0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Do you agree that A and B are both in the present if in the same inertial reference frame next to each other?
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?
Quote from: Thebox on 30/08/2016 12:09:40Do 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 thisQuote from: Thebox on 30/08/2016 13:25:30You 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.
An inertial frame of reference is only concerned with relative motion.
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
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 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.
UNDERSTAND
Quote from: Thebox on 01/09/2016 13:02:06UNDERSTANDWhat 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.
Quote from: Thebox on 01/09/2016 14:54:55Although 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.
Quote from: Thebox on 01/09/2016 16:34:10Of 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.
Quote from: PhysBang on 01/09/2016 16:46:25Quote from: Thebox on 01/09/2016 16:34:10Of 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.
Quote from: Thebox on 01/09/2016 16:51:03Quote from: PhysBang on 01/09/2016 16:46:25Quote from: Thebox on 01/09/2016 16:34:10Of 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.
Quote from: PhysBang on 01/09/2016 17:15:12Quote from: Thebox on 01/09/2016 16:51:03Quote from: PhysBang on 01/09/2016 16:46:25Quote from: Thebox on 01/09/2016 16:34:10Of 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
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.
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.
Quote from: Thebox on 01/09/2016 17:44:40I 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?