A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How does light interact with matter when nobody is looking at it?

Peacegirl doesn't know, She's making this all up as she goes along, so it may take awhile. There is no efferent theory of vision, so there can be no explination, except in Peacegirls imagination. However please carry on trying to pin her down to make some specific claim, her attempts are amusing if nothing else. I was trying to pin her down on some points but I believe she really has me on 'fake ignore' now.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

2nd bump.

3rd bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can see the dilemma, and again your logic makes it appear that it's impossible for white light to be able to travel if the object absorbed certain parts of the visible spectrum. But you must bear in mind that there are two things going on. Maybe it's the word "bounce" that is causing the problem. That's why I said light that is passing over the object. In other words, just because light is allowing an object to reflect its nature by its absorption properties, does not mean that as light continues on that it is taking that light with it beyond it's limited parameters which is defined by optics.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If you can see the dilemma then you need to either resolve it or change your claims to remove the contradiction. You cannot continue to claim that full spectrum sunlight is bouncing off the ball when every part of the sunlight hitting the ball is either absorbed or reappearing at distant locations. If that were true then there could not be any sunlight bouncing off the ball. Every bit of the sunlight hitting the ball would either get absorbed or would reappear at distant films and retinas, so there would be nothing left to bounce off the surface of the ball. You can't just ignore or gloss over this problem. You need to change what you are saying so that it will no longer be contradictory.

There is no reappearing of anything. You're losing the entire concept.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

1) Where are the blue-wavelength photons, contained within the sunlight striking the blue ball, at the point in time immediately after they hit the ball?

The blue wavelengths are at the film/retina (that's the only way we can see the object or take a photograph), although they are constantly being replaced. Without the lens focusing on the object, you wouldn't be asking me this question because we wouldn't be seeing the object at all.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Two problems with that answer: If the blue photons in the sunlight hitting the ball are at the very next moment at the distant film/retina, then (i) they cannot still be in the light (if any) bouncing off the ball (as the light bouncing off will be missing the blue photons comprising the blue part of the spectrum); and (ii) they have just teleported - they were at the ball at one moment and then at the distant film/retina at the very next moment, so they got from one place to another instantly without travelling through the intervening space.

Incorrect.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's the photon that comes next in line, but you're never going to get a blue photon before red, if the object changes to red since the distance between the object and lens is negligible, and also because in order for that object to be seen, the lens has to be focused on it, not just the light. That changes everything.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You haven't answered the question (a 'where' question requires a location as an answer):

2) Where were the blue photons, which are at the film interacting with it to produce a photographic image of the blue ball when the photograph is taken, at the point in time immediately before the photograph is taken.

I already said that if the photons are constantly in motion, a new photon is appearing right before the picture is taken, but this doesn't explain the fact that these non-absorbed photons are only seen if the object is present.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It [teleportation] means being at one place and suddenly showing up at another without any travel in between.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Which is exactly what you've just told me happens to the blue wavelength photons hitting the ball. You have them teleporting from the ball to the film/retina. If you think otherwise then you need to explain: (i) What you mean by teleportation as something which never happens on your model; and (ii) How this differs from the behavior of the (P)reflected blue-wavelength photons which is a part of your model. At the moment there is no difference at all.

They are not teleporting because those photons are in constant motion from point A to point B, but when they get too dispersed, we only get white light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No I didn't. You're just not understanding the efferent model which reveals the object even though white light is the default spectrum that travels through space and time if there is nothing in the external world to be revealed.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You can't just accuse me of not understanding you every time you say something blatantly contradictory. Not without actually addressing or explaining your contradictory statements. You said the sunlight striking the ball both ceases to be white light and continues as white light after hitting the ball. These can't both be true.

It's not contradictory at all if you understand the efferent model. White light can continue to travel and be absorbed by different types of substance, without the image of the object traveling. If Lessans is right, the light actually reveals the object due to the object's property of absorption. As the object gets more distant, a smaller amount of the non-blue light will appear on the retina. When it gets too small to be seen, there is no more image, only white light. If the object is no longer present, the the mirror image is no longer present. That doesn't mean that white light doesn't continue to be emitted, which it has always done.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're logic is off so I'm not answering this question because it will it appear to you that this model is implausible, and that's not true.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You don't get to just ignore reasonable questions because you have no plausible answers. Where is my logic 'off'? There are 7 photons hitting the ball. You've said 6 of them are absorbed and used up, and that one of them reappears instantly at (i.e. teleports to) the distant camera film. So how many of those seven photons can still be bouncing off the ball's surface? If your answer is anything other than 'zero', then what part of this logic is incorrect?

Because that's not how it works Spacemonkey. Light is in a continuous STREAM, which means there are no gaps where suddenly a photon appears out of nowhere. But what you're missing is that the non-blue light is at the film instantly, as a mirror image, when the lens is focused on the object (which must be in visual range) even though the blue photons are continually being replaced.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep saying it's teleportation, and you're absolutely wrong.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then how does it differ? You said the blue-wavelength photons hitting the ball will at the very next moment be at the distant camera film. I call that teleportation because that is what it is. That is what you are describing.

That's not what it is at all. You keep using the word "distant" when in according to efferent vision, it doesn't matter how distant an object is as long as it's in range. You are still coming from the afferent point of view whether you see it or not.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not saying that one photon hits the ball and is instantly at the film. Those photons travel, but the lens, having to focus on the object in order to resolve the light, means that the corresponding light (although traveling) becomes an instant snapshot of that object as it is in real time. Remember, if we can see the object that means that the light is already at the film/retina, by definition.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If the blue wavelength photons hitting the ball are at the very next moment travelling away from the ball rather than instantly at the film, then you incorrectly answered Q1 above. In response to that question you did tell me that the blue wavelength photons hitting the ball will be instantly at the film. That is exactly what you said.

