# Do we see objects in their past?

#### absolute-space

Registered Member
I have read somewhere that we observe objects in their past by the relative nature of photons having a finite speed and taking an amount of time to travel from A to B to enter your eyes . I also read it take approximately 8 minutes for the photons to arrive from the sun and relatively we are seeing the sun 8 minutes ago.

In though experiment I imagined this analogy thus bringing into question the reliability of the information. I already imagine the frowning faces looking at me, but do not be outraged at the valid premise for debate.

If we can all imagine a hypothetical situation where as there was an astronaut on the moon looking directly at the Earth observing another man.

If we can imagine for the simplicity of debate that the photons travelling from Earth to the astronauts eyes on the moon took t=5min

If we can imagine for the simplicity of debate that the photons travelling from the astronaut on the moon to the man's eyes on Earth took t=5min

If we can imagine the astronaut observes the man on Earth t=5min in his past

If we can imagine the man on Earth observes the astronaut on the moon t=5min in his past

If the astronaut is seeing the man 5 minutes ago and the man is seeing the astronaut 5 minutes ago, when are they seeing each other?

+ve=c

-ve=c

L=x=384,400 km

Last edited:
I already imagine the frowning faces looking at me, but do not be outraged at the valid premise for debate.
No promises, but given your previous games, I don't expect to see a "valid premise for debate".
If the astronaut is seeing the man 5 minutes ago and the man is seeing the astronaut 5 minutes ago, when are they seeing each other?
Now.

Ok, that was a half joke. The question contains its answer:
"...the astronaut is seeing the man 5 minutes ago and the man is seeing the astronaut 5 minutes ago..." ...each in their own reference frame.

Last edited:
Just for information sake the time light takes to get to the moon is about 1 sec. Lets suppose that at about 12:00 we agree the guy on the earth will wave his hand. As soon as the guy on the moon sees the earth guy wave, he waves his hand. When the guy on earth sees the moon guy wave he will mark the time. That will be 10 minutes.

I have read somewhere that we observe objects in their past by the relative nature of photons having a finite speed and taking an amount of time to travel from A to B to enter your eyes . I also read it take approximately 8 minutes for the photons to arrive from the sun and relatively we are seeing the sun 8 minutes ago.{/QUOTE]
8.25 minutes to be more accurate.
And what do you mean you have "read somewhere"?
I mean this is an accepted fact based on common sense, or do you believe the speed of light is instantanious?
In though experiment I imagined this analogy thus bringing into question the reliability of the information. I already imagine the frowning faces looking at me, but do not be outraged at the valid premise for debate.
The answer to the example you gave is that each is seeing each other as each was.....so no anomaly whatsoever, if that is what you were trying to portray.

A better example of course is we see the Alpha Centauri system tonight as it was 4.3 years ago.......Or M31 [Andromeda] 2.5 million years ago.
So what "valid" premise is it you are debating, other than common sense fact?

And what do you mean you have "read somewhere"?
I mean this is an accepted fact based on common sense, or do you believe the speed of light is instantanious?

The answer to the example you gave is that each is seeing each other as each was.....so no anomaly whatsoever, if that is what you were trying to portray.

A better example of course is we see the Alpha Centauri system tonight as it was 4.3 years ago.......Or M31 [Andromeda] 2.5 million years ago.
So what "valid" premise is it you are debating, other than common sense fact?

Last edited:
No promises, but given your previous games, I don't expect to see a "valid premise for debate".

Now.

Ok, that was a half joke. The question contains its answer:
"...the astronaut is seeing the man 5 minutes ago and the man is seeing the astronaut 5 minutes ago..." ...each in their own reference frame.
I believe the "half joke" will be validated as this thread proceeds.

And of course, as a result of the fact that every time we look at the stars, we are looking into the past, there are stars/galaxies that distant, that as yet we have not received any light from them, and may never will.

No promises, but given your previous games, I don't expect to see a "valid premise for debate".

Now.

Ok, that was a half joke. The question contains its answer:
"...the astronaut is seeing the man 5 minutes ago and the man is seeing the astronaut 5 minutes ago..." ...each in their own reference frame.
Your half joke is the correct answer thanks. The man is in his present and the astronaut is in his presence, they both see each other 5 minutes in their past which cancels out seeing each other in the past.

Your half joke is the correct answer thanks. The man is in his present and the astronaut is in his presence, they both see each other 5 minutes in their past which cancels out seeing each other in the past.
No it doesn't. They both see each other as they were.
You see Alpha Centauri tonight as it was 4.3 years ago.
If an Alien on a planet orbiting that system was looking back at you, he sees you as you were 4.3 years ago.

Your half joke is the correct answer thanks. The man is in his present and the astronaut is in his presence, they both see each other 5 minutes in their past which cancels out seeing each other in the past.
What do you mean "which cancels out"?

Your half joke is the correct answer thanks. The man is in his present and the astronaut is in his presence, they both see each other 5 minutes in their past which cancels out seeing each other in the past.
Another example. The EMR signals NASA received back from the Curiosity probe that informed them the landing module was disengaged and heading into the atmosphere was 7 minutes [don't hold me to that exact figure] after it actually disengaged, and in fact the landing craft was already on the ground [in its own FoR] but which they [NASA on Earth] did not know for another 7 minutes.
There is no universal now.

Last edited:
What do you mean "which cancels out"?
It means there is no net difference in time in the summation of the two journeys.

I have modelled the results in a computer simulation for you of the concept.

You can clearly see in the simulation that both observers observe each other simultaneously.

...which cancels out seeing each other in the past.
Since it is at the end, I'm sure that is the punch line to this trick/joke, but it has no meaning that I can discern. The simple scenario is simple. Not a very funny joke.

It means there is no net difference in time in the summation of the two journeys.

You can clearly see in the simulation that both observers observe each other simultaneously.

I think you have lost your mind.

Reported as so much pseudoscience gibberish.

It means there is no net difference in time in the summation of the two journeys.

I have modelled the results in a computer simulation for you of the concept.

You can clearly see in the simulation that both observers observe each other simultaneously.
Ok, so what? In other news, 1-1=0

Ok, so what? In other news, 1-1=0
I think absolute is saying there is no time delay.

Since it is at the end, I'm sure that is the punch line to this trick/joke, but it has no meaning that I can discern. The simple scenario is simple. Not a very funny joke.
There is no trick or joke, please feel free to do a vector analysis and use any maths you wish, you will see the results are apparently correct.

There is no trick or joke, please feel free to do a vector analysis and use any maths you wish, you will see the results are apparently correct.
Are you saying that each of them are seeing the other from 5 minutes ago?

I think absolute is saying there is no time delay.
That would be a correct assumption,

I think absolute is saying there is no time delay.
Looks like a time delay to me -- each cycle takes about 2 seconds. I'm guessing he's trying to say something about absolute simultaneity.