Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
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.
|
What proportionality? What are the two values that you are claiming to be proportional to each other? Do you even know what you are trying to say?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
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.
|
Why bother? What would be the point? How is a nanosecond any less problematic for you than no time at all? Photons getting from the Sun to the retina on Earth in a nanosecond is just as impossible, and remains just as unexplained, as photons getting there instantaneously. You still can't explain where these photons come from or how they get there. This whole nanosecond malarkey is just a huge red herring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
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.
|
If it were proportional, then increasing the distance from a few meters to 90 million miles would mean that the time delay WOULD become noticeable. That is what proportional means.
And if you agree that the light is traveling from the Sun to the Earth at light speed (which takes 8min), then you are still left with no explanation at all for how it can be there at the retina on Earth a nanosecond after the Sun is ignited.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
We are talking about efferent vision, which works just like the candle example.
|
You haven't explained how the candle example works yet. If it works by relying on light traveling from the candle to the observer's eye, then having the newly ignited Sun example work the same way means there will be an 8min delay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
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.
|
How big is this box? If it is normal box size, then it won't fit the Earth and Sun inside it. If the box is 90 million miles long, then it will take 8min rather than a nanosecond for the light to get from one end of the box to the other. If it covered the distance any faster it would require light traveling faster than the speed of light. So how is the addition of a box meant to help here?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
It doesn't matter how large the box is (whether it's a few feet or a million miles away)...
|
Of course it matters! See above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
...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...
|
Then all you are doing is yet again asserting that light can do magical things, such as relocating by millions of miles in less time than it would take to travel the intervening distance. You still aren't explaining how this could possibly be achieved. The terms "closed system" and "field of view" do nothing at all to help you here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
...which is deemed unnecessary in the afferent view because of the belief that light is bringing the information to the eye.
|
Red herring. It makes no difference how information is brought to the eye so long as you agree that the light has to
be at the eye for vision to occur. THAT is the part you are failing to explain or address.