• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Seeing things in their past? You are full of beans!

Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Sustainer said:
I provided your with infinite definition,you are being obtuse.
Click to expand...
More babble and name calling. You don't want to break the rules here.

You supplied an incorrect definition of "infinite" without a link. That was a fail on your part. Meanwhile I did give you one aimed at your level of education and included the link.
 
J

james blunt

Well-Known Member
lewisnotmiller said:
Whilst it is your OP, I'd suggest you're wandering off on a complete tangent.
Also, you never respond to questions, just ask them. Who could have predicted this would turn into a monologue???

For what it's worth, solipsism has no utility.
Click to expand...
Is it wondering off topic to prove the superior logic to prove the title of the thread?

Objectively we are discussing the title of the thread, I am waiting for units to comply in answering the earlier question about the ball. They avoided because the answer confirms the title of the thread.
When the thread as reached a point of absolute monologue, that means the competition have give up and concede.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Sustainer said:
Is it wondering off topic to prove the superior logic to prove the title of the thread?

Objectively we are discussing the title of the thread, I am waiting for units to comply in answering the earlier question about the ball. They avoided because the answer confirms the title of the thread.
When the thread as reached a point of absolute monologue, that means the competition have give up and concede.
Click to expand...
No, you were shown to be wrong a long time ago. And when have you ever used "logic"?
 
J

james blunt

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
No, I simply understand numbers far better than you do. No need to invoke magic.

I passed all of my high school math courses and then some. You can't claim the same.
Click to expand...
Ok let us test your maths in relationship to the thread title

A photon is emitted and travels for 1 second, how far as it travelled ?
 
J

james blunt

Well-Known Member
They soon run before discussing the intricate details.

arrive.jpg
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Sustainer said:
Ok let us test your maths in relationship to the thread title

A photon is emitted and travels for 1 second, how far as it travelled ?
Click to expand...


It has traveled one light second or roughly 186,000 miles if you like English measurements or 300 million meters if you like metric. I can give you a more accurate figure if you desire.

Now my turn: What is a light year:

A. A unit of time.

B. A unit of speed

C. A unit of distance.

D. A peanut butter and jelly sandwich.
 
J

james blunt

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
It has traveled one light second or roughly 186,000 miles if you like English measurements or 300 million meters if you like metric. I can give you a more accurate figure if you desire.

Now my turn: What is a light year:

A. A unit of time.

B. A unit of speed

C. A unit of distance.

D. A peanut butter and jelly sandwich.
Click to expand...


A + B = C
 
T

TrueBeliever37

Well-Known Member
Subduction Zone said:
No, time is relative and is affected by velocity. This article can explain far better than I can:

https://phys.org/news/2014-05-does-light-experience-time.html
Click to expand...

The article is interesting, but I can't wrap my head around some of the statements. They seem contradictory at times.

It said, Photons don't experience time or distance. Yet it also says Photons emitted might exist for hundreds of trillions of years. How is that not time?

It said, Photons emitted from the surface of the Sun need to travel across the vacuum of space to reach our eyes. How is that not distance?

It said, What you probably don't know is the photons striking your eyeballs were ACTUALLY created tens of thousands of years ago. How is that not time and distance?

Why do they say no time is experienced, but then say we are looking back into the past? How are we looking into the past if no time is experienced?

I also noticed in one article where it said The Sun is more than 8 light minutes away. That sounds like a time reference as well as distance to me.
 
J

james blunt

Well-Known Member
TrueBeliever37 said:
The article is interesting, but I can't wrap my head around some of the statements. They seem contradictory at times.

It said, Photons don't experience time or distance. Yet it also says Photons emitted might exist for hundreds of trillions of years. How is that not time?

It said, Photons emitted from the surface of the Sun need to travel across the vacuum of space to reach our eyes. How is that not distance?

It said, What you probably don't know is the photons striking your eyeballs were ACTUALLY created tens of thousands of years ago. How is that not time and distance?

Why do they say no time is experienced, but then say we are looking back into the past? How are we looking into the past if no time is experienced?
Click to expand...


I would have you on my team any day of the week, you are truly open minded and objective .

p.s If I had a team lol
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
TrueBeliever37 said:
The article is interesting, but I can't wrap my head around some of the statements. They seem contradictory at times.

It said, Photons don't experience time or distance. Yet it also says Photons emitted might exist for hundreds of trillions of years. How is that not time?

It said, Photons emitted from the surface of the Sun need to travel across the vacuum of space to reach our eyes. How is that not distance?

It said, What you probably don't know is the photons striking your eyeballs were ACTUALLY created tens of thousands of years ago. How is that not time and distance?

Why do they say no time is experienced, but then say we are looking back into the past? How are we looking into the past if no time is experienced?

I also noticed in one article where it said The Sun is more than 8 light minutes away. That sounds like a time reference as well as distance to me.
Click to expand...
Once again, time is relative. Look up the Lorentz transformations, or here let me do it for you:

Lorentz transformation - Wikipedia

As an object approaches the speed of light time for that object slows down, and distances decrease. At the speed of light there is no time and there is no distance. Our world appears to be Newtonian because we operate at a speed much less than the speed of light. It is a hard concept to wrap your mind around, but It has been extensively tested and found to be correct.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top