There and here at the same time .

[hutch622]

OK , so i watch a lot of startalk with Neil deGrasse Tyson and i got to thinking , yes thinking . ? . OK if time stops at the speed of light , would not a photon of light lets say from the andrometer galaxy ( furthest visible light in the night sky 2.5b light years away) be both here and there at the same time (in its own timeline) . Or am i thinking about this wrong . . I don't know any astrophysicists or any physicists for that matter but did once know an astro . Thoughts RN3 .

[guohua]

I would think the light with its images would be aged by the amount of time in years it took those images to travel to our eyesight and if it takes 2.5 Billion years for an image at that exact time to reach you, the next image could be of a White Dwarf Star because as the Star is 2.5 Billion years old, it could have past its life span. I always thought we were looking at the past.
Or,,,, I don't know!

[hutch622]

I would think the light with its images would be aged by the amount of time in years it took those images to travel to our eyesight and if it takes 2.5 Billion years for an image at that exact time to reach you, the next image could be of a White Dwarf Star because as the Star is 2.5 Billion years old, it could have past its life span. I always thought we were looking at the past.
Or,,,, I don't know!

Yes i get what your saying and it does take 2.5 billion years to get here , in our timeline . But for things travelling at the speed of light time stops as i understand it . So would not that particle of light not experiencing time be in its own timeline both here and there at the same time . And yes we are always seeing things things that happened in the past .

[guohua]

@"hutch622" 
I hadn't heard that time stops, I just stated all I know,,,Off to the Corner now, with my dunce cap. Yes, Really.

[Bally002]

I would think the light with its images would be aged by the amount of time in years it took those images to travel to our eyesight and if it takes 2.5 Billion years for an image at that exact time to reach you, the next image could be of a White Dwarf Star because as the Star is 2.5 Billion years old, it could have past its life span. I always thought we were looking at the past.
Or,,,, I don't know!

Yes i get what your saying and it does take 2.5 billion years to get here , in our timeline . But for things travelling at the speed of light time stops as i understand it . So would not that particle of light not experiencing time be in its own timeline both here and there at the same time . And yes we are always seeing things things that happened in the past .

Hi mate, from a time dilation perspective and I'm no physics expert.  The faster you go your mass increases but that indifferent to what I hope I can explain.  If you achieve the speed of light albeit in atom form you are still aging.  Kinda like decaying rad atoms.  Perhaps you are getting older.

The differential in the way I see it, anyone travelling at what ever speed certainly ages but as acceleration and mass increases along with it (E=M x C squared) other things around you are still travelling at their own speed and/or relativity to you.  So in essence.  Your speed if approaching light speed outruns the normal time continuum as we see day to day.  Which essentially places you into a future with regards to those left behind at our regular speed.

Now I have no idea that time will stop for you if you hit light speed.  I have never read that anywhere but time would certainly seem different for those who were not travelling at your speed.   Think of it along the old Einsteins train travelling on a track and relative to a person standing still as to a person on the train.  Both will see and hear things different.  Check it it out.  

Now here's the unexplained equation if you believe the universe is expanding.   Light from other galaxies near the center of the universe, although thought to travel at the speed of light, is taking longer to reach us relative to the speed of the stellar objects travelling towards us or away in another direction.  Hence I believe that the light from objects accelerating in the opposite direction relative to our movement from the center of the known universe hasn't reached us yet and that is my understanding.  In saying that, time hasn't stopped for that of which light can't be discerned, it just in all probability will never reach us...but...there is time ticking over at a rate for those unseen objects.  

If you travel away at vast speeds, your aging in your position seems normal.  But, time dilation kicks in and for us poor bludgers here observing, we will will appear to age quicker as you accelerate and upon your return after a time we may be dead and the planet is in a future aspect to you.

I'm digging a hole for myself here so I'll have to leave it at that as the acceleration in the Einstein equation is meant to be a constant.  Maybe there is someone who could explain it better than my convoluted understandning.

