How far could you see?

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 23, 2013, 03:53:56 AM

I feel sorry for you believing all this stuff. I have no doubt you're intelligent, but your naivety is in abundance.
13.5 billion light years away? have a serious think about what you are saying.

Don't understand the concept of a light year, or can't comprehend the distance?

Maybe he/she/it thinks a ly is a measurement of time.

Quote from: 29silhouette on November 23, 2013, 09:45:00 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 23, 2013, 03:53:56 AM

I feel sorry for you believing all this stuff. I have no doubt you're intelligent, but your naivety is in abundance.
13.5 billion light years away? have a serious think about what you are saying.

Don't understand the concept of a light year, or can't comprehend the distance?

Maybe he/she/it thinks a ly is a measurement of time.

Well, one could argue that, in some ways, a light year could be used as a measure of time.  After all, when you say that a galaxy is 13.5  billion light years away, you're also saying that you are looking at that galaxy as it was 13.5 billion years ago because it took that long for its light to reach us.

Quote from: Jorhan Brimve Stahl on November 23, 2013, 02:49:26 PM

Quote from: 29silhouette on November 23, 2013, 09:45:00 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on November 23, 2013, 03:53:56 AM

I feel sorry for you believing all this stuff. I have no doubt you're intelligent, but your naivety is in abundance.
13.5 billion light years away? have a serious think about what you are saying.

Don't understand the concept of a light year, or can't comprehend the distance?

Maybe he/she/it thinks a ly is a measurement of time.

Well, one could argue that, in some ways, a light year could be used as a measure of time.  After all, when you say that a galaxy is 13.5  billion light years away, you're also saying that you are looking at that galaxy as it was 13.5 billion years ago because it took that long for its light to reach us.

Still, that's the age of the light you observe, not the actual object. Also my point was that ly isn't a unit of time. If light has travelled x ly, it is y [unit] old.

Quote from: FlatOrange on November 22, 2013, 10:55:03 PM

You could see as far as history goes back, to the 'Cosmic Dawn'

This is a picture of stars (galaxies, actually) that are 13.5 billion light years away.  A terrestrial telescope is able to see it, too. Chile telescope, hawaii telescope and a couple of non-terrestrial NASA telescopes: spitzer and hubble.



So why does the sun disappear while at the same time stars are visible on the horizon?  Why aren't foggy days shorter?

I feel sorry for you believing all this stuff. I have no doubt you're intelligent, but your naivety is in abundance.
13.5 billion light years away? have a serious think about what you are saying.

Okay, I had a serious think about what I was saying.

The title of this thread is "how far could you see?"  I was answering you could see as far as history goes back.  If we could teleport a camera as far as we wanted, we'd put that camera 4.5 billion light years away and then we could see the planet forming. We could put that camera 13.8 billion light years away and we could watch the big bang.

If you can reach a spot in the universe where light has not traveled to then you are farther in light years than time goes back.

The limit is our point of view, not light's inability to travel great distances.

Look! what you see is what you see....NOW!
You don't see anything in the past you see it as is.
Yes,yes, I know, I know, but, but, it's not true, you can see into the past, you see stars as they WERE hundreds/thousands/millions or whatever years ago, because that's how long it takes the light to reach your eyes.

Have a word will you all, because it's getting beyond ridiculous, the amount of brainwashing you lot are willing to accept.

I'll give you a plain...LOGICAL and SIMPLE and EASY way to understand. Will you grasp it?...will you accept it?.... No you won't, because science has told you the big fabricated stories and that's amazing enough for you lot, but here goes.

When you see a car move away from you at night, with it's lights on...you see that car and it's lights get further away....BUT...you are seeing them AS IS, not as it was in the past.
If the car stopped a mile up the road, you see the light from that point, meaning, you see the light of that car at say 12.00 pm just as the person in that car will see 12.00 pm on his/her clock.

The point of light we see is the point of light directly from the source. The rest of it is scattered light around us.
The sooner people get this stupid notion that light has a set speed, out of their heads, they might and I say MIGHT start to see the real logic in science, instead of believing you are smarter than the average bear because you can reel off pathetic numbers and equations, supposedly to describe a whole lot of absolute nonsense.

Look! what you see is what you see....NOW!
You don't see anything in the past you see it as is.
Yes,yes, I know, I know, but, but, it's not true, you can see into the past, you see stars as they WERE hundreds/thousands/millions or whatever years ago, because that's how long it takes the light to reach your eyes.

Have a word will you all, because it's getting beyond ridiculous, the amount of brainwashing you lot are willing to accept.

I'll give you a plain...LOGICAL and SIMPLE and EASY way to understand. Will you grasp it?...will you accept it?.... No you won't, because science has told you the big fabricated stories and that's amazing enough for you lot, but here goes.

When you see a car move away from you at night, with it's lights on...you see that car and it's lights get further away....BUT...you are seeing them AS IS, not as it was in the past.
If the car stopped a mile up the road, you see the light from that point, meaning, you see the light of that car at say 12.00 pm just as the person in that car will see 12.00 pm on his/her clock.

The point of light we see is the point of light directly from the source. The rest of it is scattered light around us.
The sooner people get this stupid notion that light has a set speed, out of their heads, they might and I say MIGHT start to see the real logic in science, instead of believing you are smarter than the average bear because you can reel off pathetic numbers and equations, supposedly to describe a whole lot of absolute nonsense.

Sooo... if it's instant then you couldn't actually see it traveling right?

The people at MIT are just in on the Conspiracy I suppose.

#ws" class="bbc_link" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">Visualizing video at the speed of light — one trillion frames per second

Look! what you see is what you see....NOW!
You don't see anything in the past you see it as is.

As I recall, you agree that light travels at a finite speed, don't you?  I also seem to recall you believing that light travels significantly slower than the scientifically accepted 186,000 miles per second, correct?  If so, then you must agree that it takes time for light to move from its source (the object that you're looking at) to its destination (the retina of your eye).  Granted, this is usually a very, very small amount of time and you could say that it might just as well be zero, but it isn't.  The further away the light source, the longer it takes for the light to reach your eye.  That means that if you agree that light has a finite speed and it takes time time to reach your eye, then you must agree that you are, indeed, looking into the past whenever you look at something, even if that past is only a very tiny fraction of a second ago.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 16, 2013, 06:01:50 AM

Look! what you see is what you see....NOW!
You don't see anything in the past you see it as is.

As I recall, you agree that light travels at a finite speed, don't you?  I also seem to recall you believing that light travels significantly slower than the scientifically accepted 186,000 miles per second, correct?  If so, then you must agree that it takes time for light to move from its source (the object that you're looking at) to its destination (the retina of your eye).  Granted, this is usually a very, very small amount of time and you could say that it might just as well be zero, but it isn't.  The further away the light source, the longer it takes for the light to reach your eye.  That means that if you agree that light has a finite speed and it takes time time to reach your eye, then you must agree that you are, indeed, looking into the past whenever you look at something, even if that past is only a very tiny fraction of a second ago.

Try reading what I said and absorb it.

Quote from: markjo on December 16, 2013, 06:57:42 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 16, 2013, 06:01:50 AM

Look! what you see is what you see....NOW!
You don't see anything in the past you see it as is.

As I recall, you agree that light travels at a finite speed, don't you?  I also seem to recall you believing that light travels significantly slower than the scientifically accepted 186,000 miles per second, correct?  If so, then you must agree that it takes time for light to move from its source (the object that you're looking at) to its destination (the retina of your eye).  Granted, this is usually a very, very small amount of time and you could say that it might just as well be zero, but it isn't.  The further away the light source, the longer it takes for the light to reach your eye.  That means that if you agree that light has a finite speed and it takes time time to reach your eye, then you must agree that you are, indeed, looking into the past whenever you look at something, even if that past is only a very tiny fraction of a second ago.

Try reading what I said and absorb it.

Did you watch the video?

Is light instantaneous?  Or can it be observed in motion?

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 16, 2013, 07:02:41 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 16, 2013, 06:57:42 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 16, 2013, 06:01:50 AM

Look! what you see is what you see....NOW!
You don't see anything in the past you see it as is.

As I recall, you agree that light travels at a finite speed, don't you?  I also seem to recall you believing that light travels significantly slower than the scientifically accepted 186,000 miles per second, correct?  If so, then you must agree that it takes time for light to move from its source (the object that you're looking at) to its destination (the retina of your eye).  Granted, this is usually a very, very small amount of time and you could say that it might just as well be zero, but it isn't.  The further away the light source, the longer it takes for the light to reach your eye.  That means that if you agree that light has a finite speed and it takes time time to reach your eye, then you must agree that you are, indeed, looking into the past whenever you look at something, even if that past is only a very tiny fraction of a second ago.

