A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Are you fucking kidding me?

So now you admit that we see "pure light" from distant galaxies in delayed time!

Wowser! Maybe we are making progress with you after all!

However, that is not what Lessnas said. He specifically said that we see everything in real time, including distant stars and galaxies!

I guess you are a heretic now, defiling the memory and teachings of Dear Ol' Dad!

[The Lone Ranger]

Okay, so what's the minimum size of the hole, then? Why is it that a small hole means that light is "instantly at the photoreceptor," but if you enlarge the hole, for some strange reason, light ceases to be "instantly at the photoreceptor"?


If the hole is 1 mm in diameter, will this mean that light is "instantly at the photoreceptor"? What if I then enlarge the hole to 1.5 mm?

At what size does the hole become large enough that it lets in enough light that light is no longer "instantly at the photoreceptor" -- and why? After all, the only difference between a small hole and a bigger one is that the bigger one allows more light to pass through.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by davidm

Are you fucking kidding me?

So now you admit that we see "pure light" from distant galaxies in delayed time!

Wowser! Maybe we are making progress with you after all!

However, that is not what Lessnas said.

I might add, it is also not what YOU have been saying for the last three and a half years here, and more than ten years on the Internet.

Have you forgotten your father's writings on this? Shall we dredge them up and quote them for you?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons? YES

Did they come from the Sun? YES

Did they get to the film by traveling? YES (but this is not the entire answer as you well know)

Did they travel at the speed of light? YES

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited? NO

Can they arrive at the camera film less than 8min after leaving their source? YES (YOU SHOULD UNDERSTAND WHY BY NOW)

No, I don't understand why. How can photons traveling at just over 11 miles per minute cover a distance of 93 million miles in less than 8 minutes?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

So galaxies exist outside the environment and are not made of matter. This is very interesting information. So, just how big is the environment and where does it end?

According to science, light travels forever so what we're seeing is light from very very old galaxies. These old galaxies are not existing or are not within the telescope's range, so the Deep Field Hubble is receiving the light from a past event, like David said. The difference, I believe, is if the actual star is within optical range of our eyes or a telescope, for then we would be seeing the actual star that its emitted light would be revealing.

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

I think she started using the nanosecond thing after it was pointed out that even when discussing the candle that the light would still take nanoseconds to hit the eye, light travels at approximately 1 foot per nanosecond.
She conceded that but then said that the light from the sun would take the same amount of time.
Makes sense, I mean I can walk from my mailbox to my house in 10 seconds so obviously I can walk from my house to Cincinnati in the same time

It doesn't work that way. If the object is within range of a camera or retina, this closed system is why the distance that you are ascribing to the Sun scenario, doesn't apply. The box I was talking about would cause this similarity between the candle and the Sun therefore 1 foot per nanosecond when measured across the span of this enclosure (which isn't much in the efferent account) would take no more than a few nanoseconds to be at my eyes, if that. The candle is just on a smaller scale but the proportions are the same.

Originally Posted by Artemic Entreri

If your house is already in Cincinnati then you don't need to wait even 10 seconds to get to Cincinnati. If you are in Cincinatti then you are there instantly because you are already in Cincinnati. I don't understand why you are having so much trouble with this. It is really very simple.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm talking about humans with normal sight, not other species.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Are cameras and telescopes humans?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Let me clarify: If the object is bright enough to be seen, the light would already be at our eyes (since it would take less than a nanosecond for that light to travel to our eyes. This is not magic; light is the bridge that has to be at our photoreceptors for us to see, but for all intents and purposes this light would be instantaneous (like the candle) because we're not talking about 93 million miles for us to get an image.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

How long is this bridge between the Sun and the Earth?

That's what I'm trying to explain; the bridge that is necessary for sight is the inverse square law of light that allows us to see the object in real time (not 81/2 minutes delayed) when we're looking directly at it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, I don't understand why at all. Your last answer here contradicts the preceding five answers in this post, and must be false as a matter of pure mathematics if those other answers are correct.

