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

I have a naive question to both you and Motor Daddy, which each of you can answer according to what your respective understanding is of the event I will describe so as to get to the crux of the matter I would like to be clear on:

We have two 'sources', each approaching the other. we don't know their actual motion state/speed absolutely, so we'll just say they are converging at equal velocities based on a third frame observer located at the centre of the closing distance where the two sources are estimated to arrive and pass each other.

The two sources pass each other going in opposite directions. As they passed, they were momentarily at an effectively identical speed/clock/location states going in opposite directions from that momentary co-location.

As they pass each other, they emit their respective 'light spheres', such that the momentary 'source location' was a 'common instantaneous co-location' where the centrally placed observer was located to witness the event of two sources passing and their simultaneous emission of respective lightspheres.

Here now are my series of naive questions related to my above scenario:

Which 'source' is still at the center of their respective lightsphere; which 'source' is moving away from the center of their respective lightsphere?

Will 'both sources' continue to remain at the center of their respective lightsphere?

What about in relation to the other lightsphere emitted by the other source; will each remain in the center of both lightspheres; and if not, why not, since both lightspheres were emitted from a common colocated point where the observer saw both lightspheres emitted simultaneously?

Will the central observer remain at the center of any lightsphere at all?

Will the center of the two lightspheres move away from each other and from the momentarily co-located observer and follow their respective sources away from the common location emission point and the observer?

I hope you both get the drift of my naive compound question, and the reason I ask it? Please answer according to your respective understandings so that I can compare the two 'sides' of this argument. And if using equations and calculated proportions/values etc, please specify which frame's d, t, and c values you are relying on for quantitative arguments used, if any. Thanks.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Before I answer any of that, I want to specify that basically Motor Daddy doesn't like the theory of Relativity and the implications it has for space and time. He thinks time is an absolute, and that there's also an absolute standard of universal motion/rest. I'm arguing on the side of Relativity, so my answers to your questions, based on what I understand to be the truth, would be based on what the theory says. Does that clarify anything for you?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Each source is in the center of the light sphere it emits at each moment.
None of the sources is in the center of the light sphere it emitted in the past.
The "center observer" is in the center of the light sphere(s) emitted by the two sources when the coincided positionally with "him"
Why are you asking?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

That is why I asked each of you to answer according to your understandings on the event as described. Naturally you each have your own theory/hypothesis base for your understandings. I ask only that all the questions be answered consistent, with no ifs or buts from either 'side' of the discussion/explanation of the behavior of the effective aspects/sources and participants in the event I just described. Thanks. Will await further replies and see what I can see when comparing yours and Motor Daddy's answers to my questions as put.

 

Thanks for your polite and useful response, Tach. Much appreciated.

I wanted to get a clearer picture of what both Motor Daddy and CptBork are thinking/understanding in the matters raised. I posed the further two-source scenario to get their respective answers from their respective perspectives, so that I can make comparisons which hopefully clarify the situation for my own naive understandings.

 

Well if you're looking to learn something from Motor Daddy's "understanding", I don't think you'll glean much other than how things don't actually work. I'll answer your questions tomorrow probably, am getting very sleepy.

 

It is very simple, really, MD is a known crackpot relativity denier, with a long history of posting crank stuff. CptBork is trying, in vain to reason with MD.

 

It's the clarification potential of the comparison I will make between the substance and logics of your respective answers that I will use to learn from. Both components are necessary before I can use the discussion to enhance my naive understandings on the matter. Thanks and goodnight. I see where MD has also retired for the night. I will therefore be back tomorrow to read all answers and make my comparisons and any further comments/questions. Thanks again to both you and MD for the opportunity to compare your respective takes on this aspect. G'night!

 

I can't read through all the posts. To be more honest. Don't want to.
I know that the OP descends into nonsense once it gets beyond the initial idea,
but the thread title is literally true, and fairly trivial.
The delay is even greater when it comes to the speed of sound.
So we can experience thunder seconds after the lightning which is part of the same event.

What the hell have you all been arguing about?

 

Basically it's just one crazy loon after another. Especially Motor Daddy, he's a time waster.

And why do you keep writing in stanzas?

 

Posting idiosyncrasies. Good idea for the linguistics section.

Stanzas.
I use them instead of paragraphs.
You just did the same. It must be catching.

