A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why didn't you answer any of the above questions? Why reply only to ignore them once more?

You've just contradicted yourself yet again. It's as if you haven't read a single thing I've said to you. If the (P)reflection consists of the photons at the film, and if those same photons were in the exact same position a moment beforehand, then they have been stationary and were not moving.

Your answers to questions (1) and (2) are still positing stationary light. If the photons at the film were in the exact same place a moment ago, then they haven't moved since that previous moment, have they? Question (3) isn't asking you about the (P)reflection. It is a general question, and you haven't actually answered it. And nothing I've asked has anything to do with fading light.

Thank you for making an attempt, but you'll need to try again. Do you understand why your answers are contradictory? Do you understand why your answers posit stationary light? I find it truly bizarre that you keep making the same mistake with the same questions, no matter how many times I explain that mistake.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And how can the (P)reflection possibly be moving? How fast is it moving? Wasn't (P)reflection supposed to be instantaneous? Then how can it ever exist anywhere other than at the film/retina? And if it only ever exists at one place, then how can it move?

You seem very deeply confused about your own model. Here's an analogy for what I think you should be trying to say. Think of the mirror image/(P)reflection at the retina or film as being like a section of a river. That bit of river itself never moves, but always remains where it is, between its banks. But the molecules of water of which it consists are constantly moving, and constantly coming into and then leaving this section of the river. The river section at any given time consists of a different set of water molecules at each consecutive moment in time.

The 'image' at the film could be the same, existing only ever at the film and never moving, but consisting of individual photons which are constantly instantaneously appearing via (P)reflection at the film only to be replaced at the next moment by a new set of photons, always presenting the real-time appearance of the object. The mirror image at the film would then be constantly refreshing itself, just like the section of river.

This avoids stationary photons, for while the mirror image at the film was still at the film a moment ago, it then consisted of an older set of photons rather than the same ones. And the photons now comprising the image were not in that same position a moment ago. They either did not exist back then, or they existed somewhere else.

Is this what you've been trying to describe? Because if so, it would give you a non-contradictory set of answers to my questions. If not, then please explain what you are trying to say.

Bump.

[LadyShea]

Bump

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then start answering specific questions about your thus far imaginary model.

Even if we don't need light to reach Earth to see it, we must have photons touch camera film to be absorbed and create a photographic image.
So, if the Sun was newly turned on at noon, how could we photograph the Sun at noon when the photons from the Sun are not on Earth to be absorbed by camera film?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They should add no ad hominem attacks to their rule book, because it has no place in a serious discussion. It's unfortunate that morality has to be legislated. If anything, you could be called on

Any excessively repetitious content (flooding)

If that particular interpretation of flooding were to be applied it would surely apply to you as well. As it happens you have simply misunderstood what flooding means.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's unfortunate that both type forums have problems that could be corrected. In the moderated forums, the moderators have too much control and can arbitrarily end a thread because they have the power to do so. And in an unmoderated forum (which I like more than moderated), it goes too far the other way by allowing someone to spew lies about someone and get away with it. This type of bullying should be forbidden and added to the rules of proper behavior, because it interferes with free thought, which is the purpose of this forum.

Basically, what you want is a place where you have the freedom to write whatever you want but others are prevented from writting things that you don't want to hear. The only way you are ever going to get that is to start your own forum or blog.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I DID NOT WRITE THIS BOOK.

Except, of course, the substantial portions that you did write.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It was not a defense; it was an analogy that I think had some validity.

1. There is no evidence that anyone here is sincerely interested in Lessan's alleged discovery.
2. There is no evidence that anyone here really cares whether you go or stay.
3. Much of what n.a. posts does not sit well with a lot of the people who post here. This has nothing to do with you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So what are you saying Angakuk? Give me it straight.

That was as straight as it gets.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, I am diagnosing him because I know my motives, and he is totally wrong. I have the right to defend myself Angakuk.

It is about me even if it's indirect. I am being ostracized because of a bully??? Yes, this is a form of ostrification. This needs to be corrected by the administration because the purpose of this forum is to be entitled to express oneself, not to have hecklers that have no other intention than to sabotage what is being said because they don't like it.

I am not going offer an opinion on your mental health or suggest that you should see mental health practitioner. I am, however, going to suggest that you enroll in a reading class and buff up your comprehension skills.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Um yes. You keep calling me this, but you haven't answered any of my refutations, so the one being willfully ignorant is a matter of opinion.

