A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't you see that there is no traveling blue photon. Blue is what is seen. That's where you're confused.

Don't you see how confused your are, Spacemonkey?

My goodness gracious Spacemonkey, you are really grasping at straws now.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't you see that there is no traveling blue photon? Blue is what is seen; the blue wavelength does not travel to our eyes. This is where you're confused. We see blue as long as the object is present and is absorbing all the other colors, but if the object disappears, only light energy from the Sun remains. That means that the only wavelength is neutral, not blue.

You realise you've just completely rewritten electromagnetism (amongst other things) right? Are you okay with that? I thought you didn't want to contradict physics.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What you were trying to say was that while the photons at the object do not interact with the retina/film, an image consisting of duplicate photons instantaneously coming-into-existence at the retina/film does interact with it. But if the original non-duplicate photons at the object still travel, then what happens when they turn up at the film/retina? How will the film/retina know not to interact with them?

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't you see that there is no traveling blue photon? Blue is what is seen; the blue wavelength does not bounce off of the object and travel to our eyes. This is where you're confused. We see blue as long as the object is present and is absorbing all the other colors, but if the object disappears, only light energy from the Sun remains. That means that the only wavelength is neutral, not blue.

This is precisely what I've been asking you about with the ignited yellow/green Sun example, and which you've been refusing to answer. So don't blame me for not yet knowing what you mean!

So when sunlight strikes an object, and all but the blue light is absorbed, what happens to the remaining blue light? If it doesn't bounce off the object and travel away from it, what does happen to it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

You realise you've just completely rewritten electromagnetism (amongst other things) right? Are you okay with that? I thought you didn't want to contradict physics.

I really don't.

Electromagnetism is the production of magnetism from electricity ( as the name suggests!! )
A normal magnet has it’s strength determined by it’s size and the material it is made of.

The solenoid has it’s strength determined by the current voltage flowing through it and the amount of turns it has.

But the electromagnet has it’s strength and field determined by the current, the amount of turns and the core shape and substance.

http://atschool.eduweb.co.uk/heathsid/emi.html

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

This is precisely what I've been asking you about with the ignited yellow/green Sun example, and which you've been refusing to answer. So don't blame me for not yet knowing what you mean!

So when sunlight strikes an object, and all but the blue light is absorbed, what happens to the remaining blue light? If it doesn't bounce off the object and travel away from it, what does happen to it?

Nothing happens to it. The constant emission of photons from the Sun continues nonstop. Only when we look at the object will we see the color blue or if we take a picture of the object will the color blue show up. The light itself does not bounce off of the object and travel with the blue wavelength.

[Spacemonkey]

You are plagiarizing again. You need to give your source when quoting words which are not your own.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I really don't.

You realise that what you quoted is not only utterly irrelevent, it's far from the complete description of electromagnetism?

You realise that 'neutral' wavelength is nonsense when it comes to describing light? You realise that light is a combination of electric and magnetic fields, and that by changing the rules for light like this, you're wrecking electromagnetism?

No doubt there is a magical explanation you can't tell me for why our theory of electromagnetism works, too.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nothing happens to it. The constant emission of photons from the Sun continue nonstop. Only when we look at the object will we see the color blue or if we take a picture of the object will the color blue show up. The light itself does not bounce off of the object and travel with the blue wavelength.

What do you mean nothing happens to it? If it isn't absorbed, doesn't travel away from the object, doesn't stay there, and doesn't cease to exist, then what happens to it? Where is that non-absorbed blue light one second after it is not absorbed?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

First off, that's not what I was trying to say. There are no duplicate photons; just a mirror image using the same photons because of the intersection where the film and photons meet.

Bump.

That's just the point, the original photons do not travel to the film/retina. They are there instantly at the film/retina, which is exactly why we are able to use this mirror image that is interacting with the film/retina to see the present or to take a photograph in real time.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course not, but efferent vision doesn't change the known properties of light, and it doesn't negate the known physical laws that require the film to come in contact with light photons to chemically react and form an image.

Then tell me how camera film, on Earth, can come into physical contact with light photons from the newly ignited sun that have not yet reached Earth.

There is a physical distance of millions of miles.
The sun was just turned on at noon. It is noon and 30 seconds right now.
There are no photons here on Earth yet to contact the film.

You've stated we could photograph the Sun at this point
I am saying that is not possible because the properties of light and film would not allow a photograph to be taken because the chemical reaction cannot take place without contact.
You state we do not need to change any physical properties of light or film or the requirements for their interaction.

Now, tell me. How can the photons and film come into physical contact?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

First off, that's not what I was trying to say. There are no duplicate photons; just a mirror image using the same photons because of the intersection where the film and photons meet.

Where is the mirror image which interacts with the film? Is it at the film/retina?

What does it consist of? Photons, or something else?

If photons, then where are the photons of which it consists?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's just the point, the original photons do not travel to the film/retina. They are there instantly at the film/retina, which is exactly why we are able to use this mirror image that is interacting with the film/retina to see the present or to take a photograph in real time.

Then they are teleporting!

The photons at the object are no longer creating instantaneous duplicates of themselves at the distant film/retina. Rather they are ceasing to exist when they leave the surface of the object and are instantly re-appearing at the film/retina.

This has two absurd consequences: Firstly, it means reflected light is never in motion. It exists either at the object or at the film/retina, but is never actually in motion between those points. And secondly, this amounts to light effectively being instantaneous, thereby getting from one place to another (albeit via teleportation rather than travelling there) faster than the speed of light!

If this is incorrect, then please tell me what happens to the photons which are either emitted or not-absorbed by the light source/object. If they don't cease to exist there by teleporting to any nearby film/retina, then do they travel away from that light source/object? If they do neither then what do they do?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I really don't.

Electromagnetism is the production of magnetism from electricity ( as the name suggests!! )
A normal magnet has it’s strength determined by it’s size and the material it is made of.

The solenoid has it’s strength determined by the current voltage flowing through it and the amount of turns it has.

But the electromagnet has it’s strength and field determined by the current, the amount of turns and the core shape and substance.

Of course you don't realize it, because you are hopelessly stupid and corrupt.

BTW, Googling electromagnetism and copy/pasting a definition from some Web site only tell us that you know nothing about electromagnetism, since if you did you would be able to explain it in your own words. Of course, had you understand electrogmagnetism (or any other science) you would already know why the dunce Lessans was wrong about everything he said.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Dragar

No doubt there is a magical explanation you can't tell me for why our theory of electromagnetism works, too.

Sure, she can! Just like her explanation for why we see the moons of Jupiter in delayed time even though Lessans said we see in real time:

"It's a coincidence!"

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A mirror image is instantaneous because the image that shows up on the water is the opposite side of the same thing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, we don't see both sides of an object if one side of that object is out of view. A mirror image is just that. It is an exact copy of what we see. So if we see the front side of a mountain; that's what will show up on the water because it's the same exact image.

If what we see in the water is "the opposite side of the same thing" then we should be seeing the back side of the mountain. The opposite side of the mountain is the other side of the mountain. If both images are images of the same face of the mountain then we are not seeing the opposite side, we are seeing a reflected image of the same side.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light itself does not bounce off of the object and travel with the blue wavelength.

Light does bounce off objects. This is what the word 'reflect' means. You can easily test this yourself. Set up a mirror, or any other highly reflective object, at an angle to a blank wall. Hold a flashlight at the corresponding angle to the mirror and turn it on. You will see that light reflected off the mirror and onto the blank wall. You will, in short, see light bouncing off of an object and traveling outward toward another object. It is very like making a bank shot in billiards. You are familiar with bank shots, aren't you?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How do light and film need physical proximity when they are one and the same thing?

Light and film are the same thing? Really? Is this truly what you mean to say?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What term do you think would be fair for us to use then?

How about "alleged discovery" or maybe "pseudo-discovery"?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Light and film are the same thing? Really? Is this truly what you mean to say?

Ah, beautiful! Another crazy quote to add to the list.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are plagiarizing again. You need to give your source when quoting words which are not your own.

Fixed it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then tell me how camera film, on Earth, can come into physical contact with light photons from the newly ignited sun that have not yet reached Earth.

There is a physical distance of millions of miles.
The sun was just turned on at noon. It is noon and 30 seconds right now.
There are no photons here on Earth yet to contact the film.

