Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: guest39538 on 15/08/2016 09:26:50
-
A Rocket leaves point (A) at travelling at c and 12am emitting a light beam onto point (A) travelling to point (B) expanding the length of the beam, the rocket takes 8 minutes to arrive at point (B), what time is the rocket seen arriving at point (B)?
-
After a lengthy consideration with no replies, I get 12.08 regardless what ''you'' say because the very simple diagram shows this without uncertainty.
P.s this is not a new theory it is a query, I want to accept the present version and move on, but I can't move on without questioning what I feel is an inaccuracy.
I have a problem because of this -
A length of free space=X
x= 299 792 458 m
A Photon travels back and forth along X,
This ''clock'' is constant .
+vx=c=1s
-vx=c=1s
difference t=0
The only possible thing that can slow this ''clock'' down is if we add permeability.
added- I removed all 4 dimensional reference points, leaving the 1 dimensional whole of free space. (the 5th dimension and ''stationary'' reference frame of ''invisible'').
added- also my problem is this
If you ''stood'' at one end of X and I ''stood'' the other, and we simultaneously turn on our flashlights, we see each other at the same time, using the same above calculation.
added- also there is the problem of that I can see the entire clear distance of free space between objects and can ''see'' that ''invisible'' photons occupy this space that are not in my eyes. i.e 1ft away from my eyes I clearly observe there is Photons in this free space, I can clearly distinguish shadow at a distance where there is less Photons/light. I clearly observe this very writing of ''darkness'' the absence of photons in its exact geometrical position.
From this writing to my eyes I observe the free space is ''full'' of invisible Photons that have not entered my eyes. I observe spectral content 400nm-700nm seemingly in its exact location relative to free space. I observe free space to be stationary because we cant observe things that are invisible to have motion although it is apparent that the invisible is in motion.
added- and need I remind you https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metre
-
Perhaps no one replies because they have debated this scenario before without any constructive results.
The time of arrival has different answers, depending on which event and which clock.
With A and B clocks synchronized,
A sees (the image of) rocket arrival at 12:16. In the image the B clock reads 12:08.
B sees rocket arrival at 12:08.
The rocket clock reads 12:00 at arrival.
If the rocket made a return trip to A, would the clocks unwind to make the time=0?
-
A sees (the image of) rocket arrival at 12:16. In the image the B clock reads 12:08.
This bit is wrong but nobody is listening to me when I am showing why it is wrong. They expect me to accept this when it is wrong.
It is enough to drive me insane and it is so simple why it is wrong but nobody seems to understand and keep replying with 12:16 when it is 12:08.
Lets us take this in really short steps, it may takes several days.
Let us have point A
A rocket is ''stationary'' at point (A). Velocity=0
You are an observer in the control tower, you can see the rocket.
Photons reflect off the rocket and travel distance X to your eyes , do you agree with this?
-
A sees (the image of) rocket arrival at 12:16. In the image the B clock reads 12:08.
This bit is wrong but nobody is listening to me when I am showing why it is wrong. They expect me to accept this when it is wrong.
It is enough to drive me insane and it is so simple why it is wrong but nobody seems to understand and keep replying with 12:16 when it is 12:08.
No, it is not wrong and any attempt to prove otherwise is a new theory - or more properly an 'it can't be true'
Lets us take this in really short steps, it may takes several days.
Let's not. To do so would insult the intelligence of most primary school children.
One last try on a subject we have been over many times.
Let the rocket send out a flash of light every minute.
It leaves at 1200 and sends its first flash at 1201 which takes another 1min to travel back to A arriving at 1202.
Similarly the flash at 1202 arrives at A 1204
1203 at 1206
1204 at 1208
1205 at 1210
1206 at 1212
1207 at 1214
Finally at 1208 the rocket arrives at B and emits final flash, this flash along with the light reflected from the rocket (its image) arrives at A at 1216.
Whether you accept reality or not, this is the way it works. Live with it.
-
A sees (the image of) rocket arrival at 12:16. In the image the B clock reads 12:08.
This bit is wrong but nobody is listening to me when I am showing why it is wrong. They expect me to accept this when it is wrong.
It is enough to drive me insane and it is so simple why it is wrong but nobody seems to understand and keep replying with 12:16 when it is 12:08.
No, it is not wrong and any attempt to prove otherwise is a new theory - or more properly an 'it can't be true'
Lets us take this in really short steps, it may takes several days.
Let's not. To do so would insult the intelligence of most primary school children.
One last try on a subject we have been over many times.
Let the rocket send out a flash of light every minute.
It leaves at 1200 and sends its first flash at 1201 which takes another 1min to travel back to A arriving at 1202.
Similarly the flash at 1202 arrives at A 1204
1203 at 1206
1204 at 1208
1205 at 1210
1206 at 1212
1207 at 1214
Finally at 1208 the rocket arrives at B and emits final flash, this flash along with the light reflected from the rocket (its image) arrives at A at 1216.
Whether you accept reality or not, this is the way it works. Live with it.
NO, I will not accept that and live with that because it is in error and none of you are objective enough to actually listen. It is not a new theory and neither is it a can't be true. It is the student questioning what you are teaching him. Would you really want a student to be taught incorrectly and accept false information?
I am telling you it is wrong, I can show why it is wrong yet you all keep insisting it is correct when it clearly is not.
I tell you what Colin, discuss what I have said, if I don't show I am correct, then I will leave the forum forever.
That is how sure I am the information you are telling me is at fault.
Let us have point A
A rocket is ''stationary'' at point (A). Velocity=0
You are an observer in the control tower, you can see the rocket.
Photons reflect off the rocket and travel distance X to your eyes , do you agree with this?
Let us have point A, at point A is a stationary rocket, velocity=0
Captain Stewart sits in the cockpit looking towards the tower (point B) where he can see you.
Photons reflect off you travelling distance X to Captain Stewart's eyes , do you agree with this?
let us say distance X = 1 light second
from A to B the light takes 1 light second to reach the tower
from B to A the light takes 1 light second to reach Captain Stewart, do you agree with this?
Lets us be in a night time situation, the Sun rises at 6 am, at 6.08 am the first Photons of the day reflect off A and B at the same time.
photon (A) travels to (B) while simultaneously photon (B) travels to (A)
The tower (point B) and Captain Stewart (point A) both simultaneously receive their first sight of each other at 6.08 and 1 light second.
Do you agree with this?
-
vx=c=1s
This bit of pseudo-mathematical mash is confused because the author has not tried to compare the units (in which case he would have seen that it is wrong, although perhaps not realized why).
- You can't say "c=1s", because the units of c are meters per second (a velocity), while the units of 1 second are time. If the units don't match on each side of the "=", the numbers are nonsense.
- "vx=c", is even more confusing because I could not see "v" defined anywhere. Assuming the normal convention that v is a velocity, the units of v are meters per second (like c), and the units of x are meters. The units on the left are seconds which don't match the meters per second on the right side of the "=" (although it does match the seconds on the last "="). If the units don't match, the numbers are nonsense.
You calculate the propagation time t (in seconds) as velocity v (in meters per second) x distance (in meters).
Because we are talking about light pulses in a vacuum, the velocity = c (in meters per second).
Corrected:
t = x/v = x/c = 1 second
Units: Time = (meters)/(meters per second) = (seconds)
+vx=c=1s
-vx=c=1s
difference t=0
Reading between the lines, this seems to be saying that light takes 1 second to propagate in one direction and that light takes -1 second to propagate in the opposite direction, for a round-trip time of zero seconds. If you achieve this, you will win a Nobel Prize; unfortunately, it is a fallacy.
The next bit of confusion seems to be around "+"/"-". This seems to be using velocity or distance as a vector; vectors can have a direction, which can be "+", "-" depending on how you are using it. Just like using units consistently is essential, it is essential to use the direction of a vector consistently, or the equation is a nonsense.
If you have never studied vectors at university level, I suggest you just stick to scalars.
It takes 1 second for the light to travel in one direction, and it takes another second for the light to travel in the other direction, for a round-trip time of 2 seconds. Definitely not 0 seconds!
Note: I might have misread these equations; if so, please explain what was intended.
Correction: I tried to analyse the units, and mangled it badly - apologies
-
vx=c=1s
This bit of pseudo-mathematical mash is confused because the author has not tried to compare the units (in which case he would have seen that it is wrong, although perhaps not realized why).
- You can't say "c=1s", because the units of c are meters per second (a velocity), while the units of 1 second are time. If the units don't match on each side of the "=", the numbers are nonsense.
- "vx=c", is even more confusing because I could not see "v" defined anywhere. Assuming the normal convention that v is a velocity, the units of v are meters per second (like c), and the units of x are meters. The units on the left are seconds which don't match the meters per second on the right side of the "=" (although it does match the seconds on the last "="). If the units don't match, the numbers are nonsense.
You calculate the propagation time t (in seconds) as velocity v (in meters per second) x distance (in meters).
Because we are talking about light pulses in a vacuum, the velocity = c (in meters per second).
t = v*x = c*x = 1 second
Units: Time = (meters per second) * (meters) = (seconds)
+vx=c=1s
-vx=c=1s
difference t=0
Reading between the lines, this seems to be saying that light takes 1 second to propagate in one direction and that light takes -1 second to propagate in the opposite direction, for a round-trip time of zero seconds. If you achieve this, you will win a Nobel Prize; unfortunately, it is a fallacy.
The next bit of confusion seems to be around "+"/"-". This seems to be using velocity or distance as a vector; vectors can have a direction, which can be "+", "-" depending on how you are using it. Just like using units consistently is essential, it is essential to use the direction of a vector consistently, or the equation is a nonsense.
If you have never studied vectors at university level, I suggest you just stick to scalars.
It takes 1 second for the light to travel in one direction, and it takes another second for the light to travel in the other direction, for a round-trip time of 2 seconds. Definitely not 0 seconds!
Note: I might have misread these equations; if so, please explain what was intended.
Can you remember the time we did
-ve and +ve ?
I thought v in this instant was vector and e was just any direction?
So i put vx representing vector x.
vx=c
c representing the speed of light
and 1 second for the time it take light to travel vx.
vx=c=1.s
Well anyway , the reason you have not understood because you have misinterpreted the 0 .
It is sight related and my diagram and explanation is very correct.
A photon takes 8 minutes to arrive at (B)
A second photon simultaneously also takes 8 minutes to reach (A)
Between A and B is 1 light second of travel for the light.
The observers A and B see each other at the exact same time.
The Photon leaves the sun at 6am
it arrives at 6.08am
it is reflected at 6.08am
it travels 1 second and is received by Captain Stewart's eyes at 6.08am and 1 light second
The second Photon is exactly the same that enters your eyes from the reflection off the rocket. You see captain Stewart simultaneously.
The last diagram I did simply shows this to be true.
added- not a round trip, individual trips, a=+ve b=+ve
-
Can you remember the time we did
-ve and +ve ?
I thought v in this instant was vector and e was just any direction?
-ve and +ve are abbreviations for the words negative and positive
The Photon leaves the sun at 6am
it arrives at 6.08am
it is reflected at 6.08am
it travels 1 second and is received by Captain Stewart's eyes at 6.08am and 1 light second
The second Photon is exactly the same that enters your eyes from the reflection off the rocket. You see captain Stewart simultaneously.
This is not the same question/situation as the original one. Let's deal with one question at a time.
In the original question it doesn't matter how long it takes for the light to travel from the sun, just how long it takes for light reflected from the rocket - when it arrives at B - to travel back to A.
The question is "at what time does that light reach A", answer 1216.
PS there is of course an interesting twist to this. Because the rocket travels at the (impossible) speed of light, the light from its take off arrives at B at the same time as the rocket's arrival, so people at B see the take off and arrival simultaneously!
-
-ve and +ve are abbreviations for the words negative and positive
Yes direction, I was using them from switching ''view'' from each observer, I place myself in each position to ''see'' what I see.
If I am in position A relative to me the Photon leaving B is travelling -ve but relative to B the Photon is travelling +ve and vice versus for the Photon leaving A.
This is not the same question/situation as the original one.
I assure you Colin it is the same question but the answer is a lot harder to ''see'' and visualise. I have now managed to simplify from the original explanation, I have been explaining this for years but now I have finally got a really simple version.
The very first time I was told we see the sun in its past, alarm bells rang in my head. When I realised ''you'' was only accounting for a one way journey I realised there was an incompleteness.
added - please tell me if this incorrect logic
If the Earth ''see's'' the Sun 8 minutes ago
and the Sun ''see's'' the Earth 8 minutes ago
then they both see each other 8 minutes ago
which cancels each other out and means they ''see'' each other now.
added- I am not trying to ''break'' science , I am learning it. When I learn something I like to try and visualise and even sometimes doodle a diagram of the information to help me interpret the information.
We see the sun 8 minutes ago, yes if considering a point source(photon) travelling from the sun into our eyes .
I can draw a straight line vector from A to B
This is all good and sound logic.
However if I add a second observer to the scenario and consider the Photons reflected from both observers that allows them to observe each other, there adds complication and something is seemingly contradiction to the initial statement of we observe the Sun in its past.
I have considered it does not matter is we displaced the two observers e.g one closer to the source, because a linearity remains between the two observers and the simultaneous event of reflection travel time from either body remains equal no matter what the distance because the very fact light is constant in free space.
-
Let's not all get boxed in (metres per second) times (metres) is metres squared per second. One way to get t is v/a. That is velocity divided by acceleration.
-
please tell me if this incorrect logic
If the Earth ''see's'' the Sun 8 minutes ago = correct
and the Sun ''see's'' the Earth 8 minutes ago = correct
then they both see each other 8 minutes ago = correct
which cancels each other out and means they ''see'' each other now. = incorrect,
there is nothing to cancel out. They both see each other as they were 8 mins ago, not as they are now.
-
If the Earth ''see's'' the Sun 8 minutes ago = correct
and the Sun ''see's'' the Earth 8 minutes ago = correct
then they both see each other 8 minutes ago = correct
which cancels each other out and means they ''see'' each other now. = incorrect,
there is nothing to cancel out. They both see each other as they were 8 mins ago, not as they are now.
They both see each other 8 minutes ago, ok let us think this through.
You are saying we both see each other in the past, so I exist now but I see the Sun in its past , the Sun exists now but it ''see's'' me in the past.
I am sorry that makes no sense,
do you agree we both see each other simultaneously as my diagram shows?
If not what do you contest?
-
A sees (the image of) rocket arrival at 12:16. In the image the B clock reads 12:08.
This bit is wrong but nobody is listening to me when I am showing why it is wrong. They expect me to accept this when it is wrong.
I think that few people expect you to accept the correct answer. You have amply demonstrated to most people that you are incapable of understanding at least this topic. This may be due to a number of factors. I highly recommend that you seek some form of counseling to consider whether or not everyone else in the world has the problem or if just you has the problem here.
-
Reread what I said in my last post "They both see each other as they were 8 mins ago, not as they are now"
I will spell it out:
2 people are 8 light minutes apart. At exactly 1200 they both wave their arms once. The light from these events travels to the 2 people and at 1208 they both see the other wave their arms even though they have not waved their arms for the last 8 minutes. They are seeing now (1208) what happened in the past (1200).
We have been over this in a number of different threads and you obviously find the concept difficult to understand, so we had best leave it at that if you really don't understand what I have said.
Edit: I notice PhysBang replied while I was typing. I agree with him, I don't think you will ever accept the correct answer so further discussion is futile. I certainly don't have time to waste on something which is so obvious.
-
They both see each other 8 minutes ago, ok let us think this through.
You are saying we both see each other in the past, so I exist now but I see the Sun in its past , the Sun exists now but it ''see's'' me in the past.
I am sorry that makes no sense,
do you agree we both see each other simultaneously as my diagram shows?
If not what do you contest?
Are you happier with the speed of sound?
Let's say you and a friend are on the Olympic (see, topical!) 100m track at opposite ends. Someone at the 50m mark (exactly between you) raises their hand. When you and your friend see that raised hand you both shout very loudly.
Excluding wind, temperature etc, you and your friend will hear each other at the "same time". But ... clearly, due to the speed of sound, you'll be hearing each other some time after you each shouted.
In your style, that means you are hearing each other in the "past". (From about 0.29 seconds ago).