If TLR has failed to answer any of your refutations, it is because there haven't been any to answer. You have not successfully refuted a single argument since your first post here. So I guess it is still you who is being willfully ignorant.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not say that light does not behave the same way, but part of that way is when an object reflects certain wavelengths. It is these wavelengths that have a limited lifespan, not the full visible spectrum.

You do, of course, have empirical evidence to support this claim regarding this previously unknown property of reflected light. Surely you would not make such a claim without having evidence to support it. Why that would be both dishonest and unscientific.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not changing the observed properties of light. The only difference is when an object absorbs certain wavelengths, the non-absorbed wavelengths allow the object to be seen or photographed instantly because they allow a mirror image to be instantly at the film or retina. Through the non-absorbed light, the external world reveals itself. I don't know why this concept is so difficult to grasp.

Grasping it is not the problem for most of us. Accepting it as true is a problem because it is false. You are the only one who cannot grasp that we can understand what you are saying and still disagree, primarily because what you say is nonsense. Many here are just trying to pin you down and post some physical mechanism that could explain how the photons can be at an object and then instantly be at the film or retina, whether they are the same photons, or different ones, or mirror image ones, how do they get there? Give us some mechanism for this to happen, Is it something like 'quantum entanglement'? That would at least be plausable.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Of course I can. We all do. But you have a self-defence mechanism that makes you interpret any mention of mental illness as a joke, ridicule, or personal attack. You don't seem capable of processing the fact that many people are genuinely concerned about your mental health.

And from your previous comment, I think your mental status has taken a turn for the worse.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not misinterpreting anything. I hope you're joking. I'm sure ThreeLawsSafe would have a different opinion, and I'm sorry to say that I value his professional opinion over yours.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

TLS has not been offering his professional opinion on your mental state. His whole point has been that this cannot be done over the internet. So to receive his "valued opinion" you would first have to visit him (or some other mental health professional). Will you do that?

No, I won't do that.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I note also that you have ignored all of my posts and replies on light and vision once again. Why is that?

Why do you care whether I answer your posts or not if you think I have a mental disorder? In fact, why do you care to have a serious discussion with me at all?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Yes, but you are not Alice.

'In that direction,' the Cat said, waving its right paw round, 'lives a Hatter: and in that direction,' waving the other paw, 'lives a March Hare. Visit either you like: they're both mad.'
'But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
'Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: 'we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad.'
'How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
'You must be,' said the Cat, 'or you wouldn't have come here.'
Alice didn't think that proved it at all; however, she went on 'And how do you know that you're mad?'
'To begin with,' said the Cat, 'a dog's not mad. You grant that?'
'I suppose so,' said Alice.
'Well, then,' the Cat went on, 'you see, a dog growls when it's angry, and wags its tail when it's pleased. Now I growl when I'm pleased, and wag my tail when I'm angry. Therefore I'm mad.'
--Alice's Adventures In The Wonderland, Pig and Pepper, Lewis Carroll.

I think it would be appropriate to add a few words from Humpty Dumpty in here as well.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

(Through the Looking Glass, "Humpty Dumpty" by Lewis Carroll)

[Vivisectus]

The only difference is when an object absorbs certain wavelengths, the non-absorbed wavelengths allow the object to be seen instantly at the film or retina due to the absorptive properties of the object.

You forgot to add... "By means completely unknown, and this contradicts the theory of relativity"

Unless you can tell us how the eye instantly gains the information that some photons have been absorbed 10 lightyears away?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yep, me too. Diversions don't bother me. I have been on the main topic for the better part of a year.

Diversions can be quite diverting.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Grasping it is not the problem for most of us. Accepting it as true is a problem because it is false. You are the only one who cannot grasp that we can understand what you are saying and still disagree, primarily because what you say is nonsense. Many here are just trying to pin you down and post some physical mechanism that could explain how the photons can be at an object and then instantly be at the film or retina, whether they are the same photons, or different ones, or mirror image ones, how do they get there? Give us some mechanism for this to happen, Is it something like 'quantum entanglement'? That would at least be plausable.

If you say it is false, then why are you asking me to explain the plausibility of this model? I have said all along that the mechanism behind this is "efferent vision". The direction we see makes all the difference to what we see.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You forgot to add... "By means completely unknown, and this contradicts the theory of relativity"

Unless you can tell us how the eye instantly gains the information that some photons have been absorbed 10 lightyears away?

Please don't bring this back into the conversation all over again. The proof is here on Earth. Without the object in range, there is no telescope, eye, or camera that could detect this information from light alone.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And from your previous comment, I think your mental status has taken a turn for the worse.

