[grip_daddy]

Let me set an arbitrary experiment to explain my question:

Take two persons A and B, and an observer C. Observer C is first of all blind folded and put inside a special sound proof parachute. He is then fitted with special sound detectors in his ears that would regulate sound received to erase distant perception i.e. all recieved signals arrive as if they came from a single spot. Then the environment is set such that the only sound that reaches an observer C is that made by either person A or B or both.

Persons A and B are given special guns to produce sound detectable by observer C. Now to start off, person A is stationed at a distance that would enable C detect sound A (sound from person A) one second after the sound was made. Person B on the other is stationed such that sound B reaches C after 30 seconds.

Now, when A fires his gun, one second later C gets the signal. If A and B fired the gun simultaneously, then according to C, B fired the gun 30 seconds later.

Let us imagine that B fires first then 10 seconds later, A fires. Now C will recieve B at 30 seconds but he will receive from A at 30 minus 10 plus 1 i.e. at 21 seconds. According to C therefore, A fired first then B fired 9 seconds later.

This can happen the other way round if C was moving away from A towards B, making all events from B happen first according to C. Since there is no way you can convince C that in REALITY, events of B (past events) happened after events of A (future events), it seems to me therefore that maybe there is an observer somehow who perceives events of 2020 before those of today.

What if you are an observer moving from planet A, where you witnessed an occurrence of events in 2000, to a planet where the events that happened in 1900 reaches you? Do you conclude that 1900 occurred first?

Is it possible somehow, in absolute observation, to be at a point of seeing all universe events happen simultaneously?

[Type R]

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

Let us imagine that B fires first then 10 seconds later, A fires. Now C will recieve B at 30 seconds but he will receive from A at 30 minus 10 plus 1 i.e. at 21 seconds. According to C therefore, A fired first then B fired 9 seconds later.

I'm still reading the challenge but I got stuck with the above.

B fires, and sound B begins its 30-second journey to C.

After 10 seconds -- i.e. with 20 seconds left (30 - 10 = 20) on sound B's journey to observer C -- A fires.

Sound A consumes 1 second of the remaining 20 to travel to C. Therefore the correct equation is 20 - 1 = 19, not 20 + 1 = 21. By the time sound A reaches C, sound B has 19 seconds to go to get to C, not 21.

Observer C will perceive a 19-second delay from shot A to shot B.

Please correct me if I am wrong.

[grip_daddy]

Type R,

The observer C has a watch to measure his time. Let's say B fired at 00 seconds thus the signal reaches C at 30 seconds. Ten seconds later, at 10 seconds, A fires. Now signal A will reach C at 11 seconds. The difference between receiving A and B becomes 19 seconds, meaning you were right in that observation (thanks for the correction).

So given that C cannot have any other way of knowing that actually B fired first, isn't he wrong in his sense of knowledge that event A happened before event B? Accordingly, he is receiving future events before past events, which would mean that sense of future, present and, past are limited to our five senses of perception?

[truuth]

"So given that C cannot have any other way of knowing that actually B fired first, isn't he wrong in his sense of knowledge that event A happened before event B? Accordingly, he is receiving future events before past events, which would mean that sense of future, present and, past are limited to our five senses of perception"
I don't understand why you are assuming that C concluding that event A happened before event B is wrong.The assumptions are more theoretical than there are practical.C can only see what is happening in his own scope of time and space.whatever occurs to C is true to C.But C is not correct based on A or B as the point of reference.

[grip_daddy]

I don't understand why you are assuming that C concluding that event A happened before event B is wrong.

I say it is wrong from my point of reference. That is, as someone with an extra sense (my ears can detect the distance resulting from sound source, and my eyes are left open to use another parameter i.e. light, to know who fired first) which enables me assume some absolute observation, a property lacking in C.

The assumptions are more theoretical than there are practical.

The arbitrary experiment can be practically done, which would enable an understanding of perception as limited to the available senses.

C can only see what is happening in his own scope of time and space.whatever occurs to C is true to C.But C is not correct based on A or B as the point of reference.

