someguy

ya i see what you mean teaching is a form of conditioning, that's true. but i meant to use the word for lack of a better one for referring to only the shaping of emotions. our emotions are also conditioned, we are animals too, but most animals have only the emotional conditioning and not the knowledge one, that's what i was trying to say. most animals won't pickup on something just by watching you. a human being can learn from another by doing just that.

in what way do you think they are different? I know, your reaction is common. some people can get really upset if I say this to them, like telling a religious person god doesn't exist. the simplest solutions are generally the best. I challenge you to find an instance where an animal (not one known for intelligence like monkeys or dolphins) is capable of acting against its emotions. your pet will never learn to trust you. if they fear heights they will never trust you not to drop them even if you have never dropped them before, and their fighting you may cause you to drop them. the only way to get them to act differently from what their emotions tell them is to change their emotions. if animals can readily disobey their emotions, then what is the purpose of emotions, and how did evolution manage to give us these by natural selection? do you find most animals aren't predictable? or do you find them incredibly predictable? anyways, you don't need to agree with me. but I think that if we really hunted the answer with an open mind you would end up thinking like i do. that's what happened to me. i began by thinking like you do and then i thought about it for a long time and i was convinced to think now as i do. I am not whimsical by nature and it was not due to popular belief that my mind was changed, that much is certain. It just seemed to me the only possible solution. perhaps you cannot let go of the fact that your pets know you like you know them. perhaps you are certain that animals are complex enough and since they have personalities must be self-aware or have consciousness, i'm not sure which one we agree on the meaning for. but consider this: if you were born without senses, would you be self-aware? would you have consciousness? how could you think? not in words, not in touch, not it vision, not in taste. you would have no clues of the world outside you. certainly you would have no language. you would not know of anything to think about. you would be aware of and conscious of nothing at all. you couldn't even know you were breathing, or that your heart was beating. being aware of nothing and conscious of nothing is the equivalent of not being aware or conscious of anything at all. now the complexity of a human being's mind, let alone an animal's, is reduced to not being self-aware nor being conscious and all we did was remove its senses since before birth, we have left everything else intact. we could have even left you with vision but just put you in a completely dark room for your entire life. if consciousness and awareness are so fragile that simply removing all of its senses could reduce a human being, who's mind is in all other respects the same as it ever was, to a being no more complex than a plant, does it still seem ridiculous that most animals lack self-awareness or consciousness? what are your clues that they are self-aware or conscious? reaction to stimuli? conditioning? personality? none of these require self-awareness or consciousness. but acting in opposition of your emotions does. it requires that you have reasons to disobey your emotions. it is not easy to disobey them, it takes a certain determination, a reason, a cause. for human beings this is pretty much always from logic, from thought, from knowledge. but actually you will find sometimes that an animal acts despite an emotion, or rather despite being in a situation that usually incites a certain emotion like fear. this happens when a more pressing emotion asks it to. for example animals may go for food despite fear, they are most daring when food is part of the equation. evolution has defined some emotions to trump others and remove them completely, like if you really need to pee and all of a sudden a lion starts to chase you, i think you would forget about needing to pee quite quickly. if it were the other way around, you'd be dead quite quickly. but then after the lion is gone you would once again need to pee, the more you wait the more urgent it feels and the greater the reward once you do. our "emotions" seek to train us just as we must train our dogs. (maybe it seems weird, but i consider needing to pee an emotion, as i do the reward of relief) even if you just analyze your emotions (in a natural context), all of the ones humans and animals share are all designed to help us survive better. anyways i don't really find this over simplifies the animal brain. emotions that can be conditioned? that is not complex enough?

ya i think that's right if they both ticked their stop watch when they passed, and that's when the event occurred, one lightsecond away, they would both see it when their stopwatches read one second. though their stopwatches are not ticking at the same rate.

if the mouse knew then yes. but the mouse doesn't know. saying the mouse knows is a similar "misuse" of the word as saying "my car knows when its wheels are skidding so it applies the anti-lock brakes." the car doesn't really know, yet it kind of does. it senses though is not aware of the fact it is sensing. i put a post up of how i would define consciousness in this thread if you wanna check it out. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=28308&page=2

I don't know alot about scientists but out of the ones i know I think i would say Newton.

