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

[Polymath257]

Are you saying that if I am running down the road, that I am at rest with respect to myself?

Yes. ALL motion is relative. In your reference frame, you are at rest.

 

[Polymath257]

If we were discussing whether there was a God or not, and I gave the kind of answers you guys are giving me, you would laugh me to scorn.

I wasn't switching frames of reference. I was asking from the frame of reference of the photon, how does it ever get here if it can't experience any distance? A very simple question.

Because all distances are 0. The distance from the Earth to the Andromeda spiral galaxy is 0 from the 'frame' of the photon.

 

[Polymath257]

A star emitting light 25 billion light years away.
You say light doesn't experience time. Does it take time, 25 billion light years for that light to reach to reach earth?
You seem to think time doesn't exist beyond light speed. If that's the case what existed during the expansion of the universe for thousands of years before light existed?

In *our* frame of reference, the star is 25 million light years away and the light from that star takes 25 million years to get to us.

In a different frame, the distance and the times will be different.

In the 'frame' of the light, both the distance and the time are 0.

 

[Polymath257]

A star 10 million light years away just went super nova. Would you see it instantaneously or would it take 10 million light years (time) to see it?

It isn't rocket science.

Once again, in *our* frame, it is 10 million light years away. In a frame moving with respect to us, the distance will be different. So, for something moving at 99% of the speed of light, the distance would be about 1.4 million light years away and the light would take 1.4 million years to arrive.

 

[Polymath257]

After the Big Bang, the universe was like a hot soup of particles (i.e. protons, neutrons, and electrons). When the universe started cooling, the protons and neutrons began combining into ionized atoms of hydrogen (and eventually some helium). These ionized atoms of hydrogen and helium attracted electrons, turning them into neutral atoms - which allowed light to travel freely for the first time, since this light was no longer scattering off free electrons. The universe was no longer opaque! However, it would still be some time (perhaps up to a few hundred million years post-Big Bang!) before the first sources of light would start to form, ending the cosmic dark ages.

First Light & Reionization - Webb/NASA

The 'dark ages' are a relative thing there. It was before the first stars formed, so we didn't get light emitted from nuclear reactions during that time. But there was still plenty of light, if nowhere else than in the cosmic background radiation. Anything will emit light according to its temperature. And the universe during the 'dark age' was no different on this point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

That's not really truthful, because I have tried to understand and reason out what you tell me.

But a lot of the time, I have asked specific questions and the answers I get are things like - I offered to help you to learn and you ran away - or stop embarrassing yourself - or time is relative

There is no way you will convince me of anything with those kind of answers.

You need to actually give an answer with words, explaining what is happening. Go back and look at my questions and actually answer them.

You have asked questions rather belligerently, you have not been reasonable.

Would you care to try again?

 

[Subduction Zone]

An example for the reply to my Post 501

I asked a specific question, and there is your response above.

You did not tell the whole truth. If you want to play this game you need to quote both posts completely.

Didn't you complain about people not being honest?

 

[Polymath257]

What are you going on about. It clearly said "When the universe started cooling, the protons and neutrons began combining into ionized atoms of hydrogen (and eventually some helium)".

The subject at hand was light and time. Nice try shifting the goal post but its a fail on your part.

An ionized atom of ordinary hydrogen is the same thing as a proton. Now, what happened is that *other* ionized forms of hydrogen (deuterium and tritium) were formed. A deuterium nucleus is just a proton and a neutron combined. A tritium nucleus is a proton and two neutrons. Helium is usually He-4 and has two of both, although He-3 has two protons and one neutron. The ionized forms do not have electrons in any of these cases. The capture of electrons was much later than the era of nucleosynthesis.

 

[Polymath257]

The photon experiences distance. It doesn't experience time while crossing that distance.

Actually no. The distances are all 0 from the 'frame' of the photon.

 

[Subduction Zone]

The 'dark ages' are a relative thing there. It was before the first stars formed, so we didn't get light emitted from nuclear reactions during that time. But there was still plenty of light, if nowhere else than in the cosmic background radiation. Anything will emit light according to its temperature. And the universe during the 'dark age' was no different on this point.

during the 'dark ages ' wasn't light continually emitted and rather quickly reabsorbed? I thought that the plasma nature of the universe meant there would be short paths for that light.

 

[Polymath257]

during the 'dark ages ' wasn't light continually emitted and rather quickly reabsorbed? I thought that the plasma nature of the universe meant there would be short paths for that light.

What is known as the 'dark ages' was between the time of recombination (when electrons were captured) and the time of formation of the first stars. After recombination, there was no large scale plasma and the path length was large.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What is known as the 'dark ages' was between the time of recombination (when electrons were captured) and the time of formation of the first stars. After recombination, there was a large scale plasma and the path length was large.

Thanks for clearing that up for me. So after the formation of the cosmic background radiation, but before the first stars formed.

 

[Polymath257]

Thanks for clearing that up for me. So after the formation of the cosmic background radiation, but before the first stars formed.

Yes, and it should have read *no* large scale plasma...my typo.

 

[Polymath257]

Ok - But that is different than the others have been saying , including a video link I watched - they kept saying it didn't experience distance.

Since light doesn't experience time, wouldn't that mean, that if we supposedly saw light from 30 million light years away, that it couldn't be used to prove the earth is that old?

No, it would not mean that. Apples and oranges.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

You did not tell the whole truth. If you want to play this game you need to quote both posts completely.

Didn't you complain about people not being honest?

I gave the post # that had the question I had asked, and your reply to that specific post.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

You have asked questions rather belligerently, you have not been reasonable.

Would you care to try again?

Maybe it's not a good idea. We evidently don't communicate with each other very well.
You don't think you are belittling me when you make comments like I should stop embarrassing myself?
I was asking questions I really have that cause me not to believe your theory.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I gave the post # that had the question I had asked, and your reply to that specific post.

You did not honestly represent what was in that post. Here is your complete post:

"See, no reasonable answer. 4ly is a huge distance. If the photon doesn't experience distance by moving, then how does it get from point A to point B?

You appear to just have canned responses, that you just keep repeating. Maybe I am just wasting my time."

As you see you mixed ignorance and arrogance with a belligerent question. Such a post does not merit a polite response. Merely giving a post number is not enough. My response was far politer than your post merited.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Maybe it's not a good idea. We evidently don't communicate with each other very well.
You don't think you are belittling me when you make comments like I should stop embarrassing myself?
I was asking questions I really have that cause me not to believe your theory.

Blame yourself. You are the one that does not understand a concept and react negatively when people try to help you. You were rude while others were polite. You will never learn with that attitude and you will always be amazingly wrong.

By the way, did you throw away your cell phone yet? If not why not?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Because all distances are 0. The distance from the Earth to the Andromeda spiral galaxy is 0 from the 'frame' of the photon.

I hear your words, but to me it makes no sense.

Because it takes a different amount of time for the light to get to Earth from 4ly than it does from say 8ly. I know you are saying, that is from our perspective, but if it takes a different amount of time from any perspective, then there has to be some difference that the light itself is experiencing. The only way I could see around this, would be if the light gets to it's destination instantly from any distance.

What you are saying seems to me would mean that light from 30 million light years should get to it's destination as fast as light from 8 light minutes away. Because there is no distance difference either way, and the speed is the same.

I hope you can understand what I am saying.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Blame yourself. You are the one that does not understand a concept and react negatively when people try to help you. You were rude while others were polite. You will never learn with that attitude and you will always be amazingly wrong.

By the way, did you throw away your cell phone yet? If not why not?

You seem to think that just because you understand a concept that it is true. The concept could be false. That's what I was trying to prove, via questions you can't provide valid answers for.

I don't blame myself. I think we were probably both a little rude. I apologize if I was. But you were belittling me, whether you choose to acknowledge it or not.

These are exactly the kind of posts I don't want. I want to debate the issue, not defend personal attacks.

I kept having to ask the same questions over and over, I think I just got a little frustrated and overzealous trying to prove my point. Let's just let it go - ok?