# Thread: The roundtrip time of light travel and how it really works!

1. In reality what happens is the in the frame of the moving box, the light hits all 4 sides of the box at once, while in the diagram an observer would see what is in the diagram

2. Originally Posted by TheObserver
In reality what happens is the in the frame of the moving box, the light hits all 4 sides of the box at once, while in the diagram an observer would see what is in the diagram
I don't think it makes any difference how many of us say that (or show the math to prove it - or even a picture). He has made his mind up.

3. Originally Posted by Strange

And how, exactly, are you measuring it? Details of the hardware that generates the light pulse, the timing equipment, how it is calibrated and synchronized, the errors in the measurement, etc. Which peer reviewed journals has the work been published in? Are you planning to fly first class when you get your Nobel prize? What will you spend the money on?

Oh, sorry, I forgot. You haven't done an experiment have you? If you had, you would find you were wrong.
Distance and time are locked together because light travel time defines the meter. You can not separate distance and time when talking about light travel.

Therefore, my pic is the ONLY way it can happen. It is not even debatable. If you think you can say otherwise you are saying that math itself is BS, and that the definition of the meter is BS. Make no mistake, this is the ONLY way it can happen.

Can you explain why it takes 1.6.... seconds for light to travel round trip from the source to the mirror and back????

4. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Do you call this a general proof ?
Another common symptom. The inability to understand or provide a general solution. (1)

I had a really painful example a while back with some guy who couldn't understand why his simulation(2) didn't count as an analytical solution to the N-body problem.

(1) or the inability to distinguish mathematics and arithmetic.
(2) which was wrong anyway
(3) I enjoy footnotes

5. Like we have said before, there is nothing wrong with your math. You have your physics wrong.

6. Originally Posted by TheObserver
Like we have said before, there is nothing wrong with your math. You have your physics wrong.
There is nothing wrong with my physics. I measured the times to the receivers and light always traveled at c.

What is seriously wrong is that you can't explain why it takes 1.68... seconds for the roundtrip time. Explain that, can you??

7. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Therefore, my pic is the ONLY way it can happen. It is not even debatable.
Oh look, we are debating it. So you are wrong about that as well.

I really can't take you seriously. I have done my time being "that guy":

8. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
I measured the times to the receivers and light always traveled at c.
Remind me again how you made these measurements? What equipment did you use? What laboratory procedures?

9. Originally Posted by Strange

I really can't take you seriously. I have done my time being "that guy":
You haven't said anything of value, you've simply contributed non-sense to the thread. It's really too bad that you can't objectively talk about the pic. You must be a pretty fart smeller, eh?

10. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by TheObserver
Like we have said before, there is nothing wrong with your math. You have your physics wrong.
There is nothing wrong with my physics. I measured the times to the receivers and light always traveled at c.What is seriously wrong is that you can't explain why it takes 1.68... seconds for the roundtrip time. Explain that, can you??
your diagram is valid for the frame it takes place in, however for anyone riding along with the box, the picture is different. Your math is only valid for the frame it take place in.

11. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
You haven't said anything of value, you've simply contributed non-sense to the thread. It's really too bad that you can't objectively talk about the pic. You must be a pretty fart smeller, eh?
Well, I did start out by (helpfully, I thought) pointing out that you image wasn't readable. When it was legible, I then pointed out where you had gone wrong (as has everyone else).

As you have made it very clear that you have closed your mind and are not interested in learning, I am just going to watch the spectacle for my own amusement and lob the occasional annoying comment in.

I could endlessly repeat explanations of where you have gone for 500 pages while you just demonstrate the fact you won't "open your eyes" or "think for yourself" but I really can't be bothered. Been there, done that.

But. I would really like to know your motivation: undiscovered genius or idealogical?

12. Originally Posted by TheObserver
Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by TheObserver
Like we have said before, there is nothing wrong with your math. You have your physics wrong.
There is nothing wrong with my physics. I measured the times to the receivers and light always traveled at c.What is seriously wrong is that you can't explain why it takes 1.68... seconds for the roundtrip time. Explain that, can you??
your diagram is valid for the frame it takes place in, however for anyone riding along with the box, the picture is different. Your math is only valid for the frame it take place in.
No the picture is not different from riding in the box, that is how the pic was constructed, from the times recorded at the receivers. This is about measuring the velocity of the frame. Do you not understand that? It is like you riding a bus and measuring the speed of the bus. We are not talking about motion in the bus, we are talking about the bus's motion in space. Do you not understand that objects travel in space?

13. Originally Posted by Strange

But. I would really like to know your motivation: undiscovered genius or idealogical?
Actually my claim to fame is being able to identify BS when I see it. I can honestly say that SR is BS.

14. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
No the picture is not different from riding in the box, that is how the pic was constructed, from the times recorded at the receivers.
That'll be the fallacy of begging the question: you construct a diagram to show what you want and then argue that it proves that position...

But, again <yawn>, you have only shown the diagram from one frame of reference. If you draw it from the frame of reference of the moving box, you will get a different result. We know this because ii has actually been measured. You know, like really measured (not as in the way you use the word "measured", which appears to be closer to "imagined").

You do realise that the roundtrip time of light has been measured? And is invariant? How do explain that? Unless ... are you a geocentrist?

Anyway, back to the questions:
1) Can you explain how GPS works without relativity?
2) Can you explain how QED works without relativity?

15. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Actually my claim to fame is being able to identify BS when I see it. I can honestly say that SR is BS.
I think we (and scientific results) will be the judges of that.

16. Originally Posted by Strange
But, again <yawn>, you have only shown the diagram from one frame of reference. If you draw it from the frame of reference of the moving box, you will get a different result.
Which frame of reference does the light sphere expand in?

17. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Which frame of reference does the light sphere expand in?
Huh? Any. All. But ... believe it or not(1) .... they will not all observe/measure the same things. Gasp!

(1) I know. You don't. But what can we do. We have explained your error. You refuse to see it. How long do we keep this up?

18. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Actually my claim to fame is being able to identify BS when I see it. I can honestly say that SR is BS.
And yet, in a century, no one else but you and a few crackpots have spotted it. Weird, isn't it?

