Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: guest39538 on 11/09/2016 23:54:02
-
Direction has nothing to do with the past or the future. An observer can travel one direction to observe their own ahead future, they can make a reverse journey to see their past position and future ahead of them, no matter which way the observer travels, they see their future ahead of them. They never observe a past behind them they only observe past position which is always the present.
Time is dependent to the observer who is always in the present, travels in the present and remains in the present at all times.
Past is memory of past events, the future is looking ahead.
Very simple truths with no added Dogma.
-
On the lack of counter argument , I can only presume myself to be correct.
-
Can't let you go thinking you're right!
U is located at the apex of a light cone representing a personal perception space. His timeline is the cone axis extending downward from zero, the apex, into negative time units. An x-y plane is centered on the apex. U considers himself at rest.
An object e is moving past U in the x direction offset a distance d. The path of e is projected onto the light cone forming a hyperbola. If e is moving right to left, it is approaching from the past to its closest approach, then receding into the past (not the future). If e was moving left to right, it is still approaching from the past. So where is the future, typically shown as a light cone reflected in the x-y plane. If e moved from the past to the future, how would it cross the gap from one cone to the other?
When a distant event is observed, it's labeled as historical.
The problem is, there are two types of events. A photon lifespan begins with emission and ends with detection. This establishes an order, detection must follow emission. The time of perception or awareness of an event is the present. The time of an event is in the past, and requires additional information such as distance. U has no future light cone since he cannot perceive events beyond the present. The same distance determines how much time until perception of the event, and how much time since the event occurred in the past.
-
Can't let you go thinking you're right!
U is located at the apex of a light cone representing a personal perception space. His timeline is the cone axis extending downward from zero, the apex, into negative time units. An x-y plane is centered on the apex. U considers himself at rest.
An object e is moving past U in the x direction offset a distance d. The path of e is projected onto the light cone forming a hyperbola. If e is moving right to left, it is approaching from the past to its closest approach, then receding into the past (noyt the future). If e was moving left to right, it is still approaching from the past. So where is the future, typically shown as a light cone reflected in the x-y plane. If e moved from the past to the future, how would it cross the gap from one cone to the other?
When a distant event is observed, it's labeled as historical.
The problem is, there are two types of events. A photon lifespan begins with emission and ends with detection. This establishes an order, detection must follow emission. The time of perception or awareness of an event is the present. The time of an event is in the past, and requires additional information such as distance. U has no future light cone since he cannot perceive events beyond the present. The same distance determines how much time until perception of the event, and how much time since the event occurred in the past.
I have no idea how to even try to relate that to what I posted. U is in the present , any object approaching u from any direction is also in the present and travels to u , past u , remains always in the present . Light is not needed for time to ''exist''. You do not see a distance planet in the past, you see it in the present , turn out the lights and ''see''.
-
remove light from most of ''your'' ideas and we clearly can see that there is a problem with ideas that use light.
-
I have no idea how to even try to relate that to what I posted.
You seem to find yourself in that position quite frequently Mr. Box.
You do not see a distance planet in the past, you see it in the present
Light takes time to reach your eye Mr. Box so we see distant objects as they were in "their past" even though we receive that belated image in our present.
-
I have no idea how to even try to relate that to what I posted.
You seem to find yourself in that position quite frequently Mr. Box.
You do not see a distance planet in the past, you see it in the present
Light takes time to reach your eye Mr. Box so we see distant objects as they were in "their past" even though we receive that belated image in our present.
Then I accuse you of not reading correctly or not understanding the topic.
Shut your eyes Mr Ethos, ask somebody to speak, the sound travels. Lets say the sound takes 1 second to arrive, are you suggesting that yourself and the person speaking both do not experience time while waiting for the sound to arrive?
We can use Photons if you like.
A photon leaves the sun at 0t
It takes 8 minutes to arrive at you
0:08:00 minutes
You start at 0 also , you wait 8 minutes for it to arrive, both clocks show
00:08:00 when the photon arrives.
Present = present
Also you are not considering the very fact that space is see through like glass.
You can see both ends of the journey . Your scenario only works if there is no light whole to begin with. You forget we are submerged in light, the tips are long gone past us. We are within a flow.
-
Then I accuse you of not reading correctly or not understanding the topic.
You can accuse me of not reading correctly to which I answer: "I have read and understand your confusion Mr. Box." And you can also assume that I don't understand to which I also answer: "I along with many others here at TNS understand you Mr. Box."
