Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
You haven't answered the question. You said that "photons would already be at the film before the photograph is taken". I want to know if those will be the same or different photons which are in that same place at the next moment when the photograph is taken. Which is it? Are they the same photons or different ones?
|
Because even though it's a different photon at the film, it doesn't matter... |
Oh, but it does matter! I asked you where the light which is at the camera when the photograph is taken was just before the photograph was taken. You said it was at the camera. But if the light at the camera just before the photograph was taken was different light, then you have incorrectly answered this first question. Because the light you are talking about is not the light I was asking about. So...
Did those specific photons (at the camera when the photograph is taken) exist immediately before the photograph was taken? [Yes or No]
If so, then where were those specific photons at the moment in time immediately preceding the taking of the photograph? [State a location]
Remember that you cannot answer "At the film/camera" to the second question, because you have just agreed that the light at that location just before the photograph is taken will be different light.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Again, you haven't answered the question I asked: If something is at the same place at two consecutive times, is it moving during that time period, or is it stationary? Which is it? Moving or stationary?
|
If I am driving my car to my son's house, it cannot be parked in front of my house and at my son's house at the same time. It is moving during that time period. |
What? I asked you about light at the same place at different times, and you answer by speaking of something not being at different places at the same time? I'll ask you again:-
If something is at the same place at two consecutive times, is it moving during that time period, or is it stationary?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I am not challenging the assumption that remains in the same place over two consecutive moments in time hasn't moved, but photons are constantly in motion, so the photon that was present a second ago isn't the same photon the same photon that is present when the photograph is taken.
|
If the light which was at the camera just before the photograph is taken was different light from that present at the camera at the next moment when the photograph is taken, then you have yet to tell me where this latter light was at the former time. It can't have been at the camera.
So where was it? |
Bump. |
I answered this to the best of my ability, and it doesn't change a darn thing. Will you try to understand the efferent version, because your logic is going to conclude that efferent vision is wrong every single time? The very first thing you need to understand is that photons, although they are being replaced every second, cannot exist independently without the object. Try to grasp that one thought before telling me it's wrong, and maybe I can break through this thick wall of confusion.