Is that any kind of problem?
-
2 people are 8 light minutes apart. At exactly 1200 they both wave their arms once. The light from these events travels to the 2 people and at 1208 they both see the other wave their arms even though they have not waved their arms for the last 8 minutes. They are seeing now (1208) what happened in the past (1200).
, if you see me at 12.08 and I see you at 12.08 , we are seeing each other at the same time.
-
They both see each other 8 minutes ago, ok let us think this through.
You are saying we both see each other in the past, so I exist now but I see the Sun in its past , the Sun exists now but it ''see's'' me in the past.
I am sorry that makes no sense,
do you agree we both see each other simultaneously as my diagram shows?
If not what do you contest?
Are you happier with the speed of sound?
Let's say you and a friend are on the Olympic (see, topical!) 100m track at opposite ends. Someone at the 50m mark (exactly between you) raises their hand. When you and your friend see that raised hand you both shout very loudly.
Excluding wind, temperature etc, you and your friend will hear each other at the "same time". But ... clearly, due to the speed of sound, you'll be hearing each other some time after you each shouted.
In your style, that means you are hearing each other in the "past". (From about 0.29 seconds ago).
Is that any kind of problem?
we are doing light not sound,
My diagram clearly shows it, can people not read diagrams?
-
A sees (the image of) rocket arrival at 12:16. In the image the B clock reads 12:08.
This bit is wrong but nobody is listening to me when I am showing why it is wrong. They expect me to accept this when it is wrong.
I think that few people expect you to accept the correct answer. You have amply demonstrated to most people that you are incapable of understanding at least this topic. This may be due to a number of factors. I highly recommend that you seek some form of counseling to consider whether or not everyone else in the world has the problem or if just you has the problem here.
My diagram is correct
-
Repeating back the present information is not going to answer my query of that information.
A and B see each other at the same time, simultaneously, is anyone saying they don't?
-
Repeating back the present information is not going to answer my query of that information.
A and B see each other at the same time, simultaneously, is anyone saying they don't?
It's a little awkward that you keep changing the scenarios, but yes (assuming a few things), they each see each other from 6:08:00, at 6:08:01.
(This refers to your post #5).
-
Are you happier with the speed of sound?
Let's say you and a friend are on the Olympic (see, topical!) 100m track at opposite ends. Someone at the 50m mark (exactly between you) raises their hand. When you and your friend see that raised hand you both shout very loudly.
Excluding wind, temperature etc, you and your friend will hear each other at the "same time". But ... clearly, due to the speed of sound, you'll be hearing each other some time after you each shouted.
In your style, that means you are hearing each other in the "past". (From about 0.29 seconds ago).
Is that any kind of problem?
we are doing light not sound,
My diagram clearly shows it, can people not read diagrams?
Nice evasion, are you afraid of the answer?
(I know that this is going to go down the path where you think light is different to sound, in that vison is "instant" once there's light between observer and object, but I think it's useful to the readers of this thread to see that in your words).
-
Are you happier with the speed of sound?
Let's say you and a friend are on the Olympic (see, topical!) 100m track at opposite ends. Someone at the 50m mark (exactly between you) raises their hand. When you and your friend see that raised hand you both shout very loudly.
Excluding wind, temperature etc, you and your friend will hear each other at the "same time". But ... clearly, due to the speed of sound, you'll be hearing each other some time after you each shouted.
In your style, that means you are hearing each other in the "past". (From about 0.29 seconds ago).
Is that any kind of problem?
we are doing light not sound,
My diagram clearly shows it, can people not read diagrams?
Nice evasion, are you afraid of the answer?
(I know that this is going to go down the path where you think light is different to sound, in that vison is "instant" once there's light between observer and object, but I think it's useful to the readers of this thread to see that in your words).
It is not evasion, my head is thinking of a Photon and not a wave that is all. I understand already what you are trying to explain and I could do a better job. However what you are explaining is not quite what I am explaining causes a contradiction to what I am trying to learn .
My earlier diagram shows I understand light travels and it takes 8 minutes to arrive giving the impression of we see the sun as it were 8 minutes ago.
However my contradiction shows simultaneous so I can not accept the learning without the issue been resolved.
-
Repeating back the present information is not going to answer my query of that information.
A and B see each other at the same time, simultaneously, is anyone saying they don't?
It's a little awkward that you keep changing the scenarios, but yes (assuming a few things), they each see each other from 6:08:00, at 6:08:01.
(This refers to your post #5).
Yes exactly, they both see each other at 6:08:01. They see each other simultaneously do they not?
-
Repeating back the present information is not going to answer my query of that information.
A and B see each other at the same time, simultaneously, is anyone saying they don't?
It's a little awkward that you keep changing the scenarios, but yes (assuming a few things), they each see each other from 6:08:00, at 6:08:01.
(This refers to your post #5).
Yes exactly, they both see each other at 6:08:01. They see each other simultaneously do they not?
I've already answered. What more do you want? (I'd guess you want a simpler less precise answer, so you can extract a "gotcha". I won't give you that).
Assuming a few things, such as A and B being at rest with respect to each other, then yes they will see each other at the "same time". But of course, because of the finite speed of light, they will be seeing each other as of a little time ago, in this case, they see each other at 6:08:01, but what they see, is each other as at 6:08:00.
Quite simple.
-
Repeating back the present information is not going to answer my query of that information.
A and B see each other at the same time, simultaneously, is anyone saying they don't?
It's a little awkward that you keep changing the scenarios, but yes (assuming a few things), they each see each other from 6:08:00, at 6:08:01.
(This refers to your post #5).
Yes exactly, they both see each other at 6:08:01. They see each other simultaneously do they not?
I've already answered. What more do you want? (I'd guess you want a simpler less precise answer, so you can extract a "gotcha". I won't give you that).
Assuming a few things, such as A and B being at rest with respect to each other, then yes they will see each other at the "same time". But of course, because of the finite speed of light, they will be seeing each other as of a little time ago, in this case, they see each other at 6:08:01, but what they see, is each other as at 6:08:00.
Quite simple.
It is not so simple, I have not finished ,
So in respect to A and B if we was to expand the length apart to lets say 5 light seconds, would this affect A and B seeing each other simultaneously?
-
I've already answered. What more do you want? (I'd guess you want a simpler less precise answer, so you can extract a "gotcha". I won't give you that).
Assuming a few things, such as A and B being at rest with respect to each other, then yes they will see each other at the "same time". But of course, because of the finite speed of light, they will be seeing each other as of a little time ago, in this case, they see each other at 6:08:01, but what they see, is each other as at 6:08:00.
Quite simple.
It is not so simple, I have not finished ,
So in respect to A and B if we was to expand the length apart to lets say 5 light seconds, would this affect A and B seeing each other simultaneously?
Once they stopped moving, so are at rest with regard to each other, then more or less, no. But now they'd being seeing each other as at 5 seconds ago.
-
I've already answered. What more do you want? (I'd guess you want a simpler less precise answer, so you can extract a "gotcha". I won't give you that).
Assuming a few things, such as A and B being at rest with respect to each other, then yes they will see each other at the "same time". But of course, because of the finite speed of light, they will be seeing each other as of a little time ago, in this case, they see each other at 6:08:01, but what they see, is each other as at 6:08:00.
Quite simple.
It is not so simple, I have not finished ,
So in respect to A and B if we was to expand the length apart to lets say 5 light seconds, would this affect A and B seeing each other simultaneously?
Once they stopped moving, so are at rest with regard to each other, then more or less, no. But now they'd being seeing each other as at 5 seconds ago.
Ok so far , you seem to understand me.
So in respect to A and B if we expanded the distance 480 light seconds apart , would this affect them seeing each other simultaneously?
-
I've already answered. What more do you want? (I'd guess you want a simpler less precise answer, so you can extract a "gotcha". I won't give you that).
Assuming a few things, such as A and B being at rest with respect to each other, then yes they will see each other at the "same time". But of course, because of the finite speed of light, they will be seeing each other as of a little time ago, in this case, they see each other at 6:08:01, but what they see, is each other as at 6:08:00.
Quite simple.
It is not so simple, I have not finished ,
So in respect to A and B if we was to expand the length apart to lets say 5 light seconds, would this affect A and B seeing each other simultaneously?
Once they stopped moving, so are at rest with regard to each other, then more or less, no. But now they'd being seeing each other as at 5 seconds ago.
Ok so far , you seem to understand me.
So in respect to A and B if we expanded the distance 480 light seconds apart , would this affect them seeing each other simultaneously?
Nope. (Assuming they stay at rest with respect to each other.)
e.g. if they had previously synchronised their clocks, and both waved at 10:00, they would both see each other do that thing at 10:08.
(Or, in your post #5 scenario, modified by this new criteria where A and B are also 8 light minutes apart: the sun rises at 6:00 and its rays hit them both at 6:08. They see each other at 6:16.)
-
Ok so far , you seem to understand me.
Yes Mr. Box, we all understand you. The problem is that you do not understand us nor much about Relativity.
I'd recommend that you try reading up on what the "experts" have to say about this matter and try for once to accept the scientific facts without trying to invent some new and novel way of understanding reality. You will discover that your new ideas are flawed. Once you learn this, you may have a chance to begin learning the truth about these matters. If you don't, and continue to accuse everyone else of being wrong, you'll never, I repeat, NEVER advance your personal understanding any degree what-so-ever.
Enough said.................................................
-
2 people are 8 light minutes apart. At exactly 1200 they both wave their arms once. The light from these events travels to the 2 people and at 1208 they both see the other wave their arms even though they have not waved their arms for the last 8 minutes. They are seeing now (1208) what happened in the past (1200).
, if you see me at 12.08 and I see you at 12.08 , we are seeing each other at the same time.
To answer your question in terms of simultaneous
They wave their arms simultaneously at 1200
The light travels simultaneously for 8 mins
The light from the event arrives simultaneously with each person at 1208
They see each other simultaneously at 1208 seeing each other in the past simultaneously waving their arms.
Simultaneously they wonder why the box finds this so hard to understand.
No one ever suggested that the light did not arrive simultaneously - that is arrived at different times. It left at the same time, it arrived at the same time.
None of this changes the fact that they see each other as they were 8 mins ago (1200) they do not see each other as they are now (1208).
Edit: somewhere in your description of light from the sun you said that the same photons were reflected from each person. This is not true, they are different photons. Although this is irrelevant to this discussion it important to get the facts right.
-
No one ever sees an actual event but merely the photons that reflect off the object(s) in said event. These photons take a finite amount of time to reach the eye so all visual interpretation of an event is after the event has happened. Now then Thebox. This is accepted by all sensible physicists. This conversation may be terminated prematurely unless you stop playing games. Understood?
-
No one ever sees an actual event but merely the photons that reflect off the object(s) in said event. These photons take a finite amount of time to reach the eye so all visual interpretation of an event is after the event has happened. Now then Thebox. This is accepted by all sensible physicists. This conversation may be terminated prematurely unless you stop playing games. Understood?
So again you threaten the student with termination of post if he does not accept the information you are trying to impose on him to be true, when the student is nowhere near finished with his query about the information?
I think we are now understanding each other and all in this thread understand the simultaneous of sight I mention.
Please all return to the very first diagram and the rocket. The rocket leaves Earth at 12:00 it arrives at the Sun at 12:08. The observer in the towers clock is synchronised with Captain Stewart's clock. When the rocket arrives at the Sun both clocks show 12:08, both A and B experience 8 minutes between events of departure and arrival.
Are we in agreement with this? (ignoring time dilation)
-
Ok so far , you seem to understand me.
Yes Mr. Box, we all understand you. The problem is that you do not understand us nor much about Relativity.
I'd recommend that you try reading up on what the "experts" have to say about this matter and try for once to accept the scientific facts without trying to invent some new and novel way of understanding reality. You will discover that your new ideas are flawed. Once you learn this, you may have a chance to begin learning the truth about these matters. If you don't, and continue to accuse everyone else of being wrong, you'll never, I repeat, NEVER advance your personal understanding any degree what-so-ever.
Enough said.................................................
The problem is I do understand you and the information and I have a query that I feel shows the information to be at fault, it is called a science conversation and not called try to force discipline of the information I already know. Respect to Pz who knows how to have a conversation.
-
I've already answered. What more do you want? (I'd guess you want a simpler less precise answer, so you can extract a "gotcha". I won't give you that).
Assuming a few things, such as A and B being at rest with respect to each other, then yes they will see each other at the "same time". But of course, because of the finite speed of light, they will be seeing each other as of a little time ago, in this case, they see each other at 6:08:01, but what they see, is each other as at 6:08:00.
Quite simple.
It is not so simple, I have not finished ,
So in respect to A and B if we was to expand the length apart to lets say 5 light seconds, would this affect A and B seeing each other simultaneously?
Once they stopped moving, so are at rest with regard to each other, then more or less, no. But now they'd being seeing each other as at 5 seconds ago.
Ok so far , you seem to understand me.
So in respect to A and B if we expanded the distance 480 light seconds apart , would this affect them seeing each other simultaneously?
Nope. (Assuming they stay at rest with respect to each other.)
e.g. if they had previously synchronised their clocks, and both waved at 10:00, they would both see each other do that thing at 10:08.
(Or, in your post #5 scenario, modified by this new criteria where A and B are also 8 light minutes apart: the sun rises at 6:00 and its rays hit them both at 6:08. They see each other at 6:16.)
Thank you , in short if I was on the Sun and you was on Earth we would both see each other simultaneously?
If the rocket in post 1 travelled to the Sun they would observe each other simultaneously throughout the journey?
If the rocket leaves earth at 12 and arrives at 12:08 at the sun and the entire journey has been observed simultaneously , what time does the person on Earth see the rocket arriving at the SUN?
I revert to Colins earlier post
Finally at 1208 the rocket arrives at B and emits final flash, this flash along with the light reflected from the rocket (its image) arrives at A at 1216.
Whether you accept reality or not, this is the way it works. Live with it.
and Phyti's post
A sees (the image of) rocket arrival at 12:16. In the image the B clock reads 12:08.
This is the contradiction I mention.
-
Thank you , in short if I was on the Sun and you was on Earth we would both see each other simultaneously?
Given the scenario that we are "at rest" with each other, yes. But don't forget the delay; as consistently noted in my previous few posts and which you've not objected to. What's "simultaneous" is not our actions and the other seeing them - there's an 8 minute delay caused by the distance and the speed of light. We're seeing each other as at 8 minutes ago. So we both see each others "simultaneous 12:08 event", at the "simultaneous" time of 12:16.
If the rocket in post 1 travelled to the Sun they would observe each other simultaneously throughout the journey?
Yes, but again, be careful about what's "simultaneous". The delay between actions at one end (rocket or Sun) and the other observer (Sun or rocket) seeing them gets smaller and smaller. It goes from 8 minutes, to zero. (Reverse for an observer who stays on Earth and watches the rocket).
a. When the rocket is a quarter of the way from Earth to Sun, events on the rocket are seen after six minutes on the Sun, and events on the Sun are seen after six minutes by the rocket.
b. When the rocket is half way from Earth to Sun, events on the rocket are seen after four minutes, at both Earth and Sun, and events on Earth and Sun are seen after four minutes by the rocket.
c. When the rocket is three quarters of the way from Earth to Sun, events on the rocket are seen after two minutes, at the Sun, and events on the Sun are seen after two minutes by the rocket.
d. When the rocket is all the way to the Sun, events on the rocket are seen immediately, at the Sun, and events on the Sun are seen immediately by the rocket.
(Well, since the rocket keeps moving, none of that is quite accurate, but close enough).
(And ... we're ignoring relativity here, the very notion of "simultaneous" doesn't really work for objects in relative motion.)
The main point is: at any given point along the path, the distance from rocket to Sun equals the distance from Sun to rocket, so each will have the same delay between event on one and the other seeing that event. That is what is "simultaneous". The delay caused by travel of light means that what is not simultaneous, is event and seeing that event.
If the rocket leaves earth at 12 and arrives at 12:08 at the sun and the entire journey has been observed simultaneously , what time does the person on Earth see the rocket arriving at the SUN?