Kind regards,

bally:)

[Sol]

I would think the light with its images would be aged by the amount of time in years it took those images to travel to our eyesight and if it takes 2.5 Billion years for an image at that exact time to reach you, the next image could be of a White Dwarf Star because as the Star is 2.5 Billion years old, it could have past its life span. I always thought we were looking at the past.
Or,,,, I don't know!

Yes i get what your saying and it does take 2.5 billion years to get here , in our timeline . But for things travelling at the speed of light time stops as i understand it . So would not that particle of light not experiencing time be in its own timeline both here and there at the same time . And yes we are always seeing things things that happened in the past .

Hi mate, from a time dilation perspective and I'm no physics expert.  The faster you go your mass increases but that indifferent to what I hope I can explain.  If you achieve the speed of light albeit in atom form you are still aging.  Kinda like decaying rad atoms.  Perhaps you are getting older.

The differential in the way I see it, anyone travelling at what ever speed certainly ages but as acceleration and mass increases along with it (E=M x C squared) other things around you are still travelling at their own speed and/or relativity to you.  So in essence.  Your speed if approaching light speed outruns the normal time continuum as we see day to day.  Which essentially places you into a future with regards to those left behind at our regular speed.

Now I have no idea that time will stop for you if you hit light speed.  I have never read that anywhere but time would certainly seem different for those who were not travelling at your speed.   Think of it along the old Einsteins train travelling on a track and relative to a person standing still as to a person on the train.  Both will see and hear things different.  Check it it out.  

Now here's the unexplained equation if you believe the universe is expanding.   Light from other galaxies near the center of the universe, although thought to travel at the speed of light, is taking longer to reach us relative to the speed of the stellar objects travelling towards us or away in another direction.  Hence I believe that the light from objects accelerating in the opposite direction relative to our movement from the center of the known universe hasn't reached us yet and that is my understanding.  In saying that, time hasn't stopped for that of which light can't be discerned, it just in all probability will never reach us...but...there is time ticking over at a rate for those unseen objects.  

If you travel away at vast speeds, your aging in your position seems normal.  But, time dilation kicks in and for us poor bludgers here observing, we will will appear to age quicker as you accelerate and upon your return after a time we may be dead and the planet is in a future aspect to you.

I'm digging a hole for myself here so I'll have to leave it at that as the acceleration in the Einstein equation is meant to be a constant.  Maybe there is someone who could explain it better than my convoluted understandning.

Kind regards,

bally:)

Replying as I didn't read your reply yet. Still on my first coffee and my brain is still on back order.

Will get back to this thread later, after work.

[Bally002]

I would think the light with its images would be aged by the amount of time in years it took those images to travel to our eyesight and if it takes 2.5 Billion years for an image at that exact time to reach you, the next image could be of a White Dwarf Star because as the Star is 2.5 Billion years old, it could have past its life span. I always thought we were looking at the past.
Or,,,, I don't know!

Yes i get what your saying and it does take 2.5 billion years to get here , in our timeline . But for things travelling at the speed of light time stops as i understand it . So would not that particle of light not experiencing time be in its own timeline both here and there at the same time . And yes we are always seeing things things that happened in the past .

Hi mate, from a time dilation perspective and I'm no physics expert.  The faster you go your mass increases but that indifferent to what I hope I can explain.  If you achieve the speed of light albeit in atom form you are still aging.  Kinda like decaying rad atoms.  Perhaps you are getting older.

The differential in the way I see it, anyone travelling at what ever speed certainly ages but as acceleration and mass increases along with it (E=M x C squared) other things around you are still travelling at their own speed and/or relativity to you.  So in essence.  Your speed if approaching light speed outruns the normal time continuum as we see day to day.  Which essentially places you into a future with regards to those left behind at our regular speed.

Now I have no idea that time will stop for you if you hit light speed.  I have never read that anywhere but time would certainly seem different for those who were not travelling at your speed.   Think of it along the old Einsteins train travelling on a track and relative to a person standing still as to a person on the train.  Both will see and hear things different.  Check it it out.  

