| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"TomGee" |
| Date: |
03 Jun 2005 02:12:56 AM |
| Object: |
Telescopic Time Travel? |
We've all heard that looking through a telescope is like looking
forward in time because we can see the light from the stars a lot
sooner than with our naked eyes. If a supernova occurs, say, 10 light
years away from us, that means it is as far away as the distance that
light travels in 10 years, and thus, it will be 10 years before the
light from it reaches the Earth. But if we happen to look in that
direction through a telescope, we may see the event before the light
from it reaches us. In that way, it is said, the telescope has managed
to bring to our eyes today an event which we would not see otherwise
until sometime later on. It is said then that the scope has brought
the light of the event closer to us sooner than we would have been
otherwise able to see it, so in effect, we have traveled into the
future. If so, it follows that every time we look a telescope we
travel into the future, if only temporarily. To return from the
future, we have only to look away from the scope, and we're back! So
who says time travel ain't possible?
I have no question about that, because it seems to me we have not
traveled anywhere, we're still here in the present time, and we never
left. It is the scope that has brought the future to us by showing us
an event before the light from it has reached the Earth. My question
to this learned group has to do with the apparent riddle of FTL travel
which the scope attains in bringing the future to us.
Yes, I know that it's done with lenses that focus the light coming
through them and it magnifies the light to the X power of the lens
combination. But how can it bring light which has not reached us yet
into focus so that it can be seen before it gets here?
Say that the supernova above occurred 10 lys ago but it is twice as far
as that from us. The light from it has been rushing toward us for 10
years but it will take 10 more years for it to reach us. With our
trusty scopes, though, we can see that light right now. While we are
looking at something that happened 20 years ago, we are seeing it 10
years after it happened, but 10 years before the light can get here.
In this case, we are looking into the future and seeing the past!
Nevertheless, the question remains: How is it possible for a telescope
to show us the future simply by magnification and focus? We know the
mechanics of it, but how can we reconcile that with the fact that no
information can travel faster than the speed of light?
.
|
|
| User: "CWatters" |
|
| Title: Re: Telescopic Time Travel? |
03 Jun 2005 04:21:52 PM |
|
|
"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117782776.657962.62500@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
We've all heard that looking through a telescope is like looking
forward in time because we can see the light from the stars a lot
sooner than with our naked eyes.
Actually the speed of light in glass (eg through a lens) is slower than in
air so a telescope actually delays the light ever so slightly.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "CWatters" |
|
| Title: Re: Telescopic Time Travel? |
03 Jun 2005 03:04:54 AM |
|
|
"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117782776.657962.62500@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
We've all heard that looking through a telescope is like looking
forward in time because we can see the light from the stars a lot
sooner than with our naked eyes.
Unfortunately that's completly wrong.
Telescopes only allow us to see objects that are further away and back in
time not forward.. The greater the distance the longer it takes light to
travel from the object to us. This means that light arriving now must have
set off some time in the past.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: Telescopic Time Travel? |
03 Jun 2005 02:27:33 PM |
|
|
CWatters wrote:
"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117782776.657962.62500@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
We've all heard that looking through a telescope is like looking
forward in time because we can see the light from the stars a lot
sooner than with our naked eyes.
Unfortunately that's completly wrong.
Telescopes only allow us to see objects that are further away and back in
time not forward..
See my post where I show how we do also go "forward" in time.
The greater the distance the longer it takes light to
travel from the object to us. This means that light arriving now must have
set off some time in the past.
Yes, that's correct.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "*** rD" |
|
| Title: Re: Telescopic Time Travel? |
03 Jun 2005 05:36:35 PM |
|
|
"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117782776.657962.62500@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
| We've all heard that looking through a telescope is like looking
| forward in time because we can see the light from the stars a lot
| sooner than with our naked eyes. If a supernova occurs, say, 10 light
| years away from us, that means it is as far away as the distance that
| light travels in 10 years, and thus, it will be 10 years before the
| light from it reaches the Earth. But if we happen to look in that
| direction through a telescope, we may see the event before the light
| from it reaches us.
This is not true Tom it will be ten years before a telescope or anything
else can see the exploding light from that star because its still on its
way. For ten years there will just be the light from a star that has not yet
exploded from our pov.
