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

[xyz]

You said the universe can't be finite.

I said it can.

You said it looks finite because there's a limit to how far we can see.

I said I know there's a limit to how far we can see and it's obviously bigger than that but it has absolutely nothing to do with the universe being finite.

What would you suggest is beyond the observed Universe , a ''concrete'' barrier that is infinite?

Edited August 23, 2016 by xyz

[superpsycho]

How am I suppose to  know in which way you want me to think?

If you would like to talk about permeability causing impedance of hf to manifest a visual energy that somehow becomes solidity i have no problem with that, but then question arises of the origin of the hf, which I think is ''space'' contracting. 

 

 

added- some sort of ohmic free space field is on my mind.

It's not about me wanting you to think one way or another, it's about you staying on the subject matter and the question at issue. Permeability goes to the question of mobility. That has to be assumed at this point, otherwise there is nothing you can construct. Permeability can be addressed as a separate issue but if you try to address too many unknowns at one time, the possibilities become unlimited very quickly. There are some basic contradictions inherent when addressing permeability, so it's better to work around it until there's more to go on.

 

Relative impedance levels are fairly straight forward and something easy to start with to see if it goes somewhere. If it works, then you've got one possibility from which you can build out from. If not, then you try another path. That's how you approach things in science and research.

Edited August 23, 2016 by superpsycho

[xyz]

It's not about me wanting you to think one way or another, it's about you staying on the subject matter and the question at issue. Permeability goes to the question of mobility. That has to be assumed at this point, otherwise there is nothing you can construct. Permeability can be addressed as a separate issue but if you try to address too many unknowns at one time, the possibilities become unlimited very quickly. There are some basic contradictions inherent when addressing permeability, so it's better to work around it until there's more to go on.

 

Relative impedance levels are fairly straight forward and something easy to start with to see if it goes somewhere. If it works, then you've got one possibility from which you can build out from. If not, then you try another path. That's how you approach things in science and research.

input impedance into free space from an external source?

[superpsycho]

input impedance into free space from an external source?

Not from an external source. Space itself must have some level of impedance, otherwise particles could travel from one end of the universe to the other instantaneously. It would also mean as space expanded it couldn't carry anything with it. No impedance would mean having no affect on anything.

Edited August 23, 2016 by superpsycho

[A-wal]

What would you suggest is beyond the observed Universe , a ''concrete'' barrier that is infinite?

Please try to listen.

 

I said the observable universe is just that, how far we can observe. That has nothing to do with it being finite.

 

I also said it doesn't have boundaries, that wouldn't make any sense.

 

There are three possibilities. The one you describe is flat. There's also negatively curved (curves outward away from itself) making it infinite/open ended and positively curved (curves inwards towards itself) making it finite/closed.

 

A finite and unbounded universe is the only one of the three possible configurations that makes sense to me.

[xyz]

My thread is being changed to another subject. 

 

You don't see the Sun as it were 8 minutes ago  .

 

You stand next to me with your nose touching my nose. 

 

The time it takes light to arrive from eye to eye is negligible so we can say 0[sub}t{/sub] and we are both seeing each other now and at the same time in the present.

 

You move away from me for a radius r=1 light second

 

 

The time it takes light to reach me is 1 light second and vice versus, we see each other simultaneously. We still see each other now and in the present. 

 

 

8 light  minutes later same result. 

 

I see you now like I sore you now back then.

 

I don't see you as you were 8 minutes ago because I always sore you in the now and present. 

Edited August 27, 2016 by xyz

[pzkpfw]

That makes zero sense.

 

If you are 1 light second away from me, then I will see light that was generated by you, or reflected by you, one second after it leaves you.

 

That's what 1 light second means.

 

Same for 8 light minutes. That means light will take 8 minutes to travel that distance. That's why we see the Sun as of 8 minutes ago.

 

You may as well not even mention light seconds or light minutes, if you are in the same post going to claim that we see things at the same time as they occur.

 

You have some idea of magic instant vision. Until you've shown that idea to be correct, everything else is a waste of time.

[A-wal]

You're talking complete nonsense.

 

What the hell does maintaining sight of an object that starts off close to you have to do with how long the light takes to reach you if you move further apart.

