Star triangle paradox

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

  1. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Does 0 (zero) exist?

    I definitely think it does.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



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

    Messages:
    18,535
    Off-topic.
    Still waiting for you to either substantiate your "seeing in real time claim" or admit you're wrong.

    (Although, frankly, I expect you'll do what you usually do: stop posting in this thread without even attempting to support your ridiculous claim).
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    What claim?

    I cant sit here forever. If a claim has been made then dispute it. To me i am giving facts, to the best of my knowledge.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,725
    So you figure the movie Avatar is reality? After all, you can see all those objects. In 3D, even.
     
  8. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Why would i think that?
     
  9. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,535
    The claim requires substantiation. You have presented no facts: in fact you have directly contradicted yourself in other posts.
     
  10. billvon Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,725
    Because you said that "if i can see an object either aided or unaided the OBJECT (not necessarily the light) is in real time. This is reality."

    Even the best movie/videotape is not real time. It's not reality. Even if you see it.
     
  11. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,664
    The time lapse of distance isn't limited to light. Take a black hole for instance. Its gravity happens at the speed of light. So if you are 100 LY from a black hole, you'd only feel the effects of the gravity it was generating as it was 100 years in the past. This suggests that indeed far away objects ARE in the past since the lapse is not restricted to just light emmissions. IOW, it is due to the very nature of spacetime since spacetime is about the only thing underlying BOTH light and gravity.
     
  12. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,664
    LOL! That's pretty profound John..besides just being true.
     
  13. NietzscheHimself Banned Banned

    Messages:
    867
    0 is the definition of non existance. It does not exist. Stop trying to make pointless points and elaborate your cause.
     
  14. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    That would not apply to something taped\filmed or recorded.
     
  15. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    0 does exist. How do you get from zero to one? As a matter of fact the object being viewed can be (easily) equated with zero...in terms of where it exists.
     
  16. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,664
    I was going to suggest that an experiment in quantum entangled photons might confirm whether a distant star really coexists simultaneously to us. But then I realized that quantum entanglement can happen across time as well as space. IOW, truly past events can happen "simultaneously" to truly future events. And vice versa. Isn't this essentially what the idea of a 4D block spacetime is all about anyway?
     
  17. Motor Daddy ☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    You would not be going back in time if you traveled faster than light towards the star.

    Say the star was 100 light years away from you. It emitted light in the year 1911, and the light arrived at your position in the year 2011. Just as the light reached you you started traveling towards the star at 2c. As you traveled towards the star, you would be encountering younger and younger light from the star that was emitted after the original light that emitted in 1911 that reached you when you started traveling.

    When you get to within 50 light years of the star, you will have traveled for 25 years, and traveled a distance of 50 light years. So the year is 2036, and the light that hits you there was emitted 50 years ago, so the light left the star in the year 1986.

    When you get to within 25 light years of the star, you will have traveled for 12.5 more years (37.5 total), and traveled a distance of 25 light years (75 light years total). So the year is 2048.5, and the light that hits you there was emitted 25 years ago, so the light left the star in the year 2023.5.

    When you get to within 1 light year of the star, you will have traveled for 12 more years (49.5 total), and traveled a distance of 24 light years (99 light years total). So the year is 2060.5, and the light that hits you there was emitted 1 year ago, so the light left the star in the year 2059.5.

    When you get to the star, you will have traveled for .5 more years (50 years total), and traveled a distance of 1 light year (100 light years total). So the year is 2061, which is 50 years later than when you left in 2011, because you traveled for 50 years.
     
    Last edited: Jun 8, 2011
  18. Magical Realist Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,664

    If only Einstein was still around to hear your theory..
     
  19. Motor Daddy ☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    Did I make a mistake?
     
  20. Dywyddyr Penguinaciously duckalicious. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,535
    Yes. You posted.
     
  21. Motor Daddy ☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    As a matter of fact, if you could travel a hundred billion times the speed of light, you would not go back in time, as it always takes time to travel, regardless of the speed at which you travel.
     
  22. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    Is the light really younger?

    What is the effect in revers? Turning the light off completely...instantly.
     
  23. John99 Banned Banned

    Messages:
    22,046
    What if the light only travels (or waht we perceive to be traveling) during the "on-off phase"?

    ...if the light reaches as far as it can go, can we then deem it to be constant? For as long as it reamins on, of course.
     

Share This Page