[guest39538]

The present is where we live and when you view an image it was from the past.

The present is where we live and we view all things in the present through the clear of light. You are not accounting for clear.

[GoC]

You do not see through anything. An image reaches your brain when it hits your eye. When you look at a tree the image comes to you, you do not see through space. A close image comes to you before a image at a further distance. The longer distance is further in the past. You do not see clear, your image is unobstructed.

[jeffreyH]

Another point which is pertinent is the nature of observation when looking out into space. We are never viewing the exterior (to our planet) laws of physics as they pertain to our present but to a past that may be 1 year or 1 billion years ago. This may tell us something about how forces operated at that point in the history of the universe but may not be pertinent to its present state. We should expect to find anomalies at different epochs that indicate some sort of evolution in the expected states of the various force fields.

[guest39538]

You do not see through anything. An image reaches your brain when it hits your eye. When you look at a tree the image comes to you, you do not see through space. A close image comes to you before a image at a further distance. The longer distance is further in the past. You do not see clear, your image is unobstructed.

You don't see light either, you see matter interacting with light, you see this interaction through the coupling of the clear(white light) , a variable wave, the only light that reflects into your eyes is when a glare catches your eyes, otherwise you are submerged in the clear light, a constant coupling of the brain to space.

[GoC]

Photoreceptors in the eye detect waves of a certain frequency range. How waves are transferred through space through is unknown but mass is required to create the waves. If mass is energy than photon virtual particles with a tail. If energy (dark mass energy) is the source of the transfer than it is a wave range of particles where the particles stay but continue the ripple through space. Both would be energy transfer.

Either way light cannot be created without mass. Even virtual photons would lose mass from the proton which we do not measure so which is more likely?

[guest39538]

Photoreceptors in the eye detect waves of a certain frequency range. How waves are transferred through space through is unknown but mass is required to create the waves. If mass is energy than photon virtual particles with a tail. If energy (dark mass energy) is the source of the transfer than it is a wave range of particles where the particles stay but continue the ripple through space. Both would be energy transfer.

Either way light cannot be created without mass. Even virtual photons would lose mass from the proton which we do not measure so which is more likely?

Photo-receptors in the eye detect wave-lengths of a constant spectral nature ''through'' the coupling of  a variable wave-length of the clear (white light).   White light is not a mixture of frequencies, white light is a variable wave length. Spectral constants a temporal interference pattern of the variable y-axis.
Space is transparent , this allows also ''transparent'' to sight. (allows sight to pass through).   Anything that is transparent allows light to pass through and also allows sight to pass through.

We can see in the dark, there is just generally nothing to see.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]


If you was to add smoke to the diagram, you would see the incident ray but you would not see any reflective beams to your eyes.  Between your eyes and the dot, the space itself couples your brain to the observation point.

You all think this -

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

and forget in the below diagram that this is what couples everything.

 [ Invalid Attachment ]

[Space Flow]

Photo-receptors in the eye detect wave-lengths of a constant spectral nature ''through'' the coupling of  a variable wave-length of the clear (white light).   White light is not a mixture of frequencies, white light is a variable wave length. Spectral constants a temporal interference pattern of the variable y-axis.
Space is transparent , this allows also ''transparent'' to sight. (allows sight to pass through).   Anything that is transparent allows light to pass through and also allows sight to pass through.

You have some strange ideas..
I like that. Not saying I agree with them, but I like the thinking outside "Thebox".
Still pretty strange though... Hard to wrap understanding around...

[guest39538]

You have some strange ideas..
I like that. Not saying I agree with them, but I like the thinking outside "Thebox".
Still pretty strange though... Hard to wrap understanding around...

