0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Repeating back the present information is not going to answer my query of that information. A and B see each other at the same time, simultaneously, is anyone saying they don't?
Quote from: pzkpfw on 21/08/2016 21:17:04Are you happier with the speed of sound?Let's say you and a friend are on the Olympic (see, topical!) 100m track at opposite ends. Someone at the 50m mark (exactly between you) raises their hand. When you and your friend see that raised hand you both shout very loudly.Excluding wind, temperature etc, you and your friend will hear each other at the "same time". But ... clearly, due to the speed of sound, you'll be hearing each other some time after you each shouted.In your style, that means you are hearing each other in the "past". (From about 0.29 seconds ago).Is that any kind of problem?we are doing light not sound, My diagram clearly shows it, can people not read diagrams?
Are you happier with the speed of sound?Let's say you and a friend are on the Olympic (see, topical!) 100m track at opposite ends. Someone at the 50m mark (exactly between you) raises their hand. When you and your friend see that raised hand you both shout very loudly.Excluding wind, temperature etc, you and your friend will hear each other at the "same time". But ... clearly, due to the speed of sound, you'll be hearing each other some time after you each shouted.In your style, that means you are hearing each other in the "past". (From about 0.29 seconds ago).Is that any kind of problem?
Quote from: Thebox on 21/08/2016 21:59:12Quote from: pzkpfw on 21/08/2016 21:17:04Are you happier with the speed of sound?Let's say you and a friend are on the Olympic (see, topical!) 100m track at opposite ends. Someone at the 50m mark (exactly between you) raises their hand. When you and your friend see that raised hand you both shout very loudly.Excluding wind, temperature etc, you and your friend will hear each other at the "same time". But ... clearly, due to the speed of sound, you'll be hearing each other some time after you each shouted.In your style, that means you are hearing each other in the "past". (From about 0.29 seconds ago).Is that any kind of problem?we are doing light not sound, My diagram clearly shows it, can people not read diagrams?Nice evasion, are you afraid of the answer?(I know that this is going to go down the path where you think light is different to sound, in that vison is "instant" once there's light between observer and object, but I think it's useful to the readers of this thread to see that in your words).
Quote from: Thebox on 21/08/2016 22:11:43Repeating back the present information is not going to answer my query of that information. A and B see each other at the same time, simultaneously, is anyone saying they don't?It's a little awkward that you keep changing the scenarios, but yes (assuming a few things), they each see each other from 6:08:00, at 6:08:01.(This refers to your post #5).
Quote from: pzkpfw on 21/08/2016 22:16:40Quote from: Thebox on 21/08/2016 22:11:43Repeating back the present information is not going to answer my query of that information. A and B see each other at the same time, simultaneously, is anyone saying they don't?It's a little awkward that you keep changing the scenarios, but yes (assuming a few things), they each see each other from 6:08:00, at 6:08:01.(This refers to your post #5).Yes exactly, they both see each other at 6:08:01. They see each other simultaneously do they not?
Quote from: Thebox on 21/08/2016 22:26:37Quote from: pzkpfw on 21/08/2016 22:16:40Quote from: Thebox on 21/08/2016 22:11:43Repeating back the present information is not going to answer my query of that information. A and B see each other at the same time, simultaneously, is anyone saying they don't?It's a little awkward that you keep changing the scenarios, but yes (assuming a few things), they each see each other from 6:08:00, at 6:08:01.(This refers to your post #5).Yes exactly, they both see each other at 6:08:01. They see each other simultaneously do they not?I've already answered. What more do you want? (I'd guess you want a simpler less precise answer, so you can extract a "gotcha". I won't give you that).Assuming a few things, such as A and B being at rest with respect to each other, then yes they will see each other at the "same time". But of course, because of the finite speed of light, they will be seeing each other as of a little time ago, in this case, they see each other at 6:08:01, but what they see, is each other as at 6:08:00.Quite simple.
Quote from: pzkpfw on 21/08/2016 22:37:12I've already answered. What more do you want? (I'd guess you want a simpler less precise answer, so you can extract a "gotcha". I won't give you that).Assuming a few things, such as A and B being at rest with respect to each other, then yes they will see each other at the "same time". But of course, because of the finite speed of light, they will be seeing each other as of a little time ago, in this case, they see each other at 6:08:01, but what they see, is each other as at 6:08:00.Quite simple.It is not so simple, I have not finished , So in respect to A and B if we was to expand the length apart to lets say 5 light seconds, would this affect A and B seeing each other simultaneously?
I've already answered. What more do you want? (I'd guess you want a simpler less precise answer, so you can extract a "gotcha". I won't give you that).Assuming a few things, such as A and B being at rest with respect to each other, then yes they will see each other at the "same time". But of course, because of the finite speed of light, they will be seeing each other as of a little time ago, in this case, they see each other at 6:08:01, but what they see, is each other as at 6:08:00.Quite simple.
