#38526  
Old 07-22-2014, 06:58 AM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCLXXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quite a few actually. Not, of course, in the biblical sense.
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
  #38527  
Old 07-22-2014, 01:42 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Again, I am not talking about seeing distant galaxies because this is just pure light which travels and strikes our telescopes in delayed time.
:eek:

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! :lol:
No David, it's you that's getting mixed up between seeing light itself, which we all do the moment morning arrives...and seeing the external world which is made up of matter. This model of sight is absolutely plausible but you are failing to see how because you are so stuck on your worldview that you can't see beyond your nose: :pinocchio:
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #38528  
Old 07-22-2014, 01:48 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
between seeing light itself, which we all do the moment morning arrives...and seeing the external world which is made up of matter.
Describe the difference and the mechanism that makes it different

Use quotes from Lessans to support there being a difference.

Explain exactly what we are seeing when we look at
1. The Sun
2. A more distant star
3. Andromeda Galaxy (which can be seen with the naked eye, binoculars, and/or a small telescope which is why I chose it )
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-22-2014)
  #38529  
Old 07-22-2014, 01:49 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
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.
That's true, but the image won't be sharp if the hole is too large. It does the same thing as a lens because the light that is showing up as an image is the same light that would appear at the film from any camera, telescope, or eye. You are making an unnecessary distinction between pinhole cameras and other types of cameras. The same goes for telescopes that don't have a lens but work in a similar way as one that does.

Most of the telescopes you see today come in one of two flavors:
The refractor telescope, which uses glass lenses.
The reflector telescope, which uses mirrors instead of the lenses.
Both types accomplish exactly the same thing, but in completely different ways.

HowStuffWorks "How Telescopes Work"
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #38530  
Old 07-22-2014, 01:56 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
between seeing light itself, which we all do the moment morning arrives...and seeing the external world which is made up of matter.
Describe the difference and the mechanism that makes it different

Use quotes from Lessans to support there being a difference.

Explain exactly what we are seeing when we look at
1. The Sun
2. A more distant star
3. Andromeda Galaxy (which can be seen with the naked eye, which is why I chose it )
Based on what science has established as fact --- that light travels independently of the light source --- does not in any way negate real time seeing because when we see light from distant stars we are also seeing this light in real time. If this light interacted with anything in the atmosphere, it would be something is occurring in the here and now, not in the past. 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. Moreover, the Sun is large enough relative to the Earth that we would be in optical range within a nanosecond, just like the inverse square law tells us.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #38531  
Old 07-22-2014, 02:02 PM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The only hill in Oxford
Gender: Male
Posts: V
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Moreover, the Sun is large enough relative to the Earth that we would be in optical range within a nanosecond, just like the inverse square law tells us.
That's not what the inverse square law tells us. You've made this up.
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-22-2014), Artemis Entreri (07-22-2014), Cynthia of Syracuse (07-22-2014), LadyShea (07-22-2014), Spacemonkey (07-22-2014)
  #38532  
Old 07-22-2014, 02:07 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
That's true, but the image won't be sharp if the hole is too large. It does the same thing as a lens because the light that is showing up as an image is the same light that would appear at the film from any camera, telescope, or eye. You are making an unnecessary distinction between pinhole cameras and other types of cameras. The same goes for telescopes that don't have a lens but work in a similar way as one that does.
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?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-22-2014), Dragar (07-22-2014), The Lone Ranger (07-22-2014)
  #38533  
Old 07-22-2014, 02:19 PM
Artemis Entreri's Avatar
Artemis Entreri Artemis Entreri is offline
Phallic Philanthropist
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mobile
Gender: Male
Posts: MCDXXII
Images: 6
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Moreover, the Sun is large enough relative to the Earth that we would be in optical range within a nanosecond, just like the inverse square law tells us.
Pyramids have mystical powers, the Pythagorean theorem tells us so.
__________________
Why am I naked and sticky?... Did I miss something fun?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-22-2014), Dragar (07-22-2014), LadyShea (07-22-2014), thedoc (07-23-2014)
  #38534  
Old 07-22-2014, 02:31 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
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?
Bump.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #38535  
Old 07-22-2014, 02:32 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I am not saying that light is completing its journey in less than 8 minutes.
But that is exactly what you said here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
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?
Bump.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #38536  
Old 07-22-2014, 02:33 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
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.)
Bump.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #38537  
Old 07-22-2014, 02:33 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
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?
Bump.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #38538  
Old 07-22-2014, 02:50 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
between seeing light itself, which we all do the moment morning arrives...and seeing the external world which is made up of matter.
Describe the difference and the mechanism that makes it different

Use quotes from Lessans to support there being a difference.

Explain exactly what we are seeing when we look at
1. The Sun
2. A more distant star
3. Andromeda Galaxy (which can be seen with the naked eye, which is why I chose it )
Based on what science has established as fact --- that light travels independently of the light source --- does not in any way negate real time seeing because when we see light from distant stars we are also seeing this light in real time.
This is not an explanation of the differences between seeing light and seeing the external world that is made up of matter. It also contradicts your quoted statement

Again, I am not talking about seeing distant galaxies because this is just pure light which travels and strikes our telescopes in delayed time.


Do we see light from distant sources in real time or in delayed time?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Moreover, the Sun is large enough relative to the Earth that we would be in optical range within a nanosecond, just like the inverse square law tells us.
:lol: the inverse square law tells us what?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-22-2014), Dragar (07-22-2014)
  #38539  
Old 07-22-2014, 03:30 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
That's true, but the image won't be sharp if the hole is too large. It does the same thing as a lens because the light that is showing up as an image is the same light that would appear at the film from any camera, telescope, or eye. You are making an unnecessary distinction between pinhole cameras and other types of cameras. The same goes for telescopes that don't have a lens but work in a similar way as one that does.
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?
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. 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 this, you will pay more attention to his other discoveries which are more important than this one.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
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.
I've explained this many times. We ARE IN OPTICAL RANGE. What does that mean? It means the light is interacting with the object which allows us to see it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
You have said that camera film would interact instantly because of lenses
And I stand by this claim, 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.

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.
Quote:
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. Solar panels are receiving light from the Sun which turns into energy. There's absolutely no conflict here. LadyShea, you don't know what you're even asking yet you're trying to be Sherlock Holmes, which you are not. :laugh:

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
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)
Okay, if eyeglasses work the same as telescopes, then yes we should see a real time image if the object is in optical range. So tell me, where I have I gone wrong? Show me where we get a delayed image from the eyeglasses that show up where? If there is no photoreceptors, where does this delayed image show up where we could prove this?
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?
The claim that we see in real time hasn't changed. Eyeglasses have no photosensitive material to show the image because there's no place that this can be displayed, and even if there was, the Sun would hypothetically have to be turned on at noon, for this is where the false conclusion that light has to be on Earth originated. That's why I said this knowledge had to come from outside of the field. Science concluded something that appeared logically true but when analyzed from this perspective (which is just as plausible as anything science has offered) is false. Your little experiment doesn't prove anything LadyShea, but I'm glad you're making the effort. It just so happens that you are unintentionally helping me to prove my case. :)
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 07-22-2014 at 04:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #38540  
Old 07-22-2014, 03:59 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
That's true, but the image won't be sharp if the hole is too large. It does the same thing as a lens because the light that is showing up as an image is the same light that would appear at the film from any camera, telescope, or eye. You are making an unnecessary distinction between pinhole cameras and other types of cameras. The same goes for telescopes that don't have a lens but work in a similar way as one that does.
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?
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.
So holes are magic!

