Do we see objects in their past?

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience' started by absolute-space, Feb 24, 2016.

  1. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    absolute-space:

    You are not being clear.

    Suppose you and I stand still on a road, 30 metres apart. The fastest signal of any kind that can travel between us will take 100 nanoseconds to travel from you to me or vice versa.

    If I wave my hand at you, you'll see that wave 100 ns later. If you wave your hand at me, I'll see your wave 100 ns later. So, you are seeing my waving hand as it was 100 ns in the past, and I am seeing your waving hand as it was 100 ns in the past.

    If we both happen to wave our hands at each other at the same time, then we'll both see the other person wave 100 ns after it actually happens, but we'll both see the waves simultaneously.

    You are not making a clear distinction between the time that an event (like a wave) occurs and the time that a distant observer sees it. Since the speed of light is finite, a distant observer always sees an event later than the time it actually occurred.

    Do you agree with this?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    I mean neither space nor time is absolute and depends on one's frame of reference.
    I mean the speed of light in a vacuum, "c" is constant. All pretty basic stuff.
    I mean that SR and GR have been tested and validated to unheard of accuracies and precision...GP-B, and LIGO in recent times.
    I mean that no lay person/amateur will ever invalidate SR/GR from a science forum open to every Tom, Dick, and Harry.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    You are totally confused as you were in the other thread.
    Both parties see the other as they were.
    Let me repeat: There is no Universal now.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. absolute-space Registered Member

    Messages:
    280
    Yes I agree with this, thank you for your input. That is what I was trying to say.
     
  8. absolute-space Registered Member

    Messages:
    280
    No universal what ?

    edit - sorry missed your other post I am tired now.
     
  9. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Hmm, we seem to have a hellava lot of newbies in recent times, pretending to ask questions under the guise of science in the sciences, then refusing to accept reputable links and answers contradicting them, and then suddenly claiming some nonsense alternative.
    Am I being over critical?
     
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    You have trouble reading?
     
  11. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Great stuff! Just as everyone else has told you.
    So you agree everytime we look into the heavens, we are looking into the past!
    Nice!
     
  12. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    But you are quoting what I said.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  13. absolute-space Registered Member

    Messages:
    280
    I said I agreed with what James said , I did not say that when we look into the heavens we are looking into the past. I have not even warmed up yet in this thread.

    And yes you are being over critical.

    You say you look up at a star and you are seeing that star in its past, because of light and the time it takes for a photon to arrive.

    However there is the very clear issue of that space is not perceived to being opaque, it is perceived to be transparent, can I ask you a question, do you perceive there is a distance to the star you are observing? Do you perceive that you can see the entire length of space between you and the star? don't you perceive you can see the start and the finish at the same time?

    Hence , here we go again, you may pull your faces in disgust, but is this not what science is about to answer these doubting questions between us?
     
  14. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Second base.

    I mean, what kind of idiot doesn't even know the names of the players on his own team?
     
  15. absolute-space Registered Member

    Messages:
    280
    The sort of idiot that has been concentrating on certain aspects of the teams lockers. I never claimed to be an expert or to know everything .
     
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    There are no doubts with the issues so far discussed. And as I said whether you chose for whatever reason, not to listen to reason, is only skin off your nose. I mean who the hell do you believe you are trying to convince?
    Let me tell you in no uncertain terms, we have had a rash of anti science/SR/GR rants of late from a few newbies. And it makes not a scrap of difference.
    The last time I looked, the accepted scientific views and theories remain as rock solid as ever.
    No one is questioning your right to believe in whatever nonsense floats your boat: Your assumptions that anyone is listening or taking notice, is certainly questioned.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    Have fun with whatever your mission is.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  17. Russ_Watters Not a Trump supporter... Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,051
    Yeah, I know he's supposed to be stupid, but it's really only for little kids that stupid=funny. I really don't get why it was supposed to be funny.
     
  18. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    James just told you that due to the finite speed of light, you are looking into the past every night when you look at the heavens.
    I'm telling you, you are totally wrong in as gentle a manner as I can.
    You need to accept that or remain delusional.
     
  19. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    [Puts nice gentle hat on]
    Nothing wrong with that at all: We are all here learning: The greatest art to scholarship is being able to admit you were wrong, just as Einstein did with regards to the expanding Universe concept.
     
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    The last one is post 50.
    I believe its about time this thread was shifted James.
    Here are examples of him agreeing with you, and then a minute later disagreeing with what you have effectively said.
     
  21. James R Just this guy, you know? Staff Member

    Messages:
    39,397
    absolute-space:

    Do you agree that when we look at the Sun, for example, we see it as it was approximately 8 minutes ago? It takes light 8 minutes to travel from the Sun to where you are on Earth.

    Correct.

    How is that relevant to anything? If space wasn't opaque, then light could not reach the Earth from the Sun. I think we can all agree on that.

    Yes. 8 light-minutes of distance to the Sun from the Earth, or 150 million kilometres. Of course, you don't see distance directly. You have to measure it somehow. But there are lots of different ways to determine how far away the Sun is.

    "Space" is empty and transparent. What do you mean by seeing space? Nobody sees space, or even air for that matter. We don't see things that are transparent.

    The start and finish of what? What are you talking about?

    You don't see the light leaving the Sun. You only see light from the Sun when it enters your eye. In fact, you only see any light when it enters your eye. You never directly see light emitted from anything.

    Agree?
     
  22. absolute-space Registered Member

    Messages:
    280
    My answer to that is yes and no, I agreed with you other post thinking that meant do agree that is the present knowledge, I thought you had spotted the error and agreed with me when you said , that each observer receives the photons at the same time , simultaneously. Thinking you were pointing out the oddity to the others.





    I think you meant if space was opaque then no light would get through.







    Exactly we do not observe light passing through air, we do not observe single photons travelling from A to B, we observe the light as if whole,


    We observe A and B at the same time, the transparency of space allows us to perceive distance in our minds, we can see point A and Point B simultaneously, there is nothing opaque in the way stopping us seeing the astronaut and the man at the same time.



    Exactly so where do science get from claiming that there is single photons passing from A to B when we do not observe this .[/QUOTE]
     
  23. absolute-space Registered Member

    Messages:
    280
    Also you may want to ponder over this, time does not exist, anything after 0 is history .

    It is not that complicated to understand, if I sore you 5 minutes ago and you sore me 5 minutes ago, it stands to obvious reasoning that we sore each other at the same time.
     

Share This Page