View Full Version : Light going to the mirrors in the Moon

2004-Feb-05, 05:34 PM
The current theories of science which imply time as a dimension can be deleted and taken as mere jokes from now on.

The next paragraphs will make you understand that reality is not what you think by hypothesies about the universe but that reality is based in perception (read experiments) and the correct interpretation of such.

Until today, the argument to assume that you can "see" the past of the universe" is that the radio communications are the same as the traveling of light from objects to us...in other words, when light goes out of the Sun, such light will take eight minutes to arrive to Earth, and by consequence we observe the Sun as it was eight minutes ago.

How this idea was accepted?...simple, because, for example, the spacecrafts sent to Mars very recently are sending infomation/images from Mars and those images arrive here with a long delay -as the speed of light establishes-, and, we can see the past of Mars, because those images were taken long ago as well.

Bravo!!! I must congratulate everybody to such great conclusion.

Unfortunately, the real images from the objects don't travel as the radio commnication signals do...no. :(

The image of Mars doesn't travel to us as a compacted image storage in a device and later sent to us in order to be seen by us with naked eyes...

The images of objects like microbes, people, planets, stars, etc, are sighted by us as long those objects are existing physical means since the depart of the light from their bodies to the arriving of their light to us...plus, we won't see the past images by photons hitting our retinas but that through that arriving light we will see the image of the objects by the light hitting on them.

Then, if for any reason the body -lets say a star- disappeared ten years ago, its image will never be seen by us or by anyone since the same moment in where that star disappeared. In other words, we never will see its past image.

We see the current and last status of everything in th universe only, and this can be proved with the next test:

1)- NASA says that they have installed mirrors in the Moon, and that sending a beam of light from Earth, such beam of light will hit those mirrors and will be reflected back to Earth, so they can measure the distance between Earth and Moon.

2)- NASA says that such traveling of the beam of light takes 2.5 seconds the round trip. I won't argue here "how NASA targets those mirrors, neither about the factual deviation of light when goes out of our atmosphere and when returns back to Earth, neither how much of such light will collide and get lost in its return through our atmosphere, etc, etc...

3)- Accepting about such beam of light going to the Moon and returning back to Earth in 2.5 seconds, I request that instead of a beam of light, NASA must use a spark of light which will last a very small fraction of a second.

4)- After this spark of light has been sent directed to the mirrors located in the Moon, such light with its image must return back to Earth in 2.5 seconds as well...after all, everybody here says that such is how we perceive images...

5)- The Perceptional Law states that the spark of light directed and sent to the Moon won't even reach the mirrors located in the Moon and less...such light will be able to return back to Earth.

Dear lovers of science, The Perceptional Law is the greatest law of science ever discovered, you can check former topics of mine in here, when I requested a similar experiment to be made with slower light inside a condenser in Harvard University (in that experiment the request is the opposite, instead of using a spark of light, the test must be made with a beam of light), and the hosts of this forums closed my topics...one by one...just by giving several excuses but never by giving factual evidence to invalidate The Perceptional Law.

On the other hand, I am giving you another test, with which it can be proved that the current theories which imply time as a physical dimension are nothing but crap to the square.

I feel sorry for you if you get offended when I tell you that such theories are crap, but, reality rules and facts can easily demonstrate that those theories are good for nothing...well, those theories are a good entertainment to the mind..you know...like chess... you play a lot with formulas and equations with those theories....

The point here is that the images from objects don't travel as the radio comunication images do. The spark of light sent to the Moon shall be absorbed and expanded in that way that you will wait 2.5 seconds, hours, days, months and you'll never will see any light returning back from the mirrors located in the Moon.

By conclusion, the only way to perceive the image of objects is when those objects still in existence when we look at them, in other words, everything we see in the comos is the current and existing physical universe.

The Perceptional Law.

2004-Feb-06, 12:10 AM
Wow thats a tough read. I think some editing would be valuble in helping me to understand what you are trying to lead to, but here goes anyway.

You have cobbled togeather a number of ideas in support of a concept that seems easily proven wrong. I will use an example.

As you state, the light that leaves the sun's surface takes approximately 8 minutes to arrive here on earth. As such, you do actually see the sun as it was 8 minutes ago. Taken to extremes, this means that if the sun were to explode, we would not know it for 8 minutes.

The question to ask is, taking away the aspect of a limitation to the speed of light, how can we be sure that the light leaving the sun arrived here 8 minutes later?

Without getting technical, real earth experiments measuring the speed of light right on earth revealed that light moved in a precise way and that meant that there was a limit on how fast it could go. Through visual experimentation, experiments that can be, and have been, reproduced by many different people many times, people have measured the actual speed that a photon of light travels.

Coming to your somewhat muddled comment regarding the mirrors on the moon, those mirrors were placed precisely by people who stood on the surface. As scientists knew precisely where the mirrors were placed, they were able to shoot a beam of high intensity light (read 'laser") to strike the placed mirror. The light beam used was a pulse, whose length of pulse was precisely known, and they then waited for the reflection of that pulse to arrive back. Low and behold if the pulse didn't arrive back at exactly the time it was predicted to prior to firing the pulse in the first place.

