After taking the time to write this, I realized once I got to the end, I really didn't have an observable point. However, I spent a good thirty or so minutes typing and formatting it, so I felt it a shame to waste, and maybe it will spark good discussion ... yeah, that sounds good...
This post may or may not contain a point. You have been warned.
I'm not entirely sure how I happened upon this discussion, but I felt I had to join in.
Let me first state for the record, I am NOT a physicist. I write software. Unfortunately, with the ability to write software also comes just enough knowledge of mathematics to hurt onesself. Most of the time I can keep this under control, but for some reason I feel compelled to use all the mathematical firepower I can bring to bear so I can shoot myself in the foot.
My apologies for this being overly-simplistic with these statements.
1. Assume a perfectly spherical cow of unit radius and mass.
2. Assume I fix myself to an arbitrary location in one-dimensional euclidian space. We shall designate to be x=0. (I further assume the reader is okay with this designation)
3. A theoretical object, we will simply designate "the sphere ... OF DOOM" (epic cinematic music in background played by a band lost somewhere on the positive x-axis) is traveling at me at \deltax = +2c. Let the distance between x = n and x = (n+1) be the distance "ts ... OD" travels in 1 unit of time.
4. "the sphere ... OF DOOM" emits light uniformly in all directions, and the light traveling down the x-axis does so at 1c (relative to me).
5. Let t=0 designate the moment in time when "ts ... OD" passes my location.
Let f(t) be the location of the sphere at time t.
Let ln(t) be the location of light emitted by the sphere at time t=n.
At t=-3, f(t) = -3, l-3(t) = -3.
At t=-2, f(t) = -2, l-3(t) = -2.5, l-2(t)=-2.
At t=-1, f(t) = -1, l-3(t) = -2, l-2(t)=-1.5, l-1(t)=-1.
At t=0, f(t)=0, l-3(t)=-1.5, l-2(t)=-1, l-1(t)=-.5.
So, at t=0, I observe light from the sphere emitted when the sphere was at x=0. I see the sphere at my location, x=0.
At t=1, I observe light from the sphere emitted when the sphere was at x=-1. I see the sphere at x=-1.
At t=2, I observe light from the sphere emitted when the sphere was at x=-2. I see the sphere at x=-2.
At t=3, I observe light from the sphere emitted when the sphere was at x=-3. I see the sphere at x=-3.
Using this (admittedly poor-excuse-for-) logic, from my point of view, what I see is absolutely nothing until the object reaches me. From that point forward, I see the object's light in reverse order, so even though the sphere is now behind me (wreaking havoc and mayhem somewhere in the positive x-axis), what I see is the sphere moving away from me down the negative x-axis.
Of course, what gets confusing is the whole "sphere emitting light" part. If the sphere travels at 2c, and the light at 1c, then the sphere is "dropping off" light along the way. If the sphere emits light, it would seem to follow the light leaves the sphere at 1c, which I would observe to be 3c.
So, other than proving that I have just enough knowledge of mathematics to hurt myself, but hopefully only myself, have I really said anything worthy of note here? Was it wrong to assume the perfectly spherical cow of unit radius and mass?