A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by GdB

What remains is only this:

And this is totally unclear written, and a very subjective observation. And wrong in the light of everything we know of child development and the development of vision when a human or animal grows up.

This idea that a child would be blind without other stimulation to trigger vision is completely wrong. A child that is deaf from birth can still see, and this has been pointed out to Peacegirl, but she ignores it. Neither Lessans or Peacegirl has stated what the observations were that led Lessans to this conclusion, only the assertion that is is a fact, which it is not. Much like many of the other non-facts in Lessans book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

I corrected myself already on this point: the moon is only 1.5 lightseconds away, so its shadow also comes only with a delay of 1.5 seconds.

No it does not. Anything that is capable of being seen due to light is seen in real time, so if the shadow showed up after viewing it from Earth (assuming that this hypothetical was in effect), the shadow would be seen in real time. What is it you're not getting GdB? I'm wondering how you will try to twist this to your advantage in order to discredit his first discovery, which is the most important discovery of all, and the key to world peace.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it does not. Anything that is capable of being seen due to light is seen in real time, so if the shadow showed up after viewing it from Earth (assuming that this hypothetical was in effect), the shadow would be seen in real time. What is it you're not getting GdB? I'm wondering how you will try to twist this to your advantage in order to discredit his first discovery, which is the most important discovery of all, and the key to world peace.

A Solar Eclipse is not hypothetical, it is real, has been timed and observed in the real world. We do not see instantly, or in real time, or whatever silly label you want to apply. We see in delayed time, the time it takes for the light to travel from the object to the observer, nothing could be more clear, and it matches reality, what has been observed. Lessans was wrong about vision, and it has been demonstrated that he was wrong about several other ideas as well. Since Lessans was wrong about many points that can be verified, and his non-discoveries were based on the same kind of non-reasoning, they are probably wrong as well. Peacegirl really needs to seek professional help for her problems.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it does not. Anything that is capable of being seen due to light is seen in real time, so if the shadow showed up after viewing it from Earth (assuming that this hypothetical was in effect), the shadow would be seen in real time. What is it you're not getting GdB? I'm wondering how you will try to twist this to your advantage in order to discredit his first discovery, which is the most important discovery of all, and the key to world peace.

i was reacting at thedoc's posting, not you. He lives in about the same universe as I do.

No, you must react on this one: explain the difference between the rooms between the leafs and a human made pinhole:

Originally Posted by GdB

So when the images of the sun are made by holes between leafs then we must wait 8 minutes before seeing the images, but with a human made pinhole an image of the sun appears immediately? Please explain the difference!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by GdB

i was reacting at thedoc's posting, not you. He lives in about the same universe as I do.

It would be convenient if the multi-verse theory were correct, then each individual could have their own separate universe to live in. But according to the theory, there can be no communication between different Universes. That could be good or bad? And Peacegirl could have a Universe where Lessans ideas applied and she could be happy and at piece, but very lonely. As I said, individual Universes have good points and bad ones.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

i was reacting at thedoc's posting, not you. He lives in about the same universe as I do.

No, you must react on this one: explain the difference between the rooms between the leafs and a human made pinhole:

Any type of lens (whether it was a pinhole or a regular camera lens) would be able to project the image of the Sun onto film or a backdrop but it would not be able to produce an image of the leaves until the light from the Sun reached Earth 8 minutes later.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Any type of lens (whether it was a pinhole or a regular camera lens) would be able to project the image of the Sun onto film or a backdrop but it would not be able to produce an image of the leaves until the light from the Sun reached Earth 8 minutes later.

You are evading again: that is not the explanation I asked for.

It is not about images of the leafs. On the picture I included here you can see that the holes between the leafs project pictures of the sun on the ground. When the sun would be turned on would they appear immediately, or only after 8 minutes?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it does not. Anything that is capable of being seen due to light is seen in real time,

What about light itself? If there is a light source that is turned on, does a camera see this light immediately, before the light arrives? That situation is completely analogous to your dad's example about the Sun being turned on.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it does not. Anything that is capable of being seen due to light is seen in real time, so if the shadow showed up after viewing it from Earth (assuming that this hypothetical was in effect), the shadow would be seen in real time.

Why? What you see during the eclipse is the Moon in front of the Sun. You shouldn't be able to see the Moon because it is lit from behind, there is no light there. It's dark, so why do we see it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Uu

I am trying to determine the conditions under which light photons appear instantaneously or when they must travel

You said a piece of photosensitive paper lying on the ground would not react until 12:08 if the Sun were turned on at 12:00

You said a piece of photosensitive paper inside a box with a hole poked in it would react at 12:00 if the Sun were turned on at 12:00

I am asking about a third scenario which you haven't answered as you did the above.

1. A sheet of photosensitive paper that is 8.5 x 11 inches is on the ground with a 1 inch diameter magnifying glass sitting in the center

2. The sun is turned on at noon

Q - When does the photosensitive paper react to the light from the newly ignited Sun? Does the 1 inch of paper under the lens react at 12:00 or 12:08, what about the rest of the paper that is not under the lens?

