It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

# Some thoughts on Time, Light, and Space Travel

page: 1
0
share:

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 11:48 AM
The other day I had a Eureka moment. I was thinking about how if we had the technology to travel to another star system instantaneously, what would we see? If you turned around and looked at earth with a big telescope, would you see into earth's past?

But how could this be possible if you can't "catch up to" light. You can't pass it by... it's mass is 0, it doesn't have a perception of time. If you were moving away from earth at over 186k miles/sec (the "speed" of light), light from the earth and sun would still pass you by at 186k/sec. You can't exceed (or even get NEAR) the "speed" of light because (Eureka!) it has no speed! Instead of Speed, think Delay.

And it's this delay that creates time and distance. Although I'm inclined to call this "time" across distances "horizontal time" because it's different than perceived time.

So what I'm saying is, while we may be seeing light that was emitted millions of years ago when we look at other star systems... if we were to have a spaceship travel there, we would be able to set up a telescope on earth and see our buddies who traveled there on the space ship... we would be looking at them in the past! And they would be able to see us from there vantage point as well.

So by moving away from an object (with mass) in space your moving in positive time (into it's future). But the object you're moving towards, you are moving into it's past.

Bottom line, everything we see (no matter how distant) is happening now. There's no past, no future, just now. Try wrapping your head around this one!

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 12:35 PM
First you say that from this distant vantage point we would be looking at the earth in the past and then you tell us there is no past, only now.

The idea that everything is happening simultaneously in terms of time is not a new idea philosophically, but I'm not sure that physics would agree.

I'm of the mind that everything that is visible in the universe from any vantage point is seen because of the light that travels to that point and it takes light time to travel anywhere, even if the lapsed time is imperceptible at close distances.

Einstein used thought experiments to challenge the prevailing wisdom of his time, but he took these experiments a step further by testing them mathematically.

Technology has been catching up to Einstein ever since and with each development Einstein's theories have been proven. Even the cosmological constant, which Einstein said was his greatest mistake has been proven valid.

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 12:40 PM

First you say that from this distant vantage point we would be looking at the earth in the past and then you tell us there is no past, only now.

Using the example that we are to travel to another star system:

Yes we would be looking at earth's past from a vantage point thousands of light years away... but by getting to that destination we moved into earth's future. So we'd be seeing earth's past, but that past was the earth we just left.

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 12:54 PM

Originally posted by Kruel
Bottom line, everything we see (no matter how distant) is happening now. There's no past, no future, just now. Try wrapping your head around this one!

Well, what you said was that everything we see is happening now and that's not what your saying now. Now your saying that from some distant vantage point, after traveling instantaneously to that point, we would be seeing the earth as it would be at that time.

I do agree that from a practical perspective there is only now, because the past has already happened and can't be changed and the future will be the product all preceding events.

However, there is nothing that is perceived by humans that has been perceived at the precise time it occurred, regardless of how short that period is.

So, we are always in the now, reacting to the past in the hope of shaping the future to our desires, regardless of our location in space and time.

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 01:02 PM
Hi all ..

I wish i had read this thread before starting my own .. "a question about space travel" maybe i could have got a good answer in here. ..

What if your buddies set off in a spacehip to another star system and were
filmed all the way from leaving earth to reaching the star system .. ok now i am blasting my mind into overdrive ..

regards

satellite1

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 01:20 PM

Originally posted by Kruel
Bottom line, everything we see (no matter how distant) is happening now. There's no past, no future, just now. Try wrapping your head around this one!

Well, what you said was that everything we see is happening now and that's not what your saying now. Now your saying that from some distant vantage point, after traveling instantaneously to that point, we would be seeing the earth as it would be at that time.

Ok, you know how you look up at a star and think "hmmm, that's all fine and dandy, but the light I'm seeing was emitted a few million years ago".

Forget that completely.

That's why I say everything is happening in the NOW. Although the delay of light still exists, light can not bend, so time must.

No matter where you are when you look at something in the universe, it will look the same regardless of where you're viewing it from.

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 01:24 PM
I can only see the theory of your question, if you went to the star system instantaneously you would be no longer on Earth time but the time of that system, it would be like going to NY and keeping your watch on British time pretty soon your in trouble, IKNOW

I do think i know what you mean, IMO however you have answered your own question, to travel thee instantaneously means you would have to travel faster than light, if you travel by wormhole or bending space, where do you point your telescope? down the wormhole, i think the fold would be out unless you could maintain it, and then you would only need your eyes because earth would be right there you need only step forward.

While i believe Einstein to be a genius, holes are beginning to appear in his theory, i read some time ago that some Australian scientists i think it was witnessed a laser light appear at the end of an experimental apparatus before it had left the laser, the timing was some really obscure amount like 200,000 billions of a second but they measured it and it was there, that surely meant he was wrong about nothing being able to travel faster than light?

Even though i have a sneaky suspicion about the new LHC being the most dangerous experiment ever to exist, if it does work i think the answers that will come from it will show something wildly different.

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 01:27 PM

In the following link there is a further explanation of what Kruel is talking about here:

www.peterrussell.com...

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 01:40 PM

What we conceive of as the speed of light is actually something completely different. From light's point of view -- and this after all must be the most appropriate perspective from which to consider the nature of light, not our matter-bound mode of experience -- light travels no distance in no time, and therefore has no need of speed. What we take to be the speed of light is actually the ratio in which space and time are created in our image of reality. It is this ratio that is fixed -- and this is why in the phenomenal world the apparent "speed" of light is fixed.

www.peterrussell.com...

It's hard to imagine that light has a point of view, but this is an interesting explanation.

As for wrapping our minds around this phenomenon, this is probably the best advice:

How should we understand this? The answer is that we probably should not even try to understand it. Any attempt to do so would once again fall into the mistake of applying concepts derived from our image of reality to the underlying reality. All we need to recognize is that from light's perspective it traverses no spacetime interval.

www.peterrussell.com...

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 02:03 PM

Originally posted by TheBandit795

In the following link there is a further explanation of what Kruel is talking about here:

www.peterrussell.com...

Yes... reading some stuff in that link spurred me on to investigate the properties of light further. I had never really tried to understand how light worked before. Now it makes sense.

One of the practical applications of this (if true), is that in order to communicate instantaneously between distant planets, all you'd need is a flashlight and a telescope (a really big one).

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 02:33 PM
Hi ..

Just a quick question so i can understand my other

If we had the fuel right now to get to mars and back
with our current technology, how long would it take
to get there and back ?? and the most important thing
i need answering is .. will people have aged more when
we got back or is that just the travelling a the speed of
light thing ??

Regards

satellite1

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 03:10 PM
At our current level of technology it would probably take at least a few months one-way to Mars. That is, unless the gov is hiding all the good stuff.

As for the aging thing... I believe it may be possible that one's perception of time may slow or speed depending on their proximity to a large gravitational field. However I don't believe the process of travel itself has any effect on the aging process.

posted on May, 6 2008 @ 05:36 PM

Originally posted by satellite1
will people have aged more when
we got back or is that just the travelling a the speed of
light thing ??

To clarify, conventional science does talk about time dilation and how for a person approaching the speed of light, time slows down for that person and on the return home he/she would have appeared to have aged less. This theory hasn't been tested, but it is based on what we know.

My problem with time dilation is that it would require someone to go very fast in relation to light in order to achieve a higher mass. If light doesn't have a speed but rather a delay, the effect may not be time dilation at all.

What I'm trying to say is that if you go FTL, you're moving through time, not light.

posted on May, 8 2008 @ 01:32 AM
I don't think you guys realize the importance of this...

Everything you see exists at this very moment.

Everything appears the same regardless of distance, because what you see is just a snapshot of the universe.

Observable light can be seen instantly across the universe - it's the effects which are delayed at 186 thousand miles/sec.

The observance of a flash of light in the sky and the effect that light has on it's surroundings (local to us) are usually either so close together or so far apart that no one notices a difference.

If we here on earth see an object in space in a particular time frame, every other person in the universe will see that object in the same time frame.

When measuring light using a mirror, the light doesn't know that it's going through a reflection so the effect of light that's sent back ends up multiplying by two negatives (hence the delay in return). And no, you wouldn't see a time lag if you looked at yourself in a mirror a few light seconds away. Only the projection back would be lagged, and at that distance it would be heavily defused unless it's a laser (which is linear light).

You don't see the effect of light hit your eyes, you see it hit your surroundings. Your eyes on the other hand can see the creation of that effect. The effect is delayed. Our ability to see it's creation across the expanse is not.

posted on May, 8 2008 @ 01:23 PM
Judging from the lack of responses I take it still no one gets it... allow me to provide you with an example:

Lightning flashes in the sky, you SEE the flash... THEN, that flash lights up your skin, clothes, and the rest of your surroundings and you see that. You don't notice a delay between the two because it happens so fast.

It's true that you can't exceed the speed of VISIBLE light. It's impossible because it's instantaneous. But you can exceed the speed of the EFFECTS of light. Because that does indeed have a speed which we have already measured.