I only understand it because it is my own idea, I understand it is hard to imagine or vision, if you can imagine being submerged in an ocean, then water is touching your eye ball, if the water was clear, you could see objects ''through''  the water, the water is transparent to sight and light.  The water would be touching your eye ball and touching the object, a coupling between your eye and the object.   
So then advance on that thought and rise above the water into relative space, space touches your eye ball and touches the object , relative to you it is space that is coupling your sight to an object by noticing something of solidity in a vast of ''convertual'' stuff

[GoC]

You have some strange ideas..
I like that. Not saying I agree with them, but I like the thinking outside "Thebox".
Still pretty strange though... Hard to wrap understanding around...

I only understand it because it is my own idea, I understand it is hard to imagine or vision, if you can imagine being submerged in an ocean, then water is touching your eye ball, if the water was clear, you could see objects ''through''  the water, the water is transparent to sight and light.  The water would be touching your eye ball and touching the object, a coupling between your eye and the object.   
So then advance on that thought and rise above the water into relative space, space touches your eye ball and touches the object , relative to you it is space that is coupling your sight to an object by noticing something of solidity in a vast of ''convertual'' stuff

An image only couples to your eye when the image reaches your eye and your brain creates the image. The image moves to you. In space where there is no light your photo receptors are not engaged and remain blank. Nothing reaches out from your eye to couple. Its Relativity of simultaneity.

[guest39538]

An image only couples to your eye when the image reaches your eye and your brain creates the image. The image moves to you. In space where there is no light your photo receptors are not engaged and remain blank. Nothing reaches out from your eye to couple. Its Relativity of simultaneity.

That is the misconception IMO,   it has to be light to see an object interacting with light, the light does not reflect in you eyes, only a glare reflects light directly into your eyes. 
Have you got a light on a dimmer switch?   turn it down to as low as it will go, observe most colour vanishes, observe space becomes ''opaque/translucent to sight''.
Like I have said it before, you actually see in the dark you just don't realise that it is always dark.

A logical sentence to say when you turn the dimmer switch back up, light allows me to see through the dark/in the dark.


When you change the output of the light by the dimmer, to make the room ''brighter'', you have not changed the dark, you have added energy to give you 100% night vision.

[GoC]

Ok

[Space Flow]

Ok

LOL!!!

[guest39538]

Ok

I understand the Ok, it does sound like a vivid imagination, however can you answer this?


Can science prove that light exists externally, beyond  the human experience of the brain ? 

I believe the answer is no.

[GoC]

I understand the Ok, it does sound like a vivid imagination, however can you answer this?Can science prove that light exists externally, beyond  the human experience of the brain ?  I believe the answer is no.

Can you prove you are alive? We can only have a statistical understanding of results and never prove anything.

light appears to exist in space as a traveling wave at constant speed. We infer that by measuring and detecting a light event. The image of those wavelengths is an orthogonal detection mechanism used by the brain. Proof is a condition of understanding the question. I am never sure we understand the questions in physics we are asking.

Statistically we can create and measure what we consider a light event through space. The measured distance would not be accurate to all frames but the light speed in all frames would be measured to be the same speed of light, confounding the distance with the frames tick rate of clocks duration for its second.

The brain has its own clock speed of synapsis firing.

[guest39538]

Can you prove you are alive?

yes we can prove we are conscious and aware (alive), we as animals can change velocity, no other things in the Universe has this choice. Other things go where ever the physics  commands them to go, we go were we can travel opposing forces etc. We are detached from everything else, we are different to everything else, we do not belong here in this universe, we are the only oddities.

[GoC]

Can you prove you are alive?

yes we can prove we are conscious and aware (alive), we as animals can change velocity, no other things in the Universe has this choice. Other things go where ever the physics  commands them to go, we go were we can travel opposing forces etc. We are detached from everything else, we are different to everything else, we do not belong here in this universe, we are the only oddities.

We do not do anything to break the laws of physics. We create a force to counter resistance using physics. We are no different than a computer controlled machine. Like all computers we have to wait for the light of the sun to reach our pupils to receive the information about the suns position in the past. Each still frame is a wavelength thick. We view a motion picture by receiving still frames at the speed of light.

