Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Would we see it coming?

Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2015 9:55:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Theoretical question. If light travelled at 60 mph and a car that is 60 miles away drives towards me at 30mph it would take 2 hours to reach me. If the car leaves at 8am it would arrive at my location by 10pm. But because light takes an hour to reach me, from my perspective, I would only see the car leave at 9am but it would arrive at 10am. In other words it would seem to travel 60 mph. But if 60 mph is the speed of light, shouldn't it seem to leave there and arrive here at the same moment?
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2015 11:47:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I know the answer - the problem with f5's puzzles is finding a way to put it into language that cannot be misunderstood!!

Basically, in the first part we ignore the hour that the light takes to reach us so we get a flight time of 1 hour, when in reality the flight time was 2 hours.

So although the car's speed 'seemed' to be 60 (on the basis of distance divided by the wrong flight time of 1 hour), the car wasn't really going at the speed of light.

If it had really been going at the speed of light then you wouldn't see it coming, but in the case here it was really going at half c, so you would (albeit very blue shifted!).
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/23/2015 9:56:05 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/22/2015 11:47:47 PM, kp98 wrote:
I know the answer - the problem with f5's puzzles is finding a way to put it into language that cannot be misunderstood!!

Basically, in the first part we ignore the hour that the light takes to reach us so we get a flight time of 1 hour, when in reality the flight time was 2 hours.

So although the car's speed 'seemed' to be 60 (on the basis of distance divided by the wrong flight time of 1 hour), the car wasn't really going at the speed of light.

If it had really been going at the speed of light then you wouldn't see it coming, but in the case here it was really going at half c, so you would (albeit very blue shifted!).

Lol stop spoiling my fun. I was asking the people who don't know.
trojan
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 2:44:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/22/2015 9:55:40 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
Theoretical question. If light travelled at 60 mph and a car that is 60 miles away drives towards me at 30mph it would take 2 hours to reach me. If the car leaves at 8am it would arrive at my location by 10pm. But because light takes an hour to reach me, from my perspective, I would only see the car leave at 9am but it would arrive at 10am. In other words it would seem to travel 60 mph. But if 60 mph is the speed of light, shouldn't it seem to leave there and arrive here at the same moment? : :

Yes. Without light information, the car wouldn't exist.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 8:32:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/22/2015 9:55:40 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
Theoretical question. If light travelled at 60 mph and a car that is 60 miles away drives towards me at 30mph it would take 2 hours to reach me. If the car leaves at 8am it would arrive at my location by 10pm. But because light takes an hour to reach me, from my perspective, I would only see the car leave at 9am but it would arrive at 10am. In other words it would seem to travel 60 mph. But if 60 mph is the speed of light, shouldn't it seem to leave there and arrive here at the same moment?

This isn't a relativity question, Furyan. You're just confusing what you know with when you know it.

Try restating it this way:

Bored and broke, your girlfriend walks across town to your place, walking at 5mph, and leaving at 9am.

As she leaves, she encounters your friend on a bicycle, and asks him to let you know she's on her way, as her prepaid phone is out of calls too.

Traveling at 10mph, your friend arrives at 10am, and tells you that he saw your girlfriend on her way an hour ago. You now know that she left at 9am, and can guess that she's still about an hour away -- but you didn't know any of that until 10am.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 8:53:35 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/25/2015 8:32:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/22/2015 9:55:40 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
Theoretical question. If light travelled at 60 mph and a car that is 60 miles away drives towards me at 30mph it would take 2 hours to reach me. If the car leaves at 8am it would arrive at my location by 10pm. But because light takes an hour to reach me, from my perspective, I would only see the car leave at 9am but it would arrive at 10am. In other words it would seem to travel 60 mph. But if 60 mph is the speed of light, shouldn't it seem to leave there and arrive here at the same moment?

This isn't a relativity question, Furyan. You're just confusing what you know with when you know it.

Try restating it this way:

Bored and broke, your girlfriend walks across town to your place, walking at 5mph, and leaving at 9am.

As she leaves, she encounters your friend on a bicycle, and asks him to let you know she's on her way, as her prepaid phone is out of calls too.

Traveling at 10mph, your friend arrives at 10am, and tells you that he saw your girlfriend on her way an hour ago. You now know that she left at 9am, and can guess that she's still about an hour away -- but you didn't know any of that until 10am.

