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

page: 4
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:09 PM
link   

Originally posted 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)


I'm surprised no one has quoted this, because it is actually quite true! But don't get metaphysical on me just yet. If it were possible to be infinitesimally close to something (so you were essentially right on top of it, observing it), then yes, you can see something "in the present." However, our general view of the present isn't measured in femtoseconds or atoseconds, it's measured relative to something else. A car crash I saw on the way home this afternoon is still technically "in the present" as we perceive time. Light travels so far, however, that we can't perceive on the time scale of light; we perceive things instantaneously anyway.




posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:12 PM
link   
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


but if you have a telescope it makes things look closer so you would see the light when lit because it looks so much closer you can pick up on the light before it reaches your eyes because you are magnifying it



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:13 PM
link   
reply to post by LevelHeaded
 


It was easier to post that and keep it clear than posting "Visible light and X-rays/G-rays and Long wave radio" lol

But thanks



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by stealthmonkey
 


Your location didn't change, and neither did the star's, so no.

Slightly off topic but I'd be interested in your reply stealthmonkey. If you are traveling half the speed of light and a ship behind you turns on its headlight, how fast would this light pass you? I think the answer would crash your hard drive.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:15 PM
link   
reply to post by stealthmonkey
 


I have a few telescopes and have been an astronomer for a while now....the telescope does NOT make anything closer, its the eyepieces that provide the magnification, the telescope is just a big eye as such (or a big pupil) where light is gathered, and focused at a point, where the eyepiece then magnifies the image dependant upon the focal length of the telescope will dictate to how much magnification will be viewed....



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by stealthmonkey
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


but if you have a telescope it makes things look closer so you would see the light when lit because it looks so much closer you can pick up on the light before it reaches your eyes because you are magnifying it


If you have a telescope that strong to see the land of a star billion of light yrs away, you would see it in real time, yup, but that star might not be there anymore, it might have got old and went supernova.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by stealthmonkey
reply to post by Soylent Green Is People
 


but if you have a telescope it makes things look closer so you would see the light when lit because it looks so much closer you can pick up on the light before it reaches your eyes because you are magnifying it


NO!

You are magnifying "light" you cant see with a naked eye because the energy is too weak, it takes the same amount of time no matter the amount of light there is, if a HUGE explosion happened out in distant space you would be able to see it with the naked eye instead of a telescope, but using a telescope before you can see it with the naked eye would still see nothing because the light waves hasn't got here yet.



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


it would travel the same speed for both
but thats just what they say untill they find a craft that goes half the speed of light and then turn a light on its unknown
edit on 17-4-2012 by stealthmonkey because: (no reason given)



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


You've just solved faster than light space travel, we just build a ship out of telescope and poof! There we are.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:19 PM
link   
reply to post by Illustronic
 


"Friends, Americans, Planetmen, lend me your eyes....." - NASA we need your eye beams to break the speed of light on our new spaceship!!


hahaha!



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:24 PM
link   
4 pages on and this is still happening.

I suspect stealthmonkey is another account for Diamondsmith and/or Blocula.

Just say'n



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by Druscilla
4 pages on and this is still happening.

I suspect stealthmonkey is another account for Diamondsmith and/or Blocula.

Just say'n


I hope so for his own sake, please let it be a troll


Wow never said that before.....



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:26 PM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


nope your wrong this time



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:28 PM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 12:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by stealthmonkey
reply to post by Biigs
 


actually this is what i do when i get bored i come up with something stupid to argue over and it has given me much enjoyment


Trolling then.

phew, at least no ones this dumb.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 01:53 PM
link   
I'm not going to discount your perceptions because there appears to be an instantaneous link between two related particles even over a long distance. This means we may perceive things that aren't possible using today's line of thinking.

What we see through a telescope could actually not be what exists. Being that a stars photons scatter and we are only seeing what is directly in line with us, it's possible that at the distance we are from them that we only see one photon stream. I'm not even sure our comprehension of the distance is right or the amount of energy we assume a star possesses is real. A star is round, each photon stream spirals out at a curved vortex. When we look at a star it could actually be way off from where we perceive it to be. Our minds interpret the stars in a similar way and I'm not really sure that this perception is the same amongst every person. Peoples vision of things is different and we have no way of knowing if our perceptions are really the same. Our knowledge gets in the way, our training to try to get us to see things as others do makes our minds interpret things like everyone else. I can see with little light sometimes but others have a hard time seeing with little light. This fact alone would make some admire the stars and others have little interest in them.

Our perception of things that are varies widely. We may all be humans but what we see in this world is not the same. I am glad to be who I am, I do not desire to see what others see in this world. Others views are interfering with my desire to see nature as it was meant to be seen and that bothers me. Some keep looking at the stars and planets and forget we have the best planet around. Maybe a billion miles away there is another planet like this but it is unreachable to us for a long while. We need to take care of this paradise and quit thinking that mars and the moon are great to live on. There is no grass there to be greener than what we have here. There is no food growing without huge costs to grow. There is no reason to desire space travel and colonization of other worlds at this time. Unless an Alien gives us a ride



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 02:04 PM
link   
reply to post by luciddream
 


A telescope allow you to view more photon streams but does not actually see the whole star. The shape of the lens makes stars appear round but they don't actually have to be that shape. A star can technically be cubic and all we would see is a blinking light as it turns and it would appear to be a round twinkling star because our comprehension may be flawed. My box has been totally destroyed and this mouse has decided to never find another
Science only guesses at what exists too.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 02:37 PM
link   

Originally posted 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.


Science does not hold all the truths of life. It is a philosophy that creates a model of the universe and like all models it has its limitations too....

I have spent a good part of my life in education a Masters level in science and I cannot spell too well. It is rash on your part to judge someone's education level by if they can spell or not.

Back on topic. Our sight works by taking in photons and turning them into an image. Therefore our sight is not instant. It cannot travel any faster than the speed of a photon. The speed of light. In reality by the time it has traveled through the neurons of the brain it has in affect slowed down a fair bit.



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 03:30 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


A square star? Wouldnt that defy the basic laws of physics and basic theory of gravity?



posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 03:33 PM
link   
reply to post by EddyR3
 

Some of the laws of physics may not apply in other areas of the universe.





new topics
top topics
 
2
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join