can somebody answer this ( maybe stupid ) question I'm asking myself since very long - maybe it's as simple as possible but .....
light travels at its known speed, so for example it takes 8 minutes from the sun to earth.
The deeper I can see in the universe, the more I see the past ... But ...
Let us take a star that is 8 lightyears from earth, so it takes 8 years before we can see it with our eyes arriving on earth. Imagine that I take a very very strong telescope, one that of course does not really exist now, and that I can see the surface of the star very clearly, but I mean that I can see ( theoretical ) for example a man standing on that star with a lazer light.
That man is turning his lazer light on, direction earth and I can clearly see him.
Will I then see the light emitted directly or will I still see the light emitted 8 years ago ?? because I should think that with my telescope I should encounter the travelling light more rapidly than with my eyes so that I could see it before it's arriving on earth, so I could also see it at the same moment of emission too ??
Same problem with someone standing on the moon of course : time 1,3 seconds.
The telescope doesn't allow you to see the light sooner, it allows you to see more light. You'll see what the guy was doing 8 years ago.
That's right.
But when for exemple, I look into the sky, with my eyes, to the space shuttle entering the athmosphere I cannot see it until it's very near the earth. When I look with a telescope I can see it very clear at very long distance. Has that something to do with just more light ? I don't think so.
It would then be that something very bright would take shorter time to come to our eyes than something darker ?
Why can it not be that I see the light with the telescope when it is at for exemple half way to earth whilst with my eyes only I'll have to wait much longer to see that light arriving .....
let's say the light starts at the sun at time 0, it arrives on earth at time +8 seconds, when I look to the sun with a very big telescope maybe I can already see the light at +4 seconds ( it will always arrive on earth at +8 of course that's for sure ! ), or maybe at +2 seconds whilst it still has 6 seconds to go .............. impossible ?
But when for exemple, I look into the sky, with my eyes, to the space shuttle entering the athmosphere I cannot see it until it's very near the earth. When I look with a telescope I can see it very clear at very long distance. Has that something to do with just more light ? I don't think so.
It would then be that something very bright would take shorter time to come to our eyes than something darker ?
Why can it not be that I see the light with the telescope when it is at for exemple half way to earth whilst with my eyes only I'll have to wait much longer to see that light arriving .....
let's say the light starts at the sun at time 0, it arrives on earth at time +8 seconds, when I look to the sun with a very big telescope maybe I can already see the light at +4 seconds ( it will always arrive on earth at +8 of course that's for sure ! ), or maybe at +2 seconds whilst it still has 6 seconds to go .............. impossible ?
I mean that's right for the " more light " ...
QUOTE (george+May 18 2008, 05:57 PM)
That's right.
But when for exemple, I look into the sky, with my eyes, to the space shuttle entering the athmosphere I cannot see it until it's very near the earth. When I look with a telescope I can see it very clear at very long distance. Has that something to do with just more light ? I don't think so.
It would then be that something very bright would take shorter time to come to our eyes than something darker ?
Why can it not be that I see the light with the telescope when it is at for exemple half way to earth whilst with my eyes only I'll have to wait much longer to see that light arriving .....
let's say the light starts at the sun at time 0, it arrives on earth at time +8 seconds, when I look to the sun with a very big telescope maybe I can already see the light at +4 seconds ( it will always arrive on earth at +8 of course that's for sure ! ), or maybe at +2 seconds whilst it still has 6 seconds to go .............. impossible ?
- not a friggin' clue! 
But when for exemple, I look into the sky, with my eyes, to the space shuttle entering the athmosphere I cannot see it until it's very near the earth. When I look with a telescope I can see it very clear at very long distance. Has that something to do with just more light ? I don't think so.
It would then be that something very bright would take shorter time to come to our eyes than something darker ?
Why can it not be that I see the light with the telescope when it is at for exemple half way to earth whilst with my eyes only I'll have to wait much longer to see that light arriving .....
let's say the light starts at the sun at time 0, it arrives on earth at time +8 seconds, when I look to the sun with a very big telescope maybe I can already see the light at +4 seconds ( it will always arrive on earth at +8 of course that's for sure ! ), or maybe at +2 seconds whilst it still has 6 seconds to go .............. impossible ?
- not a friggin' clue!
sorry, 8 minuts of course ......
QUOTE (george+May 18 2008, 06:10 PM)
8 minuts ......
Is ingestion of ones testicles a new exotic french dish?
Is ingestion of ones testicles a new exotic french dish?
come on agent X69, you again, what's the problem again ? answer my question then !
you like laughing with people but I do not see some serious answer.
You better open an " insult topic " because you cannot do better than that.
you like laughing with people but I do not see some serious answer.
You better open an " insult topic " because you cannot do better than that.
QUOTE (george+May 18 2008, 06:22 PM)
come on agent X69, you again, what's the problem again ? answer my question then !
you like laughing with people but I do not see some serious answer.
You better open an " insult topic " because you cannot do better than that.
Well, actually Mr Frog - I've a load of BS idea's - fire your questions and I'll respond.
you like laughing with people but I do not see some serious answer.
You better open an " insult topic " because you cannot do better than that.
Well, actually Mr Frog - I've a load of BS idea's - fire your questions and I'll respond.
well the question is : considering the light from the sun needs 8 minutes to arrive on earth and to see it with our eyes, can I SEE that arriving light already when it is half way for exemple with a very strong telescope ?
It will always need 8 minutes to arrive on earth, that's for sure, but will I see it sooner ?
( you cannot see with your eyes a car arriving at 300 km/h when it is 2O km away, you will only see it when it is at maybe 1 km away, but with a strong telescope you could see it arriving from maybe 10 km away, so you see it sooner than with your eyes but it always will arrive after the same period of time of course ...... ).
It will always need 8 minutes to arrive on earth, that's for sure, but will I see it sooner ?
( you cannot see with your eyes a car arriving at 300 km/h when it is 2O km away, you will only see it when it is at maybe 1 km away, but with a strong telescope you could see it arriving from maybe 10 km away, so you see it sooner than with your eyes but it always will arrive after the same period of time of course ...... ).
QUOTE (george+May 18 2008, 06:53 PM)
well the question is : considering the light from the sun needs 8 minutes to arrive on earth and to see it with our eyes, can I SEE that arriving light already when it is half way for exemple with a very strong telescope ?
No you can't - Oh brother are you 'recovering' from a brain op'? - give me something profoundly mysterious to explain, otherwise you'll suffer!
No you can't - Oh brother are you 'recovering' from a brain op'? - give me something profoundly mysterious to explain, otherwise you'll suffer!
insulting, always insulting !! brain'op ??? what's wrong with brain'op ? are you a racist or what, uber-mensch ? no, no brain'op but I like all such kind of difficult questions and you don't, you prefer brainsleep.
yeah, that's easy, " no you cann't " is your answer, very easy !! yeah !
but tell me what is wrong then with this question, why is it wrong ?
I have nothing against the fact that is should be wrong !!
I just try to find the error in it if there is. OK ? thanks.
yeah, that's easy, " no you cann't " is your answer, very easy !! yeah !
but tell me what is wrong then with this question, why is it wrong ?
I have nothing against the fact that is should be wrong !!
I just try to find the error in it if there is. OK ? thanks.
QUOTE (george+May 18 2008, 07:04 PM)
insulting, always insulting !! brain'op ??? what's wrong with brain'op ? are you a racist or what, uber-mensch ? no, no brain'op but I like all such kind of difficult questions and you don't, you prefer brainsleep.
yeah, that's easy, " no you cann't " is your answer, very easy !! yeah !
but tell me what is wrong then with this question, why is it wrong ?
I have nothing against the fact that is should be wrong !!
I just try to find the error in it if there is. OK ? thanks.
- ok - I'll make you suffer, idiot!
yeah, that's easy, " no you cann't " is your answer, very easy !! yeah !
but tell me what is wrong then with this question, why is it wrong ?
I have nothing against the fact that is should be wrong !!
I just try to find the error in it if there is. OK ? thanks.
- ok - I'll make you suffer, idiot!
Neither the telescope nor the eye reaches out to the seen object and pulls back an image. Instead, the eye only collects the light emitted or reflected or transmitted originally by the object.
Many early philosophers thought that the eye worked by reaching out to objects and "touching them" -- that seeing something made it real -- that seeing was really believing. But all the eye does is record incoming light. It sends nothing out.
http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/optics/colour.htm
Many early philosophers thought that the eye worked by reaching out to objects and "touching them" -- that seeing something made it real -- that seeing was really believing. But all the eye does is record incoming light. It sends nothing out.
http://mysite.du.edu/~jcalvert/optics/colour.htm
QUOTE (Diane M. Szaflarski+ c. 1997?)
During the Middle Ages ... popular theory of the time suggested that the viewer's eyes sent out emissions to the object and that those emissions enabled vision to occur. These theories may seem strange, unsatisfying or illogical today, but remember that the theories of long ago were not based on today's extensive experimental scientific data. Instead they were based on the conjecture and observation of scholars.