19. Originally Posted by Strange
Huh? Any. All. But ... believe it or not(1) .... they will not all observe/measure the same things. Gasp!
So you are saying that regardless of the motion of the box in space, light always travels the same distance in space from the point in time it is emitted from the source to the point in time it reaches the z receiver?

20. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Actually my claim to fame is being able to identify BS when I see it. I can honestly say that SR is BS.
And yet, in a century, no one else but you and a few crackpots have spotted it. Weird, isn't it?
Extremely! What is even more weird is that in thousands of years nobody has ever changed the beliefs of the catholic church. Very strange indeed, eh?

21. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by Strange
Huh? Any. All. But ... believe it or not(1) .... they will not all observe/measure the same things. Gasp!
So you are saying that regardless of the motion of the box in space, light always travels the same distance in space from the point in time it is emitted from the source to the point in time it reaches the z receiver?
I don't think so (I'm not entirely sure I have parsed that statement correctly). I am saying that the times (and distances) measured by the observer you show in your drawing and that measured by an observer moving with the box would not all be the same.

For example for the "stationary" (relatively) observer that you depict in your diagram, the light will reach z before it reaches x. For the observer in the box, it will reach z and x at the same time.

It would be nice if, instead of just referring to your very nice picture again, you were to actually think, "hmmm... what if I have misunderstood something after all, after all I am not perfect..." and go away and read up on how special relativity actually applies in a case like this (mot your garbled version of it). Of course this will require you to approach it with an open mind and be prepared to accept some new ideas. Not everyone is comfortable with this.

Are you a geocentrist? If so, this is doubly pointless.

22. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Extremely! What is even more weird is that in thousands of years nobody has ever changed the beliefs of the catholic church. Very strange indeed, eh?
So we can add religious history to the list of subjects you are not well versed in.

23. Originally Posted by Strange
I don't think so (I'm not entirely sure I have parsed that statement correctly). I am saying that the times (and distances) measured by the observer you show in your drawing and that measured by an observer moving with the box would not all be the same.

For example for the "stationary" (relatively) observer that you depict in your diagram, the light will reach z before it reaches x. For the observer in the box, it will reach z and x at the same time.
There is a box moving in space at a velocity. That velocity is not dependent on an observer. It is a fact that a light sphere has a specific radius in space at a specific time after emission. No observer can change that, like no observer can change the distance between you and the center of the moon at 12:00.

You are very confused as to what actually happens and what is measured a duration of time later. Light travels in space at the rate of c, PERIOD! No observer required. The light sphere has a radius of 299,792,458 meters 1 second after emission, period!

We are not talking about frequency or wave length, do you not understand that?

24. Light travels in space at the rate of c, PERIOD! No observer required. The light sphere has a radius of 299,792,458 meters 1 second after emission, period!
Light travels at different rates depending on the medium. Cherenkov radiation is a wonderful demonstration of how particles can travel faster than the rate light is travelling through a medium.

So no, not period (exclamation point).

25. Originally Posted by Wintermute
Light travels in space at the rate of c, PERIOD! No observer required. The light sphere has a radius of 299,792,458 meters 1 second after emission, period!
Light travels at different rates depending on the medium. Cherenkov radiation is a wonderful demonstration of how particles can travel faster than the rate light is travelling through a medium.

So no, not period (exclamation point).
Uh, nobody here is assuming we are talking about light travel in...say...water. (rolls eyes)

26. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by Strange
I don't think so (I'm not entirely sure I have parsed that statement correctly). I am saying that the times (and distances) measured by the observer you show in your drawing and that measured by an observer moving with the box would not all be the same.For example for the "stationary" (relatively) observer that you depict in your diagram, the light will reach z before it reaches x. For the observer in the box, it will reach z and x at the same time.
There is a box moving in space at a velocity. That velocity is not dependent on an observer. It is a fact that a light sphere has a specific radius in space at a specific time after emission. No observer can change that, like no observer can change the distance between you and the center of the moon at 12:00.You are very confused as to what actually happens and what is measured a duration of time later. Light travels in space at the rate of c, PERIOD! No observer required. The light sphere has a radius of 299,792,458 meters 1 second after emission, period!We are not talking about frequency or wave length, do you not understand that?
according to whom??? This is false as understood for 100 years, light moves in all reference frames at exactly c, there is no privledged frames. It has everthing to do with observers and reference frames

27. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by Strange
Huh? Any. All. But ... believe it or not(1) .... they will not all observe/measure the same things. Gasp!
So you are saying that regardless of the motion of the box in space, light always travels the same distance in space from the point in time it is emitted from the source to the point in time it reaches the z receiver?
The difference is about the frame of reference, which has been experimentally shown to produce different results for light than for anything else. Your diagram is 100% correct for an expanding ripple on a pond or a sound wave, but not for light. That is the fundamental difference. It is not just about frequency and wavelength. Your diagram supposes that an observer at each detector would measure different travel times for the light sphere, while that is not the case in the real world, as confirmed by experiment. That is where you need SR. It is not just a gimick, it actually acurately predicts the results of experiments, while your suppositions won't.

28. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by Wintermute
Light travels in space at the rate of c, PERIOD! No observer required. The light sphere has a radius of 299,792,458 meters 1 second after emission, period!
Light travels at different rates depending on the medium. Cherenkov radiation is a wonderful demonstration of how particles can travel faster than the rate light is travelling through a medium.

So no, not period (exclamation point).
Uh, nobody here is assuming we are talking about light travel in...say...water. (rolls eyes)
Your box is sitting in air, right? Air is also a medium which slows the travel of photons. You say you've measured this experiment with your instruments? How did you get such an exact figure?

29. Originally Posted by TheObserver
according to whom??? This is false as understood for 100 years, light moves in all reference frames at exactly c, there is no privledged frames. It has everthing to do with observers and reference frames
So let me get this straight. You are in a box in space. You feel no acceleration. It is like you are sitting in a chair in your living room. You can't tell you are moving in space. The only thing you can tell is that if the box accelerates you feel a change.

So, acceleration is the rate of change of velocity. You are sitting in a box in space. You measure the time it takes for the light to reach the receivers. It takes .5 seconds to all the receivers. Whoo hoo, you are at an absolute zero velocity! All the times are the same!

I come along and attach a rocket motor to your box and fire it up! You FEEL the acceleration, so you KNOW that the velocity of the box has changed. The acceleration stops. You feel nothing again. You measure the times to the receivers once again.

Are you trying to tell me that the times are all .5 seconds again? You need to understand, the velocity of the box is NOT DEPENDENT on an external observer. The velocity of the box is its OWN VELOCITY in space.

30. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
There is a box moving in space at a velocity. That velocity is not dependent on an observer.
It is dependent on the observer: all velocity is relative.

It is a fact that a light sphere has a specific radius in space at a specific time after emission.
And that radius (and the meaning of "specific time") is observer dependent.

You are very confused as to what actually happens
Oh the irony.

We are not talking about frequency or wave length, do you not understand that?
What? Huh! Who said we were? Why do bring that up? Are you thinking of the Doppler effect? How is that relevant? Who is confused?

We have answered several of your questions (unfortunately you don't like the answers). Are you willing to answer questions? (Otherwise I might just go back to laughing at you). Come on just one, a simple one, surely:

1) How does GPS work in your world?

31. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Are you trying to tell me that the times are all .5 seconds again?
Yes. Exactly right. Have you ever heard of the thousands of experiments that have been done to measure exactly this? Guess what they find....

32. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Are you trying to tell me that the times are all .5 seconds again?
Yes. Exactly right. Have you ever heard of the thousands of experiments that have been done to measure exactly this? Guess what they find....
SR doesn't even acknowledge that the box has a velocity, who are you trying to BS? SR says that the box is always at rest, and it is every other object that is moving, but not the box.

You say the box is at rest? Define at rest. At rest compared to what? Please answer that question directly without your non-sense.

33. You don't understand, SR is a theory of reference frames. Picture me on a bus an you on the ground. You would measure the ground to be at rest but the bus at +30mph, however for me on the bus I would measure the bus to be at rest, but I would measure the groun to be moving at -30 mph. However, as you might not expect, we would both measure light to move at c!

34. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
SR doesn't even acknowledge that the box has a velocity
Yes it does; but only relative to something else. You were talking about an observer in the box who is therefore, relatively, at rest wrt to the box. Are you trying to move the goalposts? Or just confuse things so you don't have to think about them clearly and rationally?

SR says that the box is always at rest, and it is every other object that is moving, but not the box.
If this is how you understand SR then it is not surprising you have come up with the wrong answers.

You say the box is at rest? Define at rest. At rest compared to what?
I didn't say that. But you were talking about an observer in the box who is therefore, relatively, at rest wrt to the box (and vice versa).

Would you like to drop the childish potty-talk and insults. Thank you.

35. Originally Posted by TheObserver
You don't understand, SR is a theory of reference frames. Picture me on a bus an you on the ground. You would measure the ground to be at rest but the bus at +30mph, however for me on the bus I would measure the bus to be at rest, but I would measure the groun to be moving at -30 mph. However, as you might not expect, we would both measure light to move at c!
It's you that doesn't understand. Light travels independently of objects. Light travels from the point of origin in space. Why is that so difficult for you to comprehend? I showed you in the pic with pretty little pics. The ground and the bus could both be in motion relative to the point of origin of the light sphere, all the while each having a relative velocity to each other.

When you say an object is at rest you are saying the object is at rest compared to the origin of the light sphere. Do you not understand that?

36. Originally Posted by Strange
Yes it does; but only relative to something else. You were talking about an observer in the box who is therefore, relatively, at rest wrt to the box. Are you trying to move the goalposts? Or just confuse things so you don't have to think about them clearly and rationally?
The origin of a light sphere is not capable of moving. The origin of a light sphere is a point in space, it is not a physical object capable of traveling in space. If the distance between the origin of the light sphere and the box is increasing, it is THE BOX that is traveling in space, it is NOT the origin. You seem to think that the box has every right to think that it is motionless and that it is the point of origin that is traveling. That is IMPOSSIBLE!

37. I understand fully, you are saying that the velocity of light is only c in the reference frame of the origin point of the light in your diagram. Ie, a person at rest. What we are trying to tell you is the the moving box would also measure the light to move at c, with respect to itself, contrary to intuiton

38. Originally Posted by TheObserver
I understand fully, you are saying that the velocity of light is only c in the reference frame of the origin point of the light in your diagram. Ie, a person at rest. What we are trying to tell you is the the moving box would also measure the light to move at c, with respect to itself, contrary to intuiton
No not a person at rest. There is nothing at that point. The source was there at t=0. It is no longer at that point at t=.65.

39. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by Strange
Yes it does; but only relative to something else. You were talking about an observer in the box who is therefore, relatively, at rest wrt to the box. Are you trying to move the goalposts? Or just confuse things so you don't have to think about them clearly and rationally?
The origin of a light sphere is not capable of moving. The origin of a light sphere is a point in space, it is not a physical object capable of traveling in space. If the distance between the origin of the light sphere and the box is increasing, it is THE BOX that is traveling in space, it is NOT the origin. You seem to think that the box has every right to think that it is motionless and that it is the point of origin that is traveling. That is IMPOSSIBLE!
all motion must be considered relative. That is true even in gallilean relativity understood for like 1000 years. There is no problem considering any particular frame to be at rest. Where did you hear that light is c in a single frame? There is no such thing as being at rest in the universe, only at rest with respect to something else

40. It's hopeless isn't it. There is none so ignorant as those who have closed their mind against learning.

Hey Motor Daddy, how about all the experiments that confirm SR (and disprove your view of the world)?

How does GPS work? (Maybe I will just post that in response to every incorrect statement you make.)

41. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy

So let me get this straight. You are in a box in space. You feel no acceleration. It is like you are sitting in a chair in your living room. You can't tell you are moving in space. The only thing you can tell is that if the box accelerates you feel a change.
Yes, correct.

So, acceleration is the rate of change of velocity. You are sitting in a box in space. You measure the time it takes for the light to reach the receivers. It takes .5 seconds to all the receivers. Whoo hoo, you are at an absolute zero velocity! All the times are the same!
Also correct.

I come along and attach a rocket motor to your box and fire it up! You FEEL the acceleration, so you KNOW that the velocity of the box has changed.
No. What you feel now is a force, but in the absence of any reference frame other than the inside of you box you wouldn't be able to tell whether this is because of a change of velocity or because a gravitational field now acts on you.

You measure the times to the receivers once again. Are you trying to tell me that the times are all .5 seconds again?
Yes, obviously ! Nothing has changed. You said it yourself - the speed of light is not dependent on any observer. The observer inside the box still feels nothing and measures the same laws of physics. Why is this so hard for you ?

42. Originally Posted by TheObserver
all motion must be considered relative. That is true even in gallilean relativity understood for like 1000 years. There is no problem considering any particular frame to be at rest. Where did you hear that light is c in a single frame? There is no such thing as being at rest in the universe, only at rest with respect to something else
Light travel time defines the meter. Light is 299,792,458 meters away from the point of origin at t=1. Do you agree?

43. Originally Posted by TheObserver
I understand fully, you are saying that the velocity of light is only c in the reference frame of the origin point of the light in your diagram. Ie, a person at rest. What we are trying to tell you is the the moving box would also measure the light to move at c, with respect to itself, contrary to intuiton
Correct.
Motor Daddy, all observers measure the speed of light, and thus the laws of physics, to be the same. That's the point of Special Relativity ! In order for this to be possible time dilation and length contraction come into effect as needed.
What kind of world would we be living in if our physical laws depended on the observer ? I don't know, but it sure would look a lot different than what we are seeing now !

44. Imagine a I am standing still and watching an incoming car moving toward me at 30 mph, not imagine I started running toward that car at 10 mph. Do you agree I would measure the cars velocity as 40 mph with respect to myself? Ok. Now imagine I was running away at 10 mph, I would now measure it to be moving at 20 mph. Ok.Now imagine I am standing still and I measure that beam of light to be c. Imagine I was instead moving toward the light at half of c. You might expect to measure the light moving at c plus half of c. But we don't. It ends up being c despite what we would expect. This was an open problem in physics, finally explained with relativity. Your diagram does not take this fact into account.

45. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by TheObserver
all motion must be considered relative. That is true even in gallilean relativity understood for like 1000 years. There is no problem considering any particular frame to be at rest. Where did you hear that light is c in a single frame? There is no such thing as being at rest in the universe, only at rest with respect to something else
Light travel time defines the meter. Light is 299,792,458 meters away from the point of origin at t=1. Do you agree?
How many times...?
While the speed of light itself is constant, the distance and time used in its measurement is not and depends on the observer.
Length contraction.
Time dilation.
Enough said !

46. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by TheObserver
all motion must be considered relative. That is true even in gallilean relativity understood for like 1000 years. There is no problem considering any particular frame to be at rest. Where did you hear that light is c in a single frame? There is no such thing as being at rest in the universe, only at rest with respect to something else
Light travel time defines the meter. Light is 299,792,458 meters away from the point of origin at t=1. Do you agree?
yes butthat definition is also frame dependant, and takes into account results of SR

47. Originally Posted by TheObserver
Imagine a I am standing still and watching an incoming car moving toward me at 30 mph, not imagine I started running toward that car at 10 mph. Do you agree I would measure the cars velocity as 40 mph with respect to myself?

No, I would imagine that you would calculate the closing speed to be 40 MPH, 30 of the car and 10 of yourself.

Originally Posted by TheObserver
Ok. Now imagine I was running away at 10 mph, I would now measure it to be moving at 20 mph.
Same applies

Originally Posted by TheObserver
Ok.Now imagine I am standing still and I measure that beam of light to be c. Imagine I was instead moving toward the light at half of c. You might expect to measure the light moving at c plus half of c. But we don't. It ends up being c despite what we would expect. This was an open problem in physics, finally explained with relativity. Your diagram does not take this fact into account.
Again, if you were moving towards the light at .5c the CLOSING SPEED would be 1.5c, the light traveling towards you at 1c and you traveling towards the light at .5c. Your velocity has no impact on the speed of light.

If you look very carefully at my pic you will notice that the closing speed of the returning light sphere is more than 1c, and yet, the light sphere's radius is 1c. So don't tell me my pic doesn't address that issue. Your misunderstanding doesn't constitute a mistake on my part.

48. Originally Posted by TheObserver
yes butthat definition is also frame dependant, and takes into account results of SR
Really, can you post a link that mentions SR in the definition of a meter?

49. Ok, then what we are trying to tell you in your terms is the the closing speed of light and every other object moving or not in the universe is just c. It can never be anything else

50. Although I have never heard the term

51. Originally Posted by TheObserver
Ok, then what we are trying to tell you in your terms is the the closing speed of light and every other object moving or not in the universe is just c. It can never be anything else
So let me get this straight, two light sources are a distance apart from each other at t=0. They simultaneously emit light. Do the light spheres meet in the middle?

52. Originally Posted by TheObserver
Although I have never heard the term
You've never heard the term closing speed? Ruh Roh, no wonder you have big misconceptions!

53. I've studying physics in university for a few years and I have never heard the term used because we would generally talk about relative velocities, even in classical physics where the we don't consider relativity. But why does that matter, you didn't mention the word until now

54. Again, if you were moving towards the light at .5c the CLOSING SPEED would be 1.5c, the light traveling towards you at 1c and you traveling towards the light at .5c. Your velocity has no impact on the speed of light.

If you look very carefully at my pic you will notice that the closing speed of the returning light sphere is more than 1c, and yet, the light sphere's radius is 1c. So don't tell me my pic doesn't address that issue. Your misunderstanding doesn't constitute a mistake on my part.
No!

Look at it in another way:

You stand still and a car is parked some distance away. Another car comes speeding towards you and the instant it is level with the standing car, they both flash their lights for an instant. You say you will see the light from the moving car first. Repeated experiments have revealed that this is NOT the case. You will see both of their lights at the same time, with the moving car's light being blue shifted. Relativity explains why. Now, do you understand what experiment means? This effect has been measured, many times over at that and is contrary to your diagram. I know it doesn't make intuitive sense, but if you have read anything about quantum mechanics, you would see that our common sense is not that good a measure of reality.

So, how could that be? Could it be that you are wrong? I'd say so.

