Infinite vs. instant
in [Physics]
|
Prev: Simple and direct proof that the theoretical science of AGW is fraud and the product of the host of charlatans led by J Hansen includingno discusion Wormley
Next: COSMIC BULLET FIRED BY EXPLODING STAR
From: Sam Wormley on 25 May 2010 11:13 On 5/25/10 9:55 AM, GogoJF wrote: > On May 25, 9:51 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> On 5/25/10 9:45 AM, GogoJF wrote: >> >>> On May 25, 9:42 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> On 5/25/10 9:19 AM, GogoJF wrote: >> >>>>> When it comes to light, what is the difference? Isn't it two >>>>> different buzz words to describe a single phenomenon? >> >>>> When you look at the moon you see it as it was about 1.3 second >>>> ago. Sun - About 8 minutes. Vega, when you look at Vega, you are >>>> seeing it as it was more than 25 years ago. >> >>> Aw man, your living in the past. This question restated: what is the >>> difference between instant and infinite when it comes to light, when >>> dealing with physics? >> >> light has a finite speed. There are ramification in physics, such >> as relativity. >> >> Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of special relativity? >> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > > Sam, unfortunately, from all of my information gathering, I am not > convinced that relativity exists on the non local scale. I wonder how you explain these tests of general relativity: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
From: GogoJF on 25 May 2010 11:21 On May 25, 10:13 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On 5/25/10 9:55 AM, GogoJF wrote: > > > > > On May 25, 9:51 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >> On 5/25/10 9:45 AM, GogoJF wrote: > > >>> On May 25, 9:42 am, Sam Wormley<sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >>>> On 5/25/10 9:19 AM, GogoJF wrote: > > >>>>> When it comes to light, what is the difference? Isn't it two > >>>>> different buzz words to describe a single phenomenon? > > >>>> When you look at the moon you see it as it was about 1.3 second > >>>> ago. Sun - About 8 minutes. Vega, when you look at Vega, you are > >>>> seeing it as it was more than 25 years ago. > > >>> Aw man, your living in the past. This question restated: what is the > >>> difference between instant and infinite when it comes to light, when > >>> dealing with physics? > > >> light has a finite speed. There are ramification in physics, such > >> as relativity. > > >> Physics FAQ: What is the experimental basis of special relativity? > >> http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SR/experiments.html > > > Sam, unfortunately, from all of my information gathering, I am not > > convinced that relativity exists on the non local scale. > > I wonder how you explain these tests of general relativity: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity Let me think about it. I have to go walk the dogs.
From: PD on 25 May 2010 12:41 On May 25, 9:45 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 25, 9:42 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On 5/25/10 9:19 AM, GogoJF wrote: > > > > When it comes to light, what is the difference? Isn't it two > > > different buzz words to describe a single phenomenon? > > > When you look at the moon you see it as it was about 1.3 second > > ago. Sun - About 8 minutes. Vega, when you look at Vega, you are > > seeing it as it was more than 25 years ago. > > Aw man, your living in the past. This question restated: what is the > difference between instant and infinite when it comes to light, when > dealing with physics? Light has infinite range, which means that there is not a range from the source that the light will never cross. However, the time it takes to get to any given range is nonzero. Therefore it is not instantaneous transmission.
From: GogoJF on 25 May 2010 12:48 On May 25, 11:41 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 25, 9:45 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > On May 25, 9:42 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On 5/25/10 9:19 AM, GogoJF wrote: > > > > > When it comes to light, what is the difference? Isn't it two > > > > different buzz words to describe a single phenomenon? > > > > When you look at the moon you see it as it was about 1.3 second > > > ago. Sun - About 8 minutes. Vega, when you look at Vega, you are > > > seeing it as it was more than 25 years ago. > > > Aw man, your living in the past. This question restated: what is the > > difference between instant and infinite when it comes to light, when > > dealing with physics? > > Light has infinite range, which means that there is not a range from > the source that the light will never cross. > > However, the time it takes to get to any given range is nonzero. > Therefore it is not instantaneous transmission. I believe in the opposite. Light has a finite range to the observer called maximum visual acuity. Seeing light is instantaneous; seeing light is not a transmission like a radar wave.
From: PD on 25 May 2010 13:12
On May 25, 11:48 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 25, 11:41 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 25, 9:45 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 25, 9:42 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On 5/25/10 9:19 AM, GogoJF wrote: > > > > > > When it comes to light, what is the difference? Isn't it two > > > > > different buzz words to describe a single phenomenon? > > > > > When you look at the moon you see it as it was about 1.3 second > > > > ago. Sun - About 8 minutes. Vega, when you look at Vega, you are > > > > seeing it as it was more than 25 years ago. > > > > Aw man, your living in the past. This question restated: what is the > > > difference between instant and infinite when it comes to light, when > > > dealing with physics? > > > Light has infinite range, which means that there is not a range from > > the source that the light will never cross. > > > However, the time it takes to get to any given range is nonzero. > > Therefore it is not instantaneous transmission. > > I believe in the opposite. Light has a finite range to the observer > called maximum visual acuity. Seeing light is instantaneous; seeing > light is not a transmission like a radar wave. First of all, seeing light in a biological eye is not instantaneous either. It takes a measurable time for rods and cones to respond to the light, generate the action potential in the nerves, and for that nerve signal to transmit to the brain. Secondly, the time spent for processing AT the receiver doesn't have anything to do with the time it takes for the light to get from the source to the receiver. What you see this very instant when you look up at the Sun is not the Sun as it is now, but as it was a little over 8 minutes ago. |