A revolution in thought - Page 1545

LadyShea · #**38601** 07-23-2014, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Homosexuality is not a crime, so this law cannot prevent what hurts no one.

Yet you, not Lessans, wrote that homosexual relationships would "naturally decline" to almost none in a no blame environment.

Spacemonkey · #**38602** 07-23-2014, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

The ONLY thing a lens ever does is to change the direction of light passing through it. So a lens cannot do anything to produce an image of the Sun until light has had time to reach it from the Sun.

peacegirl · #**38603** 07-23-2014, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How does any of what you copied and pasted about lenses explain your claim of physical interaction with light at a distance?

It didn't except it explained exactly how lenses work for those people who may be unsure as to the commonality between all the different instruments that have lenses (such as telescopes, pinhole cameras, digital cameras, retinas, binoculars and microscopes, etc.), so we're all on the same page.

LadyShea · #**38604** 07-23-2014, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because photons don't have to travel 93 million miles for them to be at the eye, that's just the point. When we are looking at the object in real time, the photons that are needed to see the object are already at the eye due to this alternate account, ...

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?

The light photons are at the eye once they've had enough time to travel the distance between the light source and the eye. So what does "already at the eye" even mean?

Quote:

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

8.5 minutes since that is how long it takes light photons to travel 93 million miles.

Quote:

That's the issue?

It's only an "issue" with you as you seem to not understand the properties of light and the laws of physics

Quote:

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

Wrong, it is known that light travels, and it is known that light has known properties.

Stop talking about information, images, and non-absorbed photons because none of us, not a single person, is asking you about those things.

Quote:

Don't you see how this could easily be mistaken and taken as fact, or is it easier just to call me a dingbat?

The properties of light we are talking to about and asking you about about are facts...empirically observed and measurable, not beliefs.

LadyShea · #**38605** 07-23-2014, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How does any of what you copied and pasted about lenses explain your claim of physical interaction with light at a distance?

It didn't except it explained exactly how lenses work for those people who may be unsure as to the commonality between all the different instruments that have lenses (such as telescopes, pinhole cameras, digital cameras, retinas, binoculars and microscopes, etc.), so we're all on the same page.

Nobody here, except you, is confused about the nature and capabilities of lenses :lol:

You are the one imbuing lenses with superpowers and magical focusing "outward".

So, why did you include the stuff about lenses when it didn't address the questions or points at all, and nobody has demonstrated being "unsure" about them?

LadyShea · #**38606** 07-23-2014, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

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.

I asked for a time for each item, and you answer with Yes or No...Weasel. They are not yes or no questions.

Enter a time for each item, your choices are 12:00 or 12:08:30

peacegirl · #**38607** 07-23-2014, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Without a lens or a hole acting as a lens we would get no image.

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?

This guy's thoughts on the subject of pinhole cameras is interesting and does not contravene anything regarding the efferent account of vision.

----------------------------------------

Several of us have been discussing the pinhole camera. We
> disagreed on using the terms "image" and "focus" in conjunction with
> pinhole optics. I claim a pinhole does not focus and thus there is no
> image in the sense of an image formed by a system of lenses. My point is
> that one should be able to treat the image formed by one optic system as
> the object of another system, and that the formation of an image should
> not depend of a viewing screen. This is one of those fascinating places where
decades of physics teaching have failed to illuminate a grey area.

<snip>

Another troublesome thought: if "image" is defined as involving lenses,
never pinholes, then we are forced to conclude that cameras cannot
photograph "images". This is because there is always a small amount of
blur in the resulting photograph, and a "blurred image" is no "image" at
all, it is intimately connected with the pinhole-character of the optical
system. If the camera film is not at the focal plane, if the photographed
scene has depth, or if the lens has spherical aberration, then the
recorded pattern of light is a "pinhole pattern" akin to a shadow, and is
not a "real image".

Place a diffusing screen behind a lens, and focus a complex scene on the
screen. What happens when the lens/screen distance is altered? Most
people would observe that "the image becomes fuzzy." But if we insist
that "image" can only mean "real image" or "virtual image", then when the
screen is moved we are instead forced to say "the image vanishes, and is
replaced with a 'pinhole pattern' ".

