0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Consider the light from an object takes the same time to reach an observer as the observers light to reach the object being observed, there is no time discrepancy. The position is fixed to each other .
Quote from: GoC on 24/12/2015 21:49:51Relative time is the same. You view revolutions in relative time of course but the image takes light years to get here. A recording through time.I don't agree . The physics would be all wrong when considering trajectories etc. Consider the light from an object takes the same time to reach an observer as the observers light to reach the object being observed, there is no time discrepancy. The position is fixed to each other .
Relative time is the same. You view revolutions in relative time of course but the image takes light years to get here. A recording through time.
The very fact that light takes time to travel means we don't see objects in their local time. In the other direction they don't see us in our local time either. This is just the same as the time taken for sound to travel, we don't hear in local time either.What you are forgetting for air rifles is that the speed of light is so fast and the distance so short that we can ignore the delay. Over space distances we can't.
The present is where we live and when you view an image it was from the past.
You do not see through anything. An image reaches your brain when it hits your eye. When you look at a tree the image comes to you, you do not see through space. A close image comes to you before a image at a further distance. The longer distance is further in the past. You do not see clear, your image is unobstructed.
Photoreceptors in the eye detect waves of a certain frequency range. How waves are transferred through space through is unknown but mass is required to create the waves. If mass is energy than photon virtual particles with a tail. If energy (dark mass energy) is the source of the transfer than it is a wave range of particles where the particles stay but continue the ripple through space. Both would be energy transfer.Either way light cannot be created without mass. Even virtual photons would lose mass from the proton which we do not measure so which is more likely?
Photo-receptors in the eye detect wave-lengths of a constant spectral nature ''through'' the coupling of a variable wave-length of the clear (white light). White light is not a mixture of frequencies, white light is a variable wave length. Spectral constants a temporal interference pattern of the variable y-axis. Space is transparent , this allows also ''transparent'' to sight. (allows sight to pass through). Anything that is transparent allows light to pass through and also allows sight to pass through.
You have some strange ideas..I like that. Not saying I agree with them, but I like the thinking outside "Thebox".Still pretty strange though... Hard to wrap understanding around...
Quote from: Space Flow on 31/12/2015 10:18:44You have some strange ideas..I like that. Not saying I agree with them, but I like the thinking outside "Thebox".Still pretty strange though... Hard to wrap understanding around...I only understand it because it is my own idea, I understand it is hard to imagine or vision, if you can imagine being submerged in an ocean, then water is touching your eye ball, if the water was clear, you could see objects ''through'' the water, the water is transparent to sight and light. The water would be touching your eye ball and touching the object, a coupling between your eye and the object. So then advance on that thought and rise above the water into relative space, space touches your eye ball and touches the object , relative to you it is space that is coupling your sight to an object by noticing something of solidity in a vast of ''convertual'' stuff
An image only couples to your eye when the image reaches your eye and your brain creates the image. The image moves to you. In space where there is no light your photo receptors are not engaged and remain blank. Nothing reaches out from your eye to couple. Its Relativity of simultaneity.