55. Actually I don't subscribe to a notion of simultinety, I don't agree with the idea of two light sources emmitting light at the same time. That depends on who is doing the measuring.

56. Originally Posted by TheObserver
I've studying physics in university for a few years and I have never heard the term used because we would generally talk about relative velocities, even in classical physics where the we don't consider relativity. But why does that matter, you didn't mention the word until now
Oh, so the institution didn't teach you the concept of closing speed? You were force fed relativity as the teacher cracked the whip on you. Tisk tisk my friend, thou shalt not accept only what is force fed, thou should learn to think for thyself.

Answer my question, two light sources are a distance apart from each other. They emit light simultaneously. Where do the light spheres meet, in the middle?

57. Originally Posted by TheObserver
Actually I don't subscribe to a notion of simultinety, I don't agree with the idea of two light sources emmitting light at the same time. That depends on who is doing the measuring.
So you refuse to accept the notion of simultaneity, eh? Boy, Uncle Albert did a fine job on you. (rolls eyes)

58. Originally Posted by TheObserver
Actually I don't subscribe to a notion of simultinety, I don't agree with the idea of two light sources emmitting light at the same time. That depends on who is doing the measuring.
Not sure what you mean? Doesn't this objection go for your example as well?

59. Originally Posted by KALSTER
Again, if you were moving towards the light at .5c the CLOSING SPEED would be 1.5c, the light traveling towards you at 1c and you traveling towards the light at .5c. Your velocity has no impact on the speed of light.

If you look very carefully at my pic you will notice that the closing speed of the returning light sphere is more than 1c, and yet, the light sphere's radius is 1c. So don't tell me my pic doesn't address that issue. Your misunderstanding doesn't constitute a mistake on my part.
No!

Look at it in another way:

You stand still and a car is parked some distance away. Another car comes speeding towards you and the instant it is level with the standing car, they both flash their lights for an instant. You say you will see the light from the moving car first. Repeated experiments have revealed that this is NOT the case. You will see both of their lights at the same time, with the moving car's light being blue shifted. Relativity explains why. Now, do you understand what experiment means? This effect has been measured, many times over at that and is contrary to your diagram. I know it doesn't make intuitive sense, but if you have read anything about quantum mechanics, you would see that our common sense is not that good a measure of reality.

So, how could that be? Could it be that you are wrong? I'd say so.
Don't you dare put words in my mouth.

If the two cars are an equal distance away from me when the light is emitted from each, the light will reach me at the same time. The past has nothing to do with t=0 and (0,0,0) as far as the time of light travel is concerned.

60. If your framework was true, then we would be able to measure the difference in the relative speed of light, or closing speed, of the light from distant stars as the earth travelled around the sun. But the closing speed between the earth and the light from a star is always c, regardless if the planet is travelling toward the star, or away.

61. Originally Posted by KALSTER
Originally Posted by TheObserver
Actually I don't subscribe to a notion of simultinety, I don't agree with the idea of two light sources emmitting light at the same time. That depends on who is doing the measuring.
Not sure what you mean? Doesn't this objection go for your example as well?
Sorry my comment was directed towards motors comment about whether or not two beams of light would arrive in the middle of their source if emitted simultaneously, which without specifying which frame is measuring them to be simultaneity is meaningless. Not your example from above.

62. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by TheObserver
I've studying physics in university for a few years and I have never heard the term used because we would generally talk about relative velocities, even in classical physics where the we don't consider relativity. But why does that matter, you didn't mention the word until now
Oh, so the institution didn't teach you the concept of closing speed? You were force fed relativity as the teacher cracked the whip on you. Tisk tisk my friend, thou shalt not accept only what is force fed, thou should learn to think for thyself.

Answer my question, two light sources are a distance apart from each other. They emit light simultaneously. Where do the light spheres meet, in the middle?
I understand the concept of closing speed just fine, its just using that word for it I have never seen. Relative velocity is a far more useful concept when discussing this type of situation. I'm not talking about special relativity. Just the regular relativity used since Gallileos time.

And unless you have been to a university, where you are constantly encouraged to question things, never take the word of your profs, and to explore things on your own, coming to your own conclusions, don't make stupid comments like this. Obviously I'm not going to try to rediscover the entire last 1000 years of physics on my own. But they don't force feed you anything.

63. Don't you dare put words in my mouth.
Calm down there tiger.

If the two cars are an equal distance away from me when the light is emitted from each, the light will reach me at the same time. The past has nothing to do with t=0 and (0,0,0) as far as the time of light travel is concerned.
How is it different from your diagram? Why does the past matter in your diagram?

To bring your diagram and this example together; the light from the moving car is analogous to the light from your source, with the frame of the guy standing still and the box being analogous to each other, yet, you give two different results. Why? You calculate the light circle from the source, instead of what the wave front will do. In my example, if you put another guy an equal distance on the other side of the still car, you'd still get the light from both cars at the same time. The same goes for guys on perpendicular sides, yet in your diagram you get different results.

64. Originally Posted by KALSTER
To bring your diagram and this example together; the light from the moving car is analogous to the light from your source, with the frame of the guy standing still and the box being analogous to each other, yet, you give two different results. Why?
No, in comparison, it would be like saying the car's light travels away from the point of origin it was emitted as the car also travels in the same direction at a slower speed away from that point of origin. In comparison, the box is to the guy standing still moving away from the point of origin, which would mean the parking lot was also traveling in space away from that point of origin and the guy was remaining standing in the same spot in the parking lot.

65. Why would that point of origin orbit the sun in the exact spot relative to the earth? Is the earth moving relative to the frame in your diagram?

I have a big question about your diagram. As I can see it, the light is emitted from the origin and remains fixed relative the frame of the diagram. How would we about finding this reference frame? I mean, wouldn't we be able to trace the light spheres path back their source point and determine this frame that is always fixed with respect to the origin points of light? Is it moving with respect to earth? The sun? The galaxy core? Some other galaxy or point in space?

66. Originally Posted by TheObserver
Why would that point of origin orbit the sun in the exact spot relative to the earth? Is the earth moving relative to the frame in your diagram?

