Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > sci.physics.relativity > #432739 > unrolled thread

The Sun is seen where it lies in the sky and not eight minutes ahead

Back to article view | Back to sci.physics.relativity

Contents

  The Sun is seen where it lies in the sky and not eight minutes ahead John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-17 17:17 -0700
    Re: The Sun is seen where it lies in the sky and not eight minutes ahead pnalsing@gmail.com - 2017-09-17 17:54 -0700
      Re: The Sun is seen where it lies in the sky and not eight minutes ahead John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-18 20:22 -0700
    Re: The Sun is seen where it lies in the sky and not eight minutes ahead mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2017-09-17 18:20 -0700
      Re: The Sun is seen where it lies in the sky and not eight minutes ahead John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-18 17:09 -0700
        Re: The Sun is seen where it lies in the sky and not eight minutes ahead mitchrae3323@gmail.com - 2017-09-18 17:50 -0700
          Re: The Sun is seen where it lies in the sky and not eight minutes ahead John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-18 20:18 -0700
    Re: The Sun is seen where it lies in the sky and not eight minutes ahead Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-09-19 12:24 +1000
      Re: The Sun is seen where it lies in the sky and not eight minutes ahead Gary Harnagel <hitlong@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-18 20:00 -0700
        Re: The Sun is seen where it lies in the sky and not eight minutes ahead John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-18 20:13 -0700
      Re: The Sun is seen where it lies in the sky and not eight minutes ahead John Gogo <jfgogo22@yahoo.com> - 2017-09-18 20:07 -0700
        Re: The Sun is seen where it lies in the sky and not eight minutes ahead Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> - 2017-09-19 14:16 +1000

#432739 — The Sun is seen where it lies in the sky and not eight minutes ahead

The sun is where it lies. So is the moon- not one second ahead. Who denies this or is able to show that this is not so? Will it be some clever relativistic device? I say what we see is unified- there is no distance or size which violates the theory. I say we see objects that are large enough to establish a synchronicity; regardless, of the greatest animations of Gedankin theory.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#432746

On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 5:17:35 PM UTC-7, John Gogo wrote:
> The sun is where it lies. So is the moon- not one second ahead. Who denies this or is able to show that this is not so? Will it be some clever relativistic device? I say what we see is unified- there is no distance or size which violates the theory. I say we see objects that are large enough to establish a synchronicity; regardless, of the greatest animations of Gedankin theory.

This entire paragraph makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

WTF are you trying to say?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#432854

On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 7:54:56 PM UTC-5, pnal...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 5:17:35 PM UTC-7, John Gogo wrote:
> > The sun is where it lies. So is the moon- not one second ahead. Who denies this or is able to show that this is not so? Will it be some clever relativistic device? I say what we see is unified- there is no distance or size which violates the theory. I say we see objects that are large enough to establish a synchronicity; regardless, of the greatest animations of Gedankin theory.
> 
> This entire paragraph makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
> 
> WTF are you trying to say?

I'm saying that observing objects is not dictated by the same laws which are dictated by go/come measures. The act of seeing is dictated wholly different than measuring the physical signals of light.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#432749

On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 5:17:35 PM UTC-7, John Gogo wrote:
> The sun is where it lies. So is the moon- not one second ahead. Who denies this or is able to show that this is not so? Will it be some clever relativistic device? I say what we see is unified- there is no distance or size which violates the theory. I say we see objects that are large enough to establish a synchronicity; regardless, of the greatest animations of Gedankin theory.

The Sun is seen behind in its space time position.

Mitchell Raemsch

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#432838

It is not!

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#432841

On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 5:09:32 PM UTC-7, John Gogo wrote:
> It is not!

I think you take me wrong.

We see it behind in its time and where it was in that time difference.
We see where it was not where it is.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#432853

On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 7:50:25 PM UTC-5, mitchr...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 5:09:32 PM UTC-7, John Gogo wrote:
> > It is not!
> 
> I think you take me wrong.
> 
> We see it behind in its time and where it was in that time difference.
> We see where it was not where it is.

