The speed of light seems slow by comparison

[EDEE]

New Science by Jim Ryan

But all that science claims, the speed of light is the fastest known entity in the universe. However, I believe that is shortsighted, pun intended.

Look to the fartherest star that can be seen with the naked eye. That star is called Deneb . It is between 1400 and 7000 ly away., according to science.

Step out of your home and look up into the night sky and you will see Deneb in the blink of an eye.

From my perspective, the speed of site is 1 billion or more times faster than the speed of light.

[Knighty2112]

The fact of the matter is, regardless of how we actually see the universe at this exact moment with our eyes, in truth we are always looking back in time here. There seems to be a dispute as to wether anything can go faster than light (neutrinos been the main culprit that might destroy Einstein's theory here), and I find it quite naive that science always seems to 'think' we have the universe all wrapped up. In truth the more we seem to find out, the less we actually seem to really know.

[EDEE]

From all I have studied, we cannot and do not see back in time. When a high-powered telescope is aimed at a galaxy 13,500,000,000 ly away, as soon as it is dialed in, we see that galaxy right Away.

Science itself claims that light disburses to infinity over billions of light-years.

How can we see back in time knowing this?

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I work with professional astronomers and they certainly don't think they have all the answers. They have found many theories that don't work. However the speed of light as a constant is a strong theory, with a lot of supporting evidence.

The speed of sight is actually quite slow. What you think you see happening NOW is actually based on light hitting your retina 0.2s ago

[EDEE]

My apologies for the double post, which I have erased. I'm trying to learn how to edit my post and as you can see it's not working very well.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Seeing back in time is not the same as traveling back in time. Light you see took time to reach us.

[EDEE]

I work with professional astronomers and they certainly don't think they have all the answers. They have found many theories that don't work. However the speed of light as a constant is a strong theory, with a lot of supporting evidence.

The speed of sight is actually quite slow. What you think you see happening NOW is actually based on light hitting your retina 0.2s ago

Then I have a question for you to ask these astronomers, if you will.

I believe you are right about the speed of light. However I believe you are wrong and they are wrong about the speed of sight and here's why.

Does light alone carry images into your eyes and our eyes?

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Then I have a question for you to ask these astronomers, if you will.

I believe you are right about the speed of light. However I believe you are wrong and they are wrong about the speed of sight and here's why.

Does light alone carry images into your eyes and our eyes?

Yes, light alone is enough.

What you personally choose to believe is irrelevant to science, to be brutally honest.

[EDEE]

Yes, light alone is enough.

What you personally choose to believe is irrelevant to science, to be brutally honest.

By what you claim, please explain how the light from 13,500,000,000 ly away even makes it to earth, with all of the other suns not only in our galaxy, but other galaxies along the way, that must surely meet our eyes at the same moment.

What photons or what lightwaves take precedent and please ask your colleagues.

I enjoyed brutal honesty. Thank you

[Ouroboros]

Well by definition if you can see an object billions of light years away then there isn't anything significant in the way blocking our view.

This is why when Hubble has been used to image the most distant galaxies they have chosen regions of the sky seemingly containing nothing ...... nothing that is until they take photographs with exposures several days long.

[EDEE]

Well by definition if you can see an object billions of light years away then there isn't anything significant in the way blocking our view.

This is why when Hubble has been used to image the most distant galaxies they have chosen regions of the sky seemingly containing nothing ...... nothing that is until they take photographs with exposures several days long.

Do lightwaves disperse in all directions or do they all follow in one straight-line?

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

By what you claim, please explain how the light from 13,500,000,000 ly away even makes it to earth, with all of the other suns not only in our galaxy, but other galaxies along the way, that must surely meet our eyes at the same moment.

What photons or what lightwaves take precedent and please ask your colleagues.

I enjoyed brutal honesty. Thank you

Photons are bosons (integer spin particles) that do not follow the Pauli exclusion principle which applies to fermions (matter particles). They can have arbirtary densities, and can pass through eachother without interacting quite readily. Unless there are particles of dust in the way, photons just keep traveling, for millions of years, no worries.

[Ouroboros]

Do lightwaves disperse in all directions or do they all follow in one straight-line?

Weirdly light seems to occupy every region of space when travelling from A to B whilst effectively taking the shortest path between two points. No ... no one understands it.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Do lightwaves disperse in all directions or do they all follow in one straight-line?

Light from a source may travel in all directions at once. Once emitted they travel along geodesics in space-time until they encounter some particle with which they interact

[EDEE]

Photons are bosons (integer spin particles) that do not follow the Pauli exclusion principle which applies to fermions (matter particles). They can have arbirtary densities, and can pass through eachother without interacting quite readily. Unless there are particles of dust in the way, photons just keep traveling, for millions of years, no worries.

If your statement were true, our eyes would be burned out of our heads by the amount of light coming from the sun and our bodies would be fried by the amount of heat. Heat and light are one.

The cold of space robs light of its heat and light. The photons or waves of light emitted by the sun, are 10,000° plus. By the time that they hit earth, they are a cool hundred degrees or less.

Once the cold of space has robbed the photon of it light and it's heat, the only thing left is it's electric and magnetic energy.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

If your statement were true, our eyes would be burned out of our heads by the amount of light coming from the sun and our bodies would be fried by the amount of heat. Heat and light are one.

The cold of space robs light of its heat and light. The photons or waves of light emitted by the sun, are 10,000° plus. By the time that they hit earth, they are a cool hundred degrees or less.

Once the cold of space has robbed the photon of it light and it's heat, the only thing left is it's electric and magnetic energy.

Please read up on Olber's Paradox. The best explanation to date is that the universe as a finite age.

In fact, while you are at it, read up on some physics. The cold of space does not "rob photons of light and heat". Photons are in fact carriers of that very electric and magnetic energy you speak of.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

BTW, the finite age of the universe implicates there may be galaxies we have never seen, because the light from that galaxy has not reached us yet. Apparent superluminal expansion of in quasars is in fact explained by the fact that the speed of light is finite, and the light itself carries the image.

[EDEE]

Light from a source may travel in all directions at once. Once emitted they travel along geodesics in space-time until they encounter some particle with which they interact

That has no relevance, other than to say that white will travel until it interacts with some physical surface.

You do know that in euclidean science, straight lines are the most familiar. However, in space science today, science claims that space is curved. By such, that means that light will curve so late from a 45° angle 7000 ly away can curve right into the telescopic lens.

[EDEE]

BTW, the finite age of the universe implicates there may be galaxies we have never seen, because the light from that galaxy has not reached us yet. Apparent superluminal expansion of in quasars is in fact explained by the fact that the speed of light is finite, and the light itself carries the image.

From my perspective, there are a great many galaxies that we cannot see. The reason I believe that, is because there can be no boundaries in space. It must go on forever, unless science can show how there can be boundaries

[Knighty2112]

Regardless of what the actual speed of light is, a photon of lights takes time to travel out in space, even if this is in a straight line, or as a wave, which light seems to do both at things at the same time. Unless we believe that photons travel anywhere in the universe instantaneously and can thus appear everywhere in the universe at the same exact time, then logic dictates that there is always a time lag from when the photon actually set off, and then when it hits the back of our eye and registers in our brain. Hence, we see the photon of light as it was when it set off on its journey, not what it actually is currently in time for the new photons of light leaving the object and starting their journey outwards.

I believe that we still have a hell of a lot more that we need to understand and refine with all of our theories till we can every try to claim that we fully understand the universe. Personally, I don't think we ever will know everything.

[EDEE]

Please read up on Olber's Paradox. The best explanation to date is that the universe as a finite age.

In fact, while you are at it, read up on some physics. The cold of space does not "rob photons of light and heat". Photons are in fact carriers of that very electric and magnetic energy you speak of.

Electric and magnetic energy produce heat., which produces the photon of light.

Start a fire, then put it out. When you robbed the fire of its heat, you robbed it of its light.

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

That has no relevance, other than to say that white will travel until it interacts with some physical surface.

You do know that in euclidean science, straight lines are the most familiar. However, in space science today, science claims that space is curved. By such, that means that light will curve so late from a 45° angle 7000 ly away can curve right into the telescopic lens.

I trust you mean Eucldean geometry. Regarding your second claim: curved space has no such meaning

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

Electric and magnetic energy produce heat., which produces the photon of light.

Start a fire, then put it out. When you robbed the fire of its heat, you robbed it of its light.

Nonsense. Photons are the bosons that carry electromagnetic force, and light is electromagnetic energy

[michael.h.f.wilkinson]

I do not think this kind of pseudoscientifc drivel has a place on SGL

[nameunknown]

Deneb's distance isn't known that well, but If Deneb "went out now" we would certainly not know for a while.

P