scientist have it all wrong..... i think, page 1

sight is not light sight is sence we have just like smelling tasting feeling and hearing lest say im in a cave im 100 yards away from you you strike a match your match doesnt have enough light to reach me but i can cee your match burning

reply posted on 17-4-2012 @ 10:35 AM by Amadeo

You don't have it right. Light travels; our eyes are just the receiver. Galaxies and stars are incomprehensible distances away (to the average person like me) and their light has to travel all that distance just to reach us, so what we're seeing when the light reaches our eyes is what that galaxy looked like at the time the light left there on its way to us. Say a star is 500 light years away; that light has had to travel for 500 years at the speed of light for the photons to hit our eyes so what we're seeing is what that star looked like at the time those photons left their point of origin, which was 500 years ago. If that hypothetical star exploded 500 years and one day ago, the light from that explosion would take 500 years and one day to reach out eyes so we'd see it tomorrow. Hope that makes sense.

reply posted on 17-4-2012 @ 10:38 AM by Biigs

reply to post by stealthmonkey

You are confused as to how light moves.

A lit match gives off a certain amount of photons, these leave the end of the match in a sphere, the further you get away from the match the less dense the photons get as they spread out, at a certain point you will not be able to see the match at all because their are not enough photons to register in your eye, but if you use a telescope you are magnifying the small number of photons and will once again be able to see the the match.

This is exactly how it works with a sun thats a billion light years away, only then you have the time factor which of course you wouldn't get with the match unless you had a VERY good scope a VERY long way away. If you both have watches at the same present time, and you both record when the match goes out, your watch will be incorrect to the man holding the matches watch.

edit on 17-4-2012 by Biigs because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 17-4-2012 @ 10:38 AM by Amadeo

To be honest, I don't even know if I got that last sentence right but I'm sure you know what I mean!

reply posted on 17-4-2012 @ 10:41 AM by LevelHeaded

reply to post by stealthmonkey

No, the light from the match does reach you and your eyes. If the match does not generate enough light for your eyes to detect, then you do not see it.

And as for the distant galaxies, the light takes many, many years to reach us on Earth. The light we see from those distant galaxies was generated by events that happened those many, many years ago so therefore we are "seeing" past events. Even looking at the sun we are seeing the sun as it appeared about 8 minutes ago.

reply posted on 17-4-2012 @ 10:43 AM by Druscilla

Let's see ... people that have spent their whole lives, educations, and lots of money conducting experiments to test these theories about this thing called science vs. You, who can't even really spell, which indicates you don't have a formal education at university.

Hmmm. It looks like it might be a close call.

reply posted on 17-4-2012 @ 10:49 AM by stealthmonkey

let me see if i can make this a little more logical if you have a telescope strong enough and lets say a planet is lets say 1 light year from earth and you can visably see someone standing on it and walking around would you not see the light from a match instantly or would you see him pick his hand up and a year later see the light from the match?

reply posted on 17-4-2012 @ 10:51 AM by stealthmonkey

reply to post by Druscilla

im not here to win a spelling contest

reply posted on 17-4-2012 @ 10:53 AM by PhoenixOD

Originally posted by stealthmonkey
let me see if i can make this a little more logical if you have a telescope strong enough and lets say a planet is lets say 1 light year from earth and you can visably see someone standing on it and walking around would you not see the light from a match instantly or would you see him pick his hand up and a year later see the light from the match?

If you saw him light a match on the planet then you would see the light instantly..BUT that just means that he lit that match a year ago at the time you are observing it.

reply posted on 17-4-2012 @ 10:53 AM by StratosFear

WTF are they teaching these kids at school these days? This is basic science you learn in freakin` elementary school. Do you want us to teach you basic mathmatics while we`re at it?

reply posted on 17-4-2012 @ 10:55 AM by LevelHeaded

reply to post by stealthmonkey

No. The power of the telescope would not make the light arrive any faster. You would still be seeing things that happened 1 year ago. You would not see the person on the other planet until a year after they performed the action. Remember that light moves at a constant speed in a vacuum. It has to travel the distance to get to us for us to see it. We are not really looking into the past in a time-shifting kind of way, we just have to wait for the light from those events to get to us and some times that is a long wait.

reply posted on 17-4-2012 @ 10:58 AM by PhoenixOD

So in reality EVERYTHING we ever see happened in the past. Its impossible to see something in the present. As well as the time it takes for the light to reach your eyes you also have to factor in how long it takes your brain to process the information so all our senses have an inherent latency

edit on 17-4-2012 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 17-4-2012 @ 10:58 AM by abeverage

Originally posted by stealthmonkey
reply to post by PhoenixOD

sight is not light sight is sence we have just like smelling tasting feeling and hearing lest say im in a cave im 100 yards away from you you strike a match your match doesnt have enough light to reach me but i can cee your match burning

By your understanding and statement, your logic and your spelling is flawed.
Can you equate this to hearing? Since hearing is a sense just like sight?

Yet we cannot hear a thunderclap the instant we see the lightning. Need proof? Watch a lightning storm. Count the time it takes for the sound to reach you.
Sound travels as does light. Light just happens to travel faster.

I fear for the state of science minds in this age…

reply posted on 17-4-2012 @ 10:59 AM by stealthmonkey

well apparently i precieve things differently than everyone else

reply posted on 17-4-2012 @ 11:03 AM by stealthmonkey

reply to post by stealthmonkey

the whole point to this post is sight is faster than light
and thats it nothing more

reply posted on 17-4-2012 @ 11:03 AM by Druscilla

Originally posted by stealthmonkey
reply to post by Druscilla

im not here to win a spelling contest

I hate to break it to you, but, you're not winning the science fair either.
It's okay though. You're entitled to flex those enormous bulging brain muscles of yours any time you want.

Do some experiments with sound, which travels much slower than light.
Have someone get really really far away from you with a firecracker. When the firecracker goes off, you will see the light of the explosion, but, because sound travels much slower, if you are far enough away, you will notice a delay between the flash and then the bang.
Just like with lightning and thunder.

Sound travels slow, so, you can see something happen before you hear it.

Over light years distant. because light is only so fast, anything you see happening now, to you, is only just now catching up to you, like the sound of a firecracker, even though the thing you are seeing happen happened thousands, or even millions of years ago.

Pages: << 1 2 3 4 >> ^^TOP^^