A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Define "corresponds."

You're obviously using a different definition of the word than does anyone else -- a definition of your own devising, apparently.

I'm trying to get people to envision what I'm talking about by using the term proportion. If the Sun is large enough to be within the observer's field of view, it is analogous to the candle being within the observer's field of view. It is in proportion. Distance does not play a part. That's why I want people to picture a box where the Sun is on one side and the observer is on the other. The time it takes for the light from the Sun (as it's turned on) to get to the other side of the box is virtually nil. It would not take 8 minutes for the light to impinge on the retina and for the Sun to be seen as it's being turned on, just like the candle. That does not mean light isn't traveling to Earth, which takes 8 minutes. It only means that if we see the way Lessans claimed, we would see the Sun before we would see each other.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

LESSANS WAS WRONG. Words and their definitions describe reality based on what people have observed. What did Lessans observe that led him to such a warped vision of reality.

Really? So Lessans was wrong in his observation that the Sun exists regardless of what word we use to describe it? What are you blathering about now doc?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm trying to get people to envision what I'm talking about by using the term proportion.

You're using a very different definition of the word "proportion" than does anyone else.

The Sun is bigger than a human observer. A human observer is bigger than a candle.

They are not at all proportionate.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What curious behavior? The way in which a representational image is manifested would be the same regardless of the direction we see.

Well, light is delayed, but images aren't. So is this an image, or just some light? And how blurred does it need to be before it's no longer an image?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Really? So Lessans was wrong in his observation that the Sun exists regardless of what word we use to describe it? What are you blathering about now doc?

Words are assigned to an object and defined according to the characteristics of that object, to say that definitions are meaningless is the height of stupidity, and apparently your father fit that description exactly. And now you are following in his footsteps, total ignorance about just about everything, and too stupid to realize it.

BTW your response was totally off on a tangent from what I posted, demonstrating your deficiency in reading comprehension. Are you going to favor us by answering my question about Lessans observations, or are you going to ignore it as usual.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did. The Sun corresponds to the observer in size as the candle corresponds to the observer in size.

What...? That's not even remotely close to being true. This is a clear example of what TLR meant when he said you often make claims that are ludicrously false when attempting to support Lessans.

The sun is millions of times larger than the observer, while the candle is many times smaller. So no, your use of the term 'proportional' does not fit here at all. It is absurdly incorrect.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm trying to get people to envision what I'm talking about by using the term proportion. If the Sun is large enough to be within the observer's field of view, it is analogous to the candle being within the observer's field of view. It is in proportion.

What is proportional to what? You still don't seem to understand what this word means.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Distance does not play a part. That's why I want people to picture a box where the Sun is on one side and the observer is on the other. The time it takes for the light from the Sun (as it's turned on) to get to the other side of the box is virtually nil.

How big is the box? If it is any smaller than 90 million miles in length then it won't fit the Sun and Earth inside. If it is 90 million miles long, then the time it takes for light to travel from one side to the other is 8min, which is not "virtually nil" at all. For the time to be virtually nil, the box would have to be very small, but then you are just pretending that the distance between the Earth and Sun is much smaller than it really is. That is no solution to your problem.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It would not take 8 minutes for the light to impinge on the retina and for the Sun to be seen as it's being turned on, just like the candle.

But it's not just like the candle. The distance is millions of times greater. For the travel time to remain the same when all relevant factors are changed is the very opposite of proportionality. The ONLY explanation we have for the very short time delay for the candle case is one that results in an 8min time delay when applied to the Earth and Sun case. So the candle case cannot help you until you can offer a DIFFERENT EXPLANATION for why we see the candle nearly instantly. You need an explanation that is not dependent on the time taken for light to travel from the candle to the observer. But you don't have one, which is why you were resorting to this daft analogy in the first place.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That does not mean light isn't traveling to Earth, which takes 8 minutes.

So HOW is the light getting from the Sun to the retina on Earth in a nanosecond, when it needs 8min to get there by traveling?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What proportionality? What are the two values that you are claiming to be proportional to each other? Do you even know what you are trying to say?

Why bother? What would be the point? How is a nanosecond any less problematic for you than no time at all? Photons getting from the Sun to the retina on Earth in a nanosecond is just as impossible, and remains just as unexplained, as photons getting there instantaneously. You still can't explain where these photons come from or how they get there. This whole nanosecond malarkey is just a huge red herring.

If it were proportional, then increasing the distance from a few meters to 90 million miles would mean that the time delay WOULD become noticeable. That is what proportional means.

And if you agree that the light is traveling from the Sun to the Earth at light speed (which takes 8min), then you are still left with no explanation at all for how it can be there at the retina on Earth a nanosecond after the Sun is ignited.

You haven't explained how the candle example works yet. If it works by relying on light traveling from the candle to the observer's eye, then having the newly ignited Sun example work the same way means there will be an 8min delay.

How big is this box? If it is normal box size, then it won't fit the Earth and Sun inside it. If the box is 90 million miles long, then it will take 8min rather than a nanosecond for the light to get from one end of the box to the other. If it covered the distance any faster it would require light traveling faster than the speed of light. So how is the addition of a box meant to help here?

Of course it matters! See above.

Then all you are doing is yet again asserting that light can do magical things, such as relocating by millions of miles in less time than it would take to travel the intervening distance. You still aren't explaining how this could possibly be achieved. The terms "closed system" and "field of view" do nothing at all to help you here.

Red herring. It makes no difference how information is brought to the eye so long as you agree that the light has to be at the eye for vision to occur. THAT is the part you are failing to explain or address.

Bump.

[But]

Bump

Originally Posted by But

Of course you don't.

The point is that these cameras definitely don't see in real time. And they record complete images, which is why you can't use that to weasel out of it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Well, light is delayed, but images aren't. So is this an image, or just some light? And how blurred does it need to be before it's no longer an image?

This is starting to sound stupid. Are you doing this on purpose? These questions have nothing to do with the eyes and how they function. Do you see how far from the topic we are straying?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Bump

The time it takes for the light to be gathered from Direct Time-of-Flight imagers is minimal. They say the farther away the object is the longer it takes to gather light, which is true using this type of camera. This camera puts out light pulses. It takes time for the pulsating light to reach the object and be reflected back. The reflected light is then gathered by the lens and an image is formed. Obviously, an image cannot be produced instantly with this type of camera because it is sending the light to the object and back, which takes time, whereas an object that is already bright enough and within the lenses' field of view would produce an instant photograph because the gathered light would already be at the lens which would only require one click for an image to form.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The time it takes for the light to be gathered from Direct Time-of-Flight imagers is minimal. They say the farther away the object is the longer it takes to gather light, which is true using this type of camera. This camera puts out light pulses. It takes time for the pulsating light to reach the object and be reflected back. The reflected light is then gathered by the lens and an image is formed.

I'm pretty sure you said that an image cannot be formed from light alone.

Obviously, an image cannot be produced instantly with this type of camera because it is sending the light to the object and back, which takes time, whereas an object that is already bright enough and within the lenses' field of view would produce an instant photograph because the gathered light would already be at the lens which would only require one click for an image to form.

Why isn't the object bright enough as soon as the light is at the object?

Are you now saying that vision is instant only some of the time?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What...? That's not even remotely close to being true. This is a clear example of what TLR meant when he said you often make claims that are ludicrously false when attempting to support Lessans.

The sun is millions of times larger than the observer, while the candle is many times smaller. So no, your use of the term 'proportional' does not fit here at all. It is absurdly incorrect.

I'm using the term "proportional" to distinguish it from traveling light only, which involves time and distance. In one situation it's a candle that we see; the other it's the Sun. Distance is immaterial here. The Sun in reference to the observer is proportional; the candle in reference to the observer is proportional. Although a candle is small, it is still proportional to the observer. Although the Sun is huge and a great distance away, it is still proportional to the observer. What is of significance is that both of these objects are large enough and bright enough to be within the observer's field of view, therefore they both meet the requirements of efferent vision.

pro·por·tion·al
prəˈpôrSH(ə)n(ə)l/
adjective
corresponding in size or amount to something else.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm using the term "proportional" to distinguish it from traveling light only, which involves time and distance. In one situation it's a candle that we see; the other it's the Sun. Distance is immaterial here. The Sun in reference to the observer is proportional; the candle in reference to the observer is proportional. Although a candle is small, it is still proportional to the observer. Although the Sun is huge and a great distance away, it is still proportional to the observer. What is of significance is that both of these objects are large enough and bright enough to be within the observer's field of view, therefore they both meet the requirements of efferent vision.

pro·por·tion·al
prəˈpôrSH(ə)n(ə)l/
adjective
corresponding in size or amount to something else.