And the understanding that we have is this: "You are seriously confused Mr. Box and resist listening to reasonable people and to the results of professional experiment."
And, if I were you, I would think twice before accusing anyone here about their ignorance of the spoken word or, in understanding the prime example of a very confused individual.
-
Then I accuse you of not reading correctly or not understanding the topic.
You can accuse me of not reading correctly to which I answer: "I have read and understand your confusion Mr. Box." And you can also assume that I don't understand to which I also answer: "I along with many others here at TNS understand you Mr. Box."
And the understanding that we have is this: "You are seriously confused Mr. Box and resist listening to reasonable people and to the results of professional experiment."
And, if I were you, I would think twice before accusing anyone here about their ignorance of the spoken word or, in understanding the prime example of a very confused individual.
it is not me whom is confused about reality and it you who eludes discussing anything proposed.
I ask you this , if at point zero a big bang happened and the universe expanded out from this point, how much time does 0 pass while the universe is expanding?
-
the box
Ethos is saying the image of the sun takes ~8 seconds to reach earth. Another way to understand it is say we can blink out the sun. It would take ~8 seconds for the image to blink out on the Earth. Or it could blink on and it would take ~8 seconds to view the light. You confuse clear glass as seeing with the infinite speed of light. The image reaches your eyes and your eyes do not reach the image as you currently believe. No wonder you do not believe relativity.
-
the box
Ethos is saying the image of the sun takes ~8 seconds to reach earth. Another way to understand it is say we can blink out the sun. It would take ~8 seconds for the image to blink out on the Earth. Or it could blink on and it would take ~8 seconds to view the light. You confuse clear glass as seeing with the infinite speed of light. The image reaches your eyes and your eyes do not reach the image as you currently believe. No wonder you do not believe relativity.
bangS head against wall, I know what present information is so why keep repeating it?
You are not considering seeing objects in their exact location, spectral colour measurable distance away in its exact location, I think you are all quite mad to think we do not see the start and end point at the same time. It is totally illogical to say we don't. I can see me at the same time I can see a distant object.
-
the box
This is why I keep bringing up the depth of understanding. Your current understanding is that light speed is infinite. So you believe you can view every ones present at the same time. While our own environment light speed is somewhat indistinguishable from infinite greater distances have a slightly different affect. We view their and all images from their past positions. The further the distance the more in the past. I keep trying to explain the hurdle you must overcome to understand your mistaken impression of light images. An image comes to you through time. ~186,000 miles away you view an image as it was one second ago. The photon wave takes about 8 min 20 seconds to reach the earth so you are viewing the sun as it was ~ 8 seconds in its past position not its current physical position. We are not even viewing it in its perpendicular position. We are viewing it more to the front because of the vector direction of light from the past. But that is a concept deeper than the understanding of the image coming from the past.
-
the box
This is why I keep bringing up the depth of understanding. Your current understanding is that light speed is infinite. So you believe you can view every ones present at the same time. While our own environment light speed is somewhat indistinguishable from infinite greater distances have a slightly different affect. We view their and all images from their past positions. The further the distance the more in the past. I keep trying to explain the hurdle you must overcome to understand your mistaken impression of light images. An image comes to you through time. ~186,000 miles away you view an image as it was one second ago. The photon wave takes about 8 min 20 seconds to reach the earth so you are viewing the sun as it was ~ 8 seconds in its past position not its current physical position. We are not even viewing it in its perpendicular position. We are viewing it more to the front because of the vector direction of light from the past. But that is a concept deeper than the understanding of the image coming from the past.
Gog, I understand the present information and how sight works according to present information. Repeating it will not remove what I consider is fault, only discussing my idea will either end my idea or create a new idea.
Please try to discuss and not continue repeating present information which we all ''get''.
I am not stupid Goc, I know what I am talking about and I am deadly serious regardless that I am a bit ''cookoo''.
Try discussing or asking question about what I am saying, forget present information temporarily while discussing something ''new''.
I will start a conversation and be two individual people.
person 1 - I think we see objects in the present
person 2- why do you think this?
person 1 - because there is no apparent obstruction to sight between objects and I observe the object measurable in its exact location
person 2 - well, I can not argue that there is no obstruction to sight between objects and an object can be measured in its exact location but I will argue that light takes time to arrive.
person 1 - I am not arguing the fact that light takes time to arrive. I am arguing firstly that space is ''see through'' , would you agree with that is opening premise for argument, we can see both ''ends'' at the same time
A...........................................B
person 2 (goc) - (continue please in discussion manner)
-
Consider this -
The sun stops emitting light,
the last light takes 8 minutes or so after the last emit before it diminishes into darkness.
problem, the moon is still there in the dark whether we can see it or not.