QUOTE (george+May 18 2008, 07:25 PM)
hey agent, nobody can make me suffer, you sucker - I'll start insulting too !! I have all the money I want, a good life, a nice wife, a good car, a big bike ( BMW ) and I'm enjoying life very well - so *** off you stupid agent of my *** !! I just pass my time with nice things, no problem with me !
Hey, this old frog-troll has prematurely exploded! - excellent stuff indeed.
Hey, this old frog-troll has prematurely exploded! - excellent stuff indeed.
This is the first time I've seen anyone think that because an instrument (telescope, microscope, magnifying glass, etc.) magnifies an image, making it appear bigger, somehow the instrument has magically brought the viewer closer to the object being imaged. This is absurdly and patently false.
Edit: This is not exactly what George thinks, but its probably part of the reasoning process that brought him around to thinking that simply because an image has been magnified somehow the photons are arriving faster.
Edit: This is not exactly what George thinks, but its probably part of the reasoning process that brought him around to thinking that simply because an image has been magnified somehow the photons are arriving faster.
Hey george;
No one has mentioned resolution yet, so here it is.
The larger telescope lens detects more light/photons, and thus can distinguish more detail, just as your pc screen shows finer detail with a higher pixel count.
No one has mentioned resolution yet, so here it is.
The larger telescope lens detects more light/photons, and thus can distinguish more detail, just as your pc screen shows finer detail with a higher pixel count.
QUOTE (george+May 19 2008, 07:25 AM)
hey agent, nobody can make me suffer, you sucker - I'll start insulting too !! I have all the money I want, a good life, a nice wife, a good car, a big bike ( BMW ) and I'm enjoying life very well - so *** off you stupid agent of my *** !! I just pass my time with nice things, no problem with me !
Great job Agent X. How long before this idiot explodes?
I recon about 4 more days
Great job Agent X. How long before this idiot explodes?
I recon about 4 more days
QUOTE (george+)
I'll start insulting too !!
Am I supposed to care?
Am I supposed to care?
Am I supposed to care?
a nice wife
Am I supposed to care?
Am I supposed to care?
Am I supposed to care?
a big bike ( BMW )
Am I supposed to care?
Answer to all of those: No. I don't care, and I'm willing to bet no one else does either. Sorry, but big cars aren't going to help you win an argument on a physics forum. Try again.
Hey, this old frog-troll has prematurely exploded! - excellent stuff indeed.
Fantastic job, agent!
There is a point where the amount of light traveling from the approaching car is not enough for you to see the car with your naked eye, but the telescope focuses the light so you can see the car. Later when the car is closer it is now reflecting enough light for you to see it without it being focused.
Thanks buttershug
Yes Barakn, here we get to the point. You agree that I see that arriving car earlier or sooner when it is for exemple at 20 km. away using my telescope, whilst my normal eyes will see that car only when it arrives at about 1 km. from me.
So I see a " younger " car than you will see after a while because it still has to travel 19 km. before your eyes see it, so time goes on, it is getting older while travelling ....
Now : ( I'm fully conscious this is a pure theoretical discussion ) imagine that I see that car at 20 km. away with my telescope, we agree I see it much sooner than you do with your eyes, and it explodes in front of me looking in the telescope of course. I see that big explosion and I tell it to you, who are next to me, but you effectively see nothing at all and never will see anything at all because the car is exploded and cannot drive any longer. So maybe you will see some light from the explosion after a while, it still has to travel to your eyes, it still has all that distance to go from 20 km away to 1 km away where you could possibly see it with your eyes if the explosion was big enough.
So I saw that event before you, no ? So, of course that event happens for us at the SAME time, let's say at 12 o'clock did that car explode, but I'll see it at 12 o'clock and you will maybe see it at 12h3O or maybe never if the light from the explosion is too weak. See what I mean ? Do I not see that event sooner than you ?
NO a thousand times no.
You would both see it at the same time.
The only difference is you with the telescope would have the light focused more than the other person.
Think of the light as something physical. Think of it like little darts. you can't see it untill it reaches your eyes.
You can not see light that is 20km away, you can not see light that is 1 km away.
You can not see light that is 1 mm away. You can only see light that is in your eye.
rethinker
Yes, I have read his posts. Yes he is asking. But also yes he has been answered a few times with the same answer. If he asks again he will get the same answer. And that's when less patient people, out of frustration, will treat him the way he has been treated.
At some point his asking over and over again can be considered as a refusal to accept the knowledge of those answering him. Why bother asking if he isn't going to accept the answer? If he doesn't like the answer then he can go to a place like How Stuff Works, look up telescopes, get the same answer and see why they gave it to him.
Where is the confusion in that? I thought I was being nice, giving him suggestion on how to not get jumped. I even thanked his country for helping America out a long time ago.
By gosh and by golly, I was being nice!
Yes Barakn, here we get to the point. You agree that I see that arriving car earlier or sooner when it is for exemple at 20 km. away using my telescope, whilst my normal eyes will see that car only when it arrives at about 1 km. from me.
So I see a " younger " car than you will see after a while because it still has to travel 19 km. before your eyes see it, so time goes on, it is getting older while travelling ....
Now : ( I'm fully conscious this is a pure theoretical discussion ) imagine that I see that car at 20 km. away with my telescope, we agree I see it much sooner than you do with your eyes, and it explodes in front of me looking in the telescope of course. I see that big explosion and I tell it to you, who are next to me, but you effectively see nothing at all and never will see anything at all because the car is exploded and cannot drive any longer. So maybe you will see some light from the explosion after a while, it still has to travel to your eyes, it still has all that distance to go from 20 km away to 1 km away where you could possibly see it with your eyes if the explosion was big enough.
So I saw that event before you, no ? So, of course that event happens for us at the SAME time, let's say at 12 o'clock did that car explode, but I'll see it at 12 o'clock and you will maybe see it at 12h3O or maybe never if the light from the explosion is too weak. See what I mean ? Do I not see that event sooner than you ?
So, if a star explodes NOW AT THIS TIME MOMENT ON EART - IT MUST BE AT THIS VERY MOMENT NOW - and I look with my eyes I'll see it happen 8 years later, if it is at 8 lightyears from us. If I look thru a very strong telescope ( looking in a telescope is looking into the past but here there is no past yet because it happens NOW in space ... ) I will see it maybe within 4 years, or 3 years depends of the strongness of the telescope ..... and theoretically if the telescope is very very strong it should be possible to see it NOW happening also .....
Where is my error ?
Where is my " logical " error ?
george,
i think i understand your confusion. here's my interpretation of what you're saying; that if a planet explodes and light and pieces of the planet(cars) fly in all directions, that you looking through a telescope will see the pieces before i see them with my naked eyes. Thus you are saying that you will see something before i do, not letting you look into the past, but simply seeing something sooner then I.
this is very simple, of course you will see it sooner, because you're using powerful magnification tools to give your eyes a leg up in seeing the planet pieces. after a while i might be able to see the pieces, of course they will be older then when you first saw them through your telescope because time has passed since when you were able to recognize them, and when i was able to. now we both see it, and time did not change, so we both see the same thing. This is not you looking into the past, this is simply my eyes not being strong enough to see as far away as your telescope can see. actually saying 'as far away as' may be confusing. in other words my eyes aren't strong enough to see the planet exploding so far away. i'll explain this as well, photons act as waves, so imagine a wave of photons, being this image of an explosion, coming towards us. my small eye, will only get hit with a small bit of those photons, and my small eye lens will focus what little photons it receives into an image i can register in my mind. so i may see this small explosion that i can barely make out in the sky. you on the other hand will be using a telescope, and the lens on a telescope is much larger, it's just like having a huge eyeball. your telescope's lens will catch and converge more photons, giving you a bigger piece of the wave of photons making up the image. so you'll see this monstrous huge explosion in more detail then i. the wave is still hitting us both at the same time.
but imagine that we're both looking at the planet about to explode, but that i can see it very well, because it's now closer. obviously you can see it too, and through your telescope you can see the surface and all these things i can't see on the planet with my naked eye. now the planet explodes, you and i will both see it explode at approximately the same time, no matter how powerful your telescope is. this is because the image of the planet exploding reaches both of our eyes at approximately the same time, the wave of photons will go into your telescope lens and converge onto your eye, giving you more photons than how many i'll be getting. But like i said, we'll be getting them at approximately same time. you simply have a more detailed and focused image than I. then chunks of the planet are flying through space, and you look through your telescope and tell me there's a big chunk headed towards earth. i won't be able to see it, but when it gets close enough i will. i simply won't be able to see it at the same time as you because i don't have super big and powerful eyeballs that can focus on something so far away, that's why we use telescopes. it's seeing something 'sooner' relative to us two, but only because my eyes aren't strong enough to see it by themselves, not because you're receiving the image before me.
