Silly thought experiment, yet I describe it:

1) Take a pure source of light having a wavelength of 500 nm.

2) Shine a small 3D object.

3) Place three small and "magic" rectangular screens at a radial distance
R, R - λ and R + λ. Call them S1, S2 and S3.

4) Call screen S1 as NOW, S2 as NOW - λ/c and S3 as NOW + λ/c.

5) Focus your attention on S1: NOW, and start from zero a perfect clock
that measures and display time in attoseconds.

6) As your visual field covers the three screens simultaneously, what do you
observe when you switch your sight from S1 to S2 and S3:

6a) Present, past and future of the object, with time separated by λ/c?
6b) Nothing meaningful, because the experiment is stupid?

7) And if the separation is +/- 10λ (5 um)? Any difference?

Considering that reflected light carry visual information for given instances
of time, and that moving radially along the reflected light by average units
of 500 nm, I could see the past reflections as being 500 nm past me.

Also, I could foresee future reflections that are 500 nm closer to the object.

If such wavelength is too long to perceive, simultaneously, reflections from
my NOW and my NOW ± λ/c, I could use smaller wavelengths and keep
doing it until the temporal separation clashes with the attosecond resolution
of my NOW clock.

Wavelength tunable perceptions of present, past and future that, in the limit,
converges to NOW.

Is this worthy of second thoughts?

On 3/25/2023 6:21 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Silly thought experiment, yet I describe it:
>
> 1) Take a pure source of light having a wavelength of 500 nm.
>
> 2) Shine a small 3D object.
>
> 3) Place three small and "magic" rectangular screens at a radial distance
> R, R - λ and R + λ. Call them S1, S2 and S3.
>
> 4) Call screen S1 as NOW, S2 as NOW - λ/c and S3 as NOW + λ/c.
>
> 5) Focus your attention on S1: NOW, and start from zero a perfect clock
> that measures and display time in attoseconds.
>
> 6) As your visual field covers the three screens simultaneously, what do you
> observe when you switch your sight from S1 to S2 and S3:
>
> 6a) Present, past and future of the object, with time separated by λ/c?
> 6b) Nothing meaningful, because the experiment is stupid?
>
> 7) And if the separation is +/- 10λ (5 um)? Any difference?
>
> Considering that reflected light carry visual information for given instances
> of time, and that moving radially along the reflected light by average units
> of 500 nm, I could see the past reflections as being 500 nm past me.
>
> Also, I could foresee future reflections that are 500 nm closer to the object.
>
> If such wavelength is too long to perceive, simultaneously, reflections from
> my NOW and my NOW ± λ/c, I could use smaller wavelengths and keep
> doing it until the temporal separation clashes with the attosecond resolution
> of my NOW clock.
>
> Wavelength tunable perceptions of present, past and future that, in the limit,
> converges to NOW.
>
> Is this worthy of second thoughts?

There's a major hole in all that. You can never legitimately image the
future in the now, I don't care what you do.

Before you go off the deep end with all this, I urge you to really
REALLY *REALLY* study Zeno's arrow. It might even give you some insight
related to your specific arguments about moving space. Study Zeno's
arrow long enough and perhaps you'll actually understand a few things
that are significantly lacking in your discussions here.

I haven't paid much attention to your discussions with Jane so I don't
know if this will help there. But then, Jane is smart enough to argue
circles around almost anyone. I'm sort of surprised she stuck around as
long as she did.

On 26-Mar-23 10:21 am, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Silly thought experiment, yet I describe it:
>
> 1) Take a pure source of light having a wavelength of 500 nm.
>
> 2) Shine a small 3D object.
>
> 3) Place three small and "magic" rectangular screens at a radial distance
> R, R - λ and R + λ. Call them S1, S2 and S3.
>
> 4) Call screen S1 as NOW, S2 as NOW - λ/c and S3 as NOW + λ/c.
>
> 5) Focus your attention on S1: NOW, and start from zero a perfect clock
> that measures and display time in attoseconds.
>
> 6) As your visual field covers the three screens simultaneously, what do you
> observe when you switch your sight from S1 to S2 and S3:
>
> 6a) Present, past and future of the object, with time separated by λ/c?
> 6b) Nothing meaningful, because the experiment is stupid?
>
> 7) And if the separation is +/- 10λ (5 um)? Any difference?
>
> Considering that reflected light carry visual information for given instances
> of time, and that moving radially along the reflected light by average units
> of 500 nm, I could see the past reflections as being 500 nm past me.
>
> Also, I could foresee future reflections that are 500 nm closer to the object.
>
> If such wavelength is too long to perceive, simultaneously, reflections from
> my NOW and my NOW ± λ/c, I could use smaller wavelengths and keep
> doing it until the temporal separation clashes with the attosecond resolution
> of my NOW clock.
>
> Wavelength tunable perceptions of present, past and future that, in the limit,
> converges to NOW.
>
> Is this worthy of second thoughts?
>

I could just as validly call 100 years ago now, claim that what I am
looking at is 100 years into the future.

