[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not making shit up Spacemonkey.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Of course you are. I never said anything about red and blue objects or information. You just made that shit up.

Don't tell me you never used red and blue in your examples.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And you're not going to railroad me, like some kind of prosecutor, into answering yes or no when that gives a false picture.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why would your own answers give a false picture? The only assumption involved in my questions is one you have agreed with—that you need light at the film/retina when the Sun is first ignited.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already agreed that light travels; that light comes from the Sun; that light cannot be at the Sun and at the eye instantaneously as if by magic; that light travels at a finite speed; and that light cannot leave the Sun before it is ignited.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Let's see how these perform as answers to my questions...

You need photons at the camera film or retina when the Sun is first ignited.
1. Are they traveling photons?
PG: I already agreed that light travels [Yes?]
2. Did they come from the Sun?
PG: Light comes from the Sun [Yes?]
3. Did they get to the film/retina by traveling?
PG: Light is at the film but not due to travel time [No?]
PG: Light cannot be at the Sun and at the eye instantaneously as if by magic [Huh?]
4. Did they travel at the speed of light?
PG: Light travels at a finite speed [Yes?]
5. Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?
PG: Light cannot leave the Sun before it is ignited [No?]

None of these responses actually answer what was asked. In your previous set you skipped Q2. In this one you failed to answer Q3. In almost every case you have answered about light generically rather than about the specific photons I asked about. All I can do is try to interpret your responses as best as I can, as I have done above.

So you now have light at the retina at 12:00 which came from the Sun, which is traveling light yet somehow didn't get from the Sun to the film/retina by traveling, and which never left the Sun until at or after 12:00. So...

How fast does a lighted candle at 12:00 reach a person standing at the other side of a room? I know you don't like this comparison, but it's applicable.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

6. If these photons which are now at the film/retina (i.e. at 12:00) came from the Sun, and could not have left the Sun before 12:00, when were they last at the Sun? Hell, when could they ever have been at the Sun? (Name a time when these photons were at the Sun)

If the eyes are efferent, travel time would be similar to the candle. It would not take 8 1/2 minutes to arrive.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

7. What traveling did this traveling light do, if it didn't travel to where it now is from where it once was? How can they be traveling photons if they haven't traveled from their source to their present location? (Name a time when these photons were traveling or specify a distance they have traveled)

You need to think about the candle because that is exactly the speed at which the light from any object that meets the requirements of brightness and size would be at your retina. That is, of course, assuming the eyes are efferent. It would be nonsensical if the eyes were afferent.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you are failing to understand that the information from the object is not being reflected in the light. We are seeing the real object due to light's presence because we're already within the optical range of the object. The light is just a mirror image (for lack of a better analogy) that is showing up on the retina. Travel time has no bearing on this account.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

None of this is even remotely relevant to what I am asking you about, which concerns ONLY the location and behaviour of photons at different times in your account. I am not interested in information, optical range, or mirror images. I just want you to explain how these photons from the Sun ended up at the retina without traveling the distance at light speed and getting there 8min after leaving the Sun, as your answers still have them relocating by 90 million miles in zero time without traveling, despite being traveling photons.

I know that none of my answers will be adequate. I'm sorry. I have tried but you will continue to tell me that light cannot be at the eye unless it has traveled to Earth, and that takes 81/2 minutes. I will say one last time that if the object is bright enough where it can be seen (no matter how far away it is), the light will be at the retina due to the way the eyes function. The only way Lessans will be taken seriously is if his analysis is carefully investigated by people who are truly interested and are not quick to throw his findings out the window. I know his claim sounds like a violation of physics based on your understanding of light. I don't believe there are any violations. I know you are sincerely trying to figure this out. I don't think you would be here this long if you weren't, but I don't think I can explain it any better.