1828 replies to this topic

[nopeda]

psyche101, on 12 June 2012 - 01:00 AM, said:

The most exposing part being that he could not even answer the question about two rockets

Though you're blatant dishonesty will no doubt be respected by your school girl cliquish friends, the following clearly shows not only that you're lying but also that YOU couldn't answer the question I challenged you with after giving the explanation you're lying that I never gave.

nopeda, on 07 June 2012 - 05:35 PM, said:

Quote

psyche101, on 06 June 2012 - 08:00 PM, said:
what is their velocity of the rockets relative to each other?

It depends on what their velocities are relative to. If you're trying to create a situation in which they're at rest relative to each other then they're not drifting appart and have no velocity relative to each other provided the 99% velocity you referred to is relative to the same thing for both vehicles. If they are drifting appart then they have the velocity of whatever the drift is relative to each other. If they're drifting toward each other then they'll have that velocity until they bang into each other or stop moving toward each other before they collide.
Now here's one for you. What is the velocity of one of your vehicles relative to another that is moving toward it at a velocity of 99% of c relative to what your vehicle's velocity is relative to?

[nopeda]

psyche101, on 12 June 2012 - 12:48 AM, said:

we are talking about parallax error and movie plots.

YOU are talking about movie plots and as I've pointed out more than once it's because you can only think small and for some reason you don't believe people learn about concepts unless they see it in a movie. It's quite amusing, but also very pathetic. I believe I even went as far as to point out that the only concept I remember learning about in a movie is the concept of transparent aluminum in some Star Trek movie. Making your obsession more absurd I never even saw some of the movies you mentioned though you probably still think I learned concepts from them without ever having seen them. You think very very small indeed, which of course explains why you can't appreciate the significance of velocities being different relative to different things, or conceive of the possibility of anything moving faster than 186K miles per second relative to anything else. For me the biggest problem would not be to achieve the speed, but instead it would be to survive getting annihilated because of colliding with something after reaching such velocity. At that velocity even something the size of a pea could almost undoubtedly have disasterous results. If you had any idea what you're trying to talk about you would have brought that aspect up long ago, but instead you weren't even aware that it would be a huge issue until I just told you about it.

[nopeda]

DieChecker, on 10 June 2012 - 07:49 PM, said:

Quote

psyche101, on 07 June 2012 - 06:23 PM, said:
Relative to every point in the Universe - pick one! Nothing exceeds c, that is all there is to it,

Perhaps I missed it, but why is this even relevant?

Actually it gets back to he and his cat buddy and their concept of absolute speed, but they can't say what it would be relative to. Bullsh*t dude says it's relative to every point in space yet can't tell if any point in space is at rest or not. He can't even say what the Earth's "absolute speed" is, much less anything else's. He told me one speed but that turned out to be the Earth's velocity relative to the sun as we orbit around it, and he hasn't been able to make any more attempts to say what our absolute speed is.

DieChecker, on 10 June 2012 - 07:49 PM, said:

Does it go back to the Aliens part of the question?
Really does not matter, even if aliens could only get to .5 c, they could still get here and check us out. If they have different physiology or different mentality, they might not care about a 20 year or even 100 year trip to visit.
Faster then Light travel is not required to be visited by aliens.

True enough but some people can't realistically consider the possibility that xts have been here in any way(s) at all, with or without ftl travel. People who are that mentally restricted just can't do it, period.

DieChecker, on 10 June 2012 - 07:45 PM, said:

Several of the smaller pyramids have definately had mummies found in them.

Then it seems people should get in trouble for lying blatantly about it in what are presented as documentaries on the subject.

Oniomancer, on 09 June 2012 - 06:02 PM, said:

If your thesis were correct, they should all produce differing values. Yet they don't. Why is that? Please explain in detail.

Actually YOU should be explaining why to me. Since you feel that it makes sense you should try to explain why it makes sense to you. Are you even aware that you're suggesting light adjusts its speed so that it impacts everything in the universe at the same velocity regardless of the velocity or the direction of travel of the object relative to the emitter? Can't you appreciate how fantastic it would be IF true? Light would either have to adjust itself relative to every object it encounters, or something else would have to adjust it. Here's one person's theory on how it could appear that way to us, and he explains the idea clearly and easy to understand in an example using lasers and glass. Note also that this person is not afraid of the detail regarding what the lights' velocities are RELATIVE TO:

http://www.alternati...itterEffect.htm

[psyche101]

nopeda, on 12 June 2012 - 10:54 PM, said:

Though you're blatant dishonesty will no doubt be respected by your school girl cliquish friends, the following clearly shows not only that you're lying but also that YOU couldn't answer the question I challenged you with after giving the explanation you're lying that I never gave.

