1828 replies to this topic

[arenee]

booNyzarC, on 08 May 2012 - 01:51 AM, said:

Well gosh, if you won't show me your work, at least let me watch you work out...  


Wow, that sounds creepy!  

I'm going to leave it though... shock humor is fun!  

bad booNy

Lol, its funny cause you think i work out. I just look good naturally

[booNyzarC]

arenee, on 08 May 2012 - 01:55 AM, said:

Lol, its funny cause you think i work out. I just look good naturally

You're such a good sport arenee!  

[lost_shaman]

booNyzarC, on 08 May 2012 - 02:03 AM, said:

You're such a good sport arenee!  

Definitely!

It's good to see you around arenee!

[Mentalcase]

psyche101, on 08 May 2012 - 01:24 AM, said:

I assure you the level of academia is higher than you seem to suspect here, the only reason I would say that Sensible Logic and I are the only ones bothering to counter this insult to the intelligences is that most likely, this claim is so ridiculous that no others felt it was worth their time to counter.

This.

[lost_shaman]

arenee, on 08 May 2012 - 01:55 AM, said:

Lol, its funny cause you think i work out. I just look good naturally

And the cute glasses are awesome, but that's how arenee rolls!

(I didn't forget about the glasses.)

Edited by lost_shaman, 08 May 2012 - 10:09 AM.

[Sensible Logic]

nopeda, on 07 May 2012 - 07:15 PM, said:

I haven't said anything to indicate I believe what you claim. Your inability to define absolute speed tells me what I already knew, which is that you not only can't do it but can't even make an attempt. Your own inability to even make an attempt should tell you something too, but it's something you don't want to know. Probably you don't want to know so badly that you'll never figure it out...at least that's what it looks like at this point. Cognitive dissonance will most likely prevent you from ever figuring out why you can't figure out absolute speed. You'll probably just "get tired of it" or some such thing, which is one of the ways that the brain prevents people from thinking about things which work against what they WANT to believe. Or maybe you will figure out what to base absolute speed on, but I'm absolutely convinced that you can't and neither can anyone else. You probably like to think that you can even though you can't and never will be able to, and that's a sad thing in itself.

I never indicated you believed anything I said.  Since I hold no simultaneously conflicting ideas, beliefs, values, or emotional reactions, there is no cognitive dissonance.  You seem unable to understand that I used the term absolute speed as a way of differentiating between your view of relative speed and actual speed which is what we are discussing.  It was not an attempt at setting what absolute speed is but you failed to recognize that.  In retrospect, I should have used the term actual speed instead of absolute speed but hindsight is of course 20/20.

[Sensible Logic]

psyche101, on 08 May 2012 - 12:40 AM, said:

I must make note of your persistance with Mr Peda, it is comforting to know I am not the only person insane enough to try to help someone understand enough to get out of the hole of ignorance. To date, I believe you and I are asking the same question in that how this difference in speeds for two vehicle travelling with respect to each other affects either craft or occupant. It is an exercise in justifying nonsense from what I can see.
It seems Mr Peda is of the opinion that if you had a craft A in space, then you send Craft B at an alternative trajectory, this somehow increases the speed of craft A. As much as I can make from these erratic posts.

Thank you for the compliment psyche.  I appreciate your persistence as well.  It is easy to grow tired of continued attempts and decide to just give up but it can be a wonderful thing when that someone you are trying to get through to gets even just a glimmer of comprehension.

You and I are dealing with the same subject and I understand what Nopeda is saying.  He sees the speed of light as 186,000 mps as it passes a non moving object, say a spaceship.  If the ship is moving at 100,000 mps then he sees that the speed of light must increase by the speed of the object to 286,000 mps to pass it at the speed of light.  This would be true if we were referencing the light beam as passing the moving space ship as if the space ship were standing still but we are talking actual speeds.  It is where his biggest problem lies.

