Speed of light – Distance light travels – How light behaves in space.
- Image via Wikipedia
I have mentioned that some calculations are made by our scientist from theories, and as we all would like to go back to the past, they seem to think that by studying and reaching the source of the images the Hubble telescope sends us, they will be able to do that.
They think the light reflections that Hubble captures, of dieing stars and new constellations being formed have taken place billions of years ago and because they take their calculations from the theory that these images have travelled at the speed of light to reach Hubble, and the distance covered by the light source would take so many light years to reach it, then the images must be billions of years old, which in turn will give them an insight to the origins of the universe.
We know how man made electric light functions, but we have to ask if terrestrial light functions in the same way.
Electric light only travels so far and the farther out it goes the broader it becomes, weakening its strength.
An example of this is street lights that are positioned at certain distances apart so that each lamps beam connects with the other to light up the street. If the light did not weaken then we would only need one lamp to illuminate the whole street, or even further if it was unobstructed, like the images captured in space by Hubble.
Another example of light weakening and broadening is when a lighthouse‘s beam is observed by a sailor over the open sea. It is clear to see the beam as it swings round, just how much it widens the further away it gets from its source, also how much weaker the beam becomes as it widens, but it is also noticeable that the light only travels so far, hence the different strengths of lights for the given situations.
Laser light on the other hand is an intense narrow beam as it is amplified, stimulated by the emission of photons from excited atoms or molecules, which makes it behave in a different way to basic electric light, allowing it to travel great distances, but AS electric light, it is still man made.
Terrestrial light, like our sun is natural, and being a natural light source it behaves in the same way as man made electric light, weakening as it projects out into space, and as the beam widens it also limits the distance the rays travel.
If you think of all the stars and light sources out there in space, and take into consideration the power produced by them, heading towards earth, then the light and heat radiated by them, if not weakened, would be so intense, creating dazzling daylight twenty four hours a day, that we could not survive anywhere in the universe, let alone this planet.
That is why we cannot go back to the past by studying the images sent by Hubble,because these occurrences that are being captured out there are happening NOW, not something that happened billions of years ago.
It is us that is reaching out to the light source through Hubble NOT the light source reaching us, like the sailor approaching the lighthouse, the beam becomes stronger and clearer as he nears it, but it is the same source that was seen faintly on the horizon, and if an object came between them, the light hitting the object would be obscured immediately leaving a shadow resembling that particular object, reappearing immediately the object was removed, or if the object was big enough or close enough to the light source it would obscure the light altogether. That is one example of my theory, and although the distances between a lighthouse beam and terrestrial rays are vastly different in comparison, the end result is the same.
If we had the means to travel to that light source where a star is dieing or a constellation is being formed then we would be able to see the exact same thing is happening at the source, as is happening in Hubble’s images. How can you possibly reach the outer beam, then travel through it to a void left after the star died, or to the reaction in space that created the new constellation you were now travelling through? The source of the light still has to be there to power the beam or ray’s projection, on the same principle as a movie camera projecting an image onto a screen. When the camera is switched off the picture disappears, and when the star dies, projected images of its life dies with it, and does not leave a record of its past on some screen in space.
Sound on the other hand is different. If you switch the source of the sound off, the noise will carry on, echoing through the air waves until it too becomes so weak that it fades out. Perhaps that is why our scientist think that light carries on once the source has been switch off, but given the experiments they do, they should have realised by now that, that is not the case, and forget trying to reach the past by these unlikely means.
They will discover something new in space every day if they look hard enough and in the right place , and perhaps they might discover the origins of the universe, but it will not be at the end of a light beam.
The past is in the past and the only way we can find out about it is by excavating the remains of it, be it on earth or out there in space, the latter being well out of our reach. Even with the excavations on earth we still have to guess and surmise the origins of the human race, with our ideas having to be altered regularly as disturbances to the earth’s crust uncovers new sources and artifacts for man to investigate.
How can we possibly think that we can discover the origins of the universe from earth when we are still struggling to decipher the discoveries on our own planet?
My conclusion is, that, even out in the deepest of space the past is the past, and has gone, with no way of going back to it, not even if we can find a way to reach the light sources the scientist think will take us there, so they will have to have a rethink, just like the archaeologists who excavate and theorise on our past until new discoveries and realizations are made.
The universe travels onward and outward, and the only going back will be when it stops, and the gravitational pull of the immense planet at the core of it all drags everything back, but time will still be carrying forward with new events taking place, and the old ones, though not forgotten………………………… in the past where they will stay, regardless of mans ambition to return there.
