Is there a now?

@Rickoshay75,

Rickoshay75 wrote:

Is there only a past and future? Does NOW come and go so fast it can't be isolated or pinned down?

Time is an abstract of experienced motion. Depending on the theoretical model of time one uses, a "now" may or may not exist. But the same goes for the "past", the "future", "destiny", "fate", "history", "predestination", "eternity", etc.

Your question implies a linear model of time...what if it's more complicated than that?

1 Reply

@Rickoshay75,

In fact photos are just ink in a paper up to the time your eye and mind perceive them. The now you refer to can be divide in three things. The now of the ink in the photo when it was taken the now on which your perceptual apparatus received the information and the now your mind or any other observer decoded and interpret said photo/image depending on the distance of observation. The now you refer to when you take a picture of the sun is both the now of 8 minutes ago and the now you realize the photo content.

...more yesterday, when you experienced yesterday was "now", tomorrow when you think about what you are doing it will be "now" and from Einstein's perspective the all spacetime continuum is an eternal "now".

"Nowness" is, refers to, truth in existence...oddly enough some don't see it and yet they don't in a "now" moment...

Best Regards Filipe de Albuquerque

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil and Razz, thanks for two very intellegent contributions.

0 Replies

@Razzleg,

Razzleg wrote:

Rickoshay75 wrote:

Is there only a past and future? Does NOW come and go so fast it can't be isolated or pinned down?

Time is an abstract of experienced motion. Depending on the theoretical model of time one uses, a "now" may or may not exist. But the same goes for the "past", the "future", "destiny", "fate", "history", "predestination", "eternity", etc.

Your question implies a linear model of time...what if it's more complicated than that?

Practical NOW lasts an instant, philosophic or perceptive may see it differently.

2 Replies

@Rickoshay75,

There is never a "now".Even when you read this about "never a now" , that will be then and this is now (but you know that now was when? That's right, IT WAS THEN>

1 Reply

@farmerman,

There is ONLY now and it is empty.

1 Reply

@JLNobody,

Well that's one possible take my good friend...or...its totally full...no "then" no after no before its "now" everywhere ! Wink

(Farma I loved your comment so don't take it as criticism...I perfectly got what you meant... but you know me...I am tweaking upon it)

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

The now you refer to can be divide in three things. The now of the ink in the photo when it was taken the now on which your perceptual apparatus received the information and the now your mind or any other observer decoded and interpret said photo/image depending on the distance of observation. The now you refer to when you take a picture of the sun is both the now of 8 minutes ago and the now you realize the photo content.

That was unsanitary crooked bull.

We can't see the past. Period.

The discovering of the Perceptional Law debunks all the theories invented about the perception of far away objects as if you were looking at the past.

When we look at the Sun and when we look at the stars, we are seeing them at their current present, current status, current location, simultaneously with our current present, current status and current location.

The idea that we see "the past" because light takes time to arrive from a star to our retinas is absurd. Such phenomenon has never ever been proved at all.

The fact is that the perceived images do not travel as "light".

On the contrary, the only way for us to perceive an object is when light hits its surface. There is no other way to perceive the object visually.

Light is subjected to an expansion when it travels, because the Inverse Square Law, as seen in the following drawing.

Source: http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~barnes/ASTR110L_S03/inversesquare.html

http://www.ifa.hawaii.edu/~barnes/ASTR110L_S03/inversesquare_fig1.gif

If you were correct, and images travel as "light", then our perception of the Sun should be thousands of times bigger, covering the whole sky.

But, it is the contrary, the further the source of the image is located, the smaller the image becomes.

The Perceptional Law is the greatest discovery in our era, because allow us to observe the entire universe in its real and current physical status without the fantasies that we are capable to perceive the past.

There is not a single flaw with the Perceptional Law, which states that we can perceive the present, solely the present, and nothing more than the present.

When we observe the Sun, we see its image in its present status and location simultaneously with our present status and location.

When we see the Sun, with perceive it in its current "now" simultaneously with our current "now".

1 Reply

@carloslebaron,

Entertaining to say the least...how about thunder regarding lightning and sound ? Are you hearing the present when the sound comes way after the lightning ? So either you suppose photons travel instantaneously or there are no such thing as photons of light, right ? middle ages are a comfortable place to be I get it...

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Fil Albuquerque wrote:

Entertaining to say the least...how about thunder regarding lightning and sound ? Are you hearing the present when the sound comes way after the lightning ? So either you suppose photons travel instantaneously or there are no such thing as photons of light, right ? middle ages are a comfortable place to be I get it...

