[I think out of the box]

Hello, I am confused on fractions of light. I have heard that .5 c is 1/2 the speed of light = 299.792458

How so????? is it:

1/ 299.792458

2/299.792458

3/ 299.792458


Also, is 1 second = 299.792458 "and" is the fraction "remaining" 1 as well?

And in Lorentz transformation does this fractions of the speed of light " take on" another hidden value which "still" means "this" fraction of the speed of light as well?


Thanks, but I have always been confused about this, and no matter how much I have studied it, it just never seems to make sense because I confuse as to what these " fractions of the speed of light" are referring to in relation to time.

[DrRocket]

I think out of the box, on 30 December 2011 - 07:11 PM, said:

Hello, I am confused on fractions of light. I have heard that .5 c is 1/2 the speed of light = 299.792458

How so????? is it:

1/ 299.792458
...

Thanks, but I have always been confused about this, and no matter how much I have studied it, it just never seems to make sense because I confuse as to what these " fractions of the speed of light" are referring to in relation to time.

0.5 c is precisely c/2 just as 0.5 x 10 mph = 5 mph

The numerical value depends on the particular system of units that one chooses.

It has nothing to do with time.

[I think out of the box]

Hymm, this kinda works but still confused, it is this right here highlighted in bold that gets me confused here.


0.5%/299.792458 = 0.00166782047599


0.00166782047599*10 = 0.0166782047599 mph ??



and this too:



0.76%/299.792458 = 0.00253508712351


0.00253508712351*10 = 0.0253508712351= 0.0253508712351 mph ??



Would these fractions of the speed of light be the same as 8/100%

8%/100 = 0.08 "percent"


You see the % and fraction of the speed of light is what I get lost in, I am looking at this as a tax return or a transaction or something like that, it is the fraction and their meaning that is very very confusing when dealing with fractions of the speed of light because it is = 1.

Thanks....




0.01*10 = 0.1 = mph = 5 mph??

DrRocket, on 30 December 2011 - 07:16 PM, said:

0.5 c is precisely c/2 just as 0.5 x 10 mph = 5 mph

The numerical value depends on the particular system of units that one chooses.

It has nothing to do with time.

This post has been edited by I think out of the box: 30 December 2011 - 11:41 PM

[Janus]

I think out of the box, on 30 December 2011 - 11:40 PM, said:

Hymm, this kinda works but still confused, it is this right here highlighted in bold that gets me confused here.


0.5%/299.792458 = 0.00166782047599

Wow, where to start? First off, the math is wrong 0.5%/299.792458 does not equal thew value you give. The answer you give is for 0.5/299.792458. When you add the percent sign you are actually saying 0.005/299.792458, because 0.5% =0.005. From your last post you most likely meant 50%/299.792458 or 0.5/299.792458 (50%=0.5)
Secondly, if you want to know what 50% (0.5) of 299.792458 is you use 0.5 x 299.792458 = 149.896229
Third, the speed of light is 299,792.458 km/sec, I don't know where you got the 299.792458 from.

Quote

0.00166782047599*10 = 0.0166782047599 mph ??

Again, where in the world are you getting this from? Even if the answer you got above was the correct answer in Km/sec, to get mph you have to multiply this by 2250 to get 3.752596 mph. In reality, 50% of the speed of light is 0.5 x 299792.458 = 149896.229km/sec x 2250 = 337266515.25 mph

Quote

and this too:



0.76%/299.792458 = 0.00253508712351


0.00253508712351*10 = 0.0253508712351= 0.0253508712351 mph ??



Would these fractions of the speed of light be the same as 8/100%

8%/100 = 0.08 "percent"

8/100% is the same as 8/ (100/100) or 8/1 =1

8%/100 = 8/100/100 = 0.0008 = 0.08%, I'm not sure why felt it necessary to say "percent".

Quote

0.01*10 = 0.1 = mph = 5 mph??

Again, I have no idea where you are getting this from.

[I think out of the box]

Thanks for responding! Well, I think its those dots that has me confused really, like here in this "example"


1.00/2 = 0.5

100/2 = 50


1.00/2e10 = 5e-11

100/2e10 = 5e-9


When I think fraction of the speed of light, what I envision are "sections" of time "trying" to be broken down as 1 m/s as c.


I also think that somehow c tries to represent 1 as many fractions or "sets" of the same kind behind the scenes of our equations.


What I am truly trying to find out is what this ralates to in red here:



1.00/12 = 0.08333333333333



= 0.08333333333333*299.792458 = 24.98270483333234

24.98270483333234/2 = 12.49135241666617 m/s

It looks like 0.08333333333333 represents 12 somehow in another form. AND! we all know that 12 represents 1 cycle in time as 60 minutes "and" 60 seconds just like a completed cycle of 100 % of time = 24 hours in a day.

