Star triangle paradox

It's not a premise, it's a fact.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You're disagreeing with your own statement dude. Just fess up and move on. It's not that important. We all make mistakes sometimes.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Does not matter. IF you can see an object it is either there or it is not. Distance does not matter, merely the fact that you can see the object. I am not discussing the light that the object emits.

Not the object itself and only if you are measuring the light reaching you. What confuses you guys is the fact we are discussing light.

If i wave a large hand fan it takes time for that wind to travel from the source outward, further away the more time it takes and that is exactly the same for light.

Questions:

is my hand still there? yes.

can i measure the time it takes for the wind (or light) to travel? yes.

Does this mean my hand (or in this case a star) is not there or i am seeing the object in a distorted time? No. It can only be real time, what we see. Laws of nature, my man.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You ONLY see an object because of the light coming from it.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

And we see objects by the light coming from them. Simple.

Unfortunately (as we have seen numerous times) your grasp on the laws of nature is tenuous to say the least. We see an object because of the light emitted/ reflected from it. Therefore we see it as it was when that light left it. We do not see in "real time". At all (but the lag is so short for objects in our lives that the difference is negligible for ordinary life).

 

And what about light reaching it?

 

From where?
Light reaching it has nothing to do with us seeing the object (except in the case of reflected: whether light reaches it at all).

 

oh...doesnt it? never knew that, still dont because it is not true, of course.

 

Really?
Explain.

 

Light is a special case. It is both traveling AND a universal constant (THE epistemic speedlimit beyond which nothing can be known.) Example: imagine perceiving a star thru some emission that travels faster than the speed of light. The emission itself would be reversing in time, going backwards instead of forward and enveloping the star in obscurity. There is no "IS" of a star apart from the light that is being emitted from it.

 

If i look up and see a star explode i am seeing that in real time.

 

Explain that if i shine a light on something i can see it? wow, never knew this day would come.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

No. If you see a "star explode" that star is no longer there now ("when" you see it). You're seeing it when it happened - however many years ago, and the delay is due to the light from that event taking time to reach us.

 

I covered that with my comment about "reflected" light.
Or was that something else you didn't understand? Apparently so...

 

Operative words are:

I made it clear that the object and the light emitted are distinct in the times we see them due to the light traveling.

 

Nonsense.
How do we see an object if not by light coming from it?

 

So when we see the light closes to the object HOW can you say that particular light is lightyears away? Obviously it isnt.

 

What?
What do you mean "light closest to the object"?
We don't see any light close to the object. We see the light that has travelled from the object to us. And that light has taken time to get here.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Speaks for itself.

 

I'd agree that perception is always now. But the content of perception (concerning the external environment) is about former states of that environment. The farther away the objects are, the more they are about something that happened deeper in the past, even though the objects are indeed manifested simultaneously in the "now" of one's current interval of perception, regardless of when their individual states originally occurred.

 

When a wise man argues with a fool for an extended period of time one begins to wonder who is the fool.

Why don't we just make three stars and see how fast we can make our optical cumputers send information from one to another from varying distances?