Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #450748 > unrolled thread

More Relativity; Subtraction of velocities keeping below light speed; as Additions do

Started bymitchrae3323@gmail.com
First post2018-02-24 15:53 -0800
Last post2018-02-24 22:06 -0800
Articles 13 — 4 participants

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  More Relativity; Subtraction of velocities keeping below light speed; as Additions do mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-02-24 15:53 -0800
    Re: More Relativity; Subtraction of velocities keeping below light speed; as Additions do Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-02-25 10:59 +1100
      Re: More Relativity; Subtraction of velocities keeping below light speed; as Additions do mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-02-24 16:06 -0800
        Re: More Relativity; Subtraction of velocities keeping below light speed; as Additions do Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-02-25 12:24 +1100
          Re: More Relativity; Subtraction of velocities keeping below light speed; as Additions do mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-02-24 17:41 -0800
            Re: More Relativity; Subtraction of velocities keeping below light speed; as Additions do Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-02-25 15:16 +1100
              Re: More Relativity; Subtraction of velocities keeping below light speed; as Additions do mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-02-24 21:15 -0800
                Re: More Relativity; Subtraction of velocities keeping below light speed; as Additions do Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-02-25 16:50 +1100
                  Re: More Relativity; Subtraction of velocities keeping below light speed; as Additions do mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-02-24 21:58 -0800
                    Re: More Relativity; Subtraction of velocities keeping below light speed; as Additions do Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2018-02-25 19:18 +1100
                      Re: More Relativity; Subtraction of velocities keeping below light speed; as Additions do mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2018-02-25 15:02 -0800
                Re: More Relativity; Subtraction of velocities keeping below light speed; as Additions do pnalsing@gmail.com - 2018-02-24 22:08 -0800
    Re: More Relativity; Subtraction of velocities keeping below light speed; as Additions do David Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com> - 2018-02-24 22:06 -0800

#450748 — More Relativity; Subtraction of velocities keeping below light speed; as Additions do

Frommitchrae3323@gmail.com
Date2018-02-24 15:53 -0800
SubjectMore Relativity; Subtraction of velocities keeping below light speed; as Additions do
Message-ID<a48ed161-cff9-4c12-b68b-572d2abb4be2@googlegroups.com>
Addition of velocities remaining below light speed are clearly understood when moving toward each other at near the speed of light; but what about moving away? That gives subtractions of velocities remaining below the speed light.
This is an until now unrecognized flip side of relativity.

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#450749

FromSylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date2018-02-25 10:59 +1100
Message-ID<ffecjfFek16U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#450748
On 25/02/2018 10:53 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> Addition of velocities remaining below light speed are clearly understood when moving toward each other at near the speed of light; but what about moving away? That gives subtractions of velocities remaining below the speed light.
> This is an until now unrecognized flip side of relativity.
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch
> 

It's already covered by the same formula.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#450751

Frommitchrae3323@gmail.com
Date2018-02-24 16:06 -0800
Message-ID<b06bc958-5ed1-4c41-946e-e00365c27ace@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#450749
On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 3:59:46 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 25/02/2018 10:53 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> > Addition of velocities remaining below light speed are clearly understood when moving toward each other at near the speed of light; but what about moving away? That gives subtractions of velocities remaining below the speed light.
> > This is an until now unrecognized flip side of relativity.
> > 
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> > 
> 
> It's already covered by the same formula.
> 
> Sylvia.

It should be.
But where is it used? There is a difference between
toward and away...