Again like 2 representing the same thing---->60 minutes "and" 60 seconds like twins! or even gravity twins, yin and yang, north and south I think you get the point.


I think the issue stems for me to really acknowledge what c "truly" is in relation to 1 Newton as this too represents 1 of 10^3 k. Yes I know newtons measure force grams and gravity, but they seem all "laced" together...

I know per fact that the way c is used today is not correct. There is something else to this number.

Very very confusing believe me..

Thanks! hope you reply...

Janus, on 31 December 2011 - 12:32 AM, said:

Wow, where to start? First off, the math is wrong 0.5%/299.792458 does not equal thew value you give. The answer you give is for 0.5/299.792458. When you add the percent sign you are actually saying 0.005/299.792458, because 0.5% =0.005. From your last post you most likely meant 50%/299.792458 or 0.5/299.792458 (50%=0.5)
Secondly, if you want to know what 50% (0.5) of 299.792458 is you use 0.5 x 299.792458 = 149.896229
Third, the speed of light is 299,792.458 km/sec, I don't know where you got the 299.792458 from.
Again, where in the world are you getting this from? Even if the answer you got above was the correct answer in Km/sec, to get mph you have to multiply this by 2250 to get 3.752596 mph. In reality, 50% of the speed of light is 0.5 x 299792.458 = 149896.229km/sec x 2250 = 337266515.25 mph8/100% is the same as 8/ (100/100) or 8/1 =1

8%/100 = 8/100/100 = 0.0008 = 0.08%, I'm not sure why felt it necessary to say "percent".



Again, I have no idea where you are getting this from.

This post has been edited by I think out of the box: 31 December 2011 - 06:12 AM

[DrRocket]

I think out of the box, on 31 December 2011 - 06:00 AM, said:

I know per fact that the way c is used today is not correct. There is something else to this number.

Very very confusing believe me..

Your facts are wrong. c is most certainly used correctly -- by those who understand it.

c is NOT a number. c is a speed. It has the dimension of length/time. That dimension is important and distinguishes c from dimensionless constants (pure numbers) like the fine structure constant.

I agree that this is very confusing to you. I suggest reading a good introductory physics text. Fundamentals of Physics by Walker, Halliday and Resnick should do the trick.

This post has been edited by DrRocket: 1 January 2012 - 12:09 AM

[Daedalus]

I think out of the box, on 31 December 2011 - 06:00 AM, said:

When I think fraction of the speed of light, what I envision are "sections" of time "trying" to be broken down as 1 m/s as c.

Fractions are just ratios. You know... like portions of a pie / pizza. When people are talking about fractions of the speed of light they are referring to the Lorentz factor in that:



Where is the relative velocity, and is the speed of light in a vacuum.

You can see from the above equation, that is the ratio of the relative velocity to the speed of light. That is why we refer to percentages of the speed of light. It simplifies the math so that we do not have to plug in big numbers (i.e. the value of our relative velocity and the value for the speed of light). We simply plug in our ratio and see what the equation produces.

Also, I can say that I move at 100 m / s and you are moving at 50 m / s. Therefore, you are moving at 50% of the speed that I am and I am moving at 200% of the speed you are:

This post has been edited by Daedalus: 1 January 2012 - 02:22 AM

[I think out of the box]

thanks this makes better sense...

I will get the book, ASAP! I need it...lol

DrRocket, on 1 January 2012 - 12:09 AM, said:

Your facts are wrong. c is most certainly used correctly -- by those who understand it.

c is NOT a number. c is a speed. It has the dimension of length/time. That dimension is important and distinguishes c from dimensionless constants (pure numbers) like the fine structure constant.

I agree that this is very confusing to you. I suggest reading a good introductory physics text. Fundamentals of Physics by Walker, Halliday and Resnick should do the trick.

This post has been edited by I think out of the box: 3 January 2012 - 04:41 AM

[I think out of the box]

Yes thanks just looking at this an the explanation you gave makes sense, but what does not make any sense is why does the Lorentz function have to work with squared numbers? If you think for a moment a squared number basically loops that number and anything connected to it. There goes your ratios. These ratios are fractions of the whole ratio here, now when you also think about it many of the constants used today also have negative exponents in them too. These two things I mentioned is what I specialize in. What I do is understand the constants, not the function. I was told that the Lorentz transformations does not work with precession in fact I have been told many times that precession may not be possible to calculate at all in relation to physics.

