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

[Darkstorn]

He is exhibiting extreme Dunning -Kruger Effect.

Unfortunately. Which makes me incredibly sad.

I mean, he / she is a human.

/E: Continuing on a "serious" note: Sustainer. You should really consider listening to some of these people. If not for you, then at least do it for me.

Because i am losing my faith in humanity.

 

[james blunt]

Yeah. It's not like i'm good at math myself, but this...

I was trying to make this about units again... I wish i hadn't. I didn't expect it to work...

If your question was more clearer in the first place, I would have answered it in the first place. I can only read the question as good as presented.

 

[Subduction Zone]

What ? It is like 2.30 am here , your blagging my head.

That's somewhat of a relief. I am glad we can't blame your condition on the American educational system.

 

[Darkstorn]

If your question was more clearer in the first place, I would have answered it in the first place. I can only read the question as good as presented.

I'll admit that i wasn't actually even looking for an answer. I was playing you the whole time. Sorry about that.

In this light, you might want to reread my original post.

 

[james blunt]

He is exhibiting extreme Dunning -Kruger Effect.

Dream on, like I said 2.30 am here. you Americans are wide awake.

Didn't you ever consider when I was on ''your'' forums I was just tired as hell?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dream on, like I said 2.30 am here. you Americans are wide awake.

Didn't you ever consider when I was on ''your'' forums I was just tired as hell?

Your errors are beyond mere fatigue. Even a tired person should understand his errors when explained to him.

 

[james blunt]

I'll admit that i wasn't actually even looking for an answer. I was playing you the whole time. Sorry about that.

In this light, you might want to reread my original post.

Yes I know because you think I can't do maths or learn maths. Its fine I hold no grudges.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes I know because you think I can't do maths or learn maths. Its fine I hold no grudges.

These are not advanced concepts.

 

[james blunt]

Your errors are beyond mere fatigue. Even a tired person should understand his errors when explained to him.

Dude I understand free fall acceleration, that was not the question , the question said speed so I assumed a constant .

 

[Darkstorn]

Yes I know because you think I can't do maths or learn maths. Its fine I hold no grudges.

No, more like, you will not learn.

Like i said, i read the entire thread. Do you remember the first pages? This is where my issue arises from.

 

[james blunt]

These are not advanced concepts.

I know I have done it before, I have also covered F=ma

I am just proper head tired tonight dude now, ready for bed soon .

 

[Subduction Zone]

Dude I understand free fall acceleration, that was not the question , the question said speed so I assumed a constant .

No, your approach did not show that at all. Making excuses will hinder your ability to learn.

 

[james blunt]

No, more that you will not learn.

Like i said, i read the entire thread. Do you remember the first pages? This is where my issue arises from.

Learning is to remember . What is the point of me learning maths, is it going to help my life out ?
Realistically not, however my stuff works so that might get me somewhere , like anti gravity for example.

 

[james blunt]

No, your approach did not show that at all. Making excuses will hinder your ability to learn.

Not an excuse , truth

 

[Darkstorn]

Learning is to remember .

At its most basic level, maybe. But that is actually a special skill of humans: To remember lessons learned, through *long* periods of time in comparison to most animals. Most animals act on instinct, and we have lost that. We survive by learning. Everything you know, even if you think you've discarded it all and "started anew" is still being conditioned by your environment, friends, enemies, and even this forum and this very thread.

Even if you think you've forgotten everything, and wish to avoid remembering, in truth that is the only thing you do really have: The capacity to act on knowledge. Instead of instincts.

Even so, remembering is recalling past events. Yes, in order to benefit from something learned, you will have to remember it.

But the capacity to learn is distinct from the capacity to remember. For one; the former can be affected by your will. The latter, maybe a bit less so.

What is the point of me learning maths, is it going to help my life out ?

Yes. As the most basic example: You could be more effective in math related debates on this forum. Overall: Depends. Basic math is necessary for everyone, for obvious reasons. But the more advanced kind? Its usefulness is more subjective:

Even if you're not a professor, you can still benefit from it. It'll help your understanding of reality in scientific terms. Specifically, physics IS math. Remember, we are describing natural phenomena here. "Physics" is this description.

But obviously a theoretical physicist would benefit from math a lot more than a "layman."

Realistically not, however my stuff works so that might get me somewhere , like anti gravity for example.

I uh... Ok.

 

[Polymath257]

I understand what you guys have been saying. I'm just not sure I believe it is true, that light doesn't experience time or distance. But, if it is true, then I think the light has to go from origin to destination instantaneously no matter what the distance.

In the limiting frame of the light, yes. But the frame of the light is not OUR frame. In our frame, light takes time to travel. Does that make sense?

And if that is the case, then it can't be used in any way to verify age of the earth. And we definitely wouldn't be looking into the past, because the light would always get here instantaneously from any distance. You are assuming it takes 4 years to get here from 4ly away, but if it experiences no time or distance, then in reality it would get here instantly.

First, light isn't used to verify the age of the Earth. It *is* used to verify the age of other galaxies and of the universe in general. And, again, this is the age in the frame of the Earth, not in the limiting frame of the light.

So, yes, it takes light 4 years to travel 4 light years where both the distance (4 light years) and the time (4 years) are measured in the reference frame of the Earth. What the light 'experienced' is irrelevant to this.

How could it take 4 years to get here if it actually moves from origin to destination instantly?

It takes 4 years *in our reference frame*. So we see how that star was 4 years ago *in our reference frame*.

How could it take 10 million years another time to get here if it actually moves from origin to destination instantly?

It doesn't move instantly in our reference frame.

How can there ever be a difference even in our frame of reference, if it actually travels from origin to destination instantly no matter what the distance?