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#450754

FromSylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date2018-02-25 12:24 +1100
Message-ID<ffehj4Ffj8aU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#450751
On 25/02/2018 11:06 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 3:59:46 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 25/02/2018 10:53 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Addition of velocities remaining below light speed are clearly understood when moving toward each other at near the speed of light; but what about moving away? That gives subtractions of velocities remaining below the speed light.
>>> This is an until now unrecognized flip side of relativity.
>>>
>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>>
>>
>> It's already covered by the same formula.
>>
>> Sylvia.
> 
> It should be.
> But where is it used? There is a difference between
> toward and away...
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch
> 

It's used where the situation demands. Just change the sign of one of 
the velocities.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#450755

Frommitchrae3323@gmail.com
Date2018-02-24 17:41 -0800
Message-ID<411115bb-8700-4ddb-a2ab-93060d1b690f@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#450754
On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 5:24:56 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 25/02/2018 11:06 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 3:59:46 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 25/02/2018 10:53 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> Addition of velocities remaining below light speed are clearly understood when moving toward each other at near the speed of light; but what about moving away? That gives subtractions of velocities remaining below the speed light.
> >>> This is an until now unrecognized flip side of relativity.
> >>>
> >>> Mitchell Raemsch
> >>>
> >>
> >> It's already covered by the same formula.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> > 
> > It should be.
> > But where is it used? There is a difference between
> > toward and away...
> > 
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> > 
> 
> It's used where the situation demands. Just change the sign of one of 
> the velocities.
> 
> Sylvia.

How do you define the situation?
That is not how it works.
How do you define the velocities as positive
when they are subtracting?
Why would it?

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#450762

FromSylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date2018-02-25 15:16 +1100
Message-ID<fferkvFhgmpU1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#450755
On 25/02/2018 12:41 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 5:24:56 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 25/02/2018 11:06 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 3:59:46 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 25/02/2018 10:53 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> Addition of velocities remaining below light speed are clearly understood when moving toward each other at near the speed of light; but what about moving away? That gives subtractions of velocities remaining below the speed light.
>>>>> This is an until now unrecognized flip side of relativity.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's already covered by the same formula.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> It should be.
>>> But where is it used? There is a difference between
>>> toward and away...
>>>
>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>>
>>
>> It's used where the situation demands. Just change the sign of one of
>> the velocities.
>>
>> Sylvia.
> 
> How do you define the situation?
> That is not how it works.
> How do you define the velocities as positive
> when they are subtracting?
> Why would it?
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch
> 

The sign of the velocity is a convention. If the velocities are in the 
same direction then they're both deemed positive, and the (inevitably 
positive) result is for a velocity in the same direction.

If the two velocities are in opposite directions, then you choose one of 
them to be deemed positive, and the other negative. If the result is 
positive, then the resulting velocity is in the direction of the 
velocity deemed positive. Otherwise it's in the opposite direction.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#450764

Frommitchrae3323@gmail.com
Date2018-02-24 21:15 -0800
Message-ID<1551cfb4-8bfc-4bc6-9fab-0041630f0918@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#450762
On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 8:16:34 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 25/02/2018 12:41 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 5:24:56 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 25/02/2018 11:06 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 3:59:46 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>> On 25/02/2018 10:53 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> Addition of velocities remaining below light speed are clearly understood when moving toward each other at near the speed of light; but what about moving away? That gives subtractions of velocities remaining below the speed light.
> >>>>> This is an until now unrecognized flip side of relativity.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Mitchell Raemsch
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> It's already covered by the same formula.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sylvia.
> >>>
> >>> It should be.
> >>> But where is it used? There is a difference between
> >>> toward and away...
> >>>
> >>> Mitchell Raemsch
> >>>
> >>
> >> It's used where the situation demands. Just change the sign of one of
> >> the velocities.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> > 
> > How do you define the situation?
> > That is not how it works.
> > How do you define the velocities as positive
> > when they are subtracting?
> > Why would it?
> > 
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> > 
> 
> The sign of the velocity is a convention. If the velocities are in the 
> same direction then they're both deemed positive, and the (inevitably 
> positive) result is for a velocity in the same direction.
> 
> If the two velocities are in opposite directions, then you choose one of 
> them to be deemed positive, and the other negative. If the result is 
> positive, then the resulting velocity is in the direction of the 
> velocity deemed positive. Otherwise it's in the opposite direction.
> 
> Sylvia.