Now here's the unexplained equation if you believe the universe is expanding.   Light from other galaxies near the center of the universe, although thought to travel at the speed of light, is taking longer to reach us relative to the speed of the stellar objects travelling towards us or away in another direction.  Hence I believe that the light from objects accelerating in the opposite direction relative to our movement from the center of the known universe hasn't reached us yet and that is my understanding.  In saying that, time hasn't stopped for that of which light can't be discerned, it just in all probability will never reach us...but...there is time ticking over at a rate for those unseen objects.  

If you travel away at vast speeds, your aging in your position seems normal.  But, time dilation kicks in and for us poor bludgers here observing, we will will appear to age quicker as you accelerate and upon your return after a time we may be dead and the planet is in a future aspect to you.

I'm digging a hole for myself here so I'll have to leave it at that as the acceleration in the Einstein equation is meant to be a constant.  Maybe there is someone who could explain it better than my convoluted understandning.

Kind regards,

bally:)

Replying as I didn't read your reply yet. Still on my first coffee and my brain is still on back order.

Will get back to this thread later, after work.

Sigh,  

Bally:)

[gordi]

I would think the light with its images would be aged by the amount of time in years it took those images to travel to our eyesight and if it takes 2.5 Billion years for an image at that exact time to reach you, the next image could be of a White Dwarf Star because as the Star is 2.5 Billion years old, it could have past its life span. I always thought we were looking at the past.
Or,,,, I don't know!

Yes i get what your saying and it does take 2.5 billion years to get here , in our timeline . But for things travelling at the speed of light time stops as i understand it . So would not that particle of light not experiencing time be in its own timeline both here and there at the same time . And yes we are always seeing things things that happened in the past .

A single photon would be at one single point in space at any given time.
Travelling at the speed of light, the photon would still take 2.5 billion years to travel from Andromeda (which is 2.5 billion light years away) to us here on Earth.
From the photon's perspective... it can still (in theory) only be in one place at one time BUT time (as we know it) wouldn't exist for the Photon!
Once emitted (as a particle of light), it could exist for hundreds, thousands, millions, billions of our years without any time (or distance) passing from it's own perspective before being absorbed again at its destination.
So, from the Photon's own perspective, you could say that it existed both here and there at the same time, but time (as we know it) doesn't really apply to photons travelling at the speed of light!
Clear as Mud IMHO, but a great topic to chew on!

G

[Bally002]

I would think the light with its images would be aged by the amount of time in years it took those images to travel to our eyesight and if it takes 2.5 Billion years for an image at that exact time to reach you, the next image could be of a White Dwarf Star because as the Star is 2.5 Billion years old, it could have past its life span. I always thought we were looking at the past.
Or,,,, I don't know!

Yes i get what your saying and it does take 2.5 billion years to get here , in our timeline . But for things travelling at the speed of light time stops as i understand it . So would not that particle of light not experiencing time be in its own timeline both here and there at the same time . And yes we are always seeing things things that happened in the past .

A single photon would be at one single point in space at any given time.
Travelling at the speed of light, the photon would still take 2.5 billion years to travel from Andromeda (which is 2.5 billion light years away) to us here on Earth.
From the photon's perspective... it can still (in theory) only be in one place at one time BUT time (as we know it) wouldn't exist for the Photon!
Once emitted (as a particle of light), it could exist for hundreds, thousands, millions, billions of our years without any time (or distance) passing from it's own perspective before being absorbed again at its destination.
So, from the Photon's own perspective, you could say that it existed both here and there at the same time, but time (as we know it) doesn't really apply to photons travelling at the speed of light!
Clear as Mud IMHO, but a great topic to chew on!

G

Yeah, what Gordi said.  See.

