JohnLesser Posted April 2, 2017 Posted April 2, 2017 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?
StringJunky Posted April 2, 2017 Posted April 2, 2017 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? Yes, all incoming signals are relaying information about the past.
JohnLesser Posted April 2, 2017 Author Posted April 2, 2017 (edited) 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? Edited April 2, 2017 by JohnLesser
swansont Posted April 2, 2017 Posted April 2, 2017 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? It does not travel into the past.
madmac Posted April 2, 2017 Posted April 2, 2017 (edited) 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. But, hey, we don't have STR & GTR today, locally, at present, ie when light duznt have infinite speed, but don't tell. Edited April 2, 2017 by madmac -2
JohnLesser Posted April 2, 2017 Author Posted April 2, 2017 (edited) 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. Edited April 2, 2017 by JohnLesser -1
Strange Posted April 2, 2017 Posted April 2, 2017 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. But, hey, we don't have STR & GTR today, locally, at present, ie when light duznt have infinite speed, but don't tell. If you don't have anything sensible to post, maybe avoid posting completely. 1
DrmDoc Posted April 2, 2017 Posted April 2, 2017 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? 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.
Lord Antares Posted April 2, 2017 Posted April 2, 2017 /cut 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. (A)'s rate of time slowing to allow the object to become behind in time to go into the past. 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.
JohnLesser Posted April 2, 2017 Author Posted April 2, 2017 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.
Lord Antares Posted April 2, 2017 Posted April 2, 2017 The other way around. 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.
JohnLesser Posted April 2, 2017 Author Posted April 2, 2017 (edited) 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. Edited April 2, 2017 by JohnLesser
Lord Antares Posted April 2, 2017 Posted April 2, 2017 Look, I understand what you are trying to say, but it has no relation to physics. If you are looking at a star which is 10 ly away from you, the light from the star is 10 years old. You could make the case that you are looking into the past. Now let's look at your receding object. Let us say that this objects relays something constant (like light) all the time. The only thing that happens here is that this light takes more and more time to reach you, which is analogous to just observing a more distant object. Hopefully you will understand why saying that it is going back in time makes no sense with this analogy: 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.
Janus Posted April 2, 2017 Posted April 2, 2017 Then that would be contradictory to the nature of light. 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. If a clock is 1 light hr from me and I, at this moment, see it reading 12:00, this does not mean that I think it reads 12:00 at this moment, but that it read 12:00 one hr ago. Assuming the clock runs at the same rate as my own, then according to me, right now that clock reads 1:00. With Relativity, if the clock is moving relative to me, I just can't assume that it ticks at the same rate as mine. So for example if the clock starts where I am, with both my clock and it reading 12:00, and that clock recedes from me at 0.8c, I will see the clock run 1/3 as fast as mine. After 1 1/4 hrs, it will be 1 light hour away. I won't see this event happen for another hr, so I will spend 2 1/4 hrs watching it recede, all the time ticking 1/3 as fast as my clock. Thus when I see it reach the distance of 1 light hr, it will see it reading 12:45 I also know that it actually took 1hr 15 min to actually get there, and 45 min/ 1 hr 15 min = 0.6, so that means that the clock ticked at a rate 0.6 as fast as mine. This factor of 0.6 is the time dilation. You can also work it the other way. We can assume that the clock starts 1 light hour away while reading the same time as my clock and is coming at me at 0.8c. It will still take 1 hr 15 min to reach me. I however won't see it leave until my clock reads 1:00, thus it arrives 15 min after first see it leave the point 1 light hr away. During that 15 min I see it ticking 3 times as fast as my clock, and see it tick off 45 min and reads 12:45 upon arrival. I also know that it actually left 1 hr 15 min ago by my clock. So once again we have it ticking off 45 min while my clock ticked off 1 hr 15 min, and it ticked 0.6 as fast as my clock. 1
JohnLesser Posted April 2, 2017 Author Posted April 2, 2017 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. -1
DrmDoc Posted April 2, 2017 Posted April 2, 2017 (edited) When time is dilated for an observer , time ''ticks'' slower, effectively the observer becomes behind in time relative to the ground state observer. There are two possible observer perspectives: One involving the person moving at light-speed and the other involving the person observing the other traveling away at light-speed. Indeed, time is relative because time, for the person at light-speed, would progress more slowly relative to the non-light-speed observer. When the light-speed traveler returns home, he should find that the stationary observer had aged more rapidly. Effectively, the light-speed traveler has moved his present state across time more rapidly relative to the stationary observer. He isn't behind, if I understand correctly, he has merely leaped ahead to a state the stationary observe traversed more slowly relative to light-speed. From the a light-speed perspective, time for the stationary observer has passed quickly. From a stationary perspective, time for the light-speed traveler has passed slowly. Edited April 2, 2017 by DrmDoc
Lord Antares Posted April 2, 2017 Posted April 2, 2017 You are quite wrong, this is physics and relativity and well known knowledge. You don't understand. Relativity is related to physics, but the statement ''an object receding away from you is travelling into the past'' has no relation to physics. Have you even read the rest of the post and my ship analogy?
JohnLesser Posted April 2, 2017 Author Posted April 2, 2017 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?
Strange Posted April 2, 2017 Posted April 2, 2017 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. If we can measure it, then it is a real physical property.
JohnLesser Posted April 2, 2017 Author Posted April 2, 2017 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.
Lord Antares Posted April 2, 2017 Posted April 2, 2017 What does that even mean? You are not supporting mainstream physics by claiming travel back in time. It is a matter of definition, and per mainstream physics definition, a receding object in no way travels back in time. And you completely misunderstood DrmDoc's post. 1
DrmDoc Posted April 2, 2017 Posted April 2, 2017 (edited) A person can not travel at c. Are you going against mainstream and saying there is no time dilation? 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 objects. Edited April 2, 2017 by DrmDoc
JohnLesser Posted April 2, 2017 Author Posted April 2, 2017 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.
Lord Antares Posted April 2, 2017 Posted April 2, 2017 So you are now saying we don't observe objects in their past and contradictory to the nature of light. 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.
JohnLesser Posted April 2, 2017 Author Posted April 2, 2017 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.
Recommended Posts