Tiassa separates every line.

Like this.

 

There, fixed it for you. Anyhow as far as Motor Daddy goes, I only humoured the conversation so I could get down to the fundamental gist of Motor Daddy's objections. I wanted to work his objections to the logical conclusion where they're in denial of basic experimental fact. Once it got to that point, as I anticipated, there was nothing more to discuss. If someone comes to a science forum and starts screaming that it's all some sort of lie or conspiracy and that 150 years of evidence is false because it seems weird to them, that's trolling.

Luckily for MD, we have several forums where alternative viewpoints can be expressed, but the physics and maths section is not there for ignorants to challenge and reject the mainstream understanding without compelling evidence or a proof of mathematical inconsistency. "Are you out of your fk'in mind" isn't compelling evidence or a rational basis for argument, something being counterintuitive does not make it untrue. So this isn't the first time I've crossed paths with Motor Daddy but I don't think I've gone through his objections to this extent previously, and if he can't get past the light sphere scenario I discussed with him here, that's as far as we're ever gonna get, it's like discussing gravity with someone who denies apples fall to the Earth.

I'm as fed up as anyone else with all the cranks polluting this place. We have a place for them to express themselves, it's just as visible as the real science sections, but people still like to drift their way over here from those places so they can spend some time away from the stink left by their own bullshit. It's fine to ask questions here, even if you're just trying to learn how to work with fractions, but to make arrogant baseless assertions and then insult and cuss at anyone who disagrees? So now that I've taken the time to go through all the details with Motor Daddy, and he bailed on the discussion when it suited him, I will be bringing this thread to the attention of the moderators if he ever tries to recycle it in another conversation here.

 

You took all of a maximum of 4 minutes to look at the diagrams that contain the real math. You blew it off because you are not concerned with the truth, you're only concerned with defending what you believe to be true, which I clearly showed you how your beliefs are BS! I showed you the math and you complained that it hurt your eyes. Did you expect me to show you what you wanted to see and familiar at looking at, which is Einstein's BS math? I clearly showed you the numbers step by step and you took all of a maximum of 4 minutes to respond, which tells me that you are simply an ignorant hack that is only here to support what you believe, which is not science, it's religion! Fuck off! Go whine to the Mods you fucking pussy, I give less than a damn!

 

Ok, if that's what you want, I have zero interest in a shouting match, we can let the mods decide.

I looked at your numbers, you seem to think that using loads of decimals is what separates higher level math from grade 8 material (oh and how about that calculator roundoff error, huh?), but I assure you it didn't do anything to throw me off. If you think that was fast on my part, you should see what it's like when I'm writing an exam. I didn't check the numbers to make sure everything was correct but it looked reasonable at a glance. What I spent most of my time looking at was the premise for your argument, which is basically treating light as a classical Newtonian baseball. I feel it necessary at this point to explain to you that light is not a baseball.

In your schematics and arguments, the things the train-based observer sees depend on the velocity of the train relative to the ground or Buddha or whatever you've picked to be your magical absolute rest frame. That is in contradiction with experimental fact and a pretty whacky notion in itself. If you were on a smooth-riding train, and you pointed at a lightbulb in the ceiling to tell the other passengers that light is moving away from that bulb faster in one direction than the other, they'd probably look at you like you're an idiot.

 

You really are a moron, aren't you? In baseball terms, you are a distance away from me. I throw a baseball at you at t=0. At t=1 the ball hits you and the clock stops. There is no "frequency" because the clock stopped WHEN the ball hit you. That's it, that's the end of the measure of time at that point. The ball traveled to you and then when it got to you the clock stopped. Get a clue, moron!

 

LOL, what a hoot. Why would you look at Einstein's 'BS math' when you could be studying MDs 'math'? Oh sure, Einstein's math corresponds to reality and MDs ideas are proven incorrect, but MD's math is way easier!

Which would you rather do, the easy incorrect physics or the difficult correct physics? We know which MD prefers.....

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Look in the mirror. Daily.

 

You're so brilliant with your responses, Tach. How do you do it? When I grow up I want to be just like you! (rolls eyes)

 

It makes sense to say they are happening in the same reality. Which means that all human minds function the same making them one. That should be a better explanation. It explains the reality from which all minds are born and the strange loop of consciousness.

 

I really hope you do grow up one day.