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

[xyz]

xyz claims to accept that light has a finite speed, but also thinks that once there is light between source and observer, any observation is instant.

 

That's what he means by "because we can see the entire journey of the rocket all at the same time because free space is not opaque and crystal clear" in that post.

 

It's why discussing this stuff with him is absolutely pointless. Since he can't let go of this silly idea, he'll never accept any explanation from currently known science.

You quite clearly do not know what you are talking about.

[pzkpfw]

When the rocket ship has taken 1 minute to reach an 8th of the journey the light has took 1 minute to return , when the rocket has travelled 2 minutes the light takes 2 minutes , when the rocket has travelled the full distance of 8 minutes, the light takes 8 minutes .

Yes, but the light that takes the return journey leaves the rocket at those times.

 

So, for example, given your "when the rocket has travelled the full distance of 8 minutes, the light takes 8 minutes", the light leaving the rocket after it has travelled 8 minutes, takes another 8 minutes to get back to the start; it can't use the "same" 8 minutes! So that light reaches the start after 16 minutes; 8 + 8. The rocket reaches B at 8 minutes, an observer at A sees that at 16 minutes. (All measurements by A's clock).

 

(... unless you invoke your personal non-science theory of "instant vision through gin clear space".)

 

 

Here on Earth in our day to day lives, light is so fast we just don't notice these effects. That doesn't mean they are not real.

Edited August 16, 2016 by pzkpfw

[xyz]

Yes, but the light that takes the return journey leaves the rocket at those times.

 

So, for example, given your "when the rocket has travelled the full distance of 8 minutes, the light takes 8 minutes", the light leaving the rocket after it has travelled 8 minutes, takes another 8 minutes to get back to the start; it can't use the "same" 8 minutes! So that light reaches the start after 16 minutes; 8 + 8. The rocket reaches B at 8 minutes, an observer at A sees that at 16 minutes. (All measurements by A's clock).

 

(... unless you invoke your personal non-science theory of "instant vision through gin clear space".)

 

 

Here on Earth in our day to day lives, light is so fast we just don't notice these effects. That doesn't mean they are not real.

I do not need to use the gin clear, I only need to use a Photon like ''you'' do. 

 

You are not considering the cancelling out. 

 

While the rocket moves away the Photons return, the photons return in the same time the rocket has travelled. 

 

Let me make it clear that I understand your perception of the 8+8=12.16

 

However if you consider this I am mentioning, we have a dilemma to consider. 

 

 

Let us change the rocket to a beam of light and the ''tip'' of the beam. 

 

 

 

The beams ''tip'' takes 8 minutes to arrive at (B) regardless whether we see the beam or not because the light speed is constant, do we agree with this?

 

The ''tip'' we know arrives at 12.08 at (B)

[pzkpfw]

I never said 8 + 8 is 12 !

 

(You also need to be careful with putting letters in brackets - smileys can result).

 

 

Yes, if you shone a light at something 8 light minutes away, it'll reach that object at 8 minutes by your clock.

 

If that object is a mirror, you'll see the reflection at 16 minutes by your clock, as it takes that light (it's "tip" by your words) 8 minutes to get back to you.

 

Anything else you do will follow the same timing.

 

For example, if you placed a red filter over your light, you'll see the reflected red light, 16 minutes later.

 

Light takes time to travel.

Edited August 16, 2016 by pzkpfw

[xyz]

 

Yes, if you shone a light at something 8 light minutes away, it'll reach that object at 8 minutes by your clock.

 

Right ok, ''we'' need to stop here at your first line for a moment. 

 

 

At point 0 it takes no time for the Photon to reach the ''observer'' stating  point. 

 

If the beams ''tip'' travels for one minute , it takes 1 minute for the Photon to travel back to our eye from the ''tip''. 

 

Can you not ''see''' the cancellation and net time difference=0?

 

I cant post pics so I will use dots and the greater than and less than function to express direction

 

 

................................>1min

 

<................................1min

 

 

 

Look how 0 is expanded to 1 minute, at every step of the journey their is a return of photons = to the speed of travel expansion. 

Edited August 16, 2016 by xyz

[pzkpfw]

1 + 1 = 2.

 

You are trying to say 1 + 1 = 0.

 

 

When your rocket is 1 light minute away, a photon that leaves it then is going to take 1 light minute to get back to the start.

 

Yes, it's in the opposite direction, but it's still going to take 1 more minute. 1 + 1 = 2.

 

---

 

Drive to the local shops. Then drive back home. You won't get back home at the same time as you left! Maybe it takes 10 minutes to drive to the shop. It'll take another 10 minutes to drive back (in the opposite direction) home. Total trip, 20 minutes, not zero.

 

There's no cancellation.

 

---

 

Imagine the rocket pilot waves at the time when your clock says 1 minute. The photons that let you see him or her wave will leave their hand at that time. They must then travel to your eye. That takes time. It can't be "instant", and it can't be by photons that left the pilots hand before they waved. You'll see that wave at 2 minutes by your clock.

