Do We See Light In The Space Between Objects?

[pzkpfw]

An honest answer, we do not directly observe/see photons in space, ok good we are in agreement of something. 

 

 

For the moment can we forget about Photons being detected by the eyes and discuss the above?

 

 

Would you agree that when you don't see photons in ''empty'' space, you see ''empty space'' as an ''empty'' whole?

 

 

Please regard the question and answer on what you see around you..

That seems bizarre philosophy, not physics.

 

I don't see empty space, because I can't see empty space.

 

I may know that space is there (i.e. from distance between me and other stuff), but that's not the same as seeing it.

 

Put a box in that space, maybe I'll see that box.

 

(All of my answers have been "honest". If anyone here has been dishonest, it's you. You come in with a question, then later it's clear you really just want to push a view.)

Edited June 15, 2016 by pzkpfw

[billvon]

You are just repeating what Pv said, however your post give me a question, if you claim you can only see light that enters your eyes, then how can you conclude it takes 8 minutes to arrive when you are saying that you can't see outside of your head?

Because we can measure things without seeing them.  For example:

 

We could run an experiment where a radio transmitter sends a ping when it sees a pulse of light leave the Sun.  Then we could have a second transmitter send a ping when that light arrives at Earth.  If we position a receiver halfway between the two transmitters (so that the additional delays cancel out) we will see that the first ping happened eight minutes before the second ping.

 

Or, to do it more simply, we could send a laser pulse to the reflector that the Apollo astronauts left on the Moon.  With a strong enough telescope, we will see the light arrive back here on Earth 2.4 seconds after we sent it (1.2 seconds each way.)  Note that we will NOT see the photons "on the way there" or "on the way back" until they actually hit our eyes (or a detector that we use in place of our eyes.)

[xyz]

That seems bizarre philosophy, not physics.

 

I don't see empty space, because I can't see empty space.

 

I may know that space is there (i.e. from distance between me and other stuff), but that's not the same as seeing it.

 

Put a box in that space, maybe I'll see that box.

 

(All of my answers have been "honest". If anyone here has been dishonest, it's you. You come in with a question, then later it's clear you really just want to push a view.)

I have not strayed off topic , I do not know why you say I am trying to push a view, I have asked questions and not made any view other than in question format. 

 

Your answer of - ''I don't see empty space, because I can't see empty space,''  is contradictory to your earlier reply when you agreed you see ''gin-clear'' space.  ''The air between is "gin clear", it's allowing those photons to travel. '' (post 14)

 

 

You also say ''we don't see photons in ''empty'' space, recognising the fact of ''empty'' then you deny seeing ''empty'' space.

 

 

 

Also observation is not philosophy. 

 

 

Ok, there is a shadow at a distance away from me, I can see that shadow, how can I see a shadow that is away from me if I can not see the space between me  and the shadow?

 

If you can't see space, how do you know space is not dark?

Edited June 16, 2016 by xyz

[pzkpfw]

I have not strayed off topic , I do not know why you say I am trying to push a view, I have asked questions and not made any view other that in question format.

No, you start off with a question, but then reject answers and insist on your question - you clearly have an answer you prefer. Using the "question format" doesn't hide your agenda.

 

Your answer of - ''I don't see empty space, because I can't see empty space,'' is contradictory to your earlier reply when you agreed you see ''gin-clear'' space.  ''The air between is "gin clear", it's allowing those photons to travel. '' (post 14)

There's no contradiction. Empty space allows photons to travel from some distant object to me. I see by detecting those photons, and those photons come from that distant object, unaffected by the space between. I didn't see that space between.

 

The point of the "gin clear" (your words) space, is that you can't see it.

 

Also observation is not philosophy.

Your interpretation of the observation is verging on philosophy. You may as well be asking the tree-falls-in-a-forest-and-no-one-there-to-hear-it canard. Edited June 16, 2016 by pzkpfw

[pzkpfw]

... 

You also say ''we don't see photons in ''empty'' space, recognising the fact of ''empty'' then you deny seeing ''empty'' space.

...

That's the strangest thing about your assertions.

 

You think that something we can't see, is proof we can see it. The contradiction is all yours.

 

 

I can recognise there's empty space between me and a distant object, by the fact that it's distant and nothing in-between has interrupted the photons from it that hit my eye.

 

But I'm not directly observing that empty space. I can only observe by photons hitting my eye, and the empty space itself isn't sending photons to me.

