Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: guest39538 on 01/07/2016 10:26:18
-
You are absolutely correct. Since the sun would be traveling at the same speed as the photons it would appear to an observer (at a safe distance. ie another universe ;D) that the sun had moved instantaneously from its initial position to its final position next to the earth.
Not true unless the observer was in the line of travel of the sun. From a position at 90 degrees to that line, the sun would be seen to move.
You would only see the sun move if present information was incorrect.
-
Ok, moving on a bit lets look at something else which is in direct relationship to the already scenario.
A short sighted person needs a lens attached to be able to perceive distance and ''magnify'' the light, how can a lens change the information of a Photon before it enters your eyes to give a better perspective on distance for a short sighted person?
I am "myopic" the correct medical term for short slightness. I don't need my lens to perceive a photon before in enters my eye, because I can perceive nothing until the photon hits the retina inside my eyes, which in turn results in a chemical reaction down my optic nerve to the brain which then interprets this chemical message into what we call sight or seeing
The only reason for my lens is to focus the light photons directly on my retina. A myopic persons eye is too oval, like a an American football, it is slightly the wrong shape, which causes the focus point to be at the back of the retina, instead of exactly impinging on it like it should with a perfect eye shape .
With respect ,I remain baffled as to why that you keep insisting that a person can see light before it reaches the eye, in desperation, please try to explain your reasoning to me and all the other confused members on the forum in a precise and logical way that our limited intellects could comprehend?
Thank You
Alan
-
With respect ,I remain baffled as to why that you keep insisting that a person can see light before it reaches the eye, in desperation, please try to explain your reasoning to me and all the other confused members on the forum in a precise and logical way that our limited intellects could comprehend?
Thank You
Alan
Because the light extends all the way from point source to eye and is relatively invisible to sight allowing you to simply see right through it as if seeing through the ''invisible man'' or a sheet of glass.
When you open your eye lids you are connecting the circuits of your brain to the external connectivity of the whole, you observe the whole of light as an invisible empty whole.
If you did only observe Photons that were in your ''mind'' you would not observe distance and the ''light'' in that distance that allows you to see through the darkness .
I understand it hard to comprehend, but simply consider that we see the start point source of the photons journey and the end point of journey because of the ''gin-clear'' perception.
Or simply look at any object and look at the space surrounding the object, ask yourself is this space light and contains Photons?
If it were not it would be dark space like the window in the other thread.
However this is off topic, if you wish to continue got o the other thread please and I will explain better. It is all about time, and I feel rushed in life.
-
I would be curious how an infinite speed of light can be consistent with the observations of the moons of Jupiter from <1674 that established the finite speed of light.
http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/RomersMeasurementOfTheSpeedOfLight/
Of course, I know that the people who propose these theories don't really want to do physics.
-
I would be curious how an infinite speed of light can be consistent with the observations of the moons of Jupiter from <1674 that established the finite speed of light.
http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/RomersMeasurementOfTheSpeedOfLight/
Of course, I know that the people who propose these theories don't really want to do physics.
Please be aware that I did not make this thread or give it the title, this thread is a split from the main forum.
I have never said or presume an infinite speed of light or contest a finite speed of light. I however do presume an ''infinite speed'' of sight. I do not think light travels instantaneously although it is pretty fast, I just think sight is instantaneous.
-
I just think sight is instantaneous.
What could that possibly mean?
-
I just think sight is instantaneous.
What could that possibly mean?
ambiguous, what do you mean?
-
With respect ,I remain baffled as to why that you keep insisting that a person can see light before it reaches the eye, in desperation, please try to explain your reasoning to me and all the other confused members on the forum in a precise and logical way that our limited intellects could comprehend?
So why is C, the speed of light, finite then?
Light is the smalest quantaty of energy that can be transported.
A photon, an elementary particle without a real size, that cant be split,only created or destroyed.
Light also has a wave-particle duality, being kind of a particle and a wave at the same time (lie)
Also when we say light we actually mean the visible light, witch is a tiny part of the electromagnetic spectrum:
energy in form of eletromagnetic radiation.
Electromagnetic radiation consist of an enormous range of wavelengths and frequencies.
Gama rays have the smallest wave lengths, because they are the highest energy photons.
Visible light is in the middle of the spectrum in the range of about 400 nanometers to 700 nanometers:
From a physics stand point, all these waves are the same.
"They all have the wave-particle duality and "travels at 'C', the speed of light"
Just a different frequencies.
So what makes visible light special, then? Nothing...
Ok, the point, the photons, I once wondered that the speed of the photon should be zero in my universe concepts,
anyway lets keep focused, what I have is a simple question, what if the photon have more than one property? and what if they form space fabric?
I already read a similar question here, what I mean if the gin-clear substance, are photons, "without the wave frequencies"?