Try reading what I said and absorb it.

Did you watch the video?

Is light instantaneous?  Or can it be observed in motion?

It is instantaneous to your eye.

Quote from: FlatOrange on December 16, 2013, 07:38:37 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 16, 2013, 07:02:41 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 16, 2013, 06:57:42 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 16, 2013, 06:01:50 AM

Look! what you see is what you see....NOW!
You don't see anything in the past you see it as is.

As I recall, you agree that light travels at a finite speed, don't you?  I also seem to recall you believing that light travels significantly slower than the scientifically accepted 186,000 miles per second, correct?  If so, then you must agree that it takes time for light to move from its source (the object that you're looking at) to its destination (the retina of your eye).  Granted, this is usually a very, very small amount of time and you could say that it might just as well be zero, but it isn't.  The further away the light source, the longer it takes for the light to reach your eye.  That means that if you agree that light has a finite speed and it takes time time to reach your eye, then you must agree that you are, indeed, looking into the past whenever you look at something, even if that past is only a very tiny fraction of a second ago.

Try reading what I said and absorb it.

Did you watch the video?

Is light instantaneous?  Or can it be observed in motion?

It is instantaneous to your eye.

That doesn't answer if light is instantaneous.

Some things are invisible to our eyes. Does that mean nothing can see them?

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 16, 2013, 07:41:13 AM

Quote from: FlatOrange on December 16, 2013, 07:38:37 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 16, 2013, 07:02:41 AM

Quote from: markjo on December 16, 2013, 06:57:42 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 16, 2013, 06:01:50 AM

Look! what you see is what you see....NOW!
You don't see anything in the past you see it as is.

As I recall, you agree that light travels at a finite speed, don't you?  I also seem to recall you believing that light travels significantly slower than the scientifically accepted 186,000 miles per second, correct?  If so, then you must agree that it takes time for light to move from its source (the object that you're looking at) to its destination (the retina of your eye).  Granted, this is usually a very, very small amount of time and you could say that it might just as well be zero, but it isn't.  The further away the light source, the longer it takes for the light to reach your eye.  That means that if you agree that light has a finite speed and it takes time time to reach your eye, then you must agree that you are, indeed, looking into the past whenever you look at something, even if that past is only a very tiny fraction of a second ago.

Try reading what I said and absorb it.

Did you watch the video?

Is light instantaneous?  Or can it be observed in motion?

It is instantaneous to your eye.

That doesn't answer if light is instantaneous.

Some things are invisible to our eyes. Does that mean nothing can see them?

Let's try and see if I can get through to you.
As human beings, all we have is our eyes, to SEE. Whether it's by looking through a glass or by naked eye...this is what we have.

What we see is as, IS, not as WAS.
If you see a so called light that you think is a star, it's because you see the point of light from that so called star, AS IS, as it is NOW, not as it was so many years ago.

Wake the hell up for crying out loud.

Let's try something.

Do you own a remote control and a smart phone? In this example I'm only sure about an iPhone working but maybe other technology works, too.

Look at the remote signal emitter thing on the front and press some buttons. Do you see anything?

What your eye sees is "AS IS" am I right or am I right?

Okay now get out your smartphone, webcam, w/e. Aim your remote control at the camera, look at the display and press some buttons.  See a light?  Didn't see that light before did you?

Maybe your eyes don't detect everything "AS IS"!

http://www.wikihow.com/Check-if-a-Remote-Control-is-Transmitting-an-Infrared-Signal


P.S. "all we have is our eyes, to SEE"?? You know there's a lot of technology that's been invented in the last 400 years.  Plus, there's a lot of people running around with cameras and stuff...  I'm pretty sure we have advanced beyond just our two eyes.

You're just not getting it, are you.
I'm not interested in what your eyes can't see. We don't look up at the sky and say, "oh look, I can't see that so called star light" do we?
Whether you put an optic or an object that makes light visible to our eye, it's still, AS IS, always.

As long as there is light creating energy, there will be light. Let m see if I can explain.

If I was stood (hypothetically) on a distant (so called) star and all time in your so called universe was the same time. You would see my star from 12.00 pm (for instance) from your EYE point of view and I would see your star from 12.00 pm from my EYE point of view.
The only difference is, if I was to then travel towards your light, it would take an amount of time for me to physically reach you, as it would you to reach me.

The second light energy stops, so does any persons point of view.
If I were to switch off my light, no matter where it was in distance to your eye, you would see it disappear the moment I stop the energy that emits it. You certainly wouldn't go on seeing it for years later after I'd turned it off, so stop being so naive because it's embarrassing.

You're just not getting it, are you.
I'm not interested in what your eyes can't see. We don't look up at the sky and say, "oh look, I can't see that so called star light" do we?
Whether you put an optic or an object that makes light visible to our eye, it's still, AS IS, always.

As long as there is light creating energy, there will be light. Let m see if I can explain.

If I was stood (hypothetically) on a distant (so called) star and all time in your so called universe was the same time. You would see my star from 12.00 pm (for instance) from your EYE point of view and I would see your star from 12.00 pm from my EYE point of view.
The only difference is, if I was to then travel towards your light, it would take an amount of time for me to physically reach you, as it would you to reach me.

The second light energy stops, so does any persons point of view.
If I were to switch off my light, no matter where it was in distance to your eye, you would see it disappear the moment I stop the energy that emits it. You certainly wouldn't go on seeing it for years later after I'd turned it off, so stop being so naive because it's embarrassing.

So you have no concept of what a photon is? Light is emitted like bullets.  Yes, if you turn on your light and then turn it off there will still be light traveling out of it to distant eyes. Those distant eyes will not be in sync with your eyes.

The only thing embarrassing when an educated adult debates with a child is that the adult keeps trying.

You're just not getting it, are you.
I'm not interested in what your eyes can't see. We don't look up at the sky and say, "oh look, I can't see that so called star light" do we?
Whether you put an optic or an object that makes light visible to our eye, it's still, AS IS, always.

As long as there is light creating energy, there will be light. Let m see if I can explain.

If I was stood (hypothetically) on a distant (so called) star and all time in your so called universe was the same time. You would see my star from 12.00 pm (for instance) from your EYE point of view and I would see your star from 12.00 pm from my EYE point of view.
The only difference is, if I was to then travel towards your light, it would take an amount of time for me to physically reach you, as it would you to reach me.

The second light energy stops, so does any persons point of view.
If I were to switch off my light, no matter where it was in distance to your eye, you would see it disappear the moment I stop the energy that emits it. You certainly wouldn't go on seeing it for years later after I'd turned it off, so stop being so naive because it's embarrassing.

what about sound?

Is that the same or does that travel?

In fact is there anything else in the world that acts like you suggest light does?

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 16, 2013, 08:29:54 AM

You're just not getting it, are you.
I'm not interested in what your eyes can't see. We don't look up at the sky and say, "oh look, I can't see that so called star light" do we?
Whether you put an optic or an object that makes light visible to our eye, it's still, AS IS, always.

As long as there is light creating energy, there will be light. Let m see if I can explain.

If I was stood (hypothetically) on a distant (so called) star and all time in your so called universe was the same time. You would see my star from 12.00 pm (for instance) from your EYE point of view and I would see your star from 12.00 pm from my EYE point of view.
The only difference is, if I was to then travel towards your light, it would take an amount of time for me to physically reach you, as it would you to reach me.

The second light energy stops, so does any persons point of view.
If I were to switch off my light, no matter where it was in distance to your eye, you would see it disappear the moment I stop the energy that emits it. You certainly wouldn't go on seeing it for years later after I'd turned it off, so stop being so naive because it's embarrassing.

So you have no concept of what a photon is? Light is emitted like bullets.  Yes, if you turn on your light and then turn it off there will still be light traveling out of it to distant eyes. Those distant eyes will not be in sync with your eyes.

The only thing embarrassing when an educated adult debates with a child is that the adult keeps trying.

You're certainly not educated. You are simply brainwashed. I agree though, you most probably are a child, which would make sense and I suppose I have to let you off the hook as far as being naive goes, because it's not your fault, but when you grow up, try and use your brain.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 16, 2013, 08:29:54 AM

You're just not getting it, are you.
I'm not interested in what your eyes can't see. We don't look up at the sky and say, "oh look, I can't see that so called star light" do we?
Whether you put an optic or an object that makes light visible to our eye, it's still, AS IS, always.