Another example:

You have a mirror set up on the moon. You can see yourself in that mirror with the use of a telescope. You turn on a laser that you're holding and you see the laser light up in the reflection. But the laser doesn't know it's traveling there and back. It thinks it's going twice as far. So while you saw the laser turn on instantly, you don't get the light reflected back at your face (or whatever you were aiming at in the mirror) until later.

posted on May, 8 2008 @ 01:33 PM
Right guys and gals this thread got me thinking and i love these type of threads (It reminds me of the true ATS and not the troll ATS we see now)

Anyways if what the OP said was correct and i instantly went to another galaxy and was there in an instant ie via a wormhole or by some elaborate propulsion and was able to look back and see earth in the past if i then decided to return to earth instantly would i return to the present earth or the earth in the past????

I love threads that frazzle my brain!!!!!!!

posted on May, 8 2008 @ 01:36 PM
Ok KRUEL just got my head around your posts and what you mean and maybe that puts my last post to rest

posted on May, 8 2008 @ 01:53 PM
Hi there Kruel. When I read your first post I smiled, cause I've thinking along the same lines, and I think you have a point. However, I don't think that the point you made is new to relativity theory.
Now with the last post about exceeding the effects of light ,etc - I have an issue with that. Perhaps it accentuates the slightly different views we have on the situation.
Anyway about the lightning, here's why I have an issue :

You said :

It's true that you can't exceed the speed of VISIBLE light. It's impossible because it's instantaneous. But you can exceed the speed of the EFFECTS of light. Because that does indeed have a speed which we have already measured.

Now about measuring the effects of light and measuring their speed, remember, to measure time we essentially have to use light because
"1 second is the duration of 9 192 631 770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom ( 133 Cs)."
and from the SI unit, we get all the other derivatives i.e milli, micro , etc.
Therefore, to use your terms, there is a ''delay involved here also, but the delay here is less than the delay for the light from the lightning to reach. In short, I do not believe there is any need to differentiate the effects of light and measuring the time taken for them with the actual flash.
Also remember, seeing the flash itself is an effect ... because the flash has intensity which is a property. So there is no need to bring in this idea of effects , etc.

Now, why do I think this idea isnt new to relativity. Because relativity points out that there is no such thing as simultaneity in space-time. Events that seem to occur simultaneously in one ref frame, may not seem to occur simultaneously in another. This is really just what you seem to be saying except you've changed the vocabulary by introducing the word 'delay'. Please correct me if i'm wrong
We are both on a journey to understand this universe better. Cheers.

posted on May, 8 2008 @ 02:17 PM

Originally posted by siddharthsmaAlso remember, seeing the flash itself is an effect ... because the flash has intensity which is a property. So there is no need to bring in this idea of effects , etc.

I'm suggesting that you see the creation of the effect, not the effect itself. The effect is seen (and felt) indirectly, via observing the effect it has on your surroundings when it finally gets there.

Originally posted by siddharthsmaNow, why do I think this idea isnt new to relativity. Because relativity points out that there is no such thing as simultaneity in space-time. Events that seem to occur simultaneously in one ref frame, may not seem to occur simultaneously in another.

The only new part of this idea is the separation between visible light and the effect it has.

So if a supernova was bright enough to light up your backyard, it wouldn't until however many light years later (based on how far away it is). You would still see the super nova flash though in the instant that it happened. We just don't notice this because flashes of light far enough away to cause a noticeable delay aren't bright enough and don't happen enough.

I have an idea to test this theory but I'll need to build a contraption first. If only I had the time.

posted on Feb, 22 2010 @ 02:43 AM
HEy Everyone, I just joined this site right now cause I wanted to ask everyone some advice- something really insane just happened to me and I was hoping someone could help me out here: To get to this post I searched Mirror and Spaceship;;;

Heres what happened. I recently had the idea that we are all traveling through our lives, like aliens in a space-craft. Before I loose you just please bear with me. The concept is, we are all going somewhere, in what we might call a large spaceship, and inside this spaceship is what we might called wonderland. A fantastical dream... and we navigate this spaceship by navigating ourselves through wonderland, with a good heart, a sharp mind, and a strong will (if you know what I mean). And the more I began to consider this, the more I began to think about Alice in Wonderland. Through the looking glass.

So as I was brushing my teeth I stood in front of the mirror and stopped moving entirely. I looked straight into my own eyes, and I thought about how I was actually looking at my self in the mirror...

This is when the most horrifying thing happened. Everything around me seemed to brighten while my eyes blackened (not the whole eye just the irises) I assume this was a contrast effect due to my eye dilating. But what was really horrifying was that I began to feel as though I had created a solid connection between my two eyes, and that everything else around me was morphing like one might experience on hallucinagenic mushrooms. Then I wasn't sure wether or not I was having an out of body experience, or if I was my mirror image looking at myself, or myself looking at my mirror image- I dont really know what was happening, but I began to feel like my body was being lifted and my perception was changing.

Since then up until now I have had these fierce afterburn images in my eyes (when I look at something light and then dark I see the image in afterburn). Things have cooled down a bit since the writing of this email.

new topics

top topics

0