0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
I can observe all the point sources simultaneously.
So my question is what in my brain allows me to ''see'' the past, the present and the future simultaneously?
Quote from: Thebox on 22/02/2016 09:03:27 I can observe all the point sources simultaneously. No you cant. You can observe the light from those sources in the present, but not the actual sources.Also you are very confused about past and future and distance. As seen from B, the light from both A and C originated in the past when it arrives at B.Quote from: Thebox on 22/02/2016 09:03:27So my question is what in my brain allows me to ''see'' the past, the present and the future simultaneously?Imagination
e.g If I am seeing the moon 5 minutes inits past, how can I be seeing the star 10 minutes in its past both in the present picture?
Because both lights reach your eyes at the same time, the present. That bit has nothing to do with the mind, it is just distance and time to travel.If 2 people are coming to visit you, they can travel different distances at the same speed and still arrive at your door at the same time. They just start at different times!
If the photons arrived at the same time, it would still show us a dilemma,
You say both photons reach your eyes at the same time, how is this even possible when clearly the lesser distance of the moon the photons will arrive in a much faster time than the photons from a distant star, the moon being a shorter length away from the earth than the distance stars.
Are you seriously trying to tell me you can't understand what is happening here???
if we see the moon e.g 5 minutes in its past and a star 10 minutes in its past at the same time in the same image
Forget photons and clear light and brains for a moment and answer me the following question based on your scenario:Quote from: Thebox on 22/02/2016 19:55:21 if we see the moon e.g 5 minutes in its past and a star 10 minutes in its past at the same time in the same image In this example, the light from the moon took 5min to travel from the moon to your eye, so that light must have left 5mins ago. So what you are seeing here on earth happened 5mins ago.In this example the star is twice as far away as the moon so the light took twice as long - 10mins - to travel twice the distance. So the light left the star 10mins ago and what you are seeing when it reaches you happened 10mins ago.We don't have to see single particles travelling between the moon and our eyes, we only need to see them when they arrive. They are being emitted continuously and arrive like the frames of a film.Question: do you understand this?
yes of course I understand that ,
Quote from: Thebox on 23/02/2016 00:45:22yes of course I understand that ,So why do you have a problem with this?:Quote from: Thebox on 22/02/2016 11:05:00e.g If I am seeing the moon 5 minutes inits past, how can I be seeing the star 10 minutes in its past both in the present picture?All we ever see is through light entering the eye, and the brain interpreting the image on the retina. But you can't change the fact that the light enters now even though it is showing you what happened in the past. So you don't see the light leaving the moon or star, you only see it arriving in your eye.That light is made up of billions of photons - corpuscles as Newton called them - just as a sea wave is made of water molecules. We no longer think of them as rigid, solid lumps, but of brief flashes of light energy.I appreciate that you have been working on your theory of clear light for a long time, but it is not light that is clear or opaque, but the substances it passes through.Darknes is not opaque because we can shine a torch through it. That torch light passses through the transparent (clear) air but if a fog rolls in the air becomes opaque. The light itself does not change it's nature, the substance it is passing through does.When light hits an opaque object it is either absorbed or reflected, it does not pass through. The light does not change from clear to opaque, it is the object which allows light to pass if the object is transparent, or not pass if the object is opaque. The light might change its frequency (colour) but its nature does not change. There is no difference between what you call clear and opaque light, they are the same.If you don't understand all of this then you are right, further discussion is pointless and I see no point in continuing.However, think about what I have said for the sake of your son and nephew.
A.........B..........C-100........0.........+100(at position) 0, the observer is travelling (at velocity) v=x towards the (point) +100 (future) away from the past ((point) -100).
if we see the moon e.g 5 minutes in its past and a star 10 minutes in its past
because I can't see individual photons, for me it just doesn't work, I do not see how it is possible that we see an object in its past when we can see the start and finish in our minds.
we don't directly see with our own eyes single particles travelling from A to B
you see in your head, ... how do we know there is anything outside of our head, a comparison to saying we don't observe space, its contradictory, Colin
Quote from: TheBox A.........B..........C-100........0.........+100(at position) 0, the observer is travelling (at velocity) v=x towards the (point) +100 (future) away from the past ((point) -100).Continuing Colin's comment, so we can understand...This diagram is showing position and distances.If the observer is sitting at point B (not changing position), he will be moving from the past into the future, at a speed of 1 second per second.Because of the finite speed of light, the observer at B will see light arriving from A showing events that happened in the past.Because A is just as far as C (100 units), the observer at B will see light arriving from C showing events that also happened in the past. C cannot be considered "the future".If the observer now starts traveling towards C, the observer is traveling in position. He continues traveling into the future at the same 1 second per second (provided his car isn't much faster than mine). The big difference as he moves towards C is that the light he sees from C is still showing events in the past, but not so far in the past as when he was at B. Similarly, because A is now further away, the events he sees from A will now be further in the past than when he was at B.It is essential to maintain a distinction between time and space, as they are independent dimensions. You can be traveling in time without traveling in space.However, the speed of light imposes a limit to how far you can be traveling in space while you are traveling in time.
Firstly you must recognise that when an observer is moving towards a light source , relatively to the observer the speed of light is faster.
Secondly you must consider an error in logic in only ever considering a one way trip and not accounting for the net difference of times
Quote from: Thebox on 23/02/2016 11:43:37Firstly you must recognise that when an observer is moving towards a light source , relatively to the observer the speed of light is faster. No, the speed of light is the same for all observersQuote from: Thebox on 23/02/2016 11:43:37Secondly you must consider an error in logic in only ever considering a one way trip and not accounting for the net difference of times The trips are independant, they do not cancel out.However, looking at you last post I am out.
The speed of light is not the same for all observers, it can be measured differently relative to motion and you already know that by the Keating experiment.
If you are moving towards an object and the object is moving towards you, the relativistic speeds are squared, E=mc˛.
Quote from: Thebox on 23/02/2016 12:27:57The speed of light is not the same for all observers, it can be measured differently relative to motion and you already know that by the Keating experiment. No the Keating experiment does not show that.Any observer at rest in an inertial frame of reference will measure the speed of light as a constant. So that includes 2 non accelerating observers moving towards each other. Quote from: Thebox on 23/02/2016 12:27:57If you are moving towards an object and the object is moving towards you, the relativistic speeds are squared, E=mc˛.No.Closing speed = I do understand what you are saying and your understanding of light and time is mistaken.The reason I say I'm out is that I'm happy to discuss science, I'm happy to discuss well thought out new theories, but I don't want to discuss fantasy.
Ask yourself this Colin, why are you pretending you don't understand, orders?
you - ''All we ever see is through light entering the eye ''Consider your own words of through, ask yourself why do you say ''through.''
And until you shine a torch through it , it is ''visually-opaque'' is it not?
added - let us imagine (lol) you had a single photon and I had a single photon in the dark. We released them at the same time in the direction of each others eye, when you receive the photon , you see me, when I receive the photon I see you . Now do you see?
OK, I'm just going to give some examples of why continuing this discussion is pointless, too much disconnect.Quote from: Thebox on 23/02/2016 10:45:52you - ''All we ever see is through light entering the eye ''Consider your own words of through, ask yourself why do you say ''through.''I used 'through' with the meaning of 'because of' or 'due to'Although we are immersed in light, it is only that light entering the eye and focussed onto the retina by the lens that gives us the image we see. Light from eg behind goes straight past and does not give us an image.Quote from: Thebox on 23/02/2016 10:45:52And until you shine a torch through it , it is ''visually-opaque'' is it not?No it is not. It is just a lack of light entering my eye.Quote from: Thebox on 23/02/2016 11:43:37added - let us imagine (lol) you had a single photon and I had a single photon in the dark. We released them at the same time in the direction of each others eye, when you receive the photon , you see me, when I receive the photon I see you . Now do you see? This is just what we've been trying to tell you, but think..If I were on the moon (5mins light travel away you say) my photon arrives with you and you say "Ah, he is standing on that rock", however, that was 5 mins ago, I have moved and am now hiding behind the rock, but you won't know this for another 5 mins. So you are only seeing what was happening 5 mins ago.Now do you understand why our 2 views of what is happening are not reconcilable and further discussion is pointless.
I have quoted from another forum a better explanation from a mod. ''Suppose you and I stand still on a road, 30 metres apart. The fastest signal of any kind that can travel between us will take 100 nanoseconds to travel from you to me or vice versa.If I wave my hand at you, you'll see that wave 100 ns later. If you wave your hand at me, I'll see your wave 100 ns later. So, you are seeing my waving hand as it was 100 ns in the past, and I am seeing your waving hand as it was 100 ns in the past.If we both happen to wave our hands at each other at the same time, then we'll both see the other person wave 100 ns after it actually happens, but we'll both see the waves simultaneously.''