Motor Daddy discusses the speed of light.

M

Motor Daddy

Valued Senior Member
RJBeery said:
If you're thinking of observations that contradict this theory my advice is don't poke the bear.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you better not poke me, or I'll tell you the truth about what the absolute frame really is, and how light travels relative to the absolute frame. I in fact have a method of determining the absolute motion of a box, relative to the absolute frame, from within the box. Put that in your pipe and smoke it! ;)
 
Motor Daddy said:
Yeah, you better not poke me, or I'll tell you the truth about what the absolute frame really is, and how light travels relative to the absolute frame. I in fact have a method of determining the absolute motion of a box, relative to the absolute frame, from within the box. Put that in your pipe and smoke it! ;)
Click to expand...
MD, despite going against my own advice here, do you feel like people have given you real-world observations that contradict your theory? If you put an FM radio transmitter in your box would every side of the box detect the same frequency?
 
do you feel like people have given you real-world observations that contradict your theory?
Click to expand...

MD ignores any and all real world observations or experiments which don't agree with his own little universe.

Which means he pretty much ignores everything.
 
RJBeery said:
MD, despite going against my own advice here, do you feel like people have given you real-world observations that contradict your theory? If you put an FM radio transmitter in your box would every side of the box detect the same frequency?
Click to expand...

Frequency has nothing to do with the time it takes the initial signal to reach each receiver.

Suppose the signal generator at the center of the cube was actually a baseball pitching machine, with the balls representing photons. It pitches baseballs simultaneously in each direction at a constant interval between pitches. The -x receiver will receive the first ball before the x receiver if the box has an absolute velocity in the x direction.

Once the x receiver receives its first ball, it will have the same interval between subsequent balls as the interval between the balls received at the -x receiver, ie, the frequency is the same at each receiver. What is NOT the same is the simultaneity of the receiving of the FIRST baseball at each receiver if the box has an absolute velocity in the x direction. You seem to not understand the difference between the time the first ball is received at each receiver, and the frequency of the subsequent balls received.
 
Last edited:
Just remember that MD's universe is built upon an absolute frame of reference, and a variable speed of light.
 
Motor Daddy said:
Frequency has nothing to do with the time it takes the initial signal to reach each receiver.

Suppose the signal generator at the center of the cube was actually a baseball pitching machine, with the balls representing photons. It pitches baseballs simultaneously in each direction at a constant interval between pitches. The -x receiver will receive the first ball before the x receiver if the box has an absolute velocity in the x direction.

Once the x receiver receives its first ball, it will have the same interval between subsequent balls as the interval between the balls received at the -x receiver, ie, the frequency is the same at each receiver. What is NOT the same as the simultaneity of the receiving of the FIRST baseball at each receiver if the box has an absolute velocity in the x direction. You seem to not understand the difference between the time the first ball is received at each receiver, and the frequency of the subsequent balls received.
Click to expand...
You're right, I'm blending parts of your theory with parts of mainstream reality, when I need to stick with one or the other when looking for consistency. That's not really a knock on your theory, btw, I'm just saying that it's generally a given that you can't, for example, travel fast enough to surpass the light that has already left the Earth in order to watch History unfold backwards. ;)
 
RJBeery said:
You're right, I'm blending parts of your theory with parts of mainstream reality, when I need to stick with one or the other when looking for consistency. That's not really a knock on your theory, btw, I'm just saying that it's generally a given that you can't, for example, travel fast enough to surpass the light that has already left the Earth in order to watch History unfold backwards. ;)
Click to expand...

My method has no problem with FTL, because it is impossible to break causality in my method, regardless of the speed traveled. That's not to say that you could in reality fire up your souped up go-kart and travel FTL. ;)
 
Motor Daddy's incorrect theory has already been extensively discussed and debunked in the following thread.

The Relativity of Simultaneity

Before getting into a lengthy, repetitive argument with Motor Daddy over his counter-factual theory, I suggest that participants review that entire thread. Motor Daddy will only repeat what was already covered there.
 