--
rD *** E-field = Electric field, M-field =Magnetic field, two unbound
field effects
http://home.freeuk.com/paulps/
Maybe updates. The spuds, beans and onions are coming up nicely. Ooh
ah.{:-)
In that way, it is said, the telescope has managed
| to bring to our eyes today an event which we would not see otherwise
| until sometime later on. It is said then that the scope has brought
| the light of the event closer to us sooner than we would have been
| otherwise able to see it, so in effect, we have traveled into the
| future. If so, it follows that every time we look a telescope we
| travel into the future, if only temporarily. To return from the
| future, we have only to look away from the scope, and we're back! So
| who says time travel ain't possible?
|
| I have no question about that, because it seems to me we have not
| traveled anywhere, we're still here in the present time, and we never
| left. It is the scope that has brought the future to us by showing us
| an event before the light from it has reached the Earth. My question
| to this learned group has to do with the apparent riddle of FTL travel
| which the scope attains in bringing the future to us.
|
| Yes, I know that it's done with lenses that focus the light coming
| through them and it magnifies the light to the X power of the lens
| combination. But how can it bring light which has not reached us yet
| into focus so that it can be seen before it gets here?
|
| Say that the supernova above occurred 10 lys ago but it is twice as far
| as that from us. The light from it has been rushing toward us for 10
| years but it will take 10 more years for it to reach us. With our
| trusty scopes, though, we can see that light right now. While we are
| looking at something that happened 20 years ago, we are seeing it 10
| years after it happened, but 10 years before the light can get here.
| In this case, we are looking into the future and seeing the past!
|
| Nevertheless, the question remains: How is it possible for a telescope
| to show us the future simply by magnification and focus? We know the
| mechanics of it, but how can we reconcile that with the fact that no
| information can travel faster than the speed of light?
|
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Telescopic Time Travel? |
04 Jun 2005 12:20:00 PM |
|
|
"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117782776.657962.62500@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Say that the supernova above occurred 10 lys ago but it is twice as far
as that from us. The light from it has been rushing toward us for 10
years but it will take 10 more years for it to reach us. With our
trusty scopes, though, we can see that light right now. While we are
No. We. Cannot. Which is the problem with your whole post.
Train your telescope on an intersection. In 60 minutes a red porsche will
reach that intersection. But according to you, you will actually see arrive
it in 30 minutes.
Get it yet?
.
|
|
|
| User: "I think a bit more and say he has a point. But with regard to the above even after thinking about it a bit I am not so sure." |
|
| Title: Re: Telescopic Time Travel? |
04 Jun 2005 12:35:26 PM |
|
|
Morituri-|-Max wrote:
"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117782776.657962.62500@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Say that the supernova above occurred 10 lys ago but it is twice as far
as that from us. The light from it has been rushing toward us for 10
years but it will take 10 more years for it to reach us. With our
trusty scopes, though, we can see that light right now. While we are
No. We. Cannot. Which is the problem with your whole post.
Train your telescope on an intersection. In 60 minutes a red porsche will
reach that intersection. But according to you, you will actually see arrive
it in 30 minutes.
Get it yet?
you phds mofokers still didnt understod
the point and tha logic in his post
the only way to prove him wrong is by
building a mofoker powerfull telescope
lettin him to se as close as 1m from some
ongoing events 300000 km faraway
then if the ongoing events emits light
powerful enough, he should register the
same events without telescope 1 second later
but first of all. give tha man the telescope
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Telescopic Time Travel? |
04 Jun 2005 12:43:17 PM |
|
|
"I think a bit more and say he has a point. But with regard to the above
even after thinking about it a bit I am not so sure."
<billh011@hot-shot.com> wrote in message
news:1117906526.835778.281720@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
you phds mofokers still didnt understod
the point and tha logic in his post
the only way to prove him wrong is by
building a mofoker powerfull telescope
lettin him to se as close as 1m from some
ongoing events 300000 km faraway
then if the ongoing events emits light
powerful enough, he should register the
same events without telescope 1 second later
but first of all. give tha man the telescope
No, the easiest way to prove it is to give him a set of binoculars. If it
works at one scale it should work at all the others. There is no need to
prove him wrong however, as there is less than no basis for it to work.
How can any mechanical device see the light emitted from a start before the
light reaches the device?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Ralph" |
|
| Title: Re: Telescopic Time Travel? |
23 Apr 2006 07:30:48 AM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:lLydneJ92ePfdTzfRVnyvw@pipex.net...
"I think a bit more and say he has a point. But with regard to the above
even after thinking about it a bit I am not so sure."
<billh011@hot-shot.com> wrote in message
news:1117906526.835778.281720@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
you phds mofokers still didnt understod
the point and tha logic in his post
the only way to prove him wrong is by
building a mofoker powerfull telescope
lettin him to se as close as 1m from some
ongoing events 300000 km faraway
then if the ongoing events emits light
powerful enough, he should register the
same events without telescope 1 second later
but first of all. give tha man the telescope
No, the easiest way to prove it is to give him a set of binoculars. If it
works at one scale it should work at all the others. There is no need to
prove him wrong however, as there is less than no basis for it to work.
The eye is a rudimentary telescope, so we should be seeing into the future
all the
time.
No wonder I feel confused sometimes.
sr
How can any mechanical device see the light emitted from a start before
the light reaches the device?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Telescopic Time Travel? |
04 Jun 2005 12:50:43 PM |
|
|
T Wake wrote:
How can any mechanical device see the light emitted from a start before the
light reaches the device?
The Greeks had a theory of vision, call extrospection, where in the eye
would emininate some kind of entity and reach out and touch the thing
that was seen. A trace of this can be found in Superman comics where
Superman beams out x-rays from his eyes and then sees the results.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Telescopic Time Travel? |
04 Jun 2005 05:11:40 PM |
|
|
"Robert Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:ndKdnVl0A6xudDzfRVn-2w@comcast.com...
T Wake wrote:
How can any mechanical device see the light emitted from a start before
the light reaches the device?
The Greeks had a theory of vision, call extrospection, where in the eye
would emininate some kind of entity and reach out and touch the thing that
was seen. A trace of this can be found in Superman comics where Superman
beams out x-rays from his eyes and then sees the results.
Bob Kolker
Good point. Maybe he is talking about Superman's telescope then?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "I think a bit more and say he has a point. But with regard to the above even after thinking about it a bit I am not so sure." |
|
| Title: Re: Telescopic Time Travel? |
04 Jun 2005 12:51:24 PM |
|
|
[No, the easiest way to prove it is to give him a set of binoculars. If
it
works at one scale it should work at all the others. There is no need
to
prove him wrong however, as there is less than no basis for it to work.
How can any mechanical device see the light emitted from a start before
the
light reaches the device? ]
this is bull, all the telescopes etc the humanity has
are not powerful enough to register a difrence in
terms of this experiment
if he by looking through the binocula ohatever
observes the events as beeing 1 m close to
them, fine
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Telescopic Time Travel? |
04 Jun 2005 05:11:19 PM |
|
|
"I think a bit more and say he has a point. But with regard to the above
even after thinking about it a bit I am not so sure."
<billh011@hot-shot.com> wrote in message
news:1117907484.240425.172540@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
[No, the easiest way to prove it is to give him a set of binoculars. If
it
works at one scale it should work at all the others. There is no need
to
prove him wrong however, as there is less than no basis for it to work.
How can any mechanical device see the light emitted from a start before
the
light reaches the device? ]
this is bull, all the telescopes etc the humanity has
are not powerful enough to register a difrence in
terms of this experiment
if he by looking through the binocula ohatever
observes the events as beeing 1 m close to
them, fine
Not true. The theory should still hold. If I have my x25 binoculars, then I
should see in to the future a fraction of a second. The theory has to be the
same at all levels otherwise it is going to fail.
If you can model the "time in future" you are looking with a x5000
telescope, you can scale down the time shift to the x5 binoculars. If it
doesn't work with the binoculars, it wont work with the telescope.
It still leaves open the question as to how the mechanical device can
register the photon before the photon reaches it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Telescopic Time Travel? |
04 Jun 2005 06:48:24 PM |
|
|
"T Wake" <taswakeAt@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:LIydnbVn26WVuj_fRVnygA@pipex.net...
"I think a bit more and say he has a point. But with regard to the above
even after thinking about it a bit I am not so sure."
<billh011@hot-shot.com> wrote in message
news:1117907484.240425.172540@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
[No, the easiest way to prove it is to give him a set of binoculars. If
it
works at one scale it should work at all the others. There is no need
to
prove him wrong however, as there is less than no basis for it to work.
How can any mechanical device see the light emitted from a start before
the
light reaches the device? ]
this is bull, all the telescopes etc the humanity has
are not powerful enough to register a difrence in
terms of this experiment
if he by looking through the binocula ohatever
observes the events as beeing 1 m close to
them, fine
Not true. The theory should still hold. If I have my x25 binoculars, then
I should see in to the future a fraction of a second. The theory has to be
the same at all levels otherwise it is going to fail.
If you can model the "time in future" you are looking with a x5000
telescope, you can scale down the time shift to the x5 binoculars. If it
doesn't work with the binoculars, it wont work with the telescope.
It still leaves open the question as to how the mechanical device can
register the photon before the photon reaches it.
Take a microscope, if the petri dish starts with bacteria 1 second before
you introduce them then you have proven the dummies idea correct..
otherwise, he's just full of ***** as we already know.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Telescopic Time Travel? |
04 Jun 2005 06:52:11 PM |
|
|
"Morituri-|-Max" <newage@sendarico.net> wrote in message
news:c5roe.21202$PR6.1571@tornado.texas.rr.com...
Take a microscope, if the petri dish starts with bacteria 1 second before
you introduce them then you have proven the dummies idea correct..
otherwise, he's just full of ***** as we already know.
Excellent point and a very easy way to establish experimental evidence.
Sadly, most of the "oddballs" here don't really care for the experiments
when it comes to proof. What ever idea they have in mind at the time is all
the "proof" they ever need...........
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "destiny" |
|
| Title: Re: Telescopic Time Travel? |
04 Jun 2005 07:23:55 PM |
|
|
thats why a microscope can not
be used you morons
you need to be 300000km away
from the observations in case
.
|
|
|
| User: "Morituri-|-Max" |
|
| Title: Re: Telescopic Time Travel? |
04 Jun 2005 08:33:59 PM |
|
|
"destiny" <billh011@hot-shot.com> wrote in message
news:1117931035.240434.236140@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
thats why a microscope can not
be used you morons
you need to be 300000km away
from the observations in case
OR you are just clueless....
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Kolker" |
|
| Title: Re: Telescopic Time Travel? |
04 Jun 2005 07:39:44 PM |
|
|
T Wake wrote:
Not true. The theory should still hold. If I have my x25 binoculars, then I
should see in to the future a fraction of a second. The theory has to be the
same at all levels otherwise it is going to fail.
Wrong. What about light that has taken n light years to reach your
binocs. You still see the light long after it left its source. You are
looking into the past. An optical instrument gathers photons from a
distant place and time so what you see is photons gathered in by the
instrument. In fact none of see objects as such. We see the light either
radiated or reflected from objects.
Bob Kolker
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Telescopic Time Travel? |
05 Jun 2005 03:04:54 AM |
|
|
"Robert Kolker" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:WKednWA4ZYVP1D_fRVn-gw@comcast.com...
T Wake wrote:
Not true. The theory should still hold. If I have my x25 binoculars, then
I should see in to the future a fraction of a second. The theory has to
be the same at all levels otherwise it is going to fail.
Wrong. What about light that has taken n light years to reach your binocs.
You still see the light long after it left its source. You are looking
into the past. An optical instrument gathers photons from a distant place
and time so what you see is photons gathered in by the instrument. In fact
none of see objects as such. We see the light either radiated or reflected
from objects.
Bob Kolker
I am not sure what you are getting at here. I wasn't attempting to imply
that the idea of telescopes could see into the future was correct, I was
simply saying if a big telescope could see into the future a lot, then a
little on could see a little. Which is why the "theory" was a failure.
As has been stated numerous times, optical devices are tools for looking
into the past.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "cr88192" |
|
| Title: Re: Telescopic Time Travel? |
03 Jun 2005 12:49:58 PM |
|
|
"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117782776.657962.62500@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
We've all heard that looking through a telescope is like looking
forward in time because we can see the light from the stars a lot
sooner than with our naked eyes.
<snip>
as others have pointed out, nope...
light travels at a certain velocity from it's origin, and wherever the
observer is located effects how long it will take for the light to get
there. larger distances imply longer delays, and such forth.
similar also applies with sound, eg, a loud noise some distance away will
have a noticable delay vs visibly seeing the event.
[the rest is ignorable, me going on about sound mixing and some recent
experiences with attempting physics simulation]
actually, recently I figured this could be used in a sound mixer, eg, at all
points the audio sources are playing sounds, and the mixer (located in the
same place as the camera) basically time-delays all the sounds, and could
possibly interpolate all the positions (and thus time/sample offsets) during
the sample to get the mixed version of all the playing sounds.
this would fairly naturally generate effects, eg, like the doppler effect
and such (mostly because objects, as they move, will have time offsets that
may vary differently than the time itself).
though, possible, this seems like a bit much effort, and likely a bit
computationally expensive for a sound mixer (usually a fairly ignored and
low priority bit of code off to the side somewhere...).
faster would be to only figure this per-frame, eg, taking into account
positions and relative velocities at the start of the frame. in this way,
they only have to compute one set of offsets, and otherwise just use linear
scaling/interpolation to get the rest of the samples. depending on the
framerate and other factors, however, this may be jittery or have minor
jumps, or other issues...
the current (older) mixer, however, doesn't bother with all this, basically
it just reads the samples faster or slower and scales them based on relative
velocity.
adding in a time offset or such would probably help some with the effect,
while still keeping the current design (with its general non-realism).
one issue I dealt with was what to do when the relative velocities exceeded
the speed of sound (resulting in 0 or negative sound progression). I forget
what I did, I either clamped the values somehow or I skipped mixing those
sounds, or something...
yes, looking back at the code shows I made it skip the sounds. so,
basically, exceeding the speed of sound causes everything to go silent
(unless there is some other object nearby playing sounds with a relative
velocity less than the speed of sound).
