I remember in the 60s lying on the grass watching the stars and there were millions more than there are now, they practically filled every space in the sky, they look sparse nowadays compared to back then.
I would like to know why stars get dimmer when you move farther away from them. Because the only thing (that we know of at least) in space that really alters light are black holes. Other than that, there's not really a whole lot to stop light from reaching us, just as bright as it was when it left the surface of a star. So why does it dim?
Is there light everywhere? I mean, if I was way out in inter-galactic space, and I could not see any stars, would I be able to see my hands? Or would I be is total darkness?
What's the matter that causes us to see blackness then? There is no medium for light to be scattered in space thus causing it to be invisible when it's source is not being directly looked at.
On a clear night, the sky is starry. So from our prospective on earth, we should understand that outer space isn’t truly a “pitch blackness”; we know their is stars. Once we get into space there’s this blackness. I wonder if its caused by the light pollution from nearby stars, like our sun; the UV radiation is obstructing the deep space view. While on earth, the sunlight is effectively blocked due to our relative position, while in space, there’s nothing preventing its UV effects.
Fraser, Since I haven't yet stated this, your videos are time consuming but thoroughly enjoyed, mind expanding and educational in the theoritical field of the universe. I also like reading some of the responses and occasionally am compelled (hope you don't mind) to respond to one or two.
I would say that space is black because there's no atmosphere for the light to scatter off thus we don't see any brightness... That's the only reason it gets bright during the day.. Blue light wavelengths are scattered more by molecules in the atmosphere and our eyes pick them up. If earth had no atmosphere.. We would see a black sky and the sun the same way it would look if you were standing on the moon.. We'd also all be dead lol
Sniper Logic ic I have a problem with the very precept of the paradox. Maybe I am missing something, but I’ve been trying to figure it out for years. If the universe was truly infinitely old, even with an infinite number of stars, wouldn’t it be dark? With an infinite amount of time comes an infinite amount of time for an infinite number of stars to have utilized all their energy and gone out. What am I missing? Why shouldn’t, the universe be dark if the initial presumption of the paradox were true? I understand the explanation of the reason for the paradox, I just don’t understand the initial presumption to start with, that there would be infinite brightness after an infinite amount of time had passed, as was believed....?
I'm really enjoying your videos, I like that they are simple, I've spent many hours reading about and contemplating space and time because of you. For the time and effort you have put in to these video's, I thank you.
But you was basically explaining why there isn't light everywhere. Not why the space is black. Might sound like both is the same, but i would like to know, why the space alone is black. Why the space has black color, if you understand me. But great videos Fraser. I am watching them randomly and learning a lot of new stuff :)
+Fraser Cain Yes, but if you go much deeper into it, you start to think about why dark has the black color. Why when there is no light, why the space isn't green for example? I know that when you try to answer it with the physics as we know it, the answer is quite simple and it's as you said. But why the space was made black when everything started? But then i guess we are getting to the point where i could also start asking what was before big bang. Some stuff we just don't know. But if you understand my question and know the answer, maybe you could answer it? The question sounds, why when there is no light, why the color of space is black and no other color? :)
Not really, because even the people with the darkest skin are not 100% black, they don't absorb all frequencies of visible light. The darkest skin is still a very dark brown that may look black to our eyes because there is a limit at which all very dark colors look black. My momma can differentiate between a browner "black" and a bluer "black" but I can't. To me, black is black regardless of undertone and I can't see the undertone.
Thought experiment - if the evidence of infinity could be conceived, how close to the epicenter of the big bang are we? Consider that if in every direction everything appears equally indiscernable - what would this say of the big bang?
Now i'm questioning. How does space stretch light exactly? It means that the density of space is a constant and with its expansion comes the stretching. But how exactly does light stretch?
If u search the doppler effect, it shows u how waves (sound or light) can change depending on a different velocity between 2 points. I think light behaves like sound because they both consist out of waves. correct me if i'm wrong someone
Light takes up a volume, and the "Color" is defined by the wavelength. So, if you stretch the space that the light occupies ( and that is what is suggested, as the expansion of the universe is happening everywhere at the same time. ), you increase the wavelength.
The work done by Halton Arp on quasars and their parent galaxies has shown that intrinsic redshift is not an accurate metric to measure distant objects. This makes the idea of an expanding universe questionable. Especially the rate of its expansion.
without a density of energy,there is chaos,chaos of colors turn black,this is the same reason light/energies is the way it is in space,what we observe also makes a differrence* just because it looks black and empty plus a few stars,doesnt mean there isn't anything else there
do ypu know what a q-bit is? what gives this process its stability?* yes,its computer lingo,but,reality is not so much differrent,you can't get something from nothing unless there is much hidden,and accessible
I know you have been over the Fermi paradox but it's always something that has puzzled me. People always talk about it and attribute it to things like the great filter or that we are not worthy of a visit from aliens somehow. Unfortunately my thought is that practical interstellar space travel is just simply not in the cards as far as the laws of physics go. I find it depressing because exploring other star systems is my ultimate fantasy which I guess is why I have given it so much thought.
Indeed. It's perfectly possible, and is one of the answers to the Fermi Paradox. The main thing it comes down to is energy sources. We need to find a new energy source to get outside of our solar system. Not just Fusion power in the sense of fusion power plants like we are trying to make. It can't be a couple times more efficient, it needs to be 10s to hundreds of times more efficient. Then, to get outside of the nearby stuff, we need another equal leap. Then, to colonize outside of our galaxy, it needs yet another leap. Etc. As it is: We don't even know of a potential technology. Current efforts of Fusion power could certainly solve current energy problems on Earth ( I say current, because time has shown that every time there is an increase in available energy, we find a way to use it all up. ), but for the huge leap to explore even just the nearby stars, every single part of Fusion reactions needs to be made far more efficient. We need room temperature super conductors. We need far superior ways of converting all of the different forms of energy we get out of the fusion reaction, and a way to capture all of them at the same time. ( Some sort of super material that could convert a high percentage of energy across the entire EM spectrum for example. ) We need more efficient ways to trigger the fusion. We need more efficient ways to contain the fusion. Finally, we really need a more efficient and very long-term way to use that energy to move us in space. ( All of our current ideas involve throwing matter out of the back of some form of engine. Ion engines, and their various types, are highly efficient...but once you start talking about going to stars, the sheer amount of mass that has to be thrown out of the back due to the long duration of the trip, and required slowing down on the other side, becomes insanely prohibitive. ) We don't know of anything at all after Fusion either. ( Remember, Anti-Matter is insanely rare in the natural universe, meaning we would need to make it...which will always require more energy than it gives back. This just moves the generation of the power, and actually makes the problem slightly worse due to energy losses in the creation of the AM. )
Such an informative video! Curious... my understanding is that in trillions of years, stars will no longer be visible to astronomers of the future as the universe continues to stretch. Does this fit with the current consensus? A friend of mine insists it's the other way around - that in fact more stars will be visible. We got into a very heated debate about this!
As the Universe expands, more and more of the distant galaxies will be accelerated beyond the speed of light from our perspective so we'll see fewer galaxies out there. Eventually we'll only be able to see what's in our local group. So... you're correct.
Just an add. If there was a minute glow from a distant source it would be too faint to see or illuminate anything around us, so It would be like black.
I came here after an hour of trying to find out what the sky looks like from a space station. Now I'm stanrting to conceptualize the Big Bang and I'm gonna have to take a break because I'm about to be sick.
I woke this question in my mind!! Sun can light the earth but the space where sun be is dark.. and all star should be light and not dark place .. and I understand sun reflect light and gases and atmosphere on earth reflect the light of sun.. ok .. but how explain sometime the light of moon .. specially when is full moon .. light the night .. where came from of that light? Cause moon don’t emane light .. and so if this question look stupid but I am try understanding how work!
There's nothing in space to reflect the sunlight. But think about those beautiful nebulae that we can see. Those are regions where there is enough dust to reflect the light so we can see it.
imo this question isn't a paradox. all stars that we see in the sky are part of the milkyway galaxy, other stars and galaxies are too dim to see with naked eye. BUT I have "more paradoxical" question. As time passes the observable universe expends, so we should see more stars right? but the distance b/w galaxies also increases over time due to expansion of space. SO do we gonna see more star or less star in the future??
If the expansion was static, we would never see more. You are forgetting the time part: The further out we look, the further into the past. We can already see back to the first time light is able to freely move after the big bang. ( That's the CMBR. Before then, light was not able to move freely, it kept getting absorbed and re-emitted in random directions. ) So, we could never see more stars, because the light simply never was there. However, the expansion of the Universe is currently accelerating. So, the number of stars we can see will continually decrease. This is part of the "Heat Death" of the universe. Unless something changes, we will be able to see less and less galaxies, then less stars, then less planets, and eventually even the sub-atomic particles start to become separated from each other ( because the distances within them start expanding faster than the speed of light. )
My question is what causes the past light to continue to show what happened 13 billion years ago, wouldn't it at some point pass us by, fade out, or shrink the length of time, so for example we can see 13 billion years back now, so a billion years from now we can only see 12 billion years back. Is that correct?
Other way. As time goes on, we can see further back by an equal amount. Currently the thing stopping us from seeing further, is that we are seeing the beginning of light being able to move ( and that's actually really close to the beginning of time, so even if we ignored that limit, it wouldn't change much. ) So, the reason we see 13.8 billion years into the past now, and 10 years ago, is that 10 years is far below 13.8 billion years. Let's say that 10 years ago the universe was EXACTLY 13.8 billion years old. That's 13,800,000,000. Then, today we would be able to see back in time 13,800,000,010 years. That's 13.80000001 years, which you can see is a very small difference. In fact, it is FAR below our accuracy to measure time from that far out. We can only measure the age of the universe to something like + or - 50 million years.
So if I were on a space ship out in space and I looked out the window of the ship all I would see is blackness? Is this what your saying? No stars etc just blackness?
So I heard this before he said the universe is moving away in every direction. I feel its mostly logical. However if we came from a big bang then there us an issue I have with "every durection." We should have a ever growing emptiness in the direction of the bang. Or at least matter behind us moving in our direction.
Will you be able to from your channel explain why any of the astronauts can't seem to get their story straight whether or not stars are visible while in space? It seems to be a lot of discrepancies and contradictions among the astronaut fellowship?! 🤔
I guess you are stating Obers' paradox as it was presented originally, but presented in that way there is no paradox. Stars just look dimmer the further away they are, as the light spreads out from its source over larger areas, and the light intensity just becomes so low it looks dark to the unaided eye. The fact that we happen to be abnormally close, statically speaking, to one star (the sun), is no indication that the intensity in all regions should be that high. Nor does the brightness of any other star indicate that the brightness in all regions should be identical to that one star. To show a paradox, there would have to be some argument why the intensity should appear higher than very dark. Most stars will be much further away than the closest stars to the sun. Picking some random direction, there will be some nearest star. Let's say the statistical average distance to the nearest star is 1000 times further than the the distance to the nearest star from the sun. Then the light intensity from the average closest star will be 1000 x 1000 = 1 million times dimmer than the nearest star, which would look dark. So there has to be something more to make it seem there is a paradox.
Say who that light travel is not instantaneous? Gravity constant is crap, as is Space vacuum. ". If you look in every direction, you’re seeing a spot as bright as a star, it’s just that the expansion of the Universe stretched out the wavelengths so that the light is invisible to our eyes. But if you could see the Universe with microwave detecting eyes, you’d see this: brightness in every direction." - Is cute, still is claimed we see direct sources of light in Space, if vacuum that does not hold up.
The way you explain the primordial light of the big bang stretching into the cosmic background radiation we see today sounds a lot like "tired light." Why wouldn't we use the same process to explain Hubble's observations of the red shift in distant galaxies?
Red-Shift of distant galaxies is indeed caused by the same stretching of the universe that causes the CMBR. The CMBR is just even further out than the most distant galaxies. ( It took hundreds of millions of years for galaxies to form, but the CMBR is from less than 400,000 years after The Big Bang. The current oldest known galaxy is still from around 700 million years after TBB ) So, the CMBR is red-shifted even more, and red-shifting is exponential, causing the CMBR to be all the way into microwaves. Remember, Red-Shifting is not light shifting towards red. Imagine light somewhere in the green as the "center" point, with red to the left and blue to the right. "Red-Shift" simply means any light is shifted left, so even infra-red would still go left towards microwave.
Suave Smooth All life (on earth) comes from the Sun, which is kinda yellow. What do you make of that? I do not buy the darwin theory of evolution that hu-man evolved from orangutangs in africa, its just too many black holes in that theory. the theories i consider would probably b more "far out" than that by some standards though... Xcuse the english, it is not my language.
3Dtimespace The sun isn't kind of yellow, it's not yellow at all, it's white. We only see it as kind of yellow or red or orange or pink depending on the time of day and what particles are in the atmosphere, etc. www.universetoday.com/18689/color-of-the-sun/
Why no stars visible from the moon pics of the landing? Where maybe pictures of stars while in space not inferred from other spectrum information but only from the visible spectrum that humans see?
+Fraser Cain This can't be true because the stars do show up in some NASA photos. What about the thousands of invisible satellites never captured on film?
We're talking about different wavelengths of light, when you look at satellite photos it maybe a collection of wavelengths represented, to the naked eye it would be very black, no stars present. The atmosphere reflects light and we see stars. NO atmosphere on the moon, that was the explanation from NASA way back when, maybe it changed, not sure, maybe they never said that, but if some lights maybe seen, some stars seen from surface of moon, then it seems there must be some amount of atmosphere, however small.
Well, think of it like this cameras were pretty shit back in 1969, its like taking a picture of the earth with the same camera as the front face camera of a Samsung Exhibit(Its a budget phone) You cannot get any good pictures with it. Or the camera exposure was really dim, and when they brought back the photos, the just brightened it. (Those are my theorys)
its 2017 there are multiple NASA VIDEO clips that shows the earth in full color including the color of bodies of water and land, but the background (space) is pure solid black. How come????
As a Black man I feel the most qualified to speak on this issue. Only problem you will have to be Black yourself to understand. And no your Black friend Larry cant just come over for a Bar B Que and Beer and tell your ass. You wouldnt understand if he did.
Compared to most stars the sun is close . Why doesn't that light the night sky ? I know we see the reflection on the moon but seem like we should see more light
Are you saying that is should illuminate the dark side of the earth? or are you talking about in space? If on the Earth, the earth is too big and creates a shadow. If in space, there are not enough particles to bounce off of and reflect to give light. Hope this helps :)
I agree. he conveniently pretended that there is no sun to explain the theory so it would sound acceptable. I hypothesize that it is dark matter and/or dark energy that causes the blackness. / The not enough particles story is also used as to why the 'international space station' does not melt or cook the 'astronauts' even though where it is supposedly located , the thermosphere , is 2000 degrees C. Unfortunately, as apparently, rocket scientists cannot figure out, the 'iss' itself is thousands of tons of particles which would absorb not only the metal burning heat, but also gamma rays, x-rays, microwaves, and other radiation that would cook and kill the 'astronauts' in minutes . / It is self evident that they would think of these basic things before planning these hoaxes. So the hoaxes are not planned so much as to just trick the unthinking masses as to increase their suspension of disbelief. This is how they have ASSUMED CONTROL. In this way will you not only believe anything that they say or show you, but they can say the exact opposite tomorrow and you will believe that and forget what they said yesterday. You have become unquestioning. They are your matrix masters. They control not only what you think , but your very thought process itself. Examples : in the early days of the daily show they would show a clip that the thought controllers were airing on all their media channels of a politician saying something. The daily show would then show you on split screen a clip from a year earlier where the politician was saying the exact opposite thing. They no longer do this as they have been integrated as part of the matrix. Another example: The puppet rulers, pres, congress, media will say 'this group is evil and we must war against them' . So all of the programmed masses will agree for war to eliminate this scourge. If you are not fully controlled by their programming however, you can point out how the puppet rulers 10 years previously sold them weapons, trained them, had smiling pictures taken with them, and sometimes even set them up as the government for that country. This has been done many times and continues to be done on every level, yet the brainwashed masses can only remember the latest lie. Why ? It is because they have gone beyond controlling your minds to controlling your spirits.
We don't see the light outside of theEarth's shadow as it's not reflected towards our eyes. The night sky outside of the Earth's shadow is indeed filled with light from the Sun, we just don't see it.
If, hypothetically, there's a star in every direction, then there's also gases, dust, asteroids and planets in every direction. This would dilute photons traveling extreme long distances, making it impossible to see stars 60+ million light years away. It's like shining a flashlight through cloudy water, the farther away you go from the light, the less photons your eyes can receive.
But the photons aren't running into anything. When you're looking through fog, that's because some of the photons are getting absorbed, reflected and refracted by water droplets. But there aren't any particles in space to stop them.
Does dust not consist of particles? Technically, from a grand universal point of view, all those billions of planets and asteroids could be considered particles of matter which block photons. They would form a wall of dust blocking distant starlight.
Absolutely, if there's dust, it'll block the light. In fact, this is why we can't see the center of the Milky Way, and what's on the other side. The dust there blocks our view to what's behind the Milky Way.
Thanks for your reply. I really appreciate it. I love your video's. Would love to see you do a video of how far light could actually travel. Does the energy of the beam die out at a certain distance? As I point my flashlight at a wall and walk backwards, the light cast on the wall becomes dimmer but more spread out. As I go even further, eventually the light doesn't seem to light up the wall anymore. Do photons have a maximum trajectory? And how could you ever know the exact position of stars in space when light may be affected by gravity, heat and reflections? Do Fata Morgana's exist in space? I'm interested.
Cant the pre-microwave bg radiation paradox be solved by the fact that most stars are two dim for us to see here on earth? Considering how many galaxies can be seen in what seems to be pure blackness, such as the Hubble Deep Field picture, and how many small red dwarfs in our galaxy can't be seen with human eyes, how is this a paradox? Doesn't space appears black because most of the universe is really dim?
That is also one of the solutions to the paradox, yes. Another is that for this paradox, stars would need to be true point objects, not "point-like" as they are, because we actually know they do have a size. A star will block any light behind it, preventing an infinite addition of light. As you can imagine when thinking about the above, a 3rd solution quickly appears too. The distances between stars and galaxies, etc is so immense, that the fall-off of light is faster than the addition of light from new stars. This means the background color of the universe would infinitely tend towards black.
I still can´t understand why space is black. If black appears when all the light is absorpt by a material like it happens with coal, there should be something in space to absorpt that light so we could see it black. If space is completely empty, light should pass through it and it would be transparent and not black. Then why is it black? Is the space not empty?
The reason the night sky is dark is our distance from the nearest stars (over 4 light years) which would be as bright as our sun (93 million miles) if they were not over 2500 times further away and only the brightness of a star, not the sun. Are you Americans?
Fraser Cain, I don't disagree that this is the case, but surely if we count the Big Bang as the start of the universe then everything should be expanding fairly uniformly like a balloon being blown up, but from a central point. And while we're here, Hubble focused on a small, dark region of space and revealed very ancient galaxies 13 billion light years away and from this we confirmed the rough age of the galaxy as 15 billion years old or so. But what if Hubble was turned 180 degrees and focused on a dark region of space. It would likely find galaxies 13 billion years old again. But if one of those distant galaxies had a hubble of their own and pointed it towards us, surely they would see right past us and eventually on to the galaxies 13 billion light years from us. They would therefore deduce that the universe was 26 billion years old.
this doesn't make sense , in fact if you imagine big pang , that object which explode and become known universe , any group of galaxies , Solar System or what ever , will stay together forever , for example sun & erath they will stay togher forever , if no other force change thier postion & speed , i mean if earth is not center of universe , so its travlling away from big pang point & in same time near by galaxies ( milions according to what we have been told about univers size ) travling with us in same direction & with same speed ( big pang speed ) so we should see light from these galxies & stars.
Fred Flintstone What the hell are you talking about? All your comments are disproven by Science; read more than a 5 minute article or some bullshit you heard somewhere... Science explains many things down to the nanoseconds. Don’t think things weren’t accounted for; and to assume that because science doesn’t make sense therefore it’s a bad explanation is ridiculous. How simple do you honestly believe the Universe is that it can be explained so simply? You don’t think the Universe expands and contracts the same way some days Earth is hot and other days Earth is cold; regardless of the Seasons. Your argument makes no sense, yes Science has many theories and also many explanations; but if you’re expecting something simple and linear then what you’re suggesting is Mathematics is far more complicated than the creation of the Universe; hence people (who created/discovered math) are more intelligent designers... because Math gets far more complex and abstract, thus the Universe must be harder to understand than some simple linear rate of change that you’re suggesting.
You can only "see" light energy by directs line or reflected bounced-back. Light front our star reflects off the moon and the planets and all other dark, not light emitting objects. The light from the sun has not reflected back from the abyss. F.F.
Light is essential for life as we know it. There is no life in the void of space, unless someone is just traveling through it so light is not necessary. Life is probably initiated by the light, heat and energy of the stars. When a solar system is formed, isn't the star first and then followed by the formation of the planets. I believe it was theorized that matter could not form without light as a component.
I did not understand video but I have an idea about the universe is black there will be huge light is blocked by an object that gives the shadow like the earth gives
The "color" or type of light is defined by its "Wavelength". The distance between the waves of light. Remember, light is not just a single point. It is ALSO a wave that occupies a volume. As the volume of space expands over time, the amount of space a given bit of light occupies expands. This means over time, that wave-length gets bigger, changing what color that light is. ( Microwave is just a color we can't see that is far redder than red. ) Normally we don't see this because it takes so little time for light to travel the normal distances, that it hasn't expanded enough for us to notice a difference. It's not until we start looking at things REALLY far away that we start seeing things shifted. As you may have guessed from the above, because microwaves are just another color of light, yes: they are just as made of photons as other light. Just don't forget that light is also a wave. It's a bit weird, but it's both a particle and a wave. Absolutely all light is like this. So, everything on the light or "Electro-Magnetic" spectrum is made up of photons: Radio waves, Microwaves, Infra-red, Visible Light, Ultra Violet, X-Rays and finally Gamma Rays.
