Do we see objects in their past?

Something cannot move without moving. You must be using the term 'moving' incorrectly.

Sure, so what.

What does 'invert of time' mean to you?

Sure there is. I can easily measure the time it takes for a ball to drop 9.8 meters on earth. I can even tell you that if you drop a ball from that distance it will take 1 sec to hit the ground. Sounds like there is time.

It is not hard to grasp it is just wrong.

Your strange use of english does not help to clarify what you are saying.

Sure, so what.

Cycles of what? History of what?

If the rate of the passage of time slowed for individual A relative to individual B in a different RF and then A was to align with the RF of B, they would find that less time had elapsed for A than B. Or if you like A would have less history than B.

That is not clear enough to make any sense

1 does not equal 0. Up does not equal down. You need to find a way to explain yourself without bastardizing math to the point of absurdity.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Consider that something that moves but is not moving is something moving with you.

Then you are recording history not time.

A countdown rather than a count up.

The ball only needs mass to fall, the ball does not need time to fall it needs a distance to fall. Imagine your ball positioned at point A , starting time 0 , h=9.81m , a=9.81m/s2.

The ball falls, you start to time the ball falling on your stop watch, 1 nano second and so on to a completion of 1.s.

From the very first point of measurement of 1 ns , it is an history of the ball and not a measurement of time. 0 falls leaves an history behind it. Consider the ball is a leader of lightning, the leader tip being positioned at zero moving forward.



Hence 0=1

0→1→2→3→future

0→0→0→0

We are talking time not maths, 0=1 in position.


When you mark 1's of time, you are recording the position in the universe of 0. Replacing 0 for a value.

Take a length of space away from you, lets say 1ft, the value 1ft away from you is 0. Mark the length, you have just marked the position of 0.

Alternative imagine two different rulers


ruler A - 012345

ruler B-000000

both rulers are the same length, a yard stick is a yard stick even without labelling it a value.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Once upon a time, in a land far far away, there lived a witch..............

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Great so now this something moves but doesn't move but does move.

That is just semantics and tells us nothing.

It doesn't mater if I count up or down it is just a perspective.

Wrong. Without time the ball would not move. A moving ball is d/t, distance over time.

That is time. That you decide to use a semantic device and pretend there is no time does not change the fact that we are discussing time. Hell, you keep refering to time; m/s2, ns and then say there is no time. That kind of destroys your argument if you need time to show there is no time!

Repeating this does not make it more acceptable

So position 1 is also position 0? Then they are the same position and do not require different designations.

The position of the universe compared to what?

Ok so I say a point 1 foot in front of me is 0. I have marked that position as 0, that is the origin I guess. I am standing 1 foot away from the position 0 so I am 1 foot from the 0 position. What has that shown me other than I am 1 foot from the position I designated as 0?

So I have 2 yard sticks. One of the yard sticks I designate as 'ruler-12345' and the other I designate as 'ruler-000000'. What is this suppose to tell besides that fact that I have 2 yardsticks with different names?

 

That sounds quite outlandish, d/t is a measurement of speed, you have practically just said if there is nobody to time the ball falling it will not fall. Are you suggesting that in history before d/t was developed things did not move?

I do not need to use time to show there is no time, I only need your admittance that anything after 0 is history which I believe you have already admitted to. It would be contradictory to admit that then claim there was a rate of time, how can a rate exist past 0.

Put your yard sticks parallel next to each, the position of any zero is equal to one. 0=1

1 a representation of a length of 0.

However this is not mainstream talk, so I thank you and will exit the conversation at that before I receive warnings about my posting conduct in the main forum. My apologies.

 

Good decision.

 

I think what absolute-space is trying to say is that our experience of time is nothing more than the experience of things about the world changing in sequence. If all of our clocks were at 0s before and are at 1s now, we say that 1s has elapsed; the universe has no "deeper" time that could actually tell us whether the time that passed was 1s in some ideal sense. What he fails to realize is that relative time, i.e. the rate at which one observer's clocks tick relative to another's, has predictable consequences that do not depend on any absolute time. Special relativity makes surprising predictions about the behavior of relative time, and experiments have borne out these predictions. Anyone who gets hung up on the term "time dilation" is completely missing the point.

 

Is absolute-space a reincarnation of theorist-constant?
He's certainly got (only) the equivalent grasp of science and logic.

