A Revolution in Thought: Part Two - Page 208

LadyShea · #**5176** 01-18-2012, 06:59 PM

Here you go, where you said we would not have to wait the arrival of light

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Would we be able to take a photograph of the sun 1) at the same time we see the sun, or 2) when we can see each other 8.5 minutes later when the photons arrive?

There are only two possible answers. Pick 1 or 2

Are there words in the question you don't understand? Why are you not answering the question being asked?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The answer is one.[We would be able to take a photograph of the Sun at the same time we see the Sun, not 8.5 minutes later.]

ThreeLawsSafe · #**5177** 01-18-2012, 07:03 PM

Peacegirl-

I'm trying my best to understand this thread and where you're coming from, but I admit I'm having a lot of difficulties.

Sometimes when people are butting heads over scientific ideas like this, I find it helpful for parties to identify not only their hypothesis, but the null-hypothesis as well. Specifically, I mean, what kind of evidence would dissuade you of your theory? It's generally agreed-upon that real scientific hypotheses have to be falsifiable. Would it be possible for you to be explicit about the kind of evidence that, if it existed, would falsify the position you're advancing about light?

peacegirl · #**5178** 01-18-2012, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Here you go, where you said we would not have to wait the arrival of light

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Would we be able to take a photograph of the sun 1) at the same time we see the sun, or 2) when we can see each other 8.5 minutes later when the photons arrive?

There are only two possible answers. Pick 1 or 2

Are there words in the question you don't understand? Why are you not answering the question being asked?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The answer is one.[We would be able to take a photograph of the Sun at the same time we see the Sun, not 8.5 minutes later.]

This is not a contradiction LadyShea. One is based on the speed of light which is finite, and the other is based on efferent vision which gives us a mirror image of reality in real time.

thedoc · #**5179** 01-18-2012, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have given everyone the utmost respect in spite of the disgusting treatment I've received.

So I must assume that when someone states that they have read the book and understand what they have read, you are respectfully calling them a lier.

LadyShea · #**5180** 01-18-2012, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You fail to understand that the light that strikes the retina is the same exact light that strikes the film.

You fail to explain how light at the newly ignited sun is also, simultaneously, striking the film/retina here on Earth.

I never said that LadyShea.

Flip flop!

I asked you point blank that if the sun was newly ignited at noon, and we could see it at noon with our efferent vision, could we also take a picture of it at noon using a film camera, or would we have to await the lights' arrival to Earth at 12:083 to take a photograph

You said, multiple times, that at noon, the same time we could see it, we could also photograph it even though the light from the sun has not yet reached Earth to interact with the film.

I have been asking you for over a week now how that works since in order to take a photograph, actual light must actually strike film

Um, you are saying contradictory things between the post above and the posts below.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Here you go, where you said we would not have to wait the arrival of light

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Would we be able to take a photograph of the sun 1) at the same time we see the sun, or 2) when we can see each other 8.5 minutes later when the photons arrive?

There are only two possible answers. Pick 1 or 2

Are there words in the question you don't understand? Why are you not answering the question being asked?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The answer is one.[We would be able to take a photograph of the Sun at the same time we see the Sun, not 8.5 minutes later.]

This is not a contradiction LadyShea.

So how does the physical light strike the physical film in your "mirror image" as is required to take a photograph?

peacegirl · #**5181** 01-18-2012, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Peacegirl-

I'm trying my best to understand this thread and where you're coming from, but I admit I'm having a lot of difficulties.

Sometimes when people are butting heads over scientific ideas like this, I find it helpful for parties to identify not only their hypothesis, but the null-hypothesis as well. Specifically, I mean, what kind of evidence would dissuade you of your theory? It's generally agreed-upon that real scientific hypotheses have to be falsifiable. Would it be possible for you to be explicit about the kind of evidence that, if it existed, would falsify the position you're advancing about light?

