If Peacegirl was serious about developing a consistent and coherent model she would have made some attempt to reply to these two posts. Instead she just completely ignored them. She has no idea how her own model is meant to work, and she has no interest in working it out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Your present answers to my questions do posit stationary light. You told me you understood that this is the case, and yet chose not to change those answers. At the moment you have light hitting the ball and staying there stationary at the ball's surface, and you have light at the film which has been sitting there stationary at the surface of the film.
If you don't want to be positing stationary light then you need you give different answers to my questions.
There are two ways you might avoid the prediction problem, but you haven't chosen either with your above response which just flatly denies the problem. One solution is to have the same photons floating there stationary at the film the whole time, but constantly changing their wavelengths to match the real-time qualities of the object. The other is to have the light previously at the film be a different set of photons from those there now such that the photons at the film are constantly being refreshed and replaced by new photons.
Which of these two options are you choosing? (The second option avoids stationary light, but requires different answers to my questions from what you've previously given.)
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Thank you. With this response it at least looks like you've now read what you are replying to. But you appear to be applying the analogy to the wrong place. I'm not suggesting that the sunlight hitting the object is constantly refreshing like the river (although we can both agree this is happening). I'm talking about the (P)reflected light forming the image at the film constantly refreshing itself. Do you agree or disagree with this?
And as per my previous post, there are two ways this light at the film might be constantly refreshing itself. The same light might be sitting there stationary at the film and constantly changing wavelengths to match the object. Or the light itself might be constantly being replaced such that the light at the film is always different light to what was there just before. This latter case is what I was suggesting with the analogy. Which option do you prefer?
|