Mitch, my school of thought is P.W. Bridgman's "The Operational Point of View", where he states that the speed if light is infinite-so it is not physical. Seeing light or the act of seeing light is not "physical" in the sense that phenomena travels from point A to B or vice-versa.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#432844

On 18/09/2017 10:17 AM, John Gogo wrote:
> The sun is where it lies. So is the moon- not one second ahead. Who denies this or is able to show that this is not so? Will it be some clever relativistic device? I say what we see is unified- there is no distance or size which violates the theory. I say we see objects that are large enough to establish a synchronicity; regardless, of the greatest animations of Gedankin theory.
> 

We know that eyes use light. We know that light travels at a finite 
speed. What evidence do you have that supports your theory?

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#432849

On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 8:24:08 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
>
> On 18/09/2017 10:17 AM, John Gogo wrote:> >
> > The sun is where it lies. So is the moon- not one second ahead. Who
> > denies this or is able to show that this is not so? Will it be some
> > clever relativistic device? I say what we see is unified- there is
> > no distance or size which violates the theory. I say we see objects
> > that are large enough to establish a synchronicity; regardless, of
> > the greatest animations of Gedankin theory.
> 
> We know that eyes use light. We know that light travels at a finite 
> speed. What evidence do you have that supports your theory?
> 
> Sylvia.

He ... had a dream ...

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#432852

On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 10:00:52 PM UTC-5, Gary Harnagel wrote:
> On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 8:24:08 PM UTC-6, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >
> > On 18/09/2017 10:17 AM, John Gogo wrote:> >
> > > The sun is where it lies. So is the moon- not one second ahead. Who
> > > denies this or is able to show that this is not so? Will it be some
> > > clever relativistic device? I say what we see is unified- there is
> > > no distance or size which violates the theory. I say we see objects
> > > that are large enough to establish a synchronicity; regardless, of
> > > the greatest animations of Gedankin theory.
> > 
> > We know that eyes use light. We know that light travels at a finite 
> > speed. What evidence do you have that supports your theory?
> > 
> > Sylvia.
> 
> He ... had a dream ...

It is more than a dream. Strangely, I keep hoping that people will one day wake up. It saddens me- my inability to make contact.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#432851

On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 9:24:08 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 18/09/2017 10:17 AM, John Gogo wrote:
> > The sun is where it lies. So is the moon- not one second ahead. Who denies this or is able to show that this is not so? Will it be some clever relativistic device? I say what we see is unified- there is no distance or size which violates the theory. I say we see objects that are large enough to establish a synchronicity; regardless, of the greatest animations of Gedankin theory.
> > 
> 
> We know that eyes use light. We know that light travels at a finite 
> speed. What evidence do you have that supports your theory?
> 
> Sylvia.

I think it lies in the category of undeniable truth. Let me ask you this: can you conceive of a Gedankin where light is observed (like the sun) where it appears to be? I wonder when we start seeing galaxies and stars that are so far away- that they start to violate the origins of the time of the universe.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#432857

On 19/09/2017 1:07 PM, John Gogo wrote:
> On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 9:24:08 PM UTC-5, Sylvia Else wrote:
>> On 18/09/2017 10:17 AM, John Gogo wrote:
>>> The sun is where it lies. So is the moon- not one second ahead. Who denies this or is able to show that this is not so? Will it be some clever relativistic device? I say what we see is unified- there is no distance or size which violates the theory. I say we see objects that are large enough to establish a synchronicity; regardless, of the greatest animations of Gedankin theory.
>>>
>>
>> We know that eyes use light. We know that light travels at a finite
>> speed. What evidence do you have that supports your theory?
>>
>> Sylvia.
> 
> I think it lies in the category of undeniable truth. Let me ask you this: can you conceive of a Gedankin where light is observed (like the sun) where it appears to be? I wonder when we start seeing galaxies and stars that are so far away- that they start to violate the origins of the time of the universe.
> 


So it's based on nothing at all. Your theory cannot even touch something 
as basic as how the image forms on the retina.

Sylvia.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | sci.physics.relativity

csiph-web