“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"

[peacegirl]

The two spacecraft observed all phenomena on the sun: ejections, flares etc. All such phenomena were detected consistent with travel time of light to spacecraft A and B.

If the two spacecraft observed all phenomena on the sun: ejection, flares etc., how was travel time to A and B the only possibility when the same phenomena were seen by both without a noticeable delay?

NO, "consistent with travel time of light" means delays.

I have maintained that light travels, but when comparing the two Spacecrafts, where does your example show that Spacecraft B received the image of the solar flare after Spacecraft A?

This follows from basic physics.

There is a phenomenon, let's say a CME. Let's say this exists at time, t = 0.

Let's say Spacecraft A is distanceA away, abbreviated as d_a. Let's also say Spacecraft B is distanceB away, i.e. d_b. I will add that in reference to the Stereo A/B mission, the craft were in different orbits. Therefore, d_a is not equal to d_b

We just use d = vt. v is c, the speed of light. We can rewrite this as d = ct and then solve for t: t = d / c.

Time for "image" to get to Spacecraft A = t_a = d_a / c.
Time for "image" to get to Spacecraft B = t_b = d_b / c.

We can say that t_a is not equal to t_b since d_a is not equal to d_b.

If SpacecraftB is further out in orbit, then d_b > d_a. It mathematically follows that t_b > t_a.

Instruments on these spacecraft measured these time differences precisely, confirming that the "delay" is not just a theory, but an empirical measurement of light in transit.

All of that is true,

Of course it is.

but we

Who is "we?"

Generic use.

are not challenging the speed of light to Spacecraft A in reference to Spacecraft B.

You asked for me to show the "image" got there at a different time and I showed this.

But if the solar flare was too small to be seen by Spacecraft B, the image would not get there. Distance is not as much of a factor as the size and brightness of the event itself. Both Spacecraft would see the event in real time as long as the event was in their field of view.

We know that light travels at a finite speed and that the time differential between the two Spacecrafts is empirically correct.

Of course it is.

What is being challenged is what the telescopes are focused on. Light is detected from the Spacecraft's instruments, true, but the question remains: Are the cameras and telescopes focused on the actual event using light as a condition,

No, the instrumentation is at an angle to receive electromagnetic radiation that it detects.

or is the event being transmitted in delayed time? This question still remains in limbo.

The question is not in limbo. They completed the mission. It went on for years. There was no discovery that their numbers were wrong and saw events in real time. They had to use the delay as per regular old physics to do more advanced 3d structure analysis, which they did.

I think the instrumentation does different things, and you're putting them into one basket. I don't think there's a contradiction because light travels and is used to interpret information that is collected, but this still does not rule out seeing in real time. They are two different phenomena.

Differences Between a Camera, Telescope, and Radiation Detector in a Sun‑Orbiting Spacecraft​

In a spacecraft circling the Sun, a camera, telescope, and radiation detector are all science instruments, but they serve different purposes and operate in distinct ways.

1. Camera
A camera is an imaging instrument that captures visible‑light images of objects in its field of view. In a Sun‑orbiting spacecraft, it might photograph the Sun’s surface, corona, or nearby solar features. Cameras work by focusing light (or other electromagnetic radiation) onto a detector such as a charge‑coupled device (CCD) or CMOS sensor, which converts light into an electronic image Britannica. They are often used for direct sensing — recording the image of a source without necessarily measuring its physical properties in detail Science Mission Directorate.

2. Telescope
A telescope is an optical or electromagnetic collector that gathers radiation from a distant source and focuses it toward a detector. In space, telescopes can be designed for visible light, infrared, ultraviolet, or even radio wavelengths. They may be paired with filters or spectrographs to sort light by wavelength OpenStax+1. The telescope itself does not record the image; it delivers the focused radiation to a detector (like a CCD or spectrometer) for measurement. Telescopes are essential for remote sensing — collecting radiation from a distance to study the source without physical contact Science Mission Directorate.

3. Radiation Detector
A radiation detector is a passive sensor that measures the energy, intensity, and sometimes the type of radiation (e.g., X‑rays, gamma rays, charged particles) arriving at the spacecraft. Unlike cameras and telescopes, it does not form an image; instead, it records the physical properties of the radiation, such as energy per particle or photon, flux, and sometimes direction European Space Agency. Examples include scintillators, semiconductor detectors, and particle counters. Radiation detectors are often used for direct sensing when particles or photons enter the instrument Science Mission Directorate.

Key Differences

• Purpose:
  
  • Camera: Image capture.
  • Telescope: Focus and deliver radiation to a detector.
  • Radiation detector: Measure radiation properties.
• Operation:
  
  • Camera: Direct sensing of visible (or other) light to form an image.
  • Telescope: Remote sensing of radiation, often with spectroscopic or imaging filters.
  • Radiation detector: Direct sensing of particle/photon energy and flux.
• Output:
  
  • Camera: 2D image.
  • Telescope: Focused radiation stream to detector.
  • Radiation detector: Energy/flux measurements, sometimes particle counts.

In practice, a Sun‑orbiting spacecraft might combine all three: a telescope collects solar radiation, a camera images the Sun’s surface, and a radiation detector monitors particle and photon fluxes for safety and science.

 

[peacegirl]

I can see why people would think: how could a solar flare be seen before the light has reached the Spacecrafts?

Indeed. Any sane person would think that.

Why use the word sane, as if you were implying that the author must not have been? This makes me cringe. Why not leave out the word "sane" and just say most people would think this way, which keeps the discussion moving in a positive direction?

It's the same reason people cannot grasp that we would see the Sun turned on (hypothetically) before the light reached Earth 8.5 minutes later.

Indeed. That too fails the sanity test.

There you go again. It does pass the sanity test, but there's no way you can see it when you immediately handwave it away.

A solar flare could be seen by Spacecraft A but not Spacecraft B due to B's distance.

Sure, but that's completely irrelevant to the issue you are trying to address, wherein BOTH spacecraft see the flare, but at different times.

It could occur at different times. If a solar flare becomes visible to a spacecraft that was not previously visible at an earlier time, it would be due to the flare's energy bursts relative to the Spacecraft's location. Time would be involved, but that does not disprove the claim.

Spacecraft orbiting the Sun can miss or fail to detect small solar flares because their size, energy, and location relative to the Sun determine whether they are visible and impactful.

We are not talking about a situation wherein one spacecraft doesn't see the flare.

If they both see the flare, time is not a factor. It wouldn't be light bringing the image to Spacecraft A before it travels to Spacecraft B. They may see the flare at different angles, but a camera would take a picture of the actual solar flare in real time coming from both Spacecrafts. The light that is traveling at c would strike the instruments at Spacecraft A before Spacecraft B, but that's not what I'm talking about.

That's not what is being discussed; It's not relevant; And it's not an argument against the position which you just admitted needs a strong argument because it contradicts what any sane person would think.

You presented it as though it were not only an argument, but a compelling argument; It is neither. Why did you do that?

Because it is not only an argument, but a compelling one. That's why I did that, so there.