You cannot have photons leave the Sun when it is first ignited, travel the 93 million miles from the Sun to the film on Earth at just over 11 miles per minute, and arrive at the film less than 8min later. It takes over 8min to travel 93 million miles at the speed of light, and you've just told me that this is how these photons get to the film.

So please explain how your final answer above is possible given the rest of your answers above. Which of your other answers could you change to remove this contradiction? (Or if you deny that there is a contradiction here, please explain how light can travel 93 million miles at just over 11 miles a minute, and still complete this journey in less than 8 minutes. Show your math!)

It's not a contradiction to say that light arrives 81/2 minutes, yet we see the object in real time because it does not involve time (except for the nanosecond discussed earlier). I am not saying that light is completing its journey in less than 8 minutes. It has nothing to do with this. You are stuck on the other side of the highway and you won't even cross to the other side to see how these two sides work together.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

According to science, light travels forever so what we're seeing is light from very very old galaxies. These old galaxies are not existing or are not within the telescope's range, so the Deep Field Hubble is receiving the light from a past event, like David said.

Holy shit!

We've made progress! Unbelievable!

The difference, I believe, is if the actual star is within optical range of our eyes or a telescope, for then we would be seeing the actual star that its emitted light would be revealing.

You're getting close, though!

We're seeing light from Andromeda, which is 2.5 million light years away, which means we are seeing the galaxy as it looked 2.5 million years ago.

We're seeing light from the sun, which is 8.5 light minutes distant, so we are seeing the sun as it looked 8.5 minutes ago.

We're seeing a lighted candle just across the room, which is one light nanosecond distant, so we are seeing the candle as it looked one nanosecond ago.

It all hangs together. It's true. It's right. Can we now push you over the hump into reality? Forget all about your father's writings on light and sight; they're wrong. If you want to salvage anything, focus on the first "discovery."

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not a contradiction to say that light arrives [after] 81/2 minutes...

It is when we are talking about the light you say is already at the film when the Sun is first ignited. That same light cannot also be arriving 8min later.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not saying that light is completing its journey in less than 8 minutes.

But that is exactly what you said here:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Can they arrive at the camera film less than 8min after leaving their source? YES (YOU SHOULD UNDERSTAND WHY BY NOW)

That is you saying these traveling photons completed their journey in less than 8min. Given that you have once again retracted your only provided answer to this question, you will need to answer it again (the red one below):

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons? YES
Did they come from the Sun? YES
Did they get to the film by traveling? YES
Did they travel at the speed of light? YES
Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited? NO

Can they arrive at the camera film less than 8min after leaving their source?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons? YES
Did they come from the Sun? YES
Did they get to the film by traveling? YES
Did they travel at the speed of light? YES
Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited? NO

Note also that these answers alone make your account impossible. We are talking about the photons you need to be at the film on Earth when the Sun is first ignited. But here you already have them just leaving the surface of the Sun to begin their 93 million mile journey either at or after this time. So you already have these photons in two different places at once! (Unless of course you have yet again reverted to answering with respect to completely different photons than the ones asked about.)

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not correct. There has to be something that causes the light to work like a camera, and a pinhole in a pinhole camera does just that even though it doesn't focus the light but rather allows a narrow beam to pass through. The results are similar. That's why the article said the pinhole acts like a lens even if it doesn't focus the light as a lens does. As such this does not establish that neither lenses nor any focusing apparatus are necessary. It establishes that they are necessary for the light to be "instantly" at the photoreceptor. In conclusion, a photosensitive sheet of paper would darken instantly (or close to it) as soon as the Sun was turned on because a lens or a piece of equipment that acts like a lens would allow this interaction between light and the photosensitive material to occur assuming that the object is within optical range of the camera.

