The Relativity of Simultaneity

How many misinformation posts in this Quantum Wave - Motor Daddy love fest need to occur before the whole mess gets moved to the pseudo science folder?

I know that there is some real scienced squeezed inbetween the MD, Emil and Quantum Wave gibberish, but I feel that that the younglings my be tricked into going to the dark side.....

Motor Daddy: "Wave; I AM your father"!
 
origin said:
How many misinformation posts in this Quantum Wave - Motor Daddy love fest need to occur before the whole mess gets moved to the pseudo science folder?
Click to expand...

You can't handle the truth!

Care to tell me why the diagram is wrong? Care to tell me in which direction you measure light to travel at c in the cube frame? Stick to the facts, BUCKO! ;)

The Einstein love fest has been going on for over 100 years. His days are numbered. :)
 
origin said:
How many misinformation posts in this Quantum Wave - Motor Daddy love fest need to occur before the whole mess gets moved to the pseudo science folder?

I know that there is some real scienced squeezed inbetween the MD, Emil and Quantum Wave gibberish, but I feel that that the younglings my be tricked into going to the dark side.....

Motor Daddy: "Wave; I AM your father"!
Click to expand...
I don't know how to respond to the trolls anymore. Love fest? Where does that come from?
 
quantum_wave said:
You have suffered a barrage of criticism for not acknowledging the postulate of SR that says light speed is the same in all frames. Your graphic takes one light sphere emitted from within a box, and the box is in motion relative to the point the light sphere was emitted from in space (not from the source as such). And you are getting different speeds of light relative to the motion of the box, but constant speeds when measured from the fixed point in space where the light was emitted. This is the MD view of reality, right?
Click to expand...

Correct.

quantum_wave said:
I suggest that there is an all new coordinate system within which your scenario is playing out. It would be a coordinate system where measurements made in the SR example of light from a distant star would be subjected to mathematical equations that would transform their measurements so they agreed with what your measurements would show, if you were to measure the speed of light from that distant star using your logic. Do you follow this reasoning?
Click to expand...

Yes, because Einstein's methods are not actual absolute velocities, they are relative velocities. When absolute velocities are known, you can use transformation equations so that every observer is in agreement, of which Einstein's observers are not. All my observers will agree on the record book. Einstein's world will have as many different record books as there are observers, because none will agree with each other.

quantum_wave said:
To move on to that analysis, can you envision a graphic that would lay out how to measure the same light sphere coming from a distant star from two perspectives, moving toward that star, and moving away from that star, using your logic? I think you are saying that the speed of that light will be c from the point in space where the light sphere you measure was emitted (not from where the star is), but that the measurement from the two different Earth boxes will show the speed of the star light to be different when we are moving toward the light sphere compared to when we are moving away from the light sphere. Is that correct? Then if we apply the MD transformation equations to their measurement they would agree with yours.
Click to expand...

Again, the speed of light is relative to the point of origin of the light in space, which is the point in space the light was emitted. In order to measure the speed of that light, you must first acknowledge that the earth is in motion relative to that point, each time you measure that light. Measuring the speed of light from a star on earth in the earth frame is equivalent to measuring the speed of light from the source in the cube in the cube frame. In order to know the time to the receiver you must start your clock on earth when the light is emitted from the source, and then you can know the time of light travel, which is the distance that light traveled from its point of origin. If you know the distance from the point of origin to the earth when the light was emitted, you can then perform calculations of the speed of light in the earth frame.

quantum_wave said:
This doesn't mean you have reality on your side, lol. It just means that it is possible to use SR measurements to determine MD measurements, and vice versa. The difference between the two will then quantify the different "realities" represented by each coordinate system.
Click to expand...

There are transformations that are possible between the absolute reference frame and objects in relative motion that know their absolute velocities. I know the absolute velocities, Einstein doesn't.
 
Motor Daddy said:
Yes, because Einstein's methods are not actual absolute velocities, they are relative velocities. When absolute velocities are known, you can use transformation equations so that every observer is in agreement, of which Einstein's observers are not. All my observers will agree on the record book. Einstein's world will have as many different record books as there are observers, because none will agree with each other.
Click to expand...
So an absolute velocity is measured from the fixed point where the light was emitted in space. Are you able to determine the absolute velocity of light from a star? I guess it is c, right, so you don't have to measure it? How do you determine the relative velocity of Earth?
 
Motor Daddy said:
You can't handle the truth!

