0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 24/03/2019 15:52:05Once again, if you think it does, please find someone who agrees with you.I can already see him justifying the lack of such agreeing parties as evidence that he is the only one smart enough to understand it.
Once again, if you think it does, please find someone who agrees with you.
None of that makes any sense.Once again, if you think it does, please find someone who agrees with you.
You claim not to understand even though they are the same symbols science uses in math and formula ?
Quote from: Thebox on 24/03/2019 14:35:12Then on what you've just said , you have just shown the light clock thought experiment is invalid to begin with because Einstein also uses a light second in the light clock though experiment . No.His thought experiment is valid because he uses it correctly.You should try it.
Then on what you've just said , you have just shown the light clock thought experiment is invalid to begin with because Einstein also uses a light second in the light clock though experiment .
Quote from: Thebox on 24/03/2019 16:56:39You claim not to understand even though they are the same symbols science uses in math and formula ? I wasn't sure if I should demonstrate the stupidity of that with something like thisRydych yn honni nad ydych yn deall er mai nhw yw'r un symbolau gwyddoniaeth sy'n cael eu defnyddio mewn mathemateg a fformiwlaor with something like thisYettasacyeenmllrtrosaetomdmtcnhnfarahooenyubtisioencshotenuiuvgehadmnesuuhamedlssBut I decided just to reiterate a point made earlierQuote from: Bored chemist on 24/03/2019 15:46:27Quote from: Thebox on 24/03/2019 14:35:12Then on what you've just said , you have just shown the light clock thought experiment is invalid to begin with because Einstein also uses a light second in the light clock though experiment . No.His thought experiment is valid because he uses it correctly.You should try it.
I've shown the error ?
Quote from: Thebox on 24/03/2019 17:11:21 I've shown the error ?No.Have you forgotten?You didn't show an error.You made an error (well actually two errors)First you thought that a light second was a unit of time (and it isn't)Second you thought it was measured in m/s (and it isn't)You really need to learn the basics of physics.
You really need to learn the basics of physics.
This thread demonstrated light is not lights speed
No, it did not.It didn't illustrate anything.
Quote from: Bored chemist on 24/03/2019 17:57:54No, it did not.It didn't illustrate anything.That's because you're not smart enough and you don't know enough about real physics to understand . I suppose you are the type who thinks a photon is a particle
Quote from: Thebox on 24/03/2019 19:57:08Quote from: Bored chemist on 24/03/2019 17:57:54No, it did not.It didn't illustrate anything.That's because you're not smart enough and you don't know enough about real physics to understand . I suppose you are the type who thinks a photon is a particle If it walks like a duck...Anyway,None of that makes any sense.Once again, if you think it does, please find someone who agrees with you.
You know what Mr Chemist , I couldn't care less if anybody agrees or not because I know I'm correct and even if it isn't established in my life time , I know it will be in the future . You can keep saying my sentencing doesn't make sense because you don't have the ability to understand my notions , they are way advanced .
Quote from: Thebox on 24/03/2019 19:57:08Quote from: Bored chemist on 24/03/2019 17:57:54No, it did not.It didn't illustrate anything.That's because you're not smart enough and you don't know enough about real physics to understand . I suppose you are the type who thinks a photon is a particle Stop being a troll.
Do you disagree ? If so why ?
Quote from: Bored chemist on 24/03/2019 17:57:54No, it did not. It didn't illustrate anything.That's because you're not smart enough and you don't know enough about real physics to understand . I suppose you are the type who thinks a photon is a particle
No, it did not. It didn't illustrate anything.
A photon is indeed a particle
Quote from: mad aetherist on 24/03/2019 22:18:35A photon is indeed a particleNo , a photon is point quanta traversing point to point , . It is potential energy pE .
I reckon that nothing can be a point.
Quote from: mad aetherist on 24/03/2019 22:39:48I reckon that nothing can be a point. Well , correct ! nothing can be a point because a point is 0 dimensions . A point is the centre of a minute volume . The smallest possible vector is two adjoining points 0+0=1x