A question about speed of light and sunrise time

[AlexLAV]

I would like to propose a school task, that may lead to some paradox (to my mind):

It is known that light travels from Sun to Earth for about 8 minutes. If light propagates instantaneously will we observe sunrise 8 minutes earlier?

 

[DaveC426913]

I would like to propose a school task, that may lead to some paradox (to my mind):

It is known that light travels from Sun to Earth for about 8 minutes. If light propagates instantaneously will we observe sunrise 8 minutes earlier?

No. Sunrise is due to the rotation of the Earth, not due to the sun turning on and off.

Setting aside the strange question of "what would the world be like if the world weren't the way it was?"...think of this:

Regardless of whether any particular photons of light coming from the sun took 8 milliseconds, 8 minutes or 8 days to reach Earth, the photons making up the sun's rays are continuously streaming from the sun - essentially a solid line. The Earth turns and, when the spot where you are standing has a clear line of sight with the Sun, that's sunrise.

 

[AlexLAV]

But let’s consider another point of view. Suppose I’m standing, looking to East and waiting for sunrise. When I see an edge of solar disk I conclude that my eye were hit by photons emitted by Sun 8 minutes before. But since light propagates along straight line, 8 minutes ago the edge of solar disk, edge of Earth and my eye were on a straight line. If light propagates instantaneously, I could see the sunrise earlier. Where I’m wrong?

 

[russ_watters]

Where you went wrong is that the sun isn't moving, the Earth is rotating.

Don't sweat it, I wiffed on this exact question a few months ago.

 

[AlexLAV]

Where you went wrong is that the sun isn't moving, the Earth is rotating.

It depends on choice of frame of reference. Within Earth-based frame the Earth isn't moving, but the Sun is rotating.

 

[DaveC426913]

It depends on choice of frame of reference. Within Earth-based frame the Earth isn't moving, but the Sun is rotating.

It doesn't matter which frame of reference. You can consider the speed of light to be infinite or zero or anything you want. It is a continuous beam, and the speed of the particles within the beam is irrelevant. The only thing that affects the time of sunrise is the angle of the beam related to your position on the Earth and the horizon.

 

[Drakkith]

If you are somewhere you can see the horizon, and you see the sun just start rising, you are viewing light that has already traveled 8 minutes to get to us. Right before the sun starts to come up the light is simply blocked by the Earth. The moment there is a clear LOS to the Sun you see it because there is already light there to see.

 

[mathman]

The difference between instantaneous and 8 minutes is about when the photons you see left the sun. Since photons are continuously leaving the sun it doesn't matter.

As others have indicated the time is set by the Earth's rotation.

 

[rollcast]

It doesn't matter which frame of reference. You can consider the speed of light to be infinite or zero or anything you want. It is a continuous beam, and the speed of the particles within the beam is irrelevant. The only thing that affects the time of sunrise is the angle of the beam related to your position on the Earth and the horizon.

To maybe expand a bit on this. The time a photon of light takes to travel from the sun to the Earth ≈ 8mins 19 secs.

However because photons are emitted continuously they is no time delay between the sun being inline with your position and photons reaching the earth, because 8 mins and 19 seconds ago photons where already zipping across space towards the earth.

Think of it like a line of traffic passing a window in a traffic jam. Each car moves very slowly but because cars are constantly entering the stream of traffic the stream of cars passing the window is constant.

 

[phinds]

It depends on choice of frame of reference. Within Earth-based frame the Earth isn't moving, but the Sun is rotating.

You are missing the point. Your question has been correctly answered and you just don't seem to like the answer.

 

[Rob D]

Imagining for the sake of virtual experiment that the Earth is a smooth orb and we are all 2m in height, then the photons exciting our eye cells at the proclaimed moment of sunrise - previously stated as the moment line of sight is established with the sun - are all 8mins 19secs old. But oh if it were so simple.

