I live in Alaska and have a 3/4 mile commute to work. I need a bike that can ride well on bumpy dirt roads and icy roads. Preferably also over (extremely) bumpy tundra.I'm willing to spend up to $500.
Think of an open spigot that is turned on and running water through the street and down a hole in the street 3 blocks away. There is a long stream of water as the spigot runs. Does the stream suddenly stop flowing down the hole when the spigot is turned off? No, when it is turned off, the last bit of water has to get to the hole. Same thing with light. If a star suddenly stopped shining, it would take a while for the last stream of light to reach the earth.
If as you're saying there's no ordinary vacationing by ability of area, what are we seeing when we glance on the sky after darkish on a sparkling evening? The human eye isn't the most mushy ordinary detection gadget, even if it truly is in a position lower than acceptable circumstances of perceiving a unmarried photon experience. And as for claiming that we may be able to surely be certain individual stars in distant galaxies with a three telescope, I surely have never found an astronomer who would declare that replaced into possible (what are they doing progression 8 metre 'scopes with lively optics for?) I propose that you put up your idea in a respected astronomy/astrophysics mag and then we are going to see if there is a few thing to it.
It doesnt. The answer is that there is a constant source of light from some star 360 degrees around us all the time. It does not continue it is simply continued by another stars light
Full face helmets provide the best protection. And with the right paint scheme, the look sharp too. However it depends on what kind of bike he's planning to get. If he's getting a sport bike, then the full face will look okay. If he's getting a cruiser, the full face looks a bit out of place. They make short helmets that come down just to the top of the ear. Not as much protection, but they do look a bit better. And again, a nicely painted helmet can make all the difference. Obviously there's no mandatory helmet law where you are, or he'd have to wear a helmet. So it might be tough for you do actually get him to wear it. Personally, I never ride without a helmet, it's just not worth the risk.
Just because the source died off, that doesn't mean that the light that the star emitted while it was still emitting light died along with it. Since we're on a roll here with analogies, I'll throw another one at you. You're on top of a 20 story building with a fire hose. You aim down towards a tree on the sidewalk and turn the hose on. After a few seconds, you shut the valve off on the hose. Even though you shut the water off, the stream of water that was is traveling towards the tree will still be traveling towards it and eventually hit the tree. The water will continue to hit the tree for a few seconds after your hose has been turned off because that water was already on its way down towards the tree before you shut the valve off. Hope this helps.EDIT: It sounds like you're having a bit of a hard time with the analogies so let me just add something to it. All the analogies (the kite, water etc) are in fact correct and they do provide proof that once the star dies, the light that it has given off will continue on its path to Earth. However, it sounds to me that you're under the impression that the light from the start will continue hitting the Earth indefinitely. That's not the case. Once the star dies, it DOES seize giving off light. So basically, if a star is 10 light years away and it died in May of 1999, we would be able to witness the death of that star this coming May. In June however, we will no longer be able to see the star in the sky because the last bit of light that it gave off before it died has reached us.
