JohnLesser

 

 

Nope.

We observe things in their past?

With great respect you can not suggest the above then not consider what we actually mean by the above.

Do we see into the past like Einstein suggests or not?

 

 

But you are misunderstanding/misrepresenting it.

Are you saying the observer with the slower rate of time does not experience a time dilation?

This as been proved many,many times in experiment.

There is no such thing as falling behind in time.

It is exactly noon on my ground state clock, what time is it on the slower dilated clock?

 

Yes, I understand time dilation quite well. However, you seem to be have trouble with perspectives. Your interpretation appears to be based on merely a stationary observer perspective. Light-speed compresses time; however, as Lord Antares has conveyed, deep-space objects are merely projections of prior states like home movies of a childhood birthday party--although what you see in the movie projects the past, what you observe isn't time-traveling to the past.

Then you again are being contradictory. You say that we observe objects in the past but then deny setting a vector to the object is not travelling into the past. I am viewing this from 3 observers perspective.

Twin 1

Twin 2

A distant star.

And you see stationary objects in the past as well, so what is your point?

When you see anything whatsoever, you see its past state. When the object receds, it gets further away, and that's why it makes more time for information to reach you, rather than it going back in time.

 

Your main problem is that you use your unconventional and useless definitions for time to make your case. These observations of yours bear no relevance.

Quite clearly you would not have put ''so what is your point?'' if you understood the subject. The point is quite obvious and in plane English.

 

It is clear to me that you don't read posts, you just skim through that. I made a mention of that.

 

It is correct that you are observing past states of any object, such as a star.

When you see starlight of a star which is 10 ly away, you are seeing the light which shined 10 years ago at the location of the star.

 

This is much different to saying that objects travel back in time when they move away from you. This is what you don't understand.

You don't seem to understand that you see the receding object in the past also.

 

It's a thought experiment much like that of Einstein. What you perceive as an object behind you in time is merely your perspective of how slowly time progresses relative to light-speed.

Do you even understand time dilation?

Time slows down , therefore the observer with the slower rate of time falls behind in time relative to the ground state observer. If you say the observer does not, then you are saying time is an invariant going against mainstream.

, and per mainstream physics definition, a receding object in no way travels back in time.

 

So you are now saying we don't observe objects in their past and contradictory to the nature of light.

 

 

You are at a dock and a ship is just about to take off to deep sea. There is a person on the ship who constantly throws marbles at you. Any subsequent throw of the marbles takes more and more time to reach you because the ship is receding, increasing the distances from you.

By your logic, you would say that this ship is travelling into the past, which makes no sense. It just increases distance from you.

I did not invent the physics, the physics is mainstream.

He isn't behind, if I understand correctly, he has merely leaped ahead to a state the stationary observe traversed slowly.

A person can not travel at c.

Are you going against mainstream and saying there is no time dilation?

Look, I understand what you are trying to say, but it has no relation to physics.

 

You are quite wrong, this is physics and relativity and well known knowledge.

No it isn't. Just because the light we see from a distant object originated in the past does not mean that we consider it as being in the past when we see that light.

 

You are incorrect, it is mainstream that we observe/see things in past position, by time the information reaches you, the object is displaced from where you observe it to be.

 

No. If the object is moving towards you, the information will start to come quicker than if it is stationary. By your logic, either this object is travelling into the future or the stationary object is left behind in the past.

This is more linguistics and pragmatics than physics. This information you are saying is well known, but no one agrees that this means that the objects are travelling anywhere on a timeline. It would, I guess, depend on the definition of past and present, but as it is now, this doesn't hold water.

This is Einsteins work, I have just related the two things of observing things in the past and time dilation.

The object is moving away from you, let us use the travelling twin for thought experiment.

Twin one ground state

Twin two ground state

Both twins perceive they are in the present locally and time is constant and simultaneous for both in the inertia ground state reference frame.

ok so far?

At ground state both twins observe each other in the present, the time light takes to reach each other being negligible.