Care to tell me why the diagram is wrong? Care to tell me in which direction you measure light to travel at c in the cube frame? Stick to the facts, BUCKO! ;)

The Einstein love fest has been going on for over 100 years. His days are numbered. :)
Click to expand...

How can somebody be so convinced they are right even in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are wrong. Amazing.

Don't you find it odd that even with your lack of education that you have been able to discover what untold thousands of physicist could not see? Doesn't that seem to be inconcievable?
 
origin said:
How can somebody be so convinced they are right even in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are wrong. Amazing.

Don't you find it odd that even with your lack of education that you have been able to discover what untold thousands of physicist could not see? Doesn't that seem to be inconcievable?
Click to expand...

To tell you the truth, it is inconceivable to me how nobody has figured this out. One reason is that Einstein has had people under his spell for the last 100 years. He created the most baffling BS of all. He wins "The best BS artist of all time" award, for sure.

Sometimes things look so easy when you see how they really work, but that's only in hind sight, as hind sight is in fact 20/20.
 
Motor Daddy said:
Yup, it is c. It is always c, by definition.
Click to expand...
Thank you. I'm waiting for the staff to catch up so we can look at an updated graphic.

You've been this far along before. Have the other members been able to show where your scenario is wrong or is it just referred to as "not even wrong", lol.
 
origin said:
How can somebody be so convinced they are right even in the face of overwhelming evidence that they are wrong. Amazing.

Don't you find it odd that even with your lack of education that you have been able to discover what untold thousands of physicist could not see? Doesn't that seem to be inconcievable?
Click to expand...
Instead of just sitting back on your sofa and taking pop shots, fun as that is, how about pretending you are as dumb as someone would have to be to be taken in by all this, and answer a question.

Look at the graphic. My question is, do you believe that the light sphere expands spherically from the point of origin in space and traverses space potentially forever? That means, do you think the light wave has a physical presence that is established when it is emitted and exists as long as the light wave traverses space? Yes or no?
 
This is pretty funny:

MD: To tell you the truth, it is inconceivable to me how nobody has figured this out.

Translation: "I don't have to think about why nobody else can see Einstein's big mistake, or why nobody in the last 100 years can see what I can see. All I have to do is believe that I'm the most smartest person in the last 100 years".

MD: One reason is that Einstein has had people under his spell for the last 100 years. He created the most baffling BS of all. He wins "The best BS artist of all time" award, for sure.

Translation: (see above). "I can't understand Einstein's baffling BS, even though I'm smarter than anyone else".
 
arfa brane said:
This is pretty funny:

MD: To tell you the truth, it is inconceivable to me how nobody has figured this out.

Translation: "I don't have to think about why nobody else can see Einstein's big mistake, or why nobody in the last 100 years can see what I can see. All I have to do is believe that I'm the most smartest person in the last 100 years".

MD: One reason is that Einstein has had people under his spell for the last 100 years. He created the most baffling BS of all. He wins "The best BS artist of all time" award, for sure.

Translation: (see above). "I can't understand Einstein's baffling BS, even though I'm smarter than anyone else".
Click to expand...
Oh good. Another smart ;) guy. I wish all you smart guys would lower your selves to the level of the pea brains that would be taken in by all this and answer the same question: Look at the graphic. My question is, do you believe that the light sphere expands spherically from the point of origin in space and traverses space potentially forever? That means, do you think the light wave has a physical presence that is established when it is emitted and exists as long as the light wave traverses space? Yes or no?
 
quantum wave said:
My question is, do you believe that the light sphere expands spherically from the point of origin in space and traverses space potentially forever? That means, do you think the light wave has a physical presence that is established when it is emitted and exists as long as the light wave traverses space? Yes or no?
Click to expand...
Light is physical, so "a physical presence" is implied. But that's only if you can measure it with physical instruments.
You can't see that light "has a physical presence" unless you also see it interacting with matter. If you don't see it, all you have is an idea that light "travels" through space.

You can have an idea that it's possible to travel alongside a beam of light, "following" it through space. That's an idea that has absolutely no physical possibility. So ideas that don't correspond to physical reality are fine, but reality is reality, no matter what you think it might be. In physics, reality is testable. You make measurements and test if your idea has any physical basis.

There is no way you can test MD's definition, because it says that the speed of light is different in different frames of reference. That has to mean there is no way to test that the speed of light in vacuo is a constant.

Is that sufficiently pea-brained?

p.s. Big oops there, there is a way to test MD's definition. When the speed of light is measured in different frames, it IS constant. Therefore reality does not correspond to MD's definition unless you add the caveat that the measurements are all wrong. In that case it IS impossible to test that light travels at a constant speed, and his definition remains in the "completely useless" category.
 
