It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Thank you.

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

Help ATS via PayPal:

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

page: 5
2
share:

posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 03:43 PM
But as it stands, from our current observations and of what we do know in the observable universe, we are yet to find a square star....

posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 03:45 PM

You equate it to hearing. Apparently you have never seen a gun fire from a distance. Have someone with a shotgun stand 300 yards away and fire at a target 30 yards away. You will see the smoke from the gun and damage to the target before you hear the boom. The pellets exceed the speed of sound and the spark reaches your eyes at lightspeed all before the soundwaves reach your ear. Your ear is a reciever like your eye. You can also judge the truth that your eyes do not percieve it before the waves reach you by watching a comet. Track a comet or a planet when they first come into view and when they first reach the position where you should be able to see them calculate the time until you actually do. Proof positive the light must reach your eyes before you see it.

posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 05:05 PM

Originally posted by stealthmonkey

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

Your eyes work by sensing light.

No light = dark = nothing visible.

How old are you?

posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 05:12 PM

Originally posted by chr0naut

Originally posted by stealthmonkey

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

Your eyes work by sensing light.

No light = dark = nothing visible.

How old are you?

Im invisible sometimes, but it only works when my eyes are shut....

Hes admitted his trolling by the way.

posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 05:37 PM

Originally posted by stealthmonkey

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

A solar flare is made off stuff that blasts out of the atomic fusion furnace of the Sun. When this highly ionized dust blasts out of the Sun, it also is quite bright.

We see the quite bright light from the Solar Flare, well before the dust crosses space between the Sun and the Earth and reaches us.

Science point proven, your understanding, not so.

posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 05:40 PM

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

The image looks bigger but the telescope doesn't make your eyes any closer.

posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 05:42 PM

Originally posted by Illustronic

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.

Due to time dilation, the sum of the speeds of light to the observer will never exceed the speed of light.

posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 09:56 PM

It seems that you are confusing light and physical matter.

When a solar flare occurs, the flare consists of ignited gases that travel at a high-rate of speed, but no-where near approaching the speed of light. If we pretend that the flare didn't output any form of radiation (visible light is a form of radiation) you are correct in that we would never see it unless it reached Earth.

Flares however DO emit lots of different kinds of radiation, including light (photons). These photons travel at the speed of light until they hit enough "stuff" to slow them down. This is the reason why we're only able to "see" a certain distance into the universe. At a certain point, light hits so much matter between its originating point and Earth that it slows down so much it effectively never reaches Earth. Even with our best technology, to our perception anything past that point is pure "nothingness".

Between the Sun & the Earth there isn't a whole lot of matter, so a good chunk of the light radiation reaches Earth, where some of it hits our eyes. We don't know the photon even exists until it hits our eyes and our brains process the resulting signal generated by the rods & cones in our eyes.

So back to the solar flare. The fiery gas cloud never comes remotely close to hitting Earth, but it does emitt a whole bunch of photons (light radiation). It takes ~8minutes for (some of) those photons to reach Earth, hit our eyes and be turned into a series of signals that our brain turns into an image. That means when you "see" the flare, although your brain is telling you that the flare (fiery cloud of gas & plasma) happened at the exact moment you are observing it, in reality the photon has already been travelling for ~8mins.

To go into anymore detail about perception etc you'd need to read up about relativity and quantum mechanics which is probably a bit above your current level of understanding (gotta learn to walk before you run). Quantum Mechanics in particular is enough to make any mere mortals head implode hehe.

Hopefully that cleared up any confusion. If not try re-phrasing your question/theory differently.

posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 10:01 PM

Originally posted by stealthmonkey

im not here to win a spelling contest

That's really obvious. But to respond to you in a meaningful manner requires an estimation of the intellectual capacity to understand a response. If the spelling/grammar is at a third grade level, any response should be tempered to match that intellect or education. It's pretty hard to explain quantum electrodynamics to a nine year old.

posted on Apr, 17 2012 @ 10:02 PM
planets light say takes 100,000,00 light years to reach us,we know that means what we,r looking at happened 100,000,00 lite years ago so we,r basicly time traveling,we go with that theroy then time travel must be possible.is it not? cause if we reach there before its light reaches here then we,ve went forward in time.........think about it.......its mind boggoling

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 03:45 AM

Originally posted by sparky31
planets light say takes 100,000,00 light years to reach us,we know that means what we,r looking at happened 100,000,00 lite years ago so we,r basicly time traveling,we go with that theroy then time travel must be possible.is it not? cause if we reach there before its light reaches here then we,ve went forward in time.........think about it.......its mind boggoling

Uhm.. What is your reference point in time and space?

Example: You shout very loud and jump into a rocket - *bam* - you are earlier at your target than the sound of your shouting. BUT: you would have to travel faster than sound, or faster than light in your example.

Another example: Someone else shouts very loud at you and you start running at him AT THE SAME MOMENT, synchronized by very precise clocks - will you get there before he shouts? Of course not, your passage did take some time itself, right? So on your way you will hear his shouts (but they will even sound different as there is this phenomenon called "Doppler effect", by the way).

tl;dr:
No travelling in time, sorry.

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 03:48 AM

Originally posted by EddyR3
But as it stands, from our current observations and of what we do know in the observable universe, we are yet to find a square star....

A square star is highly unlikely as every star pumps out energy at the same time as gravitation is pulling it back together - this equilibrium leads to the lowest, energy-conserving state possible: a sphere.

Any square-shape would have its peaks/edges immediately pulled back inside, as soon as the outforcing energy in those edges goes back to the normal, average level of the whole star.

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 09:37 AM

Originally posted by ManFromEurope

Originally posted by EddyR3
But as it stands, from our current observations and of what we do know in the observable universe, we are yet to find a square star....

A square star is highly unlikely as every star pumps out energy at the same time as gravitation is pulling it back together - this equilibrium leads to the lowest, energy-conserving state possible: a sphere.

Any square-shape would have its peaks/edges immediately pulled back inside, as soon as the outforcing energy in those edges goes back to the normal, average level of the whole star.

True, in those limited cases of static objects, but since almost every object in the universe is rotating, it is technically more correct to say that the resulting form is an "oblate spheroid."

posted on Apr, 18 2012 @ 09:57 AM

Originally posted by F4guy

Originally posted by ManFromEurope

Originally posted by EddyR3
But as it stands, from our current observations and of what we do know in the observable universe, we are yet to find a square star....

A square star is highly unlikely as every star pumps out energy at the same time as gravitation is pulling it back together - this equilibrium leads to the lowest, energy-conserving state possible: a sphere.

Any square-shape would have its peaks/edges immediately pulled back inside, as soon as the outforcing energy in those edges goes back to the normal, average level of the whole star.

True, in those limited cases of static objects, but since almost every object in the universe is rotating, it is technically more correct to say that the resulting form is an "oblate spheroid."

Yes of course, but lets not over-agitate this thing, we don't want to make-a-brain-explode. Or do we?

top topics

2