> Advanced optics text refer to the mapping from the image space to
> the object space and imply a one-to-one mapping. A pinhole camera is a
> many-point-to-many-point mapping and is either some extreme limiting case
> of the acceptable mapping or it just does not form an image.
>
> The best term I have is "optical projection".
>

I call it "projected image". As opposed to "real image" and "virtual
image".

http://amasci.com/amateur/pinhole.txt

LadyShea · #**38608** 07-23-2014, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's true, but the image won't be sharp if the hole is too large. It does the same thing as a lens because the light that is showing up as an image is the same light that would appear at the film from any camera, telescope, or eye. You are making an unnecessary distinction between pinhole cameras and other types of cameras. The same goes for telescopes that don't have a lens but work in a similar way as one that does.

Why would eyeglass lenses on photographic paper not allow an instantaneous interaction, but a hole in cardboard would allow allow instantaneous interaction with photographic paper on the back of the camera?

We weren't talking about the sharpness of images or anything like that. We only asked about what is required to allow an instantaneous physical interaction between light from the newly ignited Sun at 12:00 noon and photosensitive materials on Earth, versus a light-travel time delayed physical physical interaction between light from the newly ignited Sun and photosensitive materials on Earth.

You have said that camera film would interact instantly because of lenses
You have said leaves and solar panels would have a delayed interaction because of no lenses

Then your claim changed

1. You have said plain photosensitive paper would have a delayed interaction
2. You have said photosensitive paper with a pair of eyeglasses on it (lenses) would have a delayed interaction...why are the eyeglass lenses not enough?
3. You have said photosensitive paper in the back of a pinhole camera would interact instantaneously despite the lack of a lens because of a hole...why would a hole work but actual lenses would not?

Eyeglass lenses are used when the person's eyeball has a refractive error, so depending on the prescription the image may come out blurry for an average sighted person, but the principle is basically the same.

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

Quote:

Obviously, a pair of eyeglasses with photosensitive paper would, in my estimation, get an instant image of the Sun, but again just as a hole in a pinhole camera can be too large for a sharp image, an eyeglass lens may produce a distorted image depending on the refractive correction for that particular prescription.

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.

How? How do the light photons get to the paper without traveling there, and what voodoo are lenses doing to violate physics like that? You sure find a piece of glass or plastic powerful!

peacegirl · #**38609** 07-23-2014, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Homosexuality is not a crime, so this law cannot prevent what hurts no one.

Yet you, not Lessans, wrote that homosexual relationships would "naturally decline" to almost none in a no blame environment.

I never said it would naturally decline to almost none. I don't know. If it is a genetic predisposition, the environment would have no influence. If the environment did have an influence, it may affect some people. But it doesn't matter. No one is being hurt by someone's sexual preference. Angakuk misconstrued what was written, which doesn't surprise me.

Artemis Entreri · #**38610** 07-23-2014, 01:41 PM

Quote:

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? 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?

It takes 8.5 minutes for photons to reach Earth. Distance has everything to do with it and you can drop this argument you're having with yourself over "information in the light."
You've stated that photons from the sun have to strike the eye in order for the eye to see. This brings up the very real question; How did they get there?
So far your only "explanation" has been completely circular; The photons are instantly at the eye because we can see the object, we can see the object because the photons are instantly at the eye.
There has been no explanation for how or why the distance between the object and the eye can be ignored.

Yes, it would be easier to just call you a dingbat.

Your rundown of Lady Shea's list of photosensitive objects is completely :bat:

. I mean somehow the lens is the magical link that can gather light instantly from the sun to put photons physically on the photo paper? Please explain how the lens is able to get photons physically onto the paper in order to cause a chemical reaction.
If you moved the lens over to the solar calculator would it also project photons on to the solar cells and start powering the calculator?

Spacemonkey · #**38611** 07-23-2014, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

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 (but this is not the entire answer as you well know)

Did they travel at the speed of light? YES

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited? NO

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

No, I don't understand why. How can photons traveling at just over 11 miles per minute cover a distance of 93 million miles in less than 8 minutes?

Bump.

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.

Bump.

Spacemonkey · #**38612** 07-23-2014, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

Quote:

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)

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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!

Bump.

thedoc · #**38613** 07-23-2014, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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?

You are correct, it is very easy to view this as fact because it corresponds with everything that has been observed about optics and vision. There is nothing in the efferent model that matches what has been observed by sane and rational people.

Spacemonkey · #**38614** 07-23-2014, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.)

Quote:

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?

Bump.

LadyShea · #**38615** 07-23-2014, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said it would naturally decline to almost none. I don't know.

You did, it's in my copy of the book. You've since removed it from the later edition, but you did write it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Book

Homosexual relationships will naturally decline once blame is removed from the environment. If there are a certain number of homosexual relationships that remain....

The words "naturally decline" are not indicative of not knowing, on the contrary they indicate high confidence that what is being referred to is the most obvious outcome.

The wording "if there are a certain number remaining..." implies that the author or speaker thinks this would be an unlikely outcome.

thedoc · #**38616** 07-23-2014, 02:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How does any of what you copied and pasted about lenses explain your claim of physical interaction with light at a distance?

It didn't except it explained exactly how lenses work for those people who may be unsure as to the commonality between all the different instruments that have lenses (such as telescopes, pinhole cameras, digital cameras, retinas, binoculars and microscopes, etc.), so we're all on the same page.

Actually an item with a lens, (eye, camera, telescope) or mirror, do work somewhat differently than a pin hole camera. A lens or mirror changes the direction of a traveling photon that passes through it. A pin hole only allows a photon to pass straight through it, without changing the direction of the traveling photon at all. Granted, in some few cases the light travels straight through the lens, but most of the time the path of the light is changed. Note, both the lens and pin hole only interact with traveling photons that pass through the lens or pin hole. And many mirrors have the reflective coating on the back of the mirror, so the light passes through the glass, strikes the coating and is reflected back through the glass. I'm sure there are mirrors that have the reflective coating on the front of the mirror, and do not have the light passing through a transparent material.

Dragar · #**38617** 07-23-2014, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I maintain that we would not be able to because we would be out of optical range.

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.

And then the bridge to the outside world is joined, the mirror image is reflected and the external world is revealed to us, right?

:rofl:

As usual, you've written utter and complete nonsense.

Dragar · #**38618** 07-23-2014, 02:36 PM

[quote=peacegirl;1196960]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Without a lens or a hole acting as a lens we would get no image.

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?

Why did you just google randomly and copy paste something about pinhole cameras?

According to you, lenses and holes (but not if they're too big!) have a mysterious ability to make light that is a huge distance away suddenly interact with photosensitive paper behind them. How do they possess such an ability? Why does a hole of only a certain size work?

Please explain this magic.

peacegirl · #**38619** 07-23-2014, 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because it does take 81/2 minutes for the light [only] to strike the paper, but it would not take 81/2 minutes for a hole in the cardboard to receive the instantaneous light as in the candle because it's proportional.

I don't think you understand what the word 'proportional' means. :giggle:

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.

You're the one that doesn't understand the meaning.

peacegirl · #**38620** 07-23-2014, 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

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 (but this is not the entire answer as you well know)

Did they travel at the speed of light? YES

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited? NO

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

No, I don't understand why. How can photons traveling at just over 11 miles per minute cover a distance of 93 million miles in less than 8 minutes?

Bump.

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.

Only because the closed system allows our eyes to be within optical range of the object as it travels 186,000 miles a second. If you calculate the inverse square law by the square ratio per mile, you would see that this light would be at the eye in less than a second. By the time it reaches Earth, there would be no resolution because the object is completely out of visual range. There wouldn't be light to resolve either (so that doesn't save you) since there is nothing in the light that allows this decoding of images, which has been science's mistaken view.

peacegirl · #**38621** 07-23-2014, 05:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

The ONLY thing a lens ever does is to change the direction of light passing through it. So a lens cannot do anything to produce an image of the Sun until light has had time to reach it from the Sun.

And it has in less than a nanosecond.

peacegirl · #**38622** 07-23-2014, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because photons don't have to travel 93 million miles for them to be at the eye, that's just the point. When we are looking at the object in real time, the photons that are needed to see the object are already at the eye due to this alternate account, ...

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.

It actually means that the light is already at the eye if we look in that direction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

They traveled LadyShea, which means we are in optical range due to the inverse square law.

Quote:

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

The light photons are at the eye once they've had enough time to travel the distance between the light source and the eye. So what does "already at the eye" even mean?

Just what it says. In this account (the opposite of what is believed to be true) it takes a nanosecond for the light to reach the eye which would be thousands of miles of travel time; enough time that would put us (sorry Dragar but I like this phrase) within optical range of the object. It doesn't take 11 million miles which would put us completely out of optical range. If Lessans is right, there would be nothing in the light itself to resolve.

Quote:

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

8.5 minutes since that is how long it takes light photons to travel 93 million miles.

Right, but for us to see the object it doesn't take 8.5 minutes since this closed system puts us in optical range long before the photons actually reach Earth. By that time we would see nothing since we would be out of optical range. I wonder how many more times will I have to repeat this. :glare:

Quote:

That's the issue?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's only an "issue" with you as you seem to not understand the properties of light and the laws of physics

Nothing is being violated. Light photons are traveling. Nothing is teleporting. Nothing is traveling faster than the speed of light. Nothing is magic.

Quote:

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Wrong, it is known that light travels, and it is known that light has known properties.

No one is saying otherwise, but this property of light that strikes the eye after 11 million miles which you believe allows us to decode an image is a theory LadyShea. It is not fact.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Stop talking about information, images, and non-absorbed photons because none of us, not a single person, is asking you about those things.

But this is central to the discussion. Either we receive full spectrum light or partial spectrum light which either proves science wrong or Lessans wrong. Why would you tell me not tel discuss the main issue of the argument unless you either don't understand why its important, or you don't want me to discuss it because you know its important and you don't want to deal with it.

Quote:

Don't you see how this could easily be mistaken and taken as fact, or is it easier just to call me a dingbat?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The properties of light we are talking to about and asking you about about are facts...empirically observed and measurable, not beliefs.

Obviously, we get exposed light on our retinas, but there is no proof that these observations occur when the object is no longer there. No proof at all.

davidm · #**38623** 07-23-2014, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

The ONLY thing a lens ever does is to change the direction of light passing through it. So a lens cannot do anything to produce an image of the Sun until light has had time to reach it from the Sun.

And it has in less than a nanosecond.

So this is the new bee in your little bonnet: "nanosecond," a word you discovered recently in a frenzy of googling. A few problems: If we see everything in a nanosecond after the light has left it, then we don't see in real time and therefore you disagree with Lessans. Second problem: We can easily measure by a variety of means the time it takes photons from the sun to reach the earth. It's about eight minutes, not a nanosecond. So your stupid claim is false. Finally, let us again note that you also disagree with Lessans, having recently explicitly admitted that in the case of distant stars and galaxies, we see them in delayed time when the light reaches our eyes. Lessans said the opposite of what you are now saying. Shall we dig up his quotes?

peacegirl · #**38624** 07-23-2014, 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How does any of what you copied and pasted about lenses explain your claim of physical interaction with light at a distance?

It didn't except it explained exactly how lenses work for those people who may be unsure as to the commonality between all the different instruments that have lenses (such as telescopes, pinhole cameras, digital cameras, retinas, binoculars and microscopes, etc.), so we're all on the same page.

Nobody here, except you, is confused about the nature and capabilities of lenses :lol:

You are the one imbuing lenses with superpowers and magical focusing "outward".

What are you talking about? Lenses focus the light. They also refract the light.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadySeha

So, why did you include the stuff about lenses when it didn't address the questions or points at all, and nobody has demonstrated being "unsure" about them?

I thought I answered the question. If an eyeglass lens was on top of photosensitive material, and the Sun was first turned on, we would see an image of the Sun on the photosensitive paper, whereas the one without the lens would remain the same; there would be no changes for 81/2 minutes. Or you can say we would see the image of the Sun but we would be in complete darkness for 81/2 minutes.

peacegirl · #**38625** 07-23-2014, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

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 (but this is not the entire answer as you well know)

Did they travel at the speed of light? YES

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited? NO

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

No, I don't understand why. How can photons traveling at just over 11 miles per minute cover a distance of 93 million miles in less than 8 minutes?

Bump.

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.

Bump.

No Spacemonkey, you need to accommodate your answers for a change. This entire account places the light at the eye as a result of two things, the physical object having to be in vierw, and the direction the eye is looking. You don't take this model seriously, not even for a nanosecond (ha). It is YOU who keeps reverting back to traveling photons reaching Earth as the only possible answer. I do not agree with the logic of the afferent model. You have done nothing to understand the efferent model of sight at all, nada! :yawn: