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

[xyz]

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.

I have provided the proof when you extend from zero, it is not my fault you can not ''see'' it.

 

added- If you see something now in the present and it moves away from you, time and events are synchronous , at 1 light second away, you are still seeing each other now.

 

added- You are not looking into the ''past'' or the ''future'' you are observing everything in the present.

 

added- Look its very simple, 2 objects in a ''void'', no light, time still passes for the objects. 

 

Send light either direction, time passed waiting for the light to arrive, both objects remain in the present regardless of your ''magic''.

Edited September 1, 2016 by xyz

[pzkpfw]

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.

How can you see things simultaneously, "now", without instant vision?

 

 

I have provided the proof when you extend from zero, it is not my fault you can not ''see'' it.

 

added- If you see something now in the present and it moves away from you, time and events are synchronous , at 1 light second away, you are still seeing each other now.

If something gets 1 light second away, then light is taking 1 second to get to you from that thing.

 

So any event on that thing, can only be seen by you after a 1 second delay - that light has to travel to you.

 

Your idea that you'd see things at the "same time" as they occur absolutely means you think there's some sort of "instant vision". Is it telepathy? Magic?

 

You've never explained away the effect of the finite speed of light.

Edited September 1, 2016 by pzkpfw

[xyz]

How can you see things simultaneously, "now", without instant vision?

 

 

 

If something gets 1 light second away, then light is taking 1 second to get to you from that thing.

 

So any event on that thing, can only be seen by you after a 1 second delay - that light has to travel to you.

 

Your idea that you'd see things at the "same time" as they occur absolutely means you think there's some sort of "instant vision". Is it telepathy? Magic?

 

You've never explained away the effect of the finite speed of light.

You are missing the point the light from A and B at 0 is already there to begin with, so when B moves , the timing in both directions of the light remains simultaneous. 

 

Forget that anyway , just do it this way it is easier. 

 

2 objects in a ''void'' , no light, both objects are in the present regardless of light.

[A-wal]

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

If it's eight light minutes away and travels towards you and the speed of light it will take eight minutes. That's what light minute means.

 

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?

If it's 9:00 at earth then it's 8:52 on the sun from the Earth's perspective. If it moves towards you at the speed of light then they'd be no way of seeing it moving towards you because it's moving at the same speed as the light it's emitting so it would instantly reach the Earth at 9:08 from Earth's perspective.

 

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.

Meaningless nonsensical drivel! The Earth sees the sun as it was eight minutes ago while somebody on the sun would simultaneously see the Earth as it was eight minutes ago.

 

I have provided the proof when you extend from zero, it is not my fault you can not ''see'' it.

:) You've provided nothing but misconceptions!

 

You are missing the point the light from A and B at 0 is already there to begin with, so when B moves , the timing in both directions of the light remains simultaneous.

It makes no difference if light is already there to begin with. It takes new light time to reach the other observer so as they move away from each other it takes more time to traverse the increased distance and each object will view the other as it was a greater length of time in the past, making each object appear to be moving in slow motion from the perspective of the other object while they're moving away from each other.

 

This is not time dilation, this would happen even if the speed of light wasn't constant. It's just due to the fact that light is taking more time to reach the other object as the distance between them increases.

 

Forget that anyway , just do it this way it is easier. 

 

2 objects in a ''void'' , no light, both objects are in the present regardless of light.

What does that have to do with it? We're taking about the propagation of light.

[pzkpfw]

You are missing the point the light from A and B at 0 is already there to begin with, so when B moves , the timing in both directions of the light remains simultaneous.

I've been happy to stipulate that the whole area is well lit the whole time. At any time one of our events (in our toy scenarios) happens, there's already light everywhere. But that makes no difference.

 

If a photon from A is already at B, or a photon from B is already at A, how can it show something that happens later? A photon that left B at 9:04 (by B's clock), and reaches A whenever, can't show A something that happens at B at 9:05 (by B's clock). (You want photons to show the future!)

 

Essentially, this is just your claim that vision happens instantly across any distance. Your claim that once light is in an area, vision somehow works by something different. We've been over this - you failed to show this is how the Universe works.

 

Forget that anyway , just do it this way it is easier. 

 

2 objects in a ''void'' , no light, both objects are in the present regardless of light.

