A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, you do not. You still can't grasp even the basics.

No, they have not. You are the only person who ever said that. LadyShea even reproduced the relevant posts for you.

LadyShea, didn't someone say this?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Um, no your quotes show a contradiction with what you said today. That's a flip flop, a bald faced lie if you will.

So, if the Sun was turned on at noon, would there be light photons at the retina at noon? Yes or no?

And it's little effort to collect quotes since I know how to use the search function

That's the entire debate LadyShea; whether or not the photons have to travel to Earth to be interacting with the film or eye? You think it's a contradiction because you don't understand the physics behind it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Are you seriously asking, why can't we see something when we move it further away?

I was referring to a parallel beam. This is an informative sight.

Geometrical Optics

Originally Posted by Dragar

I've already answered this for you, in great detail, time and time again. Why don't you answer a question for once?

Like, how do mirrors work? ("They reflect light" isn't an explanation - walls reflect light. So how do mirrors work, peacegirl?)

Light gets reflected, strikes the mirror, and reflects back to us. Due to the reflective coating, the light is reflected forward to the person in front of the mirror which allows him to see himself as a result of the reflected light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

So physically, what causes the chemicals in the photographic film to change, according to you? Because we have an answer, and it involves light and the way the chemicals on the film react to it. But you can't use that answer, because you just said we don't need light to be there.

I did not say that Dragar. I have said all along that light has to be interacting with the film or it can't cause a chemical reaction.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Now you're changing the rules of photochemistry too...

No I'm not. Either the light is at the film and eye, or it is not. If this account does not violate the laws of physics, then it behooves you to try to understand how it is able to do this before rejecting the claim just because you don't like it.

Originally Posted by Dragar

You've also changed your answer again. You've told Spacemonkey many times that the light does need to be on Earth to take a picture of the Sun.

The camera is on Earth, true, but the light that the camera is using to take a photograph does not have to be on Earth if the subject of the photograph is not on Earth.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You can't explain how we could see a lit candle in real time either. The light still has to get to from the candle to the retina, and that cannot happen instantly.

Neither the Sun nor the candle example can be made to work instantaneously. In both cases time and distance are involved. The bigger the distance, the longer the time.

That's where you're mistaken. Distance and time are not involved. Size and brightness are. If the Sun was within our field of view when first turned on, we would see it just like we would see the candle when it was first lit. You're not even making the effort to understand this account.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand optics which is why I constantly say that if we saw the object, we would be in optical range. According to the afferent account, if we saw the image of the candle in delayed time, the light (or image) would be traveling straight to our eyes. So why shouldn't this light travel the same path and reach our eyes if the candle was slightly out of range but directly in line with our eyes? That's a fair question which I don't think you have an answer for. Don't tell me the light is traveling too fast because that is a major weasel.

Exactly what do you mean by "slightly out of range"? If you mean out of sight, you've just answered your own question. If you mean farther away but still visible, why did you say "Out of range"? "Out of sight" and "still visible in the line of sight" is a direct contradiction, and an impossible situation. Just what someone who didn't understand optics, would say. And yes, if the candle is in our line of sight but farther away, the light would still reach our eyes, but if the candle is too far away, we might not be able to resolve an image because the light is too dim. In afferent vision, as well, the light needs to be bright enough for the eyes to detect the light and the brain to form an image. Too little light and there is not enough signal from the eyes to the brain and the brain cannot form an image.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No David, you are assuming that we're seeing the candle in delayed time.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You can't explain how we could see a lit candle in real time either. The light still has to get to from the candle to the retina, and that cannot happen instantly.

I didn't say that. I said we see the candle in real time which means the candle has met the requirements of brightness and size. Like I said, if the light was not at our eyes we wouldn't be able to see the candle. We have to work this backwards to understand it. We're not interpreting the light that is at our eyes; we're seeing the real candle due to light's presence.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If Lessans is right (which I believe he is), then seeing the Sun when it's first turned on would be as fast as seeing a candle when it's first lit. We are just dealing with a bigger space (or box), but so is the Sun a bigger object, so the principle remains exactly the same.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Neither the Sun nor the candle example can be made to work instantaneously. In both cases time and distance are involved. The bigger the distance, the longer the time.

I've never denied that light travels, but you're missing the entire concept. If the light does not create the image in the brain, as believed, then you're focusing on the wrong thing. That's why he said light is not the cause of sight; it is a condition of sight, which changes what we think we're seeing. It's not that hard to follow his reasoning if you can accept the premises, even temporarily, instead of fighting me.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People definitely have said the light would be traveling too fast to be able to see the image. It's not important.

No, Peacegirl, you said that and everyone tried to correct your incorrect statement.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nothing actually encloses the Sun and the Earth.

Then by your own definition it is not a closed system.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You look particularly stupid and pathetic when you weasel by trying to change the subject like this.