Hello, I had another viewer ask in this question, and so I would ike to ask if I can use this video to help answer their question. If I dont get a relpy then I asume that all is ok, and I'll continue as normal
Humor me a thought sir. Question: what would our view of space look like if you believed in the literal creation of the Bible. Ten-thousand years ago, God created the Sun, Moon and stars in a moment and placed them into their orbits and started the universe. What would that look like for us today? What would we see from our perspective?
why doesn't everything fall to the bottom of the space floor? we orbit the sun, sun orbits the black hole but what stops us all from free falling down through space to the bottom of space? Hope that made sense
If stars are like suns of varying size and distance the background of space should obviously be illuminated everywhere all the time. Let me guess gravity and relativity (both unproven theories) somehow account for this elephant in the room....
+Fraser Cain Well I say the expansion should cause illumination and have just as much scientific proof as you do. Show me the conclusive scientific experiments proving this alleged light suppression due to expansion please. I would like to see some proof for gravity and relativity. These are outlandish unproven theories Fraser aka pseudo science.
+Fraser Cain Of course not they are unproven theories. An object so massive by virtue of its mass alone it attracts smaller objects. Show me. A force so strong it holds entire oceans to the bottom of spinning ball yet a minnow can swim right through it. You have to be pretty gullible to believe such nonsense without proof. Things are relative to other things but Einstein's theory of relativity remains just a theory.
Actually, thanks to technology, we see pretty much all of it. And indeed, when you add them all together, you see a lot more...but it's still almost all a dark black. When scientists talk about this, they don't mean the light we humans see. They mean all light combined versus no light at all.
This still doesn't solve the massive plot hole of why a lot places in the world with clear skies the sky lights up like Christmas because of all the bright stars. Yet in space judging from every single image and video shot by astronauts the sky is pith black, even though there are zero clouds and obstructions. I honestly would sound more comprehendible in your party by explaining the inverse square law in regards to further away stars not being visible than whatever you just said. I suggest changing the title, has nothing to do with this argument.
DanielC331 If you knew how cameras worked this would be a very simple explanation. For example the astronauts on the moon, they are so bright that you need settings that dont let in as much light. That makes the stars not visible cause theres just not enough light. You can take your phone camera for example and you wouldnt be able to see a single star on the sky cause it doesnt let in enough light.
The really reason space is black a theory by Nassim Her time in because our universe is in a black whole as all black wholes are universe and since light can't escape a black whole its black.
no, we're living in a religious matrix, laced with Black and White magic holes, and the Big Bang of Creation, and the Supreme Force that is G, between the square and the compass.
space looks void it dosent look black yes objects are far away, but is space black? let all friggin agree that it's dark !!! ok? , compare outer space to our ocean and we dont even know all about that and why life exists at hot temps at hot springs miles down in the ocean , so , is a black hole or "portal" root system. conduits, all these words come to the mind, well to mine any ways, i like this video and this guy, very great info . i like to think light and dark exist , but there's so much more bind boggling truth's out their to come.
then why can you see the color black if you need light to see, the absence of color my friend is invisibilty, you know vision extends to about 2.6 million miles, so what does it look like when it can travel no further, i dont know but a possible way to test this would be a dark room (black everything inside to make it seem like it is already past the human eye limit), demagnify a light bulb to 2.6 million light years or the distance the human eye can see then turn on the light bulb. Record observations because when you turn on a light bulb it starts out brightest and gets dimmer. Of course your light bulb would have to be rated at 2.6 million light years or the distance from which your eye sight travels no further. Then proceed to do the math. also from this test you can conclude that no matter the brightness of a light source it will only travel so far, as well as vision that travels outward. because how can my eyes see through the invisibility to there limits without light, that leaves me questioning that light only lights up an area and is used as a type of analogy for how we can use it to calculate time, let alone when i close my eyes i see the color black and we recognize black as a color. the only thing we dont recognize as color is invisibilty because we cant see it. and technically black reflects light so how can it be black. idk maybe you can come up with a better reason as to why eye sight must travel outwards. i have lots of questions
