A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So, now you're saying that if we simply put some photosensitive paper out, it will darken instantly when the Sun is turned on, not 8.5 minutes later?

I didn't say that.

[peacegirl]

Love this video and wanted to share it. For the love of dogs!

Blind Dog Saves Drowning Girl - It's A Miracle - 4365 - YouTube

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Googling terms doesn't show that you understand. It rather shows that you don't. To say that things are proportional to the box or candle scenario is to say that an increase in distance will result in a corresponding increase in time delay - which is actually the opposite of what you are trying to say. This is why I said that you do not understand what the word means.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Love this video and wanted to share it. For the love of dogs!

Blind Dog Saves Drowning Girl - It's A Miracle - 4365 - YouTube

<peacegirl>Welp, I've painted myself into yet another corner, so it's time to change the subject again: Look: Kitties! (well, in this case, dogs, who can't recognize their masters from a photo, even though they can and I know it, but I'm a liar and so I will continue to insist that they can't. … Whoops! Did I just say that! Never mind!</peacegirl>

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It couldn't. Light travels 11,176,943.82 miles in one minutes. Where did you get 11 miles?

Obviously a typo. I meant just over 11 million miles per minute.

Look at your above answers. You have said that the photons now at the film got there by traveling from the Sun at 11 million miles per minute, and began this journey by leaving the Sun only after it is ignited, and yet somehow complete this journey by arriving at the camera film less than 8min later. So I ask you again...

How can photons traveling at just over 11 million miles per minute cover a distance of 93 million miles in less than 8 minutes?

If your answer is that they cannot, then you need to revise your answers to the above questions.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because photons don't have to travel 93 million miles...

But your answers say that they did:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that the nanosecond it takes for the Sun to travel would put us in optical range IN THIS ACCOUNT. We don't have to wait 81/2 minutes for the light to arrive on Earth to be in optical range of the Sun. If we waited there would be no optical range to be in since no image could be resolved. This example is in exact proportion to the candle example because we're not discussing movement of light which travels at C; it is the size and brightness of the object in reference to the lens.

None of this even addresses the problem, which is that your above answers put the same photons in two different places at once. Which of your above answers can you change to fix this?

[Spacemonkey]

What the hell am I meant to make of this, Peacegirl? What good are answers that constantly change and flip-flop from post to post?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Can they arrive at the camera film less than 8min after leaving their source? YES (YOU SHOULD UNDERSTAND WHY BY NOW)

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Can they arrive at the camera film less than 8min after leaving their source?

Of course not, but that's not the issue.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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?

Yes because the eyes function differently Spacemonkey.

The question is exactly the same in each case. Your answers, in the order you have given them, are: Yes; Of course not; Yes.

The last two (completely opposed) answers were less than 15min apart!

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say that.

So, why does the photosensitive paper darken "instantly" if the box has a small hole in it, but it takes 8.5 minutes if the hole is a bit bigger? Remember, as your own link explains, the hole does not focus the light -- it only determines how much light passes through. So why does light reach the photosensitive paper "instantly" when only a little is passing through the hole, but it takes 8.5 minutes when a lot is passing through the hole?

It sure sounds like you're insisting that there are two different kinds of light.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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?

YES

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?

YES

Did these photons (which are at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited) travel at the speed of light?

YES

Okay, so then these photons - the ones already at the film - are ones that got there by traveling the 93 million miles from the Sun to the film on Earth at just over 11 million miles per minute. That is what it means to say Yes to the above four questions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Can these photons (which are at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited) leave the Sun before it is ignited?

NO

So when did they leave the Sun? Was it before, at, or after the moment it is first ignited? (Remember we are talking about the photons which are at the film on Earth at the moment the Sun is first ignited.)

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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?

Yes because the eyes function differently Spacemonkey.

But a Yes to this answer, given your above answers, is a mathematical impossibility. How can photons complete a 93 million mile journey at light speed in less than 8 minutes?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Arrival time is predicated on travel...

Yes, and you told me above that the photons in question got to the film by traveling there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't just keep reverting back to traveling photons...