 

You are confused.
Without time we are at 0 or the moment of the BB: You see the BB was the evolution of space and time. Both must and do exist.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Quite outlandish: You do not need time to show there is no time?????
I'm unable to comment any further.
Anything after 0 is of course an example of the progress or arrow of time.
At present that a progress measures 13.83 billion years.
What is now is history in an hour: What is in an hour is in the future:
Your befuddled confusion with time and history, is well, befuddled.

If it is not mainstream, why do you post in mainstream?? Trying to at least appear to have some credibility?

 

Some have said he is azo: I don't know of azo, and I believe he is someone else who is in recent times playing games on this forum, and if that is true is making apparent asses of the mods/administrators.

 

Mainstream practically relates to Wiki-pedia, a main forum section is for discussing the present information without attempting to change that information. Any attempt to change new information is hypothesis or theory and goes into a different section, where I can stamp my authority , having the knowledge of my own theory . The problem with discussing none mainstream in the main section is this leads to ''false'' education, the younger readers may get confused so we accordingly have sections.

 

14 billion years or so if a length my friend between point sources, we observe a cosmological red shift of point sources, space itself does not reflect light it allows light to propagate through at an invariant speed. Do you think that opposite side of a distant star, the ''blind side'' that we do not observe, does not emit light in a direction away from the star and away from us? Do you think space ends at the final star and the star is '''flat''? r(c)³ from any star.

 

For the young ; just read

 

That's crap an you know it.
But then again, I suppose as an amateur you may not know it.
Let me add though that so called critics of existing mainstream science, in the main exist only on forums such as this, and the inevitable changes that will occur in some accepted science, certainly will not come from that source. That is a fact.

 

Sorry, that makes no sense what so ever.
Let me educate you......
[1]Space and time, [henceforth known as spacetime] evolved from the instant we call the BB.
[2]Spacetime tells matter how to move; matter tells spacetime how to curve.
[3]The speed of light is a constant and finite "c"
[4] Space and time are flexible entities dependant on one's FoR.
[5] Every FoR is as valid as any other FoR.
Now all the above may be verified as fact on WIKI, but they are also verified as fact in all learning institutions and science academia in general.

Again whatever you claim is your own business and your right and I don't argue that right, but please don't expect anyone to take you seriously. Sorry about that.

 

I'm certain they will and I encourage them also.
I also encourage any youngster interested in science to study what a scientific theory is, the scientific methodology and how peer review operates, then compare it to the rantings and ravings of agenda laden, sometimes religiously inspired, always ego inflated cranks, that frequent forums such as this.
BTW river, how many other forums have you been banned from?

 

Let me educate you in the English language. The thread title says , ''do we see things in the past?'' asking the question of do we. The thread title does not say '' does wiki or Einstein say we see things in the past'', which is an easy answer of yes and would be a rather pointless question.
So it does not really matter how many times you keep posting the same sort of links, spamming the forum, we are all aware of what WIKI says,

James earlier in the thread explained my question better than I did, he understood I was saying that when two observers , observe each other, they both receive the wave packets of photons simultaneously.

He did not agree , we do not see things in the past, but more than obviously we don't see things in the past because we receive the wave packets simultaneously which cancels out the effect .

 

And the answer is yes, whether you like it or not, sorry about that.
I went outside a minute ago and saw Alpha Centauri as it was 4.3 years ago......

Don't be a total fool: WIKI says what all learned institutions say, and what is based on observational and experimental evidence...not on what you prefer it to be due to some illogical agenda.

James says the same thing I have been saying. And really, calling on the Administrator to add credibility to your nonsense is not working,
The fact the speed of light is a finite constant, means we really and truly do see into the past whenever we chose to:eg: Try looking at the Sun.

More befuddled word salad.
If James does not agree we see into the past and their is plenty of evidence for that, then James is wrong. But as usual, I'm 99.9% sure the problem is you, and your interpretation guided by that agenda again.
In essence, you are wrong, to put it slightly more bluntly, than what James is trying to tell you. But I believe in calling a spade a spade.

 

I understand James , please aprreciate that it is really hard to explain a concept in my mind with words that are already in use with their meanings.

I have chosen the Mirriam webster definition, whole - '' having all the parts : not divided or cut into parts or pieces''

We see light propagating through space as a whole , which is not opaque , we could look at it as if the photon was an ''invisible particle'' while propagating through space or air showing no spectral colour, we observe the entire length of light between A and B, which is equal to the length of space between objects. we do not observe single photons as if like dots. The ''rod'' I mention is a bad example, a better example would be to imagine being in the belly of ''the invisible man'' looking out.

I hope this clarifies that for you, I will have a think how to answer your other questions better. Thanks