scientist have it all wrong..... i think

page: 3
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by stealthmonkey
reply to post by Druscilla
 


if you reat the title of the post it says i think i just post things that come to mind sometimes isnt what this forum is for?


Okay, let's try one more time.

Have you ever seen a movie? Any movie? A new movie or an old movie? Any movie will work.
I'm going to bet that you have seen at least ONE movie or video in your life.

Now, when you were watching that movie, did you think that the actors and special effects artists were making that movie happen just for you right then and there and that everything was happening at that exact moment?

... or is it possible that some time in the past, like maybe last year, or the year before, or some time in the past, some actors and producers, writers, special effects artists, directors and such all got together and took lots of time, sometimes months or even a year or two to film and produce this 2 hour movie?

If you agree and can see that the movie you watch was filmed some time in the past, even though you see it now, then you are a step away from understanding how sight and light really works.

When something extremely far away happens that is light years away, it's like when the movie producers and actors are making the movie.
Eventually, however long it takes the light to travel, you get to see what happened very similar to seeing a movie that was produced and recorded in the past.
Light takes time to get to you from other parts of the universe.
Once the light gets to you, it's like a movie that was filmed some time in the past.




posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by woogleuk
 


what do you mean????? human eyes adjust to take in more light there those new things they just discovered called pupils



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by stealthmonkey
reply to post by EddyR3
 


everyone has missed my point i give up in this post


You have managed to miss ever person who proves that it is the way it is and not the way you think it is, after you asked to be shown proof.

not good enough for you, perhaps you should explain your theory a little better and prove TO US that we have it wrong and why.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by stealthmonkey
reply to post by EddyR3
 


everyone has missed my point i give up in this post


OP it seems like your the one who is lost in your own question, could you properly site what is you theory? because all the replies by members addressed your OP.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by stealthmonkey
 


Not in the same way a camera does, sorry, I didn't explain that too clearly. In my light polluted town, my DSLR camera can pick up stars my eyes can't, and I have good eyesight, same as objects on the ground in the distance, the camera can see them, I can't.

But you answered your own question there as well, they adjust "to let in" more light.
edit on 17/4/12 by woogleuk because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by stealthmonkey
 


The 2.5 second delay in communications with the men on the moon proves light has a speed. Light speed is faster than sound in our atmosphere, which is why you see the smoke from a gun at a far end of a football field before you hear the blast. So no, you wont see it if it doesn't reach you, so it is there, or are you imagining what you should see?

Light is a physical entity, your sight isn't, your sight doesn't travel, it detects stimuli, and transmit signals to your brain to decipher, so your sight has several places for error that light doesn't have. The light is real, your interpretation can be flawed.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by stealthmonkey
 


The fact is, there is no point to the post, since no 1 understands what you were trying to get across.....if you exaplained in a manner we understood then maybe you'd get the responses you want.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 11:46 AM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


im not talking about tv and movies or recorded events thea are replayed at another time for ones enjoyment



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 11:50 AM
link   
"when we look at a distant gallaxy we are not looking in to the past , but the present."

This statement is not true (without being rude) but, how can light (or as you say 'Sight') travel 5.87849981 × 10^12 miles instantly (5.87849981 × 10^12 miles = 1 light year) when light only travels 3x10^8m/s or 671,000,000 mph?
edit on 17-4-2012 by EddyR3 because: Made stuff bold
edit on 17-4-2012 by EddyR3 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   
Here's a new idea for you. Your idea is incorrect.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by stealthmonkey
reply to post by Druscilla
 


im not talking about tv and movies or recorded events thea are replayed at another time for ones enjoyment


Obviously, then, you are way too smart for all of us.
Once again, someone please call the New York Times.
OP has defeated all of Science.

OP should be President of the whole planet because he's so smart he can defeat all of science, and so smart that none of us mere humans can understand the awe inspiring magnitude of his overwhelming brilliance.

Yes, this is indeed an historical moment. Everyone take note and witness the exceptional magnitude of stealthmonkey's gigantic intelligence that has defeated all of science, defeated Einstein, and rewritten the underlying priciples of everything we understand about science and optics is this thread just because he was wondering about it.

Absolutely brilliant and astounding. This person definitely needs to be president of the whole planet so that he can use that prodigiously gargantuan intelligence to solve all the world's problems.

What's your next move stealthmonkey?
How will you fix the planet now that you've solved the problems of science?



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 11:59 AM
link   
reply to post by EddyR3
 


simple we can see a solar flare before it reaches us so point proven



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


A good test to prove this to this guys thread would be....

Astronaut A is on the moon, Normal guy B is on earth.

A. took a huge red laser to the moon and points it at person B, they test one shot to make sure B can see it okay.

They have a radio delay of 2.5 seconds while they arrange to have the laser fire at an exact time, they have the clocks set at the exact time before A left for the moon.

When both clocks hit the alloted time the laser turns on, but B does not see it at the right time, he sees it turn on 1.25 seconds later (half the round trip of 2.5 seconds).

edit on 17-4-2012 by Biigs because: thanks Illustronic changed to half the delay



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by stealthmonkey
 


They are 2 different things, visible light and radiation.....you cannot see radiation since its not in the visible spectrum.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:02 PM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


i believe ill take a big dump after all that



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by stealthmonkey
reply to post by EddyR3
 


simple we can see a solar flare before it reaches us so point proven


It takes us 8 minutes to realize an activity on the sun.

If the sun explodes (if we survive) we will see the sun in the sky for 8 minutes AFTER it explodes.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   
reply to post by stealthmonkey
 


We also see the smoke from a distant gun before we hear it. Equates, speed.

You will also see underwater before you drown.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:04 PM
link   

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?


You are only able to see the person in the first place (before he strikes the match) only because light has reflected off of that person and travel to your eyes. The light you see being reflected off of that person (the light that, to the observer, looks like a person) was reflected 1 year ago, and the person you see before he strikes the match is what the person looked like 1 year ago.

When he strikes the match, the light you see from the match (plus the light you see that you call a "person") was traveling for 1 year before reaching your eye


Your eyes are passive, not active. They only passively receive light -- direct light and reflected light. They don't "reach out a grab light". When you see that person on a planet one light year away, you are seeing him as he looked one year ago, because the light reflecting off of him took that long to get to you.

If you eyes really were "active", and there was a "speed of sight" that was independent of light, then you should be able to see in the dark.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:06 PM
link   
reply to post by EddyR3
 


Visible light is still electromagnetic radiation, just in the range of frequencies that our eyes are sensitive to.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:08 PM
link   
reply to post by Biigs
 


Well the 2.5 seconds is the round trip time. Which is why there is only a just over a second delay between message and response from either single point.





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join