Let's say a clock on the Sun had previously been synchronised with a clock on Earth, and the Earth observer was watching that clock as the rocket approached the Sun. They'd certainly see that when the rocket reached the Sun, it was 12:08 by that clock; but they'd not see the clock showing that 12:08 until their own clock was showing 12:16. Because it takes 8 minutes for the light showing that event to get to Earth.
That "the entire journey has been observed simultaneously" does not remove the delay caused by the speed of light. It simply means that the delay will be seen to increase, from zero minutes to eight minutes, as the rocket gets further away.
Imagine that clock on the Sun was an LED clock. When the clock changes from 12:07 to 12:08, new segments on the last digit have to light to show an "8" where it previously showed "7". Think of those segments as providing new beams of light whose "tips" have to travel to reach you.
I revert to Colins earlier post
Finally at 1208 the rocket arrives at B and emits final flash, this flash along with the light reflected from the rocket (its image) arrives at A at 1216.
Whether you accept reality or not, this is the way it works. Live with it.
and Phyti's post
A sees (the image of) rocket arrival at 12:16. In the image the B clock reads 12:08.
This is the contradiction I mention.
They are both correct, and it does not contradict what I've been writing. You keep ignoring the time it takes light to travel. It's all perfectly consistent. You need to keep in mind what is synchronous with what.
It's like you're agreeing that Apples are synchronous, but then saying that means Oranges are synchronous.
-
Thank you , in short if I was on the Sun and you was on Earth we would both see each other simultaneously?
Given the scenario that we are "at rest" with each other, yes. But don't forget the delay; as consistently noted in my previous few posts and which you've not objected to. What's "simultaneous" is not our actions and the other seeing them - there's an 8 minute delay caused by the distance and the speed of light. We're seeing each other as at 8 minutes ago. So we both see each others "simultaneous 12:08 event", at the "simultaneous" time of 12:16.
If the rocket in post 1 travelled to the Sun they would observe each other simultaneously throughout the journey?
Yes, but again, be careful about what's "simultaneous". The delay between actions at one end (rocket or Sun) and the other observer (Sun or rocket) seeing them gets smaller and smaller. It goes from 8 minutes, to zero. (Reverse for an observer who stays on Earth and watches the rocket).
a. When the rocket is a quarter of the way from Earth to Sun, events on the rocket are seen after six minutes on the Sun, and events on the Sun are seen after six minutes by the rocket.
b. When the rocket is half way from Earth to Sun, events on the rocket are seen after four minutes, at both Earth and Sun, and events on Earth and Sun are seen after four minutes by the rocket.
c. When the rocket is three quarters of the way from Earth to Sun, events on the rocket are seen after two minutes, at the Sun, and events on the Sun are seen after two minutes by the rocket.
d. When the rocket is all the way to the Sun, events on the rocket are seen immediately, at the Sun, and events on the Sun are seen immediately by the rocket.
(Well, since the rocket keeps moving, none of that is quite accurate, but close enough).
(And ... we're ignoring relativity here, the very notion of "simultaneous" doesn't really work for objects in relative motion.)
The main point is: at any given point along the path, the distance from rocket to Sun equals the distance from Sun to rocket, so each will have the same delay between event on one and the other seeing that event. That is what is "simultaneous". The delay caused by travel of light means that what is not simultaneous, is event and seeing that event.
If the rocket leaves earth at 12 and arrives at 12:08 at the sun and the entire journey has been observed simultaneously , what time does the person on Earth see the rocket arriving at the SUN?
Let's say a clock on the Sun had previously been synchronised with a clock on Earth, and the Earth observer was watching that clock as the rocket approached the Sun. They'd certainly see that when the rocket reached the Sun, it was 12:08 by that clock; but they'd not see the clock showing that 12:08 until their own clock was showing 12:16. Because it takes 8 minutes for the light showing that event to get to Earth.
That "the entire journey has been observed simultaneously" does not remove the delay caused by the speed of light. It simply means that the delay will be seen to increase, from zero minutes to eight minutes, as the rocket gets further away.
Imagine that clock on the Sun was an LED clock. When the clock changes from 12:07 to 12:08, new segments on the last digit have to light to show an "8" where it previously showed "7". Think of those segments as providing new beams of light whose "tips" have to travel to reach you.
I revert to Colins earlier post
Finally at 1208 the rocket arrives at B and emits final flash, this flash along with the light reflected from the rocket (its image) arrives at A at 1216.
Whether you accept reality or not, this is the way it works. Live with it.
and Phyti's post
A sees (the image of) rocket arrival at 12:16. In the image the B clock reads 12:08.
This is the contradiction I mention.
They are both correct, and it does not contradict what I've been writing. You keep ignoring the time it takes light to travel. It's all perfectly consistent. You need to keep in mind what is synchronous with what.
It's like you're agreeing that Apples are synchronous, but then saying that means Oranges are synchronous.
I can't believe none of you can ''see'' the contradiction. Quite clearly the fantasist ''religion'' you have all been subjected to has warped all your minds.
Again people are not, or can't be bothered just for once ignoring the present dogma and considering why it is so wrong.
I have simply explained and all of you have agreed in the simultaneous sight yet you can't ''see'' the contradiction .
How strange.
added - OK, you can't see the contradiction that way I will change my approach.
We can see light that as not entered our eyes.
-
We can see light that as not entered our eyes.
Demonstrably false.
But let's not get into that. You know that radio waves are the same as visible light, yes? Then according to you two way communication using radio between the Earth and the Martian rovers shouldn't have a delay.
So are NASA scientists stupid or lying just to make you look bad? (http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/mission/tl_surface_nav.html)
-
We can see light that as not entered our eyes.
Demonstrably false.
But let's not get into that. You know that radio waves are the same as visible light, yes? Then according to you two way communication using radio between the Earth and the Martian rovers shouldn't have a delay.
So are NASA scientists stupid or lying just to make you look bad? (http://mars.nasa.gov/mer/mission/tl_surface_nav.html)
Of course there is a delay when the signal is entering a medium and slows down, I know light travels, that is not my argument.
We can see light that as not entered our eyes, demonstrable true.
-
Of course there is a delay when the signal is entering a medium and slows down, I know light travels, that is not my argument.
The difference in propagation speed between vacuum and air isn't remotely enough to account for the Earth to Mars delay.
We can see light that as not entered our eyes, demonstrable true.
Nope. That's contradictory to basically all of physics.
-
Nope. That's contradictory to basically all of physics.
oh, you meant ''delay'' and not delay, that is still not my argument.
But it is not contradictory to reality. The reality is you and I both ''see'' light in free space that as not entered your eyes, where you do not ''see'' light in free space or the lacking of light in free space , you ''see'' shadows.
-
Nope. That's contradictory to basically all of physics.
oh, you meant ''delay'' and not delay, that is still not my argument.
But it is not contradictory to reality. The reality is you and I both ''see'' light in free space that as not entered your eyes, where you do not ''see'' light in free space or the lacking of light in free space , you ''see'' shadows.
Hopeless,.........................utterly hopeless!
-
Nope. That's contradictory to basically all of physics.
oh, you meant ''delay'' and not delay, that is still not my argument.
But it is not contradictory to reality. The reality is you and I both ''see'' light in free space that as not entered your eyes, where you do not ''see'' light in free space or the lacking of light in free space , you ''see'' shadows.
Hopeless,.........................utterly hopeless!
Are you saying you dont see light in free space?
You would be provable incorrect.
-
oh, you meant ''delay'' and not delay, that is still not my argument.
The word "delay" is in no way ambiguous and you still haven't explained why NASA thinks it takes 20 minutes before the commands they send are executed by the Mars rovers.
But it is not contradictory to reality. The reality is you and I both ''see'' light in free space that as not entered your eyes, where you do not ''see'' light in free space or the lacking of light in free space , you ''see'' shadows.
Nope. There is this thing called the Tyndall effect that sometimes lets you see the rough outline of a beam of light but only because some sort of particle in the path of the beam of light actively bounced photons out of the beam and into your eyes.
Are you saying you dont see light in free space?
You would be provable incorrect.
Actually it is provably correct (and even that is terrible terrible grammar) that we can only see light that enters out eyes.
-
oh, you meant ''delay'' and not delay, that is still not my argument.
The word "delay" is in no way ambiguous and you still haven't explained why NASA thinks it takes 20 minutes before the commands they send are executed by the Mars rovers.
But it is not contradictory to reality. The reality is you and I both ''see'' light in free space that as not entered your eyes, where you do not ''see'' light in free space or the lacking of light in free space , you ''see'' shadows.
Nope. There is this thing called the Tyndall effect that sometimes lets you see the rough outline of a beam of light but only because some sort of particle in the path of the beam of light actively bounced photons out of the beam and into your eyes.
Are you saying you dont see light in free space?
You would be provable incorrect.
Actually it is provably correct (and even that is terrible terrible grammar) that we can only see light that enters out eyes.
Nasa and the rover and the one way command is nothing to do with seeing simultaneously, the carrier wave has to travel , I know light travels.
No! it is easy to prove we see light that does not or has not entered our eyes. Just because you think you can only see 400nm-700nm you are not considering that you see the entirety of invisible light in free space. White light that as not entered your eyes. You are not considering that a shadow is in its exact geometrical position relative to the sun or source and can be measured a distance away from ourselves, and most of all you are not considering that all shadows at a distance have a ''white'' light ''enclosure'' that we can clearly see.
p.s the rover is in the present and the transmitter is in the present, they both ''age'' the same while waiting for the carrier signal to arrive .
-
Nasa and the rover and the one way command is nothing to do with seeing simultaneously, the carrier wave has to travel , I know light travels.
Ok let's put it this way. Say before the rocket leaves for the sun we give someone on the rocket 3 signs. On each sign is a different command to perform an action. One sign says jump up and down, another sign says wave your hands and the third sign says spin around. We tell the person on the rocket that as soon as they arrive at the sun they should randomly choose one of the three signs to hold up and we back on Earth will do whatever the sign says. Assuming the rocket leaves at 12:00 pm and magically travels at the speed of light and magically stops instantly at the sun what time does it say on our clock when we know which sign was held up and what time does it say on the rocket person's clock when he/she knows if we kept our word to do what the sign said?
No! it is easy to prove we see light that does not or has not entered our eyes. Just because you think you can only see 400nm-700nm you are not considering that you see the entirety of invisible light in free space. White light that as not entered your eyes. You are not considering that a shadow is in its exact geometrical position relative to the sun or source and can be measured a distance away from ourselves, and most of all you are not considering that all shadows at a distance have a ''white'' light ''enclosure'' that we can clearly see.
Well you've conclusively proven that you lack the ability to reason in any fashion that might be vaguely considered logic. That or you're doing this on purpose for laughs.
p.s the rover is in the present and the transmitter is in the present, they both ''age'' the same while waiting for the carrier signal to arrive .
Irrelevant.
-
what time does it say on our clock when we know which sign was held up and what time does it say on the rocket person's clock when he/she knows if we kept our word to do what the sign said?
Excellent question, but I doubt you will get an answer.
-
Nasa and the rover and the one way command is nothing to do with seeing simultaneously, the carrier wave has to travel , I know light travels.
Ok let's put it this way. Say before the rocket leaves for the sun we give someone on the rocket 3 signs. On each sign is a different command to perform an action. One sign says jump up and down, another sign says wave your hands and the third sign says spin around. We tell the person on the rocket that as soon as they arrive at the sun they should randomly choose one of the three signs to hold up and we back on Earth will do whatever the sign says. Assuming the rocket leaves at 12:00 pm and magically travels at the speed of light and magically stops instantly at the sun what time does it say on our clock when we know which sign was held up and what time does it say on the rocket person's clock when he/she knows if we kept our word to do what the sign said?
No! it is easy to prove we see light that does not or has not entered our eyes. Just because you think you can only see 400nm-700nm you are not considering that you see the entirety of invisible light in free space. White light that as not entered your eyes. You are not considering that a shadow is in its exact geometrical position relative to the sun or source and can be measured a distance away from ourselves, and most of all you are not considering that all shadows at a distance have a ''white'' light ''enclosure'' that we can clearly see.
Well you've conclusively proven that you lack the ability to reason in any fashion that might be vaguely considered logic. That or you're doing this on purpose for laughs.
p.s the rover is in the present and the transmitter is in the present, they both ''age'' the same while waiting for the carrier signal to arrive .
Irrelevant.
12.08
The sign travels with the rocket like time travels with the rocket and the free space is not opaque .
Your mistake is you are getting to the sun then for some reasoning calculating a return trip , which is giving you 12.16 ,
refer to earlier posts in the thread when we talk about the simultaneous.
Consider at the half way stage the rocket has travelled 4 minutes, it takes 4 minutes to light to enter your eyes, as the rocket starts to move from point 0, you see it all the way. The tower see's you simultaneously. Both the rocket and the tower observe 8 minutes. not 16 mins
p.s there is certainly some quantum weirdness going on here, refer back to I think it was Colin's post, the observer on the Sun would see the rocket leaving and arriving at the same time.
-
12.08
The sign travels with the rocket like time travels with the rocket and the free space is not opaque .
Your mistake is you are getting to the sun then for some reasoning calculating a return trip , which is giving you 12.16 , ...
Don't be silly, or deliberately obtuse. You know that it's because everyone but you knows it takes time for light to travel.
... refer to earlier posts in the thread when we talk about the simultaneous. ...
You seem to be deliberately misinterpreting those posts. They've all been very clear about what's simultaneous and what's not.
... Consider at the half way stage the rocket has travelled 4 minutes, it takes 4 minutes to light to enter your eyes, as the rocket starts to move from point 0, you see it all the way. The tower see's you simultaneously. Both the rocket and the tower observe 8 minutes. not 16 mins
You are still relying on images travelling instantly, which you have not shown to occur; and you are misapplying the concept of what is simultaneous with what.
In the real World, light takes time to travel. At your half way stage, a person on Earth could wave and a person on the rocket could simultaneously wave. Light showing that event would then begin to travel. Light that already left Earth and already left the rocket, couldn't show the events as they hadn't occurred yet.
That light then would take four minutes to travel to the other observer. So the person on Earth and the person in the rocket might simultaneously see each other wave, but they'd be seeing it 4 minutes after it occurred. i.e. both wave simultaneously at 4 minutes, see each other wave at 8 minutes. (And, of course, rocket arrival at the Sun, at 8 minutes, seen on Earth 8 minutes later).
Yes - I used the word "simultaneous" above - but what is simultaneous is not the waving and the seeing of the waving.
You can write more post until your fingers fall off, but if you want to argue this away, what you need to show is that somehow things can be seen instantly across large distances. Your comment "as the rocket starts to move from point 0, you see it all the way" does not being to come close to an explanation. All it means is that the delay starts at zero, and will get larger as the distance increases.
-
12.08
The sign travels with the rocket like time travels with the rocket and the free space is not opaque .
Your mistake is you are getting to the sun then for some reasoning calculating a return trip , which is giving you 12.16 , ...
Don't be silly, or deliberately obtuse. You know that it's because everyone but you knows it takes time for light to travel.
... refer to earlier posts in the thread when we talk about the simultaneous. ...
You seem to be deliberately misinterpreting those posts. They've all been very clear about what's simultaneous and what's not.
... Consider at the half way stage the rocket has travelled 4 minutes, it takes 4 minutes to light to enter your eyes, as the rocket starts to move from point 0, you see it all the way. The tower see's you simultaneously. Both the rocket and the tower observe 8 minutes. not 16 mins
You are still relying on images travelling instantly, which you have not shown to occur; and you are misapplying the concept of what is simultaneous with what.
In the real World, light takes time to travel. At your half way stage, a person on Earth could wave and a person on the rocket could simultaneously wave. Light showing that event would then begin to travel. Light that already left Earth and already left the rocket, couldn't show the events as they hadn't occurred yet.
That light then would take four minutes to travel to the other observer. So the person on Earth and the person in the rocket might simultaneously see each other wave, but they'd be seeing it 4 minutes after it occurred. i.e. both wave simultaneously at 4 minutes, see each other wave at 8 minutes. (And, of course, rocket arrival at the Sun, at 8 minutes, seen on Earth 8 minutes later).
Yes - I used the word "simultaneous" above - but what is simultaneous is not the waving and the seeing of the waving.