 

It is allowing photons from that distant object to pass through, so I know the empty space is there; but again, I'm not actually seeing it.

 

I'm not even seeing photons in that space. e.g. if photons from some other object are crossing that same space, but don't come to my eye - I won't see those photons; I won't see that object.

[xyz]

That's the strangest thing about your assertions.

 

You think that something we can't see, is proof we can see it. The contradiction is all yours.

 

 

I can recognise there's empty space between me and a distant object, by the fact that it's distant and nothing in-between has interrupted the photons from it that hit my eye.

 

But I'm not directly observing that empty space. I can only observe by photons hitting my eye, and the empty space itself isn't sending photons to me.

 

It is allowing photons from that distant object to pass through, so I know the empty space is there; but again, I'm not actually seeing it.

 

I'm not even seeing photons in that space. e.g. if photons from some other object are crossing that same space, but don't come to my eye - I won't see those photons; I won't see that object.

If you are not directly observing the ''empty'' space , then how can you conclude it is ''empty''?

 

From what you are telling me, I interpret this information of that you do not know what is going on outside of our head, it is contradictory to say it is empty then say but you can't actually see it is empty.   

 

Do you see it as being light outside of your head?

 

If so how do you know if you can't see it?

Edited June 16, 2016 by xyz

[pzkpfw]

If you are not directly observing the ''empty'' space , then how can you conclude it is ''empty''?

Because I can see things on the "other side". Out my window now, I can see a museum that's 200 m away. So I know there is empty air between us. If the air wasn't empty, I'd be seeing that thing, not the museum.

 

From what you are telling me, I interpret this information of that you do not know what is going on outside of our head, it is contradictory to say it is empty then say but you can't actually see it is empty.

I can't parse that.

 

Do you see it as being light outside of your head?

 

If so how do you know if you can't see it?

I don't know what you're getting at here.

 

Light is hitting that museum, some of the light is reflected to me and enters my eye. My brain says "there's a museum". (Te Papa).

 

If light wasn't hitting the museum, so wasn't reflected to my eyes, I couldn't see it. (I might remember it's there).

 

Light, while "outside my head", can not be interpreted by me. I need the light to get into my eye.

 

Light half-way between me and an object, even if it's coming from that object, cannot have any effect on me.

[pzkpfw]

It seems part of the problem you're having, is that "see" has at least two meanings.

1. The literal sense, of seeing by light entering our eyes. Bob says to Alice, "I see you dyed your hair red", because he literally sees the red light.

2. The subjective sense, sort of meaning "to know". Bob says to Alice, "I see you are angry today", because he has picked up audio clues (she slammed the door); but he can't see an actual neon sign above her head that's written "I am angry".

 

Because you talk about photons and such, we all take you to be using the 1st (literal) sense. But then you turn around and seem to apply the 2nd (subjective) sense.

 

You need to be consistent.

 

Yes, I can "see" (in the subjective sense) the empty space between me and some object, by interpreting the facts such as being able to see it (the object), and it's distance. But I cannot literally see that empty space - it's empty.

Edited June 16, 2016 by pzkpfw

[xyz]

Because I can see things on the "other side". Out my window now, I can see a museum that's 200 m away. So I know there is empty air between us. If the air wasn't empty, I'd be seeing that thing, not the museum.

 

 

I can't parse that.

 

 

I don't know what you're getting at here.

 

Light is hitting that museum, some of the light is reflected to me and enters my eye. My brain says "there's a museum". (Te Papa).

 

If light wasn't hitting the museum, so wasn't reflected to my eyes, I couldn't see it. (I might remember it's there).

 

Light, while "outside my head", can not be interpreted by me. I need the light to get into my eye.

 

Light half-way between me and an object, even if it's coming from that object, cannot have any effect on me.

''Because I can see things on the "other side". Out my window now, I can see a museum that's 200 m away. So I know there is empty air between us. If the air wasn't empty, I'd be seeing that thing, not the museum.''

 

''I don't see empty space, because I can't see empty space.''

 

I am sorry but you claim you don't see empty space but then claim you know it is empty, it is a contradictory answer and it is confusing me.

 

 

You say  - 

'

''Light half-way between me and an object, even if it's coming from that object, cannot have any effect on me.''

 

 

 

If the ''light'' was not in that space between you and the object it would be dark in that space?

