Star triangle paradox
- Thread starter Magical Realist
- Start date
No, it's not. It's really pretty simple. You see objects by reflected light. You can't see light that hasn't reached your eyes. It takes a finite amount of time for light to do that. Period.
It is very simple. Consider the eye surrounded by light similar to being submerged in water. If you are submerged in water, how long does it take for the water to reach you?
Consider first the time the brain takes to register. Here is a good example of time the brain takes to register: If suddenly submerged in water with eyes closed, how long does it take the brain to register that there is water submerging you? There is the delay, there is no delay for the physical\reality. Now take this out of the equation in the context of the present discussion.
It depends on how far away any particular water molecule is and how fast it's moving. Do you think all water is one thing?
Then I'm seeing the emission source of that light as it was in the past. The light that's 'already present' started from some distant source and took a certain amount of time to be 'present'.
Yes, that's the only way.
I said water, you are adding "any particular water molecule".
Since light is "already present" do you acknowledge that the amount of light already present is a factor in what we see or how we see?
Dont be so sure.
Last edited:
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
What post numbers? How about pretty much the entire thread..
Perhaps you should reread it all.
Enmos
Valued Senior Member
Your comparison doesn't work.
Do you agree that sound travels?
Do you agree that it takes sound some time to reach you?
It is the same with light. Light just travels much faster. So fast in fact that we don't notice any delay at earthly distances. By earthly distances I mean distances encountered in everyday life; up to a few kilometers or so.
We are assuming it is. It is either on its way to the object or on its way to your eye. If it's not, you won't see it.
Yes. The only way to see is to have light reach your eye.
A few milliseconds as the nerve impulse propagates to your brain. Just as it takes a few milliseconds for impulses from your eye to propagate to your brain. Neither of which can happen until the sensory stimulus (caused either by water or light) occurs.
No. You could be inches from the most powerful laser beam in the world, and if there was nothing to reflect it into your eye, you would not see it.
Janus58
Valued Senior Member
Dont be so sure.[/QUOTE]
It makes no difference. There is no magical connection between the light leaving a distant object at a given moment and the light entering your eye at that same moment, regardless of whether other light fills the space between you and it or not. Any information about the object will not reach you until that particular light travels the distance separating you at c.
If this were not true, radar would not work, and it does.
It makes no difference. There is no magical connection between the light leaving a distant object at a given moment and the light entering your eye at that same moment, regardless of whether other light fills the space between you and it or not. Any information about the object will not reach you until that particular light travels the distance separating you at c.
If this were not true, radar would not work, and it does.
John99:
Forget light for a moment. Let's talk about sound.
Suppose I am 300 metres away from you. You watch me clap my hands (from where you are).
Do you think you will hear the sound of the clap instantaneously (i.e. at approximately the same time you see the clap)? Or will there be a delay before you hear the clap? (Bear in mind that the speed of sound in air is about 300 metres per second.)
Going back to light, then, and given that the speed of light is about 300,000,000 metres per second, do you think that there might also be a delay between the time I clap my hands and the time you see the clap?
Because there are thousands of experiments done every day that show that there is a delay. I've even done a few myself. Even before electricity was available, people knew there was a delay, for example, by observing the timing of eclipses.
The delay has nothing to do with eyes.
Yes, let's. The measured speed of light is 300,000,000 metres per second. How long does it take light to travel 1 metre, John99?
You have been told over and over again that the speed of light is finite and therefore there must be a delay. That is an explanation. If you wish to refute that piece of common knowledge, you must provide evidence that supports your alternative view. Failing that, you will retract your baseless claim.
The eye is not "surrounded by light". All light travels at 300,000,000 metres per second. It cannot sit still in one place like water does. There's no such thing as stationary light.
Forget light for a moment. Let's talk about sound.
Suppose I am 300 metres away from you. You watch me clap my hands (from where you are).
Do you think you will hear the sound of the clap instantaneously (i.e. at approximately the same time you see the clap)? Or will there be a delay before you hear the clap? (Bear in mind that the speed of sound in air is about 300 metres per second.)
Going back to light, then, and given that the speed of light is about 300,000,000 metres per second, do you think that there might also be a delay between the time I clap my hands and the time you see the clap?
Because there are thousands of experiments done every day that show that there is a delay. I've even done a few myself. Even before electricity was available, people knew there was a delay, for example, by observing the timing of eclipses.
The delay has nothing to do with eyes.
Yes, let's. The measured speed of light is 300,000,000 metres per second. How long does it take light to travel 1 metre, John99?
You have been told over and over again that the speed of light is finite and therefore there must be a delay. That is an explanation. If you wish to refute that piece of common knowledge, you must provide evidence that supports your alternative view. Failing that, you will retract your baseless claim.