I don't know what the "realistic" effect would be in this case however...
note: I am trying to learn stuff. since my initial posts here I have much
more fammiliarized myself with (and the major pains involved with) energy
and inertia. I have still yet to really gain a good understanding of contact
forces though, and maintaining a stable simulation remains problematic (eg:
resting contact, after a few seconds typically stuff will start to
destabilize and "go weird", eg, objects will gain energy or start
interpenetrating or such).
this does not seem to be a problem with aabbs (err, which are in most cases
treated like obbs, just with some hacks set up to eliminate any angular
velocity/movements).
my guess is part of this may be related to my total lack of an integrator.
a recent thought was to try a different approach, eg:
do collision checking;
predict the time of the first impact;
step forwards to that time;
resolve the impact;
repeat so long as current-time<frame-time.
objects which are interpenetrating at the start of the frame could be
ignored during the rest of the frame, that or locked in place. ignoring
probably better allows the collision to resolve itself.
or whatever...
.
|
|
|
| User: "chronos" |
|
| Title: Re: Telescopic Time Travel? |
03 Jun 2005 12:58:41 PM |
|
|
i suspect you are totally parallel and
not tangent to this discussion
.
|
|
|
| User: "cr88192" |
|
| Title: Re: Telescopic Time Travel? |
03 Jun 2005 02:27:38 PM |
|
|
"chronos" <petrol@bikerider.com> wrote in message
news:1117821521.010563.201130@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
i suspect you are totally parallel and
not tangent to this discussion
yes, likely.
in some way I was trying to explain "why", but probably failed there...
I am still trying in what way I can to achieve at least a basic
understanding of things, or at least to the level needed to pull off
passable simulations.
[the rest, mostly, me trying to understand angular movement]
this is proving difficult, lots of small details...
it was a major pain trying to understand, eg, the effects of torque and the
behavior of inertia in this (the whole inertial tensor thinggy...), and I
still don't quite understand it. more so, why do I apparently not need to
take the angular velocity into account when computing the inertial
transform, or maybe I do? hmm, maybe it is because I am operating in terms
of net torque, and as a result small torques just "don't have much
effect"?...
other mysteries, like, eg:
one might expect reality to allow objects to spin along multiple axii at the
same time. however, this would not allow things like gyroscopes to actually
do anything, eg, one has the gyroscope, and applies another torque, it
continues to spin alone both axis, and having no other effect (this thought
seems counter to reality).
so, then the thought is maybe quaternion-math is part of the thing, eg, it
comes down to, at each point in time, a single rotation along a single axis.
more poses a representation problem (if one views all possible rotations as
an arc along the surface of a sphere, then multiple axis rotations are not
possible, or at least not with a "line", but maybe with other shapes?...).
likewise applies to axis-angle and rotation matrix representations?...
again, it makes sense, a rotation matrix is limited to representing a
movement along a sphere, a more complex movement would require more numbers
(any other deviations typically result, eg, in scaling, skewing, or
similar...).
a lesser torque would typically result in an offset, and a slight alteration
of the axis of rotation (but in general there is still only a single axis).
after this, the axis is stabilized and other movement stops (ok, explaining
this seems problematic).
an image pops up of a top, when offset slightly it will develop a wobble,
and will then restabilize and become upright. with unimpeded motion this
does not make much sense, it would instead just continue to rotate along the
new axis I would think.
the thought then comes down to it probably being friction at the point it
contacts the surface. if there is a wobble it will go in a circle, and be
met with some friction causing a counter-torque, ok, and this effect would
cause it to stand back up (ok, I guess this makes sense).
but, then again, I am probably just stupid.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AllYou!" |
|
| Title: Re: Telescopic Time Travel? |
03 Jun 2005 07:30:40 AM |
|
|
"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117782776.657962.62500@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
We've all heard that looking through a telescope is like looking
forward in time because we can see the light from the stars a lot
sooner than with our naked eyes.
That's rediculous. A telescope only magnifies light, it doesn't *capture* it
sooner. Moreover, no matter if it did somehow do what you say, all that would
mean is that you're not looking as far back in time as otherwise, not into the
future.
If a supernova occurs, say, 10 light
years away from us, that means it is as far away as the distance that
light travels in 10 years, and thus, it will be 10 years before the
light from it reaches the Earth. But if we happen to look in that
direction through a telescope, we may see the event before the light
from it reaches us. In that way, it is said, the telescope has managed
to bring to our eyes today an event which we would not see otherwise
until sometime later on. It is said then that the scope has brought
the light of the event closer to us sooner than we would have been
otherwise able to see it, so in effect, we have traveled into the
future. If so, it follows that every time we look a telescope we
travel into the future, if only temporarily. To return from the
future, we have only to look away from the scope, and we're back! So
who says time travel ain't possible?
I can't belive that you're even entertaining this concept.
I have no question about that, because it seems to me we have not
traveled anywhere, we're still here in the present time, and we never
left. It is the scope that has brought the future to us by showing us
an event before the light from it has reached the Earth. My question
to this learned group has to do with the apparent riddle of FTL travel
which the scope attains in bringing the future to us.
Yes, I know that it's done with lenses that focus the light coming
through them and it magnifies the light to the X power of the lens
combination. But how can it bring light which has not reached us yet
into focus so that it can be seen before it gets here?
It doesn't. It's just that simple.
Say that the supernova above occurred 10 lys ago but it is twice as far
as that from us. The light from it has been rushing toward us for 10
years but it will take 10 more years for it to reach us. With our
trusty scopes, though, we can see that light right now. While we are
looking at something that happened 20 years ago, we are seeing it 10
years after it happened, but 10 years before the light can get here.
In this case, we are looking into the future and seeing the past!
LOL!
Nevertheless, the question remains: How is it possible for a telescope
to show us the future simply by magnification and focus?
It isn't.
We know the
mechanics of it, but how can we reconcile that with the fact that no
information can travel faster than the speed of light?
You know the mechanics of it? LOL! Please explain.
.
|
|
|
| User: "TomGee" |
|
| Title: Re: Telescopic Time Travel? |
03 Jun 2005 02:48:09 PM |
|
|
AllYou! wrote:
"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117782776.657962.62500@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
We've all heard that looking through a telescope is like looking
forward in time because we can see the light from the stars a lot
sooner than with our naked eyes.
That's rediculous. A telescope only magnifies light, it doesn't *capture* it
sooner.
That is what we have been taught; that is what we believe. But how can
that be true if telescopes can capture the light from many lys away
which has not yet reached the Earth? That is a proven fact, and those
of you who do not know that need to read up on it a bit.
Moreover, no matter if it did somehow do what you say, all that would
mean is that you're not looking as far back in time as otherwise, not into the
future.
Sorry, but your statement above is unclear as to your meaning. Please
rewrite it or add more to it.
If a supernova occurs, say, 10 light
years away from us, that means it is as far away as the distance that
light travels in 10 years, and thus, it will be 10 years before the
light from it reaches the Earth. But if we happen to look in that
direction through a telescope, we may see the event before the light
from it reaches us. In that way, it is said, the telescope has managed
to bring to our eyes today an event which we would not see otherwise
until sometime later on. It is said then that the scope has brought
the light of the event closer to us sooner than we would have been
otherwise able to see it, so in effect, we have traveled into the
future. If so, it follows that every time we look a telescope we
travel into the future, if only temporarily. To return from the
future, we have only to look away from the scope, and we're back! So
who says time travel ain't possible?
I can't belive that you're even entertaining this concept.
Of course I'm not entertaining it; I'm just reporting it. I do not at
this time believe time travel is possible in the sci-fi sense.
I have no question about that, because it seems to me we have not
traveled anywhere, we're still here in the present time, and we never
left. It is the scope that has brought the future to us by showing us
an event before the light from it has reached the Earth. My question
to this learned group has to do with the apparent riddle of FTL travel
which the scope attains in bringing the future to us.
Yes, I know that it's done with lenses that focus the light coming
through them and it magnifies the light to the X power of the lens
combination. But how can it bring light which has not reached us yet
into focus so that it can be seen before it gets here?
It doesn't. It's just that simple.
I don't have a reference for you, but I'm sure there must be lots of
'em to search for. I haven't looked, but I will now that you question
it. I just assumed everyone knew the facts as I stated them.
Say that the supernova above occurred 10 lys ago but it is twice as far
as that from us. The light from it has been rushing toward us for 10
years but it will take 10 more years for it to reach us. With our
trusty scopes, though, we can see that light right now. While we are
looking at something that happened 20 years ago, we are seeing it 10
years after it happened, but 10 years before the light can get here.
In this case, we are looking into the future and seeing the past!
LOL!
Nevertheless, the question remains: How is it possible for a telescope
to show us the future simply by magnification and focus?
It isn't.
Yes, it is. Yes, it is. Yes, it is. Cross my quintupled bypass
heart, hope to die!
We know the
mechanics of it, but how can we reconcile that with the fact that no
information can travel faster than the speed of light?
You know the mechanics of it? LOL! Please explain.
I did. Reread my post where I get past the mechanical process of the
telescope.
.
|
|
|
| User: "CWatters" |
|
| Title: Re: Telescopic Time Travel? |
03 Jun 2005 04:24:01 PM |
|
|
"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117828089.615126.299040@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
AllYou! wrote:
"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117782776.657962.62500@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
We've all heard that looking through a telescope is like looking
forward in time because we can see the light from the stars a lot
sooner than with our naked eyes.
That's rediculous. A telescope only magnifies light, it doesn't
*capture* it
sooner.
That is what we have been taught; that is what we believe. But how can
that be true if telescopes can capture the light from many lys away
which has not yet reached the Earth?
...because it _has_ reached earth. If it hadn't you couldn't see it with or
without a telescope.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "AllYou!" |
|
| Title: Re: Telescopic Time Travel? |
03 Jun 2005 06:44:24 PM |
|
|
"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117828089.615126.299040@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
AllYou! wrote:
"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117782776.657962.62500@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
We've all heard that looking through a telescope is like looking
forward in time because we can see the light from the stars a lot
sooner than with our naked eyes.
That's rediculous. A telescope only magnifies light, it doesn't *capture* it
sooner.
That is what we have been taught; that is what we believe.
Who is we? I've never heard anyone teach this to anyone, nor have I ever heard
of anyone so much as spouting this nonsense. From elementary science class in
school, we're taught that light travels from its origin to the observer. Never,
ever have I ever heard of anyone claiming that a lens somehow reaches out and
brings the observation closer to the origin.
But how can
that be true if telescopes can capture the light from many lys away
which has not yet reached the Earth?
Telescopes don't capture light that has never reached Earth. Telescopes capture
the light that hits them, and concentrates it so that little things seem bigger.
You seem closer to the object, that's all.
That is a proven fact, and those
of you who do not know that need to read up on it a bit.
Proven fact? How was it ever proven? Please provide one source for this
nonsense. One cite. How was it proven? What is it about a lens, or two of
them, or three of them that allows them to reach out and capture light?
Moreover, no matter if it did somehow do what you say, all that would
mean is that you're not looking as far back in time as otherwise, not into
the
future.
Sorry, but your statement above is unclear as to your meaning. Please
rewrite it or add more to it.
whereas what you're proposing is mere fantasy, it's a moot point and not worth
the time.
If a supernova occurs, say, 10 light
years away from us, that means it is as far away as the distance that
light travels in 10 years, and thus, it will be 10 years before the
light from it reaches the Earth. But if we happen to look in that
direction through a telescope, we may see the event before the light
from it reaches us. In that way, it is said, the telescope has managed
to bring to our eyes today an event which we would not see otherwise
until sometime later on. It is said then that the scope has brought
the light of the event closer to us sooner than we would have been
otherwise able to see it, so in effect, we have traveled into the
future. If so, it follows that every time we look a telescope we
travel into the future, if only temporarily. To return from the
future, we have only to look away from the scope, and we're back! So
who says time travel ain't possible?
I can't belive that you're even entertaining this concept.
Of course I'm not entertaining it; I'm just reporting it. I do not at
this time believe time travel is possible in the sci-fi sense.
Please give one cite where what you say is validated.
I have no question about that, because it seems to me we have not
traveled anywhere, we're still here in the present time, and we never
left. It is the scope that has brought the future to us by showing us
an event before the light from it has reached the Earth. My question
to this learned group has to do with the apparent riddle of FTL travel
which the scope attains in bringing the future to us.
Yes, I know that it's done with lenses that focus the light coming
through them and it magnifies the light to the X power of the lens
combination. But how can it bring light which has not reached us yet
into focus so that it can be seen before it gets here?
It doesn't. It's just that simple.
I don't have a reference for you, but I'm sure there must be lots of
'em to search for. I haven't looked, but I will now that you question
it. I just assumed everyone knew the facts as I stated them.
That explains it. Look for it, and you'll see it's simply not there.
Say that the supernova above occurred 10 lys ago but it is twice as far
as that from us. The light from it has been rushing toward us for 10
years but it will take 10 more years for it to reach us. With our
trusty scopes, though, we can see that light right now. While we are
looking at something that happened 20 years ago, we are seeing it 10
years after it happened, but 10 years before the light can get here.