So events as recorded by man is true from man's scope of time and space, and his available ways of *knowing* the events confined to the time and space continuum. What of an intelligent observer stationed in a way to know things as they are? Or another observer that sees our future events first before seeing our past? An observer who might be having reference frames in opposition to our reference frames?

[Type R]

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

So given that C cannot have any other way of knowing that actually B fired first, isn't he wrong in his sense of knowledge that event A happened before event B? Accordingly, he is receiving future events before past events, which would mean that sense of future, present and, past are limited to our five senses of perception?

This is very deep stuff, Bwana Grip.

As a child, I often wondered if you could chase light rays, overtake them and then look back and "see" what has already happened!!

With regards to light, I think scientists measure various properties of the signal to determine its weakness. That's how they determine "light years" even though two signals arrive at a space lab at the same time.

[Type R]

Originally Posted by Type R

With regards to light, I think scientists measure various properties of the signal to determine its weakness. That's how they determine "light years" even though two signals arrive at a space lab at the same time.

Upon further thought, I realize that even humans/animals do the above. The quality of sound deteriorates as it travels through air (attenuation). The degree of loss is in proportion to the frequency - the higher the frequency, the greater the signal loss. That is why, when there is a party in your neighbourhood, or when a matatu passes in front of your home, you hear the bass primarily. We instinctively analyze the quality of the sound and based on prior experience, we automatically place a distance to the source. So if your friend A stood near you and called "Grip!" and somehow friend B one kilometre away shouted "Grip!" in such a manner that sounds arrived at you simultaneously, the quality of the sound would be a factor in determining distance.

On the other hand, I don't doubt that our 5 senses are susceptible to illusions and errors, even with inbuilt/learned cross-checking mechanisms. In any case, all of our understandings involve errors (just like all physical measurements - length, volume). The question is whether those errors have favourable or catastrophic effects.

[grip_daddy]

Type R,

The best carrier of information humans have is the electromagnetic wave properties (speed, frequency, and amplitude), which therefore means, or implies, that any information about any event is limited to the restrictions inherent in the wave carrier.

To illustrate this further, just imagine that only the sound waves were available carriers of information, and that we were lacking light sense (the eyes), what would have been an interpretation of events especially those like thunder? Sometimes I am tempted to interpretate that a loud thunder occurred outside my house, just to later on realise that it hit a tree 5kms away from my house.

On the other hand, what if actually there is an information carrier that can travel faster than light? It is speculated that beyond the speed of light, time is negative (speculations too have it that there is a possibility of some form of information carriers traveling faster than light).

In essence therefore, an intelligent being that can see events using means other than our normal means of information transmission and reception can see the future before the present, or events in the past as at present, or to see the past, the present, and future as at now.

[Type R]

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

Type R,
The best carrier of information humans have is the electromagnetic wave properties (speed, frequency, and amplitude), which therefore means, or implies, that any information about any event is limited to the restrictions inherent in the wave carrier.

Scientists face this challenge when trying to deal with a particle whose mass is less than the mass of light. You see, light communicates with our eyes by reflecting / bouncing off other particles. If the article that is "hit" by a ray is lighter than the ray, it will be like a Prado hitting a Starlet; the small article will be dispersed, light will not reflect.

That is the world of nanotechnology, where "At the nanoscale, objects are so small that we can't see them -- even with a light microscope." Read the article to see of attempts to surmount perception barriers.

[Type R]

Originally Posted by grip_daddy

Type R,
The best carrier of information humans have is the electromagnetic wave properties (speed, frequency, and amplitude), which therefore means, or implies, that any information about any event is limited to the restrictions inherent in the wave carrier.

Let's discuss possible expansion of human sensory experience.

Sight: photons stimulate the retina, optic nerve sends to brain.
Sound: physical vibration of air, vibrates ear drum, sent to brain.
Taste: chemical stimulation (solids, liquids) of specific nerves on tongue
Touch: physical stimulation of nerves on skin or internal surfaces, nerves send to brain
Smell: chemical stimulation (gaseous) of nerves in nose, sent to brain.

Now, let's explore...