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

[TrueBeliever37]

For obvious reasons. Think about it.



I'm saying you're not understanding what they were telling you. Case in point:



That tells to me that you're not understanding what they're telling you.

What it tells me is you evidently don't understand my questions or what I am saying.

 

[james blunt]

Wrong again. It's not mechanical contraction. The object doesn't contract from it's perspective, it only contracts from the perspective of an outside observer.

By the light angles like I already explained. Do I need to draw it you ?

 

[Darkstorn]

What it tells me is you evidently don't understand my questions or what I am saying.

That's a pretty strong claim on your part. It's essentially what i claimed of you, just reversed.

Now, how do i deal with this eventuality? Let's try this: You're full of beans.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

By the light angles like I already explained. Do I need to draw it you ?

It's nothing to do with light angles. It's relativistic velocity. But go ahead and draw it for the thread if you think I'm mistaken.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

It can also be a different time at other relativistic velocities slower than C. For example, light takes 10 million years to cross 10 million light years from a stationary perspective, and ) time at C... but it would also take significantly less than 10 million years at a high fraction of C. It's not 10 million years or zero, it's a sliding scale depending on your velocity.

Does that help?

I know Armoured, but aren't we talking about C in my examples, which is a constant velocity?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

That's a pretty strong claim on your part. It's essentially what i claimed of you, just reversed.

Now, how do i deal with this eventuality? Let's try this: You're full of beans.

So are you.

 

[Darkstorn]

So are you.

Whoa, what did i ever do to you?

 

[james blunt]

It's nothing to do with light angles. It's relativistic velocity. But go ahead and draw it for the thread if you think I'm mistaken.

Here is a rough version

 

[Polymath257]

That is exactly what happens only using time.

Light is measured as taking 8 minutes to get here. But in your limiting frame reference perspective it was instantly.
Light is measured as taking 4 years to get here. But in your limiting frame reference perspective it was instantly.
Light is measured as taking 10 million years to get here. Once again in your limiting frame reference perspective it was instantly.

And for any *real* reference frame, the times would be different. The 'limiting frame' is not a valid reference frame!

Go back to post #680. Did that make sense to you?

Now, what happens to the numbers as you let the velocity of the spaceship get closer and closer to the speed of light? That dilation factor gets larger and larger. Which means the measured distances and times get smaller and smaller.

In the limit of the speed of light, the dilation factor is infinite, so when you divide by it, ALL distances and times go to 0. No *actual* observer will ever be in this limiting frame since IT ISN'T A VALID FRAME. But the limit can still be done mathematically.

 

[Polymath257]

Here is a rough version View attachment 22389

Nope. Not at all what we are talking about.

 

[Polymath257]

I know Armoured, but aren't we talking about C in my examples, which is a constant velocity?

And a velocity which no observer will be moving at.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

I know Armoured, but aren't we talking about C in my examples, which is a constant velocity?

Yes, it is. But I'm trying to ease you into the idea of different relative perspectives since the all or nothing idea seems to be throwing you off. If traveling an infinite distance in zero time doesn't make sense to you at the perspective of C, maybe traveling a light year in a week at a high fraction of C will sit better with you?

 

[james blunt]

Nope. Not at all what we are talking about.

Then I suggest you don't understand what you think you know about what you are talking about.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

And a velocity which no observer will be moving at.

Without getting into philosophy, the universe is the observer.

 

[james blunt]

Yes, it is. But I'm trying to ease you into the idea of different relative perspectives since the all or nothing idea seems to be throwing you off. If traveling an infinite distance in zero time doesn't make sense to you at the perspective of C, maybe traveling a light year in a week at a high fraction of C will sit better with you?

Not how it works, time does not work that way

 

[james blunt]

Without getting into philosophy, the universe is the observer.

Nope , because of the outer observer who can observe a single photon universe, i.e a light sphere.

 

[Darkstorn]

Not how it works, time does not work that way

Well, how does it work then? I think last time i talked to you, you tried to imply that you refuse to learn, and that you probably didn't go to school.

But i'd still like to hear it.

 

[james blunt]

Ok , science lesson time, let us begin with relativity, now for those who want to learn , discuss, for those who are going say no because it says this, leave the thread.

In the below picture there is multiple observable universes.

 

[james blunt]

Well, how does it work then? I think last time i talked to you, you tried to imply that you refuse to learn, and that you probably didn't go to school.

But i'd still like to hear it.

Time is simple, time is independent to matter ,

Now always exists and things move relative to now but always exist now. Time is the ageing process of things that exist now. We can record this value of ageing in memory by observing distinguishable changes.

 

[Darkstorn]

Time is simple, time is independent to matter ,

Now always exists and things move relative to now but always exist now. Time is the ageing process of things that exist now. We can record this value of ageing in memory.

How did you verify this?

Hint: Guessing is not a valid answer.