Philosophy Now Forum

HexHammer wrote:

James Markham wrote:I think the point is understandable if we think of the same situation regarding cars. If two cars are both traveling at 60mph, and they collide head on, it's only equivalent to a car crashing into an immovable object at 60mph, in the case of the head on collision, each car acts in place of an immovable object, so that each car experiences a 60mph crash. If we make the mistake of assuming they crash together and each suffer the equivalent of a crash at a speed of 120mph, then each car would suffer one half of a 240mph collision.

I think the point is that they each converge on a given position, and relative to that position they are each only traveling at c.

You are extremely unclear and it seems you are very wrong in beginning to talk about 240mph.

If 2 cars each drive with 60mph, they only due to relativity crash with a force of 60mph, not 120.

Kind of, they are due to crash with energy equal to 120mph as long as they are travelling at a very minute fraction of the speed of light. If they are moving at or close to the speed of light then the forces and energy/t concerns are not additive in the same way as they are at very low speed. The lorentz contractions forbid an energy greater than c, and greater than an additive value of 2ce in a co-moving speed of two entities travelling at c^2 mass/e. We have proven this in experiment. It appears that light which is supposed massless propagates at c always, it appears that no matter can reach c, it appears that this is a natural law of the universe, as to why who knows, it just is it seems.

It seems that light travels at c or when it is propagating is always travelling at c and no less, it is not that light is the speed limit of the universe, it is just that some "particle" travels that fast.

Blaggard wrote:Kind of, they are due to crash with energy equal to 120mph as long as they are travelling at a very minute fraction of the speed of light. If they are moving at or close to the speed of light then the forces and energy/t concerns are not additive in the same way as they are at very low speed. The lorentz contractions forbid an energy greater than c, and greater than an additive value of 2ce in a co-moving speed of two entities travelling at c^2 mass/e. We have proven this in experiment. It appears that light which is supposed massless propagates at c always, it appears that no matter can reach c, it appears that this is a natural law of the universe, as to why who knows, it just is it seems.

It seems that light travels at c or when it is propagating is always travelling at c and no less, it is not that light is the speed limit of the universe, it is just that some "particle" travels that fast.

Pure nonsens and babble.

Yo speak abot 120mph, then suddenly jump to speak about near lightspeed, you bumped your head today?

HexHammer wrote:

Blaggard wrote:Kind of, they are due to crash with energy equal to 120mph as long as they are travelling at a very minute fraction of the speed of light. If they are moving at or close to the speed of light then the forces and energy/t concerns are not additive in the same way as they are at very low speed. The lorentz contractions forbid an energy greater than c, and greater than an additive value of 2ce in a co-moving speed of two entities travelling at c^2 mass/e. We have proven this in experiment. It appears that light which is supposed massless propagates at c always, it appears that no matter can reach c, it appears that this is a natural law of the universe, as to why who knows, it just is it seems.

It seems that light travels at c or when it is propagating is always travelling at c and no less, it is not that light is the speed limit of the universe, it is just that some "particle" travels that fast.

Pure nonsens and babble.

Yo speak abot 120mph, then suddenly jump to speak about near lightspeed, you bumped your head today?

Oh for god's sake read the links you will then understand.
I bumped my head is ad hominem is that the limit of how you respond to science and maths if so don't bother, just go run at a wall or something and bump your ill conceived head?

I know you wont read them (you are of course by default special and right) but here are the links again if you want to understand special in more than your own universe. Fucked if I care frankly.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_transformation


incidentally http://www.marxists.org/reference/archi ... /relative/

Is a good resource for those who are not here to chalk up a win on their win board, like somehow they matter. Fuck me
I don't even know why I bother tbh, people just are fucking morons.

There really is no intelligent life down here on Earth, I
am alone. Or am I..?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=buqtdpuZxvk



So can I have your liver then?

Blagg

What you probaly are trying to say is with RT and SRT, and try to divide your former babble post, then it would make more sense, but as it is, it makes no sense at all.

James Markham wrote:I think the point is that they each converge on a given position, and relative to that position they are each only traveling at c.

Come to think of it, that is putting it very well. That point is hit by two lots of force simultaneously and experiences the combined force of both of them. What the cars or protons judge each other to be doing is immaterial, but just to remind everyone, relativity is about what you measure in other inertial frames, there is no absolute frame of reference.
From the point of view of either proton, assuming the other could emit a stream of photons making it visible, those photons would arrive with an extremely high frequency and hence energy, but a speed of c.
(I wrote all this and was alerted to Blaggard's post as I tried to submit it. Having read it a couple of times, I can't see that anything contradicts what I have said above, but if you spot anything Blaggard, please point it out and in the meantime I will give your post the attention it deserves. One thing you say puzzles me: "The lorentz contractions forbid an energy greater than c," What do you mean by energy in this context?

Blaggard wrote: Consider an observer measuring a charge at rest in a reference frame F. The observer will detect a static electric field. As the charge is stationary in this frame, there is no electric current, so the observer will not observe any magnetic field.
Consider another observer in frame F′ moving at relative velocity v (relative to F and the charge). This observer will see a different electric field because the charge is moving at velocity −v in their rest frame. Further, in frame F′ the moving charge constitutes an electric current, and thus the observer in frame F′ will also see a magnetic field.

I can see the logic, but doesn't that raise the question of whether those in F' would see ferrous metals being affected by that magnetic field; which presumably the observer at rest relative to the electric field would not.

HexHammer wrote:Blagg

What you probaly are trying to say is with RT and SRT, and try to divide your former babble post, then it would make more sense, but as it is, it makes no sense at all.

All my posts make sense please show me where and how they do not?

uwot wrote:

Blaggard wrote: Consider an observer measuring a charge at rest in a reference frame F. The observer will detect a static electric field. As the charge is stationary in this frame, there is no electric current, so the observer will not observe any magnetic field.
Consider another observer in frame F′ moving at relative velocity v (relative to F and the charge). This observer will see a different electric field because the charge is moving at velocity −v in their rest frame. Further, in frame F′ the moving charge constitutes an electric current, and thus the observer in frame F′ will also see a magnetic field.

I can see the logic, but doesn't that raise the question of whether those in F' would see ferrous metals being affected by that magnetic field; which presumably the observer at rest relative to the electric field would not.

Well ultimately experiment is the decider on any theory and as you can imagine, no the relative frames all agree with the theory in experiment, ferrous or magnetic or otherwise.

Blaggard wrote:Well ultimately experiment is the decider on any theory and as you can imagine, no the relative frames all agree with the theory in experiment, ferrous or magnetic or otherwise.

Maybe, but you have to accept that the ferrous/magnetic material both is and isn't affected by a magnetic field that does and doesn't exist. This is Schrodinger territory, Einstein would despair.
You haven't answered this:

"The lorentz contractions forbid an energy greater than c," What do you mean by energy in this context?

Do you just mean velocity?

Blaggard wrote:All my posts make sense please show me where and how they do not?

Blaggard wrote:Kind of, they are due to crash with energy equal to 120mph as long as they are travelling at a very minute fraction of the speed of light

How can something near light speed crash with the force of 120mph? That is complete nonsens and babble.

Sorry Blaggard, I'm talking out my arse. Frame F doesn't experience a magnetic field, because it is stationary relative to the electric field. F' on the other hand is moving through the electric field (or the electric field is moving through it, who knows?) so it does experience a magnetic field.
HexHammer, I think the point Blaggard is making is that at low speeds, the effects of relativity are negligible, and can therefore safely be ignored. Hence the cars do crash at 120mph, minus a bit that's too small to measure.
The thing about relativity is that as far as anyone is concerned the world appears exactly the same whether you or it is moving. What we see is red or blue shifted, as distant galaxies are, so we can tell how fast they are receding, but there is no way of telling who is running away from who. Likewise, a proton in the LHC thinks it's at rest; then it sees some very high frequency/energy photons approach, at c. in it's reference frame, next thing you know, it's blown to smithereens, and a Higg's boson or two, by another proton; which of course, is equally oblivious.

HexHammer wrote:

Blaggard wrote:All my posts make sense please show me where and how they do not?

Blaggard wrote:Kind of, they are due to crash with energy equal to 120mph as long as they are travelling at a very minute fraction of the speed of light

How can something near light speed crash with the force of 120mph? That is complete nonsens and babble.

I never said that. Jesus H corbett. I never even remotely implied that.

Uwot has the right, thanks.

HexHammer wrote:Blagg

What you probaly are trying to say is with RT and SRT, and try to divide your former babble post, then it would make more sense, but as it is, it makes no sense at all.

It wasn't babble you just didn't understand what I was saying which is fine, but resorting to ad hominem over asking me to clarify what I mean seems somewhat pointless?


If you didn't get what I meant just ask, don't assume hence that what I said is somehow some weirdness.
It's not conducive to dialogue to ad hominem, in lieu of actually talking and discussing. Patronising I know but some people really don't get that...

uwot wrote: Hence the cars do crash at 120mph, minus a bit that's too small to measure.

No, you don't know what you are talking about, they will crash with 60mph due to relativity.

We can even make a bet on it.

HexHammer wrote:

uwot wrote: Hence the cars do crash at 120mph, minus a bit that's too small to measure.

No, you don't know what you are talking about, they will crash with 60mph due to relativity.

We can even make a bet on it.

What an odd thing to say given the Lorentz transforms, but hey whatever rocks your odd world...