As always you miss the point completely. If I was watching her the whole time I would see her leave at 9am. The car I am watching and from my perspective it leaves at 9 and arrives 12 min later.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2015 11:17:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/25/2015 8:53:35 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 10/25/2015 8:32:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/22/2015 9:55:40 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
Theoretical question. If light travelled at 60 mph and a car that is 60 miles away drives towards me at 30mph it would take 2 hours to reach me. If the car leaves at 8am it would arrive at my location by 10pm. But because light takes an hour to reach me, from my perspective, I would only see the car leave at 9am but it would arrive at 10am. In other words it would seem to travel 60 mph. But if 60 mph is the speed of light, shouldn't it seem to leave there and arrive here at the same moment?
This isn't a relativity question, Furyan. You're just confusing what you know with when you know it.
Try restating it this way:
Bored and broke, your girlfriend walks across town to your place, walking at 5mph, and leaving at 9am.
As she leaves, she encounters your friend on a bicycle, and asks him to let you know she's on her way, as her prepaid phone is out of calls too.
Traveling at 10mph, your friend arrives at 10am, and tells you that he saw your girlfriend on her way an hour ago. You now know that she left at 9am, and can guess that she's still about an hour away -- but you didn't know any of that until 10am.
As always you miss the point completely.
You're taking exception to centuries of physics and math, yet I'm missing the point?

If I was watching her the whole time I would see her leave at 9am.
Light transmission isn't instantaneous, Furyan, so it's like the friend on the bicycle. The bicycle being faster than your girlfriend, you receive news of her departure after she leaves, but before she arrives. During the time it takes the news to reach you, she's also traveling. If she sent a friend on a bicycle with an update every half hour, and it took her two hours to walk, and the bicycles all traveled the same route at twice her walking speed, then you'd receive four updates, each precisely 30 minutes apart, but out of date by different periods due to the diminishing distance between you.

The first report, sent at 9am, is sent when she's two hours away, but takes an hour to reach you, since the bike is twice as fast. It's 10am when you get the report, but in that time, she has also traveled for an hour. So the report says she was two hours away, but she's actually only one hour away when you get the report -- so it's an hour out.

Yet when she sends her last report, half an hour from your door, the cyclist takes only 15 minutes to arrive, but in that time she has traveled for 15 minutes too. The cyclist tells you she was 30 minutes away when he saw her, yet in fact she's now only 15 minutes away. So reports that started an hour out, are now only 15 minutes out.

One would be silly to believe a report still current at 10am when the cyclist can tell us that it was transmitted an hour ago at 9am. But if we forgot to factor that in, then we'd also believe she was traveling faster than she really was, since she'd arrive at 11am, only an hour after we received the first message.

(By the way, a sound effect called the 'Doppler' effect -- where the pitch of a a vehicle's engine rises as it approaches -- is also related to the decreasing distance between observer and observed. [https://en.wikipedia.org...])
trojan
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 1:16:34 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/25/2015 11:17:15 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/25/2015 8:53:35 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 10/25/2015 8:32:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/22/2015 9:55:40 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
Theoretical question. If light travelled at 60 mph and a car that is 60 miles away drives towards me at 30mph it would take 2 hours to reach me. If the car leaves at 8am it would arrive at my location by 10pm. But because light takes an hour to reach me, from my perspective, I would only see the car leave at 9am but it would arrive at 10am. In other words it would seem to travel 60 mph. But if 60 mph is the speed of light, shouldn't it seem to leave there and arrive here at the same moment?
This isn't a relativity question, Furyan. You're just confusing what you know with when you know it.
Try restating it this way:
Bored and broke, your girlfriend walks across town to your place, walking at 5mph, and leaving at 9am.
As she leaves, she encounters your friend on a bicycle, and asks him to let you know she's on her way, as her prepaid phone is out of calls too.
Traveling at 10mph, your friend arrives at 10am, and tells you that he saw your girlfriend on her way an hour ago. You now know that she left at 9am, and can guess that she's still about an hour away -- but you didn't know any of that until 10am.
As always you miss the point completely.
You're taking exception to centuries of physics and math, yet I'm missing the point?

If I was watching her the whole time I would see her leave at 9am.
Light transmission isn't instantaneous, Furyan, so it's like the friend on the bicycle. The bicycle being faster than your girlfriend, you receive news of her departure after she leaves, but before she arrives. During the time it takes the news to reach you, she's also traveling. If she sent a friend on a bicycle with an update every half hour, and it took her two hours to walk, and the bicycles all traveled the same route at twice her walking speed, then you'd receive four updates, each precisely 30 minutes apart, but out of date by different periods due to the diminishing distance between you.

The first report, sent at 9am, is sent when she's two hours away, but takes an hour to reach you, since the bike is twice as fast. It's 10am when you get the report, but in that time, she has also traveled for an hour. So the report says she was two hours away, but she's actually only one hour away when you get the report -- so it's an hour out.

Yet when she sends her last report, half an hour from your door, the cyclist takes only 15 minutes to arrive, but in that time she has traveled for 15 minutes too. The cyclist tells you she was 30 minutes away when he saw her, yet in fact she's now only 15 minutes away. So reports that started an hour out, are now only 15 minutes out.

One would be silly to believe a report still current at 10am when the cyclist can tell us that it was transmitted an hour ago at 9am. But if we forgot to factor that in, then we'd also believe she was traveling faster than she really was, since she'd arrive at 11am, only an hour after we received the first message.