 

---

Edited August 16, 2016 by pzkpfw

[superpsycho]

In reality, at the speed of light an object is not giving off any photons since it would require too much energy. But even without the relativistic effects, the doppler effect would shift light way below the visible range if the train was moving away from the observer. Effectively an observer in either direction is not likely to see anything except the train appearing at the location it stops at, once the light from that location reaches them.

[pzkpfw]

In reality, at the speed of light an object is not giving off any photons since it would require too much energy. But even without the relativistic effects, the doppler effect would shift light way below the visible range if the train was moving away from the observer. Effectively an observer in either direction is not likely to see anything except the train appearing at the location it stops at, once the light from that location reaches them.

It's certainly a non-physical situation, but we're having to take it in very small steps with xyz, and go along with his scenario to try to help him.

Edited August 16, 2016 by pzkpfw

[xyz]

1 + 1 = 2.

 

You are trying to say 1 + 1 = 0.

 

 

When your rocket is 1 light minute away, a photon that leaves it then is going to take 1 light minute to get back to the start.

 

Yes, it's in the opposite direction, but it's still going to take 1 more minute. 1 + 1 = 2.

 

---

 

Drive to the local shops. Then drive back home. You won't get back home at the same time as you left! Maybe it takes 10 minutes to drive to the shop. It'll take another 10 minutes to drive back (in the opposite direction) home. Total trip, 20 minutes, not zero.

 

There's no cancellation.

 

---

 

Imagine the rocket pilot waves at the time when your clock says 1 minute. The photons that let you see him or her wave will leave their hand at that time. They must then travel to your eye. That takes time. It can't be "instant", and it can't be by photons that left the pilots hand before they waved. You'll see that wave at 2 minutes by your clock.

 

---

Yes 1+1=2   I have no idea why you can't ''see'' this very simple scenario and the time difference is 0. 

 

 

@superpsycho

 

in reality you dont see photons yet science uses this example all the time. 

 

 

''Imagine the rocket pilot waves at the time when your clock says 1 minute. The photons that let you see him or her wave will leave their hand at that time. They must then travel to your eye. That takes time. It can't be "instant", and it can't be by photons that left the pilots hand before they waved. You'll see that wave at 2 minutes by your clock.''

 

 

but the free space is see through, I do not see any photons in reality, this is your subjective and not reality.

[pzkpfw]

Yes 1+1=2 I have no idea why you can't ''see'' this very simple scenario and the time difference is 0. ...

I explained why the time difference isn't 0, but you'll reject that, because ...

 

 

... but the free space is see through, I do not see any photons in reality, this is your subjective and not reality.

And there we have it. In post #120 you claimed otherwise, but my post #118 is shown to be absolutely correct.

 

 

You've been accepting of the speed of light (i.e. it's finite) but now, out of nowhere and with no evidence, you fling in "but the free space is see through", which you somehow think means you can see things instantly. (And for bonus points also incorrectly use "subjective" again.)

 

 

What is your evidence that "but the free space is see through" has anything to do with not having to wait another minute to see the pilot waves his or her hand?

Edited August 16, 2016 by pzkpfw

[superpsycho]

 

@superpsycho

 

in reality you dont see photons yet science uses this example all the time. 

 

 

''Imagine the rocket pilot waves at the time when your clock says 1 minute. The photons that let you see him or her wave will leave their hand at that time. They must then travel to your eye. That takes time. It can't be "instant", and it can't be by photons that left the pilots hand before they waved. You'll see that wave at 2 minutes by your clock.''

 

 

but the free space is see through, I do not see any photons in reality, this is your subjective and not reality.

No you don't see individual photons but you do see the result of a stream of them hitting your eyes. Light is a stream of photons. Those streams are from all the light sources you see. If the photons in those streams get to far apart then they would exceed the range at which you'd be able to perceive them. And yes, a photon leaving anything does not travel anywhere instantly, which is the point. Photons have an emission rate and a velocity. A pilot can wave all he wants but if he's traveling at the speed of light away from you, the photons will be too far apart for you to perceive them. The photons will still arrive but you won't know it unless you have some way of detecting them. But that exceeds the parameters you established which called for the observers to 'see' the train.

 

It seems at every stage of this thread when someone points out something doesn't work that way, you change the parameters of the discussion. What exactly are you trying to argue? Obviously you take exception to some part of current theory, as many people do, but what specifically is the area you object to?

[xyz]

I explained why the time difference isn't 0, but you'll reject that, because ...

 

 

 

And there we have it. In post #120 you claimed otherwise, but my post #118 is shown to be absolutely correct.

 

 

You've been accepting of the speed of light (i.e. it's finite) but now, out of nowhere and with no evidence, you fling in "but the free space is see through", which you somehow think means you can see things instantly. (And for bonus points also incorrectly use "subjective" again.)

 

 

What is your evidence that "but the free space is see through" has anything to do with not having to wait another minute to see the pilot waves his or her hand?

Because the light is already there to begin with, if it were ''dark'' then yes it would take time for the light to arrive, but it isn't dark in free space, it is light already to begin with.  Add white paint to white paint, you don't get any affect. Add white paint to dark paint and you notice the affect. 

 

In and of free space we do not observe the any ''tips'' of light we observe a whole, fact. We see the whole, all at the same time, it is as one. 

