[guest39538]

Hello, I was a bit unsure of the title but will explain the question.


What mechanism/process of the mind allows me to ''see'' the past, the present and the future simultaneously?

In example I will create a scenario so you understand the question.


We will look at 3 distances,   

A=-100 mile
B=0 mile
C=+100 mile


A.........B..........C


or

-100........0.........+100


Photons take an amount of time to travel, so let us say just for the scenario , the light from C takes 10 minutes to arrive at B, and vice versus. So we are observing C in its past.



0, the observer is travelling v=x towards the +100 (future) away from the past (-100).


Now the problem is. my embodied experience is that I can observe C from B and I can also observe A from B, or likewise from A,B or C 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?

[Colin2B]

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.

So my question is what in my brain allows me to ''see'' the past, the present and the future simultaneously?

Imagination

[guest39538]

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.

So my question is what in my brain allows me to ''see'' the past, the present and the future simultaneously?

Imagination

Yes we observe the light from all three point sources in the present, I have not said otherwise, but our embodied experience of the picture formed in our brain, all three point sources are present in the picture.   

So if we can see the moon and a star further than the moon at the same time in the picture, and the light takes different times to arrive from the moon and star, how can they be in the same picture when they are in different pasts. 

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?

[Colin2B]

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!

[guest39538]

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!

You say it is nothing to do with the mind, I must disagree Colin you know very well our sight cortex is at the back of the skull and the images we process, we process in the brain . You say it is just distance and time to travel, but the distance you perceive is in your brain.  How do you really know that anything is really travelling anywhere when it could be a perception of the brain.
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.

If the photons arrived at the same time, it would still show us a dilemma,  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 our brain, don't you think something is a little contradictory in the information somewhere?

[Colin2B]

If the photons arrived at the same time, it would still show us a dilemma, 

It doesn't show me any dilemma, it is blatantly obvious

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???

[guest39538]

Are you seriously trying to tell me you can't understand what is happening here???

Well yes , 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.   The comparison of saying we see an object in the past, is like saying there is no other photons between you and what you are observing, then science replies , well you see in your head, so if we see in our head, how do we know there is anything outside of our head, a comparison to saying we don't observe space, its contradictory Colin, we don't directly see with our own eyes single particles travelling from A to B, that is why the idea of seeing things in their past fails.
I can explain it as many ways as you like, but when nobody is listening what is the point, I may as well give up.

About 6 years I have been thinking about the clear light and the why's of it .

[Colin2B]

Forget photons and clear light and brains for a moment and answer me the following question based on your scenario:

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?

[guest39538]

Forget photons and clear light and brains for a moment and answer me the following question based on your scenario:

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 ,

[Colin2B]

yes of course I understand that ,

So why do you have a problem with this?:

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?

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.

[guest39538]

yes of course I understand that ,

So why do you have a problem with this?:

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?

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.

Thank you Colin, a much better talk, not so robotic, your own words which I appreciate. Consider your own words what you have just said, once you realise it all makes sense.


''yes of course I understand that ',

you - ''So why do you have a problem with this?:''

Because the photons don't need to hit you in the eye when they are already in your eye because we are submerged in an ocean of light.  Consider being underwater and turning your head, the water is already there, it is already past your eyes. It is not travelling relative to you.


you - ''All we ever see is through light entering the eye  ''

Consider your own words of through, ask yourself why do you say ''through.''



you - ''Darkness is not opaque because we can shine a torch through it'' 


And until you shine a torch through it , it is ''visually-opaque'' is it not?

You can't perceive distance, the dark space relatively ''contracts'' to your perception.

Turn the light on it expands the perception you observe.


Imagine the ''invisible man'' travelling a journey from the sun to earth, we can see him every step of the way.

added- or imagine being eaten by the ''invisible man'' and you are in his belly.


p.s  what colour is air?

[evan_au]

   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.

if we see the moon e.g 5 minutes in its past and a star 10 minutes in its past

After sorting out a few little things like the difference between time and space, now lets sort out some orders of magnitude of our galactic neighborhood:
- The Moon (which is also a moon) is 384,000 km away from the Earth. Light travels 300,000 km/sec, so light from the moon arrives in 1.27 seconds. Lets call it 1 second for simplicity (not 5 minutes).
- The Sun (which is also a star) is 150,000,000 km away from Earth. Light takes about 8.3 minutes to reach us. Lets call it 10 minutes for simplicity.
- The nearest star to Earth (in the Alpha Centauri system) is about 4.25 light-years from Earth. Light takes 4.25 years to reach us (not 10 minutes).
- Betelgeuse is one of the brightest stars in the sky; it takes light about 640 years to reach us (not 10 minutes).

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.

On a Moonlit night, light reflected from the Moon 1 second ago hits our eye at the same time as light emitted by Betelgeuse about 640 years ago.

This is not just one photon we see - these are bright objects, and they provide a steady stream of photons striking our eyes, providing a clear, steady image of the star (small) and Moon (big).

It takes our brain approximately 300 ms to process the photons striking our eyes - the same for the Moon and Betelgeuse. So we simultaneously see the Moon from 1 second ago, and Betelgeuse from 640 years ago.

we don't directly see with our own eyes single particles travelling from A to B

No, we only see with our eyes a stream of particles striking our retina (and 300ms later impacting our conscious mind).

Those particles that are still in transit are invisible to us; those that left Betelgeuse 100 years ago won't arrive at Earth for hundreds of years; nobody reading this post today has a reasonable expectation of seeing them with their own eyes.

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

Your brain does have to make sense of the world outside our skull. The first weeks and months of life are spent with your brain trying to make sense of the visual world.

As we grow older, we make sense of more things, like things in the sky (except most kids today can only see a few stars in the sky, and they hardly look at them).

For people a few centuries ago, all the stars were fixed on a big sphere which surrounded the Earth, and rotated once in 24 hours (plus or minus a few minutes). The Sun, Moon and Planets were on other spheres that circled the Earth at different speeds. That is what they were taught, and that is how they saw the sky.

Today, we know that stars are at widely varying distances, and we know that light has a limited speed. We know that the Earth circles the Sun, as do the other planets. We know that when we see these things in the sky, we are seeing events that happened at various times in the past. That is what we were (or should have been) taught, and that is how we should see the sky.

In the year 2300, if some future generation has access to Star-Trek style interstellar travel, they will visit these planets and stars, or will experience them at home in their 3D Holodeck. They will see and experience the heavens in a very different way from us, as a 3D stellar volume, rather than a 2D map of the constellations.

How you see the sky depends on the models in your brain. So sorting out the distinction between the dimensions of time and space seems like a good place to start in enhancing your mental models.

[guest39538]

   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.

Thank you for your thoughtful reply, I have broke it down and will start with the above.


Firstly you  must recognise that when an observer is moving towards a light source , relatively to the observer the speed of light is faster.   You have to account for your own speed.  I.e if two cars smash at 40 mph relatively to each other they were doing 80 mph.   The length between them closes faster if both bodies are in motion .

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 and also instead of a third person perspective, you have to be the 1st person view perspective and be the observer in motion.


Let me explain my version of the positions and relative motion you just discussed.


''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.''

From a third person perspective yes, from the first person perspective no, relative to the observer there is no future or past, the observer always remains and observes the ''now'' of 0, yes we can call it the past, because anything after 0 is the past , relative to the observer 0 always moves forward never over taking the future remaining at 0  ''recording'' the 0 to create a past.


''Because of the finite speed of light, the observer at B will see light arriving from A showing events that happened in the past.''

With our eyes and brain, we do not ''see'' light propagating through space as moving , we observe it as if ''stationary'' , we do not observe light arriving as if observing a train pulling into a station. We ''imagine'' single photons, we do not directly ''see'' single photons, most of Einstein's work, he says. ''let us imagine''.
My solution is , let us not imagine , let us look at the facts of observation which is what I do. The observer at 'A' will also see the light from 'B' showing events that happened in the past, cancelling out the apparent viewing of the past by the net difference being 0 between the two journeys of both of the photons either direction. 

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?


  Will do more in a bit thanks..

a bit more -


''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.''


Observer B , observes A and C simultaneous , either direction in motion will be observers B , ''future'' geometrical position,  the position of B will then become Observer B's past geometrical position. The past and present travel with observer B the future is never reached. B zero approaches A zero or C zero, and this is what science fails to recognise in my opinion.

added -
''No, we only see with our eyes a stream of particles striking our retina (and 300ms later impacting our conscious mind).

Those particles that are still in transit are invisible to us; those that left Betelgeuse 100 years ago won't arrive at Earth for hundreds of years; nobody reading this post today has a reasonable expectation of seeing them with their own eyes.''


Contradictory, we either see a stream a particles or we see invisible, it can't be both, do you actually mean to say, our eyes detect a stream of particles that we see as invisible while propagating through space?

[Colin2B]

Firstly 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 observers

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

The trips are independant, they do not cancel out.

However, looking at you last post I am out.

[guest39538]

Firstly 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 observers

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

The trips are independant, they do not cancel out.

However, looking at you last post I am out.

Then I suggest you are not really thinking about what I have just said Colin, I wish you would not keep saying you are out just because you don't yet understand it, I have not understood science for several year according to science, but do I pull out when the going gets tough?  no , I stand with pride learning off you as much as you should be learning about my ideas and considering what I said. 

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.

However relativistic motion and velocity also play a role in light, i.e the doppler effect.

If you are moving towards an object and the object is moving towards you, the relativistic speeds are squared,  E=mc².


You are really not considering F=ma and two  moving bodies create twice the force compared to a falling object to an inertial reference frame.

[guest39538]

I cant make it any clearer than this

[Colin2B]

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.

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. 

If you are moving towards an object and the object is moving towards you, the relativistic speeds are squared,  E=mc².

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.

[guest39538]

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.

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. 

If you are moving towards an object and the object is moving towards you, the relativistic speeds are squared,  E=mc².

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.

It is rude of you to say it is fantasy Colin when I am using axioms and  now even vector analysis.  If you understood me , you would understand that I am not mistaken so logically you still don't understand . 

Ask yourself this Colin, why are you pretending you don't understand, orders?

[Colin2B]

Ask yourself this Colin, why are you pretending you don't understand, orders?

Now that really is fantasy. So I'm defintely out.

PS you are not using axioms

[Colin2B]

OK, I'm just going to give some examples of why continuing this discussion is pointless, too much disconnect.

you - ''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.

And 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.

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? 

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.