Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sam5
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tensor
Well how's this Sam5. c = velocity of light in a vacumn. dt = change in time. Now the difference between c and cdt is this: c is how fast light is moving, and dt is how long it moves. So cdt is how far light moves in a dt amount of time. So cdt is a distance, not a velocity. If you still don't understand, you need to ask that teenager.
|
See the two long plane-wave lines? Notice that there is an angle between the lines? Notice that the distance the c1dt part of the beam travels is longer than the distance the c2dt part of the beam travels during the same time period?
Do you not understand this or are you purposely trying not to understand this?
|
Sam5, we had this exchange on page 53:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tensor
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sam5
Ok, let me ask you what you think his c’dt and cdt speeds mean in the 1911 paper?
|
They are not speeds, they are distances. It's the speed of light (c) multiplied by the change in time. Which gives a distance.
|
Thirty pages ago, I first explained that cdt and c1dt were distances. And several times since. You are now just understanding this. So using your own quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Tensor applying a Sam5 quote to Sam5
As soon as he figures out what Einstein and I are talking about. Then he’ll pretend he “knew it all along”.
|
As far as this quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sam5
Do you not understand this or are you purposely trying not to understand this?
|
If you think I didn't understand cdt, I challenge you to show any post of mine that shows I thought cdt was anything besides a distance. Can you do it? No, I didn't think you could.
considering this quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Sam5
Are you trying to prevent others from understanding it?
|
considering that other posters, besides myself, have shown where you have taken quotes out of context, either misunderstood, misapplied or dishonestly distorted usage of precisely given definitions and common physics or astronomy terms, and used, for support, references that even the author has claimed don't work. I'll let others decide who the above quote should more properly apply to.