A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Once again you non-answered the very direct questions and included seeing and vision in your responses.

Weasel

You can't have one without the other LadyShea. This is a claim about how the brain and eyes work, yet you're trying to dismiss it as if it's not important. It's the entire point of this thread.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is where you're going back to the afferent version, and you don't even realize it. You still believe that the light itself is bringing the image, even if the object is nowhere to be seen. The very fact that the object must be in the field of view due to efferent vision, changes the actual distance to virtual.

I ddin't say anything about light bringing the image. And the problem I've explained concerns only the ACTUAL distance which is non-zero and does not change.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The entire problem with your account has to do with the distance you believe the photons are traveling. How can red photons show up in such a short space between the film and the object?

What do you mean by "such a short space"? I haven't told you what the distance is between the ball and the camera. It could be a centimeter or a thousand miles. All that the above problem requires is that the distance be greater than zero. The problem remains no matter how close or far away the camera is.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe I'm still not explaining it right, but this is not an implausible model.

It's completely implausible, for the reasons I've given and which you have yet to address.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're dead right about everything, aren't you?

I was dead right that you typed those words and then proceeded to argue against yourself in the very same reply, wasn't I?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey, stupid, why don't you copy and paste the exact quote from that passage and see what Daddy Dumbkins actually said, hmm? Remember, don't go tampering with it, the way that you dishonestly changed the idiot's "molecules of light" to "photons." Other people here have copies of the book on their hard drives.

Also, stupid, if we see in real time, why do we always see the moons of Mars in delayed time?

Also, stupid, if real-time seeing is true, why does NASA factor in delayed-time seeing to send spacecraft to Mars and other celestial bodies?

Any chance you'll get around to answering those questions, liar?

It was so pleasant when you weren't here. You're being extremely annoying. I know you couldn't stay away too long. Did you miss me?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How do the blue photons get further and further away from the object if they don't bounce off it and travel through space and time?

"Being (P)reflected" is not a location. This has been pointed out to you before.

The fact that blue photons travel is not contradictory to the fact that we see a mirror image because the distance between the object and the eye is miniscule.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that blue photons travel is not contradictory to the fact that we see a mirror image because the distance between the object and the eye is miniscule.

Define 'miniscule'. You don't get to stipulate that the camera is not far away from the object. It could be thousands of miles away. Nor do you get to claim that this distance, while large (or small), is not important. The problem I've described explains exactly why ANY NON-ZERO distance WILL be relevant.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only thing that changes is that the full spectrum comes into play as the blue photons get further and further away from the object.

The blue photons, or the image of the blue ball, does not bounce off of the object and travel through space and time.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How do the blue photons get farther and farther away from the object if they don't bounce off it and travel through space and time?

They do travel, but because the lens must be focused on the object (efferent vision), the resulting light is a mirror image, because there is very little distance between the film/retina and the object when the brain is looking through the eyes, as a window to the external world.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They are being (P) reflected LadyShea...

Originally Posted by LadyShea

"Being (P)reflected" is not a location. This has been pointed out to you before.

It's not a location, although this (P) reflection does not carry an image away from the object. Only white light (N) travels through space and time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Define 'miniscule'. You don't get to stipulate that the camera is not far away from the object. It could be thousands of miles away. Nor do you get to claim that this distance, while large (or small), is not important. The problem I've described explains exactly why ANY NON-ZERO distance WILL be relevant.

I guess you haven't been paying attention because all along I was saying that it doesn't matter whether something is a million miles away, or a few feet away, the principle remains the same, for if the object must be within the field of view of the film/retina, the distance is not actual. That's why Lessans said that we can see the Sun turned on instantly, but we would not see each other since the actual distance requires the light to travel to Earth, which takes 8.5 minutes.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that photons travel is not contradictory to the fact that we see a mirror image because the distance between the object and the eye is miniscule.

Also not a location of the photons that bounced off a leaf 1 second ago when nobody was looking at it.

