Do We See A Train Arrive That Arrived 8 Minutes Earlier?

[xyz]

No, the point is that at 10 feet the delay is small, so it seems simultaneous.

 

But in any case, how does that explain the case where the distance is 8 light minutes?

There is no delay, the speed of light is constant so the simultaneous between nose and nose remains simultaneous. It doesn't matter if the distance were 10 light year away, the observers still see each other simultaneously because of c and Photons are travelling both directions. 

[pzkpfw]

Sure, the speed of light is constant, and "Photons are travelling both directions", so they'll be seeing each other at the same time as each other, but that doesn't mean they'll see things instantly over distance.

 

An event occurs at A, light travels to B, B sees the event at A.

An event occurs at B, light travels to A, A sees the event at B.

 

If the events at A and B occurred at the "same time", I totally agree that B and A will see the events at "the same time" as each other. (Given certain preconditions).

 

But that fails to explain away the delay caused by the time taken for light to travel from A to B and B to A. How does that fact that A and B are bother observing each other, take away that delay?

 

In more detail:

An event occurs at A (at 9:00:00), light travels (over a 1 light second distance) to B, B sees the event at A (at 9:00:01).

An event occurs at B (at 9:00:00), light travels (over a 1 light second distance) to A, A sees the event at B (at 9:00:01).

 

i.e. the two red numbers are the same, the two blue numbers are the same, but why do you think the red and blue numbers should be the same?

 

 

If you and I both throw balls at each other, and both catch those balls, does that somehow make the balls travel instantly between us? Light (vis relativity) does give us some pretty amazing things in this Universe, but what specifically about light do you think makes it different to those two balls?

Edited August 27, 2016 by pzkpfw

[xyz]

Sure, the speed of light is constant, and "Photons are travelling both directions", so they'll be seeing each other at the same time as each other, but that doesn't mean they'll see things instantly over distance.

 

An event occurs at A, light travels to B, B sees the event at A.

An event occurs at B, light travels to A, A sees the event at B.

 

If the events at A and B occurred at the "same time", I totally agree that B and A will see the events at "the same time" as each other. (Given certain preconditions).

 

But that fails to explain away the delay caused by the time taken for light to travel from A to B and B to A. How does that fact that A and B are bother observing each other, take away that delay?

 

In more detail:

An event occurs at A (at 9:00:00), light travels (over a 1 light second distance) to B, B sees the event at A (at 9:00:01).

An event occurs at B (at 9:00:00), light travels (over a 1 light second distance) to A, A sees the event at B (at 9:00:01).

 

i.e. the two red numbers are the same, the two blue numbers are the same, but why do you think the red and blue numbers should be the same?

 

 

If you and I both throw balls at each other, and both catch those balls, does that somehow make the balls travel instantly between us? Light (vis relativity) does give us some pretty amazing things in this Universe, but what specifically about light do you think makes it different to those two balls?

I do  understand your argument believe me , I believe the contradiction is ''spooky'' , 

 

An event occurs at A (at 9:00:00), light travels (over a 1 light second distance) to B, B sees the event at A (at 9:00:01).

An event occurs at B (at 9:00:00), light travels (over a 1 light second distance) to A, A sees the event at B (at 9:00:01).

 

Yes and yes I agree 

 

but.....................................

 

 

Remove the 1 light second distance and then expand the radius between observers and account for the simultaneous you have agreed with. 

 

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).

Edited August 27, 2016 by xyz

[pzkpfw]

... Remove the 1 light second distance and then expand the radius between observers and account for the simultaneous you have agreed with.

Yes, at zero distance, the blue number equals the red number; light travels zero distance, in zero time. That's fine.

 

But you don't explain why the time remains zero when the distance is increased.

 

This is basically back to what I once described as your "magic ribbon" view of light. You seem to think there's some weird connection between two observers along which vision can act instantly, even though you acknowledge that light takes time to travel.

 

You make no sense.

 

Real World:

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).

