Light is the unified form of the universe
in [Physics]
|
From: PD on 25 May 2010 12:38 On May 25, 8:42 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > This is the local answer. What is the non local answer? Does anyone > really believe that light can propagate billions of light years, > basically in a straight line, to finally reach our eyes, and to fall > into them? Do people realize how impractical this sounds? What is impractical about it? When a firecracker makes a bang, it doesn't AIM the sound at ears. It transmits in all directions at once. The amount of that sound that you intercept is a tiny fraction of the sound emitted, in the inverse ratio of the distance squared. The very same thing happens with light. Light is emitted in *all* directions. The amount of light that you intercept is a tiny fraction of the light that is emitted, and in the inverse ratio of the distance squared. The amount of light that is emitted by a star is ENORMOUS. To give you an idea of how enormous it is, consider that our sun delivers a kilowatt of power on each and every square meter of the Earth's surface that is pointed at the sun. And at the distance of the earth (150 million kilometers), the light from the sun is spread over a total surface area of 280,000,000,000,000,000 square meters!
From: GogoJF on 25 May 2010 12:45 On May 25, 11:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 25, 8:42 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > This is the local answer. What is the non local answer? Does anyone > > really believe that light can propagate billions of light years, > > basically in a straight line, to finally reach our eyes, and to fall > > into them? Do people realize how impractical this sounds? > > What is impractical about it? > > When a firecracker makes a bang, it doesn't AIM the sound at ears. It > transmits in all directions at once. The amount of that sound that you > intercept is a tiny fraction of the sound emitted, in the inverse > ratio of the distance squared. > > The very same thing happens with light. Light is emitted in *all* > directions. The amount of light that you intercept is a tiny fraction > of the light that is emitted, and in the inverse ratio of the distance > squared. > > The amount of light that is emitted by a star is ENORMOUS. > To give you an idea of how enormous it is, consider that our sun > delivers a kilowatt of power on each and every square meter of the > Earth's surface that is pointed at the sun. And at the distance of the > earth (150 million kilometers), the light from the sun is spread over > a total surface area of 280,000,000,000,000,000 square meters! So, are you saying that every square meter of the sun delivers light to every square meter on the Earth? The Terrell Effect says that the sun's image would be blurry. But, we know that it is clear. You are tangled in cause and effect.
From: PD on 25 May 2010 13:09 On May 25, 11:45 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 25, 11:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 25, 8:42 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > This is the local answer. What is the non local answer? Does anyone > > > really believe that light can propagate billions of light years, > > > basically in a straight line, to finally reach our eyes, and to fall > > > into them? Do people realize how impractical this sounds? > > > What is impractical about it? > > > When a firecracker makes a bang, it doesn't AIM the sound at ears. It > > transmits in all directions at once. The amount of that sound that you > > intercept is a tiny fraction of the sound emitted, in the inverse > > ratio of the distance squared. > > > The very same thing happens with light. Light is emitted in *all* > > directions. The amount of light that you intercept is a tiny fraction > > of the light that is emitted, and in the inverse ratio of the distance > > squared. > > > The amount of light that is emitted by a star is ENORMOUS. > > To give you an idea of how enormous it is, consider that our sun > > delivers a kilowatt of power on each and every square meter of the > > Earth's surface that is pointed at the sun. And at the distance of the > > earth (150 million kilometers), the light from the sun is spread over > > a total surface area of 280,000,000,000,000,000 square meters! > > So, are you saying that every square meter of the sun delivers light > to every square meter on the Earth? No, I didn't say that. Please reread what I said. > The Terrell Effect says that the > sun's image would be blurry. Nah, not by enough to be noticeable. Here is where it is important to know how to calculate. Just because an effect is present does not mean that it is noticeable. For example, if you roll a steel ball on a basketball floor, the Coriolis effect will bend the path of that ball. Just not enough for you to notice it with your eyeballs. If you actually calculate the size of the Coriolis effect on that steel ball, you'll understand why you don't notice it. It doesn't mean the effect isn't there. > But, we know that it is clear. You are > tangled in cause and effect.
From: GogoJF on 25 May 2010 13:21 On May 25, 12:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 25, 11:45 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 25, 11:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On May 25, 8:42 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > This is the local answer. What is the non local answer? Does anyone > > > > really believe that light can propagate billions of light years, > > > > basically in a straight line, to finally reach our eyes, and to fall > > > > into them? Do people realize how impractical this sounds? > > > > What is impractical about it? > > > > When a firecracker makes a bang, it doesn't AIM the sound at ears. It > > > transmits in all directions at once. The amount of that sound that you > > > intercept is a tiny fraction of the sound emitted, in the inverse > > > ratio of the distance squared. > > > > The very same thing happens with light. Light is emitted in *all* > > > directions. The amount of light that you intercept is a tiny fraction > > > of the light that is emitted, and in the inverse ratio of the distance > > > squared. > > > > The amount of light that is emitted by a star is ENORMOUS. > > > To give you an idea of how enormous it is, consider that our sun > > > delivers a kilowatt of power on each and every square meter of the > > > Earth's surface that is pointed at the sun. And at the distance of the > > > earth (150 million kilometers), the light from the sun is spread over > > > a total surface area of 280,000,000,000,000,000 square meters! > > > So, are you saying that every square meter of the sun delivers light > > to every square meter on the Earth? > > No, I didn't say that. Please reread what I said. > > > The Terrell Effect says that the > > sun's image would be blurry. > > Nah, not by enough to be noticeable. Here is where it is important to > know how to calculate. Just because an effect is present does not mean > that it is noticeable. For example, if you roll a steel ball on a > basketball floor, the Coriolis effect will bend the path of that ball. > Just not enough for you to notice it with your eyeballs. If you > actually calculate the size of the Coriolis effect on that steel ball, > you'll understand why you don't notice it. It doesn't mean the effect > isn't there. > > > But, we know that it is clear. You are > > tangled in cause and effect. I understand what you are saying, but let me give you an example of what I am talking about, as simple as possible. There is a single light bulb in a large room. When you stand near the light bulb you not only can see the bulb, but you can also see your hand and body. Now, as you walk away, the bulb can still be seen clearly- it just gets slightly smaller, but your hand and body get dimmer. Finally, you reach a point where you are standing in total darkness. You cannot see your hand or body, but you can still see the light bulb. At this point, the light bulb can no longer illuminate its surroundings but the observer can still "see" the bulb. Now, according to the photoelectric effect, photons diminish down to 1 and then eventually go to zero. But I believe this theory is wrong. The act of seeing is not particles falling into the eye mechanically.
From: GogoJF on 25 May 2010 13:26
On May 25, 12:21 pm, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On May 25, 12:09 pm, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 25, 11:45 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > On May 25, 11:38 am, PD <thedraperfam...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On May 25, 8:42 am, GogoJF <jfgog...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > This is the local answer. What is the non local answer? Does anyone > > > > > really believe that light can propagate billions of light years, > > > > > basically in a straight line, to finally reach our eyes, and to fall > > > > > into them? Do people realize how impractical this sounds? > > > > > What is impractical about it? > > > > > When a firecracker makes a bang, it doesn't AIM the sound at ears. It > > > > transmits in all directions at once. The amount of that sound that you > > > > intercept is a tiny fraction of the sound emitted, in the inverse > > > > ratio of the distance squared. > > > > > The very same thing happens with light. Light is emitted in *all* > > > > directions. The amount of light that you intercept is a tiny fraction > > > > of the light that is emitted, and in the inverse ratio of the distance > > > > squared. > > > > > The amount of light that is emitted by a star is ENORMOUS. > > > > To give you an idea of how enormous it is, consider that our sun > > > > delivers a kilowatt of power on each and every square meter of the > > > > Earth's surface that is pointed at the sun. And at the distance of the > > > > earth (150 million kilometers), the light from the sun is spread over > > > > a total surface area of 280,000,000,000,000,000 square meters! > > > > So, are you saying that every square meter of the sun delivers light > > > to every square meter on the Earth? > > > No, I didn't say that. Please reread what I said. > > > > The Terrell Effect says that the > > > sun's image would be blurry. > > > Nah, not by enough to be noticeable. Here is where it is important to > > know how to calculate. Just because an effect is present does not mean > > that it is noticeable. For example, if you roll a steel ball on a > > basketball floor, the Coriolis effect will bend the path of that ball. > > Just not enough for you to notice it with your eyeballs. If you > > actually calculate the size of the Coriolis effect on that steel ball, > > you'll understand why you don't notice it. It doesn't mean the effect > > isn't there. > > > > But, we know that it is clear. You are > > > tangled in cause and effect. > > I understand what you are saying, but let me give you an example of > what I am talking about, as simple as possible. > > There is a single light bulb in a large room. When you stand near the > light bulb you not only can see the bulb, but you can also see your > hand and body. Now, as you walk away, the bulb can still be seen > clearly- it just gets slightly smaller, but your hand and body get > dimmer. Finally, you reach a point where you are standing in total > darkness. You cannot see your hand or body, but you can still see the > light bulb. At this point, the light bulb can no longer illuminate > its surroundings but the observer can still "see" the bulb. Now, > according to the photoelectric effect, photons diminish down to 1 and > then eventually go to zero. But I believe this theory is wrong. The > act of seeing is not particles falling into the eye mechanically. In other words, as propagating effects fall to zero, you can still see the bulb- but we still say it is 1 photon. This is because we substituted the hand for a photocell, which makes this two different and separate experiments. But, we combined them into one- as in Lenard's second crucial experiment of the early twentieth century. This was a critical error in logic! |