it's not as if you'll see the explosion, then i'll see the explosion later, no if my eyes can't pick up the explosion then i won't see it at all, or it will be small to me and harder to see. but it will be shown to us at the same time, you simply have a more powerful tool, and it will be easier for you to see it.
in short-
you would not see it happen before me, i simply don't have the power to see it without help of a telescope as well.
so you're mixing two different things, the ability of the human eye to be able to see things, and the time of actual occurrence of the event.
if a meteor was heading towards earth, and you saw it through your super powerful telescope before anyone else did because no one else had telescopes, the light is bouncing off the meteor and hitting your eye, just like it's hitting all our eyes. your eyes have the telescope, so you can just make out something that we can't. it's there either way.
light is not like a car, if light is constantly coming to us, and you want to see the light 4 minutes towards us on its 8 minute journey, how would you be able to see past the photons and image hitting you now? and how would you be able to see the light 4 minutes away without breaking the speed of light in visualizing it? if light is the speed limit, how could you observe it in coming towards us? it's hard to understand for some people to understand it's the limit.
the car doesn't have to hit your eye in order for you to see it, because it's not traveling at the speed of light. using a car is kind of a bad example, saying the car IS traveling at the speed of light makes it much more confusing. you can't see an object with telescope or eye if light is not being reflected off of it, into your eye to absorb. so how are you going to see a car coming towards you when it's traveling at the same speed as the light thats bringing you the image? the light being the image, has to hit our eye for us to see it. does that make sense?
on a side note:
the reason i said approximately earlier is because,
if you wanted to get really technical you would actually see the planet exploding after i would, because the glass in your telescope would slow light down, making you see it just a wee bit after me ;P
anyway there you go
Am I supposed to care?
QUOTE
I have all the money I want
Am I supposed to care?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| I have all the money I want |
Am I supposed to care?
a nice wife
Am I supposed to care?
QUOTE
a good car
Am I supposed to care?
QUOTE (->
| QUOTE |
| a good car |
Am I supposed to care?
a big bike ( BMW )
Am I supposed to care?
Answer to all of those: No. I don't care, and I'm willing to bet no one else does either. Sorry, but big cars aren't going to help you win an argument on a physics forum. Try again.
QUOTE (Agent X20+May 18 2008, 01:14 PM)
Is ingestion of ones testicles a new exotic french dish?
Damnit, I embarrassed myself in front of family when I read this.
Capering about, laughing until I fell down, they were seriously considering calling for help!
But, I'm easily amused...
Damnit, I embarrassed myself in front of family when I read this.
Capering about, laughing until I fell down, they were seriously considering calling for help!
But, I'm easily amused...
QUOTE (Agent X20+May 18 2008, 09:22 PM)
Hey, this old frog-troll has prematurely exploded! - excellent stuff indeed. Fantastic job, agent!
QUOTE (barakn+May 18 2008, 10:22 PM)
This is the first time I've seen anyone think that because an instrument (telescope, microscope, magnifying glass, etc.) magnifies an image, making it appear bigger, somehow the instrument has magically brought the viewer closer to the object being imaged. This is absurdly and patently false.
Edit: This is not exactly what George thinks, but its probably part of the reasoning process that brought him around to thinking that simply because an image has been magnified somehow the photons are arriving faster.
I NEVER said that it brought the viewer closer, never, should be ridiculous ! If you read what I said, if you compare the arriving light with an arriving car : with my eyes I can just see the car when it is at for exemple 1 km. away from me, but with a telescope maybe I can already see it arriving when it is at 10 km. from me, so I see the car/light SOONER than with my eyes or no ????? and yes so I see more light because I also see light that already did not arrive on earth ....
I also surely DO NOT think the fotons arrive faster, that is impossible, they still will arrive at the same time they always did just as the car doesn't arrive faster because I see it arrive when it is at 10 km. with my telescope instead of 1 km. with my eyes !
Edit: This is not exactly what George thinks, but its probably part of the reasoning process that brought him around to thinking that simply because an image has been magnified somehow the photons are arriving faster.
I NEVER said that it brought the viewer closer, never, should be ridiculous ! If you read what I said, if you compare the arriving light with an arriving car : with my eyes I can just see the car when it is at for exemple 1 km. away from me, but with a telescope maybe I can already see it arriving when it is at 10 km. from me, so I see the car/light SOONER than with my eyes or no ????? and yes so I see more light because I also see light that already did not arrive on earth ....
I also surely DO NOT think the fotons arrive faster, that is impossible, they still will arrive at the same time they always did just as the car doesn't arrive faster because I see it arrive when it is at 10 km. with my telescope instead of 1 km. with my eyes !
Hi George,
By using a telescope that is so much more powerful that you can see the "Man in the Star", that means you can also see a different star further away with the old "can't see the man in the star" resolution. This is a better analogy to seeing a car further away, I believe. Do you get the difference?
Re-read rpenner's response and his links to really understand your misconceptions stated in all your posts.
Peace,
Ron
Aside: If you step back and read X's responses without it being personal, he is one funny SOB, no?
By using a telescope that is so much more powerful that you can see the "Man in the Star", that means you can also see a different star further away with the old "can't see the man in the star" resolution. This is a better analogy to seeing a car further away, I believe. Do you get the difference?
Re-read rpenner's response and his links to really understand your misconceptions stated in all your posts.
Peace,
Ron
Aside: If you step back and read X's responses without it being personal, he is one funny SOB, no?
Hey guys, I think we are being a bit hard on the frog. Just because he s french. It's not like he can help that. He's also not very bright. Maybe that is also because he is french.
QUOTE (N O M+May 19 2008, 08:38 PM)
Hey guys, I think we are being a bit hard on the frog. Just because he s french. It's not like he can help that. He's also not very bright. Maybe that is also because he is french.
My Daddy thinks French people suck, what does that mean?
My Daddy thinks French people suck, what does that mean?
QUOTE (george+May 18 2008, 01:53 PM)
It will always need 8 minutes to arrive on earth, that's for sure, but will I see it sooner ?
No. A telescope does not allow you to see into the future.
If it takes 8 minutes for the light to reach the Earth, and we assume the telescope is on the Earth... then it's going to take 8 minutes for the light to reach the lens of the telescope.
Duh!
No. A telescope does not allow you to see into the future.
If it takes 8 minutes for the light to reach the Earth, and we assume the telescope is on the Earth... then it's going to take 8 minutes for the light to reach the lens of the telescope.
Duh!
You guys making fun of him don't understand at all what he is saying or why is wrong.
George, the difference in the two situations is that in viewing the sun, only the light is moving towards you.
In the car example it is moving towards you.
There is a point where the amount of light traveling from the approaching car is not enough for you to see the car with your naked eye, but the telescope focuses the light so you can see the car. Later when the car is closer it is now reflecting enough light for you to see it without it being focused.
Suppose the car has a sign that shows the distance from you.
And say when you look with the telescope it says 100.
And when you can see it, it says 50.
Basically the light you see from the car with your eyes left the car later than the light that left the car when you can see it with the telescope.
George, the difference in the two situations is that in viewing the sun, only the light is moving towards you.
In the car example it is moving towards you.
There is a point where the amount of light traveling from the approaching car is not enough for you to see the car with your naked eye, but the telescope focuses the light so you can see the car. Later when the car is closer it is now reflecting enough light for you to see it without it being focused.
Suppose the car has a sign that shows the distance from you.
And say when you look with the telescope it says 100.
And when you can see it, it says 50.
Basically the light you see from the car with your eyes left the car later than the light that left the car when you can see it with the telescope.
I think also George is toying with the idea of seeing into the past.
If we see a star explode, the event has taken place. We see it so many light years after.
If George happens to be looking through his very powerful telescope three days ago he sees the event happen. However others without his telescope sees it happen three days after George.
George is simply asking questions about time and space, and is completely sane.
Who was that guy that was always studying this stuff??
If we see a star explode, the event has taken place. We see it so many light years after.
If George happens to be looking through his very powerful telescope three days ago he sees the event happen. However others without his telescope sees it happen three days after George.
George is simply asking questions about time and space, and is completely sane.
Who was that guy that was always studying this stuff??
QUOTE (Sec+May 20 2008, 08:56 AM)
My Daddy thinks French people suck, what does that mean?
Um... maybe he was referring to their "success" in the last couple of world wars
Um... maybe he was referring to their "success" in the last couple of world wars
QUOTE (buttershug+May 19 2008, 06:40 PM)
There is a point where the amount of light traveling from the approaching car is not enough for you to see the car with your naked eye, but the telescope focuses the light so you can see the car. Later when the car is closer it is now reflecting enough light for you to see it without it being focused.
Thanks buttershug
QUOTE (rethinker+May 20 2008, 12:07 AM)
If George happens to be looking through his very powerful telescope three days ago he sees the event happen. However others without his telescope sees it happen three days after George.