 

If I understand your question correctly, it's not that the object is behind you in time, it's the information that you're receiving that is delayed by the time it takes for that information to reach your observation. This is precisely what we observe through deep-space observations of distant galaxies. We may only know the state of those distant galaxies as they were rather than as they presently are because of the time required for their light to travel the distance to our observations.

When time is dilated for an observer , time ''ticks'' slower, effectively the observer becomes behind in time relative to the ground state observer.

 

That makes no sense whatsoever.

The only thing you are right about is that time is (at least how we measure it) a construct and not a real physical property. But everything else is wrong.

 

And your example of there not being light and no time makes no sense. Of course if you remove something elementary like gravity or light, everything else collapses.

 

 

 

No one is going into the past, exactly because time is relative.

By your logic, a stationary object is going back in time versus a moving object (moving towards you, that is).

 

Nothing is going through the past, but the information is receding, like DrmDoc said.

You have not considered the time dilation part.

 

 

 

 

By your logic, a stationary object is going back in time versus a moving object (moving towards you, that is).

 

 

The other way around.

 

 

It does not travel into the past.

Then that would be contradictory to the nature of light.

An observer & a hearer & a feeler go into a bar, & they ask the barman (a smeller) -- Hey, whats the time??????

The barman, can smell a ticking clock's ticking -- the observer can see the hands moving (this was many years ago) -- the hearer can hear the ticking -- the feeler feels the ticking.

The guy playing pool, who is a taster, says -- Its sweet'o'clock.

Who was correct.

Well, on this forum Einstein is always correct.

Luckily for this forum Einstein could see. If he couldn't see but could hear then E=mcc would be something else, but still wrong.

According to Einstein if it were not for light, we wouldn't have time at all.

And no length contraction, no time dilation.

No present.

No clocks.

And no trains.

 

But seriously, if light had infinite speed we would still have time & we would still have the present.

What we wouldn't have is STR & GTR.

Nobody has mentioned an infinite speed so I do not see your point.

Putting this into perspective:

Observer (A)

Observer (B)

(A) observes (B) in the past.

(A) travels to (B)

(A) must therefore be travelling into the past.

added:

(A)'s rate of time slowing to allow the object to become behind in time to go into the past.

Yes, all incoming signals are relaying information about the past.

Interesting, so when time slows down for an object moving away from an observer, effectively putting the object behind in time, we also observe this object travelling into the past, being behind in time, by the relayed information delay?

Would it be true that the present only exist's locally to an observer because of the nature of light and its finite speed only allowing delayed images of observation?

Thank you for such great effort in this thread. However I can't get my head around it. Could you please help to learn me about Planck starting slow?

What is Planck time ?

What is a Planck length?

You keep throwing out random, unrelated thoughts. This is getting old.

They are not random, governments control you, religion controls governments. No religion, no need for a divided planet , no need for passports. Free men.

 

LOL, just do the homework and then get back to us.

Religious books were written by man, the best narcissists ever.

Then why did you say resistance is futile and that they already run the joint?

I've got to admit I'm not following your argument.

Religion keeps the world divided.

They run you?

My mind will always be free.

I'm not sure what that means or why you are telling me that. Can you please try again?

It means resistance is futile ''they'' already run the joint.

Is hope without religion a 'better' version of hope?

Yes , everybody can have hope, everyone could agree we all hope there is more than just this.

 

What's so wrong with hope?

 

Just read the first 5 pages.

We can have hope without the need to make up things and preying to imaginary ears.

This is a pathetic argument.

They're been debating for 30 pages, and you come in with a simple "yes."

It's not that simple, and you can't possibly know for certain. Just the way it is.

There is no argument in the absolute truth, God is a thought manifestation of hope.

 

I'm an atheist, you need to do the rigor before deciding your right.

 

A teaching aid, now you try.

The imaginary virtual existence of hope.

 

Try reading a few pages.

Ok, obviously you are religious. I will now drop a spanner in the ''works''

Define God?

 

And?

Religion worships virtual.

 

Your job.

I can prove a rock exists,

People who are only practicing charity for fear of retribution if they don't would almost certainly stop if religion ended. Although in my mind that doesn't say much for those people.

Religion never lost a war and even today they still ''own'' our Earth.