Motor Daddy said:
Reality is in the eye of the beholder. :)
Click to expand...
...or is it 'beer holder'? :cheers:

Anyway, despite basically being the impetus for a new MD thread, I'm going to unsubscribe from it. Best of luck Motor Daddy, and to anyone else daft enough to jump in the water!
 
James R said:
Motor Daddy's incorrect theory has already been extensively discussed and debunked in the following thread.

The Relativity of Simultaneity

Before getting into a lengthy, repetitive argument with Motor Daddy over his counter-factual theory, I suggest that participants review that entire thread. Motor Daddy will only repeat what was already covered there.
Click to expand...

For the record, James, in your pic in the link you posted, Einstein's Train Frame is impossible unless the train is at an absolute zero velocity. Also of note, your diagrams show that the light can not possible reach the y and z receivers in the same amount of time as it reaches the x receiver in the embankment frame, because the length is contracted in only the x direction. The only way you know the times is to read the time the receiver actually received the light, and it is impossible for the y and z receivers to have been struck by the light in the same time as the x receiver if the train has an absolute velocity.
 
RJBeery said:
...or is it 'beer holder'? :cheers:

Anyway, despite basically being the impetus for a new MD thread, I'm going to unsubscribe from it. Best of luck Motor Daddy, and to anyone else daft enough to jump in the water!
Click to expand...

You said it yourself, don't poke the bear. ;)
 
James R said:
Motor Daddy will only repeat what was already covered there.
Click to expand...

Well Duh!

That's why I was surprised that Prometheus bothered to split these post off to a thread, rather than just shitcanning them.
 
Motor Daddy said:
For the record, James, in your pic in the link you posted, Einstein's Train Frame is impossible unless the train is at an absolute zero velocity.
Click to expand...

No. Einstein's picture is reality. Yours is pure fantasy with no supporting evidence, as we established in that thread and others.

Also of note, your diagrams show that the light can not possible reach the y and z receivers in the same amount of time as it reaches the x receiver in the embankment frame, because the length is contracted in only the x direction. The only way you know the times is to read the time the receiver actually received the light, and it is impossible for the y and z receivers to have been struck by the light in the same time as the x receiver if the train has an absolute velocity.
Click to expand...

I believe I covered this point previously. No need to repeat.
 
Motor Daddy said:
Yeah, you better not poke me, or I'll tell you the truth about what the absolute frame really is, and how light travels relative to the absolute frame. I in fact have a method of determining the absolute motion of a box, relative to the absolute frame, from within the box. Put that in your pipe and smoke it! ;)
Click to expand...

I like this "alternative theory" and will start using it with sound. I'll sell people a "doppler compensator" that will lower the pitch of their car stereo proportional to their speed. That way, when the pitch of their car's sound system drops due to the speed they are traveling, their music will still sound perfect.

With modern multi-speaker systems, though, I'll have to come up with a more complex system that will lower the pitch of the music from the speakers in front of the listener and raise the pitch from the speakers behind the listener, since the sound from behind has to "catch up" to the listener.

For the ultimate in sonic perfection I could also use GPS positioning along with a rotating-body model to correct for the speed the Earth is spinning under the driver. I could package all of this in a burnished titanium case and sell it to the most discerning of audiophiles, those willing to shell out a lot of cash to cure the imperfections in their music caused by their speakers moving at a non-zero speed. Naturally not everyone will be able to hear these imperfections (since we are all so used to them) but the ones who can hear it are refined enough to appreciate an expensive and exclusive solution.

I could make millions!
 
AlexG said:
Well Duh!

That's why I was surprised that Prometheus bothered to split these post off to a thread, rather than just shitcanning them.
Click to expand...

In retrospect, that would have been a better idea. You live and learn eh?

Report sent requesting the thread be locked and cessed.
 
you seem to have missed the fact that the faster you go the more space bends and because of this your theory falls flat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top