What is Real?

[Muser]

Interesting about shadows. Just a thought, the other day I was walking along with the sun behind me and saw my shadow on the ground in front of me. I also realised that it was impossible to tell my age from the shadow. I could have been a young teenager or an old hag. What is it about shadows?

[Grey Cloud]

Interesting about shadows. Just a thought, the other day I was walking along with the sun behind me and saw my shadow on the ground in front of me. I also realised that it was impossible to tell my age from the shadow. I could have been a young teenager or an old hag. What is it about shadows?

Expert say: light source + solid object = shadow.
Grey Cloud, he say shadow + light = solid object
(Or stillness + vibration = matter)

[Antone]

Expert say: light source + solid object = shadow.
Grey Cloud, he say shadow + light = solid object
(Or stillness + vibration = matter)

I'm not sure if this is what you had in mind, but I've always found it rather interesting that in cymatics the matter (sand) clumps up in the areas where there isn't any vibration occurring. In other words, the image we see is the inverse of where all the activity and energy is concentrated.

I suspect the same thing is basically going on in the rest of reality as well. What we see and percieve is just the negative image (so to speak) of what is really going on.

[Grey Cloud]

Expert say: light source + solid object = shadow.
Grey Cloud, he say shadow + light = solid object
(Or stillness + vibration = matter)

I'm not sure if this is what you had in mind, but I've always found it rather interesting that in cymatics the matter (sand) clumps up in the areas where there isn't any vibration occurring. In other words, the image we see is the inverse of where all the activity and energy is concentrated.

I suspect the same thing is basically going on in the rest of reality as well. What we see and percieve is just the negative image (so to speak) of what is really going on.

That is exactly what I have in mind [sic]. I cannot shake the feeling that we are somehow looking at things inside-out, back-to-front or upside down. Your negative image metaphor is as good as any of mine.
Great minds think alike, or is it fool's never differ?

[Muser]

Grey Cloud. I have thought for some time that shadows are a lot more important than we have been taught, or believe. I have had an idea in my head for some time - don't ask me where it came from 'cos I don't know - that if we need to find something don't look at the light, look at its shadow.

I know that in scientific terms you can work out the direction of something by the amount of shadow being shown, but I mean this in a different way, only I don't know how to express it. I am thinking on a lot larger scale where shadows don't really help much in the normal sense.

By the way, can anyone explain to me in very layperson's terms why we don't see the sun's rays at all at night? Yes, the earth is a big body, and it hides a lot, but whilst we can see stars, and even the reflected light of the sun on the moon, we can't see the edge of the sun's rays at the the edge of our horizons, east and west. The sun is so much bigger than the earth you would expect the light from this larger body to be spreading out at the edges all night. So why doesn't it?

Forgive me for asking a child's question but sometimes it is necessary to think like a child to come up with the right questions.

[nick c]

Hello Muser,

By the way, can anyone explain to me in very layperson's terms why we don't see the sun's rays at all at night?

I'll take a stab at that!

Yes, the earth is a big body, and it hides a lot, but whilst we can see stars, and even the reflected light of the sun on the moon, we can't see the edge of the sun's rays at the the edge of our horizons, east and west.

Not entirely true, we can see the bright horizon for some time after sunset, and before sunrise. Although this is, of course, sunlight reflected off clouds and particles in the Earth's atmosphere, and refraction of sunlight by the atmosphere. Atmospheric clarity is a major factor. I take it, that your question pertains to, why we don't see this all night, that is a bright western sky, gradually dimming, while the eastern sky gets gradually brighter.

The sun is so much bigger than the earth you would expect the light from this larger body to be spreading out at the edges all night. So why doesn't it?

Well the Sun is certainly much bigger than the Earth, however, the apparent size of the Sun as seen from Earth is not that big...about 1/2 degree, or put another way about the same size as (more often smaller than) the full moon, or about the size of a dime (US coin) held at arm's length. Try it on the full moon (not on the Sun for obvious safety reasons) you can totally cover it by holding a dime at arm's length. Meanwhile, the Earth appears so large to us standing on its' surface, that we need intellectual convincing that it is actually a sphere. So I would say that, at night we are in the shadow of the very large Earth and as the relatively small (but bright) disc of the Sun moves below the horizon (beneath our feet) it lights the horizon by reflection and refraction until the angle of dispersion of sunlight (Sun is approx 93 million miles away, and the Earth's atmosphere is somewhere between 300 to 600 miles thick, which is a very small portion of the Earth's 7926 mi. diameter) makes it no longer visible (to those in the Earth shadow) and so, we cannot see much if any glow from the Sun.
That's my take

