Observing the universe existing simultaneously with us

[incandescent]

We know by fact that time doesn't exist physically. (Please check the topic "What is time"?)

Regardless of the several philosophical arguments against this fact, no one has ever proved its physical existence by folowing the requirements of the scientific method, and by consequence the theories based in a flowing time and its dilatation are 100% false.

But, this is not the only fact which disagree with some theories of science.

Another fact is that we can observe the entire universe in its present only.

Lets see, according to some theories -which have never been proved correct through the requirements of the scientific method- you observe the past images of objects located millions of miles away because their light takes time to reach our location.

Well, these theories appear to be correct, but this deduction about images seeing in their past because light takes time to travel from one place to another has never been experimentally proved correct!

Please, pay attention to this, these theories "claim" that we see the universe as it was in its past but there is not a single factual evidence to support this statement.

The only experiments made until today are with light traveling from one place to another, and by "logic", or "common sense", or "deduction", or "conventional aggrement" it has been thought that images will travel with light.

The fact is that images do not travel with light.

With the exception of the images seen in the movie theatre where light passes through a transparent film with images and color light reaches a screen and images appear in it, this scenario is not observed at all when we observe the stars or the planets or animals or whatever we are observing.

The common error is that until today almost everybody believe that we see the images of objects when their light comes out from their bodies and reaches or hits our eyes. The fact is that the process ob perceiving images is totally the contrary.

And, this is amazing, the most greater scientists missed the point: We see the images of objects solely when light hits their surface.

 

[Doc Al]

And, this is amazing, the most greater scientists missed the point: We see the images of objects solely when light hits their surface.

I can't really follow your argument or even understand your claim.

(1) If you say that time doesn't exist, then what do you mean by "when"?

(2) Are you saying that a person will see an image of an object "when" light hits the object, regardless of how far away the object is or whether the light even travels to the person? So light does not have to reach the person in order for the person to see an image?

 

[Evo]

And, this is amazing, the most greater scientists missed the point: We see the images of objects solely when light hits their surface.

Explain how we see a flame. It gives off light. Stars give off light. According to you we can't see them.

 

[incandescent]

I can't really follow your argument or even understand your claim.

(1) If you say that time doesn't exist, then what do you mean by "when"?

Where did you learn physics?

"When" is an adverb.

This adverb denotes the measurement of time, like to ask "how heavy?" which denotes the measure of weight.

Are you suggesting that time becomes automatically existent just by using an adverb?

Please, an instructor must be very careful before having prompt conclusions or ideas without thinking.

(2) Are you saying that a person will see an image of an object "when" light hits the object, regardless of how far away the object is or whether the light even travels to the person? So light does not have to reach the person in order for the person to see an image?

I will give an example and you have free options to give speed and distance. You cannot ask for more, so, with this asdvantage in your side I should like for you to answwr my question my dear mentor:

a)- I sent a spacecraft to outer space. This spacecraft will have a light fixture which will increase its luminosity in direct proportion with its traveling, this is to say, the more the spaceship travels the more luminosity will be perceived from the light.

b)- You can also choose it as a "real event" as having the light installed in the spaceship. I posted the point above in order to make the light more perceptible as it is going away from us. If you choose the real event you will need a more powerful telescope each time the image of the light is not perceptible due to distance.

c)- Well, we have the spaceship in outer space. The spaceship is traveling to the outside of our solar system. You have recorded the depart and traveling of the spaceship.

d)- The spaceship is reaching the outside of our solar system, and you still observing its light everyday without stop.

e)- Generation after generation of humans, people still following your observation.

f)- After hundreds of years of observing the going away of spaceship in outerspace, the observers still recording data of the current location of the spaceship in space.

g)- Suddenly, a guy who ignores about the recording data used the telescope and made his calculations based in your current theories, and he concluded: The image of the light in the spaceship is its past image when the spaceship was there such and such years ago.

h)- According to the records, the image of that light fixture in the spaceship is the current light image observed in its current moving locations through space. You can lean on this fact because its traveling has been followed since day one.

i)- If your theories are correct, please tell us "when" and "where" the past image of the fixture separated itself from its real and current image?

j)- Please provide the factual evidence which supports your answer. The evidence that light takes time to travel from one place to another is not valid in this case, you must provide evidence supporting that images travel with light and cause the perception of past images of objects located far away.