As long as there is light creating energy, there will be light. Let m see if I can explain.

If I was stood (hypothetically) on a distant (so called) star and all time in your so called universe was the same time. You would see my star from 12.00 pm (for instance) from your EYE point of view and I would see your star from 12.00 pm from my EYE point of view.
The only difference is, if I was to then travel towards your light, it would take an amount of time for me to physically reach you, as it would you to reach me.

The second light energy stops, so does any persons point of view.
If I were to switch off my light, no matter where it was in distance to your eye, you would see it disappear the moment I stop the energy that emits it. You certainly wouldn't go on seeing it for years later after I'd turned it off, so stop being so naive because it's embarrassing.

what about sound?

Is that the same or does that travel?

In fact is there anything else in the world that acts like you suggest light does?

Light is sound. Light is the end product of sound.

Quote from: Spank86 on December 16, 2013, 09:12:36 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 16, 2013, 08:29:54 AM

You're just not getting it, are you.
I'm not interested in what your eyes can't see. We don't look up at the sky and say, "oh look, I can't see that so called star light" do we?
Whether you put an optic or an object that makes light visible to our eye, it's still, AS IS, always.

As long as there is light creating energy, there will be light. Let m see if I can explain.

If I was stood (hypothetically) on a distant (so called) star and all time in your so called universe was the same time. You would see my star from 12.00 pm (for instance) from your EYE point of view and I would see your star from 12.00 pm from my EYE point of view.
The only difference is, if I was to then travel towards your light, it would take an amount of time for me to physically reach you, as it would you to reach me.

The second light energy stops, so does any persons point of view.
If I were to switch off my light, no matter where it was in distance to your eye, you would see it disappear the moment I stop the energy that emits it. You certainly wouldn't go on seeing it for years later after I'd turned it off, so stop being so naive because it's embarrassing.

what about sound?

Is that the same or does that travel?

In fact is there anything else in the world that acts like you suggest light does?

Light is sound. Light is the end product of sound.

do does that mean you think sound travels instantaneously too?

Scepti, I seem to recall you stating light and sound propagated the same way.

If so, how is one instantaneous over any distance, while the other travels a mere 767mph?

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 16, 2013, 09:34:50 AM

Quote from: Spank86 on December 16, 2013, 09:12:36 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 16, 2013, 08:29:54 AM

You're just not getting it, are you.
I'm not interested in what your eyes can't see. We don't look up at the sky and say, "oh look, I can't see that so called star light" do we?
Whether you put an optic or an object that makes light visible to our eye, it's still, AS IS, always.

As long as there is light creating energy, there will be light. Let m see if I can explain.

If I was stood (hypothetically) on a distant (so called) star and all time in your so called universe was the same time. You would see my star from 12.00 pm (for instance) from your EYE point of view and I would see your star from 12.00 pm from my EYE point of view.
The only difference is, if I was to then travel towards your light, it would take an amount of time for me to physically reach you, as it would you to reach me.

The second light energy stops, so does any persons point of view.
If I were to switch off my light, no matter where it was in distance to your eye, you would see it disappear the moment I stop the energy that emits it. You certainly wouldn't go on seeing it for years later after I'd turned it off, so stop being so naive because it's embarrassing.

what about sound?

Is that the same or does that travel?

In fact is there anything else in the world that acts like you suggest light does?

Light is sound. Light is the end product of sound.

do does that mean you think sound travels instantaneously too?

Sound is a vibration frequency, it either creates an audible (to us) noise or a visible (to us) light.
From wherever it occurs, as long as the frequency is consistent, then you will hear or see it as that consistency..

Scepti, I seem to recall you stating light and sound propagated the same way.

If so, how is one instantaneous over any distance, while the other travels a mere 767mph?

There is a remarkable difference in seeing and hearing.

Quote from: 29silhouette on December 16, 2013, 09:53:54 AM

Scepti, I seem to recall you stating light and sound propagated the same way.

If so, how is one instantaneous over any distance, while the other travels a mere 767mph?

There is a remarkable difference in seeing and hearing.

does that mean you think the time delay in sound occurs in our ears or between there and the brain?

Or that you know sound takes time to travel between two points.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 16, 2013, 10:22:23 AM

Quote from: 29silhouette on December 16, 2013, 09:53:54 AM

Scepti, I seem to recall you stating light and sound propagated the same way.