A pin hole camera works, not because the pinhole acts as a lens, but because photons travel in a straight line (under normal circumstances) and the photons from one part of the object will only strike the back of the camera at a specific point. And likewise for all the other photons that travel straight from the object, or scene, through the pin hole to the back of the camera will strike that surface at a different specific point. The overall effect is to form an image on the back of the pin hole camera that corresponds to the object or scene in front of the camera. If there is photo sensitive paper there we get a photograph, if not we just get the image, Upside down and backwards, on the back of the camera. The pin hole does not focus anything, it just allows light to travel in a straight line to the back of the camera. Pin hole cameras disprove everything Lessans and Peacegirl say about light and photons, there is no image till the photons travel to the back of the camera through the pin hole.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what I'm trying to explain; the bridge that is necessary for sight is the inverse square law of light that allows us to see the object in real time (not 81/2 minutes delayed) when we're looking directly at it.

What kind of dressing do you serve with your meaningless word salad? There isn't even any fiber here.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Unacceptable responses:

#1 Insisting that they have already been answered.
#2 Responding without giving at least a Yes or No as part of your answer.
#3 Answering by talking about photons other than those asked about.
#4 Insisting that previous and since retracted answers should be good enough.
#5 Insisting that contradictory answers should be good enough.
#6 Refusing to answer because of name-calling.
#7 Answering with irrelevant nonsense about mirror images, information, reflection, full spectrum light, absorption, the inverse square law, etc.
#8 Answering by talking about the eyes or brain instead of the camera and film being asked about.
#9 Fake conceding.
#10 Trying to change the subject.

#3 seems to be her favorite at the moment.

She starts with the photons which are at the film when the Sun is first ignited, and says those same photons came from the Sun and got to the film by traveling at light speed. She further says those same photons left the Sun when once it was ignited, and then arrived at the film 8min later as completely different photons from those which she began talking about and which were already there 8min before that! The same photons are different photons later in her story!

[Spacemonkey]

Below are the same questions as before, reformatted to help you avoid answering with respect to different photons.


You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are these photons (which are at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited) traveling photons?

Did these photons (which are at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited) come from the Sun?

Did these photons (which are at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited) get to the film by traveling?

Did these photons (which are at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited) travel at the speed of light?

Can these photons (which are at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited) leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Can these photons (which are at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited) arrive at the camera film less than 8min after leaving their source?

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well apart from misquoting (I think it was originally Angakuk), you do realize you're laughing at a caricature of yourself there... right?

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what I'm trying to explain; the bridge that is necessary for sight is the inverse square law of light that allows us to see the object in real time (not 81/2 minutes delayed) when we're looking directly at it.

So is this what you do, just find things that are vaguely related to the subject you're discussing and then use them incorrectly as if they are some magic answer to your complete lack of understanding.
That sentence makes ZERO sense.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Eyeglasses? I don't think so. But if we put a pinhole camera next to a piece of photosensitive paper, then turn on the Sun, we would get an image of the Sun on the back of the camera, whereas the paper would remain dark for 81/2 minutes because the light hadn't arrived.

Eyeglasses have lenses just like a camera does

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes I have. You just haven't grasped how it's possible for light to interact with camera film that hasn't reached Earth yet, but in no way violates physics.

Of course it violates physics. Spacemonkey and I have both used the analogy of shaking hands. Can you and I shake hands over Skype? Can you shake Spacemonkey's hand if he is at the post office and you are at your home?

The requirements for a physical interaction between light and camera film is the same...the light must be physically at the same location as the camera film. If we can't shake hands, we can't take a photograph. It's really just that simple.

Can you get us to shake hands from even 93 inches away let alone 93 million miles? If not, then you can't have light photons on camera film at noon when the Sun is newly ignited,. You must wait for the light to arrive.

The only reason it works this way is due to how the eyes and brain work which knowledge then extends to cameras and telescopes.

No, how the brain works does not extend to cameras or telescopes.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Okay, so what's the minimum size of the hole, then? Why is it that a small hole means that light is "instantly at the photoreceptor," but if you enlarge the hole, for some strange reason, light ceases to be "instantly at the photoreceptor"?

If the hole is 1 mm in diameter, will this mean that light is "instantly at the photoreceptor"? What if I then enlarge the hole to 1.5 mm?

