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

[xyz]

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.

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

OMG, you were doing well in understanding but now you have gone back to the subjective. If you are not going to be objective it is pointless us discussing  this any further as I don't do ''religion''.  You talk as if we are wireless robots and we work the same as a television receiving information, 

 

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

 

 

NO,no, no, both directions, you have just gone back to one direction, 

 

pfffff

[pzkpfw]

... NO,no, no, both directions, you have just gone back to one direction, ...

You believe in magic, not science, That's your business.

[xyz]

You believe in magic, not science, That's your business.

How many times I have told you now , I understand the present information and it does not work if interpreted by different means. 

 

It is not magic, you have already agreed in simultaneous sight. 

 

If you was on the sun and I on earth we see each other at the same time. 

[xyz]

You are on Earth , relative to you the photons going +ve=8 minutes 20 seconds

 

the photons coming -ve=8 minutes and 20 seconds

 

net difference time = 0

Edited August 31, 2016 by xyz

[pzkpfw]

How many times I have told you now , I understand the present information and it does not work if interpreted by different means. 

 

It is not magic, you have already agreed in simultaneous sight. 

 

If you was on the sun and I on earth we see each other at the same time.

No, I did not agree with "simultaneous sight" in the way you think. I was very clear at all times about what was simultaneous and what wasn't.

[xyz]

No, I did not agree with "simultaneous sight" in the way you think. I was very clear at all times about what was simultaneous and what wasn't.

Do we see each other at the same time?  a simple yes or no

 

L=X

 

+ve©=1.s

 

-ve©=1.s

 

net t difference=0

Edited August 31, 2016 by xyz

[pzkpfw]

You are on Earth , relative to you the photons going +ve=8 minutes 20 seconds

 

the photons coming -ve=8 minutes and 20 seconds

 

net difference time = 0

That's pretty much gibberish. But you've made the +ve/-ve claim before so I know what you are trying to say - and it's still nonsense. You simply can't add/subtract the times of the events that way. It's magic, not physics.

 

Let's say we have locations A and B with synchronised clocks, that are 5 light minutes apart.

 

Event X occurs at A at 9:00, and photons leave A and head towards B.

Event Y occurs at B at 9:00, and photons leave B and head towards A.

At 9:05 the event X photons reach B, call it event J.

At 9:05 the event Y photons reach A, call it event K.

 

Yes, the leaving of the photons was simultaneous, so events X and Y are simultaneous.

Yes, the observing of the events was simultaneous, so events J and K are simultaneous.

 

But what you want is events X and J (and Y and K) to be simultaneous - it's crazy as that simply ignores the fact that light takes time to travel and there's a distance between A and B.

 

It doesn't matter that X and Y were simultaneous. It doesn't matter that A was watching B the whole time, before and after (and vice versa). You can't see an event until light from it reaches you. And light takes time to travel. Light that left location A before event X, can't show event X.

[pzkpfw]

Do we see each other at the same time?  a simple yes or no

 

L=X

 

+ve©=1.s

 

-ve©=1.s

 

net t difference=0

The way you ask the question is too imprecise to give a yes or no answer to. See previous post for a full answer.

Note what happens "at the same time" (X/Y) and (J/K) and what doesn't (X/J) and (Y/K).

[xyz]

That's pretty much gibberish. But you've made the +ve/-ve claim before so I know what you are trying to say - and it's still nonsense. You simply can't add/subtract the times of the events that way. It's magic, not physics.

 

Let's say we have locations A and B with synchronised clocks, that are 5 light minutes apart.

 

Event X occurs at A at 9:00, and photons leave A and head towards B.

Event Y occurs at B at 9:00, and photons leave B and head towards A.

At 9:05 the event X photons reach B, call it event J.

At 9:05 the event Y photons reach A, call it event K.

 

Yes, the leaving of the photons was simultaneous, so events X and Y are simultaneous.

Yes, the observing of the events was simultaneous, so events J and K are simultaneous.

 

But what you want is events X and J (and Y and K) to be simultaneous - it's crazy as that simply ignores the fact that light takes time to travel and there's a distance between A and B.

 

It doesn't matter that X and Y were simultaneous. It doesn't matter that A was watching B the whole time, before and after (and vice versa). You can't see an event until light from it reaches you. And light takes time to travel. Light that left location A before event X, can't show event X.

Good, you are so close and I like how you brought the events into it to make it easier. 

 

''But what you want is events X and J (and Y and K) to be simultaneous''

 

Yes, I can show this , 

 

Now contract the length between A and B to r=0

 

 

take it from there and put your events in, you are so close to explaining my contradiction in better terms. 

 

added

 

let's say we have locations A and B with synchronised clocks, that are 0 light minutes apart.

 

Event X occurs at A at 9:00, and photons leave A and head towards B.

Event Y occurs at B at 9:00, and photons leave B and head towards A.

At 9:00 the event X photons reach B, call it event J.

At 9:00 the event Y photons reach A, call it event K.

 

Yes, the leaving of the photons was simultaneous, so events X and Y are simultaneous.

Yes, the observing of the events was simultaneous, so events J and K are simultaneous.

 

events X and J (and Y and K) simultaneous

 

 

yes?

Edited August 31, 2016 by xyz

[pzkpfw]

yes?

Yes, when the distance is zero, it takes zero time for the light to get from A to B, and vice versa, so the events (in our simplified toy Universe) are simultaneous.