Both the earth and moon are in the present without light.
Extend the distance of the moon in the dark, the moon and the earth are still in the present.
THINK!
-
[quote/] Consider this -
The sun stops emitting light,
the last light takes 8 minutes or so after the last emit before it diminishes into darkness.
problem, the moon is still there in the dark whether we can see it or not.
Both the earth and moon are in the present without light.
Extend the distance of the moon in the dark, the moon and the earth are still in the present.
THINK! [/quote]
Yes everything is in the present.
-
Consider this -
The sun stops emitting light,
the last light takes 8 minutes or so after the last emit before it diminishes into darkness.
problem, the moon is still there in the dark whether we can see it or not.
Both the earth and moon are in the present without light.
Extend the distance of the moon in the dark, the moon and the earth are still in the present.
THINK!
Yes everything is in the present.
[/quote]
-
Consider this -
The sun stops emitting light,
the last light takes 8 minutes or so after the last emit before it diminishes into darkness.
problem, the moon is still there in the dark whether we can see it or not.
Both the earth and moon are in the present without light.
Extend the distance of the moon in the dark, the moon and the earth are still in the present.
THINK!
Yes everything is in the present.
Yes indeed, everything is in the present.
Now let me say what science is technically saying, if we placed a tube between the earth and sun , the sun where we see it at the end of the tube is not actually there.
However we know very well that the near end and far end of the tube exists in our present.
Would you agree with that?
If not why?
added - take note, light exists in the entirety of distance between the sun and earth, all the free space contains light from point source to point source. A Quanta tunnel for vision, a coupling for sight between brain and object.
We observe spectral colour, a temporal distortion of free space light. We must have an infinite speed of sight?
-
[Quote Yes indeed, everything is in the present.
Now let me say what science is technically saying, if we placed a tube between the earth and sun , the sun where we see it at the end of the tube is not actually there.
However we know very well that the near end and far end of the tube exists in our present.
Would you agree with that?
If not why?
added - take note, light exists in the entirety of distance between the sun and earth, all the free space contains light from point source to point source. A Quanta tunnel for vision, a coupling for sight between brain and object.
We observe spectral colour, a temporal distortion of free space light. We must have an infinite speed of sight? \Quote]
You are not thinking mechanically. By mechanics we cannot view an image until the light reaches your eyes. Lets consider a detector. A detector does not view an object and cannot respond with a reading until the spectral event hits the detector itself. Lets use the sun again with the ability to blinking on and off. The sun is off then blinks on for a tenth of a second. The sun present and your present are physically separated by ~93 million miles. The sun is still moving away from the position where it blinked on and off. The light signal is rippling through space at about ~186,000 miles per second and a tenth of a light second long. The light reaches your detector and eyes about 8 minutes and 20 seconds later. The Earth moved and the sun moved from the position each occupied in that 8 seconds. So when you view an image it is no longer in the physical position it occupied when it blinked on then off.
Its no different than sound for your ears. Say there is a public speaker close to you and electronic speakers half a mile away. You hear the public speaker next to you and then hear the words from the electronic speakers half a mile away. Sound is not instantaneous and neither is light. Sound from a jet you tend to look behind where the jet is physically viewed and it may be about 3 physical inches forward of where it is viewed although the view is indistinguishable from actual position in space.
-
Yes indeed, everything is in the present.
Now let me say what science is technically saying, if we placed a tube between the earth and sun , the sun where we see it at the end of the tube is not actually there.
However we know very well that the near end and far end of the tube exists in our present.
Would you agree with that?
If not why?
added - take note, light exists in the entirety of distance between the sun and earth, all the free space contains light from point source to point source. A Quanta tunnel for vision, a coupling for sight between brain and object.
We observe spectral colour, a temporal distortion of free space light. We must have an infinite speed of sight? [\Quote]
You are not thinking mechanically. By mechanics we cannot view an image until the light reaches your eyes. Lets consider a detector. A detector does not view an object and cannot respond with a reading until the spectral event hits the detector itself. Lets use the sun again with the ability to blinking on and off. The sun is off then blinks on for a tenth of a second. The sun present and your present are physically separated by ~93 million miles. The sun is still moving away from the position where it blinked on and off. The light signal is rippling through space at about ~186,000 miles per second and a tenth of a light second long. The light reaches your detector and eyes about 8 minutes and 20 seconds later. The Earth moved and the sun moved from the position each occupied in that 8 seconds. So when you view an image it is no longer in the physical position it occupied when it blinked on then off.