It's very easy. What would falsify this is if there was ever a time that light provided the image of an object without the object being in one's field of view. You have to remember what afferent vision states: We see delayed images because the images are embedded in the light which strikes the retina and is then decoded in the brain. This also means that there is no need for the object to be present. If a picture of an object could be taken without the object present, only the light that the object is reflecting, this would falsify efferent vision.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality p. 119

Once again certain facts have been confused and all the reasoning
except for light traveling at a high rate of speed are completely
fallacious. Scientists made the assumption that since the eyes are a
sense organ it followed that light must reflect an electric image of
everything it touches which then travels through space and is received
by the brain through the eyes. What they tried to make us believe is
that if it takes 8 minutes for the light from the sun to reach us it
would take hundreds of years for the reflection of Columbus to reach
Rigel, even with a powerful telescope. But why would they need a
telescope? Let me show you how confused these scientists are.

They reasoned that since it takes longer for the sound from an
airplane to reach us when 15,000 feet away than when 5000; and
since it takes longer for light to reach us the farther it is away when
starting its journey, light and sound must function alike in other
respects — which is false — although it is true that the farther away
we are from the source of sound the fainter it becomes, as light
becomes dimmer when its source is farther away. If the sound from
a plane even though we can’t see it on a clear day will tell us it is in
the sky, why can’t we see the plane if an image is being reflected
towards the eye on the waves of light? The answer is very simple. An
image is not being reflected. We cannot see the plane simply because
the distance reduced its size to where it was impossible to see it with
the naked eye, but we could see it with a telescope. We can’t see
bacteria either with the naked eye, but we can through a microscope.

The actual reason we are able to see the moon is because there is
enough light present and it is large enough to be seen. The
explanation as to why the sun looks to be the size of the moon —
although much larger — is because it is much much farther away,
which is the reason it would look like a star to someone living on a
planet the distance of Rigel. This proves conclusively that the
distance between someone looking, and the object seen, has no
relation to time because the images are not traveling toward the optic
nerve on waves of light, therefore it takes no time to see the moon,
the sun, and the distant stars.

LadyShea · #**5182** 01-18-2012, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What would falsify this is if there was ever a time that light provided the image of an object without the object being in one's field of view.

Hubble deep field images. You refuse to accept this evidence, however, with made up excuses.

Dragar · #**5183** 01-18-2012, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What would falsify this is if there was ever a time that light provided the image of an object without the object being in one's field of view.

Hubble deep field images. You refuse to accept this evidence, however, with made up excuses.

To be clear, these galaxies are so far away that they now look completely different - for all intents, entirely different objects. The originals no longer exist. We see them only due to the light taking so long to arrive.

Spacemonkey · #**5184** 01-18-2012, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not sure what you're talking about. Light is light. You are somehow believing that the light at the film instantly is different from the (N) light that is bouncing off the ball. What you are failing to understand is that it's the same light. Are you talking about overexposure?

No, I am not talking about overexposure. And on your model, the light instantly at the film is not and cannot be the same as the light bouncing off the object. The problem isn't just that they are not numerically the same ('same' in the sense that Obama and the current president are the 'same' person). They cannot be qualitatively the same either ('same' in the sense that we might both own the 'same' car by driving two separate cars of the same make, year, and model, etc.)

Saying that "light is light" is inaccurate. Given collections of light may differ in terms of the distribution of wavelengths of light it contains. Sunlight is different from blue light, even when the same amount of photons are present in each. And you've said that the light instantly at the film will be blue. It has to be because this is what will interact with the film to cause a blue photograph. It can't still be full spectrum sunlight instantly at the film because (i) then the photograph would be white instead of blue, and (ii) you've said that only the blue part of the sunlight hitting the ball gets (P)reflected instantly to the film. The rest gets absorbed (or at least (P)absorbed despite still bouncing off and being (N)reflected).

So the light instantly at the film is not full spectrum sunlight, yet you've insisted that what bounces off the object always will be full spectrum sunlight. So the light which is instantly there at the film is not the same as the (N)reflected sunlight which gets there later after travelling there. They are not the same. So I return you to the original question:

You haven't understood the question. Think of it in terms of one single point on the film, receiving light from one particular direction, and representing one particular point on the resulting photograph of the blue ball. At first there is no light there at all, as the Sun has not yet been ignited. Later, once the Sun has been ignited, and sunlight has just reached the surface of the blue ball, there will be instantaneous blue photons in existence at our particular point on the film. A photograph taken then will show that point to be blue, because only blue photons are at that point to interact with the film.

