Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Light From Early Earth
47 views
Skip to first unread message
Suzanne
May 19, 2012, 6:27:57 PM5/19/12
to
Light From Early Earth
I have a question. You know, the light from many stars have so far to
travel that there are still stars we have never seen. In fact, some of
them may no longer exist by the time the light reaches
us and shows us their image, you know.
So....where was the earth way back in
time and is it possible that where we
once were could reach us and give us
an image of ourselves back in time?
>
Also, since we have traveled undoubtedly many places, could we appear
more than once? There is even
talk by some that we may not have originated in the Milky Way Galaxy.
Their reasoning is that we view the
galaxy from the outer edges of it. We
can look up in the sky and see the
sort of spiral it forms.
>
By the way, the sun has an orbit,
itself, and we just follow it where it
goes. Where has it been and
where did it originate? What do we
know about that? And when we
look into deepest space and come
up with a light show like we did that
looks like "The Big Bang," since we
claim to be billions and billions and
billions of years old, according to
modern science..where were we
billions of years ago since the earth
has an orbit, and since we also have
been traveling with the sun and it's
own orbit?
>
Suzanne
>
>
I have a question. You know, the light from many stars have so far to
travel that there are still stars we have never seen. In fact, some of
them may no longer exist by the time the light reaches
us and shows us their image, you know.
So....where was the earth way back in
time and is it possible that where we
once were could reach us and give us
an image of ourselves back in time?
>
Also, since we have traveled undoubtedly many places, could we appear
more than once? There is even
talk by some that we may not have originated in the Milky Way Galaxy.
Their reasoning is that we view the
galaxy from the outer edges of it. We
can look up in the sky and see the
sort of spiral it forms.
>
By the way, the sun has an orbit,
itself, and we just follow it where it
goes. Where has it been and
where did it originate? What do we
know about that? And when we
look into deepest space and come
up with a light show like we did that
looks like "The Big Bang," since we
claim to be billions and billions and
billions of years old, according to
modern science..where were we
billions of years ago since the earth
has an orbit, and since we also have
been traveling with the sun and it's
own orbit?
>
Suzanne
>
>
Miriam Rogers
May 19, 2012, 8:02:40 PM5/19/12
to
On 20 Mei, 05:27, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Light From Early Earth
>
> I have a question. You know, the light from many stars have so far to
> travel that there are still stars we have never seen. In fact, some of
> them may no longer exist by the time the light reaches
> us and shows us their image, you know.
> So....where was the earth way back in
> time and is it possible that where we
> once were could reach us and give us
> an image of ourselves back in time?
No. Think it through. You imagine the light from our past "catching up
> Light From Early Earth
>
> I have a question. You know, the light from many stars have so far to
> travel that there are still stars we have never seen. In fact, some of
> them may no longer exist by the time the light reaches
> us and shows us their image, you know.
> So....where was the earth way back in
> time and is it possible that where we
> once were could reach us and give us
> an image of ourselves back in time?
to us today." If there were any catching up to do, that would mean
that the earth had to have moved faster than the light reflected from
the earth. We'd owe Einstein a hefty speeding fine.
>
> Also, since we have traveled undoubtedly many places, could we appear
> more than once? There is even
> talk by some that we may not have originated in the Milky Way Galaxy.
> Their reasoning is that we view the
> galaxy from the outer edges of it. We
> can look up in the sky and see the
> sort of spiral it forms.
>
> By the way, the sun has an orbit,
> itself, and we just follow it where it
> goes. Where has it been and
> where did it originate? What do we
> know about that? And when we
> look into deepest space and come
> up with a light show like we did that
> looks like "The Big Bang," since we
> claim to be billions and billions and
> billions of years old, according to
> modern science..where were we
> billions of years ago since the earth
> has an orbit, and since we also have
> been traveling with the sun and it's
> own orbit?
cosmology than you will by asking here. Even something like "The
Origin of the Universe for Dummies." No offense intended by the title,
it's just a non-mathematical, basic overview.
>
> Suzanne
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Arkalen
May 19, 2012, 8:32:56 PM5/19/12
to
(2012/05/20 7:27), Suzanne wrote:
> Light From Early Earth
>
> I have a question. You know, the light from many stars have so far to
> travel that there are still stars we have never seen. In fact, some of
> them may no longer exist by the time the light reaches
> us and shows us their image, you know.
> So....where was the earth way back in
> time and is it possible that where we
> once were could reach us and give us
> an image of ourselves back in time?
No.
> Light From Early Earth
>
> I have a question. You know, the light from many stars have so far to
> travel that there are still stars we have never seen. In fact, some of
> them may no longer exist by the time the light reaches
> us and shows us their image, you know.
> So....where was the earth way back in
> time and is it possible that where we
> once were could reach us and give us
> an image of ourselves back in time?
Consider : say we've got two times, time 1 and time 2. At time 1 Earth
was in place 1 and at time 2 Earth was in place 2.
In order for Earth in place 2 to receive light from Earth in place 1
(i.e. to see the past image of itself), the Earth needs to have gone
from place 1 to place 2 faster than the light did.
Earth does not travel faster than the speed of light (I don't think even
the more extreme creationist "variable speed of light" fantasies would
accomodate that). Thus, no seeing of past images of ourselves.
If the Earth travelled faster than the speed of light it would be
another story.
>>
> Also, since we have traveled undoubtedly many places, could we appear
> more than once? There is even
> talk by some that we may not have originated in the Milky Way Galaxy.
> Their reasoning is that we view the
> galaxy from the outer edges of it. We
> can look up in the sky and see the
> sort of spiral it forms.
the whole Milky Way, it's the galaxy's center seen edge-on.
>>
> By the way, the sun has an orbit,
> itself, and we just follow it where it
> goes. Where has it been and
> where did it originate? What do we
> know about that?
formation is that both work together. It's not disparate stars forming
independently and joining together to form a galaxy, it's the galaxy
that starts out as a huge spinning cloud of gas that segregate into
starts. A bit like the Solar System isn't a bunch of separate planets
coming together, the whole Solar System forms together as the
proto-stellar nebula collapses.
The orbits in both cases reflect the way the original cloud of gas was
spinning (as well as the subsequent gravitational interaction of the
discrete stars or planets once they've formed)
> And when we
> look into deepest space and come
> up with a light show like we did that
> looks like "The Big Bang," since we
> claim to be billions and billions and
> billions of years old, according to
> modern science..where were we
> billions of years ago since the earth
> has an orbit, and since we also have
> been traveling with the sun and it's
> own orbit?
thing, but just in case you're confused about the Big Bang (most people
are) : the Big Bang didn't happen in a specific *place*. The Big Bang is
the whole Universe expanding. When you talk about the "light show" we
see when looking into "the deepest space", what we're doing isn't
looking at an actual image of the Big Bang. You're probably thinking of
the background cosmic radiation, and that's something that's everywhere.
And the Big Bang happened everywhere (because "everywhere" is another
word for "the Universe" for our purposes, see how it works ?) so you
could say it *is* an image of the Big Bang, but it isn't really a light
show like, say, a supernova is.
We *do* see very old things when looking at the deepest space,
first-generation galaxies and such, but I haven't heard of seeing
anything close to the start of the Big Bang.
Mike Painter
May 19, 2012, 11:51:56 PM5/19/12
to
On 5/19/2012 5:02 PM, Miriam Rogers wrote:
> No. Think it through. You imagine the light from our past "catching up
> to us today." If there were any catching up to do, that would mean
> that the earth had to have moved faster than the light reflected from
> the earth. We'd owe Einstein a hefty speeding fine.
And when we looked behind us we'd find a long line of us...
> No. Think it through. You imagine the light from our past "catching up
> to us today." If there were any catching up to do, that would mean
> that the earth had to have moved faster than the light reflected from
> the earth. We'd owe Einstein a hefty speeding fine.
Mike Dworetsky
May 20, 2012, 3:22:33 AM5/20/12
to
Suzanne wrote:
> Light From Early Earth
>
> I have a question. You know, the light from many stars have so far to
> travel that there are still stars we have never seen. In fact, some of
> them may no longer exist by the time the light reaches
> us and shows us their image, you know.
> So....where was the earth way back in
> time and is it possible that where we
> once were could reach us and give us
> an image of ourselves back in time?
The Earth (and Sun) were orbiting the Galaxy. If the Earth is 4.5 billion
> Light From Early Earth
>
> I have a question. You know, the light from many stars have so far to
> travel that there are still stars we have never seen. In fact, some of
> them may no longer exist by the time the light reaches
> us and shows us their image, you know.
> So....where was the earth way back in
> time and is it possible that where we
> once were could reach us and give us
> an image of ourselves back in time?
years old, and an orbit takes about 200 million years, we have gone around
roughly 20-22 times since the solar system formed.
Unless you can invent time travel, which I doubt, it is not possible to look
and see an image of Earth back in time.
An interesting fictional take on this idea is in a SF novel, "Timescape", by
Gregory Benford.
>>
> Also, since we have traveled undoubtedly many places, could we appear
> more than once? There is even
> talk by some that we may not have originated in the Milky Way Galaxy.
with some references?
> Their reasoning is that we view the
> galaxy from the outer edges of it. We
> can look up in the sky and see the
> sort of spiral it forms.
of the nearby arms. The spiral arms were deduced and mapped using radio
astronomy. A casual glance does not show sprial structure.
>>
> By the way, the sun has an orbit,
> itself, and we just follow it where it
> goes. Where has it been and
> where did it originate? What do we
> know about that? And when we
material has a fairly circular orbit. It has been orbiting ever since.
> look into deepest space and come
> up with a light show like we did that
> looks like "The Big Bang," since we
> claim to be billions and billions and
> billions of years old, according to
> modern science..where were we
> billions of years ago since the earth
> has an orbit, and since we also have
> been traveling with the sun and it's
> own orbit?
are asking?
The Sun and Earth are much younger than the Universe, and the Galaxy has
formed by numerous mergers of galaxies over billions of years, starting with
smaller galaxies that formed in the first billion years.
>>
> Suzanne
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Suzanne
May 24, 2012, 6:09:44 PM5/24/12
to
On May 19, 7:02 pm, Miriam Rogers <mroger...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 20 Mei, 05:27, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >LightFromEarlyEarth
>
> > I have a question. You know, thelightfrom many stars have so far to
> On 20 Mei, 05:27, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >LightFromEarlyEarth
>
> > travel that there are still stars we have never seen. In fact, some of
> > them may no longer exist by the time thelightreaches
> > us and shows us their image, you know.
> > So....where was theearthway back in
> > them may no longer exist by the time thelightreaches
> > us and shows us their image, you know.
> > time and is it possible that where we
> > once were could reach us and give us
> > an image of ourselves back in time?
>
> No. Think it through. You imagine thelightfrom our past "catching up
> > once were could reach us and give us
> > an image of ourselves back in time?
>
> to us today." If there were any catching up to do, that would mean
> that theearthhad to have moved faster than thelightreflected from
> theearth. We'd owe Einstein a hefty speeding fine.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Also, since we have traveled undoubtedly many places, could we appear
> > more than once? There is even
> > talk by some that we may not have originated in the Milky Way Galaxy.
> > Their reasoning is that we view the
> > galaxy from the outer edges of it. We
> > can look up in the sky and see the
> > sort of spiral it forms.
>
> > By the way, the sun has an orbit,
> > itself, and we just follow it where it
> > goes. Where has it been and
> > where did it originate? What do we
> > know about that? And when we
> > look into deepest space and come
> > up with alightshow like we did that
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Also, since we have traveled undoubtedly many places, could we appear
> > more than once? There is even
> > talk by some that we may not have originated in the Milky Way Galaxy.
> > Their reasoning is that we view the
> > galaxy from the outer edges of it. We
> > can look up in the sky and see the
> > sort of spiral it forms.
>
> > By the way, the sun has an orbit,
> > itself, and we just follow it where it
> > goes. Where has it been and
> > where did it originate? What do we
> > know about that? And when we
> > look into deepest space and come
> > looks like "The Big Bang," since we
> > claim to be billions and billions and
> > billions of years old, according to
> > modern science..where were we
> > billions of years ago since theearth
> > has an orbit, and since we also have
> > been traveling with the sun and it's
> > own orbit?
>
> You'd get more complete information by buying a book on astronomy or
> cosmology than you will by asking here. Even something like "The
> Origin of the Universe for Dummies." No offense intended by the title,
> it's just a non-mathematical, basic overview.
>
Thank you for taking the time to answer and for your ideas and your
> > claim to be billions and billions and
> > billions of years old, according to
> > modern science..where were we
> > billions of years ago since theearth
> > has an orbit, and since we also have
> > been traveling with the sun and it's
> > own orbit?
>
> You'd get more complete information by buying a book on astronomy or
> cosmology than you will by asking here. Even something like "The
> Origin of the Universe for Dummies." No offense intended by the title,
> it's just a non-mathematical, basic overview.
>
opinions, Miriam.
>
Einstein was able to have his theory proved because of an eclipse
which
revealed that an object behind the edge of the eclipse could be seen.
which scientists didn't think should have been seen. The light from it
did not travel in a straight line, but
was otherwise affected. The earth is supposed to be 4.54 billions of
years old. We travel in a curved
orbit around in the sun's curved
orbit and Einstein also, so I have
read, seemed to believe that the
universe is curved. At some point
in that long of a time, I wondered
if we might've come to a position
where we could observe our own
planet from some time in the past.
It's not a matter of us catching up
with the speed of light so much as
the question is, how old to we have
to be in order to find some spot in
the universe where we could encouter an image of earth from the
past. We can't see a light bulb after it burns out because we are too
close to it. But in 4.54 BILLION years....
>
Suzanne
Bill
May 24, 2012, 8:44:06 PM5/24/12
to
an image of the earth that had been emitted 4.54 minutes ago, or 4.54
billion years ago. General relativity does not help you in the least.
It may be a sort of sweet and curious idea, pleasant to dream about,
but it doesn't stand a minute's thought.
*Hemidactylus*
May 24, 2012, 9:11:12 PM5/24/12
to
from 1820 UTC on November 22, 1963 onward, we might learn a lot.
Mike Painter
May 24, 2012, 11:43:12 PM5/24/12
to
In particular your example is a very bad choice for "proof"
http://tinyurl.com/d6amj79
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_General_Relativity#Deflection_of_light_by_the_Sun
The earth is supposed to be 4.54 billions of
> years old. We travel in a curved
> orbit around in the sun's curved
> orbit and Einstein also, so I have
> read, seemed to believe that the
> universe is curved. At some point
> in that long of a time, I wondered
> if we might've come to a position
> where we could observe our own
> planet from some time in the past.
> It's not a matter of us catching up
> with the speed of light so much as
> the question is, how old to we have
> to be in order to find some spot in
> the universe where we could encouter an image of earth from the
> past. We can't see a light bulb after it burns out because we are too
> close to it. But in 4.54 BILLION years....
>>
information.
<POINTLESS>
consider a train traveling at 1000 miles per hour in a straight line.
Your car is on a circular road traveling at 1 mile per hour.
You both start from point A heading towards point B, 1000 miles away in
a straight line.
Your path is circular so you have to travel 1570 miles to get to B.
It takes you 1570 hours and the train one hour.
You can't get to B before the train does and if you argue for a
continuous time line your argument about distance falls apart.
</POINTLESS>
J. J. Lodder
May 25, 2012, 3:16:24 AM5/25/12
to
Jan
nick_keigh...@hotmail.com
May 25, 2012, 5:32:15 AM5/25/12
to
On Saturday, May 19, 2012 11:27:57 PM UTC+1, Suzanne wrote:
haven't you posted this before? It sounds familiar.
> Light From Early Earth
>
> I have a question. You know, the light from many stars have so far to
> travel that there are still stars we have never seen. In fact, some of
> them may no longer exist by the time the light reaches
> us
I'm not sure Relativity would put it that way.
> and shows us their image, you know.
> So....where was the earth way back in
> time and is it possible that where we
> once were could reach us and give us
> an image of ourselves back in time?
no. The earth travels very slowly compared with the speed of light. The light from, say, a million years ago is now a million light years away (well on its way to the Andromeda galaxy) the earth was still well inside the galaxy then.
If space were *very* curved then we might see our past selves, but the evidence is that space isn't like that.
lets hope some kindly alien race has set up giant mirrors for us
> [...] There is even
> Their reasoning is that we view the
> galaxy from the outer edges of it. We
> can look up in the sky and see the
> sort of spiral it forms.
ok.
How does that indicate we have an extra-galactic origin. We are are very far from the edge of the galaxy (10s of 1000s of light years).
> By the way, the sun has an orbit,
> itself, and we just follow it where it
> goes. Where has it been and
> where did it originate?
there was a recent Sci Am article. Apparently we've got about quite a lot. Up and down through the plane of the galaxy and quite a long way in. I understand our galactic orbit is quite eccentric.
> What do we
> know about that? And when we
> look into deepest space and come
> up with a light show like we did that
> looks like "The Big Bang,"
the "light show" is a shadow of its former self- it's just microwaves.
> since we
> claim to be billions and billions and
> billions of years old,
the universe is about 14 billion years old.
> according to
> modern science..where were we
> billions of years ago since the earth
> has an orbit, and since we also have
> been traveling with the sun and it's
> own orbit?
the earth (and sun) is only about 4 billion years old. I (and I suspect everyone else) don't know exactly where we were 4GY ago. But I'd bet it was in the galaxy somewhere.
haven't you posted this before? It sounds familiar.
> Light From Early Earth
>
> I have a question. You know, the light from many stars have so far to
> travel that there are still stars we have never seen. In fact, some of
> them may no longer exist by the time the light reaches
> us
> and shows us their image, you know.
> So....where was the earth way back in
> time and is it possible that where we
> once were could reach us and give us
> an image of ourselves back in time?
If space were *very* curved then we might see our past selves, but the evidence is that space isn't like that.
lets hope some kindly alien race has set up giant mirrors for us
> [...] There is even
> talk by some that we may not have originated in the Milky Way Galaxy.
who? It's not called the net of a million lies for no reason.
> Their reasoning is that we view the
> galaxy from the outer edges of it. We
> can look up in the sky and see the
> sort of spiral it forms.
How does that indicate we have an extra-galactic origin. We are are very far from the edge of the galaxy (10s of 1000s of light years).
> By the way, the sun has an orbit,
> itself, and we just follow it where it
> goes. Where has it been and
> where did it originate?
> What do we
> know about that? And when we
> look into deepest space and come
> up with a light show like we did that
> looks like "The Big Bang,"
> since we
> claim to be billions and billions and
> billions of years old,
> according to
> modern science..where were we
> billions of years ago since the earth
> has an orbit, and since we also have
> been traveling with the sun and it's
> own orbit?
nick_keigh...@hotmail.com
May 25, 2012, 5:34:41 AM5/25/12
to
On Friday, May 25, 2012 2:11:12 AM UTC+1, *Hemidactylus* wrote:
> If we could point a strong enough telescope at an image of the Earth
> from 1820 UTC on November 22, 1963 onward, we might learn a lot.
my cousin's 8th birthaday party?
> If we could point a strong enough telescope at an image of the Earth
> from 1820 UTC on November 22, 1963 onward, we might learn a lot.
Klaus Hellnick
May 25, 2012, 6:22:13 AM5/25/12
to
train track would circle the globe and form a closed loop. She wants to
know how long it would take the train to lap you.
I do not know why she wold think gravitational lensing would cause a
closed loop in spacetime that would direct the Earth's light back to us,
or how we could even calculate it if it did. Perhaps she thinks "curved"
= "forms a closed loop".
Klaus
Bill
May 25, 2012, 7:53:56 AM5/25/12
to
distances over long times and she thinks it would be cool if we could
see light from the Earth of long ago. She's not thinking hard enough
to make the error you describe.
Harry K
May 25, 2012, 11:12:48 AM5/25/12
to
On May 25, 3:22 am, Klaus Hellnick <khelSPAMln...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_General_Relativity#Deflection_o...
Warning. Do not try to understand 'how she thinks' - that way lies
madness :)
Harry K
wrote:
madness :)
Harry K
Mike Painter
May 25, 2012, 1:53:05 PM5/25/12
to
On 5/25/2012 3:22 AM, Klaus Hellnick wrote:
>>
>>
>
> Actually, in the situation she is trying to describe, the "straight"
> train track would circle the globe and form a closed loop. She wants to
> know how long it would take the train to lap you.
> I do not know why she wold think gravitational lensing would cause a
> closed loop in spacetime that would direct the Earth's light back to us,
> or how we could even calculate it if it did. Perhaps she thinks "curved"
> = "forms a closed loop".
> Klaus
I don't think so, but probably didn't make myself clear.
>>
>>
>
> Actually, in the situation she is trying to describe, the "straight"
> train track would circle the globe and form a closed loop. She wants to
> know how long it would take the train to lap you.
> I do not know why she wold think gravitational lensing would cause a
> closed loop in spacetime that would direct the Earth's light back to us,
> or how we could even calculate it if it did. Perhaps she thinks "curved"
> = "forms a closed loop".
> Klaus
The train is light from earth traveling from point A to B and the car is
the actual earth.
Of course if this was possible the past earth and in fact the past
everything would be visible from any point in space or time.
I should be able to see me coming out of the kitchen a few minutes ago
just by turning around.
deadrat
May 25, 2012, 2:53:34 PM5/25/12
to
happens.
Arkalen
May 25, 2012, 3:21:31 PM5/25/12
to
our purposes I'm sure it's close enough) but the effect is very very
small. Hence why nobody figured it out before the 20th century.
I suppose with some black holes strategically placed a beam of light
coming from Earth could get back to Earth at some point, pinball
machine-like. (unless, you know, not; I am not a physicist).
Of course for us to see past Earth the light would have to do the
runaround in 4 billion years or less. If there were that much distorsion
in spacetime close enough to Earth for that we'd be able to tell; I
imagine the galaxy would look like a funhouse mirror to us. The
gravitational lensing effects we do observe are more like, well, lenses.
They bend the path of light a bit but don't turn it completely around.
Miriam Rogers
May 25, 2012, 7:51:03 PM5/25/12
to
takes the shortest path from point A to point B, taking into account
the curvature of space (like a great circle route on the globe). It is
not as though light could take a curved path from A to B at the speed
of light and the earth could get from A to B faster by going in a
straight line from A to B at a speed slower than light.
Arkalen
May 25, 2012, 8:11:48 PM5/25/12
to
space curving light around back to Earth, the Earth would also be
affected by the black holes' gravity, giving it some absurd trajectory
that would never intersect that of the light that left it ?
Bill
May 25, 2012, 10:52:14 PM5/25/12
to
Bob Casanova
May 26, 2012, 2:17:46 PM5/26/12
to
On Fri, 25 May 2012 10:53:05 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Mike Painter
<md.pa...@sbcglobal.net>:
Ever read the SF novel _Redshift Rendezvous_ by John E.
Stith?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
in talk.origins, posted by Mike Painter
<md.pa...@sbcglobal.net>:
Stith?
--
Bob C.
"Evidence confirming an observation is
evidence that the observation is wrong."
- McNameless
Suzanne
May 26, 2012, 2:13:39 PM5/26/12
to
>
Thank you for your ideas, anyway. I realilze
the idea sounds like a dog chasing it's tail
and never being able to catch up to it. I think
though, it has taken some imagination from
a few individuals to be able to do some of the
things that we previously thought were not
possible as well. When I was a child...long,
long ago in a far away galaxy...people didn't know that there was a
time when the continents fit together. When I got in grade
school, our teachers told us that no one could go to the moon in their
lifetime. By the time I
got to the sixth grade, a teacher told us that if
we could build a rocket that could go to the moon, It would take many,
many, many years
to get there and no rocket could hold enough fuel to get there, and if
they did build such a
wonder, there would be no way to get back.
Man has done so much already that seemed
to be impossible. We have seen our dreams
materialize and become reality.
>
Suzanne
>
Arkalen
May 26, 2012, 3:26:54 PM5/26/12
to
advances and discoveries of science and technology can seem fantastical
(see also : Clarke's law).
If you just wanted to imagine things then you're welcome to do so, but
when you started this thread you were asking a scientific question. You
got your scientific answer. If you don't like it you can speculate and
imagine things being different but that's a completely different
conversation.
Arkalen
May 26, 2012, 3:28:23 PM5/26/12
to
(2012/05/27 3:13), Suzanne wrote:
continents fit together ? Why would you think that ? When would that
time have been and why do you think *that* ?
Suzanne
May 26, 2012, 6:54:05 PM5/26/12
to
On May 25, 5:22 am, Klaus Hellnick <khelSPAMln...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_General_Relativity#Deflection_o...
> Klaus- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
>
Klaus, I don't know how to ask the question. I'll try again.
Forget all I've said before.
>
According to science, the Earth is 4.54 billion years old.
That's a long time. We know that light in the universe
has not yet reached some places. We also know that
where ever Earth has been, it has been able to be
seen, we think, since it began existing. So, our image
has not yet been seen in parts of the universe.
>
We do not know where Earth began existing, location
wise. But, let's suppose that we do know. So, it beings
existing and then it's light image is sent forth - in all
directions, not just on one direction. Somehow, picture
that Earth begins traveling in it's orbit.
It's not in a free fall, it's being pulled
around in an orbit. It will travel
584,020,178 miles (939,889,369 km) in the course of its orbit about
the sun.
We are traveling about 67,000 mph in our orbit. I know we are not
going in a straight line. But light from objects is going in every
direction and we can
encounter the light where ever we are
if we are in it's range to see an object, or if we have telescopes
powerful
enough.
>
In addition to our forward speed in our
orbit around the sun, the sun also has
an orbit and a speed in which our
solar system is traveling, and then our
galaxy also has a forward speed within
the universe, and so forth.
>
Orbits have swings. That is, they are
eliptical and there are places in our orbit, for example when we are
closer
to the sun in certain summers, than in
other summers. A few years ago, Peru
was closer to the sun than it had been
in many years due to the swing of an
orbit. If we were in the farthest swing of our orbit and that
coordinated with
the farthest swing of our solar system
and that coordinated with the farthest
swing of our galaxy, and so on, and so
on, I was wondering if we would ever
be in a position to observe the earth's
ancient light when we are the very
farthest from our beginning than we had ever been before. But then
there
is an even farther speed at which we
are traveling and that is that objects in
the Universe are traveling at a great
speed away from the center of the
Universe. So, you see, this is very
compicated to ask. Now....
>
When we aimed our telescopes into
deep, deep space a few years back,
and Chandra didn't work properly, we
had to wait (a year?) until it worked in
conjuction with the telescope with which we saw into deep space and
saw such a light show. Correct me if
I am wrong, but what we saw was
from light from objects far older than
Earth. So, if we could see those
objects and the light was just getting
to us from them, could we also see
our own earth back in time? Where
ever the earth began existing, it would
have been much more towards the
central deep space since the Universe
is expanding at a tremendous rate of
speed. In this "deep space light show"
that was photographed through the
powerful telescopes, I don't know how
old the obejcts were that we were seeing, but I am sure there is much
light that has not yet been seen, that
still has not reached us yet.
>
Now, all these illustrations that some
have submitted in here, trying to say how fast a train is speeding,
vs. the
speed of light, I can figure that out
already. . In the first place we are not
standing still and then trying to chase
an object at the speed of light. We
are already traveling at complicated
rates of speed which when put together: the speed of earth, the speed
of the orbit around the sun, the speed
of the sun's orbit, the galaxy's orbit speed, and the rate at which
the
universe is expanding plus probably some other reasons I don't know,
I'm
wondering if somewhere we could see
an image of the earth from some past
point.
>
I was not thinking in terms of a closed
loop. : )
>
What I was trying to say about the image that was seen behind the
object
of the eclipse that we thought should
not have been seen was that things
just don't always behave as we think
that they should. The appearance was
that light didn't travel in a straight line.
Just making the point that things are
not always what they are expected to
be. Nothing so much to do with curves.
Yes, we are going in a set of circles
within circles, within circles, within
circles, within circles, but those are
eliptical circles that have great
variations of distances from deep space. Earth could also have hung
around in space for a few billion
years before it started moving away
from where it began to exist. So it's
beginning light's image could be in a
place that may not have reached us.
I can also think of many reasons as
to why that might not be true. It's
something to think about, though, and
I just thought it might be intersting to
explore.