Nick C

[kevin]

Grey Cloud,
Shadows, IMO, the sun is not shining upon us, it is a two way deal, both giving and taking.
IMO, the light occurs around the area of the spheres as the FIELDS interact.
Therefore the light from the moon is not from the moon, not reflected as you have been TOLD,TOLD,TOLD.
Moon light is the field of the moon interacting with the field of the earth, we can also SEE the reaction of the moon with the sun, and because we SEE this, we ASSUME its reflection from the sun.
It's not an either or neither deal.
Therefore your shadow is less light been produced because of your body acting as a resistance to either of the fields, either the force leaving the planet, or the incoming, I suspect both.
The heat felt at the side facing the sun is ASSUMED to come from the sun, but it may be the resistance through your body of the force leaving the planet.
The mixture of these two forces is IMO what causes creation.
The sun may be cold, just a huge great planet, the bigger they are , the more resistance to the incoming /outgoing forces.
I even percieve of life on the sun.
I consider that there is a balance point of exchange, where creation can achieve what it does, the extremes of this balance will be near the equator and the poles, as it's all field based, and the field shape will be vastly different at these extremes, and will vary also because of other field alignments causing interferance patterns in the field of earth in particuler, where the balance is out to extreme will be the dessert areas, it may be that such as the pyramids created this inbalance after been built?
Kevin

[Antone]

By the way, can anyone explain to me in very layperson's terms why we don't see the sun's rays at all at night? Yes, the earth is a big body, and it hides a lot, but whilst we can see stars, and even the reflected light of the sun on the moon, we can't see the edge of the sun's rays at the the edge of our horizons, east and west. The sun is so much bigger than the earth you would expect the light from this larger body to be spreading out at the edges all night. So why doesn't it?

Nick may have answered the question you were asking.

But let me tackle if from a slightly different perspective. Imagine one room which is very brightly light and another room that is totally dark with a door open between the two. The dark room will have a pillar of light that stabs into the darkness, like an inverse shadow. The light we see is reflected off the surface of the room, however, and the space around earth doesn't contain any such reflecting surface. So when we look up, all we see is the darkness of outer space.

If your question is directed more towards the idea of the sunrise and sunset phenomenon... the reason these phenomenon occur, is also the reason that they do not occur all night... and that is basically that the earth is round instead of flat. Again find a dark room, only this time use a small but reasonably bright light source, such as a desk lamp. Now, find a small opaque vase and place it between the light and the floor. What you will notice is that the vase casts a dark shadow on the floor. If we were a small creature standing on the surface of the shadow side of the vase, we would be in the depths of darkness. But, because the vase is round, it isn't the case that there is a light side and a dark side. instead, between the part of the vase that receives the light head on and the part that is in nearly total darkness, there is an area that is partially dark. Looking at the vase from the side, this transition resembles a gray scale, somewhat. So while Nick's comments are true, we can also consider an answer that has nothing to do with atmospheric particles.

By contrast, if you place a flat object between the light and the floor, the object has a light side and a dark side, and there isn't any significant gradiation between the two. Once again, we see that if we remove the roundness of the object we loose the sunrise and sunset aspects of the globe.

If the question is why this phenomenon occurs... I belive it has to do with the angle of the light waves. light spreads out as it travels:

O
V

When the object is directly in front of the light, it is sort of like both sides of the [V] are striking the object. But when the Object is skewed to one side becase the vector of the light is not directly at the object in question, then its as if only one side of the [V] is striking the object:

...O
V

Because only one side of the light is striking the object, the light that the object receives is less and less intense. Until finally the object is beyond the spread and receives no light at all from the ray.

........O
V

My visuals aren't very good. You should imagine that the rays of the [V] extend out beyond the [O] which is the object. And that the center of the [V] has the brightest rays of light while the [edges of the V] become increasingly weak. Now, if the images were accurate, the light source and the object should remain in the same position relative to each other, but the [V] should rotate. to produce the effect that I achieve through offset.

Also, in general, this is probably a bit of an oversimplification, but I hope this addresses your question in adequately layman terms.

[Muser]

Thank you very much for your responses to my childish question. And as often happens, not everything is as clear cut as we tend to think it is. If it had been you would all have agreed in totality with what others said. Instead you gave slightly different viewpoints on the question which in turn makes me think more deeply about the question and its answers.