I mean, asking you guys, what if photons do not travel, if they are everywhere, and the thing that travel is the wavelengths and frequencies, "Trought" the photons?
What if the photons form space fabric, so much of them that they become able to compress and expand themselves, and any dense atomic structure object that is existing within the fabric?
If the frequency of any sort of light hitting a wall reflecting the not the traveling photons but reflecting the wave lenght frequencies trough the static photons that where already surrounding the wal? Could this be related with gravity as being a linear force?
The photons would be the gin-ligh substance when in the abcense of wavelengths and frequencies, and when those frequencies are present we call them light?
Would it be possible from the pyshics point of view, that a photon never traveled with the speed of the frequencies, but the frequencies traveled with there own electromagnetic wave length speed trough static photons? Is it possible or not?
In science, have someone ever successfully isolated a photon without the particle disapared and reapeared?
Sorry about the early coments, probably after 2017-2020, I'll be still entering in conflic with my doubts, about the most basicly ground universe concepts, its indeed confusing.
But now I'm with time to ask the early post properly...
-
I just think sight is instantaneous.
What could that possibly mean?
ambiguous, what do you mean?
I mean, what do you mean by, "I just think sight is instantaneous." It seems like another statement that could not possibly be true.
-
As I see it, light has two forms.There is a photonic wave which is of spherical nature and can produce huge amounts of photons. Photons occur when the wave encounters particles of the right energy levels. The waves do not travel continuously as a smooth flow but jump from space to space along the gravitational fields.The jump speed is slightly higher than the speed of light C so that when we account for the split second stop during the jump, the entire speed is basically C. This will vary slightly as more jumps occur during strong dense gravitational fields and less jumps occur during weak fields.
-
Photons occur when the wave encounters particles of the right energy levels.
Just one more question and I'm done with, asking this one including the age of the universe, What happened to the photons that where created during the process you described? They are indeed destroyed or there is a sightly possibility when submited to different temperatures, extreme low temperatures for longs periods of time, could this photons became inert when somehow without mometum or electromagnetic charge? I mean could be the what we interpreted as destruction of photons be another sort of desaperance? If so, when in the absence of particles to form photons, would the electro Magnetic waves be able to travel trough already existing photons too? When passing activating and deactivating them in the processes?
What I have in mind is that could be the electromagnetic waves of a black hole constantly encountering particles, but not destroying the photons after creation, but simple become the photons becoming inert? Thinking about a black hole, could be possible to a black hole to produce photons by being constantly irradiating particles with its electromagnetic fields? First decomposing the atomic structures of the bodies and in the same process generating, converting the particles into photons? I ask wondering, based on the premise of the fabric of space, dark energy be composed by inert photos being generated by the black holes destroying matter? Thinking if this possibility, if real, could be then related with the always greater quantities of dark energy being, somehow, generated... impossible?
-
I just think sight is instantaneous.
What could that possibly mean?
ambiguous, what do you mean?
I mean, what do you mean by, "I just think sight is instantaneous." It seems like another statement that could not possibly be true.
Ok , thank you for clarifying your meaning,
A statement that could not be true is only that until proved true , would you agree?
Ok, I think the best way is to show you.
Do you have something in your house that is a straight line such as a pole or rod or even a tape measure?
I want you to be careful not to poke anyone's eye out , make sure you have some space to do this experiment in.
Place the rod over your shoulder so that just a small section of the rod ''sticks out'' that you can see in your line of sight,
You must agree that you and the rod are in the same time zone and the rate of time is the same for you and the rod?
Now imagine your rod can extend to any distance, I want you to slide the rod forward so you now see a bigger section of the rod in your line of sight.
Do you agree that the tip of the rod and the rod nearest your ear, is in the same time zone still?
Well I am pretty sure you will agree, now imagine extending this rod all the way to the sun, I am now sure you will see the problem with present thinking.
-
Place the rod over your shoulder so that just a small section of the rod ''sticks out'' that you can see in your line of sight,
You must agree that you and the rod are in the same time zone and the rate of time is the same for you and the rod?
Well, no.
The rod extends over a distance, so there are a number of temporal differences between me and the rod. First, the time it takes for light to reach my eye from one part of the rod is different from another part of the rod. Second, there may be minute differences in the environment that change the way that time moves in different parts of the rod; I don't expect these to be significant or detectable by my eye, but they may be there. Third, my visual perception of the rod is a construction of my mind that is kept constant over time despite my blinking, slight motion, and other changes in me or my visual field.
Now imagine your rod can extend to any distance, I want you to slide the rod forward so you now see a bigger section of the rod in your line of sight.
Do you agree that the tip of the rod and the rod nearest your ear, is in the same time zone still?
Certainly not. As the rod gets longer, the problems get larger in effect.
Well I am pretty sure you will agree, now imagine extending this rod all the way to the sun, I am now sure you will see the problem with present thinking.
I certainly see the problem with your reasoning.