Read it again:

Quote

psyche101, on 06 June 2012 - 08:00 PM, said:
what is their velocity of the rockets relative to each other?
cluelessone, on 13 June 2012 - 03:35 AM, said:
It depends on what their velocities are relative to

Good god man, just give up, you do not even know your own fantasies, I am done with you, it seems you need a hug again I can see you are feeling left out, and you should be. You are the one poster on this forum I truly regret meeting and hope we never cross paths again. Every exchange has been a waste of time, as are you and your fantasies. And BTW, I do believe every person on this forum could answer the above question except you, catching on yet? The answer was zero. I allow you this because I shan't be replying to you again. Welcome to ignore. Enjoy wallowing in your ignorance. All your argument has done is make me sad that the education system has failed you so badly.

[nopeda]

badeskov, on 07 June 2012 - 05:48 PM, said:

Quote

nopeda, on 07 June 2012 - 12:42 PM, said:
If so then how can the History Channel get away with lying to people that no mummies have ever been found in any pyramids, and that the Great Pyramid shows no sign of being any sort of tomb? Unless you're the one who's lying and the History Channel is just presenting information.

If you actually would pay attention then the History channel, either before or after (sometimes both) have a big, fat disclaimer essentially saying that they have no responsibility for the program shown and that it is up to the viewer herself/himself to judge the veracity of the information presented therein.

Do you have evidence that mummies have been found in pyramids and that the Great Pyramid shows signs of being a tomb in contrast to what the History Channel leads people to believe?

[DBunker]

You shouldnt let the woo woos get to you like that, psyche....... frustrating as hell sometimes, I know.

[DBunker]

nopeda, on 13 June 2012 - 12:06 AM, said:

Do you have evidence that mummies have been found in pyramids and that the Great Pyramid shows signs of being a tomb in contrast to what the History Channel leads people to believe?

Im betting that he does..... unlike the moronic claims you keep spewing left and right.

[nopeda]

Sensible Logic, on 08 June 2012 - 03:25 AM, said:

Influence of aliens on this planet can be discussed once it has been proven that they have been or are here.  The lack of evidence to support the notion of their prior or current existence on Earth limits such discussion to what would they do if they actually came to Earth.
It seems to be you who are incapable or unwilling to except the evidence or in the case of E.T. being on Earth, the lack of evidence.  No one wants to bully you out of here, but at the same time there are those who will not sit idly by as you expound unevidenced, unsupported views that are basically presented as fact though the term may not be used.
. . .
the speed of light being the absolute speed in the universe and it matters not if other objects are in motion or not.  If you are unable to get past that point the discussion will just continue to circle and will never progress.

There's certainly evidence that xts have been here whether they have been or not, but you can't get that far.

What unsupported views that are basically presented as fact?

Before I could believe that light impacts all objects at the same velocity you or someone would need to explain what you think adjusts the speed of light to account for velocities relative to emitters and observers, but you can't even attempt to explain what makes all those adjustments. In fact not only can you not answer it, but you also can't appreciate the significance of the question.

[nopeda]

badeskov, on 08 June 2012 - 12:06 AM, said:

I am surprised that you actually held on so long, Mate!!!

He still wants to bullsh*t me into thinking he knows how E = mc2 restricts the velocity of all objects in the universe relative to everything else in the universe, but he can't do it because it's too obvious that he has no clue at all. He has probably been trying to figure it out since I first challenged him to try to give his interpretation of it, but so far he hasn't been able to come up with one. It's only been about a month or so though, and maybe he'll eventually get what he considers to be some idea. Or maybe he never will.
He tried to get me to believe several things about carvings which resemble air vehicles, like that they were inspired by clouds and lightning, and also that they don't look like air vehicles even though millions of people including myself are aware that they do. Maybe you have reason to admire him for doing things like that, but I certainly don't.

[nopeda]

psyche101, on 07 June 2012 - 10:52 PM, said:

Quote

nopeda, on 07 June 2012 - 12:34 PM, said:
You can't even make an attempt to pretend that you have some clue, and all you are able to do is make personal insults against me and tell me how much everyone else hates me.

It's all you can do, and I enjoy seeing you in that desperate position. You think so very much of yourself, yet can't even make it appear that you have some idea what you're trying to talk about when asked or challenged to do so. It's especially satisfying to see a person like yourself in your pathetic position because I believe it's you specifically as well as other people like yourself who make it so this is NOT a place where people can openly disscuss the possibilities that beings from other star systems have been to this one. People like yourself, to me, are like a virus.

you . . . people . . . they . . . you . . . you . . . your . . . you . . . you . . . you . . . your . . . you . . . You . . . you . . . you . . . your . . . your . . . your . . . you . . . your . . . everyone . . . you . . . you . . . you . . . your . . . You . . . you . . . you . . . you . . . you . . . you . . . yourself.

[nopeda]

psyche101, on 07 June 2012 - 11:19 PM, said:

Quote

nopeda, on 07 June 2012 - 12:35 PM, said:
It depends on what their velocities are relative to. If you're trying to create a situation in which they're at rest relative to each other then they're not drifting appart and have no velocity relative to each other provided the 99% velocity you referred to is relative to the same thing for both vehicles. If they are drifting appart then they have the velocity of whatever the drift is relative to each other. If they're drifting toward each other then they'll have that velocity until they bang into each other or stop moving toward each other before they collide.
Now here's one for you. What is the velocity of one of your vehicles relative to another that is moving toward it at a velocity of 99% of c relative to what your vehicle's velocity is relative to?