PS - Also you do realise as in your little pseudo model as photons spread from the central focal point there is a sun glare effect surrounding the star that you can indeed see. The reason you still see the Star being more bright at the centre is just because there is a great amount of them that happened to go in almost perfect alignment with your eye sight position intensifying the brightness experience while the non aligned ones had spread further out being way more dim as they cover more space with less photons. Any computer modelling photon behaviour can show this perfectly with photons going in a straight line. In fact you can just jump any video game with lightning effects to be all the sudden enlightened about it.

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

if you want a better example still I can give you a direct experience you can do right now so you understand what I am talking about. Grab any non focused light source a candle a match a lantern and bring it close to a dark wall...you will see that there is a central point where the light is more intense in the wall projection. And no I am not cheating because I am deliberately asking you to bring the source of light close to the wall. Its just because those sources of light are very dim compared to a huge light source. So to see the effect you need to bring it close. But if you have a potent enough light source you can do the experiment further away from the wall.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Entertaining to say the least...how about thunder regarding lightning and sound ? Are you hearing the present when the sound comes way after the lightning ? So either you suppose photons travel instantaneously or there are no such thing as photons of light, right ? middle ages are a comfortable place to be I get it...

Today you finally will understand physics.

You are in a basement with closed windows, and coming out to the street you heard the thunder, but you missed the spark.

1)- What you have heard is the "current (present of the) arriving of the sound waves from a "past thunder".

2)- You didn't hear the present of the thunder and neither its past. The phenomenon thunder happened and its GONE FOR GOOD.

3)- The best evidence that you are not hearing the "current past" is because you have no idea where the sound is coming from. Lets see, point the place of origin if you can.

___________________________________

Lets see it in a different scenario.

1)- You are at the bottom of a group of mountains. This place is known to perform "echo" when somebody at the top of any mountain scream hard.

2)- You are busy making fire, when suddenly someone from the top of one of the mountains screams at you: YOU ARE NUTS!

After doing so, this person hides himself so no one can see him.

3)- The sound of these words will start to travel to you with several bounces on the mountains' walls.

4)- When the sound finally arrives to you, you heard it different, "UR NOT!" "UR NOT!" "ur not" "ur not"....

5)- You look up trying to locate its origin, and NOTHING, you have no idea where the origin of the sound is, because the sound waves alone from the echo won't give you any clue.

_____________________________

The same applies to light.

If you believe that a star dies and is visible no more because spreads no light with strong intensity, and you say that you still can "see it" because its light is just arriving, then, the "echo" sound waves of the example applies and its telling you that you are dead wrong.

NASA has perceived radiation waves from unknown sources. They assume the waves come from a black hole, a past star, whatever, but not knowing the source location.

This is evidence, that without the current existence and current presence of the origin of the sound or light, you just can't see it.

I will answer your other replies and slowly but surely you will have the opportunity to verify that your learning about this topic is completely erroneous.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

PS - Also you do realise as in your little pseudo model as photons spread from the central focal point there is a sun glare effect surrounding the star that you can indeed see. The reason you still see the Star being more bright at the centre is just because there is a great amount of them that happened to go in almost perfect alignment with your eye sight position intensifying the brightness experience while the non aligned ones had spread further out being way more dim as they cover more space with less photons. Any computer modelling photon behaviour can show this perfectly with photons going in a straight line. In fact you can just jump any video game with lightning effects to be all the sudden enlightened about it.

Very well.

The flashlight I'm using at this moment has low batteries, so results will vary according to the quality of flashlight and its source of energy. Still, this little and simple experiment will give results that apply very well to generalize them for all similar naked eyes experiments.

1)- Use a pen, a maker, or a sticker and locate it in a wall.

2)- Use a flashlight and put the front glass of it against the point marked on the wall. Turn the flashlight On.

3)- This is what the point on the wall is going to see "from your point of view behind the flashlight":

a)- The point on the wall is a person, and he sees the flashlight as a 1 inch round image. You, from your point of view will see the same scenario.

b)-You move the flashlight 4 inches away from the wall point, and you will notice that the clear intense round figure is about 2 inches, while the diameter of the spreading blurred light is bigger.

c)- Lets concentrate solely in the diameter of the image you see clearly in the wall. The size of its diameter is now two inches. At 6 inches away from the wall, the clear round image will appear to be 2 1/2 inches, and the further you take away the flashlight from the wall, the clear image will become more blurred and BIGGER.

d)- From the point of view of the "person" on the wall, -according to your idea that we see images because the traveling light waves- the person should see the image of the flashlight bigger as further as it goes. But, you must recognize that it is the contrary, that images go smaller when their source goes away from you.

e)- Besides the fact that images go smaller, they also become blurred, and notice that if you use the same flashlight and point it to the horizon, that you can have it On all night long but won't be perceived from miles away with naked eyes.

4)- This is telling you that size also is a factor, besides intensity.

5)- The light of the Sun -in this case as the flashlight- according to its distance from earth -having earth as the point on the wall- should makes us see the sun BIGGER when we apply your theory of seeing images when light travels to us.

6)- But, its is totally the contrary, because the source of light -in this case the Sun- is not a light wave, it produces lightwaves, but the source itself is a celestial body.

7)- What you see when you look at the Sun is the SOURCE, this is to say, a celestial body.

8)- You must be aware that our eyes can't see light. What our eyes can perceive is ILLUMINATION. We see objects when light illuminates and reflects on their bodies.

9)- When you look at the stars, you are seeing their bodies, the source of the lightwaves. There is no way that you can see light, you better study Sensation and Perception to learn this fact: you can't see light.

10)- Evidence for this?: Several. When light travel thru vacuum there is nothing to be reflected on and be perceived by us. Otherwise we should see clear nights illuminated by lightwaves and the whole cosmos as day time. As "nothing" is in vacuum, no reflection of light over a surface happens, then no perception of anything is made.

We see planets because the light of the Sun hits and reflects on their surfaces.

We can't see light. PERIOD.

No matter if light wave units go straight, curved, against the traffic, whatever... we won't see them at all, and less we will see images when light waves travel.

Your theory sucks.

0 Replies

By your own standard I suppose when you light up a match and you look at it you can't see it right ?...

...aaah wait we need the vacuum okeee...get yourself in a vacuum chamber buy a suite figure it out whatever get a lantern in there and look at it... light will be invisible in your book...cause reasons...

Let me make it easier for you:
You just need a small vacuum glass chamber with a source of light in the opposite side and you on the other end. If light can't travel through the vacuum you wont see it. use a laser for that matter...you wont get any blinder then you already are don't worry.

...man you are seriously troubled...

Also, if you had a surface of 4 or 5 light years across you would experience the same apparent growth of the sun in that surface with a bigger intensity at the centre. But such surface does not exist.

Nevertheless near the sun corona one can perfectly perceive the intensity of light surrounding the sun.

2 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

In the vacuum glass chamber if you try to look side ways the reason you wont find any light (inside not out in the surroundings) is because there is nothing for some tiny percentage of the photons to bounce on so that your eyes detect it...which is what happens when you have an atmosphere.

...Also photons are not drunk when "driving".

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

See? Here is when in your desperate attempt for reasoning, you start to make mistakes by lots. I will point your mistakes one by one.

Quote:

By your own standard I suppose when you light up a match and you look at it you can't see it right ?...

When you watch a lighted match, you are watching the body, the origin of light. Remember, THE OBJECT.

Quote:

...aaah wait we need the vacuum okeee...get yourself in a vacuum chamber buy a suite figure it out whatever get a lantern in there and look at it... light will be invisible in your book...cause reasons...

Stop your "thoughts experiments". I know that such is the style of dumb dudes trying to prove their fantasies. If you can't support your point with real experiments or observations, your point is void. Here, even computer simulations are invalid.

Again, you can't see light with your naked eyes. If you can see light, then you should see it passing by in front of you all the time, don't you get it?

Quote:

Let me make it easier for you:
You just need a small vacuum glass chamber with a source of light in the opposite side and you on the other end. If light can't travel through the vacuum you wont see it. use a laser for that matter...you wont get any blinder then you already are don't worry.

...man you are seriously troubled...

What are you talking about? Who says that light coming from the Sun and stars is "laser light"?

And about your example, No one here says that light can't travel thru vacuum. Using a laser light crossing the chamber, is using ONE WAVELENGTH, this is to say, one color of the spectrum.

And here is when your theory fails miserably:

My examples are easy to be followed. You just need to pay a movie ticket to do the following experiment which will imitate the monochromatic light similar to laser, and you will find out that your theory is nothing but crap to the square.

1)- when the movie itself didn't start yet, there are several ads of different products. One of the ads will allow you to see on the screen a similar scenario:

a)- Red color at the bottom left,

b)- Green color at the bottom center and right side of the screen.

c)- Light blue color at the middle level and top of the screen.

2)- Stand on the screen area and walk to the red zone. Look directly at the PROJECTOR. What you will see is an intense red light point at the center, and you will see the red light reflecting on the flowing dust of the theater saloon.

