Verified answer

"What I do not understand is how we see light as we travel through time."

We see light *here* and *now*, always. Traveling is not required.

"If light does not travel, than why isn't it stuck going through space while everything is frozen."

Nothing moves in spaceTIME. Things move in space. Light establishes a null geodesic in spacetime, between the point/instant of emission, and the point/instant of absorption.

"What I don't understand is if we shoot a packet of photons at our eye, they must go through space to reach your eye, but light does not travel through space."

On what basis do you assert this? If you " understand special and general relativity", and you know no matter how fast material particles move, they continue to move, then where does this apparent mental short-out come from?

"Light does travel through space, but does not AGE?"

No, this is also not appropriate. The equations that describe matter and relative motion at less than c, ABSOLUTELY cannot be applied to light.

Here is a partial list of particles that do not age:

- any quantum object (inclusive of a radioactive nucleus)

- protons en masse

- electrons en masse

- photons en masse

- gluons etc...

... many of these system can be seen to travel, most (members) at less than c.

I think the problem is that if you consider motion from the standpoint of 4-dimensional spacetime, then nothing "travels"; it just marks a curve or line ("world line") in space time. A stationary object does not trace a line along any spacial axis, but its world line follows the t-axis. In special relativity, the distance between points in space time (space-time interval) is defined as s = √[x² + y² + z² - (ct)²]; this means that an object moving at velocity c has no interval in space time, So maybe that is what you mean by "frozen". So if you were to travel at the speed of light, all points would be zero distance from you. Light does travel through space time, but in effect it is "everywhere at once". However, light does have a path in space-time; it is simply a straight line with slope c.

To travel through space means to be at different points in space at different times. To travel through time, then, would mean to exist at different points in time and different times. I hope you see that thinking in terms of travel is only going to lead to confusion.

Thinking in terms of space-time graphs is a better idea. A stationary object is a line parallel to the time axis, not the space axis. Light is not perpendicular to this. It is always a diagonal line, and its slope is always c.

You are probably being confused by time dilation in special relativity, which says time "slows down" as one approaches the speed of light. Therefore you conclude that time stops for light. That is not really appropriate. The rules of time dilation apply to inertial reference frames. There is no inertial reference frame that "keeps up" with light, and is moving at the speed of light relative to you. Such a reference frame cannot be inertial. The closest thing you can legitimately describe is the limit of what happens in reference frames closer and closer to the speed of light relative to you. In this case, the conclusion is that time gets "slower and slower". It approaches stopping. However you have a misconception of what that means.

It does not mean that objects in that reference frame do not span time from your perspective. For your perspective, you refer to your reference frame, in which time is "normal". From your perspective, the objects exist for their normal lengths of time.

It's fair enough to say light does not age. Again you are dealing with a concept that is the limit of rules that only apply to sub-light speeds. A muon created by a cosmic ray in the upper atmosphere "ages" less than normal during its trip to the surface of the Earth. If it aged normally, almost all of them would be past the length of their "lifetime" by the time they got there. The faster something goes, the less it ages. So it would make sense to say that light does not age at all.

while mild travels via supplies including air, there are particular debris in air that block the different photons of sunshine - once you seem right into a close-by window you would be waiting to confirm area, yet not all your face, that is for the reason that some debris interior the fabric do not enable mild to bypass via them (mirrored image) mutually as others make this favorable. this does not propose that the fee of sunshine is replaced, while mild is contemplated, it travels at precisely the comparable velocity that is continuous, approximately 3 hundred million meters in line with 2nd. So in case you stumble on/assume mild as having traveled via water slowly, tis actual because of fact some debris have allowed it to not bypass via (contemplated it) and others have made favorable for mild to bypass via. in spite of the shown fact that not as lots mild travels. it is via the inverse sq. regulation that states that some actual quantity or power is inversely proportional to the sq. of the gap from the source of that actual quantity. The source of sunshine, that's the actual quantity subsequently, is the solar i ought to assume. (even with the undeniable fact that it must be something that produces mild)

you have pinpointed a physics conundrum light doesn't behave as if it exists in time it behaves as if it exists outside of or beyond time, possibly what we measure as the speed of light is in fact the fastest speed we can measure from within time and once you get beyond time speed ceases to exist, otherwise how can light travel billions of light years and still be seen and what comes from distant stars is a steady stream of light which also goes in every direction from the star, very confusing as we cannot envisage no time