0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
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?
You've yet to explain why it works the way it does in XYZ World.
Quote from: timey on 28/08/2016 00:30:43OK - 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.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Thebox on 28/08/2016 01:09:29An 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?
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.
The evidence was once everyone admitted the simultaneous sight by using the relationship of speed, distance and time.
photon a to b = 1.sphoton b to a = 1.sb travelling = 1.sAll 3 of these events happening simultaneously.
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.
No, there is no contradiction
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?
Quote from: Thebox on 29/08/2016 12:27:17Do 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 ?
Quote from: Colin2B on 29/08/2016 18:51:06Quote from: Thebox on 29/08/2016 12:27:17Do you agree that A and B both reflect light towards each other and the speed of the light is constant in either direction?YesDo you agree that both A and B are in the present ?
Quote from: Thebox on 29/08/2016 19:24:48Do you agree that both A and B are in the present ?No I don'tThe 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.
Quote from: Thebox on 29/08/2016 19:24:48Quote from: Colin2B on 29/08/2016 18:51:06Quote from: Thebox on 29/08/2016 12:27:17Do you agree that A and B both reflect light towards each other and the speed of the light is constant in either direction?YesDo 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!
Quote from: Thebox on 29/08/2016 19:24:48Do you agree that both A and B are in the present ?"in the present" needs very careful definition.
Quote from: Colin2B on 29/08/2016 22:46:51Quote from: Thebox on 29/08/2016 19:24:48Do you agree that both A and B are in the present ?No I don'tThe 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?