 

An event occurs at A (at 9:00:00), light travels (over a 1 light second distance) to B, B sees the event at A (at 9:00:01).

An event occurs at B (at 9:00:00), light travels (over a 1 light second distance) to A, A sees the event at B (at 9:00:01).

 

An event occurs at A (at 9:00:00), light travels (over a 2 light second distance) to B, B sees the event at A (at 9:00:02).

An event occurs at B (at 9:00:00), light travels (over a 2 light second distance) to A, A sees the event at B (at 9:00:02).

 

XYZ World:

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).

 

An event occurs at A (at 9:00:00), light travels (over a 1 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 1 light second distance) to A, A sees the event at B (at 9:00:00).

 

An event occurs at A (at 9:00:00), light travels (over a 2 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 2 light second distance) to A, A sees the event at B (at 9:00:00).

 

Why? What is this magic ribbon made of?

Edited August 27, 2016 by pzkpfw

[xyz]

Yes, at zero distance, the blue number equals the red number; light travels zero distance, in zero time. That's fine.

 

But you don't explain why the time remains zero when the distance is increased.

 

This is basically back to what I once described as your "magic ribbon" view of light. You seem to think there's some weird connection between two observers along which vision can act instantly, even though you acknowledge that light takes time to travel.

 

You make no sense.

 

Real World:

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).

 

An event occurs at A (at 9:00:00), light travels (over a 1 light second distance) to B, B sees the event at A (at 9:00:01).

An event occurs at B (at 9:00:00), light travels (over a 1 light second distance) to A, A sees the event at B (at 9:00:01).

 

An event occurs at A (at 9:00:00), light travels (over a 2 light second distance) to B, B sees the event at A (at 9:00:02).

An event occurs at B (at 9:00:00), light travels (over a 2 light second distance) to A, A sees the event at B (at 9:00:02).

 

XYZ World:

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).

 

An event occurs at A (at 9:00:00), light travels (over a 1 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 1 light second distance) to A, A sees the event at B (at 9:00:00).

 

An event occurs at A (at 9:00:00), light travels (over a 2 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 2 light second distance) to A, A sees the event at B (at 9:00:00).

 

Why?

I dont know why, not yet anyway, I just  know if we expand the scenario and simultaneous from A and B having no distance apart, we always see the object in the present. 

 

I am baffled too , believe me, 

 

Although my gin clear of light did try to explain this and we see light that does not enter our eyes could explain this, we see the start and end point at the same time. 

[pzkpfw]

I dont know why, not yet anyway, I just  know if we expand the scenario and simultaneous from A and B having no distance apart, we always see the object in the present.

So you only have a claim, and no real explanation at all.

 

I am baffled too , believe me,

So why do you stick to this weird idea so strongly? Especially when you have no evidence?

 

Although my gin clear of light did try to explain this and we see light that does not enter our eyes could explain this, we see the start and end point at the same time.

That's just gibberish, sorry. Seeing light that doesn't enter our eyes is non physical nonsense.

 

Seeing the start and end of some distance "at the same time" is just ignoring the time it takes light to travel, not an explanation.

 

I understand (a bit) why you feel this way; light is so fast we don't experience the delay in our normal lives. So why would we think when we see the distant bird flap its wing that we're seeing it a little after it occurred? But personal incredulity doesn't trump science.

[xyz]

So you only have a claim, and no real explanation at all.

 

 

So why do you stick to this weird idea so strongly? Especially when you have no evidence?

 

 

That's just gibberish, sorry. Seeing light that doesn't enter our eyes is non physical nonsense.

 

Seeing the start and end of some distance "at the same time" is just ignoring the time it takes light to travel, not an explanation.

 

I understand (a bit) why you feel this way; light is so fast we don't experience the delay in our normal lives. So why would we think when we see the distant bird flap its wing that we're seeing it a little after it occurred? But personal incredulity doesn't trump science.