[guest39538]

We do not do anything to break the laws of physics. We create a force to counter resistance using physics. We are no different than a computer controlled machine. Like all computers we have to wait for the light of the sun to reach our pupils to receive the information about the suns position in the past. Each still frame is a wavelength thick. We view a motion picture by receiving still frames at the speed of light.

We create inferior machines based on our own minds, we are nothing like a machine, we break every law of physics, we have choice, a rock does not.    Yes information is received by the brain by the use of the Electromagnetic radiation clear constant we are ''submerged'' in while we perceive it to be light. nobody can prove ''light'' exists externally outside the brain as light, it could be darkness outside of our brains.


Einstein considered light from a distance planet taking ''time'' to travel , so reconciled that we were not actually seeing the planet in its exact geometrical location, but what Einstein did not consider that the light from the observer takes the exact same time to travel to the planet, cancelling out any ''time'' discrepancies of position future. If you travelled to the planet you would arrive at the planet in the near future, however if you transported there at an instant, you would still be in the now moment and not a future,

the only conceivable future is that of another reasoning, if there was a sister planet to the earth that was lets say 1000,000,000 years older than Earth, the people there would be more evolved and a future us.

[GoC]

We create inferior machines based on our own minds, we are nothing like a machine, we break every law of physics, we have choice, a rock does not.

We are getting off subject. Obviously self aware does not violate physics and a computer is much faster at math then I am. My calculation of numbers is inferior to a computer.

  Yes information is received by the brain by the use of the Electromagnetic radiation clear constant we are ''submerged'' in while we perceive it to be light. nobody can prove ''light'' exists externally outside the brain as light, it could be darkness outside of our brains.

While that may be true or not our reality is light propagates from one wave creation event through space to a detection event (our brain ). Our brain transfers the waves into images as pictures avoiding the true emptiness of space between atoms.

Einstein considered light from a distance planet taking ''time'' to travel , so reconciled that we were not actually seeing the planet in its exact geometrical location, but what Einstein did not consider that the light from the observer takes the exact same time to travel to the planet

Yes and we are both in different positions than when the light left. We view the past position in a different angle than the present when the image left us. We move into the position of view. In the case of the sun if we consider we are perpendicular the light we receive is at different angle than we were in the perpendicular position. This will cause the visual length to contract by viewing the angle different from perpendicular. Simple SoR.

If you travelled to the planet you would arrive at the planet in the near future, however if you transported there at an instant, you would still be in the now moment and not a future,

You are confusing the image of the past with some type of time travel. Watch a movie in the present but it was made in the past. The plot already happened before you view it in your present. We never view anyone's future only their past.

the only conceivable future is that of another reasoning, if there was a sister planet to the earth that was lets say 1000,000,000 years older than Earth, the people there would be more evolved and a future us

Our image viewed by others. We do not exist yet.

[guest39538]

 Obviously self aware does not violate physics and a computer is much faster at math then I am. My calculation of numbers is inferior to a computer.

''is much faster at math then I am'' just no, the computer does not calculate anything, it is programmed to give an answer the computer is programmed to give, programmed by us, a computer does not know that 2+2=4, we tell it to give the answer 4 if anyone ask's.



''Yes and we are both in different positions than when the light left''. again you are not considering the observation linearity,


if you travel left and I travel right, the linearity remains the same of the observation, there is no displacement of the linear observation,




 [ Invalid Attachment ]

[GoC]

if you travel left and I travel right, the linearity remains the same of the observation, there is no displacement of the linear observation,

I suspect you have not learned Simultaneity of Relativity yet. Let me give you an example.

Two trains side by side moving parallel with a metal bar between the two front engines. At rest as much as possible in the universe there are windows with mirrors to view your own image. Now we move the trains physically up to relativistic speeds. The trains are moving to fast to observe light image right across from you. You are moving forward to catch the angle light was reflecting in the forward direction from the parallel train. So each passenger watches the other train fall behind. The first passenger will actually view the front of the others train. The metal bar between trains will appear bent backwards. This will be the visual affect of SoR. Each train moves into the angle of view different than at relative rest.