Both objects have their own present. If they are at rest with respect to each other, we could synchronise their clocks and pretend their presents are shared or synchronous ...

 

... but the point of this thread is how quickly information can get from one to another.

 

(An aspect of what you are arguing for, is a concept of a Universal "now", a "present" that is absolute and shared across the Universe. That was abandoned by science over a hundred years ago, as it leads to nonsense. It's hard stuff to understand, as we just don't experience it in our day to day lives, but that doesn't make it wrong. In any case, we don't need to get into that. All we need to look at here is that light takes time to travel.)

 

 

 

Try this: A, B, and C are "nose to nose". Then B and C move 4 light minutes away. Then C moves 4 more light minutes away. So B is 4 light minutes away from A (and C), and C is 8 light minutes away from A, and 4 light minutes away from B.

 

They all come to a rest (relative to each other) and synchronize their clocks. A light source has been shining on them the whole time, and continues to shine. There's light all over the place and everyone can see each other.

 

A----B----C

 

Now, an event occurs on C when C's clock shows 10:00:00.

 

According to you, at what time does B see the event?

 

According to you, at what time does A see the event?

Edited September 1, 2016 by pzkpfw

[xyz]

If it's eight light minutes away and travels towards you and the speed of light it will take eight minutes. That's what light minute means.

 

If it's 9:00 at earth then it's 8:52 on the sun from the Earth's perspective. 

 

 

What does that have to do with it? We're taking about the propagation of light.

No its 9:00 on the sun

 

And no we are talking about time, light is not time. Your mistake in thinking.

[xyz]

I've been happy to stipulate that the whole area is well lit the whole time. At any time one of our events (in our toy scenarios) happens, there's already light everywhere. But that makes no difference.

 

If a photon from A is already at B, or a photon from B is already at A, how can it show something that happens later?

 

Almost, if a photon is already at A and B, and it takes no time at all, and they are seeing each other now, when B moves away from A and the time and event is synchronous , the time remains synchronous always. 

[pzkpfw]

Almost, if a photon is already at A and B, and it takes no time at all, and they are seeing each other now, when B moves away from A and the time and event is synchronous , the time remains synchronous always.

How?

 

How does time remain synchronous?

 

Once B is some distance from A, how does A see things on B the instant they happen?

 

There's no way your ideas work without invoking some magic way of seeing things across any distance, instantly, ignoring the speed of light.

 

(That's what post #260 was clarifying).

Edited September 2, 2016 by pzkpfw

[xyz]

How?

 

How does time remain synchronous?

 

Once B is some distance from A, how does A see things on B the instant they happen?

 

There's no way your ideas work without invoking some magic way of seeing things across any distance, instantly, ignoring the speed of light.

 

(That's what post #260 was clarifying).

The point is your ''ideas'' don't work without some kind of ''magic'' also.   I don't know why this is, it just is, the ''maths'' shows it is so it must be. 

 

Do you agree that time and events are synchronous? (ignoring time dilation). 

 

 

 

Do the events from zero and now always remains now regardless of distance because time and event remains synchronous, 

 

 

I think the problem with your ''magic'' and my ''magic'' is that the interpretation of time is wrong thus leading to our ''magic'', if we was to interpret time as not being interwoven and time was dependent to each and every observer, then things change. 

[pzkpfw]

The point is your ''ideas'' don't work without some kind of ''magic'' also.   I don't know why this is, it just is, the ''maths'' shows it is so it must be.

Absolute rubbish. It's your "math" that is wrong. The most "math" you've ever come up with is your +ve/-ve thing ... but you've never actually properly explained what your number represent or shown how they relate to the real World. You just say 1-1=0 like it proves something. It doesn't, as you don't know how to coherently describe the scenario or what your numbers mean.

 

On the other had, the math that, well, pretty much everyone but you understands is that light takes time to travel. It has a speed. So at a distance of, say, 8 light minutes, light will take 8 minutes to travel that distance. It's so obvious, consistent, and sensible. Something that happens 8 light minutes away, can't be seen until those 8 minutes has passed. The magic is all on your side, in totally ignoring this speed of light. Your only explanation is that light is "already there" - but that still requires magic as you want photons "already there" to give information about something that occurs on an object that they've already left.