Our problem is that our planet has an atmosphere and that atmosphere, at the moments nearing line of sight but slightly before, refract the sunlight and bend it in an arc toward the sunrise observer so that he perceives the sunrise without actually achieving line of sight with any portion of the solar disk. I like to imagine the Earth coated with a twenty mile thick lens of varying density that refracts all light near the visible horizon.

This of course has nothing to do with the fact that any photons emitted by the sun are 8mins 19secs "old' when we see them whether refracted or not. I just thought that we were leaving it out.

RobD

 

[AlephZero]

There is no problem understanding the analogous problem where the distance to the object changes. As soon as the telescope was invented, people discovered that the moons of Jupiter appear to speed up and slow down in their orbits as seen from earth, as the distance between Earth and Jupiter changed.

I'm certainly missing something about to why the OPs thought experiment is fundamentally different.

Suppose the sun is already well above the horizon, and the speed of light suddenly becomes instantaneous. I would say that for 8 minutes we would see two images of the sun at different points in the sky, at one from the light arriving at finite speed, and one from the instantaneous light. This is the same situation as observing a fast moving plane, traveling across your field of view, and noticing that the sound appears to come from a position behind where you see the plane.

Unless the answers to the OP's question are considering time measurement in terms of solar time, i.e. the sun's apparent position in the sky. In other words, when the speed of light becomes instantaneous, all clocks showing solar time will have an error of 8 minutes, and when you reset the clocks sunrise is at the same time as before?

 

[DaveC426913]

No Aleph, we are not talking about the motion of objects against the background stars, or relative to other objects, that's what you're describing.

We are talking about the movement of the Earth that we are standing on. Sunrise is determined by the angle of the horizon and the angle of the sun to us. And that does not change regardless of how fst or slow the particles within the sunbeam are moving.

I could set up a clear acrylic pillar 93 million miles long, attach one end to the Sun and the other end to the Earth. When the Earth rotates so that the pillar comes into view, that's sunrise. It makes no difference whether any particles in the pillar are moving at c or zero.

 

[Lsos]

I would like to propose a school task, that may lead to some paradox (to my mind):

It is known that light travels from Sun to Earth for about 8 minutes. If light propagates instantaneously will we observe sunrise 8 minutes earlier?

The light from the sun is already at the earth. At night, it is simply blocked from your eyes by the horizon. When the Earth rotates so that the horizon is no longer blocking this light, the light only has to jump the remaining distance from the horizon to your eyes...NOT from the sun to your eyes. That's like, what? 5km? There is still some delay, but not 8 minutes.

It's akin to opening the blinds in your room during the day. You don't open the blinds and wait 8 minutes for the light to fill the room, because the light is already there, at the blinds, at the window. As soon as you open the blinds, it then takes just a nanosecond for it to jump from the window to your room.

 

[AlephZero]

We are talking about the movement of the Earth that we are standing on. Sunrise is determined by the angle of the horizon and the angle of the sun to us. And that does not change regardless of how fst or slow the particles within the sunbeam are moving.

OK, I think I understand your agument now, but I still think it's wrong.

This is what I think you are saying. The sun is emitting a continuous stream of photons in all directions. At any instant in time, these are striking half the surface of the Earth and the other half is in shadow. This is independent of the speed of the photons, therefore the speed makes no difference, and the time of sunrise and sunset is determined only by the rotation of the Earth about its axis.

I disagree, because you are ignoring the rotation of the Earth about the sun. The speed around the orbit is about 30 km/s or about 10^-4 times the speed of light. The apparent direction of the light as seen from the Earth is given by a triangle of velocities. Ignoring relativity (because it's so long since I studied SR I have forgotten the details!) the angular change of apparent direction will be 10^-4 radians. The Earth rotates once / 24 hours = 2 pi / 86400 = 7.3 x 10^-5 rad/sec, so a rotation of 10^-4 rad takes about 1.4 seconds.

That certainly isn't the same as 8 minutes, but it's big enough to measure!

 

[AlexLAV]

Dear Lsos, Dave, phinds et al

I don’t argue with you, your reasoning seems to be clear enough. But could you not tell that I’m wrong, but point out where I’m wrong.

