A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why did you just google randomly and copy paste something about pinhole cameras?

According to you, lenses and holes (but not if they're too big!) have a mysterious ability to make light that is a huge distance away suddenly interact with photosensitive paper behind them. How do they possess such an ability? Why does a hole of only a certain size work?

Please explain this magic.

It's not magic Dragar. It's how pinholes work to achieve an image that is not blurred or without resolution. Pinholes work like lenses, so it's understandable that a pinhole camera would capture the image in real time just as a camera would.

-----------------------------------------------

Think we've eliminated the pinhole? Think again! If we enlarge the
aperature too much, we lose the image to increasing blurriness because the
depth of field becomes too small, and any tiny misalignments of the
lens/retina distance, or tiny aspheric shape in the retina or lens both
result in total blurriness of the perceived image.

This applies to the fight over lens-image versus pinhole-image. In a
real-world instrument, one *could* say that a pinhole image is not really
an image because it lacks a focus location. But conversely, one could say
that a lens-image is not really an image because, if the lens has no
"pinhole" character, if the lens has infinite diameter, then the depth of
field is therefor infinitely small, and a real-world film or retina cannot
receive any image from such a lens!

http://amasci.com/amateur/pinhole.txt

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

So this is the new bee in your little bonnet: "nanosecond," a word you discovered recently in a frenzy of googling. A few problems: If we see everything in a nanosecond after the light has left it, then we don't see in real time and therefore you disagree with Lessans. Second problem: We can easily measure by a variety of means the time it takes photons from the sun to reach the earth. It's about eight minutes, not a nanosecond. So your stupid claim is false. Finally, let us again note that you also disagree with Lessans, having recently explicitly admitted that in the case of distant stars and galaxies, we see them in delayed time when the light reaches our eyes. Lessans said the opposite of what you are now saying. Shall we dig up his quotes?

Seeing light in delayed time is not in disagreement with Lessans because we're not using this light to see anything. If this light interacted with something in the atmosphere, we WOULD be seeing that interaction in real time. The fact that you actually think I'm saying that light travels to Earth in a nanosecond is hilarious. The confusion is stacking up higher and higher and it almost makes me feel guilty that I am putting you all through this.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The lens focuses the light that an object has [reflected], or emitted.

So far so good

No object = no light to form an image.

There is your mistake, once the light has left the object it travels independent of the object. The object is no longer necessary for us to see the image of the object

That's the whole debate in a nutshell.

Yep.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then prove it! Bring it on!! I'm really looking forward to resolving this issue; no pun intended.

The speed of light has been measured. Nothing travels faster than the speed of light. Not even information can arrive from one place to another faster than light. Photons arriving instantly anywhere is not possible. This has been tested and proven, look up the science, if you can understand it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Repeating the afferent model doesn't make it true Spacemonkey.

You are correct, but all the tests and experiments that support it, and none against, do indicate that it is true.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Whether or not a natural decline would take place is not relevant to the actual content of the book. That's why I took it out thanks to you. This would have been a major blunder on my part only because people might think I'm homophobic.

I don't care one way or the other. No one is being hurt by someone's sexual preference, especially when promiscuity in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships is going to die out.

We all know you are 'phobic', most obviously "truthophobic".


Just how do you know that promiscuity is going to die out, from what Lessans wrote it will become the norm, but instead of being casual it will result in more "Shotgun Weddings".

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This formula calculates the actual distance between stars and planets.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Only because the closed system allows our eyes to be within optical range of the object as it travels 186,000 miles a second. If you calculate the inverse square law by the square ratio per mile, you would see that this light would be at the eye in less than a second. By the time it reaches Earth, there would be no resolution because the object is completely out of visual range. There wouldn't be light to resolve either (so that doesn't save you) since there is nothing in the light that allows this decoding of images, which has been science's mistaken view.

You haven't answered the question, or even tried to address what you were replying to. The inverse square law doesn't say anything at all about when the light will be at the eye. You should stop using this term, as whenever you use it you say something completely stupid. The Sun is not out of visual range at 93 million miles, as it emits more than enough photons to allow resolution of an image, and the decoding of images is completely irrelevant to what I asked you anyway - which was:

How can photons traveling at just over 11 million miles per minute cover a distance of 93 million miles in less than 8 minutes?