Sylvia.

On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 10:11:42 PM UTC-3, whodat wrote:
> On 3/25/2023 6:21 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > Silly thought experiment, yet I describe it:
> >
> > 1) Take a pure source of light having a wavelength of 500 nm.
> >
> > 2) Shine a small 3D object.
> >
> > 3) Place three small and "magic" rectangular screens at a radial distance
> > R, R - λ and R + λ. Call them S1, S2 and S3.
> >
> > 4) Call screen S1 as NOW, S2 as NOW - λ/c and S3 as NOW + λ/c..
> >
> > 5) Focus your attention on S1: NOW, and start from zero a perfect clock
> > that measures and display time in attoseconds.
> >
> > 6) As your visual field covers the three screens simultaneously, what do you
> > observe when you switch your sight from S1 to S2 and S3:
> >
> > 6a) Present, past and future of the object, with time separated by λ/c?
> > 6b) Nothing meaningful, because the experiment is stupid?
> >
> > 7) And if the separation is +/- 10λ (5 um)? Any difference?
> >
> > Considering that reflected light carry visual information for given instances
> > of time, and that moving radially along the reflected light by average units
> > of 500 nm, I could see the past reflections as being 500 nm past me.
> >
> > Also, I could foresee future reflections that are 500 nm closer to the object.
> >
> > If such wavelength is too long to perceive, simultaneously, reflections from
> > my NOW and my NOW ± λ/c, I could use smaller wavelengths and keep
> > doing it until the temporal separation clashes with the attosecond resolution
> > of my NOW clock.
> >
> > Wavelength tunable perceptions of present, past and future that, in the limit,
> > converges to NOW.
> >
> > Is this worthy of second thoughts?
> There's a major hole in all that. You can never legitimately image the
> future in the now, I don't care what you do.
>
> Before you go off the deep end with all this, I urge you to really
> REALLY *REALLY* study Zeno's arrow. It might even give you some insight
> related to your specific arguments about moving space. Study Zeno's
> arrow long enough and perhaps you'll actually understand a few things
> that are significantly lacking in your discussions here.
>
> I haven't paid much attention to your discussions with Jane so I don't
> know if this will help there. But then, Jane is smart enough to argue
> circles around almost anyone. I'm sort of surprised she stuck around as
> long as she did.

I should have made it clear that the observations are done through our limited biological visual system. Even when it's know
that it uses almost 50% of our brain power, and involves 1,000 times more neurons than our auditory system, it's not an
instrument, which could resolve one wavelength in terms of distance.

Being true the above assertions, technically, the observer can watch the three screens simultaneously because the "future"
wavelength has already being generated in the actual reflection on the object.

I didn't set a value for the radial distance between the array of the three small screens and the object being shined by the laser.

It's clear, IMO, that NOW spot has a local significance, relative to a ± λ length.

I chose only ± 1 λ separation, so the smallest tick of laser time λ/c be involved.

If I'm looking to reflections +1 λ/c or -1 λ/c ahead or behind my NOW time is a technicality of understanding time flow,
not a fact about human perception of such tiny amount of time.

Think how we see through our eyes.

On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 12:04:08 AM UTC-3, Sylvia Else wrote:
> On 26-Mar-23 10:21 am, Richard Hertz wrote:
> > Silly thought experiment, yet I describe it:
> >
> > 1) Take a pure source of light having a wavelength of 500 nm.
> >
> > 2) Shine a small 3D object.
> >
> > 3) Place three small and "magic" rectangular screens at a radial distance
> > R, R - λ and R + λ. Call them S1, S2 and S3.
> >
> > 4) Call screen S1 as NOW, S2 as NOW - λ/c and S3 as NOW + λ/c..
> >
> > 5) Focus your attention on S1: NOW, and start from zero a perfect clock
> > that measures and display time in attoseconds.
> >
> > 6) As your visual field covers the three screens simultaneously, what do you
> > observe when you switch your sight from S1 to S2 and S3:
> >
> > 6a) Present, past and future of the object, with time separated by λ/c?
> > 6b) Nothing meaningful, because the experiment is stupid?
> >
> > 7) And if the separation is +/- 10λ (5 um)? Any difference?
> >
> > Considering that reflected light carry visual information for given instances
> > of time, and that moving radially along the reflected light by average units
> > of 500 nm, I could see the past reflections as being 500 nm past me.
> >
> > Also, I could foresee future reflections that are 500 nm closer to the object.
> >
> > If such wavelength is too long to perceive, simultaneously, reflections from
> > my NOW and my NOW ± λ/c, I could use smaller wavelengths and keep
> > doing it until the temporal separation clashes with the attosecond resolution
> > of my NOW clock.
> >
> > Wavelength tunable perceptions of present, past and future that, in the limit,
> > converges to NOW.
> >
> > Is this worthy of second thoughts?
> >
> I could just as validly call 100 years ago now, claim that what I am
> looking at is 100 years into the future.
>
> Sylvia.

Again. You have to think into the infinitesimal units of length involved, not 100,000 wavelengths.

The point is: All the wavelengths contained in the radial distance to the S1 (NOW) screen have already been emitted time ago.

The observer is placed at an arbitrary radial distance from the object. Call it R.

The question is if the time at R-λ is the future, R+λ is the past and R+0 is the present, considering that λ/c is the smallest slice of time.

Relativists should remember the anecdote of the young Einstein mounted on a ray of light.

On 3/25/2023 10:06 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
> On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 10:11:42 PM UTC-3, whodat wrote:
>> On 3/25/2023 6:21 PM, Richard Hertz wrote:
>>> Silly thought experiment, yet I describe it:
>>>
>>> 1) Take a pure source of light having a wavelength of 500 nm.
>>>
>>> 2) Shine a small 3D object.
>>>
>>> 3) Place three small and "magic" rectangular screens at a radial distance
>>> R, R - λ and R + λ. Call them S1, S2 and S3.
>>>
>>> 4) Call screen S1 as NOW, S2 as NOW - λ/c and S3 as NOW + λ/c.
>>>
>>> 5) Focus your attention on S1: NOW, and start from zero a perfect clock
>>> that measures and display time in attoseconds.
>>>
>>> 6) As your visual field covers the three screens simultaneously, what do you
>>> observe when you switch your sight from S1 to S2 and S3:
>>>
>>> 6a) Present, past and future of the object, with time separated by λ/c?
>>> 6b) Nothing meaningful, because the experiment is stupid?
>>>
>>> 7) And if the separation is +/- 10λ (5 um)? Any difference?
>>>
>>> Considering that reflected light carry visual information for given instances
>>> of time, and that moving radially along the reflected light by average units
>>> of 500 nm, I could see the past reflections as being 500 nm past me.
>>>
>>> Also, I could foresee future reflections that are 500 nm closer to the object.
>>>
>>> If such wavelength is too long to perceive, simultaneously, reflections from
>>> my NOW and my NOW ± λ/c, I could use smaller wavelengths and keep
>>> doing it until the temporal separation clashes with the attosecond resolution
>>> of my NOW clock.
>>>
>>> Wavelength tunable perceptions of present, past and future that, in the limit,
>>> converges to NOW.
>>>
>>> Is this worthy of second thoughts?
>> There's a major hole in all that. You can never legitimately image the
>> future in the now, I don't care what you do.
>>
>> Before you go off the deep end with all this, I urge you to really
>> REALLY *REALLY* study Zeno's arrow. It might even give you some insight
>> related to your specific arguments about moving space. Study Zeno's
>> arrow long enough and perhaps you'll actually understand a few things
>> that are significantly lacking in your discussions here.
>>
>> I haven't paid much attention to your discussions with Jane so I don't
>> know if this will help there. But then, Jane is smart enough to argue
>> circles around almost anyone. I'm sort of surprised she stuck around as
>> long as she did.
>
> I should have made it clear that the observations are done through our limited biological visual system. Even when it's know
> that it uses almost 50% of our brain power, and involves 1,000 times more neurons than our auditory system, it's not an
> instrument, which could resolve one wavelength in terms of distance.
>
> Being true the above assertions, technically, the observer can watch the three screens simultaneously because the "future"
> wavelength has already being generated in the actual reflection on the object.
>
> I didn't set a value for the radial distance between the array of the three small screens and the object being shined by the laser.
>
>
> It's clear, IMO, that NOW spot has a local significance, relative to a ± λ length.
>
> I chose only ± 1 λ separation, so the smallest tick of laser time λ/c be involved.
>
> If I'm looking to reflections +1 λ/c or -1 λ/c ahead or behind my NOW time is a technicality of understanding time flow,
> not a fact about human perception of such tiny amount of time.
>
> Think how we see through our eyes.

