- Joined
- Feb 6, 2010
- Messages
- 110,791
- Reaction score
- 64,770
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Undisclosed
Dear god he really doesn't understand how his own eyes work.
Use science and show us all how pictures ride on light.
I have answered any intelligent question offered and even some that were not. I have avoided answering those that choose childish ignorance and more. And no one here and no one in science can answer how light can carry pictures, on light alone. That is the basis for this entire thread. If science can prove that light alone can carry pictures, then the claim that science makes, that we are seeing back in time, Will be proven real. However, science cannot prove it and neither can anyone here.
Do you think light travels instantaneously across any distance?
Jim, I would emplore you to actually research things before you post it here. It's called spectroscopy. Have you ever seen a prism before?
Light is split (defracted) into its different components, then each component is measured individually. We know where this came from because we can point the device in a direction and only pick up waves from a certain target.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy
Science did prove it, in 1919, and with it proved Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. They waited until there was a solar eclipse, then looked at the light from stars behind the sun as the light was bent around the sun towards the earth. That can only happen through gravitational lensing.
Jim, I would emplore you to actually research things before you post it here. It's called spectroscopy. Have you ever seen a prism before?
Light is split (defracted) into its different components, then each component is measured individually. We know where this came from because we can point the device in a direction and only pick up waves from a certain target.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy
Science did prove it, in 1919, and with it proved Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. They waited until there was a solar eclipse, then looked at the light from stars behind the sun as the light was bent around the sun towards the earth. That can only happen through gravitational lensing.
With the second Picture in your post, why didn't science actually take a picture of that, so that science could prove it instead of putting up some little drawing and making the claim?
Jim, I would emplore you to actually research things before you post it here. It's called spectroscopy. Have you ever seen a prism before?
Light is split (defracted) into its different components, then each component is measured individually. We know where this came from because we can point the device in a direction and only pick up waves from a certain target.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy
Science did prove it, in 1919, and with it proved Einstein's General Theory of Relativity. They waited until there was a solar eclipse, then looked at the light from stars behind the sun as the light was bent around the sun towards the earth. That can only happen through gravitational lensing.
Tell us rabidalpaca, why were scientists too ignorant to understand that they needent wait for 1919 to claim that proof? Science is calling it proof, right?
Since you claim to understand science so well rabid alpaca, tell us how science could have come to that conclusion 100 years at least before that, if not 300 years before that? Science makes many claims because of the desire to keep the funding going. It's a good thing to keep the funding going, but it is a very bad thing to make up a lot of nonsense, for the sake of money and prestige. It is wasteful and stupid. Now if you will, being as smart as you are and telling me that you You emplore me to actually read some science, when I have been reading writing and arguing science since 2006. On average I have spent four hours a day reading writing and arguing science on multiple websites. I have a lot more science that I have come to understand and I use simple cause and effect with which to explain things, unlike science, in cosmology.
Better yet, look again at alpacas second picture and tell us what celestial body is the gravitational lensing being done around? Then go to the site that you offered and find what celestial body is being used in those pictures. After you do that, I want you to think about what happens when you enlarge the picture too much.
One more thing, science is adding color to those pictures. Now when you add color and enlarge something too much, it starts to get hazy and out of whack. and you can see by taking a picture with your own camera, if you enlarge a picture too much.
So do I.I wish children were taught to think for themselves, instead of following the bouncing Redball and the copy and paste education that they are given.
Look at the picture that alpaca put up and then look at the picture that you put up. There is a huge difference.
Better yet, look again at alpacas second picture and tell us what celestial body is the gravitational lensing being done around? Then go to the site that you offered and find what celestial body is being used in those pictures. After you do that, I want you to think about what happens when you enlarge the picture too much.
One more thing, science is adding color to those pictures. Now when you add color and enlarge something too much, it starts to get hazy and out of whack. and you can see by taking a picture with your own camera, if you enlarge a picture too much.
As to your first picture and its claims, the simple fact still remains, that if pictures are coming into our eyes, and into the camera, everything is already in color. There should be no need for Colored film. Why is that so hard for you to understand?
The second picture is something called an illustration. It is a diagram meant to demonstrate a concept, not a literal photograph of the phenomenon.
Answer my previous question: do you think light travels instantaneously across any distance?
Not all cameras see the same light your eyes do.
They add color because many of these photographs come are taken in wavelengths than the human eye cannot see at all, or in wavelengths we can't easily differentiate. It doesn't get "hazy" or "out of whack." This isn't photoshop. It's not equivalent to your digital camera. It's a simple conversion of wavelengths.
If you drive your car at the speed of light and turn the headlights, would anything happen?
A camera is still at the heart of the telescope, taking the pictures. When I refer to gravitational lensing, and how science presents the pictures, along with how science speaks of such and how cameras work, I can see how wishful scientists could interpret many things, without understanding.
Change the subject, some of you seem to be real good at that. As to light traveling instantaneously across any distance, Perhaps you should read up on it.
A camera is still at the heart of the telescope, taking the pictures. When I refer to gravitational lensing, and how science presents the pictures, along with how science speaks of such and how cameras work, I can see how wishful scientists could interpret many things, without understanding.
I know the answer to the question. I want to know if you know the answer.
Light has a finite travel speed. Objects are at a measurable distance. Therefore, a finite amount of travel time is required. That's the "seeing back in time" effect. If I wave my hand to you while I'm at Alpha Centauri, it will take years before the image of that handwave reaches you. Why do you think you'd see my handwave before that?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?