Search results

Of course no reference point can move from itself. A reference point for what is moving must be stationary in order to give us the speed of what is moving. Right? --Dave

Moving reference points tell me nothing about the speed of things that are moving. --Dave

But that both are moving does not give us the speed at which both are moving. A moving reference point along side the thing it's referencing tells us nothing about the speed of each. It's only the stationary earth that can give us a speed for each. --Dave

How can you calculate a speed for anything if every "reference point" is moving? Do we just pretend that some reference points are not moving? --Dave

I said try to get out of a car that's moving at 60 mph, not try to get into a car right next to it going at the same speed. That you would change the argument reveals that you can't argue against my point. We are talking about the theory of relativity in relation to velocity. I thought you...

You can't determine speed unless you have something that not moving to measure it against what is moving. Am I wrong about this? --Dave

In theory both cars do indeed "seem" to be standing still, but in "reality" both cars are traveling at 60 miles an hour. Try to get out of a car traveling at 60 mph just because you think you're not moving because there's a car right next to you traveling at the same speed. We can calculate...

Two cars 120 miles apart, traveling at 60 mph, well meet in one hour. Just as two cars starting in the place but traveling in opposite directions will be 120 miles apart in one hour. And you're saying this is wrong? --Dave

Points A and B example When cars moving a 60 mph are, for a brief moment, directly across from each other they are both at point A moving toward their own point B--one hour away. Point A to point B for each car is 60 miles. That these cars are 120 mile apart when they each reach their own point...

I have simply argued that the 120 mph speed is an imaged speed and not the actual speed of cards moving at 60 mph in opposite directions. Imagined things work well in art not so much in physics in my humble opinion. --Dave

I wasn't claiming that this equation, V=V1+V2, was originally from Einstein. I was using Sam Gralla's comments from the video I posted. If you had watched just the few minutes of the video that I suggested you would have seen how Sam linked this equation to Einstein in his lecture. Einstein is...

There's only one velocity for each car and only one way to determine it. Even in grade school you know that much. Which ever car your in, it's going 60 mph, not 120 mph. The car your're not in is not going 120 mph in the opposite direction. This 120 mph breaks the first logical rule of...

Fallacy of relativity In this video Sam Gralla, Assistant professor of physics at the University of Arizona lectures on his work on the measurement of gravity waves. This is not a video about flat earth. I'm only concerned with his comments on the speed of light that begin at 5:13 and end at...

Obviously, I see contradictions and equivocation for a spinning globe. That gravity is a weak force so we can move freely on earth yet it's powerful enough to pull the moon and keep it in orbit is nonsense. The earth spins at almost the speed of sound and yet we never feel or see it. It would...

How can gravity be weak if it's holding the moon in it's orbit around the earth and the earth's orbit around the sun and our entire atmosphere. --Dave

I don't see any disagreement between us about the reality of time and space. They are realities for us and God. The question I have about gravity is, what is it pulling that is weak vs what is gravity not pulling because it's not weak? --Dave

I don't see us disagreeing on time and space accept that you call them only "concepts" but then affirm their reality. I think you're in error in your use of the word concept. But other than that we are clearly both open theists. As far as gravity I don't think you understand my problem with it...

I've seen this and many others like it. I understand the basic heliocentric model and never doubted it before. There are new videos that show how the flat earth model works but I want to add commentary before I post them. And as I have said, the flat earth must pass this test of how the sun...

The stars are always moving--rotating above earth. What you see from the northern half of earth is not what you see from the most southern part of earth. The sun, moon, and stars are not the millions of miles away as per the heliocentric model. Because they are much closer, perspective and...

The moon images are not "false" they just don't need a ship in order to be seen the same way. The pic of earth is no different than those computer generated by NASA and are just as fake. Why would a "privately funded" group lie? I suppose for the same reason a "government funded" one would...