(By the way, a sound effect called the 'Doppler' effect -- where the pitch of a a vehicle's engine rises as it approaches -- is also related to the decreasing distance between observer and observed. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]) : :

Only if you believe that light, sound, time, space and matter are real things. If we're experiencing life in a simulation, then none of these things are real. They're only perceived to be real from each unique created perspective.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 3:41:02 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/26/2015 1:16:34 AM, trojan wrote:
At 10/25/2015 11:17:15 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/25/2015 8:53:35 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
If I was watching her the whole time I would see her leave at 9am.
Light transmission isn't instantaneous, Furyan, so it's like the friend on the bicycle. The bicycle being faster than your girlfriend, you receive news of her departure after she leaves, but before she arrives. During the time it takes the news to reach you, she's also traveling. If she sent a friend on a bicycle with an update every half hour, and it took her two hours to walk, and the bicycles all traveled the same route at twice her walking speed, then you'd receive four updates, each precisely 30 minutes apart, but out of date by different periods due to the diminishing distance between you.

The first report, sent at 9am, is sent when she's two hours away, but takes an hour to reach you, since the bike is twice as fast. It's 10am when you get the report, but in that time, she has also traveled for an hour. So the report says she was two hours away, but she's actually only one hour away when you get the report -- so it's an hour out.

Yet when she sends her last report, half an hour from your door, the cyclist takes only 15 minutes to arrive, but in that time she has traveled for 15 minutes too. The cyclist tells you she was 30 minutes away when he saw her, yet in fact she's now only 15 minutes away. So reports that started an hour out, are now only 15 minutes out.

One would be silly to believe a report still current at 10am when the cyclist can tell us that it was transmitted an hour ago at 9am. But if we forgot to factor that in, then we'd also believe she was traveling faster than she really was, since she'd arrive at 11am, only an hour after we received the first message.

(By the way, a sound effect called the 'Doppler' effect -- where the pitch of a a vehicle's engine rises as it approaches -- is also related to the decreasing distance between observer and observed. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]) : :

Only if you believe that light, sound, time, space and matter are real things. If we're experiencing life in a simulation, then none of these things are real. They're only perceived to be real from each unique created perspective.

Hi Brad,

Hope you're well!

There's no way of knowing that we are not all in some simulation, that's true. However, we can be reasonably confident about some qualities regarding whatever constitutes the reality we're in.

One is that the objective is shared and persistent. I don't mean that it persists forever; only that it persists to observation -- including observable signs of history; and that this information is as reliable as any other information we have.

Within those reasonable assumptions, I'll stick by what I wrote earlier. :) And beyond those assumptions I think we'd probably be off-topic. :)
trojan
Posts: 24
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 3:59:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/26/2015 3:41:02 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/26/2015 1:16:34 AM, trojan wrote:
At 10/25/2015 11:17:15 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/25/2015 8:53:35 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
If I was watching her the whole time I would see her leave at 9am.
Light transmission isn't instantaneous, Furyan, so it's like the friend on the bicycle. The bicycle being faster than your girlfriend, you receive news of her departure after she leaves, but before she arrives. During the time it takes the news to reach you, she's also traveling. If she sent a friend on a bicycle with an update every half hour, and it took her two hours to walk, and the bicycles all traveled the same route at twice her walking speed, then you'd receive four updates, each precisely 30 minutes apart, but out of date by different periods due to the diminishing distance between you.

The first report, sent at 9am, is sent when she's two hours away, but takes an hour to reach you, since the bike is twice as fast. It's 10am when you get the report, but in that time, she has also traveled for an hour. So the report says she was two hours away, but she's actually only one hour away when you get the report -- so it's an hour out.

Yet when she sends her last report, half an hour from your door, the cyclist takes only 15 minutes to arrive, but in that time she has traveled for 15 minutes too. The cyclist tells you she was 30 minutes away when he saw her, yet in fact she's now only 15 minutes away. So reports that started an hour out, are now only 15 minutes out.

One would be silly to believe a report still current at 10am when the cyclist can tell us that it was transmitted an hour ago at 9am. But if we forgot to factor that in, then we'd also believe she was traveling faster than she really was, since she'd arrive at 11am, only an hour after we received the first message.

(By the way, a sound effect called the 'Doppler' effect -- where the pitch of a a vehicle's engine rises as it approaches -- is also related to the decreasing distance between observer and observed. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]) : :

Only if you believe that light, sound, time, space and matter are real things. If we're experiencing life in a simulation, then none of these things are real. They're only perceived to be real from each unique created perspective.

Hi Brad,

Hope you're well!

There's no way of knowing that we are not all in some simulation, that's true. However, we can be reasonably confident about some qualities regarding whatever constitutes the reality we're in.

One is that the objective is shared and persistent. I don't mean that it persists forever; only that it persists to observation -- including observable signs of history; and that this information is as reliable as any other information we have.