this is somewhat long but it's how i would define consciousness. consciousness is awareness of one's self. it is a product of the whole of the brain but only intelligent animals can possess self awareness. intelligence alone is not sufficient though. language is a product of intelligence and self awareness and helps perpetuate self awareness. a self aware animal is capable of acting against what its emotions promote. non-self aware animals cannot, non intelligent animals cannot. that's why you need to train dogs with food, they can only be conditioned not taught. we and other intelligent/self-aware animals, are capable of comprehending limited things without language. language helps us comprehend much more. animals which are not self aware or intelligent cannot understand anything whatsoever. for example if you look at math. math is a language that helps human beings count and compare proportions to much more complex degrees than otherwise possible. math is a good example because it allows us to see exactly the limitations of our implicit knowledge/capicity to comprehend naturally, in comparison to the limitless possibilities language allows us. without this ability to comprehend we would not be able to define words and speak them and hear them and associate meanings to the sound/letters. if you look at 99 apples and 100 apples, i could ask you which group has the most apples, you could not tell and you would need to guess.. or use your language to count them. if i do the same with 3 and 2 apples you will have no problem telling me which is which without ever counting. there are certain limited quantities human beings can implicitly comprehend. if you look at ancient numbering systems and try it for yourself, you can see that the limit for human beings is around 5. chinese numbers start one horizontal line for 1, two horizontal lines for for 2, three horizontal lines for 3 and then other symbols. roman numerals are similar but vertical. there are never more than 3 vertical lines always another symbol added for values above 3. or the other counting system of 1,2,3, then 4 vertical lines and the fifth crossing them out. certain monkeys are hunted by sending in many men having them set their trap and hiding and then 3 men leave, the monkeys think everyone has gone since they can comprehend 3 but more than 3 is just many. we are slightly smarter than that. other animals are not capable of any comprehension whatsoever, it does not matter how many men you send and how many are seen leaving. they are capable only of acting on behalf of their emotions. for this reason they are extremely predictable. this is in fact the purpose of emotions. if one cannot know that falling off a cliff will cause one to die, then how is it not all animals go extinct from falling off cliffs? emotions, fear of heights. those animals which do not fear heights do indeed die, or are safe at heights like birds, those that develop a healthy fear reproduce and send down the fear gene. the fact you think of your fear as an emotion and not as your instinct that commands you without your knowledge is an indication that you are self aware. so is the fact that you can wonder what consciousness is or understand the number 4, the fact you are not your emotions' slave. this is consciousness, freedom and knowledge. true knowledge, the dog that comes for food when it hears its food being poured does not know the sound means food is coming. it has been conditioned to act with that sound. when people say dogs are smart they really mean to say that they can be conditioned well. some animals do not even have this feature, let alone intelligence, no insects do, to my knowledge neither do any reptiles, their "brains" are too simple. i have seen dolphins perform a counting test like i described and they could do much better than 5 so either they have also developed a counting system, which is quite likely since they also developed language, even names for each other, using sound and bubbles, or they are much much smarter than we are. either way they are self aware.

that's a good question, when i think of this scenario, I can only imagine that the center would just tear out at some point, if we assume no matter how distorted it gets we could continue to spin it faster. you could even just think of an extra long super light rod, one end on a spindle and you at the other end. if it spins fast enough, just the extra mass of the center part of the rod would cause, at some point, your rod to bend, assuming you are continuously accelerating it.

brain activity is not sufficient for self awareness. many animals display brain activity yet are not self-aware. you would need this sort of equipment in order to perform tests that could establish self-awareness. I don't think babies are self-aware either. but that is not to say they should not have certain rights. their self awareness still needs to develop. It seems to develop around the time they learn to speak, which makes sense. knowledge and awareness are similar things. self-awareness is basically just the knowing of one's self if you think about it. it is the knowledge of your existence. in a sense the more you know the more you are aware, or rather the deeper your awareness is. so i think that the mere fact of learning language helps them out this way. this makes me think of an ancient proverb i once picked up. to name is to know. however, self awareness is more than just vocabulary. self aware animals are capable of knowing without words. but their knowledge is limited. language is a powerful tool that only the self aware can wield. the mere birth of a baby is not sufficient to create self-awareness. it needs it's brain to develop more fully. at this stage the baby knows nothing. it does not even have fully developed emotions. newborns basically only sleep cry and eat.