 

It takes time for the light to travel over any distance so the further away the object is, the longer it takes for the light to reach you. If the sun were to go out now we wouldn't know anything until eight minutes after because the light it put out from the previous eight minutes would still be on its way here.

 

I don't know why you're having so much trouble understanding this. It's very simple.

[xyz]

That makes zero sense.

 

If you are 1 light second away from me, then I will see light that was generated by you, or reflected by you, one second after it leaves you.

 

That's what 1 light second means.

 

Same for 8 light minutes. That means light will take 8 minutes to travel that distance. That's why we see the Sun as of 8 minutes ago.

 

You may as well not even mention light seconds or light minutes, if you are in the same post going to claim that we see things at the same time as they occur.

 

You have some idea of magic instant vision. Until you've shown that idea to be correct, everything else is a waste of time.

I know what 1 light second means, 

 

start here - 

 

 

Simultaneous event 1.

 

Two points , A and B

 

Photon (A)  travels from A to B

 

Photon (B) travels from B to A 

 

radius between points is r=0 

 

Time taken 0 

 

 

 

 

simultaneous event 2

We will now change r=1 light second

 

 

Photon (A)  travels from A to B  t=1 light second

 

Photon (B) travels from B to A  t=1 light second

 

 

 

 

simultaneous event 3

 

 

''If you are 1 light second away from me, then I will see light that was generated by you, or reflected by you, one second after it leaves you.''

 

 

And I will see light that was reflected/left you , one second after it leaves you. 

 

 

simultaneous event 4

 

Two points , A and B

 

Photon (A)  travels from A to B

 

Photon (B) travels from B to A 

 

radius between points is r= 8 minutes

 

Time taken 8 minutes

 

 

?????????????how many minutes does it take for both Photons A and B to make their journey if they leave their start point at the same time????????????

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

simultaneous event 3

[xyz]

You're talking complete nonsense.

 

What the hell does maintaining sight of an object that starts off close to you have to do with how long the light takes to reach you if you move further apart.

 

 

Because the light is constant , the simultaneous between two bodies is constant. 

 

r=0 we see each other now

 

r=1 light second we see each other now

 

r=8 minutes we see each other now

 

you see me now all the way to the sun

 

now moves with you all the way to the sun

 

when you get there it is now

 

when i see you get there is is now

 

you retain simultaneous throughout the entire journey

[xyz]

https://theoristexplains.wordpress.com/2016/08/27/stop-telling-me-i-am-wrong/

[A-wal]

OMFG! The light takes time to cover the distance. The more distance it travels, the longer it takes to do it.

 

R = 1 light second: We each see the other with a one second delay.

 

R = 8 light minutes: We each see the other with an eight minute delay.

 

Obvious!

[pzkpfw]

...

simultaneous event 4

 

Two points , A and B

 

Photon ( A ) travels from A to B

 

Photon ( B ) travels from B to A 

 

radius between points is r = 8 minutes

 

Time taken 8 minutes

 

 

?????????????how many minutes does it take for both Photons A and B to make their journey if they leave their start point at the same time????????????

8 minutes each.

 

Given carefully constructed preconditions,

I absolutely agree that events at A and B might be "simultaneous".

I also agree, that an observer at B sees the event at A "simultaneously" with the observer at A seeing that event at B.

 

But what can't be true, and what you have not shown, is the observer at A seeing the event at B simultaneously with the event occurring. Due to the distance and the finite speed of light, A can't see event B (and vice versa) at the "same time" as it occurs.

 

(My diagram here shows it for an 8 light second distance: reply #51 http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=68030.msg496154#msg496154 )

 

It's simply impossible - but that's the bit you need to convince us of. So far, the only thing you've provided to try to convince us of this, is your claim that keeping things in sight somehow maintains some kind of magic connection that allows for instant vision across a distance. Which is rot, until proven otherwise.

[xyz]

8 minutes each.

 

Given carefully constructed preconditions,

I absolutely agree that events at A and B might be "simultaneous".

I also agree, that an observer at B sees the event at A "simultaneously" with the observer at A seeing that event at B.

 

But what can't be true, and what you have not shown, is the observer at A seeing the event at B simultaneously with the event occurring. Due to the distance and the finite speed of light, A can't see event B (and vice versa) at the "same time" as it occurs.

