Everything we perceive is in the past due to finite speed of light

From here on out unless I specify different, I will be referring to seconds and meters, clear?

What is the radius of the light sphere in meters at t=1 second?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Again I ask naively because this is getting confusing.

Which 'c' and which 't' values are you inputing to the calculations made which 'measure' the distance involved in that frame's 'c' and 't' speed/rate? Are you using some standard reference outside all frames involved in the scenario, or one particular frame in preference to the other? The c and t invoked at any one point in the discussion seems to be 'floating' between frames, seemingly depending on who is doing the talking. Is there an agreed set of values between you and MD for t and c, before the discussion is started up again? That would help me a lot in following your respective viewpoints and discussion/logic therefrom. Thanks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

It will be \(3.0\times 10^8\) metres.

Edit: And to be clear, we are talking about t=1s on a clock travelling with the light source, yes?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

:roflmao: You gotta ask Motor Daddy, he's the one so meticulously setting everything up.

 

Close but no cigar. Let me help you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meter

The metre (International spelling as used by the International Bureau of Weights and Measures) or meter (American spelling), (SI unit symbol: m; SI dimension symbol: L), is the fundamental unit of length in the International System of Units (SI).[1] Originally intended to be one ten-millionth of the distance from the Earth's equator to the North Pole (at sea level), its definition has been periodically refined to reflect growing knowledge of metrology. Since 1983, it has been defined as "the length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second.

In other words, in one second the radius of the light sphere is 299,792,458 meters. You need to drop the "close enough" BS because it's not close enough.

Do you agree with my numbers so far? I need to walk you through this in order to prevent dishonesty on your part, as I see you are starting to get stupid on me because you see where this is going and you don't want to go there, do you? Are your beliefs in jeopardy now? Starting to get a little uncomfortable?

 

Oh no, Captain Digitor has me cornered and will make me eat every last decimal I ever rounded off since I was 6!!! :truce: Of course I'm feeling sweaty and uncomfortable, it's like this weird fuzzy aura of truth is swelling up in my left elbow, plus I don't think I have enough stomach room for all those decimals.

Feel free to correct my rounding errors as you please, I'll verify them and laugh my ass off as you slowly realize the difference is so negligibly insignificant, you might as well start ripping out your hairs over calculator roundoff error too while you're at it. If you want exact answers from me, I'll keep everything symbolic until we get to the final result where I'll plug all the numbers in, which will actually be even more accurate than what you're doing, otherwise my fricking eyes are going to bleed.

So here you go, observer on train sees light sphere radius of 299,792,458 metres at 1s.

 

So I take that as a yes, you do agree with my exact number of the radius of the light sphere being 299,792,458 meters at t=1 second.

If the source travels away from the center of the light sphere during that 1 second while the light sphere was expanding, the source will be closer to one side of the light sphere than the other side, will it not?

 

So, CaptBork, Motor Daddy, Do I take it that you both are going to agree on the t, d and c measuring system resulting from the timing of light travel in a lab frame on Earth over a standard meter 'stick' previously used as the meter standard?

That is, that the current measuring system 'standard' you both use from now on in this discussion will be referring to values which were derived using a particular (Earth Lab) frame's clock tick rate and a particular (Earth Lab) frame's meter stick for 'space distance' involving a particular light beam speed traverse in a particular (Earth Lab) frame?

Ok. Now I know which t and c and distance values you two will be using. Please tell me if your future use of a t or c or distance value in your discussion point differs from that standard. It will help me a lot to keep your discussion 'on the same page' regarding these important 'variables' invoked on both 'sides' of this discussion. Thanks.

 

The source doesn't see itself traveling away from the center of the light sphere. From the source's POV, the light spreads evenly in all directions at the same rate, to the specified radius.

 

Honestly it's been every bit as frustrating for me as it's apparently been for you. I'm not the one picking the parameters of the problem, but I've got the same concerns as you and I'm going to make sure it stays on track.

 

I did not mention a point of view. I asked if the source traveled away from the center if it would be closer to one side than the other?

 

Well here's another experimentally proven fact for you: It matters entirely whose point of view you're talking about. You need to specify which frame the clocks and rulers are to be located in for each measurement. From the source's POV: the light pulse spreads in a sphere, the source stays at the centre. From a ground observer's POV: the light pulse spreads in a sphere, the source moves away from the center towards the rightmost edge of the sphere as it expands.

 

You are trying to bring Einstein's BS into it and I am not talking about that BS! If the source travels away from the center is the source at the center or not?

 

I answered the f*cking question. It's an experimentally proven fact.

 

You are saying that if the source moves away from the center that it is still at the center???? Are you f'n out of your mind?

 

No, that's precisely what the source measures. Anything more to add or are we finished herp derping here?

 

I'm going to bed. This is wasting my time talking with a dishonest person. I'd be better off trying to convince a preacher that God is a fairytale.

 

Next time you want to make stupid arguments like this which are essentially based on ignoring everything that's been discovered in the last 150 years, please post them where they belong in pseudoscience. Enough of this repetitive bullshit rehashing the same ignorant rubbish over and over because you think reality is crazy.

 

The speed of light is the same, c, with respect to any frame of reference. Experiment confirms that and falsifies your crank ideas.

 

Mr. Motor Daddy, should have figured when someone brought up LIGHTning strikes being perceived on a train, you would end up posting.
May I ask, how long, relative to the age of the universe, have you had this problem with relativity?
And another question, have you ever dreamed you were a cat? And while dreaming you were a cat, you took a cat-nap and dreamed you were a human and fell asleep and dreamed you were a cat - then suddenly the alarm clock went off to wake you for work and you couldn't shut it off because your claws were stuck in the headboard of your bed? Then when you got to work - you felt odd trying to explain to all your co-workers why your fingertips were bloody and full of splinters?
Probably not a very interesting subject to you, I'll bet. You find it boring and inane, maybe?
How do think the posters on this thread will feel after 3 or 4 pages of your posts?

Do you have any idea who would post something like :
"James, You've had a couple weeks to think about this. Can I expect a reply from you, or are you waving the ol' white flag?"
Mr. Motor Daddy, have you ever heard of a thread titled : The Motor Boat ?

Maybe, some of the people on this thread should check this other thread out?

http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?134874-The-Motor-Boat

By the way, Motor Daddy, You've had a couple weeks to think about this. Can I expect a reply from you, or are you waving the ol' white flag?"
Later, dmoe