true it would mean existence cannot have a beginning, but time did. there is not an infinite amount of time before us. this thread is about entropy and time and morphs into exactly what we're talking about here if you're interested. http://www.scienceforums.net/forum/showthread.php?t=28323&highlight=entropy

lol me too, and i had already found many things i think are wrong with it. and i'm glad i quit when i did because it was sooooo long. i mean, i know sometimes i write long posts but holy sh*t. you should have posted it in chunks with your main fundamental points first. that way i could have read them all. but honestly darwinism is one of the things i am most sure of, and i find the evidence plentiful and everywhere. you might be able to convince me that life did not originate on earth and was brought here by comets or whatever, but once it got here evolution took over, well probably a little before too.

first of all you can tell whether or not a creature is self aware. a comatose patient i don't think is, but i'm pretty sure you can test it with the right equipment, because in order to be self aware you must have control over your mind if not your body and there is equipment you can wear on your head that allows you to control computers. however even if comatose patients are not self aware that does not mean you could kill ithem. because then you would also have to say that any human being while asleep is up for grabs for being murdered. you are committing the same fallacy most anti-abortionists commit. you are categorizing things and deciding on rights based on similar attributes. whereas you should be looking simply at the actions and their effects and whether or not it is good for society as a whole to attribute certain rights to certain creatures or property or whatever. for example the common argument for anti-abortionists is that a fetus is a human being and therefore killing a fetus is murder and should be illegal. and so the debate on abortion becomes arguing whether or not a fetus should be considered a human being. however the point is not whether or not a fetus should be classified as human being. it is whether or not killing a fetus should be legal. so then, (i posted this in another thread somewhere so i'll just copy paste it.) also in this case the question is not whether or not a being at a certain point in time is self-aware. it is whether or not they should have rights. you need to look at the repercussions of animals not having rights and then decide on the law. self aware or not. but at any rate your comatose argument doesn't hold since all human beings sleep pretty much once a day and are not self aware for that period of time, thus to say a comatose patient does not have rights because for that period of time it is not self aware, means that all sleeping humans should have no rights also. i don't know of any animals we raise for food that are self aware. i'm talking farm animals. maybe somewhere in the world people raise monkeys for food, but farm animals are not self aware as far as i know, i heard that pigs are smart animals, I haven't really tested it myself, but i have never seen a pig display smart behaviour and i frequently hear people say dogs are smart also whereas clearly they are not. I think yo uhit the nail on the head when you said that tfetuse won't remember the pain they experience. remembering that way and being self aware are tightly connected. however, if you torture a non self aware being you can condition their behaviour and for example be instrumental in creating a psychotic killer, which is not good for anyone, and they never need to remember why they have become that way.

just for the record i never really critized your work except for that part about being in a medium which light moves through slower means that all things outside the medium where light moves more quickly are unobservable since those things are happening faster than time. you commented on what i said by sourcing your work. and i suggested that it would be best to discuss your ideas point by point. i did not read all of your work, i am in no position to comment on it as a whole. however i can comment on your last post. I can't really comment on these things i don't really know what you mean. I've got to say though, that so far i'm not convinced. but i can say that i don't think that energy is the impact force of matter. it cannot be anything of matter it is a more general state than matter. matter is a type of energy. just like everything else in the universe. i think the point of what i'm saying is that energy cannot exist by being created. it just exists. you can't make it. you can't ask where it came from. it is where. you can't really ask when it was created, it came from whence there was no time. it is the ability to create thus cannot be created. it either exists or not. to say taht something came before it and made it means that something must have existed prior to energy, but since energy is all that which exists, including any vacuum type thing you could think of then it would have preceded its own creation in that case. I cannot be my own father, energy cannot create itself. if it doesn't exist then nothing exists. i'm not sure how you can claim that you can make something out of nothing. you have neither "material" with which to produce things nor time with which to produce them. if anything exists then you have energy, that which exists. in short, you have asked me what created the ability to create. and you have said that it was created before the ability to create existed. perhaps there are higher dimensions energy comes from, but i think you would still end up with the same problem in the end. unless you end up somehow with something cyclical from dimension to dimension type thing. the universe is not in a place it is not created before or after anything. it doesn't come from anywhere. it is time, it is creation, it is place, it just is. that's the way i see it anyways.

