Faster than the Speed of Light, My theory.?

Question

well, here goes.

I think that Light < Vision because if We can see light traveling, than we must be able to see at a greater speed than the speed of light. i mean think about it for a seconds.

We see a lit up room, and its bright and all, but with out vision, would it still be bright? Its really simple actually, i dont think i can make it anymore easier to explaine

please if you think im onto something, post your thoughts.

If i messed up on some sort of Law than post your thoughts anyways

we can see in the dark, animals adapted to seeing in the dark. maybe not pitch dark but we can still open our eyes and see the darkness that surounds us. therefor light isnt dominant in this case. neither is dark

Answer 1

I have a theory of the brontosaurus. Do you want to hear it? The brontosaurus was very very thin, according to my theory ... on both ends. As you move from either end towards the middle, however, it became very very thick. That's my theory of the brontosaurus. I just wanted you to feel like I felt while reading your theory :-)

Answer 2

Wow, so I'm not the only one. Yeah, I also thought of that. However, in order to see something there must be the presence of light. Therefore, light needs to reach an object first before the vision does.

Answer 3

"We see a lit up room, and its bright and all, but with out vision, would it still be bright?"

This is tantamount to the age old question "If a tree falls with no one around to hear it, will it still make a sound".

Of course the light is still light, and it is still bright even if you can't see it.

Just because someone is blind does that mean in fact the lights are off?

This is stoner logic.