The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: How do we observe beams of light travelling through space?  (Read 1418 times)

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
I have seen many examples in science where they show beams of light in analogy of situations and process.  The examples showing angular paths etc as used in SR.
However how can any of these examples be true when any beams of light will surely be ''washed'' out by the natural light of space?

The same reason we do not see stars in the daytime and a flashlight in daytime is none affective.







 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
the natural light of space
As this does not exist, it isn't a problem.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
the natural light of space
As this does not exist, it isn't a problem.

What do you mean there is no natural light of space, does the sun not emit ''light''?

By natural I mean things that are not ''man'' made .

It is also quite ''clearly'' a problem.

There is also physics involved and the fact a mirror is needed to reflect beams.



« Last Edit: 04/06/2016 09:13:53 by Thebox »
 

Offline alancalverd

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 4699
  • Thanked: 153 times
  • life is too short to drink instant coffee
    • View Profile
The light of the sun is the light of the sun. The light of a torch is the light of a torch. Space contains the sun (and a whole lot of much brighter objects) , the room contains the torch.  Space does not emit light, any more than an empty room emits light. 
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
The light of the sun is the light of the sun. The light of a torch is the light of a torch. Space contains the sun (and a whole lot of much brighter objects) , the room contains the torch.  Space does not emit light, any more than an empty room emits light.

I never said space itself emitted light although there is the cbmr which is ''light'' that also occupies space.  You are seemingly avoiding the real question Alan and replying like the prime minister with ''waffle'', but please do not take that offensively I understand my questions pose problems and are problematic questions.
I and you know very well that the analogies of SR and any other ''beams'' of light relationship explanation is observer affect and not the natural nature of light and what we observe in general to be a ''gin-clear'' whole.
There is clearly a problem Alan and I am not making any theories, I am simply pointing out errors in logic and if ''you'' listened and maybe somebody just for once tried to understand these errors in thought , they also will see the errors in logic.
So back to the topic and in discussion can we firstly discuss the example of angular beams of light that explain ''time'' dilation?
Beams of such an example for a certainty would need mirrors to angle the ''beam'', also there would need to be present a dense medium such as smoke or water, or else the observers relative see no beams, the example is a poor analogy with several faults.


In this physical experiment using a laser you can clearly see the content I am referring to, the beam you see is passing through water and where it relatively ''ends'' is where the beam passes from the water medium to the medium of air and is ''washed'' out.


added- Also we can clearly see in the below video that the angular direction of the beams is by the mirrors and observer affect, you can also observe the beams through the ''gin-clear'' whole, time is not affected by the beams and the beams direction does not affect time.
The ''time'' of the ''gin-clear'' remains constant , anything related to the beams is truly of the imagination and none scientific process?

added- Also in evidence I offer a laser dot, we can ''clearly'' see that we do  not see a beam of light .  This is also true for a laser dot in the dark, unless there is a denser medium there is no beam observed, also a brick wall will not produce an angular direction of the beam, a mirror has to  be used.





« Last Edit: 04/06/2016 09:58:15 by Thebox »
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1917
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
However how can any of these examples be true when any beams of light will surely be ''washed'' out.....
Clearly this is not true as shown by your own experiment - in the photograph the laser dot is not washed out by the light needed to take the photograph.
You see the dot on the wall because light from the dot is reflected off the wall and enters your eye (which is where you 'see' it).
You do not see the beam because there is no reflective substance in the beam's path (air and vacuum are transparent to light). If something reflective was in the beam's path eg smoke then it would reflect light from the beam into your eye and you would see the path of the beam.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
However how can any of these examples be true when any beams of light will surely be ''washed'' out.....
Clearly this is not true as shown by your own experiment - in the photograph the laser dot is not washed out by the light needed to take the photograph.
You see the dot on the wall because light from the dot is reflected off the wall and enters your eye (which is where you 'see' it).
You do not see the beam because there is no reflective substance in the beam's path (air and vacuum are transparent to light). If something reflective was in the beam's path eg smoke then it would reflect light from the beam into your eye and you would see the path of the beam.

Quite clearly you have changed my question and replied about the dot and not replied about the actual beams being ''washed'' out. You do not see the beam because it is ''washed'' out .  The experiment will also show no reflective ray of the dot if we added smoke, it is quite true and experimentally true that ''only'' mirrors  reflect light.
There is no evidence that light is ''reflected'' from a ''brick''?

In SR and the example analogies of SR they all use beams of light travelling through space and observers , observing the beam, this is in direct breach of physical reality and at fault.  Also to take into consideration is that while ''you'' have beams being angled etc, all these ''imaginary'' beams are being ''seen'' in the quanta ''whole'' that is ''gin-clear'', how does an angled beam in any way affect the time of the ''constant'' gin-clear?
Quite simply it obviously does not.



