0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Quote from: Thebox on 01/09/2016 17:44:40I would say sight was infinitely fast for the very fact then when I extend a measuring tape , I can see the entire tape and measure at the same time, I do not see 2cm later than 1cm and so on all the way to as far as I can see. a) the light from the parts of the tape do reach your eyes at different times.b) what you "see" is created in your brain, it is not a faithful representation of the world.
I would say sight was infinitely fast for the very fact then when I extend a measuring tape , I can see the entire tape and measure at the same time, I do not see 2cm later than 1cm and so on all the way to as far as I can see.
Quote from: Thebox on 01/09/2016 17:44:40Quote from: PhysBang on 01/09/2016 17:15:12Quote from: Thebox on 01/09/2016 16:51:03Quote from: PhysBang on 01/09/2016 16:46:25Quote from: Thebox on 01/09/2016 16:34:10Of course it takes time to travel a distance, but you are not considering that your groceries exist in the ''now'' simultaneously existing with your ''now''. When you look towards the shop, you are not seeing the future or the past, you are seeing your future path of now that leads to the same present you exist in and the groceries exist in.When you look at a shop, you are looking at the past. When you look at your hand, you are looking at the past. It takes some time for the light to reach your eye; that light was emitted in the past.No, because why the light is emitted and travels from the ''past'' , you still exist and the time it takes the light to reach you, you experience in the present .Trust me ''they'' think distance means the past lmao.So you are back to saying that light moves infinitely fast.I would say sight was infinitely fast For sight to be infinitely fast, that would require the speed of light to also be. If you can't UNDERSTAND this, discussing the topic with you is a waste of time.
Quote from: PhysBang on 01/09/2016 17:15:12Quote from: Thebox on 01/09/2016 16:51:03Quote from: PhysBang on 01/09/2016 16:46:25Quote from: Thebox on 01/09/2016 16:34:10Of course it takes time to travel a distance, but you are not considering that your groceries exist in the ''now'' simultaneously existing with your ''now''. When you look towards the shop, you are not seeing the future or the past, you are seeing your future path of now that leads to the same present you exist in and the groceries exist in.When you look at a shop, you are looking at the past. When you look at your hand, you are looking at the past. It takes some time for the light to reach your eye; that light was emitted in the past.No, because why the light is emitted and travels from the ''past'' , you still exist and the time it takes the light to reach you, you experience in the present .Trust me ''they'' think distance means the past lmao.So you are back to saying that light moves infinitely fast.I would say sight was infinitely fast
Quote from: Thebox on 01/09/2016 16:51:03Quote from: PhysBang on 01/09/2016 16:46:25Quote from: Thebox on 01/09/2016 16:34:10Of course it takes time to travel a distance, but you are not considering that your groceries exist in the ''now'' simultaneously existing with your ''now''. When you look towards the shop, you are not seeing the future or the past, you are seeing your future path of now that leads to the same present you exist in and the groceries exist in.When you look at a shop, you are looking at the past. When you look at your hand, you are looking at the past. It takes some time for the light to reach your eye; that light was emitted in the past.No, because why the light is emitted and travels from the ''past'' , you still exist and the time it takes the light to reach you, you experience in the present .Trust me ''they'' think distance means the past lmao.So you are back to saying that light moves infinitely fast.
Quote from: PhysBang on 01/09/2016 16:46:25Quote from: Thebox on 01/09/2016 16:34:10Of course it takes time to travel a distance, but you are not considering that your groceries exist in the ''now'' simultaneously existing with your ''now''. When you look towards the shop, you are not seeing the future or the past, you are seeing your future path of now that leads to the same present you exist in and the groceries exist in.When you look at a shop, you are looking at the past. When you look at your hand, you are looking at the past. It takes some time for the light to reach your eye; that light was emitted in the past.No, because why the light is emitted and travels from the ''past'' , you still exist and the time it takes the light to reach you, you experience in the present .Trust me ''they'' think distance means the past lmao.