Quote from: Thebox on 21/08/2016 22:43:40Quote from: pzkpfw on 21/08/2016 22:37:12I've already answered. What more do you want? (I'd guess you want a simpler less precise answer, so you can extract a "gotcha". I won't give you that).Assuming a few things, such as A and B being at rest with respect to each other, then yes they will see each other at the "same time". But of course, because of the finite speed of light, they will be seeing each other as of a little time ago, in this case, they see each other at 6:08:01, but what they see, is each other as at 6:08:00.Quite simple.It is not so simple, I have not finished , So in respect to A and B if we was to expand the length apart to lets say 5 light seconds, would this affect A and B seeing each other simultaneously?Once they stopped moving, so are at rest with regard to each other, then more or less, no. But now they'd being seeing each other as at 5 seconds ago.
Quote from: pzkpfw on 21/08/2016 23:10:08Quote from: Thebox on 21/08/2016 22:43:40Quote from: pzkpfw on 21/08/2016 22:37:12I've already answered. What more do you want? (I'd guess you want a simpler less precise answer, so you can extract a "gotcha". I won't give you that).Assuming a few things, such as A and B being at rest with respect to each other, then yes they will see each other at the "same time". But of course, because of the finite speed of light, they will be seeing each other as of a little time ago, in this case, they see each other at 6:08:01, but what they see, is each other as at 6:08:00.Quite simple.It is not so simple, I have not finished , So in respect to A and B if we was to expand the length apart to lets say 5 light seconds, would this affect A and B seeing each other simultaneously?Once they stopped moving, so are at rest with regard to each other, then more or less, no. But now they'd being seeing each other as at 5 seconds ago.Ok so far , you seem to understand me. So in respect to A and B if we expanded the distance 480 light seconds apart , would this affect them seeing each other simultaneously?
Ok so far , you seem to understand me.
Quote from: Colin2B on 21/08/2016 20:13:172 people are 8 light minutes apart. At exactly 1200 they both wave their arms once. The light from these events travels to the 2 people and at 1208 they both see the other wave their arms even though they have not waved their arms for the last 8 minutes. They are seeing now (1208) what happened in the past (1200)., if you see me at 12.08 and I see you at 12.08 , we are seeing each other at the same time.
2 people are 8 light minutes apart. At exactly 1200 they both wave their arms once. The light from these events travels to the 2 people and at 1208 they both see the other wave their arms even though they have not waved their arms for the last 8 minutes. They are seeing now (1208) what happened in the past (1200).
No one ever sees an actual event but merely the photons that reflect off the object(s) in said event. These photons take a finite amount of time to reach the eye so all visual interpretation of an event is after the event has happened. Now then Thebox. This is accepted by all sensible physicists. This conversation may be terminated prematurely unless you stop playing games. Understood?
Quote from: Thebox on 21/08/2016 23:13:25Ok so far , you seem to understand me. Yes Mr. Box, we all understand you. The problem is that you do not understand us nor much about Relativity.I'd recommend that you try reading up on what the "experts" have to say about this matter and try for once to accept the scientific facts without trying to invent some new and novel way of understanding reality. You will discover that your new ideas are flawed. Once you learn this, you may have a chance to begin learning the truth about these matters. If you don't, and continue to accuse everyone else of being wrong, you'll never, I repeat, NEVER advance your personal understanding any degree what-so-ever. Enough said.................................................
Quote from: Thebox on 21/08/2016 23:13:25Quote from: pzkpfw on 21/08/2016 23:10:08Quote from: Thebox on 21/08/2016 22:43:40Quote from: pzkpfw on 21/08/2016 22:37:12I've already answered. What more do you want? (I'd guess you want a simpler less precise answer, so you can extract a "gotcha". I won't give you that).Assuming a few things, such as A and B being at rest with respect to each other, then yes they will see each other at the "same time". But of course, because of the finite speed of light, they will be seeing each other as of a little time ago, in this case, they see each other at 6:08:01, but what they see, is each other as at 6:08:00.Quite simple.It is not so simple, I have not finished , So in respect to A and B if we was to expand the length apart to lets say 5 light seconds, would this affect A and B seeing each other simultaneously?Once they stopped moving, so are at rest with regard to each other, then more or less, no. But now they'd being seeing each other as at 5 seconds ago.Ok so far , you seem to understand me. So in respect to A and B if we expanded the distance 480 light seconds apart , would this affect them seeing each other simultaneously?Nope. (Assuming they stay at rest with respect to each other.)e.g. if they had previously synchronised their clocks, and both waved at 10:00, they would both see each other do that thing at 10:08.(Or, in your post #5 scenario, modified by this new criteria where A and B are also 8 light minutes apart: the sun rises at 6:00 and its rays hit them both at 6:08. They see each other at 6:16.)
Finally at 1208 the rocket arrives at B and emits final flash, this flash along with the light reflected from the rocket (its image) arrives at A at 1216.Whether you accept reality or not, this is the way it works. Live with it.
A sees (the image of) rocket arrival at 12:16. In the image the B clock reads 12:08.
