Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: guest39538 on 29/01/2016 05:59:20
-
In general we think that to see an object the light reflected from the object must enter your eyes.
I would not disagree that light is needed to see, however I think that sight works slightly different than the present explanation.
Why would you need directly reflected light to be received by your eyes when your eyes and yourself are submerged in the light, in comparison to being underwater in a swimming pool? In another words you are in the light rather than seeing reflective light and you see the object directly through the light, sight having a passive ability by the use of the light. A coupling of matter to sight by the light.
Now to me, when I catch a glare off something, that is light being shined/reflected directly into my eyes through the constant-'constant of light.
In respect to reality, I believe this is a general observation for all, we see objects in their exact geometrical position, in an exact equilibrium synchronous time reference frame to the observer.
It is a fact that distance exists, whether we could see or not see this remains true. our eyes relatively cover distance in no time at all.
What do you think?
-
If there is a brick wall between yourself and the object, you can't see it. Ergo something must be travelling in a straight line between you in order for you to see it.
Remarkably, this simple hypothesis has led to the entire science and industry of optics, from microscopes and spectacles to the Hubble telescope and observations of gravitational lensing. I rather think it has legs, and yours doesn't.
-
If there is a brick wall between yourself and the object, you can't see it.
That is because your line of sight is obstructed nothing un-obvious about that
Ergo something must be travelling in a straight line between you in order for you to see it.
How is that any different to you just have to be looking towards the object and have a line of sight?
Remarkably, this simple hypothesis has led to the entire science and industry of optics, from microscopes and spectacles to the Hubble telescope and observations of gravitational lensing. I rather think it has legs, and yours doesn't.
If we looked at it like an ocean we are submerged in, and the light like a pole between masses, I do not see how this changes anything in respect to invention, it is relatively the same thing but looked at in a different perspective. Light does not need to reflect into your eyes, you are already in the light, to see an object your eyes just simply have to be looking in the direction of the object within the light.
I admit and agree that light has to reflect/interact with an object before it is illuminated, but this does not necessarily mean it reflects directly into our eyes, there is not a need for this, it just so happens that we have to have a line of sight.
Ever seen an eclipse? we observe a black circle that is not reflecting or interacting with light, but we can still see it through the constant-'constant. So according to the present information, I should not be able to see the circle of an eclipse.
There is clearly no reflection in this diagram but I can clearly see the colourless object. Please explain,
[ Invalid Attachment ]
in this diagram I can still see the same object but it has blended in
[ Invalid Attachment ]
If I was to add a laser dot, we can see the dot and clearly see the laser is not reflected to our eyes.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
I can add a medium of smoke to the diagram to ray trace and clearly show no reflective rays in the direction of our eyes from a laser.
Please explain?
-
In general we think that to see an object the light reflected from the object must enter your eyes.
If an object is not a light source then it needs to be illuminated by a light source, and the light hitting it to be reflected into our eyes in order for us to see it.
We can see light sources, like the sun or a lamp, because the light goes straight into our eyes.
I can add a medium of smoke to the diagram to ray trace and clearly show no reflective rays in the direction of our eyes from a laser.
Please explain?
The laser is a light source directly illuminating (and burning out) your retina.
-
In general we think that to see an object the light reflected from the object must enter your eyes.
If an object is not a light source then it needs to be illuminated by a light source, and the light hitting it to be reflected into our eyes in order for us to see it.
We can see light sources, like the sun or a lamp, because the light goes straight into our eyes.
I can add a medium of smoke to the diagram to ray trace and clearly show no reflective rays in the direction of our eyes from a laser.
Please explain?
The laser is a light source directly illuminating (and burning out) your retina.
Colin I did not and do not want to discuss Wiki and an answer or discussion that involves the present information which we all know, I wanted to approach sight from a different angle and discuss that. There is not anything set in stone when it comes to science.
''If an object is not a light source then it needs to be illuminated by a light source, and the light hitting it to be reflected into our eyes in order for us to see it.
We can see light sources, like the sun or a lamp, because the light goes straight into our eyes.''
Ok in saying that let us discuss your sentence.
I am now looking at my wall, I can see my wall reacted with the light, I can not observe a direct reflection of light into my eyes from the wall. The light propagating through the space is invisible compared to the spectral visible colour.= of my wall.