At what size does the hole become large enough that it lets in enough light that light is no longer "instantly at the photoreceptor" -- and why? After all, the only difference between a small hole and a bigger one is that the bigger one allows more light to pass through.

Totally diverging from the topic, the smaller the hole the sharper the image. Unfortunately a 1 mm hole would result in a very blurry image. The hole would need to be a fraction of a mm to give a sharp image. It's not called a "pin hole" for no reason. At 1 mm I doubt if you could recognize the subject, unless it were very close, very large, and without any fine detail. A human face would be out of the question, thus proving Peacegirl's point about dogs.

BTW, in my opinion, there is no size that will produce an instant image, as the pin hole camera works by allowing photons to pass through the hole to the back of the camera. And this can be demonstrated empirically.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only reason it works this way is due to how the eyes and brain work which knowledge then extends to cameras and telescopes.

The sad reality is that neither you nor Lessans had any idea of how the Brain and eye works. You both are just making stuff up to fit your own fiction. Just a little bit of real education would have prevented 13 years of wasted effort on your part, and many years of wasted effort, writing nonsense, on your fathers part.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it isn't.

That is true only if the newly ignited Sun meets the requirements of efferent vision.

Which it would according to Lessans

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Camera film, or a sensor, would receive light just like our eyes would 81/2 minutes later, which would allow the camera to take a photograph of you or me, but this has no bearing at all on the fact that we would not be receiving information in the light that would allow us to decode an image.

But you have repeatedly said the light would be physically interacting with eyes and film within "nanoseconds" and/or "instantaneously". Now you are saying it would take 8.5 minutes? Which is it?

Lessans used the words "we would see the Sun instantly-at that very moment" and "The Sun at 12:00 noon would look just like a large star"

Nice photograph. We would be photographing light, not matter, which is not inconsistent.

Yes, it is, galaxies are made of millions of stars and you've said that we see the "actual stars" and the matter of the Sun. Why would the matter of many suns/stars that make up a galaxy be different?

According to what we know about the properties of light, we would be seeing delayed light just like we would be seeing delayed light from the Sun 81/2 minutes later,

What happened to seeing the newly ignited sun "instantly-at that very moment" as per Lessans?

only this light would be coming from a galaxy that existed in the past (if light travels forever, hmmm). It would be like a river drying up but the stream from that river continues to flow. This again has nothing to do with seeing matter in real time.

Why would we see the matter of the Sun and distant stars instantly, in real time, but not the much greater amount of matter from a whole galaxy?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

So is this what you do, just find things that are vaguely related to the subject you're discussing and then use them incorrectly as if they are some magic answer to your complete lack of understanding.
That sentence makes ZERO sense.

No.Shit. Completely nonsensical babble.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Source of light and size of sphere are both taken into account. Scientists want us to believe that this light, after traveling 93 million miles, would land on our photoreceptors

This is not a belief, it is an empirically observable and measurable fact.

The math doesn't add up.

Of course it adds up, which part confuses you?

Inverse square law: a statement in physics: a given physical quantity (as illumination) varies with the distance from the source inversely as the square of the distance.

Yes, how does that support the points you've been making?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This shows why your arguments about "too far away to resolve" and the inverse square law are invalid, as these terms are relative to the intensity of the source light and the sensitivity of the receptor.

I'm talking about humans with normal sight, not other species.

We are also talking about cameras and telescopes and plant leaves etc. The inverse square law applies to the intensity of traveling light, it does not apply to vision exclusively.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not correct. There has to be something that causes the light to work like a camera

What does "light working like a camera" mean?,

a pinhole in a pinhole camera does just that

Does just what, exactly?

[Angakuk]

The pinhole in a pinhole camera performs the same magic that lenses perform, even though the pinhole is not a lens, it just acts like one.

Sort of "Like A Virgin". Not a virgin, but like one. Not a lens, but like one.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Sort of "Like A Virgin". Not a virgin, but like one. Not a lens, but like one.

And just how many virgins do you think you know?