>
Suzanne
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
>
Klaus, I don't know how to ask the question. I'll try again.
Forget all I've said before.
>
According to science, the Earth is 4.54 billion years old.
That's a long time. We know that light in the universe
has not yet reached some places. We also know that
where ever Earth has been, it has been able to be
seen, we think, since it began existing. So, our image
has not yet been seen in parts of the universe.
>
We do not know where Earth began existing, location
wise. But, let's suppose that we do know. So, it beings
existing and then it's light image is sent forth - in all
directions, not just on one direction. Somehow, picture
that Earth begins traveling in it's orbit.
It's not in a free fall, it's being pulled
around in an orbit. It will travel
584,020,178 miles (939,889,369 km) in the course of its orbit about
the sun.
We are traveling about 67,000 mph in our orbit. I know we are not
going in a straight line. But light from objects is going in every
direction and we can
encounter the light where ever we are
if we are in it's range to see an object, or if we have telescopes
powerful
enough.
>
In addition to our forward speed in our
orbit around the sun, the sun also has
an orbit and a speed in which our
solar system is traveling, and then our
galaxy also has a forward speed within
the universe, and so forth.
>
Orbits have swings. That is, they are
eliptical and there are places in our orbit, for example when we are
closer
to the sun in certain summers, than in
other summers. A few years ago, Peru
was closer to the sun than it had been
in many years due to the swing of an
orbit. If we were in the farthest swing of our orbit and that
coordinated with
the farthest swing of our solar system
and that coordinated with the farthest
swing of our galaxy, and so on, and so
on, I was wondering if we would ever
be in a position to observe the earth's
ancient light when we are the very
farthest from our beginning than we had ever been before. But then
there
is an even farther speed at which we
are traveling and that is that objects in
the Universe are traveling at a great
speed away from the center of the
Universe. So, you see, this is very
compicated to ask. Now....
>
When we aimed our telescopes into
deep, deep space a few years back,
and Chandra didn't work properly, we
had to wait (a year?) until it worked in
conjuction with the telescope with which we saw into deep space and
saw such a light show. Correct me if
I am wrong, but what we saw was
from light from objects far older than
Earth. So, if we could see those
objects and the light was just getting
to us from them, could we also see
our own earth back in time? Where
ever the earth began existing, it would
have been much more towards the
central deep space since the Universe
is expanding at a tremendous rate of
speed. In this "deep space light show"
that was photographed through the
powerful telescopes, I don't know how
old the obejcts were that we were seeing, but I am sure there is much
light that has not yet been seen, that
still has not reached us yet.
>
Now, all these illustrations that some
have submitted in here, trying to say how fast a train is speeding,
vs. the
speed of light, I can figure that out
already. . In the first place we are not
standing still and then trying to chase
an object at the speed of light. We
are already traveling at complicated
rates of speed which when put together: the speed of earth, the speed
of the orbit around the sun, the speed
of the sun's orbit, the galaxy's orbit speed, and the rate at which
the
universe is expanding plus probably some other reasons I don't know,
I'm
wondering if somewhere we could see
an image of the earth from some past
point.
>
I was not thinking in terms of a closed
loop. : )
>
What I was trying to say about the image that was seen behind the
object
of the eclipse that we thought should
not have been seen was that things
just don't always behave as we think
that they should. The appearance was
that light didn't travel in a straight line.
Just making the point that things are
not always what they are expected to
be. Nothing so much to do with curves.
Yes, we are going in a set of circles
within circles, within circles, within
circles, within circles, but those are
eliptical circles that have great
variations of distances from deep space. Earth could also have hung
around in space for a few billion
years before it started moving away
from where it began to exist. So it's
beginning light's image could be in a
place that may not have reached us.
I can also think of many reasons as
to why that might not be true. It's
something to think about, though, and
I just thought it might be intersting to
explore.
>
Suzanne
Arkalen
May 26, 2012, 8:29:06 PM5/26/12
to
because your second attempt is exactly like the first, with the same
responses. But let's try again anyway, bit by bit.
>>
> According to science, the Earth is 4.54 billion years old.
> That's a long time.
order of magnitude is there.
> We know that light in the universe
> has not yet reached some places.
the stuff. The light coming from some places has not yet reached other
places, that is quite possible. But I don't think anyone is proposing
that big areas of the Universe contain no light at all because they
haven't been "reached" yet.
> We also know that
> where ever Earth has been, it has been able to be
> seen, we think, since it began existing. So, our image
> has not yet been seen in parts of the universe.
billion light-years hasn't received any light from Earth yet.
>>
> We do not know where Earth began existing, location
> wise. But, let's suppose that we do know. So, it beings
> existing and then it's light image is sent forth - in all
> directions, not just on one direction. Somehow, picture
> that Earth begins traveling in it's orbit.
> It's not in a free fall, it's being pulled
> around in an orbit. It will travel
> 584,020,178 miles (939,889,369 km) in the course of its orbit about
> the sun.
> We are traveling about 67,000 mph in our orbit. I know we are not
> going in a straight line. But light from objects is going in every
> direction and we can
> encounter the light where ever we are
> if we are in it's range to see an object, or if we have telescopes
> powerful
> enough.
know the number but I'll assume you do. What I do know is that it takes
us 6 months to go from one end of our orbit to the other. Right ?
It takes about 16 minutes for light to go that exact same distance.
Every single photon that is leaving the Earth right now ? 20 minutes
from now they'll be beyond anyplace the Earth could theoretically reach
in the next few years. Tomorrow they'll be outside the Solar System. In
a year they'll be 6 trillion miles away.
How on Earth are we supposed to catch up with THAT ?
The light that left the Earth when the Earth was created ? It's 24
BILLION TRILLION miles away right now. And it went in a straight line;
as Miriam kindly reminded me of, any curves it went through are the same
curves we'd have to go through if we were to run after it. Except that
we wouldn't *curve* if we were to try; note how the same gravity that
bends light a teeny bit around the Sun ? Has been keeping us trapped in
this orbit since Earth existed.
>>
> In addition to our forward speed in our
> orbit around the sun, the sun also has
> an orbit and a speed in which our
> solar system is traveling, and then our
> galaxy also has a forward speed within
> the universe, and so forth.
complete its orbit around the galaxy. Light can zip across the galaxy
and back in 2 million years.
Except of course it wouldn't go back. Once it had zipped across the
galaxy once it would just continue on. And even if the galaxy happened
to be moving in the same direction it would never catch up, what with
moving at 630 km/s while light moves at 300,000 km/s. That's like 500
times faster. That is, after 1 billion years light would have moved 1
*B*illion light-years away from the galaxy, while the galaxy moved by 2
*M*illion light-years.
>>
> Orbits have swings. That is, they are
> eliptical and there are places in our orbit, for example when we are
> closer
> to the sun in certain summers, than in
> other summers. A few years ago, Peru
> was closer to the sun than it had been
> in many years due to the swing of an
> orbit.
Earth when you started will be miles and miles away from anyplace where
this might be relevant.
> If we were in the farthest swing of our orbit and that
> coordinated with
> the farthest swing of our solar system
> and that coordinated with the farthest
> swing of our galaxy, and so on, and so
> on, I was wondering if we would ever
> be in a position to observe the earth's
> ancient light when we are the very
> farthest from our beginning than we had ever been before.
it's not just a fundamental aspect of physics or something like that,
although it is. It's that light is FREAKISHLY FAST. If you add all the
speeds you'll still get something that's orders of magnitude slower than
light is.
Are you understanding this yet ?
> But then
> there
> is an even farther speed at which we
> are traveling and that is that objects in
> the Universe are traveling at a great
> speed away from the center of the
> Universe. So, you see, this is very
> compicated to ask. Now....
There isn't a center of the Universe that we know of. It's not so much
objects that are traveling, as space itself that's expanding and the
objects are carried along.
And the thing about curves and expansions gravity wells and all those
cool things space does, is that they affect us just as much as they
affect light. A black hole can't slow light down without slowing us down
even more, and space expanding couldn't speed us up without speeding
light up even more, if that were a factor.
>>
> When we aimed our telescopes into
> deep, deep space a few years back,
> and Chandra didn't work properly, we
> had to wait (a year?) until it worked in
> conjuction with the telescope with which we saw into deep space and
> saw such a light show. Correct me if
> I am wrong, but what we saw was
> from light from objects far older than
> Earth. So, if we could see those
> objects and the light was just getting
> to us from them, could we also see
> our own earth back in time?
back in time. Whatever the distance the Earth has travelled since its
creation, it isn't 24 billion trillion miles. It is not CLOSE to that
distance. Light travels a lot faster than planets do. Wherever the Earth
was when it formed, the photons it emitted at the time are so far away
we might as well not have moved at all.
> Where
> ever the earth began existing, it would
> have been much more towards the
> central deep space since the Universe
> is expanding at a tremendous rate of
> speed.
expansion doesn't make us move from one bit of Universe to another, it
just makes our position further away from every other position, the same
it does with every position. It would be like saying that your nose
began existing next to your belly button. Distance-wise the two used to
be closer, but your nose has always been on your face and your belly
button on your belly.
> In this "deep space light show"
> that was photographed through the
> powerful telescopes, I don't know how
> old the obejcts were that we were seeing, but I am sure there is much
> light that has not yet been seen, that
> still has not reached us yet.
the Hubble Deep Field or things like that, the key to know is that the
Earth did NOT use to be there. But the Universe is, as much as we can
tell, uniform everywhere, so looking at those images of the Universe
very very far away we can see how THAT bit of the Universe was when it
was young and that tells us about how THIS bit of the Universe was.
