• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

J

james blunt

Well-Known Member
Polymath257 said:
Exactly. A specific *distance*. In particular, the distance light travels in one year. A velocity times a time is a distance.
Click to expand...

A specific distance that is specific and dependent on t/dx of c. Specific and equivalent to an amount of time . The time is constant like the distance.
 
Subduction Zone

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
Sustainer said:
I couldn't care less what mainstream garbage says it is , it is a time.

3.154e+7.s * 299 792 458 m = 1ly

Try again...
Click to expand...
I see why you are so confused. You used a distance for c when you should have used a velocity. The correct formula would be:

3154e+7s * 299,792,458 m/s = 1ly.

You forgot to divide distance by time. Please note that your units do not correctly cancel out in your equation. You do not have a time on the right side of your version of the equation, you have time multiplied by distance. Or in this case the units would be m*s.

Proper analysis of units in an equation can often make the error obvious.
 
Thermos aquaticus

Thermos aquaticus

Well-Known Member
Sustainer said:
A specific distance that is specific and dependent on t/dx of c. Specific and equivalent to an amount of time . The time is constant like the distance.
Click to expand...

If time is constant, then it should take a bullet travelling 500 m/s just two years to travel 2 ly according to your argument.
 
Kangaroo Feathers

Kangaroo Feathers

Yea, it is written in the Book of Cyril...
Sustainer said:
Maybe so , maybe not, what is real ? What is not?

I have forgot

Maybe a nuclear reactor

maybe not

maybe just a robot

Maybe not

error line one .......
Click to expand...
images-3.jpeg

Error! Error! Daktaklakpak!​
 
J

james blunt

Well-Known Member
Armoured said:
So how would you like people to communicate if not via a common language? (This should be good)
Click to expand...

Did I mention a change of language ? I mentioned presentation of language and the correct semantic use of words , additionally correct sentence structure , especially when used for defining.
 
Thermos aquaticus

Thermos aquaticus

Well-Known Member
Sustainer said:
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.
Click to expand...

Getting back to the opening post . . .

What you are "seeing" is the photons that bounced off or were produced by the spaceship at that physical point in space. At the start of the journey, it takes one year for those photons to travel the DISTANCE from their point of origin to our eyes here on Earth. The DISTANCE covered by the photons in any ARBITRARY SPAN OF TIME is twice that of the actual spaceship in that same ARBITRARY SPAN OF TIME.

If we knew the wavelength of those photons in the spaceship's frame of reference we would see that the wavelengths are shorter in Earth's frame of reference which is the Doppler effect. In fact, we could calculate how much DISTANCE the spaceship is covering in any ARBITRARY SPAN OF TIME by measuring the Doppler shift.
 
J

james blunt

Well-Known Member
Thermos aquaticus said:
Getting back to the opening post . . .

What you are "seeing" is the photons that bounced off or were produced by the spaceship at that physical point in space. At the start of the journey, it takes one year for those photons to travel the DISTANCE from their point of origin to our eyes here on Earth. The DISTANCE covered by the photons in any ARBITRARY SPAN OF TIME is twice that of the actual spaceship in that same ARBITRARY SPAN OF TIME.

If we knew the wavelength of those photons in the spaceship's frame of reference we would see that the wavelengths are shorter in Earth's frame of reference which is the Doppler effect. In fact, we could calculate how much DISTANCE the spaceship is covering in any ARBITRARY SPAN OF TIME by measuring the Doppler shift.
Click to expand...

No, you don't see Photons they are invisible and are not really a particle, they are point to point transfer of the energy through the ether of the ''light''. Colour is an invert due to space-time curvature near the mass surface creating permeability that slows the ''photons'' escape allowing more ''photons'' per point to give frequency and ''colour''.
You are repeating your Ai, where is the real you ?
 
Thermos aquaticus

Thermos aquaticus

Well-Known Member
Sustainer said:
No, you don't see Photons they are invisible and are not really a particle, they are point to point transfer of the energy through the ether of the ''light''.
Click to expand...

All we need to do is agree that the point to point transfer occurs at 3E8 m/s for my post to be true. What you are seeing is the photons and not the actual spaceship.

You are repeating your Ai, where is the real you ?
Click to expand...

I work directly with photons all of the time, so it comes from personal experience. Ever worked with fluorescently labeled proteins before? What about fluorescent resonance energy transfer using fluorophores and quenchers? Dichroic mirrors? I doubt that you have any real-world experience with photons.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top