[nopeda]

Arbitran, on 08 May 2012 - 12:00 AM, said:

I will say it again: the 'area' by which velocity is measured is any given object's shifting position, relative to every other object in the universe. The 'area' by which one can measure speed is the universe itself. And I must say I'm very puzzled that you don't find space-time to be a tangible, real concept. What do you propose the universe is composed of, I wonder, if not space, time, and all that entails? Perhaps a good way to explain it all is to bring it back to Einstein, who determined that gravity is not true force, as Newton had speculated, but an effect caused by the distortion of space-time in the presence of mass-energy. The amount of density or mass which an object possesses in space determines its gravitational field, which warps the very real, tangible system called space-time in such a way as to produce the effect which, for example, keeps us all on the ground. As I have explained, if a region of space (or theoretically even a parallel universe with inverse mass-energy laws) could contain objects of negative density or energy, then super-luminal velocities could possibly be attained, for the simple reason that under the set of dynamical mechanics which our universe operates, the ultimate speed which an object of standard mass or energy can attain is the speed of light: this is because photons possess zero mass, being pure energy. Therefore, it is not too hard to work out that the only possibly means of attaining a superior velocity would be with the introduction of a completely alien, negative-density object. And even that is purely theoretical, as to date there is no direct evidence of any such objects. In essence, to answer your question more accurately, the medium under which velocity is finally restricted is mass, or gravity.

"The" velocity of every object is relative specifically to every other specific object in the universe. To things at rest on the surface of the Earth they are usually at rest relative to other things that are at rest relative to the surface of the Earth, except in cases where the surface of the Earth is in motion relative to other parts of the surface of the Earth. The velocity of the moon is different relative to the sun, relative to the Earth, relative to Sirius, relative to Saturn, relative to every man made satellite, relative to you, etc. I find it hard to believe and very disappointing that you of all people don't seem able to appreciate the significance of this, but if xts are going from star system to star system I'm convinced that they appreciate it, and even the lowly humans who bring human space vehicles back to the planet must be able to appreciate it too.

I don't believe that "space" exists but instead there is nothing. In some places the nothing contains matter and in other places it doesn't. Since I don't believe anything we know of is truly at rest the parts of the nothing that contain matter in one instant are likely not to soon after because things keep moving. In order for "space" to exist that means it should have an end at some point, but the only place the nothing or space does end is where it's occupied by something else. If space were to have a true "end", then something would have to replace it. That's why I believe it doesn't exist. The same is true of time, plus the fact that if time did "exist" and have influence on things then it would have to influence all things in the universe simultaneously and for eternity and would require tremendous ammounts of energy, but if there is no time then the questions about how it could exist and be supplied by the necessary energy are answered by its nonexistence. That also would explain why it has never been detected, and why humans can make up pretty much whatever they want to about it.

Edited by nopeda, 08 May 2012 - 11:21 PM.

[nopeda]

psyche101, on 08 May 2012 - 12:15 AM, said:

Go back an re-read the snippets I left you

Since you provided nothing to begin with imo, and you can't provide anything now apparently, your suggestion that I go back and try to find something that apparently never existed is amusing. Animals, clouds, supposed replacement that still needs to be explained if true... That's all you've suggested other than going along with whatever other absurd suggestion somebody else made, so no I'm not going to go back and look and if you thought there was something worthwhile you wouldn't be afraid to present it again, but you are.

Edited by nopeda, 08 May 2012 - 11:27 PM.

[nopeda]

psyche101, on 08 May 2012 - 12:36 AM, said:

Quote

nopeda, on 05 May 2012 - 04:09 PM, said:
What are you agreeing is easy to believe?

That a fantastical story could be true. As I said, we all did it, you are just stuck there.

From my pov it's no more fantastical that we could be living on a project planet than it is that humans can eat breakfast moving at hundreds of miles per hour high above the ocean while watching dead people sing and dance. That's because I've learned to consider both possibilities in realistic ways. IF you had ever learned to consider the possibility that beings have been here from other star systems in a realistic way then what happened that you unlearned how to do it? I doubt that you would have, which means that you never learned to do it to begin with, and probably never will learn to. How could you???