[xyz]

 

Yes, I can "see" (in the subjective sense) the empty space between me and some object, by interpreting the facts such as being able to see it (the object), and it's distance. But I cannot literally see that empty space - it's empty.

good, thanks

[pzkpfw]

''Light half-way between me and an object, even if it's coming from that object, cannot have any effect on me.''

  

If the ''light'' was not in that space between you and the object it would be dark in that space?

Asking that question shows you are still not "getting it". It doesn't really make sense.

 

 

 

(Please stop using random colors and sizes, it's making it very hard to reply to you. Just learn to use quote tags as the forum software expects.)

[xyz]

Asking that question shows you are still not "getting it". It doesn't really make sense.

 

 

 

(Please stop using random colors and sizes, it's making it very hard to reply to you. Just learn to use quote tags as the forum software expects.)

I am trying, this forum quote system is a bit unfamiliar. 

 

I am also rushing a bit sorry, I have to go work in a while and I love to talk science.

 

Subjectively in the space where there is an absence of light it is subjectively dark?

[pzkpfw]

I am trying, this forum quote system is a bit unfamiliar. 

 

I am also rushing a bit sorry, I have to go work in a while and I love to talk science.

 

Subjectively in the space where there is an absence of light it is subjectively dark?

If light is passing through an empty area of space, it may well be considered "dark", because you won't see that light.

 

But stick some object in that area, and the light will hit it, and some will reflect to your eyes - and you'll see that object. Now you might well say that area isn't dark.

 

(If there's no light at all, it'll just be dark; but "light" and "dark" sort of lose meaning here.)

Edited June 16, 2016 by pzkpfw

[pzkpfw]

So the reply to your OP remains:

 

There is a clear line of sight between myself and an object, the air is transparent and is also present between my eye and object, do we see light in that space (1) or do we only see light that enters our eyes? (2)

 

Also, I can see distance, between my eye and object I have a clear line of sight, I see the entirety of the spacial distance between eye and object, so why is it said that it takes 8 minutes of time for the light from the sun to arrive (3) and why is it said we observe the Sun in its past (4) if we can quite clearly observe the start point and end point of the clear line of sight of the distance between? (5)

(1) No.

(2) Yes.

 

(1 + 2) We may (literally) see light that has traveled through a space, but only when it reaches our eyes.

 

(3) Because light takes time to travel. It's speed is not "instant". And the Sun is far away.

 

(4) Because it takes time for light to reach you, light entering your eye is light that left the Sun in your past.

 

(5) No. You are imagining "rays" of light as magic strings that "instantly" connect the source with the destination. But light takes time to travel, as individual packets called photons. You do not "clearly observe the start point" as it is now, you observe it as it was when the light left it.

[xyz]

If light is passing through an empty area of space, it may well be considered "dark", because you won't see that light.

 

But stick some object in that area, and the light will hit it, and some will reflect to your eyes - and you'll see that object. Now you might well say that area isn't dark.

I agree that we only observe subjective visual ''light'' in the form of spectral colour when ''light'' interacts with an object and the only ''light'' we observe is that of the object and the relative area of the object. 

 

I agree we don't see the light in space but subjectively we see it as light and not dark, I differ in that I think we see subjectively dark and light occupying empty space interwoven and when there is an absence of light we see subjectively dark space?

[xyz]

 

(5) No. You are imagining "rays" of light as magic strings that "instantly" connect the source with the destination. But light takes time to travel, as individual packets called photons. You do not "clearly observe the start point" as it is now, you observe it as it was when the light left it.

I am not imaging rays of light as magic strings, I am not imagining anything, I am discussing the subjective observation, subjective a word I thank you for. 

 

I observe a subjective whole of ''empty'' space that has objects in it?

 

The ''empty'' is between all objects that are a distance apart?

 

The empty ''connects'' objects?

[pzkpfw]

I agree we don't see the light in space but subjectively we see it as light and not dark, I differ in that I think we see subjectively dark and light occupying empty space interwoven and when there is an absence of light we see subjectively dark space?

Take a look at the sky at night.

 

You can see stars, so clearly there is (or was) light along that line between you and where that star was when it emitted that light.

 

Now look between two stars - it seems "dark", right? But that doesn't necessarily mean an absence of light. If you drew a line from you out to that apparent dark area between those two stars, there's going to be lots and lots of light along that line; it just happens that none of it is going towards you, so none of it hits your eye.

 

That's why the idea of "dark" and "light" gets tricky to apply in these things. Dark doesn't necessarily mean there's no light there.