I am not asking about an image, I am asking about photons with a green wavelenght that weren't absorbed by a leaf and weren't seen or photographed. Where are they now?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They do travel, but because the lens must be focused on the object (efferent vision), the resulting light is a mirror image, because there is very little distance between the film/retina and the object when the brain is looking through the eyes, as a window to the external world.

The distance between the retina and the object is the same whether the eyes are open or closed. The mere act of opening one's eyes (or the lens on a camera) cannot change the distance between an object and its observer.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They do travel, but because the lens must be focused on the object (efferent vision), the resulting light is a mirror image, because there is very little distance between the film/retina and the object when the brain is looking through the eyes, as a window to the external world.

Nonsense. The distance is not "very little" when I look at things that are far away. Nor can efferent vision affect or change the ACTUAL distance involved.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not a location, although this (P) reflection does not carry an image away from the object. Only white light (N) travels through space and time.

You're contradicting yourself again. You've just told me that the blue photons bounce off and travel through space and time while the non-blue photons are absorbed. So it cannot be true that only white light travels through space and time. And the afferent model does not involve traveling images at all.

And given that your answer was not a location, that means you haven't answered LadyShea's question which was asking you for a location.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I guess you haven't been paying attention because all along I was saying that it doesn't matter whether something is a million miles away, or a few feet away, the principle remains the same, for if the object must be within the field of view of the film/retina, the distance is not actual. That's why Lessans said that we can see the Sun turned on instantly, but we would not see each other since the actual distance requires the light to travel to Earth, which takes 8.5 minutes.

You're not paying attention, and you're avoiding the issue. The actual distance is always the actual distance by definiton. You can only claim that the relevant distance ceases to be the actual distance and is instead the virtual distance. But that is false, because the problem I've been describing concerns only the ACTUAL distance, which is non-zero and does not change. I have been using this problem to explain to you exactly why, even on your own model, the actual non-zero distance does remain relevant. All you've done is assert that this is wrong without actually addressing the problem which proves otherwise.

[Spacemonkey]

Stop weaselling, and address the problem:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, you've said that countless times. Unfortunately it is still wrong, even on your own efferent model. You've said that when the photograph is taken, there is sunlight hitting the ball, blue photons from that light are bouncing off and beginning to travel towards the camera, and other different blue photons are already at the camera film which were previously traveling towards it.

You've said that no light ever instantly teleports anywhere. That is why the light at the film is a different set of photons from those that have just bounced off the surface of the ball when the photograph is taken. That also means the photons already at the film were previously traveling to get there and took time to arrive.

Is there any part of this which you disagree with?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Given this, I can construct the same problem using either set of photons. First, take those blue photons already at the film. They did not teleport there but instead travelled there at a finite speed across the non-zero distance between the ball and the camera. That means they left the surface of the ball before the photograph was taken. If the ball was then red rather than blue (changing from red to blue while this light was traveling) then either the red ball reflected (i.e. bounced-off) these photons as blue photons (which is impossible, for a red ball would have absorbed them and bounced-off only red photons), or these particular photons (which are blue when they get to the film) were initially red and changed color during their journey.

What is your solution to this problem?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The same problem can be stated for the other different set of blue photons which have only just bounced off the ball's surface to begin traveling when the photograph is taken. Because they are traveling at a finite speed across the non-zero distance between the ball and the camera, they will only arrive at the film at a later time. Suppose a second photograph is taken at this later time when they arrive at the film. Suppose also that the ball has changed color during this time and is now red. Do we get a blue photo of the now-red ball? Or do these blue photons interact with the film to produce a red image? Or have these initially blue photons changed color while traveling to become red photons matching the real-time color of the ball?

What is your solution to this problem?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It was so pleasant when you weren't here. You're being extremely annoying. I know you couldn't stay away too long. Did you miss me?

Can't answer the questions, eh, stupid? Think anyone won't notice that?