So you're saying that it takes george 3 days to get his telescope pictures to the masses?
It actually makes sense when you look at it that way.
Seriously though... george is not going to see the event 3 days earlier than people without his telescope, he'll just see it more clearly and in more detail.
unless george is 3 light-days out in space in the direction of the star, however thats just silly.
So you're saying that it takes george 3 days to get his telescope pictures to the masses?
It actually makes sense when you look at it that way.
Seriously though... george is not going to see the event 3 days earlier than people without his telescope, he'll just see it more clearly and in more detail.
unless george is 3 light-days out in space in the direction of the star, however thats just silly.
QUOTE (Junglistanium+May 19 2008, 09:50 PM)
So you're saying that it takes george 3 days to get his telescope pictures to the masses?
It actually makes sense when you look at it that way.
Seriously though... george is not going to see the event 3 days earlier than people without his telescope, he'll just see it more clearly and in more detail.
unless george is 3 light-days out in space in the direction of the star, however thats just silly.
I see!
This may be where he has a misconception.
Rethinking this, from his point of view (pun intended),he is 3 light days ahead of everyone else. With his exceptionally powerful telescope, he may be suggesting that because of the power it has, he indeed is this far from earth.
Now can you point out my misconception on this?
It actually makes sense when you look at it that way.
Seriously though... george is not going to see the event 3 days earlier than people without his telescope, he'll just see it more clearly and in more detail.
unless george is 3 light-days out in space in the direction of the star, however thats just silly.
I see!
This may be where he has a misconception.
Rethinking this, from his point of view (pun intended),he is 3 light days ahead of everyone else. With his exceptionally powerful telescope, he may be suggesting that because of the power it has, he indeed is this far from earth.
Now can you point out my misconception on this?
a telescope only magnifies it will only get light faster than your eye because its a few feet away from your eye lol. the difference from the telescope and your eye isnt even noticeable because it is only a few feet. if your eyes were as powerful as the telescope, it would be the same thing but since our eyes are so much weaker and our eyes cannot make a big picture out of a tiny dot so we can scrutinize and see detail, then it is impossible.
QUOTE (Junglistanium+May 20 2008, 02:50 AM)
So you're saying that it takes george 3 days to get his telescope pictures to the masses?
It actually makes sense when you look at it that way.
Seriously though... george is not going to see the event 3 days earlier than people without his telescope, he'll just see it more clearly and in more detail.
unless george is 3 light-days out in space in the direction of the star, however thats just silly.
But this is where people are misunderstanding his misunderstanding.
In his description of the car he was not talking about seeing an event.
He was talking about seeing a moving object.
Think of Sudden Impact, or Armageddon.
It actually makes sense when you look at it that way.
Seriously though... george is not going to see the event 3 days earlier than people without his telescope, he'll just see it more clearly and in more detail.
unless george is 3 light-days out in space in the direction of the star, however thats just silly.
But this is where people are misunderstanding his misunderstanding.
In his description of the car he was not talking about seeing an event.
He was talking about seeing a moving object.
Think of Sudden Impact, or Armageddon.
Answer to question at the start of the thread: You see what you would see with the telescope, duh? Your in current time. Everything is constant. 
Your in current time. Everything is constant.
well I'm still rethinking all this. Every answer is interesting, but I feel I'm still not knowing where my logical error should be.
I'm speeking about a very big telescope, yet not existing but .... theory should work for a normal one too ...
1/ I do compare the arriving light from that just exploding star at 8 lightyears from us, with a car arriving very fast to me, the world, at 300.000 km/s.
2/ WITH MY EYES ( they are what they are, I mean we got our senses by nature, so .. ) I will see that explosion, that amount of light arriving - that car, 8 years after the explosion.
3/ now : with my eyes only I can see a car arriving when it is at about 1 km. away from me, otherwise it is much too far away.
4/ I take my telescope and now I can see that car arriving when it is at 20 km. away from me, SO, DO I NOT SEE THAT CAR SOONER THAN WITHOUT MY TELESCOPE ?
You have to agree that I see that car much sooner than with my poor naked eyes, so I'll see that car arriving much sooner than you do with your eyes no ? you will see it when it is at 1 km. away, I'll see it when it is at 20 km. away .. no error ?
So I'll see the arriving light SOONER with a telescope than with my eyes, I'll also see light ( cars ) that yet is NOT arrived on earth because it still has a long way to go before arriving here at my EYES ..... but with my telescope .....
I surely say that the light still has 8 years to go before arriving on earth, distance is the same, speed still the same, but I'm sure that I see it sooner with the telescope than with my eyes, so looking thru a telescope should permit us to see " younger " light.
I'm speeking about a very big telescope, yet not existing but .... theory should work for a normal one too ...
1/ I do compare the arriving light from that just exploding star at 8 lightyears from us, with a car arriving very fast to me, the world, at 300.000 km/s.
2/ WITH MY EYES ( they are what they are, I mean we got our senses by nature, so .. ) I will see that explosion, that amount of light arriving - that car, 8 years after the explosion.
3/ now : with my eyes only I can see a car arriving when it is at about 1 km. away from me, otherwise it is much too far away.
4/ I take my telescope and now I can see that car arriving when it is at 20 km. away from me, SO, DO I NOT SEE THAT CAR SOONER THAN WITHOUT MY TELESCOPE ?
You have to agree that I see that car much sooner than with my poor naked eyes, so I'll see that car arriving much sooner than you do with your eyes no ? you will see it when it is at 1 km. away, I'll see it when it is at 20 km. away .. no error ?
So I'll see the arriving light SOONER with a telescope than with my eyes, I'll also see light ( cars ) that yet is NOT arrived on earth because it still has a long way to go before arriving here at my EYES ..... but with my telescope .....
I surely say that the light still has 8 years to go before arriving on earth, distance is the same, speed still the same, but I'm sure that I see it sooner with the telescope than with my eyes, so looking thru a telescope should permit us to see " younger " light.
Hi Everybody
Non scientist here so bear with me.
I thought the light that reaches your eye through the telescope is already available to the naked eye, its just that the naked eye cant focus it, so the telescope focuses it for us, meaning that the light, regarless of distance from source, must already have arrived here for us to see.
Ergo, it would be impossible for george to see into the past.
What he may be able to see is light from a smaller or further away object, again which is already here, but is too small for the naked eye to focus.
With the car analogy, the car remains where it is on its journey regardless of whether george has a telescope or not, he can just see it earlier because the telescope focuses the view unavailable to his naked eye.
Is that how it works?
Henry
Non scientist here so bear with me.
I thought the light that reaches your eye through the telescope is already available to the naked eye, its just that the naked eye cant focus it, so the telescope focuses it for us, meaning that the light, regarless of distance from source, must already have arrived here for us to see.
Ergo, it would be impossible for george to see into the past.
What he may be able to see is light from a smaller or further away object, again which is already here, but is too small for the naked eye to focus.
With the car analogy, the car remains where it is on its journey regardless of whether george has a telescope or not, he can just see it earlier because the telescope focuses the view unavailable to his naked eye.
Is that how it works?
Henry
george. It's because a telescope temprarily makes you more intelligent. Normally it takes several hours for a thought to get through your thick skull membranes, but a telescope shortcuts this process.
I recommend you rivet a telescope permanently to your forehead. It's your only chance of a normal life.
I recommend you rivet a telescope permanently to your forehead. It's your only chance of a normal life.
In Columbo style, one more thing......
If the car (impossible I know, but bear with me) was the thing travelling at the speed of light, and you had your telescope, coming from 8 light years away, you would not be able to see it on its journey, it would simply hit you at the moment you could possibly see it, telescope or not.
It is surely impossible to 'see light earlier in it journey' if we can see it , it is here.
Is that right?
Henry
QUOTE
So I'll see the arriving light SOONER with a telescope than with my eyes, I'll also see light ( cars ) that yet is NOT arrived on earth because it still has a long way to go before arriving here at my EYES ..... but with my telescope .....
I surely say that the light still has 8 years to go before arriving on earth, distance is the same, speed still the same, but I'm sure that I see it sooner with the telescope than with my eyes, so looking thru a telescope should permit us to see " younger " light.
I surely say that the light still has 8 years to go before arriving on earth, distance is the same, speed still the same, but I'm sure that I see it sooner with the telescope than with my eyes, so looking thru a telescope should permit us to see " younger " light.
If the car (impossible I know, but bear with me) was the thing travelling at the speed of light, and you had your telescope, coming from 8 light years away, you would not be able to see it on its journey, it would simply hit you at the moment you could possibly see it, telescope or not.
It is surely impossible to 'see light earlier in it journey' if we can see it , it is here.
Is that right?
Henry
Your right Henry. The eye doesn't see the light, but the telescope does in real time. We are talking distance traveled as the barrier here.
QUOTE (Henry Clerval+May 23 2008, 08:14 AM)
Hi Everybody
Non scientist here so bear with me.
With the car analogy, the car remains where it is on its journey regardless of whether george has a telescope or not, he can just see it earlier because the telescope focuses the view unavailable to his naked eye.
Is that how it works?
Henry
It is slightly misleading to say "the car remains where it is".
I'm sure you mean the position of the car is not affected by whether it is viewed with the telescope or not.
But the way you worded it makes it sound like the car is stationary.
Non scientist here so bear with me.
With the car analogy, the car remains where it is on its journey regardless of whether george has a telescope or not, he can just see it earlier because the telescope focuses the view unavailable to his naked eye.
Is that how it works?
Henry
It is slightly misleading to say "the car remains where it is".
I'm sure you mean the position of the car is not affected by whether it is viewed with the telescope or not.
But the way you worded it makes it sound like the car is stationary.
QUOTE (george+May 23 2008, 04:57 AM)
well I'm still rethinking all this. Every answer is interesting, but I feel I'm still not knowing where my logical error should be.
I'm speeking about a very big telescope, yet not existing but .... theory should work for a normal one too ...
1/ I do compare the arriving light from that just exploding star at 8 lightyears from us, with a car arriving very fast to me, the world, at 300.000 km/s.
2/ WITH MY EYES ( they are what they are, I mean we got our senses by nature, so .. ) I will see that explosion, that amount of light arriving - that car, 8 years after the explosion.
3/ now : with my eyes only I can see a car arriving when it is at about 1 km. away from me, otherwise it is much too far away.
4/ I take my telescope and now I can see that car arriving when it is at 20 km. away from me, SO, DO I NOT SEE THAT CAR SOONER THAN WITHOUT MY TELESCOPE ?
You have to agree that I see that car much sooner than with my poor naked eyes, so I'll see that car arriving much sooner than you do with your eyes no ? you will see it when it is at 1 km. away, I'll see it when it is at 20 km. away .. no error ?
So I'll see the arriving light SOONER with a telescope than with my eyes, I'll also see light ( cars ) that yet is NOT arrived on earth because it still has a long way to go before arriving here at my EYES ..... but with my telescope .....
I surely say that the light still has 8 years to go before arriving on earth, distance is the same, speed still the same, but I'm sure that I see it sooner with the telescope than with my eyes, so looking thru a telescope should permit us to see " younger " light.
Now I finally see where you are coming from. Be careful not to compare an event with an object. The car in your example is the same car at 20 km. as at 1 km. You can see the car sooner with the telescope because of the limited optical capabilities of your eyes. However, imagine that the car waves a white flag momentarily. It does so when only 1 km. away. You could see this event with your eyes or with your telescope. Perhaps you have a pair of observers, one with a telescope and one without. Both will see the flag at the same time. If the car flashed its light at 20 km., it would be entirely different. The individual with the telescope would see the flag and the individual without wouldn't see it at all. So its not that the telescope sees the event sooner - it sees the event and the naked-eye viewer does not see it at all.
So yes, the telescope allows you to resolve events that are farther away and therefore that are earlier in time, but it does not allow you to view an event sooner than another viewer at the same location views the event.
I'm speeking about a very big telescope, yet not existing but .... theory should work for a normal one too ...
1/ I do compare the arriving light from that just exploding star at 8 lightyears from us, with a car arriving very fast to me, the world, at 300.000 km/s.
2/ WITH MY EYES ( they are what they are, I mean we got our senses by nature, so .. ) I will see that explosion, that amount of light arriving - that car, 8 years after the explosion.
3/ now : with my eyes only I can see a car arriving when it is at about 1 km. away from me, otherwise it is much too far away.
4/ I take my telescope and now I can see that car arriving when it is at 20 km. away from me, SO, DO I NOT SEE THAT CAR SOONER THAN WITHOUT MY TELESCOPE ?
You have to agree that I see that car much sooner than with my poor naked eyes, so I'll see that car arriving much sooner than you do with your eyes no ? you will see it when it is at 1 km. away, I'll see it when it is at 20 km. away .. no error ?
So I'll see the arriving light SOONER with a telescope than with my eyes, I'll also see light ( cars ) that yet is NOT arrived on earth because it still has a long way to go before arriving here at my EYES ..... but with my telescope .....
I surely say that the light still has 8 years to go before arriving on earth, distance is the same, speed still the same, but I'm sure that I see it sooner with the telescope than with my eyes, so looking thru a telescope should permit us to see " younger " light.
Now I finally see where you are coming from. Be careful not to compare an event with an object. The car in your example is the same car at 20 km. as at 1 km. You can see the car sooner with the telescope because of the limited optical capabilities of your eyes. However, imagine that the car waves a white flag momentarily. It does so when only 1 km. away. You could see this event with your eyes or with your telescope. Perhaps you have a pair of observers, one with a telescope and one without. Both will see the flag at the same time. If the car flashed its light at 20 km., it would be entirely different. The individual with the telescope would see the flag and the individual without wouldn't see it at all. So its not that the telescope sees the event sooner - it sees the event and the naked-eye viewer does not see it at all.
So yes, the telescope allows you to resolve events that are farther away and therefore that are earlier in time, but it does not allow you to view an event sooner than another viewer at the same location views the event.
This is what I said in one line.
George, you "see" light when it causes a photochemical reaction in your eyes.
The photon of light has to be in your eye for you to "see" it.
The telescope doesn't change that. All it does is focus spaced out photons closer together. At one end of the telescope two photons might be two centimeters apart then the telescope makes them 2 milimeters apart to hit your eye. But the point is the light photons are in your eye when you percieve them.
The photon of light has to be in your eye for you to "see" it.
The telescope doesn't change that. All it does is focus spaced out photons closer together. At one end of the telescope two photons might be two centimeters apart then the telescope makes them 2 milimeters apart to hit your eye. But the point is the light photons are in your eye when you percieve them.
Correct buttershug. The light hits the eyes when the time traveled is exhausted.
does dark have a speed like light
QUOTE (george+May 23 2008, 04:57 AM)
I surely say that the light still has 8 years to go before arriving on earth, distance is the same, speed still the same, but I'm sure that I see it sooner with the telescope than with my eyes, so looking thru a telescope should permit us to see " younger " light.
Inspector Clouless.
Inspector Clouless.
QUOTE (Sec+May 24 2008, 02:47 AM)
Inspector Clouless.
QUOTE (barakn+May 23 2008, 07:31 PM)
Quote Barakn : oh yes, the telescope allows you to resolve events that are farther away and therefore that are earlier in time, but it does not allow you to view an event sooner than another viewer at the same location views the event.
Yes Barakn, here we get to the point. You agree that I see that arriving car earlier or sooner when it is for exemple at 20 km. away using my telescope, whilst my normal eyes will see that car only when it arrives at about 1 km. from me.
So I see a " younger " car than you will see after a while because it still has to travel 19 km. before your eyes see it, so time goes on, it is getting older while travelling ....
Now : ( I'm fully conscious this is a pure theoretical discussion ) imagine that I see that car at 20 km. away with my telescope, we agree I see it much sooner than you do with your eyes, and it explodes in front of me looking in the telescope of course. I see that big explosion and I tell it to you, who are next to me, but you effectively see nothing at all and never will see anything at all because the car is exploded and cannot drive any longer. So maybe you will see some light from the explosion after a while, it still has to travel to your eyes, it still has all that distance to go from 20 km away to 1 km away where you could possibly see it with your eyes if the explosion was big enough.
So I saw that event before you, no ? So, of course that event happens for us at the SAME time, let's say at 12 o'clock did that car explode, but I'll see it at 12 o'clock and you will maybe see it at 12h3O or maybe never if the light from the explosion is too weak. See what I mean ? Do I not see that event sooner than you ?
So, if a star explodes NOW AT THIS TIME MOMENT ON EART - IT MUST BE AT THIS VERY MOMENT NOW - and I look with my eyes I'll see it happen 8 years later, if it is at 8 lightyears from us. If I look thru a very strong telescope ( looking in a telescope is looking into the past but here there is no past yet because it happens NOW in space ... ) I will see it maybe within 4 years, or 3 years depends of the strongness of the telescope ..... and theoretically if the telescope is very very strong it should be possible to see it NOW happening also .....
Where is my error ?
Where is my " logical " error ?
Yes Barakn, here we get to the point. You agree that I see that arriving car earlier or sooner when it is for exemple at 20 km. away using my telescope, whilst my normal eyes will see that car only when it arrives at about 1 km. from me.
So I see a " younger " car than you will see after a while because it still has to travel 19 km. before your eyes see it, so time goes on, it is getting older while travelling ....
Now : ( I'm fully conscious this is a pure theoretical discussion ) imagine that I see that car at 20 km. away with my telescope, we agree I see it much sooner than you do with your eyes, and it explodes in front of me looking in the telescope of course. I see that big explosion and I tell it to you, who are next to me, but you effectively see nothing at all and never will see anything at all because the car is exploded and cannot drive any longer. So maybe you will see some light from the explosion after a while, it still has to travel to your eyes, it still has all that distance to go from 20 km away to 1 km away where you could possibly see it with your eyes if the explosion was big enough.
So I saw that event before you, no ? So, of course that event happens for us at the SAME time, let's say at 12 o'clock did that car explode, but I'll see it at 12 o'clock and you will maybe see it at 12h3O or maybe never if the light from the explosion is too weak. See what I mean ? Do I not see that event sooner than you ?
So, if a star explodes NOW AT THIS TIME MOMENT ON EART - IT MUST BE AT THIS VERY MOMENT NOW - and I look with my eyes I'll see it happen 8 years later, if it is at 8 lightyears from us. If I look thru a very strong telescope ( looking in a telescope is looking into the past but here there is no past yet because it happens NOW in space ... ) I will see it maybe within 4 years, or 3 years depends of the strongness of the telescope ..... and theoretically if the telescope is very very strong it should be possible to see it NOW happening also .....
Where is my error ?
Where is my " logical " error ?
QUOTE (george+May 24 2008, 06:33 AM)
Where is my " logical " error ?
Easy, frog-spawn - you confuse what you can't perceive visually as not @ present existing.
Recommendation: Stop eating that stinky cheese /sausage /27th rate wine (Auzzie stuff is tops) - change ones diet to a (full monty): English breakfast, roast beef/ fish and chips and real ale, and startlingly enough you'll suddenly wake up from your sick-minded a la nightmare.
Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves ...... etc
Easy, frog-spawn - you confuse what you can't perceive visually as not @ present existing.
Recommendation: Stop eating that stinky cheese /sausage /27th rate wine (Auzzie stuff is tops) - change ones diet to a (full monty): English breakfast, roast beef/ fish and chips and real ale, and startlingly enough you'll suddenly wake up from your sick-minded a la nightmare.
Rule Britannia, Britannia rules the waves ...... etc
QUOTE (george+May 24 2008, 06:33 AM)
Yes Barakn, here we get to the point. You agree that I see that arriving car earlier or sooner when it is for exemple at 20 km. away using my telescope, whilst my normal eyes will see that car only when it arrives at about 1 km. from me.
So I see a " younger " car than you will see after a while because it still has to travel 19 km. before your eyes see it, so time goes on, it is getting older while travelling ....
Now : ( I'm fully conscious this is a pure theoretical discussion ) imagine that I see that car at 20 km. away with my telescope, we agree I see it much sooner than you do with your eyes, and it explodes in front of me looking in the telescope of course. I see that big explosion and I tell it to you, who are next to me, but you effectively see nothing at all and never will see anything at all because the car is exploded and cannot drive any longer. So maybe you will see some light from the explosion after a while, it still has to travel to your eyes, it still has all that distance to go from 20 km away to 1 km away where you could possibly see it with your eyes if the explosion was big enough.
So I saw that event before you, no ? So, of course that event happens for us at the SAME time, let's say at 12 o'clock did that car explode, but I'll see it at 12 o'clock and you will maybe see it at 12h3O or maybe never if the light from the explosion is too weak. See what I mean ? Do I not see that event sooner than you ?
NO a thousand times no.
You would both see it at the same time.
The only difference is you with the telescope would have the light focused more than the other person.
Think of the light as something physical. Think of it like little darts. you can't see it untill it reaches your eyes.
You can not see light that is 20km away, you can not see light that is 1 km away.
You can not see light that is 1 mm away. You can only see light that is in your eye.
george
A telescope doesnt let you see something sooner. It lets you see more of the light coming from it or bouncing off of it.
A person jumps out of an airplane. You and a friend are next to each other looking at him as he goes out of the airplane. Your friend looks at him with his eyes, you look at him with a telescope. Your friend and you will see him at the same time but your friend will only see a little spot in the sky, you will see his arms and legs and the scared look on his face. The light from him comes to your friends eyes and and the telescope at the same time, that's why you can both see something. But you see more detail about the person because the telescope catches more light then your friends eyes do.
You might be confusing what is meant when a better telescope goes on line and the newspapers say that astronomers can see further back in time. To understand that you really should listen to the people who directed you to places where you can find the information. How Stuff Works is a good place to find some of it.
There is a temptation to just ask somebody for an answer instead of doing the work required to find out for yourself. That's fine, everybody does it. But you shouldn't insist that you are right or that they don't understand what you mean when they say you are wrong. It's not polite and you will start attracting less patient people as I'm sure you found out.
By the way, if you are French thanks for the help during our Revolution. Some historians say we wouldn't have been successful without it.
A telescope doesnt let you see something sooner. It lets you see more of the light coming from it or bouncing off of it.
A person jumps out of an airplane. You and a friend are next to each other looking at him as he goes out of the airplane. Your friend looks at him with his eyes, you look at him with a telescope. Your friend and you will see him at the same time but your friend will only see a little spot in the sky, you will see his arms and legs and the scared look on his face. The light from him comes to your friends eyes and and the telescope at the same time, that's why you can both see something. But you see more detail about the person because the telescope catches more light then your friends eyes do.
You might be confusing what is meant when a better telescope goes on line and the newspapers say that astronomers can see further back in time. To understand that you really should listen to the people who directed you to places where you can find the information. How Stuff Works is a good place to find some of it.
There is a temptation to just ask somebody for an answer instead of doing the work required to find out for yourself. That's fine, everybody does it. But you shouldn't insist that you are right or that they don't understand what you mean when they say you are wrong. It's not polite and you will start attracting less patient people as I'm sure you found out.
By the way, if you are French thanks for the help during our Revolution. Some historians say we wouldn't have been successful without it.
[QUOTE=orestis,May 24 2008, 04:19 AM] george
[QUOTE] A telescope doesnt let you see something sooner. It lets you see more of the light coming from it or bouncing off of it.[/QUOTE]
I agree that you are just seeing it farther away, and not sooner in time. To see it sooner, you would have to be jumping forward in time.
[QUOTE]A person jumps out of an airplane. You and a friend are next to each other looking at him as he goes out of the airplane. Your friend looks at him with his eyes, you look at him with a telescope. Your friend and you will see him at the same time but your friend will only see a little spot in the sky,[/QUOTE]
(depends on how far the jumper has fallen)
[/QUOTE]your friend may not see the jumper at all if he fall out of his sight. However George can still see the jumper through his telescope.
you will see his arms and legs and the scared look on his face. The light from him comes to your friends eyes and and the telescope at the same time, that's why you can both see something. But you see more detail about the person because the telescope catches more light then your friends eyes do.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
You might be confusing what is meant when a better telescope goes on line and the newspapers say that astronomers can see further back in time.
To understand that you really should listen to the people who directed you to places where you can find the information. How Stuff Works is a good place to find some of it.[/QUOTE]
Here you say listen to others
[QUOTE]There is a temptation to just ask somebody for an answer instead of doing the work required to find out for yourself. That's fine, everybody does it.[QUOTE]
Here you say don't ask others
I have met school teachers who did not want students asking questions. I think you should ask questions, and this is a good place to ask them.
[QUOTE]But you shouldn't insist that you are right or that they don't understand what you mean when they say you are wrong. George never insisted he was right.
It's not polite and you will start attracting less patient people as I'm sure you found out.[/QUOTE]
Have you read this topic?
Is that what you get from his topic? Your final response is >(It's not polite)< Reading his posts would help. He is asking!! to understand and enjoy discussion looking at perceptions of peoples ideas. How can you judge this as impolite or wrong to be asking questions on a forum.
You seem very confused.
[QUOTE]By the way, if you are French thanks for the help during our Revolution. Some historians say we wouldn't have been successful without it. [/QUOTE]
orestis
You seem to miss the point of forum discussions in simple questions by george.
[QUOTE] A telescope doesnt let you see something sooner. It lets you see more of the light coming from it or bouncing off of it.[/QUOTE]
I agree that you are just seeing it farther away, and not sooner in time. To see it sooner, you would have to be jumping forward in time.
[QUOTE]A person jumps out of an airplane. You and a friend are next to each other looking at him as he goes out of the airplane. Your friend looks at him with his eyes, you look at him with a telescope. Your friend and you will see him at the same time but your friend will only see a little spot in the sky,[/QUOTE]
(depends on how far the jumper has fallen)
[/QUOTE]your friend may not see the jumper at all if he fall out of his sight. However George can still see the jumper through his telescope.
you will see his arms and legs and the scared look on his face. The light from him comes to your friends eyes and and the telescope at the same time, that's why you can both see something. But you see more detail about the person because the telescope catches more light then your friends eyes do.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
You might be confusing what is meant when a better telescope goes on line and the newspapers say that astronomers can see further back in time.