What I will say is this; we all tend to accept what others tell us in a very trusting manner. Whether or not that trust is worthy, or whether the subject information we accept is accurate, depends upon what we have been told in the first place.

I have found that many scientific theories have become certainties, and everyone who asks should accept without question the official answers. Try to question and you may find yourself not just at the other end of an argument but in the wilderness with your voice being ignored. This apparently has happened to several scientists, especially within the field of medicine, and their stories have made me wonder about the accuracy and the motives behind this apparent situation.

My own first hand experience of medication and the way the authorities, certainly in England under the NHS, react to new drugs, has left me querying everything - not a good position to be in when you have health problems which require medication for the rest of your life! People may be nice, helpful people, but they also are concerrned about their careers and often prefer to keep quiet about any uncertainties. This is the case with science in general, and why I am now asking some very basic questions.

I once read that space is actually a very cold place, and the rays which come from the sun are not in themselves hot. This begs the question is the sun actually a hot fireball at all? Like Kevin I have wondered if there is actually life on the sun, or at least underneath the surface. Ridiculous I know, if you believe all we have been taught by scientists, but could they be wrong?

People once believed the earth was flat, even the religious groups, and they tortured people who didn't accept the flat earth idea. But since then the idea of the earth being round and not at the centre of the solar system has taken root. Some people in the past believed that we are actually inside a sphere and that the rest of the sky is just an image on the inner surface of the sphere. I am not saying this is right, but if you had not already been told that the earth was round and we went round the sun you may have accepted this view. After all, it is like an optical illusion, and we all know how easy it is to be fooled by those.

I want to ponder more deeply on the replies you have given but I wish to say thank you for being so tolerant of someone who must seem an ignoramus compared with so many others on this site.

[Antone]

I once read that space is actually a very cold place, and the rays which come from the sun are not in themselves hot. This begs the question is the sun actually a hot fireball at all? Like Kevin I have wondered if there is actually life on the sun, or at least underneath the surface.

Interesting speculation.

Seems to me that on earth coldness is caused by the fact that atoms are "moving very slowly". Heat is caused by the movement of created by various atoms bumping into one another.

In space, I suspect that coldness is caused by a different mechanism. Individual atoms may be moving rapidly, but there simply aren't very many of them as compared to earth's atmosphere. So even though many of the molecules that do exist are moving rapidly, space is cold because, once again, not many colisions occur. This is why sunlight can warm us once it enters our atmostphere. The high speed photon now has many more particles to bump into and set into motion.

I have no idea if I'm right about this. I'm just using my own logic to talk off the top of my head. But it would seem to explain why rocks and other solid objects tend to get hotter than the air. They have more "particles to get bumped around". Thus, a given photon causes more warming to occur in the solid object than in the less dense air. And similarly, far less warming in the very sparsely populated reaches of outer space.

As for the possibility of life occurring on the sun, I think it all depends on whether the electrical discharge that is occurring directs its energy in all directions. If it does, then it would seem that life could not exist, because it would be too close to the source. And it wouldn't have had enough time to loose energy--via the inverse square law. However, it seems to me that if the energy is produced by an electric current, then the energy might flow primarily in the direction away from the sun. Since the center of the sun is some distance from the outer areas where that "perpetual spark" is occurring, it might not receive enough of that energy to kill developing life.

I can't remember where I read this, but someone (perhaps Velikovsky) suggested that the earth (and the life on it) may have actually developed within the envelop of one of the larger gas planets. These planets are basically just very small stars, as I understand it. Talbot's Polar Configuration suggests that one of them was the original sun. It was much closer to the earth than our current sun, and so dominated the mythmaking mind's of early man. Velikovsky suggests that this early "sun" may have in effect, gone supernova, releasing massive quantities of hydrogen, which when it combined with the high oxygen content of the air turned to water--creating an instant flood. This stabilized the planet and greatly reduced its starlike qualities.

The point is, if this planet were more sun like in the past, and if the earth developed within its womb, then perhaps something similar could occur within the sun. The question is, how does the developing "earth-like mass" move from being inside the sun to being outside of it. And of course, all of this is a mute point if the energy radiating from the sun doesn't travel in one direction only--away from the center of the sun.

It might be interesting to get some of the more technically adept minds to chime in on this possibility, but I suspect its probably more in the realm of science fiction than science to suppose that advanced life forms are living at the center of the sun.

[StevenO]

I once read that space is actually a very cold place, and the rays which come from the sun are not in themselves hot. This begs the question is the sun actually a hot fireball at all? Like Kevin I have wondered if there is actually life on the sun, or at least underneath the surface.