If your answer is that they cannot, then you need to change your answers (which told me that they can) to the questions below:


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

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

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

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People understand how difficult this concept obviously is, and I believe they are giving me credit for trying to explain how this works

Which people?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And it has in less than a nanosecond.

How? How does light get from the Sun to the lens on Earth in a nanosecond? If it does so by traveling then it is traveling faster than light. And if it doesn't travel then it isn't light.

[LadyShea]

If there is no information in the light, then how can we decode an image that has no information in it?

There is information in light, which you've agreed to...wavelength, intensity, angle of travel. That is information.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Spacemonkey, you need to accommodate your answers for a change. This entire account places the light at the eye as a result of two things, the physical object having to be in vierw, and the direction the eye is looking. You don't take this model seriously, not even for a nanosecond (ha). It is YOU who keeps reverting back to traveling photons reaching Earth as the only possible answer...

I'm not the one reverting back to traveling photons. YOU are. Whenever you answer my questions YOU tell ME that the photons at the film are traveling photons that got there by traveling there from the Sun.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's true Spacemonkey, but you just can't grasp the concept. What can I do?

How is it true? How can the same photons not be the same photons? What am I not getting that would make flat contradictions like this reasonable?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not magic Dragar. It's how pinholes work to achieve an image that is not blurred or without resolution. Pinholes work like lenses...

No, they don't.

Explain how a hole has the magical properties you ascribe to it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Which people?

Not me! The concept is not difficult, just impossible.

And I'm not giving her credit for anything, and the concept and the explanations don't work.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Spacemonkey. They did not have to travel 93 million miles.

They did according to the answers you gave me. You said the photons at the film were traveling photons from the Sun that got from the Sun to the film by traveling. If you have changed your mind then you will need to answer those questions again. Here they are:

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?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We are still using traveling light to see, but when we look out at the OBJECT (which you are not considering or don't see the importance of), we are in optical range due to the inverse square law. Light continues to travel to Earth but by the time it gets there, there is no light that can be resolved into an image.

Full spectrum light arrives, and you already agreed that full spectrum light can be resolved into an image. But in any case, light which arrives at the film 8min after the Sun is ignited is not the light we are talking about anyway. You were supposed to be telling me about the light which is at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why do you keep asking me the same thing over and over?

Because you keep retracting your answers as soon as you have given them. But in the above case this was actually the first time I'd asked you this particular question. Why haven't you answered? Here it is again:

So when did they leave the Sun? Was it before, at, or after the moment it is first ignited? (Remember we are talking about the photons which are at the film on Earth at the moment the Sun is first ignited.)

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When you say "the photons which are at the film on Earth at the moment the Sun is first ignited" you are confusing the issue.

How so? Are you denying that there will be photons at the film when the Sun is first ignited? Because that is where you need them to be, and those are the photons I am asking you about. They are the ONLY photons I am asking you about.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They can't.

Then why did you say they can by answering with a Yes to my above question? Did you not understand the question?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, but not in the 81/2 minutes you believe is necessary.

If they travel the distance in anything less than 8min then they are traveling faster than light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why don't you work out the ratio between the object and the light as it leaves the Sun to see how far light has to travel before there is no resolution.

Firstly, because it is not at all relevant to what I have been asking you. And secondly, because it was already done for you earlier in the thread. You were shown that despite dispersion according to the inverse square law, the colossal photon output of the Sun means that the density of arriving photons after 93 million miles is still more than enough to form an image. But again, this is not at all relevant to what I have been asking you about.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've never disputed that...

Then I do get to ask you about these traveling photons. And when I do so, I am asking about YOUR account. I am not reverting to any afferent account.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The photon that is being emitted is traveling from point A to point B. That part is true, and when it finally does get to Earth 81/2 minutes later it will either be absorbed or reflected.

Is that photon one of the ones that is at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited? If not, then you aren't talking about the photons I asked you about. If so, then how can it be arriving at the Earth 8min after it is already at the film on Earth?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You better watch how you talk to me Spacemonkey or I'll just ignore you for a day or two and if that's not enough, longer the next time.

Your threats are silly. Who do you think you are punishing by ignoring relevant questions? And why is it that whenever I ask you about one set of photons you always give answers for a completely different set of photons?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

True.