Then I didn't explain it right. You are trying to get me to say that the blue photons are traveling, or bouncing off of the object and ending up at a distant object instantly. That would be teleportation, but that's not what is going on. The blue wavelength photons will be instantly at the film because it meets the requirements of efferent vision, which only means that there is enough light present, and the object is large enough to be seen. In other words, this creates the condition which allows the blue wavelength light to be instantly at the film when the lens is focused on the object even though the blue photons are continually being replaced.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well it wasn't clear who said it, and I though you were mimicking me, as you sometimes do.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How can it not be clear who said it? YOU TYPED THOSE WORDS. They were not a part of the post you were replying to. You typed them and then proceeded to argue with yourself.

I did not just type those words and then proceed to argue with myself. You're making me look like a numbskull.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, they are different photons, but when the lens of the camera is present, it is focused on the object which causes the light to be a mirror image. It doesn't matter how far away the object is, if there is enough light present and the object is large enough to be seen by the lens of a camera, telescope, or retina, that light is a reflection of that object as it appears NOW, not IN THE PAST.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Repeating your conclusion of real-time vision does not help resolve the blatant contradictions in your account of how that allegedly happens. What are different photons to what? At the moment you have blue photons in three places (at two different times) - before the sunlight hits the ball you have blue photons in that light heading towards the ball, and after the sunlight hits the ball you have blue photons both at the distant film and within full spectrum sunlight traveling away from the ball. Which of these three sets of photons are the same and which are different?

No Spacemonkey; the blue photons are there only when the lens is focused on the object. They are not hitting the ball and heading anywhere. There is no contradiction. The only problem is that you're not yet understanding how light works according to the efferent version of sight.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If the photons travelling towards the ball are the same as the ones later travelling away within the reflected sunlight, and different from those at the film/retina, then where did the photons at the film/retina come froim and how did they get there?

I have to say this again: There is no way you're going to understand this coming from the afferent position, which is what you're doing.

[LadyShea]

It's not contradictory at all if you understand the efferent model. White light can continue to travel and be absorbed by different types of substance, without the image of the object traveling. If Lessans is right, the light actually reveals the object due to the object's property of absorption. As the object gets more distant, a smaller amount of the non-blue light will appear on the retina. When it gets too small to be seen, there is no more image, only white light. If the object is no longer present, the the mirror image is no longer present. That doesn't mean that white light doesn't continue to be emitted, which it has done all along.

Lessans didn't say anything about any of this. All of this "revealing" and "only white light travels" and "mirror images" is 100% YOU.

You are throwing Lessans under the bus.

[LadyShea]

the blue photons are there only when the lens is focused on the object. They are not hitting the ball and heading anywhere. There is no contradiction. The only problem is that you're not yet understanding how light works according to the efferent version of sight.

How does light interact with matter when nobody is looking at it?

How and why does light behave differently when vision is involved and when vision is not involved?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no reappearing of anything. You're losing the entire concept.

If the white light consists of the blue part (which (P)reflects to the film instantly) and the non-blue part (which gets absorbed by the object), and nothing else, then what part of the sunlight is left to bounce off the object?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Incorrect.

How so? If the blue wavelength photons are hitting the ball at one moment and then at the film at the very next moment (as per your answer to Q1) then can they also still be in the white light bouncing off and just beginning to travel away from the ball (at that very next moment after hitting it)? How are these blue-wavelength photons not teleporting when they have just instantly relocated from the ball to the distant film as per your own stated definition of teleportation?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already said that if the photons are constantly in motion, a new photon is appearing right before the picture is taken, but this doesn't explain the fact that these non-absorbed photons are only seen if the object is present.

What? How is that meant to answer my question?

2) Where were the blue photons, which are at the film interacting with it to produce a photographic image of the blue ball when the photograph is taken, at the point in time immediately before the photograph is taken.

Where were they?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They are not teleporting because those photons are in constant motion from point A to point B, but when they get too dispersed, we only get white light.

That's not what it is at all. You keep using the word "distant" when in according to efferent vision, it doesn't matter how distant an object is as long as it's in range.

I already explained what I mean by 'distant'. Have you forgotten already? And how can the blue wavelength photons both be travelling at a finite speed from point A (the ball) to point B (the film) and still be at point B instantly? That is contradictory. If these photons are in constant motion from point A to point B then they won't be at the film instantly. If they are at the film instantly then they can't be travelling there at a finite speed. So if they are at the film instantly, then how does this differ from teleportation?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not contradictory at all if you understand the efferent model. White light can continue to travel and be absorbed by different types of substance, without the image of the object traveling. If Lessans is right, the light actually reveals the object due to the object's property of absorption. As the object gets more distant, a smaller amount of the non-blue light will appear on the retina. When it gets too small to be seen, there is no more image, only white light. If the object is no longer present, the the mirror image is no longer present. That doesn't mean that white light doesn't continue to be emitted, which it has always done.

If white light continues to travel after hitting the object, then you were wrong to agree with me that this light ceases to be white light. But you were not wrong to so agree, as white light cannot continue to travel after a necessary component of it has been sucked out and used up (i.e. absorbed). So how can white light (i.e. the full spectrum) be bouncing off when a necessary component part of that spectrum has been subtracted via absorption?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because that's not how it works Spacemonkey. Light is in a continuous STREAM, which means there are no gaps where suddenly a photon appears out of nowhere. But what you're missing is that the non-blue light is at the film instantly, as a mirror image, when the lens is focused on the object (which must be in visual range) even though the blue photons are continually being replaced.

Then explain to me how it does work. In the ROYGBIV example there are 7 photons hitting the blue ball (red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet).