I prefer consider the situation from point of view of reference frame where the Earth is still (no movement, no rotation). May I do it? Within this framework the Sun revolves around motionless Earth. Since light propagation is straightforward, I can not see the Sun beyond the horizon. Since it takes 8 min for light traveling to my eye, I see not the present position of the Sun but its position 8 min ago. When I see the Sun at the horizon it means for me that it was there 8 min ago. Where is my mistake?

 

[willem2]

Dear Lsos, Dave, phinds et al

I don’t argue with you, your reasoning seems to be clear enough. But could you not tell that I’m wrong, but point out where I’m wrong.

I prefer consider the situation from point of view of reference frame where the Earth is still (no movement, no rotation). May I do it? Within this framework the Sun revolves around motionless Earth. Since light propagation is straightforward, I can not see the Sun beyond the horizon.

If you really want to use such a reference frame, you have to account for the fact that light won't travel in a straight line, so it is possible to see the sun when it's behind the horizon.

 

[rollcast]

Dear Lsos, Dave, phinds et al

I don’t argue with you, your reasoning seems to be clear enough. But could you not tell that I’m wrong, but point out where I’m wrong.

I prefer consider the situation from point of view of reference frame where the Earth is still (no movement, no rotation). May I do it? Within this framework the Sun revolves around motionless Earth. Since light propagation is straightforward, I can not see the Sun beyond the horizon. Since it takes 8 min for light traveling to my eye, I see not the present position of the Sun but its position 8 min ago. When I see the Sun at the horizon it means for me that it was there 8 min ago. Where is my mistake?

But a reference frame where the Earth is still with no orbit and rotation is not what happens in reality so there is nothing to be gained by using this frame. Also making the sun orbit the "still" Earth != Earth orbiting the "still" sun.

 

[DaveC426913]

That certainly isn't the same as 8 minutes, but it's big enough to measure!

That may be so, but it has nothing to do with the OP's question; it merely obfuscates the answer.

 

[DaveC426913]

If you really want to use such a reference frame, you have to account for the fact that light won't travel in a straight line, so it is possible to see the sun when it's behind the horizon.

willem is correct (though it took me a while to visualize it). If you look at the frame in which Earth is rotationless and the sun is moving around the Earth, you would observe curving paths of light. A photon would appear to curve over the horizon toward you.

Imagine a photon were instead a tracer bullet, fired from the vicinity of the sun. Someone in the right position could watch it approach. No matter when they looked at it over the 8 minutes (or 8 hours), it would appear as a dot directly in front of the sun (since it's always in line with the sun) - but - the sun is moving across the sky over that time. Your tracer bullet would appear to be following a curved path through space toward them.

If light can reach you from behind the horizon (which means "sunrise" will occur before "dawn"), then it is obvious that this setup is going to mess with your time measurements. You must choose a frame of reference that gives you accurate readings.

 

[AlephZero]

That may be so, but it has nothing to do with the OP's question; it merely obfuscates the answer.

The OP asked "will the sun rise 8 minutes earlier". You claimed "It makes no difference". I claim it does make a difference, but not 8 minutes difference (and you haven't attempted to refute my argument).

In what way is that "obfuscation?"

 

[AlephZero]

willem is correct (though it took me a while to visualize it).

Willem's point that you can see the sun when it is behiind the horizon is exactly the same as my "triangle of velocities" argument. Either you can work in a coordiate system where the path of the photons is curved, or you can work in a system where the path is straight but the horizon moves. Two different ways of looking at the same thing.

 

[DaveC426913]

The OP asked "will the sun rise 8 minutes earlier". You claimed "It makes no difference". I claim it does make a difference, but not 8 minutes difference (and you haven't attempted to refute my argument).

In what way is that "obfuscation?"

Uh well, because it is a red herring as far as the OP's understanding goes. It doesn't help the OP understand where he's going wrong in thinking that the 8 minute delay will cause the sun to appear where it was 8 minutes ago (which is what he's asking). That's the crux of the issue.

