I believe that all planets that are imaged are observed instantly

>>8286434
interesting theory
>its'
BTFO LOL FULLY REFUTED

File: time_to_be_serious.jpg (180KB, 580x542px) Image search: [Google]

180KB, 580x542px

>>8286434
Wow, that's quite an interesting and clever theory to tell you the tru-
>its'
Do you expect me to take such a retarded theory so seriously? You can't even form sentences properly. Go back to school.

File: image.png (186KB, 463x515px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 463x515px

>>8286434
[citation needed]
How unfortunate.
You should sue your local school system.
OR come join us in >>>/x/

Peace be with you.

>>8286470
Yes, it does not correspond to the way we presently understand. But, what if you would be willing to suspend your beliefs momentarily, and "believe" alternatively? Physicists are attempting to discover a unified theory which marries QM and GR. Would it not be "good thinking" to start understanding differently- even if the thought process is seemingly incorrect?

>>8286444
>>8286472
So, let us set up a Gedankin of an instantaneous example which is part possible and part which is not possible NOW but maybe one day possible:

Title: The Moon Image vs. Signal Experiment

Often times physicists make their experiments which are so overly sophisticated that that don't realize the nature that is going on around them. We have become converted to the ways of ours measurements in present time. We cannot see with vision the future of the progress of our experiments. Let me give you an example of an instant observation which coexists with relative results.

1) assume there is a light body on the surface of the moon (a screen) which can dictate numbers which can be recognized and assimilated- such as numbers on a screen reading 1,2,3 in seconds- which screen may be observed by Earthbound telescopes.
2) assume the SIZE of the screen must be 10 meters in diameter by the power definition of today's Earthbound measures.
3) assume a satellite revolving around the moon which possesses (since it is nearer) a smaller telescope- and can observe the instant signal from the light body on the moon- and can register the same instant image by measure.
3) The limitation exists when we require the satellite to send the delayed image via radio waves.

5) There should be a fundamental distinction between when we measure an image vs. when we send a signal. When the satellite sends the signal of the image of the 1,2,3 of the screen on moon, it will be delayed by approximately one second because the distance from Earth to moon it nearly 300,000 km/s.

>>8286434
What a wise thought.

Someone, may ask, well how can this be true? My answer, would be that we have not yet established a timed baseline long enough to incorporate an instantaneous response. But there are many clues...

>>8286476
Obviously, if we cannot travel to the moon, a 10 meter in diameter screen or 50 meter screen(which ever that maximum visual acuity plus the magnitude of our most powerful telescopes would require in order to SEE the screen) this Gedankin will never be possible.

File: image.jpg (27KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 300x300px

>>8286476
So
You know how radar works, right?
You are aware that there is a reflector on the moon. We shoot lasers at it from time to time. We measure the distance to the moon this way because there is a time delay between the sending and reviewing the signal.

The is either really bad bait or just really bad bait. I' m not sure which.

File: image.jpg (43KB, 604x483px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 604x483px

>>8286497
oops
*sending and receiving

>OP is baiting
>but he actually genuinely doesn't know how we measured light speed in the first place
wew
lad

>>8286497
We can't travel to the moon, going to the moon means going backwards in time.
>>8286520
You can be open to new ideas... Just think, 50 years ago people were watching stars and wondering what made them so fast....