I think you should stop using the term 'proportional'. Nothing you are saying has anything to do with proportionality. Because you are using the wrong words, no-one has any idea what you are trying to say.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm trying to get people to envision what I'm talking about by using the term proportion.

Well it's not working, the real problem is that you need to first understand what you are trying to say, that is obviously not the case.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

I'm pretty sure you said that an image cannot be formed from light alone.

I did say that. We need the object to be present in order to reflect the incoming light. Maybe in this case we don't need the object once the light has been reflected, I'm not sure. Because it is a camera that puts out light pulses, this light must first reach the object (which takes time) and then must be reflected back to the lens because the object does not have enough luminosity for the camera to get a photograph without this travel time.

Obviously, an image cannot be produced instantly with this type of camera because it is sending the light to the object and back, which takes time, whereas an object that is already bright enough and within the lenses' field of view would produce an instant photograph because the gathered light would already be at the lens which would only require one click for an image to form.

Originally Posted by But

Why isn't the object bright enough as soon as the light is at the object?

Because it's similar to a laser. It's a small pulsar light that does not have the capacity to light up the object as the Sun's light would do. The light produced by a pulsar light would not be bright enough until it traveled closer to the lens where that light could be gathered. This takes time. Remember, the requirement of efferent vision is that the object must be luminous enough and large enough to be within optical range otherwise we would not be able to see it. There would be no photons at the lens to resolve an image.

Originally Posted by But

Are you now saying that vision is instant only some of the time?

I've been talking about the eyes and how they work. A camera that works like the eyes would get an instant image. You are talking about a different kind of camera that would involve some delay before an image is formed.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You're using a very different definition of the word "proportion" than does anyone else.

The Sun is bigger than a human observer. A human observer is bigger than a candle.

They are not at all proportionate.

The problem is that Peacegirl and Lessans constantly used different definitions for words than everyone else does, but then they neglect to tell everyone exactly how they are redefining the words, and people are unable to follow along.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've been talking about the eyes and how they work. A camera that works like the eyes would get an instant image. You are talking about a different kind of camera that would involve some delay before an image is formed.

Well, yes. But was talking about real cameras that work according to the laws of physics and optics.

[thedoc]

It seems just a bit contradictory, that Peacegirl and Lessans will say that definitions don't really mean anything, and then try to state some idea using words with very specific definitions (that don't match what everyone uses) and expect everyone to just accept their corrupted terms and their explanations.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've been talking about the eyes and how they work. A camera that works like the eyes would get an instant image. You are talking about a different kind of camera that would involve some delay before an image is formed.

So eyes and some cameras work instantly, and some other cameras work on delayed time, but all cameras need photons to be at the sensors to work. How do the photons know whether to be at the photo receptors instantly or to travel there at c?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm using the term "proportional" to distinguish it from traveling light only, which involves time and distance. In one situation it's a candle that we see; the other it's the Sun. Distance is immaterial here. The Sun in reference to the observer is proportional; the candle in reference to the observer is proportional. Although a candle is small, it is still proportional to the observer. Although the Sun is huge and a great distance away, it is still proportional to the observer. What is of significance is that both of these objects are large enough and bright enough to be within the observer's field of view, therefore they both meet the requirements of efferent vision.

Are you talking about solid angle?

[thedoc]

How do the photons know whether to be at someone's retina instantly, or illuminating another person or thing after traveling for 8.5 minutes?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I think you should stop using the term 'proportional'. Nothing you are saying has anything to do with proportionality. Because you are using the wrong words, no-one has any idea what you are trying to say.

Well since you understand what I'm trying to say, you can help me, right? That'll be the day.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well since you understand what I'm trying to say, you can help me, right? That'll be the day.

I don't. What part of "no-one has any idea what you are trying to say" did you not follow?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm using the term "proportional" to distinguish it from traveling light only, which involves time and distance. In one situation it's a candle that we see; the other it's the Sun. Distance is immaterial here. The Sun in reference to the observer is proportional; the candle in reference to the observer is proportional. Although a candle is small, it is still proportional to the observer. Although the Sun is huge and a great distance away, it is still proportional to the observer. What is of significance is that both of these objects are large enough and bright enough to be within the observer's field of view, therefore they both meet the requirements of efferent vision.

You really don't know what you are talking about, do you? This is all just word salad. What kind of computer program do you have that creates these posts for you, I would like to know so I know what to avoid.

There is nothing proportional about an observer and a candle or the Sun. You can stare at a candle with little or no harm, but if you stare at the sun it could burn out your retina and blind you.