Within those reasonable assumptions, I'll stick by what I wrote earlier. :) And beyond those assumptions I think we'd probably be off-topic. :) : :

Of course you will stick to your beliefs from your own perspective. I'm not here to change those beliefs. I've told you before the only reason I'm in this forum is to find the chosen believers who will be open to this knowledge about us living in a simulation. I have found many people who believe this to be true and I've listened to several videos of physicists who believe we're in a simulation.

I understand very well that a billion Christians can be deceived by their observation of what they read in the Bible or a thousand physicists who don't believe we're living in a simulation. I'm not concerned about what those groups believe in. I speak for our Creator and witness the knowledge that comes forth from His mind. This is how I've learned about the simulation he created.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 4:20:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/26/2015 3:59:49 AM, trojan wrote:
At 10/26/2015 3:41:02 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/26/2015 1:16:34 AM, trojan wrote:
At 10/25/2015 11:17:15 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/25/2015 8:53:35 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
If I was watching her the whole time I would see her leave at 9am.
Light transmission isn't instantaneous, Furyan, so it's like the friend on the bicycle. The bicycle being faster than your girlfriend, you receive news of her departure after she leaves, but before she arrives. During the time it takes the news to reach you, she's also traveling. If she sent a friend on a bicycle with an update every half hour, and it took her two hours to walk, and the bicycles all traveled the same route at twice her walking speed, then you'd receive four updates, each precisely 30 minutes apart, but out of date by different periods due to the diminishing distance between you.

The first report, sent at 9am, is sent when she's two hours away, but takes an hour to reach you, since the bike is twice as fast. It's 10am when you get the report, but in that time, she has also traveled for an hour. So the report says she was two hours away, but she's actually only one hour away when you get the report -- so it's an hour out.

Yet when she sends her last report, half an hour from your door, the cyclist takes only 15 minutes to arrive, but in that time she has traveled for 15 minutes too. The cyclist tells you she was 30 minutes away when he saw her, yet in fact she's now only 15 minutes away. So reports that started an hour out, are now only 15 minutes out.

One would be silly to believe a report still current at 10am when the cyclist can tell us that it was transmitted an hour ago at 9am. But if we forgot to factor that in, then we'd also believe she was traveling faster than she really was, since she'd arrive at 11am, only an hour after we received the first message.

(By the way, a sound effect called the 'Doppler' effect -- where the pitch of a a vehicle's engine rises as it approaches -- is also related to the decreasing distance between observer and observed. [https://en.wikipedia.org...]) : :

Only if you believe that light, sound, time, space and matter are real things. If we're experiencing life in a simulation, then none of these things are real. They're only perceived to be real from each unique created perspective.

Hi Brad,

Hope you're well!

There's no way of knowing that we are not all in some simulation, that's true. However, we can be reasonably confident about some qualities regarding whatever constitutes the reality we're in.

I understand very well that a billion Christians can be deceived by their observation of what they read in the Bible or a thousand physicists who don't believe we're living in a simulation.
There are 23,300 jobs for physicists in the US alone, Brad. [http://www.bls.gov...] Worldwide, physicists are in at least the hundreds of thousands.

I think virtually all of them would be likely to agree that we cannot prove we're not in some simulation.

On the other hand, any scientist can point out that empirically, if you cannot disprove that you're in a simulation, you cannot also empirically know what sort of simulation you're in. :) And further, if you believe you know this by revelation, you still cannot prove it empirically unless you can also prove we're in a simulation in the first place -- and that would require us to determine criteria by which we'd know if we were not in a simulation.

So even if you were right, Brad, it would be a cruel Creator who'd put you on Earth with a message, but unable to prove its veracity. You'd be selecting believers not for faith, but gullibility and poor critical thought. :(

And I think we've taxed this thread long enough with this off-topic digression. :)
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 4:29:24 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/25/2015 11:17:15 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/25/2015 8:53:35 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 10/25/2015 8:32:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/22/2015 9:55:40 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
Theoretical question. If light travelled at 60 mph and a car that is 60 miles away drives towards me at 30mph it would take 2 hours to reach me. If the car leaves at 8am it would arrive at my location by 10pm. But because light takes an hour to reach me, from my perspective, I would only see the car leave at 9am but it would arrive at 10am. In other words it would seem to travel 60 mph. But if 60 mph is the speed of light, shouldn't it seem to leave there and arrive here at the same moment?
This isn't a relativity question, Furyan. You're just confusing what you know with when you know it.
Try restating it this way:
Bored and broke, your girlfriend walks across town to your place, walking at 5mph, and leaving at 9am.
As she leaves, she encounters your friend on a bicycle, and asks him to let you know she's on her way, as her prepaid phone is out of calls too.
Traveling at 10mph, your friend arrives at 10am, and tells you that he saw your girlfriend on her way an hour ago. You now know that she left at 9am, and can guess that she's still about an hour away -- but you didn't know any of that until 10am.
As always you miss the point completely.
You're taking exception to centuries of physics and math, yet I'm missing the point?

