flat earth video, it was about spacetime and gravity waves.

I think a case can be made that everything that moves on and above earth does so in the reality that the earth is not moving.

--Dave

 

[JudgeRightly]

But there can be only one reality. Right?

I don't know how we can be going both 60 mph and 120 mph at the same time in the same reality.

Saying in one relationship we are actually going 60 but in another relationship we are also actually going 120 mph at the same time just does not make sense if both speeds are actually real.

The title of the video I posted where I saw this equation "v = v1 = v2" was titled "Rethinking Reality" not "Rethinking Relationships". This was not a flat earth video, it was about spacetime and gravity waves.

I think a case can be made that everything that moves on and above earth does so in the reality that the earth is not moving.

--Dave

You're fixating on the earth, Dave.

Forget the earth for a moment.

Let's say you have a cardboard box, with two ants on top of it, and you somehow are able to control them, so you have them start in the center of the box, and have one go one direction, and the other ant go the opposite direction. They both go 5 ant-lengths per second.

Dave: After 3 seconds, how far is each ant...

From the starting point:_____________

From each other:_____________

What was each ant's speed in ant-lengths...

Relative to the starting point on the box:_____________

Relative to the other ant:_____________