8 minutes earth time
time for earth = distance/speed

You are not the center of the universe.
Just because you haven't seen it yet, doesn't mean it hasn't already happened. Much like the gunshot you never hear that kills you.

yes :thumbsup
its fascinating

oh god... :1orglaugh
if we know the average life of a star (lets say its less than 6 billion years, for example)
and we know that its more than 6 billion light years away
we can then deduct that the star no longer exists

12clicks, read this page carefully. It might give you some insight in the theory you are attacking.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/relatvty.htm

this doesn't prove your point.:glugglug

well 12clicks
the 8 minutes you say is how long it takes the earth to see the light
its the same thing as what we were talking about earlier.
if someone went near the speed of light
it would take him 4 years blah blah,
but it would take the years 50 years, for example

same thing for the ray of light
except it goes @ the speed of light, not a speed NEAR the speed of light. so instead of taking it 4 years (in the example) it would take him 0 seconds :thumbsup

once again 12clicks
great thread, I like discussing about such things with brilliant minds :thumbsup

we can also deduct that we are seeing an image from the past. so?

if that planet explodes today but we don't see the explosion for 100 years, it doesn't mean that it still didn't explode today.

what we SEE is irrelevant to time.

Thank you, captain obvious. I think i had that covered when i said "my 2 cents" and informed everyone that i was not a physicist. But thank you for clarifying!

Can we move onto dimensions now?

Should there be a fouth?

I'm having fun.:thumbsup

No. :)

I can not imagine anything beyond the 3rd dimension
here is why:

first dimension is a stick
second dimension is another stick, linked to the other stick with other bars (wich would give a square)
third dimension is another square, linked to the other square with other bars (wich would give a cube)

but even if you link 2 cubes to eachother with bars, it would still give you a 3d object (if we think of 3d being an object that has height, lenght and depth)

:2 cents:

Not true.
if it takes 8minutes for light to get here, thats how long it takes. if the sun explodes, it will take 8 minutes for us to see it.

http://tv.yahoo.com/news/wwn/20030319/104808600007.html :1orglaugh

once again, 8 minutes for earth :thumbsup
if EARTH times the ray of light, it would take 8 minutes
but if we stick to the theory, if the ray of light had a watch, it would take him 0 seconds :thumbsup

lol please dont go there :1orglaugh

No.
It would take zero time for the light to be created by the sun but it would take 8 minutes for the light particle to reach the earth.

einstein never said anything about going back in time.

if we time it from earth
not if we time it from the ray of light

:1orglaugh :thumbsup

What is Ben & Jerry's putting in the ice cream these days?

B

If you suck 12 clicks cock at the speed of light... it will be like going back to the past since you'll finish 5 minutes earlier! :thumbsup

You say that almost as if he's not coked up and off his tree right this moment? Bwahahaha.

That was such a good story. I wish they would have lined up a few more believable facts. it would have been fun

1. If you move away from the object with the speed of light, and look with the telescope on what is going on with the object that you are leaving, you will see the still frame as the light from the object will be traveling with your speed. So the image will be frozen.


2. If you stop immediatly, you will be able to see what is going on at the object that you left, with normal speed from the point of time that you left the object.


3. read number 2 again


4. Still watching the object that you left you start going back with the speed of light ...
the events that you will see in the telescope will happen faster since you are going with the speed of light against the "video" that is fed to you at the speed of light. (I doubt you would notice it... :)

5.read 4 againg couple of times, its kinda confusing


6. at the time of your arivall you will catch up with the events that happended during #1 and #4

therefore you will not see time delay/shift

how about bringing something to the table.

I dont quite catch #2 and #4
although #1 is obvious :thumbsup

The shortest distance between two points is a wrinkle bringing the two closer together.
Madeleine Le'Engle

I mentioned it earlier... you are not even debating about Einstein theories but making observation on how the eye perceive speed...


btw... what do you think about Eisntein saying that object actually get smaller when travelling at the speed of light?!

let me get some icecream myself :1orglaugh

not true.
If I'm standing on the sun and you are a light particle and I tell you to call me when you reach earth, you'll call me in 8 minutes.

Add time, and you have a 4th dimension. Hooray.
After that, realize that the limitations of your mind, imagination and perception do not necessarily reflect the limitations of reality. Think of it this way: if there were a 2d creature on the surface of a sphere, that creature would perceive his "universe" as infinite, and would furthermore be unable to imagine anything beyond the 2nd dimension using only observations from 2 dimensions.
However, that doesn't mean there aren't more dimensions - we humans only need to look at that pitiful creature, and we will instantly see that his world is in fact 3d and probably laugh our asses off at his stupidity.

Now, who's watching us? :glugglug

:helpme

lame-o

just follow the steps... :)

if you stand still
he will call in 8 minutes
if your jogging, he will call in 7.99999999998 minutes
if your sprinting, he will call in 7.999995 minutes
and if your in a space shuttle going @ the speed of light, he will call you right away

:thumbsup

No, that is exactly my argument. how we *see* things happen has no relevance to time.

Haven't thought about it, don't believe it aqt first blush.

If I am traveling at the speed of light excatly. In my hand I hold a ball. I then throw the ball as hard as I can, would that ball then be going faster than the speed of light?

Ehm... I believe #1 is flawed. Since you are travelling at the same speed as the light particles, they will not "catch up" with you, and thus will not enter your telescope and your eyes. So, you would need to travel at almost the light speed to achieve a "video", which would be near still, and which would be very weak since your light feed will be very small.
Also, in 4 the "video" would be twice as bright as normal :winkwink: