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

[TrueBeliever37]

yes.

Once again, relativistic physics does not fit nicely into our non-relativistic brains.

Let's go ahead and use the model for Light most of you seem to be proposing. I'll admit it is very interesting.

If a jockey riding a photon from 30 million light years away, can get here just as quickly as a jockey riding a photon from the Sun. Remember neither photon experiences time or distance.

Then that means the light actually gets here instantly. And if that is the case, then light from any distance away, can't be used as a proof regarding the age of the earth.

It also means that any light we see, no matter what the distance, doesn't prove we are looking into the past, Because that light appears instantly. All we need is a telescope powerful enough to see that far.

Hence proving the point of the whole opening statement - Seeing things in their past? You are full of beans! Meaning that is ridiculous.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's go ahead and use the model for Light most of you seem to be proposing. I'll admit it is very interesting.

If a jockey riding a photon from 30 million light years away, can get here just as quickly as a jockey riding a photon from the Sun. Remember neither jockey experiences time or distance.

Then that means the light actually gets here instantly. And if that is the case, then light from any distance away, can't be used as a proof regarding the age of the earth.

It also means that any light we see, no matter what the distance, doesn't prove we are looking into the past, Because that light can appear instantly. All we need is a telescope powerful enough to see that far.

Hence proving the point of the whole opening statement - Seeing things in their past? You are full of beans! Meaning that is ridiculous.

That is not the claim. Once again you are jumping from one frame of reference to another. You need to be clear what your frame of reference is. In our frame of reference light does not get here instantaneously. That would only be in the frame of the photon. And as Polymath has pointed out, that is the limit of the frame.

It would help if you told us how far you got in your math classes. Did you study calculus at all?

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Well, massive objects cannot move at the speed of light, so there is a fundamental problem with your question.

Once again, there is no valid reference frame that moves at the speed of light. So it is problematic to talk about what light 'experiences'.

Let's do it simply. Suppose you see a bar of length L. Someone going past you at the velocity c will see a bar of length L*sqrt(1-(v/c)^2 ).

As v-->c, the length of the bar goes to 0. In other words, the distance light has to travel goes to 0.

Now, suppose you see light take time T to go the distance L. So, L=T*c.

Then the observer moving past you at velocity v will seee the time for light to go that distance to be T*sqrt(1-(v/c)^2 ).

As v-->c, this time also goes to 0. In other words, the time it takes light to travel goes to 0.

But, the speed of light as determined by that observer going past you at velocity v will be [ L*sqrt(1-(v/c)^2 ) ]/[ T*sqrt(1-(v/c)^2 ) ] = L/T =c.

So as v-->c , this speed is c.

You seem to be really good at the math. I wasn't talking about objects though, I was talking about light, and wondering why c would equal that particular speed and not say just a smidge faster.

Would you please provide the equation you will use, along with two different distances for examples, and show that the math does indeed verify that the light arrives immediately, no matter what the distance chosen is?

Let the frame of reference be from an imaginary jockey riding the photons. Neither sees any distance or time, so they should both arrive instantly from any distance.

If the equations are the correct ones to use, the math should prove this - right?

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Would you please provide the equation you will use, along with two different distances for examples, and show that the math does indeed verify that the light arrives immediately, no matter what the distance chosen is?

The equations are found in one of my earlier posts. Here it is again:

Δt = the observer time, or two-position time (s)

Δt0 = the proper time, or one-position time (s)

v = velocity (m/s)

c = speed of light (3.0 x 10^8 m/s)

All you need to do is plug 3.0 x 10^8 m/s into v and solve the equation. You will see that you get a 0 in the denominator. Dividing by zero is what others have referred to as a limit, and at that limit it doesn't make sense to talk about there even being time for something moving at the speed of light. The very same equation is used for length contraction.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

The equations are found in one of my earlier posts. Here it is again:

Δt = the observer time, or two-position time (s)

Δt0 = the proper time, or one-position time (s)

v = velocity (m/s)

c = speed of light (3.0 x 10^8 m/s)

All you need to do is plug 3.0 x 10^8 m/s into v and solve the equation. You will see that you get a 0 in the denominator. Dividing by zero is what others have referred to as a limit, and at that limit it doesn't make sense to talk about there even being time for something moving at the speed of light. The very same equation is used for length contraction.