You can write more post until your fingers fall off, but if you want to argue this away, what you need to show is that somehow things can be seen instantly across large distances. Your comment "as the rocket starts to move from point 0, you see it all the way" does not being to come close to an explanation. All it means is that the delay starts at zero, and will get larger as the distance increases.
Seriously Pz I understand what you have said, but you are still wrong , I am not relying on the ''pictures'' arriving instantly in my scenario. I did my scenario using Photons and c, you are failing to ''see'' objectively the problem.
Let us take this slow one step at a time.
You are on the rocket at rest relative to me in the control tower.
Our clocks are synchronous.
The light travelling from me to you and you to me allow synchronous sight of each.
I observe your clock says 12am
you observe my clock says 12am
You then blast off at any velocity and travel for 30 minutes on my clock, your clock also travels for 30 minutes and shows the exact same time as my clock.
12:30am
Throughout the entire 30 minutes I can see you and you can see me simultaneously.
You do not see me at 12:30am as I were at 12:15am because that would mean I was only half the distance travelled .
Do you agree thus far?
-
Do you agree thus far?
No
Excellent question, but I doubt you will get an answer.
LOL, I should have said "..a correct answer"
This thread is becoming pointless as your logic is flawed and you will never see it.
However, you assured me at the beginning of this thread that you had a specific question you wished to discuss and were not going to try and introduce a new theory and I gave you the benefit of the doubt. This is most definitely a new theory (that is a theory that has not yet been published), although most would class it as it can't be true.
As you seem unable to abide by forum usage policy we will help you, while you decide whether you will do so in future.
Untill further notice you are banned from posting in the following sections:
General Science
Non Life Sciences
Life Sciences
The moderator board will discuss when or if this will be lifted.
-
Seriously Pz I understand what you have said, but you are still wrong , I am not relying on the ''pictures'' arriving instantly in my scenario. I did my scenario using Photons and c, you are failing to ''see'' objectively the problem.
Let us take this slow one step at a time.
You are on the rocket at rest relative to me in the control tower.
Our clocks are synchronous.
The light travelling from me to you and you to me allow synchronous sight of each.
I observe your clock says 12am
you observe my clock says 12am
You then blast off at any velocity and travel for 30 minutes on my clock, your clock also travels for 30 minutes and shows the exact same time as my clock.
12:30am
Throughout the entire 30 minutes I can see you and you can see me simultaneously.
You do not see me at 12:30am as I were at 12:15am because that would mean I was only half the distance travelled .
Do you agree thus far?
Absolutely not. After those 30 minutes, there's a distance between the control tower and the rocket. That means anything on the rocket will be seen by the control tower after some delay, and vice versa, and that includes images of their clocks. Exactly how much delay, will depend on the distance. Specifically, even if their clocks were somehow still synchronous, they'd not be seeing the same time on their own clock and the other clock.
You have given zero reason to think otherwise. Merely keeping an unending watch on each other does not magically cause light to travel instantly, and light is how we see.
(And again a disclaimer in case someone stumbles on this and gets led astray, we're definitely ignoring relativity in all this.)
-
I see you now like I sore you now back then.
P.s I was not going to post again, and one day you will realise I am correct and you are really going want to speak to me then, but you know what? ''your'' arrogance's are now going to cost you lots and lots of money when you want to speak to me.
-
....going to cost you lots and lots of money when you want to speak to me.
So, thinking of becoming a lady of the streets eh? [;)]
Welcome back, knew you couldn't keep away.
-
....going to cost you lots and lots of money when you want to speak to me.
So, thinking of becoming a lady of the streets eh? [;)]
Welcome back, knew you couldn't keep away.
I can't keep away because I know I am correct.
https://theoristexplains.wordpress.com/2016/08/27/stop-telling-me-i-am-wrong/
-
This link shows much greater understanding than before.
So, go back to the original question and reread the replies up to about #5. Why do you think those replies are wrong, read them very carefully before you reply.
-
....going to cost you lots and lots of money when you want to speak to me.
So, thinking of becoming a lady of the streets eh? [;)]
Welcome back, knew you couldn't keep away.
I can't keep away because I know I am correct.
https://theoristexplains.wordpress.com/2016/08/27/stop-telling-me-i-am-wrong/
First principle: "Never fool yourself, because you are the easiest one to fool."
-
....going to cost you lots and lots of money when you want to speak to me.
So, thinking of becoming a lady of the streets eh? [;)]
Welcome back, knew you couldn't keep away.
I can't keep away because I know I am correct.
https://theoristexplains.wordpress.com/2016/08/27/stop-telling-me-i-am-wrong/
First principle: "Never fool yourself, because you are the easiest one to fool."
One can only be fooled by imagination, one can not be fooled by logical process and objective thoughts.
-
This link shows much greater understanding than before.
So, go back to the original question and reread the replies up to about #5. Why do you think those replies are wrong, read them very carefully before you reply.
I do not need to re-read those replies or think hard why those replies are ''wrong'' Colin, the reason those replies are ''wrong'' Colin is because the very reason I already understand those replies . I have always understood it and this is what people fail to understand.
The thinking is incomplete Colin, it is wrong because of incompleteness.
Your initial thinking is correct but then if you extend the thinking the initial becomes incorrect. I am not making this up, I am using ''your'' speed of light , I did not invent anything or create anything new to explain where the initial thinking is in error when we extend the thinking.
Yes you would see the Sun as it were 8 minutes ago if the only event to consider was the Photons travelling from the Sun. However when we consider the other events involved there is seemingly contradiction.
Was there anything specific in the first post replies you would like me to address?
-
My underline:
... Your initial thinking is correct but then if you extend the thinking the initial becomes incorrect. I am not making this up, I am using ''your'' speed of light , I did not invent anything or create anything new to explain where the initial thinking is in error when we extend the thinking.
Yes you would see the Sun as it were 8 minutes ago if the only event to consider was the Photons travelling from the Sun. However when we consider the other events involved there is seemingly contradiction.
...
What contradiction? What other events? What possible thing allows light to take 8 minutes to travel from the Sun, yet allows the viewer to see things at the same as they occur at that distance?
-
.
Was there anything specific in the first post replies you would like me to address?
Yes. In this one show the timings which you would consider correct
Let the rocket send out a flash of light every minute.
It leaves at 1200 and sends its first flash at 1201 which takes another 1min to travel back to A arriving at 1202.
Similarly the flash at 1202 arrives at A 1204
1203 at 1206
1204 at 1208
1205 at 1210
1206 at 1212
1207 at 1214
Finally at 1208 the rocket arrives at B and emits final flash, this flash along with the light reflected from the rocket (its image) arrives at A at 1216.
And please answer the question posed in this one and explain why you think your answer is correct.
Say before the rocket leaves for the sun we give someone on the rocket 3 signs. On each sign is a different command to perform an action. One sign says jump up and down, another sign says wave your hands and the third sign says spin around. We tell the person on the rocket that as soon as they arrive at the sun they should randomly choose one of the three signs to hold up and we back on Earth will do whatever the sign says. Assuming the rocket leaves at 12:00 pm and magically travels at the speed of light and magically stops instantly at the sun what time does it say on our clock when we know which sign was held up and what time does it say on the rocket person's clock when he/she knows if we kept our word to do what the sign said?
-
Let the rocket send out a flash of light every minute.
It leaves at 1200 and sends its first flash at 1201 which takes another 1min to travel back to A arriving at 1202.
Similarly the flash at 1202 arrives at A 1204
1203 at 1206
1204 at 1208
1205 at 1210
1206 at 1212
1207 at 1214
Finally at 1208 the rocket arrives at B and emits final flash, this flash along with the light reflected from the rocket (its image) arrives at A at 1216.
That would be the correct timings Colin but incomplete in events.
And please answer the question posed in this one and explain why you think your answer is correct.
Say before the rocket leaves for the sun we give someone on the rocket 3 signs. On each sign is a different command to perform an action. One sign says jump up and down, another sign says wave your hands and the third sign says spin around. We tell the person on the rocket that as soon as they arrive at the sun they should randomly choose one of the three signs to hold up and we back on Earth will do whatever the sign says. Assuming the rocket leaves at 12:00 pm and magically travels at the speed of light and magically stops instantly at the sun what time does it say on our clock when we know which sign was held up and what time does it say on the rocket person's clock when he/she knows if we kept our word to do what the sign said?
A good question and an answer I do not know at this present time although not having an answer does not mean the contradiction does not exist.
-
My underline:
... Your initial thinking is correct but then if you extend the thinking the initial becomes incorrect. I am not making this up, I am using ''your'' speed of light , I did not invent anything or create anything new to explain where the initial thinking is in error when we extend the thinking.
Yes you would see the Sun as it were 8 minutes ago if the only event to consider was the Photons travelling from the Sun. However when we consider the other events involved there is seemingly contradiction.
...
What contradiction? What other events? What possible thing allows light to take 8 minutes to travel from the Sun, yet allows the viewer to see things at the same as they occur at that distance?
omg just read the link
edit, sorry i am tired I should answer tomorrow when I am fresh headed.
-
omg just read the link
I've read the link. It's gibberish. But if you think it's correct, just post it here where we can discuss it.
-
omg just read the link
I've read the link. It's gibberish. But if you think it's correct, just post it here where we can discuss it.
The amount of time it takes light to travel a distance of free space is constant because the speed of light denoted c measured in a vacuum is constant in speed at 299 792 458 m / s. From the Sun to Earth a Photon’s journey, the Photon on average takes about eight minutes and twenty seconds to reach the Earth and enter your eyes, in which this a part of the sight process , thus allowing us to see by the Photon’s entering our eyes.
Photon’s emitted from the surface of the Sun need to travel across the vacuum of space to reach our eyes that allows us to see the Sun , we see objects similarly by the Photons reflecting off objects that travel across free space that enter our eyes. We retain an image of the object in our minds as long as we retain a clear line of sight.
Thus ”brings” to my attention the thought and postulate of considering the events in which the present information is seemingly at error . The present information suggesting we see objects as they were in their past. In short and simple terms it is presently suggested that when you observe the Sun at 9 a.m relative to you, you are actually seeing the Sun , an image in your brain, that is eight minutes and twenty seconds old and that you are seeing the Sun as it were at 8:51:40 am . Effectively when you observe any object you are observing into the past.
However, there is an incompleteness about this and in consideration of ALL of the events and completeness, there is seemingly a contradiction, thus leading me to the discussion of the humble but yet so informative ”tube”.
Let us look through the tube, a ”Quanta tunnel”, I at one end of the tube and you at the other end of the tube, we will label my end of the tube (A) and we shall label your end of the tube (B), we shall also define the rest length of the tube, defining the rest length of the tube is 299792458 m and define this as one light second of light travel between I and you in either direction the light travels.
Now let us consider the present information and how the present information conform’s in accordance with the tube. From (A) to (B), a Photon takes one second to travel the distance. From (B) to (A) the Photon takes one second to travel the distance.
”If” we were both to release, emit or reflect a Photon at the exact same time, both opposite points would receive the Photons at the exact same time because of the constant speed of the light. In simple terms if we emitted a Photon each, at exactly 9:00:00 am on synchronised clocks, the individual Photons would reach us at exactly 9:00:01 am, simultaneous on both clocks. In relationship to sight , Photons enter our eyes at 9:00:01 am, but according to present information we observe each other as we were at 9:00:00 am.
However, in this scenario we both started at precisely 9:00:00 am , we both experienced one second of time pass by as the light travelled the distance from both points. I, you and the Photon’s, all experience the passing of time of a one second duration, while the scenario event takes place.
In this scenario it is important to consider the one second of ”darkness”, the absence of light. The observers exist in ”darkness” and experience ”darkness” until the light arrives at the simultaneous point in time where both observers see each other simultaneously.
Thus far, this shows us that once a line of sight ”connection” is established, that sight between two observers is simultaneous by the very fact that c is constant, this also shows us that the now of your time position at the (B) end of the tube is equal to the now time position at the (A) end of the tube thus concluding we see each other as we are now and not in the past.
-
My underline:
... Your initial thinking is correct but then if you extend the thinking the initial becomes incorrect. I am not making this up, I am using ''your'' speed of light , I did not invent anything or create anything new to explain where the initial thinking is in error when we extend the thinking.
Yes you would see the Sun as it were 8 minutes ago if the only event to consider was the Photons travelling from the Sun. However when we consider the other events involved there is seemingly contradiction.
...
What contradiction? What other events? What possible thing allows light to take 8 minutes to travel from the Sun, yet allows the viewer to see things at the same as they occur at that distance?
Just noticed this post.
How can you be seeing the light as it was 8 minutes ago?
That light has been red shifted away from the gravitational field of the sun, and then blue shifted into the gravitational field of the earth.
We observe light when it reaches our eye, and to reach our eye the light travels through conditions that change its frequency...
No?
-
How can you be seeing the light as it was 8 minutes ago?
That light has been red shifted away from the gravitational field of the sun, and then blue shifted into the gravitational field of the earth.
We observe light when it reaches our eye, and to reach our eye the light travels through conditions that change its frequency...
No?
In order to simplify this to the very simple question of transit times we are specifically ignoring relativistic and other effects eg redshift.
The question is when is the image of the rocket seen, not whether it has changed colour, length, etc.
Hope that clarifies.
-
...
”If” we were both to release, emit or reflect a Photon at the exact same time, both opposite points would receive the Photons at the exact same time because of the constant speed of the light. In simple terms if we emitted a Photon each, at exactly 9:00:00 am on synchronised clocks, the individual Photons would reach us at exactly 9:00:01 am, simultaneous on both clocks. In relationship to sight , Photons enter our eyes at 9:00:01 am, but according to present information we observe each other as we were at 9:00:00 am.
However, in this scenario we both started at precisely 9:00:00 am , we both experienced one second of time pass by as the light travelled the distance from both points. I, you and the Photon’s, all experience the passing of time of a one second duration, while the scenario event takes place.
In this scenario it is important to consider the one second of ”darkness”, the absence of light. The observers exist in ”darkness” and experience ”darkness” until the light arrives at the simultaneous point in time where both observers see each other simultaneously.
Thus far, this shows us that once a line of sight ”connection” is established, that sight between two observers is simultaneous by the very fact that c is constant, this also shows us that the now of your time position at the (B) end of the tube is equal to the now time position at the (A) end of the tube thus concluding we see each other as we are now and not in the past.
Yeah, this is the same old stuff. First you acknowledge that it takes a second for light to travel that 1 light second distance, so you admit the observers see each other after that 1 second delay, but then, somehow because the two observers are observing each other, somehow say that means they see each others events instantly.
It's that last step that you don't actually explain.
I agree that over your distance of 1 light second, observers at each end will see each others synchronous events at "the same time". One waves at 9:00:00 and the other waves at 9:00:00, and they'll each see the others wave "at the same time" *, but that blog post doesn't really explain how that in turn means the events are seen at the same time as they occur. One moment you agree that "Photons enter our eyes at 9:00:01 am" and the next moment you throw that away and somehow think the events are seen at 9:00:00. It makes no sense.
It's not explained at all.
(* edit: which would be 9:00:01)
-
That would be the correct timings Colin but incomplete in events.
So what are the 'complete events'
If the timings are correct, what are you claiming??
-
That would be the correct timings Colin but incomplete in events.
So what are the 'complete events'
If the timings are correct, what are you claiming??
What you have to remember Colin is I am not a scientist and it is not easy for a none scientist to explain something in science terms or something easy to understand.
Your timings consider only a one way trip and not the simultaneous trip of the Photon travelling the opposite direction.
When I consider the one way trip from a different approach it gives me a different answer to the present answer. I needed to write a second part to my link, explaining the rest of the problem.
In short if we are nose to nose we see each other ''now'' do we not? the distance being negligible.
We see each at the same time both being in the present.
If you extend the distance between us we continue to see each other at the same time, the present. If you travelled to the Sun I would still see you in the ''now'' and it would still be simultaneous sight and we would still be in the present.
-
How can you be seeing the light as it was 8 minutes ago?
That light has been red shifted away from the gravitational field of the sun, and then blue shifted into the gravitational field of the earth.
We observe light when it reaches our eye, and to reach our eye the light travels through conditions that change its frequency...
No?
In order to simplify this to the very simple question of transit times we are specifically ignoring relativistic and other effects eg redshift.
The question is when is the image of the rocket seen, not whether it has changed colour, length, etc.