Then this replacement is irrelevant to my questions, for I am asking you about the photons you need at the retina 8min before any such replacement can even begin to occur.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Both of those things matter. If there is no information in the light where it can be resolved, then something is wrong with this picture. Moreover, the afferent position does state that if the object turned blue, we wouldn't see blue until we saw red IF THE INFORMATION IS IN THE LIGHT. This is pertinent to what we're talking about.

Information has NOTHING THE FUCK WHATSOEVER to do with what I am asking you about. Assume for the purpose of our discussion that we both agree light has no information in it whatsoever. This is of course completely wrong, but it isn't the part of your account I am interested in. Even if light has no information in it, a camera cannot take a photograph without light in contact with the light-sensitive film inside the camera. How that light gets there is the ONLY thing I am asking you to address.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I answered you. The photon that leaves on its journey to Earth will take 81/2 minutes, but this doesn't answer the question as to why we can see in real time, and if you think it does, you are even more lost than I thought you were.

You haven't answered this question either! If the photons that leave the Sun and travel 8min to get to the Earth are not the same photons which are already at the film when the Sun is first ignited, then why are you mentioning them at all in response to questions explicitly asking you ONLY about those photons at the film?????

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that you actually think I'm saying that light travels to Earth in a nanosecond is hilarious.

That's what you keep saying, that light will be located on camera film in a nanosecond. The film is on Earth which is 93 million miles from the Sun. These are just facts.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have to laugh because the answers do sound contradictory but they're really not.

Of course they are! How can 'Yes' and 'Of course not' not be contradictory responses to the exact same question?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As per the example LadyShea gave with the solar panels, light does need to make contact on Earth which takes 81/2 minutes. When we're talking about photons reaching the film, it's a different ballgame because we are not using these photons in the same way. The light that is emanating from the Sun when it's first turned on does not have to reach Earth in this account. The only thing that matters is that the object is within optical range using a lens. This means we can see it because the object is there to be photographed; it is within our visual landscape or periphery or the periphery of the camera lens. This is not a tautology... "we can see it because we can see it." That's why he said the image is not being reflected as this would mean distance and time are factors. If there is no information or raw material to form an image in the light, then receiving the light through space/time doesn't play a part in sight.

None of this addresses the original question or does anything to resolve your contradictory answers to it. Here is the question again:

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?

This question was based on your answers stating that the photons at the camera film when the Sun was first ignited are traveling photons that get to the film by traveling at light speed from the Sun, and which leave the Sun only once the Sun is ignited. If you disagree with any of that, then you need to re-answer the questions below as well:


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

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Repeating the afferent model doesn't make it true Spacemonkey.

I answered you according to reality. I can't answer you according to the efferent account because you have no explanation for how photons from a candle can be at the eye before they have had time to travel there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I give up.

Fake conceding again? You asked how long it takes for photons from the Sun to get to the eye. The correct answer is 8 minutes.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're wrong on both counts, but that is a separate matter.

The point you are here evading is that information in traveling light has nothing to do with why time and distance must be involved. Time and distance are unavoidably factors because you need light from the Sun to be at the camera film 93 million miles away, and the only way photons can get from the Sun to the film is by traveling that distance, which takes 8min of time.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What do you think I've been trying to tell you this whole time? Never mind.

You've been attributing magical properties to lenses, claiming they can do things with light before that light has actually traveled to and arrived at the lens.

[davidm]

She's resting and recuperating for another day in which to present incoherent nonsense in a smug, condescending tone.

It's not just that what she's saying is wrong; it's just complete codswallop. She grabs words at random off the Internet like "inverse square law" and "nanosecond" and "full spectrum" and then she flings them randomly into a big fat that no doubt makes no sense even to her. I wonder what she is trying to achieve at this point. Her posts are actually much worse then they were when she began here.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

She's resting and recuperating for another day in which to present incoherent nonsense in a smug, condescending tone.

It's not just that what she's saying is wrong; it's just complete codswallop. She grabs words at random off the Internet like "inverse square law" and "nanosecond" and "full spectrum" and then she flings them randomly into a big fat that no doubt makes no sense even to her. I wonder what she is trying to achieve at this point. Her posts are actually much worse then they were when she began here.

I believe Peacegirl's posts are indicative of a very serious condition, "Vocabularium Obscurus" which seems to be progressing, and without an adequate dose of "Thesaurosiumide Oxide" or "Dictionariumonolact Sulfate" The condition will only get worse.