When those photons hit the ball, which ones are absorbed (i.e. sucked in and used up by the ball)? [Insert answer here]

Which ones will at the very next moment (after hitting the ball) be instantly at the distant camera film? [Insert answer here]

Which ones are left to bounce off the ball and begin travelling away from it at at finite speed? [Insert answer here]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then I didn't explain it right. You are trying to get me to say that the blue photons are traveling, or bouncing off of the object and ending up at a distant object instantly. That would be teleportation, but that's not what is going on. The blue wavelength photons will be instantly at the film because it meets the requirements of efferent vision, which only means that there is enough light present, and the object is large enough to be seen. In other words, this creates the condition which allows the blue wavelength light to be instantly at the film when the lens is focused on the object even though the blue photons are continually being replaced.

What? You just repeated exactly what you said you hadn't correctly explained.

When the blue wavelength photons hit the ball, are the photons which are instantly at the film at the very next moment, the same or different photons?

If they are the same, then how is this not teleportation? If they are different, then where are the specific blue wavelength photons that were hitting the ball?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not just type those words and then proceed to argue with myself. You're making me look like a numbskull.

Then where did those words come from? They were not a part of the post you were replying to, and they didn't just type themselves. Did they teleport into your post? You did type them yourself, and you did proceed to argue with yourself. Nor is this the first time you've done so.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Spacemonkey; the blue photons are there only when the lens is focused on the object. They are not hitting the ball and heading anywhere. There is no contradiction. The only problem is that you're not yet understanding how light works according to the efferent version of sight.

You're not explaining it. You just keep contradicting yourself instead. If the blue wavelength photons (comprising the blue part of the spectrum of white light hitting the ball) don't bounce off the object and head away from it, then the light bouncing off will be missing the blue part of the spectrum and will no longer be full spectrum white light. If there is white light bouncing off the ball, then by definition there are blue wavelength photons contained within it. Where did they come from and how did they get there? If none of the blue wavelength photons hitting the ball bounce off it, then how does the light bouncing off the ball get to contain blue wavelength photons?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are still coming from the afferent point of view whether you see it or not.

I have to say this again: There is no way you're going to understand this coming from the afferent position, which is what you're doing.

You've been called out on this transparent defence mechanism every time you've used it. If I were coming from an afferent position with my questions, then you'd be able to show me what afferent assumption my questions presuppose. But you can't. Because I'm not assuming any aspect of afferent vision. My questions are based only on what YOU are saying.

You still have no consistent answer to either of these two key questions:

1) Where are the blue-wavelength photons, contained within the sunlight striking the blue ball, at the point in time immediately after they hit the ball?

2) Where were the blue photons, which are at the film interacting with it to produce a photographic image of the blue ball when the photograph is taken, at the point in time immediately before the photograph is taken.

Your answer to Q1 remains indistinguishable from teleportation, and contradicts your claim that white light bounces of objects. And you have not answered Q2 at all.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're making me look like a numbskull.

You are wrong again, nobody here is making you look like anything, you're doing that very nicely yourself.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You've been called out on this transparent defence mechanism every time you've used it. If I were coming from an afferent position with my questions, then you'd be able to show me what afferent assumption my questions presuppose. But you can't. Because I'm not assuming any aspect of afferent vision. My questions are based only on what YOU are saying.

You still have no consistent answer to either of these two key questions:

1) Where are the blue-wavelength photons, contained within the sunlight striking the blue ball, at the point in time immediately after they hit the ball?

2) Where were the blue photons, which are at the film interacting with it to produce a photographic image of the blue ball when the photograph is taken, at the point in time immediately before the photograph is taken.

Your answer to Q1 remains indistinguishable from teleportation, and contradicts your claim that white light bounces of objects. And you have not answered Q2 at all.

It is really sad to see Peacegirl struggle to avoid answering these questions, she really has no good answer because the concept is nonsense and there is no consistant answer. I would expect her to try to change the subject or just declare that she is correct and state that she will not discuss it anymore. Hang in there Spacemonkey she really doesn't have anywhere to go except to lie.

[davidm]

lol, still having at it with this lying fool, are we?

How funny, though! The woman who presumes to lecture her intellectual and moral superiors on the truths of philosophy and science can't even master the quote function, which a chipmunk could probably be taught to do. And as a result, she responded to one of her own quotes, which she mistakenly attributed to someone else, and tried to refute what she herself had said!




What clearer indication is there that she herself has no clue what she is trying to say, and her brain is so shot that she can't even remember what she wrote, and will even argue with herself if necessary to keep this trainwreck alive?

[thedoc]

One begins to wonder exactly what is going on in Peacegirls mind that allows her to continue to defy reality and state what has been repeatedly demonstrated to be false?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

lol, still having at it with this lying fool, are we?

How funny, though! The woman who presumes to lecture her intellectual and moral superiors on the truths of philosophy and science can't even master the quote function, which a chipmunk could probably be taught to do. And as a result, she responded to one of her own quotes, which she mistakenly attributed to someone else, and tried to refute what she herself had said!




What clearer indication is there that she herself has no clue what she is trying to say, and her brain is so shot that she can't even remember what she wrote, and will even argue with herself if necessary to keep this trainwreck alive?

Welcome back, are you just popping in or are you going to stick around for more fun poking her with the stick of reality.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Welcome back, are you just popping in or are you going to stick around for more fun poking her with the stick of reality.

Absolutely not. I have no intention of wasting any more time with this twit, and fail to see even what the amusement value is any longer. How amusing is it to repeat the same things and the same questions over and over and over again?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Absolutely not. I have no intention of wasting any more time with this twit, and fail to see even what the amusement value is any longer. How amusing is it to repeat the same things and the same questions over and over and over again?