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
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.
I've explained this many times. We ARE IN OPTICAL RANGE. What does that mean? It means the light is interacting with the object which allows us to see it.
Tautology that explains nothing, you are only saying we see it because we can see it.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
You have said that camera film would interact instantly because of lenses
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:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl on 7/7/14
Anything that is similar to a lens works the same way LadyShea.
and
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl on 7/6/14
Lenses of all kinds point to objects which then focus the light.
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?

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

Quote:
Quote:
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.
Liar
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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. :laugh:
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?

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!

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
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)
Okay, if eyeglasses work the same as telescopes, then yes we should see a real time image if the object is in optical range. So tell me, where I have I gone wrong? Show me where we get a delayed image from the eyeglasses that show up where? If there is no photoreceptors, where does this delayed image show up where we could prove this?
The eyeglasses are laying on a piece of photographic paper (the receptor like film, sensor, or photographic 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?


Quote:
Quote:
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?
I never said a lens would not, but an eyeglass has no photosensitive material to show what is happening.
I clearly stated that the eyeglasses are on top of photographic paper, the paper is photosensitive.

Last edited by LadyShea; 07-22-2014 at 10:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-22-2014), The Lone Ranger (07-22-2014)
  #38541  
Old 07-22-2014, 04:14 PM
Artemis Entreri's Avatar
Artemis Entreri Artemis Entreri is offline
Phallic Philanthropist
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mobile
Gender: Male
Posts: MCDXXII
Images: 6
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
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. 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 this, you will pay more attention to his other discoveries which are more important than this one.
Movement of light is not "proportional"
Just because a light source like a candle can emit light to a viewer a foot away in a nanosecond DOES NOT mean that a bigger and brighter light source (the sun) can emit light over a greater distance (93 million miles) in the same amount of time.

Also: Are you now asserting that there are two different kinds of light; regular light and "instantaneous light"??
__________________
Why am I naked and sticky?... Did I miss something fun?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-22-2014), Dragar (07-22-2014), LadyShea (07-22-2014), The Lone Ranger (07-22-2014)
  #38542  
Old 07-22-2014, 04:29 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
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.
I don't think you understand what the word 'proportional' means. :giggle:
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-22-2014), Artemis Entreri (07-22-2014), Dragar (07-22-2014), LadyShea (07-22-2014)
  #38543  
Old 07-22-2014, 06:13 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Moreover, the Sun is large enough relative to the Earth that we would be in optical range within a nanosecond, just like the inverse square law tells us.
That's not what the inverse square law tells us. You've made this up.
Absolutely not! The only difference is that you believe we can see the image due to the inverse square law of light, and I am saying we are seeing the object due to the inverse square law of light which puts us in optical range. The principle is in keeping with the efferent model.

THE INVERSE-SQUARE LAW
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #38544  
Old 07-22-2014, 06:19 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
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.
I don't think you understand what the word 'proportional' means. :giggle:
I do know what it means, and I stand by this definition. No matter what the size of the box or circle, the object relative to the viewer remains proportional.

pro·por·tion·al
prəˈpôrSHənl/Submit
adjective
corresponding in size or amount to something else.
"the punishment should be proportional to the crime"
synonyms: corresponding, proportionate, comparable, in proportion, pro rata, commensurate, equivalent, consistent, relative, analogous
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #38545  
Old 07-22-2014, 06:20 PM
The Lone Ranger's Avatar
The Lone Ranger The Lone Ranger is offline
Jin, Gi, Rei, Ko, Chi, Shin, Tei
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCDVII
Images: 523
Default Re: A revolution in thought

So, once again, how large must the hole in the cardboard be before it stops "acting like a lens" and bringing light to the photosensitive paper at the back of the camera? And why?

Is a 1 mm hole too big, and so there will be a 8.5 minute delay between the time the Sun turns on and the time the photosensitive paper darkens, since we must wait for the light to arrive and interact with the paper?

Is a 0.1 mm hole small enough that light is "instantly at the photosensitive paper" and so we don't have to wait 8.5 minutes for the paper to darken?