In *it's* limiting frame there is no distance. It takes no time to travel no distance. But, as I have said many times now, thi sis a limiting frame, not a real one.

In all actual frames, it takes time for the light to travel.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Which views are those? I think you're assuming i have views of some sort. Let's hear it.

You must have some based on post #632

Which category does my post #626 fall into very smart people or inane stupidity?

Feel free to answer the questions I asked in it.

 

[Darkstorn]

You must have some based on post #632

Which category does my post #626 fall into very smart people or inane stupidity?

So far I haven't seen a response to it. Feel free to answer the questions I asked in it.

Life's mysteries. You work it out.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

In the limiting frame of the light, yes. But the frame of the light is not OUR frame. In our frame, light takes time to travel. Does that make sense?



First, light isn't used to verify the age of the Earth. It *is* used to verify the age of other galaxies and of the universe in general. And, again, this is the age in the frame of the Earth, not in the limiting frame of the light.

So, yes, it takes light 4 years to travel 4 light years where both the distance (4 light years) and the time (4 years) are measured in the reference frame of the Earth. What the light 'experienced' is irrelevant to this.



It takes 4 years *in our reference frame*. So we see how that star was 4 years ago *in our reference frame*.



It doesn't move instantly in our reference frame.



In *it's* limiting frame there is no distance. It takes no time to travel no distance. But, as I have said many times now, thi sis a limiting frame, not a real one.

In all actual frames, it takes time for the light to travel.

I will say one thing - Thanks for being polite as we have discussed this, I appreciate that.

Sometimes you think I don't understand what you are saying, most of the time I do, it just doesn't seem possible for some of it to be true.

It just seems impossible, for an essentially infinite number of different distances, and lengths of time in our reference frame, to always yield the same answer of time=0 and distance=0 when the Speed of light is a constant, even in your limiting frame.

Since Speed of Light is a constant even in your limiting frame, it defies logic that it can cover any distance instantly. The very definition of speed requires it to be a function of time.
If there is no time in your limiting frame, then how can there even be a concept of speed?


You said - It takes no time to travel no distance. That is exactly the same as in our reference frame, it takes no time for light to travel no distance.

It's just hard to discuss when some say I am switching reference frames, then you say it doesn't have a reference frame whenever I try to use what they are calling another frame.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

You said - It takes no time to travel no distance. That is exactly the same as in our reference frame, it takes no time for light to travel no distance.

But from the light's perspective, it doesn't travel 0 distance in no time, it travels an infinite distance in no time.

 

[Polymath257]

I will say one thing - Thanks for being polite as we have discussed this, I appreciate that.

Sometimes you think I don't understand what you are saying, most of the time I do, it just doesn't seem possible for some of it to be true.

It just seems impossible, for an essentially infinite number of different distances, and lengths of time in our reference frame, to always yield the same answer of time=0 and distance=0 when the Speed of light is a constant, even in your limiting frame.

Since Speed of Light is a constant even in your limiting frame, it defies logic that it can cover any distance instantly. The very definition of speed requires it to be a function of time.
If there is no time in your limiting frame, then how can there even be a concept of speed?


You said - It takes no time to travel no distance. That is exactly the same as in our reference frame, it takes no time for light to travel no distance.

It's just hard to discuss when some say I am switching reference frames, then you say it doesn't have a reference frame whenever I try to use what they are calling another frame.

OK, let's do it a different way. Take a star 4 light years away and a galaxy 10 million light years away. How long does it take light to go from the star/galaxy to us?

Let's answer this question in a number of different reference frames. In each case, I will give the time dilation factor.

1. The Earth: the star is 4 ly away, so light takes 4 years to travel. Time dilation factor is 1 (no shift). The galaxy is 10 million light years away, so it take light 10 million light years to travel.

2. A spacecraft going past Earth at 86% of the speed of light. Time dilation factor is 2 (all times and distances are divided by 2). In this frame, the star is 2 light years from Earth, so light takes 2 years to travel. The galaxy is 5 million light years from Earth, so light takes 5 million light years to travel.

3. A spacecraft going past Earth at 99.5% of the speed of light. Time dilation factor is 10 (all times and distances are divided by 10). In this frame, the star is .4=2/5 light years from Earth, so light takes .4 years to travel. The galaxy is 1 million light years from Earth, so light takes 1 million light years to travel.

4. A spacecraft going past Earth at 99.995% of the speed of light. Time dilation factor is 100 (all times and distances are divided by 100) In this frame, the star is .04 light years from Earth, and the light takes .04 years = 2 weeks to travel. The galaxy is 100,000 light years from Earth, so light takes 100,000 years to travel.

5. A spacecraft going past Earth at 99.99995% of the speed of light. Time dilation factor is 1000. In this frame, the star is now .004 light years from Earth and now takes .004 years = 1 1/2 days to travel. The galaxy is now 10,000 light years from Earth and the light from it takes 10,000 years to travel to Earth.

Now, I want to emphasize that all of these are describing the *exact* same situation: light traveling from either a star or a galaxy to the Earth. In each case, the speed of light is the same. That doesn't change when changing reference frames.

If we looked from a spacecraft going 99.99999999995% of the speed of light, that galaxy would only be 10 light years from Earth and the light would only take 10 years to travel. But that light would still be going at the same speed as in any other reference frame.

As we look from frames that are getting closer and closer to the speed of light, the dilation factor gets larger and larger, so the actual distances and times get smaller and smaller. In the *limit*, both the distances and times go to zero. But, since no spacecraft can go the speed of light, and no observer will be going the speed of light, that measurement of 0 is never going to happen.

Does this clear it up a bit?