[davidm]

I almost hate to raise this point, as I'm sure peacegirl has never heard of it, and would not understand it if explained to her, but I feel apprehensive that once hearing these words, she will glom on to them as they were some confirmation of her claims, when they aren't at all. Still, it's fascinating enough to pull the trigger on it.

I think it was Artemis Entreri who, several pages back, invited us to consider the situation from the point of view of the photon and I think he said the photon would experience itself as traveling some eight minutes from the sun to the earth.

This is not correct, though. From the photon's point of view (of course it does not have a point of view, but this fact should not bar us from considering the situation in principle), no time at all would pass while traveling from sun to earth, and no distance would be covered, either. Perhaps Kael or Drager would like to comment further, but that's about it. The photon would experience its release by the sun and its absorption by the earth happening simultaneously. In fact, from the photon's point of view, it would traverse the entire known universe in no time at all.

ETA: I should also mention that the location of emission by sun, and absorbtion by earth, would be the same for the photon, as well as the time. There would be no time or space from the photon viewpoint, evidently.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Homosexuality is not a crime...

I didn't say it was. Stop misrepresenting me.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The lens focuses the light that an object has [reflected], or emitted. No object = no light to form an image. That's the whole debate in a nutshell.

If that is the case then the light has to come into contact with the lens before the lens can focus it. Since the light is coming from somewhere other than the lens it has to travel from its point of origin to the location of the lens. It can only do so at the speed of light. Therefore, it takes time for the light to reach the lens and cannot be there instantly.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Look at your above answers. You have said that the photons now at the film got there by traveling from the Sun at 11 million miles per minute, and began this journey by leaving the Sun only after it is ignited, and yet somehow complete this journey by arriving at the camera film less than 8min later. So I ask you again...

How can photons traveling at just over 11 million miles per minute cover a distance of 93 million miles in less than 8 minutes?

They can't, and that's not what he's saying. You aren't following him at all. He said light travels at 186,000 miles a second but the error is that the information is in this light. If that is true, it means that there is no information reflected. That's what he meant when he said there are no images traveling on the waves of light. It means the same thing even if it wasn't scientific sounding. If no information is reflected, it is possible to see the object instantly while the light is still traveling because of the mirror image effect. This is just a mapping or projection of the photons onto the retina or film as we look at the object in real time, which does not take 81/2 minutes. I can't explain this any other way so you will have to accept that this model is plausible or just let it go. It's up to you; I'm not forcing you to agree or even think about this model if you're sure your model is correct.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If your answer is that they cannot, then you need to revise your answers to the above questions.

Only because the closed system allows our eyes to be within optical range of the object as it travels 186,000 miles a second. If you calculate the inverse square law by the square ratio per mile, you would see that this light would be at the eye in less than a second. By the time it reaches Earth, there would be no resolution because the object is completely out of visual range. There wouldn't be light to resolve either (so that doesn't save you) since there is nothing in the light that allows this decoding of images, which has been science's mistaken view.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You haven't answered the question, or even tried to address what you were replying to. The inverse square law doesn't say anything at all about when the light will be at the eye. You should stop using this term, as whenever you use it you say something completely stupid. The Sun is not out of visual range at 93 million miles, as it emits more than enough photons to allow resolution of an image,

Not if there's no image to resolve Spacemonkey. That should tell you something even if you don't have all the pieces of the puzzle.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

and the decoding of images is completely irrelevant to what I asked you anyway

Not to me; it plays a very important part since that's how Lessans came to this finding. Lessans realized that something was off in the belief that light carries the raw material. If it doesn't, then you need to consider that he was right in his analysis even if you don't understand how light can be the bridge to sight when it hasn't reached Earth yet.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

- which was:

How can photons traveling at just over 11 million miles per minute cover a distance of 93 million miles in less than 8 minutes?

Has nothing to do with this. He never denied that light was traveling at a high rate of speed.

p. 117 Once again certain facts have been confused and all the reasoning
except for light traveling at a high rate of speed are completely
fallacious.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If your answer is that they cannot, then you need to change your answers (which told me that they can) to the questions below:


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

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

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

I don't have to change my answers. I am perfectly content with the answers I gave because I don't believe they are contradictory.