4 ms·

I don't suspect we will get anywhere with this debate, but what I'm saying doesn't contradict any of what you're saying about General Relativity, and also I'm n

I don't suspect we will get anywhere with this debate, but what I'm saying doesn't contradict any of what you're saying about General Relativity, and also I'm not suggesting the trivial fact that we observe events at the time that we observe them. > This is simply not true. How do you think we know that they are actually not happening at the time we see them? Would you also say that it's impossible to prove that the events which cause thunder don't happen at the time you hear the thunder, but earlier, i.e. shortly before you see the lightning? No, and this is exactly where the analogy between the speed of sound and speed of light breaks down, because they are fundamentally different. The speed of sound is not subject to (significant) relativistic effects. You can easily prove the speed of sound by measuring the time between the lightning flash and when you hear the thunder. There is no analog with the speed of light. I agree that this is the crux of the argument: > For all intents and purposes this is happening in real time from our local frame of reference. But you have not shown this to be false.

codethief 4y ago
> > For all intents and purposes this is happening in real time from our local frame of reference. > But you have not shown this to be false. Once again you have ignored how General Relativity defines "local frame of reference" – which I have elaborated on extensively –, replaced it with your very own and, as discussed, inconsistent definition, and assert that I am wrong based on this made up definition of yours. Take gravitational lensing. Light from one event will reach you in multiple (in fact, an infinite number of) ways, at different times. What now? How do you define the time at which an event occured? Take the fact light often propagates at speeds v < c, where c is "the" speed of light, an effect that all light rays you see in the sky are subject to to some degree because they are passing through interstellar medium et cetera. (For an extreme example see slow light[0].) How do you reconcile your definition with the fact that the speed of (such) light will no longer be the speed that bounds whether two events are causally connected? [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_light https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_light

codethief 4y ago

> > For all intents and purposes this is happening in real time from our local frame of reference. > But you have not shown this to be false. Once again you have ignored how General Relativity defines "local frame of reference" – which I have elaborated on extensively –, replaced it with your very own and, as discussed, inconsistent definition, and assert that I am wrong based on this made up definition of yours. Take gravitational lensing. Light from one event will reach you in multiple (in fact, an infinite number of) ways, at different times. What now? How do you define the time at which an event occured? Take the fact light often propagates at speeds v < c, where c is "the" speed of light, an effect that all light rays you see in the sky are subject to to some degree because they are passing through interstellar medium et cetera. (For an extreme example see slow light[0].) How do you reconcile your definition with the fact that the speed of (such) light will no longer be the speed that bounds whether two events are causally connected? [0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_light https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slow_light