3)- Stand on the screen area and walk to the green zone. Look directly at the PROJECTOR. What you will see is an intense green light point at the center, and you will see the green light reflecting on the flowing dust of the theater saloon.

4)- The same will happen when you stand on the screen reaching the light blue zone of the screen and from here looking straight at the PROJECTOR.

You will notice that you won't see "any image" but a hurting color light hitting your eyes.

5)- Located yourself on any seat of the theater saloon. At this time, you will look at the PROJECTOR is an indirect angle, where the light beams from the projector are not hitting DIRECTLY to your eyes.

Here is when you can see not only the three colors coming from the PROJECTOR but also you will distinguish the IMAGES of the 35 mm film.

7)- You will notice with this naked eye experiment how capable you are to see an image based in light 'perception" arriving directly to you, and perception of an image with light reflecting on a body.

In this example, even when you can "see" the color light reflecting in the dust particles, you are capable only to see the source as an intense point towards you. Same happens when you see the Sun with naked eye due to the intensity factor involving the phenomenon.

But, looking at the source of light indirectly, out of the light beams, you can see the images of the source.

Now well, using filters -which is beyond of naked eye perception- you can see a clear image of the Sun.

But, why you are capable to see the Sun?

It happens that the continued nuclear activity causes the emission of light. And the light coming from such activity travels IN ALL DIRECTIONS.

This is to say, the Sun light travels to the outside and the INSIDE of the sun. This traveling of the light emitted by the Sun against itself, is what allows you to see its image, because its own emitted light hits its own surface.

This is like any explosion. When you make TNT to explode over a surface, the TNT explosion will send the force and particles towards the atmosphere and towards the floor causing a crater.

The Sun's activity does the same, sending light towards the outer space and towards its own surface or interior.

I told you that there is no other way to see objects but by having light hitting and being reflected on their bodies.

From your part, you have absolutely nothing to demonstrate the contrary.

Quote:

Also, if you had a surface of 4 or 5 light years across you would experience the same apparent growth of the sun in that surface with a bigger intensity at the centre. But such surface does not exist.

Nevertheless near the sun corona one can perfectly perceive the intensity of light surrounding the sun.

You still can't get it. Review the Inverse Square Law of light. Check the size of the Sun, and its distance from us. You will notice that applying the Inverse Square Law, you should see the image of the Sun as the whole cosmos!

Can at least use a calculator and check it by yourself?

1 Reply

@carloslebaron,

Jeeeeesus Mary Christ you are really beyond reasoning. When I think we can't get worse here you come...

I know the Sun emits photons in all directions.
I know the sun is a sphere.
Also lasers emit photons.
Light is detected when it hits your eyes.
Images are the result of light reflection in dark objects everyone knows it.
The photons going back on the sun are far less then the ones coming out as density decreases further out thus the sun picture rather comes of fluctuations between hot spots and cool spots and not from a reflection of photons coming back in and out. The difference in intensity from cooler and hotter areas provides the picture.

Also when you directly look at a lighter flame the flame doesn't grow with the distance when you look at it although if you project the light on a wall it will. There is a difference between direct perception of a focal intense point of light and seeing a reflection. Hopefully I just explained it to you.

The sun being a sphere that emits light in all directions according to you should occupy the whole universe and be perceived everywhere as occupying the whole sky...while indeed it can be perceived anywhere where light has travelled so far in no way its image occupy the whole black sky in space because there is dispersion in all directions and intensity falls down with more dispersion as more distance is covered.. .also you can't see light travel sideways to a beam unless there is some obstacle dust bouncing some of the photons directly into your eyes imagine a lantern in a sand dust storm....it does just that. The whole process goes just like your lighter in a clear non dusty night..obviously it doesn't grow when you are further away from it. A 6 year old can understand this but you have trouble I suggest you to consult a doctor no joke.

Finally stop posting nonsense please ! We all beg you to go preach to another church.

1 Reply

Following up on my earlier post where I said that "now" can reasonably encompass the time between an action and when the action is registered in our minds (assuming no unnatural delay such as recording it and viewing the recording next year), the extreme of this is approximately the age of the universe.

A gamma-ray burst known as GRB 090429B was detected by NASA's Swift satellite at an estimated distance of 13.14 billion light years. Neglecting expansion of the universe, the light from this event has been traveling toward earth for nearly the entire age of the universe (13.8 Billion years); and was only detected beginning in 2009. Just as you see your hand in front of your face, and there's a slight delay for the light to reach from your hand to your eyes and nerve signals to then be interpreted, the same process is happening with GRB 09*, the light has traveled without interruption from the event to your eye/sensor, only the distance is greater. Thus in cosmic/astrophysical terms, now should reasonably comprise any time period from which any object/event's light is now reaching us.

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

Quote:

Jeeeeesus Mary Christ you are really beyond reasoning. When I think we can't get worse here you come...

I know the Sun emits photons in all directions.
I know the sun is a sphere.
Also lasers emit photons.
Light is detected when it hits your eyes.

Wrong again. Illumination is detected, you can't perceive light, light is practically invisible.

Light of the Sun hits our atmosphere and starts to cause reflection on the particles of our atmosphere, over the surface of our planet, etc. This is why you see "daylight", because its reflection on things.

You are in outer space and even when light is spread out from the Sun, darkness is around you, because light is not reflecting on anything. You can only detect illumination when the Sun light hits the spaceship, the Earth, etc.

Quote:

Images are the result of light reflection in dark objects everyone knows it.

Finally you understood the process because some messages before, you stated we see images because light from objects arrive to you.

Your recognition of this fact has debunked your former ideas about perception of images of objects.

Quote:

The photons going back on the sun are far less then the ones coming out as density decreases further out thus the sun picture rather comes of fluctuations between hot spots and cool spots and not from a reflection of photons coming back in and out. The difference in intensity from cooler and hotter areas provides the picture.

Whatever you can add in your explanation won't change the same principle, images of objects can be seen solely when light reflects on their bodies.

Quote:

Also when you directly look at a lighter flame the flame doesn't grow with the distance when you look at it although if you project the light on a wall it will. There is a difference between direct perception of a focal intense point of light and seeing a reflection. Hopefully I just explained it to you.

Exactly. But you also be aware that the image of the object won't be seen by arriving of light waves, the object itself must be always present and existing, otherwise you will receive light waves but as light is invisible for us and you won't see any image if the object doesn't exist anymore when you receive the light.

Quote:

The sun being a sphere that emits light in all directions according to you should occupy the whole universe and be perceived everywhere as occupying the whole sky...while indeed it can be perceived anywhere where light has travelled so far in no way its image occupy the whole black sky in space because there is dispersion in all directions and intensity falls down with more dispersion as more distance is covered.. .also you can't see light travel sideways to a beam unless there is some obstacle dust bouncing some of the photons directly into your eyes imagine a lantern in a sand dust storm....it does just that. The whole process goes just like your lighter in a clear non dusty night..obviously it doesn't grow when you are further away from it. A 6 year old can understand this but you have trouble I suggest you to consult a doctor no joke.

Not so.

First, the assumption that you see images because you receive their light is wrong, dead wrong, and this is (was) your assumption to which I am debunking right now.

Second, I posted that if your assumption was correct, THEN you should see the Sun's image occupying the whole cosmos because the Inverse Square Law of light.

Now, you are in agreement with my position but you are now saying that even a 6 years child already knows what I am saying here.

Well, show me right now any Journal BEFORE 1999, any book, and magazine of science, any article online, where it specifies that we see images because light reflects on their bodies.

Why 1999?

Because The Law of Perception was discovered in that year and since then, this fact of seeing objects SOLELY because light reflects on their bodies has been explained in several places online.

I can tell you that chances are many that you will be exposed here as a liar.

Quote:

Finally stop posting nonsense please ! We all beg you to go preach to another church.

We? Who are "we"?

I thought this discussion in particular is between both of us.

Well, you have recognized that we see objects because light reflects on their bodies.

And finally we can "now" return back to the topic itself.

Having that we can see the image of objects because light reflects on their bodies, then when you see a star, when you see a further planet, is because light is currently reflecting on their bodies, simultaneously with our present, this is to say, "NOW" simultaneously in both locations.

If light stopped hitting the object -by any reason- a hundred years ago, and light from that object arrives to you, you won't see any image at all.

You can cry, you can scream, you can use your calculator to check the "speed of light", you can do whatever you want to do, but, as you have recognized that we see objects because light reflects on their bodies, I will tell you that regardless of finding no explanation for the phenomenon, the FACT STANDS.

Without noticing it, you have become a follower of "this church" Lol.

2 Replies

@carloslebaron,

Light reflects is the keyword. It means it bounces and end up eventually hitting your eyes. You keep contradicting yourself sentence by sentence. It useless to keep feeding your nonsense you lack the most basic knowledge to keep producing any meaningful conversation. As I have no further intention to expose your degree of incapacity, it is not an human thing to do, I rather leave you talking to someone else. All the best in life !

0 Replies

Is there a now?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know