Star triangle paradox

Motor Daddy lives in his own little universe, where things like actual measurement and experiments take a backseat to his drawings.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Oh yeah. Just a little exploration.

Let me ask:

Is an sound echo like a light reflection?

Will a reflection reflect (bounce) indefinitely across multiple mirrors?

How much light is absorbed by the mirror?

" white painted surface?

" black painted Surface?

How about if the surface is smooth or is rough with bumps?

Oh, why are reflector covers rough? iow's, what do the bumps achieve? Scatter the light to produce a glowing effect i would say.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Still avoiding answering John?

Let me remind that over a month ago you claimed:
James, I think I can answer those questions.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.php?p=2793752&postcount=340

You have yet to do so.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Lets go back to the more rudimentary flash light.

I turn the light on...

it travels.

That is a given. Why does tat speed effect the time i see the light? Why is my vision tied into the time\speed of the light?

What if the light is entirely unidirectional laser pointing perpendicularly left to right?

Can my vision be faster than the laser?

See that is my issue here. Just because the light has speed why assume my vision is dependent on that speed?

Why is there the assumption from the members that the light is even entering my eye (from the laser pointed perpendicularly?

 

Correct.

Because light is what you see by.

Because without light there is no vision.

If there's no scattering (i.e. entirely unidirectional) then you see nothing.

What exactly do you think "vision" is?

What do you think "vision" is?

If there is no light there is no vision. Light is what you see by. Vision is the impinging of photons (light) on the eye.
(And associated clap-trap of it getting into the brain).


You seem to be under the impression that vision is something that's nothing whatsoever to do with light.

 

Why is this totally nonsensical argument still going on?

 

It's no different than me throwing baseballs at you.

I always throw the ball at 100 MPH at you. You are 100 miles away from me. I throw the ball at 12:00 and it hits you at 1:00. The ball traveled 100 miles in one hour. I threw the ball at 12:00 and it hit you at 1:00. There is a one hour delay from the time I throw the ball until the time it hits you. You don't feel the ball hit you until 1:00, just as you don't see the light until it hits your eye.

Same with light, except light always travels at c, which is 299,792,458 m/s.

 

Hi,

That is a good analogy. Only thing is i would see the ball long before it hit me.

Let me ask:

Does the luminance of the ball enable me to see it faster or only better?

If the ball was glowing white i would see the ball further away as opposed to if it were a regular ball. My question is is this confusing people to the point they equate the ability to see the ball with the speed of light?

 

In some ways, yes.

With ideal mirrors, yes. In the real world, no.

Depends on the mirror. (And if it's a painted surface, depends on the surface.)

Because you can't see light until it reaches you.

Then you won't see it at all (in a perfect vacuum, no reflective surfaces etc) because none of the light reaches you.

No.

It's not, so you can't see it.

 

Right, you would see the ball long before it hit you, but you would not see the ball traveling at 12:00, you would see the ball traveling after 12:00, because it takes time for the light to hit you, just as it takes time for the ball to hit you.

More balls hitting at the same time hurts you more, it doesn't mean the balls hit you sooner. Same with light. More light hitting you means it appears brighter to your eye, it doesn't mean it got there sooner.

 

Um, not if light travelled at 100 mph. And feeling the impact was "seeing" it. Which was the analogy...

Better. Only "faster" if you mean "pick it out from the background sooner".

Yes, because it would be giving off more light.

Apparently you can become confused about nearly anything.

 

For the analogy to work the receiver of the ball is blind.

 

Still no actual reply John?
Still avoiding the point?

 

Exactly. In relation to speed, however, is the light actually hitting my eye?

You just said:

Let me ask you:

If an object were moving in total darkness would it be moving slower than if it were lighted or in voluminous lumination?

 

Waht do you think i am doing now?

 

Avoiding the point.
Not actually answering the question.
Not providing any support for your argument.

NOT DOING WHAT YOU SAID YOU COULD.
James, I think I can answer those questions.
http://www.sciforums.com/showpost.ph...&postcount=340

 

What?
If it doesn't hit your eye you don't see it.

Irrelevant.
The object IS the light in the anaolgy.

 

Yes, the light is atually hitting your eye. And is absorbed by the cones and rods, and causes biochemical changes in the nerves, which is transmitted to the optical center of whatever it is you use in place of a brain, which is then interpreted as sight.

And it actually takes time for the light to travel from whatever is emitting or reflecting it to your eye.

 

Yes, the light is hitting your retina, which sends a signal to your brain via the optic nerve.

Are you asking would a baseball that is traveling 100 MPH be traveling faster or slower than 100 MPH depending on if it's a cloudy day or bright sunny day?

100 MPH is 100 MPH.

 

So then i dont understand how my vision can be tied into the illumination. This is very complicated.