Oh really?
Then science has got that wrong...
BOTH speeds have been subtracted from
and remain below the speed of light.
What you are saying is what I never believed.
I will stay with this my own math understanding
if you agree to disagree?

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#450766

FromSylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date2018-02-25 16:50 +1100
Message-ID<fff163Fij89U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#450764
On 25/02/2018 4:15 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 8:16:34 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 25/02/2018 12:41 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 5:24:56 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 25/02/2018 11:06 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 3:59:46 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>> On 25/02/2018 10:53 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> Addition of velocities remaining below light speed are clearly understood when moving toward each other at near the speed of light; but what about moving away? That gives subtractions of velocities remaining below the speed light.
>>>>>>> This is an until now unrecognized flip side of relativity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's already covered by the same formula.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>
>>>>> It should be.
>>>>> But where is it used? There is a difference between
>>>>> toward and away...
>>>>>
>>>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's used where the situation demands. Just change the sign of one of
>>>> the velocities.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> How do you define the situation?
>>> That is not how it works.
>>> How do you define the velocities as positive
>>> when they are subtracting?
>>> Why would it?
>>>
>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>>
>>
>> The sign of the velocity is a convention. If the velocities are in the
>> same direction then they're both deemed positive, and the (inevitably
>> positive) result is for a velocity in the same direction.
>>
>> If the two velocities are in opposite directions, then you choose one of
>> them to be deemed positive, and the other negative. If the result is
>> positive, then the resulting velocity is in the direction of the
>> velocity deemed positive. Otherwise it's in the opposite direction.
>>
>> Sylvia.
> 
> Oh really?
> Then science has got that wrong...
> BOTH speeds have been subtracted from
> and remain below the speed of light.
> What you are saying is what I never believed.
> I will stay with this my own math understanding
> if you agree to disagree?
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch
> 
> 

I disagree that we should agree to disagree. The relativistic math is 
right. Your conviction that it's not is a delusion.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#450767

Frommitchrae3323@gmail.com
Date2018-02-24 21:58 -0800
Message-ID<1ceb47bc-1123-4714-828a-e07d458bd152@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#450766
On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 9:51:02 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 25/02/2018 4:15 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 8:16:34 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 25/02/2018 12:41 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 5:24:56 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>> On 25/02/2018 11:06 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 3:59:46 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>>>> On 25/02/2018 10:53 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> Addition of velocities remaining below light speed are clearly understood when moving toward each other at near the speed of light; but what about moving away? That gives subtractions of velocities remaining below the speed light.
> >>>>>>> This is an until now unrecognized flip side of relativity.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Mitchell Raemsch
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's already covered by the same formula.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sylvia.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> It should be.
> >>>>> But where is it used? There is a difference between
> >>>>> toward and away...
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Mitchell Raemsch
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> It's used where the situation demands. Just change the sign of one of
> >>>> the velocities.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sylvia.
> >>>
> >>> How do you define the situation?
> >>> That is not how it works.
> >>> How do you define the velocities as positive
> >>> when they are subtracting?
> >>> Why would it?
> >>>
> >>> Mitchell Raemsch
> >>>
> >>
> >> The sign of the velocity is a convention. If the velocities are in the
> >> same direction then they're both deemed positive, and the (inevitably
> >> positive) result is for a velocity in the same direction.
> >>
> >> If the two velocities are in opposite directions, then you choose one of
> >> them to be deemed positive, and the other negative. If the result is
> >> positive, then the resulting velocity is in the direction of the
> >> velocity deemed positive. Otherwise it's in the opposite direction.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> > 
> > Oh really?
> > Then science has got that wrong...
> > BOTH speeds have been subtracted from
> > and remain below the speed of light.
> > What you are saying is what I never believed.
> > I will stay with this my own math understanding
> > if you agree to disagree?
> > 
> > Mitchell Raemsch
> > 
> > 
> 
> I disagree that we should agree to disagree. The relativistic math is 
> right. Your conviction that it's not is a delusion.
> 
> Sylvia.

