0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
the natural light of space
Quote from: Thebox on 04/06/2016 08:51:17the natural light of spaceAs this does not exist, it isn't a problem.
The light of the sun is the light of the sun. The light of a torch is the light of a torch. Space contains the sun (and a whole lot of much brighter objects) , the room contains the torch. Space does not emit light, any more than an empty room emits light.
However how can any of these examples be true when any beams of light will surely be ''washed'' out.....
Quote from: Thebox on 04/06/2016 08:51:17However how can any of these examples be true when any beams of light will surely be ''washed'' out.....Clearly this is not true as shown by your own experiment - in the photograph the laser dot is not washed out by the light needed to take the photograph.You see the dot on the wall because light from the dot is reflected off the wall and enters your eye (which is where you 'see' it).You do not see the beam because there is no reflective substance in the beam's path (air and vacuum are transparent to light). If something reflective was in the beam's path eg smoke then it would reflect light from the beam into your eye and you would see the path of the beam.
Quite clearly you have changed my question and replied about the dot and not replied about the actual beams being ''washed'' out. You do not see the beam because it is ''washed'' out .
There is plenty of evidence that light is reflected from a brick.
I will re-phrase and state you are avoiding the actual question and replying with none factual ''waffle''. There is no evidence that a ''brick'' reflects light and creates a reflective ray, please provide this said evidence?
There is no evidence that suggests we do not see an object in it's exact geometrical position, please provide any evidence contrary to this?
You are clearly avoiding the actual question, do you or do you not see beams of light or lasers being emitted from a rocket ship like the analogies suggest?
Please stop being so rude on a subject you clearly do not understand. I can see why Alan stopped answering you, and I intend to follow his lead.
If you shine a bright light on a brick and hold a piece of paper nearby you will see the colour reflected onto the paper. Think how children play "do you like butter" with a buttercup, the yellow colour is light reflected onto the chin from the buttercup - most children learn this simple principle early on in their lives.
I never said there was. However, remember that geometrical position is defined by the space-time coordinates of the object.
No one suggests they are seen. You cannot see a bullet in flight, but you can draw a diagram with lines showing its flight path.
Now, stop accusing people of avoiding the question and try to learn.
"Yes indeed abstract lines that mean nothing in reality or have affect on reality and physical process"So, I draw a map showing the path of a bullet from gun to target and show it to you, halfway along the path is an X. Would you be willing to stand at X when the gun is fired and say that abstract lines have no effect on reality?If you intend to develop a theory of "an invert process or some sort of ''coupling'' by the ''gin-clear'' " , then you need to post it in New Theories. Until then reflected light remains unchallenged.Anyway, I'm off to enjoy an afternoon out. Might involve buttercups. 
Until then reflected light remains unchallenged.
from: colinI never said there was. However, remember that geometrical position is defined by the space-time coordinates of the object.