A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

To make it clear the reason why I asked if you're referring to two different types of light is because in ONE sentence you talk about light that takes 8.5 minutes to travel to the paper and "instantaneous light" that is already at the paper... that sure sounds like two separate and different types of light to me.

No Artemis, it's the same light but when we are looking at the object (not waiting for the light to get an image), we are in optical range of the object while the light is traveling to Earth. So if the Sun was turned on at noon, we would be in darkness for 81/2 minutes therefore we wouldn't be able to see anything on Earth, but we would be able to see the Sun turned on instantly (a nanosecond like in the candle example) because in this model it has met the requirements for real time vision.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

It couldn't. Light travels 11,176,943.82 miles in one minutes. Where did you get 11 miles?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not sure of the magic number. If the hole was too large the projected image of the light source would be blurred or have no resolution at all. The photosensitive paper would still be interacting with light, but it would have no image that we could make out.

So, now you're saying that if we simply put some photosensitive paper out, it will darken instantly when the Sun is turned on, not 8.5 minutes later?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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?

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.

You have said that camera film would interact instantly because of lenses
You have said leaves and solar panels would have a delayed interaction because of no lenses

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) would have a delayed interaction...why are the eyeglass lenses not enough?
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?

Eyeglass lenses are used when the person's eyeball has a refractive error, so depending on the prescription the image may come out blurry for an average sighted person, but the principle is basically the same. Obviously, a pair of eyeglasses with photosensitive paper would, in my estimation, get an instant image of the Sun, but again just as a hole in a pinhole camera can be too large for a sharp image, an eyeglass lens may produce a distorted image depending on the refractive correction for that particular prescription.

[Artemis Entreri]

Looks like Spacemonkey forgot to put "million" behind that 11. A pretty obvious typo.
You haven't answered his intended question though; how can photons, which have to be at the eye for it to see at all, travel 93million miles in less than 8 minutes (in a nanosecond as you now claim)?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Pyramids have mystical powers, the Pythagorean theorem tells us so.

The esoteric meaning of numbers 3, 4, and 5. Interesting to read about.

https://www.rosicrucian.org/publicat...5_francini.pdf

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Looks like Spacemonkey forgot to put "million" behind that 11. A pretty obvious typo.
You haven't answered his intended question though; how can photons, which have to be at the eye for it to see at all, travel 93million miles in less than 8 minutes (in a nanosecond as you now claim)?

Because photons don't have to travel 93 million miles for them to be at the eye, that's just the point. When we are looking at the object in real time, the photons that are needed to see the object are already at the eye due to this alternate account, that is more in keeping with reality than our present understanding. Again, this light puts us in optical range or there would be no object to see. This IS the 180 degree difference between the afferent and efferent views of sight. Even though we can look at the object in the time it takes for a candle to be lit (because it's proportional), light continues to travel the 8 1/2 minutes to Earth, but what scientists tell us is that it is this light that gives us the information that is decoded in the brain in delayed time of 81/2 minutes. This is what Lessans is disputing. It is full spectrum light that arrives and strikes all of our earthly objects which we are then able to see.

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because photons don't have to travel 93 million miles for them to be at the eye, that's just the point. When we are looking at the object in real time, the photons that are needed to see the object are already at the eye due to this alternate account, ...

Already at the eye? wouldn't that term mean that the light is on the eye before it looks at the object? I'm guessing this is another semantics misunderstanding.
So do the photons at the eye teleport there? You're clearly saying that they are physically at the eye. There has to be an explanation for how they got there.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So holes are magic!

And I maintain that 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.

How does a hole project light while a lens does not? You recently said:

Originally Posted by peacegirl on 7/7/14

Anything that is similar to a lens works the same way LadyShea.

and

Originally Posted by peacegirl on 7/6/14

Lenses of all kinds point to objects which then focus the light.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Eyeglass lenses are lenses, not just similar to a lens, not just a hole acting as a lens. Why don't they work the same way?

I didn't realize you said photosensitive paper was behind the eyeglasses, is all. Nothing to worry about.

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.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The object is the Sun and is present in all scenarios I am asking about, newly ignited at 12 noon

Would you please stop calling me that. I misunderstood you. Leaves and solar panels don't have any way to focus the light. They are not projecting any images; they don't have that capacity. They are receiving full spectrum light 81/2 minutes later.

Right.

No LadyShea, it would not. Neither would plants that use photosynthesis. The light has to arrive for it to interact. Solar panels are not like cameras, eyeglasses, or telescopes. You're really stretching this concept to where it's absurd.

I a trying to get you to explain what photosensitive materials interact with light photons instantaneously, and what photosensitive materials interact with light photons after the light travel time delay, and what exactly makes the determination and differentiates which is which. You are all over the place with it!

The eyeglasses are laying on a piece of photographic paper (the receptor like film, sensor, or pjotographic paper inside a pinhole camera), next to a piece of photographic paper without glasses. Would the paper with glasses interact with light from the newly ignited Sun at 12:00 noon or at 12:08?

I never said a lens would not, but an eyeglass has no photosensitive material to show what is happening.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I clearly stated that the eyeglasses are on top of photographic paper, the paper is photosensitive.

Then yes it would project an image of the Sun and the projection would be in a nanosecond.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The way to know whether we are seeing the Sun in real time rather than decoding an image of the Sun [could only be proven if the Sun was just turned on because we would be able to see the Sun before the light that was emitted got here 81/2 minutes later.

Isn't it convenient that the only way this claim can be proven is by conducting an impossible experiment. For the Sun to be turned on, it must first be turned off. I am pretty sure that if the Sun were turned off we would all die.

It is the same thing with some of his other claims. Put a baby in a room with no external stimuli other than visual stimuli and remove the baby's eyelids. The baby will never learn how to see. This is an experiment that will never be conducted now that Dr. Mengele is dead (if he really is). Isn't that convenient?

In the new "no free will/no blame" world the conscience will work at 100% efficiency and responsibility will increase rather than decrease and there will be no more crime, war, divorce or homosexuality. Unfortunately we can't test this claim in the world as it exists at present, because we live in a world of blame where people think they have free will. Once again, how convenient for Lessans and peacegirl.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the hole was too large the projected image of the light source would be blurred or have no resolution at all. The photosensitive paper would still be interacting with light, but it would have no image that we could make out.

Why do you suppose that is? How does efferent vision explain this phenomenon?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So holes are magic!

Of course they are and peacegirl has one. What do you suppose she pulls this nonsense out of if not out of her magic hole?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...and I am saying we are seeing the object due to the inverse square law of light which puts us in optical range.

What you're saying is nonsense. The inverse square law doesn't 'put' anything in optical range. It describes how the area subtended by a solid angle changes as the radius increases. It's a statement about geometry, not optics.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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) to form a material image. 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 that he was not a crank, you will pay more attention to his other discoveries.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So holes are magic!

No! Pinholes are not magic. They do exactly what lenses do but in a slightly different way. That's why using a crude cardboard box with a pinhole works.

I've explained this many times. We ARE IN OPTICAL RANGE when we're looking at the object. This changes the reality of what we're seeing.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Tautology that explains nothing, you are only saying we see it because we can see it.

Which is true if the object is bright enough and large enough to be within our optical range. Either the light is [instantly] at the eye which allows us to see the object or the light has traveled over trillions of miles to the eye sending the information to the brain to be interpreted as an image. Seriously, which sounds more plausible according to Occam's razor?

And I maintain that 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.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How does a hole project light while a lens does not? You recently said:

and

Both type of cameras produce images, but they do it slightly differently. The concept remains the same though.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Eyeglass lenses are lenses, not just similar to a lens, not just a hole acting as a lens. Why don't they work the same way?

I didn't realize you said photosensitive paper was behind the eyeglasses, is all.

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.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The object is the Sun and is present in all scenarios I am asking about, newly ignited at 12 noon

Okay

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.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Liar

Why would I lie about this? I misunderstood you. Leaves and solar panels don't have any way to focus light. They are not projecting any images onto photosensitive material; they don't have that capacity. They are receiving full spectrum light 81/2 minutes later.

Originally Posted by peacegirl on 7/6/14

Lenses of all kinds point to objects which then focus the light. Solar panels receive light which turns into a source of energy for electricity or heating.