I don't believe your math. How are you going to take
mine from me Sylvia? Don't go there you won't win
the argument all of the way.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#450772

FromSylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
Date2018-02-25 19:18 +1100
Message-ID<fff9raFkbt4U1@mid.individual.net>
In reply to#450767
On 25/02/2018 4:58 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 9:51:02 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 25/02/2018 4:15 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
>>> On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 8:16:34 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>> On 25/02/2018 12:41 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>> On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 5:24:56 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>> On 25/02/2018 11:06 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>> On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 3:59:46 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 25/02/2018 10:53 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Addition of velocities remaining below light speed are clearly understood when moving toward each other at near the speed of light; but what about moving away? That gives subtractions of velocities remaining below the speed light.
>>>>>>>>> This is an until now unrecognized flip side of relativity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It's already covered by the same formula.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It should be.
>>>>>>> But where is it used? There is a difference between
>>>>>>> toward and away...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's used where the situation demands. Just change the sign of one of
>>>>>> the velocities.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sylvia.
>>>>>
>>>>> How do you define the situation?
>>>>> That is not how it works.
>>>>> How do you define the velocities as positive
>>>>> when they are subtracting?
>>>>> Why would it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The sign of the velocity is a convention. If the velocities are in the
>>>> same direction then they're both deemed positive, and the (inevitably
>>>> positive) result is for a velocity in the same direction.
>>>>
>>>> If the two velocities are in opposite directions, then you choose one of
>>>> them to be deemed positive, and the other negative. If the result is
>>>> positive, then the resulting velocity is in the direction of the
>>>> velocity deemed positive. Otherwise it's in the opposite direction.
>>>>
>>>> Sylvia.
>>>
>>> Oh really?
>>> Then science has got that wrong...
>>> BOTH speeds have been subtracted from
>>> and remain below the speed of light.
>>> What you are saying is what I never believed.
>>> I will stay with this my own math understanding
>>> if you agree to disagree?
>>>
>>> Mitchell Raemsch
>>>
>>>
>>
>> I disagree that we should agree to disagree. The relativistic math is
>> right. Your conviction that it's not is a delusion.
>>
>> Sylvia.
> 
> I don't believe your math. How are you going to take
> mine from me Sylvia? Don't go there you won't win
> the argument all of the way.
> 

The derivation of the formula works whether the velocities are in the 
same direction, or in opposite directions. The only way you could arrive 
at a different formula is if you got it wrong.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#450809

Frommitchrae3323@gmail.com
Date2018-02-25 15:02 -0800
Message-ID<40386750-497f-446c-8c6c-0afba59ee1ea@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#450772
On Sunday, February 25, 2018 at 12:18:54 AM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 25/02/2018 4:58 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 9:51:02 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >> On 25/02/2018 4:15 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 8:16:34 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>> On 25/02/2018 12:41 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 5:24:56 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>>>> On 25/02/2018 11:06 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 3:59:46 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On 25/02/2018 10:53 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> Addition of velocities remaining below light speed are clearly understood when moving toward each other at near the speed of light; but what about moving away? That gives subtractions of velocities remaining below the speed light.
> >>>>>>>>> This is an until now unrecognized flip side of relativity.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Mitchell Raemsch
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It's already covered by the same formula.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Sylvia.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> It should be.
> >>>>>>> But where is it used? There is a difference between
> >>>>>>> toward and away...
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Mitchell Raemsch
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It's used where the situation demands. Just change the sign of one of
> >>>>>> the velocities.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Sylvia.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> How do you define the situation?
> >>>>> That is not how it works.
> >>>>> How do you define the velocities as positive
> >>>>> when they are subtracting?
> >>>>> Why would it?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Mitchell Raemsch
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> The sign of the velocity is a convention. If the velocities are in the
> >>>> same direction then they're both deemed positive, and the (inevitably
> >>>> positive) result is for a velocity in the same direction.
> >>>>
> >>>> If the two velocities are in opposite directions, then you choose one of
> >>>> them to be deemed positive, and the other negative. If the result is
> >>>> positive, then the resulting velocity is in the direction of the
> >>>> velocity deemed positive. Otherwise it's in the opposite direction.
> >>>>
> >>>> Sylvia.
> >>>
> >>> Oh really?
> >>> Then science has got that wrong...
> >>> BOTH speeds have been subtracted from
> >>> and remain below the speed of light.
> >>> What you are saying is what I never believed.
> >>> I will stay with this my own math understanding
> >>> if you agree to disagree?
> >>>
> >>> Mitchell Raemsch
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> I disagree that we should agree to disagree. The relativistic math is
> >> right. Your conviction that it's not is a delusion.
> >>
> >> Sylvia.
> > 
> > I don't believe your math. How are you going to take
> > mine from me Sylvia? Don't go there you won't win
> > the argument all of the way.
> > 
> 
> The derivation of the formula works whether the velocities are in the 
> same direction, or in opposite directions. The only way you could arrive 
> at a different formula is if you got it wrong.
> 
> Sylvia.