I'm not totally sure but i think that i read somewhere in wikipedia that heisenberg originally thought like you say that it was a limitation of our ability to observe. but i think another physicist was looking at it with him and they figured the issue was an inherent property of particles. I posted this once in another thread. it's a way that would make the uncertainty principle have more classical sense. i haven't been able to verify it mathematically yet, but i haven't found a reason why this way of thinking is wrong yet either. i think it may explain why the uncertainty principle must be, and also wave particle duality. the faster an object moves, the closer it is to being in more than one place at once. should an object be able to move infinitely fast it would indeed be in multiple places at once, probably why going to the speed of light is so difficult since the object is gaining mass and length as it goes faster. it is in a way existing in more places than one. if you do that with a particle you might get a wave. so that would mean that a point moving very quickly would need to become a rod type thing. if you do that with a particle and someone asks you to know both the position and momentum of a particle you are kind of stuck with a difficult problem. this is because either you locate the particle as a point and therefore have lost the rod part of it and thus the speed portion. or you can keep the rod part of the particle, know the momentum yet its exact position is hazy. if this would hold any value it would need to be true that the greater particles move the the greater the uncertainty principle holds, meaning the more uncertain of position you would be if you knew momentum exactly and vice versa. a particle would never be a full rod from point of departure to arrival since it cannot move at speed infinity. it could only be a small moving rod. but light can move at speed infinity, c, and can be a full rod from point of departure to point of arrival. is it possible that this could explain wave particle duality?

self-aware means that you know that you are feeling pain. a venus fly trap closes on a fly to eat it. it feels the fly, but it doesn't know it is feeling it. a fly flies away when you try to kill it. it sees you but it doesn't know it sees you. an easy way to tell if an animal is self aware or not is to observe whether or not it can disobey its own emotions. knowing of your senses and emotions means you are able to refuse their advice. well some animals do feel pain and are self aware so they actually feel the pain. that right away makes some animals different from fetuses. also PETA as i understand it are not just about torture. i think that if people went around killing animals in a manner which animals could not detect the pain they would still be upset. i think part of the whole thing is equilibrium of nature also. but i know what you mean, they do protect the welfare of mistreated pets. they believe that the pets can feel pain, just as your researches agree that fetuses can. but in the case of the large majority of house pets they, including peter singer, are wrong, as they are with fetuses. perhaps you would find that a large majority of peta members are also against abortion. but i think if you scrutinize being against abortion you would find they is no real reason to make it illegal. however, in the case of cruelty to animals at least there are good reasons for making pet abuse illegal that are not simply because the animals can feel pain.

for one proving that a fetus or any other animal reacts to painful stimuli does not mean they "feel" pain. in order to truly feel pain you need to be self aware. neither a property of the majority of animals nor of fetuses. as far as abortion is concerned the reasons killing fetuses should or should not be illegal, and animals should or should not be abused and/or murdered are different and do not depend on the fact that they can or cannot feel pain, especially if in the majority of cases fetuses and animals are the same in that they cannot feel pain. even though they may grimace and react when you do painful things to them. it's kind of funny but your scientific article is not philosophical enough to truly approach that question. with great power comes great responsibility. we have great power, animal rights is our responsibility. animals do not have this great power between one another like we do. a dog terrorizing people or children is different, because the dog is owned by somebody. if you were in the wild and a coyote came and attacked you i think you would find yourself well within your rights to kill it in self defense. as for reciprocating violence for the hell of it. i would say not to do that. animals even more than humans act exactly the way you treat them, so if you go around being violent to animals you are creating animals violent toward human beings and that becomes a threat to all human beings and is no longer simply animal rights. if the animal is harmless then you would never need to reciprocate violence.

Even God is powerless against my ignore you completely attack.