 

Do you agree that time and events are synchronous? (ignoring time dilation).

That's simply too loose and undefined to answer.

 

Do the events from zero and now always remains now regardless of distance because time and event remains synchronous,

That doesn't make sense.

 

I think the problem with your ''magic'' and my ''magic'' is that the interpretation of time is wrong thus leading to our ''magic'', if we was to interpret time as not being interwoven and time was dependent to each and every observer, then things change.

Still gibberish.

 

 

Try this: A, B, and C are "nose to nose". Then B and C move 4 light minutes away. Then C moves 4 more light minutes away. So B is 4 light minutes away from A (and C), and C is 8 light minutes away from A, and 4 light minutes away from B.

 

They all come to a rest (relative to each other) and synchronize their clocks. A light source has been shining on them the whole time, and continues to shine. There's light all over the place and everyone can see each other.

 

A----B----C

 

Now, an event occurs on C when C's clock shows 10:00:00.

 

According to you, at what time does B see the event?

 

According to you, at what time does A see the event?

Edited September 2, 2016 by pzkpfw

[xyz]

Now, an event occurs on C when C's clock shows 10:00:00.

 

According to you, at what time does B see the event?

 

According to you, at what time does A see the event?

10:00:00

 

 

Because light is already there to begin with, 

 

 

I tell you what, lets forget all this for now and concentrate on something else as this seems to be getting us nowhere. 

 

 

Let us discuss sight itself.  ''you'' sort of believe that Photons are a carrier particle of information and sight works similar  to a receiver , where the brain ''translates'' the information and produces an imagine in your mind from the packet of information received.   Obvious you consider these packets of information travel a distance to get to you, so the information you receive is ''old'' information like the delay on a live satellite feed. 

You also consider these packets of information have to enter your eyes before you see.

 

 

However my distinguishable argument is, light has to enter your eyes to allow your brain connectivity to the whole as we do not see individual photons, we see a whole as one ''picture'', there is only science that claims they ''see'' objectively Photons with no  actual observation of individual Photons. I am being objective when I say the proof of a Photons existence is just not there to begin with. 

 

Consider a camera, a camera takes a shot and the picture is observed by the camera all at the same time from any point source of space regardless of distance and perspective. The camera is not seeing close range in the present and a greater range in the past. That would be ''magic''

 

 

added- the rate of time is infinite. 

 

Try to  measure past 0 without it instantly being time passed, try to use any rate of measurement . 

 

added- that's the problem, it just came to me. ''you'' define a rate of time when the actual rate of time is infinite, 

Edited September 2, 2016 by xyz

[A-wal]

No its 9:00 on the sun

 

And no we are talking about time, light is not time. Your mistake in thinking.

If it's 9:00 on the Earth then the light from 9:00 on the sun won't reach us until 9:08 because it takes eight minutes to travel from the sun to the Earth.

 

If it's 9:00 on the sun then the light from 9:00 on the Earth won't reach us until 9:08 because it takes eight minutes to travel from the Earth to the sun.

 

Light takes time to travel of the distance between objects so the further away the objects are from each other, the greater the delay of each observer's view of the other.

 

You're repeated, stupid and very annoying mistake in what you no doubt regard as thinking.

 

 

Buy Real/Fake Registered and unregistered passport of all countries.visas,biometric passport,degrees,drivers license,I.D cards,international refugee passports.Training certificates M GCSE, A-levels,SSN and we also We offer high quality counterfeit bills for the following currencies of any Country.Email if interested via([email protected])for more detail

   High School Diploma Certificates ,GMAT, MCAT, and LSAT Examination Certificates , Novelty Birth, Marriage, and Death Certificates , Novelty Passports and New We Offer The Following Kinds Of Loans.Personal Loan ,Business Loan, and more.We also sell all kind of drugs like cocaine and chemicals like mercury and more on any quantity.

How much? :)

[xyz]

If it's 9:00 on the Earth then the light from 9:00 on the sun won't reach us until 9:08 because it takes eight minutes to travel from the sun to the Earth.

 

If it's 9:00 on the sun then the light from 9:00 on the Earth won't reach us until 9:08 because it takes eight minutes to travel from the Earth to the sun.

