Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by J.C.MacSwell

  1. This isn't a proof but I would suggest trying the "Earth Frame" . (0,0,0) is the center of the Earth and frame and you and I are at "rest" on the surface. Are you suggesting the speed of light to be constant in this frame? Obviously most of the mass of the Universe exceeds 300,000 km/s in this frame.
  2. This could be evidence of time with a starting point also.
  3. Don't worry, soon you will be old and close minded and slow like the rest of us!
  4. If I asked you to pile an infinite amount of bricks prior to piling your favourite brick you named "now" how would you ever get to it, even given an infinite amount of time?
  5. OK, so how could we possibly get to this point in time? I'm not saying I disagree, just curious as to how you view it.
  6. Can I ask you guys what you think the odds are of there having been a big bang? I'm quite interested.
  7. Well that would be right where I'm sitting then. It went for a drive this morning but now it's back. It's the only preferred reference point I'm aware of.
  8. Are you claiming then, that space has a center, but not necessarily (personally I would suggest necessarily not) at any point in space?
  9. In your reference frame 2 photons sent in opposite directions will "distance" themselves at a rate of 2c. This does not contradict relativistic velocity addition. Nothing is exceeding c in any inertial frame.
  10. In my twisted sort of way I was doing both. I was claiming it was false and providing evidence.
  11. Excuse my ignorance, but what is binary logic?
  12. Wouldn't that (outside of strong local fields) resemble GR?
  13. What if you changed Mach's statement to "the distant stars in the distant past"?
  14. String theory is the only one that explains what happened on the grassy knoll also. One particular solution (among many others) has Fidel passing Mother Teresa a loaded gun.
  15. I loaned Heisenburg $5 years ago and he still hasn't paid me back! You're right I got it backwords. I meant you could violate conservation of energy temporarily.
  16. Yes, but it is also (like everything everywhere) in a (read infinitely many)rotating reference frame/s. We usually don't pick them for obvious reasons. Edit: in your example the body (runner) is in an inertial frame and at rest in that frame. So these pseudo forces/effects vanish. If we picked rotating reference frames as may sometimes be useful in engineering we may require pseudo force/effect "adjustments" to correctly use Newton's Laws.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.