Star triangle paradox

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Magical Realist, Jun 7, 2011.

  1. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,532
    Exactly: what we see is what things were when the light left the object: i.e. what it was then.
    Not as it is now.

    Edit: is this going to be another instance of you presenting nothing but a picture and employing your massive and over-riding ignorance of science to argue that things are not as they are but as you (mistakenly) perceive them to be?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    We are not only using perception though. There is an obvious connection between time and distance, i agree completely.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    And what will that show?

    It will show that once the object is gone you can no longer send it information. I am saying we will see when it is gone as long as we are seeing the actual object and not only the light. In that case distance does not matter. It makes no difference actually.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,532
    F*cking idiot.
    What are we using then?

    Yet you're ignoring it completely...

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    um........are we still seeing the object or do you just want to focus on what "leaves" the object?

    "now" is difficult to go by because in the time it takes to say the word "now" is over.
     
  9. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,532
    We ONLY see an object because of the light that leaves it and reaches us.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    So what? It's a useful shorthand.
     
  10. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    an object needs some illumination to be seen. obviously i cannot see in the dark.

    what if i could see in the dark?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  11. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Threw the old curve ball...

    what if...one could see in the dark?

    would everything you see THEN be in realtime?
     
  12. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,532
    Correct: reflected (or emitted) light.

    By what method?
    No. And you STILL haven't supported your idiotic contention that we do see in real time.
    Whatever you use (infra-red, radar, microwaves) takes time to reach us from the object that's being viewed.
     
  13. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    LOL...obviously it takes time for something emitted to reach something else.
     
  14. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,532
    Then how do you suppose we could (or do, as you have claimed) see "in real time"?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. NietzscheHimself Banned Banned

    Messages:
    867
    When will the object be gone? Space matters. Literally.
     
  16. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Any method. No light is darkness, you cant see it.

    Does the object THEN exist? The object is still the same distance of "lightyears" away. If i drop a piece of paper from my fingers onto a desk that is three feet under my hand i am seeing the hand in realtime, the object falling is another matter.

    The persons brain communicates with the muscles, the fingers move.

    I am seeing that in realtime, as it is happening. If the person moves their hand further away that does not increase the time it takes for me to see what it is doing.
     
  17. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Excuse me?
     
  18. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Does that really matter?
     
  19. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,532
    So what? Anything which would let us "see" an object takes time to travel. Therefore NO real time viewing.

    So what?

    Wrong. There's a lag between the light coming off your hand and being received in your eyes. You ARE NOT seeing in "real time".

    Wrong and wrong.
    Please substantiate these claims: all you're doing so far is repeating the same incorrect nonsense.
     
  20. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,532
    What? Since you have admitted that any emission/ reflection takes time to reach us then how can we possibly see in real time?
     
  21. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    I gave examples that shows this to be false. Your eyes see in realtime, unless there is a delay to reach your brain but....meh, i wont resort to insults.
     
  22. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,532
    No you haven't. At all.

    Physically impossible.
     
  23. NietzscheHimself Banned Banned

    Messages:
    867
    THE COMPUTER IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE ISN"T EVEN "REAL" TIME. Real time does not exist because if it did everything would be condensed into a singularity. Only then could something happen in one place and be observed in another at the exact same time. Time is relative. That's a rule.
     

Share This Page