I'm looking into the past.
2006-07-18 07:35:09
·
answer #1
·
answered by ImCuteAndSoAreYou 3
·
0⤊
1⤋
I would argue that you are really seeing the objects. You may get technical and say you are seeing light from the objects, or seeing into the past since light takes time to travel to you, but that is true of everything you see, not just objects in outer space. You are not seeing this message, you are seeing light from your computer screen the way it appeared a millionth of a second ago. Such distinctions are too picky, IMO.
2006-07-18 14:52:30
·
answer #2
·
answered by campbelp2002 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
that depends on what you use to "look".. if you're looking with un-aided eye, i.e, no instrumentation of any kind, then you'll only see the brightest objects. If you're looking with telescopes, the amount of things you'll see will progressively increase with the resolving power of the telescope and it's size. and if you add computerized chips such as CCDs you get even higher sensitivity to light, so detect even more distant and fainter objects. So you can be looking only at a few things or you can catch millions of objects.. all depends on your methods of observations.
2006-07-18 14:37:00
·
answer #3
·
answered by Mary 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
You are seeing the spectrum of light in relation to the elements of the object over a distance which travelled a period of time to reach your vision.
Color = element in the object being viewed
2006-07-18 15:44:18
·
answer #4
·
answered by Alyssa 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
In the case of the moon or other planets, I'm seeing sunlight reflected off of their surfaces. In the case of nebulae, I am seeing hydrogen glow from the starlight that is ionizing it. With all other things I am seeing starlight, whether a cluster of stars or a whole galaxy. I am seeing light in the visible portion of the electomagnetic spectrum.
2006-07-18 14:59:22
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
You're looking back in time...whether it be just 1.3 seconds ago for the moon, to many years ago for the stars. They are no longer where they appear to be.
2006-07-18 14:36:11
·
answer #6
·
answered by why 3
·
0⤊
0⤋