I think I have a solution here: Working with an algo rhythm I created, I found something very interesting that may far supersede Lorentz Transformation, when it is understood a little better by me. What I created is a hyper cube. What it does is create a manifold of many transformation not just one in relation to another, it predicts the origin, the source, the center. This is a very profound and deep discovery, this is why I am here explaining this to you guys.

For now here are some figures I found:



[X 1.627262* 10e-26 mass of a proton

[Y 3.2*10e-18 Hubble constant

relative area = 15819225774831842 <---NO PRESESION, NO RADDIX THE VALUE IS FREE HERE.


I checked on an online calculaotr for this number 15819225774831842 and it appears to be interesting.

I included what the calculator stated and here it is.

Hubble online calculator:

Hubble Parameter and Red Shifts

Hubbel Distance: 15819225774831842 = r = 0.09502262443438923 c / (70 km/s/Mpc) = 407.23981900452526 Mpc = 1328.2668325791867 Mly

I have no idea what that means....




But I do know what this means, its highlighted in blue.


Relativity Calculator

A Relativistic Change Factor: 15819225774831842

Occurs At:

1 Light Speed OR

186282.397 Miles Per Second OR

299792.458 Kilometers Per Second


As you can see there is something wrong with any number that is squared when not used and understood correctly...

I hope this makes more sense, you are more than welcome to check this yourself------>15819225774831842

You will see the same results. Thanks hope to hear from you soon!

Daedalus, on 1 January 2012 - 01:17 AM, said:

Fractions are just ratios. You know... like portions of a pie / pizza. When people are talking about fractions of the speed of light they are referring to the Lorentz factor in that:



Where is the relative velocity, and is the speed of light in a vacuum.

You can see from the above equation, that is the ratio of the relative velocity to the speed of light. That is why we refer to percentages of the speed of light. It simplifies the math so that we do not have to plug in big numbers (i.e. the value of our relative velocity and the value for the speed of light). We simply plug in our ratio and see what the equation produces.

Also, I can say that I move at 100 m / s and you are moving at 50 m / s. Therefore, you are moving at 50% of the speed that I am and I am moving at 200% of the speed you are:

[mooeypoo]

Equations don't just appear in a void. They're not things that scientists just "thought of" and wrote down, and everyone else follows.

Equations are derived; they are made out of something else, in a clear method, and before people can accept them the scientific community checks the method again and again in a process called "peer review". In this process, scientists literally try to "butcher" the equation - to find flaws in it, to make it fail - because if they succeed, the equation is not good enough, and if they fail, the equation is strong enough to be useful.

The same has happened with the Lorentz transformation. It's not very intuitive to understand where the squared numbers came from, but there is a reason for them. You can see it clearly in a derivation of the formula.

Here are a few links with derivations of the Lorentz transformation:

• Lorentz transformations: Einstein’s derivation simplified: http://arxiv.org/ftp...702/0702157.pdf
• http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110076
• http://galileo.phys....rentztrans.html

I think it might help you see how the math was properly done to reach those formulas, including the proper use (and derivation) of units and the transformation between different units.

This, too, might help you see why everyone is getting confused by your unit-less numbers and the wrong conversion of units:
http://oakroadsystem...ath/convert.htm - it's a very good guide and explanation to how conversion of units is done, why, and what units are for.

~mooey

[I think out of the box]

Thanks, got the links, I am gonna take some time on these and study...

mooeypoo, on 12 January 2012 - 04:20 PM, said:

Equations don't just appear in a void. They're not things that scientists just "thought of" and wrote down, and everyone else follows.

Equations are derived; they are made out of something else, in a clear method, and before people can accept them the scientific community checks the method again and again in a process called "peer review". In this process, scientists literally try to "butcher" the equation - to find flaws in it, to make it fail - because if they succeed, the equation is not good enough, and if they fail, the equation is strong enough to be useful.

The same has happened with the Lorentz transformation. It's not very intuitive to understand where the squared numbers came from, but there is a reason for them. You can see it clearly in a derivation of the formula.

Here are a few links with derivations of the Lorentz transformation:

• Lorentz transformations: Einstein's derivation simplified: http://arxiv.org/ftp...702/0702157.pdf
• http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0110076
• http://galileo.phys....rentztrans.html

I think it might help you see how the math was properly done to reach those formulas, including the proper use (and derivation) of units and the transformation between different units.

This, too, might help you see why everyone is getting confused by your unit-less numbers and the wrong conversion of units:
http://oakroadsystem...ath/convert.htm - it's a very good guide and explanation to how conversion of units is done, why, and what units are for.

~mooey

[between3and26characterslon]

I think out of the box, on 13 January 2012 - 10:09 AM, said:

Thanks, got the links, I am gonna take some time on these and study...

It appears you would do well to learn what's in the box before thinking out of it (no offence intended)