Related articles by Zemanta
- The Amazing Hubble Space Telescope in Action (geardiary.com)
- Popular Giant Star Shrinks Mysteriously (space.com)
- 3-D View Of Remote Galaxies — When Universe Was Half Its Current Age (sciencedaily.com)
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=f86b67b8-f9c8-4ef0-8e2d-500e97361a3a)
Tags: Add new tag, Electric light, Hubble Space Telescope, Mans desire to back into the past, Reaching out into space., terrestrial light
June 23rd, 2009 at 9:49 am
my dear friend…your theories are definately very plausible…but as I am a believer in Spirirualism it would not hold true for me. It is just a case of “each to his own”
June 23rd, 2009 at 10:26 am
Thank you Marie for including my article in your Science Directory, and I will indeed submit some of my writings to it
August 14th, 2009 at 8:52 pm
The diminishing of the light sources is a fact. BUT, it also depends on the initial luminosity of the light source. We are seeing galaxies which are comprised of BILLIONS of stars not unlike our star but also much more powerful ones. Let’s repeat that, BILLIONS of stars. That is so powerful and bright for us to comprehend and it is this reason that the light is still visible after travelling billions of light years.
Your theory that we are actually seeing the light as it is today does not make any sense. You do not need to go billions of light years away to realize that. Even with our own sun, the light you see when you look up is not what is happening now on the sun, but rather what happened approximately 8 minutes ago. The speed of light is measurable and cannot be disputed unless you are claiming it’s all some grand illusion. The distance to our sun is also something we as humans have calculated and is not disputable. These 2 facts taken together lead to common sense. The sun is so far away (difficult to comprehend but in reality, it’s very close by the universes immense size!), that even with light travelling so fast, it still takes 8 minutes to get here.
Here’s a simple example which no scientist would refute. If the middle of the sun, on a nice bright sunny day, clear skies, suddenly turned a different color, say green. On earth, a human observer staring at the sun would see the sun as completely normal until 8 minutes after it actually turned green. If you were say a few miles away from the sun (and somehow not dead), it would appear green immediately. To the earth observer, they wouldnt know anything occured until 8 minutes after it actually happened. Sorry to break it to you, but thats a fact jack.
August 15th, 2009 at 10:19 am
I disagree with you, your facts are only theories. How did you measure your speed of light from the sun or the billions of galaxies out there? What would happen if you travelled to a star that supposidly died billions of years ago,at what stage of your travels would the light beam change from the dieing star and become the void that would be left after it died?
August 15th, 2009 at 11:01 am
Hi Rock, another two things I shoud have mentioned. When you look at the sun , or the stars billions of miles away, you are looking straight at the source of the light, not the beam that travels, therefore,what you see when you look straight at the source, is what is occurring out there now. When you observe an eclipse of the sun, as soon as the moon covers the sun, the light goes immediately, NOT eight minutes later, because, you are looking at the source Not the travelling beam.
Thank you for taking the time to read, and comment on my post.
September 1st, 2009 at 10:18 pm
Donald, thanks for your comments. The following example is a fact: If the sun disappeared (magically and instantly) at 8:20 EST and I am standing outside with a clear view of the Sun at 8:20 EST, I would see the sun still there. I would not see the sun disappear until around 8:28 EST when the last photons of light reach us. Feel free to pass this example on or to question those with more credentials with this exact example, you will find that no one is in dispute.
When you see a star in the sky that is 500 light years away, the light that you see visibly in that night sky is the light that travelled 500 light years (or 500 x 60 trillion miles). Since our eyes can only see light that is a certain distance away given its intensity, this all makes perfect sense. IF a star is 500 light years away, and it suddenly flicked on out nowhere, instantly, and you were looking in the direction of that start at the instant it “flicked on”, you would not see anything. The source of the light is SO FAR AWAY, INCOMPREHENSIBLE TO our minds, that you would not see it the instant it flicks on, but rather you would see it when the photons actually travel far enough in the vacuum of space so that our eyes can absorb them and thus you see it as a star. Instead, it will take the first photons that are emitted from teh star and thus make it visible to our eyes, however long it takes for the speed of light (i.e. the photons) to travel through space. In the vacuum of space, light will travel at the constant speed of light and with such a vast distance of 500 light years, well you do the math. It’s a FACT, that a star that suddenly flicks on that is 500 light years away from earth, will not be seen by our eyes until approximately 500 years after it flicked on.
When you say that when you look at the sun and you are looking at the source, this is correct, but what you actualy see comes from your eyes absorbing photons that the sun actually gives off. They travel at the speed of light. Even tho the speed of light is so incredibly fast, the sun is SO far away that it still takes the electro-magnetic energy 8 minutes approximately to reach earth. It is that energy that our eyes absorb and that is what makes us “see” the sun. Thus, even though it seems that you are seeing the Sun as it is “now” in terms of the Sun’s now, that is not true. The Sun is so far away that what you see is actually light from 8 minutes ago, and thus what scientists call looking into the past. Again, if the sun were to INSTANTLY disappear magically right now, and I was staring at it, I wouldn’t see it disappear until 8 minutes or so later. I hope this never happens, but if it did, you’d realize that we’re not quacks, but scientists and these are facts. It’s just simple physics. I beg you to pose my example of the Sun disappearing to anyone in the scientific community or anyone that has basic knowledge of physics and what we have proven through empirical evidence, and I trust with all my heart and soul that they will all agree with what I have said.
