Do we see objects in their past?

No, we see objects in our past.

well said, even the object you see in the mirror, that really does not look like you, with left and right exchanged, is in your, our (if you look together with your wife) past. ready passe'
Looing is a great past time.
 
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

what is the source of the light that each is using to illunimate the other, and what are they using to look at each other with ?
 
what is the source of the light that each is using to illunimate the other, and what are they using to look at each other with ?

If they have any temperature above 0 kelvin they would radiate, and of course reflected starlight (moonlight preferred for lovers, which might be 4 times reflected)

Which also would be their past

Which really stokes one's ego, because it makes you the most advanced individual in time (from your perspective) everyone else sends you their message into the future, where you graciously accept them, coming as it were, from those you could think, are lagging behind, trailing you the in past.
In reality though, one (all of us are) is really flying blind, because reality has already happened ahead of us. Are you not glad that c is so high? . but
the ALMA thread in alternative theories makes it all democratic, because everyone travels into the future together, confined in the expanding sphere; where we never seeing the concrete past which is gone. empty. but
Seeing the messages that travel along with us into the future.
seeing is looking down a spiral path, light travels in 3 dimensions, but bent by the first, time. see you there!
 
Last edited:
Correction here, from working on it. The asserted spiral paths that photons from the object in the past would trace, as the light comes to you, would be due the the proper motion of the emitting object, like Andromeda approaching us. Normally, motionless, the path is straight, believe it or not.
 
Which also would be their past

:)
Interesting.

The light we see would be from the star's Now, but when we observe it, the same amount of time would have passed for both the star and the observer. Thus it would be true for both.

However, if we see the light from the star's disintegration, it would no longer exist or have a NOW. Still, we would see the star's explosion in our NOW but coming to us from our past.
 
However, if we see the light from the star's disintegration, it would no longer exist or have a NOW. Still, we would see the star's explosion in our NOW but coming to us from our past.
answer:
In reality though, one (all of us are) is really flying blind, because reality has already happened ahead of us. Are you not glad that c is so high?
Not like your husband is cheating on you, but you do not know it yet, but somewhat like it, at the speed of light or >mach 1.
on top of that, what happens in 3/4 of the universe is permanently hidden from us, over the horizon.
 
In reality though, one (all of us are) is really flying blind, because reality has already happened ahead of us
It's true that the event may have happened before there were any humans at all, so that would make it in the future of humankind. But when we observe it, the information is most certainly received from our past.
It just gets curiouser and curioser...:)
 
It's true that the event may have happened before there were any humans at all, so that would make it in the future of humankind. But when we observe it, the information is most certainly received from our past.

Indeed, there is no information at all that is received from the present, or the future. The very act of receiving presupposes a prior(past) emitter, admit it.
but If the event happened in the past, a smaller universe, that is not the future of humankind but its past, or better even, prior to its past, prior to humankind's beginning.
It is the news, picture about the event that has travelled through time and the Universe / membrane to reach us in the now.
Go to ALMA to revue that please: the past is nonexistent. there is no image of the event still lingering for millions of years waiting for us to appear and then to focus on and see it.
 
Last edited:
Do you by any chance get paid per click on alma?

no, but a kick per click.
honestly the links I propose , (and you are free to ignore them) are very relevant, imho, saving time and space here on this site, not requiring to rewrite, post lengthy responses.
 
ose , (and you are free to ignore them

Thanks but
  • I don't need your permission to ignore suggestions and
  • I am under the impression most other posters also ignore your pleas
I suspect
  • If They would have been to the post once and deemed it not worthy of a return visit and
  • Would prefer to have any discussion take place in within a single post and
  • Not flutter around
If it means you repeat something from another post again so be it

Suggest - stop referring

Feel free to ignore suggestion

:)
 
"

I .Would prefer to have any discussion take place in within a single post and
  • Not flutter around

Well, may be you would, but there are 4 discussions on time, each touching different aspects, facets of this fascinating subject, going on on this site simultaneously.
Of the common theme, there are specific questions raised in each of them, that often are best dealt with in lucky, well thought out developments in a different one of them. . Cross referencing is a great enlightening tool.
It is a sad day when such free flow of information is hindered, and attention diverted from the great subject matter at hand. now, where were we?
Do we see objects 0bjectively in their past? how far into the past?
 
Last edited:
Do we see objects 0bjectively in their past? how far into the past?

At the most distant stuff 13+ billion light years
The TV in the room - close enough to now for me

All other stuff somewhere in between

For me settled

:)
 
Last edited:
Glad to hear you are at peace and taking it all in, as it arrives. it is a glorious trip. seeing is believing. N.
remember the first TV pictures 1936!

Bit early for me

I do recall at a aunt's house a small screen black and white TV and in front of the screen, independent of the TV on its own stand, a very thick magnifying glass

:)
 
Bit early for me

It is said about earlier times, you can never put your foot into the same river twice. because the water you touched is gone. mankind, science has come a long way in our lifetime.
We are almost in the post -TV era already. for me anyway.
 
It is said about earlier times, you can never put your foot into the same river twice. because the water you touched is gone. mankind, science has come a long way in our lifetime.
We are almost in the post -TV era already. for me anyway.

My first record player had a large brass needle. Now laser beams are used

From black and white TV behind a magnifying glass to Star Trek interactive Holodeck would be a even bigger leap

:)
 
bigger leap

Talking about bigger, , New Scientist- and Nature magazines feature articles about another book that explains that there is no time as we know it, at the smallest level, but when you think big, the illusion persists, or ideas along these lines. recommended read to get that right! right?
 
Talking about bigger, , New Scientist- and Nature magazines feature articles about another book that explains that there is no time as we know it, at the smallest level, but when you think big, the illusion persists, or ideas along these lines. recommended read to get that right! right?

I've been saying for a long time TIME does not exist

What is commonly referred to as time is change which is AGE

My best book for explaining the difference

The Invention of Time and Space by
Patrice F. Dassonville

Great read - lots of details and history

:)
 
Back
Top