A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

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

No Artemis, that's a terrible analogy because it takes much longer for you to walk to Cincinnati from your house than the mailbox to your house. That kind of logic is preventing you from understanding this model of SIGHT. Think about it this way, if Lessans was right, one foot per nanosecond would equal the right amount of time it would take to be within optical range. My father didn't mean instantly where there is no light at all, as I have repeated. But by the time the object is bright enough to be seen, that light would have already traveled that short distance.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There has to be interaction between light and the object, but it does not follow that the farther away it is, the longer it will take to receive the image. That's what Lessans was disputing. Obviously, there has to be a bridge to seeing the external world, which is why Lessans said light is a necessary condition, but he was trying to distinguish this from the image or information being sent and received in the light and decoded in the brain. Nothing in your refutation makes his claim implausible. His claims still holds.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is completely inconsistent.

No it isn't.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your claims have been that a camera on Earth could photograph the newly ignited Sun at noon, and not have to wait 8.5 minutes for the photons to arrive. You said this interaction at a distance (93 million miles in this case) is allowed by lenses.

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

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then you said "Right, but they (lenses) are receiving light that has traveled just like we would receive light 81/2 minutes after the Sun was turned on." So which is it? When would camera film, or a sensor, receive light if the Sun was turned on at noon?

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.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So when we photograph Andromeda, do we photograph it as it was 2.5 million years ago (how long it took that light to arrive) or as it is right now?



This new portrait of the Andromeda Galaxy, or M31, was taken with the Subaru Telescope's new high-resolution imaging camera, the Hyper-Suprime Cam (HSC).

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

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This "shows you the math" involved, the strength of the source light is one variable, the size of the sphere another. That speaks to the output (intensity) of the light being emitted.

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 and allow us to interpret the Sun from that light. The math doesn't add up.

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.

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.

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Artemis, that's a terrible analogy because it takes much longer for you to walk to Cincinnati from your house than the mailbox to your house. That kind of logic is preventing you from understanding this model of SIGHT. Think about it this way, if Lessans was right, one foot per nanosecond would equal the right amount of time it would take to be within optical range. My father didn't mean instantly where there is no light at all, as I have repeated. But by the time the object is bright enough to be seen, that light would have already traveled that short distance.

It's a great analogy because, just like me, light takes longer to travel longer distances than shorter ones. It takes light longer to get to Cincinnati than up my driveway.
This whole problem of time boils down to you saying that light has to reach the eye for the eye to see. When you say that the eye has to have light reach it in order to see, but that the eye sees instantly, then that requires the impossible action of light traveling faster than itself.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nice photograph. We would be photographing light, not matter, which is not inconsistent. 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, only this light would be coming from a galaxy that existed in the past

. It would be like a river drying up but the stream from that river continues to flow.

The light is from stars that are composed of matter and emitted the light that has traveled to us for 2.5 million years. We are seeing what the galaxy (Matter) looked likt 2.5 million years ago.

If the river dried up there would be no stream to flow, the stream is the water that you said has dried up.

Do you even read what you post before you hit the submit button?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

So strange. So now we don't see in realtime, we see things in 'real time barring a nanosecond'!

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.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I'm not trying to prove that, I am simply refuting the arguments you actually made.

You are not making an accurate refutation. I said that we see light that has traveled, but we're seeing that light that came from the past, IN REAL TIME. If light is interacting with matter, that light is revealing what exists in the here and now, not in the distant past. In other words, we are seeing the world as it is this very moment.

[Artemis Entreri]

Somebody correct me if I'm wrong. In the application of the inverse square law to the sun, the output of the sun would be the unknown and the amount of light on the earth would be the known. (we can measure it)
So the inverse square law is what we would use to figure out the sun's output.
So how could the math not possibly add up?
Does Peacegirl have some secret knowledge of the "true" output of the sun that differs from what is calculated using the inverse square law?
Does Peacegirl believe that the measurements of light on earth false?
Or does she think that the inverse square law is false?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bump

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.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are not making an accurate refutation. I said that we see light that has traveled, but we're seeing that light that came from the past, IN REAL TIME. If light is interacting with matter, that light is revealing what exists in the here and now, not in the distant past. In other words, we are seeing the world as it is this very moment.

You just can't make up your mind what you're trying to say, can you?

Of course we are seeing the light NOW. But it is showing us what Andromeda galaxy looked like 2.5 million years ago, because it took the light that long to reach us.

Wow, how hard is this? I've given this analogy before. Suppose you saw a photograph of New York taken in 1890. You are seeing NOW, what the city looked like THEN. Same thing with light. We see NOW, what the sun looked like eight minutes ago.

Now if you agree with this, we are done with this three and a half year long waste of brain space. But if you do agree, then you disagree with Lessans.