To understand that you really should listen to the people who directed you to places where you can find the information. How Stuff Works is a good place to find some of it.[/QUOTE]
Here you say listen to others
[QUOTE]There is a temptation to just ask somebody for an answer instead of doing the work required to find out for yourself. That's fine, everybody does it.[QUOTE]
Here you say don't ask others
I have met school teachers who did not want students asking questions. I think you should ask questions, and this is a good place to ask them.
[QUOTE]But you shouldn't insist that you are right or that they don't understand what you mean when they say you are wrong. George never insisted he was right.
It's not polite and you will start attracting less patient people as I'm sure you found out.[/QUOTE]
Have you read this topic?
Is that what you get from his topic? Your final response is >(It's not polite)< Reading his posts would help. He is asking!! to understand and enjoy discussion looking at perceptions of peoples ideas. How can you judge this as impolite or wrong to be asking questions on a forum.
You seem very confused.
[QUOTE]By the way, if you are French thanks for the help during our Revolution. Some historians say we wouldn't have been successful without it. [/QUOTE]
orestis
You seem to miss the point of forum discussions in simple questions by george.
rethinker
Yes, I have read his posts. Yes he is asking. But also yes he has been answered a few times with the same answer. If he asks again he will get the same answer. And that's when less patient people, out of frustration, will treat him the way he has been treated.
At some point his asking over and over again can be considered as a refusal to accept the knowledge of those answering him. Why bother asking if he isn't going to accept the answer? If he doesn't like the answer then he can go to a place like How Stuff Works, look up telescopes, get the same answer and see why they gave it to him.
Where is the confusion in that? I thought I was being nice, giving him suggestion on how to not get jumped. I even thanked his country for helping America out a long time ago.
By gosh and by golly, I was being nice!
OK That's fair enough.
It is easy to misunderstand peoples thoughts using electronic typing.
I just did not like the idea of saying someone asking questions could ever be wrong.
People are confused all the time, and even though we have the answer in front of us, we can stay confused for long periods of time.
However thank you for restating your thoughts.
george's theory may not be perfect or correct, but his basic idea is on time and space, one of the all time favorites of science questions.
It is easy to misunderstand peoples thoughts using electronic typing.
I just did not like the idea of saying someone asking questions could ever be wrong.
People are confused all the time, and even though we have the answer in front of us, we can stay confused for long periods of time.
However thank you for restating your thoughts.
george's theory may not be perfect or correct, but his basic idea is on time and space, one of the all time favorites of science questions.
Hey Doc
I told you I was the God of influence
!
Love your new member title.
I told you I was the God of influence
!
Love your new member title.
QUOTE (rethinker+May 24 2008, 10:40 AM)
OK That's fair enough.
It is easy to misunderstand peoples thoughts using electronic typing.
I just did not like the idea of saying someone asking questions could ever be wrong.
People are confused all the time, and even though we have the answer in front of us, we can stay confused for long periods of time.
However thank you for restating your thoughts.
george's theory may not be perfect or correct, but his basic idea is on time and space, one of the all time favorites of science questions.
No, thank you. It means so much to me that you approve.
It is easy to misunderstand peoples thoughts using electronic typing.
I just did not like the idea of saying someone asking questions could ever be wrong.
People are confused all the time, and even though we have the answer in front of us, we can stay confused for long periods of time.
However thank you for restating your thoughts.
george's theory may not be perfect or correct, but his basic idea is on time and space, one of the all time favorites of science questions.
No, thank you. It means so much to me that you approve.
QUOTE (rethinker+May 24 2008, 02:43 PM)
Hey Doc
I told you I was the God of influence
!
Love your new member title.
I told you I was the God of influence
!
Love your new member title.
QUOTE (george+May 24 2008, 06:33 AM)
Yes Barakn, here we get to the point. You agree that I see that arriving car earlier or sooner when it is for exemple at 20 km. away using my telescope, whilst my normal eyes will see that car only when it arrives at about 1 km. from me.
So I see a " younger " car than you will see after a while because it still has to travel 19 km. before your eyes see it, so time goes on, it is getting older while travelling ....
Now : ( I'm fully conscious this is a pure theoretical discussion ) imagine that I see that car at 20 km. away with my telescope, we agree I see it much sooner than you do with your eyes, and it explodes in front of me looking in the telescope of course. I see that big explosion and I tell it to you, who are next to me, but you effectively see nothing at all and never will see anything at all because the car is exploded and cannot drive any longer. So maybe you will see some light from the explosion after a while, it still has to travel to your eyes, it still has all that distance to go from 20 km away to 1 km away where you could possibly see it with your eyes if the explosion was big enough.
So I saw that event before you, no ? So, of course that event happens for us at the SAME time, let's say at 12 o'clock did that car explode, but I'll see it at 12 o'clock and you will maybe see it at 12h3O or maybe never if the light from the explosion is too weak. See what I mean ? Do I not see that event sooner than you ?
So, if a star explodes NOW AT THIS TIME MOMENT ON EART - IT MUST BE AT THIS VERY MOMENT NOW - and I look with my eyes I'll see it happen 8 years later, if it is at 8 lightyears from us. If I look thru a very strong telescope ( looking in a telescope is looking into the past but here there is no past yet because it happens NOW in space ... ) I will see it maybe within 4 years, or 3 years depends of the strongness of the telescope ..... and theoretically if the telescope is very very strong it should be possible to see it NOW happening also .....
Where is my error ?
Where is my " logical " error ?
george,
i think i understand your confusion. here's my interpretation of what you're saying; that if a planet explodes and light and pieces of the planet(cars) fly in all directions, that you looking through a telescope will see the pieces before i see them with my naked eyes. Thus you are saying that you will see something before i do, not letting you look into the past, but simply seeing something sooner then I.
this is very simple, of course you will see it sooner, because you're using powerful magnification tools to give your eyes a leg up in seeing the planet pieces. after a while i might be able to see the pieces, of course they will be older then when you first saw them through your telescope because time has passed since when you were able to recognize them, and when i was able to. now we both see it, and time did not change, so we both see the same thing. This is not you looking into the past, this is simply my eyes not being strong enough to see as far away as your telescope can see. actually saying 'as far away as' may be confusing. in other words my eyes aren't strong enough to see the planet exploding so far away. i'll explain this as well, photons act as waves, so imagine a wave of photons, being this image of an explosion, coming towards us. my small eye, will only get hit with a small bit of those photons, and my small eye lens will focus what little photons it receives into an image i can register in my mind. so i may see this small explosion that i can barely make out in the sky. you on the other hand will be using a telescope, and the lens on a telescope is much larger, it's just like having a huge eyeball. your telescope's lens will catch and converge more photons, giving you a bigger piece of the wave of photons making up the image. so you'll see this monstrous huge explosion in more detail then i. the wave is still hitting us both at the same time.
but imagine that we're both looking at the planet about to explode, but that i can see it very well, because it's now closer. obviously you can see it too, and through your telescope you can see the surface and all these things i can't see on the planet with my naked eye. now the planet explodes, you and i will both see it explode at approximately the same time, no matter how powerful your telescope is. this is because the image of the planet exploding reaches both of our eyes at approximately the same time, the wave of photons will go into your telescope lens and converge onto your eye, giving you more photons than how many i'll be getting. But like i said, we'll be getting them at approximately same time. you simply have a more detailed and focused image than I. then chunks of the planet are flying through space, and you look through your telescope and tell me there's a big chunk headed towards earth. i won't be able to see it, but when it gets close enough i will. i simply won't be able to see it at the same time as you because i don't have super big and powerful eyeballs that can focus on something so far away, that's why we use telescopes. it's seeing something 'sooner' relative to us two, but only because my eyes aren't strong enough to see it by themselves, not because you're receiving the image before me.
it's not as if you'll see the explosion, then i'll see the explosion later, no if my eyes can't pick up the explosion then i won't see it at all, or it will be small to me and harder to see. but it will be shown to us at the same time, you simply have a more powerful tool, and it will be easier for you to see it.
in short-
you would not see it happen before me, i simply don't have the power to see it without help of a telescope as well.
so you're mixing two different things, the ability of the human eye to be able to see things, and the time of actual occurrence of the event.
if a meteor was heading towards earth, and you saw it through your super powerful telescope before anyone else did because no one else had telescopes, the light is bouncing off the meteor and hitting your eye, just like it's hitting all our eyes. your eyes have the telescope, so you can just make out something that we can't. it's there either way.
light is not like a car, if light is constantly coming to us, and you want to see the light 4 minutes towards us on its 8 minute journey, how would you be able to see past the photons and image hitting you now? and how would you be able to see the light 4 minutes away without breaking the speed of light in visualizing it? if light is the speed limit, how could you observe it in coming towards us? it's hard to understand for some people to understand it's the limit.
the car doesn't have to hit your eye in order for you to see it, because it's not traveling at the speed of light. using a car is kind of a bad example, saying the car IS traveling at the speed of light makes it much more confusing. you can't see an object with telescope or eye if light is not being reflected off of it, into your eye to absorb. so how are you going to see a car coming towards you when it's traveling at the same speed as the light thats bringing you the image? the light being the image, has to hit our eye for us to see it. does that make sense?
on a side note:
the reason i said approximately earlier is because,
if you wanted to get really technical you would actually see the planet exploding after i would, because the glass in your telescope would slow light down, making you see it just a wee bit after me ;P
anyway there you go
QUOTE (george+May 23 2008, 04:57 AM)
So I'll see the arriving light SOONER with a telescope than with my eyes, I'll also see light ( cars ) that yet is NOT arrived on earth because it still has a long way to go before arriving here at my EYES ..... but with my telescope .....