Kind regards,

Bally:)

[hutch622]

I would think the light with its images would be aged by the amount of time in years it took those images to travel to our eyesight and if it takes 2.5 Billion years for an image at that exact time to reach you, the next image could be of a White Dwarf Star because as the Star is 2.5 Billion years old, it could have past its life span. I always thought we were looking at the past.
Or,,,, I don't know!

Yes i get what your saying and it does take 2.5 billion years to get here , in our timeline . But for things travelling at the speed of light time stops as i understand it . So would not that particle of light not experiencing time be in its own timeline both here and there at the same time . And yes we are always seeing things things that happened in the past .

Hi mate, from a time dilation perspective and I'm no physics expert.  The faster you go your mass increases but that indifferent to what I hope I can explain.  If you achieve the speed of light albeit in atom form you are still aging.  Kinda like decaying rad atoms.  Perhaps you are getting older.

The differential in the way I see it, anyone travelling at what ever speed certainly ages but as acceleration and mass increases along with it (E=M x C squared) other things around you are still travelling at their own speed and/or relativity to you.  So in essence.  Your speed if approaching light speed outruns the normal time continuum as we see day to day.  Which essentially places you into a future with regards to those left behind at our regular speed.

Now I have no idea that time will stop for you if you hit light speed.  I have never read that anywhere but time would certainly seem different for those who were not travelling at your speed.   Think of it along the old Einsteins train travelling on a track and relative to a person standing still as to a person on the train.  Both will see and hear things different.  Check it it out.  

Now here's the unexplained equation if you believe the universe is expanding.   Light from other galaxies near the center of the universe, although thought to travel at the speed of light, is taking longer to reach us relative to the speed of the stellar objects travelling towards us or away in another direction.  Hence I believe that the light from objects accelerating in the opposite direction relative to our movement from the center of the known universe hasn't reached us yet and that is my understanding.  In saying that, time hasn't stopped for that of which light can't be discerned, it just in all probability will never reach us...but...there is time ticking over at a rate for those unseen objects.  

If you travel away at vast speeds, your aging in your position seems normal.  But, time dilation kicks in and for us poor bludgers here observing, we will will appear to age quicker as you accelerate and upon your return after a time we may be dead and the planet is in a future aspect to you.

I'm digging a hole for myself here so I'll have to leave it at that as the acceleration in the Einstein equation is meant to be a constant.  Maybe there is someone who could explain it better than my convoluted understandning.

Kind regards,

bally:)

Stopping time
Apparently you can stop time as in the link above and that's why i asked the question . Honestly when it comes to some of the more complex quantum physics theories i just go , huh , to be honest . Time dilation i will look up to be sure although im pretty sure i have crossed that theory before .
Fun fact . Do you remember the old televisions where if it wasn't tuned just right you used to get what we called snow on the screen . Apparently around 1% of that snow is actually left over radiation from the big bang .
Static
Bloody universe does my head in at times.

[hutch622]

I would think the light with its images would be aged by the amount of time in years it took those images to travel to our eyesight and if it takes 2.5 Billion years for an image at that exact time to reach you, the next image could be of a White Dwarf Star because as the Star is 2.5 Billion years old, it could have past its life span. I always thought we were looking at the past.
Or,,,, I don't know!

Yes i get what your saying and it does take 2.5 billion years to get here , in our timeline . But for things travelling at the speed of light time stops as i understand it . So would not that particle of light not experiencing time be in its own timeline both here and there at the same time . And yes we are always seeing things things that happened in the past .

A single photon would be at one single point in space at any given time.
Travelling at the speed of light, the photon would still take 2.5 billion years to travel from Andromeda (which is 2.5 billion light years away) to us here on Earth.
From the photon's perspective... it can still (in theory) only be in one place at one time BUT time (as we know it) wouldn't exist for the Photon!
Once emitted (as a particle of light), it could exist for hundreds, thousands, millions, billions of our years without any time (or distance) passing from it's own perspective before being absorbed again at its destination.
So, from the Photon's own perspective, you could say that it existed both here and there at the same time, but time (as we know it) doesn't really apply to photons travelling at the speed of light!
Clear as Mud IMHO, but a great topic to chew on!

