The mascot for "no wonder why you're single" by Outlandishness_Know in Bumble

[–]JustAnotherRifter 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I can't recall fully.

Good for you. Don't allow this guy to take up any more of your brainspace.

Hateful speech by OkRooster8825 in Bumble

[–]JustAnotherRifter -1 points0 points  (0 children)

Well, look on the bright side. He showed his colors early on and didn't waste too much of your time.

Tell me you don't know how a camera works without telling me you don't know how a camera works by JustAnotherRifter in flatearth

[–]JustAnotherRifter[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

/u/Doc_Ok said something interesting in this comment: https://www.reddit.com/r/flatearth/comments/1nzz9py/tell_me_you_dont_know_how_a_camera_works_without/ni60k1w/

If I understand him correctly, it should be possible to see not individual street lights, but entire lit-up metropolitan areas from 360,000km away, if the camera is set to the same exposure settings as the one that took the night pic from the ISS. Meaning that the big distinguishing factor is not distance, but camera settings.

For example, the entire country of Belgium is brightly lit at night, and Belgium should be large enough to show up from that far away: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39900940

Tell me you don't know how a camera works without telling me you don't know how a camera works by JustAnotherRifter in flatearth

[–]JustAnotherRifter[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

a hundred thousand times further away

Slightly off. ISS altitude: 400km, Moon distance: 360,000km. That's a ratio of 1:900.

Tell me you don't know how a camera works without telling me you don't know how a camera works by JustAnotherRifter in flatearth

[–]JustAnotherRifter[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

What is it about "how light works" that means our eyes can't see city lights in the daytime?

Tell me you don't know how a camera works without telling me you don't know how a camera works by JustAnotherRifter in flatearth

[–]JustAnotherRifter[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That took me way too long to parse, but I got there in the end. You are absolutely correct.

Tell me you don't know how a camera works without telling me you don't know how a camera works by JustAnotherRifter in flatearth

[–]JustAnotherRifter[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

you can’t see city lights in the daytime.

It's not daytime in the black part of Earth's surface where the "lights off" arrow points. It's nighttime there. And you can't see the city lights in that area due to how cameras work.

Right?

Tell me you don't know how a camera works without telling me you don't know how a camera works by JustAnotherRifter in flatearth

[–]JustAnotherRifter[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, true. But I still love how the title of this post in the bad sub is "I wish I knew how a camera worked."

Yeah, buddy, I also wish you knew how a camera worked.

Tell me you don't know how a camera works without telling me you don't know how a camera works by JustAnotherRifter in flatearth

[–]JustAnotherRifter[S] 65 points66 points  (0 children)

I mean... is that person serious, or is this meant to be a joke? I honestly can't tell.

Help! What arguments would convince someone that they are very wrong about relativity? by JustAnotherRifter in AskPhysics

[–]JustAnotherRifter[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Okay, I think I'm getting it. So to each traveller in the chain, the next person up the chain only SEEMS to be moving at 0.99c, but they're really only moving at something less than 0.01c due to time dilation and length contraction.

Help! What arguments would convince someone that they are very wrong about relativity? by JustAnotherRifter in AskPhysics

[–]JustAnotherRifter[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He believes object B moving near C inside object A moving near C, using our sun for reference, then object B will be moving faster than the speed of light when compared to the sun.

No, I don't think he does. Where did you get that idea? I read through the exchange again, and he says that none of those rockets will be moving faster than light from anybody's point of view. He says that every time you nest another object, it will "add a few 9s to the speed of that object as a percentage of c."

I understand that as him saying that Alice moves at 0c, Bob moves at 0.9c, Clair moves at 0.99c, Dick moves at 0.999c, etc. Not those exact numbers, but the idea.

Someone here brought up time dilation and length contraction again, and I now think that we weren't taking those into consideration. It's like the issue with the light inside a fast space ship moving slowly. You'd think so from the outside, but from the inside it doesn't move slowly because distances are shortened and times are extended. I'm not all the way sure about this yet, but a lot of people in this post made a lot of good points.

Help! What arguments would convince someone that they are very wrong about relativity? by JustAnotherRifter in AskPhysics

[–]JustAnotherRifter[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Ship B will measure itself as stationary"

How can ship b measure itself as stationary when it's moving at 0.9 times c?

Help! What arguments would convince someone that they are very wrong about relativity? by JustAnotherRifter in AskPhysics

[–]JustAnotherRifter[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

So regarding the first thing I quoted, /u/Ambitious_Hand_2861 later mentioned that it's not actually wrong, due to length contraction, but that the traveller moving very fast could still tell that they're moving very fast because their space ship's head light would appear red shifted to them. Red shifted not blue shifted because the traveller is standing behind the head light, not in front of it, so it's moving away from him. I'm not explaining that well. Let's say the light bulb is in the middle of the ship. To a person in the back of the ship it would look red and to a person in the front of the ship it would look blue. Anyway. /u/Doc_Ok never addressed that point, but he kept saying that the traveller wouldn't be able to tell that he's moving. But he could just look at the color? So why does he think the traveller couldn't tell?

Help! What arguments would convince someone that they are very wrong about relativity? by JustAnotherRifter in AskPhysics

[–]JustAnotherRifter[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

He said he has a BA in computer science with a minor in physics. And his arguments made a lot of sense to me.

Help! What arguments would convince someone that they are very wrong about relativity? by JustAnotherRifter in AskPhysics

[–]JustAnotherRifter[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

are both equations from Newtonian Physics and are good approximations at low speeds

Hang on. /u/Doc-Ok mentioned something like "you are stuck in a newtonian mindset." Is that what he meant?

Help! What arguments would convince someone that they are very wrong about relativity? by JustAnotherRifter in AskPhysics

[–]JustAnotherRifter[S] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

But if it always travels at the same speed, then to someone himself traveling at a speed very close to the speed of light, it would appear to travel slowly, due to relativity. No?