Thank you , in short if I was on the Sun and you was on Earth we would both see each other simultaneously?
If the rocket in post 1 travelled to the Sun they would observe each other simultaneously throughout the journey?
If the rocket leaves earth at 12 and arrives at 12:08 at the sun and the entire journey has been observed simultaneously , what time does the person on Earth see the rocket arriving at the SUN?
I revert to Colins earlier postQuoteFinally at 1208 the rocket arrives at B and emits final flash, this flash along with the light reflected from the rocket (its image) arrives at A at 1216.Whether you accept reality or not, this is the way it works. Live with it. and Phyti's postQuoteA sees (the image of) rocket arrival at 12:16. In the image the B clock reads 12:08.This is the contradiction I mention.
Quote from: Thebox on 22/08/2016 09:46:02Thank you , in short if I was on the Sun and you was on Earth we would both see each other simultaneously?Given the scenario that we are "at rest" with each other, yes. But don't forget the delay; as consistently noted in my previous few posts and which you've not objected to. What's "simultaneous" is not our actions and the other seeing them - there's an 8 minute delay caused by the distance and the speed of light. We're seeing each other as at 8 minutes ago. So we both see each others "simultaneous 12:08 event", at the "simultaneous" time of 12:16.Quote from: Thebox on 22/08/2016 09:46:02If the rocket in post 1 travelled to the Sun they would observe each other simultaneously throughout the journey?Yes, but again, be careful about what's "simultaneous". The delay between actions at one end (rocket or Sun) and the other observer (Sun or rocket) seeing them gets smaller and smaller. It goes from 8 minutes, to zero. (Reverse for an observer who stays on Earth and watches the rocket).a. When the rocket is a quarter of the way from Earth to Sun, events on the rocket are seen after six minutes on the Sun, and events on the Sun are seen after six minutes by the rocket.b. When the rocket is half way from Earth to Sun, events on the rocket are seen after four minutes, at both Earth and Sun, and events on Earth and Sun are seen after four minutes by the rocket.c. When the rocket is three quarters of the way from Earth to Sun, events on the rocket are seen after two minutes, at the Sun, and events on the Sun are seen after two minutes by the rocket.d. When the rocket is all the way to the Sun, events on the rocket are seen immediately, at the Sun, and events on the Sun are seen immediately by the rocket.(Well, since the rocket keeps moving, none of that is quite accurate, but close enough).(And ... we're ignoring relativity here, the very notion of "simultaneous" doesn't really work for objects in relative motion.)The main point is: at any given point along the path, the distance from rocket to Sun equals the distance from Sun to rocket, so each will have the same delay between event on one and the other seeing that event. That is what is "simultaneous". The delay caused by travel of light means that what is not simultaneous, is event and seeing that event.Quote from: Thebox on 22/08/2016 09:46:02If the rocket leaves earth at 12 and arrives at 12:08 at the sun and the entire journey has been observed simultaneously , what time does the person on Earth see the rocket arriving at the SUN?Let's say a clock on the Sun had previously been synchronised with a clock on Earth, and the Earth observer was watching that clock as the rocket approached the Sun. They'd certainly see that when the rocket reached the Sun, it was 12:08 by that clock; but they'd not see the clock showing that 12:08 until their own clock was showing 12:16. Because it takes 8 minutes for the light showing that event to get to Earth.That "the entire journey has been observed simultaneously" does not remove the delay caused by the speed of light. It simply means that the delay will be seen to increase, from zero minutes to eight minutes, as the rocket gets further away.Imagine that clock on the Sun was an LED clock. When the clock changes from 12:07 to 12:08, new segments on the last digit have to light to show an "8" where it previously showed "7". Think of those segments as providing new beams of light whose "tips" have to travel to reach you.Quote from: Thebox on 22/08/2016 09:46:02I revert to Colins earlier postQuoteFinally at 1208 the rocket arrives at B and emits final flash, this flash along with the light reflected from the rocket (its image) arrives at A at 1216.Whether you accept reality or not, this is the way it works. Live with it. and Phyti's postQuoteA sees (the image of) rocket arrival at 12:16. In the image the B clock reads 12:08.This is the contradiction I mention.They are both correct, and it does not contradict what I've been writing. You keep ignoring the time it takes light to travel. It's all perfectly consistent. You need to keep in mind what is synchronous with what.It's like you're agreeing that Apples are synchronous, but then saying that means Oranges are synchronous.
We can see light that as not entered our eyes.
Quote from: Thebox on 22/08/2016 15:16:26We can see light that as not entered our eyes.Demonstrably false.But let's not get into that. You know that radio waves are the same as visible light, yes? Then according to you two way communication using radio between the Earth and the Martian rovers shouldn't have a delay.So are NASA scientists stupid or lying just to make you look bad?
Of course there is a delay when the signal is entering a medium and slows down, I know light travels, that is not my argument.
We can see light that as not entered our eyes, demonstrable true.