G

Yes , this was all meant to be about the photons perspective , not that they have one of course . I posed this as a question for star talk about a month ago but have heard nothing in reply as to if it was going to make it on the program .

[Bally002]

I would think the light with its images would be aged by the amount of time in years it took those images to travel to our eyesight and if it takes 2.5 Billion years for an image at that exact time to reach you, the next image could be of a White Dwarf Star because as the Star is 2.5 Billion years old, it could have past its life span. I always thought we were looking at the past.
Or,,,, I don't know!

Yes i get what your saying and it does take 2.5 billion years to get here , in our timeline . But for things travelling at the speed of light time stops as i understand it . So would not that particle of light not experiencing time be in its own timeline both here and there at the same time . And yes we are always seeing things things that happened in the past .

Hi mate, from a time dilation perspective and I'm no physics expert.  The faster you go your mass increases but that indifferent to what I hope I can explain.  If you achieve the speed of light albeit in atom form you are still aging.  Kinda like decaying rad atoms.  Perhaps you are getting older.

The differential in the way I see it, anyone travelling at what ever speed certainly ages but as acceleration and mass increases along with it (E=M x C squared) other things around you are still travelling at their own speed and/or relativity to you.  So in essence.  Your speed if approaching light speed outruns the normal time continuum as we see day to day.  Which essentially places you into a future with regards to those left behind at our regular speed.

Now I have no idea that time will stop for you if you hit light speed.  I have never read that anywhere but time would certainly seem different for those who were not travelling at your speed.   Think of it along the old Einsteins train travelling on a track and relative to a person standing still as to a person on the train.  Both will see and hear things different.  Check it it out.  

Now here's the unexplained equation if you believe the universe is expanding.   Light from other galaxies near the center of the universe, although thought to travel at the speed of light, is taking longer to reach us relative to the speed of the stellar objects travelling towards us or away in another direction.  Hence I believe that the light from objects accelerating in the opposite direction relative to our movement from the center of the known universe hasn't reached us yet and that is my understanding.  In saying that, time hasn't stopped for that of which light can't be discerned, it just in all probability will never reach us...but...there is time ticking over at a rate for those unseen objects.  

If you travel away at vast speeds, your aging in your position seems normal.  But, time dilation kicks in and for us poor bludgers here observing, we will will appear to age quicker as you accelerate and upon your return after a time we may be dead and the planet is in a future aspect to you.

I'm digging a hole for myself here so I'll have to leave it at that as the acceleration in the Einstein equation is meant to be a constant.  Maybe there is someone who could explain it better than my convoluted understandning.

Kind regards,

bally:)

Stopping time
Apparently you can stop time as in the link above and that's why i asked the question . Honestly when it comes to some of the more complex quantum physics theories i just go , huh , to be honest . Time dilation i will look up to be sure although im pretty sure i have crossed that theory before .
Fun fact . Do you remember the old televisions where if it wasn't tuned just right you used to get what we called snow on the screen . Apparently around 1% of that snow is actually left over radiation from the big bang .
Static
Bloody universe does my head in at times.

This is where I have difficulty in getting my head around it and explaining it.  By all means time can stop for the atom/photon but exists in the continuum meaning we all get older but the traveler, existing in that constant, to me, still ages but relative to our time doesn't.

errr, I'm digging a deeper hole for myself.  Look at parallel universes in my old thread in 'Long Stories'.  It does help.  Or it doesn't.  

Kind regards mate,

Bally:)

[hutch622]

@"hutch622" 
I hadn't heard that time stops, I just stated all I know,,,Off to the Corner now, with my dunce cap. Yes, Really.

No need for the dunces cap . Pretty sure the majority of people wouldn't know that time stops at the speed of light , nor would they care and probably rightfully so . Its just a subject that both fascinates me (space) and does my head in at the same time . I mean like the question of where does the universe end .

[Bally002]

@"hutch622" 
I hadn't heard that time stops, I just stated all I know,,,Off to the Corner now, with my dunce cap. Yes, Really.

No need for the dunces cap . Pretty sure the majority of people wouldn't know that time stops at the speed of light , nor would they care and probably rightfully so . Its just a subject that both fascinates me (space) and does my head in at the same time . I mean like the question of where does the universe end .

Universes mate, universes.  It's endless.

Chuckle, my thoughts,

Bally:)

[hutch622]

@"hutch622" 
I hadn't heard that time stops, I just stated all I know,,,Off to the Corner now, with my dunce cap. Yes, Really.

No need for the dunces cap . Pretty sure the majority of people wouldn't know that time stops at the speed of light , nor would they care and probably rightfully so . Its just a subject that both fascinates me (space) and does my head in at the same time . I mean like the question of where does the universe end .

Universes mate, universes.  It's endless.

Chuckle, my thoughts,

Bally:)

Be a good topic over a few beers cooking crabs im thinking .

[Bally002]

@"hutch622" 
I hadn't heard that time stops, I just stated all I know,,,Off to the Corner now, with my dunce cap. Yes, Really.

No need for the dunces cap . Pretty sure the majority of people wouldn't know that time stops at the speed of light , nor would they care and probably rightfully so . Its just a subject that both fascinates me (space) and does my head in at the same time . I mean like the question of where does the universe end .

Universes mate, universes.  It's endless.

Chuckle, my thoughts,

Bally:)

Be a good topic over a few beers cooking crabs im thinking .

Yeah and that's a good example.  perhaps we go crabbing and catch bluey's.  Then in another aspect we don't.   We stay at home and drink.  That decision can have larger implications in both cases for us and the crabs.

In the second aspect, while not going crabbing we make the decision to go elsewhere and attempt fishing perhaps.  Or simply watch TV drinking instead.  Those decisions or in-decisions  will affect the make up of the future.  "Schroedinger's Cat."  A great read for quantum physics.

Kind regards,

Bally:)

[NightskyeB4Dawn]

Be a good topic over a few beers cooking crabs im thinking .

Make them Southern Maryland blues and I am in. 

[hutch622]

Be a good topic over a few beers cooking crabs im thinking .

Make them Southern Maryland blues and I am in. 

Looked them up and they are similar to our blue swimmer crabs here in Australia .

[hutch622]

@"hutch622" 
I hadn't heard that time stops, I just stated all I know,,,Off to the Corner now, with my dunce cap. Yes, Really.

No need for the dunces cap . Pretty sure the majority of people wouldn't know that time stops at the speed of light , nor would they care and probably rightfully so . Its just a subject that both fascinates me (space) and does my head in at the same time . I mean like the question of where does the universe end .

Universes mate, universes.  It's endless.

Chuckle, my thoughts,

Bally:)

Be a good topic over a few beers cooking crabs im thinking .

Yeah and that's a good example.  perhaps we go crabbing and catch bluey's.  Then in another aspect we don't.   We stay at home and drink.  That decision can have larger implications in both cases for us and the crabs.

In the second aspect, while not going crabbing we make the decision to go elsewhere and attempt fishing perhaps.  Or simply watch TV drinking instead.  Those decisions or in-decisions  will affect the make up of the future.  "Schroedinger's Cat."  A great read for quantum physics.

Kind regards,

Bally:)

Fishing is always a go . If nothing else during summer the snook should be on . Ah fresh smoked snook . Pavlovs dog happening here .

[NightskyeB4Dawn]

Be a good topic over a few beers cooking crabs im thinking .

Make them Southern Maryland blues and I am in. 

Looked them up and they are similar to our blue swimmer crabs here in Australia .

I grew up on the Chesapeake Bay and learned to eat crabs by myself by the time I was two.

I looked up your blue swimmers and though they may be similar to our Southern Maryland blues. I am sure the blue swimmers coming from Australia are likely to kill you, but I would definitely be willing to give them a run for their money.