What you see is not what is.

This answer from Marilyn vos Savant to a question in Parade really got me thinking. When we take photos of the stars we are seeing them in a time lapse "warp" since where we see them is not where they are. Sort of Photoshop on steroids.
--
If many stars are so far from Earth that their light takes millions of years to reach us, how do we know they still exist?
—Sue Charles, Marshfield, Mass.

We don’t. When we look at the stars, we are viewing the past. If a star is a million light years away (our Milky Way galaxy is about 100,000 light years wide), we are observing the way it looked a million years ago, not the way it looks today. And that’s a relatively close star!

Yet we can make educated guesses about the life spans of various stars, depending on their characteristics. In the case of many massive stars—which are among the most luminous and short-lived—we can be confident that they’re not there when we see them.

Even more mind-boggling: Say that a certain star will live for 5 million years, but it’s so far away that its light takes 10 million years to reach us. By the time we can see it for the first time, it has already been gone for 5 million years.

Being an astronomer I know that this is true, we are merely observing the past. Did you know for example that the Crab Nebula was a star that was observed to disappear 400 years ago? It was noted that a star in Taurus was suddenly gone. The event though happened thousands of years prior. Even when you look at objects within our solar system you are behind, except for the moon. The sun is seven light minutes away, so the light you are photgraphing left seven minutes ago.

Time is measured to the medium we judge it by.

Joves wrote: Being an astronomer I know that this is true, we are merely observing the past. Did you know for example that the Crab Nebula was a star that was observed to disappear 400 years ago? It was noted that a star in Taurus was suddenly gone. The event though happened thousands of years prior. Even when you look at objects within our solar system you are behind, except for the moon. The sun is seven light minutes away, so the light you are photgraphing left seven minutes ago.

No wonder my shots are underexposed. Perhaps I should reset the time on my camera

Baydream wrote:

Joves wrote: Being an astronomer I know that this is true, we are merely observing the past. Did you know for example that the Crab Nebula was a star that was observed to disappear 400 years ago? It was noted that a star in Taurus was suddenly gone. The event though happened thousands of years prior. Even when you look at objects within our solar system you are behind, except for the moon. The sun is seven light minutes away, so the light you are photgraphing left seven minutes ago.

No wonder my shots are underexposed. Perhaps I should reset the time on my camera

Get your atomic watch out
and ready!

If the Universe is infinite, how can it be exanding. What's it expanding INTO?

piperdee wrote: If the Universe is infinite, how can it be exanding. What's it expanding INTO?

Theres different sized infinities, and higher mathematics works different than your understanding of it.

piperdee wrote: If the Universe is infinite, how can it be exanding. What's it expanding INTO?

That's because it isn't, it's just really big.

Scotty wrote: Time is measured to the medium we judge it by.

I was thinking, if time is controlled my movements and light is the measure of how fast something is in time. In other words, the closer you get to light speed, the slower time gets (relativity). So, light is traveling at the speed of light (obviously), does that mean it's actually in a state of stopped time. Therefore if a person was traveling on a light beam from a star to earth, would that person actually instantly get to earth (by their perspective). Could this also be why light beams from stars don't dissipate in space and lose energy (because they're in a state of essentially stopped time?

Also has the speed of light always been a constant?

Also, where did I leave my car keys?

Also, where's my car?

Stealthy Ninja wrote:

Scotty wrote: Time is measured to the medium we judge it by.

I was thinking, if time is controlled my movements and light is the measure of how fast something is in time. In other words, the closer you get to light speed, the slower time gets (relativity). So, light is traveling at the speed of light (obviously), does that mean it's actually in a state of stopped time. Therefore if a person was traveling on a light beam from a star to earth, would that person actually instantly get to earth (by their perspective). Could this also be why light beams from stars don't dissipate in space and lose energy (because they're in a state of essentially stopped time?

Also has the speed of light always been a constant?

Also, where did I leave my car keys?

Also, where's my car?

Sorry, saw it being towed.

