REALTIVITY FINALLY DISQUALIFIED BY MAINSTREAM SCIENCE! BREAKING NEWS!

I had no idea Darwin was an organ grinder on the side........

The concept of "relativity" is a solid one. Einsteins SR and GR are not.


As an example of the correctness of the basic concept of relativity:

If I am traveling on the highway at 70mph I am moving at various relative velocities with other vehicles and have different kinetic energy potentials with them is one real relativity.
With cars traveling the same direction and same speed there is no relative velocity and yet we are moving at 70mph relative to the road itself, for cars traveling the same direction but different velocities the relative velocity is the difference between our velocities and with cars traveling the opposite lane or direction the relative velocity is our velocities added together. here we see a classic Newtonian relativity that he no doubt understood. It gets a bit more complicated than that obviously when the directions of travel of masses are at various angles to each other and not in the same or opposite directions, but trigonometry will suffice in calculating relative velocities by establishing ratios in these cases that can be used to calculate KE and relative velocities.

I wouldn't expect a retard like you to get a joke you hadn't ever heard before and had explained to you, even though it should be pretty easy to figure out.

There is pretty much always relative velocity.

You need to carefully choose your frame of reference for there NOT to be relative velocity.

Darwin didn't own a monkey in my reality?

So Tesla believed there was a mystery force behind the Mercury Precession? Well, at least he's ahead of IDW, who still thinks it is simple lensing-like effect, as if the Sun is acting like a prism while we view Mercury.

"He left his jacket on the pedestal, beside his tiny rusted cup, and I haven't got the strength to pick them up."

Gee wiz you are one dumb son of a bitch

You can't kick sense into someone

So Car A (traveling South) has more kinetic energy in relation to Car B (traveling North), than it does to Car C (parked by the side of the road).

All well and good. But do Car A and Car B have intrinsic kinetic energy from traveling down the road? Does Car C have an intrinsic energy? They are all sitting on the Earth, which is moving quite briskly (much faster than any car). If the Earth were to suddenly vanish, would the kinetic energy of the two cars that were moving relative to it vanish as well?

You ALWAYS have a reference frame.

...but with some it's lot of fun trying ;)

Try as you might you can't knock the sense out of people nor knock the logic out of them.

I was going to start offering different vantage points with parallax but he doesn't know what that word means.

I don't see your point. Perhaps if you remove you hat.



Only the relative velocity with the earth would vanish with it.

At least he's attempting physics again. Sigh. I leave for work in about twenty minutes.

Which is a pity because he could use parallax to cobble up a semi excuse for his trick of the light Mercury precession problem.

Can't feed this stump anything........I should know better

Which is proof positive he has no idea what parallax even means

Angles , relative velocities and force vectors do not involve parallax. Parallax is a whole different concept almost always associated with distortion of visual observations

Oddest definition for parallax I've ever heard.


It's a bit like saying "Blue is a rarely used term for white light that's been damaged."

Oh baby I hear the blues a callin

Tossed salad and scrambled eggs......

BRILLIANT!

Parallax comes into play wen making visual observations. It can be a distortion of parallel lines which appear to converge at distance for instance, it it can be the different angles and different positions from different perspectives an object appears to be at. Parallax is how your brain is able to image in three dimensions. One Eye is imaging from one preservative and the other from another.

This has ABSOLUTELY no bearing on relativity whatsoever

Ten maybe this precise 'parallel" will help:


parallax
  Use Parallax in a sentence
par·al·lax
[par-uh-laks]
noun
1.
the apparent displacement of an observed object due to a change in the position of the observer.
2.
Astronomy. the apparent angular displacement of a celestial body due to its being observed from the surface instead of from the center of the earth (diurnal parallax or geocentric parallax) or due to its being observed from the earth instead of from the sun (annual parallax or heliocentric parallax) Compare parallactic ellipse.
3.
the difference between the view of an object as seen through the picture-taking lens of a camera and the view as seen through a separate viewfinder.
4.
an apparent change in the position of cross hairs as viewed through a telescope, when the focusing is imperfect.

I knew it all along, you two fucktards were the one throwing it in to a discussion about relativity. You're not fooling anyone. You're a retard , and believe me, it shows.

Parallax can't be used to explain everything

You are beyond help.......seriously

Take that eye out of the preservative and maybe it will work better.

The above is just poetry. Wish I had the time to admire it properly but the monkeys await.

And he's right, though...parallax has nothing to do with the problem of Mercury.

Fixed it up for ya there , beetlebrain
















A man as got to know his limitations and stay within them, otherwise he makes a persistent irritation and dangerous jackass out of himself.

It was tho ONLY thing that he could have cobbled up an excuse for his "trick of the light" explanation for the precession anomaly.

OH WELL that jackassogen is detrimental to mental function......even cracked mental functioning

Parallax does not belong in this conversation at all, unless of course if you want to bring up the fact that mainstream disinformation ops are fond of using it to explain away nearly every anomalous observation ever made.


That's why fucktard threw it out there like a dead carp