Part of my fasination comes from my exchanges with Peacegirl on another forum, she seemed sane and rational there. We talked a little about the book and about grandchildren and some other thoughts not related to the book. I guess I am puzzled how some one who seemed so normal could in reality be someone like Peacegirl who is so far out of touch with reality. I guess another part is that from the other forum I half expect that sometime the light will come on for her and she'll come back to reality, though that possibility is becoming less and less likely. Here's the link, it's only 4 pages if you would like to look.

A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If the white light consists of the blue part (which (P)reflects to the film instantly) and the non-blue part (which gets absorbed by the object), and nothing else, then what part of the sunlight is left to bounce off the object?

How so? If the blue wavelength photons are hitting the ball at one moment and then at the film at the very next moment (as per your answer to Q1) then can they also still be in the white light bouncing off and just beginning to travel away from the ball (at that very next moment after hitting it)? How are these blue-wavelength photons not teleporting when they have just instantly relocated from the ball to the distant film as per your own stated definition of teleportation?

What? How is that meant to answer my question?

2) Where were the blue photons, which are at the film interacting with it to produce a photographic image of the blue ball when the photograph is taken, at the point in time immediately before the photograph is taken.

Where were they?

I already explained what I mean by 'distant'. Have you forgotten already? And how can the blue wavelength photons both be travelling at a finite speed from point A (the ball) to point B (the film) and still be at point B instantly? That is contradictory. If these photons are in constant motion from point A to point B then they won't be at the film instantly. If they are at the film instantly then they can't be travelling there at a finite speed. So if they are at the film instantly, then how does this differ from teleportation?

If white light continues to travel after hitting the object, then you were wrong to agree with me that this light ceases to be white light. But you were not wrong to so agree, as white light cannot continue to travel after a necessary component of it has been sucked out and used up (i.e. absorbed). So how can white light (i.e. the full spectrum) be bouncing off when a necessary component part of that spectrum has been subtracted via absorption?

Then explain to me how it does work. In the ROYGBIV example there are 7 photons hitting the blue ball (red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet).

When those photons hit the ball, which ones are absorbed (i.e. sucked in and used up by the ball)? [Insert answer here]

Which ones will at the very next moment (after hitting the ball) be instantly at the distant camera film? [Insert answer here]

Which ones are left to bounce off the ball and begin travelling away from it at at finite speed? [Insert answer here]

What? You just repeated exactly what you said you hadn't correctly explained.

When the blue wavelength photons hit the ball, are the photons which are instantly at the film at the very next moment, the same or different photons?

If they are the same, then how is this not teleportation? If they are different, then where are the specific blue wavelength photons that were hitting the ball?

Then where did those words come from? They were not a part of the post you were replying to, and they didn't just type themselves. Did they teleport into your post? You did type them yourself, and you did proceed to argue with yourself. Nor is this the first time you've done so.

You're not explaining it. You just keep contradicting yourself instead. If the blue wavelength photons (comprising the blue part of the spectrum of white light hitting the ball) don't bounce off the object and head away from it, then the light bouncing off will be missing the blue part of the spectrum and will no longer be full spectrum white light. If there is white light bouncing off the ball, then by definition there are blue wavelength photons contained within it. Where did they come from and how did they get there? If none of the blue wavelength photons hitting the ball bounce off it, then how does the light bouncing off the ball get to contain blue wavelength photons?

You've been called out on this transparent defence mechanism every time you've used it. If I were coming from an afferent position with my questions, then you'd be able to show me what afferent assumption my questions presuppose. But you can't. Because I'm not assuming any aspect of afferent vision. My questions are based only on what YOU are saying.

You still have no consistent answer to either of these two key questions:

1) Where are the blue-wavelength photons, contained within the sunlight striking the blue ball, at the point in time immediately after they hit the ball?

2) Where were the blue photons, which are at the film interacting with it to produce a photographic image of the blue ball when the photograph is taken, at the point in time immediately before the photograph is taken.

Your answer to Q1 remains indistinguishable from teleportation, and contradicts your claim that white light bounces of objects. And you have not answered Q2 at all.

Bump.

How many bumps will it take to get a response this time? I think you know you're talking nonsense. I think that's why you try to avoid answering my questions. Maintaining your faith is more important to you than the truth.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no reappearing of anything. You're losing the entire concept.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If the white light consists of the blue part (which (P)reflects to the film instantly) and the non-blue part (which gets absorbed by the object), and nothing else, then what part of the sunlight is left to bounce off the object?

When you say (P) reflects to the film instantly, that sounds like teleportation. Do you understand that this blue light can only be present at the film/retina when the blue object reflecting that (P) light is within one's field of view?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Incorrect.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How so? If the blue wavelength photons are hitting the ball at one moment and then at the film at the very next moment (as per your answer to Q1) then can they also still be in the white light bouncing off and just beginning to travel away from the ball (at that very next moment after hitting it)? How are these blue-wavelength photons not teleporting when they have just instantly relocated from the ball to the distant film as per your own stated definition of teleportation?

The blue light is traveling from the ball until the light fades due to the inverse square law. These blue photons, therefore, are not teleporting from one point to another. Lessans claim is that the image of the object does not get (N) reflected and travel through space and time when the object is no longer present. In other words, we would not be able to see a past event; we would be seeing an event in progress. This is the big fallacy.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already said that if the photons are constantly in motion, a new photon is appearing right before the picture is taken, but this doesn't explain the fact that these non-absorbed photons are only seen if the object is present.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What? How is that meant to answer my question?

2) Where were the blue photons, which are at the film interacting with it to produce a photographic image of the blue ball when the photograph is taken, at the point in time immediately before the photograph is taken.

Where were they?

I answered you. They were traveling to the film right before the photograph was taken. But the distance to the film/retina is not far at all, as you keep insisting, because the object is in one's field of view.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They are not teleporting because those photons are in constant motion from point A to point B, but when they get too dispersed, we only get white light.

You keep using the word "distant" when in according to efferent vision, it doesn't matter how distant an object is as long as it's in range.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I already explained what I mean by 'distant'. Have you forgotten already? And how can the blue wavelength photons both be travelling at a finite speed from point A (the ball) to point B (the film) and still be at point B instantly? That is contradictory. If these photons are in constant motion from point A to point B then they won't be at the film instantly. If they are at the film instantly then they can't be travelling there at a finite speed. So if they are at the film instantly, then how does this differ from teleportation?

Let's start over. The photons are traveling, but if we can see the object (which is not just light which is assumed in the afferent model), then the light is at the film/retina instantly due to the fact that we could not see the object otherwise. I have said over and over that if the object is large enough and bright enough to be seen, by definition, the light is at the film/retina. That does not mean that the light is not traveling; it's just not (N) traveling through space and time such that we would be able to detect an image from a past event.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not contradictory at all if you understand the efferent model. White light can continue to travel and be absorbed by different types of substance, without the image of the object traveling. If Lessans is right, the light actually reveals the object due to the object's property of absorption. As the object gets more distant, a smaller amount of the non-blue light will appear on the retina. When it gets too small to be seen, there is no more image, only white light. If the object is no longer present, the the mirror image is no longer present. That doesn't mean that white light doesn't continue to be emitted, which it has always done.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If white light continues to travel after hitting the object, then you were wrong to agree with me that this light ceases to be white light. But you were not wrong to so agree, as white light cannot continue to travel after a necessary component of it has been sucked out and used up (i.e. absorbed). So how can white light (i.e. the full spectrum) be bouncing off when a necessary component part of that spectrum has been subtracted via absorption?

Wrong. Light resumes its full spectrum when the object is out of range because, at that point, the light is too far away which means that the absorbed light is not being sucked in. Blue light does not travel on forever and ever.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because that's not how it works Spacemonkey. Light is in a continuous STREAM, which means there are no gaps where suddenly a photon appears out of nowhere. But what you're missing is that the non-blue light is at the film instantly, as a mirror image, when the lens is focused on the object (which must be in visual range) even though the blue photons are continually being replaced.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then explain to me how it does work. In the ROYGBIV example there are 7 photons hitting the blue ball (red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet).

When those photons hit the ball, which ones are absorbed (i.e. sucked in and used up by the ball)? red, orange, yellow, green, indigo, and violet

Which ones will at the very next moment (after hitting the ball) be instantly at the distant camera film? the blue photons will be instantly at the film/retina because the distance is negligible. In other words, the camera is no more distant relative to the eyes than a lighted object that is much closer in actual miles because both meet the requirements; the object is large enough and bright enough for a photograph to be taken.

Which ones are left to bounce off the ball and begin travelling away from it at at finite speed? The blue light is (P) reflected off of the ball until the light fades. Your logic tells you that the light can never be full spectrum because the object has absorbed certain wavelength light which would render white light gone, but, according to efferent vision, that's not how it works.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

In response to that question you did tell me that the blue wavelength photons hitting the ball will be instantly at the film. That is exactly what you said.

Then I didn't explain it right. You are trying to get me to say that the blue photons are traveling, or bouncing off of the object and ending up at a distant object instantly. That would be teleportation, but that's not what is going on. The blue wavelength photons will be instantly at the film because it meets the requirements of efferent vision, which only means that there is enough light present, and the object is large enough to be seen. In other words, this creates the condition which allows the blue wavelength light to be instantly at the film when the lens is focused on the object even though the blue photons are continually being replaced.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What? You just repeated exactly what you said you hadn't correctly explained.

The blue photon is traveling, but the problem is that you don't understand why the distance between the photon and the film/retina is, for all intents and purposes, instant. If the object must be in view, then you cannot extend this reasoning, as LadyShea did, by saying that even if it's a nano-second difference in time, as the object gets further and further away, the light that has bounced off of that object is now further and further in the past as it strikes our telescopes, because there is no such thing as light containing the image of the object without the object present in some form.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

When the blue wavelength photons hit the ball, are the photons which are instantly at the film at the very next moment, the same or different photons?

Different

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If they are the same, then how is this not teleportation? If they are different, then where are the specific blue wavelength photons that were hitting the ball?

Traveling.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not just type those words and then proceed to argue with myself. You're making me look like a numbskull.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then where did those words come from? They were not a part of the post you were replying to, and they didn't just type themselves. Did they teleport into your post? You did type them yourself, and you did proceed to argue with yourself. Nor is this the first time you've done so.

It often happens that a previous answer is only partially copied and therefore it doesn't mention the person who quoted it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Spacemonkey; the blue photons are there only when the lens is focused on the object. They are not hitting the ball and heading anywhere. There is no contradiction. The only problem is that you're not yet understanding how light works according to the efferent version of sight.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're not explaining it. You just keep contradicting yourself instead. If the blue wavelength photons (comprising the blue part of the spectrum of white light hitting the ball) don't bounce off the object and head away from it, then the light bouncing off will be missing the blue part of the spectrum and will no longer be full spectrum white light. If there is white light bouncing off the ball, then by definition there are blue wavelength photons contained within it. Where did they come from and how did they get there? If none of the blue wavelength photons hitting the ball bounce off it, then how does the light bouncing off the ball get to contain blue wavelength photons?

Now I can see the confusion. I hope I cleared things up in my previous answers. The words "reflect" and "bounce" are confusing. Lessans said that the image is not (N) reflected, so if you want to say bounce in terms of (P) reflection, that's fine with me. But just because it bounces, doesn't mean it travels indefinitely just because certain wavelength light has been absorbed. White light resumes as the blue light fades out and there is no blue light that can be picked up by the film/retina.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are still coming from the afferent point of view whether you see it or not.