Edited August 31, 2016 by pzkpfw

[xyz]

Yes, when the distance is zero, it takes zero time for the light to get from A to B, and vice versa, so the events (in our simplified toy Universe) are simultaneous.

There is nothing ''toy'' about it , it is facts using present information about light. 

 

 

The next part explains the problem, but it is hard to explain. 

 

 

I want you now to expand the distance, travelling from 0 to 1 light minute away, throughout the entire journey our sight is simultaneous?

 

 

This can be repeated for every nano second of distance travelled from 0?

 

''Event X occurs at A at 9:00, and photons leave A and head towards B.

Event Y occurs at B at 9:00, and photons leave B and head towards A.

'

Edited August 31, 2016 by xyz

[pzkpfw]

There is nothing ''toy'' about it , it is facts using present information about light.

Use of "toy" is just to reinforce that we're inventing a simplified scenario to discuss here, and leaving out some details. e.g. It happens all the time when you have your rocket moving at c.

 

The next part explains the problem, but it is hard to explain.

 

I want you now to expand the distance, travelling from 0 to 1 light minute away, throughout the entire journey our sight is simultaneous?

Well, no. Not simultaneous, in the way you believe (even if continuous).

 

As soon as the distance isn't zero, light will take time to travel between A and B (and vice versa). So we start getting the situation as detailed in post #245 above. Just because the distance was once zero, and the events were all simultaneous in that case, that doesn't mean they can remain simultaneous. Once there's a distance between A and B, light will take time to travel from A to B (and vice versa). So events like X can't be simultaneous with events like J (and events like Y can't be simultaneous with events like K). I'm happy to stipulate that in our toy Universe events like X remain simultaneous with Y. (Technically J couldn't be simultaneous with K while the distance was growing).

 

There is nothing in your repeated "start at zero distance then expand the distance" thing that explains how the event and seeing the event could remain simultaneous at distances greater than zero.

 

This can be repeated for every nano second of distance travelled from 0?

 

Event X occurs at A at 9:00, and photons leave A and head towards B.

 

Event Y occurs at B at 9:00, and photons leave B and head towards A.

Well, no. The time wouldn't remain 9:00.

 

But in any case, as noted above, at zero distance, X and J would be simultaneous. However, even a nano second later, with the tiniest distance between A and B, events X and J couldn't still be simultaneous.

 

Unless, you have some magic way for information to travel instantly - which can't be light, because we know that light has a finite speed.

 

(I'm off for the night now).

Edited August 31, 2016 by pzkpfw

[A-wal]

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

9:08

 

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. 

That makes no sense! It takes light eight minutes to travel from the sun to reach us so what we see when the light arrives is an image of the sun that's been on route for eight minutes, not an image of the sun somehow managed to reach us instantaneously. This is in no doubt because it's proven by experiments that show that light takes time to travel form one point in space to another.

[xyz]

9:08

 

 

How ironic, I would of thought you might say 9:16

 

So if it is 9:00:00 on earth the present, and you are observing the sun, and it takes 8 minutes for the sun to arrive at you, it arrives at 9:08, what time is it on the sun the moment before departure?

[xyz]

Use of "toy" is just to reinforce that we're inventing a simplified scenario to discuss here, and leaving out some details. e.g. It happens all the time when you have your rocket moving at c.

 

 

Well, no. Not simultaneous, in the way you believe (even if continuous).

 

As soon as the distance isn't zero, light will take time to travel between A and B (and vice versa). So we start getting the situation as detailed in post #245 above. Just because the distance was once zero, and the events were all simultaneous in that case, that doesn't mean they can remain simultaneous. Once there's a distance between A and B, light will take time to travel from A to B (and vice versa). So events like X can't be simultaneous with events like J (and events like Y can't be simultaneous with events like K). I'm happy to stipulate that in our toy Universe events like X remain simultaneous with Y. (Technically J couldn't be simultaneous with K while the distance was growing).

 

There is nothing in your repeated "start at zero distance then expand the distance" thing that explains how the event and seeing the event could remain simultaneous at distances greater than zero.

 

 

Well, no. The time wouldn't remain 9:00.

 

But in any case, as noted above, at zero distance, X and J would be simultaneous. However, even a nano second later, with the tiniest distance between A and B, events X and J couldn't still be simultaneous.

 

Unless, you have some magic way for information to travel instantly - which can't be light, because we know that light has a finite speed.

 

(I'm off for the night now).

I don't know how to explain it anymore, I do not know why you can't ''see'' that time and events are all synchronous from 0.  

 

p.s maybe if you attach a ball of string to B and attach one end to A , you then might understand the synchronous. 

Edited September 1, 2016 by xyz

[pzkpfw]

I don't know how to explain it anymore, I do not know why you can't ''see'' that time and events are all synchronous from 0.

It's because you can't explain it.

 

You have some weird idea that vision works instantly across any distance. That's just bogus.

 

No amount of explaining can make your magic true.

 

 

p.s maybe if you attach a ball of string to B and attach one end to A , you then might understand the synchronous.

That wouldn't be synchronous either.

 

Force would travel along the string at the speed of sound in string, which'd be even slower than light.

 

It's not about "understanding". I understand what you are trying to claim. The problem is you've provided no proof. No evidence. No justification.

Edited September 1, 2016 by pzkpfw

[xyz]

It's because you can't explain it.

 

You have some weird idea that vision works instantly across any distance. That's just bogus.

 

No amount of explaining can make your magic true.

No I am not explaining vision works instantly, I am explaining vision is simultaneous and that is why we see the sun now and not in its past.