I surely say that the light still has 8 years to go before arriving on earth, distance is the same, speed still the same, but I'm sure that I see it sooner with the telescope than with my eyes, so looking thru a telescope should permit us to see " younger " light
You are not "seeing" the light sooner with the telescope.
The light has to literally in your eyes before you see it.
Please let us know when you understand that.
You can't see light that is 1 km away, you can't see light that is 20km away.
I surely say that the light still has 8 years to go before arriving on earth, distance is the same, speed still the same, but I'm sure that I see it sooner with the telescope than with my eyes, so looking thru a telescope should permit us to see " younger " light
You are not "seeing" the light sooner with the telescope.
The light has to literally in your eyes before you see it.
Please let us know when you understand that.
You can't see light that is 1 km away, you can't see light that is 20km away.
At the request of another member, please click here!
QUOTE (TheDoc+May 24 2008, 07:24 PM)
At the request of another member, please click here!
It appears George has some serious competition regarding complete absence of spatial intelligence, still, he could always get a job as a catholic priest on Craggy Island.
- Much appreciated Doc!
It appears George has some serious competition regarding complete absence of spatial intelligence, still, he could always get a job as a catholic priest on Craggy Island.
- Much appreciated Doc!
hello everybody ( every serious people here ), yes I do now understand where this logical error was thinking it the way I did. But that was my problem, I wanted really to understand why and where I did my error. I knew this had to be wrong, but putting it further and further in detail I got more and more intrigued by all this.
Thanks to guys like Vengineer and Orestis it is possible to discuss on a adult way some problems one can have to put a solution on questions. Thanks to all of you that were serious, the others can go p.. of like one of them said before.
It's thru that I did repeat my question a few times, but each time I did put it with a different approach, with a different point of view, with another implication.
I do not say sorry for asking questions, because scientific curiosity is fantastic !
All those guys here on the forums that can only call others idiots and stupids and crazy ones, are just NOT scientific because lots of quantum scientists for exemple put forward lots of theories and still nobody knows which one is the thruth : are they crazy ?
And I have an excuse more : I'm NOT a scientist !
I did really think forums were places you could discuss lots of things, even lots of errors and why they are errors, but now I will keep it cool because as I understand it some of the guys here do not want to use their brain, do they never ask questions ?
Thanks to guys like Vengineer and Orestis it is possible to discuss on a adult way some problems one can have to put a solution on questions. Thanks to all of you that were serious, the others can go p.. of like one of them said before.
It's thru that I did repeat my question a few times, but each time I did put it with a different approach, with a different point of view, with another implication.
I do not say sorry for asking questions, because scientific curiosity is fantastic !
All those guys here on the forums that can only call others idiots and stupids and crazy ones, are just NOT scientific because lots of quantum scientists for exemple put forward lots of theories and still nobody knows which one is the thruth : are they crazy ?
And I have an excuse more : I'm NOT a scientist !
I did really think forums were places you could discuss lots of things, even lots of errors and why they are errors, but now I will keep it cool because as I understand it some of the guys here do not want to use their brain, do they never ask questions ?
At the request of another member, please click here!
this is a good one !! I really like laughing, the more the better !! even with myself.
this is a good one !! I really like laughing, the more the better !! even with myself.
QUOTE (george+May 25 2008, 06:10 AM)
At the request of another member, please click here!
this is a good one !! I really like laughing, the more the better !! even with myself.
Good to hear George - you're not so bad after all. only frighteningly stupid.
this is a good one !! I really like laughing, the more the better !! even with myself. Good to hear George - you're not so bad after all.
only frighteningly stupid.
QUOTE (george+May 25 2008, 02:05 AM)
hello everybody ( every serious people here ), yes I do now understand where this logical error was thinking it the way I did. But that was my problem, I wanted really to understand why and where I did my error. I knew this had to be wrong, but putting it further and further in detail I got more and more intrigued by all this.
Thanks to guys like Vengineer and Orestis it is possible to discuss on a adult way some problems one can have to put a solution on questions. Thanks to all of you that were serious, the others can go p.. of like one of them said before.
It's thru that I did repeat my question a few times, but each time I did put it with a different approach, with a different point of view, with another implication.
I do not say sorry for asking questions, because scientific curiosity is fantastic !
All those guys here on the forums that can only call others idiots and stupids and crazy ones, are just NOT scientific because lots of quantum scientists for exemple put forward lots of theories and still nobody knows which one is the thruth : are they crazy ?
And I have an excuse more : I'm NOT a scientist !
I did really think forums were places you could discuss lots of things, even lots of errors and why they are errors, but now I will keep it cool because as I understand it some of the guys here do not want to use their brain, do they never ask questions ?
george
This really is a nice place to visit if you are interested in science. there are threads you can find where you can actually learn things and others where you can just enjoy yourself. People interested in science have a good sense of humor.
Here is a suggestion. Learn to use the Search to find things you are interested in. When you find something pay attention to the people that actually talk about science and not the ones that argue. You may not understand most of what they say, (I don't) but then you can write down what you don't understand and look for it in Wikipedia or other information sites. Little by little you will learn who to pay attention to and who not to bother with.
The thing I like most about this site is that the people with the knowledge have a way of thinking about something that is....comforting....you get a confidence that nothing, or at least not much, will be missed. You can feel confidence that you wont have to go over the same thing again and again. And once you learn this way of thinking you can use it for so many other things. Business, how to deal with people, how to deal with the things that come up in your life. There might be a name for this thinking process but I don't know what it is.
Anyway, enjoy you stay here.
Thanks to guys like Vengineer and Orestis it is possible to discuss on a adult way some problems one can have to put a solution on questions. Thanks to all of you that were serious, the others can go p.. of like one of them said before.
It's thru that I did repeat my question a few times, but each time I did put it with a different approach, with a different point of view, with another implication.
I do not say sorry for asking questions, because scientific curiosity is fantastic !
All those guys here on the forums that can only call others idiots and stupids and crazy ones, are just NOT scientific because lots of quantum scientists for exemple put forward lots of theories and still nobody knows which one is the thruth : are they crazy ?
And I have an excuse more : I'm NOT a scientist !
I did really think forums were places you could discuss lots of things, even lots of errors and why they are errors, but now I will keep it cool because as I understand it some of the guys here do not want to use their brain, do they never ask questions ?
george
This really is a nice place to visit if you are interested in science. there are threads you can find where you can actually learn things and others where you can just enjoy yourself. People interested in science have a good sense of humor.
Here is a suggestion. Learn to use the Search to find things you are interested in. When you find something pay attention to the people that actually talk about science and not the ones that argue. You may not understand most of what they say, (I don't) but then you can write down what you don't understand and look for it in Wikipedia or other information sites. Little by little you will learn who to pay attention to and who not to bother with.
The thing I like most about this site is that the people with the knowledge have a way of thinking about something that is....comforting....you get a confidence that nothing, or at least not much, will be missed. You can feel confidence that you wont have to go over the same thing again and again. And once you learn this way of thinking you can use it for so many other things. Business, how to deal with people, how to deal with the things that come up in your life. There might be a name for this thinking process but I don't know what it is.
Anyway, enjoy you stay here.
Well George,
It will take light the SAME time to reach your telescope as it does to reach your eye. Is that simple enough?
It will take light the SAME time to reach your telescope as it does to reach your eye. Is that simple enough?
QUOTE (J-Rod7+May 25 2008, 06:16 PM)
Well George,
It will take light the SAME time to reach your telescope as it does to reach your eye. Is that simple enough?
Yeah, because no one bothered to say that in the first 66 posts... or did they?
It will take light the SAME time to reach your telescope as it does to reach your eye. Is that simple enough?
Yeah, because no one bothered to say that in the first 66 posts... or did they?
QUOTE (J-Rod7+May 26 2008, 12:16 AM)
Well George,
It will take light the SAME time to reach your telescope as it does to reach your eye. Is that simple enough?
No that is not simple enough for what he believed.
He thought telescopes let you see light that is farther away.
But you know that you only see light after it has entered your eyeball and took it for granted he knew that as well.
It will take light the SAME time to reach your telescope as it does to reach your eye. Is that simple enough?
No that is not simple enough for what he believed.
He thought telescopes let you see light that is farther away.
But you know that you only see light after it has entered your eyeball and took it for granted he knew that as well.
PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.
To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.