In your example, that would not have occurred. Using your logic, the pulse would have arrived back on earth at exactly the same moment as it left.

I have tried to understand what you are saying about Mars, but you've lost me.

I can tell you that the rovers are an excellent proof of the speed of light. The radio signal sent to a rover to perform a certain task arrived at exactly the amount of time it was supposed to, because the rover acted on the signal and replied on it's action. The reply arrived back here at exactly the time predicted and watched for. Once again, that could not have happened if your proposed Perceptional Law was correct.

By the way--how would your "Law" respond to the comment "the world is flat"?

2004-Feb-06, 01:32 AM
You said: "[/I]reality is not what you think by hypothesies about the universe but that reality is based in perception (read experiments) and the correct interpretation of such.[I]"

Well, based on perception (read experiments) we've known since 1676 that we see distant things as they were in the past due to the lag caused by the speed of light. A guy named Roemer observed Jupiter's moons for a long period of time. Jupiter eclipses Io on a routine basis, and he worked out good predictions of when these eclipses would happen. But he observed that they slowly started to lag until they were several minutes late. Then they started to gain until they were on time again. He recognized that the Earth's orbit made the distance to Jupiter vary through the year, and that the eclipses were early when Jupiter was closest to Earth, and latest when Jupiter was farthest from the earth. Obviously, the deviation was caused by the lag due to the time it takes light to travel from Jupiter to Earth. In fact, he used this lag to get the first relatively accurate value for the speed of light.

Roemer realized that he was "perceiving" Jupiters moons as they were when the light left them. That is the only reasonable explanation for how the Earth's position could affect the orbit of Io.

Unfortunately for your hypothesis, Roemer disproved it over 300 years ago.

For more details, check Roemer and the Speed of Light. (http://www.what-is-the-speed-of-light.com/roemer-speed-of-light.html)

2004-Feb-06, 08:40 PM
Carlos ... I am just curious ... how did you come to your conclusion? Maybe you should update your library with books written more recently ... ;)

2004-Feb-07, 12:52 PM
I am completely confuzzled...:blink:

carlosncarlos, I was under the impression that personal attacks on other members were the reason why (as i saw) your other postings were shut down <_< . Either way...

I am of the belief (and no one has ever convinced me of otherwise) that no theory stated as a theory is "crap". However, as a science teacher, I do find some theories if stated as facts while still not 100% can potentially (NOT totally) be dangerous. I went to do some research on this &#39;law&#39; and all i found when i googled were your (carlosncarlos) postings everywhere - this does not convince me at all.

Thank you for the article The Thorn, I was looking for something like that for my class. And it is a classic example of something that has been proven, we did an experiment similar to that involving transits of planets - beautiful, once the equipment worked....:lol:

2004-Feb-08, 09:51 PM
About Roemer&#39;s work; there are people that disagree with the conclusions. Maybe something to ask an expert; here is the site with the book.
I don&#39;t know if there is any merit to his ideas, but at the least it is an interesting overview, with too many formulae for me though.

2004-Feb-08, 11:26 PM
I would like to see someone who has considered Sansbury&#39;s arguments and offered a rebuttal. Anyone know of such a person? Or a link to thier reply?

2004-Feb-09, 10:35 AM
Now that would be interesting&#33;&#33;&#33; Getting the whole story&#33;

2004-Feb-09, 11:32 AM
I&#39;ve done some googling on Sansbury, and all I can find is people referring to his work, but no rebuttals. I guess his work is either ignored or too difficult for most. Carlosncarlos, maybe you have some idea where Sansbury is talking about?
Or Tim Thompson?

2004-Feb-10, 07:36 PM
I&#39;ve done some more looking around & came across this:

http://www.pacificsites.com/~cmorford/Her_...w_Cosmology.htm (http://www.pacificsites.com/~cmorford/Her_Sci/E_U/Thoth--New_Cosmology.htm)

Seems to be the place where some of the ideas of carlosncarlos (and others) might be coming from.

Still looking for an article that rebuts the theory.

2004-Feb-10, 07:58 PM
Thoth newsletter also features the Electric Universe people, so I should have seen it before.
No rebuttals anywhere.

2004-Feb-10, 11:22 PM
Found a rebuttal. I wonder if this is the same Tim from our forums?


Still looking for more, outside of "Bad Astonomy" and "debunking Myths of Physics" and similar type sites.

Whew, heavy going&#33; :unsure:

2004-Feb-10, 11:56 PM
The very same&#33; We are so happy he finds the time to post with us&#33;

2004-Feb-15, 08:17 AM
After reading Dr. Thompson&#39;s article and reading up some references that I have here and Googled - I can see that the standard theories, including Roemer seem to stand true.