The eye is not "surrounded by light". All light travels at 300,000,000 metres per second. It cannot sit still in one place like water does. There's no such thing as stationary light.
It makes no difference. There is no magical connection between the light leaving a distant object at a given moment and the light entering your eye at that same moment, regardless of whether other light fills the space between you and it or not. Any information about the object will not reach you until that particular light travels the distance separating you at c.
[/QUOTE]
So you dont think ambient light has any effect, one way or another?
You dont think there is a connection when the eye focuses on a particular object?
Does light travel faster from reflected objects as opposed to matte?
I believe i asked a good question involving a mirror and that has not been answered?
So although not the xact question, let me ask: What effect do mirrors have on light travel? Just for curiosity sake.
What i am trying to understand is hwat happens when the light from a specific object reaches the destination, in this case the destination is the human eye. Once the light reaches the eye there is a connection, like a superhighway of light, therefore any changes emanating from the object are no longer reliant on the light coming from the object because the object is seen, as though locked in. Even still, is the light really traveling from the object? Or does this traveling of light, in reality, take place one time? Consider a steady stream of light or perhaps a bridge of light.
Last edited:
Not on whether you see a specific object. Again, you can be looking at an object through the most powerful laser beam in the world. But if nothing is reflecting the beam into your eyes, you will not see the laser - only the reflected light of the object.
No, your eyes are passive sensors. No "connection" is made. Either your eye receives the reflected light from the object or it doesn't.
No. Light always travels the same speed.
They reflect light. They don't change how fast it travels or how it propagates once it leaves the mirror.
No, there is no change in the light once it reaches your eye (or a camera, or a photocell.) No linkage or "superhighway."
Nothing is "locked in." You're still just seeing the reflected light of the object.
Again you can test this for yourself. Aim a camera at an object and record it. Now look at the object, then look away. The recording will not show any change in the light from the object.
Yes.
Magic, ive read the entire thread now...OMG its long...
how ever to me at least, it seems that u overlook the more factual statements made by some of the "Answer posters."
some wich say it in a very simpel yet precise way...( i understood it so hence its simply explained.)
You keep disputing the fact that light has a travel time...
Even the light from our own sun is 8min old wen we see it... Hence the
rotation of the sun is persived by us in an 8 min differential..
so if we see sun dot A in spot X1 now, were we could calc' it to be in 8 min is were it actually is.
Your entire question went of the rails, cuz u seem to deny the fact that
theres a diffrence between the travel time of light, reality and motion.
And to take one of your lesser arguments..the DOOR one...
YES I SEE THE DOOR!... the distance it is from me is so small that the travel
time of light aint in affect.
'The star 100 lightyears awaye.. is in the position we can calculate it is by motion, were we would see the light in 1oo years.
how ever to me at least, it seems that u overlook the more factual statements made by some of the "Answer posters."
some wich say it in a very simpel yet precise way...( i understood it so hence its simply explained.)
You keep disputing the fact that light has a travel time...
Even the light from our own sun is 8min old wen we see it... Hence the
rotation of the sun is persived by us in an 8 min differential..
so if we see sun dot A in spot X1 now, were we could calc' it to be in 8 min is were it actually is.
Your entire question went of the rails, cuz u seem to deny the fact that
theres a diffrence between the travel time of light, reality and motion.
And to take one of your lesser arguments..the DOOR one...
YES I SEE THE DOOR!... the distance it is from me is so small that the travel
time of light aint in affect.
'The star 100 lightyears awaye.. is in the position we can calculate it is by motion, were we would see the light in 1oo years.
James, I think I can answer those questions. I just got home and i am pumped up, need to unwind.. These things you have to be in the mood, the right frame of mind. You didn't acknowledge my last post either. I dont think this is fair, you said next time i log in, but i'm tired. Well this is it. The end. They killed me.
Put out the cheese and i went for it. Not that i blame anyone, i had fun, thinking, exploring all avenues of the universe...where will this take us?
...i cant...exhausted. I gave everything. oh, it's in there. It's in the grey marble.
To be fair give me until Wednesday. What if some of these things i said are correct? Well either way, i imagine they are original, meaning i own these ideas forever.
Well James' green light is on. Thats it for me.
Put out the cheese and i went for it. Not that i blame anyone, i had fun, thinking, exploring all avenues of the universe...where will this take us?
...i cant...exhausted. I gave everything. oh, it's in there. It's in the grey marble.
To be fair give me until Wednesday. What if some of these things i said are correct? Well either way, i imagine they are original, meaning i own these ideas forever.
Well James' green light is on. Thats it for me.
Last edited: