I could measure the weight of the paper, calculate displacement, and tell you more accurately at what millisecond any psychology had any affect over time. I mean, as your read under the light, prior art to "understanding" appears to be in the direction the light(bulb/diode/wave), or maybe that sounded good to blind science. That can be very hellish for people that can see the text in front of them and have someone continuously suggest, vocally, how you understood yourself.
Yourself is not the book I wanted to read. I mean, it is one fine piece of work that many teachers have filled in over time. Imagine your bible, however, with red underlines where there was some verse for group review or correction. Imagine only you saw those red lines and nobody else did. I can imagine that is how teachers feel when students obviously never seen these said red lines.
Should we explain these lines by science? Above or below? Whoa... your know... gravity.
Lets say we do not know the direction of gravity and only know "the proton" weighed about something. Open any book and you understood that, being human and all.
"Light bends around Sol."
We have seen images of the Sun with how bright matter spews-out and skews-in across rounded arc-tangents. Maybe if we imagined that bright matter as dragon dice that rolls across the table, and put that image into the fish-eyed lens, it would look about the same if steadied on the dye.
"D'Eye?" That sounds vile to the British. Maybe try "digit." There are real digits, yes, you see your hand. There are imaginary digits like there is belief of those digits on your hand taken by faith. How do dice role by faith, like by imaginary fingers and slow hands? I read in the News the other day how people felt "faith" to let the "spinning wheel" spin, spin, spin in these new autonomous vehicles. My grandfather lost his finger(s) when he tried to keep the big rig headed off the ledge, for what he said as he held up his hand to me and said, "wheel spinning."
When I marketed myself on BLDP, I did not spin.