 

Light takes time to travel of the distance between objects so the further away the objects are from each other, the greater the delay of each observer's view of the other.

 

You're repeated, stupid and very annoying mistake in what you no doubt regard as thinking.

 

How much? :)

Why do you always avoid the actual content and then recite back the present view we all know?

 

We know Awal!, we are talking beyond that.  

 

The rate of time is infinite , deal with this firstly. 

 

I think this is bigger than seeing in the past. It rules out time dilation and all sorts. 

[pzkpfw]

10:00:00

Right, so according to you, A and B physically see the events on C at the same time as each other, even though A is twice as far as B is, from C.

 

That's just to confirm what's already been clear - you think vision works instantly, across any distance. (Magic).

 

Because light is already there to begin with,

And yes, again, you've said that before - but you've never been able to give a shred of evidence for how that works.

 

How does light that left C before the event, show the event to A and B when the event later occurs? (Magic).

 

I tell you what, lets forget all this for now and concentrate on something else as this seems to be getting us nowhere. 

  

Let us discuss sight itself.  ''you'' sort of believe that Photons are a carrier particle of information and sight works similar  to a receiver , where the brain ''translates'' the information and produces an imagine in your mind from the packet of information received.   Obvious you consider these packets of information travel a distance to get to you, so the information you receive is ''old'' information like the delay on a live satellite feed. 

You also consider these packets of information have to enter your eyes before you see.

More or less right in terms of speed and delay. The way you describe the translation is a little off, but close enough.

 

However my distinguishable argument is, light has to enter your eyes to allow your brain connectivity to the whole as we do not see individual photons, we see a whole as one ''picture'', there is only science that claims they ''see'' objectively Photons with no  actual observation of individual Photons. I am being objective when I say the proof of a Photons existence is just not there to begin with.

That's not objective. That's simply incredulity. You're trusting your observation over actual scientific experiments. You are actually being subjective, not objective. Simply put, these kinds of things are too fast and too small for a human to be able to perceive them. Do you also disbelieve all of current electrical theory, because you can't see electrons running along a wire?

 

It's like on nakedscientists forum where you claimed to see the 1 cm and 2 cm marks of your tape measure at "the same time". I pointed out just how fast light travels 1 cm and asked if you'd be able to notice that. The point was very clear - at those distances NO person could tell the difference, so personal incredulity ("I don't believe it") doesn't trump the science.

 

Consider a camera, a camera takes a shot and the picture is observed by the camera all at the same time from any point source of space regardless of distance and perspective. The camera is not seeing close range in the present and a greater range in the past. That would be ''magic''

Rubbish, here you are just asserting what you want to believe.

 

When the camera takes it shot, it's capturing light that arrives at it, while the shutter is open. That light at the camera may well be captured all at once, but that has nothing to do with how far that light has come or when it left its source.

 

For example, take a photo at night, using a long exposure to capture stars. All of the light captured and recorded by your camera obviously arrived at the camera while the shutter was open, but the light from those stars may well have been travelling tens of years to get to you, from those distant stars. Some of that light will have travelled twice as long as other light. ( https://xkcd.com/1342/ )

 

As an example, say two people throw balls at you. One of the people is twice as far from you as the other. The more distant person throws their ball first. You can end up catching the two balls at the same time, even though they've travelled different distances to get to you.

 

Sorry, your camera example does not help your case.

 

added- the rate of time is infinite. 

 

Try to  measure past 0 without it instantly being time passed, try to use any rate of measurement . 

 

added- that's the problem, it just came to me. ''you'' define a rate of time when the actual rate of time is infinite,

That's gibberish. And in any case, a claim, not a proof.

 

Amazing what leaps of mental gymnastics you have to take, to justify your weird (subjective) beliefs.

Edited September 3, 2016 by pzkpfw

[xyz]

Right, so according to you, A and B physically see the events on C at the same time as each other, even though A is twice as far as B is, from C.

 

That's just to confirm what's already been clear - you think vision works instantly, across any distance. (Magic).

 

 

And yes, again, you've said that before - but you've never been able to give a shred of evidence for how that works.

 

How does light that left C before the event, show the event to A and B when the event later occurs? (Magic).

 

 

More or less right in terms of speed and delay. The way you describe the translation is a little off, but close enough.

