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

CptBork said:
Why not? I could do this example with z, but it'll be easier to illustrate if we just use the point at x. Is there a reason it wouldn't work in your setup?
Click to expand...

If you are working in a 1 dimensional problem and you knew the time to the x receiver then yes, the velocity of the train is v=(ct-l)/t. If you are working with a 2 dimensional problem then the 2D equation is required, in which you need to know the z time.
 
Motor Daddy said:
If you are working in a 1 dimension problem and you knew the time to the x receiver then yes, the velocity of the train is v=(ct-l)/t. If you are working with a two dimensional problem then the 2D equation is required, in which you need to know the z time.
Click to expand...

No, you're wrong, it doesn't matter one iota that this is a 2D problem if we only worry about the light reaching x. I can get the exact same result you did just by knowing the light pulse's arrival time at x, I don't need to know what happens at z. Do you disagree? It would be pretty sad if you didn't even understand your own model.

I can work with the z detector if you want, but you better understand I would get the same answer either way.
 
CptBork said:
No, you're wrong, it doesn't matter one iota that this is a 2D problem if we only worry about the light reaching x. I can get the exact same result you did just by knowing the light pulse's arrival time at x, I don't need to know what happens at z. Do you disagree? It would be pretty sad if you didn't even understand your own model.

I can work with the z detector if you want, but you better understand I would get the same answer either way.
Click to expand...

I understand my model, but I am placing control factors on your BS, and in order to eliminate your (Einstein's) BS I incorporated the z time, which is the 2D problem. I can go 3D if you choose, although it takes me considerable time and effort to do that. I created that 2D equation in order to dispel your BS, as you will soon find out!!! ;)
 
Motor Daddy said:
I understand my model, but I am placing control factors on your BS, and in order to eliminate your (Einstein's) BS I incorporated the z time, which is the 2D problem. I can go 3D if you choose, although it takes me considerable time and effort to do that. I created that 2D equation in order to dispel your BS, as you will soon find out!!! ;)
Click to expand...

As you wish. So now we're switching to the detector at z, so be it. So if the pulse emitted by the light source at the center of the box is going to hit the z detector, that means that for the light hitting the detector, the x-component of its velocity, $$c_x$$, must be equal to the train's velocity, $$v_x$$, correct?
 
CptBork said:
As you wish. So now we're switching to the detector at z, so be it. So if the pulse emitted by the light source at the center of the box is going to hit the z detector, that means that for the light hitting the detector, the x-component of its velocity, $$c_x$$, must be equal to the train's velocity, $$v_x$$, correct?
Click to expand...

You're a f'n moron! Look at the diagram and understand it! Why should I have to walk you thru all the steps? Are you that f'n stupid?
 
Motor Daddy only allows Motor Daddy to be consistently correct in any thread he chooses to hijack.
No, is one of his favorite words.
He does love to argue though, and is not above changing one of his previously stated "Motor Daddy Factoids", just to be able to continue to argue.
You will come to find that hundreds of years of science is blatantly wrong, and that only Motor Daddy is right, although any and all proofs he presents can only be understood by Motor Daddy, simply because everybody else is blinded by REAL/ACTUAL PROOFS and REAL/ACTUAL FACTS.
 
Motor Daddy said:
You're a f'n moron! Look at the diagram and understand it! Why should I have to walk you thru all the steps? Are you that f'n stupid?
Click to expand...

Am I right or am I wrong? I want to make absolutely sure we agree on each step before continuing, that's how logical deduction proceeds.
 
Motor Daddy said:
If you think you can prove my 2D equation wrong go for it!! I double dog dare you!
Click to expand...

It would be my sincere pleasure. So you agree that for the portion of the light pulse hitting the detector at z, that portion of the light has horizontal velocity component $$c_x=v_x$$, right?
 
CptBork said:
It would be my sincere pleasure. So you agree that for the portion of the light pulse hitting the detector at z, that portion of the light has horizontal velocity component $$c_x=v_x$$, right?
Click to expand...
I said nothing of the sort. Look at the diagram and look at the equations, and look at the numbers, ALL OF THEM! When you think you've found an error, post it!!!
 
Motor Daddy said:
I said nothing of the sort. Look at the diagram and look at the equations, and look at the numbers, ALL OF THEM! When you think you have found an error post it!!!
Click to expand...

If $$c_x\neq v_x$$ then the the light that's supposed to hit the z detector wouldn't be able to keep up with it along the x-axis, or it would go too far ahead. Therefore $$c_x=v_x$$ must automatically be true by virtue of the fact that the light is hitting z. Do you agree, or disagree?
 
CptBork said:
If $$c_x\neq v_x$$ then the the light that's supposed to hit the z detector wouldn't be able to keep up with it along the x-axis, or it would go too far ahead. Therefore $$c_x=v_x$$ must automatically be true by virtue of the fact that the light is hitting z. Do you agree, or disagree?
Click to expand...

No more free lessons for you! Work the numbers and see for yourself! You'll learn more that way instead of me having to walk you like a dog on a leash taking a shit! God you're pathetic!
 
Oh oh, Motor Daddy has a live one on the line!
CptBork is making too much sense and is actually paying attention - so Motor Daddy has already used his infamous "f'n moron" defense - now he has presented his rarely seen, "Double-Dog-Dare"!
Oh oh - now the "No more free lessons for you!", and the dreaded "You'll learn more that way instead of me having to walk you like a dog on a leash taking a shit! God you're pathetic!
Could this possibly portend that Motor Daddy is getting ready to "CUT BAIT", and scurry off to another thread!
 
Last edited:
Motor Daddy said:
No more free lessons for you! Work the numbers and see for yourself! You'll learn more that way instead of me having to walk you like a dog on a leash taking a shit! God you're pathetic!
Click to expand...

I am walking through your argument to show where it's wrong. Can we agree that $$v_x=c_x$$ and proceed? Do you agree that the light reaching z will, in your scheme, have both vertical and horizontal components to its velocity? If you agree, then I can go ahead and calculate that vertical component.
 
dumbest man on earth said:
Oh oh, Motor Daddy has a live one on the line!
CptBork is making too much sense and is actually paying attention - so Motor Daddy has already used his infamous "f'n moron" defense - now he has presented his rarely seen, "Double-Dog-Dare"!
Could this possibly portend that Motor Daddy is getting ready to "CUT BAIT", and scurry off to another thread!
Click to expand...

DMOE, Don't you have anything better to do than commentate play by play a thread on the internet? Instead of being a spectator how about you look at the diagram and contribute something other than pure nonsense? Maybe then you will elevate your status above Dumbest Moron On Earth (DMOE)!
 
Motor Daddy said:
DMOE, Don't you have anything better to do than commentate play by play a thread on the internet? Instead of being a spectator how about you look at the diagram and contribute something other than pure nonsense? Maybe then you will elevate your status above Dumbest Moron On Earth (DMOE)!
Click to expand...

Given the way you're treating me for going through your own arguments, I doubt anyone else would want to join in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top