Baydream wrote:

Joves wrote: Being an astronomer I know that this is true, we are merely observing the past. Did you know for example that the Crab Nebula was a star that was observed to disappear 400 years ago? It was noted that a star in Taurus was suddenly gone. The event though happened thousands of years prior. Even when you look at objects within our solar system you are behind, except for the moon. The sun is seven light minutes away, so the light you are photgraphing left seven minutes ago.

No wonder my shots are underexposed. Perhaps I should reset the time on my camera

Set your camera seven minutes fast and the under exposure should go away.

Baydream wrote:

Stealthy Ninja wrote:

Scotty wrote: Time is measured to the medium we judge it by.

I was thinking, if time is controlled my movements and light is the measure of how fast something is in time. In other words, the closer you get to light speed, the slower time gets (relativity). So, light is traveling at the speed of light (obviously), does that mean it's actually in a state of stopped time. Therefore if a person was traveling on a light beam from a star to earth, would that person actually instantly get to earth (by their perspective). Could this also be why light beams from stars don't dissipate in space and lose energy (because they're in a state of essentially stopped time?

Also has the speed of light always been a constant?

Also, where did I leave my car keys?

Also, where's my car?

Sorry, saw it being towed.

I own a car????

Stealthy Ninja wrote:

Baydream wrote:

Stealthy Ninja wrote:

Scotty wrote: Time is measured to the medium we judge it by.

I was thinking, if time is controlled my movements and light is the measure of how fast something is in time. In other words, the closer you get to light speed, the slower time gets (relativity). So, light is traveling at the speed of light (obviously), does that mean it's actually in a state of stopped time. Therefore if a person was traveling on a light beam from a star to earth, would that person actually instantly get to earth (by their perspective). Could this also be why light beams from stars don't dissipate in space and lose energy (because they're in a state of essentially stopped time?

Also has the speed of light always been a constant?

Also, where did I leave my car keys?

Also, where's my car?

Sorry, saw it being towed.

I own a car????

Did!

Stealthy Ninja wrote:

Scotty wrote: Time is measured to the medium we judge it by.

I was thinking, if time is controlled my movements and light is the measure of how fast something is in time. In other words, the closer you get to light speed, the slower time gets (relativity). So, light is traveling at the speed of light (obviously), does that mean it's actually in a state of stopped time. Therefore if a person was traveling on a light beam from a star to earth, would that person actually instantly get to earth (by their perspective). Could this also be why light beams from stars don't dissipate in space and lose energy (because they're in a state of essentially stopped time?

Also has the speed of light always been a constant?

Also, where did I leave my car keys?

Also, where's my car?

Time defined by einstein is nothing more than the movement of objects.

Electromagnetic radiation bases it's speed based on itself for a medium. It has wav and particle like functions, therefore allowing it to function above the 4 dimensions we work in, in what you call non-spatial time.

Scotty wrote:

Stealthy Ninja wrote:

Scotty wrote: Time is measured to the medium we judge it by.

I was thinking, if time is controlled my movements and light is the measure of how fast something is in time. In other words, the closer you get to light speed, the slower time gets (relativity). So, light is traveling at the speed of light (obviously), does that mean it's actually in a state of stopped time. Therefore if a person was traveling on a light beam from a star to earth, would that person actually instantly get to earth (by their perspective). Could this also be why light beams from stars don't dissipate in space and lose energy (because they're in a state of essentially stopped time?

Also has the speed of light always been a constant?

Also, where did I leave my car keys?

Also, where's my car?

Time defined by einstein is nothing more than the movement of objects.

Electromagnetic radiation bases it's speed based on itself for a medium. It has wav and particle like functions, therefore allowing it to function above the 4 dimensions we work in, in what you call non-spatial time.

So what's to say quanta is going to behave uniformly within the 4th dimension. Perhaps electromagnetic radiation actually varies it's speed throughout space-time and the quarks and gluons of electromagnetic radiation emitting from distance sources isn't as ancient as commonly thought (or more so).