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

[Subduction Zone]

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.

You have an oversimplified and incorrect view of the universe. Once again you are relying on Newtonian mechanics and that was known to be wrong in the 1800's. What you "know" is more than one hundred years out of date. Newtonian mechanics works fine for objects that are moving at far below the speed of light, but you will find that it fails as one approaches the speed of light.

You asked for the math, but when it was given to you you ignored it. That is why you need to go over how the math was derived.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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?

LOL! Just because you can't understand an answer does not mean that it is not valid. Any "belittlement" has been well earned on your part.

Once again, don't assume that you are right. Don't assume that your worldview is correct. It was known to be inaccurate a long time ago.

 

[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?

From my perspective, even this post is belittling me. To me this isn't polite, and it is not your first post like this.

 

[Subduction Zone]

From my perspective, even this post is belittling me. To me this isn't polite, and it is not your first post like this.

That is because of your rudeness in your prior post.

If you ask politely for evidence it will be given to you along with an explanation. You keep assuming that you are right and thinking that you can refute a scientific concept that is well understood and supported by rude questions. Try changing your attitude first. It can work wonders.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

LOL! Just because you can't understand an answer does not mean that it is not valid. Any "belittlement" has been well earned on your part.

Once again, don't assume that you are right. Don't assume that your worldview is correct. It was known to be inaccurate a long time ago.

See - there you go again with the insults. And that's the pot calling the kettle black. You assume you are right.

 

[Subduction Zone]

See - there you go again with the insults. And that's the pot calling the kettle black. You assume you are right.

There was no insult there. Merely observation. I politely offered to help you to learn more than once and you rudely assume you were correct in your beliefs. If you drop your rude behavior and are willing to learn you actually might learn something.

Tell me, why did you ignore the fact that your beliefs were shown to be wrong more than 100 years ago?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

That is because of your rudeness in your prior post.

If you ask politely for evidence it will be given to you along with an explanation. You keep assuming that you are right and thinking that you can refute a scientific concept that is well understood and supported by rude questions. Try changing your attitude first. It can work wonders.

I think the problem is because I had some good questions you were unable to answer, you have resorted to personal attacks.

I tried to apologize if I was rude, but I don't think you are willing to let it go.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think the problem is because I had some good questions you were unable to answer, you have resorted to personal attacks.

I tried to apologize if I was rude, but I don't think you are willing to let it go.

No, your questions were both rude and rather laughably wrong. You merely use the questions because you don't want to learn. Where are the personal attacks? Pointing out your errors are not personal attacks. If I claimed that you were "too stupid to learn" and I did not even imply that, that would be a person attack. Instead I implied that you could learn by offering to help.

I will let it go, but an apology must be genuine. If you go back to your old behavior then it would show that you did not mean it. Instead of apologizing why don't you try to learn? Quit trying to refute that which you can't refute with poorly asked questions, that would be a good start.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

You have an oversimplified and incorrect view of the universe. Once again you are relying on Newtonian mechanics and that was known to be wrong in the 1800's. What you "know" is more than one hundred years out of date. Newtonian mechanics works fine for objects that are moving at far below the speed of light, but you will find that it fails as one approaches the speed of light.

You asked for the math, but when it was given to you you ignored it. That is why you need to go over how the math was derived.

See this is what I am talking about. I tried to ask a reasonable question. You didn't really provide an answer. You just state that I am wrong. I will wait for polymath to answer.

As far as math, I asked you over and over about Speed of Light = distance/time, and how you could have a speed without any distance or time.

 

[Subduction Zone]

See this is what I am talking about. I tried to ask a reasonable question. You didn't really provide an answer. You just state that I am wrong. I will wait for polymath to answer.

As far as math, I asked you over and over about Speed of Light = distance/time, and how you could have a speed without any distance or time.

If you asked reasonable questions you would not have gotten so much flak.

But let's start over again. Distance, time and velocity all depend upon one's frame of reference. What you measure as 8 meters another in a different frame of reference may measure as 10 meters. Neither one of you is wrong. The same can apply to time.

But one thing that is known is that the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference. That leads to some very interesting equations. There have been experiments that confirm this claim too. In fact the experiment that first confirmed it occurred long before Einstein came up with his theory

 

[Polymath257]

See this is what I am talking about. I tried to ask a reasonable question. You didn't really provide an answer. You just state that I am wrong. I will wait for polymath to answer.

As far as math, I asked you over and over about Speed of Light = distance/time, and how you could have a speed without any distance or time.

