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

[pzkpfw]

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. 

Uh, wrong. It's well proven that light entering our eyes is what we see. I'm not seeing the light between my eyes and these words, I'm seeing light that came from these words, and then entered my eye. Light hitting my retina, sends signals to my brain along the optic nerve, which it then interprets. So light did have to travel between these words and my eyes, but I'm not seeing that light in that space between.

 

If there's nothing between you and an object, then light from that object can (if it's illuminated or generates its own light) reach your eyes. You'd then see that object; you'd be aware of the space between you and the object (various clues we use like relative apparent sizes and stereoscopic vision) but the space itself isn't visible as a thing.

 

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. 

No, your "measurement" in this case shows there is light present in that area. So sure, any object, tape measure or otherwise, will be visible in that area because it can in turn send light towards your eyes. But that doesn't mean you are seeing the light that is between you and the objects, nor that you "see all the light at once".

 

Yes, you can measure the distance from you to a shadow, but that doesn't change the simple fact that the reason it is a shadow is simply that something is blocking a light source, so the area in shadow is sending less light to your eyes than the unblocked area.

 

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

You may well be able to see them both, but if you think it's at the same time, you are ignoring that the 1ft mark is further away from you than the 0ft mark, and light takes time to travel.

 

In day to day life, and at distances of a few feet, that's perfectly fine. We all generally feel that way. One foot is too short a distance for light delay to be noticible to us.

 

But ... that doesn't make it accurate, and certainly doesn't extend to a distance of 8 light minutes.

Edited August 29, 2016 by pzkpfw

[A-wal]

You can't see darkness. Darkness is an absence of visible light.

 

We work in the darkness to serve the light. We are light bulbs!

 

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

That's not what reference frame means. Objects that aren't in motion relative to each other are in the same reference frame, it has nothing to do with the distance between them.

[xyz]

 I'm not seeing the light between my eyes and these words, I'm seeing light that came from these words, 

So it must be d ark between these words and my eyes if you can't see it?

 

 

MY 8 year old and ten year old say they can see light in free space, so can I  and so  can you.

[xyz]

Uh, wrong. It's well proven that light entering our eyes is what we see. I'm not seeing the light between my eyes and these words, I'm seeing light that came from these words, and then entered my eye. Light hitting my retina, sends signals to my brain along the optic nerve, which it then interprets. So light did have to travel between these words and my eyes, but I'm not seeing that light in that space between.

 

If there's nothing between you and an object, then light from that object can (if it's illuminated or generates its own light) reach your eyes. You'd then see that object; you'd be aware of the space between you and the object (various clues we use like relative apparent sizes and stereoscopic vision) but the space itself isn't visible as a thing.

 

No, your "measurement" in this case shows there is light present in that area. So sure, any object, tape measure or otherwise, will be visible in that area because it can in turn send light towards your eyes. But that doesn't mean you are seeing the light that is between you and the objects, nor that you "see all the light at once".

 

Yes, you can measure the distance from you to a shadow, but that doesn't change the simple fact that the reason it is a shadow is simply that something is blocking a light source, so the area in shadow is sending less light to your eyes than the unblocked area.

 

You may well be able to see them both, but if you think it's at the same time, you are ignoring that the 1ft mark is further away from you than the 0ft mark, and light takes time to travel.

 

In day to day life, and at distances of a few feet, that's perfectly fine. We all generally feel that way. One foot is too short a distance for light delay to be noticible to us.

 

But ... that doesn't make it accurate, and certainly doesn't extend to a distance of 8 light minutes.

You can see darkness, these words reflect no light and are in their exact geometrical position than can me measured using several means such as a yard stick.

[pzkpfw]

I'm not seeing the light between my eyes and these words, I'm seeing light that came from these words, ...

So it must be dark between these words and my eyes if you can't see it?

No. The relationship isn't that simple. My eyes can only see light that hits them. So whether there's light or not in some area is a different matter. Light can be passing through an area that isn't seen, because none of it is redirected towards your eyes. e.g. we've talked before about laser security systems, and the common movie thing where the spy sprays smoke into the air to see where the beam is.

 

Technically, because I'm reading black text on a white background, I'm seeing light from the white around the letters, and less light (my monitors are good, but like most LCD's not perfect at "displaying" black) from the letters themselves. Someone sitting to my left could be looking at the wall to my right. They'd be seeing a fully lit wall, with light that's passing to them through the space in which I'm "seeing" those black letters. Light's bouncing around all over in my room. Only the light entering my eye is seen.

 

I might be "seeing" darkness in some direction, because light is not coming to me from there; but someone else may be seeing something fully lit, with light that's passing through the same area. e.g. your room with the dark window. You might be facing the wall with the window, and "seeing" the patch of darkness. Another person sitting to your left might be looking at the wall to your right. They'd be seeing that entire wall fully lit. There are seeing light that is crossing the same area that you are "seeing" that patch of darkness (the window) in. So whether or not there is light in some space is a different matter to "seeing" darkness across that space. That other person is seeing the fully lit wall, so there is light in that space (in this case), but you are not seeing it.

 

MY 8 year old and ten year old say they can see light in free space, so can I  and so  can you.

"Debating" this stuff with you is an amusing time waster (I know it's pointless). But thinking there are children being polluted by your weird ideas is truly saddening. It's hard to un-learn things, what you're giving them now will harm them in their later schooling.

Edited August 30, 2016 by pzkpfw

[pzkpfw]

You can see darkness, ...

You can "see" darkness, in the sense that you can "hear" silence.

 

Silence is the lack of sound, darkness is the lack of light.

 

... these words reflect no light and are in their exact geometrical position than can me measured using several means such as a yard stick.

Yeah, I don't deny that at all. A thing that's "dark" or in darkness still has a position.

 

When that thing is itself created out apparent darkness (e.g. black words on a white background on an LCD monitor) it gets slightly metaphysical, but it's still clear that the dark pixels on my monitor are still there, and next to white pixels.

[xyz]

No. The relationship isn't that simple. My eyes can only see light that hits them. So whether there's light or not in some area is a different matter. Light can be passing through an area that isn't seen, because none of it is redirected towards your eyes. e.g. we've talked before about laser security systems, and the common movie thing where the spy sprays smoke into the air to see where the beam is.

 

Technically, because I'm reading black text on a white background, I'm seeing light from the white around the letters, and less light (my monitors are good, but like most LCD's not perfect at "displaying" black) from the letters themselves. Someone sitting to my left could be looking at the wall to my right. They'd be seeing a fully lit wall, with light that's passing to them through the space in which I'm "seeing" those black letters. Light's bouncing around all over in my room. Only the light entering my eye is seen.

 

 

"Debating" this stuff with you is an amusing time waster (I know it's pointless). But thinking there are children being polluted by your weird ideas is truly saddening. It's hard to un-learn things, what you're giving them now will harm them in their later schooling.

It is interesting that are you willing to completely ignore the act of measurement and the very fact a shadow or these words can be measured in their exact geometrical position. 

 

Dark is provable to exist outside your mind just the same as light is provable to exist outside your brain, if you were not seeing the light is free space you would see that space to be dark like the shadow or these words that are in their exact geometrical position relative to you. 

 

 

I travelled on a train a few days ago, the train went through a tunnel, relative to me the inside of the train and all the space inside the train was illuminated, where as the outside was very dark and clealry distinguishable in its exact geometrical position. Like it or not we see light that is not in our eyes, when light enters our eyes that allows us to see the whole. 

[xyz]

You can "see" darkness, in the sense that you can "hear" silence.

 

Silence is the lack of sound, darkness is the lack of light.

 

 

Yeah, I don't deny that at all. A thing that's "dark" or in darkness still has a position.

 

When that thing is itself created out apparent darkness (e.g. black words on a white background on an LCD monitor) it gets slightly metaphysical, but it's still clear that the dark pixels on my monitor are still there, and next to white pixels.

I was writing as you typed sorry. 

 

So if you see darkness in its exact position then you see light all the way to that position.

Edited August 30, 2016 by xyz

[pzkpfw]

It is interesting that are you willing to completely ignore the act of measurement and the very fact a shadow or these words can be measured in their exact geometrical position.

I'm not ignoring it. Obviously if you see a shadow in some location, that location is measurable. It's what you make of this, that's wrong.

 

Dark is provable to exist outside your mind just the same as light is provable to exist outside your brain, if you were not seeing the light is free space you would see that space to be dark like the shadow or these words that are in their exact geometrical position relative to you.

No, it's not that simple, as there can be light in an area that you see as dark, because that light doesn't reach you.

 

Darkness does exist, but it's simply the absence of visible light, reaching you.

 

I travelled on a train a few days ago, the train went through a tunnel, relative to me the inside of the train and all the space inside the train was illuminated, where as the outside was very dark and clealry distinguishable in its exact geometrical position. Like it or not we see light that is not in our eyes, when light enters our eyes that allows us to see the whole.

Rubbish.

 

What you noticed here was that outside the train was dark. That's light not entering your eyes. The inside of the train was lit up, that's due to the lighting providing light that did enter your eyes.

 

I was writing as you typed sorry. 

 

So if you see darkness in its exact position then you see light all the way to that position.

No. If I'm seeing darkness somewhere, it's because light is not coming to me from that position. Take your dark window in a room at night. The window is "dark" because there's nothing outside sending light in towards you. Yes, the position of that window is measurable. That doesn't change the fact that darkness is simply the lack of light.

 

(There may well be light in that space between me and that area of darkness, but if that light is going elsewhere, I won't see it.)

Edited August 30, 2016 by pzkpfw

[xyz]

I'm not ignoring it. Obviously if you see a shadow in some location, that location is measurable. It's what you make of this, that's wrong.

 

 

No, it's not that simple, as there can be light in an area that you see as dark, because that light doesn't reach you.

 

Darkness does exist, but it's simply the absence of visible light, reaching you.

 

 

Rubbish.

 

What you noticed here was that outside the train was dark. That's light not entering your eyes. The inside of the train was lit up, that's due to the lighting providing light that did enter your eyes.

 

 

No. If I'm seeing darkness somewhere, it's because light is not coming to me from that position. Take your dark window in a room at night. The window is "dark" because there's nothing outside sending light in towards you. Yes, the position of that window is measurable. That doesn't change the fact that darkness is simply the lack of light.

 

(There may well be light in that space between me and that area of darkness, but if that light is going elsewhere, I won't see it.)

Can you not get your head out of your subjective education for one minute?

 

You are still answering me as if present information. Stop this or you will never understand .  Think for yourself .  

 

let me open  up your eyes. 

 

 

I want you to hold a small object in the palm of your hand, an object that later on you can throw .  

 

The object in your hand and you are in the present , the now, do you agree with this?

[pzkpfw]

Can you not get your head out of your subjective education for one minute?

What's subjective is you taking too literally what you think you see. What's objective is the result of any repeatable experiment performed with light, that shows it has direction and a speed of travel.

 

You are still answering me as if present information. Stop this or you will never understand .  Think for yourself .  

 

let me open  up your eyes.

The trouble is, what you are saying makes no sense. On the one hand you acknowledge the existence of light, you even agree it has a speed. But then you add that light simply being in an area somehow lets us see everything all at once regardless of distance. You are invoking magic. As if we see using some kind of mental telepathy. It's ridiculous. 

 

I want you to hold a small object in the palm of your hand, an object that later on you can throw .  

 

The object in your hand and you are in the present , the now, do you agree with this?

I suspect you are going to misuse "the present", but so far, OK. What next?

[A-wal]

Can you not get your head out of your subjective education for one minute?

 

You are still answering me as if present information. Stop this or you will never understand .  Think for yourself .  

 

let me open  up your eyes. 

:rofl:

[xyz]

What's subjective is you taking too literally what you think you see. What's objective is the result of any repeatable experiment performed with light, that shows it has direction and a speed of travel.

 

 

The trouble is, what you are saying makes no sense. On the one hand you acknowledge the existence of light, you even agree it has a speed. But then you add that light simply being in an area somehow lets us see everything all at once regardless of distance. You are invoking magic. As if we see using some kind of mental telepathy. It's ridiculous. 

 

 

I suspect you are going to misuse "the present", but so far, OK. What next?

So you see the object in your  hand now, the present, the period  of time now occurring. 

 

Now throw the object anywhere, you still see this object in the present now, a period of time now occurring, while the object was in motion , the amount of time passed was equal to the amount of time passed by you. While the object was in motion the object reflected photons back to your eyes while you equally reflected photons towards the object, the distance between you and the object remains equal in either direction, the t ime it takes light to travel the distance is equal, you sore the object in your hand the same time the object sees you, when the object is in motion this does not change. Ok?

[A-wal]

The fact the distance is the same in both directions has nothing to do with how long the light takes to cover that distance.

 

The greater the distance, the more time it takes light to travel the distance between the object and your eye. This couldn't be more obvious.

 

If a clock is moving away from then it will be taking progressively longer for the light to reach you and the clock will appear to be running slow and if a clock is moving towards you then it will be taking progressively less time for the light to reach you and the clock will to be running fast. This is basically Doppler shift.

 

On top of that the clock's motion will be slowed by the fact that that you and the clock are in different frames of reference. The consistency of the speed of light means that objects in motion relative to each other experience length contraction and time dilation. This is caused by relative motion in general and independent of the direction of motion.

 

At low speeds and over short distances these effects are negligible but at high relative velocities they have a more pronounced effect.

 

The first effect is caused simply by the fact that light takes time to move between two points, the second is due to the fact that the relative speed of light is the same for all inertial objects. Once you understand these two points the rest is basically common sense.

 

You're views are not only naive, they're completely disproven by experiments that both show that light moves at a finite speed and that it moves at a constant speed.

Edited August 30, 2016 by A-wal

[xyz]

The fact the distance is the same in both directions has nothing to do with how long the light takes to cover that distance.

 

The greater the distance, the more time it takes light to travel the distance between the object and your eye. This couldn't be more obvious.

 

If a clock is moving away from then it will be taking progressively longer for the light to reach you and the clock will appear to be running slow and if a clock is moving towards you then it will be taking progressively less time for the light to reach you and the clock will to be running fast. This is basically Doppler shift.

 

On top of that the clocks motion will be slowed by the fact that that you and the clock are in different frames of reference. The consistency of the speed of light means that objects in motion relative to each other experience length contraction and time dilation. This is caused by relative motion in general and independent of the direction of motion.

 

At low speeds and over short distances these effects are negligible but at high relative velocities they have a more pronounced effect.

Believe me Awal you are completely missing the problem,  I know a greater distance more time to travel. This does not affect seeing each other at the same time.

 

See the last diagram in this thread, I am sure you recognise Newtons cannon ball.

 

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=68030.new#new

Edited August 30, 2016 by xyz

[pzkpfw]

So you see the object in your  hand now, the present, the period  of time now occurring. 

 

Now throw the object anywhere, you still see this object in the present now, a period of time now occurring, while the object was in motion , the amount of time passed was equal to the amount of time passed by you.

For this last bit we need to ignore relativity, but OK.

 

While the object was in motion the object reflected photons back to your eyes while you equally reflected photons towards the object, the distance between you and the object remains equal in either direction, the time it takes light to travel the distance is equal, you sore the object in your hand the same time the object sees you, when the object is in motion this does not change. Ok?

So far, yes.

 

But I know where you're going with this, and you are still wrong. We've been over it before.

 

At any given position of the object, yes, the distance between me and the object is equal both ways.

 

So assuming we had some pre-synchronised clock, me and the object could send photons to each other at the "same time" as each other, and, because the distance is equal, we'd receive those photons at the "same time" as each other.

 

But ... you are then going to ignore that the distance now means it takes more time for light to travel the distance between me and the object.

 

So I won't see photons from the object at the "same time" as those photons left the object, and that object won't see photons that left me at the "same time" as they left me.

 

Maintaining a continuous watch between me and the object as it's moved to its distant position can't take away the fact that it takes light time to travel.

 

Your mystical magical instant sight over distance makes zero sense.

 

-----

 

If you throw a ball to me at the same time as I throw a ball to you, assuming we throw at the same speed over a similar path:

Yes - we throw at the "same time" as each other.

Yes - we catch at the "same time" as each other.

No - we don't catch the ball at the "same time" as it is thrown.

 

... in this aspect, light is the same. It takes time to travel. Sight is "delayed" by distance.

[xyz]

For this last bit we need to ignore relativity, but OK.

 

 

So far, yes.

 

But I know where you're going with this, and you are still wrong. We've been over it before.

 

At any given position of the object, yes, the distance between me and the object is equal both ways.

 

So assuming we had some pre-synchronised clock, me and the object could send photons to each other at the "same time" as each other, and, because the distance is equal, we'd receive those photons at the "same time" as each other.

 

But ... you are then going to ignore that the distance now means it takes more time for light to travel the distance between me and the object.

 

So I won't see photons from the object at the "same time" as those photons left the object, and that object won't see photons that left me at the "same time" as they left me.

 

Maintaining a continuous watch between me and the object as it's moved to its distant position can't take away the fact that it takes light time to travel.

 

Your mystical magical instant sight over distance makes zero sense.

 

-----

 

If you throw a ball to me at the same time as I throw a ball to you, assuming we throw at the same speed over a similar path:

Yes - we throw at the "same time" as each other.

Yes - we catch at the "same time" as each other.

No - we don't catch the ball at the "same time" as it is thrown.

 

... in this aspect, light is the same. It takes time to travel. Sight is "delayed" by distance.

You are so close to getting this , please do not give up, I am not ignoring distance at all. 

 

 

Go back to zero distance, we see each other at the same time. Move away, we still see each other at the same time, so if you are seeing me now in the present close up, and you move away from me, you still me now at the same time. 

 

Consider a 1 light second space between us, do the ''maths'' that extends from 0 distance to this.  When you have move the light is already at me to begin with, we see each other at the same time, the now, when you move I see you moving keeping the aspect ratio of seeing each other at the same time, so wen you have travelled 1 light second, all clocks show 1 second as passed. 

 

 

added- if you see me now in your  hand and you see me moving away at the same time, when you see me get to where I am going you see still see me at the same time.

Edited August 30, 2016 by xyz