Quote:
Originally Posted by But
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by But
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
No But, I said that the Sun in proportion to the Earth is the same as a candle in proportion to someone in the room that sees it being lit. Proportionally, it is exactly the same.
|
What does that even mean? Are you referring to size? The Sun is much larger than the Earth. |
Right, it is huge in relation to the Earth, which is why we would be able to see it since it would be within our field of view. Now can we put this topic to rest? |
Quote:
Originally Posted by But
So the Sun is huge in relation to the Earth. Is a candle huge in relation to someone in the room?
|
No, it doesn't have to be huge. Is the Sun huge in relation to someone on Earth? No, it looks like a ball. The comparison has to do with the fact that both of these objects are within our field of view in the efferent account. As a result, both objects are seen by the observer and both objects can be compared even though a candle is within a room versus the Sun being millions of miles away. The proportionality remains the same, which removes delayed time from the equation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by But
What do you mean and what does this have to do with this mysterious nanosecond that you made up?
|
|
When Lessans used the term "instant", he didn't mean that the instant the Sun would be turned on we could see it because it would take a nanosecond (I used this measurement since it's the smallest unit of time for all intents and purposes; there's nothing mysterious about it) for the light to increase in its luminosity. Remember, it would have to be bright enough for it to be seen. I was trying to distinguish this amount of time from the 8 minutes that is believed it would take for us to see the Sun. Just as we cannot register how fast light travels when we light a candle, the same goes for the Sun because we are not talking about traveling light reaching Earth even though that is occurring. We are talking about efferent
vision, which works just like the candle example. Imagine that the Sun and the observer are in an enclosed box. The Sun is on one end and the observer is on the other. The Sun is turned on (similarly, the candle is turned on). It takes the light a nanosecond from the Sun (the candle) to reach the observer (the person on the other side of the box), which cannot be registered by the eye. It doesn't matter how large the box is (whether it's a few feet or a million miles away) as long as the object and the observer are within the box (a closed system). All this means is that the object is within our field of view, which is deemed unnecessary in the afferent view because of the belief that light is bringing the information to the eye. The object could be destroyed but we would still get a delayed image. Not so if Lessans is right.