[xyz]

No you don't see individual photons but you do see the result of a stream of them hitting your eyes. Light is a stream of photons. Those streams are from all the light sources you see. If the photons in those streams get to far apart then they would exceed the range at which you'd be able to perceive them. And yes, a photon leaving anything does not travel anywhere instantly, which is the point. Photons have an emission rate and a velocity. A pilot can wave all he wants but if he's traveling at the speed of light away from you, the photons will be too far apart for you to perceive them. The photons will still arrive but you won't know it unless you have some way of detecting them. But that exceeds the parameters you established which called for the observers to 'see' the train.

 

It seems at every stage of this thread when someone points out something doesn't work that way, you change the parameters of the discussion. What exactly are you trying to argue? Obviously you take exception to some part of current theory, as many people do, but what specifically is the area you object to?

We do not see a stream of photons either, free space is  clear of spectral content, we only see spectral content, 

 

 

what am I trying to argue?

 

Most of the science theories you can not ''see''

 

i.e things that are invisible. 

 

Einstein wrong

 

Newtons third Law wrong

 

How sight works , wrong

 

There is probably a whole lot more

 

 

Would you like to begin at the beginning which I suppose is the Big bang?  which is wrong. 

 

Let me start with the theory , before the big bang there was nothing, 

 

Nothing is ambiguous and has two meanings of interpretation.

 

 

1.  No dimensions

 

2. ''Empty'' free space

 

You will reply , but if we have space, we do not  have nothing , we have space. 

 

However any zero ''point'' of space has no dimension and is nothing, in another words free space is a ''box'' of nothings. 

 

In your mind I want you to imagine number 1, 0 dimension, now I know the picture you are imagining is a blank dark image that has no dimension , I want you to change the imagine in your mind from the dark to light, I want you to now see a white picture, you will still observe no dimension , in reality you would still see it to  be dark because in the picture there is no bodies reflected light.   

 

Now add a body to either picture of the dark or the white, can you see now?

 

p.s close your eyes to see what nothing looks like, however the nothing you see could be without boundary in size.

 

If you do not know now why the BB is wrong from this, then I will go into physical evidence, the very fact that for any event to happen including a big bang, needs free space to happen in. All motion needs free space, all expansion needs free space, evidently. Free space is ''immortal'' and absolute without uncertainty.

 

Before the big bang there was 1 dimension, that is what you and I and everyone visualises when visualising nothing. 

Edited August 17, 2016 by xyz

[pzkpfw]

Because the light is already there to begin with, if it were ''dark'' then yes it would take time for the light to arrive, but it isn't dark in free space, it is light already to begin with.  Add white paint to white paint, you don't get any affect. Add white paint to dark paint and you notice the affect. 

 

In and of free space we do not observe the any ''tips'' of light we observe a whole, fact. We see the whole, all at the same time, it is as one.

And bingo, there we have it, the loop closed on post #118.

 

This demonstrates why discussion with you is pointless. You ask questions, but will reject any answer, you make statements, but will reject any correction. Because under it all, you have this unique personal view, where light is somehow just a carrier for vision, and not what we actually see, and that vision (once light is in place) is instant - breaking all current scientific understanding of the subject.

 

You have no evidence for any of this, just claims. All based on your subjective opinion (which you will no doubt claim is actually objective).

 

Good luck tilting at the windmills.

[xyz]

And bingo, there we have it, the loop closed on post #118.

 

This demonstrates why discussion with you is pointless. You ask questions, but will reject any answer, you make statements, but will reject any correction. Because under it all, you have this unique personal view, where light is somehow just a carrier for vision, and not what we actually see, and that vision (once light is in place) is instant - breaking all current scientific understanding of the subject.

 

You have no evidence for any of this, just claims. All based on your subjective opinion (which you will no doubt claim is actually objective).

 

Good luck tilting at the windmills.

I use objective opinion , it is not me who uses subjective. I do not reject answers, I question those answers. 

[A-wal]

You don't know what those words mean.

 

Time dilation and length contraction are objective fact because they are a natural and unavoidable consequence of a constant speed of light.

 

Measurements of length in time and space are purely subjective because they depend on the frame of reference of the observer.

 

Your views aren't just subjective, they're illogical BS, entirely nonsensical and provably false. If light takes time to reach the observer then the observer sees further back in time the further away they look, obviously.

[xyz]

You don't know what those words mean.

 

Time dilation and length contraction are objective fact because they are a natural and unavoidable consequence of a constant speed of light.

 

Measurements of length in time and space are purely subjective because they depend on the frame of reference of the observer.

 

Your views aren't just subjective, they're illogical BS, entirely nonsensical and provably false. If light takes time to reach the observer then the observer sees further back in time the further away they look, obviously.

Time dilation and length contraction are subjective to the interpretation of time and not objective, you are really sloppy with your thinking and are subjective, you even repeat yourself trying to ''force'' these false disciplines as if fact, when the only fact is time dilation and length contraction is somebodies else's thoughts and belief. 

 

 

Gravitational timing dilation is not an actual time dilation, only poor interpretation could impose such poor thinking.