But we did not travel from THAT bit to THIS bit. That would be
impossible, seeing as light itself (fastest gun in the West, and how !)
has only just made the journey.
>>
> Now, all these illustrations that some
> have submitted in here, trying to say how fast a train is speeding,
> vs. the
> speed of light, I can figure that out
> already.
the Solar System and the galaxy are going at, as if that had any
relevance to the fact we can't outrun light.
> . In the first place we are not
> standing still and then trying to chase
> an object at the speed of light. We
> are already traveling at complicated
> rates of speed which when put together: the speed of earth, the speed
> of the orbit around the sun, the speed
> of the sun's orbit, the galaxy's orbit speed, and the rate at which
> the
> universe is expanding plus probably some other reasons I don't know,
> I'm
> wondering if somewhere we could see
> an image of the earth from some past
> point.
speeds you can add up to make us go even close to as fast as light. Not
unless they invent new physics, or find a giant mirror in space.
>>
> I was not thinking in terms of a closed
> loop. : )
>>
> What I was trying to say about the image that was seen behind the
> object
> of the eclipse that we thought should
> not have been seen was that things
> just don't always behave as we think
> that they should. The appearance was
> that light didn't travel in a straight line.
> Just making the point that things are
> not always what they are expected to
> be. Nothing so much to do with curves.
> Yes, we are going in a set of circles
> within circles, within circles, within
> circles, within circles, but those are
> eliptical circles that have great
> variations of distances from deep space. Earth could also have hung
> around in space for a few billion
> years before it started moving away
> from where it began to exist. So it's
> beginning light's image could be in a
> place that may not have reached us.
> I can also think of many reasons as
> to why that might not be true.
seem to realize the significance of : light moves really really fast.
Planets, star systems and galaxies do not move that fast. Not remotely
close. Not even if you add up all their speeds. Not even if you throw in
spacetime effects.
> It's
> something to think about, though, and
> I just thought it might be intersting to
> explore.
about. But I don't think exploring is very interesting if you refuse to
accept what you find, and I like not just thinking *about* something but
thinking it *through*.
Earle Jones
May 26, 2012, 9:13:48 PM5/26/12
to
In article
<3ae3bfb1-59ea-40da...@h41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Suzanne <leil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> Klaus, I don't know how to ask the question. I'll try again.
> Forget all I've said before...
*
Now that sounds like a good idea!
earle
*
<3ae3bfb1-59ea-40da...@h41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Suzanne <leil...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> Klaus, I don't know how to ask the question. I'll try again.
*
Now that sounds like a good idea!
earle
*
Harry K
May 26, 2012, 11:23:04 PM5/26/12
to
No it is not possible and further, no it is not interesting to
speculate on impossible things.
Reason: The light leaves us and continues to go AWAY from us at
light speed. No matter where we are it will still be going away form
us.
We would have to go faster than that to catch up with it. That is
not possible.
Harry K.
prawnster
May 27, 2012, 2:11:40 AM5/27/12
to
On May 19, 3:27�pm, Suzanne <leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> I have a question. You know, the light from many stars have so far to
likely we have seen our own image in the night sky. Also, since
Earth's energy is reflected in three dimensions, assuming the energy
emitted is sufficient, we should appear more than once. Of course,
this assumes that the universe is curved and finite.
And while you're making all these assumptions, you might as well
assume that molecules evolved into people, and then tell a thousand
and one stories detailing every imaginary step of this assumed
process. Call these stories evidence. Call doubters fundies. Call
your creation myth science and scream it into the ears of the children
you never bothered having. Ah, science.
>
> I have a question. You know, the light from many stars have so far to
> travel that there are still stars we have never seen. In fact, some of
> them may no longer exist by the time the light reaches
> us and shows us their image, you know.
> So....where was the earth way back in
> them may no longer exist by the time the light reaches
> us and shows us their image, you know.
> time and is it possible that where we
> once were could reach us and give us
> an image of ourselves back in time?
>
> once were could reach us and give us
> an image of ourselves back in time?
>
> Also, since we have traveled undoubtedly many places, could we appear
> more than once?
Assuming the energy reflected/emitted by the Earth is sufficient, it's
> more than once?
likely we have seen our own image in the night sky. Also, since
Earth's energy is reflected in three dimensions, assuming the energy
emitted is sufficient, we should appear more than once. Of course,
this assumes that the universe is curved and finite.
And while you're making all these assumptions, you might as well
assume that molecules evolved into people, and then tell a thousand
and one stories detailing every imaginary step of this assumed
process. Call these stories evidence. Call doubters fundies. Call
your creation myth science and scream it into the ears of the children
you never bothered having. Ah, science.
ed wolf
May 27, 2012, 6:40:17 AM5/27/12
to
Am Sonntag, 27. Mai 2012 02:29:06 UTC+2 schrieb Arkalen:
(snip for brevity)
Very well said, in simple language, avoiding the obvious
remarks and wisecracks even at the second try. To me this
could be post of the month for its friendliness and clarity.
regards
ed
(snip for brevity)
Very well said, in simple language, avoiding the obvious
remarks and wisecracks even at the second try. To me this
could be post of the month for its friendliness and clarity.
regards
ed
Arkalen
May 27, 2012, 7:13:36 AM5/27/12
to
I have to say the first draft of this post was rather different...
(as for post of the month, thank you so much :) it's not general or
on-topic enough for that of course (and I think physics people will
probably correct me on some of the expansion of the Universe stuff) but
I always appreciate compliments !)
Bruce Stephens
May 27, 2012, 7:34:05 AM5/27/12
to
prawnster <zweib...@ymail.com> writes:
[...]
> And while you're making all these assumptions, you might as well
> assume that molecules evolved into people,
Well, exactly. If molecules evolved into people, why are there still
molecules?
[...]
[...]
> And while you're making all these assumptions, you might as well
> assume that molecules evolved into people,
molecules?
[...]
nick_keigh...@hotmail.com
May 27, 2012, 8:04:01 AM5/27/12
to
On Saturday, May 26, 2012 8:28:23 PM UTC+1, Arkalen wrote:
> (2012/05/27 3:13), Suzanne wrote:
<snip>
> (2012/05/27 3:13), Suzanne wrote:
> > [...] it has taken some imagination from
> > a few individuals to be able to do some of the
> > things that we previously thought were not
> > possible as well.
not just imagination- a lot of hard work as well. "invention is 10% inspiration 90% perspiration" Edison
> > things that we previously thought were not
> > possible as well.
> > When I was a child...long,
> > long ago in a far away galaxy...people didn't know that there was a
> > time when the continents fit together.
>
> Oh, and WOW how did I miss that. Do you think there was a time when the
> continents fit together ? Why would you think that ? When would that
> time have been and why do you think *that* ?
> > When I got in grade
> > school, our teachers told us that no one could go to the moon in their
> > lifetime. By the time I
> > got to the sixth grade, a teacher told us that if
> > we could build a rocket that could go to the moon, It would take many,
> > many, many years
> > to get there and no rocket could hold enough fuel to get there, and if
> > they did build such a
> > wonder, there would be no way to get back.
> > Man has done so much already that seemed
> > to be impossible. We have seen our dreams
> > materialize and become reality.
nick_keigh...@hotmail.com
May 27, 2012, 9:06:14 AM5/27/12
to
trim your posts!
On Saturday, May 26, 2012 11:54:05 PM UTC+1, Suzanne wrote:
> On May 25, 5:22 am, Klaus Hellnick <khelSPAMln...@sbcglobal.net>
[...]
Einstein quote where he told a bunch of jopurnalists "if an observer with a
sufficiently powerful telescope were to look deep into the universe he might see
the back of his own head!". This was obviously a bit tongue in cheek because
even then they knew the universe was much larger than a few light years.
Sadly I'm unable to track down this possibly misremembered quote.
This what at a time when the universe was believed to be static (neither expanding
nor contracting). Modern cosmology has a topologically open, expanding universe
so light doesn't loop back to its origin.
<snip- actually more like the defoliation of a major sub-tropical ecosystem>
> > Actually, in the situation she is trying to describe, the "straight"
> > train track would circle the globe and form a closed loop. She wants to
> > know how long it would take the train to lap you.
> > I do not know why she wold think gravitational lensing would cause a
> > closed loop in spacetime that would direct the Earth's light back to us,
> > or how we could even calculate it if it did. Perhaps she thinks "curved"
> > = "forms a closed loop".
>
can be seen throughout the universe. You probably think the universe is expanding
into something- some empty space; whilst what is happening is space itself is
expanding. Imagine you live on the surface of a ballon that is inflating. An
analogous thing is happening in 3d rather than 2d.
[I know the topology is a bit more complicated than that but I was trying to
keep things simple]
> We also know that
> where ever Earth has been, it has been able to be
> seen, we think, since it began existing. So, our image
> has not yet been seen in parts of the universe.
>
> We do not know where Earth began existing, location
> wise. But, let's suppose that we do know. So, it beings
> existing and then it's light image is sent forth - in all
> directions, not just on one direction. Somehow, picture
> that Earth begins traveling in it's orbit.
> It's not in a free fall,
it *is* in free fall. If I drop something it falls freely in a gravitational
field, that's "free fall". If something (eg. the surface of the earth) doesn't
intervene it traces out a path called an "orbit".
That's the Newtonian version. General Relativity says something slightly different.
> it's being pulled
> around in an orbit. It will travel
> 584,020,178 miles (939,889,369 km) in the course of its orbit about
> the sun.
> We are traveling about 67,000 mph in our orbit. I know we are not
> going in a straight line. But light from objects is going in every
> direction and we can
> encounter the light where ever we are
> if we are in it's range to see an object, or if we have telescopes
> powerful
> enough.