Last edited:
arfa brane said:
Light is physical, so "a physical presence" is implied. But that's only if you can measure it with physical instruments.
You can't see that light "has a physical presence" unless you also see it interacting with matter. If you don't see it, all you have is an idea that light "travels" through space.

You can have an idea that it's possible to travel alongside a beam of light, "following" it through space. That's an idea that has absolutely no physical possibility. So ideas that don't correspond to physical reality are fine, but reality is reality, no matter what you think it might be. In physics, reality is testable. You make measurements and test if your idea has any physical basis.

There is no way you can test MD's definition, because it says that the speed of light is different in different frames of reference. That has to mean there is no way to test that the speed of light in a vacuum is a constant.

Is that sufficiently pea-brained?
Click to expand...
Yes, very pea brained and I am proud of you for it. I'm going to rephrase what you said if I may.

It is implied that a light wave expanding spherically in space will expand forever at the speed of light from the point where it was emitted. However, even if that is true we can ignore it when discussing SR because you have to be a pea brain to get caught up in discussion of it as if it was true? Lol.
p.s. Big oops there, there is a way to test MD's definition. When the speed of light is measured in different frames, it IS constant. Therefore reality does not correspond to MD's definition unless you add the caveat that the measurements are all wrong. In that case it IS impossible to test that light travels at a constant speed, and his definition remains in the "completely useless" category.
Click to expand...
I see you added an edit to reinforce your case that you have to be a pea brain to actually discuss the fact that the main feature of the graphic is true, even though it is implied to be true due to the physical presence of a light wave that traverses space :shrug:.
 
Last edited:
quantum wave said:
It is implied that a light wave expanding spherically in space will expand forever at the speed of light from the point where it was emitted. However, even if that is true we can ignore it when discussing SR because you have to be a pea brain to get caught up in discussion of it as if it was true? Lol.
Click to expand...
If you have a pea-brain, and an idea occurs in it, that's fine. It's ok to have ideas.

If the idea is physically testable, that's a different matter than being "caught up in a discussion of the idea as if it was true". It's true if physical tests of the idea show that it is.

For instance, the idea: "if I hit my thumb with a hammer, it will hurt", is physically testable. The idea: "light is measured to have a different speed in a frame with absolute velocity" is not physically testable. It never will be either, at least, not in this universe.
 
arfa brane said:
If you have a pea-brain, and an idea occurs in it, that's fine. It's ok to have ideas.

If the idea is physically testable, that's a different matter than being "caught up in a discussion of the idea as if it was true". It's true if physical tests of the idea show that it is.

For instance, the idea: "if I hit my thumb with a hammer, it will hurt", is physically testable. The idea: "light is measured to have a different speed in a frame with absolute velocity" is not physically testable. It never will be either, at least, not in this universe.
Click to expand...
That's acceptable. Still I am putting you in as a, "Yes, with qualifications", to my initial question.
 
arfa brane said:
That has to mean there is no way to test that the speed of light in vacuo is a constant.
Click to expand...
So this is valid only in vacuum or in atmospheric conditions also?
Index of Refraction in Air (at STP) =1.00029
In atmospheric conditions is not constant speed of light from a moving object?
In atmospheric conditions Motor Daddy's the scenario is correct ?
 
Emil said:
So this is valid only in vacuum or in atmospheric conditions also?
Index of Refraction in Air (at STP) =1.00029
In atmospheric conditions is not constant speed of light from a moving object?
In atmospheric conditions Motor Daddy's the scenario is correct ?
Click to expand...
Emil, you seem to be a pea brain, and I say that affectionately from one to another, lol. Would you answer my current question and go on the record:

My question is, do you believe that the light sphere expands spherically from the point of origin in space and traverses space potentially forever? That means, do you think the light wave has a physical presence that is established when it is emitted and exists as long as the light wave traverses space? Yes or no?
 
Last edited:
quantum_wave said:
emil, you see to be a pea brain,
Click to expand...
lol....
emil said:
maybe i am not only stupid but i am also insane, since i rationalize it this way.
Click to expand...


quantum_wave said:
my question is, do you believe that the light sphere expands spherically from the point of origin in space and traverses space potentially forever? That means, do you think the light wave has a physical presence that is established when it is emitted and exists as long as the light wave traverses space? Yes or no?
Click to expand...
I agree with Motor Daddy!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top