Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I'm not going to talk about where photons are before the picture. They are obviously at the film or retina.
|
No, that's not obvious at all. And if true it would mean you have stationary photons again. If you have the same photons at the same place (at the film/retina) at two consecutive times (when the photograph is taken, and just immediately before that) then that means they have been stationary rather than moving. What part of this do you not follow? |
No, this is not about stationary photons. It is about seeing the object by what light reveals, not by what light brings. Photons are always moving but if we're looking at the object that has absorbed certain wavelengths, we will always get the same mirror image. Once the (P) reflection is so far away from the object that it can no longer be seen, we will then get white light on our retina, or film. |
If you don't want there to be stationary photons then you'll have to stop giving me answers that posit stationary photons. I asked you a legitimate question about your model - a question not coming from the afferent model and not based upon any afferent assumptions - and you repeated an answer (in bold above) which requires photons at the camera to be stationary. Given that you reject stationary photons, that means you have yet to give a non-contradictory answer to the question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
The evidence isn't circumstantial. It will always be possible - for any evidence whatsoever, no matter how conclusive - that there might be some "mysterious unknown factors" that if known would solve the problem for you. By resorting to this you are rendering your position completely invulnerable to any and all evidence. You are making it a faith-position.
|
It is circumstantial to the extent that there is no absolute proof when you're talking about inferences that cannot be formally tested. I have seen television shows where I was positive that the prosecutor had it right. It was a slam dunk because it appeared beyond a reasonable doubt. His explanation for what occurred seemed to resist any argument to the contrary until the defense lawyer contested his "airtight" conclusions. It turned out that there was an alternative explanation for every single point that the prosecutor made. Don't you see the comparison? |
You're missing the point. There is no such thing as evidence for which it is impossible to simply reject by saying "Hey, maybe there are some mysterious unknown factors which explain what's happening here". The evidence you are rejecting and ignoring is as strong as evidence ever gets. By rejecting it you are adopting a faith-based position immune to any and all evidence. If you think other-wise, then explain to me exactly how you could expect to be able to tell the difference between inconclusive evidence for which unknown factors are a legitimate possibility and conclusive evidence for which it would be irrational to posit them.
And I think it's about time you answered my questions. Don't you? |
How can there be stationary photons when white light is constantly in motion Spacemonkey? You're getting confused because you think that because light travels, the light that is coming from the object is traveling in the same way. I already told you that (P) reflective light diminishes according as the light from the object gets more and more distant from the object. Do you understand what I'm saying? |
I quoted you telling me there are stationary photons. It's in bold above. I explained to you why this answer posits stationary photons. I know you think there cannot be any stationary photons.
That's why the answer you gave must be wrong. That's why I need you to re-answer the questions!