And no, I didn't miss you. You're an uneducated charlatan, a willfully ignorant but also wholly inept con artist who is trying to make some money off your idiot father's pile of tripe. What's to miss?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't have one without the other LadyShea. This is a claim about how the brain and eyes work, yet you're trying to dismiss it as if it's not important. It's the entire point of this thread.

I already explained why I am asking about how light behaves in the absence of sight, because your claims have light not doing the things light does in physics and optics.

Either light always does the same thing or light does different things at different times...which is it in your model? Do you even know?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But light doesn't work the way you are positing it to work.

I want you to tell me what you think light does when it encounters a leaf, when there are no lenses around.

Please answer without mentioning vision, lenses, retinas, or the brain, as I have asked you to do for months. Only light and leaf. If you have no idea how light behaves when it is not being seen or photographed, you can't possibly hope to understand or refute objections regarding how you have it behaving in your model.

Bump

[Vivisectus]

They did not change color during their journey. The word journey implies a noticeable length of time between point A (the object) and point B (the eye).

Right - and in your strange and confused garble of an idea, things can appear at the retina without travelling. This is news to the entire scientific community, however, and we are still eagerly awaiting an explanation of how this is actually possible.

But if the eyes are efferent, which means the lens must be focused on the ball in order to see it,

In real optics, "to focus" means to redirect light coming from a point on an object so it hits a corresponding point on the film or retina.

In efferent vision, I do not know what "focussing" means. After all, there is no light coming in that needs redirecting, as the light contains no information. What exactly is this "focussing" that you mention? What does it entail, what causes it, and how is the effect brought about?

the light being (P) reflected would be a mirror image of what is happening now, just like if we looked in a mirror from across a room, and decided to change to a different color. We wouldn't see the original color we were wearing, we would see the new color.

But that means (P) reflection is teleportation. A major scientific breakthrough! Pray tell, how does this work? If we can copy it's mechanism, we could start the colonization of space by next year or so: near infinite resources would be ours in a matter of decades.

If we were detecting light alone without the need for the object to be present, then red would be seen before blue.

Again, observations agree with real optics and contradict efferent vision: indeed, red IS seen before blue. For about 3.335640952 x 10^-9 seconds, in a vacuum, if the mirror is 50 cm away from us. So that is 0.00000003 seconds and a bit We have confirmed this in laboratory conditions, with devices not unlike cameras.

So you see, in that one paragraph you managed to point out a huge unresolved issue in your idea not just once but twice, used a word that you do not understand and that has no meaning unless you are wrong, and then stated that if we observed something that we have actually observed, your strange and confused notion is wrong.

Your position is so utterly untenable that you cannot help but argue against it, even when you think you are trying to argue for it. It just cannot be done: it is completely irrational.

[Spacemonkey]

I'm also going to return to my earlier two sets of questions...

FIRST SET

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]

Your present answer to this appears to be that these blue-wavelength photons hitting the blue object do indeed bounce off the surface and travel away from it. Is that correct?

SECOND SET

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]

Your present answers here would seem to be that these photons did indeed exist before the photograph was taken and were then traveling between the ball and the camera. Is that correct?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You still believe that the light itself is bringing the image, even if the object is nowhere to be seen. The very fact that the object must be in the field of view due to efferent vision, changes the actual distance to virtual.

The entire problem with your account has to do with the distance you believe the photons are traveling. How can red photons show up in such a short space between the film and the object?

Maybe I'm still not explaining it right, but this is not an implausible model.

This is insignificant, just like the distance between the eye and the object.

You're dead right about everything, aren't you?

I would like to know just what is a 'virtual distance' and why is it so short. But even a short distance requires a finite time for light to travel from one point to another. Just how small is that insignificant distance, can it be measured?

Yes, Spacemonkey has been right about most things, so far. We certainly hope it isn't 'DEAD' right, that would be a bit of a loss.

Spacemonkey, don't get a swelled head or I will be forced to look for mistakes.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Did you miss me?

Like a train wreck.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I ddin't say anything about light bringing the image. And the problem I've explained concerns only the ACTUAL distance which is non-zero and does not change.

You keep talking about the photons traveling to the distant film/retina. This indicates that you're not understanding why there is no time involved.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, you've said that countless times. Unfortunately it is still wrong, even on your own efferent model. You've said that when the photograph is taken, there is sunlight hitting the ball, blue photons from that light are bouncing off and beginning to travel towards the camera, and other different blue photons are already at the camera film which were previously traveling towards it.

You've said that no light ever instantly teleports anywhere. That is why the light at the film is a different set of photons from those that have just bounced off the surface of the ball when the photograph is taken. That also means the photons already at the film were previously traveling to get there and took time to arrive.

Given this, I can construct the same problem using either set of photons. First, take those blue photons already at the film. They did not teleport there but instead travelled there at a finite speed across the non-zero distance between the ball and the camera. That means they left the surface of the ball before the photograph was taken. If the ball was then red rather than blue (changing from red to blue while this light was traveling) then either the red ball reflected (i.e. bounced-off) these photons as blue photons (which is impossible, for a red ball would have absorbed them and bounced-off only red photons), or these particular photons (which are blue when they get to the film) were initially red and changed color during their journey.

The same problem can be stated for the other different set of blue photons which have only just bounced off the ball's surface to begin traveling when the photograph is taken. Because they are traveling at a finite speed across the non-zero distance between the ball and the camera, they will only arrive at the film at a later time. Suppose a second photograph is taken at this later time when they arrive at the film. Suppose also that the ball has changed color during this time and is now red. Do we get a blue photo of the now-red ball? Or do these blue photons interact with the film to produce a red image? Or have these initially blue photons changed color while traveling to become red photons matching the real-time color of the ball?

The entire problem with your account has to do with the distance you believe the photons are traveling. How can red photons show up in such a short space between the film and the object?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What do you mean by "such a short space"? I haven't told you what the distance is between the ball and the camera. It could be a centimeter or a thousand miles. All that the above problem requires is that the distance be greater than zero. The problem remains no matter how close or far away the camera is.

You're right, it doesn't matter as long as the ball is in range. So why do you keep talking about photons traveling to distant cameras?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe I'm still not explaining it right, but this is not an implausible model.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It's completely implausible, for the reasons I've given and which you have yet to address.

Sorry, it's not implausible because the reasons you've given are not a factor in efferent vision, only afferent.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're dead right about everything, aren't you?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I was dead right that you typed those words and then proceeded to argue against yourself in the very same reply, wasn't I?

If this is such a big issue to you, find me the quote where I talked to myself, and show me that it said my name and I was responding to myself. I know you want to make me look ridiculous, in order to prop up your argument.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I already explained why I am asking about how light behaves in the absence of sight, because your claims have light not doing the things light does in physics and optics.

Either light always does the same thing or light does different things at different times...which is it in your model? Do you even know?

Light works the same way except for one thing: the image of any object or event in the material world does not get (N) reflected and travel through space and time such that we would see said event or object at some future time when the event or object no longer exists.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Can't answer the questions, eh, stupid? Think anyone won't notice that?

And no, I didn't miss you. You're an uneducated charlatan, a willfully ignorant but also wholly inept con artist who is trying to make some money off your idiot father's pile of tripe. What's to miss?

The knowledge that we are controlled by a powerful law, which, when understood and applied on a global scale, will give us the ability to change our world for the better.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep talking about the photons traveling to the distant film/retina. This indicates that you're not understanding why there is no time involved.

No, YOU said the blue photons hitting the ball travel away from it and that the photons already at the film were previously traveling towards it. Given that the distance involved is non-zero, YOUR answers mean there is time involved. The only way not to have time involved is to have the photons teleporting again.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right, it doesn't matter as long as the ball is in range. So why do you keep talking about photons traveling to distant cameras?

