Star triangle paradox

If James said the illumination indicates the distance then darker objects would be further away? Moving slower?
 
John99 said:
If James said the illumination indicates the distance then darker objects would be further away? Moving slower?
Click to expand...

If I shot you with a shotgun at point blank range with birdshot, which means a lot of tiny bb's are shot at the same time from the barrel, all the bb's would hit you, and you would get the full effect.

If I backed up to 100 yards and performed the experiment again, you would only be hit by a couple of the bb's, as most of them spread out when they left the barrel and missed you.

Same thing with light. Only some of the light hits you when you are further away. It's like the opposite of funneling the light. If you funneled the light into your eye you would be gathering a wide angle of light and directing it all into a smaller area, your eye. If you did the opposite and had the light disperse, only very little of the light would hit your eye.

The more light that hits your eye at the same time means it appears brighter to you.
 
John99 said:
We are discussing science here.
Click to expand...
Um, no. YOU aren't.

Now you are looking to get me banned again?
Click to expand...
Looking to get you banned again?
If you can't support your claim and refuse to retract it then you deserve banning.
Maybe you could use the time away to get an education. But that's not happened on your previous bans so it seems unlikely.
 
MD,

If someone says:

"Well it is 100 lightyears away due to the illumination"

Then if it were not illuminated it would be closer or further?

Answer: It is where it is.

So then how can this whole LY thing be accurate except for a unit of measure based off of imperfect reasoning and\or tools.

My issue is not with the use of LY's just when we inject time into it.

Now if we say:

"well the light from the star took x amt. of years to get here"

That is fine but wouldnt that only be true for the first time the star gets lighted and the light reaches you on earth because after that the light is constant.
 
"well the light from the star took x amt. of years to get here that is fine but wouldnt that only be true for the first time the star gets lighted and the light reaches you on earth because after that the light is constant.
Click to expand...
And if there's a change in the illumination from the star how long does it take for that change to reach us?
x years.
This is the point you constantly miss.
 
Dywyddyr said:
And if there's a change in the illumination from the star how long does it take for that change to reach us?
x years.
This is the point you constantly miss.
Click to expand...

I have always been in agreement with that. Just as i said the initial time and that would also mena subsequent changes, obviously and by default.
 
John99 said:
I have always been in agreement with that.
Click to expand...
Really?
So how do you contend that we see things in "real time" if you agree that whatever light enters our eyes is "aged"?
What reaches us NOW is x years old. Therefore we see the star NOW as it was THEN. That is NOT real time.
 
John99 said:
MD,

If someone says:

"Well it is 100 lightyears away due to the illumination"

Then if it were not illuminated it would be closer or further?

Answer: It is where it is.

So then how can this whole LY thing be accurate except for a unit of measure based off of imperfect reasoning or tools.

My issue is not with the use of LY's just when we inject time into it.

Now if we say:

"well the light from the star took x amt. of years to get here that is fine but wouldnt that only be true for the first time the star gets lighted and the light reaches you on earth because after that the light is constant.
Click to expand...

A light year is a unit of measure of distance, just like a mile, or a yard, or a meter.

If light travels for 100 years (time of light travel) to reach us, then light traveled the distance of 100 light years (distance light traveled).

If you record a 10 minute video starting at 12:00, and start watching the video at 1:00, the entire video is delayed 1 hour. Same with the sun light. If you look at the sun at 12:08, the light you are seeing left the sun at 12:00. It took 8 minutes to reach you. If you continue to look at the sun, from 12:08-12:18, you looked at the sun for 10 minutes, and the light you last observed at 12:18 left the sun at 12:10.

So the light you observed from the sun was light that left the sun from 12:00-12:10. You observed the light from 12:08-12:18.
 
Dywyddyr said:
What reaches us NOW is x years old. Therefore we see the star NOW as it was THEN.
Click to expand...

I dont agree with that. Once constant it is constant. Only time it is not is when it is first emitted because it takes time to reach the destiantion or when it is fading out.

I said the first time the light is turned on it travels outward.
 
John99 said:
I dont agree with that. Once constant it is constant. Only time it is not is when it is first emitted because it takes time to reach the destiantion or when it is fading out.

I said the first time the light is turned on it travels outward.
Click to expand...

You are 100 miles away from me. I always throw baseballs at you at 100 MPH.

I throw the first ball at you at 12:00. I throw another ball at you every hour on the hour. The first ball hits you at 1:00, the second at 2:00, the third at 3:00 etc.

What time did I throw the ball that hit you at 3:00?
 
motor daddy said:
you are 100 miles away from me. I always throw baseballs at you at 100 mph.

I throw the first ball at you at 12:00. I throw another ball at you every hour on the hour. The first ball hits you at 1:00, the second at 2:00, the third at 3:00 etc.

What time did i throw the ball that hit you at 3:00?
Click to expand...

2:00
 
John99 said:
I dont agree with that.
Click to expand...
And that's your error.

Try this.
A star ignites 100 LY away.
We start to see 100 years later. Yes?
50 years after it ignites it changes colour.
How long does that colour change take to reach us?
(And the answer is 100 years).
If you disagree please explain how that colour change can affect the light that reaches us before that 100 years.
 
MD, my contention is that the light from the stars is continuous whereas the balls are thrown one at a time and each ball is unique in that they leave at different times.

I liken the light from the star as a bridge. The bridge is always present from one end to another the only change occurs when cars are on it and traveling from one end to another. The cars are moving but the bridge is not.

Just like if i pour water from a few feet over a bucket. The water leaves the cup and travels to the bucket but once it has made it to the bucket the water is constant until it runs out, of course. So i can measure the time it took to first hit the bucket but after that there is no measurement.
 
John99 said:
Just like if i pour water from a few feet over a bucket. The water leaves the cup and travels to the bucket but once it has made it to the bucket the water is constant until it runs out, of course.
Click to expand...
So what happens if someone pours one of these:
images


So i can measure the time it took to first hit the bucket but after that there is no measurement.
Click to expand...
Wrong.
 
This is where it gets a bit tricky, and loses many SR folks:

If you were 100 miles from me at 12:00, traveling towards me at 100 MPH, and I threw balls at you at 100 MPH, every hour on the hour, starting at 12:00, the first ball I threw at 12:00 would hit you at 12:30, and you would be 50 miles from me when it hit you. If you were traveling towards me at 300 MPH, the first ball would hit you at 12:15, and you would be 25 miles from me when it hit you.

Question?

How fast would you have to go in order to be there when I throw the ball at 12:00, if you were 100 miles from me at 12:00 when I threw the ball?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top