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

[james blunt]

Can you offer a single proof of any of Einstein's work being wrong?

of course

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

No you didn't

Yes. I did. Watch, I'll even do it again;

"all vision is in the past, as light requires time to travel from it's object to our eyes."

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

of course

Then please do so.

 

[Polymath257]

We observe an object travelling towards the Earth that is 1ly away . The object is travelling at 0.5c towards us.

The object takes 2ly to arrive, if we were seeing that object in the past, it would not arrive in 2ly, proving ''you'' are full of beans and are incompetent at ''your'' job.

if it is 1 ly away from Earth and moving at .5c, then it will take 2 years (not light years) to get to the Earth. The *light* from it will take 1 year to get to the Earth. So, we won't *see* it until a year has passed. At that point (in one year), we will see it as it is *now*, which is one year in the past at that point.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

this question....

That's not what you said here:

The topic title is the question

But OK.

Two photons are emitted simultaneously the opposite directions from two points precisely 1ly apart.

The clock starts at 00:00:00

Adam is on the left and Alice is on the right

When does Adam see Alice?

When does Alice see Adam?

Realisation is acceptance of the truths.

View attachment 22256
They see each other at the exact same time........

Um... your question doesn't make a lot of sense. Are Adam and Alice the names of the photons?

 

[Polymath257]

Declaring space in being a vacuum is declaring an finite space with boundaries with air outside those boundaries.

No, it isn't. Being a vacuum simply means having no matter in it.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

if it is 1 ly away from Earth and moving at .5c, then it will take 2 years (not light years) to get to the Earth. The *light* from it will take 1 year to get to the Earth. So, we won't *see* it until a year has passed. At that point (in one year), we will see it as it is *now*, which is one year in the past at that point.

That's how I understand it...

 

[james blunt]

Yes. I did. Watch, I'll even do it again;

"all vision is in the past, as light requires time to travel from it's object to our eyes."

No, you are repeating present information which I am showing you is incorrect , ignoring what I am showing you . Answer the question or it will become a circular argument which you are making by supposing something cannot be ostensible.

 

[james blunt]

No, it isn't. Being a vacuum simply means having no matter in it.

No it is not, a vacuum has vacuum pressure.

 

[Polymath257]

No it is not, a vacuum has vacuum pressure.

Actually, the pressure in a vacuum is zero, P=0.

 

[james blunt]

Actually, the pressure in a vacuum is zero, P=0.

Inwards pressure is 0, what about the created 'outward' pressure causing an inward pressure?

A plastic bottle will crush in example.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

No, you are repeating present information which I am showing you is incorrect , ignoring what I am showing you . Answer the question or it will become a circular argument which you are making by supposing something cannot be ostensible.

Dude. YOU SAID "the question is in the topic" I ANSWERED the question in the topic. If that wasn't the question you wanted answered, that's YOUR mistake, not mine. Your Adam and Alice "question" doesn't even make sense.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Inwards pressure is 0, what about the created outward pressure?

A plastic bottle will crush in example.

What the heck are you even talking about? Are you trying to discuss universal expansion? because... it's beyond infinitesimally insignificant in volumes like bottle sizes. Hubble's constant is 67km/sec per every million parsecs, IIRC. Is that the "outward pressure" you mean?

 

[james blunt]

Dude. YOU SAID "the question is in the topic" I ANSWERED the question in the topic. If that wasn't the question you wanted answered, that's YOUR mistake, not mine. Your Adam and Alice "question" doesn't even make sense.

No dude, you are ignoring the question and repeating an answer from your memory , not even thinking about the question with your own cognitive freedom.
The question is simple and plainly written, it is not nonsense at all , a child could understand it.

 

[Polymath257]

Inwards pressure is 0, what about the created 'outward' pressure causing an inward pressure?

A plastic bottle will crush in example.

it is crushed by the pressure of the air outside of it (actually the difference of the pressure inside and that outside). If that bottle was in space and empty, it would not be crushed.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

No dude, you are ignoring the question and repeating an answer from your memory , not even thinking about the question with your own cognitive freedom.
The question is simple and plainly written, it is not nonsense at all , a child could understand it.

OK, genius. Tell us YOUR answer to "the question", please?

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Parsecs, by the way, are another measure of distance, not of time, just to be clear.

 

[james blunt]

If that bottle was in space and empty, it would not be crushed.

The reason for this?

Because space is not a vacuum.

 

[james blunt]

OK, genius. Tell us YOUR answer to "the question", please?

They see each other at the exact same time.

When you have agreed with that part , we can move on to the next part of the proof using the same diagram .

 

[james blunt]

if it is 1 ly away from Earth and moving at .5c, then it will take 2 years (not light years) to get to the Earth. The *light* from it will take 1 year to get to the Earth. So, we won't *see* it until a year has passed. At that point (in one year), we will see it as it is *now*, which is one year in the past at that point.

You are answering from memory and not thinking sorry . Being Ai and not thinking on your own accord. Repeating artificial ''programming'' from your education.