If I was watching her the whole time I would see her leave at 9am.
Light transmission isn't instantaneous, Furyan, so it's like the friend on the bicycle. The bicycle being faster than your girlfriend, you receive news of her departure after she leaves, but before she arrives. During the time it takes the news to reach you, she's also traveling. If she sent a friend on a bicycle with an update every half hour, and it took her two hours to walk, and the bicycles all traveled the same route at twice her walking speed, then you'd receive four updates, each precisely 30 minutes apart, but out of date by different periods due to the diminishing distance between you.

The first report, sent at 9am, is sent when she's two hours away, but takes an hour to reach you, since the bike is twice as fast. It's 10am when you get the report, but in that time, she has also traveled for an hour. So the report says she was two hours away, but she's actually only one hour away when you get the report -- so it's an hour out.

Yet when she sends her last report, half an hour from your door, the cyclist takes only 15 minutes to arrive, but in that time she has traveled for 15 minutes too. The cyclist tells you she was 30 minutes away when he saw her, yet in fact she's now only 15 minutes away. So reports that started an hour out, are now only 15 minutes out.

One would be silly to believe a report still current at 10am when the cyclist can tell us that it was transmitted an hour ago at 9am. But if we forgot to factor that in, then we'd also believe she was traveling faster than she really was, since she'd arrive at 11am, only an hour after we received the first message.

(By the way, a sound effect called the 'Doppler' effect -- where the pitch of a a vehicle's engine rises as it approaches -- is also related to the decreasing distance between observer and observed. [https://en.wikipedia.org...])

Idiot please read the question. I CLEARLY state that this is a theoretical question. If light travels at 60 mph.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 4:35:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/26/2015 4:29:24 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 10/25/2015 11:17:15 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/25/2015 8:53:35 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 10/25/2015 8:32:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/22/2015 9:55:40 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
Theoretical question. If light travelled at 60 mph and a car that is 60 miles away drives towards me at 30mph it would take 2 hours to reach me. If the car leaves at 8am it would arrive at my location by 10pm. But because light takes an hour to reach me, from my perspective, I would only see the car leave at 9am but it would arrive at 10am. In other words it would seem to travel 60 mph. But if 60 mph is the speed of light, shouldn't it seem to leave there and arrive here at the same moment?
This isn't a relativity question, Furyan. You're just confusing what you know with when you know it.
Try restating it this way:
Bored and broke, your girlfriend walks across town to your place, walking at 5mph, and leaving at 9am.
As she leaves, she encounters your friend on a bicycle, and asks him to let you know she's on her way, as her prepaid phone is out of calls too.
Traveling at 10mph, your friend arrives at 10am, and tells you that he saw your girlfriend on her way an hour ago. You now know that she left at 9am, and can guess that she's still about an hour away -- but you didn't know any of that until 10am.
As always you miss the point completely.
You're taking exception to centuries of physics and math, yet I'm missing the point?

If I was watching her the whole time I would see her leave at 9am.
Light transmission isn't instantaneous, Furyan, so it's like the friend on the bicycle. The bicycle being faster than your girlfriend, you receive news of her departure after she leaves, but before she arrives. During the time it takes the news to reach you, she's also traveling. If she sent a friend on a bicycle with an update every half hour, and it took her two hours to walk, and the bicycles all traveled the same route at twice her walking speed, then you'd receive four updates, each precisely 30 minutes apart, but out of date by different periods due to the diminishing distance between you.

The first report, sent at 9am, is sent when she's two hours away, but takes an hour to reach you, since the bike is twice as fast. It's 10am when you get the report, but in that time, she has also traveled for an hour. So the report says she was two hours away, but she's actually only one hour away when you get the report -- so it's an hour out.

Yet when she sends her last report, half an hour from your door, the cyclist takes only 15 minutes to arrive, but in that time she has traveled for 15 minutes too. The cyclist tells you she was 30 minutes away when he saw her, yet in fact she's now only 15 minutes away. So reports that started an hour out, are now only 15 minutes out.

One would be silly to believe a report still current at 10am when the cyclist can tell us that it was transmitted an hour ago at 9am. But if we forgot to factor that in, then we'd also believe she was traveling faster than she really was, since she'd arrive at 11am, only an hour after we received the first message.

(By the way, a sound effect called the 'Doppler' effect -- where the pitch of a a vehicle's engine rises as it approaches -- is also related to the decreasing distance between observer and observed. [https://en.wikipedia.org...])

Idiot please read the question. I CLEARLY state that this is a theoretical question. If light travels at 60 mph.

Dr Idiot please, Furyan. I cannot abide disrespect.

The answer remains the same whether it's light sending the message, or a friend on a bicycle. All that matters is the speed (which I altered for arithmetic convenience), but you can get better intuitions by imaging the friend on the bicycle is bringing you the message, rather than imagining you're seeing your friend walk toward your home.

But perhaps better intuitions aren't what you want?

Would you like to be declared right instead?

I feel free to do that, since you've already declared me an idiot. :)
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 4:37:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/26/2015 4:35:41 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/26/2015 4:29:24 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 10/25/2015 11:17:15 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/25/2015 8:53:35 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 10/25/2015 8:32:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/22/2015 9:55:40 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
Theoretical question. If light travelled at 60 mph and a car that is 60 miles away drives towards me at 30mph it would take 2 hours to reach me. If the car leaves at 8am it would arrive at my location by 10pm. But because light takes an hour to reach me, from my perspective, I would only see the car leave at 9am but it would arrive at 10am. In other words it would seem to travel 60 mph. But if 60 mph is the speed of light, shouldn't it seem to leave there and arrive here at the same moment?
This isn't a relativity question, Furyan. You're just confusing what you know with when you know it.
Try restating it this way:
Bored and broke, your girlfriend walks across town to your place, walking at 5mph, and leaving at 9am.
As she leaves, she encounters your friend on a bicycle, and asks him to let you know she's on her way, as her prepaid phone is out of calls too.
Traveling at 10mph, your friend arrives at 10am, and tells you that he saw your girlfriend on her way an hour ago. You now know that she left at 9am, and can guess that she's still about an hour away -- but you didn't know any of that until 10am.
As always you miss the point completely.
You're taking exception to centuries of physics and math, yet I'm missing the point?

If I was watching her the whole time I would see her leave at 9am.
Light transmission isn't instantaneous, Furyan, so it's like the friend on the bicycle. The bicycle being faster than your girlfriend, you receive news of her departure after she leaves, but before she arrives. During the time it takes the news to reach you, she's also traveling. If she sent a friend on a bicycle with an update every half hour, and it took her two hours to walk, and the bicycles all traveled the same route at twice her walking speed, then you'd receive four updates, each precisely 30 minutes apart, but out of date by different periods due to the diminishing distance between you.

The first report, sent at 9am, is sent when she's two hours away, but takes an hour to reach you, since the bike is twice as fast. It's 10am when you get the report, but in that time, she has also traveled for an hour. So the report says she was two hours away, but she's actually only one hour away when you get the report -- so it's an hour out.

Yet when she sends her last report, half an hour from your door, the cyclist takes only 15 minutes to arrive, but in that time she has traveled for 15 minutes too. The cyclist tells you she was 30 minutes away when he saw her, yet in fact she's now only 15 minutes away. So reports that started an hour out, are now only 15 minutes out.

One would be silly to believe a report still current at 10am when the cyclist can tell us that it was transmitted an hour ago at 9am. But if we forgot to factor that in, then we'd also believe she was traveling faster than she really was, since she'd arrive at 11am, only an hour after we received the first message.

(By the way, a sound effect called the 'Doppler' effect -- where the pitch of a a vehicle's engine rises as it approaches -- is also related to the decreasing distance between observer and observed. [https://en.wikipedia.org...])

Idiot please read the question. I CLEARLY state that this is a theoretical question. If light travels at 60 mph.

Dr Idiot please, Furyan. I cannot abide disrespect.

The answer remains the same whether it's light sending the message, or a friend on a bicycle. All that matters is the speed (which I altered for arithmetic convenience), but you can get better intuitions by imaging the friend on the bicycle is bringing you the message, rather than imagining you're seeing your friend walk toward your home.

But perhaps better intuitions aren't what you want?

Would you like to be declared right instead?

I feel free to do that, since you've already declared me an idiot. :)

That's because you are one. Hold on while a get my crayons and draw you a picture...
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 4:51:14 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/26/2015 4:37:49 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 10/26/2015 4:35:41 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/26/2015 4:29:24 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 10/25/2015 11:17:15 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/25/2015 8:53:35 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 10/25/2015 8:32:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/22/2015 9:55:40 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
Theoretical question. If light travelled at 60 mph and a car that is 60 miles away drives towards me at 30mph it would take 2 hours to reach me. If the car leaves at 8am it would arrive at my location by 10pm. But because light takes an hour to reach me, from my perspective, I would only see the car leave at 9am but it would arrive at 10am. In other words it would seem to travel 60 mph. But if 60 mph is the speed of light, shouldn't it seem to leave there and arrive here at the same moment?
This isn't a relativity question, Furyan. You're just confusing what you know with when you know it.
Try restating it this way:
Bored and broke, your girlfriend walks across town to your place, walking at 5mph, and leaving at 9am.
As she leaves, she encounters your friend on a bicycle, and asks him to let you know she's on her way, as her prepaid phone is out of calls too.
Traveling at 10mph, your friend arrives at 10am, and tells you that he saw your girlfriend on her way an hour ago. You now know that she left at 9am, and can guess that she's still about an hour away -- but you didn't know any of that until 10am.
As always you miss the point completely.
You're taking exception to centuries of physics and math, yet I'm missing the point?