I will be glad to hear from you the correct answer to points "i" anf "j".

 

[incandescent]

Explain how we see a flame. It gives off light. Stars give off light. According to you we can't see them.

Lol. I'm serious, where did you learn physics?

Look, let's use the star.

The star is a body having elements in fast motion to the point that collisions cause nuclear events and particles are spread out in "every direction".

"Every direction"? Yes, like a bomb explosion. You put the bomb in the floor and lots of particles will go in every direction in the air, inside the bomb itself and under the surface of the floor. This is why a hole is observed after the explosion.

The same scenario is found with the Sun. Its nuclear events cause light to travel in "every direction", and this includes against the body of the Sun. When you have such amount of light reflecting itself in the body of the Sun with great intensity, this is when you see the image of the Sun more clear than other bodies around.

The Sun can be seen because light hits its own body.

Do you disagree that light is hitting the Sun's body as well that is going away from the Sun?

 

[JoeDawg]

Where did you learn physics?

"When" is an adverb.

Actually 'when' is an interrogative, a certain type of adverb will answer the question 'when'. And the word 'when' can be part of an adverb clause, but its not an adverb in itself.

They generally don't teach that in physics classes though, that's linguistics.

 

[Doc Al]

Where did you learn physics?

I see no physics being discussed here.

I will give an example and you have free options to give speed and distance. You cannot ask for more, so, with this asdvantage in your side I should like for you to answwr my question my dear mentor:

a)- I sent a spacecraft to outer space. This spacecraft will have a light fixture which will increase its luminosity in direct proportion with its traveling, this is to say, the more the spaceship travels the more luminosity will be perceived from the light.

b)- You can also choose it as a "real event" as having the light installed in the spaceship. I posted the point above in order to make the light more perceptible as it is going away from us. If you choose the real event you will need a more powerful telescope each time the image of the light is not perceptible due to distance.

c)- Well, we have the spaceship in outer space. The spaceship is traveling to the outside of our solar system. You have recorded the depart and traveling of the spaceship.

d)- The spaceship is reaching the outside of our solar system, and you still observing its light everyday without stop.

e)- Generation after generation of humans, people still following your observation.

f)- After hundreds of years of observing the going away of spaceship in outerspace, the observers still recording data of the current location of the spaceship in space.

What the observers record is the light received from the spaceship. Of course, that light left the spaceship some time ago. (The ship might have already blown up for all they know.)

g)- Suddenly, a guy who ignores about the recording data used the telescope and made his calculations based in your current theories, and he concluded: The image of the light in the spaceship is its past image when the spaceship was there such and such years ago.

This fellow's not ignoring data, he's correctly interpreting it.

h)- According to the records, the image of that light fixture in the spaceship is the current light image observed in its current moving locations through space. You can lean on this fact because its traveling has been followed since day one.

Nope. All the records show is the apparent position of the ship at the time the light was emitted. No reason to think of that as the "current" position--the ship is moving, after all.

i)- If your theories are correct, please tell us "when" and "where" the past image of the fixture separated itself from its real and current image?

What "theories" are you talking about? There is always a separation between the source of light and the observer of the light. As the distance of the source from the observer increases, the "time delay" also increases.

j)- Please provide the factual evidence which supports your answer. The evidence that light takes time to travel from one place to another is not valid in this case,

Why is that?

you must provide evidence supporting that images travel with light and cause the perception of past images of objects located far away.

There is ample evidence that light travels at finite speed. So I don't get your point at all.

You seem to have some strange ideas about "images" that don't involve light. Do you have a reference for such an idea? Any "scientific evidence"?

Imagine this: Have your spaceship travel, emitting light all the time as you have outlined. But, just to mess with the poor Earth observers, at some point in its travels, the spaceship turns off the light. When do you think the Earth observers realize this?

 

[Evo]

Look, let's use the star.

Looking back at your previous posts, either you really have no idea what you are talking about, or you are a troll.

I can't believe that you do not know that there are light sources that produce light (photons), and there are objects that reflect light (photons).

 

[Doc Al]

Please review the Physics Forums Global Guidelines regarding the posting of crackpottery anywhere on PF, including philosophy.

This thread is closed.