Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

How Does A Green Apple Turn To Red?

light

  • Please log in to reply
106 replies to this topic

#103 xyz

xyz

    Explaining

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 540 posts

Posted 27 June 2016 - 01:57 AM

Imagine a distant clock that uses LED seven-segment displays.

If that clock were switched on, by your "tip" or "leader" comment, and your agreement that light has a speed; would you agree that you'd see that clock some time later?

e.g. a clock is 1 AU away, and is switched on, showing "12:00" by default. Will it take 8 minutes for the "tip" or "leader" of the light showing "12:00" to get from the clock to you?

(
Edit: to not let you feel an ambush is coming, I'll point out in advance:
1. If you don't agree with this so far, I'd have to go back to the "agree that light has a speed" and "considering the ''tip'' or the ''leader'' of the stream" parts of your post to see what you really mean.
or
2. If you do agree with this so far, I'd be pointing out two contradictions that come up from your use of "but only when".
)

.

Good question and I agree there would be a contradiction , but you have not considered all the parameters. 

 

 

start...darkness.......end

 

or

 

 

start...already light.........end

 

My point being the speed of light and views about sight are all based on the travelling of the ''tip''  and do not account for the already existing constant gin-clear that already fills the space. 

 

How does your view hold up when the ''tips'' are already at the destination and there is a clear line of sight from the start to the end and the light extends already between the start and finish for the entirety of the length?

 

 

The subjective thought of a travelling tip/photon is not ''imagined'' in the dark, it is imagined travelling through ''daylight''. 



#104 pzkpfw

pzkpfw

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 180 posts

Posted 27 June 2016 - 02:41 AM

Good question and I agree there would be a contradiction , but you have not considered all the parameters. 

start...darkness.......end
 
or

start...already light.........end
 
My point being the speed of light and views about sight are all based on the travelling of the ''tip''  and do not account for the already existing constant gin-clear that already fills the space.


Pretty much what I figured you'd say. I've seen before you have this magic-ribbon view of light, where once there's light in a "gin clear" space any information is then instantly transmitted.

How does your view hold up when the ''tips'' are already at the destination and there is a clear line of sight from the start to the end and the light extends already between the start and finish for the entirety of the length?


I'll answer this bit, and show how your view is contradictory, when you give a clear answer to the first bit ...

When that clock is 1 AU away, will the viewer see the "12:00", of the just-turned on clock, after 8 minutes? I.e. when your "tip" reaches them.

#105 xyz

xyz

    Explaining

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 540 posts

Posted 27 June 2016 - 04:24 AM

Pretty much what I figured you'd say. I've seen before you have this magic-ribbon view of light, where once there's light in a "gin clear" space any information is then instantly transmitted.


I'll answer this bit, and show how your view is contradictory, when you give a clear answer to the first bit ...

When that clock is 1 AU away, will the viewer see the "12:00", of the just-turned on clock, after 8 minutes? I.e. when your "tip" reaches them.

 

It is not a magic ribbon view of light I have, it is a connectivity whole view and the coupling of our brains and sight to all matter by the existing whole of light. 

 

 

The viewer will not see the clock it would be dark until they turned on the clock, if it is already light and you turned on the clock at default 12:00am, the viewer see's 12:00am because the light is already there to begin with and you can see the start and end point of the distance between because of the ''gin-clear''. (You see both ends of the ''tips'' simultaneously)

 

I think I would have to agree though  that the clock would show 12:08 if it was switched on in the dark 1 Au away, however the Earth clock would also show 12:08am if synchronised with the distance clock, it cancels it out with no net time difference. 


Edited by xyz, 27 June 2016 - 04:30 AM.


#106 pzkpfw

pzkpfw

    Questioning

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 180 posts

Posted 27 June 2016 - 05:35 AM

It is not a magic ribbon view of light I have, it is a connectivity whole view and the coupling of our brains and sight to all matter by the existing whole of light.


To work the way you want it to, it is counter to everything we've learned about light over the last few hundred years.
 

The viewer will not see the clock it would be dark until they turned on the clock, if it is already light and you turned on the clock at default 12:00am, the viewer see's 12:00am because the light is already there to begin with and you can see the start and end point of the distance between because of the ''gin-clear''. (You see both ends of the ''tips'' simultaneously)


That makes absolutely no sense. Light is how we see things, but you treat it as a medium over which information somehow travels - at infinite speed. No experiment can show this.
 

I think I would have to agree though  that the clock would show 12:08 if it was switched on in the dark 1 Au away, however the Earth clock would also show 12:08am if synchronised with the distance clock, it cancels it out with no net time difference.


That doesn't make sense either. Nor are you "agreeing", because you describe something different. If the distant clock was switched on, and it's first numbers were "12:00", those would be the numbers you first see on it, not "12:08". At the time you see it, the clock itself would be showing "12:08" (and so would yours if previously synchronised), because light, which is itself how "sight" works, travels at finite speed ... but you'll never grasp that because you've so fully convinced yourself, with no evidence, of your magic-ribbon view of light.



So, I again see this is hopeless. I give up (again).

Enjoy another few years of shouting into the darkness.

Edited by pzkpfw, 27 June 2016 - 05:36 AM.


#107 xyz

xyz

    Explaining

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 540 posts

Posted 27 June 2016 - 06:19 AM

To work the way you want it to, it is counter to everything we've learned about light over the last few hundred years.

It is not counter, over the last few hundred years we have learnt to convert and manipulate the light, what we have is the brilliance of invention but all the same it is observer effect and not the natural nature of how light works.
 

That makes absolutely no sense. Light is how we see things, but you treat it as a medium over which information somehow travels - at infinite speed. No experiment can show this.

Not quite, I treat light as a medium for sight that allows sight to obtain information at an infinite speed.
Consider being underwater and looking to the edge of the swimming pool, you can see the water goes all the way from you to the edge of the pool,
 

That doesn't make sense either. Nor are you "agreeing", because you describe something different. If the distant clock was switched on, and it's first numbers were "12:00", those would be the numbers you first see on it, not "12:08". At the time you see it, the clock itself would be showing "12:08" (and so would yours if previously synchronised), because light, which is itself how "sight" works, travels at finite speed ... but you'll never grasp that because you've so fully convinced yourself, with no evidence, of your magic-ribbon view of light.

So, I again see this is hopeless. I give up (again).

Enjoy another few years of shouting into the darkness.

You have misread.



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: light