Seeing light that doesnt enter our eyes is light in free space, if it were not  in there and seen it would be seen to be dark, I a m srryy I am really tired now.

[pzkpfw]

Seeing light that doesnt enter our eyes is light in free space, if it were not  in there and seen it would be seen to be dark, I a m srryy I am really tired now.

Possibly because you are tired, that's gibberish again.

 

Light that doesn't enter our eyes, is light we're not seeing. But can we please leave your weird ideas of how darkness and light work - unless they are specifically related to how you will explain seeing things instantly as they occur, across any distance.

[xyz]

Possibly because you are tired, that's gibberish again.

 

Light that doesn't enter our eyes, is light we're not seeing. But can we please leave your weird ideas of how darkness and light work - unless they are specifically related to how you will explain seeing things instantly as they occur, across any distance.

It is all related some how my friend. 

 

Do you have a measuring tape at hand?   You can measure the light that has not entered your eyes that you can see in free space. We see the light in visible space but we recognise it has gin-clear.   To deny this is to deny shadows .

Edited August 28, 2016 by xyz

[pzkpfw]

It is all related some how my friend. 

 

Do you have a measuring tape at hand?   You can measure the light that has not entered your eyes that you can see in free space. We see the light in visible space but we recognise it has gin-clear.   To deny this is to deny shadows .

Gibberish. A bit off topic, but if you insist:

 

A pure black shadow is simply a place where no light reflects to our eyes, so we "see" darkness - the effect of no (human visible) light coming from something. A simple equivalent (not a direct comparison) is a black area on an old fashioned CRT Television. The black bits in the picture are simply the bits where the phosphor isn't being hit by electrons so it doesn't glow. No light reaching our eyes = darkness.

 

A darker-but-not-pitch-black shadow simply means less light is reflecting from some area to our eyes.

 

e.g. in a sunny field, the grass may be well lit by the sun, meaning light from it reaches that grass, and plenty then gets reflected (absorbed, re-emitted) to our eyes. But where a tree blocks direct sunlight on some grass, we see less light from that grass, but not total darkness (in this case) because there's still light from other sources reaching that grass (and then our eyes).

 

The best way to see total darkness shadows, is in photos from space, in situations where little light from non-direct sources reaches the area in shadow, i.e. we get very stark differences between areas in full light and in shadow.

 

This stuff is all quite easily explained and understood without your magic light that we see even though it doesn't get into our eyes.

[A-wal]

I'm confused. I'm not sure if this is annoying, hilarious or tragic?

Edited August 29, 2016 by A-wal

[xyz]

Gibberish. A bit off topic, but if you insist:

 

A pure black shadow is simply a place where no light reflects to our eyes, so we "see" darkness - the effect of no (human visible) light coming from something. A simple equivalent (not a direct comparison) is a black area on an old fashioned CRT Television. The black bits in the picture are simply the bits where the phosphor isn't being hit by electrons so it doesn't glow. No light reaching our eyes = darkness.

 

A darker-but-not-pitch-black shadow simply means less light is reflecting from some area to our eyes.

 

e.g. in a sunny field, the grass may be well lit by the sun, meaning light from it reaches that grass, and plenty then gets reflected (absorbed, re-emitted) to our eyes. But where a tree blocks direct sunlight on some grass, we see less light from that grass, but not total darkness (in this case) because there's still light from other sources reaching that grass (and then our eyes).

 

The best way to see total darkness shadows, is in photos from space, in situations where little light from non-direct sources reaches the area in shadow, i.e. we get very stark differences between areas in full light and in shadow.

 

This stuff is all quite easily explained and understood without your magic light that we see even though it doesn't get into our eyes.

There is nothing magic involved, answer this, when you observe a shadow at a distance do you observe the shadow is enclosed by light?

[pzkpfw]

There is nothing magic involved, answer this, when you observe a shadow at a distance do you observe the shadow is enclosed by light?

What I observe is there is no light (for a completely black shadow) or less light, coming from the area in shadow.