 

(My diagram here shows it for an 8 light second distance: reply #51 http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=68030.msg496154#msg496154 )

 

It's simply impossible - but that's the bit you need to convince us of. So far, the only thing you've provided to try to convince us of this, is your claim that keeping things in sight somehow maintains some kind of magic connection that allows for instant vision across a distance. Which is rot, until proven otherwise.

Ok, you need to remember I understand why you say we see the Sun as it were 8 minutes ago. 

 

I have already shown why  but as yet you have not understood why. 

 

 

You and I are nose to nose , we are seeing each other as we are now, do you agree?

 

You move ten feet away from me, do you agree we are seeing each other now?

 

Consider the simultaneous ''connection'' we have already established.  No matter what distance our noses become apart , from the initial nose to nose moment, we continue to see each other at the same time .  So if I see you at nose to nose at 12:00am and you travel away from me for 8 minutes , I see you at 12:08am the same time you see me. 

Edited August 27, 2016 by xyz

[pzkpfw]

Ok, you need to remember I understand why you say we see the Sun as it were 8 minutes ago. 

 

I have already shown why  but as yet you have not understood why. 

 

You and I are nose to nose , we are seeing each other as we are now, do you agree?

At that short distance the delay is so small that we can say it's zero. You sneeze, I'll see it close enough to "instantly".

 

You move ten feet away from me, do you agree we are seeing each other now?

We are still seeing each other, but the distance is now ten feet. It is such a small distance we'd not notice any delay, but the delay is there. Light takes time to travel ... light takes time to travel even ten feet. If I sneeze, you'll not notice the delay (with your limited human senses), but the sneeze exiting my nose must be seen by you after the time it takes light to cross that ten feet.

 

Consider the simultaneous ''connection'' we have already established.  No matter what distance our noses become apart , from the initial nose to nose moment, we continue to see each other at the same time .  So if I see you at nose to nose at 12:00am and you travel away from me for 8 minutes , I see you at 12:08am the same time you see me.

That's a claim, not a proof. You've made this "simultaneous connection" type of claim before, but that's what you need to somehow prove.

 

Just because we keep a continuous watch on each other, how does that make images travel instantly across the increasing distance between us? How do we get 8 light minutes apart, yet somehow see things at the instant they occur? You still utterly fail to explain that.

 

If you and I are nose to nose, I can throw a ball and you'll catch it very soon after. At fifty metres apart, the time between me throwing the ball and you catching it would become quite easily noticeable, as we see the ball flying through the air. Now light is of course much much quicker than any thrown ball, but it still has a finite speed. So what magic are you invoking that lets us see things "instantly" over a distance?

[xyz]

At that short distance the delay is so small that we can say it's zero. You sneeze, I'll see it close enough to "instantly".

 

 

We are still seeing each other, but the distance is now ten feet. It is such a small distance we'd not notice any delay, but the delay is there. Light takes time to travel ... light takes time to travel even ten feet. If I sneeze, you'll not notice the delay (with your limited human senses), but the sneeze exiting my nose must be seen by you after the time it takes light to cross that ten feet.

 

 

That's a claim, not a proof. You've made this "simultaneous connection" type of claim before, but that's what you need to somehow prove.

 

Just because we keep a continuous watch on each other, how does that make images travel instantly across the increasing distance between us? How do we get 8 light minutes apart, yet somehow see things at the instant they occur? You still utterly fail to explain that.

 

If you and I are nose to nose, I can throw a ball and you'll catch it very soon after. At fifty metres apart, the time between me throwing the ball and you catching it would become quite easily noticeable, as we see the ball flying through the air. Now light is of course much much quicker than any thrown ball, but it still has a finite speed. So what magic are you invoking that lets us see things "instantly" over a distance?

You miss the point there is no delay in time at the short distance of ten feet, the sight is still simultaneously. 

Edited August 27, 2016 by xyz

[pzkpfw]

You miss the point there is no delay in time at the short distance of ten feet, the sight is still simultaneously.

No, the point is that at 10 feet the delay is small, so it seems simultaneous.

 

But in any case, how does that explain the case where the distance is 8 light minutes?