We could also point out that blue light will refract more than red as it passes through the atmosphere, causing an additional delay - or that the rarefied interplanetary gas and dust acting as a non-vacuum medium would cause a delay. Would you say pursuing these are going to help - or hinder - the OP's understanding the 8 minute delay of light?

 

[phinds]

Dear Lsos, Dave, phinds et al

I don’t argue with you, your reasoning seems to be clear enough. But could you not tell that I’m wrong, but point out where I’m wrong.

I prefer consider the situation from point of view of reference frame where the Earth is still (no movement, no rotation). May I do it? Within this framework the Sun revolves around motionless Earth. Since light propagation is straightforward, I can not see the Sun beyond the horizon. Since it takes 8 min for light traveling to my eye, I see not the present position of the Sun but its position 8 min ago. When I see the Sun at the horizon it means for me that it was there 8 min ago. Where is my mistake?

You are asking two entirely different questions and getting confusted by conflating the two.

The first issue you raise is whether or not you would see sunrise earlier if the speed of light were infinite. The answer is no and this has been explaned in a couple of ways and I don't think I can, or need to, add anything to that.

The second issue, that got brought in AFTER your original post, was whether or not you see the sun (with the current speed limit of c) 8 minutes off from where it "actually" is when the photons hit your eye, and the answer the this is yes. The photons are traveling on a straight line from where the sun was 8 minutes before they hit your eye. In fact, had the sun magically disappeared 7 minutes and 59 seconds ago, you would not even KNOW about it for another second. Everything you "see" about the sun is 8 minutes behind.

I think you had a correct understanding of the second issue and let that get in the way of your understanding of the first issue.

 

[Sybren]

I would like to propose a school task, that may lead to some paradox (to my mind):

It is known that light travels from Sun to Earth for about 8 minutes. If light propagates instantaneously will we observe sunrise 8 minutes earlier?

The further we look, the more we see into the past. That is a consequence of the finite time it takes light to reach our eyes. You mention that it takes 8 minutes for light to travel from the sun to our eyes. For that reason, the apparent position of the sun is not the 'real' position of the sun. The apparent position is where the sun was 8 minutes ago. If light would travel instantaneously, the sun would be at the same position when it emitted the photon as when the photon reached your eye. That means that you would then see the sun where it 'actually' is. To see the sunrise means that photons have traveled from the sun to your eyes. The moment at which you see the sunrise therefore happens 8 minutes later than the moment at which the sun was positioned such to allow emitted photons to reach your eyes without Earth being in the way. If light would travel instantaneously, you would see the sun without delay as soon as it reached this position. Therefore, the sunrise would be visible 8 minutes earlier.

 

[DaveC426913]

The moment at which you see the sunrise therefore happens 8 minutes later than the moment at which the sun was positioned such to allow emitted photons to reach your eyes without Earth being in the way. If light would travel instantaneously, you would see the sun without delay as soon as it reached this position. Therefore, the sunrise would be visible 8 minutes earlier.

No. This is not true. The sun did not move appreciably in that 8 minutes. what happened was the Earth rotated. That is what determines the time of sunrise, not when photons left the sun.

Again:

I make a 100 million mile long acrylic rod, and attach one end to the sun and the other end I rest tangentially on the Earth's surface at the equator (with 7 million miles of overhang). This acrylic rod is a conduit for photons. There are ALWAYs photons traveling through it, from 5 billion years ago until 5 billion years in the future. It is a solid bar of light and it is hovering a mile or so over my head, horizon ahead to vanishing point behind me in the sky.

Now: the Earth rotates .5 degrees. The acrylic tube is tangentially resting on the Earth's surface. That point where it is resting will race across the surface at 1000 mph as the Earth turns under it. When the point reaches me the acrylic tube will be at ground level. I am bathed in sunlight.

Whether the photons in the tube were traveling at 186,262miles per second or whether they were traveling a 10mph or whether they're instantaneous or whether they're stationary acrylic atoms - it makes no difference. The acrylic bar is a solid, straight and timeless beam of light. The sun comes into view (the acrylic rod hits me in the head) when the Earth has turned far enough.

 

[phinds]

Dave, I don't think Sybren read any of the previous posts. He repeated what I said one post earlier about the position of the sun and he ignored what you had said about sunrise.

As always, I admire your patience.

 

[AlexLAV]

If you really want to use such a reference frame, you have to account for the fact that light won't travel in a straight line, so it is possible to see the sun when it's behind the horizon.

Yes, this is the answer. Light doesn't travel alond a straight light in a noninertial frame of reference.

 

[Gobil]

you do infact see the sunrise faster if the speed of light is faster, or instantaneous in your example. BUT, it´s not 8 minutes faster.

here´s why: there is a constant stream of light on the earth, when the sun rises, the very first glimpse of light you see must travel from where is was blocked (the earth) to your eye. you see this a little bit fast than someone living in a world where light travels at c.

 

[Drakkith]

I don't think so Gobil. As the Earth rotates you will be moving into a pre-existing beam of light, not simply moving the horizon out of the way.

An analogy is standing in a cave with a waterfall pouring down outside the entrance. It doesn't matter if the water is falling at 10 mph or 10000 mph, walking into it will get you wet at the same time because there is already water there to walk into.

I think one key thing is that we are moving into the light as the Earth rotates, the Earth is not "getting out of the way".

 

[Rob D]

Good Evening Gents & Ladies if you're out there hiding behind your pseudonym,

In my previous post (#11) I brought up the issue of the atmosphere and the refractive effect it has on light sources at or very near the visible horizon. If we choose to disregard the refractive effect, then to my knowledge the photon stream will travel directly from visible horizon to the observers eyes at c. This would happen of course it the instant the solar disc protrudes above the visible horizon.

In this thread this is now been said quite a number of times. My only reason for this post is to possibly add just a tiny bit of clarity. This thread is beginning to remind me of the old joke about spherical chickens in a vacuum

My central point is that of course the photons we see have already traveled to the Earth before the sun becomes visible at the horizon.

Hope I didn't waste the electrons sending this,
Rob

 

[Lsos]

I don't think so Gobil. As the Earth rotates you will be moving into a pre-existing beam of light, not simply moving the horizon out of the way.

An analogy is standing in a cave with a waterfall pouring down outside the entrance. It doesn't matter if the water is falling at 10 mph or 10000 mph, walking into it will get you wet at the same time because there is already water there to walk into.

I think one key thing is that we are moving into the light as the Earth rotates, the Earth is not "getting out of the way".

On the previous page I wrote a similar response to Gobil's, but I just realized that it's wrong. I used an analogy of opening the blinds in a room, but walking into an already lit room (or your waterfall) would be a better analogy.

I tried to edit a line into that response indicating that it's wrong...but I guess it won't let me?

 

[Gobil]

I don't think so Gobil. As the Earth rotates you will be moving into a pre-existing beam of light, not simply moving the horizon out of the way.

An analogy is standing in a cave with a waterfall pouring down outside the entrance. It doesn't matter if the water is falling at 10 mph or 10000 mph, walking into it will get you wet at the same time because there is already water there to walk into.

I think one key thing is that we are moving into the light as the Earth rotates, the Earth is not "getting out of the way".

I see your point; I think some of the confusion is due to the fact that the photons we will observe are not actually the same. So if we consider the light emitted from sun changing from say red to blue as it rises, in a universe where light travels at c the light will be slightly more red than at infinite c. but you see the sunrise at the same time, just the color of the sun is different because of the speed of c.

 

[D H]

By my calculations (http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?...ar)/(c+(2*pi+AU)/year))))/(2*pi/sidereal+day)), sunrise would be 1.36 seconds later if the speed of light was infinite.

Imagine driving throw a snowstorm at night. Suppose there's no wind. When you come to a stop at a stop sign the flakes appear to be coming straight down. When you start moving again, the flakes appear to be coming from in front of you. The angle from vertical increases as the car picks up speed.

A similar phenomenon occurs with light. It's called aberration of light. The sun appears to be slightly ahead of its "true" position because of the Earth's orbital motion and because of the finite speed of light. End result: We see sunrise a tiny bit earlier than we would were the speed of light infinite.

 

[Rob D]

Pardon while I climb off this dead horse and beat it one more time:

But, given the Earth's atmosphere's ability to refract the rays of the sun, even if the speed of light were infinite we would still see the sun slightly before it actually rises above the visible horizon.

Rob

 

[phinds]

Pardon while I climb off this dead horse and beat it one more time:

But, given the Earth's atmosphere's ability to refract the rays of the sun, even if the speed of light were infinite we would still see the sun slightly before it actually rises above the visible horizon.

Rob

I agree. Please stop beating this horse. It has suffered enough. RIP poor horse.

 

[rollcast]

This thread:

http://www.martaandreasen.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/flogging-dead-horse.jpg

 

[D H]

Pardon while I climb off this dead horse and beat it one more time:

Stop beating that horse! Your continued abuse of that poor, dead horse has nothing to do with the question at hand. Imagine that you are on the moon, or even better, an asteroid that is in more or less the same orbit about the sun as are the Earth and the moon.

The question at hand is whether the finite speed of light affects the time of sunrise or sunset. It was conjectured in the opening post that we would see sunrise eight minutes earlier were the speed of light infinite. That is incorrect. The OP was correct in that a finite speed of light does have an affect on when we see the sun rise. However the effect is in the opposite direction timewise and it is much smaller than eight minutes. An infinite speed of light would make sunrise later, not earlier, by about 1.36 seconds.

 

[sophiecentaur]

Can you explain your reasoning please? If the light beam is 'there all the time' then, afaics, the only effect would be due to the 'shadow' cast by the advancing horizon moving across the land 'just beyond' it. Any time delay/difference in the arrival of 'dawn' due to rotation would surely depend upon observer height?

 

[D H]

Can you explain your reasoning please?

I already did in post #34. Aberration of light.

The same phenomenon is ultimately responsible for the zodiacal light as seen in this photo (source: http://apod.nasa.gov/apod/ap090212.html):

The zodiacal light results from sunlight scattered by interplanetary dust that is most dense near the solar system's ecliptic plane. Aberration of light causes these small dust particles to spiral in toward the Sun via the Poynting-Robinson effect. Aberration of light also causes us to see sunrise a tiny bit earlier than we would see were the speed of light infinite.

 

[Rob D]

Stop beating that horse! Your continued abuse of that poor, dead horse has nothing to do with the question at hand. Imagine that you are on the moon, or even better, an asteroid that is in more or less the same orbit about the sun as are the Earth and the moon.

My thanks to D H for the wise counsel. Fact is, I'm relieved. It was starting to smell. I'm sure you caught at least a whiff.

Actually, I think I understand the problem and the solution. Think I'll just lay back and watch the thread play out. However, I also think I'll put the horse in the freezer. You just never know when I might need it.

Happy Sunrise,
Rob

 

[Vanadium 50]

Actually, in SR, you do not get aberration of light. In Newtonian physics with c = infinity, you also do not get aberration of light. If you want to go somewhere in between, taking pieces of both, you can get aberration. So the answer depends on exactly what is meant by changing the speed of light.

 

[D H]

Actually, in SR, you do not get aberration of light.

You do get aberration in relativity. Einstein derived it in his 1905 paper, "On the Electrodynamics of Moving Bodies." Relativistic aberration of course is not the same as classical aberration (that obtained via the Galilean transform but with a finite speed of light). Relativistic aberration does reduce to classical aberration for v<<c.

Note that I used relativistic aberration in post #34. Not that it would have made much of a difference. Classical aberration also yields a value of 1.36 seconds. The Sun's velocity relative to the Earth is about 0.0001 c, so there is very little difference between classical aberration and relativistic aberration in this case.

 

[ali297]

No. Sunrise is due to the rotation of the Earth, not due to the sun turning on and off.

