Do we see objects in their past?

Light has a dual nature...wave and particle: The particle aspect is the quanta of light and we do not see it as a point, for the same reason we do not see atoms, atomic nuclei or electrons as points.
The spectrum or colour of the light is dependent on the reflective properties of the object it is falling on, and that our eyes receive.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I understand there is a wave -particle duality effect, but this is unrelated to how we ''see'. We niether see a wave or particles propagating through space, the visual whole of perceived ''unoccupied'' space is that of, not opaque, We can clearly see dust particles at a length away from our eyes that are opaque, we observe rainbows at a distance (spectral colour) , that are ''visually opaque'' in comparison to the not opaque.

We have agreement that distance and a length away is not an illusion, we are in agreement I think, in that we can ''see'' the entire length between two points and the entire length is ''filled'' with the ''invisible'' photons.

Apparently it seem's we only observe any sort of spectral colour when the ''invisible'' photons interact with an obstruction , a difference we observe than the whole of the , not opaque.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I would like to thank the Moderator for moving to appropriate section.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

yes the speed of something.

Yes 0 is being dispaced, the space-time ''behind'' the space-time. An hidden invariant. Space pushes back because it has to remain an invariant. It pushes back equal to the push.

I can be a bit more blunt now we are in Psuedo, space-time wants to expand into ''space-time'', but ''space-time'' pushes back. Which makes ''space-time'' rotate/curve which makes space-time wave.

 

You agreed also that distance is not an illusion, so please consider now what you have agreed on,


ok , we observe empty space is not opaque, we observe a distance which we know is real, between our eyes and monitor we observe a length of distance that we know is real. In this space, from you to the object and the object to you, is electromagnetic radiation. We see this Electromagnetic radiation in this space to be of no spectral content. We observe the object in its exact location, observing spectral content, we observe the objects length away that we know is real. we can see the entire length of light from the monitor to our eye, but the wave-length has no spectral content that we see.

In short, the distance you are seeing, is what you are seeing. The entirety of what you see is exactly as you see it like a ''live feed''. In another wayof saying it, the world outside your mind is exactly how it is.

we do not observe single photons as if like dots.

all the dots are merged from A to B, we see the entire length of the dots from A to B. that is the ''rod'' I mentioned.

If you move away from the object you ''expand'' the ''width'' of your end of the ''rod'' that contracts the object. If you move closer you ''contract'' the rods ''width''. that enlarges the object

Sorry for being a bit vague, I was trying to save this for my theory, which entails a galaxy ''naked'' singularity .

 

Imagine a cone moving away from you and you can see the circle part, the circle contracts the further it is away from you.

 

I would like to thank him too.
Although one rung further down may have been more appropriate.

 

More nonsense, stemming from your ignorance.

I have measured the length of some photons - they were about 30 cm long. I'm sure you have no idea how that can be done. The very long photons can be several meters long and they always come from rarefied gases. Collisions with other atoms while the photon is being emitted dynamically changes the energy gap between the upper and lower states so the wave lengths of the front part of the photon will differ from that of the later parts of the photon. (This is called "pressure broadening" of the spectral line. In high pressure lamps the radiation is more like a peaked continuum instead of spectral lines.)

The longest photons can not be created by man, but come from the Northern Lights - the common green line is several meters long. There is a fundamental connection between decay times of the upper state and the photon wave length (and expressed in QM's uncertainty principle: the delta t, delta E product) The life time of the Northern light's green line is relatively very large as the transition is actually first order forbidden) I. e. Delta t is very large - when it was emitted is not well determined. So Delta E must be relatively very small. From Fourier theory that implies a huge number of cycles - i. e. very long photons.

Absolute-space knows almost nothing of any of this but with his badly swollen ego, think he can make an alternate theory. Amusing is it not (or perhaps, just sad.)?

 

Over the years, both on sciforums and in real life, I've heard cranks try to argue against a wide range of well-established scientific theories. But until this thread, I'd never heard anyone disagree with the intromission theory of vision.

 

There is a first for everything, the observation is contradictory to the explanation of how we see. Yes we have to have light enter our eyes before we can see, but once the light has entered our eyes, we observe the whole of light. Seeing things in the past can't possibly be true, simple velocity maths showing the simultaneous arrival of photons to each of two linear observers.

y(A)=+ve=c/dx

γ(B)=-ve=c/dx


A-B=0t net difference

 

To answer the thread Title question.
We do not see objects in *their* past, we see objects in *our* past.

 

BINGO!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I accept that correction gladly.

And you most certainly will not be that first!
And no, you are wrong, the observational and experimental data does support the concept that we see objects as they were...100% certain.

 

I am 100% certain you are incorrect, it is contradictory to observation and maths.

 

Who are you trying to convince?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

You understand that this forum is not the science world or academia for discussing your mythical story, correct?
So again, who are you trying to impress?
In time what you claim will be lost forever in cyber space, and never heard of again.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

The scientific world still turns as before: They are oblivious to your genius [

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

tic mode on of course]

 

Then you're as ignorant of observation and maths as you are of basic physics.

 

Then clearly you do not know what you are talkiing about and nothing what so ever about vector analysis and the velocity of light.

 

And there's something else you've managed to get wrong.

 

Another self proclaimed expert, then you should be able to easy calcualte the net time (t) difference in two journeys of equal lengths at the same speed.

 

And you're claimed to be an expert by... who, exactly?
What - SPECIFICALLY - makes you qualified to discuss the subject? And, what makes you qualified to dismiss (or ignore) the findings of actual science?

Now you're just being ridiculous:
1) "vector analysis and the velocity of light" aren't needed to know that the time taken for two journeys of equal length at equal speeds is the same. But,
2) this doesn't prove (or even support) your contention.