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

[Thermos aquaticus]

Then how can you claim to believe C is a constant?

Because every measure of the speed of light in all experiments shows that it is the same in all real frames of reference.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Hi Polymath,

What I am trying to find out is why it is ok to use C=distance/time to determine time from sun to earth, but the same equation is not allowed to be used to determine time from star to another planet.

You are assuming that the distance between two points is the same for all observers. This is a false assumption.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

The limiting distance is 0, which we know to be inaccurate, because our common sense lets us know there really is a physical distance between the sun and us here on earth.

Ahh yes, the infamous "argument from common sense" fallacy. Sticking "It's common sense!" onto an argument does not make it true. The whole reason we have the scientific method is because common sense is wrong a lot of the time.

Just stop, take a breath, and consider the possibility that reality runs counter to what you view as common sense. Once you do that, you have taken your first steps into modern physics.

 

[viole]

How?
A light year is the amount of time it takes light to travel a distance, the distance is a constant and c is constant. The amount of time is the measure ....and can you answer the question or are you going to avoid it in avid fear of validating my claim ?

A light year is the distance light covers in one year. So, it is a measure of distance.

And that is why astronomer says things like "that object is 1 light years away" and not "that object is 1 light years ago". Actually, you said that yourself in the OP, before getting confused.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Please don't insult me by calling me that, I am nowhere near as stupid as him.

Since you are confusing space with time, I suspect you are also confusing stupidity with intelligence.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

of course

Well, at least we know who is going to get the Nobel prize for physics this year.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Everything seen by humans is illuminated by light. Jesus is light. He illuminates, we see Him, His works.

Are you telling us that Jesus is a bunch of bosons mediating the electromagnetic force? OK.

Ciao

- viole

 

[james blunt]

Since you are confusing space with time, I suspect you are also confusing stupidity with intelligence.

Ciao

- viole

Hmmm , nope.

 

[viole]

Hmmm , nope.

What nope? You mean Yes?

Ciao

- viole

 

[james blunt]

What nope? You mean Yes?

Ciao

- viole

Why do you think you can tell me what I mean ?

 

[viole]

Why do you think you can tell me what I mean ?

I cannot. But since you seem to consistently invert the meaning of things, I just used that as a basic heuristic.

Ciao

- viole

 

[james blunt]

I cannot. But since you seem to consistently invert the meaning of things, I just used that as a basic heuristic.

Ciao

- viole

Invert or put it the right way around?

Time is objects

space is space

Now is always

Objects age compared now

Space is constant now



That simple

 

[viole]

Invert or put it the right way around?

Time is objects

space is space


That simple

That meaningless, I would say.

For instance, space is space is a tautology, and time is objects has no meaning. Is that your rebuttal of relativity?


Ciao

- viole

 

[james blunt]

That meaningless, I would say.

For instance, space is space is a tautology, and time is objects has no meaning. I that your rebuttal of relativity?


Ciao

- viole

Lol Viole, look at time a different way

Imagine a lonely snowman , his rate of time is dependent to the condition of time. Now if he was all hot and bothered , let's say a bikini babe walked past. This might cause the snowman to heat up and time would speed up for the snowman. You know, he would melt in your hands .

 

[viole]

Lol Viole, look at time a different way

Imagine a lonely snowman , his rate of time is dependent to the condition of time. Now if he was all hot and bothered , let's say a bikini babe walked past. This might cause the snowman to heat up and time would speed up for the snowman. You know, he would melt in your hands .

Sure. Whatever you say.

Ciao

- viole

 

[james blunt]

Sure. Whatever you say.

Ciao

- viole

It is not about what I say, why not open your mind and experience thinking for yourself on a sensual level of experience.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

You are assuming that the distance between two points is the same for all observers. This is a false assumption.

Thermos,

When I ask why can the photon get here from the sun in 8m and 20s, yet take 30 million years from another star? I am not changing observers. I am using the same observer.
If the photon experiences no time or distance, then why is there a time difference in these two cases? You guys provide a reply to my question, but don't ever really answer it.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Both the 30 million year and the 8 minutes 20 seconds are *as measured from the earth*. If a spaceship was going past at 99% of the speed of light, the times (and distances) would be completely different. The distances and times *depend on the reference frame*. In the (limiting) frame of the photon, both distances are 0 and both times are 0. But, for any speed slightly less than that of light (a real reference frame), the distance to the star is 3 billion times as much as to the sun. And the times are the same way. It is only in the *limit* that the distances and times go to 0.

Think of it like this. What happens when you multiply 30 million by 0? Now, what happens when you multiply 500 by 0? How can the answers be the same?

In a sense, you are asking how that resistor could have a voltage of 30 V and a current of 1 A and also have a voltage of 0 and a current of 0. The different voltages correspond to the distances for different reference frames and the different currents correspond to times in different reference frames.

Polymath, please forget about the spaceship for a little bit. Why are there two different times *as measured from the earth*, if the photon truly experiences no time or distance?

I understand it depends on the reference frame. But those two times were calculated using the same reference frame. The photon is not at a speed less than light, it is at the speed of light in both cases.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Thermos,

When I ask why can the photon get here from the sun in 8m and 20s, yet take 30 million years from another star? I am not changing observers. I am using the same observer.

Which observer are you using, and what is their relative velocity to the Sun, the Earth, and the star?

If the photon experiences no time or distance,

So we are not using Earth's frame of reference?

then why is there a time difference in these two cases?

Until you tell me who the observer is, I can't answer your question. Are you talking about a photon or someone sitting on the Earth? For any real frame of reference there will be a difference in time for the light travelling from the Sun to the Earth and from a distant star to the Earth. For a photon, which does not exist in a real reference frame, there is no distance to travel since length contraction is infinite. So it all depends on what you are talking about.

 

[Polymath257]

Thermos,

When I ask why can the photon get here from the sun in 8m and 20s, yet take 30 million years from another star? I am not changing observers. I am using the same observer.

Yes, the observer on the Earth.

If the photon experiences no time or distance, then why is there a time difference in these two cases? You guys provide a reply to my question, but don't ever really answer it.

Here, you are changing to an 'observer' moving along with the photon. The difference is that the 30 million light years and 500 seconds are in *one* frame: that of the Earth, which is at rest with respect to the Earth, sun, and star.

But you *asked* for what the photon 'experiences', which means you want information from the reference frame of the photon, not the reference frame of the Earth. And the problem, once again, is that there is no valid reference frame for the photon. it can only be evaluated by taking a limit of what observers going at speeds close rand closer to that of light experience. And, as we get closer and closer to the speed of light, the distances get smaller and smaller and go to 0 in the limit. Now, for any *real* reference frame, the distance to the star will be many times larger than the distance to the sun and the times will also differ. But you asked for what happens *to the photon* and that can only be answered by doing the limit.

You still seem to be confused by what it means to be a reference frame. The photon has a different frame than the Earth. The measurement of 30 million light years is in the earth's frame. The measurement of 8 minutes, 20 seconds is in the Earth's frame.

But the 0 distance and time are in the *imaginary* photon frame.