In the above diagram is an actual of reality and what is observed, there is no laser beams observed . Alice can see the rocket ship and predict the rocket ships velocity by the simple fact that the light is ''see through'' allowing us to see a start and end point simultaneously.



Visual angle and visual contractions being the key feature.







« Last Edit: 05/06/2016 08:34:50 by Thebox »
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1917
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Quite clearly you have changed my question and replied about the dot and not replied about the actual beams being ''washed'' out. You do not see the beam because it is ''washed'' out .
No I haven't changed your question I have answered it, please reread rather than misquote me.
The beam isn't washed out, which you can prove by repeating your experiment in a dark room - you will still not see the beam unless there is dust or smoke in the air to reflect the light.
It is not true that only mirrors reflect light. That doesn't even warrant being considered a new theory. There is plenty of evidence that light is reflected from a brick.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
There is plenty of evidence that light is reflected from a brick.

I will re-phrase and state you are avoiding the actual question and replying with none factual ''waffle''.  There is no evidence that a ''brick'' reflects light and creates a reflective ray, please provide this said evidence?

There is no evidence that suggests we do not see an object in it's exact geometrical position, please provide any evidence contrary to this?

You are clearly avoiding the actual question, do you or do you not see beams of light or lasers being emitted from a rocket ship like the analogies suggest?





 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1917
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
I will re-phrase and state you are avoiding the actual question and replying with none factual ''waffle''.  There is no evidence that a ''brick'' reflects light and creates a reflective ray, please provide this said evidence?

Please stop being so rude on a subject you clearly do not understand. I can see why Alan stopped answering you, and I intend to follow his lead.

If you shine a bright light on a brick and hold a piece of paper nearby you will see the colour reflected onto the paper. Think how children play "do you like butter" with a buttercup, the yellow colour is light reflected onto the chin from the buttercup - most children learn this simple principle early on in their lives.

There is no evidence that suggests we do not see an object in it's exact geometrical position, please provide any evidence contrary to this?
I never said there was. However, remember that geometrical position is defined by the spacetime coordinates of the object.

You are clearly avoiding the actual question, do you or do you not see beams of light or lasers being emitted from a rocket ship like the analogies suggest?
No one suggests they are seen. You cannot see a bullet in flight, but you can draw a diagram with lines showing its flight path.

Now, stop accusing people of avoiding the question and try to learn.
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: How do we observe beams of light travelling through space?
« Reply #10 on: 05/06/2016 09:44:59 »


Please stop being so rude on a subject you clearly do not understand. I can see why Alan stopped answering you, and I intend to follow his lead.

Firstly I am not rude, you are over sensitive and so must be Alan if in any way you find my posts to be rude or offensive. I believe people stop replying because they are stuck for answers and in giving an answer they must agree with me. I sense your hostility for no reason, I only want to have a ''chat''.


Quote from: Colin
If you shine a bright light on a brick and hold a piece of paper nearby you will see the colour reflected onto the paper. Think how children play "do you like butter" with a buttercup, the yellow colour is light reflected onto the chin from the buttercup - most children learn this simple principle early on in their lives.


Ok , I see your point in this example however this does still not suggest reflective beams or rays , it could well be just an invert process or some sort of ''coupling'' by the ''gin-clear''. 

There is no evidence that suggests we do not see an object in it's exact geometrical position, please provide any evidence contrary to this?
Quote from: colin
I never said there was. However, remember that geometrical position is defined by the space-time coordinates of the object.

Relative to what?

You are clearly avoiding the actual question, do you or do you not see beams of light or lasers being emitted from a rocket ship like the analogies suggest?
Quote from: Colin
No one suggests they are seen. You cannot see a bullet in flight, but you can draw a diagram with lines showing its flight path.
Yes indeed abstract lines that mean nothing in reality or have affect on reality and physical process, so you admit that you do not see beams, then say -

Quote from: colin
Now, stop accusing people of avoiding the question and try to learn.

I have learnt Colin or I would not be able to discourse your information looking for inaccuracies.   There is a big difference in when I try or when I just want some chat.   The one big mistake ''you'' overlook is the ''gin-clear'' Quanta ''whole'', all ''your'' activities and observer affect is ''done'' in this ''whole'' and all that you do does not affect the Quanta ''whole''. So when ''you'' imagine angular beams of light and a greater ''time'' to travel etc or a ''time'' contraction, you are not considering  the ''whole'' of ''gin-clear'' is not affected in any way.
''You'' are also  not considering the very fact that we can see end points and start points simultaneously to observation, and all that ''you'' predict is based on this very fact.
When you are travelling a Journey , you can see the ''future'' ahead of you, if you turned around and went the other way, you can still see the ''future'' ahead of you, this is also because of the relative fact of the constant-''constant''   ''you'' keep ignoring .
I do not make new theories, none of my ''work'' is a new theory , I am simply pointing out errors and what you do with these errors is upto ''you''.
Maybe if I did not feel such hostility I may be able to present a good discussion, it is upto ''you'' whether I stay or whether I go from ''you''. (I am getting bored of people not wanting to listen to facts).

