Do we see objects in their past?

We are talking about space-time, it makes perfect sense, yes your calculations are correct.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

If you feel I am crazy then please feel free to prove so, by proving anything after 0 is not history?

You can use any method including words.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Are you an "it"?

Anyway, your words/math have adequately proven the point: this is a stupid/crazy/bad joke.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

You can refer to me as ''it'' if you like, I will not be offended, I understand the confusion in your minds, I assure you the confusion will ease the more you understand the great value of 0.

Start from 0 and take a step forward, you may consider that 1 step but you are still at zero and start again, 0+1=0

1 being your length of history travelled.

 

Your statement is confused gibberish and as such there is nothing to prove.

 

Confused gibberish? I suggest you are being obtuse, the question is quite clear.

 

You appear to be the only one who has no idea what zero is.

Gibberish from a confused mind.

 

It is quite clearly gibberish.

It seems your point in being here is to annoy people with absurdities, or worse you actually think what you are saying has some useful meaning - at any rate just wanted to inform you that your posts have been reported so that they can be moved to the appropriate section - my vote is the cesspool.

 

Gibberish.

Once you posted an animation which correctly showed signal propagation over time and then claimed it showed no time and absolute simultenaity, we were left with few options. The issue is far too simple for a serious/sane/honest person to misunderstand so gibberish.

 

You quite clearly are deflecting from the question which is written in plain English.

Your native language is seemingly not English.

However I will reform the question for you alone as the rest of the people can surely read English.

Take the value of 0 time, you are going to boil an egg, you record 3 minutes on your clock and stop the clock, the clock says 3 minutes which is 3 minutes history of boiling the egg, It is not 3 minutes of time , it is 3 minutes recording the boiling of the egg, also recording your own ''time'' observing the boiling of the egg. however 0 moved forward to 0, the only rate of time was 0. Anything recorded on the clock greater than 0 was history of 0.

 

absolute-space Do you know that the cosmic ray muons are traveling in earth's frame at nearly the speed of light and many do reach the earth's surface before they decay? For them, the 100,000 feet of atmosphere is very contracted so that explains why they can go thru it all before decaying.

An alternate way to explain it (also from GR) is that for them, our clocks are running very slowly so from the time they enter the high atmosphere, until they hit the ground, much less than their half life has passed for them on our clocks.

SUMMARY: the fact that most of these muon, do reach the earth's surface is experimental proof of both the time dilation and length contraction of GR.

(We have measured their flux high up in the atmosphere with balloons - it is the almost the same intensity as at ground level if those removed by collision is corrected for.)

 

No, but you may be the banned person who formerly used the handle "theorist". Anyway, I've done my bit to try to educate you but my initial goodwill towards you has evaporated, so I'm going to do something more worthwhile now.

 

You clearly missed the explanation of what I was saying that James provided for me.

''Suppose you and I stand still on a road, 30 metres apart. The fastest signal of any kind that can travel between us will take 100 nanoseconds to travel from you to me or vice versa.

If I wave my hand at you, you'll see that wave 100 ns later. If you wave your hand at me, I'll see your wave 100 ns later. So, you are seeing my waving hand as it was 100 ns in the past, and I am seeing your waving hand as it was 100 ns in the past.

If we both happen to wave our hands at each other at the same time, then we'll both see the other person wave 100 ns after it actually happens, but we'll both see the waves simultaneously.''

When the falling photon arrives at the bottom receiver and the rising photon arrives at the top receiver, they arrive simultaneously. When Einstein considered seeing things in the past he only accounted for the one direction, so of course the result is seeing things in the past.

 

We get it: you don't know/like what a clock/time is, so you try to gibberish your way around it. Sorry, but you can't gibberish gibberish into ungibberish.

 

I am not saying that a Muons rate of decay is not extended or that the Keating experiment does not reveal a change in frequency relative to motion, I am saying the value of
space-time is 0.

 

Clearly you think that time is the abstract invention to synchronise our everyday lives, clearly you do not understand that the device you are measuring with can not affect a measure with no rate.

 

This thread reminds me of

 

The question is nonsense.

The issue is not language it is your illogical and insane posts.

swell

So it sounds like you are defining 0 as now or this instant in time.
That is fine.
If you are looking through a telescope at someone 9 x 10^7 km away and you seem them flip you off, the time that the person flipped you off was actually 5 minutes in the past, right?

 

Let's give Alice and Bob a pair of identical clocks. They stand together and sychronise the clocks. Then Bob walks (slowly) a distance of (say) 300m. A Anybody care to write down the invariant spacetime interval

 

I miss the point of your relevance to the thread, if you are unable to grasp the concept and discuss the thread then please refrain from your personal insults that are uncalled for . Clearly you distract from the discussion looking to flame.