Who am I to tell you that you should not make yourself happy.

That's the end of my discussion.

On Sunday, March 26, 2023 at 12:16:47 AM UTC-3, whodat wrote:

<snip>

> Who am I to tell you that you should not make yourself happy.
>
> That's the end of my discussion.

I don't understand your stance and neither your insertion of Zeno's paradoxes, unrelated in any way to my OP.

But, if your post makes yourself happy, good for you.

On Saturday, March 25, 2023 at 8:21:59 PM UTC-3, Richard Hertz wrote:
> Silly thought experiment, yet I describe it:
>
> 1) Take a pure source of light having a wavelength of 500 nm.
>
> 2) Shine a small 3D object.
>
> 3) Place three small and "magic" rectangular screens at a radial distance
> R, R - λ and R + λ. Call them S1, S2 and S3.
>
> 4) Call screen S1 as NOW, S2 as NOW - λ/c and S3 as NOW + λ/c.
>
> 5) Focus your attention on S1: NOW, and start from zero a perfect clock
> that measures and display time in attoseconds.
>
> 6) As your visual field covers the three screens simultaneously, what do you
> observe when you switch your sight from S1 to S2 and S3:
>
> 6a) Present, past and future of the object, with time separated by λ/c?
> 6b) Nothing meaningful, because the experiment is stupid?
>
> 7) And if the separation is +/- 10λ (5 um)? Any difference?
>
> Considering that reflected light carry visual information for given instances
> of time, and that moving radially along the reflected light by average units
> of 500 nm, I could see the past reflections as being 500 nm past me.
>
> Also, I could foresee future reflections that are 500 nm closer to the object.
>
> If such wavelength is too long to perceive, simultaneously, reflections from
> my NOW and my NOW ± λ/c, I could use smaller wavelengths and keep
> doing it until the temporal separation clashes with the attosecond resolution
> of my NOW clock.
>
> Wavelength tunable perceptions of present, past and future that, in the limit,
> converges to NOW.
>
> Is this worthy of second thoughts?

To make this thought experiment more clear:

Every λ length, a PHOTO of a distant reality is radiated at c speed.

Given that light exist only in integer units of λ, every λ/c seconds a new photo is radiated through the small screens.

So, time is infinitesimally discretized in λ/c units, which means that 600 trillions of "photos" per second are radiated.

Richard Hertz wrote:
>
> Silly thought experiment, yet I describe it:
>
> 1) Take a pure source of light having a wavelength of 500 nm.
>
> 2) Shine a small 3D object.
>
> 3) Place three small and "magic" rectangular screens at a radial distance
> R, R - λ and R + λ. Call them S1, S2 and S3.
>
> 4) Call screen S1 as NOW, S2 as NOW - λ/c and S3 as NOW + λ/c.
>
> 5) Focus your attention on S1: NOW, and start from zero a perfect clock
> that measures and display time in attoseconds.
>
> 6) As your visual field covers the three screens simultaneously, what do you
> observe when you switch your sight from S1 to S2 and S3:
>
> 6a) Present, past and future of the object, with time separated by λ/c?
> 6b) Nothing meaningful, because the experiment is stupid?
>
> 7) And if the separation is +/- 10λ (5 um)? Any difference?
>
> Considering that reflected light carry visual information for given instances
> of time, and that moving radially along the reflected light by average units
> of 500 nm, I could see the past reflections as being 500 nm past me.
>
> Also, I could foresee future reflections that are 500 nm closer to the object.
>
> If such wavelength is too long to perceive, simultaneously, reflections from
> my NOW and my NOW ± λ/c, I could use smaller wavelengths and keep
> doing it until the temporal separation clashes with the attosecond resolution
> of my NOW clock.
>
> Wavelength tunable perceptions of present, past and future that, in the limit,
> converges to NOW.
>
> Is this worthy of second thoughts?

a particle
cannot go into
the past or future
because
there is no place
(in past or future)
for the particle
to go to.

Past
and
Future
exist
only in
the mind.

--
The Starmaker -- To question the unquestionable, ask the unaskable,
to think the unthinkable, mention the unmentionable, say the unsayable,
and challenge
the unchallengeable.