Its no different than sound for your ears. Say there is a public speaker close to you and electronic speakers half a mile away. You hear the public speaker next to you and then hear the words from the electronic speakers half a mile away. Sound is not instantaneous and neither is light. Sound from a jet you tend to look behind where the jet is physically viewed and it may be about 3 physical inches forward of where it is viewed although the view is indistinguishable from actual position in space.
But I am thinking mechanics and have thought about the mechanics. You are still just repeating the present information and not considering new observation.
I understand everything you just said, take that into consideration.
However, let us use a sniper and bullet for trajectory.
We will define the vector of the bullet's travel as X
We will define a moving target that is moving left to right shown below by using the greater and less than symbols to define direction.
x=>>>>>>>>>>
Let us define X to be 1 mile
I will ask you to choose one of the below options.
1. The sniper aims to the left of the target
2. The sniper aims directly at the target
3. The sniper aims to the right of the target
-
Mass has momentum while light does not. So we cannot use a bullet to describe light. A photon is a wave of energy not a particle of mass.
-
Mass has momentum while light does not. So we cannot use a bullet to describe light. A photon is a wave of energy not a particle of mass.
ok we will avoid the bullets although bullets were going to show the relevance of trajectory.
Tell me Goc , when you look into the night sky and observe distant stars and planets, do you personally think that you see them in existing position or past position?
If the later, how do you explain the direct relevance of trajectory of photons from the sun to the earth, surely the trajectory path which is linear is off target by time the light arrives at earth? ( the earth has moved 8 minutes),
-
We view stars and galaxies in there past positions. We view trees in their past positions but light is so fast it is indistinguishable. Remember we measure by light. A measurement cannot be accurate if you measure with the thing you are measuring.
On to the relevance of trajectory. Photons are not part of mass in relativity. Virtual photons are hf as a sphere moving away from the sun. With the earth and sun moving, perpendicular vectors are not possible to view with light being independent of the source (postulate of relativity). So the vector of light hitting the earth from the sun leaves the sun in a forward vector to meet the position the earth will be in to receive the light from the sun. In the eight minutes and 20 seconds the light takes to reach the earth the sun has physically moved forward from its position when the light first left the sun. So we can never view an object where it physically occupies space and all objects are moving through space.
-
We view stars and galaxies in there past positions. We view trees in their past positions but light is so fast it is indistinguishable. Remember we measure by light. A measurement cannot be accurate if you measure with the thing you are measuring.
On to the relevance of trajectory. Photons are not part of mass in relativity. Virtual photons are hf as a sphere moving away from the sun. With the earth and sun moving, perpendicular vectors are not possible to view with light being independent of the source (postulate of relativity). So the vector of light hitting the earth from the sun leaves the sun in a forward vector to meet the position the earth will be in to receive the light from the sun. In the eight minutes and 20 seconds the light takes to reach the earth the sun has physically moved forward from its position when the light first left the sun. So we can never view an object where it physically occupies space and all objects are moving through space.
Why do you keep returning to the dogma and ignoring anything I mention?
Let us return to the tube between the earth and the sun, do you believe that the sun end of the tube is in the past? When quite clearly the tube was extended from the present on earth, yet you are suggesting the sun end of the tube has time travelled into the past and no longer in your present because of the time it takes light to travel back to your eyes from the sun end of the tube. When in observation we would observe the entirety of the tube at the same time in one 3d picture reference frame in our brain.
I will give you this in thought -
hold out your arms , left to the left and right to the right.
imagine at your left hand is the earth end of the tube, imagine at the right hand is the sun end of the tube, you will now see you in the present with the tube and either end of the tube is in your time.
-
thebox,
How would you describe color to a color blind person?
-
thebox,
How would you describe color to a color blind person?
I would first mention the difference of shapes , then I would go on to discuss brightness levels and the difference in levels. I would then explain to them that what they see black and white, is not necessarily black or white, other people see it to be colours and different like the shapes. I would then go on to explain how light works showing them the different wave lengths and explain they are colour blind.
Explain that we see differently and see colour.
But to describe colour itself, would be rather difficult, I would have to compare it some way to being different than just black or white.
Tough question I will sleep on it. ...
-
[quote/]I would first mention the difference of shapes ,[\quote]
All mass objects are in a different place than viewed. With speed we only view their past position.
