A lot of the answers here are for the question below but the previous question has not been received well. So with the same question in mind, wouldn't the universe look different from different parts of the universe because from earth the furthest star we can see is Cassiopeia and it is 16,308 years ahead of what we see and then Alpha Centari is only 8 minutes and 19s ahead of what we see. But if I changed my location in the universe, would all the stars be different distances and thus be in different time frames, thus changing the picture as you fly through space?
As you approached lights, you would go forward in that lights time, as you got further from light, you would go forward in that lights time slower.
So when we take a picture of the universe, isn't it really just from our perspective?
OLD QUESTION >>>>>
Are you sure light isn't instant? The more I think about how we see things the more I realize that light lag would really change how we see things, so are we sure light isn't instant.
Light never has lag time, neither does electricity technically either. Are there properties they have in common when it comes to transfer?
Light disperses as it travels, that is why things are harder to see as they get further. Since light behaves that way, I will bring up the double slit test that demonstrates light behaves differently when observed then when not observed.
Light that was not observed exhibited a pattern that resembled a wave where as the light when observed was a beam as you would expect.
Light has at least two interesting properties in its nature, the third seems to be that it is instant.
So if light has a speed, why does everything appear without lag?
When I play with my laser and the clouds at night, the entire beam moves as one unit from the base to the tip on the clouds and never reveals any misalignment, no matter how fast I swing it back and forth.