Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
That's true, but the image won't be sharp if the hole is too large. It does the same thing as a lens because the light that is showing up as an image is the same light that would appear at the film from any camera, telescope, or eye. You are making an unnecessary distinction between pinhole cameras and other types of cameras. The same goes for telescopes that don't have a lens but work in a similar way as one that does.
|
Why would eyeglass lenses on photographic paper not allow an instantaneous interaction, but a hole in cardboard would allow allow instantaneous interaction with photographic paper on the back of the camera? |
Because it does take 81/2 minutes for the light [only] to strike the paper, but it would not take 81/2 minutes for a hole in the cardboard to receive the instantaneous light as in the candle because it's proportional. I know this won't satisfy you, but I'm doing the best I can to show the Lessans was not a crank, and if you finally realize this, you will pay more attention to his other discoveries which are more important than this one.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
We weren't talking about the sharpness of images or anything like that. We only asked about what is required to allow an instantaneous physical interaction between light from the newly ignited Sun at 12:00 noon and photosensitive materials on Earth, versus a light-travel time delayed physical physical interaction between light from the newly ignited Sun and photosensitive materials on Earth.
|
I've explained this many times. We ARE IN OPTICAL RANGE. What does that mean? It means the light is interacting with the object which allows us to see it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
You have said that camera film would interact instantly because of lenses
|
And I stand by this claim, because a pinhole camera acts like a lens. Glasses do not in the there is no way to see what is happening without a projection of that light (and when I say projection I mean light that has traveled a nanosecond) onto a photoreceptor.
I wanted to differentiate the fact that we are NOT JUST FOCUSING THE LIGHT. THE OBJECT HAS TO BE PRESENT FOR THE LIGHT TO BE FOCUSED OR THERE IS NOTHING TO FOCUS.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
You have said leaves and solar panels would have a delayed interaction because of [B]no lenses[/B
|
No I didn't. Solar panels are receiving light from the Sun which turns into energy. There's absolutely no conflict here. LadyShea, you don't know what you're even asking yet you're trying to be Sherlock Holmes, which you are not.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Then your claim changed
1. You have said plain photosensitive paper would have a delayed interaction
2. You have said photosensitive paper with a pair of eyeglasses on it (lenses)
Okay, if eyeglasses work the same as telescopes, then yes we should see a real time image if the object is in optical range. So tell me, where I have I gone wrong? Show me where we get a delayed image from the eyeglasses that show up where? If there is no photoreceptors, where does this delayed image show up where we could prove this?
3. You have said photosensitive paper in the back of a pinhole camera would interact instantaneously despite the lack of a lens because of a hole...why would a hole work but actual lenses would not?
|
The claim that we see in real time hasn't changed. Eyeglasses have no photosensitive material to show the image because there's no place that this can be displayed, and even if there was, the Sun would hypothetically have to be turned on at noon, for this is where the false conclusion that light has to be on Earth originated. That's why I said this knowledge had to come from outside of the field. Science concluded something that appeared logically true but when analyzed from this perspective (which is just as plausible as anything science has offered) is false. Your little experiment doesn't prove anything LadyShea, but I'm glad you're making the effort. It just so happens that you are unintentionally helping me to prove my case.