I can when you tell me that the photons in question are traveling photons that got from the Sun to the film by traveling there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Furthermore, I never said that they are the same photons which would put them in two places at one time. They are different photons...

Holy crap, you halfwit. Read the bloody questions! Each question specifically states that the photons being asked about are the very SAME ones which are at the film when the Sun is first ignited. Those are the only photons you are meant to be giving me answers for.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...constantly being replaced, so when we see the sun in one instant, that light is different than the previous instant because the light is constantly being renewed with a never ending supply.

None of this replacement can begin to occur until AFTER the first emitted photons have had time to reach the film, which is 8min after you need them there. Think of a tap. When you turn on a tap you will eventually get water molecules at the sink drain being constantly replaced by newly arriving ones. But none of this happens instantly when you first turn on the tap. The replacement only begins AFTER the first released water molecules have had time to travel from the tap to the sink drain.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Finally, if the information is not in the traveling light, then we would not be receiving a red wavelength before a blue one as you suggested in IIDB.

Firstly, information is still irrelevant to the questions I am asking, as I have explained to you several times. Secondly, the red/blue photon scenario you are thinking of was completely different from the newly ignited Sun example and has nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why I call it a mirror image even though they are not the same photons.

What photons are not the same as what other photons? And why are you talking about different photons at all when the only questions I asked you were all specifically about only one set of photons (those at the film when the Sun is ignited)?

[thedoc]

This thread may be the "proof" that Lessans, and Peacegirl have been looking for.

Optical illusions - Freethought Forum

[Spacemonkey]

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Truth always wins!

If so, you and your father are going to be big losers, but then you are already.

[LadyShea]

There would be no resolution of the light to form an image at 93 million miles from the light source.

Why not? Did you do the math? The formula is available on the graphic I posted for you. Let's see how you arrived at this conclusion!

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The lens is what gives us the image. It doesn't matter if it's a telescope, a camera, or the eye; they all work similarly. Without a lens or a hole acting as a lens we would get no image. This is how optics works but the only difference is that we're not waiting for the light to arrive. If there is no lens to focus the light being reflected or emitted from the light source (which must be present), we would just get full spectrum light after 81/2 minutes.

How does the lens give us the image? In your own words (not some copy/paste from a website) what exactly does the lens do?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Dragar

A hole doesn't act as a lens.

What the heck do lenses and holes (but only holes up to a certain size that you don't know!) do in your account? In ours, a lens bends the path of light. A hole lets light through. What do they do in your magical world?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

because in this model it has met the requirements for real time vision.

But this model has only been proposed, it has not been explained, nor has any of the characteristics been demonstrated in any way. The afferent account of vision has been tested with numerous experiments and tests, and the initial experiments were done with the expectation that vision was efferent. The initial experimenters expected to get results that would support efferent vision, and when those experiments gave different results, science had to revise vision to reflect afferent vision, not efferent vision. Science expected vision to be efferent, but that was shown to be wrong, the initial bias was toward efferent vision. Lessans and Peacegirl are completely wrong in their accusation that scientists were biased toward afferent vision.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

But if efferent vision is true the eye/lens/pin hole is looking at the object and the focus of the light would have no effect at all. Or are you saying that somehow the object is blurry? So far everything you have said about efferent vision would indicate that the focusing of light has nothing to do with the perception of the image of an object. Or are you now admitting that the brain interprets an image from the light that strikes the retina through the lens of the eye, the photo is formed by the photo receptors through the lens of the camera, the photo is formed by the photo paper through a very small hole in a pin hole camera. The latter 3 are the only cases where the focus of the Lens of the eye or camera, or the focus through the pin hole, would matter to the resolution of an image. The focus of the light would not matter if the object was being seen directly and only needed to be illuminated to be seen.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Isn't it convenient that the only way this claim can be proven is by conducting an impossible experiment. For the Sun to be turned on, it must first be turned off. I am pretty sure that if the Sun were turned off we would all die.