> >
> In addition to our forward speed in our
> orbit around the sun, the sun also has
> an orbit and a speed in which our
> solar system is traveling, and then our
> galaxy also has a forward speed within
> the universe, and so forth.
the latter isn't really meaningful. We can talk about our galaxy's motion
relative to other local galaxies but its not really meaningful to talk about
its motion relative to distant galaxies. In an expanding universe all galaxies
(apart from very close ones) are receeding from each other.
> Orbits have swings. That is, they are
> eliptical and there are places in our orbit, for example when we are
> closer
> to the sun in certain summers, than in
> other summers.
no. Seasons are caused by the earth's tilt. Why do you think it is winter in A
utralia when it's summer in America?
> A few years ago, Peru
> was closer to the sun than it had been
> in many years due to the swing of an
> orbit.
Peru?! Peru has an indenpendent orbit from the rest of the planet?!
(I assume you mean "Pluto")
If we were in the farthest swing of our orbit and that
> coordinated with
> the farthest swing of our solar system
> and that coordinated with the farthest
> swing of our galaxy, and so on, and so
> on, I was wondering if we would ever
> be in a position to observe the earth's
> ancient light when we are the very
> farthest from our beginning than we had ever been before.
no. And I'm baffled why you would think so. The earth moves incredibly slowly
compared with light. The light from the earth's formation was emitted 4Gya so its
now 4 billion light years away. That is far beyond the local group of galaxies,
we can *never* catch it. Condsider firing a bullet no matter how fast the
shooter runs he can never catch it. If he shoots it up in the air it goes up
stops and falls back. Light doesn't do that in normal near flat space.
> But then there
> is an even farther speed at which we
> are traveling and that is that objects in
> the Universe are traveling at a great
> speed away from the center of the
> Universe.
the universe has no centre.
> So, you see, this is very
> compicated to ask. Now....
only because you're making it complicated. Ignore the galaxy's motion, for all
practical purposes it's at rest. The earth's motion is simply to go round the
sun so the only one that matters is the solar system's motion about the galaxy.
The solar system has never (and will never) left the galaxy. So any light from
more than, say, 100,000 years ago has already left the galaxy.
> When we aimed our telescopes into
> deep, deep space a few years back,
> and Chandra didn't work properly,
Chandra? Do mean Hubble?
> we
> had to wait (a year?) until it worked in
> conjuction with the telescope with which we saw into deep space and
> saw such a light show. Correct me if
> I am wrong, but what we saw was
> from light from objects far older than
> Earth.
effectivly by looking a great distance you are looking a long way back into the
past. So those distant (and ancient) objects may still exist but will be
radically changed.
> So, if we could see those
> objects and the light was just getting
> to us from them, could we also see
> our own earth back in time?
no. I wonder how many ways this has to be said. Consider ripples moving out from
a rock dropped in a pond. The ripples never come back to the rock unless they get
reflected off something. In the universe there is no edge to the pond.
> Where
> ever the earth began existing, it would
> have been much more towards the
> central deep space
really. There is no centre.
> since the Universe
> is expanding at a tremendous rate of
> speed. In this "deep space light show"
> that was photographed through the
> powerful telescopes, I don't know how
> old the obejcts were that we were seeing, but I am sure there is much
> light that has not yet been seen, that
> still has not reached us yet.
no. Not in the sense you mean. The Andromeda galaxy is at this moment (I'll steer
clear of relativity) emmitting light we can't see it because it hasn't got here
yet and it won't for about another million years. But we can see objects that
are vastly more distant. It's not distance that limits us but time.
> Now, all these illustrations that some
> have submitted in here, trying to say how fast a train is speeding,
> vs. the
> speed of light, I can figure that out
> already. . In the first place we are not
> standing still and then trying to chase
> an object at the speed of light. We
> are already traveling at complicated
> rates of speed which when put together: the speed of earth, the speed
> of the orbit around the sun, the speed
> of the sun's orbit, the galaxy's orbit speed, and the rate at which
> the
> universe is expanding plus probably some other reasons I don't know,
You can assume we are at rest as far as the expanding universe is concerned
with everything else rushing away from us *this doesn't make us special
everyone else sees the same thing- the balloon thing). This means we a moving
vastly slower than light. To catch light we'd have to go faster than light
and we plainly don't
> I'm
> wondering if somewhere we could see
> an image of the earth from some past
> point.
> >
> I was not thinking in terms of a closed
> loop. : )
so since you've been told "no" about a googol-plex times why do you keep repeating the question?
> What I was trying to say about the image that was seen behind the
> object
> of the eclipse that we thought should
> not have been seen was that things
> just don't always behave as we think
> that they should. The appearance was
> that light didn't travel in a straight line.
> Just making the point that things are
> not always what they are expected to
> be. Nothing so much to do with curves.
> Yes, we are going in a set of circles
> within circles, within circles, within
> circles, within circles, but those are
> eliptical circles that have great
> variations of distances from deep space. Earth could also have hung
> around in space for a few billion
> years before it started moving away
> from where it began to exist. So it's
> beginning light's image could be in a
> place that may not have reached us.
simple geometry will disabuse you of this notion. You cannot catch your own lig
ht without travelling faster than light. Or it travelling in a closed curve.
> I can also think of many reasons as
> to why that might not be true. It's
> something to think about, though, and
> I just thought it might be intersting to
> explore.
not terribly.
On Saturday, May 26, 2012 11:54:05 PM UTC+1, Suzanne wrote:
> On May 25, 5:22 am, Klaus Hellnick <khelSPAMln...@sbcglobal.net>
> > >>> On 20 Mei, 05:27, Suzanne<leila...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > >>>> LightFromEarlyEarth
> >
> > >>>> I have a question. You know, thelightfrom many stars have so far to
> > >>>> travel that there are still stars we have never seen. In fact, some of
> > >>>> them may no longer exist by the time thelightreaches
> > >>>> us and shows us their image, you know.
> > >>>> So....where was theearthway back in
> > >>>> time and is it possible that where we
> > >>>> once were could reach us and give us
> > >>>> an image of ourselves back in time?
although everyone is pouring scorn on you for asking this I'm sure I recall an
> > >>>> LightFromEarlyEarth
> >
> > >>>> I have a question. You know, thelightfrom many stars have so far to
> > >>>> travel that there are still stars we have never seen. In fact, some of
> > >>>> them may no longer exist by the time thelightreaches
> > >>>> us and shows us their image, you know.
> > >>>> So....where was theearthway back in
> > >>>> time and is it possible that where we
> > >>>> once were could reach us and give us
> > >>>> an image of ourselves back in time?
Einstein quote where he told a bunch of jopurnalists "if an observer with a
sufficiently powerful telescope were to look deep into the universe he might see
the back of his own head!". This was obviously a bit tongue in cheek because
even then they knew the universe was much larger than a few light years.
Sadly I'm unable to track down this possibly misremembered quote.
This what at a time when the universe was believed to be static (neither expanding
nor contracting). Modern cosmology has a topologically open, expanding universe
so light doesn't loop back to its origin.
<snip- actually more like the defoliation of a major sub-tropical ecosystem>
> > Actually, in the situation she is trying to describe, the "straight"
> > train track would circle the globe and form a closed loop. She wants to
> > know how long it would take the train to lap you.
> > I do not know why she wold think gravitational lensing would cause a
> > closed loop in spacetime that would direct the Earth's light back to us,
> > or how we could even calculate it if it did. Perhaps she thinks "curved"
> > = "forms a closed loop".
>
> Klaus, I don't know how to ask the question. I'll try again.
> Forget all I've said before.
>
> According to science, the Earth is 4.54 billion years old.
> That's a long time. We know that light in the universe
> has not yet reached some places.
not sure what you mean by that. The light from the BB- the 4k microwave background
> Forget all I've said before.
>
> According to science, the Earth is 4.54 billion years old.
> That's a long time. We know that light in the universe
> has not yet reached some places.
can be seen throughout the universe. You probably think the universe is expanding
into something- some empty space; whilst what is happening is space itself is
expanding. Imagine you live on the surface of a ballon that is inflating. An
analogous thing is happening in 3d rather than 2d.
[I know the topology is a bit more complicated than that but I was trying to
keep things simple]
> We also know that
> where ever Earth has been, it has been able to be
> seen, we think, since it began existing. So, our image
> has not yet been seen in parts of the universe.
>
> We do not know where Earth began existing, location
> wise. But, let's suppose that we do know. So, it beings
> existing and then it's light image is sent forth - in all
> directions, not just on one direction. Somehow, picture
> that Earth begins traveling in it's orbit.
> It's not in a free fall,
field, that's "free fall". If something (eg. the surface of the earth) doesn't
intervene it traces out a path called an "orbit".
That's the Newtonian version. General Relativity says something slightly different.
> it's being pulled
> around in an orbit. It will travel
> 584,020,178 miles (939,889,369 km) in the course of its orbit about
> the sun.
> We are traveling about 67,000 mph in our orbit. I know we are not
> going in a straight line. But light from objects is going in every
> direction and we can
> encounter the light where ever we are
> if we are in it's range to see an object, or if we have telescopes
> powerful
> enough.
> >
> In addition to our forward speed in our
> orbit around the sun, the sun also has
> an orbit and a speed in which our
> solar system is traveling, and then our
> galaxy also has a forward speed within
> the universe, and so forth.
relative to other local galaxies but its not really meaningful to talk about
its motion relative to distant galaxies. In an expanding universe all galaxies
(apart from very close ones) are receeding from each other.