If I was watching her the whole time I would see her leave at 9am.
Light transmission isn't instantaneous, Furyan, so it's like the friend on the bicycle. The bicycle being faster than your girlfriend, you receive news of her departure after she leaves, but before she arrives. During the time it takes the news to reach you, she's also traveling. If she sent a friend on a bicycle with an update every half hour, and it took her two hours to walk, and the bicycles all traveled the same route at twice her walking speed, then you'd receive four updates, each precisely 30 minutes apart, but out of date by different periods due to the diminishing distance between you.

The first report, sent at 9am, is sent when she's two hours away, but takes an hour to reach you, since the bike is twice as fast. It's 10am when you get the report, but in that time, she has also traveled for an hour. So the report says she was two hours away, but she's actually only one hour away when you get the report -- so it's an hour out.

Yet when she sends her last report, half an hour from your door, the cyclist takes only 15 minutes to arrive, but in that time she has traveled for 15 minutes too. The cyclist tells you she was 30 minutes away when he saw her, yet in fact she's now only 15 minutes away. So reports that started an hour out, are now only 15 minutes out.

One would be silly to believe a report still current at 10am when the cyclist can tell us that it was transmitted an hour ago at 9am. But if we forgot to factor that in, then we'd also believe she was traveling faster than she really was, since she'd arrive at 11am, only an hour after we received the first message.

(By the way, a sound effect called the 'Doppler' effect -- where the pitch of a a vehicle's engine rises as it approaches -- is also related to the decreasing distance between observer and observed. [https://en.wikipedia.org...])

Idiot please read the question. I CLEARLY state that this is a theoretical question. If light travels at 60 mph.

Dr Idiot please, Furyan. I cannot abide disrespect.

The answer remains the same whether it's light sending the message, or a friend on a bicycle. All that matters is the speed (which I altered for arithmetic convenience), but you can get better intuitions by imaging the friend on the bicycle is bringing you the message, rather than imagining you're seeing your friend walk toward your home.

But perhaps better intuitions aren't what you want?

Would you like to be declared right instead?

I feel free to do that, since you've already declared me an idiot. :)

That's because you are one. Hold on while a get my crayons and draw you a picture...

(I shall be very disappointed if I don't see a link to a crayon image on imgur, Furyan. :p)
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 5:12:46 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/26/2015 4:37:49 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 10/26/2015 4:35:41 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/26/2015 4:29:24 AM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 10/25/2015 11:17:15 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/25/2015 8:53:35 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
At 10/25/2015 8:32:38 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 10/22/2015 9:55:40 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
Theoretical question. If light travelled at 60 mph and a car that is 60 miles away drives towards me at 30mph it would take 2 hours to reach me. If the car leaves at 8am it would arrive at my location by 10pm. But because light takes an hour to reach me, from my perspective, I would only see the car leave at 9am but it would arrive at 10am. In other words it would seem to travel 60 mph. But if 60 mph is the speed of light, shouldn't it seem to leave there and arrive here at the same moment?
This isn't a relativity question, Furyan. You're just confusing what you know with when you know it.
Try restating it this way:
Bored and broke, your girlfriend walks across town to your place, walking at 5mph, and leaving at 9am.
As she leaves, she encounters your friend on a bicycle, and asks him to let you know she's on her way, as her prepaid phone is out of calls too.
Traveling at 10mph, your friend arrives at 10am, and tells you that he saw your girlfriend on her way an hour ago. You now know that she left at 9am, and can guess that she's still about an hour away -- but you didn't know any of that until 10am.
As always you miss the point completely.
You're taking exception to centuries of physics and math, yet I'm missing the point?

If I was watching her the whole time I would see her leave at 9am.
Light transmission isn't instantaneous, Furyan, so it's like the friend on the bicycle. The bicycle being faster than your girlfriend, you receive news of her departure after she leaves, but before she arrives. During the time it takes the news to reach you, she's also traveling. If she sent a friend on a bicycle with an update every half hour, and it took her two hours to walk, and the bicycles all traveled the same route at twice her walking speed, then you'd receive four updates, each precisely 30 minutes apart, but out of date by different periods due to the diminishing distance between you.

The first report, sent at 9am, is sent when she's two hours away, but takes an hour to reach you, since the bike is twice as fast. It's 10am when you get the report, but in that time, she has also traveled for an hour. So the report says she was two hours away, but she's actually only one hour away when you get the report -- so it's an hour out.

Yet when she sends her last report, half an hour from your door, the cyclist takes only 15 minutes to arrive, but in that time she has traveled for 15 minutes too. The cyclist tells you she was 30 minutes away when he saw her, yet in fact she's now only 15 minutes away. So reports that started an hour out, are now only 15 minutes out.

One would be silly to believe a report still current at 10am when the cyclist can tell us that it was transmitted an hour ago at 9am. But if we forgot to factor that in, then we'd also believe she was traveling faster than she really was, since she'd arrive at 11am, only an hour after we received the first message.