It is the same thing with some of his other claims. Put a baby in a room with no external stimuli other than visual stimuli and remove the baby's eyelids. The baby will never learn how to see. This is an experiment that will never be conducted now that Dr. Mengele is dead (if he really is). Isn't that convenient?

In the new "no free will/no blame" world the conscience will work at 100% efficiency and responsibility will increase rather than decrease and there will be no more crime, war, divorce or homosexuality. Unfortunately we can't test this claim in the world as it exists at present, because we live in a world of blame where people think they have free will. Once again, how convenient for Lessans and peacegirl.

Angakuk, stop misrepresenting this book. Homosexuality is not a crime, so this law cannot prevent what hurts no one. It is true that these claims are difficult to test, but it can be done. If you had followed his observations as to why conscience cannot allow certain behaviors to be performed (behaviors that are a definite hurt to others) under the changed conditions of a no blame environment, you would see that he was right about the nature of conscience. You are just displaying your ignorance, not your understanding.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Already at the eye? wouldn't that term mean that the light is on the eye before it looks at the object? I'm guessing this is another semantics misunderstanding.
So do the photons at the eye teleport there? You're clearly saying that they are physically at the eye. There has to be an explanation for how they got there.

By the time a candle is lit and bright enough for us to see it, aren't the photons already at the eye? It's the same thing with the Sun. How quickly would it take the photons from the Sun to get to the eye? That's the issue? It is assumed that distance and time have everything to do with it because it is believed the information travels in the light. Don't you see how this could easily be mistaken and taken as fact, or is it easier just to call me a dingbat?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

By the time a candle is lit and bright enough for us to see it, aren't the photons already at the eye?

No. The photons are only at the eye after they have had time to travel from the candle to the eye. At short distances this happens very quickly.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's the same thing with the Sun. How quickly would it take the photons from the Sun to get to the eye?

It takes 8 minutes for photons to travel from the Sun to the eye.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is assumed that distance and time have everything to do with it because it is believed the information travels in the light.

Nope. It is known that distance and time have everything to do with it because you need photons at the eye and the only way they can get there is by traveling there. It is also known that arriving light contains information, but that is a separate matter.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That has absolutely 0 to do with the question you have been asked, Weasel.

I clearly wrote the sharpness or whatever image is not at issue at all... only the timing of the physical interactions between light and photosensitive materials on Earth with the Sun being newly ignited at noon. Again you are completely weaseling.

If it's a lens that gathers light which is on photosensitive paper, we would get an image of the Sun (the object) before the light arrives 81/2 minutes later.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Okay here is a hypothetical scenario.

As per Lessans, the Sun is scheduled to be turned on at noon. We put the following items out, next to each other in a line, on the ground, with no obstructions or anything to get in the way of the Sunlight. Each item has photosensitive cells/molecules meaning they physically interact with light.

1. A piece of photographic paper

NO

2. A piece of photographic paper with a pair of eyeglasses resting on it

YES

3. A basic shoebox pinhole camera with a piece pf photographic paper in it

YES

4. A solar powered calculator (which have solar panels)

NO

5. A plant

NO

For each of the 5 items, please tell me if the photosensitive cells or molecules will be activated at 12:00 noon when the Sun is ignited, or 12:08:30 when the light photons from the Sun reach Earth.

Only when a lens and the object are in physical proximity (regardless of how far away that object is) where light is then gathered and projected onto the photosensitive material, can an image be seen.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's completely irrelevant to the question I actually asked you. I am asking about physical interactions between photosensitive materials on Earth and light photons from the newly ignited Sun. The result of those interactions doesn't matter at all with regards to the questions I am asking, and have been asking for years.

How about you answer honestly for once?

Light has to arrive in order for that light to strike the solar panel and convert to another form of energy. The result does matter because there has to be a connection between the light and the solar panel for this reaction to take place.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Your typical circular reasoning, given you've defined 'being in optical range' to meant 'we can see it'.

This still has nothing to do with the inverse square law, and your misuse of it.

It most certain does. The object forms the circle or radius whereby this measurement that makes up the inverse square law can be calculated.