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

[A-wal]

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.

If you agree that it takes a greater amount of time for light to reach you eye from a greater distance then you must also agree that that two observers will each see a delayed image of they other proportional to the distance between them.

 

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.

Exactly! :)

[pzkpfw]

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.

That quite clearly makes no sense, given distance and the speed of light.

 

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.

No. Light that's already at you can only show things as they were then.

 

Over that 1 light second distance, any new information (say, the image of you waving) needs new photons, new light, to carry that information. And that information will take 1 second to travel that distance. Any photons that left you before you waved, can't show me your wave.

 

You are still invoking your mystical magical mechanism for sight, that somehow uses light, but also doesn't. It's silly.

[xyz]

If you agree that it takes a greater amount of time for light to reach you eye from a greater distance then you must also agree that that two observers will each see a delayed image of they other proportional to the distance between them.

 

Exactly! :)

Not when you do  it in reverse, it fails. 

[xyz]

That quite clearly makes no sense, given distance and the speed of light.

 

 

No. Light that's already at you can only show things as they were then.

 

Over that 1 light second distance, any new information (say, the image of you waving) needs new photons, new light, to carry that information. And that information will take 1 second to travel that distance. Any photons that left you before you waved, can't show me your wave.

 

You are still invoking your mystical magical mechanism for sight, that somehow uses light, but also doesn't. It's silly.

I am not invoking any magic, I am telling you I understand everything about light travelling a distance and receiving ''old  images'', however I am telling you that in a reverse scenario, seeing things in the past fails. 

[A-wal]

I am not invoking any magic, I am telling you I understand everything about light travelling a distance and receiving ''old  images'', however I am telling you that in a reverse scenario, seeing things in the past fails. 

No it doesn't!

 

If it takes light one second to move between A and B then A will see B as B was one second ago and B will see A as A was one second ago.

[xyz]

No it doesn't!

 

If it takes light one second to move between A and B then A will see B as B was one second ago and B will see A as A was one second ago.

Bangs head against wall, remove the radius and start A nose to nose with B. 

 

Expand A and B. 

 

AB

 

A.....B

 

A......................B

 

 

like that.............

 

A and B next to each other, see each other at the same time, in the same time frame. 

 

 

P.s a rocket leaves earth and travels for 1 light second at c, according to you it as not left. 

Edited August 30, 2016 by xyz

[A-wal]

As the distance increases, so does the delay for the light to travel between A and B.

 

Obviously this means that the delay increases proportionally to the increase in the distance between them.

 

This is very basic stuff.

[xyz]

As the distance increases, so does the delay for the light to travel between A and B.

 

Obviously this means that the delay increases proportionally to the increase in the distance between them.

 

This is very basic stuff.

Yes in your ''head'' you can see the delay but you are missing the point and not considering point zero of ''takeoff'' and the simultaneous of seeing each other at the same time. 

 

 

Try it this way it may help, if the sun fell from the heavens and landed in your arms, what time frame do you see the sun, would you say the present?

 

p.s its straight forward, If I am seeing you now in the present and we both are seeing each other at the same time, when you move , I still see you at the same time , you take now with you on your journey, so when you get to the sun, I still see you in my now . 

Edited August 30, 2016 by xyz

[pzkpfw]

Bangs head against wall, remove the radius and start A nose to nose with B. 

 

Expand A and B. 

 

AB

 

A.....B

 

A......................B

At this point, light will be taking time to travel from A to B, and from B to A. 22 dots is more than 5 dots, which is more than zero dots.

 

The fact the earlier A and B were next to each other has no effect on that. How could it? What magic are you invoking?

 

like that.............

 

A and B next to each other, see each other at the same time, in the same time frame. 

 

 

P.s a rocket leaves earth and travels for 1 light second at c, according to you it as not left.

How do you get this last bit?

 

We'd all say that after 1 second at c the rocket is 1 light second away. Any light from that rocket that leaves it at that distance, will then take 1 second to get back to us.

 

How the heck do you get "according to you it as not left"?

[A-wal]

Yes in your ''head'' you can see the delay but you are missing the point and not considering point zero of ''takeoff'' and the simultaneous of seeing each other at the same time.

The starting conditions have no baring on the amount of time it takes for light to move over a given distance. Starting at zero distance and the then increasing the distance will mean that the time that it takes for to travel between A and B will start at nothing (because there's no distance) and increase directly proportionally to the increase in the distance between them.

 

Try it this way it may help, if the sun fell from the heavens and landed in your arms, what time frame do you see the sun, would you say the present?

I would see it in the present only when it reaches me. To start with I'd see it as it was eight minutes ago and as the distance decreases it would take less time for its light to reach me so I'd be seeing it with a delay that decreases directly proportionally to the decrease in the distance between us.

[xyz]

At this point, light will be taking time to travel from A to B, and from B to A. 22 dots is more than 5 dots, which is more than zero dots.

 

The fact the earlier A and B were next to each other has no effect on that. How could it? What magic are you invoking?

 

 

How do you get this last bit?

 

We'd all say that after 1 second at c the rocket is 1 light second away. Any light from that rocket that leaves it at that distance, will then take 1 second to get back to us.

 

How the heck do you get "according to you it as not left"?

Science says they see the rocket as it were 1 second ago, can you see my problem with that now?  as it were 1 second ago, it was on the launch pad still. Science would insist I see the rocket at 9:00:01 but I was actually seeing 9:00:00   , 

 

 

''The fact the earlier A and B were next to each other has no effect on that. How could it? What magic are you invoking?''

 

 

No magic , just do the times, the clock on earth reads 

 

A = 9:00:00

 

The clock on B= 9:00:00

 

Be travels one second 9:00:01

 

A clock reads 9:00:01

 

a to b light 1 second 

 

b to a light 1 second

 

1 second of light is extended from zero point 9:00:00

[xyz]

To start with I'd see it as it was eight minutes ago and as the distance decreases it would take less time for its light to reach me so I'd be seeing it with a delay that decreases directly proportionally to the decrease in the distance between us.

How long would it take to reach you? 

 

So if it was 9:00:00 on Earth what time does the Sun land in your arms? v=c

 

added - you are not seeing the sun as it were 8 minutes ago, you are seeing the sun as it is 8 minutes apart in the same time frame as you. 

Edited August 30, 2016 by xyz

[pzkpfw]

Science says they see the rocket as it were 1 second ago, can you see my problem with that now?  as it were 1 second ago, it was on the launch pad still. Science would insist I see the rocket at 9:00:01 but I was actually seeing 9:00:00   ,

No.

 

At zero seconds, before the rocket has left, sure, you see it on the launch pad.

When the rocket is 1 light second away (and given your scenario that it travels at c) then light leaving it will take 1 second to get to you.

So your clock will read 2 seconds, when that light that left it at 1 second reaches you.

When your clock read 1 second, you'd be seeing light that left the rocket at 0.5 seconds.

When your clock read 0.5 seconds, you'd be seeing light that left the rocket at 0.25 seconds.

etc.

 

Very clear.

 

''The fact the earlier A and B were next to each other has no effect on that. How could it? What magic are you invoking?''

 

 

No magic , just do the times, the clock on earth reads 

 

A = 9:00:00

 

The clock on B= 9:00:00

 

Be travels one second 9:00:01

 

A clock reads 9:00:01

 

a to b light 1 second 

 

b to a light 1 second

 

1 second of light is extended from zero point 9:00:00

No.

 

You are not adding time correctly.

 

Rocket moves 1 light second away, light takes 1 second to get back;

 

1 second + 1 second = 2 seconds.

 

1 light second - 1 light second = 0 distance.

 

i.e. the photon gets back to the where the rocket started. But the time it took to do that is still 2 seconds.

[xyz]

No.

 

At zero seconds, before the rocket has left, sure, you see it on the launch pad.

When the rocket is 1 light second away (and given your scenario that it travels at c) then light leaving it will take 1 second to get to you.

So your clock will read 2 seconds, when that light that left it at 1 second reaches you.

When your clock read 1 second, you'd be seeing light that left the rocket at 0.5 seconds.

When your clock read 0.5 seconds, you'd be seeing light that left the rocket at 0.25 seconds.

etc.

 

Very clear.

 

 

No.

 

You are not adding time correctly.

 

Rocket moves 1 light second away, light takes 1 second to get back;

 

1 second + 1 second = 2 seconds.

 

1 light second - 1 light second = 0 distance.

 

i.e. the photon gets back to the where the rocket started. But the time it took to do that is still 2 seconds.

Now you are saying the rocket as not left the launch pad, no  its not 1  + 1 

 

 

1 second is one way and at the same time in the same second the other photons go the other way, not a separate second. 

[pzkpfw]

Now you are saying the rocket as not left the launch pad, no  its not 1  + 1 

 

1 second is one way and at the same time in the same second the other photons go the other way, not a separate second.

Yes, 1 second one way is that same as 1 second the other way, but you're not thinking about when that 1 second is measured from.

 

You want to time light coming from the rocket at 1 light second away, from when the rocket was on the launch pad. That's bogus. Light from the rocket at its 1 light second distance, can't leave the rocket until its at that location. If it took 1 second for the rocket to get there, and it takes 1 second for the light to get back, the total time is 2 seconds.

 

 

When the rocket is on the pad, we can assume distance zero, and your clock and it's clock show the same time, and you both see each others clock showing the same time.

 

When the rocket is 1 light second away, any image from it will take 1 second to get back to you. So if we assume its clock and yours are still synchronised, the image of its clock showing 1 second, will arrive at you when your clock shows 2 seconds.

 

 

I throw a ball to you, you throw it back. The distance from start point to end point may be zero (for the ball), but that doesn't mean the ball traveled zero distance, nor that it spent spent zero seconds flying through the air.

 

You seem to think you can throw the ball back to me, at the same time as I throw it to you. Utter rot. You have to catch the ball first, then throw it back.

Edited August 30, 2016 by pzkpfw

[xyz]

When the rocket is on the pad, we can assume distance zero, and your clock and it's clock show the same time, and you both see each others clock showing the same time.

 

When the rocket is 1 light second away, any image from it will take 1 second to get back to you. So if we assume its clock and yours are still synchronised, the image of its clock showing 1 second, will arrive at you when your clock shows 2 seconds.

 

 

No, you are not considering the photons are continuous in time from ''point zero'' to 1 light second of journey of the rocket. 

 

Sight is simultaneous throughout the journey . 

 

I need to go bed now I am tired and will take this back up tomorrow. , I will leave you with this to think over. 

 

The easy way is to consider this - 

 

 

Contract the length of space between the Sun  and Earth, bringing the Sun into our present, then expand the length between the Sun and Earth remembering we see each other at the same time all the way . 

 

If the we placed a clock on the sun at point zero, as it travelled we would see the clock change in synchronisation with our clock, 

 

when it reached 8 minutes away, we would see it said 9:08:00 the same as ours now read. 

Edited August 30, 2016 by xyz

[pzkpfw]

No, you are not considering the photons are continuous in time from ''point zero'' to 1 light second of journey of the rocket.

Sure, there is a continuous stream of photons. But a photon can only contain information accurate at the time it left an object.

 

If, at time X your arm is down, no photons leaving you at time X will show your arm up. If at time Y you raise your arm, photons leaving you on or after time Y will show you waving. Nobody watching you will see you arm up until those photons from time Y reach them. Photons from time X won't show you waving.

 

So there may have been a continuous stream of photons between you and the rocket, but you can't see the rocket at a distance of 1 light second until its actually gotten to that distance; and you can't see it at that distance until light that left it - at that distance - gets back to you. That'll be another second later.

 

Sight is simultaneous throughout the journey .

Your observation may be continuous, but your sight can't be simultaneous across that distance. Light takes time to travel.

 

It doesn't matter if you use floodlights ensure the rocket is fully lit during its entire trip. It doesn't matter if you carefully and unblinkingly watch the rocket during its flight. It doesn't matter if you videotape the flight and watch it later frame by frame. Nothing is going to make vision work "instantaneously". Light takes time to travel, and the further the rocket gets, the longer it will take light to get from the rocket to you. Sight (especially, seeing something distant) cannot be "simultaneous" in the way you claim, unless you invoke magic.

 

I need to go bed now I am tired and will take this back up tomorrow. , I will leave you with this to think over. 

 

The easy way is to consider this - 

  

Contract the length of space between the Sun  and Earth, bringing the Sun into our present, then expand the length between the Sun and Earth remembering we see each other at the same time all the way . 

 

If the we placed a clock on the sun at point zero, as it traveled we would see the clock change in synchronisation with our clock, 

 

when it reached 8 minutes away, we would see it said 9:08:00 the same as ours now read.

No, we can't. Because when the Sun is 8 light minutes away, light from its clock will take 8 minutes to get to us.

 

Imagine watching someone clapping as they walk away from you. Keep a continuous watch (and ear) on them.

 

The further away they get, the more distance the sound of their clap has to travel to get to you. When they were close, you heard the claps almost as soon as their hands came together. But as they got further away, you'll have heard the claps after a growing delay.

 

In this respect light is the same. It's just that light is so fast, you don't notice the delay in your normal day to day life. But just because you don't notice it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Actual experiments have shown it does.

Edited August 31, 2016 by pzkpfw