(By the way, a sound effect called the 'Doppler' effect -- where the pitch of a a vehicle's engine rises as it approaches -- is also related to the decreasing distance between observer and observed. [https://en.wikipedia.org...])

Idiot please read the question. I CLEARLY state that this is a theoretical question. If light travels at 60 mph.

Dr Idiot please, Furyan. I cannot abide disrespect.

The answer remains the same whether it's light sending the message, or a friend on a bicycle. All that matters is the speed (which I altered for arithmetic convenience), but you can get better intuitions by imaging the friend on the bicycle is bringing you the message, rather than imagining you're seeing your friend walk toward your home.

But perhaps better intuitions aren't what you want?

Would you like to be declared right instead?

I feel free to do that, since you've already declared me an idiot. :)

That's because you are one. Hold on while a get my crayons and draw you a picture...

Let's begin with your statement, light transmission isn't instantaneous, Furyan. Why are you pointing out the obvious as if I am not aware of it? You may not use the word idiot, but you are implying that I am. So please don't get all offended if I simply return the favour.
Now Dr please answer the following questions.
If light travels at 60 mph and a car 60 miles away leaves at 8am, what time would I see it leave? X
If the car travels at 30mph, what time would it arrive by me? Y
To me the duration of the journey would be Y - X = Z
Distance travelled 60 miles divided by Z gives me speed.
To me they travel at 60 mph but to the occupants their speed is 30mph. So the speed is relative to where you are.
dee-em
Posts: 6,444
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 7:20:05 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/22/2015 9:55:40 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
Theoretical question. If light travelled at 60 mph and a car that is 60 miles away drives towards me at 30mph it would take 2 hours to reach me. If the car leaves at 8am it would arrive at my location by 10pm.

Only an idiot would think that the time elapsed between 8am and 10pm is 2 hours. Perhaps you meant 10am?

But because light takes an hour to reach me, from my perspective, I would only see the car leave at 9am but it would arrive at 10am.

Only an idiot would think that they can look 60 miles down a road and see a car. Perhaps this is an unrealistic as well as a hypothetical question?

In other words it would seem to travel 60 mph. But if 60 mph is the speed of light, shouldn't it seem to leave there and arrive here at the same moment?

Anyone but an idiot would be aware of the speed of light and realize that when he 'saw' the car begin its journey 60 miles away that the light had taken an hour to reach him. They would then know that the car had left at 8am. An idiot would of course conveniently forget about the speed of light when making the calculation. That's why idiots don't do physics.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 9:01:33 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/26/2015 7:20:05 AM, dee-em wrote:
At 10/22/2015 9:55:40 PM, Furyan5 wrote:
Theoretical question. If light travelled at 60 mph and a car that is 60 miles away drives towards me at 30mph it would take 2 hours to reach me. If the car leaves at 8am it would arrive at my location by 10pm.

Only an idiot would think that the time elapsed between 8am and 10pm is 2 hours. Perhaps you meant 10am?

But because light takes an hour to reach me, from my perspective, I would only see the car leave at 9am but it would arrive at 10am.

Only an idiot would think that they can look 60 miles down a road and see a car. Perhaps this is an unrealistic as well as a hypothetical question?

In other words it would seem to travel 60 mph. But if 60 mph is the speed of light, shouldn't it seem to leave there and arrive here at the same moment?

Anyone but an idiot would be aware of the speed of light and realize that when he 'saw' the car begin its journey 60 miles away that the light had taken an hour to reach him. They would then know that the car had left at 8am. An idiot would of course conveniently forget about the speed of light when making the calculation. That's why idiots don't do physics.

True, that is why I put, seem to travel 60mph. Do I need to explain the meaning of seem?
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 10:43:36 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/26/2015 10:07:48 AM, kp98 wrote:
Didn't f5 acknowledge that I answered this 3 days ago?

Lol shhh. I'm messing with them.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/26/2015 12:54:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/26/2015 10:56:22 AM, kp98 wrote:
Trolling is naughty... especially stealth trolling!

Yeah, but its fun. :-)
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2015 1:04:41 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/22/2015 11:47:47 PM, kp98 wrote:
I know the answer - the problem with f5's puzzles is finding a way to put it into language that cannot be misunderstood!!

You have a better chance of teaching your cat to play chess.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2015 11:00:15 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 10/27/2015 1:04:41 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 10/22/2015 11:47:47 PM, kp98 wrote:
I know the answer - the problem with f5's puzzles is finding a way to put it into language that cannot be misunderstood!!

You have a better chance of teaching your cat to play chess.

You obviously missed the point that I already knew the answer before asking the question. This doesn't speak well for your intelligence or sense of observation. If you were attempting an insult, I'm afraid all you did was make yourself look stupid. Yet again.
kp98
Posts: 729
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/27/2015 4:57:56 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
You have a better chance of teaching your cat to play chess.
I would, but I'm afraid it would beat me. I can never remember how the horse moves.