 

If I look at a distant tree in a field, I can easily see that the tree blocks sunlight, and an outline of the tree is traced as shadow on the grass. Light from the Sun hits the grass, and some is redirected to me. Where the tree blocks that sunlight, less light is redirected to me. It's so obvious.

[xyz]

What I observe is there is no light (for a completely black shadow) or less light, coming from the area in shadow.

 

If I look at a distant tree in a field, I can easily see that the tree blocks sunlight, and an outline of the tree is traced as shadow on the grass. Light from the Sun hits the grass, and some is redirected to me. Where the tree blocks that sunlight, less light is redirected to me. It's so obvious.

It amazes me how many people avoid and fail to answer the actual question put before them.  

 

1. look at any random shadow at a distance

 

2. notice the shadow is different to the surrounding 

 

3. notice the silhouette of the shadow is enclosed in invisible light. 

 

 

That simple

 

 

any person can clearly see there is light between them and the darkness

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=a+cave&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi3majIq-bOAhUJCcAKHXZYC18Q_AUICCgB&biw=1920&bih=979#imgrc=upo9inAPdA2CEM%3A

Edited August 29, 2016 by xyz

[pzkpfw]

It amazes me how many people avoid and fail to answer the actual question put before them.  

 

1. look at any random shadow at a distance

 

2. notice the shadow is different to the surrounding 

 

3. notice the silhouette of the shadow is enclosed in invisible light.

I can see light from the area/object not in shadow, and no light (or less light) from the shadow itself. There's certainly no "enclosing" in "invisible light". There certainly is light whizzing around that we don't see, because it doesn't reach our eyes, but that's got nothing specifically to do with shadows.

 

That simple

 

 

any person can clearly see there is light between them and the darkness

 

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=a+cave&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi3majIq-bOAhUJCcAKHXZYC18Q_AUICCgB&biw=1920&bih=979#imgrc=upo9inAPdA2CEM%3A

No. If you can see light between you and something dark, you'd not be seeing that darkness, you'd be seeing that light.

 

On a dark night you can look towards your window and "see" darkness. That simply means there's no light coming to your eyes from anything out there.

 

But if some object were placed outside your window, close enough to catch and reflect some of the light from your room, back towards your eyes, you'd see that object. The area of that object that fills your vision is now providing light, that you see. Around that object you'd still "see" darkness, but again, that's simply because nothing else is sending light to you.

Edited August 29, 2016 by pzkpfw

[xyz]

I can see light from the area/object not in shadow, and no light (or less light) from the shadow itself. There's certainly no "enclosing" in "invisible light". There certainly is light whizzing around that we don't see, because it doesn't reach our eyes, but that's got nothing specifically to do with shadows.

 

 

No. If you can see light between you and something dark, you'd not be seeing that darkness, you'd be seeing that light.

 

On a dark night you can look towards your window and "see" darkness. That simply means there's no light coming to your eyes from anything out there.

 

But if some object were placed outside your window, close enough to catch and reflect some of the light from your room, back towards your eyes, you'd see that object. The area of that object that fills your vision is now providing light, that you see. Around that object you'd still "see" darkness, but again, that's simply because nothing else is sending light to you.

HUH?

 

''No.''?   '' If you can see light between you and something dark, you'd not be seeing that darkness, you'd be seeing that light.''

 

The answers yes not no .  You see the light in the free space between you and a shadow , just the same as you see the light between your eyes and these words. 

 

 

You see all the light at once, you can see the entirety of light between your eyes and object, this is what science fails to recognise, you can extend out a tape measure extended out in front of you, 1ft away on the measure I can clearly see it is light and not dark. I can measure that shadows are a distance away from me, I can measure these words are a distance away from me, the result of measurement shows me that I can see light all the way. 

 

I can clearly see the 0ft mark and 1ft mark the same time in the same reference frame.

Edited August 29, 2016 by xyz

[A-wal]

Dude you're insane. Not just stupid, actually insane!