I do not want fame although my real name in Wiki would be nice to be remembered when I'm gone.

What's to learn if the learning is incorrect.........

Quite ''clearly'' there is problem when we consider an individual ''Photon'' travelling from the Sun to the Earth, quite ''clearly'' we do not observe the Sun 8 minutes in it's past when we obviously can see the start and end point simultaneously.

p.s How can ''this'' not be premise for discussion about the ''facts''?

If ''you'' want me to learn,, ''you'' should be able to answer my queries of what I am learning, If ''you'' can not answer or explain my queries then ''your'' information must be wrong. I question the teacher so the teacher needs something about them, a bad teacher does not answer queries. ....



This is an example of what science and forums do,


opp - I have a query about ''something''

''you'' - it is like this

opp - yes I have read that ''but''...

''you'' - it is like this

opp- yes I know it say's that ''but''......


''you'' - it's like this


opp - pfffff how frustrating , I am trying to point out an error and you are avoiding the discussion of the error.


''you'' - moved to  new theories

opp- pfff, it's not a theory it is a query


''you'' - its like this


opp- grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr, I can read and the information is clearly in error.




« Last Edit: 05/06/2016 10:23:51 by Thebox »
 

Offline Colin2B

  • Global Moderator
  • Neilep Level Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1917
  • Thanked: 123 times
    • View Profile
Re: How do we observe beams of light travelling through space?
« Reply #11 on: 05/06/2016 11:20:14 »
"Yes indeed abstract lines that mean nothing in reality or have affect on reality and physical process"

So, I draw a map showing the path of a bullet from gun to target and show it to you, halfway along the path is an X. Would you be willing to stand at X when the gun is fired and say that abstract lines have no effect on reality?

If you intend to develop a theory of "an invert process or some sort of ''coupling'' by the ''gin-clear'' " , then you need to post it in New Theories. Until then reflected light remains unchallenged.

Anyway, I'm off to enjoy an afternoon out. Might involve buttercups. :)
 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: How do we observe beams of light travelling through space?
« Reply #12 on: 05/06/2016 11:39:24 »
"Yes indeed abstract lines that mean nothing in reality or have affect on reality and physical process"

So, I draw a map showing the path of a bullet from gun to target and show it to you, halfway along the path is an X. Would you be willing to stand at X when the gun is fired and say that abstract lines have no effect on reality?

If you intend to develop a theory of "an invert process or some sort of ''coupling'' by the ''gin-clear'' " , then you need to post it in New Theories. Until then reflected light remains unchallenged.

Anyway, I'm off to enjoy an afternoon out. Might involve buttercups. :)

Have a nice afternoon out Colin,

When you return after your rather silly relationship reply I accept the challenge and will ''stand'' on X, you clearly did not state the length of your vector and I have drawn the experiment.



Silly replies will get silly answers in reply.

Quote
Until then reflected light remains unchallenged.

Hmm, I am ''challenging'' your information about reflection and you are still avoiding the earlier queries.


Quote
from: colin
I never said there was. However, remember that geometrical position is defined by the space-time coordinates of the object.

Relative to what?  AVOIDED

P.s typo in spelling on the diagram noted.





 

Offline Thebox

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 3154
  • Thanked: 44 times
    • View Profile
Re: How do we observe beams of light travelling through space?
« Reply #13 on: 06/06/2016 17:14:18 »
I should be really more careful of what I write, I suppose arguing that one is futile, I did say I just wanted to chat , crafty mods lol.


Well on a good note I can speak openly in this section, so ok let me be the first to tell science you are all really naive and could not run a party in a brewery.
Quite ''clearly'' I am correct and you have spent years chasing fairies. The rudiment thought is the only thought, after that it is imagination, light is observed to be gin-clear, quite obviously to everyone and anyone who is not blind.
You do not see photons, there is no time dilation, you do not see beams, your imaginations are on par with religion and when religion was a bit stuck after creation and made a load of crap up, this is what science as done and made a load of stuff up which is no more than psuedo ''waffle''.
Dark energy causes expansion and all sorts of garbage as such, yet dark energy presently does not even exist, quite ironic really.
Well I am now sick to death of science trying to insult my intelligence and everyday observations of reality, a total crock of.... when you pretend not to understand. You know very well ''you'' messed up big time.
Some stuff is great, you really need to sort your ''boxes'' out and chuck a few away and start again.

Enough said I work hard and have not the time for this s...   any more, science listens like religion listens, all completely clueless to the observations   around them which they seem to ignore.


White light is observer effect and a man made mixture of frequencies , clear light is natural because you evolved to see in the dark when it is light.




 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Re: How do we observe beams of light travelling through space?
« Reply #13 on: 06/06/2016 17:14:18 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums
 
Login
Login with username, password and session length