Setting aside the strange question of "what would the world be like if the world weren't the way it was?"...think of this:

Regardless of whether any particular photons of light coming from the sun took 8 milliseconds, 8 minutes or 8 days to reach Earth, the photons making up the sun's rays are continuously streaming from the sun - essentially a solid line. The Earth turns and, when the spot where you are standing has a clear line of sight with the Sun, that's sunrise.

Nice answer.

 

[D H]

Nice answer.

Nice answer, but it is wrong. It fails to account for the Earth's orbital velocity about the Sun (or from the Earth's perspective, the Sun's orbital velocity about the Earth).

 

[phinds]

Nice answer, but it is wrong. It fails to account for the Earth's orbital velocity about the Sun (or from the Earth's perspective, the Sun's orbital velocity about the Earth).

Could you expand on that a bit? I'm not following why that has any effect on sunrise (well, OK, maybe a really tiny one)

Thanks.

 

[D H]

Multiple posters in this thread have said that the finite speed of light has no effect whatsoever on when we see the sun rise. That the Earth is orbiting the Sun does have a tiny effect on when we see the sun rise thanks to the aberration of light. The effect is small because the Earth's orbital velocity is a tiny fraction of the speed of light (about 1/10,000) and because the Earth's rotation rate is rather small (1 rev per day). Just because the effect is tiny doesn't mean it is nonexistent.

Suppose you are in a very advanced spaceship. You start at rest with respect to the Earth. As the spaceship accelerates, the stars to the left and right will appear to move in front of you. Get very close to c and almost all of the stars will appear to be in front of you. This includes even those that appeared to be almost directly behind you when you started.

 

[phinds]

Multiple posters in this thread have said that the finite speed of light has no effect whatsoever on when we see the sun rise. That the Earth is orbiting the Sun does have a tiny effect on when we see the sun rise thanks to the aberration of light. The effect is small because the Earth's orbital velocity is a tiny fraction of the speed of light (about 1/10,000) and because the Earth's rotation rate is rather small (1 rev per day). Just because the effect is tiny doesn't mean it is nonexistent.

Sounds reasonable.

Suppose you are in a very advanced spaceship. You start at rest with respect to the Earth. As the spaceship accelerates, the stars to the left and right will appear to move in front of you. Get very close to c and almost all of the stars will appear to be in front of you. This includes even those that appeared to be almost directly behind you when you started.

Yeah, I had a hard time with that when I first read it some years ago, but I finally got my head around it. I think. Maybe.

 

[lorrad]

No. Sunrise is due to the rotation of the Earth, not due to the sun turning on and off.

right answer and I read all of this

 

[SecularSanity]

Solar annual aberration applies in this case, does it not?

A special case of annual aberration is the nearly constant deflection of the Sun from its true position by κ towards the west (as viewed from Earth), opposite to the apparent motion of the Sun along the ecliptic (which is from west to east, as seen from Earth). The deflection thus makes the Sun appear to be behind (or retarded) from its actual position on the ecliptic by a position or angle κ. This constant deflection is often explained as due to the motion of the Earth during the 8.3 minutes that it takes light to travel from the Sun to Earth. This is a valid explanation provided it is given in the Earth's reference frame (where it becomes purely a light-time correction for the position of the eastward-moving Sun as seen from a stationary Earth), whereas in the Sun's reference frame the same phenomenon must be described as aberration of light when seen by the westward-moving Earth, which involves having Earth's telescopes pointed "forward" (westward, in a direction toward the Earth's motion relative to the Sun) by a slight amount.

Since this is the same physical phenomenon, simply described from two different reference frames, it is not a coincidence that the angle of annual aberration of the Sun is equal to the path swept by the Sun along the ecliptic, in the time it takes for light to travel from it to the Earth (8.316746 minutes divided by one sidereal year (365.25636 days) is 20.49265", very nearly κ). Similarly, one could explain the Sun's apparent motion over the background of fixed stars as a (very large) parallax effect.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aberration_of_light#Solar_annual_aberration