> Orbits have swings. That is, they are
> eliptical and there are places in our orbit, for example when we are
> closer
> to the sun in certain summers, than in
> other summers.
utralia when it's summer in America?
> A few years ago, Peru
> was closer to the sun than it had been
> in many years due to the swing of an
> orbit.
(I assume you mean "Pluto")
If we were in the farthest swing of our orbit and that
> coordinated with
> the farthest swing of our solar system
> and that coordinated with the farthest
> swing of our galaxy, and so on, and so
> on, I was wondering if we would ever
> be in a position to observe the earth's
> ancient light when we are the very
> farthest from our beginning than we had ever been before.
compared with light. The light from the earth's formation was emitted 4Gya so its
now 4 billion light years away. That is far beyond the local group of galaxies,
we can *never* catch it. Condsider firing a bullet no matter how fast the
shooter runs he can never catch it. If he shoots it up in the air it goes up
stops and falls back. Light doesn't do that in normal near flat space.
> But then there
> is an even farther speed at which we
> are traveling and that is that objects in
> the Universe are traveling at a great
> speed away from the center of the
> Universe.
> So, you see, this is very
> compicated to ask. Now....
practical purposes it's at rest. The earth's motion is simply to go round the
sun so the only one that matters is the solar system's motion about the galaxy.
The solar system has never (and will never) left the galaxy. So any light from
more than, say, 100,000 years ago has already left the galaxy.
> When we aimed our telescopes into
> deep, deep space a few years back,
> and Chandra didn't work properly,
> we
> had to wait (a year?) until it worked in
> conjuction with the telescope with which we saw into deep space and
> saw such a light show. Correct me if
> I am wrong, but what we saw was
> from light from objects far older than
> Earth.
past. So those distant (and ancient) objects may still exist but will be
radically changed.
> So, if we could see those
> objects and the light was just getting
> to us from them, could we also see
> our own earth back in time?
a rock dropped in a pond. The ripples never come back to the rock unless they get
reflected off something. In the universe there is no edge to the pond.
> Where
> ever the earth began existing, it would
> have been much more towards the
> central deep space
> since the Universe
> is expanding at a tremendous rate of
> speed. In this "deep space light show"
> that was photographed through the
> powerful telescopes, I don't know how
> old the obejcts were that we were seeing, but I am sure there is much
> light that has not yet been seen, that
> still has not reached us yet.
clear of relativity) emmitting light we can't see it because it hasn't got here
yet and it won't for about another million years. But we can see objects that
are vastly more distant. It's not distance that limits us but time.
> Now, all these illustrations that some
> have submitted in here, trying to say how fast a train is speeding,
> vs. the
> speed of light, I can figure that out
> already. . In the first place we are not
> standing still and then trying to chase
> an object at the speed of light. We
> are already traveling at complicated
> rates of speed which when put together: the speed of earth, the speed
> of the orbit around the sun, the speed
> of the sun's orbit, the galaxy's orbit speed, and the rate at which
> the
> universe is expanding plus probably some other reasons I don't know,
with everything else rushing away from us *this doesn't make us special
everyone else sees the same thing- the balloon thing). This means we a moving
vastly slower than light. To catch light we'd have to go faster than light
and we plainly don't
> I'm
> wondering if somewhere we could see
> an image of the earth from some past
> point.
> >
> I was not thinking in terms of a closed
> loop. : )
> What I was trying to say about the image that was seen behind the
> object
> of the eclipse that we thought should
> not have been seen was that things
> just don't always behave as we think
> that they should. The appearance was
> that light didn't travel in a straight line.
> Just making the point that things are
> not always what they are expected to
> be. Nothing so much to do with curves.
> Yes, we are going in a set of circles
> within circles, within circles, within
> circles, within circles, but those are
> eliptical circles that have great
> variations of distances from deep space. Earth could also have hung
> around in space for a few billion
> years before it started moving away
> from where it began to exist. So it's
> beginning light's image could be in a
> place that may not have reached us.
ht without travelling faster than light. Or it travelling in a closed curve.
> I can also think of many reasons as
> to why that might not be true. It's
> something to think about, though, and
> I just thought it might be intersting to
> explore.
nick_keigh...@hotmail.com
May 27, 2012, 9:29:40 AM5/27/12
to
On Sunday, May 27, 2012 7:11:40 AM UTC+1, prawnster wrote:
<snip>
> Assuming the energy reflected/emitted by the Earth is sufficient, it's
> likely we have seen our own image in the night sky.
well I think the inverse square law would put the kibosh on that, but in principle our past light could be reflected back to us. Suzanne makes it plain that isn't what she's talking about.
> Also, since
> Earth's energy is reflected in three dimensions, assuming the energy
> emitted is sufficient, we should appear more than once. Of course,
> this assumes that the universe is curved and finite.
really why? Don't infinite or open universes have mirrors? How do they comb their tentacles in the morning?
> And while you're making all these assumptions,
that the universe is finite and curved is based on a pile of observational evidence. Do you doubt it? For instance GPS has to correct for relativity and that means space time is curved in our vicinity. Sometimes distance quasars can be seen more than once due to space curvature (masses) between us and them
> you might as well
> assume that molecules evolved into people, and then tell a thousand
> and one stories detailing every imaginary step of this assumed
> process. Call these stories evidence. Call doubters fundies. Call
> your creation myth science and scream it into the ears of the children
> you never bothered having. Ah, science.
you so fundi you can't even accept observational astronomy!
<snip>
> Assuming the energy reflected/emitted by the Earth is sufficient, it's
> likely we have seen our own image in the night sky.
> Also, since
> Earth's energy is reflected in three dimensions, assuming the energy
> emitted is sufficient, we should appear more than once. Of course,
> this assumes that the universe is curved and finite.
> And while you're making all these assumptions,
> you might as well
> assume that molecules evolved into people, and then tell a thousand
> and one stories detailing every imaginary step of this assumed
> process. Call these stories evidence. Call doubters fundies. Call
> your creation myth science and scream it into the ears of the children
> you never bothered having. Ah, science.
Harry K
May 27, 2012, 9:36:17 AM5/27/12
to
On May 27, 4:34 am, Bruce Stephens <bruce+use...@cenderis.demon.co.uk>
wrote:
:). But you realize you are asking a fundy to actually _think_.
Harry K
wrote:
Harry K
jillery
May 27, 2012, 12:24:36 PM5/27/12
to
didn't mean it literally, but to suggest that the Universe is curved.
There was a time when the best evidence suggested that the Universe
was closed in around itself, that the surface of spacetime was similar
to that of the surface of a sphere in three dimensions. In that case,
a light beam's equivalent of Magellan could travel all the way around
the Universe and eventually end up back where it started. And by
eventually, I mean longer than the age of the Universe.
I agree the best evidence nowadays shows the Universe will continue to
expand indefinitely, and so should all light beams. But if this idea
is what Suzanne had in mind, she doesn't give any indication of it, as
you point out so well below.
deadrat
May 27, 2012, 1:18:44 PM5/27/12
to
Tom McDonald
May 27, 2012, 1:57:14 PM5/27/12
to
On May 27, 7:04 am, nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, May 26, 2012 8:28:23 PM UTC+1, Arkalen wrote:
> > (2012/05/27 3:13), Suzanne wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > [...] it has taken some imagination from
> > > a few individuals to be able to do some of the
> > > things that we previously thought were not
> > > possible as well.
>
> not just imagination- a lot of hard work as well. "invention is 10% inspiration 90% perspiration" Edison
>
> > > When I was a child...long,
> > > long ago in a far away galaxy...people didn't know that there was a
> > > time when the continents fit together.
>
> > Oh, and WOW how did I miss that. Do you think there was a time when the
> > continents fit together ? Why would you think that ? When would that
> > time have been and why do you think *that* ?
>
> um. Gondwanaland? 500Mya according to wikipedia
Apparently the bastards that got Pluto also got Gondwanaland. It seems
> On Saturday, May 26, 2012 8:28:23 PM UTC+1, Arkalen wrote:
> > (2012/05/27 3:13), Suzanne wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > [...] it has taken some imagination from
> > > a few individuals to be able to do some of the
> > > things that we previously thought were not
> > > possible as well.
>
> not just imagination- a lot of hard work as well. "invention is 10% inspiration 90% perspiration" Edison
>
> > > When I was a child...long,
> > > long ago in a far away galaxy...people didn't know that there was a
> > > time when the continents fit together.
>
> > Oh, and WOW how did I miss that. Do you think there was a time when the
> > continents fit together ? Why would you think that ? When would that
> > time have been and why do you think *that* ?
>
> um. Gondwanaland? 500Mya according to wikipedia
that now it's just 'Gondwana'.
But AIUI, Gondwana[land] was not the only supercontinent of its day.
There was also Laurasia, so Gondwana[land] didn't contain (nearly) all
the landmasses of Earth.
I think Pangea would come closer to being the One True Supercontinent,
with the One Ocean to bind them all; forming ~300 mya and beginning to
break up about 200 mya.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangaea
Or:
http://tinyurl.com/5asm7q
<snip>
prawnster
May 27, 2012, 2:20:04 PM5/27/12
to
On May 27, 6:29 am, nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, May 27, 2012 7:11:40 AM UTC+1, prawnster wrote:
> [...]
> On Sunday, May 27, 2012 7:11:40 AM UTC+1, prawnster wrote:
> > Assuming the energy reflected/emitted by the Earth is sufficient, it's
> > likely we have seen our own image in the night sky.
>
> well I think the inverse square law would put the kibosh on that, but in principle our past light could be reflected back to us. Suzanne makes it plain that isn't what she's talking about.