Please provide proof/evidence that there is light reflecting directly into my eyes from my walls?
Please provide evidence that I am not just seeing directly through the light as if it were a clear stationary mist?
Please do not respond with observer effect such has a single reflective beam off a mirror, evidence of the whole please.
When we have a new idea we are asked to provide evidence, so I ask science to provide their evidence. We say so , is not evidence.
-
Here is a simple experiment. I've filled in the expected results. If you find something different, fame and fortune await.
Go into a really, really dark room - say a coalmine - and switch on a light bulb. Can you see it? {YES} Where is the light coming from if not the bulb? You didn't switch the entire universe on, so it must be coming from the one thing that you controlled.
Now look at some other object, not a light bulb, in the room, and switch the light bulb off. Can you still see the object? {NO}
So the object must have been reflecting light from the bulb.
-
The ancients believed seeing works when the eye itself shone at the seen object. WtF were wrong with them too?
-
Colin I did not and do not want to discuss Wiki
We are not discussing Wiki, I haven't a clue what Wiki says on this.
What I'm taking about is knowledge I've gained actually doing the experiments. I've served my time on the optical benches and I'm telling you about my experience and knowledge of what happens.
-
Here is a simple experiment. I've filled in the expected results. If you find something different, fame and fortune await.
Go into a really, really dark room - say a coalmine - and switch on a light bulb. Can you see it? {YES} Where is the light coming from if not the bulb? You didn't switch the entire universe on, so it must be coming from the one thing that you controlled.
Now look at some other object, not a light bulb, in the room, and switch the light bulb off. Can you still see the object? {NO}
So the object must have been reflecting light from the bulb.
I have never said once that light did not emit from the element of the light bulb and neither did I say that matter does not reflect light.
What I said is that if you took away all the matter from the Universe except one star and yourself, and you turned your back to the sun and was looking away from the sun, light would be in your eyes still but it would look dark to you.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
Provable on earth also
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
Please provide proof/evidence that there is light reflecting directly into my eyes from my walls?
Stare at your wall.
Then put a sheet of paper between your eyes and the wall.
The wall now disappears, because the paper is blocking the light that was reflected for your wall.
QED
-
Please provide proof/evidence that there is light reflecting directly into my eyes from my walls?
Stare at your wall.
Then put a sheet of paper between your eyes and the wall.
The wall now disappears, because the paper is blocking the light that was reflected for your wall.
QED
Yes I agree, but also the paper is an obstruction to the line of sight, the paper is opaque in the constant-'constant,
The paper now reflects light, but this does not change you are submerged in an ocean of light, provable by shadows and angles,
Remove the paper and remove the wall, light will still be in your eyes whether or not it is reflected because you are submerged in the light,
Light enters your eyes no matter where you look, example, look into space at a reference point with no stars, a ''black spot'' you can perceive distance although the black spot is not reflecting light into your eyes .
-
What I said is that if you took away all the matter from the Universe except one star and yourself, and you turned your back to the sun and was looking away from the sun, light would be in your eyes still but it would look dark to you.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
As your diagram shows, with your back to the sun you are bathed in light, but with nothing to reflect light back into your eyes there is no light on your retina, so it looks dark.
-
What a truly beautiful thought, being immersed in an ocean of light. It needs to be immortalized in an epic poem. I like your question but need some help in focusing my response. In talking about "how we see" I get the direct and reflected light into the eye, but I think you are asking for something else. I would like to discuss quantum effects and the visual centers in the brain with respect to the cones and rods in the retina but am unsure it would be relevant to the discussion. Please advise.
-
It is a fact that distance exists, whether we could see or not see this remains true. our eyes relatively cover distance in no time at all.
What do you think?
What we all think seems to make no difference to you Box but I'll give it the old college try anyway
Mr. Box, depth perception is a result of binocular vision and the learned ability of the brain to distinguish between near and far objects by recognizing learned information about shapes of familiar images. One doesn't see "distance", they only recognize the effect that perspective has upon the optic nerve and have learned that when a familiar object looks smaller, it's farther away. When it looks larger, it's closer. Simple!
And BTW, concerning another thread you posted "Does the sun reflect light?", I'm guessing it wasn't a "trick question" after all was it. Just another ill conceived image floating around in you brain.
-
It is a fact that distance exists, whether we could see or not see this remains true. our eyes relatively cover distance in no time at all.
What do you think?
What we all think seems to make no difference to you Box but I'll give it the old college try anyway
Mr. Box, depth perception is a result of binocular vision and the learned ability of the brain to distinguish between near and far objects by recognizing learned information about shapes of familiar images. One doesn't see "distance", they only recognize the effect that perspective has upon the optic nerve and have learned that when a familiar object looks smaller, it's farther away. When it looks larger, it's closer. Simple!
And BTW, concerning another thread you posted "Does the sun reflect light?", I'm guessing it wasn't a "trick question" after all was it. Just another ill conceived image floating around in you brain.
I do not do trick questions, but neither do I have ill thoughts. One does see distance, distance is an axiom and provable to be there, regardless of sight I can experience the distance of space, by moving.
One see's a photon leaving and arriving simultaneously from an object, (if photons really exist to begin with because obviously we not really observe photons as single photons , we observe the whole of light simultaneously)
-
What a truly beautiful thought, being immersed in an ocean of light. It needs to be immortalized in an epic poem. I like your question but need some help in focusing my response. In talking about "how we see" I get the direct and reflected light into the eye, but I think you are asking for something else. I would like to discuss quantum effects and the visual centers in the brain with respect to the cones and rods in the retina but am unsure it would be relevant to the discussion. Please advise.
Well my friend, all I can say is shine a flash light into the night sky and realise it was nether light to begin with, it is always dark and you just perceive it to be light by your extraordinary night vision.
-
One does see distance, distance is an axiom and provable to be there, regardless of sight I can experience the distance of space, by moving.
Nope.....We only judge distance or measure it. Go out on a dark night and look up at the stars. Now, tell me which one's are closer to you and which ones are more distant?
(if photons really exist to begin with
So now you're questioning the existence of the photon?
-
One does see distance, distance is an axiom and provable to be there, regardless of sight I can experience the distance of space, by moving.
Nope.....We only judge distance or measure it. Go out on a dark night and look up at the stars. Now, tell me which one's are closer to you and which ones are more distant.
(if photons really exist to begin with
So now you're questioning the existence of the photon?
Huh, we measure lengths between two points, distance is a unmeasured length, yes we judge distance, but we certainly observe distance, I can certainly observe things in a distance, you say you can judge a distance, the distance needs to observed to be judged. I think you are forgetting light is continuous from A to B and vice versus, a coupling to sight. We don't directly observe individual photons, we observe light as a whole.
-
I can certainly observe things in a distance,
It's one thing to say; "seeing objects at a distance" and quite another to say; "seeing distance".
I think you are forgetting light is continuous from A to B and vice versus, a coupling to sight. We don't directly observe individual photons, we observe light as a whole.
Wrong........Evidently, you're not familiar with the photon counting mechanism. We can, as a matter of fact, detect single photons.
-
... distance is a unmeasured length,
So if someone asked you the distance between Stoke and Liverpool you would reply "unmeasured"?
We don't directly observe individual photons, we observe light as a whole.
As Ethos and Evan said the eye detects individual photons, the brain ignores unless a group arrives together to reduce noise. So as long as a few are arriving in a short time, we do in fact observe individual photons.
-
... distance is a unmeasured length,
So if someone asked you the distance between Stoke and Liverpool you would reply "unmeasured"?
We don't directly observe individual photons, we observe light as a whole.
As Ethos and Evan said the eye detects individual photons, the brain ignores unless a group arrives together to reduce noise. So as long as a few are arriving in a short time, we do in fact observe individual photons.
No I would reply, you mean measured length don't you.
Really , how do you account for , that the photons always miss the target then?
-
So if someone asked you the distance between Stoke and Liverpool you would reply "unmeasured"?
He wants us to answer his questions but he refuses to answer ours. Truth is Colin, it may be too difficult for him..................DENSE
On second thought, maybe just................OBSTINATE
-
So if someone asked you the distance between Stoke and Liverpool you would reply "unmeasured"?
He wants us to answer his questions but he refuses to answer ours. Truth is Colin, it may be too difficult for him..................DENSE
I answered it
I would reply, you mean measured length don't you.
approx 56 mile
-
I answered it
I would reply, you mean measured length don't you.
approx 56 mile
Now then, answer my question in post#17...........
-
One does see distance, distance is an axiom and provable to be there, regardless of sight I can experience the distance of space, by moving.