Solar panels are receiving light from the Sun which turns into energy. LadyShea, you don't know what you're even asking yet you're trying to be Sherlock Holmes.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Solar panels are coated in photosensitive materials, just as photographic paper is. If the Sun was ignited at 12:00 noon, would a solar panel interact with the light at 12:00 noon or at 12:08? If 12:08, what makes the difference between a solar panel and photographic paper inside a cardboard box with a hole in it?

It would receive the light at 12:08. There is a major difference because the solar panels are interacting with light energy to create heat. This has nothing to do with how we see. Photographic paper inside a cardboard box with a hole in it creates the conditions that allow the image to be projected instantly IF AND ONLY IF the object is in range which only means the object is present, not just the light. Therefore the principle remains the same.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I a trying to get you to explain what photosensitive materials interact with light photons instantaneously, and what photosensitive materials interact with light photons after the light travel time delay, and what exactly makes the determination and differentiates which is which. You are all over the place with it!

Not really, it just is hard to get the concept across. Hopefully, people will begin to see that this model is not contradictory or in violation.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then your claim changed

1. You have said plain photosensitive paper would have a delayed interaction

TRUE
2. You have said photosensitive paper with a pair of eyeglasses on it (lenses)

TRUE

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The eyeglasses are laying on a piece of photographic paper (the receptor like film, sensor, or pjotographic paper inside a pinhole camera), next to a piece of photographic paper without glasses. Would the paper with glasses interact with light from the newly ignited Sun at 12:00 noon or at 12:08?

Yes, the glasses would be interacting with the light producing an image on the photosensitive paper where the photographic paper without glasses would have no lens with which to focus the light. That's the difference that makes all the difference!

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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?

Both would work because the mechanism of pinholes acts like a lens. Eyeglass lenses would also work.

If you've ever looked through binoculars, a telescope, or a magnifying glass, you'll know that some lenses magnify (or reduce) the apparent size of an object much more than others. There's a simple measurement that tells you how powerful a lens is and it's known as the focal length. The focal length of a lens is the distance from the center of the lens to the point at which it focuses light rays. The shorter the focal length, the more powerful the lens. (It's easy to see why: an ordinary piece of glass would be like a lens of infinite focal length and wouldn't bring light rays to a focus at all. On the other hand, an infinitely powerful lens would bring lays rays to a focus in an infinitely short distance, with zero focal length. A real lens is somewhere between these two extremes.)

You'll find focal lengths written either in ordinary units of length (such as centimeters, millimeters, or inches) or in special optical units called diopters. The diopter measurement of a lens is the reciprocal of the focal length in meters (one divided by the focal length), so 1 diopter = 1 m, 2 diopters = 0.5 m, 3 diopters = 0.33 meters, and so on. Eyeglass prescriptions from opticians typically show the strength of the corrective lenses you need in diopters.

The focal length isn't the only important feature of a lens. Bigger lenses gather more light than smaller ones, so they make a brighter image. This is particularly important if you're choosing a lens for a camera, because the amount of light the lens gathers will determine what the image looks like. Camera lenses are usually rated with a measurement called the f-number, which is the focal length divided by the diameter. Generally speaking, lenses with a small f-number make brighter images. Lenses with a higher f-number have a bigger depth of focus: essentially, more of the object you're photographing and its surroundings are in focus at the same time. (If you want to know more, take a look at Louis Bloomfield's explanation of lens size.)

How do lenses work? | What are the different types of lens?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I clearly stated that the eyeglasses are on top of photographic paper, the paper is photosensitive.

Then yes it would project an image of the Sun and the projection would be in a nanosecond.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

What you're saying is nonsense. The inverse square law doesn't 'put' anything in optical range. It describes how the area subtended by a solid angle changes as the radius increases. It's a statement about geometry, not optics.

I get that, but even so as the radius increases we will either be able to resolve an image from the light, or we won't. I maintain that we would not be able to because we would be out of optical range. Remember, in this account if there is no object to be seen or photographed, there will be no information in the light after traveling 93 million miles that could be used to decode an image.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Why do you suppose that is? How does efferent vision explain this phenomenon?