Later than this, after the (N)reflected sunlight has bounced off the ball, and some of it (bouncing off in the direction of the camera, and coming from the point on the ball corresponding to our designated point on the film) has had time to travel to and arrive at the camera, there is now more than just the instantaneous blue photons at our point on the film. There is white light there as well - photons of all wavelengths hitting that same point on the film. So which photons will interact with the film at that specific point? What color will result at this particular point on the resulting photograph?

Bump.

Spacemonkey · #**5185** 01-18-2012, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Well, there's a surprise. Peacegirl hasn't made the slightest effort to resolve her contradictory comments on stationary light, or answer a single one of my questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is true, but photons are not parked. They don't stay stationary from 12:00 p.m. to 12:01 p.m. What are you getting at Spacemonkey? I don't like the way you're interrogating me. I can sense your derision, and I'm not going to put up with it.

I'm "getting at" the fact that you need to reanswer the questions you just snipped out of that post for which you previously have posited parked photons. Here they are yet again:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is travelling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Does it bounce off the surface to travel away from it? [Y/N?]

Is it absorbed by the blue object? [Y/N?]

Does it cease to exist? [Y/N?]

Does it stay there, at the surface of the blue object? [Y/N?]

Does it teleport itself instantly to any nearby films or retinas? [Y/N?]

If none of the above, then what? [Insert answer here]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

1. Did the specific photons (at the camera when the photograph is taken) exist immediately before the photograph was taken? [Yes or No]

2. If so, then according to efferent vision where were those specific photons at the moment in time immediately preceding the taking of the photograph? [State a location]

3. If something is at the same place at two consecutive times, is it moving during that time period, or is it stationary?

Bump.

Spacemonkey · #**5186** 01-18-2012, 07:38 PM

Peacegirl, why are you ignoring all of my posts and questions?

Does it not concern you that your model still posits stationary light?

LadyShea · #**5187** 01-18-2012, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What would falsify this is if there was ever a time that light provided the image of an object without the object being in one's field of view.

Hubble deep field images. You refuse to accept this evidence, however, with made up excuses.

To be clear, these galaxies are so far away that they now look completely different - for all intents, entirely different objects. The originals no longer exist. We see them only due to the light taking so long to arrive.

Since some of them were seen to be colliding, chances are some of the individual galaxies from this image don't even exist at all, anymore.

peacegirl · #**5188** 01-18-2012, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You fail to understand that the light that strikes the retina is the same exact light that strikes the film.

You fail to explain how light at the newly ignited sun is also, simultaneously, striking the film/retina here on Earth.

I never said that LadyShea.

Flip flop!

I asked you point blank that if the sun was newly ignited at noon, and we could see it at noon with our efferent vision, could we also take a picture of it at noon using a film camera, or would we have to await the lights' arrival to Earth at 12:083 to take a photograph

You said, multiple times, that at noon, the same time we could see it, we could also photograph it even though the light from the sun has not yet reached Earth to interact with the film.

I have been asking you for over a week now how that works since in order to take a photograph, actual light must actually strike film

A camera works on the same principle as the eyes do, even if the camera doesn't have a brain. The subject must be in view, so when the lens is focused on that subject, the photons being reflected provide a mirror image on the film, but it's the entire view (or screen) that intersects with the film, not just the subject.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Um, you are saying contradictory things between the post above and the posts below.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Here you go, where you said we would not have to wait the arrival of light

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Would we be able to take a photograph of the sun 1) at the same time we see the sun, or 2) when we can see each other 8.5 minutes later when the photons arrive?

There are only two possible answers. Pick 1 or 2

Are there words in the question you don't understand? Why are you not answering the question being asked?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The answer is one.[We would be able to take a photograph of the Sun at the same time we see the Sun, not 8.5 minutes later.]