. . .
what is their speed relative to each other

Of course that's the question but you can't answer it, as I suspected.

[nopeda]

psyche101, on 07 June 2012 - 11:23 PM, said:

Quote

nopeda, on 07 June 2012 - 12:40 PM, said:
I keep trying to get you to try to explain what you think your supposed absolute speed is relative to. From what I recall you've said it's relative to every object in the universe as well as every point in space, which if that were true everything would be at rest. So that can't be true regardless of how you think it somehow could be even though you can't explain how. So for me to be able to begin to "catch up" with you, YOU and your cat buddy should try to figure out what you want people to think:
1. absolute speed is relative to
2. why whatever that is, is supposedly the correct thing by which to base all other velocities in the universe
3. the velocity of the Earth relative to whatever it is
4. the velocity of the sun relative to whatever it is
Unless you can answer those questions even you won't ever have any real clue what you think you're trying to talk about, much less should you expect me to "catch up" to it.

Relative to every point in the Universe

You are hilarious!



You must have seen someone give that answer in a movie one time, but you can't comprehend what it really means.



Here's a clue for you: That absurd claim doesn't even apply to three of those four questions you can't answer.

[nopeda]

psyche101, on 07 June 2012 - 11:26 PM, said:

Mate, this person is the most hopeless rude and arrogant clown

Hilarious, since I'm nowhere near the hopelessly rude and arrogant clown that you are. You're also inconsiderate and dishonest. You actually tried to get me to believe that carvings which very clearly resemble air vehicles do not resemble air vehicles even though it's known by millions of people that they DO resemble air vehicles. I don't consider that to be the only false believe you tried to get me to believe about those particular carvings, but it may be the most blatant and the most shameful. YOU are the one who should be ashamed of yourself.

[DieChecker]

nopeda, on 13 June 2012 - 12:06 AM, said:

Do you have evidence that mummies have been found in pyramids and that the Great Pyramid shows signs of being a tomb in contrast to what the History Channel leads people to believe?

You can chose to disbelieve these commonly accepted bits below, but it only makes your position look silly when you refute what is basically common knowledge. It is like refuting that Columbus went to the West Indies, because none of his ships were found sunk there.

It is well known that Djoser's left foot was found in his pyramid. The first pyramid supposedly.
http://www.nationalg...ids/djoser.html

Quote

In 1837, English army officer Richard William Howard Vyse, and engineer John Shae Perring began excavations within the pyramid of Menkaure. In the main burial chamber of the pyramid they found a large stone sarcophagus 8 feet 0 inches (244 cm) long, 3 feet 0 inches (91 cm) in width, and 2 feet 11 inches (89 cm) in height, made of basalt. The sarcophagus was uninscribed with hieroglyphs although it was decorated in the style of palace facade. Adjacent to the burial chamber were found wooden fragments of a coffin bearing the name of Menkaure and a partial skeleton wrapped in a coarse cloth. The sarcophagus was removed from the pyramid and was sent by ship to the British Museum in London, but the merchant ship Beatrice carrying it was lost after leaving port at Malta on October 13, 1838. The other materials were sent by a separate ship, and the materials now reside at the museum, with the remains of the wooden coffin case on display.
It is now thought that the coffin was a replacement made during the much later Saite period, nearly two millennia after the pharaoh's original interment. Radio carbon dating of the bone fragments that were found place them at an even later date, from the Coptic period in the first centuries AD.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menkaure
The text is from wikipedia, but the story can be found all over the internet.

sarcophagi have been found in several pyramids. Including the Great Pyramid. Unless there is another reasonable use for a human sized stone box, I'd say these were intended to hold human remains.

Edited by DieChecker, 13 June 2012 - 05:57 AM.

[DieChecker]

I believe the belief that nothing in our universe can exceed the speed of light is based on simple math. As a physical object approaches the speed of light the energy needed approaches infinity. That is not to say there are no ways around this, only that the brute force way of getting a spaceship to c is just not going to happen.

As to the relative speed of light, it is a well known truth, that even if you are traveling at 99% of c in a vacuum, that light will still appear to be traveling at full c, not at 1% of c. The frame of reference simply does not matter. The appearance of c will always appear to be c. This is even true of light moving 180 degrees away from other light. If an observer could sit on a ship moving at 99% of c and a static ship it just passed fired a laser directly behind it, the laser light would still be only measureable of moving at c, not 199% of c. It does not matter if you send 1 picowatt of light energy, or a billion terrawatts, the light will always travel and always be measured at c (in a vacuum), regardless of frame of reference.

Edit: One exception I can think of would involve the expansion of space/time. But, then it would not change how c is perceived, it would only mean that what we consider as our measurements would be off due to this expansion of space/time. So it would still be a wash.

Edited by DieChecker, 13 June 2012 - 06:09 AM.