I have a big question about your diagram. As I can see it, the light is emitted from the origin and remains fixed relative the frame of the diagram. How would we about finding this reference frame? I mean, wouldn't we be able to trace the light spheres path back their source point and determine this frame that is always fixed with respect to the origin points of light? Is it moving with respect to earth? The sun? The galaxy core? Some other galaxy or point in space?
All the objects you mentioned, the sun, the earth, etc all move relative to the preferred frame, which is nothing more than an imaginary coordinate system for the infinite volume of space. Light defines distance in that frame. It is not a physical frame, it is the point of origin of light, and the distance that light travels away from that point of origin. Objects such as earth move in the preferred frame. Objects in space move in the volume of space.

67. Another thing. Your diagram has the source of light emitted at (0,0,0), the coordinate origin. Do you agree that it was arbitrarily chosen in the sense that if we had chosen that point to be (1,1,1) or (12,83,pi) or whatever, the physics should work out the same? I think you would agree with this. Also, we could have chosen the time the light was emitted to be called 5 seconds. Just start our watch earlier. You would certainly agree that the laws of physics would not change? Or even looked at it from the other direction.

Unfortunately, if we want this idea to be true - the idea of invariance of physical law under coordinate transformations - then we are forced to concede to a number of rules, ones you might not expect but are completely necessary for any mathematical framework to remain consistent. You are ignoring this fact, I'm sorry to say.

68. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by KALSTER
To bring your diagram and this example together; the light from the moving car is analogous to the light from your source, with the frame of the guy standing still and the box being analogous to each other, yet, you give two different results. Why?
No, in comparison, it would be like saying the car's light travels away from the point of origin it was emitted as the car also travels in the same direction at a slower speed away from that point of origin. In comparison, the box is to the guy standing still moving away from the point of origin, which would mean the parking lot was also traveling in space away from that point of origin and the guy was remaining standing in the same spot in the parking lot.
I'll quote a further edit I made to my post:

"You calculate the light circle from the source, instead of what the wave front will do. In my example, if you put another guy an equal distance on the other side of the still car, you'd still get the light from both cars at the same time. The same goes for guys on perpendicular sides, yet in your diagram you get different results."

See what you did? In your diagram you keep the moving source as reference for where the wave front will be with the front being the same distance all round the whole time from the source, while in my example it mysteriously doesn't happen anymore. How do you explain that?

69. In fact if earth is moving relative to the absolute space then we would never measure the velocity of light to be c, it would always be different due to the earths motion! Your idea is impossible, I think you will come to realize that very soon.

70. This thread needs to be shot to put it out of it's (our) misery.

71. , so the institution didn't teach you the concept of closing speed? You were force fed relativity as the teacher cracked the whip on you. Tisk tisk my friend, thou shalt not accept only what is force fed, thou should learn to think for thyself.

Answer my question, two light sources are a distance apart from each other. They emit light simultaneously. Where do the light spheres meet, in the middle?
doesn't that depend on the observer?

72. Originally Posted by KALSTER
See what you did? In your diagram you keep the moving source as reference for where the wave front will be with the front being the same distance all round the whole time from the source, while in my example it mysteriously doesn't happen anymore. How do you explain that?
Maybe it is not clear enough for you that the source remains at the center of the cube at all times? Maybe you don't understand what the origin of the light sphere actually is? There is nothing at the point of origin, I only drew it for a reference so that you can see what is going on. The point of origin is simply the point in space that the source emitted light at t=0. The source has since moved with the cube, as it remains fixed at the center of the cube at all times.

73. I still see no explanation for the round trip time being 1.68...seconds. Does anybody claim to have an answer for that?

74. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by KALSTER
See what you did? In your diagram you keep the moving source as reference for where the wave front will be with the front being the same distance all round the whole time from the source, while in my example it mysteriously doesn't happen anymore. How do you explain that?
Maybe it is not clear enough for you that the source remains at the center of the cube at all times? Maybe you don't understand what the origin of the light sphere actually is? There is nothing at the point of origin, I only drew it for a reference so that you can see what is going on. The point of origin is simply the point in space that the source emitted light at t=0. The source has since moved with the cube, as it remains fixed at the center of the cube at all times.
Why does the wave front stay centred around the point in space it was emitted from? If the source was moving with the box, the wave front would expand in the box evenly. You are working from a preferred reference frame for light to propagate in. This is wrong, as has been told to you countless times. And it is not just say so or some SR screwing around, it is an observed fact that there is no preferred frame. Hear that? Observed. Fact. What don't you understand about that?

Now, will you acknowledge your fault in the face of direct contrary observation? I don't imagine you would. Don't come with ifs and buts, your premise does not tie up with what really happens. That is independent of if you are able to grasp why or not.

75. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Objects such as earth move in the preferred frame.
Then we should be able to perform an experiment to measure the movement of the earth in this preferred frame, no?

What do you think such an experiment would involve? Perhaps sending light in various directions and measuring the time it takes to be reflected back? These should vary depending on the relationship to the direction of motion in the preferred frame.

Do you think we should perform such an experiment in order to confirm you hypothesis?

76. Really, this is hilarious...woke up this morning and this thread is still going on ! Not only that, Motor Daddy has not acknowledged any of the faults in his reasoning.

From what I can gather we have a cube of length a, moving at some relativistic speed v, and in the center of the cube there is a light source and a detector. So light is emitted, bounces off the wall mirror, and returns to the detector while the box keeps moving uniformly. I think Motor Daddy's argument is that an observer inside the box will measure a different speed of light then an outside observer looking at the whole setup moving along ( in other words, the travel times of the light wave front don't agree ).

Let's do the maths. ( a = length of cube in meters, t = travel time of light wave in seconds, v = velocity of box relative to outside observer, c = speed of light in vauum )

Observer 1, inside the box, measures the following round trip time :

Simple as that. The outside observer sees the box length contracted, and thus measures the following time :

If we compare the two clock readings, we of course know that the moving one is subject to time dilation, thus the following relation between the clocks must hold :

Let's check this :

which is just as expected. What this means is that

but also

therefore

so both observers will measure the same speed of light. This is immediately obvious because as the outside observer is looking at the box he sees its length being contracted, whereas the inside observer measures a time which is dilated due to the box's movement. Both effects balance just so that the speed of light is the same in both cases, even though the two observers don't agree on the length measurements and time readings.