I don't mean to be rude, but i would much prefer if you posted your ideas individually rather than reading them all at once, that way i can ask questions about specific points. and you will have a better opportunity to explain your ideas in terms i can better understand. if by decay you mean that particles must become not particles then yes that does rely on that fact. but since all matter is energy just as everything else in the universe this is not a far stretch at all. i didn't read your entire pdf document, so i can't really comment on any of the specifics about it. except for i'm not sure if this is completely sound. I don't think those things necessarily follow. as far as most elementary energy is concerned, I would intuitively think that this would not be a particle at all. since particles could not completely compress to fully uniform state. I think it would need to be more basic than that. but at the same time, it is gravity holding the whole thing together so you would think that whatever the big crunch is made of it must have gravity. unless perhaps at the very last moment of homogeneity. like if the particles were squished and squished until they popped went uniform and then re-exploded. knowing exactly what gravity is i think would really help. perhaps even the universe could coil in on itself and is compressing in a manner similar to spinning your fork in spaghetti, in that case maybe you would not need matter to promote the crunching after a certain point. right now i think we can only say that matter, made of particles can bend space and therefore have gravity. however if we knew how this gravity was caused we may discover that under certain conditions non-particles can cause gravity. I once considered that gravity was not a function of matter at all. and that in fact it was a function of all types of energy. however, only matter is high enough concentrations of energy to allow us to observe these warps in space-time. but other things like magnetic fields and electrical fields could maybe somehow be smaller ripples energy can cause, but nothing on the scale of matter. I have not yet found a reason why this can't be but i am not especially knowledgeable about electrical fields or magnetic fields either. what do you mean? forward and backward compared to what? what makes a positron look like an electron running in reverse? how does the charge change? how can you know it is reverse and not just motion back from where it came from? what looks like reverse and what actually is are not the same thing. how can you reverse time to make them look different? clearly if you had just one particle that was completely uniform and only two positions available for it to exist, entropy could not really be the arrow of time since the future and the past will be exactly the same. so whether you are going back in time or going into the future, it's all the same. but the universe is infinite in non-uniformity and in positions, wherein the difficulty of undoing arises. particularly because even if you did figure out where and the way everything should be so you know what to undo you would end up doing something else, somewhere else, and thus time marched on, though perhaps if you figured a way to analyze and then manipulate our environment so perfectly you could possibly create a "bubble" of past. but then you run into problems like the uncertainty principle. is that something like what you meant? or was it completely different?

everything is energy, sound is energy, light is energy. so it is no suprise that you can give off energy and receive it. all i need to do is speak. if you are close enough to me i can feel the heat you give off. if someone is behind me i could know of their presence by many methods. the acoustics of the room might change, not really noticeably but still you would notice something is behind, not necessarily "hearing" it though. there can be a number of tiny clues that would cause you to notice them, perhaps part of a shadow in peripheral view, or a slight shuffling of feet. but in order for there to be some sort of mystical energy we can sense we need mystical energy sensors. and as far as i know we don't have any of those. also coincidences happen that can skew your observations. particularly if you are looking for them. any known energy emitted or detected by human beings can be tested. any unknown you must first make it known so that detecting it can be done. until you have done that the extent of your claim from a scientific point of view really is only that when you stand behind someone about 2 meters away it sometimes happens that they notice and turn around to look at you. your claim that people can absorb energy and emit energy is not scientifically disputed.

I find it depends on the person and the class. personally i find it more useful in most cases to just make notes from a book and use those for study and use all your attention on listening. some people though find it easier to keep their attention if they are focused on taking notes. some people not because their notes may end up incomplete anyways, or in taking notes they may miss an important piece of information. for some classes the prof may say things they expect you to know for the exam which you cannot find in the textbooks the class uses, so you need to take notes for those, but for math and other classes it's all in the book and so really you don't even need to go to class at all. it all depends on you, what works best for you.

everything you said was properties of black holes. if you claim they are impossible then you can't use their properties to prove it. you can show that their properties are not possible, but not that their properties explain their lack of existence. you said that a black hole is not possible because it is perpetually forming. but if this were true that is not proof that black holes don't exist. because all you said was that black holes are perpetually forming entities. all you did was state a property of something. a property of something cannot prove it doesn't exist because that property only exists if the thing which has that property does. thus the mere fact you claim that such properties exist is evidence that you believe that black holes exist. furthermore, you have contradicted yourself. you claim on the one hand that those things beyond the event horizon continue to fall forever, and on the other hand you say that beyond the event horizon time does not exist. yet for perpetual motion time must always exist. as you have so adamantly "explained" time is a property of motion and for either to exist so must the other. if time ends beyond the event horizon so must motion and therefore there would necessarily need to be a "solid" center to the body that energy must be able to collect to in order for there to be a space where time does not exist. if nothing can make it to that point the point must be empty. but there is no such thing as empty for one and also the center is instrumental in providing the body with those properties. moderators don't need to know anything about physics to ban you. they only need to know about you.