If the Sun was just turned on at 12 noon, the light would converge at a single focal point of the convex lens instantly (assuming that when the Sun was first ignited it met the requirements of brightness and size because the object [in this case the Sun] must be within the field of view of the lens) thus causing a reaction on the photosensitive paper. The paper that was not under the lens would not react.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Why? What you see during the eclipse is the Moon in front of the Sun. You shouldn't be able to see the Moon because it is lit from behind, there is no light there. It's dark, so why do we see it?

There still would be enough light to make out the moon.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

What about light itself? If there is a light source that is turned on, does a camera see this light immediately, before the light arrives? That situation is completely analogous to your dad's example about the Sun being turned on.

They would see the light source immediately, but this is all hypothetical. There is no light source that is far enough away where we could carry out an experiment. That's why proof is difficult to establish this way.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

You are evading again: that is not the explanation I asked for.

It is not about images of the leafs. On the picture I included here you can see that the holes between the leafs project pictures of the sun on the ground. When the sun would be turned on would they appear immediately, or only after 8 minutes?

If the Sun was turned on at noon and the requirements of brightness and size were met, the pictures of the Sun would be projected immediately, not after 8 minutes because the leafs are mimicking a pinhole camera.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There still would be enough light to make out the moon.

I don't know, it looks pitch black to me.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They would see the light source immediately, but this is all hypothetical. There is no light source that is far enough away where we could carry out an experiment. That's why proof is difficult to establish this way.

Oh no, it isn't. Those are a couple of nanoseconds, which can be measured pretty accurately, even if the distance is only a couple of meters.

Should we build an experiment and find out?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

Oh no, it isn't. Those are a couple of nanoseconds, which can be measured pretty accurately, even if the distance is only a couple of meters.

Should we build an experiment and find out?

You are spitting into the wind. It doesn't matter what experiment you devise, Peacegirl will find some fault with it, or make something up, or move the goalposts to a point that cannot be achieved. We've both been down this road before, and Peacegirl will remain as willfully ignorant, as before. But I still have to credit her with being as refreshingly entertaining, as ever.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They would see the light source immediately, but this is all hypothetical. There is no light source that is far enough away where we could carry out an experiment. That's why proof is difficult to establish this way.

This is the Fizeau wheel experiment. Lights on ships out at sea and airplanes at altitude also are far enough way to demonstrate this.

[But]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is the Fizeau wheel experiment. Lights on ships out at sea and airplanes at altitude also are far enough way to demonstrate this.

She doesn't seem very eager to test it. What I meant was more like an electronic measurement, I'm pretty sure I can do this with the stuff I have lying around.

Of course she's going to try weaseling out of it again.

[But]

Here is something:

http://phenix.vanderbilt.edu/~velkov...l/speed_JV.pdf

And look, it has a magnifying glass!

[But]

Cool, I got a double post and I only hit the button once!

[LadyShea]

She likes videos

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

Cool, I got a double post and I only hit the button once!

Damn, some people have all the luck.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

She likes videos

Do you mean the ones she doesn't watch, because they look like they will disprove Lessans? Which is just about everything.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the Sun was turned on at noon and the requirements of brightness and size were met, the pictures of the Sun would be projected immediately, not after 8 minutes because the leafs are mimicking a pinhole camera.

OK, great answer.

But now look carefully at the picture again:



Do you see that at some places the image of the sun is very clear, but then there are areas where the image is pretty vague? And then there are areas where several images overlap, so there is no clear image anymore at all. Are these areas visible immediately, or after 8 minutes? How is it with the big area down-left of the middle: is this an area lit by the sun (visible only after 8 minutes), or is it a mix of many more or less blurred images of the sun (visible immediately)? And how when you look close to border of the leafy canopy: where does the light take 8 minutes to appear, and where does it still appear immediately?

Now look again at my own picture from this posting:



Do you see the little crescents at the border of the shadow of the towel? This means the fluff of the towel works as pinhole camera. So you say that when the sun is turned on, we will see round spots there immediately, and only after 8 minutes, the rest of the light is visible? If you really think that, please explain the mechanism: why do we see the light at the transition of towel and air immediately, but not where the light gets to us undisturbed?

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the Sun was just turned on at 12 noon, the light would converge at a single focal point of the convex lens instantly (assuming that when the Sun was first ignited it met the requirements of brightness and size because the object [in this case the Sun] must be within the field of view of the lens) thus causing a reaction on the photosensitive paper. The paper that was not under the lens would not react.

Bold by me.

So you say that the light is converged by the convex lens and appears there instantaneously:

• How did the light get at the lens when it did not travel there? As you know, light needs time to get somewhere...
• When the light is a the lens, does the light touch the holder of the lens, and can I therefore see the holder?
• If not, how is it possible that the light reaches the lens, but not its holder?
• If the light reaches the holder of the lens at the same moment as it reaches the lens, why does the light around the holder takes 8 minutes to reach the paper?

Further, photosensitive paper reacts because of the energy of the light. But you say the image of the sun is there immediate. But that is transport of energy, which we know, can never be faster than the speed of light. So you are again contradicting established physics.