In this case, we are looking into the future and seeing the past!
LOL!
Nevertheless, the question remains: How is it possible for a telescope
to show us the future simply by magnification and focus?
It isn't.
Yes, it is. Yes, it is. Yes, it is. Cross my quintupled bypass
heart, hope to die!
***** you *****.
We know the
mechanics of it, but how can we reconcile that with the fact that no
information can travel faster than the speed of light?
You know the mechanics of it? LOL! Please explain.
I did. Reread my post where I get past the mechanical process of the
telescope.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Telescopic Time Travel? |
03 Jun 2005 03:09:40 PM |
|
|
"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117828089.615126.299040@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
That is what we have been taught; that is what we believe. But how can
that be true if telescopes can capture the light from many lys away
which has not yet reached the Earth? That is a proven fact, and those
of you who do not know that need to read up on it a bit.
I not sure if that is true. Are you sure that optical devices allow you to
see light that has not arrived at the lens yet?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "ošin" |
|
| Title: Re: Telescopic Time Travel? |
03 Jun 2005 03:33:20 PM |
|
|
That is what we have been taught; that is what we believe. But how can
that be true if telescopes can capture the light from many lys away
which has not yet reached the Earth? That is a proven fact, and those
of you who do not know that need to read up on it a bit.
A telescope cannot capture light which has not yet reached the the
telescope. If you say that your point is a proven fact, then can you site an
authoritative text supporting that claim?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JohnM" |
|
| Title: Re: Telescopic Time Travel? |
04 Jun 2005 04:11:27 AM |
|
|
TomGee wrote:
AllYou! wrote:
"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117782776.657962.62500@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
We've all heard that looking through a telescope is like looking
forward in time because we can see the light from the stars a lot
sooner than with our naked eyes.
That's rediculous. A telescope only magnifies light, it doesn't *capture* it
sooner.
That is what we have been taught; that is what we believe. But how can
that be true if telescopes can capture the light from many lys away
which has not yet reached the Earth? That is a proven fact, and those
of you who do not know that need to read up on it a bit.
I was not taught this, I do not believe it. It is not true that a
telescope can capture light which has not yet reached earth (except for
the difference between the distance the telescope is above ground level-
in that respect, it can capture light that has not reached the earth yet
but it's a too-literal view to be of any use except if you're trolling).
Sometimes things can be understood by considering extreme cases. If you
were to see the future looking through a telescope then you should be
able to see a less-distant future with binoculars. Have you ever found
this to be the case?
Any time you observe something you are seeing it in the past. Any time
you are observed, you are in the past of the observer. The farther away
it is, the more time the light has taken to reach you. No mechanical
device can allow you to see before the light reaches you.
And if that don't do it for you, consider it this way: if you saw into
the future when you looked in a telescope then it would blind you. It
would pull in future light at all ranges and the velocity of light would
no longer act to moderate the amount that struck your eye. The farther
away you see, the bigger the field is and the greater the amount of
unregulated light you'd see.
We travel into the future, but can only perceive the past..
John
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "PD" |
|
| Title: Re: Telescopic Time Travel? |
03 Jun 2005 03:19:51 PM |
|
|
TomGee wrote:
AllYou! wrote:
"TomGee" <lvlus@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1117782776.657962.62500@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
We've all heard that looking through a telescope is like looking
forward in time because we can see the light from the stars a lot
sooner than with our naked eyes.
That's rediculous. A telescope only magnifies light, it doesn't *capture* it
sooner.
That is what we have been taught; that is what we believe. But how can
that be true if telescopes can capture the light from many lys away
which has not yet reached the Earth? That is a proven fact, and those
^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^^ ^^^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^ ^^ ^ ^^^^^^ ^^^^
Reference please.
of you who do not know that need to read up on it a bit.
[snip]
PD
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark Martin" |
|
| Title: Re: Telescopic Time Travel? |
03 Jun 2005 04:53:34 PM |
|
|
TomGee wrote:
That is what we have been taught; that is what we believe. But how can
that be true if telescopes can capture the light from many lys away
which has not yet reached the Earth? That is a proven fact, and those
of you who do not know that need to read up on it a bit.
*hoo-boy* I now see what your problem is. You read something to the
effect of "A telescope sees light from many light-years away.", and you
think it's saying, "A telescope sees light *which is* many light-years
away." Sheesh!!!
Such a description means only that a telescope is collecting light
radiation which is *JUST NOW ARRIVING FROM A JOURNEY OF MANY
LIGHT-YEARS*. Please, go purchase a head and screw it on.
-Mark Martin
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