I know you have to believe yourself Sylvia.
Let someone rescue you.

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#450769

Frompnalsing@gmail.com
Date2018-02-24 22:08 -0800
Message-ID<e02f66fe-9da8-49ed-93a7-3eab636615ce@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#450764
On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 9:15:27 PM UTC-8, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 8:16:34 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > On 25/02/2018 12:41 PM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 5:24:56 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > >> On 25/02/2018 11:06 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>> On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 3:59:46 PM UTC-8, Sylvia Else wrote:
> > >>>> On 25/02/2018 10:53 AM, mitchrae3323@gmail.com wrote:
> > >>>>> Addition of velocities remaining below light speed are clearly understood when moving toward each other at near the speed of light; but what about moving away? That gives subtractions of velocities remaining below the speed light.
> > >>>>> This is an until now unrecognized flip side of relativity.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Mitchell Raemsch
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>
> > >>>> It's already covered by the same formula.
> > >>>>
> > >>>> Sylvia.
> > >>>
> > >>> It should be.
> > >>> But where is it used? There is a difference between
> > >>> toward and away...
> > >>>
> > >>> Mitchell Raemsch
> > >>>
> > >>
> > >> It's used where the situation demands. Just change the sign of one of
> > >> the velocities.
> > >>
> > >> Sylvia.
> > > 
> > > How do you define the situation?
> > > That is not how it works.
> > > How do you define the velocities as positive
> > > when they are subtracting?
> > > Why would it?
> > > 
> > > Mitchell Raemsch
> > > 
> > 
> > The sign of the velocity is a convention. If the velocities are in the 
> > same direction then they're both deemed positive, and the (inevitably 
> > positive) result is for a velocity in the same direction.
> > 
> > If the two velocities are in opposite directions, then you choose one of 
> > them to be deemed positive, and the other negative. If the result is 
> > positive, then the resulting velocity is in the direction of the 
> > velocity deemed positive. Otherwise it's in the opposite direction.
> > 
> > Sylvia.
> 
> Oh really?

Yes, really... this is covered in high-school physics & math, probably in the freshman or sophomore year... you should take the time to read a book, rather than just blunder along rudderless...




> Then science has got that wrong...
> BOTH speeds have been subtracted from
> and remain below the speed of light.
> What you are saying is what I never believed.
> I will stay with this my own math understanding
> if you agree to disagree?
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#450768

FromDavid Waite <waitedavid1618@yahoo.com>
Date2018-02-24 22:06 -0800
Message-ID<f19b31a4-6287-4d89-9e29-04eec272bcbe@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#450748
On Saturday, February 24, 2018 at 4:53:50 PM UTC-7, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> Addition of velocities remaining below light speed are clearly understood when moving toward each other at near the speed of light; but what about moving away? That gives subtractions of velocities remaining below the speed light.
> This is an until now unrecognized flip side of relativity.
> 
> Mitchell Raemsch

Yeah I know, over your head, but what the hell,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XnKb8ttrkE

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web