Yet you can go from one car to the other without any problem. The cars are stationary relative to each other.
Again: All of this has nothing at all to do with the Theory of Relativity! And yes- you insist on being dumb. Why is beyond me.
The earth is flat and we never went to the moon--Part II
- Thread starter DFT_Dave
- Start date
- Status
Yet you can go from one car to the other without any problem. The cars are stationary relative to each other.
Again: All of this has nothing at all to do with the Theory of Relativity! And yes- you insist on being dumb. Why is beyond me.
Right Divider
Body part
Duh!!
Double duh!!
FALLACIOUS .... the earth is the REFERENCE POINT.... so it does NOT matter whether it's moving or not.
More DISTRACTION from the CURRENT POINT... Quit changing the subject like a 3 year old.
Once AGAIN, the relative reference point in a speed calculation has NOTHING... i repeat ... NOTHING to do with Einstein's theory.
No, they do NOT contradict each other.... they are simply based on TWO DIFFERENCE REFERENCE POINTS.
Triple DUH!!
You are dumb Dave. Amazingly so.
Right Divider
Body part
Indeed you are!
The reference point is simply the BASIS for the distance calculation. Your idea of "not moving" is part of your problem.
All reference points are moving in some way. But that does not matter because they are THE REFERENCE POINT.
Stay on topic.
I said try to get out of a car that's moving at 60 mph, not try to get into a car right next to it going at the same speed.
That you would change the argument reveals that you can't argue against my point.
We are talking about the theory of relativity in relation to velocity. I thought you understood that.
--Dave
How can you calculate a speed for anything if every "reference point" is moving?
Do we just pretend that some reference points are not moving?
--Dave
Dave, it's the same thing.
The only difference is that the reference point is the other car, not the earth.
No, not that they're not moving.
Just that they aren't moving relative to the other objects.
Right Divider
Body part
BY DEFINITION... Dave.
Everything is moving. Yes, the reference point is NOT moving FROM ITSELF.
But that both are moving does not give us the speed at which both are moving. A moving reference point along side the thing it's referencing tells us nothing about the speed of each.
It's only the stationary earth that can give us a speed for each.
--Dave
Moving reference points tell me nothing about the speed of things that are moving.
--Dave
PneumaPsucheSoma
TOL Subscriber
Of course no reference point can move from itself. A reference point for what is moving must be stationary in order to give us the speed of what is moving. Right?
--Dave
Sure it does. Relative to the reference point, the reference point is not moving, and everything else is.
Relative to a car traveling at 60 mph, the car next to it going in the same direction is not moving at all, while the earth moves under both vehicle's wheels.
Nope.
Dave, you are talking about relative velocities, and getting two things wrong:
1. You do not need a 'fixed' point in order to measure velocity
2. This is basic classical physics, that was known centuries before Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
Now, read again slowly:
1. You do not need a 'fixed' point in order to measure velocity
2. This is basic classical physics, that was known centuries before Einstein's Theory of Relativity.
In the specific example we are dealing with we do need a fixed point to determine speed and distance.
The immovable earth is our fixed point from which we determine what is and is not moving over or on it.
The north star also acts as a fixed point of reference for navigation because it's the one star that doesn't move.
Even when a car is moving we "fix" an immovable point in time and location from which we calculate the velocity over a distance to another "fixed immovable" point in time and location. Even if the car continues to travel farther we can still determine velocity from immovable point A to immovable point B.
My main point from the start of this chain of commentary is that two cars starting at the same time from the same location--A, moving in opposite directions having the same speed of 60 mph will be 120 miles apart in one hour in there own location--B1 and B2. That they are 120 miles apart does not mean that they were traveling at 120 mph relative to each other.
--Dave
"fix" is correct- but the choice of "fixed" point is arbitrary, there is nothing absolute about it. "Immovable" is false. There is no need for anything to be "immovable".
Dave, they have moved 120 miles relative to each other in 1 hour. That is what "120 miles per hour" means! they are travelling at 60 mph relative to the road, and 120 mph relative to each other.
It isn't that complicated.
The fact that we measure velocity always relative to something has no bearing on whether the earth is "immovable" or not. You are attacking basic classic physics for no reason. (Note that this is true for translational velocity, as in your automobile examples. Spinning objects are a bit different).
Right Divider
Body part
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.
I hope you understand that having studied theology and philosophy where logical propositions based on following the rules of logic vs irrational propositions based on fallacies helps us to know what is or is not true about the existence of God, morals, and meaning. I've not been a student of physics but that does not mean I now nothing about the subject.
I know I'm not dumb and you know I'm not dumb even though you say it enough. I know deep down you all love me because I provide great debate. I think you all know I'm absolutely sincere. I've admitted that there are some good arguments for spinning globe but then you get angry when I say there are also good arguments for flat earth. I think there are a lot of people in my shoes.
As I'm trying to learn and compare both views and see something that does not add up I say so. And I see a contradiction now in this equation V = V1 + V2 as per the illustration of the speed /velocity of cars. I know the laws of motion, as well as discovery of gravity, goes back to Newton, not Einstein.
Obviously I don't mind be called crazy or dumb, etc. but I think the name calling puts undo pressure on many who might think there are legitimate reasons for not accepting something that does not make sense to them.
If I'm wrong about an equation and how it's being applied then I simply want it to be explained so that it does make sense.
The illustration that two cars going in opposite directions at 60 mph after having traveled 60 miles in one hour have been moving at 120 mph relative to each other while actually traveling at a velocity of 60 mph makes no sense. Simply because they are 120 miles apart and it takes one hour to go 120 miles at 60 mph is not a rational answer.
I'm sorry, but I see fallacies in this equation and explanation. I'm not trying to be stubborn, I'm just being honest.
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 so I have no numbers to add up in order to get a velocity for a relative speed of two cars/things. All reference points must be "fixed" and that means "immovable".
Now, anyone please, even Clete if your're still at least reading these posts, explain to me where I'm wrong. Don't just say because we, or Newton says so. Give me articles to read, make arguments that are coherent, tell me videos to watch, what ever it takes to make me see I'm wrong about the arguments I have made on this specific point.
--Dave
- Status