i think that's a good point. you're right it would mean you would need to be able to reduce entropy without unmoving so that you could start the universe again at entropy zero. I do think that a big crunch could achieve this, however i think this or something very similar would be the only way. i'm not certain of the sorts of pressure needed, so perhaps this could be possible in a black hole or maybe just the whole universe? i don't know. but i think that if it would happen the body would need to explode again, kind of bouncing of rock bottom, so maybe not a black hole. but whatever the body may be i think that there would come a point where pressure of a large enough's own body would cause itself to revert back to the simplest form of energy in the universe, the most dense. if there is a big crunch i think it would need to crunch to the most dense and most compressed the universe could possibly go, that means, that it would need to be its most basic most compressible form, and the mere pressure of the body would incite this conversion. then you would have to say i think that since it is the most compressed clump of energy possible that it is completely uniform. if the most basic form of energy in the universe is uniform, then entropy would need to be at zero. it is similar to saying that, true if you break glass you cannot put it back, however if you melt it all down, you can start anew again. that's the way i look at it. the main difference is that glass is not the most elementary form of energy therefore even remelting the glass and putting it back has increased entropy, you have not reversed time, stopped time, nor began it again.

if you have nothing to say then shutup. "i have a reason balck holes exist but i can't say it here" come on. sooo many people start a post by saying they have an idea or a thought that is not commonly trusted as science. the difference is they don't claim to hold all the answers. if YOU do then i think i need to conclude that you're really lousy at finding the right questions because you don't seem to be able to answer any that other people come up with. you should should hang out with -I- his ideas were much crazier than yours and yours are closer to the truth, but at least he actively tried to defend his position instead of crying like a baby. I'm gonna say the same thing i said to him that i'm gonna say to you. i'm done with you. i gave you all the chances in the world, i held no prejudice to you, i gave you ample opportunities to prove yourself but you always make excuses like how you started this thread. so ridiculous. "I have all the answers but i can't say them". good, then don't say anything at all. I apologize to anyone who reads this the first time and wonders why i have such an attitude but this guy is everywhere speaking alot and saying nothing.

time is indeed directional. it is the increase in entropy. and that increases. yes you can go BACK historically to refer to a state of the universe where entropy was lower and disorder of energy lesser. but that was back where things were. and now, from moving, no matter which way they move the disorder is greater and thus it is a further point in time. to reach a previous state of entropy of the universe you need for everything to unmove, an impossibility as far as we know. it was a previous point of motion. motion causes all things to become into more disorder. thus time is directional in the forward way. because by virtue of motion the universe must increase in disorder. no motion it would stay at the same state of disorder. some motion, the disorder increases, to reverse the process you need that which does not exist. unmotion. time moves forward, and you can measure it. and it moves forward the more that things move. if a group of things all move faster their relative motion remains the same, but the relative motion of their parts compared to a system exactly the same moving at a slower speed is slower. Farsight, YOU don't understand. and where is your post that defends your position on energy? you barged into this site saying you had all the answers and you "explained" all these things and you "know" all this stuff. and yet you cannot make it past the second post of scrutiny. maybe other people know better than you.

you're not just confusing yourself. you're also confusing me. i'm not sure what you're getting at but basically infinity has no ending so you can never finally arrive at your infinitely small number. depending on how precise you wanna be though you can set a limit where, ok i'll just assume that number to be infinity since it is so huge. for an ant the planet is infinitely huge. but for us certainly it is finite. when you divide so the denominator is infinitely huge then you have pretty much reached zero. not exactly zero but for all intents and purposes zero, just like the planet is not infinitely huge but for all intents and purposes of the ant it is. zero times anything is zero. the number 2 is not infinite, it is 2. you can divide any number until it gets small enough for you to call it zero. or multiply huge enough to be called infinity no matter what you do to it first. technically you could go from one extreme to the other, but once you are satisfied with calling a number infinity it's precision is lost, and you can't really use that number anymore because of that. also if you are satisfied with calling a denominator infinity you would also be willing to call your number zero, if not then you should not call the denominator infinity you should call it the really huge number that it is.

i'm not sure of the exact formulas so i can't show you algebraically but basically time does not hold the same values for objects moving at different speeds. the train would not see the event occur more quickly from its perspective because it is travelling towards the light source. light travels at the same speed no matter how fast you are moving towards it. this is because time does not hold the same value for observers moving at different speeds. what happens is since time is different and yet the train is moving towards the light, the time taken off the expected ETA of the light hitting the train is exactly offset by the difference in time the two observers experience. I would like to better answer your question more specifically for this particular problem but i find it a little confusing. a drawing might help, but also when you speak of seconds you need to define who's seconds they are because the person on the train and the stationary person experience different seconds, though to them they always seem constant.