The best theory I have been studying sofar has the interior temperature of the Sun at > 4.6 * 10^14 Kelvin. Should be a very energetic life-form then
I hold the opinion that the Sun is the core of every life-form on Earth, so a force of life in itself. The atmosphere and water resonate with rays from the Sun and in this way distribute life around the globe and inside lifeforms itself. Why is there so much water used in the earth surface, inside plants and animals...?

[bboyer]

<snip>
By the way, can anyone explain to me in very layperson's terms why we don't see the sun's rays at all at night? Yes, the earth is a big body, and it hides a lot, but whilst we can see stars, and even the reflected light of the sun on the moon, we can't see the edge of the sun's rays at the the edge of our horizons, east and west. The sun is so much bigger than the earth you would expect the light from this larger body to be spreading out at the edges all night. So why doesn't it?

Forgive me for asking a child's question but sometimes it is necessary to think like a child to come up with the right questions.

Here's the REAL reason:

Bell Labs Proves Existence of Dark Suckers
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
For years it has been believed that electric bulbs emitted light.
However, recent information from Bell Labs has proven otherwise.
Electric bulbs don't emit light, they suck dark. Thus they now call
these bulbs dark suckers. The dark sucker theory, according to a Bell
Labs spokesperson, proves the existence of dark, that dark has mass
heavier than that of light, and that dark is faster than light.

The basis of the dark sucker theory is that electric bulbs suck
dark. Take for example, the dark suckers in the room where you are.
There is less dark right next to them than there is elsewhere. The
larger the dark sucker, the greater its capacity to suck dark. Dark
suckers in a parking lot have a much greater capacity than the ones in
this room. As with all things, dark suckers don't last forever. Once
they are full of dark, they can no longer suck. This is proven by the
black spot on a full dark sucker. A candle is a primitive dark
sucker. A new candle has a white wick. You will notice that after
the first use, the wick turns black, representing all the dark which
has been sucked into it. If you hold a pencil next to the wick of an
operating candle, the tip will turn black because it got in the path
of the dark flowing into the candle.

Unfortunately, these primitive dark suckers have a very limited
range. There are also portable dark suckers. The bulbs in these can't
handle all of the dark by themselves, and must be aided by a dark
storage unit. When the dark storage unit is full, it must be either
emptied or replaced before the portable dark sucker can operate again.

Dark has mass. When dark goes into a dark sucker, friction from
this mass generates heat. Thus it is not wise to touch an operating
dark sucker. Candles present a special problem, as the dark must
travel in the solid wick instead of through glass. This generates a
great amount of heat. Thus it can be very dangerous to touch an
operating candle. Dark is also heavier than light. If you swim
deeper and deeper, you notice it gets slowly darker and darker. When
you reach a depth of approximately fifty feet, you are in total
darkness. This is because the heavier dark sinks to the bottom of the
lake and the lighter light floats to the top. The immense power of
dark can be utilized to man's advantage. We can collect the dark that
has settled to the bottom of lakes and push it through turbines, which
generate electricity and help push it to the ocean where it may be
safely stored. Prior to turbines, it was much more difficult to get
dark from the rivers and lakes to the ocean. The Indians recognized
this problem, and tried to solve it. When on a river in a canoe
travelling in the same direction as the flow of the dark, they paddled
slowly, so as not to stop the flow of dark, but when they traveled
against the flow of dark, they paddled quickly so as to help push the
dark along its way.

Finally, we must prove that dark is faster than light. If you
were to stand in an illuminated room in front of a closed, dark
closet, then slowly open the closet door, you would see the light
slowly enter the closet, but since the dark is so fast, you would not
be able to see the dark leave the closet.

In conclusion, Bell Labs stated that dark suckers make all our
lives much easier. So the next time you look at an electric bulb
remember that it is indeed a dark sucker.

All this inane chatter about black holes and dark matter. Pffftttt. Bell Labs got it right long ago.

Sorry, didn't note where I found that bit of jocular profundity, somewhere on "the internets" many years ago.

[Grey Cloud]

Clever piece of writing that. (And welcome back Arc-us). Just goes to show the limitations of logic and reason.

[bboyer]

Clever piece of writing that. (And welcome back Arc-us). Just goes to show the limitations of logic and reason.

Hiya, GC. Yeah, I found it rather endarkening!

[StevenO]

All this inane chatter about black holes and dark matter. Pffftttt. Bell Labs got it right long ago.

Indeed. What's the purpose of discussing it if you can't see it anyway?