Quote from: Thebox on 01/09/2016 16:34:10Of course it takes time to travel a distance, but you are not considering that your groceries exist in the ''now'' simultaneously existing with your ''now''. When you look towards the shop, you are not seeing the future or the past, you are seeing your future path of now that leads to the same present you exist in and the groceries exist in.When you look at a shop, you are looking at the past. When you look at your hand, you are looking at the past. It takes some time for the light to reach your eye; that light was emitted in the past.
Of course it takes time to travel a distance, but you are not considering that your groceries exist in the ''now'' simultaneously existing with your ''now''. When you look towards the shop, you are not seeing the future or the past, you are seeing your future path of now that leads to the same present you exist in and the groceries exist in.
When an aeroplane falls from the sky , generally if an object on the ground is in motion when there is a falling linearity, the falling object misses the target, so more than obviously , a falling photon does not even reach you and ''they'' are full of it.
Quote from: Thebox on 02/09/2016 10:51:49When an aeroplane falls from the sky , generally if an object on the ground is in motion when there is a falling linearity, the falling object misses the target, so more than obviously , a falling photon does not even reach you and ''they'' are full of it.But you do agree that a falling airplane hits something, right?
Quote from: PhysBang on 02/09/2016 14:49:30Quote from: Thebox on 02/09/2016 10:51:49When an aeroplane falls from the sky , generally if an object on the ground is in motion when there is a falling linearity, the falling object misses the target, so more than obviously , a falling photon does not even reach you and ''they'' are full of it.But you do agree that a falling airplane hits something, right?But you agree that it will hit the ground?not necessarily, it depends which direction the aeroplane is falling and if something by chance happens to be in the way.
Quote from: Thebox on 02/09/2016 18:58:34Quote from: PhysBang on 02/09/2016 14:49:30Quote from: Thebox on 02/09/2016 10:51:49When an aeroplane falls from the sky , generally if an object on the ground is in motion when there is a falling linearity, the falling object misses the target, so more than obviously , a falling photon does not even reach you and ''they'' are full of it.But you do agree that a falling airplane hits something, right?But you agree that it will hit the ground?not necessarily, it depends which direction the aeroplane is falling and if something by chance happens to be in the way.
So how does the weaker ''signal'' work?
Quote from: Thebox on 05/09/2016 10:22:01So how does the weaker ''signal'' work? Imagine you are standing under a shower and it is dripping one drop at a time, that drop doesn't wet you very much. Turn the shower full on and you will get very wet, but still the individual drops only have a small wetting power.It's the same with light. Individual photons don't carry much energy, but added together in their millions you can easily see. Turning down the dimmer switch just reduces the numbers, not the energy of each one.
, the drip contains the same mass it had per volume when it left the collective of the water, the same energy,
Quote from: Thebox on 05/09/2016 17:40:26, the drip contains the same mass it had per volume when it left the collective of the water, the same energy, Yes, the drip has the same mass per unit volume , but not the same energy or mass as the collective as you call it. One person in a football crowd can make a small level of sound, the whole stadium together make a much greater volume.Not sure what you mean by information, we are talking about brightness, intensity - similar to volume of sound. Violin can make a certain sound level, lots together can make a lot more.
''You'' want me to believe that if I looked through a tube , the far end of the tube is not in my present.
Quote from: Thebox on 11/09/2016 11:51:40''You'' want me to believe that if I looked through a tube , the far end of the tube is not in my present. No, that is not what everyone is saying, it is your interpretation.When it is 1200 on Earth it is 1200 on the sun, however when you look at the sun you see it as it was (about 8mins ago) not as it is now.The same is true for the tube, but the time difference is much smaller.
Do you deny that when we see a ''congestion'' of light, this allows us to see spectral colour that can be measured to be in its exact location relative to the observer?It would be poor logic to even try to deny this .
Quote from: Thebox on 11/09/2016 15:18:55 Do you deny that when we see a ''congestion'' of light, this allows us to see spectral colour that can be measured to be in its exact location relative to the observer?It would be poor logic to even try to deny this . Yes I deny it, and it is perfectly good logic to do so. You are back to gibberish rather than sense so I'm not even going to try and discuss the errors you are making until you come back to earth.