The lens is what gives us the image. It doesn't matter if it's a telescope, a camera, or the eye; they all work similarly. Without a lens or a hole acting as a lens we would get no image. This is how optics works but the only difference is that we're not waiting for the light to arrive. If there is no lens to focus the light being reflected or emitted from the light source (which must be present), we would just get full spectrum light after 81/2 minutes.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Of course not, but that's not the issue. The issue is what we're actually seeing and when we're seeing it. If light travels at 186,000 miles a second, then the inverse square law would easily put us in optical range of the Sun given the ratio per square mile. There would be no resolution of the light to form an image at 93 million miles from the light source.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

I told you that the nanosecond it takes for the Sun to travel would put us in optical range IN THIS ACCOUNT. We don't have to wait 81/2 minutes for the light to arrive on Earth to be in optical range of the Sun. If we waited there would be no optical range to be in since no image could be resolved. This example is in exact proportion to the candle example because we're not discussing movement of light which travels at C; it is the size and brightness of the object in reference to the lens.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Yes because the eyes function differently Spacemonkey. Arrival time is predicated on travel, but if the image is not being transmitted from the light itself, then we have a different situation altogether. You can't just keep reverting back to traveling photons without trying to understand why this answer isn't complete, and why it is plausible to see in real time based on the efferent account OF VISION which you are conveniently ignoring. You seem to think it makes no difference whether the object is in view or not, or whether the brain is looking out through the eyes as a window to the external world which makes all the difference in the world. Furthermore, I never said that they are the same photons which would put them in two places at one time. They are different photons constantly being replaced, so when we see the sun in one instant, that light is different than the previous instant because the light is constantly being renewed with a never ending supply. Finally, if the information is not in the traveling light, then we would not be receiving a red wavelength before a blue one as you suggested in IIDB. That's why I call it a mirror image even though they are not the same photons.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Eyeglass lenses are used when the person's eyeball has a refractive error, so depending on the prescription the image may come out blurry for an average sighted person, but the principle is basically the same.

That has absolutely 0 to do with the question you have been asked, Weasel.

Obviously, a pair of eyeglasses with photosensitive paper would, in my estimation, get an instant image of the Sun, but again just as a hole in a pinhole camera can be too large for a sharp image, an eyeglass lens may produce a distorted image depending on the refractive correction for that particular prescription.

I clearly wrote the sharpness or whatever image is not at issue at all... only the timing of the physical interactions between light and photosensitive materials on Earth with the Sun being newly ignited at noon. Again you are completely weaseling.

[LadyShea]

Okay here is a hypothetical scenario.

As per Lessans, the Sun is scheduled to be turned on at noon. We put the following items out, next to each other in a line, on the ground, with no obstructions or anything to get in the way of the Sunlight. Each item has photosensitive cells/molecules meaning they physically interact with light.

1. A piece of photographic paper
2. A piece of photographic paper with a pair of eyeglasses resting on it
3. A basic shoebox pinhole camera with a piece pf photographic paper in it
4. A solar powered calculator (which have solar panels)
5. A plant

For each of the 5 items, please tell me if the photosensitive cells or molecules will be activated at 12:00 noon when the Sun is ignited, or 12:08:30 when the light photons from the Sun reach Earth.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is a major difference because the solar panels are interacting with light energy to create heat.

That's completely irrelevant to the question I actually asked you. I am asking about physical interactions between photosensitive materials on Earth and light photons from the newly ignited Sun. The result of those interactions doesn't matter at all with regards to the questions I am asking, and have been asking for years.

How about you answer honestly for once?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I maintain that we would not be able to because we would be out of optical range.

Your typical circular reasoning, given you've defined 'being in optical range' to meant 'we can see it'.

This still has nothing to do with the inverse square law, and your misuse of it.

[LadyShea]

How does any of what you copied and pasted about lenses explain your claim of physical interaction with light at a distance?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Without a lens or a hole acting as a lens we would get no image.

A hole doesn't act as a lens.

What the heck do lenses and holes (but only holes up to a certain size that you don't know!) do in your account? In ours, a lens bends the path of light. A hole lets light through. What do they do in your magical world?