Well you look particularly confused, always telling me I'm weaseling when I already told you that light travels.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Would you please stop it? I already said that light travels, so give it up Spacemonkey.

Why should I stop asking you to show me the common decency of addressing my post?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's where you're mistaken. Distance and time are not involved. Size and brightness are. If the Sun was within our field of view when first turned on, we would see it just like we would see the candle when it was first lit. You're not even making the effort to understand this account.

You aren't making any effort to show how either example can work without time and distance becoming factors. Light cannot be at the eye from a candle or from the Sun before it has had time to get there.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then by your own definition it is not a closed system.

Not true. Our field of view IS the enclosure. This definition is useful because the description makes sense.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You aren't making any effort to show how either example can work without time and distance becoming factors. Light cannot be at the eye from a candle or from the Sun before it has had time to get there.

But the space between the eye and the Sun is in proportion to the distance between the candle and the eye. We're not talking about actual distance and light traveling. We're talking about how the light is at the eye as a mirror image due to the requirements that are necessary for this to occur. I asked you a question: how can light that is traveling millions of miles not be completely dispersed by the time it has reached us?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No.

That's not an answer.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say that. I said we see the candle in real time which means the candle has met the requirements of brightness and size. Like I said, if the light was not at our eyes we wouldn't be able to see the candle. We have to work this backwards to understand it. We're not interpreting the light that is at our eyes; we're seeing the real candle due to light's presence.

I didn't say anything about interpreting light, and YOU are the one still refusing to work backwards here. Light needs to be at the retina. It cannot get there from the candle without taking a certain amount of time to cover the distance.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've never denied that light travels, but you're missing the entire concept. If the light does not create the image in the brain, as believed, then you're focusing on the wrong thing. That's why he said light is not the cause of sight; it is a condition of sight, which changes what we think we're seeing. It's not that hard to follow his reasoning if you can accept the premises, even temporarily, instead of fighting me.

I'm not focusing on the wrong thing. I'm focusing on the part of your account that doesn't work. Regardless of your irrelevant waffling about information, light still needs to be at the retina or film, and it cannot be there from the Sun or from a candle before it has had time to travel there.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not true. Our field of view IS the enclosure. This definition is useful because the description makes sense.

You don't understand what 'enclosed' means.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But the space between the eye and the Sun is in proportion to the distance between the candle and the eye.

What the fuck? If the candle is 10m away then the Sun is 15 billion times further away! How is that in proportion????

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You aren't making We're not talking about actual distance and light traveling.

I am. You're not because you're weaseling.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You aren't making We're talking about how the light is at the eye as a mirror image due to the requirements that are necessary for this to occur.

Your stated requirements make no sense without an explanatory mechanism showing how and why these requirements work.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You aren't making I asked you a question: how can light that is traveling millions of miles not be completely dispersed by the time it has reached us?

And I answered it. This is now the second time I've linked you back to my answer.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not an answer.

Of course it is. You asked a Yes or No question, and I answered No.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why should I stop asking you to show me the common decency of addressing my post?

Because I have addressed your post (I said A in your multiple choice), but you have not addressed my account whatsoever.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was referring to a parallel beam. This is an informative sight.

Geometrical Optics

How does this have anything to do with your question about optical range?

Light gets reflected, strikes the mirror, and reflects back to us. Due to the reflective coating, the light is reflected forward to the person in front of the mirror which allows him to see himself as a result of the reflected light.

All of that happens with a wall, too, except you can't see yourself in a wall. So what makes a mirror different? Note that you're still explaining all of this with light. What happened to Lessans when it comes to actually, you know...being useful or explanatory?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Of course it is. You asked a Yes or No question, and I answered No.

As if that is an explanation. Could it be you don't have an answer?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not say that Dragar. I have said all along that light has to be interacting with the film or it can't cause a chemical reaction.

You did say it! Here it is again:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The camera does not require light to be on Earth to take a picture of the Sun being turned on.

And obviously the light can't interact with the film if the light isn't on Earth. With the film. Light can't magically reach across the solar system and tweak atoms in the film.

Do you want me to go find the post # so you can check for yourself?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

How does this have anything to do with your question?

All of that happens with a wall, too. So what makes a mirror different?

It's reflective surface.

Originally Posted by Dragar

It can't be that the pattern of light is preserved in a mirror, could it?

Sure it can, which is what distinguishes it from a wall.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As if that is an explanation. Could it be you don't have an answer?

YOU asking US for an explanation? Why don't you explain, for the first time ever, how light can be at the eyes instantly on earth when God turns on the sun at noon, while at the same time (according to you) it takes the light some eight minutes to get to the earth!

And yes, this dispersion of photons stuff has been repeatedly explained to you. Do you know what a telescope is? How many times has the workings of a telescope been explained to you? Fifty times? A hundred? A thousand? A million?

Jesus Christ. Why anybody, myself included, still talks to you at all is beyond explanation.