September 1st, 2009 at 10:20 pm
one more comment, this is not a theory, it is proven through empirical evidence and testing. If you want to call something like this a theory, then well you don’t believe in science at all.
September 2nd, 2009 at 3:00 am
Hi rock, I have been waiting to converse with someone like you for a long time. I do believe in science, but some of the calculations of science are only theories as you cannot begin to calculate the mysteries of space with the limited knowledge we humans have, and some of your calculations are taken from theories. The light beamed from a star, 500 light years away, would not send the same image to earth after traveling so far no matter how strong its light. The source has still to be there to send it in such clarity.
You have not explained what would happen if you could reach that part of the universe. At what point in your estimation, would you pass by the image and reach the void left behind if the said star had died billions of years ago? Its not just the light that travels to us, our vision adjusts and travels outward too.
If your scientific conclusion are a fact, why study forming galaxies as the exciting new worlds you are reaching for could already be inhabited behind the vision you are looking at, according to your calculations?
Or what would happen if you reached the source of light from a forming galaxy, at what point would you pass through the light source and enter the new galaxy?
The source has to be there to project the image as SEEN, if not the remnants of the source would not show up as the solid matter but as a light ray or beam……just light with no form.
Thanks for your response,looking forward to your reply.
Donald.
September 2nd, 2009 at 3:37 am
Hi again rock, just as an afterthought. Science has been proved wrong before, and as man progresses some other theories or calculations of scientists will be proved wrong again. One new discovery, or one new realization can change everything.
Cheers.
Donald.
September 2nd, 2009 at 8:22 am
Donald,
I too highly enjoy talking about this stuff. I do agree that many things are theories still. I cannot explain the physics of what would happen if you traveled to a star 500 light years away. Why is this? Because in today’s human world, it is impossible. Our lifespans are not long enough to reach even the closest of stars and the distances are too vast to comprehend. If we could travel at the speed of light or faster than who knows
But this seems impossible especially given the fact that as mass reaches the speed of light, it’s energy reaches infinity. It seems what you are talking about is more about time travel and the implications of being able to manipulate this constant of light and its speed. This has boggled humans of all kinds forever. However, I am not talking about time travel nor considering the ability to travel at any speed that will allow us ever to visit these stars, and thus in our universe as we know it, is just not possible.
I think that if you were magically able to teleport to the star 500 light years away that suddenly flicked off, you would arrive there instantly at the moment the star flicked off and you wouldn’t see it anymore (clearly this is an extreme example as stars cannot just “flick” off instantly and suddenly have no light at all – this is a gradual process in reality). However, looking through a telescope on earth at this same star, it would still appear to shine. Again, the reason is the immense distances of space, so vast that we humans cannot even begin to comprehend it really.
It has been studied,tested and proven as far as science can prove things, that in a vacuum, light travels at the “speed of light” constant. It does indeed travel through this vacuum of space.
I’m not saying science has even come close to understanding everything, but I’m not so sure why you so strongly disagree with this one point. I think you should read some scientific articles on how our eyes actually process light and how this turns into us actually seeing things. It truly does depend on photons of light hitting our eyes, and those photons of light, while they do come from a source (in our example a star 500 light years away), they travel from the source outward at the speed of light.
I agree with you that it is confusing given that light will lose intensity of distances. And that it appears that when you look at up the night sky, you are seeing a star as it is today and you are viewing the source as it is today. This is just what anyone would think. However, I truly think you should read up on how our eyes actually process light to make us see things. Also, you must consider how immense the universe most probably is. With the world you imagine, there is hardly a conceivable explanation physics could come up with to describe how everything works. Whereas in the way science now explains it, it all really fits with all of our knowledge.
September 2nd, 2009 at 8:28 am
One last thing Donald – As Scientists looked at galaxies from different distances, they did notice trends. Galaxies further away had similar shapes wheras galaxies closer had similar shapes. This all fits with the notion of the Big Bang, another theory that is accepted today. i know these are theories but it’s more evidence that you actually are seeing the galaxy as it was X years ago. Also take the cosmic background radiation we know to exist, seemingly from the Big Bang. This radiation is none other than our friend “light”. It is just in a non visible form of electro-magnetic energy (i.e. different wavelength). This more or less proves that electro-magenetic energy can travel around space forever and whil it diminishes over time, the initial intensity was so extreme that it does have the ability to travel through the vacuum of space forever.
Ok I have to work
We shall talk soon
September 2nd, 2009 at 9:52 am
Hi rock thanks for expressing your opinion so soon. I do know how the eye works, I also know how scientist like to tidy everything up with THEIR explanations, but they are very often wrong, and as I said they have been proved wrong in the past, and will be again as mans intelligence and knowledge of the skies progresses. It just takes one small error of judgement or one small miscalculation to reach the wrong conclusion, which happens often in science, and as other facts come to light, another conclusion is often reached. I do think what you say holds some truth, but until we can reach that dieing star or new forming galaxy, neither of us will be able to say for sure who is right or who is wrong.
It is not time travel I am speaking about, just the idea of being able to go to that star to find the true answer, and until we can, we can only theorise, as we do in most things connected to the phenomenons that occur in vastness of the universe. I am well aware just how big it is, but we will never be able to comprehend it in reality, or solve the mysteries it holds as science has a long way to go yet before it can explain or tidy up all the questions that puzzles mankind.
Another point of question is, does the light you are speaking about travel through a vacuum? As heat travels through space therefore something must convey that heat, something like the electro-magnetic energy that is known of but discounted in your expanation of light travel.
Someday they will be explained to us, but it will be from a power much higher in intelligence than us, and from a people who can travel to that star.
Thanks for now, and once again I look forward to your reply.
We could have a great conversation face to face,over a pint, I think.
Cheers.
Donald.
September 2nd, 2009 at 10:09 am
I agree that we could be completely off in our scientific findings and understanding. This is why i am fascinating with all this stuff in the first place. However, with years and years of studies done, I lean with the scientists towards most of the established theories. By your logic, the universe could not be as vast as science claims it to be, otherwise we would not be able to see any of the stars, as the light would diminish too much before it reaches us AND because our eyes and telescopes are not sensitive enough to see a light source 500 light years away given the intensity that a star can shine at.
Seriously tho, please take my example of the Sun magically disappearing in a single instant and move forward with that one (or a new Sun magically turning on) and think hard about it. I do not think this is a theory but rather a fact that on earth we would not see this Sun apearing or disappearing until approximately 8 minutes after the event occured.
I think we can all agree that light is just another form of radio waves, electro magnetic energy. And what we can see are those waves in certain frequency. IF you do agree with this, take the moon landing as a very “close to home” example. When NASA communicated with the astronauts and vice versa, there was a pause between when the sender spoke and when the receiver heard and spoke back. Why? Beacause the distance from the earth to the moon is great enough that it actually takes the waves approximatley 1.3 seconds to travel and be picked up and heard. Then the receiver says something, and it takes another 1.3 seconds to get back. This clearly demonstrates that the wave energy does travel through space and that you’re not seeing/detecting the source, but rather the particles/energy sent from the source that travel through space. Similarly, we have the Voyager spacecraft reaching the outskirts of our solar system. How long does it take for the waves to travel back and forth? I forget the exact number but its a number of hours, maybe even days. Since light is just another form is this same electro-magnetic energy, the same holds true for light.
If you’re ever in NYC, i’ll take you up on the pint and we can chat more
September 2nd, 2009 at 10:57 am
Hi rock,The radio waves you are speaking about comes from the radio signals our man made machines send out, but there could be a superior way of comunication in the universe that we know nothing about. I agree on your facts about the sun, but it is the dieing stars, and forming galaxies light years away, and what form their light reaches us that I am debating, against scientific theories. There are so many theories, and so many puzzles to solve in space, and we are only scratching the surface. My idea of how vast I think space is might surprise you,as I think some stars are so far away their light never reaches this small corner of the universe, but if you have time, try to read my theories I have published in my blog http://unfeatheredangels.blogspot.com/ then you will have a better idea where I am coming from,also you might find other points of interest that we could discuss, as you seem to like these subjects. If you are interested enough in conversing with me I could give you my email address which would be more private.
Cheers for now.
Donald.
February 2nd, 2010 at 3:30 am
Very, very nice post and a great site design. Kudos to the site admin. Hard to find quality sites anymore especially on this topic, I’ve bookmarked and signed up for your feed.
February 5th, 2010 at 2:56 am
Hi Magnetic Motor, Thanks, I am glad you like my blog, and took the time to comment on it.
I also write on the same subject in http://unfeatheredangels.blogspot.com/
where you will find more content, if you want to read more.
Thanks again.
February 13th, 2010 at 4:37 pm
Finally, a good site that isn’t in my face trying to constantly sell me something. Thanks, please keep up the good work.
February 15th, 2010 at 6:04 am
Thanks very much for the positive feedback, “magnetic motor”
I hope you find my other posts as interesting. Cheers for now.