>
The rest of Suzanne's question isn't worth responding to because the
> > likely we have seen our own image in the night sky.
>
> well I think the inverse square law would put the kibosh on that, but in principle our past light could be reflected back to us. Suzanne makes it plain that isn't what she's talking about.
>
speed of light is so far beyond the speed of the Earth going round the
Sun or the speed at which our galaxy rotates that we'll never run into
our own image thusly. I was trying to come up with a way that we
could ever see our own image, and the inverse square law puts the
kibosh on that, yes.
Don Cates
May 27, 2012, 2:28:02 PM5/27/12
to
_Light of Other Days_ - Bob Shaw
--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)
Klaus Hellnick
May 27, 2012, 4:30:29 PM5/27/12
to
loop around the universe and com back to us. She mentioned orbits and
curved space several times. The only other explanation that I can think
of is that she does not understand vectors at all. I mean the physics
and mathematical version of vectors, not biological.
Klaus
Bob Casanova
May 27, 2012, 6:27:47 PM5/27/12
to
On Sun, 27 May 2012 10:57:14 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Tom McDonald
<kil...@gmail.com>:
>On May 27, 7:04 am, nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, May 26, 2012 8:28:23 PM UTC+1, Arkalen wrote:
>> > (2012/05/27 3:13), Suzanne wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > > [...] it has taken some imagination from
>> > > a few individuals to be able to do some of the
>> > > things that we previously thought were not
>> > > possible as well.
>>
>> not just imagination- a lot of hard work as well. "invention is 10% inspiration 90% perspiration" Edison
>>
>> > > When I was a child...long,
>> > > long ago in a far away galaxy...people didn't know that there was a
>> > > time when the continents fit together.
>>
>> > Oh, and WOW how did I miss that. Do you think there was a time when the
>> > continents fit together ? Why would you think that ? When would that
>> > time have been and why do you think *that* ?
>>
>> um. Gondwanaland? 500Mya according to wikipedia
>
>Apparently the bastards that got Pluto also got Gondwanaland. It seems
>that now it's just 'Gondwana'.
>
>But AIUI, Gondwana[land] was not the only supercontinent of its day.
>There was also Laurasia, so Gondwana[land] didn't contain (nearly) all
>the landmasses of Earth.
>
>I think Pangea would come closer to being the One True Supercontinent,
>with the One Ocean to bind them all;
One supercontinent to rule them all,
One supercontinent to find them
One supercontinent to bring them all
And on the surface, bind them? ;-)
> forming ~300 mya and beginning to
>break up about 200 mya.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangaea
If you'll notice, Pangaea was only the latest; the Wiki
entry lists three previous ones - Columbia (Nuna),
2.0-1.8Gya; Rodinia. 1.1-0.75Gya; and Pannotia, ca. 450Mya.
>Or:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/5asm7q
>
><snip>
appeared in talk.origins, posted by Tom McDonald
<kil...@gmail.com>:
>On May 27, 7:04 am, nick_keighley_nos...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Saturday, May 26, 2012 8:28:23 PM UTC+1, Arkalen wrote:
>> > (2012/05/27 3:13), Suzanne wrote:
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>> > > [...] it has taken some imagination from
>> > > a few individuals to be able to do some of the
>> > > things that we previously thought were not
>> > > possible as well.
>>
>> not just imagination- a lot of hard work as well. "invention is 10% inspiration 90% perspiration" Edison
>>
>> > > When I was a child...long,
>> > > long ago in a far away galaxy...people didn't know that there was a
>> > > time when the continents fit together.
>>
>> > Oh, and WOW how did I miss that. Do you think there was a time when the
>> > continents fit together ? Why would you think that ? When would that
>> > time have been and why do you think *that* ?
>>
>> um. Gondwanaland? 500Mya according to wikipedia
>
>Apparently the bastards that got Pluto also got Gondwanaland. It seems
>that now it's just 'Gondwana'.
>
>But AIUI, Gondwana[land] was not the only supercontinent of its day.
>There was also Laurasia, so Gondwana[land] didn't contain (nearly) all
>the landmasses of Earth.
>
>I think Pangea would come closer to being the One True Supercontinent,
>with the One Ocean to bind them all;
One supercontinent to find them
One supercontinent to bring them all
And on the surface, bind them? ;-)
> forming ~300 mya and beginning to
>break up about 200 mya.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pangaea
entry lists three previous ones - Columbia (Nuna),
2.0-1.8Gya; Rodinia. 1.1-0.75Gya; and Pannotia, ca. 450Mya.
>Or:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/5asm7q
>
><snip>
Mark Isaak
May 27, 2012, 11:25:03 PM5/27/12
to
Gladly.
> simple geometry will disabuse you of this notion. You cannot catch
> your own light without travelling faster than light. Or it
Forget gravity. Suppose something has erected a mirror two billion
light years from us. Then, when we look at the mirror, we would be
seeing the earth as it was four billion years ago.
Of course, it is highly unlikely that any such mirror exists. And if we
wanted to build one ourselves, it would take at least two million years
to get it in place and another two million years to wait on earth for
light to return from it, so nothing would be gained.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
> simple geometry will disabuse you of this notion. You cannot catch
> travelling in a closed curve.
But the light travelling in a closed curve is not such a wild idea.
Forget gravity. Suppose something has erected a mirror two billion
light years from us. Then, when we look at the mirror, we would be
seeing the earth as it was four billion years ago.
Of course, it is highly unlikely that any such mirror exists. And if we
wanted to build one ourselves, it would take at least two million years
to get it in place and another two million years to wait on earth for
light to return from it, so nothing would be gained.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Harry K
May 27, 2012, 11:49:28 PM5/27/12
to
> > prawnster<zweibro...@ymail.com> �writes:
Harry K
>
> > [...]
>
> >> And while you're making all these assumptions, you might as well
> >> assume that molecules evolved into people,
>
> > Well, exactly. If molecules evolved into people, why are there still
> > molecules?
>
> > [...]
>
> And don't forget the ever-popular "What good is half a molecule?"
Well, if you had been there...
> > [...]
>
> >> And while you're making all these assumptions, you might as well
> >> assume that molecules evolved into people,
>
> > Well, exactly. If molecules evolved into people, why are there still
> > molecules?
>
> > [...]
>
> And don't forget the ever-popular "What good is half a molecule?"
Harry K
Mike Painter
May 28, 2012, 2:12:10 AM5/28/12
to
On 5/26/2012 12:28 PM, Arkalen wrote:
>> .people didn't know that there was a
>> time when the continents fit together.
>
> Oh, and WOW how did I miss that. Do you think there was a time when the
> continents fit together ? Why would you think that ? When would that
> time have been and why do you think *that* ?
Suzanne is Young Earth Creationist (YEC)
>> .people didn't know that there was a
>> time when the continents fit together.
>
> Oh, and WOW how did I miss that. Do you think there was a time when the
> continents fit together ? Why would you think that ? When would that
> time have been and why do you think *that* ?
Here as she typically does she decides what part of science is correct
and which part is not.
Science says "continents fit together". Suzanne says True.
Science says "it took millions of years for them to move apart. Suzanne
says False.
Science says "The speed of light is a constant."
Suzanne says "Your ears "hear" the light
when it is at a certain level of speed in it's
wave formed lengths. Wehn it is faster, you
see the light. If you get a sunburn, which is
ultraviolet light, you feel the light."
And like Lucy, Suzanne is nevere wrong.
Mike Painter
May 28, 2012, 2:14:53 AM5/28/12
to
again demonstrates she will not learn and that 67,000 mph is a bit
slower that 186,300 miles per second.
jillery
May 28, 2012, 4:42:15 AM5/28/12
to
On Sun, 27 May 2012 20:25:03 -0700, Mark Isaak
<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>On 5/27/12 6:06 AM, nick_keigh...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> trim your posts!
>
>Gladly.
>
>> simple geometry will disabuse you of this notion. You cannot catch
>> your own light without travelling faster than light. Or it
>> travelling in a closed curve.
>
>But the light travelling in a closed curve is not such a wild idea.
>Forget gravity. Suppose something has erected a mirror two billion
>light years from us. Then, when we look at the mirror, we would be
>seeing the earth as it was four billion years ago.
>
>Of course, it is highly unlikely that any such mirror exists. And if we
>wanted to build one ourselves, it would take at least two million years
>to get it in place and another two million years to wait on earth for
>light to return from it, so nothing would be gained.
Billion or million?
<eci...@curioustaxonomyNOSPAM.net> wrote:
>On 5/27/12 6:06 AM, nick_keigh...@hotmail.com wrote:
>> trim your posts!
>
>Gladly.
>
>> simple geometry will disabuse you of this notion. You cannot catch
>> your own light without travelling faster than light. Or it
>> travelling in a closed curve.
>
>But the light travelling in a closed curve is not such a wild idea.
>Forget gravity. Suppose something has erected a mirror two billion
>light years from us. Then, when we look at the mirror, we would be
>seeing the earth as it was four billion years ago.
>
>Of course, it is highly unlikely that any such mirror exists. And if we
>wanted to build one ourselves, it would take at least two million years
>to get it in place and another two million years to wait on earth for
>light to return from it, so nothing would be gained.
Mark Isaak
May 28, 2012, 4:34:02 PM5/28/12
to
accurate. However, I think it will suffice for me to say, Oops.
Suzanne
May 29, 2012, 4:38:07 PM5/29/12
to
behind. Now go somewhere and say
"Rubber Baby Buggy Bumper "
ten times in a row without making a mistake. Bless your heart.
>
Suzanne
0 new messages