Nope.....We only judge distance or measure it. Go out on a dark night and look up at the stars. Now, tell me which one's are closer to you and which ones are more distant?
(if photons really exist to begin with
So now you're questioning the existence of the photon?
Am I questioning the existence of a Photon? observer effect,
can I tell which star is nearer and which is further? I have no specialist equipment so probably not.
Maybe stars are the same size, and distance gives the sense of a difference.
-
I would reply, you mean measured length don't you.
And I would reply "No, check a dictionary"
Truth is Colin, it may be too difficult for him..................DENSE
It would appear so
-
I would reply, you mean measured length don't you.
And I would reply "No, check a dictionary"
Truth is Colin, it may be too difficult for him..................DENSE
It would appear so
And I would reply,
''Distance is a scalar quantity that refers to "how much ground an object has covered" during its motion. .''
You are defining two points, that is a length and an expanding length, beyond the moving object is more distance, it only becomes a length when the object reaches x distance. Lengths are within a distance, you can't have one meaning to two different things, they are indistinguishable else.
Consider a dark tunnel, at the half way point is a light, you can observe the light from one end of the tunnel to determine a length, but you can't possibly know the distance of the tunnel. However you can be assured it is more than likely equal to r² , if we say we had the light at say 1/3rd of the way of the tunnel , the distance after the light would be greater. but the tunnel is infinite in distance revealing just lengths.
Distance - A linear quantity of unmeasured space expanding away from the observer
Length - A measured distance of space between two reflective points or a measurement of points of an object,
-
Maybe stars are the same size, and distance gives the sense of a difference.
Incredible..................Now Mr. Box, you're showing us your abject ignorance. I'm wasting my time with you sir.
-
Maybe stars are the same size, and distance gives the sense of a difference.
Incredible..................Now Mr. Box, you're showing us your abject ignorance. I'm wasting my time with you sir.
You asked me a question, I can only guess at a way to know, that is not ignorant that is me thinking of an answer to give you. Consider 5 equal size circles, 2 are near and 3 are far, ''father ted'' I admit but I got the joke.
p.s I know you use magnitude and equipment to know.
-
Maybe stars are the same size, and distance gives the sense of a difference.
Incredible..................Now Mr. Box, you're showing us your abject ignorance. I'm wasting my time with you sir.
You asked me a question, I can only guess at a way to know, that is not ignorant that is me thinking of an answer to give you.
Mr. Box, we have a star in our own solar system, it's referred to as the Sun. From this evidence alone, we know that stars come in different sizes. This is evidence that your answer was hasty and lacked credibility, thus the use of the term "ignorant". Ignorance does not mean stupid, ignorance is a word that defines lack of knowledge or the impetuous use of the knowledge one presently possesses.
Listen my friend, we all recognize that you're not stupid. Your mind is searching for answers and that is admirable. However, until you are willing to learn from others, your hunger for scientific knowledge will suffer greatly. We offer our answers and you continually seek to either ignore them or brush them off as insufficient and or flawed.
None of us are perfect but IMHO, the answers you'll receive here are worthy of consideration and you insult us with your cavalier attitude. I have just about had it with your obstinate positions Mr. Box. If you continue to gloss over and minimize the worthiness of my answers, I will eventually acquaint you with my ignore list.
If you continue to be disenchanted with the answers you receive from us, you might consider just not asking in the first place. Enough said......................
-
Maybe stars are the same size, and distance gives the sense of a difference.
Incredible..................Now Mr. Box, you're showing us your abject ignorance. I'm wasting my time with you sir.
You asked me a question, I can only guess at a way to know, that is not ignorant that is me thinking of an answer to give you.
Mr. Box, we have a star in our own solar system, it's referred to as the Sun. From this evidence alone, we know that stars come in different sizes. This is evidence that your answer was hasty and lacked credibility, thus the use of the term "ignorant". Ignorance does not mean stupid, ignorance is a word that defines lack of knowledge or the impetuous use of the knowledge one presently possesses.
Listen my friend, we all recognize that you're not stupid. Your mind is searching for answers and that is admirable. However, until you are willing to learn from others, your hunger for scientific knowledge will suffer greatly. We offer our answers and you continually seek to either ignore them or brush them off as insufficient and or flawed.
