[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well if I said it would take 81/2 minutes to strike the film, that was a mistake on my part.

Well, you did say exactly that in the only answers you have given me. And yet you insist that my questions have even answered and don't need answering again. Even though you here acknowledge your given answers to be mistaken. Is that reasonable?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already explained this. How many more times am I going to have to repeat myself?

You explained what? You were blabbing about replaced photons, and I just explained why this is not relevant.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Done what again? I am not going off onto a tangent. The Sun is made up of matter, whether it's emitting or reflecting light. This is relevant.

You went off on an irrelevant tangent about light not having information in it. That has nothing to do with what I am asking you about. And who said or implied anything about the Sun not being made of matter??? Where did that come from?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, that's right, and that's why if we're looking at the Sun directly, it would take a nanosecond for the mirror image (the light) to be at our eyes or film.

But you just agreed that it takes 8min, not nanoseconds.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't matter whether we're talking about the eyes or camera film. THOSE photons were there within a nanosecond because of the mirror image effect which only takes a nanosecond when you compare this closed system to light traveling from the Sun to Earth, which takes 81/2 minutes.

There is no 'mirror image effect' capable of relocating photons by 93 million miles in a nanosecond. You just made that up. And you didn't answer the question: We're not talking about the eye but only a camera film, and we're not talking about any photons other than the ones at the film when the Sun is first ignited. Did THOSE photons travel the actual distance from the Sun to the Earth?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't matter whether it's the naked eye or a camera Spacemonkey. Why are you making an issue over this? We talking about light that is emitted from the Sun Spacemonkey, but the light that travels to Earth does not contain information that would allow us to see the Sun in the light itself.

Again, information is not relevant to what I am asking, and you have again evaded the question you were replying to: Are you still talking about the light I was asking you about (the photons at the camera film when the Sun is ignited), or are you here talking about completely different light when you say it is traveling from the Sun to the Earth?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then explain it Spacemonkey since you have dubbed yourself the authority on this issue. How can we get an image of anything with full spectrum light?

The parts of the film exposed to arriving full spectrum light from the Sun react and turn white. The parts that are not exposed to this full spectrum light do not turn white. The result is an image of a white circle - an image of the Sun.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not true.

Which part of it was not true? Can light from the Sun be at the film on Earth without any change of location? Is the Sun not 93 million miles away? Can this light change location by this distance in any way other than by traveling? Can it travel at any speed other than the speed of light? Can it travel 93 million miles at light speed in less than 8min?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All those things count, especially when his claim has to do with the eyes and brain. You're trying to throw me off but it isn't working.

None of those things have anything to do with what I am asking you about.