For light, it is a limiting situation. As I have said several times, there is not a valid reference frame for light.

Lhe expression 0/0 is known as an indeterminate form in math. Limits leading to this can have *any* value (or no value), so when you get 0/0, you know you have to do more work to see what is really happening.

In the case of light, the absence of a reference frame moving at the speed of light means we have to use a limit for the situation as seen from reference frames with speeds closer and closer to that of light. The limit for the distance between *any* two objects is 0 and the limit of the time it takes for light to travel is 0 also. But, in every reference frame, the distance/time is the same...the speed of light, c. Hence, the limit as the speed approaches that of light is c.

Hopefully this answers your question. The speed of light is a special case: it is the same in ALL reference frames. So, if you go past me at 50% of the speed of light, you will still see light moving away from you at the speed c (not .5c, as expected). Only limits make sense, not actual values.

 

[Polymath257]

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.

Once again, there is not a valid reference frame for the speed of light. The only way to make sense of the question is as a limit as the speed approaches that of light.

In that limit, what we see as 8 ly and what we see as 8 million ly are both 'seen' as a distance of 0. The time is also 0. The speed, 0/0 only makes sense as a limit, and in that limit, the value is c.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

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.

THAT'S my understanding

 

[Subduction Zone]

THAT'S my understanding

As you see we were wrong. The Dark Ages were after proper atoms started to form and before the first stars. No light except for the CMB, which was probably not microwave at that time, though again I could be wrong.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Once again, there is not a valid reference frame for the speed of light. The only way to make sense of the question is as a limit as the speed approaches that of light.

In that limit, what we see as 8 ly and what we see as 8 million ly are both 'seen' as a distance of 0. The time is also 0. The speed, 0/0 only makes sense as a limit, and in that limit, the value is c.

So are you telling me, that if I was somehow able to ride like a jockey on a photon. What is for us about an 8 min. 20 second trip from the Sun to the Earth, would be no different than a trip 8 million ly away. I would see no difference in the time or the distance I traveled.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So are you telling me, that if I was somehow able to ride like a jockey on a photon. What is for us about an 8 min. 20 second trip from the Sun to the Earth, would be no different than a trip 8 million ly away. I would see no difference in the time or the distance I traveled.

That is correct.

Do you understand the mathematical concept of "limits"?

Limits have many uses for example you can add up infinite series of numbers using them.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

For light, it is a limiting situation. As I have said several times, there is not a valid reference frame for light.

Lhe expression 0/0 is known as an indeterminate form in math. Limits leading to this can have *any* value (or no value), so when you get 0/0, you know you have to do more work to see what is really happening.

In the case of light, the absence of a reference frame moving at the speed of light means we have to use a limit for the situation as seen from reference frames with speeds closer and closer to that of light. The limit for the distance between *any* two objects is 0 and the limit of the time it takes for light to travel is 0 also. But, in every reference frame, the distance/time is the same...the speed of light, c. Hence, the limit as the speed approaches that of light is c.

Hopefully this answers your question. The speed of light is a special case: it is the same in ALL reference frames. So, if you go past me at 50% of the speed of light, you will still see light moving away from you at the speed c (not .5c, as expected). Only limits make sense, not actual values.

Wouldn't the limit as time approaches zero be infinity, and not stop at the speed of light?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wouldn't the limit as time approaches zero be infinity, and not stop at the speed of light?

Why would you think that?

 

[gnostic]

You first said it is a distance, now you are saying a light year is the distance that light travels in a year, now you are not explaining it is a distance, you are now explaining it to be a binary process.
Discounting time altogether, why are you ignoring a ly is a tri-linear process?

1) Time
2) speed
3) distance

A light year is a time and a distance, it is both is it not?

No, Sustainer.

The only person not understanding what light year mean is you.

The light year is measurement of "distance".

The distance is 9.4607×10^15 metres.

That's how FAR it take for light to travel in one year.

When they about the distance between the Earth and the star Sirius, which is 8.4 light year, they are referring to the length between the Earth and 79.5 x 10^15 metres.

 

[james blunt]

No, Sustainer.

The only person not understanding what light year mean is you.

The light year is measurement of "distance".

The distance is 9.4607×10^15 metres.

That's how FAR it take for light to travel in one year.

When they about the distance between the Earth and the star Sirius, which is 8.4 light year, they are referring to the length between the Earth and 79.5 x 10^15 metres.

Well I can't correct stupidity, carry on most.