Star triangle paradox

John99 said:
Speaks for itself.
Click to expand...
Exactly: what we see is what things were when the light left the object: i.e. what it was then.
Not as it is now.

Edit: is this going to be another instance of you presenting nothing but a picture and employing your massive and over-riding ignorance of science to argue that things are not as they are but as you (mistakenly) perceive them to be?
 
C C said:
I'd agree that perception is always now. But the content of perception (concerning the external environment) is about former states of that environment. The farther away the objects are, the more they are about something that happened deeper in the past, even though the objects are indeed manifested simultaneously in the "now" of one's current interval of perception, regardless of when their individual states originally occurred.
Click to expand...

We are not only using perception though. There is an obvious connection between time and distance, i agree completely.
 
NietzscheHimself said:
Why don't we just make three stars and see how fast we can make our optical cumputers send information from one to another from varying distances?
Click to expand...

And what will that show?

It will show that once the object is gone you can no longer send it information. I am saying we will see when it is gone as long as we are seeing the actual object and not only the light. In that case distance does not matter. It makes no difference actually.
 
Dywyddyr said:
Exactly: what we see is what things were when the light left the object: i.e. what it was then.
Not as it is now.
Click to expand...

um........are we still seeing the object or do you just want to focus on what "leaves" the object?

"now" is difficult to go by because in the time it takes to say the word "now" is over.
 
John99 said:
um........are we still seeing the object or do you just want to focus on what "leaves" the object?
Click to expand...
We ONLY see an object because of the light that leaves it and reaches us. :rolleyes:

"now" is difficult to go by because in the time it takes to say the word "now" is over.
Click to expand...
So what? It's a useful shorthand.
 
Threw the old curve ball...

what if...one could see in the dark?

would everything you see THEN be in realtime?
 
John99 said:
an object needs some illumination to be seen.
Click to expand...
Correct: reflected (or emitted) light.

what if i could see in the dark?;)
Click to expand...
By what method?
Threw the old curve ball...
what if...one could see in the dark?
would everything you see THEN be in realtime?
Click to expand...
No. And you STILL haven't supported your idiotic contention that we do see in real time.
Whatever you use (infra-red, radar, microwaves) takes time to reach us from the object that's being viewed.
 
John99 said:
And what will that show?

It will show that once the object is gone you can no longer send it information. I am saying we will see when it is gone as long as we are seeing the actual object and not only the light. In that case distance does not matter. It makes no difference actually.
Click to expand...

When will the object be gone? Space matters. Literally.
 
Dywyddyr said:
By what method?
Click to expand...

Any method. No light is darkness, you cant see it.

Does the object THEN exist? The object is still the same distance of "lightyears" away. If i drop a piece of paper from my fingers onto a desk that is three feet under my hand i am seeing the hand in realtime, the object falling is another matter.

The persons brain communicates with the muscles, the fingers move.

I am seeing that in realtime, as it is happening. If the person moves their hand further away that does not increase the time it takes for me to see what it is doing.
 
John99 said:
Any method. No light is darkness, you cant see it.
Click to expand...
So what? Anything which would let us "see" an object takes time to travel. Therefore NO real time viewing.

Does the object THEN exist? The object is still the same distance of "lightyears" away.
Click to expand...
So what?

If i drop a piece of paper from my fingers onto a desk that is three feet under my hand i am seeing the hand in realtime, the object falling is another matter.
Click to expand...
Wrong. There's a lag between the light coming off your hand and being received in your eyes. You ARE NOT seeing in "real time".

I am seeing that in realtime, as it is happening. If the person moves their hand further away that does not increase the time it takes for me to see what it is doing.
Click to expand...
Wrong and wrong.
Please substantiate these claims: all you're doing so far is repeating the same incorrect nonsense.
 
Dywyddyr said:
So what? Anything which would let us "see" an object takes time to travel.
Click to expand...

I gave examples that shows this to be false. Your eyes see in realtime, unless there is a delay to reach your brain but....meh, i wont resort to insults.
 
THE COMPUTER IN FRONT OF YOUR FACE ISN"T EVEN "REAL" TIME. Real time does not exist because if it did everything would be condensed into a singularity. Only then could something happen in one place and be observed in another at the exact same time. Time is relative. That's a rule.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top