Why do you think that?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I won't do that.

Then you shouldn't have claimed to value TLS' professional opinion when you don't know what it is and have no intention of finding out.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why do you care whether I answer your posts or not if you think I have a mental disorder? In fact, why do you care to have a serious discussion with me at all?

I've already answered that. Have you forgotten already? Why do you refuse to answer legitimate questions which if answered would help you to refine your model and avoid contradicting yourself?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I think it would be appropriate to add a few words from Humpty Dumpty in here as well.

'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

(Through the Looking Glass, "Humpty Dumpty" by Lewis Carroll)

This thread is getting sillier by the second.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you say it is false, then why are you asking me to explain the plausibility of this model? I have said all along that the mechanism behind this is "efferent vision". The direction we see makes all the difference to what we see.

Even if it were plausible that would not make it true without proof. How are there photons at an object and then instantly at the film or retina?

[Spacemonkey]

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

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please don't bring this back into the conversation all over again. The proof is here on Earth. Without the object in range, there is no telescope, eye, or camera that could detect this information from light alone.

And you wonder why we keep posting optics stuff which explains why the range is limited and what that limit is? And yes, telescopes can extend the range quite a bit. At some point, of course, the Earth itself becomes an obstacle.

[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]

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why do you think that?

Because I have done nothing to warrant this kind of comment from you. Just because you don't yet grasp why we get a mirror image on film does not mean I have a mental disorder Spacemonkey. You are acting no different than NA.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I won't do that.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then you shouldn't have claimed to value TLS' professional opinion when you don't know what it is and have no intention of finding out.

He knows that diagnosing people over the internet is dangerous. I know he's right. I don't need to pay someone to tell me I'm perfectly normal.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why do you care whether I answer your posts or not if you think I have a mental disorder? In fact, why do you care to have a serious discussion with me at all?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I've already answered that. Have you forgotten already? Why do you refuse to answer legitimate questions which if answered would help you to refine your model and avoid contradicting yourself?

Don't answer a question with a question? I want an answer. Why would you want to help me work out my model of sight so that it doesn't appear contradictory if you think I'm mentally handicapped and have nothing of value to offer?

[LadyShea]

Who said mentally ill people, or mentally impaired people, have nothing to offer?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please don't bring this back into the conversation all over again. The proof is here on Earth. Without the object in range, there is no telescope, eye, or camera that could detect this information from light alone.

Point one: That does not address the issue I presented, namely that the information appears by means completely unknown and stated to be impossible by the theory of relativity.

Point two: Yes we can. Just not for very long, because light is what scientists call very very fast. It has already been explained to you, speaking slowly and clearly for the hard-of-thinking, that even if an object was 200 miles away, it would take light about a thousandth of second to cross that distance. In fact, a light-second is 186000 miles.

[peacegirl]

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?]

No

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

No

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

No

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

Yes, but that doesn't mean that (N) light is stationary. You can't understand this unless you understand the meaning of efferent vision.

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

No

If none of the above, then what?

Mirror image

[LadyShea]

Light travels one foot per NANOSECOND. That's a billionth of a second, peacegirl. Do you understand just how fast that is?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Yes, but that doesn't mean that (N) light is stationary. You can't understand this unless you understand the meaning of efferent vision.

What happens to it if nobody is looking at it? What happens to it if vision is not a factor in the interaction between the light and the matter? Does it still somehow "stay there"? If yes, HOW?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Point one: That does not address the issue I presented, namely that the information appears by means completely unknown and stated to be impossible by the theory of relativity.

This is not about relativity. This is a separate discovery which has to be proven on its own merits, not using another theory to automatically negate it.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Point two: Yes we can. Just not for very long, because light is what scientists call very very fast. It has already been explained to you, speaking slowly and clearly for the hard-of-thinking, that even if an object was 200 miles away, it would take light about a thousandth of second to cross that distance. In fact, a light-second is 186000 miles.

Man, you have not been following this thread, have you? Why do we get an image of an object that is within our visual range, but don't get an image of an object that's slightly out of visual range but in a straight line? Being that the light has more time to travel, we should be able to get a clear image from the information in the light only. If you can't answer this legitimate question, then none of your explanations about light hold any weight as far as I'm concerned.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, but that doesn't mean that (N) light is stationary. You can't understand this unless you understand the meaning of efferent vision.

Please explain how under efferent vision something can stay in one place without being stationary.

According to my dictionary, that's a straight contradiction.