[quote/][ then I would go on to discuss brightness levels and the difference in levels][\quote]
Since we only view an object from a past position the angle of view creates a contracted view. This in no way affects the physical size.
[quote/][ I would then explain to them that what they see black and white, is not necessarily black or white, other people see it to be colours and different like the shapes. ][\quote]
What we view is not necessarily where it exists. Other people see it through relativistic eye's and know the physical position is different from the physical view. No star is where we view it in the universe.
[quote/][I would then go on to explain how light works showing them the different wave lengths and explain they are colour blind. ][\quote]
A light image moves at the speed of light to reach your eyes. Your eyes do not go to the image at infinite speed. You are relativisticly blind.
[quote/][But to describe colour itself, would be rather difficult, I would have to compare it some way to being different than just black or white][\quote]
Light is like sound going through air at 760 miles per hour. When you hear the sound of an airplane you first look behind the actual position of the plane. The sound and the physical position seem to be disjointed. Understanding the nature of light is what relativity is about.
-
[quote/]I would first mention the difference of shapes ,[\quote]
All mass objects are in a different place than viewed. With speed we only view their past position.
[quote/][ then I would go on to discuss brightness levels and the difference in levels][\quote]
Since we only view an object from a past position the angle of view creates a contracted view. This in no way affects the physical size.
[quote/][ I would then explain to them that what they see black and white, is not necessarily black or white, other people see it to be colours and different like the shapes. ][\quote]
What we view is not necessarily where it exists. Other people see it through relativistic eye's and know the physical position is different from the physical view. No star is where we view it in the universe.
[quote/][I would then go on to explain how light works showing them the different wave lengths and explain they are colour blind. ][\quote]
A light image moves at the speed of light to reach your eyes. Your eyes do not go to the image at infinite speed. You are relativisticly blind.
[quote/][But to describe colour itself, would be rather difficult, I would have to compare it some way to being different than just black or white][\quote]
Light is like sound going through air at 760 miles per hour. When you hear the sound of an airplane you first look behind the actual position of the plane. The sound and the physical position seem to be disjointed. Understanding the nature of light is what relativity is about.
remove the / from the open quote, / only goes in end quote.
And of course you completely ignore the direct, very clear line of sight in your reply. ignoring the clarity of space itself will always return an incorrect answer or thought. WE can not ignore the very fact that space is see through and we can measure and observe objects in their exact geometrical position. It is very factual that we can observe the start of lights journey from A to B and the end of lights journey from A to B simultaneously in one reference frame of a visual picture in the brain. Because of this very fact WE must consider the infinite speed of sight and that the Universe is all at present, the now. How can it be possible to observe an object in it's past geometrical position when it is factual we see the object at the same time we can see ourselves?
Also you ignore the third observers ''clock'' , timing your events from A to B , observing you and the light from A to B.
Here you go , do all the time comparisons, stop thinking in 1d and 2d. - The diagram shows all observers observe each other at the same time.
No past or future exits , only the now exists and memories of past.
-
No past or future exits , only the now exists and memories of past.
I agree.
And of course you completely ignore the direct, very clear line of sight in your reply. ignoring the clarity of space itself will always return an incorrect answer or thought.
Clarity of space as you say allows the image to travel through space like air allows the sound wave Aether allows light waves.
It is very factual that we can observe the start of lights journey from A to B and the end of lights journey from A to B simultaneously in one reference frame of a visual picture in the brain. Because of this very fact WE must consider the infinite speed of sight and that the Universe is all at present, the now. How can it be possible to observe an object in it's past geometrical position when it is factual we see the object at the same time we can see ourselves?
You are trying to mix facts with your subjective opinion. If light were infinite speed and someone was standing in front of a building the image of the person the building could not be distinguishable. If all images reached you at the same time you would be object blind.
Also you ignore the third observers ''clock'' , timing your events from A to B , observing you and the light from A to B.
Here you go , do all the time comparisons, stop thinking in 1d and 2d. - The diagram shows all observers observe each other at the same time.
yes the image reaches you at your present. From their past because of the finite speed of light. The image observed present has moved from the viewed position when it reaches the observer. You are the one thinking in 3d when reality is 4d. The fourth dimension is c the very cause of motion itself and its view. c allows motion and carries the image of macro mass in our fractal environment. If you were the size of an electron you could not see walls as a density barrier. That's not even considering light would not be able to carry images to you because the proportional wave length would be to large.
Thanks for the quote instruction