Recent content by Hippasos

Yes of course my stupid mistake. I was *runk and it was late. Still interesting ...142857.. cycles there.

1/56=0,017857142857142857142857...142857 1/7=0,142857142857142857142857...142857 142857 142857/7= 20408,142857142857142857...142857 20408/7= 2915,42857142857142857...142857 2915/7= 416,42857142857142857142857...142857 416/7= 59,42857142857142857142857...142857 59/7=...

Ok, so in the case of photon we are always measuring the resultant c (coordinates fixed and aligned to the photon no matter howewer the observer assigns his/her coordinates. So obviously one shouldn't think resultant c = sum of all three velocity vector components (axes) in 3d space.

Hi all! Is it possible to derive x-y-z vectors of c in 3d cartesian space? Is there any way we could then observe the photon (or measure its speed) in parallel with x-axis for example? Thanks.

That's true of course, and if we could absolutely forget all about relativism - would we then know any absolutely stationary object in the universe?

russ Well it stroke me then as like with stationary objects no speed calculations would apply. As if they (stationary objects) were somehow without measure or unit thereof. Of course we mark the stationary objects' speed as zero unit but it then crossed my mind as objects - when stationary -...

"What is the problem that you feel you need to have explained? " :D Ok. To me it seems confusing that we are seemingly able to calculate the SPEED difference between objects that even doesn't MOVE ie. doesn't have a measurable SPEED... or it is 0. Hope this clarified... :D

Hi! I was havin again one of my "weaker moments" as we were trawelling to our wacation at a freeway and numerous cars were speeding to pass our car. I begun to think about speed differences like 120 km/h compared to 60 km/h is of course 60 km/h. And 0 km/h compared to 60 km/h is also 60 km/h...

apeiron I'm with You. It really seems that mathematics is the closest language we (humans) have developed with nature but how close is it to "really" "understand". Close enough?

Or is it really a duality - or just an another way for human kind to percieve things...?

Hi! Can You please confirm that there is no contradiction between Cantor's theorem of countably infinite power sets and Galileo's paradox? - Thanks

Could You please generalize... :D

I'd say it's a reflection of the incompleteness of a MEASUREMENT.

Hi! I think I got it right this time... :D Let C be the number of the continuum of numbers (with decimals). Let N be the number of all natural numbers. When counting decimals in the numbers which belongs to the continuum, is there numbers which have C decimals more than numbers...

I apologize for my mediocre English... Thinking another way to rephrase this.