You've stated we could photograph the Sun at this point
I am saying that is not possible because the properties of light and film would not allow a photograph to be taken because the chemical reaction cannot take place without contact.
You state we do not need to change any physical properties of light or film or the requirements for their interaction.

Now, tell me. How can the photons and film come into physical contact?

When the brain is looking, through the eyes, at the external world (which is everything that is in your visual range, not just one object), a mirror image of your entire field of view (or screen) shows up instantly on the film/retina. This mirror image that shows up at the film/retina is analogous to the water showing the mirror image of the mountain. Your lack of understanding the efferent version of sight is causing you to revert back to the afferent model which requires travel time. That's why what I'm saying still doesn't make sense to you.

http://www.1000pictures.com/view.htm...jpg+x1024+y768

[The Lone Ranger]

So if I turn on a laser and it emits light, then, a second or two later (or a minute or two later, or an hour or two later, it doesn't matter) I turn the laser off, the light that it had emitted while it was on ceases to exist?

Logically, by peacegirl's reasoning, this must be the case.


Careful how you answer; this is an experiment that has been done many, many times.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Any light that was absorbed was converted to some other form of energy. Light is not somehow released in it's original form when the absorbing matter ceases to exist.

For example, green leaves absorb light and convert it to energy the plant uses for metabolic functions. If the plant dies or is destroyed, the light it absorbed over its lifetime is not restored to it's original white sunlight form.

The energy of that light, that has been absorbed, has been used to produce Hydrocarbons that the plant can then use as food. If that plant is burned at some time in the future, some of that energy is released as heat, and some as light from the fire.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When the brain is looking, through the eyes, at the external world (which is everything that is in your visual range, not just one object), a mirror image of your entire field of view (or screen) shows up instantly on the film/retina.

How does the brain look through the eyes, given that the choroid and sclera of the eye are opaque?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Where is the mirror image which interacts with the film? Is it at the film/retina?

Yes.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What does it consist of? Photons, or something else?

Photons. Please don't start asking me which came first, blue or red photons.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If photons, then where are the photons of which it consists?

At the film/retina.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's just the point, the original photons do not travel to the film/retina. They are there instantly at the film/retina, which is exactly why we are able to use this mirror image that is interacting with the film/retina to see the present or to take a photograph in real time.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then they are teleporting!

Mirror images do not teleport.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The photons at the object are no longer creating instantaneous duplicates of themselves at the distant film/retina. Rather they are ceasing to exist when they leave the surface of the object and are instantly re-appearing at the film/retina.

Oh my god, you're starting this again?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

This has two absurd consequences: Firstly, it means reflected light is never in motion. It exists either at the object or at the film/retina, but is never actually in motion between those points.

That's not true. Neutral light from the Sun is constantly in motion. I already said this, but when we're looking through the eyes, at the external world, we get a mirror image due to the eyes being efferent. Until you can envision what I'm saying, you will think it's absurd, but it doesn't make it so.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And secondly, this amounts to light effectively being instantaneous, thereby getting from one place to another (albeit via teleportation rather than travelling there) faster than the speed of light!

Oh really? Is that what's happening when we see mirror images? They are teleporting faster than the speed of light?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If this is incorrect, then please tell me what happens to the photons which are either emitted or not-absorbed by the light source/object. If they don't cease to exist there by teleporting to any nearby film/retina, then do they travel away from that light source/object? If they do neither then what do they do?

They never did exist Spacemonkey. Only the full spectrum of light exists. The only reason we see blue is because the object absorbed the other colors of the visible spectrum, but this has nothing to do with light traveling with the blue wavelength.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

How does the brain look through the eyes, given that the choroid and sclera of the eye are opaque?

I assume that these parts of the eye's anatomy do not interfere with vision because they don't interfere with the lens. That's why people have a hard time seeing if they have cataracts.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So if I turn on a laser and it emits light, then, a second or two later (or a minute or two later, or an hour or two later, it doesn't matter) I turn the laser off, the light that it had emitted while it was on ceases to exist?

Logically, by peacegirl's reasoning, this must be the case.

Not at all.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Careful how you answer; this is an experiment that has been done many, many times.

It's not even related.

[The Lone Ranger]

So, once again, your answer is -- "magic."

I've said it before, but you really missed your calling. You'd have made a wonderful comedian.