77. Yes. His basic argument is essentially for a preferred frame for light to propagate in, like an aether.

His diagram gives the same results as if you have a pond with a square photo frame hovering over it and moving at a certain speed. Then you drop a pebble through the centre of the frame and measure the time it takes for the wave front to come level to each flat side of the frame. Then you drop another pebble next to the centre of the leading side as the first wave front comes level and measure the time it takes for the new wave front to hit the centre of the photo frame again. He thinks light behaves the same way and doesn't get what is meant by the constancy of C. He seems to deny the results of actual experiments, which his was not.

78. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Really, this is hilarious...woke up this morning and this thread is still going on ! Not only that, Motor Daddy has not acknowledged any of the faults in his reasoning.
He has already threatened to continue repeating this idiocy, unchanged, for at least 500 posts. He is impervious to evidence or learning. I think his brain has fossilized.

79. Originally Posted by KALSTER
Yes. His basic argument is essentially for a preferred frame for light to propagate in, like an aether.

His diagram gives the same results as if you have a pond with a square photo frame hovering over it and moving at a certain speed. Then you drop a pebble through the centre of the frame and measure the time it takes for the wave front to come level to each flat side of the frame. Then you drop another pebble next to the centre of the leading side as the first wave front comes level and measure the time it takes for the new wave front to hit the centre of the photo frame again. He thinks light behaves the same way and doesn't get what is meant by the constancy of C. He seems to deny the results of actual experiments, which his was not.
That pretty much what I thought, even though I still can't access the picture in the OP ( could be due to my own Internet connection - not reliable in my part of the world ).
Anyway, the maths I gave in post 176 clearly show that c is always constant for any observer in this case. I'm pretty sure though that our friend will try and find some excuse or another as to why I'm wrong

80. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Really, this is hilarious...woke up this morning and this thread is still going on ! Not only that, Motor Daddy has not acknowledged any of the faults in his reasoning.
He has already threatened to continue repeating this idiocy, unchanged, for at least 500 posts. He is impervious to evidence or learning. I think his brain has fossilized.
I agree. I however will certainly not waste my time with another 300-odd posts on this. Everything that needed to be said has been said.

81. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
I still see no explanation for the round trip time being 1.68...seconds. Does anybody claim to have an answer for that?
You will find the maths to answer your questions in post 176. If the measured size of the cube is 1 light second ( you realize that is MASSIVE, don't you ), then the travel time center-edge-center is always exactly 1 second, for all observers.
For the outsider observer - because the length of the box is contracted in relation to the inside observer's measurement.
For the inside observer - because his clock is time dilated in relation to the outside stationary clock.
In both cases c is experimentally measured to be constant due to the above effects. c is always the same for all observers.

As for experimental evidence, there is a long list of experiment to be found here :

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physic...periments.html

With this it has been definitely proven to you that c is in fact constant for all observers, meaning in essence that there is no absolute preferred frame of reference required.

82. Markus, You're a funny guy. You haven't even seen the pic and you are arguing against it. That alone speaks volumes as to your ignorance. You are arguing against something that you haven't even seen yet!

I already posted in the pic, and I posted it for you in this thread, but you fail to acknowledge, so I will repost:

2D equation:
v(x)=sqrt(t(z)^2-l(z)^2)/t(z)
t(x)=l(x)/(c-v(x))

where
v(x) is the velocity of the cube in the x direction
t(z) is the measured time to the z receiver
l(z) is the length between the source and the z receiver in the cube frame
t(x) is the time is takes for light to reach the x receiver

The length between the source and the receivers remains .5 light seconds at all times in the cube frame.

Go ahead, play around with the numbers. Change the times to the z receiver and see what times you get to the x receiver and the velocity of the box you get. Try a bunch of combinations.

I built that equation using the Pythagorean Theorem, so I'm SURE you will not be able to prove it wrong! Give it a try. I dare you!

83. Hey Motor Daddy, glad you are back. Are you going to answer any questions or just repeat the same thing like a broken record ("Daddy, what's a 'record'?")

Post #175, for example.

Or: How does GPS work?

84. Originally Posted by KALSTER
Why does the wave front stay centred around the point in space it was emitted from?
Because the light sphere defines distance in space, and it expands its radius equally in every different direction from the point of origin. That is a fact that is simply irrefutable. If you can't acknowledge that fact then you will never understand what I am saying.

85.

86. Originally Posted by Strange
Hey Motor Daddy, glad you are back. Are you going to answer any questions or just repeat the same thing like a broken record ("Daddy, what's a 'record'?")

Post #175, for example.

Or: How does GPS work?
It's time people answer my questions. Why are you trying to bring GPS into this matter? Just to complicate things even more? I said in the OP, keep the discussion about the pic. How about you give me SR's numbers of the diagram? Obviously SR is incapable of acknowledging that the cube has a velocity in the preferred frame, as it says the light always hits the receivers in .5 seconds. lol

So give me the numbers from a frame stationary to the cube external to the cube. How do you reconcile the fact that it took 1.68....seconds for light to travel the round trip distance. Let's see your answer. Pretty please.

87. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by KALSTER
Why does the wave front stay centred around the point in space it was emitted from?
Because the light sphere defines distance in space, and it expands its radius equally in every different direction from the point of origin. That is a fact that is simply irrefutable. If you can't acknowledge that fact then you will never understand what I am saying.
Did you read my post explaining how your diagram is like a pebble in a pond scenario? Now, listen carefully: It works like you think it does for sound waves, or ripples in a pond, BUT NOT FOR LIGHT. How do we know? BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN EXPERIMENTALLY SHOWN NOT TO. Do you understand that? How can you presume to refute direct observation with a diagram of your own imagining without ANY EXPERIMENTATION OF YOUR OWN? Are all these experimenters lying and you are only one who knows the truth?

88. Did you read my post explaining how your diagram is like a pebble in a pond scenario? Now, listen carefully: It works like you think it does for sound waves, or ripples in a pond, BUT NOT FOR LIGHT. How do we know? BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN EXPERIMENTALLY SHOWN NOT TO. Do you understand that? How can you presume to refute direct observation with a diagram of your own imagining without ANY EXPERIMENTATION OF YOUR OWN? Are all these experimenters lying and you are only one who knows the truth?[/QUOTE]

So does that mean you agree that the light sphere expands its radius from a point of origin in space equally in every different direction? Can you please stay on track?

89. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by Strange
Hey Motor Daddy, glad you are back. Are you going to answer any questions or just repeat the same thing like a broken record ("Daddy, what's a 'record'?")

Post #175, for example.

Or: How does GPS work?
It's time people answer my questions.
They have. Repeatedly. You choose to put your fingers in your ears, screw up your eyes and go "la la la".

Why are you trying to bring GPS into this matter?
Something to do with relativity being essential to its operation perhaps?

I said in the OP, keep the discussion about the pic.
Your picture only shows one case. By your childish rule that is all I am allowed to say.

So give me the numbers from a frame stationary to the cube external to the cube. How do you reconcile the fact that it took 1.68....seconds for light to travel the round trip distance. Let's see your answer. Pretty please.
I'm not allowed to: it isn't shown in your picture.

Now, you keep talking about "measurements". How about the experiment I describe in post #175. Do you think that would be a useful thing to do?

90. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
So does that mean you agree that the light sphere expands its radius from a point of origin in space equally in every different direction? Can you please stay on track?
Yes. But every observer will see that sphere in a different place.

Sorry. It's not in your picture.

91. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by Strange
Hey Motor Daddy, glad you are back. Are you going to answer any questions or just repeat the same thing like a broken record ("Daddy, what's a 'record'?")

Post #175, for example.

Or: How does GPS work?
It's time people answer my questions.
They have. Repeatedly. You choose to put your fingers in your ears, screw up your eyes and go "la la la".

Why are you trying to bring GPS into this matter?
Something to do with relativity being essential to its operation perhaps?

I said in the OP, keep the discussion about the pic.
Your picture only shows one case. By your childish rule that is all I am allowed to say.

So give me the numbers from a frame stationary to the cube external to the cube. How do you reconcile the fact that it took 1.68....seconds for light to travel the round trip distance. Let's see your answer. Pretty please.
I'm not allowed to: it isn't shown in your picture.

Now, you keep talking about "measurements". How about the experiment I describe in post #175. Do you think that would be a useful thing to do?
You've got to much non-sense in your posts for me to take you seriously.

92. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
So does that mean you agree that the light sphere expands its radius from a point of origin in space equally in every different direction? Can you please stay on track?
Yes. But every observer will see that sphere in a different place.
No every observer will not see that sphere in a different place. You are delusional. There is ONE set of facts in the coordinate system of space. ONE history book. There is not an infinite amount of realities there is ONE reality!

93. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
You've got to much non-sense in your post for me to take you seriously.
I didn't see any nonsense there. Unless you mean your rule about only talking about things in your picture.

It isn't nonsense that GPS relies on relativity.

It isn't nonsense to suggest a real-world experiment to test your hypothesis. That is how science works. Are you ... scared of that idea? Are you a coward? Afraid to have you idea tested? Why else would you avoid it?

So, how about the experiment in post #175?

94. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
I built that equation using the Pythagorean Theorem, so I'm SURE you will not be able to prove it wrong! Give it a try. I dare you!
See post 176. Like I said, I only do general proofs. The calculation given already has proven you wrong, because it clearly shows that c is equal for both observers, thus no preferred frame exists.

95. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
I built that equation using the Pythagorean Theorem, so I'm SURE you will not be able to prove it wrong! Give it a try. I dare you!
See post 176. Like I said, I only do general proofs.
Bwahahahahahahaha

Pythagorean Theorem isn't general?

You are trying to use SR to prove SR, which is ridiculous!

Post the link of proof of length contraction.

96. So, how about the experiment in post #175?

Or do you want to admit you are a coward as well as ignorant?

97. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by KALSTER
Did you read my post explaining how your diagram is like a pebble in a pond scenario? Now, listen carefully: It works like you think it does for sound waves, or ripples in a pond, BUT NOT FOR LIGHT. How do we know? BECAUSE IT HAS BEEN EXPERIMENTALLY SHOWN NOT TO. Do you understand that? How can you presume to refute direct observation with a diagram of your own imagining without ANY EXPERIMENTATION OF YOUR OWN? Are all these experimenters lying and you are only one who knows the truth?
So does that mean you agree that the light sphere expands its radius from a point of origin in space equally in every different direction? Can you please stay on track?
Oh my God... It depends on the frame of reference.

Answer my questions MD. Address the points I make in that post, will you?

Once again, for the umpteenth time, light behaves differently from other waves. This has been shown through experiment. Your diagram demonstrates what would happen if you were to conduct the experiment with a pond, a moving photo frame and a pebble. But it does not work like that with light. With light there is no preferred frame of reference, even if that does not make sense to you, that is what experiments show. Ok?

With light the wave fronts will hit all sides of the cube at the same time. That is just the way it is, has been shown by experiment and is accurately predicted by relativity. We are not making this stuff up like you are. Markus has demonstrated the math that describes it.

98. Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Originally Posted by Motor Daddy
I built that equation using the Pythagorean Theorem, so I'm SURE you will not be able to prove it wrong! Give it a try. I dare you!
See post 176. Like I said, I only do general proofs.
Bwahahahahahahaha

Pythagorean Theorem isn't general?

You are trying to use SR to prove SR, which is ridiculous!

Post the link of proof of length contraction.
I have already done that in post 181.
Are you blind ? Do you actually read what people are posting ? It seems not.

99. Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Are you blind ?
Of course he is blind. He couldn't hold on to these ideas if he weren't. He is obviously scared of learning anything that might shake his world view. I'm sure he must be a geocentric religious crank.

100. Originally Posted by Strange
Originally Posted by Markus Hanke
Are you blind ?
Of course he is blind. He couldn't hold on to these ideas if he weren't. He is obviously scared of learning anything that might shake his world view. I'm sure he must be a geocentric religious crank.
Quite possible

Page 2 of 9 First 1234 ... Last
 Bookmarks
##### Bookmarks
 Posting Permissions
 You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts   BB code is On Smilies are On [IMG] code is On [VIDEO] code is On HTML code is Off Trackbacks are Off Pingbacks are Off Refbacks are On Terms of Use Agreement