 

 

That's not objective. That's simply incredulity. You're trusting your observation over actual scientific experiments. You are actually being subjective, not objective. Simply put, these kinds of things are too fast and too small for a human to be able to perceive them. Do you also disbelieve all of current electrical theory, because you can't see electrons running along a wire?

 

It's like on nakedscientists forum where you claimed to see the 1 cm and 2 cm marks of your tape measure at "the same time". I pointed out just how fast light travels 1 cm and asked if you'd be able to notice that. The point was very clear - at those distances NO person could tell the difference, so personal incredulity ("I don't believe it") doesn't trump the science.

 

 

Rubbish, here you are just asserting what you want to believe.

 

When the camera takes it shot, it's capturing light that arrives at it, while the shutter is open. That light at the camera may well be captured all at once, but that has nothing to do with how far that light has come or when it left its source.

 

For example, take a photo at night, using a long exposure to capture stars. All of the light captured and recorded by your camera obviously arrived at the camera while the shutter was open, but the light from those stars may well have been travelling tens of years to get to you, from those distant stars. Some of that light will have travelled twice as long as other light. ( https://xkcd.com/1342/ )

 

As an example, say two people throw balls at you. One of the people is twice as far from you as the other. The more distant person throws their ball first. You can end up catching the two balls at the same time, even though they've travelled different distances to get to you.

 

Sorry, your camera example does not help your case.

 

 

That's gibberish. And in any case, a claim, not a proof.

 

Amazing what leaps of mental gymnastics you have to take, to justify your weird (subjective) beliefs.

And how far do you think we can extend this tape measure?

 

 

I assure you there are ways of seeing the tape measure at a greater distance, i n my hand will be 0 and the other end I can see at the same time regardless of a greater distance. Your ''magic'' fails , my ''magic'' might not be explained perfect but it is very factual. 

 

 

Look out of the window my friend and tell me you don't see things on the horizon in the exact same time frame as the things near you?

Edited September 3, 2016 by xyz

[A-wal]

Why do you always avoid the actual content and then recite back the present view we all know?

 

We know Awal!, we are talking beyond that.  

 

The rate of time is infinite , deal with this firstly. 

 

I think this is bigger than seeing in the past. It rules out time dilation and all sorts. 

You're "talking beyond that" with no understanding of how it actually works as proven by experiments. It does not rule out time dilation. :)

 

Look out of the window my friend and tell me you don't see things on the horizon in the exact same time frame as the things near you?

You see the light from the objects at the same time but the light had to travel further at a finite speed the further away the object is so no, you don't see objects on the horizon in the exact same 'time frame' as closer objects. You need o work on your terminology. Don't use words like 'frame' that have a very specific meaning in this topic. A different frame is one that's in motion relative to an observer.

[xyz]

You're "talking beyond that" with no understanding of how it actually works as proven by experiments. It does not rule out time dilation. :)

 

You see the light from the objects at the same time but the light had to travel further at a finite speed the further away the object is so no, you don't see objects on the horizon in the exact same 'time frame' as closer objects. You need o work on your terminology. Don't use words like 'frame' that have a very specific meaning in this topic. A different frame is one that's in motion relative to an observer.

Talking  beyond that, yes exactly advancing science not being stuck in a past, it does over rule time dilation with simplicity. If you can measure time at any rate, it does not matter if the time was a slow rate or a fast rate you would still be measuring it at the same rate which can have a finite speed or an infinite speed which does not change the speed. 

 

I can use a basic CGI program, I know what a wire frame is, a frame is like what a picture comes in, a reference frame is a sphere, you do not know what a frame is. 

 

 

You first say ''You see the light from the objects at the same time''  then you contradict yourself, think Awal I know you are really smart so stop playing ''dumb'' and talk about what I am saying and not what we already both know, stop defending as if I am attacking, I am not I am trying to advance  it and maybe with some help from somebody like yourself win an award and get in wiki. 

 

Help me 

 

 

added- you see light fro the objects at the same time, if one object is in the distance and one is near, then according to you , you see one before the other and not at the same time, but, you see one  picture in your mind, one frame whole, a time frame whole, don't forget space and time are interwoven, relatively distance is time, expanding out from the big bang point 0t.

Edited September 9, 2016 by xyz