The sun is very far away & light travels very fast. But still there is an 8 minute delay before we can see light from the sun.
Thus, logically, does that mean we are seeing something that is 8 minutes old and thus, in the past?
We are seeing light that is 8 minutes old; We are seeing what the sun looked like 8 minutes ago.
Let’s get to the logic question. (For Handy! Physicists and astronomers need not apply).
The stronger the telescope, the further back in time we can see. How big would the telescope have to be for us to see the sun in real time? Can ANY telescope on earth see the sun in real time? If we put a space telescope near the sun, can we get real time images?
Actually, don’t we see everything a little tiny bit in the past?
I mean, light bounces of something and then into our eyes. We see the object in the state that it was when the light bounced off of it. So, we see the thing as it was a fraction of a fraction of a second ago (depending on how far away from the object you are).
Think about it this way: You know when you go see fireworks how you see the firework explode before you hear it explode? OK, same principle except you are HEARING something as it was in the past, rather than seeing it.
Someone will come along and explain it much better, I’m sure.
Isn’t this a little like saying if you talk to someone in a more eartern time zone, you can hear the past?
as long as the sun was lit 8 minutes ago and still is, there is a constant light shining… your seeing it as it happens now… not including the time it take to reflect off of what your looking at and be processed by the brain.
I thought I saw something in * national Geo * a while back about getting photos of planets forming way back when, but I could just be making that up.
When astronomers look to distant galaxies to study formation, they’re viewing images that are VERY old. In the myriads of lightyears it took for light to travel from the galaxies to us, anything could have happened. When studying a far away star, there’s a chance that star may not even truly exist anymore.
I’m waiting for an astronomer to stumble onto this thread and try to confuse everyone.
The answer is, you can’t. You’re limited by the speed of light (which governs the speed of the signal from any telescope near the sun), which means it will always be 8 minutes to get to Earth.
I know that, Chuck. And you know that. But I didn’t think handy did from the wording or the original post. that’s why I asked him directly and put in the proviso: For Handy! Physicists and astronomers need not apply.
Well, I guess tcburnett has claimed this thread as his own. I’ll just make things clear.
NOTE TO ALL ASTRONOMERS: BACK OFF!
Actually, the light isn’t really eight minutes old; since it’s going at the speed ofl ight, time is dilatated infinitely for it, and it experiences no time during the trip from the sun to the Earth. You can consider the light to have traveled through any amount of time and any amount of space, as long as those two amounts are the same.
Although I’m not sure why you think the the idea that we can see into the past needs proof. Photographs are a well-known phenomenon.
To see the past, I usually look at old National Geographics.
quote:
The stronger the telescope, the further back in time we can see.
That is a false statement. The stronger the telescope, the better we can see the light from distant stars. The further the light travels, the older the image is. It doesn’t matter how strong your telescope is, you’re always going to see the same image, albeit with better definition. Since the sun always is 8 minutes from us, unless the observer himself travels closer, the image will always be 8 minutes old.
Any image you see of the sun is what it looked like in the past, at least eight minutes ago. There is no way to see the sun now, or even what it looked like seven and one half minutes ago!
Objects further from us than the sun are even more in the past – one year for every light year.
You realize of course, it means if the sun decides to explode we won’t know until 8 minutes after the event. 
Tell ya what, Demi. The young OP posed a question which obviously puzzled him. Several of us answered, and all I wanted to do was help him understand the various ramifications of his questions It’s a better learning tool if handy visualizes this himself because it will make a more profound impression on him.
It seemed pretty clear to me that, from the original composition of his post he just needed a little guidance, not a doctoral hypothesis about time dilation which we will see when the theorists jump in. But that will neither help the young person with his question nor encourage his inquisitive mind.
Since you wish to show your particular abilities I will abandon my attempt to encourage a potential new scientist and leave the mentoring to you. You seem to have the advantage of being a mindreader, moderator and teacher. You take it from here. Can you do something constructive?
If you put a space telescope half way between us and the sun itwould see the sun four minutes ago, but it would take at least four minutes to get the images to you. So the images you see are still at least eight minutes old.
Let’s see… Maybe we could paraphrase: “The stronger the telescope, the better we can see the light from distant stars. The further the light travels, the older the image is.”
To: “The stronger the telescope, the further back in time we can see.”
Is there a fundamental difference here for a young person who is attempting to understand the original OP, or are you just making it more difficult for him to grasp?
tcburnett, I think your statement was very misleading. It is inaccurate to say that the “stronger the telescope, the further back in time you can see”, since if you are looking at the same object (in this case the sun) which is what he was asking about, the resolution power of the telescope doesn’t make a damn bit of difference, and you don’t see further back in time than with a less powerful telescope.
With our naked eyes, we can see the light of stars that has traveled a long time, a powerful telescope only makes it more intelligible to us.
Dammit, I hate it when someone won’t listen to reason. And since you won’t concede the point, I am forced to lay this right on the line for you: You are right. My attempt to phrase something in a simple way was no excuse to be incorrect ot misleading. I appreciate your correction.