What's the magic number? That is, what is the maximum size of a hole that allows light to be "instantly at the photosensitive paper," such that if the hole is made any bigger, then we'll have to wait 8.5 minutes for the light to arrive before the paper darkens?
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
-- Socrates
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-22-2014), ceptimus (07-22-2014)
  #38546  
Old 07-22-2014, 06:28 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
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. 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 this, you will pay more attention to his other discoveries which are more important than this one.
Movement of light is not "proportional"
Just because a light source like a candle can emit light to a viewer a foot away in a nanosecond DOES NOT mean that a bigger and brighter light source (the sun) can emit light over a greater distance (93 million miles) in the same amount of time.
We're not talking about the movement of light which involves time. You are still coming from the perspective that once light travels 93 million miles we will see the image. But if the image is not traveling in the light (you know what I mean I hope) we won't get an image. This is an assumption and all you're doing is following that faulty premise. If my father is right then the two examples are analogous because it's not the movement of light but the intensity of the object relative to the viewer that matters, and in both situations the requirements for sight have been met.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri
Also: Are you now asserting that there are two different kinds of light; regular light and "instantaneous light"??
I never said anything about "instantaneous light". I clarified this already.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #38547  
Old 07-22-2014, 06:28 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCCLXXII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Moreover, the Sun is large enough relative to the Earth that we would be in optical range within a nanosecond, just like the inverse square law tells us.
That's not what the inverse square law tells us. You've made this up.
Absolutely not! The only difference is that you believe we can see the image due to the inverse square law of light…
:lol:

No, we do not believe we can see the image because of the inverse square law of light! At long last, just :stfu:, peacegirl. You are making such a fool of yourself, and of your father, too. Pray that his book does not become widely known. As I told you years ago, if it did, he would be the world's biggest laughing stock.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Lone Ranger (07-22-2014)
  #38548  
Old 07-22-2014, 06:43 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
So, once again, how large must the hole in the cardboard be before it stops "acting like a lens" and bringing light to the photosensitive paper at the back of the camera? And why?

Is a 1 mm hole too big, and so there will be a 8.5 minute delay between the time the Sun turns on and the time the photosensitive paper darkens, since we must wait for the light to arrive and interact with the paper?

Is a 0.1 mm hole small enough that light is "instantly at the photosensitive paper" and so we don't have to wait 8.5 minutes for the paper to darken?

What's the magic number? That is, what is the maximum size of a hole that allows light to be "instantly at the photosensitive paper," such that if the hole is made any bigger, then we'll have to wait 8.5 minutes for the light to arrive before the paper darkens?
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.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #38549  
Old 07-22-2014, 06:43 PM
Artemis Entreri's Avatar
Artemis Entreri Artemis Entreri is offline
Phallic Philanthropist
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mobile
Gender: Male
Posts: MCDXXII
Images: 6
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
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.
I never said anything about "instantaneous light". I clarified this already.
:doh:

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.
__________________
Why am I naked and sticky?... Did I miss something fun?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-22-2014), LadyShea (07-22-2014)
  #38550  
Old 07-22-2014, 06:48 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Moreover, the Sun is large enough relative to the Earth that we would be in optical range within a nanosecond, just like the inverse square law tells us.
That's not what the inverse square law tells us. You've made this up.
Absolutely not! The only difference is that you believe we can see the image due to the inverse square law of light…
:lol:

No, we do not believe we can see the image because of the inverse square law of light! At long last, just :stfu:, peacegirl. You are making such a fool of yourself, and of your father, too. Pray that his book does not become widely known. As I told you years ago, if it did, he would be the world's biggest laughing stock.
This kind of nonanswer is exactly what makes you look like someone who can't deal with the truth. It is your projection (get it? :wink:) that calls me a fool because you know you have no answer. Your vitriol will be here for everyone to see when this knowledge does become widely known. Truth always wins!
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 23 (0 members and 23 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 5.48146 seconds with 14 queries