Thanks - that helps prove my post #581

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Using the equation above we could also predict how time passes differently between someone on Earth and someone in spaceship. Let's say that we had a super powerful telescope and could see a clock on the bridge of a ship travelling 0.5c relative to Earth and we watch the ship's clock for 1 Earth minute. How many seconds would pass on the clock in the ship? Plug 60 seconds in for the observer time and 0.5c for v and solve for delta t0. By my calculations, you get about 51 seconds. From your perspective on Earth, time on the ship moves slower than time on Earth. This difference in the passage of time really starts ramping up as you approach the speed of light until it hits a limit at the speed of light.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Thanks - that helps prove my post #581

You are using the wrong frame of reference in that post. You switch between Earth's frame of reference and the photon's frame of reference. You need to be consistent with your frames of reference.

Also, the speed of light is the same in all frames of reference as long as you aren't travelling at the speed of light. It is your clocks and rulers that change, not the speed of light.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Let's go ahead and use the model for Light most of you seem to be proposing. I'll admit it is very interesting.

If a jockey riding a photon from 30 million light years away, can get here just as quickly as a jockey riding a photon from the Sun. Remember neither photon experiences time or distance.

Then that means the light actually gets here instantly. And if that is the case, then light from any distance away, can't be used as a proof regarding the age of the earth.

Earth isn't moving at the speed of light, and it is the passage of time on Earth that you are looking for. Time ticks by at different rates for different frames of reference, so you can't calculate the passage of time for a photon and make statements about the passage of time on Earth. Also, the speed of light is the same for all frames of reference that are not moving at the speed of light.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

Using the equation above we could also predict how time passes differently between someone on Earth and someone in spaceship. Let's say that we had a super powerful telescope and could see a clock on the bridge of a ship travelling 0.5c relative to Earth and we watch the ship's clock for 1 Earth minute. How many seconds would pass on the clock in the ship? Plug 60 seconds in for the observer time and 0.5c for v and solve for delta t0. By my calculations, you get about 51 seconds. From your perspective on Earth, time on the ship moves slower than time on Earth. This difference in the passage of time really starts ramping up as you approach the speed of light until it hits a limit at the speed of light.

Right , so even though we see light 30 million light years away. In reality the light got from it's origin to it's destination instantly, because it experienced no time or distance.

Meaning you can't use the distance light is away from you, for any kind of age verification of the earth.

Also meaning we aren't seeing things in the past, even if we see light from 30 million light years away. Because the light reaches it's destination immediately no matter what the distance is, since it experiences no time or distance. From our frame of reference it appears to take time, but since it really got there immediately, we are not seeing in the past. We just need a telescope powerful enough to see that far. If we can see far enough, we are seeing light that just got there instantly.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Right , so even though we see light 30 million light years away. In reality the light got from it's origin to it's destination instantly, because it experienced no time or distance.

The photon did not experience any time. We do experience time here on Earth. For us on Earth, it takes 30 million years for the light to travel that distance. Therefore, we can use light to measure time here on Earth in Earth's frame of reference.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

The photon did not experience any time. We do experience time here on Earth. For us on Earth, it takes 30 million years for the light to travel that distance. Therefore, we can use light to measure time here on Earth in Earth's frame of reference.

If we have to wait around here on earth for 30 million years for the light to reach it's destination, then the light couldn't have reached its destination instantly as you guys are saying. That makes absolutely no sense.

If we had a telescope powerful enough to see that far, we would be able to see that light instantly if it arrives instantly.

Because the light is in a constant state of flow, how would you ever be able to prove which photons you were seeing?

*First scenario - we have to wait 30 million years to see light that reached it's destination instantly.

*Second scenario - Assume the light is emitted at the exact point in time that it was for the First scenario. This time we only have to wait 4 years for the light. It reaches it's destination instantly also.

If both are emitted at the same instant, and reach there destination instantly. Why do we have to wait longer for one than the other?
In there frame of reference they both reached the destination instantly.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

If we have to wait around here on earth for 30 million years for the light to reach it's destination, then the light couldn't have reached its destination instantly as you guys are saying.