[Artemis Entreri]

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.

What is causing the paper to change (creating an image) if no photons have reached the paper.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And camera film on Earth couldn't physically interact with light that is not on Earth because it hasn't yet reached Earth.

You have yet to address this problem at all.

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

[Artemis Entreri]

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

Because there's no explanation for how this could possibly happen. Until there is even a plausible hypothesis for how this occurs any reasonable person would file that idea under either impossible or at best VERY improbable.
Couple that with complete lack of evidence for the phenomenon and it really doesn't seem reasonable to ask someone to ignore sound, proven scientific thoeries on sight for Lessans wild ideas

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

What is causing the paper to change (creating an image) if no photons have reached the paper.

I said that the paper will not show any image (it doesn't have a lens) because the image won't show up if there is no lens focusing on the ACTUAL object, which is a requirement. Light will strike the paper 81/2 minutes later which would allow us to see it just like we see would be able to see trees and cars and houses and all other material objects on Earth.

[thedoc]

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 and allow us to interpret the Sun from that light. The math doesn't add up.

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.

How many photons would you need to strike the pupil and enter the eye for the eye to detect that light?

It is estimated that there are 913 trillion x 1 billion photons entering the pupil of each eye every second. Do you think this would be enough for a person to detect the light from the Sun that is 93 million miles away?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Arguing like peacegirl 101

1. Make an insane claim! ("We see in realtime!")
2. Support with obviously false statement ("The image is reflected and carried by light!")
3. When your obviously false statement is refuted, respond with: "That may be true, but it doesn't mean [insane claim] is false!"

1. This is not an insane claim if you understand efferent vision. If you don't care to understand it, it isn't surprising you would make this kind of statement.

2. That is what science has taught us. The raw material (whatever term you choose to use) is assumed to be in the light. How else could we decode an image in our brains if not for the assumption that all we need is light to bring us the information that would allow us to see? This deserves 3 duhs.

3. If the statement is refuted, it's a red herring, because that IS what science is telling us in so many words.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said that the paper will not show any image (it doesn't have a lens) because the image won't show up if there is no lens focusing on the ACTUAL object, which is a requirement.

The question was "Would the lens on the paper create an image instantly?" Or would we have to wait for the light to arrive at the lens? There is a lens on the paper, so any other comment is dodging or evading the question.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why would you say that only to then return and not provide any answers??

Sorry Spacemonkey, but you're not the only person posting. I can only answer so many at one sitting.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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)

Will you answer these questions, or just weasel and ignore them? (I ANSWERED THEM BUT YOU DON'T GET THE CONCEPT)

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Will you weasel by going off on an irrelevant tangent about information or reflection?

They aren't irrelevant tangents, but I answered you, so be happy.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are not making an accurate refutation. I said that we see light that has traveled, but we're seeing that light that came from the past, IN REAL TIME. If light is interacting with matter, that light is revealing what exists in the here and now, not in the distant past. In other words, we are seeing the world as it is this very moment.

Originally Posted by davidm

You just can't make up your mind what you're trying to say, can you?

Of course we are seeing the light NOW. But it is showing us what Andromeda galaxy looked like 2.5 million years ago, because it took the light that long to reach us.

Wow, how hard is this? I've given this analogy before. Suppose you saw a photograph of New York taken in 1890. You are seeing NOW, what the city looked like THEN. Same thing with light. We see NOW, what the sun looked like eight minutes ago.

That's what I'm trying to tell you, we would see light from a galaxy but we would never see an image of a past event because we can only see that event in real time as light interacts with the that existing bit of substance. When that physical event is gone, so is the light that would bring that information to us. Yes, it is true, that we are able to see a picture that was taken in 1890 of New York, but this is not the same thing as traveling light bouncing off of objects and bringing the "picture" to us. That's a fallacy because there is no picture (you know what I'm getting at) in the light.

p. 118 This fallacy has come into existence because the eyes were
considered a sense organ, like the ears. Since it takes less time for the
sound from an airplane to reach our ears when it is a thousand feet away
than when five thousand, it was assumed that the same thing occurred
with the object sending a picture of itself on the waves of light. If it
was possible to transmit a television picture from the earth to a planet
as far away as the star Rigel, it is true that the people living there
would be seeing the ships of Columbus coming into America for the
first time because the picture would be in the process of being
transmitted through space at a certain rate of speed. But objects do
not send out pictures that travel through space and impinge on the
optic nerve. We see objects directly by looking at them and it takes
the same length of time to see an airplane, the moon, the sun, or
distant stars.

