A question about the present!

[Lord Antares]

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.

[JohnLesser]

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.

[DrmDoc]

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.

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

 

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.

[JohnLesser]

 

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.

[michel123456]

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.

(red color added by me)

If I understand correctly, you are observing an object traveling faster than light. The object made 1light hour distance in 15 min. Is that possible?

Edited April 2, 2017 by michel123456

[Strange]

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

 

 

But you are misunderstanding/misrepresenting it.

[DrmDoc]

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.

 

Observing a projection from the past isn't traveling to the past and an object traveling away at light-speed isn't traveling to the past either. Objects that travel at light-speed and non-light-speed experience separate and distinct states of time. This is like two distinct temporal spheres of realities, wherein, neither is behind or ahead of the other as they would be in a singular sphere of reality. As I understand your perspective, you view time as a single sphere wherein the linear reality of light-speed objects are connected to the linear reality of non-light-speed objects; therefore, in your perspective, light-speed renders objects in the past relative to your present. Light-speed and, therefore, distant observations aren't about past relative to present, they are about time within separate spheres of influence. An object moving at light-speed ages more slowly than an object at non-light-speed. That light-speed object isn't in the past, it just experiences time more slowly. This is different for deep-space observations in that we are not observing objects traveling at light-speed--we are merely observing light from those deep-space objects that has traveled several million years to Earth to reach our observations. What we are observing in this is merely several million year old light.

Edited April 2, 2017 by DrmDoc

[mistermack]

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.

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

There is no such thing as falling behind in time. I think you are using the wrong words to make your point.

You can AGE slower than me. As in the twin paradox. Your clock can run slower than mine. But you can't fall behind in time. There is no universal time that you can fall behind in. At least, not one that it's possible to detect or interact with. That's "mainstream".

 

As far as observing objects in their past, so what? You are watching a recording of what happened. Just like watching video of the last Olympics. Are you observing the athletes in their past? I suppose you could say that you are. But you can't interact with them in their past. It's just a recording, whether it's Olympic video, or light from Mars.

[Lord Antares]

 

This is like two distinct temporal spheres of realities, wherein, neither is behind or ahead of the other as they would be in a singular sphere of reality. As I understand your perspective, you view time as a single sphere wherein the linear reality of light-speed objects are connected to the linear reality of non-light-speed objects

 

 

There is no universal time that you can fall behind in.

 

Exactly. He is being paradoxical by speaking of time as if it were universal while trying to make a point about relativity.

[mistermack]

 

 

 

Exactly. He is being paradoxical by speaking of time as if it were universal while trying to make a point about relativity.

And even if there was some kind of universal time, it would still be impossible to fall behind in it, as only the present would exist.

You could age slower, and so could your clock. That's all. That wouldn't mean that you exist "in the past" just because you aged slower.

[JohnLesser]

 

 

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?

[swansont]

Then that would be contradictory to the nature of light.

 

 

Nope.

[DrmDoc]

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

 

You're still not getting it. Time dilation refers to the bubble of slowed time surrounding objects traveling at light-speed. It's not that the objects are behind time, it's merely that those objects are experiencing time at a slower rate than non light-speed objects. Conceptualized as aging, the light-speed object isn't in the past, it just not aging as quickly. This, of course, is different from the observation of distant astronomical objects in that they are not moving at light-speed. The distinct here, again, is that the light from those objects has traveled long distances that required millions of light-years to reach us--essentially, ancient light.

Edited April 2, 2017 by DrmDoc

[swansont]

Well, on this forum Einstein is always correct.

 

 

Also nope.

[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?

[swansont]

 

(A) observes (B) in the past.

 

 

(A) travels to (B)

 

 

(A) must therefore be travelling into the past.

 

 

Stop mangling logic, please.

[JohnLesser]

 

You're still not getting it. Time dilation refers to the bubble of slowed time surrounding objects traveling at light-speed. It's not that the objects are behind time, it's merely that those objects are experiencing time at a slower rate than non light-speed objects. Conceptualized as aging, the light-speed object isn't in the past, it just not aging as quickly. This, of course, is different from the observation of distant astronomical objects in that they are not moving at light-speed. The distinct here, again, is that the light from those objects has traveled long distances that required millions of light-years to reach us--essentially, ancient light.

So you ignore the question and deny relativity?

[DrmDoc]

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?

 

Once again, not looking at the past but rather receiving old light.

[swansont]

 

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.

 

 

I don't think you are in a position to explain what is mainstream relativity to Janus (or anyone else here who has studied physics)

[JohnLesser]

 

 

Stop mangling logic, please.

I am not mangling anything, Twin 1 and twin 2 at ground state observe a distant star in it's past?

 

 

I don't think you are in a position to explain what is mainstream relativity to Janus (or anyone else here who has studied physics)

Are you suggesting I can not read?

Edited April 2, 2017 by JohnLesser

[Strange]

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

 

 

No.

[DrmDoc]

So you ignore the question and deny relativity?

 

What question? There's no denying relativity, just a denial of your perspective of relativity.

[Strange]

Well, on this forum Einstein is always correct.

 

 

[JohnLesser]

 

 

No.

Then if my ground state clock reads noon, the slower clock reads less than noon ?

 

What question? There's no denying relativity, just a denial of your perspective of relativity.

The clock time question!

[Strange]

Then if my ground state clock reads noon, the slower clock reads less than noon ?

 

 

Yes.