We can see the Sun before the photons reach us but we would be getting a mirror image of just the Sun since the rest of the photograph would be dark. Once the photons arrive on Earth, we would get an image of the Sun, but we would also be able to see other images in the picture (due to daylight) such as trees, grass, houses, cars, etc, as long as these objects were in the camera's field of view.

Quote:

This is not a contradiction LadyShea. One is based on the speed of light which is finite, and the other is based on efferent vision which gives us a mirror image of reality in real time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So how does the physical light strike the physical film in your "mirror image" as is required to take a photograph?

The same way it would strike the retina in the efferent model, which means that the photons are intersecting at the film the instant a photograph is taken. We're talking about the entire field of view becoming the mirror image on the film which provide the intersection where the photons and film meet, not just one object within that field of view. I'm trying to help you imagine how this is plausible.

http://leitner.broadneck.org/TEXT/Ph...ook/chap17.pdf

LadyShea · #**5189** 01-18-2012, 07:56 PM

Quote:

The same way it would strike the retina in the efferent model, which means that the photons are intersecting at the film the instant the lens are focused on a particular view. We're talking about the entire field of view flip flopping onto the film which gives us the intersection where the photons and film meet, not just one object within that view which would involve travel time.

Which means somehow the photons are in two places at once, at the sun and at the film 93 million miles away, but you don't really have a plausible explanation of any actual physical mechanism that could possible allow for this without changing all of physics. It's mirror images flip flopping views and miracles and stuff.

Spacemonkey · #**5190** 01-18-2012, 07:58 PM

Why can't you answer simple questions about the behaviour of light within your 'model'?

Why do you contradict yourself and then ignore the problem?

LadyShea · #**5191** 01-18-2012, 07:59 PM

You talk about mirror images. But what do they consist of? Where, as in a physical location in space, do they exist? Is the mirror image 3 dimensional?

peacegirl · #**5192** 01-18-2012, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What would falsify this is if there was ever a time that light provided the image of an object without the object being in one's field of view.

Hubble deep field images. You refuse to accept this evidence, however, with made up excuses.

I'm not doing anything of the sort. I'm just trying to show you that light does not carry (or become) the wavelength of an object if Lessans is right about how we see. As the light travels it remains the full spectrum unless we're seeing something that's happening now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

To be clear, these galaxies are so far away that they now look completely different - for all intents, entirely different objects. The originals no longer exist. We see them only due to the light taking so long to arrive.

That's what I am having a problem with. Once again, you are taking the stand that objects (do you consider a galaxy an object in the sense of having absorptive properties?) reflect light and in that light (or wavelength) is an exact replica of the original object. How can this be if efferent vision is true? Of course, this goes back to establishing whether our brains interpret images from light, or whether we see reality due to light.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Since some of them were seen to be colliding, chances are some of the individual galaxies from this image don't even exist at all, anymore.

But you're still taking the stand that what we see comes from light alone. I'm not talking right now about pixels that allow us to see images on a computer, or the fact that certain types of matter cause the full spectrum of light to be broken up so we see a rainbow or a sunset.

LadyShea · #**5193** 01-18-2012, 08:23 PM

Quote:

I'm just trying to show you that light does not carry (or become) the wavelength of an object .

Why are you trying to show us that when we've told you about a 100 times that nobody thinks light carries or becomes the wavelength of objects?

Why are you trying to show us something we already think is true?

Quote:

Once again, you are taking the stand that objects reflect light

I am taking the stand that light can be reflected when it encounters matter. yes

Quote:

and in that light (or wavelength) is an exact replica of the original object.

No, there is no "exact replica" of anything in the light.

I and others have stated this many times...Light does not carry an image of any object. Light does not carry any replica of any object. Light does not carry away the wavelength of any object.

Quote:

(do you consider a galaxy an object in the sense of having absorptive properties?)

So are you defining "object" as something with absorptive properties? Why?

Spacemonkey · #**5194** 01-18-2012, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Hubble deep field images. You refuse to accept this evidence, however, with made up excuses.

I'm not doing anything of the sort.

Yes, you are. You're doing exactly that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm just trying to show you that light does not carry (or become) the wavelength of an object if Lessans is right about how we see.

That's not what afferent vision claims happens either.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As the light travels it remains the full spectrum unless we're seeing something that's happening now.