[nopeda]

psyche101, on 08 May 2012 - 12:11 AM, said:

Quote

Since apparently nothing at the link explains what you're trying to get me to believe or you'd have presented it by now, from my pov it's clear nothing at the link explains what you're trying to get me to believe.
You're still failing badly with your attempt to make the carvings look like some lame replacement issue too. You're still failing completely, but maybe you'll do better eventually.

There is plenty at the link, and the pictures I keep posting
. . .
That you keep saying you cannot see is more than telling.

You can't provide anything from the supposed light speed link to back up your claims, which suggests so strongly that it's not there that there's no reason to go make sure it's not. You can't even pretend it's there, much less present anything persuasive.

You also haven't provided anything to suggest that the carvings depict anything other than air vehicles. You have tried to pretend they depict animals if I remember correctly, and I KNOW you tried to pretend they depict clouds. You also went along with someone else's absurd suggestion which by now I forget what it even was. You have made four attempts and failed with every one, but your favorite one seems to be that the carvings were replaced around 1200 BC if I remember that correctly. They don't appear to have been replaced though, and even if they were you STILL haven't given the slightest reason to believe they were replaced by something significantly different than what was there to begin with, and even if you could THEN you would have to say why they were replaced by things that look like nothing other than air vehicles, AND why there happen to be several things that look like DIFFERENT TYPES OF AIR VEHICLES and a flying bug. To sum it up, so far you have provided NOTHING that's even worth considering. I TRY TO consider whatever it is you think you're trying to suggest with the replacement idea but since you can't double expose (or whatever ) things that are carved into rock, as I said you provide NOTHING to consider. And it looks like you can't do any better than nothing or you would have provided it by now.

Edited by nopeda, 08 May 2012 - 11:33 PM.

[nopeda]

psyche101, on 08 May 2012 - 12:40 AM, said:

It seems Mr Peda is of the opinion that if you had a craft A in space, then you send Craft B at an alternative trajectory, this somehow increases the speed of craft A.

Relative to what? Can you get that far?

Edited by nopeda, 08 May 2012 - 11:35 PM.

[nopeda]

psyche101, on 08 May 2012 - 12:44 AM, said:

Quote

nopeda, on 06 May 2012 - 02:23 PM, said:
The concept of absolute speed is equally absurd, and you are demonstrating it by being unable to even attempt to suggest what it might be relative to. You can't suggest anything we can use as a reference to determine all other speeds in the universe with. I've known that for years, so the question is whether or not you can learn it. That is unless I'm wrong and you can tell us what object(s) to use as a reference with which to judge the velocity of everything else. If you can, please do. If you can't, please try to learn to appreciate why that is.

So what you are saying is that you do not understand the concept of a rest frame?

At rest relative to what?

Edited by nopeda, 08 May 2012 - 11:37 PM.

[nopeda]

psyche101, on 08 May 2012 - 12:49 AM, said:

If what you say is true, then there would have been some rather wild calculations with regards to the Apollo missions, yet they went into space and came back using conventional physics and without any of your special maths

They had to calculate not only the velocity of the Earth itself relative to their vehicles, but the velocity of the Earth itself AND! the velocity of the surface's rotation BOTH relative to their vehicles. What makes you think they didn't have to?

Edited by nopeda, 08 May 2012 - 11:39 PM.

[nopeda]

Sensible Logic, on 08 May 2012 - 06:25 PM, said:

I used the term absolute speed as a way of differentiating between your view of relative speed and actual speed which is what we are discussing.  It was not an attempt at setting what absolute speed is but you failed to recognize that.  In retrospect, I should have used the term actual speed instead of absolute speed but hindsight is of course 20/20.

Oh, okay. That leaves us with the same question you can't answer, which is absolute relative to what? So far all we know is that you don't believe it's relative to the surface of the Earth, but we don't know which of the countless other bits of matter in the universe you believe it IS relative to. Or do you? If so, just say what you think it is. If not, try to learn why it is that you can't figure it out. That brings us back to the cognitive dissonance which is created because you CAN NOT figure it out or even make an attempt to figure it out. But if you think you can, then TRY DOING IT! Don't just change how you refer to it, but try to explain what you want people to think IT is relative to.

Edited by nopeda, 08 May 2012 - 11:41 PM.