Quote:
|
It is because the image is not reflected. If you can't get this, this is your lack of capabilities.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Nobody is saying images are reflected, so what exactly is there to "get"?
|
You know what I'm saying. There is no information in the light to give us the raw materials we need to form an image. If light strikes objects at an angle (point of reflection), then how would the inverse square law hold up over the course of millions of miles?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
...but we will never get an image of any bit of matter that is not within our visual range because that's not the function of light.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Yet the Hubble space telescope does precisely that all the time, as we've told you several times.
|
Who is arguing with this Spacemonkey? Light travels so we will see light, but we won't see an image of THE EXTERNAL WORLD THAT CONTAINS SUBSTANCE. |
You are arguing it. You said " we will never get an image of any bit of matter that is not within our visual range", which is exactly what the Hubble does and Spacemonkey pointed out to you. The galaxies and nebulae and other images captured by the Hubble are part of the external world and contain substance, but they are not at all within our "visual range" |
Actually, they don't. The images formed on the Hubble are from light (photons) only, just like the Sun's light does at sunrise.