To sum this up — just as we have often observed that
a marching band is out of step to the beat when seen from a distance
because the sound reaches our ears after a step has been taken, so
likewise, if we could see someone talking on the moon via a telescope
and hear his voice on radio we would see his lips move instantly but
not hear the corresponding sound for approximately 3 seconds later
due to the fact that the sound of his voice is traveling 186,000 miles
a second, but our gaze is not, nor is it an electric image of his lips
impinging on our optic nerve after traversing this distance. Because
Aristotle assumed the eyes functioned like the other four and the
scientific community assumed he was right, it made all their reasoning
fit what appeared to be undeniable. According to their thinking, how
else was it possible for knowledge to reach us through our eyes when
they were compelled to believe that man had five senses? Were they
given any choice? Let me prove in still another way that the eyes are
not a sense organ.

Originally Posted by davidm

Now if you agree with this, we are done with this three and a half year long waste of brain space. But if you do agree, then you disagree with Lessans.

I don't disagree with Lessans; I disagree with YOU.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Yes, that is correct, because in point of fact photons from the sun must travel 93 million miles to the earth to reach the eye, which means we are seeing the sun some eight minutes as it was in the past because it takes the photons some eight minutes to travel that particular distance. And no, we do not see the sun itself, we see the light from the sun -- just as we see our reflections in a mirror and not some objects in the mirror that are our duplicates! Your stupid "idea" would require that we see our real doppelgangers made of actual matter standing in mirrors!

Who is talking about duplicates? You're so confused I don't know where to begin.

Originally Posted by davidm

You are talking nothing but absurd, idiotic rubbish. Every time you try to answer Spacemonkey's questions you make a bigger and bigger fool of yourself. Your blabber about matter and the inverse square law and mirror images at the eye and closed boxes and on and on is stupid nonsensical trash.

This is not stupid nonsensical trash and I think you know it. You are just pissed off because you don't like the reality that you are being forced to face; that we don't see in delayed time.

Actually there is no past, except as a memory in our minds. Everything that occurs is in the present and we also see everything in the present because that's all that exists. I see my son who just arrived at my house in the present, although my memory tells me an hour ago he was at his house which took him time to get here.

[The Lone Ranger]

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.

Splendid. Note that a pinhole camera does not focus light to form an image. The small size of the pinhole simply restricts how much light passes through to land on the photosensitive paper.

So, if a pinhole camera (which does not have any lenses, and which does not actually focus light) can take a picture of the Sun instantly, you've established that neither lenses nor any kind of focusing apparatus are necessary.

So, the camera isn't necessary at all. By your logic, if we put a piece of photosensitive paper out and then turn on the Sun, the paper will darken instantly -- not 8.5 minutes later.

[peacegirl]

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.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Splendid. Note that a pinhole camera does not focus light to form an image. The small size of the pinhole simply restricts how much light passes through to land on the photosensitive paper.

So, if a pinhole camera (which does not have any lenses, and which does not actually focus light) can take a picture of the Sun instantly, you've established that neither lenses nor any kind of focusing apparatus are necessary.

So, the camera isn't necessary at all. By your logic, if we put a piece of photosensitive paper out and then turn on the Sun, the paper will darken instantly -- not 8.5 minutes later.

In a modern camera, a lens is used to bend light waves into a narrow beam that produces an image on the film. In a pinhole camera, the hole acts like a lens by only allowing a narrow beam of light to enter. It forms the same type of upside-down, reversed image as a regular camera, so you can see how a camera works by making a pinhole viewer.

Make a pinhole camera

[The Lone Ranger]

Now, read what you've just posted.

Note that there is no lens, and that the pinhole does not focus light. As your quoted link points out, a pinhole camera does not focus light; it works because it allows only a narrow beam of light to pass. That's why it doesn't need to focus the light, because the small size of the pinhole means that most of the light that would blur the image is prevented from passing through. (A lens will do much the same thing -- it restricts how much light passes through.)


So, by your own logic, a photosensitive sheet of paper should darken instantly, as soon as the Sun is turned on, since we've established that neither lenses nor any focusing apparatus are necessary for the light to be "instantly" at the photoreceptors in your "model".

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Again, I am not talking about seeing distant galaxies because this is just pure light which travels and strikes our telescopes in delayed time. I'm only talking about things in the environment that are made up of matter which light reveals.

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?

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

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.

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.

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

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Now, read what you've just posted.

Note that there is no lens, and that the pinhole does not focus light. As your quoted link points out, a pinhole camera does not focus light; it works because it allows only a narrow beam of light to pass. That's why it doesn't need to focus the light, because the small size of the pinhole means that most of the light that would blur the image is prevented from passing through. (A lens will do much the same thing -- it restricts how much light passes through.)

So, by your own logic, a photosensitive sheet of paper should darken instantly, as soon as the Sun is turned on, since we've established that neither lenses nor any focusing apparatus are necessary for the light to be "instantly" at the photoreceptors in your "model".

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.