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

[Milton Platt]

But the electromagnetic field can be.

Doesn't matter......a photon is a packet of electromagnetic energy. it has to bounce off an object and then travel to your eye.
Feel free to write up a physics paper that upends all we know about electromagnetic energy, though.
Even if I accept what you are pushing (and I do not), it still has to be converted to an electrical impulse, travel along a nerve to the brain and then be interpreted.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Why do you insist on trying to re-define things?

Why can't you see that a distance is just a distance and equates by nothing else?

Like a light year you mean?

 

[Polymath257]

The planet in our discussion was 30 million light years away from the photon. You guys have to make up your mind. Either 30 million ly is a distance or it isn't.

I didn't ask you about distance again. I asked if it takes the photon time to travel the 30 million ly between the star and the planet, or does it get there instantly?
You keep saying there is no distance for the photon.

So since there is no distance for the photon in your theory, does it take time to get from the star to the planet or does it get there instantly? It has to be one or the other.

Why won't you just give an answer for a straight forward question - Does it take time or is it instantly?

Which frame are you measuring in? In your frame (the one where the galaxy is 30 million ly away) it will take 30 million years.

In the 'frame' of the photon, it will be instantaneous. But the distance in *that* frame is 0.

The answer depends on the frame. As we have said many times. Same physical situation, different description.

 

[james blunt]

Like a light year you mean?

Pffff,

A light year is 3 individual constants

distance
speed
time

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Pffff,

A light year is 3 individual constants

distance
speed
time

A light year can be determined by mass. You can measure the length of a meter by using 1 gram of water and determining the length of the sides of a perfect cube containing 1 gram of water. The sides of that cube will be 0.01 meters across. You then use that reference to measure out 9.45E15 meters, and voila, you have a distance of a light year.

 

[gnostic]

Try again, think about how the angled slit ''bottlenecks'' the incident ray.

They don't bottleneck anything. They either pass through the empty space or they collide with the material in front of them. The slits are empty space so they don't interact with the photons. Only the material around the slits absorbs photons as well as the photosensitive screen on the other side of the slits. You have to interact with the photons in order to have an observer effect.

How long does it take for electromagnetic radiation enter your eye ?

sorry, I don't have the math skills to tell you. Also, you need an exact distance measurement from the surface of the object to the eye, so, it depends. But it does take time. The photon can't be at the position of the object and inside your eye at the same time.

But the electromagnetic field can be.

Doesn't matter......a photon is a packet of electromagnetic energy. it has to bounce off an object and then travel to your eye.
Feel free to write up a physics paper that upends all we know about electromagnetic energy, though.
Even if I accept what you are pushing (and I do not), it still has to be converted to an electrical impulse, travel along a nerve to the brain and then be interpreted.

You don’t actually see the photon itself, until the effect of photon interactions with object, which the surface will either absorb or reflect off the surface.

As Thermos aquaticus pointed out, it does take time, even a short amount of time, for light to travel the distance from object to the eyes, and still a little more time for the brain to perceive as Milton pointed out.

It just mean that what is happening and what you are seeing, is not happening at exactly the same time. It may seemed instantaneous, but it isn’t.

What your brain finally perceived will have occurred nanoseconds ago, especially if the observer is standing so close to his experiment.

When a person see a solar flare, he is not seeing flare as it actually happened. What he is seeing is what happened perhaps a little over 8 minutes ago.

(I cannot be more precise with time, because the Earth’s orbit around the sun is not a perfect circular orbit. The elliptical orbit will have different distance between the Earth and Sun, during the perihelion and aphelion periods. Perihelion is when the Earth is in the shorter distance from the sun, while aphelion is when the Earth further away. So 8 minutes and 20 seconds would be average time.)

The solar flare take more notable time to reach us, because what we see, will have to travel far greater distance than the distance between observer and slitted hole.

 

[gnostic]

Pffff,

A light year is 3 individual constants

distance
speed
time

You still don’t understand understand the light year is a measurement used by astronomers as units of distance, and can be given in kilometres or miles in conversions.

Speed required both distance and time.

Time is units in seconds, hours, days, years, etc.

I have already given you multiple definitions to light year, from Oxford, Merriam-Webster, wikitionary and Encyclopaedia britannica, and all of them give you units in distance or length, not time.

 

[james blunt]

You still don’t understand understand the light year is a measurement used by astronomers as units of distance, and can be given in kilometres or miles in conversions.

Speed required both distance and time.

Time is units in seconds, hours, days, years, etc.

I have already given you multiple definitions to light year, from Oxford, Merriam-Webster, wikitionary and Encyclopaedia britannica, and all of them give you units in distance or length, not time.

If only you understood ,

In the beginning there was the big now, the big now is an infinite constant that is omnipresent . The big now never changes , things floating around in the big now age, age is time and age is compared to the big now that doesn't age. Distance in the big now is not a speed or a time, it is now over there like it is now over here , see you do not know truth like me do you?

 

[Polymath257]

Pffff,

A light year is 3 individual constants

distance
speed
time

No.

A distance is something you can measure with a yardstick or a meter stick. Typical distances are in meters, miles, centimeters, kilometers, inches, etc. But, for example, 2.54 centimeters is the same as an inch and 1000 meters is the same as a kilometer.

A time is something you measure with a clock. Typical times are seconds, minutes, hours, days, weeks, years. But, for example, a day is 86400 seconds and a week is 7 days.

An event is a point in spacetime. It has a location (usually given by three distances (x,y,z coordinates) and a time t).

A (Lorentz) frame is a specific choice of space and time coordinates so that points with fixed spatial coordinate do not move with respect to each other (they maintain the same distance apart over time).

Two different Lorentz frame will move with respect to each other and can measure different distances and time intervals between events.

Something in motion will move a distance in an interval of time. The speed of the object is then the distance divided by the time. So, typical speeds are meters per second (m/s), miles per hour (mph), kilometers per second (km/s), kilometers per hour (kph)., or inches per week. But, for example, 3600 kilometers per hour is the same speed as 1 kilometer per second, 1 mile per hour is the same as 1.609 kilometers per hour, and .447 meters per second.

So, in general, speed=distance/time. It is measured as a distance per time.

An old joke: A guy gets pulled over by a cop. The cop ask him if he was aware that he was driving at 100 miles per hour. The guy says, "That's impossible! I've only been driving 10 minutes!".

Now, if I am going at 100 miles per hour (a speed) and go for 2 hours (a time), I will go 200 miles (a distance). So, in general, a speed times a time is a distance.

Now, the remarkable thing about light is that it has the same speed in all frames of reference. This speed is 299,792,458 meters per second (m/s).

So, if light travels for 3 seconds (a time), it will go 3*299,792,458=899,377,374 meters (a distance). We can also say that this *distance* is 3 light seconds. It is the distance light travels in 3 seconds.

In the same way, light, going at the speed of light (a speed) for one year (a time) will go about 9.5 quadrillion meters (a distance). This distance is also known as a light year.

So, a light year *is* a distance. In particular, it is the distance that anything moving at the speed of light will travel over the time interval of a year.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

It is useless to ask for a distance in a situation where distance doesn't exist. Why is that so hard to understand?

If I told you that photons have no mass, would you keep asking how much 10,000 photons weigh?

You all said 30 million light years is a distance. Now you tell me it's not a distance. Yes it is a physical distance the photon has to travel.

The photon travels at a constant speed=c, which is based on distance and time. So it either takes time to get across that gap between the star and the planet, or it is instantaneous.

I ask which it is and you can't provide either one as an answer because your theory is obviously inaccurate.

 

[Polymath257]

You all said 30 million light years is a distance. Now you tell me it's not a distance. Yes it is a physical distance the photon has to travel.

The photon travels at a constant speed=c, which is based on distance and time. So it either takes time to get across that gap between the star and the planet, or it is instantaneous.

I ask which it is and you can't provide either one as an answer because your theory is obviously inaccurate.

The answer depends on whether you use your original frame (where the star is 30 million light years away and the travel time is 30 million years) or the 'frame' of the photon, which is found by taking a limit of frames with velocity <c. In this limiting frame, the distance is 0 and the time of travel is 0.

When you ask if the photon gets across the gap, you are automatically using a frame where it takes time to cross that gap. But, in the 'limiting frame' of the photon, there is no gap, so the 'travel' is instantaneous.

Please acknowledge that you understand that there are *two* reference frames here: one in which the distance is 30 million light years and the travel time is 30 million years and *another* frame where the distance is 0 and the time is 0. Also, please acknowledge that you understand that these two frames describe *exactly* the same set of events.

 

[ecco]

Why not 40 pages? why not 100's? Are you trying to interrupt members communicating?

Do you really believe that my post would in any way interrupt members communicating?

If fact it encouraged you to make a post you would not have made otherwise.

 

[ecco]

A ''photon'' is an energy perturbation traversing through an energy field point to point by being ''pushed''along by other ''photons''.

What pushes the first photon?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

The answer depends on whether you use your original frame (where the star is 30 million light years away and the travel time is 30 million years) or the 'frame' of the photon, which is found by taking a limit of frames with velocity <c. In this limiting frame, the distance is 0 and the time of travel is 0.

When you ask if the photon gets across the gap, you are automatically using a frame where it takes time to cross that gap. But, in the 'limiting frame' of the photon, there is no gap, so the 'travel' is instantaneous.

Please acknowledge that you understand that there are *two* reference frames here: one in which the distance is 30 million light years and the travel time is 30 million years and *another* frame where the distance is 0 and the time is 0. Also, please acknowledge that you understand that these two frames describe *exactly* the same set of events.

I understand what you are saying. But a physical distance of 30 million light years is a physical distance between the star and the planet. Do you understand what I am saying?

Or do you not even believe there is any separation between the star and the planet?

And you have said you believe the speed of light is a constant. But when we discuss it, you don't apply it like a constant. It is either a constant or it is not, you guys have got to make up your mind, and quit flip flopping back and forth.

If time =0 , and distance =0 , then just admit you believe it gets there instantly. Either that or it can't get there at all. Ok - I just noticed one of you did finally say it gets there instantly. Maybe we can get somewhere now.

So in the example I gave with the two photons racing. They both arrived at their destinations instantly. Are we in agreement? Because previously I was told it was not a tie.

 

[Polymath257]

I understand what you are saying. But a physical distance of 30 million light years is a physical distance between the star and the planet. Do you understand what I am saying?

And I agree. There is a physical distance between the two. That distance depends on the reference frame. Are we OK here? So, the distance that appears to you to be 30 million light years may well be just 10 light years from a different frame?

Or do you not even believe there is any separation between the star and the planet?

When did I say or imply that?

And you have said you believe the speed of light is a constant. But when we discuss it, you don't apply it like a constant. It is either a constant or it is not, you guys have got to make up your mind, and quit flip flopping back and forth.

The speed of light in a vacuum is the same in all reference frames. This is very much unlike what happens with other speeds, by the way. If you are driving at 50 miles per hour (relative to the Earth) and I go past you driving at 55 miles per hour (relative to the Earth), my speed *in your reference frame* is 5 miles per hour. it is NOT the same as my speed in the reference frame of the Earth (which is the usual default frame).

If time =0 , and distance =0 , then just admit you believe it gets there instantly. Either that or it can't get there at all. Ok - I just noticed one of you did finally say it gets there instantly. Maybe we can get somewhere now.

In the limiting frame for the photon itself. The distance is different in different reference frames. Do you grasp that basic idea? What is 30 million light years in your frame may well be 10 light years in a different frame?

So in the example I gave with the two photons racing. They both arrived at their destinations instantly. Are we in agreement? Because previously I was told it was not a tie.

In which frame?

Instantaneous only makes sense within a frame, not between frames. What you Earth see as happening at the same instant, someone going past at half the speed of light will see as happening at different times.

 

[james blunt]

What pushes the first photon?

Full

 

[TrueBeliever37]

And I agree. There is a physical distance between the two. That distance depends on the reference frame. Are we OK here? So, the distance that appears to you to be 30 million light years may well be just 10 light years from a different frame?





The speed of light in a vacuum is the same in all reference frames. This is very much unlike what happens with other speeds, by the way. If you are driving at 50 miles per hour (relative to the Earth) and I go past you driving at 55 miles per hour (relative to the Earth), my speed *in your reference frame* is 5 miles per hour. it is NOT the same as my speed in the reference frame of the Earth (which is the usual default frame).



In the limiting frame for the photon itself. The distance is different in different reference frames. Do you grasp that basic idea? What is 30 million light years in your frame may well be 10 light years in a different frame?



In which frame?

Instantaneous only makes sense within a frame, not between frames. What you Earth see as happening at the same instant, someone going past at half the speed of light will see as happening at different times.

You agree the 30 million light years between the star and the planet is a physical distance the photon has to travel.

Yet, you said the photon traveled that physical distance instantaneously. (I understand not from my frame of reference.) That contradicts that it travels at the speed of light.

Doesn't your theory say that light travels at the speed of light = a constant , no matter what the frame of reference. The speed of light is always a constant.

So how can it be possible for that photon to travel faster than the speed of light? Which would be exactly what it did if it traveled a physical distance of 30 million light years instantly.

C DOES NOT = INSTANTANEOUSLY

Is the photon itself traveling at a speed of C, or is it traveling to it's destination instantly? You can't keep flipping back and forth.

 

[Polymath257]

You agree the 30 million light years between the star and the planet is a physical distance the photon has to travel.

Yet, you said the photon traveled that physical distance instantaneously. (I understand not from my frame of reference.) That contradicts that it travels at the speed of light.

Doesn't your theory say that light travels at the speed of light = a constant , no matter what the frame of reference. The speed of light is always a constant.

This is correct.

So how can it be possible for that photon to travel faster than the speed of light?

It doesn't

Which would be exactly what it did if it traveled a physical distance of 30 million light years instantly

.

It does not travel 30 million light years instantly in any reference frame.

C DOES NOT = INSTANTANEOUSLY

Correct.

Is the photon itself traveling at a speed of C, or is it traveling to it's destination instantly? You can't keep flipping back and forth

.

No, you keep flipping between one reference frame (where the distance is 30 million light years and the travel take 30 million years) and another (where the distance is 0 and so is the time).

 

[TrueBeliever37]

In which frame?

Instantaneous only makes sense within a frame, not between frames. What you Earth see as happening at the same instant, someone going past at half the speed of light will see as happening at different times.

Let it be in your frame which has no reference. How can you ever come up with anything using your limiting frame? You have no distances, no times, hence no speeds, hence no reasonable conclusions can be made.

Why would the math equations you gave even be reliable? Since t would always equal t' , and d would always equal d' , and you have no starting points to begin with since nothing can be related to anything else.

What is the lim of v =d/t as time approaches 0? I think it's infinity not c.

You could call the origin on the star point d, and the destination on the planet d' , but you can't come up with any meaningful info , because they are either all 0 or don't relate to anything else.

Multiple distances are all always 0, and Times are always 0, so what good is any of it?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

This is correct.


It doesn't



It does not travel 30 million light years instantly in any reference frame.



Correct.



No, you keep flipping between one reference frame (where the distance is 30 million light years and the travel take 30 million years) and another (where the distance is 0 and so is the time).

Sorry I think what you are describing is a fantasy world where 4ly = 40ly = 30 million light years = no distance or time away.