Hope that clarifies.
If an observation has changed length in transit, it will affect its transit time...
If you are dealing with a light oriented observation, I fail to see how the relativistic nature of the observation can be ignored.
-
How can you be seeing the light as it was 8 minutes ago?
That light has been red shifted away from the gravitational field of the sun, and then blue shifted into the gravitational field of the earth.
We observe light when it reaches our eye, and to reach our eye the light travels through conditions that change its frequency...
No?
In order to simplify this to the very simple question of transit times we are specifically ignoring relativistic and other effects eg redshift.
The question is when is the image of the rocket seen, not whether it has changed colour, length, etc.
Hope that clarifies.
If an observation has changed length in transit, it will affect its transit time...
If you are dealing with a light oriented observation, I fail to see how the relativistic nature of the observation can be ignored.
We can ignore relativistic effects because the light experiences the same equal relative effects in either direction in the scenario.
-
OK - I can get with that...
I haven't been following the thread. I just noticed a post implying that we would see the light of the sun here on earth as it was 8 minutes before when it left the sun... which is not true.
-
OK - I can get with that...
I haven't been following the thread. I just noticed a post implying that we would see the light of the sun here on earth as it was 8 minutes before when it left the sun... which is not true.
Basically if you were to look at the Sun the image you are seeing is an approx 8 minute old image and not the actual present image and you see the sun in its past , however from a different look at the situation there is an apparent contradiction.
-
OK - I can get with that...
I haven't been following the thread. I just noticed a post implying that we would see the light of the sun here on earth as it was 8 minutes before when it left the sun... which is not true.
Summarised; XYZ thinks that if two people with pre-synchronised clocks, 8 light minutes apart, waved at the "same time", they'd both be seeing each other do that at the moment they waved. i.e. they'd see each other waving at the same time as they are themselves waving. Whereas everyone else says that the two people would see the other persons wave 8 minutes later. If they both waved for 1 minute, their own arm would have stopped waving (for 7 minutes) at the time they see the other persons wave.
We're ignoring all other effects, relativistic or not. In this sort of very very basic topic (light takes time to travel), it's not helpful to nitpick the minutia. This is at the "lies to children" level.
-
Basically if you were to look at the Sun the image you are seeing is an approx 8 minute old image and not the actual present image and you see the sun in its past , however from a different look at the situation there is an apparent contradiction.
There is no contradiction. You simply ignore the time it takes light to travel. Your continuous observation can't remove that time.
In your World, what if there were three observers? Z, who is 8 light minutes from X; and Y, who is exactly between them (4 light minutes from X, and 4 light minutes from Z).
It seems that in your World, X, Y and Z would all see each other wave at the same time. Everything (in your World), that occurs at the same time, is seen to occur, at the same time, regardless of distance. Is this a correct result of your claims?
-
OK - I can get with that...
I haven't been following the thread. I just noticed a post implying that we would see the light of the sun here on earth as it was 8 minutes before when it left the sun... which is not true.
Basically, XYZ thinks that if two people with pre-synchronised clocks, 8 light minutes apart, waved at the "same time", they'd both be seeing each other do that at the moment they waved. i.e. they'd see each other waving at the same time as they are themselves waving. Whereas everyone else says that the two people would see the other persons wave 8 minutes later. If they both waved for 1 minute, their own arm would have stopped waving (for 7 minutes) at the time they see the other persons wave.
We're ignoring all other effects, relativistic or not. In this sort of very very basic topic (light takes time to travel), it's not helpful to nitpick the minutia. This is at the "lies to children" level.
Not quite,
You and I stand nose to nose with our arms in the air with our palms touching, we will set the time on both our clocks to be synchronous and you will depart at 9:00:00am
Can you tell me what time do you see me at 9:00:00am?
An event occurs at A (at 9:00:00), light travels (over a 0 light second distance) to B, B sees the event at A (at 9:00:00).
An event occurs at B (at 9:00:00), light travels (over a 0 light second distance) to A, A sees the event at B (at 9:00:00).
True or false?
-
Everything (in your World), that occurs at the same time, is seen to occur, at the same time, regardless of distance. Is this a correct result of your claims?
That's about it in short but it is only that because of the contradiction.
-
Everything (in your World), that occurs at the same time, is seen to occur, at the same time, regardless of distance. Is this a correct result of your claims?
That's about it in short but it is only that because of the contradiction.
The only contradiction is that you agree that light takes time to travel, yet think anyone at any distance can see something at the instant it occurs.
Absolutely mind bogglingly weird.
-
Everything (in your World), that occurs at the same time, is seen to occur, at the same time, regardless of distance. Is this a correct result of your claims?
That's about it in short but it is only that because of the contradiction.
The only contradiction is that you agree that light takes time to travel, yet think anyone at any distance can see something at the instant it occurs.
Absolutely mind bogglingly weird.
It the scenario that's weird and spooky and mind boggling.
An event occurs at A (at 9:00:00), light travels (over a 0 light second distance) to B, B sees the event at A (at 9:00:00).
An event occurs at B (at 9:00:00), light travels (over a 0 light second distance) to A, A sees the event at B (at 9:00:00).
True or false?
On the other forum you have agreed this to be true.
If B travels for 1 light second away from A , what time will it say on both clocks?
-
It the scenario that's weird and spooky and mind boggling.
An event occurs at A (at 9:00:00), light travels (over a 0 light second distance) to B, B sees the event at A (at 9:00:00).
An event occurs at B (at 9:00:00), light travels (over a 0 light second distance) to A, A sees the event at B (at 9:00:00).
True or false?
On the other forum you have agreed this to be true.
If B travels for 1 light second away from A , what time will it say on both clocks?
That's from : http://www.scienceforums.com/topic/29357-do-we-see-a-train-arrive-that-arrived-8-minutes-earlier/page-12#entry341330
I'm not going to waste time giving you the answer here in the same detail as I gave over there when I introduced this to you.
In short:
An event occurs at A (at 9:00:00), light travels (over a 0 light second distance) to B, B sees the event at A (at 9:00:00).
An event occurs at B (at 9:00:00), light travels (over a 0 light second distance) to A, A sees the event at B (at 9:00:00).
True.
But then Real Word:
An event occurs at A (at 9:00:00), light travels (over a 1 light second distance) to B, B sees the event at A (at 9:00:01).
An event occurs at B (at 9:00:00), light travels (over a 1 light second distance) to A, A sees the event at B (at 9:00:01).
And in XYZ World:
An event occurs at A (at 9:00:00), light travels (over a 1 light second distance) to B, B sees the event at A (at 9:00:00).
An event occurs at B (at 9:00:00), light travels (over a 1 light second distance) to A, A sees the event at B (at 9:00:00).
You've yet to explain why it works the way it does in XYZ World.
-
You've yet to explain why it works the way it does in XYZ World.
An event occurs at A (at 9:00:00), light travels (over a 0 light second distance) to B, B sees the event at A (at 9:00:00).
An event occurs at B (at 9:00:00), light travels (over a 0 light second distance) to A, A sees the event at B (at 9:00:00).
True.
An event occurs at A (at 9:00:00), the object B travels ( 1 light second distance) , B sees A (at 9:00:01).
An event occurs at A (at 9:00:00), the object B travels ( 1 light second distance) , A sees B (at 9:00:01).
True.
-
OK - I can get with that...
I haven't been following the thread. I just noticed a post implying that we would see the light of the sun here on earth as it was 8 minutes before when it left the sun... which is not true.
Summarised; XYZ thinks that if two people with pre-synchronised clocks, 8 light minutes apart, waved at the "same time", they'd both be seeing each other do that at the moment they waved. i.e. they'd see each other waving at the same time as they are themselves waving. Whereas everyone else says that the two people would see the other persons wave 8 minutes later. If they both waved for 1 minute, their own arm would have stopped waving (for 7 minutes) at the time they see the other persons wave.
We're ignoring all other effects, relativistic or not. In this sort of very very basic topic (light takes time to travel), it's not helpful to nitpick the minutia. This is at the "lies to children" level.
Ah yes - well that is a pretty straightforward scenario. (chuckle)...
But to be fair to Thebox I have found him at times to be weirdly inspirational in his meanderings through physics, and also of some benefit as to humour. I can forgive a lot of a person who makes me laugh.
As to light only being observable when it has reached the observation reference frame - that is very interesting indeed I find, but not of relevance to the remit of this thread - other than the fact of it being true of course. :D
Box - 8 light minutes is a long distance away. If the person you were observing waving were in the dark and you had a mega torch with which to illuminate your waving friend, you would have to wait 8 minutes after turning your torch on before the light reached your waving friend in order to illuminate him from his situation of being in the dark.
If we didn't have to wait 8 light minutes to see light emitted from the sun, we'd all be toast.
-
Box - 8 light minutes is a long distance away. If the person you were observing waving were in the dark and you had a mega torch with which to illuminate your waving friend, you would have to wait 8 minutes after turning your torch on before the light reached your waving friend in order to illuminate him from his situation of being in the dark.
If we didn't have to wait 8 light minutes to see light emitted from the sun, we'd all be toast.
Believe me when I say I understand this also, I can not help it if there is a contradiction. My scenario gives a different result which is contradiction.
added- What is weird is that the object B arriving at the Sun is seen in the same time frame of reference as that of A, A would see B at 9:08 and B would see A at 9:08 , however if somebody was to raise a flag on arrival at B end, this event would not be seen by A until 9:16, (scratches head going to bed).
-
An event occurs at A (at 9:00:00), the object B travels ( 1 light second distance) , B sees A (at 9:00:01).
An event occurs at A (at 9:00:00), the object B travels ( 1 light second distance) , A sees B (at 9:00:01).
True.
Why? How? What is your evidence for this?
The basis for the common understanding of everyone else, is the relationship between speed, distance and time. How do you refute this?
-
An event occurs at A (at 9:00:00), the object B travels ( 1 light second distance) , B sees A (at 9:00:01).
An event occurs at A (at 9:00:00), the object B travels ( 1 light second distance) , A sees B (at 9:00:01).
True.
Why? How? What is your evidence for this?
The basis for the common understanding of everyone else, is the relationship between speed, distance and time. How do you refute this?
The evidence was once everyone admitted the simultaneous sight by using the relationship of speed, distance and time.
photon a to b = 1.s
photon b to a = 1.s
b travelling = 1.s
All 3 of these events happening simultaneously.
-
diagram
-
Basically if you were to look at the Sun the image you are seeing is an approx 8 minute old image and not the actual present image and you see the sun in its past
Yes, yes, yes!
however from a different look at the situation there is an apparent contradiction.
No, there is no contradiction
The evidence was once everyone admitted the simultaneous sight by using the relationship of speed, distance and time.
No-one has admitted simultaneous sight in the way you mean it
photon a to b = 1.s
photon b to a = 1.s
b travelling = 1.s
All 3 of these events happening simultaneously.
You are confusing events
In your scenario photons a to b and b to a travel simultaneously, starting their journey at 0900 however the photon b to a cannot show object b arriving at b, because the object is still travelling from a - it hasn't yet arrived and won't until 0900.01, it is a different event.
Only when it has arrived at b can a new photon start its journey to a, allowing observer at a to see the arrival at b. Total time 2s.
But to be fair to Thebox I have found him at times to be weirdly inspirational in his meanderings through physics, and also of some benefit as to humour. I can forgive a lot of a person who makes me laugh.
I agree. It important in any subject to consider the not so obvious and explore possibilities. The ability to think through different scenarios is extremely valuable, however, it is also important to recognise when we have reached a dead end in a particular line of thinking.
This particular rabbit hole is a dead end and unless you intend sampling the bottle marked drink me it really isn't t worth spending more time in wonderland than necessary. I don't intend to.
-
No, there is no contradiction
Colin! I am not stupid, I have clearly shown you with my word press link that I understand the present information. There is a contradiction Colin and it is not my failure in ''seeing'' this. The failure is on your part , not mine.
Please understand that I understand ''your'' information and working with only 1 second is not very difficult.
I will show you but you just keep seeing ''red'' and are not ''playing'' along so I can show you.
Do you agree that A and B both reflect light towards each other and the speed of the light is constant in either direction?
A yes or no is all that is needed, I will then ask the next question and so on until we reach a point where you will ''see'' the contradiction by all your yes answers.
-
Thebox;
Scientists using radar signals reflecting from a device left on the moon, have determined it is receding from earth about 1" per year.
Why do they have to wait 2.5 seconds for the emitted signal to return?
-
I will show you but you just keep seeing ''red''
No, I only see white light in my mind. We agreed to ignore red shift etc.
and are not ''playing'' along so I can show you.
The reason I'm not playing along is I can see where your confusion lies and to be honest it doesn't fuss me at all whether you can see it or not. In fact I don't think you ever will.
However, I will 'play along' one last time.
Do you agree that A and B both reflect light towards each other and the speed of the light is constant in either direction?
Yes
-
Do you agree that A and B both reflect light towards each other and the speed of the light is constant in either direction?
Yes
Do you agree that both A and B are in the present ?
-
Do you agree that both A and B are in the present ?
"in the present" needs very careful definition.
-
Do you agree that A and B both reflect light towards each other and the speed of the light is constant in either direction?
Yes
Do you agree that both A and B are in the present ?
The word "present" is frame dependent. Do you understand that each frame has it's own personal interpretation of the "present"? But right now, which is my personal "present", I'm simply to sick to argue with you or anyone else Mr. Box................Good day to all!
-
Do you agree that both A and B are in the present ?
No I don't
The points made by pzkpfw and Ethos are both valid.
From my point of view you are talking about events on a timeline. Sometimes A and B are in the past, sometimes what you might call instantaneously 0. It is best to be specific and say what point on the timeline you are talking about rather than saying past or present.
-
Do you agree that both A and B are in the present ?
No I don't
The points made by pzkpfw and Ethos are both valid.
From my point of view you are talking about events on a timeline. Sometimes A and B are in the past, sometimes what you might call instantaneously 0. It is best to be specific and say what point on the timeline you are talking about rather than saying past or present.
I will simplify for you so you can ignore the subjective of simultaneity.
Do you agree that A and B are both in the present if in the same inertial reference frame next to each other?
-
Do you agree that A and B both reflect light towards each other and the speed of the light is constant in either direction?
Yes
Do you agree that both A and B are in the present ?
The word "present" is frame dependent. Do you understand that each frame has it's own personal interpretation of the "present"? But right now, which is my personal "present", I'm simply to sick to argue with you or anyone else Mr. Box................Good day to all!
Get well soon Ethos. Thank you for participating.
-
Do you agree that both A and B are in the present ?
"in the present" needs very careful definition.
OK , noted that present definition insists on different time frames, i.e simultaneity, which will not be the case by the end of the thread and yes's by Colin.
-
Do you agree that both A and B are in the present ?
No I don't
The points made by pzkpfw and Ethos are both valid.
From my point of view you are talking about events on a timeline. Sometimes A and B are in the past, sometimes what you might call instantaneously 0. It is best to be specific and say what point on the timeline you are talking about rather than saying past or present.
I will simplify for you so you can ignore the subjective of simultaneity.
Do you agree that A and B are both in the present if in the same inertial reference frame next to each other?
I will predict your yes answer because it is undeniable because I have not got all the time in the world.
B moves away from A , the light between A and B and B and A is constant like you already yes answer shows .
Is there anything in this diagram you do not understand related to B moving away from A?
You can clearly see in this diagram that you still observe B in the present although B has moved away because the sight remains ''simultaneous'' between A and B because of the fact the timing remains constant and simultaneous, they always see each other at the same time and each others present.
If you do not agree with this , then where do you consider it is wrong?
It is hardly rocket science and I am sure anyone can work this out , 1 second of time passes when B is in motion, 1 second passes on A and B's clock,
(ignoring time dilation for now).
They both always see each other at the same time. It takes a total of one second for the light to travel either direction from A to B or vice versus. The light from A to B and vice versus travels from A to B or vice versus for the entire 1 second B is in motion.
-
To simplify if you see something now in your present and it moves away from you, you always see each other at the same time, I.e the present
-
Do you agree that A and B are both in the present if in the same inertial reference frame next to each other?
No.
An inertial frame of reference is only concerned with relative motion. You can have events in present, future and past in the same inertial reference frame.