Then objects have no light-absorptive properties. Is the (P)reflected light of which the mirror image at the film/retina consists also full spectrum light?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Once again, you are taking the stand that objects (do you consider a galaxy an object in the sense of having absorptive properties?) reflect light and in that light (or wavelength) is an exact replica of the original object.

No-one says that either. Would it kill you to learn how the afferent model actually works?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can this be if efferent vision is true?

It isn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course, this goes back to establishing whether our brains interpret images from light, or whether we see reality due to light.

No-one says that light contains or carries images.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you're still taking the stand that what we see comes from light alone.

That's not a stand. It's a fact, as demonstrated by the Hubble pictures.

Why are you ignoring all of my posts and questions?

The Lone Ranger · #**5195** 01-18-2012, 08:34 PM

She claims that her notions are falsifiable, but they aren't because she pointedly ignores the mountains of evidence which do so. For instance, she ignores the fact that we can see and photograph the moons of Jupiter (and Mars, and Saturn, etc.) for several minutes after they have moved behind the planet and are no longer in our line of sight. It's not like this is speculative; on-site probes confirm that where we see the moons is not where they actually are at the time we observe them.

This has been pointed out to her many, many times.

Similarly, by comparing when we detect the neutrinos from a supernova explosion to when we detect the light, it's trivially simple to show that there's a delay of hundreds to thousands of years (usually tens of thousands of years, actually) between when the supernova occurs and when we actually see it.

Again, this has been pointed out to her many, many times.

So she may claim that her beliefs are falsifiable, but that's not really true. Not as far as she is concerned.

LadyShea · #**5196** 01-18-2012, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What would falsify this is if there was ever a time that light provided the image of an object without the object being in one's field of view.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As the light travels it remains the full spectrum unless we're seeing something that's happening now.

Then why aren't these photographs of full spectrum (aka white) light?

peacegirl · #**5197** 01-18-2012, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You talk about mirror images. But what do they consist of? Where, as in a physical location in space, do they exist? Is the mirror image 3 dimensional?

This is not a hologram. Being able to see 3-D involves the visual cortex which I've said all along.

It is the two visual fields (one from each eye) that, when combined in the visual cortex of the brain, produce our sense of depth and speed.

There are two different types of cues the brain uses to asses the depth of a scene. Mono occular cues and binocular cues. Depth information can be produced by the brain using mono ocular cues acquired by just one eye. So it is possible that with one eye we will get a 3D feeling, which is not complete. You can experience this effect if you watch a movie (2D) with one eye closed.
The small difference in images acquired by both eyes, called the binocular disparity, belongs to the class of binocular cues, and this is the mostly used cue by the brain to produce a 3D effect.

Read more: Can a person with one eye see 3D

LadyShea · #**5198** 01-18-2012, 08:42 PM

Quote:

This is not a hologram. Being able to see 3-D involves the visual cortex which I've said all along.

I am trying to understand what exactly it is and where exactly this "mirror image" you are talking about exists in reality that it can be physically interacted in the same manner that two people shaking hands is physical interaction.

I am not talking about seeing 3d, I am talking about photons that are at the sun striking camera film that is on Earth without one or the other traveling, teleporting, or coming into a duplicate physical existence..

thedoc · #**5199** 01-18-2012, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The object being in visual range only means that it is present in the here and now. It exists. It is within our visual space (even if it's behind us or around the bend or below the horizon). It can be seen due to its (P) reflection. In other words, it's within our field of view even though a mirror, or water, or some other surface is allowing us to see it through its reflective properties.

post #5126 pg. 206

Peacegirl has claimed that everything in our 'field of view' or 'visual range' can be seen according to efferent vision. I would like to see her confirm that if something is 'around the bend' or 'below the horizon' that according to efferent vision we can still see it.

Dragar · #**5200** 01-18-2012, 08:55 PM

peacegirl, you could also tell us all if you really think NASA are stupidly using the wrong model of vision when they work out how to send their rockets to other planets.

Or do you accept that if we used Lessans approach, we'd get the wrong trajectory for our rockets to distant planets?