- #1
jobyts
- 227
- 64
Is it true to say, in space (or in vaccum), you wouldn't be able to see the torch light, unless you point it to your eyes?
Hunterbender said:Doc Al is right, I guess I will just elaborate more on it.
In order to have fire, you need air. Since outer space is consider to be a vacuum (for all practical purposes), you won't have fire (hence no torch).
I don't get the eye portion. Personally, I don't think you can light it even if you point it to your eyes (or any part of the human body for that matter)
jshuford said:I believe he means a torch in the British sense, which is known to Americans as a Flashlight.
Hunterbender said:I don't get the eye portion. Personally, I don't think you can light it even if you point it to your eyes (or any part of the human body for that matter)
zoobyshoe said:Good point. We don't "see" light. Light is the means by which we see other objects. However a terminology problem arises when light from a light source is entering directly into you eyes without first reflecting off of something else. If we continue the logic of the term "see" then "seeing light" should only apply to a situation where light from source A reflects off light from source B allowing us to "see" light from source B. That's fiction.
However, looking directly into a light source is an undeniable light-eye interaction. You're doing it right now. If we don't "see" light, then are you unable to "see" most of your computer screen? If, on the other hand, we propose that all we ever "see" is light, then how are we aware of the objects all around us?
It's opening a can of words. Better to just accept the fact that the verb "to see" can be applied alternately to the illuminated and the illuminant, depending on the context, despite the dissonant logic.
It was worth it for the line :"It's opening a can of words." You watch: in a year everyone will be saying that.Steely Dan said:This post was way too philosophical, I think. We see when photons hit the eyeball. We don't see light from a flashlight in space because there are no particles for photons to bounce off of, so if it's not pointing towards the eyes those photons will never reach the eyeball.
Dadface said:But the reflector is itself a photon emitter-photons are absorbed from the source and some regenerated as the reflected photons
zoobyshoe said:Then my question becomes: to what extent can we consider all visible objects to be photon emitters?
Yes, torch light can be seen in the vacuum of space. However, it is important to note that light behaves differently in space compared to Earth due to the absence of an atmosphere.
The distance that torch light can be seen in space depends on the strength of the light source and the sensitivity of the observer's eyes. In general, the light would become too faint to be seen at distances beyond a few kilometers.
No, torch light does not travel forever in space. Like all forms of light, it travels at a finite speed and eventually dissipates over time. The amount of time it takes for light to dissipate depends on various factors such as the intensity of the light and the medium it is traveling through.
Yes, torch light can be seen in the dark void of space. However, it would only be visible to the human eye if there were objects or particles for the light to reflect off of. In the absence of any objects, the light would not be visible to the naked eye.
Yes, there is a limit to how bright torch light can be seen in space. This is because light can only travel at a certain speed and eventually dissipates, so there is a limit to how far it can reach and how bright it can appear to an observer.