I didn't say that it doesn't matter. I said the exact opposite. The distance DOES matter, regardless of how long or short that distance is. I am talking about photons traveling to the distant camera because that is what YOU told me happens.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sorry, it's not implausible because the reasons you've given are not a factor in efferent vision, only afferent.

Wrong. I just explained why they ARE a factor on YOUR account. You've just ignored the problem again and merely asserted that it isn't a problem.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If this is such a big issue to you, find me the quote where I talked to myself, and show me that it said my name and I was responding to myself. I know you want to make me look ridiculous, in order to prop up your argument.

It didn't say your name. Why would it? They weren't your words from some previous post. They were your words from the very reply you were typing when you replied to them.

In this post you typed these words and put them in a quote box attributed to me: "No, you've got it all wrong." You then replied to it saying: "No I don't." Both of these sentences were YOUR words, typed during the SAME REPLY. Here is the post of mine you were replying to. Do you see either of these above quoted sentences ANYWHERE in that post?

I'm not making you look ridiculous. You ARE ridiculous. You started arguing against your own words typed during your own reply. And you're making yourself look even sillier by failing to acknowledge the mistake.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Right - and in your strange and confused garble of an idea, things can appear at the retina without travelling. This is news to the entire scientific community, however, and we are still eagerly awaiting an explanation of how this is actually possible.

In real optics, "to focus" means to redirect light coming from a point on an object so it hits a corresponding point on the film or retina.

In efferent vision, I do not know what "focussing" means. After all, there is no light coming in that needs redirecting, as the light contains no information. What exactly is this "focussing" that you mention? What does it entail, what causes it, and how is the effect brought about?

How many times do I have to repeat myself that focusing means the same thing. It redirects light coming from a point on an object so it hits a corresponding point on the film or retina. But it is not just a light detector which, according to the afferent version, is all that we need because the image is believed to be traveling through space and time, even if the event is no longer present (e.g., Columbus discovering America). Why are you having such a hard time with this unless you have ignored reading my posts?

the light being (P) reflected would be a mirror image of what is happening now, just like if we looked in a mirror from across a room, and decided to change to a different color. We wouldn't see the original color we were wearing, we would see the new color.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But that means (P) reflection is teleportation. A major scientific breakthrough! Pray tell, how does this work? If we can copy it's mechanism, we could start the colonization of space by next year or so: near infinite resources would be ours in a matter of decades.

It has nothing to do with teleportation Vivisectus. When the lens is focused on the object it is getting a mirror image. The film or eye is capturing only those photons that are present at the object, which is why the light is the opposite side of the coin, so to speak.

If we were detecting light alone without the need for the object to be present, then red would be seen before blue.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Again, observations agree with real optics and contradict efferent vision: indeed, red IS seen before blue. For about 3.335640952 x 10^-9 seconds, in a vacuum, if the mirror is 50 cm away from us. So that is 0.00000003 seconds and a bit We have confirmed this in laboratory conditions, with devices not unlike cameras.

I'd like to see the lab results.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So you see, in that one paragraph you managed to point out a huge unresolved issue in your idea not just once but twice, used a word that you do not understand and that has no meaning unless you are wrong, and then stated that if we observed something that we have actually observed, your strange and confused notion is wrong.

What word are you talking about? Mirror image?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Your position is so utterly untenable that you cannot help but argue against it, even when you think you are trying to argue for it. It just cannot be done: it is completely irrational.

I am arguing for it, and I've never changed my position. There might be confusion as to how this model is tenable, but that is a communication problem.

[LadyShea]

You keep talking about the photons traveling to the distant film/retina. This indicates that you're not understanding why there is no time involved.

If travel over any distance is involved, time is involved. As you discuss dispersion over distance, that is travel. That means time.

For there to be no time involved at all, there can't be travel and the inverse square law is completely irrelevant.

So, are the photons traveling to the eye, or are they teleporting there? You can't have it both ways.