StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Eh, he's a pussy.

Ender wrote:

JodoForce wrote: Ah, but your interpretation is wrong, according to the powers that be on this board. According to them, the visible portion of the TL beam is ALSO moving at the speed of light, and IN A STRAIGHT LINE, even though it APPEARS to be moving at sublight speed. Now try to figure that out.

It's really simple you fucking retard. As stated in ICS, the bolt is spun. Now look at a spring. Measure it's lenth. Now uncurl it. Measure it's length again. Note that the uncurled length is far greater then the curled length. now imagine that the wire is a road. If you have to drive along it while it is coiled, it will take the tiem it would take to drive the uncurled distance, not the time it would take to drive the curled distance. THAT is how it moves at C and yet doesn't. The photons are traveling in a coiled pattern, not straight line. So they move at C but only travel a straightline distance at far slower speeds.

This interpretation happens to be outdated and wrong. Perhaps you'll be flamed to death by DW about it later. That's what happened to me for trying to debate this old interpretation

Edited reply to D.Turtle for clarification.

What do you mean by "+ my take on the war"?

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:What do you mean by "+ my take on the war"?

Who knows? Look at his original post; he's edited it SIX FUCKING TIMES. This guy is obviously not interested in playing it straight.

Jesus, what a fucking sore loser.

I say just VI him.

Ender wrote:

JodoForce wrote: Ah, but your interpretation is wrong, according to the powers that be on this board. According to them, the visible portion of the TL beam is ALSO moving at the speed of light, and IN A STRAIGHT LINE, even though it APPEARS to be moving at sublight speed. Now try to figure that out.

It's really simple you fucking retard. As stated in ICS, the bolt is spun. Now look at a spring. Measure it's lenth. Now uncurl it. Measure it's length again. Note that the uncurled length is far greater then the curled length. now imagine that the wire is a road. If you have to drive along it while it is coiled, it will take the tiem it would take to drive the uncurled distance, not the time it would take to drive the curled distance. THAT is how it moves at C and yet doesn't. The photons are traveling in a coiled pattern, not straight line. So they move at C but only travel a straightline distance at far slower speeds.

No this is not correct.

Massless particles, which always travel at c, also always travel straight lines in curved space.

Besides, if you can make a luxon appear to travel at sublight and light depending on perspective, you can also make it appear or disappear at will.

The point is this:

There's a beam traveling at c.

A pulse where the beam quanta are decaying appears to move at less than c, as it decays along the beam, depleting its over all energy. The pulse moves down the beam without the actual beam every being anything but c. The pulse is really more of a region of decay from the massless quanta to laterally emitted light that moves over the beam, rather than any actual part of the beam moving at all, hence the entirety of the beam is always at c.

The rate at which the pulse moves down the beam and the length of the pulse seems related to yield.

Darth Wong wrote:

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:What do you mean by "+ my take on the war"?

Who knows? Look at his original post; he's edited it SIX FUCKING TIMES. This guy is obviously not interested in playing it straight.

I've only added to my post not deleted, so shut the fuck up.

And all added content other than minor rephrasing are marked as such. If you want it this way, I can make every minor correction on a new post and drive people nuts.

JodoForce wrote:

Darth Wong wrote:

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:What do you mean by "+ my take on the war"?

Who knows? Look at his original post; he's edited it SIX FUCKING TIMES. This guy is obviously not interested in playing it straight.

I've only added to my post not deleted, so shut the fuck up.

And we knew this how? You expect us to trust an openly dishonest and stubbornly and foolishly proud debater like you?

JodoForce wrote:I've only added to my post not deleted, so shut the fuck up.

Really? So what happened to this rest of this post:

JodoForce wrote:Your saying so does not make it so.

[edited]

Well?

And all added content other than minor rephrasing are marked as such. If you want it this way, I can make every minor correction on a new post and drive people nuts.

You could have set it up as:

EDIT: In the above, when I said "so and so", what I actually meant was "this and that".
or
EDIT: Adding to the actual post, I want to say this about "something to do with something".

Is that so hard?

Jodo, here you make NEW posts. You don't EDIT your OLD posts. Editing your old posts just makes you look like the fucking, wormy lying son of a bitch you are.

Lord of the Farce wrote:

JodoForce wrote:I've only added to my post not deleted, so shut the fuck up.

Really? So what happened to this rest of this post:

JodoForce wrote:Your saying so does not make it so.

[edited]

Well?

I was talking about the first post.

Give up.

You just changed the entire content of your last (edit; second last) post, making my last post irrelevant.

Does my first post contain any instances where anything other people said was made outdated by my editing? That's the important point.

JodoForce wrote:deleted

Hey man, you should read MY website! Our theories on on par with one another.

Quiet, you God damn fake.

On the Issue of editing posts:

I tend to notice all kinds of things wrong with my posts when I see them in print (and I use "Preview" religiously), so I edit them just after I have posted them.

BUT I have to date not edited a post after somebody else posted on that thread. In that case I would rather come with a retraction/clarification then run back and change what people have read me claiming.
There are two reasons for this: 1) It upps my post count
and 2) cleaning up after oneself and changing ones stated opinion are NOT equal.

[point in case: prewiew with two w's; edited, and for once commented]