If so, how is one instantaneous over any distance, while the other travels a mere 767mph?

There is a remarkable difference in seeing and hearing.

does that mean you think the time delay in sound occurs in our ears or between there and the brain?

Or that you know sound takes time to travel between two points.

There is a remarkable difference between seeing and hearing. You see light from it's original point but the sound comes first that created that light, except that your eyes see it before your ear drums are vibrated, assuming it's within your range.

Quote from: Spank86 on December 16, 2013, 10:31:01 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 16, 2013, 10:22:23 AM

Quote from: 29silhouette on December 16, 2013, 09:53:54 AM

Scepti, I seem to recall you stating light and sound propagated the same way.

If so, how is one instantaneous over any distance, while the other travels a mere 767mph?

There is a remarkable difference in seeing and hearing.

does that mean you think the time delay in sound occurs in our ears or between there and the brain?

Or that you know sound takes time to travel between two points.

There is a remarkable difference between seeing and hearing. You see light from it's original point but the sound comes first that created that light, except that your eyes see it before your ear drums are vibrated, assuming it's within your range.

So why is there a delay between seeing a lightening flash and hearing thunder?  Or fireworks in the distance.

Quote from: Spank86 on December 16, 2013, 10:31:01 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 16, 2013, 10:22:23 AM

Quote from: 29silhouette on December 16, 2013, 09:53:54 AM

Scepti, I seem to recall you stating light and sound propagated the same way.

If so, how is one instantaneous over any distance, while the other travels a mere 767mph?

There is a remarkable difference in seeing and hearing.

does that mean you think the time delay in sound occurs in our ears or between there and the brain?

Or that you know sound takes time to travel between two points.

There is a remarkable difference between seeing and hearing. You see light from it's original point but the sound comes first that created that light, except that your eyes see it before your ear drums are vibrated, assuming it's within your range.

Does light travel the same way as sound?  Yes or no.

Quote from: Spank86 on December 16, 2013, 09:12:36 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 16, 2013, 08:29:54 AM

You're just not getting it, are you.
I'm not interested in what your eyes can't see. We don't look up at the sky and say, "oh look, I can't see that so called star light" do we?
Whether you put an optic or an object that makes light visible to our eye, it's still, AS IS, always.

As long as there is light creating energy, there will be light. Let m see if I can explain.

If I was stood (hypothetically) on a distant (so called) star and all time in your so called universe was the same time. You would see my star from 12.00 pm (for instance) from your EYE point of view and I would see your star from 12.00 pm from my EYE point of view.
The only difference is, if I was to then travel towards your light, it would take an amount of time for me to physically reach you, as it would you to reach me.

The second light energy stops, so does any persons point of view.
If I were to switch off my light, no matter where it was in distance to your eye, you would see it disappear the moment I stop the energy that emits it. You certainly wouldn't go on seeing it for years later after I'd turned it off, so stop being so naive because it's embarrassing.

what about sound?

Is that the same or does that travel?

In fact is there anything else in the world that acts like you suggest light does?

Light is sound. Light is the end product of sound.

We know this statement to be 100% false. It's not debatable.

We know this statement to be 100% false. It's not debatable.

I wasn't aware that was a problem on here?

Quote from: sokarul on December 16, 2013, 01:45:21 PM

We know this statement to be 100% false. It's not debatable.

I wasn't aware that was a problem on here?

While true, some things he says are more outlandish than others.

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 16, 2013, 10:47:57 AM

Quote from: Spank86 on December 16, 2013, 10:31:01 AM

Quote from: sceptimatic on December 16, 2013, 10:22:23 AM

Quote from: 29silhouette on December 16, 2013, 09:53:54 AM

Scepti, I seem to recall you stating light and sound propagated the same way.

If so, how is one instantaneous over any distance, while the other travels a mere 767mph?

There is a remarkable difference in seeing and hearing.

does that mean you think the time delay in sound occurs in our ears or between there and the brain?

Or that you know sound takes time to travel between two points.

There is a remarkable difference between seeing and hearing. You see light from it's original point but the sound comes first that created that light, except that your eyes see it before your ear drums are vibrated, assuming it's within your range.

Does light travel the same way as sound?  Yes or no.

No.
They are the exact same thing as in, you cannot produce light without first producing vibration/agitation/sound, but they do not act in the same manner to your perception.