You are shifting between frames of reference again.

We can measure the speed of light here on Earth, so we already know that it does take time for a photon to move relative to Earth's frame of reference.

If we had a telescope powerful enough to see that far, we would be able to see that light instantly if it arrives instantly.

No, we wouldn't. We would be interacting with photons that left the object in the past. Pictures are photons that we capture here on Earth, even pictures that we take through a telescope.

Because the light is in a constant state of flow, how would you ever be able to prove which photons you were seeing?

*First scenario - we have to wait 30 million years to see light that reached it's destination instantly.

That depends on who "we" is and what "our" velocity is. If we are talking about Earth and a distant star in Earth's frame of reference, then the photon travels at 3x10^8 meters/second between the star and the Earth.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

That depends on who "we" is and what "our" velocity is. If we are talking about Earth and a distant star in Earth's frame of reference, then the photon travels at 3x10^8 meters/second between the star and the Earth.

How can the photon travel at that speed when it doesn't experience time or distance? A meter is a distance, and a second is time.

See what I mean, it makes no sense.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

How can the photon travel at that speed when it doesn't experience time or distance?

We do experience time and distance, so that is why we observe photons having a speed. Again, time and distance are relative to the frame of reference.

 

[TrueBeliever37]

We do experience time and distance, so that is why we observe photons having a speed. Again, time and distance are relative to the frame of reference.

But you said the photon (the photon itself) was traveling at so many meters/second. Even when using it's frame of reference, the photon is traveling a certain number of meters/second.
And meters are distance, and seconds are time. To me you guys keep switching frames of reference also.

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

But you said the photon (the photon itself) was traveling at so many meters/second.

Yes, in our frame of reference light travels at that speed. However, there is no time or distance in the photon's frame of reference. Again, you can't pretend as if all frames of reference are the same.

To me you guys keep switching frames of reference also.

It's ok to switch frames of reference as long as you accurately describe each one and do not treat them as the same frame of reference. The problem you keep running into is that you think the photon's frame of reference applies to Earth's frame of reference which just isn't true.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

Let's go ahead and use the model for Light most of you seem to be proposing. I'll admit it is very interesting.

If a jockey riding a photon from 30 million light years away, can get here just as quickly as a jockey riding a photon from the Sun. Remember neither photon experiences time or distance.

Then that means the light actually gets here instantly. And if that is the case, then light from any distance away, can't be used as a proof regarding the age of the earth.

It also means that any light we see, no matter what the distance, doesn't prove we are looking into the past, Because that light appears instantly. All we need is a telescope powerful enough to see that far.

Hence proving the point of the whole opening statement - Seeing things in their past? You are full of beans! Meaning that is ridiculous.

From the point of view of the photon, they are both instantaneous. From our point of view, they are not. Relativity.

 

[Kangaroo Feathers]

How can the photon travel at that speed when it doesn't experience time or distance? A meter is a distance, and a second is time.

See what I mean, it makes no sense.

It makes sense mathematically. It's counter intuitive to us though because our brains didn't develop in a relativistic environment so this type of physics isn't instinctive, unlike Newtonian type physics, which our brains developed to cope with specifically.

 

[Polymath257]

You seem to be really good at the math. I wasn't talking about objects though, I was talking about light, and wondering why c would equal that particular speed and not say just a smidge faster.

Would you please provide the equation you will use, along with two different distances for examples, and show that the math does indeed verify that the light arrives immediately, no matter what the distance chosen is?

Let the frame of reference be from an imaginary jockey riding the photons. Neither sees any distance or time, so they should both arrive instantly from any distance.

If the equations are the correct ones to use, the math sholld prove this - right?

And yet again, there is no valid frame of reference that moves at the speed of light. You are, in essence, asking for one. Such does not exist.

I gave the basic math. Do you have any comments on it?

 

[Polymath257]

But you said the photon (the photon itself) was traveling at so many meters/second. Even when using it's frame of reference, the photon is traveling a certain number of meters/second.
And meters are distance, and seconds are time. To me you guys keep switching frames of reference also.

And again, there is no frame of reference moving at the speed of light. How many times do I need to say it before it comes across?