Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Do We See Light In The Space Between Objects?

light

  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#35 pzkpfw

pzkpfw

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 180 posts

Posted 15 June 2016 - 11:13 PM

Same thing with the security laser again.

In a "dark" room, shine a laser at a wall. You might see the spot on the wall. But you won't see the laser beam itself (unless you have dust or mist in the room).

Between the laser and the spot on the wall, is it light or dark?

#36 pzkpfw

pzkpfw

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 180 posts

Posted 15 June 2016 - 11:17 PM

On a "dark" night, A:Alice shines a laser at B:Bobs eyes.

C:Craig is trying to find D:Debbie.
 
       D


A -----------> B


       C
Bob says "ouch, that's too bright".

Craig says "it's too dark, I can't see Debbie".

There is strong laser light right in front of Craig, but he can't see it.

Is the space in front of Craig light or dark?

Edited by pzkpfw, 15 June 2016 - 11:19 PM.


#37 xyz

xyz

    Explaining

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 540 posts

Posted 15 June 2016 - 11:17 PM

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.

That is correct, I would not think for one minute that it was dark between stars, relative darkness and real darkness are two very different things. 

 

 

Also if you drew a line to that area , let us call it vector x, starting with your location marked 0, the end point would have to be marked var(x) on the basis of we can only observe objects within a boundary.

 

X=(a) to var(x)

 

Sorry t here is no maths aid on this forum to do the proper symbols



#38 xyz

xyz

    Explaining

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 540 posts

Posted 15 June 2016 - 11:19 PM

On a "dark" night, A:Alice shines a laser at B:Bobs eyes.

C:Craig is trying to find D:Debbie.
 

       D


A -----------> B


       C
Bob says "ouch, that's too bright".

Craig says "it's dark, I can't see Debbie".

There is strong laser light right in front of Craig, but he can't see it.

Is the space in front of Craig light or dark?

 

It is both you just cant ''see'' the cbmr, it is a subjective relative experience. 


Edited by xyz, 15 June 2016 - 11:20 PM.


#39 pzkpfw

pzkpfw

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 180 posts

Posted 15 June 2016 - 11:21 PM

It is both you just cant ''see'' the cbmr, it is a subjective relative experience.


What's cbmr?

... and, what do you now think of your original question?

#40 xyz

xyz

    Explaining

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 540 posts

Posted 15 June 2016 - 11:28 PM

What's cbmr?

... and, what do you now think of your original question?

CBMR is everywhere isn't it, even in a ''dark'' cave?

 

 

I think my original question is getting to an answer and I think you are understanding me , my reason is when you understood see and ''see''. 

 

I think we subjectively ''see'' space to be ''light'' but do not see light in space, a bit confusing but logical sense?



#41 pzkpfw

pzkpfw

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 180 posts

Posted 15 June 2016 - 11:31 PM

Ah, you mean "CMBR". Hardly seems relevant for the level at which this thread is operating.


Do you still think you see things where they are, not where they were? (i.e. Sun, 8 minutes ago).

(See post #31 for my direct response to your OP).

Edited by pzkpfw, 15 June 2016 - 11:32 PM.

  • exchemist likes this

#42 xyz

xyz

    Explaining

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 540 posts

Posted 15 June 2016 - 11:37 PM

Ah, you mean "CMBR". Hardly seems relevant for the level at which this thread is operating.


Do you still think you see things where they are, not where they were? (i.e. Sun, 8 minutes ago).

(See post #31 for my direct response to your OP).

Subjectively I still think we ''see'' everything in its exact location and the whole simultaneously.  However I need to think a bit more now on see. 



#43 pzkpfw

pzkpfw

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 180 posts

Posted 15 June 2016 - 11:39 PM

Subjectively I still think we ''see'' everything in its exact location and the whole simultaneously.  However I need to think a bit more now on see.


100's of years of science shows you to be wrong.

#44 xyz

xyz

    Explaining

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 540 posts

Posted 15 June 2016 - 11:42 PM

100's of years of science shows you to be wrong.

100's years of science that's basis is on see and not based on ''see''. 

 

 

What if the subjective experience was the reality and we do not see in our head but see outside of our  head in our head ?



#45 pzkpfw

pzkpfw

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 180 posts

Posted 15 June 2016 - 11:47 PM

That's kook philosophy; not at all something to be discussed in a physics and math forum.

Actual experiments have shown light speed to be finite. How do you explain that away?

#46 xyz

xyz

    Explaining

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 540 posts

Posted 15 June 2016 - 11:55 PM


Actual experiments have shown light speed to be finite. How do you explain that away?

Measured between two points, what do you mean by how do I explain that?  

 

In the subjective experience I do not observe a speed of light from the Sun to me, the reason! we do not ''see'' photons travelling through space , we visually subjectively observe a Quanta whole of ''emptiness''. 

 

I have not mentioned light speed, I do know light travels but also know that it is the ''tip'' that travels of a ''stream''. I do not observe ''motion'' once the ''light'' reaches it's destination, but I am not really trying to explain the speed of light. 



#47 xyz

xyz

    Explaining

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 540 posts

Posted 16 June 2016 - 12:07 AM

Thank you for the brilliant conversation, I have to get ready for work now and must log out. 

 

On a final note for the morning, I think that once we open our eyes, the ''light'' in our head becomes adjoined with the external ''light'' whole allowing us to see all the ''information''?



#48 pzkpfw

pzkpfw

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 180 posts

Posted 16 June 2016 - 03:33 AM

At that point you've stepped off the bus, and onto the Unicorn.

I'm out of here.

#49 exchemist

exchemist

    Creating

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2847 posts

Posted 16 June 2016 - 05:00 AM

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.)

It strikes me as noteworthy that xyz has chosen not to respond to your very clear explanation. Perhaps because it leaves so little room for wilful misinterpretation...... 



#50 xyz

xyz

    Explaining

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 540 posts

Posted 16 June 2016 - 06:11 AM

It strikes me as noteworthy that xyz has chosen not to respond to your very clear explanation. Perhaps because it leaves so little room for wilful misinterpretation...... 

The post did not need a response, I am well aware of how ''things'' work which I already explained in a prior post.  There is no wilful misinterpretation on my part, I am asking questions, how is a question a misinterpretation? 

 

My question is do we observe/see light in space, by the replies I now interpret you don't actually see anything in space, you do not see distance or objects, you see pictures in your head, that is what the replies have said to me. 

 

Pv is out because I have asked a question is quite strange...



#51 xyz

xyz

    Explaining

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 540 posts

Posted 16 June 2016 - 06:14 AM

At that point you've stepped off the bus, and onto the Unicorn.

I'm out of here.

Asking a question is stepping off the bus?  

 

So what you are saying is do not ask questions and just accept it, that does not work in my eyes I am afraid, if you are incapable of finding an answer, no worries somebody will come along who is able to answer eventually. 





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: light