[Colin2B]

... 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.

[guest39538]

... 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?

[Ethos_]

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

[guest39538]

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

[Ethos_]

I answered it


 I would reply, you mean measured length don't you.   


approx 56 mile

Now then, answer my question in post#17...........

[guest39538]

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.

[Colin2B]

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

[guest39538]

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,

[Ethos_]

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.

[guest39538]

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.

[Ethos_]

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......................

[guest39538]

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.

[guest39538]

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.

[Arnie O'Dell]

in your diagram at the beginning of the discussion, in the first diagram do I see the object in silhouette?

[guest39538]

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.

[dhjdhj]

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.

[guest39538]

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.

[Arnie O'Dell]

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.

[Ethos_]

 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.

[Arnie O'Dell]

Electrons jumping Eigen states possibly