I have to say this again: There is no way you're going to understand this coming from the afferent position, which is what you're doing.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You've been called out on this transparent defence mechanism every time you've used it. If I were coming from an afferent position with my questions, then you'd be able to show me what afferent assumption my questions presuppose. But you can't. Because I'm not assuming any aspect of afferent vision. My questions are based only on what YOU are saying.

You still have no consistent answer to either of these two key questions:

1) Where are the blue-wavelength photons, contained within the sunlight striking the blue ball, at the point in time immediately after they hit the ball?

2) Where were the blue photons, which are at the film interacting with it to produce a photographic image of the blue ball when the photograph is taken, at the point in time immediately before the photograph is taken.

Your answer to Q1 remains indistinguishable from teleportation, and contradicts your claim that white light bounces of objects. And you have not answered Q2 at all.

I hope I made things clearer.

[LadyShea]

But the distance to the film/retina is not far at all, as you keep insisting

He has clearly explained several times that by "distant" he merely means there is some amount of measurable space between the lens and the object, in other words that they are not occupying the same space.

Even 1/100th of a millimeter is a distance.

You are reading it as meaning far away despite it being explained to you at least twice.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He has clearly explained several times that by "distant" he merely means there is some amount of measurable space between the lens and the object, in other words that they are not occupying the same space.

Even 1/100th of a millimeter is a distance.

You are reading it as meaning far away despite it being explained to you at least twice.

Okay, even if light travels 10000000000000 nano-seconds to reach the eye does not take away from the fact that (N) light does not contain (P) light which only means that if the object is not in view, we will not get an image of the object. Furthermore, because something is far away in terms of miles is no different than the time it takes for a light to be turned on in a dark room because both meet the requirements of efferent vision.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Okay, even if light travels 10000000000000 nano-seconds to reach the eye does not take away from the fact that (N) light does not contain (P) light which only means that if the object is not in view, we will not get an image of the object. Furthermore, because something is far away in terms of miles is no different than the time it takes for a light to be turned on in a dark room because both meet the requirements of efferent vision.

I'm still waiting for Peacegirl to make a rational, coherent post, but I'm not holding my breath.

How can distance be instant?

Many years ago some idiot critic was complaining about the first 'Star Wars' movie and the line where Han Solo said that the Millenium Falcon made the kessel run in some number of Parsecs. The complaint was that a 'Parsec' was a unit of distance and not of elapsed time, but the criticism fails because the Millenium Falcon was traveling in 'Hyper space' and not in normal space. So unless the critic had experience traveling in 'Hyper Space' he didn't know what he was talikng about. Perhaps efferent vision involves something like 'Hyper Space' for it's physics and real physics do not apply? Let me fire up my TARDIS and check that out.

BTW. Even in a room it takes a finite amount of time for the light to be emmited from the light, reflect off some object and reach our eyes.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When you say (P) reflects to the film instantly, that sounds like teleportation. Do you understand that this blue light can only be present at the film/retina when the blue object reflecting that (P) light is within one's field of view?

Yes, I understand that part of your claim. And yes, claiming that photons (P)reflect to the film instantly does sound like teleportation. But I wasn't claiming that. YOU were, though you have retracted it in this post.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The blue light is traveling from the ball until the light fades due to the inverse square law. These blue photons, therefore, are not teleporting from one point to another.

You previously denied that the blue photons hitting the ball bounce off and travel away from it, either alone or as part of traveling white sunlight. Now you have changed your story so that you no longer have teleporting photons. But now any photons that are instantly at the film (at the moment immediately after the blue photons in question hit the ball and start travelling towards the camera) will, as you acknowledge below, be different photons from those that just hit the ball. So you have no way of ensuring that those photons at the camera will also be blue.

Those photons instantly at the camera, being different photons from the blue ones that just bounced off the ball, will be whatever wavelength/color the ball was not absorbing back when they earlier bounced off the ball. If the ball was earlier red, then those photons (at the film just after the blue ones have hit the ball) will be red too - unless they change their wavelength while travelling to match the real-time properties of the ball.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I answered you. They were traveling to the film right before the photograph was taken. But the distance to the film/retina is not far at all, as you keep insisting, because the object is in one's field of view.

You didn't answer before - you didn't tell me they were then traveling towards the film. That's why I had to ask you again. And as I explained before, it doesn't matter how distant the camera is from the object. By 'distant' I only mean that there is some physical distance between the object and the camera.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Let's start over. The photons are traveling, but if we can see the object (which is not just light which is assumed in the afferent model), then the light is at the film/retina instantly due to the fact that we could not see the object otherwise. I have said over and over that if the object is large enough and bright enough to be seen, by definition, the light is at the film/retina. That does not mean that the light is not traveling; it's just not (N) traveling through space and time such that we would be able to detect an image from a past event.

You are saying "the" light is at the film instantly, but as you acknowledge below, this light is not the same light (i.e. not the same set of photons) as that which just hit the object. So sure, there is light at the film at the very next instant just after the blue photons in question hit the ball. But this light is different light, and light which, according to you, has also previously traveled to get to the film. So consider the following two times:

Time T2: This is the moment at which the photograph is taken. Of the sunlight which just hit the ball, all but the blue wavelength photons have just been absorbed by the blue ball. The blue photons have just bounced off the ball and are beginning their journey towards the camera. Other blue photons are instantly at the film and interacting with it to create a blue image on the photographic film. These blue photons at the film were previously travelling towards the film.

Time T1: This is an earlier time, prior to the taking of the photograph, and is the moment when the above photons (i.e. those which are at the film at T2) bounced off the ball and began traveling towards it. I am going to stipulate that at this time the ball was red rather than blue - that means it was then absorbing all but red photons, such that only red photons can be bouncing off. That means that the photons which are blue photons at T2 when they have just reached the film were red photons when they earlier left the ball at T1.

So when, how, and why did they change color (i.e. wavelength) during their journey from the ball (at T1) to the camera (at T2)?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wrong. Light resumes its full spectrum when the object is out of range because, at that point, the light is too far away which means that the absorbed light is not being sucked in. Blue light does not travel on forever and ever.

Full spectrum light consist of photons of ALL wavelengths. If some are missing, then they would need to be replaced with newly existing photons while this light is traveling for the light to resume its full spectrum. You would have new photons popping into existence from nowhere to reconstitute the full spectrum. And objects can only absorb parts of the light that is hitting them. They cannot reach out and absorb parts of the spectrum from light that has already bounced off. There can be no set distance along the light bouncing off the ball from which the ball is able to absorb certain wavelengths. Absorption occurs at the surface of the ball, and concerns only those photons hitting the ball at any given moment.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey & Peacegirl

Then explain to me how it does work. In the ROYGBIV example there are 7 photons hitting the blue ball (red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet).

When those photons hit the ball, which ones are absorbed (i.e. sucked in and used up by the ball)? red, orange, yellow, green, indigo, and violet

Which ones will at the very next moment (after hitting the ball) be instantly at the distant camera film?
the blue photons will be instantly at the film/retina because the distance is negligible. In other words, the camera is no more distant relative to the eyes than a lighted object that is much closer in actual miles because both meet the requirements; the object is large enough and bright enough for a photograph to be taken.

Which ones are left to bounce off the ball and begin travelling away from it at at finite speed?
The blue light is (P) reflected off of the ball until the light fades. Your logic tells you that the light can never be full spectrum because the object has absorbed certain wavelength light which would render white light gone, but, according to efferent vision, that's not how it works.

The blue photon (there is only one) cannot be both instantly at the film, and traveling towards the camera. It's one or the other. If this very same blue photon is instantly at the film, then it has teleported. And if it is rather the one and only photon bouncing off the ball (after the rest were absorbed) then what is bouncing off is blue light, and not full spectrum sunlight. If on efferent vision, part of the spectrum can be absorbed and used up while the whole spectrum still bounces off, then efferent vision is incoherent, contradictory, and/or in conflict with basic optics over the nature of white light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The blue photon is traveling, but the problem is that you don't understand why the distance between the photon and the film/retina is, for all intents and purposes, instant. If the object must be in view, then you cannot extend this reasoning, as LadyShea did, by saying that even if it's a nano-second difference in time, as the object gets further and further away, the light that has bounced off of that object is now further and further in the past as it strikes our telescopes, because there is no such thing as light containing the image of the object without the object present in some form.

The distance is not insignificant, no matter how small, so long as light always has to travel at a finite speed between the two points. Any photons which are instantly at the film cannot be the same ones which were at the object at the immediately previous moment (without teleportation), so they are rather photons which have themselves previously traveled to get there. And if they traveled that distance at a finite speed, then that distance makes a difference.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Different

Traveling.

Were these different photons also of blue wavelength just before they arrived at the film? What about when they were halfway between the ball and the film? What about when they first bounced off the ball? What if the ball was then red at that earlier time? Do you see the problem yet?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It often happens that a previous answer is only partially copied and therefore it doesn't mention the person who quoted it.

But those words were not part of the previous post at all. They were not my words or anyone else's in the post you were replying to. The only way they could have gotten themselves into your reply is if YOU typed them.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are throwing Lessans under the bus.

I rather think Lessans did that to himself when he wrote his book.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I'm still waiting for Peacegirl to make a rational, coherent post, but I'm not holding my breath.

How can distance be instant?

Many years ago some idiot critic was complaining about the first 'Star Wars' movie and the line where Han Solo said that the Millenium Falcon made the kessel run in some number of Parsecs. The complaint was that a 'Parsec' was a unit of distance and not of elapsed time, but the criticism fails because the Millenium Falcon was traveling in 'Hyper space' and not in normal space. So unless the critic had experience traveling in 'Hyper Space' he didn't know what he was talikng about. Perhaps efferent vision involves something like 'Hyper Space' for it's physics and real physics do not apply? Let me fire up my TARDIS and check that out.

BTW. Even in a room it takes a finite amount of time for the light to be emmited from the light, reflect off some object and reach our eyes.

parsecs is a unit of time in a universe with a fixed speed of light. Rear Admiral Grace Murry Hopper (creator of Cobol as well as many other firsts) used to hand out 30 cm lengths of telephone wire and call it a nanosecond.

Grace Hopper on Letterman! - YouTube

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

parsecs is a unit of time in a universe with a fixed speed of light. Rear Admiral Grace Murry Hopper (creator of Cobol as well as many other firsts) used to hand out 30 cm lengths of telephone wire and call it a nanosecond.

Wonderful clip but looking at Dave that was many years ago. yes the Paesec can be used as a unit of time but the critic was useing it as a unit of distance, hence the criticism. The critic was still an idiot.

[Kael]

But by that conceit we can call any measure of distance instead a unit of time as far as light is concerned. While the time it takes light to travel that far seems a potentially important aspect of distance to be aware of, and a fantastic way to visualize and internalize such concepts, I do not see any great value in doing so all the time for any measure of distance in any situation.

A parsec is still a measure of distance. How long it takes light to travel that distance is not what is being measured.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, I understand that part of your claim. And yes, claiming that photons (P)reflect to the film instantly does sound like teleportation. But I wasn't claiming that. YOU were, though you have retracted it in this post.

You previously denied that the blue photons hitting the ball bounce off and travel away from it, either alone or as part of traveling white sunlight. Now you have changed your story so that you no longer have teleporting photons. But now any photons that are instantly at the film (at the moment immediately after the blue photons in question hit the ball and start travelling towards the camera) will, as you acknowledge below, be different photons from those that just hit the ball. So you have no way of ensuring that those photons at the camera will also be blue.

Those photons instantly at the camera, being different photons from the blue ones that just bounced off the ball, will be whatever wavelength/color the ball was not absorbing back when they earlier bounced off the ball. If the ball was earlier red, then those photons (at the film just after the blue ones have hit the ball) will be red too - unless they change their wavelength while travelling to match the real-time properties of the ball.

You didn't answer before - you didn't tell me they were then traveling towards the film. That's why I had to ask you again. And as I explained before, it doesn't matter how distant the camera is from the object. By 'distant' I only mean that there is some physical distance between the object and the camera.

You are saying "the" light is at the film instantly, but as you acknowledge below, this light is not the same light (i.e. not the same set of photons) as that which just hit the object. So sure, there is light at the film at the very next instant just after the blue photons in question hit the ball. But this light is different light, and light which, according to you, has also previously traveled to get to the film. So consider the following two times:

Time T2: This is the moment at which the photograph is taken. Of the sunlight which just hit the ball, all but the blue wavelength photons have just been absorbed by the blue ball. The blue photons have just bounced off the ball and are beginning their journey towards the camera. Other blue photons are instantly at the film and interacting with it to create a blue image on the photographic film. These blue photons at the film were previously travelling towards the film.

Time T1: This is an earlier time, prior to the taking of the photograph, and is the moment when the above photons (i.e. those which are at the film at T2) bounced off the ball and began traveling towards it. I am going to stipulate that at this time the ball was red rather than blue - that means it was then absorbing all but red photons, such that only red photons can be bouncing off. That means that the photons which are blue photons at T2 when they have just reached the film were red photons when they earlier left the ball at T1.

So when, how, and why did they change color (i.e. wavelength) during their journey from the ball (at T1) to the camera (at T2)?

Full spectrum light consist of photons of ALL wavelengths. If some are missing, then they would need to be replaced with newly existing photons while this light is traveling for the light to resume its full spectrum. You would have new photons popping into existence from nowhere to reconstitute the full spectrum. And objects can only absorb parts of the light that is hitting them. They cannot reach out and absorb parts of the spectrum from light that has already bounced off. There can be no set distance along the light bouncing off the ball from which the ball is able to absorb certain wavelengths. Absorption occurs at the surface of the ball, and concerns only those photons hitting the ball at any given moment.

The blue photon (there is only one) cannot be both instantly at the film, and traveling towards the camera. It's one or the other. If this very same blue photon is instantly at the film, then it has teleported. And if it is rather the one and only photon bouncing off the ball (after the rest were absorbed) then what is bouncing off is blue light, and not full spectrum sunlight. If on efferent vision, part of the spectrum can be absorbed and used up while the whole spectrum still bounces off, then efferent vision is incoherent, contradictory, and/or in conflict with basic optics over the nature of white light.

The distance is not insignificant, no matter how small, so long as light always has to travel at a finite speed between the two points. Any photons which are instantly at the film cannot be the same ones which were at the object at the immediately previous moment (without teleportation), so they are rather photons which have themselves previously traveled to get there. And if they traveled that distance at a finite speed, then that distance makes a difference.

Were these different photons also of blue wavelength just before they arrived at the film? What about when they were halfway between the ball and the film? What about when they first bounced off the ball? What if the ball was then red at that earlier time? Do you see the problem yet?

But those words were not part of the previous post at all. They were not my words or anyone else's in the post you were replying to. The only way they could have gotten themselves into your reply is if YOU typed them.

First bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, I understand that part of your claim. And yes, claiming that photons (P)reflect to the film instantly does sound like teleportation. But I wasn't claiming that. YOU were, though you have retracted it in this post.

I never said that photons weren't in constant motion.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The blue light is traveling from the ball until the light fades due to the inverse square law. These blue photons, therefore, are not teleporting from one point to another.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You previously denied that the blue photons hitting the ball bounce off and travel away from it, either alone or as part of traveling white sunlight.

I said that the blue photons are not (N) reflected.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Now you have changed your story so that you no longer have teleporting photons. But now any photons that are instantly at the film (at the moment immediately after the blue photons in question hit the ball and start travelling towards the camera) will, as you acknowledge below, be different photons from those that just hit the ball. So you have no way of ensuring that those photons at the camera will also be blue.

That's not true because the distance is miniscule. If the eyes are focused on the object then the subsequent light that is captured on film is a mirror image of the object as it is presently.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Those photons instantly at the camera, being different photons from the blue ones that just bounced off the ball, will be whatever wavelength/color the ball was not absorbing back when they earlier bounced off the ball. If the ball was earlier red, then those photons (at the film just after the blue ones have hit the ball) will be red too - unless they change their wavelength while travelling to match the real-time properties of the ball.

That's because you're not understanding that the distance from the object to the retina does not require the photons to travel to Earth. That's what I mean when I say you are not thinking in terms of efferent vision.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I answered you. They were traveling to the film right before the photograph was taken. But the distance to the film/retina is not far at all, as you keep insisting, because the object is in one's field of view.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You didn't answer before - you didn't tell me they were then traveling towards the film. That's why I had to ask you again. And as I explained before, it doesn't matter how distant the camera is from the object. By 'distant' I only mean that there is some physical distance between the object and the camera.

And I said that energy from the Sun is in constant motion, so how can the blue photons not be moving? They cannot be stationary.

to be cont...