Also, there is a problem using the term present.
Take the example of a train travelling from A to B. The passengers all agree it leaves now, at the present time and that when it arrives it is also now, the present time. However, departure and arrival are different events each with a separate position in time and space.
Using now and present in your example is leading to confusion of what are in fact separate events.
Edit: Looking further down your posts I see this
You can clearly see in this diagram that you still observe B in the present although B has moved away because the sight remains ''simultaneous'' between A and B because of the fact the timing remains constant and simultaneous, they always see each other at the same time and each others present.
If you do not agree with this , then where do you consider it is wrong?
No, I do not agree with this.
Simultaneous does not mean instantaneous.
The timing does not remain constant. The speed of light remains constant, but the distance changes therefore the timing also changes.
The light leaving one and arriving at the other are 2 separate events separated in both time and space so cannot be in each other's present.
-
Do you agree that A and B are both in the present if in the same inertial reference frame next to each other?
No.
An inertial frame of reference is only concerned with relative motion. You can have events in present, future and past in the same inertial reference frame.
Also, there is a problem using the term present.
Take the example of a train travelling from A to B. The passengers all agree it leaves now, at the present time and that when it arrives it is also now, the present time. However, departure and arrival are different events each with a separate position in time and space.
Using now and present in your example is leading to confusion of what are in fact separate events.
Edit: Looking further down your posts I see this
You can clearly see in this diagram that you still observe B in the present although B has moved away because the sight remains ''simultaneous'' between A and B because of the fact the timing remains constant and simultaneous, they always see each other at the same time and each others present.
If you do not agree with this , then where do you consider it is wrong?
No, I do not agree with this.
Simultaneous does not mean instantaneous.
The timing does not remain constant. The speed of light remains constant, but the distance changes therefore the timing also changes.
The light leaving one and arriving at the other are 2 separate events separated in both time and space so cannot be in each other's present.
Quite clearly you are wrong, the present is now
noun
1.
the period of time now occurring.
An inertial frame of reference is only concerned with relative motion.
And the relative motion of both A and B is velocity=0 in the opening scenario, you are clearly being intentionally obtuse and stubborn and not even considering what I am saying or avoiding what I am saying.
If you are holding an object in your hand , you are seeing this object in your time frame of reference which is your present and now , yes or no?
The timing does not remain constant. The speed of light remains constant, but the distance changes therefore the timing also changes.
The light leaving one and arriving at the other are 2 separate events separated in both time and space so cannot be in each other's present
Yes it does, the distance between two bodies is always equal in either direction . The speed of light is constant between these bodies in either direction and guess what? It takes the exact same amount of time to travel either direction for the light being emitted or reflected.
-
Quite clearly you are wrong, the present is now
Yes, the present is now. But you are using it to describe 2 events ( light leaving A and B, and light arriving at A and B) which are separated by time, they cannot both be now.
you are clearly being intentionally obtuse and stubborn and not even considering what I am saying or avoiding what I am saying.
No, I am carefully explaining why I think your interpretation is incorrect. You asked me to do that, you could at least respect it.
If you are holding an object in your hand , you are seeing this object in your time frame of reference which is your present and now , yes or no?
Yes, but if the object moves the time when it was at the first location and the time when it arrived at where it is now are not the same. They cannot both be the present. You are trying to say that the time light leaves A and B is now and so is the time it arrives at the opposite ends, but it takes time to travel, they cannot both be now.
the distance between two bodies is always equal in either direction .
Yes, but it is changing so the time taken for the light to travel changes.
The speed of light is constant between these bodies in either direction and guess what? It takes the exact same amount of time to travel either direction for the light being emitted or reflected.
Yes, but that does not make the time at each end of its journey 'now'. The start and finish are separate times and events.
None of what I am saying is being obtuse or avoiding, it is just the way things are.
I can see that this is another thing you are never going to understand, and as you arn't going to believe me I'll leave you to try and convince the other forum.
-
for you
-
a rocket leaves earth and travels for 1 light second at c, according to you it as not left and we see it as it were 1 second ago.
added- you are not seeing the sun as it were 8 minutes ago, you are seeing the sun as it is, 8 minutes apart from you at c in the same time frame as you.
added - ''YOU'' are making the mistake of thinking distance is the past.
While the Photon travels from the sun to the earth, the sun and the earth and the Photon all experience the exact same amount of time. If you contracted the length of space between the Sun and Earth , you bring the Sun into our present. Your misinterpretation really sucks in a big way.
-
UNDERSTAND
If you see something now in the present and it moves away from you, time and events are synchronous , at 1 light second away, you are still seeing each other now.
You are not looking into the ''past'' or the ''future'' you are observing everything in the present.
added- 2 objects in a ''void'' , no light, both objects are in the present regardless of light.
-
UNDERSTAND
What you fail to UNDERSTAND is everything your eye detects is the result of a photon reaching your eye that left it's source sometime in the past. Whether 8 minutes ago, or 13.8 billion years ago from the Big Bang. Even the light reflected from the fellow standing across the street only feet away took "time" to reach your eye. So every thing you see happened in your past whether very far away or something even very near to your eye. And we've all been through this before Mr. Box but you continue to insist that the transmission of sight is instantaneous which it is not.
So yes Mr. Box, the photon is real and it takes time to reach your eye. And without the application of the photon upon your eyeball, you would see nothing. But then of course Mr. Box, you choose to see only what you want to see anyway so you really don't need the photon do you?
Attempt some UNDERSTANDING yourself.
-
UNDERSTAND
What you fail to UNDERSTAND is everything your eye detects is the result of a photon reaching your eye that left it's source sometime in the past. Whether 8 minutes ago, or 13.8 billion years ago from the Big Bang. Even the light reflected from the fellow standing across the street only feet away took "time" to reach your eye. So every thing you see happened in your past whether very far away or something even very near to your eye. And we've all been through this before Mr. Box but you continue to insist that the transmission of sight is instantaneous which it is not.
So yes Mr. Box, the photon is real and it takes time to reach your eye. And without the application of the photon upon your eyeball, you would see nothing. But then of course Mr. Box, you choose to see only what you want to see anyway so you really don't need the photon do you?
Attempt some UNDERSTANDING yourself.
Although something travels it is in the present not from the past, what you fail to understand is that things are in the present to begin with. I.e the sun is in the present while the photon travels in the present to our present, you are clearly confusing distance to be some ''magical'' form of time travel.
-
Although something travels it is in the present not from the past, what you fail to understand is that things are in the present to begin with.
My dear Mr. Box,........when you travel to the store to buy groceries, does it take some time or do you arrive there instantaneously?
The term; "travel" carries with it the notion of movement through time Mr. Box. When you travel, you move from the present into the future. Each moment of time spent in travel changes from one moment in the present to another.
The present only lasts for a fleeting instant Mr. Box and can not define the action of travel. So,.......when you make statements like: "Although something travels it is in the present", you must realize that this "present" you keep talking about is changing from one moment to another and therefore can't remain the same "present" long enough for you to get from A to B while traveling.
It takes time to travel Mr. Box and that requires the movement through a numberless number of "NOWS". Surely you're intelligent enough to understand that it takes time to travel???????
-
Although something travels it is in the present not from the past, what you fail to understand is that things are in the present to begin with.
My dear Mr. Box,........when you travel to the store to buy groceries, does it take some time or do you arrive there instantaneously?
The term; "travel" carries with it the notion of movement through time Mr. Box. When you travel, you move from the present into the future. Each moment of time spent in travel changes from one moment in the present to another.
The present only lasts for a fleeting instant Mr. Box and can not define the action of travel. So,.......when you make statements like: "Although something travels it is in the present", you must realize that this "present" you keep talking about is changing from one moment to another and therefore can't remain the same "present" long enough for you to get from A to B while traveling.
It takes time to travel Mr. Box and that requires the movement through a numberless number of "NOWS". Surely you're intelligent enough to understand that it takes time to travel???????
Of course it takes time to travel a distance, but you are not considering that your groceries exist in the ''now'' simultaneously existing with your ''now''.
When you look towards the shop, you are not seeing the future or the past, you are seeing your future path of now that leads to the same present you exist in and the groceries exist in.
-
Of course it takes time to travel a distance, but you are not considering that your groceries exist in the ''now'' simultaneously existing with your ''now''.
When you look towards the shop, you are not seeing the future or the past, you are seeing your future path of now that leads to the same present you exist in and the groceries exist in.
When you look at a shop, you are looking at the past. When you look at your hand, you are looking at the past. It takes some time for the light to reach your eye; that light was emitted in the past.
-
Of course it takes time to travel a distance, but you are not considering that your groceries exist in the ''now'' simultaneously existing with your ''now''.
When you look towards the shop, you are not seeing the future or the past, you are seeing your future path of now that leads to the same present you exist in and the groceries exist in.
When you look at a shop, you are looking at the past. When you look at your hand, you are looking at the past. It takes some time for the light to reach your eye; that light was emitted in the past.
No, because why the light is emitted and travels from the ''past'' , you still exist and the time it takes the light to reach you, you experience in the present .
Trust me ''they'' think distance means the past lmao.
-
Start here at the beginning diagram.
In this diagram there is two objects, the free space and two objects exist in the present.
-
Now let us play ''God''
let there be light
the objects are 1 light second apart, can you tell me what both clocks will read when both objects receive the incident ray?
-
Of course it takes time to travel a distance, but you are not considering that your groceries exist in the ''now'' simultaneously existing with your ''now''.
When you look towards the shop, you are not seeing the future or the past, you are seeing your future path of now that leads to the same present you exist in and the groceries exist in.
When you look at a shop, you are looking at the past. When you look at your hand, you are looking at the past. It takes some time for the light to reach your eye; that light was emitted in the past.
No, because why the light is emitted and travels from the ''past'' , you still exist and the time it takes the light to reach you, you experience in the present .
Trust me ''they'' think distance means the past lmao.
So you are back to saying that light moves infinitely fast.
-
Of course it takes time to travel a distance, but you are not considering that your groceries exist in the ''now'' simultaneously existing with your ''now''.
When you look towards the shop, you are not seeing the future or the past, you are seeing your future path of now that leads to the same present you exist in and the groceries exist in.
When you look at a shop, you are looking at the past. When you look at your hand, you are looking at the past. It takes some time for the light to reach your eye; that light was emitted in the past.
No, because why the light is emitted and travels from the ''past'' , you still exist and the time it takes the light to reach you, you experience in the present .
Trust me ''they'' think distance means the past lmao.
So you are back to saying that light moves infinitely fast.
I would say sight was infinitely fast for the very fact then when I extend a measuring tape , I can see the entire tape and measure at the same time, I do not see 2cm later than 1cm and so on all the way to as far as I can see. The entire Universe I can see is one continued picture in my mind that is all seen at the same time.
-
Of course it takes time to travel a distance, but you are not considering that your groceries exist in the ''now'' simultaneously existing with your ''now''.
When you look towards the shop, you are not seeing the future or the past, you are seeing your future path of now that leads to the same present you exist in and the groceries exist in.
When you look at a shop, you are looking at the past. When you look at your hand, you are looking at the past. It takes some time for the light to reach your eye; that light was emitted in the past.
No, because why the light is emitted and travels from the ''past'' , you still exist and the time it takes the light to reach you, you experience in the present .
Trust me ''they'' think distance means the past lmao.
So you are back to saying that light moves infinitely fast.
I would say sight was infinitely fast
For sight to be infinitely fast, that would require the speed of light to also be. If you can't UNDERSTAND this, discussing the topic with you is a waste of time.
-
I would say sight was infinitely fast for the very fact then when I extend a measuring tape , I can see the entire tape and measure at the same time, I do not see 2cm later than 1cm and so on all the way to as far as I can see.
a) the light from the parts of the tape do reach your eyes at different times.
b) what you "see" is created in your brain, it is not a faithful representation of the world.
-
I would say sight was infinitely fast for the very fact then when I extend a measuring tape , I can see the entire tape and measure at the same time, I do not see 2cm later than 1cm and so on all the way to as far as I can see. The entire Universe I can see is one continued picture in my mind that is all seen at the same time.
Given light travels 1 cm in 3.3 x 10-11 s, do you really think you could tell the difference?
-
I would say sight was infinitely fast for the very fact then when I extend a measuring tape , I can see the entire tape and measure at the same time, I do not see 2cm later than 1cm and so on all the way to as far as I can see. The entire Universe I can see is one continued picture in my mind that is all seen at the same time.
Given light travels 1 cm in 3.3 x 10-11 s, do you really think you could tell the difference?
It does not make any difference if it were 1m, 1 mile, 10,000 mile, like I see my hand now I also see the sun in the same ''picture''.
-
I would say sight was infinitely fast for the very fact then when I extend a measuring tape , I can see the entire tape and measure at the same time, I do not see 2cm later than 1cm and so on all the way to as far as I can see.
a) the light from the parts of the tape do reach your eyes at different times.
b) what you "see" is created in your brain, it is not a faithful representation of the world.
No, what I see is what I see , it is not a representation , I can clearly see distance and prove it is there, I can see shapes and prove they are there.
-
Of course it takes time to travel a distance, but you are not considering that your groceries exist in the ''now'' simultaneously existing with your ''now''.
When you look towards the shop, you are not seeing the future or the past, you are seeing your future path of now that leads to the same present you exist in and the groceries exist in.
When you look at a shop, you are looking at the past. When you look at your hand, you are looking at the past. It takes some time for the light to reach your eye; that light was emitted in the past.
No, because why the light is emitted and travels from the ''past'' , you still exist and the time it takes the light to reach you, you experience in the present .
Trust me ''they'' think distance means the past lmao.
So you are back to saying that light moves infinitely fast.
I would say sight was infinitely fast
For sight to be infinitely fast, that would require the speed of light to also be. If you can't UNDERSTAND this, discussing the topic with you is a waste of time.
You are basing that on the education you learnt, you are not considering anything outside or other than your subjective ''box'' of education.
Think!
-
When an aeroplane falls from the sky , generally if an object on the ground is in motion when there is a falling linearity, the falling object misses the target,
so more than obviously , a falling photon does not even reach you and ''they'' are full of it.
-
When an aeroplane falls from the sky , generally if an object on the ground is in motion when there is a falling linearity, the falling object misses the target,
so more than obviously , a falling photon does not even reach you and ''they'' are full of it.
But you do agree that a falling airplane hits something, right?
-
When an aeroplane falls from the sky , generally if an object on the ground is in motion when there is a falling linearity, the falling object misses the target,
so more than obviously , a falling photon does not even reach you and ''they'' are full of it.
But you do agree that a falling airplane hits something, right?
not necessarily, it depends which direction the aeroplane is falling and if something by chance happens to be in the way.
-
When an aeroplane falls from the sky , generally if an object on the ground is in motion when there is a falling linearity, the falling object misses the target,
so more than obviously , a falling photon does not even reach you and ''they'' are full of it.
But you do agree that a falling airplane hits something, right?
But you agree that it will hit the ground?
not necessarily, it depends which direction the aeroplane is falling and if something by chance happens to be in the way.
-
When an aeroplane falls from the sky , generally if an object on the ground is in motion when there is a falling linearity, the falling object misses the target,
so more than obviously , a falling photon does not even reach you and ''they'' are full of it.
But you do agree that a falling airplane hits something, right?
But you agree that it will hit the ground?
not necessarily, it depends which direction the aeroplane is falling and if something by chance happens to be in the way.
Put it one way, if you were to fire a bullet directly at the earth and the bullet travelled v=c , the bullet would miss.
Do not mistake past geometrical position in being the past.
-
Every time I try to sleep and fall asleep , I quickly wake and jump up in a panicked state, anxiety being a key role and feeling my own heart beat , beat. So in the midst of all this , I thought I would just write something and probably stay awake forever because to be honest, anxiety is quite scary.
A rocket travels from the Earth to the Sun at 9:00:00 am
The rocket has attached one end of a tape measure and the other end is attached to the Earth.
The tape measure is a special tape measure and is marked with light seconds,
As the rocket travels away we can see the tape measure extend,
At 1 second of travel I can see 1 light second of tape measure,
At 2 seconds of travel I can see 2 light seconds of the tape measure.
At 1 light minute of travel I can see 1 light minute of tape measure
At 8 light minutes and 20 seconds I can see 8 light minutes and 20 seconds of tape measure
I see the rocket arrive at the sun at 9:08:20 am
I measured it and that is the result.
-
If we can not see light in free space then how on earth can we predict a path of a meteor if according to ''you'' we can not see the path?
Also if we say , we see when electromagnetic radiation enters our eyes , it seems different, electromagnetic radiation extends , like a magnet can ''see'' another ''magnet''. Like gravity of one mass can ''see'' the other mass.
So if we are inside magnetic fields, then surely we can observe the whole field at once by some form of electromagnetic resonance?
-
Start from point zero , move away, look back, you are seeing you and where you come from in the present but you are also seeing your past position,
added- i have to go out
will leave you with this thought
If a photon carried the information that allows us to see, then why does this information become ''dimmer'' when using a dimmer switch?
Are you suggesting the photon weakens some how in this process? If you was correct I would not see dimmer things because hf is hf after all and should not ''degrade'' just because we release less of them .
So how does the weaker ''signal'' work?
-
So how does the weaker ''signal'' work?
Imagine you are standing under a shower and it is dripping one drop at a time, that drop doesn't wet you very much. Turn the shower full on and you will get very wet, but still the individual drops only have a small wetting power.
It's the same with light. Individual photons don't carry much energy, but added together in their millions you can easily see. Turning down the dimmer switch just reduces the numbers, not the energy of each one.
-
So how does the weaker ''signal'' work?
Imagine you are standing under a shower and it is dripping one drop at a time, that drop doesn't wet you very much. Turn the shower full on and you will get very wet, but still the individual drops only have a small wetting power.
It's the same with light. Individual photons don't carry much energy, but added together in their millions you can easily see. Turning down the dimmer switch just reduces the numbers, not the energy of each one.
Ok, I am standing in the shower, it is switched off but there is a drip, the drip contains the same mass it had per volume when it left the collective of the water, the same energy,
the drip enters my eyes hmmmmm, problem.
If the information is contained in the drip, and the drip is the same energy, then the drip should stay bright in the mind.
-
, the drip contains the same mass it had per volume when it left the collective of the water, the same energy,
Yes, the drip has the same mass per unit volume , but not the same energy or mass as the collective as you call it. One person in a football crowd can make a small level of sound, the whole stadium together make a much greater volume.
Not sure what you mean by information, we are talking about brightness, intensity - similar to volume of sound. Violin can make a certain sound level, lots together can make a lot more.
-
, the drip contains the same mass it had per volume when it left the collective of the water, the same energy,
Yes, the drip has the same mass per unit volume , but not the same energy or mass as the collective as you call it. One person in a football crowd can make a small level of sound, the whole stadium together make a much greater volume.
Not sure what you mean by information, we are talking about brightness, intensity - similar to volume of sound. Violin can make a certain sound level, lots together can make a lot more.
You only see light that enters your eyes, i.e Photons, brightness and intensity as you call it are only perceived pictures in your brain (according to present information).
I have tried to explain how you see light that as not entered your eyes, i.e brightness and intensity , which was instantly rejected.
According to ''you'' a Photon travels from the Sun and takes approx 8 minutes and 20 seconds to reach Earth and enter your eyes that allows you to see the Sun. The information and picture you perceive is a bright sun, the photon containing the information of brightness. However when we receive a Photon from a shadow the information is perceived ''dull'', the information not as ''energised'' as the sun information, the ''picture'' is much duller .
Can you comprehend the thought that we see light that as not entered our eyes which is ''connected'' to light that as entered our eyes?
-
''You'' want me to believe that if I looked through a tube , the far end of the tube is not in my present. When clearly the near end of the tube is in the present and the far end of the tube exists in my present.
-
''You'' want me to believe that if I looked through a tube , the far end of the tube is not in my present.
No, that is not what everyone is saying, it is your interpretation.
When it is 1200 on Earth it is 1200 on the sun, however when you look at the sun you see it as it was (about 8mins ago) not as it is now.
The same is true for the tube, but the time difference is much smaller.
-
''You'' want me to believe that if I looked through a tube , the far end of the tube is not in my present.
No, that is not what everyone is saying, it is your interpretation.
When it is 1200 on Earth it is 1200 on the sun, however when you look at the sun you see it as it was (about 8mins ago) not as it is now.
The same is true for the tube, but the time difference is much smaller.
Just no, how absurd, the tube has not been defined in length, the tube is clearly in the same time frame as you, you see the far end of the tube the same time you see the near end of the tube in the same time frame and same reference frame.
I could extend this tube all the way to the sun making a coupling, it would show the Sun moves relative with the tube and is at the end of the tube always.
The point you miss, is the very fact that you can see through the entirety of the tube.
Do you deny the free space in the tube is see through like a sheet of glass?
Do you deny that when we see a ''congestion'' of light, this allows us to see spectral colour that can be measured to be in its exact location relative to the observer?
It would be poor logic to even try to deny this .
The temporal distortion of the permeability of mass interacting with light is the only light you see, the event happens in it's exact location.
-
Do you deny that when we see a ''congestion'' of light, this allows us to see spectral colour that can be measured to be in its exact location relative to the observer?
It would be poor logic to even try to deny this .
Yes I deny it, and it is perfectly good logic to do so.
You are back to gibberish rather than sense so I'm not even going to try and discuss the errors you are making until you come back to earth.
-
Do you deny that when we see a ''congestion'' of light, this allows us to see spectral colour that can be measured to be in its exact location relative to the observer?
It would be poor logic to even try to deny this .
Yes I deny it, and it is perfectly good logic to do so.
You are back to gibberish rather than sense so I'm not even going to try and discuss the errors you are making until you come back to earth.
There is no errors in my thinking, I can think quite well, I also can measure using a basic tape measure, you are denying things that are just so obvious.
There is no gibberish, it is plain English.
P.s it is interesting you deny you can see through a tube, notice a tube is not a rod, a tube is hollow and has a volume of space.
-
Nobody is denying that a tube can be seen through.
What is denied, is that the light from the near end of the tube and from the far end of the tube, reaching your eye at the "same time" left its respective ends at the "same time".
Perfectly simple and logical.
You may be seeing both the near end and far end in one "scene", but that in itself doesn't prove that the light giving you that "scene" left the ends of the tube at the "same time".
You can extend your tube all the way to the Sun: the light from the Sun will be taking 8 minutes to travel down the tube to get to you. Light from the end of the tube near your eye will get to you in far less than a second.
You've not yet shown how this standard understanding is wrong.
-
Nobody is denying that a tube can be seen through.
What is denied, is that the light from the near end of the tube and from the far end of the tube, reaching your eye at the "same time" left its respective ends at the "same time".
Perfectly simple and logical.
You may be seeing both the near end and far end in one "scene", but that in itself doesn't prove that the light giving you that "scene" left the ends of the tube at the "same time".
You can extend your tube all the way to the Sun: the light from the Sun will be taking 8 minutes to travel down the tube to get to you. Light from the end of the tube near your eye will get to you in far less than a second.
You've not yet shown how this standard understanding is wrong.
When you say and agree you can see through the tube, you are admitting you can see through space, I. E the start point and end point of the tube simultaneously and at the same time being seen, a rocket travelling up the tube is seen for the entire journey, because the very fact the space is see through. If you cannot understand how useless your photon is after that , then I suggest you are illogical.
-
When you say and agree you can see through the tube, you are admitting you can see through space, I. E the start point and end point of the tube simultaneously and at the same time being seen, ...
No. That's your silly literal interpretation of a figure of speech.
Seeing "through the tube", in reality, simply means light from a distant object can pass through the tube and reach our eyes.
... a rocket travelling up the tube is seen for the entire journey, because the very fact the space is see through. If you cannot understand how useless your photon is after that , then I suggest you are illogical.
What's illogical is your idea that we can see things "instantly" even though they are distant, and light takes time to travel.
-
When you say and agree you can see through the tube, you are admitting you can see through space, I. E the start point and end point of the tube simultaneously and at the same time being seen, ...
No. That's your silly literal interpretation of a figure of speech.
Seeing "through the tube", in reality, simply means light from a distant object can pass through the tube and reach our eyes.
... a rocket travelling up the tube is seen for the entire journey, because the very fact the space is see through. If you cannot understand how useless your photon is after that , then I suggest you are illogical.
What's illogical is your idea that we can see things "instantly" even though they are distant, and light takes time to travel.
There is nothing illogical about and it is not me playing on words. Objectively we see through space, subjectively the Photons exist that travel from A to B.
The problem is Einstein had these poor thoughts and related most of relativity to beams of light which are never actually observed and are subjective of the imagination.
Yes you can argue we could look at Einsteins beam of light in the sense of a laser passing through a smoke filled medium, however a laser would be observer effect and not reality or the natural spherical nature of light.
An observer stands on a platform , a street lamp emits a flash of light, i.e a beam, the observer watches the beam travel past them, a train passes at the near speed of light, the observer on a train measures the light to be slower because of their relative speed. However the speed is constant regardless of motion.
However , no observer , observes a beam of light.
You can't say we see the end of tube at the same time has the near of the tube and then give a cock and bull explanation of Photons and beams, contradictory to the objective of what we observe has a whole.
I noticed you ignored the rocket travelling up the tube.
It leaves Earth at 9:00:00 , we see it arrive at 9:08:00 , we do not see it arrive at 9:16:00 We observe the rocket every step of the way.
Quite clearly insane and contradictory to reality.
Things are reflected by light, light is not reflected.
p.s there is not a single piece of evidence that shows light is reflected from objects into your eyes.
It is without thought the answer that we see through the tube, that is objective by very definition.
added- I am now looking through my tube at a satellite, the satellite is not transmitting, at exactly 9:00:00 am the satellite sends a signal, I can not see this signal, but while the signal travels I can always see the satellite.
That is how ludicrous your ideas are.
-
...
I noticed you ignored the rocket travelling up the tube.
It leaves Earth at 9:00:00 , we see it arrive at 9:08:00 , we do not see it arrive at 9:16:00 We observe the rocket every step of the way.
Quite clearly insane and contradictory to reality.
...
As well as your usual swapping of objective and subjective, that's all just your usual assertion that you are correct, without evidence.
And no, I wasn't ignoring the rocket in the tube, I was commenting on a specific part of your recent post.
It's actually very logical and self-consistent that we see the rockets 9:08 arrival, at 9:16, as that's how long it takes for the image of its arrival to get to us. Light has a speed, and it's not infinite. It doesn't matter that we watch the rocket the whole way; all that means is that as it gets further away, the longer the delay is for us seeing an event occurring on that rocket. e.g. when it's half way to the Sun, the delay is 4 minutes. All perfectly in order.
Science - via actual experiments - has shown us that sight works via light, and light has a finite speed.
You clearly don't like this, as it contradicts your personal views, but you have no evidence that it's wrong.
Your concept of immediate sight across any distance is what's illogical; you have no real explanation for how that could possibly work. How does your fairy story trump the actual science?
-
...
I noticed you ignored the rocket travelling up the tube.
It leaves Earth at 9:00:00 , we see it arrive at 9:08:00 , we do not see it arrive at 9:16:00 We observe the rocket every step of the way.
Quite clearly insane and contradictory to reality.
...
As well as your usual swapping of objective and subjective, that's all just your usual assertion that you are correct, without evidence.
And no, I wasn't ignoring the rocket in the tube, I was commenting on a specific part of your recent post.
It's actually very logical and self-consistent that we see the rockets 9:08 arrival, at 9:16, as that's how long it takes for the image of its arrival to get to us. Light has a speed, and it's not infinite. It doesn't matter that we watch the rocket the whole way; all that means is that as it gets further away, the longer the delay is for us seeing an event occurring on that rocket. e.g. when it's half way to the Sun, the delay is 4 minutes. All perfectly in order.
Science - via actual experiments - has shown us that sight works via light, and light has a finite speed.
You clearly don't like this, as it contradicts your personal views, but you have no evidence that it's wrong.
Your concept of immediate sight across any distance is what's illogical; you have no real explanation for how that could possibly work. How does your fairy story trump the actual science?
Firstly objective means without personal feelings or influence, there is no personal feeling in admitting we can see through the tube.
Secondly science has not proved light reflects off objects into your eyes, contradictory is that a laser does not reflect of a wall, it only reflects of a mirror or shiny like surface.
You want proof? shine a laser through a smoke filled room at a wall, no reflective ray unless a mirror is used.
''Science - via actual experiments - has shown us that sight works via light, and light has a finite speed.''
Yes we need light to enter our eyes to see, but once we open our eyes in light we can see everything in the ''scene'' at once.
''Your concept of immediate sight across any distance is what's illogical; you have no real explanation for how that could possibly work. How does your fairy story trump the actual science?''
It is not illogical that we can see through space. It is not illogical to consider a Photon does not contain the information of distance. It is logical we can observe and measure distance and see an entire distance, it is logical that I can measure a red apple in its exact location a distance away from me.
It is logical I can measure a shadow to be in its exact position,
It trumps science because science is full of subjective fairy tales. it trumps science because the very fact that we see through space, we see the Sun , we see light of the sun at the sun, the sun also permeates light to highlight other objects, however we can see through the light it is not opaque.
It trumps science because we don't actually see photons, we see only clear/invisible.
p.s you dont see the rocket arriving at 9:16 ,
-
Firstly objective means without personal feelings or influence, there is no personal feeling in admitting we can see through the tube.
What's objective is there is light hitting your eye: Other people can verify that experience. And, importantly because our eyes and our brains can be fooled by any number of illusions, we can build detectors that measure the light.
It's your interpretation of what all that means that is subjective.
Secondly science has not proved light reflects off objects into your eyes, ...
Your personal disbelief and rejection of science does not prove that science to be wrong. What's your experiment to prove current science wrong?
... contradictory is that a laser does not reflect of a wall, it only reflects of a mirror or shiny like surface.
You want proof? shine a laser through a smoke filled room at a wall, no reflective ray unless a mirror is used. ...
Rubbish. You can shine a laser at a wall, and see a red spot (if that's the laser used) on that wall. Clearly the laser light is reflecting off that wall, to your eyes. If you hit a mirror, you might get the laser reflected as a beam; but a normal wall will provide a diffuse reflection - the laser light is spread around, reflecting (absorbed, re-emmitted) in all directions.
You've never seen a movie where the target of a sniper sees a red dot on themselves? Are those people wearing mirrors?
''Science - via actual experiments - has shown us that sight works via light, and light has a finite speed.''
Yes we need light to enter our eyes to see, but once we open our eyes in light we can see everything in the ''scene'' at once.
Science has shown that it's light itself that we see by. You are inventing some additional "other way" that we see, that somehow involves light plus ... plus ... plus ... what!? Magic?
''Your concept of immediate sight across any distance is what's illogical; you have no real explanation for how that could possibly work. How does your fairy story trump the actual science?''
It is not illogical that we can see through space. It is not illogical to consider a Photon does not contain the information of distance.
It is illogical to think that seeing things across space somehow means our awareness is itelf across that space, witnessing things as they occur.
I've never said a photon contains "the information of distance". That's not needed.
It is logical we can observe and measure distance and see an entire distance, it is logical that I can measure a red apple in its exact location a distance away from me.
It is logical I can measure a shadow to be in its exact position,
That in itself is close to OK.
It trumps science because science is full of subjective fairy tales. it trumps science because the very fact that we see through space, we see the Sun , we see light of the sun at the sun, the sun also permeates light to highlight other objects, however we can see through the light it is not opaque.
None of that shows that you're seeing things "instantly".
It trumps science because we don't actually see photons, we see only clear/invisible.
We don't perceive individual photons; to see even a single white pixel on your computer screen requires many photons to leave that pixel and travel to your eye.
Do you also disbelieve in electricity because you can't see individual electrons?
p.s you dont see the rocket arriving at 9:16 ,
That's an assertion based on nothing more than your desire to hold on to your ignorance.
Next you'll say something childish like "don't tell me I'm wrong because I know I'm right" - oh wait, you already did that in your blog.
-
What's objective is there is light hitting your eye: Other people can verify that experience. And, importantly because our eyes and our brains can be fooled by any number of illusions, we can build detectors that measure the light.
Where do I say that light that does not enter your eye to begin with? I have not said it doesn't
It's your interpretation of what all that means that is subjective.
NO it's not, it is to definition exactly.
Your personal disbelief and rejection of science does not prove that science to be wrong. What's your experiment to prove current science wrong?
The space is admitted see through..
Rubbish. You can shine a laser at a wall, and see a red spot (if that's the laser used) on that wall. Clearly the laser light is reflecting off that wall, to your eyes. If you hit a mirror, you might get the laser reflected as a beam; but a normal wall will provide a diffuse reflection - the laser light is spread around, reflecting (absorbed, re-emmitted) in all directions.
Clearly the laser has no reflective beam from a brick wall, you would like by magic for the light to be reflecting and travelling across the space to your eyes, come up with garbage about diffusion, none of this is observed in reality. Every single DJ in the world will tell you there is no beam of the laser reflected from a wall.
You are quite clearly making it up and it is not what happens in reality.
You've never seen a movie where the target of a sniper sees a red dot on themselves? Are those people wearing mirrors?
Now your being daft, the dot on a sniper is a laser dot from another sniper, not a reflection.
''Science - via actual experiments - has shown us that sight works via light, and light has a finite speed.''
I have not disagreed with that.
Science has shown that it's light itself that we see by. You are inventing some additional "other way" that we see, that somehow involves light plus ... plus ... plus ... what!? Magic?
Yes we see by the light, why do you keep mentioning this when I am not arguing about t hat?
''Your concept of immediate sight across any distance is what's illogical; you have no real explanation for how that could possibly work. How does your fairy story trump the actual science?''
Which part about see through do you not follow?
It is illogical to think that seeing things across space somehow means our awareness is itelf across that space, witnessing things as they occur.
Hellooo! it's is see through, we can see through space and see things, we can see things happen, predict things to happen because space is see through. Only you are being illogical about see through.
I've never said a photon contains "the information of distance". That's not needed.
But you see distance, you see light that has not entered your eyes in that distance, the space is not dark like a shadow is it now.
That in itself is close to OK.
So think my friend, think about the measurement. and what it means in relationship to how we see.
None of that shows that you're seeing things "instantly".
see through, see through. see through,
We don't perceive individual photons; to see even a single white pixel on your computer screen requires many photons to leave that pixel and travel to your eye.
We dont see individual photons full period, ''they'' are made up and of the imagination.
Do you also disbelieve in electricity because you can't see individual electrons?
I am not discussing electricity.
That's an assertion based on nothing more than your desire to hold on to your ignorance.
Next you'll say something childish like "don't tell me I'm wrong because I know I'm right" - oh wait, you already did that in your blog.
NO, it is not an assertion, you can see the rocket all the way because the space is see through, do you have problems understanding what see through means?
It means there is no obstruction to sight, so if there is no obstruction you can see things, you see things that are not obstructed at the same time you see other things that are not obstructed.
You don't have any valid argument and neither does science. All's you are doing is trying to persuade people the ''good book'' is correct. The ''good book' is mostly made up, it is garbage, and you seem to worship this garbage as if actual facts and never consider beyond this book, rather strange that education has subjected you all in this way.
-
''You'' all fail to recognise that we are ''submerged'' in light, the light goes on past us. We observe a quanta whole , we do not observe individual photons , we observe this whole relatively as not moving, a stationary reference frame. we observe things that move relative to this frame.
-
Clearly the laser has no reflective beam from a brick wall, you would like by magic for the light to be reflecting and travelling across the space to your eyes, come up with garbage about diffusion, none of this is observed in reality. Every single DJ in the world will tell you there is no beam of the laser reflected from a wall.
You are quite clearly making it up and it is not what happens in reality.
You make no sense at all. Are you truly saying that if you shine a laser at a brick wall you wouldn't/couldn't see a red (or other) dot on the wall where the laser hits it?
Have you ever seen someone use a laser pointer? To highlight things on a screen? To play with their cat or dog?
You've never seen a movie where the target of a sniper sees a red dot on themselves? Are those people wearing mirrors?
Now your being daft, the dot on a sniper is a laser dot from another sniper, not a reflection.
Eh? I said the target of a sniper sees a dot on themselves.
And what do you think is causing that dot? The laser aimed by the sniper. The laser hits the target and, because they are wearing clothes, not mirrors, a diffuse reflection is seen.
Even if it was a dot on a sniper from another sniper, as you said, it's still a dot - what's causing that dot? Magic?
Yes we see by the light, why do you keep mentioning this when I am not arguing about t hat?
Because light has a limited speed, but you think sight somehow works by some other - instant - mechanism (magic).
Which part about see through do you not follow?
"See through" simply means light can travel through an area. It has nothing to do with your magic instant sight.
Hellooo! it's is see through, we can see through space and see things, we can see things happen, predict things to happen because space is see through. Only you are being illogical about see through.
No, you are inventing some new mechanism for sight, when we already know about light and its limited speed.
Nothing about the knowledge of the limited speed of light contradicts any normal understanding of "see through".
The air between my eyes and my monitors is "see through", so light can travel from them to me, and I can read this web page. My hand is not "see through", so if I hold it up between my eyes and my monitors I can't read this web page. None of that is contradicted by knowing that light takes time to travel, so some time (less than I can possibly notice, because it's too close) will elapse between that light leaving the monitor and reaching my eyes.
But you see distance, you see light that has not entered your eyes in that distance, the space is not dark like a shadow is it now.
See ... there's your magic. You say we see light that has not entered our eyes! How? Telepathy?
Rubbish, what we see is light that has entered our eyes. From the sum total of what we see, we are able to judge distances. Our brains are accustomed, for example, to using relative size; so if we see trees, we know the ones taking up more of our field of view are closer. (That's just one of the cues to our ability to judge distance). This is why it's quite easy to create optical illusions.
see through, see through. see through,
Not instant. Not instant. Not instant.
Please don't be so childish.
We dont see individual photons full period, ''they'' are made up and of the imagination.
Did you stamp your feet as you wrote that?
I am not discussing electricity.
Why do you always accuse others of avoiding questions?
Can you see individual electrons?
NO, it is not an assertion, you can see the rocket all the way because the space is see through, do you have problems understanding what see through means?
It's you who badly uses "see through". You can't support your assertions by other made-up assertions ...
It means there is no obstruction to sight, so if there is no obstruction you can see things, you see things that are not obstructed at the same time you see other things that are not obstructed.
These two things do not follow.
Unobstructed sight has nothing to do with allowing that sight to occur instantly across distance.
-
You make no sense at all. Are you truly saying that if you shine a laser at a brick wall you wouldn't/couldn't see a red (or other) dot on the wall where the laser hits it?
Of course you see a red dot on the wall but you do not see a reflective beam if you add smoke to the room, you only see the incident ray of the beam. Fact.
Because light has a limited speed, but you think sight somehow works by some other - instant - mechanism (magic).
No magic involved it is see through
The air between my eyes and my monitors is "see through", so light can travel from them to me, and I can read this web page. My hand is not "see through", so if I hold it up between my eyes and my monitors I can't read this web page. None of that is contradicted by knowing that light takes time to travel, so some time (less than I can possibly notice, because it's too close) will elapse between that light leaving the monitor and reaching my eyes.
Now you are understanding , the air is see through, the light passing through that air that is not in your eyes, not entered your eyes is see through, you do not see light in space because it is not compressing.
See ... there's your magic. You say we see light that has not entered our eyes! How? Telepathy?
Connectivity
Now go back and consider measuring where a shadow is, consider if you did not see light in space it would be dark space like a shadow.
-
Of course you see a red dot on the wall but you do not see a reflective beam if you add smoke to the room, you only see the incident ray of the beam. Fact.
You are mixing things up; of course we don't see the beam itself, as it travels through your "gin clear" air, unless there's smoke or something in the room.
But that red dot on the wall is diffuse reflection of the light of the laser.
(That's good evidence that we don't see light that's distant, we see light that gets to our eyes.)
What was your point in this bit anyway?
No magic involved it is see through
Until you can somehow explain or prove why "see through" gives "instant vision" - it remains magic.
Now you are understanding , the air is see through, the light passing through that air that is not in your eyes, not entered your eyes is see through, you do not see light in space because it is not compressing.
Aside from degenerating back into gibberish, you are contradicting yourself here. Earlier you talk about seeing light that hasn't reached our eyes, now you talk about not seeing light in space.
You can't keep your story straight.
Connectivity
Your "Connectivity" is magic until explained. So far, it seems to be akin to telepathy opr something. Magic.
Now go back and consider measuring where a shadow is, consider if you did not see light in space it would be dark space like a shadow.
No. We see light when it reaches our eyes. Shadow is simply an area where none (or less) light comes from to reach our eyes.
The sun lights a field, the grass sends light to our eyes. A tree blocks some of that sunlight hitting the field, we "see" the shadow on the grass because that area is sending less light to our eyes. So very simple. The perfect shape of the tree on the grass is wonderful proof of how shadows are created.
In space, you could have a billion laser pointers sending light passing right in front of you, and you'd still be in darkness if none of that light is reaching your eyes (reflected off dust or something). Vision is simply about light getting to your eyes.
It's not magic.
-
Of course you see a red dot on the wall but you do not see a reflective beam if you add smoke to the room, you only see the incident ray of the beam. Fact.
You are mixing things up; of course we don't see the beam itself, as it travels through your "gin clear" air, unless there's smoke or something in the room.
But that red dot on the wall is diffuse reflection of the light of the laser.
(That's good evidence that we don't see light that's distant, we see light that gets to our eyes.)
What was your point in this bit anyway?
No magic involved it is see through
Until you can somehow explain or prove why "see through" gives "instant vision" - it remains magic.
Now you are understanding , the air is see through, the light passing through that air that is not in your eyes, not entered your eyes is see through, you do not see light in space because it is not compressing.
Aside from degenerating back into gibberish, you are contradicting yourself here. Earlier you talk about seeing light that hasn't reached our eyes, now you talk about not seeing light in space.
You can't keep your story straight.
Connectivity
Your "Connectivity" is magic until explained. So far, it seems to be akin to telepathy opr something. Magic.
Now go back and consider measuring where a shadow is, consider if you did not see light in space it would be dark space like a shadow.
No. We see light when it reaches our eyes. Shadow is simply an area where none (or less) light comes from to reach our eyes.
The sun lights a field, the grass sends light to our eyes. A tree blocks some of that sunlight hitting the field, we "see" the shadow on the grass because that area is sending less light to our eyes. So very simple. The perfect shape of the tree on the grass is wonderful proof of how shadows are created.
In space, you could have a billion laser pointers sending light passing right in front of you, and you'd still be in darkness if none of that light is reaching your eyes (reflected off dust or something). Vision is simply about light getting to your eyes.
It's not magic.
ok, let us mix this up a bit more,
You have an empty bottle underwater with a lid on it , you take off the lid, what happens to the water.?
To save time , the water floods into the bottle but remains connected to the whole.
Now underwater look with your eyes , can you see water that is a few feet away ? Unlike air I have now give you a visual. Just like you can see the water that is a few feet away, you can see the light passing through that water that is a few feet away .
-
Your problem is you are eager to "mix it up" in order to deflect away from the main topic. A defense mechanism. When you are challenged and have no logical answer.
-
Your problem is you are eager to "mix it up" in order to deflect away from the main topic. A defense mechanism. When you are challenged and have no logical answer.
I am not deflected away at all, I am trying to get you to see it from my position, we see light that as not entered our eyes, consider the water
-
Take it from me, you are wrong.
-
Take it from me, you are wrong.
A simple question Jeff, when underwater can you see water that is a distance away ?
-
I'm not interested in discussing science with you anymore.
-
I'm not interested in discussing science with you anymore.
well Jeff, perhaps you do not want to understand or even try to understand.
You forget I know your information
-
I'm not interested in discussing science with you anymore.
well Jeff, perhaps you do not want to understand or even try to understand.
You forget I know your information
And by that you mean what exactly?
-
... Now underwater look with your eyes , can you see water that is a few feet away ? Unlike air I have now give you a visual. Just like you can see the water that is a few feet away, you can see the light passing through that water that is a few feet away .
No.
If the water is perfectly clear, I won't be seeing it, I'll be seeing light that has passed through it; so (for example) I'd be seeing light that left the other side of the swimming pool and travels to my eye.
If the water isn't perfectly clear, e.g. it has some dirt swirling in it, I'll be seeing light reflected (absorbed/re-emitted) by that dirt. Similar to being able to see a laser beam in a smokey room.
-
If the beam of light from the rocket, is turned off when it reaches point B an observer at point A will instantly see the light go off eight minutes after the rocket departs. The clock aboard the ship if mechanical, and shielded by multiple walls of steel, will show 8 minutes have passed.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
-
If the beam of light from the rocket, is turned off when it reaches point B an observer at point A will instantly see the light go off eight minutes after the rocket departs. The clock aboard the ship if mechanical, and shielded by multiple walls of steel, will show 8 minutes have passed.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
yes , except there is no actual beam ,
-
... Now underwater look with your eyes , can you see water that is a few feet away ? Unlike air I have now give you a visual. Just like you can see the water that is a few feet away, you can see the light passing through that water that is a few feet away .
No.
If the water is perfectly clear, I won't be seeing it, I'll be seeing light that has passed through it; so (for example) I'd be seeing light that left the other side of the swimming pool and travels to my eye.
If the water isn't perfectly clear, e.g. it has some dirt swirling in it, I'll be seeing light reflected (absorbed/re-emitted) by that dirt. Similar to being able to see a laser beam in a smokey room.
it does not matter the water is clear you can still see the water , look from above ,out of the water if needed
-
I'm not interested in discussing science with you anymore.
well Jeff, perhaps you do not want to understand or even try to understand.
You forget I know your information
And by that you mean what exactly?
it means you defend present information in a new theories section rather than considering the theory. It also means I know already what you think and I know the thinking is maybe flawed, however you don't want to look for flaws in present information, you accept without contesting the information , I contest the information by observered objective information ,
-
If the beam of light from the rocket, is turned off when it reaches point B an observer at point A will instantly see the light go off eight minutes after the rocket departs. The clock aboard the ship if mechanical, and shielded by multiple walls of steel, will show 8 minutes have passed.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
yes , except there is no actual beam ,
Light is a slow down of high velocity ambient radiation. The source no matter the velocity of the source creating light, will create light. The rays that create light are instantaneous. The development of the actual light beam takes some time. The light beam because it is initiated upon take off from point A will remain on and visible at all times to point A.
The velocity of the craft is not a factor at all.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
-
it does not matter the water is clear you can still see the water , look from above ,out of the water if needed
That's because water isn't actually perfectly clear (as you would say - it's not "gin clear"). What you are seeing, is light affected by that water, coming to your eyes.
How about telling me how time-of-flight laser range finders work.
Is it mere coincidence that they give correct answers, while operating by some principal that you would deny?
-
If the beam of light from the rocket, is turned off when it reaches point B an observer at point A will instantly see the light go off eight minutes after the rocket departs. The clock aboard the ship if mechanical, and shielded by multiple walls of steel, will show 8 minutes have passed.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
yes , except there is no actual beam ,
Light is a slow down of high velocity ambient radiation. The source no matter the velocity of the source creating light, will create light. The rays that create light are instantaneous. The development of the actual light beam takes some time. The light beam because it is initiated upon take off from point A will remain on and visible at all times to point A.
The velocity of the craft is not a factor at all.
Sincerely,
William McCormick
Yes and yes the velocity of the craft is not a factor.
-
it does not matter the water is clear you can still see the water , look from above ,out of the water if needed
That's because water isn't actually perfectly clear (as you would say - it's not "gin clear"). What you are seeing, is light affected by that water, coming to your eyes.
How about telling me how time-of-flight laser range finders work.
Is it mere coincidence that they give correct answers, while operating by some principal that you would deny?
A laser is a beam passing through the constant.
-
A laser is a beam passing through the constant.
My hovercraft is full of eels.
-
A laser is a beam passing through the constant.
My hovercraft is full of eels.
Well, I think William understands, I think William may ''see'' the contradiction.
Added - Graph for William
added- considering my graph the speed of light would be measured to be the same as the speed of the craft if we considered the tip end of light was at the craft end? huh............
Maybe the tip of the light ''stops'' when obstructed.hmmm