None of us are perfect but IMHO, the answers you'll receive here are worthy of consideration and you insult us with your cavalier attitude. I have just about had it with your obstinate positions Mr. Box. If you continue to gloss over and minimize the worthiness of my answers, I will eventually acquaint you with my ignore list.
If you continue to be disenchanted with the answers you receive from us, you might consider just not asking in the first place. Enough said......................
I think I am mistaking the word arrogance for ignorant .
I am listening to your answers that is the point, forums have leant me and keep learning me, for self taught with only forum help I do not consider I am doing to badly. I believe you if you say stars are different sizes I don't know any better than that and what your equipment does, that is incredible science.
An aeroplane is incredible science, things like that , just some of theory is wrong imo and the way we look at things and define things.
I would like to make it really simple and distinguishable to understand.
-
If there is a brick wall between yourself and the object, you can't see it. Ergo something must be travelling in a straight line between you in order for you to see it.
Remarkably, this simple hypothesis has led to the entire science and industry of optics, from microscopes and spectacles to the Hubble telescope and observations of gravitational lensing. I rather think it has legs, and yours doesn't.
I rather think your straight light misses a moving target, and your ideas of photons do not have a leg to stand on.
-
in your diagram at the beginning of the discussion, in the first diagram do I see the object in silhouette?
-
in your diagram at the beginning of the discussion, in the first diagram do I see the object in silhouette?
Yes , in the first diagram the observer is observing a silhouette.
-
hi Mr box I will have one go at explaining how it works. Energy is emitted from an atom via a photon in discrete packages like bullets from a machine gun. The time interval between each bullet determines the frequency and the resultant wavelength of the waveform that follows. Light, the bit your eye can detect forms a small part of the whole range of possible wavelengths, the whole being called the electro-magnetic spectrum(EMS). Your eye absorbs this energy and converts into an electrical impulse that that your brain then sorts into the picture you see. If you look directly at the sun(suitably subdued) you will able to see its shape and all of the contrasting surface features which will be caused by differences in the energy levels emitted. If you put your backside to the sun you will feel it warming up. This is just photons delivering energy at a different wavelength and your backside is acting as a different detector. Any object emitting energy on the EMS will emit photons, some will be light sources. When a photon hits any object unless it is either a perfect black body or a perfect mirror, two things will occur some energy will be absorbed( it may be re-emitted) and some will be reflected in the form of another photon, so your eye sees the object in exactly the same way as if you look directly at something. You cannot see a photon, you can only detect its existence when its energy triggers a response. Daylight is trillions of photons hitting dust and other particle which reflect into your eye. All of this is well proven basic science and indisputable. Now if you had asked why a photon is a massless particle and a wave? or how can a massless particle have angular momentum? Then I am sure the eminent physicists on this forum would have been happy to explain the current theory and be prepared to listen to and comment on any reasonable hypothesis, although they would be unlikely to agree, but to question science that intuition, logic, and 400 years of experimental evidence has established will cause them to tilt. I am far from convinced that current physics has all the answers, and I am tending towards the view that some things may be wrong, but you have to respect the experimental evidence. Only then will people treat your ideas seriously.
-
hi Mr box I will have one go at explaining how it works. Energy is emitted from an atom via a photon in discrete packages like bullets from a machine gun. The time interval between each bullet determines the frequency and the resultant wavelength of the waveform that follows. Light, the bit your eye can detect forms a small part of the whole range of possible wavelengths, the whole being called the electro-magnetic spectrum(EMS). Your eye absorbs this energy and converts into an electrical impulse that that your brain then sorts into the picture you see. If you look directly at the sun(suitably subdued) you will able to see its shape and all of the contrasting surface features which will be caused by differences in the energy levels emitted. If you put your backside to the sun you will feel it warming up. This is just photons delivering energy at a different wavelength and your backside is acting as a different detector. Any object emitting energy on the EMS will emit photons, some will be light sources. When a photon hits any object unless it is either a perfect black body or a perfect mirror, two things will occur some energy will be absorbed( it may be re-emitted) and some will be reflected in the form of another photon, so your eye sees the object in exactly the same way as if you look directly at something. You cannot see a photon, you can only detect its existence when its energy triggers a response. Daylight is trillions of photons hitting dust and other particle which reflect into your eye. All of this is well proven basic science and indisputable. Now if you had asked why a photon is a massless particle and a wave? or how can a massless particle have angular momentum? Then I am sure the eminent physicists on this forum would have been happy to explain the current theory and be prepared to listen to and comment on any reasonable hypothesis, although they would be unlikely to agree, but to question science that intuition, logic, and 400 years of experimental evidence has established will cause them to tilt. I am far from convinced that current physics has all the answers, and I am tending towards the view that some things may be wrong, but you have to respect the experimental evidence. Only then will people treat your ideas seriously.
Almost sir, Your brain observes in real time, the recording of information is instant, the rate of time is zero, anything after zero is history. Your eyes and brain work like a video recorder, the clear light floods into your eyes, you are then connecting to the whole of light, your feed is continuous from A to B, you can observe clear light a length away between objects, vision is direct and faster than light.
-
This is cool! The idea of seeing because there is no light! WOW! I noticed after reading this discussion that most of the responses describe how light travels to the eye of the observer but I think your initial diagrams try to convey "the big picture" and the discussion should be about seeing what is there in the light and in the dark. With all in interest in dark matter and energy this is in my opinion pertinent. If I look through a telescope and see a shadow there must be light behind the shadow and then what could be that light? I learn something about the shadow and the light source behind it, two birds with one stone if you will. Could this be a classic EPR paradox? Mr. Box my world just got a bit larger. TY.
-
you can observe clear light a length away between objects, vision is direct and faster than light.
Wrong, no action of any kind can exceed the speed of light.
-
Electrons jumping Eigen states possibly
-
you can observe clear light a length away between objects, vision is direct and faster than light.
Wrong, no action of any kind can exceed the speed of light.
No action can exceed the speed of light , really?
Why do we observe a photons at point B then that has not even entered our eyes?
How can we possibly be observing a planet or star in their past?
A photon aimed directly at a moving body miles away will certainly miss the intended target, any sniper will tell you this.
added - I drew it for you
[ Invalid Attachment ]
-
This is cool! The idea of seeing because there is no light! WOW! I noticed after reading this discussion that most of the responses describe how light travels to the eye of the observer but I think your initial diagrams try to convey "the big picture" and the discussion should be about seeing what is there in the light and in the dark. With all in interest in dark matter and energy this is in my opinion pertinent. If I look through a telescope and see a shadow there must be light behind the shadow and then what could be that light? I learn something about the shadow and the light source behind it, two birds with one stone if you will. Could this be a classic EPR paradox? Mr. Box my world just got a bit larger. TY.
Your welcome, I do not know what a EPR paradox is so can't comment on that, at this time, sorry. Alls I can say is just try to imagine that the clear light in space is really dark, BUT everything you observe that is dark is an element.
When you turn a dimmer switch up on a light bulb, all the other ''light bulbs'' become brighter.
The 5th elements lol.
This may be hard to digest, consider that when in absolute darkness you can still see, BUT there is simply no ''light bulbs'' to see. That is why we got 5 senses I suppose.
To talk ''sciency'', we observe thermodynamic beacons through the dark.
Try a laser in the dark, observe the dot, it is still dark, we know we can not observe the incident beam or reflective beam, add smoke, we can observe the beams in the dark, the particle thermodynamic beacons of the smoke, identifying themselves through the dark, we do not observe any light in the smoke being directly directed to our eyes, we observe the space to be still dark, we only see the beam in the dark.
Now before you say , but we need light to enter our eyes to able vision, consider in the dark there is always the ''light'' of the CBMR, so ''light'' still floods into your eyes even in the dark.
I said to a snake it is dark tonight, the snake said, ''funny it looks light to me''
-
Why do we observe a photons at point B then that has not even entered our eyes?
We don't.
You need to do a lot more thinking before you realise why this is so, and why the light (photons) from the sun do not miss earth.
However, I'm not convinced input from me will help you, you need to discover it yourself.
Just a hint. Bullet from a gun at a moving target, curved path, whose viewpoint?
-
Why do we observe a photons at point B then that has not even entered our eyes?
We don't.
You need to do a lot more thinking before you realise why this is so, and why the light (photons) from the sun do not miss earth.
However, I'm not convinced input from me will help you, you need to discover it yourself.
Just a hint. Bullet from a gun at a moving target, curved path, whose viewpoint?
Bullet from a gun fired directly into the sky a vertical axis, what curved path?