0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Nope. That's contradictory to basically all of physics.
Quote from: agyejy on 22/08/2016 16:05:56Nope. 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.
Quote from: Thebox on 22/08/2016 16:10:16Quote from: agyejy on 22/08/2016 16:05:56Nope. 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!
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.
Are you saying you dont see light in free space? You would be provable incorrect.
Quote from: Thebox on 22/08/2016 16:10:16oh, 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.QuoteBut 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.QuoteAre 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 .
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?
Quote from: Thebox on 22/08/2016 16:47:53Nasa 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?QuoteNo! 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.Quotep.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.
12.08The 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
Quote from: Thebox on 23/08/2016 09:43:3112.08The 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.Quote from: Thebox on 23/08/2016 09:43:31... 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. Quote from: Thebox on 23/08/2016 09:43:31... 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 minsYou 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.
Do you agree thus far?
Excellent question, but I doubt you will get an answer.
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 12amYou 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?
....going to cost you lots and lots of money when you want to speak to me.
Quote from: Thebox on 27/08/2016 08:01:25....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.
Quote from: Colin2B on 27/08/2016 09:19:21Quote from: Thebox on 27/08/2016 08:01:25....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/
Quote from: Thebox on 27/08/2016 13:40:22Quote from: Colin2B on 27/08/2016 09:19:21Quote from: Thebox on 27/08/2016 08:01:25....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."
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.
... 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. ...