A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is very clear that when a person (a piece of substance) is out of visual range, yet in a straight line with the eye, we will not get an image.

Of course. That's true by definition.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We should get an image though.

According to what account? Not afferent vision, which explains via dispersion and resolution exactly why we cannot see an object of a certain size beyond a certain range with only our eyes.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, but even so, the distance is short, so there will never be a different color than what the object itself is reflecting. That's why we get a mirror image on our retina.

It doesn't matter how short the distance is (and it is not always short). As long as it is non-zero it will be possible for the light now at the film/retina to be different from that presently not being absorbed at the surface of the object. If the light now at the film previously traveled the non-zero distance (no matter how short) between the object and the film, then it was non-absorbed at the surface of the object at some time before the photograph was taken - meaning the object might then have been non-absorbing different light from what it is non-absorbing when the photograph is taken.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Go on Peacegirl. Ignore these questions. Show us all how well you can weasel. Display your complete lack of intellectual integrity for all to see.

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, that's right (so long as the object is not too far away). None of this involves or requires an image being carried by light or traveling through space and time.

Then why do scientists claim that the object or event can be long gone but the light will still be bringing us the image if the conditions are advantageous?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Okay, that premise I agree with. But I don't agree with your other premises. For example, you don't believe the material substance must be in visual range for your version of sight to work, correct?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, incorrect. Of course an object has to be in visual range to see it. That is true by definition, and will remain true on any model of vision, efferent or afferent. I've explained to you how dispersion and resolution work in afferent vision. Visual range and the range at which an image can be formed are two different things. Visual range is (for an object of a given size) the range at which an image can be formed using only one's eyes. Using another instrument such as a telescope can extend the range at which an image can be formed from arriving light well beyond mere visual range. The more powerful the telescope, the greater the range.

This doesn't change anything Spacemonkey. Dispersion and resolution work the same way in the efferent version. And instead of "visual range" we can say "field of view" when we're referring to a camera or a telescope. Now you are disagreeing with your own version of sight, and you don't see it. This entire dispute is based on the fact that science says that light is all we need once it bounces off of an object, for us to get an image (if the conditions are favorable for this to occur), even if the object or event is long gone. A telescope brings the object into visual range through magnification, which allows the (P) reflected light to be at the mirror, but this is happening in real time, so once again, there is no conflict.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So where is my alleged false premise? You have no idea do you?

The only problem is that you are failing to understand that distance between two objects in the efferent version makes no difference as long as it meets the requirements. When it does, we get a mirror image of whatever it is we're looking at because the distance from the object to the eye or film is as close as it would be if we were looking at ourselves in a mirror. You can't measure distance in the same way if the eyes are efferent. You're having a difficult time understanding the difference between these two versions which end up with completely opposite results.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then why do scientists claim that the object or event can be long gone but the light will still be bringing us the image if the conditions are advantageous?

They don't. They say that an image can be formed from the arriving light, and they are correct. No images are brought and no images are traveling.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This doesn't change anything Spacemonkey...

It shows you were wrong to say that I don't believe the material substance must be in visual range for my version of sight to work. So you have yet to identify any false premise on my part.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only problem is that you are failing to understand that distance between two objects in the efferent version makes no difference as long as it meets the requirements.

I'm not failing to understand that. It is straightforwardly false, and I have explained why. The distance DOES make a difference on your account. This is not a premise. It is a conclusion based upon YOUR OWN answers. From what false premise have I derived this conclusion?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When it does, we get a mirror image of whatever it is we're looking at because the distance from the object to the eye or film is as close as it would be if we were looking at ourselves in a mirror.

You don't see yourself in a mirror in real time either. As long as the distance between you and the mirror is not zero, light has to travel from you to the mirror and back again before your eyes can form an image from that light. It is very fast but it still takes TIME.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then why do scientists claim that the object or event can be long gone but the light will still be bringing us the image if the conditions are advantageous?

Because, as has been explained to you about 100,000 goddamned times, scientists say no such fucking thing. This was the uneducated buffoon's mischaracterization of what scientists say!

Can any fact, no matter how elementary, penetrate the vast carapace of your ossified skull?

The fucking light leaves the object. The object, like a distant galaxy for example, moves on, or changes form, or even disappears, but the light that left it is still traveling. The light is now separate from the goddamn galaxy.

If unimpeded, the photons will travel for billions of light years -- light does not fucking fade away, either.

And -- lo and behold! -- billions of years later, some of those photons will intersect with, oh, say, the Hubble Telescope! The telescope, because of its optic structure, will capture enough photons to reconstruct a light/dark/color pattern of the SOURCE of the photons, which is by now long gone from where it was when the photons were released; the galaxy may not even exist at all anymore. But the PATTERN of light/dark/color caught by the telescope, and registering in our eyes, is what we call the IMAGE. The fucking IMAGE did not travel on the light; the photons traveled and registered on our eyes as patterns of light/dark/hue which we CALL an image.

Got it now?? Oh, what am I saying, of course not!

How much does anyone want to bet that ten pages down the road, she will say:

[davidm]

Hey, peacegirl, imagine a machine that shoots thousands of darts simultaneously.

The machine shoots the darts, and then it is immediately destroyed. But the darts are still traveling through the air, right? Since when the darts left the machine they became separate from it, then the destruction of the machine has no bearing on the flying darts! Right?

So the darts are still going even though their source, the machine, has ceased to exist. Eventually the darts hit a wall and embed themselves. Lo and behold, the darts are spaced such that they create a PATTERN on the wall --- a pattern in the shape of the machine that fired them, which no longer exists: and, of course, the pattern is of the machine as it USED TO BE (in the past) because the machine that fired the darts doesn't exist anymore!

Get the analogy, peacegirl?

Oh, what I am saying! Of course she wont' get it!

Or, what is actually the case, she will PRETEND that she does not get it, or PRETEND that it is not relevant.

[Vivisectus]

[quote][QUOTE=peacegirl;1041294][quote=Vivisectus;1041280]

I said that even if the photons are being replaced - how? as the light is being absorbed and (P) reflected, that does not mean anything. the fact that the eyes must be focused on the actual material substance, changes the actual distance between the eye and the object. I already explained, focussing is something that lenses do to light in optics That's why it doesn't matter how far away the object actually is, as long as it meets the requirements of size and brightness, that is just saying "things can be seen thwne they are large and close enough to be seen, which is the same as saying "we can see what we can see" which then allows a mirror image to be present on the film/retina.

So what if it's a term used in optics. Optics isn't all wrong. I never said it was.

It is a term that only has meaning within the framework of optics, which is inherently afferent.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Please support that claim with an observation, or any other reason to believe it, or retract. Unless you support it it remains irrational.

It is very clear that when a person (a piece of substance) is out of visual range, yet in a straight line with the eye, we will not get an image.

Excellent! So what is this range?

We should get an image though.

Optics explains why we get an image, and why. Efferent vision does not. Why should or shouldn't we get an image?

There will be no resolution, or focusing of light that will provide this image.

That is not what "resolution" means. Or focussing. You are babbling here.

It's not irrational at all, if you understand the 180 degree difference between afferent and efferent vision.

Are you sure you want that statement to stand? There are many experiments and observations that contradict that statement. We rely on electromagnetic emission for a LOT of things, so we have done a lot of work in it. All of them show that what you just said is quite conclusively wrong.

This has nothing to do with teleporting anything Vivisectus, just because the lens is focused on the object. It still focuses the light that is entering the eye.

Yup. Light that has to travel.

I am not sure what you mean.

Then give me the link.

You required me to read that badly written pile of self-glorification twice and you cannot be bothered to look back 2 pages? Fine! Give me 10 min

Yes, but even so, the distance is short, so there will never be a different color than what the object itself is reflecting. That's why we get a mirror image on our retina.

yes there will, just not for a very long time.

What word are you talking about? Mirror image?

Of course light is necessary. We can't see the material world without it.

Why? How does that work?

The only difference is that the light is not bringing the information to our brain from our eyes; it is allowing the information to be seen by our brain, through our eyes.

Why? How does it work? And why do we need lenses for specific light to hit specific parts of the retina? Who wont any old light do, since it is not the light from the object that we require, as that light would have to travel?

Of course, we can see information that light is revealing if the object is present,

Nonsensical babble.

which occurs when we use a pinhole camera,

what?

but light by itself would not show an image if the material substance reflecting that light was not present, or within the field of view of the pinhole.

What on earth would make a hole in the wall have a "field of view" ? You are talking nonsense again.

If you follow me, you'll understand why the efferent version of sight makes it possible to see an object in real time because all that is required is for light to be bright enough as it (P) reflects off the object, and large enough to be seen --- even if the photons have not traveled to Earth, which takes time.

No-one ever will, because you cannot explain how.

Therefore, the time factor causes as much delay as it would if we were looking in a huge mirror from across a field because the requirements of efferent vision are being met.

Ah so now there IS a delay?

That means we would still be getting an exact mirror image whether we're looking at an object that is thousands of miles away, or looking at an object that is only a few feet away.

...delayed by the speed of light.

No it didn't. Again, this just confirms to me that you didn't read the book since that statement was clarified.

The book stated that it would come to pass within 25 years. My version included your addendum which explained that this did not happen because of meany scientists. Do you want me to hook up my portable drive to dig up the actual quotes?

[Vivisectus]

links as requested. Again.

Relativity: Measuring the speed of light | Skulls in the Stars

[davidm]

Prediction 1: She will not read that link.

Prediction 2: If she does read it, she will not understand it.

Predicton 3: If she reads it and understands it (which means she will undertand that Lessans was dead wrong) she will deny that it is correct even though she will know that it is correct.

That is peacegirl!

[davidm]

That is a very nice discussion you linked to, Vivisectus. What peacegirl actually ought to be doing is falling all over herself to thank us for the free education she received here. Instead, she spits on it.

[thedoc]

I believe you missed this,

Prediction 4: She will claim that the tests are poorly designed and not reliable.

Prediction 5: She will say all those scientists were biased and skewed the results to prove afferent vision.

Prediction 6: She will claim that the first experiments that proved infinite speed of light were the only accurate and reliable ones. No travel time due to the infinite speed of light.

[davidm]

I sometimes think an elementary confusion tripped Lessans up and led to his so-called "observation." I mentioned this before but it might be worth repeating.

It's certainly true that we see in the present. When the hell else would we see? But Lessans, because he was uneducated and therefore had half-formed concepts about the world, and about what scientists say about the world, had heard somewhere that we see objects "as they were in the past," and hence, with his spotty thinking, he concluded that this must be wrong because we only see in the present.

Yes, we see in the present. What do we see? We see photons. We see the photons as they are, IN THE PRESENT.

The key question, though, is: what do the photons represent?

When we see photons, all we are seeing is a pattern of light/dark/color. The photons do NOT carry an image of the object that was their source, or off of which they reflected. The IMAGE is a pattern on our eyes, as interpreted by the mind. Of course, this PATTERN is seen in the present.

But what the pattern represents is an image of the object as it was in the past -- obviously! For the light had to take time to arrive to build up the pattern. So: we see, in the present, patterns of light/dark color that constitute a pattern representing the light distribution over an object as that object was some time in the past. See the darts analogy, peacegirl.

Can peacegirl really not understand such a simple concept? Because it's not just that she rejects the concept; she seems curiously immune to grapsing it. Her confusion (if indeed she is confused and not just wholly dishonest) lies in her remarkably dogmatic (and utterly wrong) conviction that we see the objects themselves. Of course if we DID see "the objects themselves" then we would see them in the present, because we only ever see in the present. But we do NOT see the objects themselves (the very idea is inane and inexplicable) but rather the light PATTERNS from the object when the light from them impinges on our eyes.

Will this help peacegirl?

Prediction: Nope!

[davidm]

Perhaps peacegirl could be invited to think of a fossil.

A fossil is a record, in the present, of an object as it was in the past. Right, peacegirl?

And that is what images are: fossils representing objects as they were in the past. But they are fossils made of photons.

Will this help peacegirl?

Nope!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Do you want me to hook up my portable drive to dig up the actual quotes?

Please don't, even having to read a few paragraphs hopeing to find a few coherent phrases is just too cruel a punishment to inflict on any rational person. But if you do it for Peacegirl, that is obviously not a problem.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This bias is, and continues to be, a problem. But it is not insurmountable. It is just going to take budging these scientists to give Lessans the benefit of the doubt, and to make absolutely sure the empirical tests are reliable and replicable to guarantee that any unforeseen bias is weeded out.

Who is going to "make absolutely sure the empirical tests are reliable and replicable to guarantee that any unforeseen bias is weeded out"? Any such oversight can only be conducted by someone with expertise in the relevant field. That is to say, a scientist. However, according to you and Lessans' those same scientists are so completely wedded to their existing theories as to be unable to function without a bias in favor of those same theories. I see a serious "catch 22" in your plan.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu...sion/isql.html

That link says nothing about light fading out. It is describing the dispersion of light over distance. The individual photons remain as robust as when they were first emitted or reflected. There is no fading out.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Of course. That's true by definition.

According to what account? Not afferent vision, which explains via dispersion and resolution exactly why we cannot see an object of a certain size beyond a certain range with only our eyes.

You're still missing the point.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, but even so, the distance is short, so there will never be a different color than what the object itself is reflecting. That's why we get a mirror image on our retina.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It doesn't matter how short the distance is (and it is not always short). As long as it is non-zero it will be possible for the light now at the film/retina to be different from that presently not being absorbed at the surface of the object. If the light now at the film previously traveled the non-zero distance (no matter how short) between the object and the film, then it was non-absorbed at the surface of the object at some time before the photograph was taken - meaning the object might then have been non-absorbing different light from what it is non-absorbing when the photograph is taken.

There's something missing in this entire equation. Instead of starting with your position of how light works (which is what Lessans was disputing), and logically following that reasoning, which will always turn out in your favor, you need to work backwards. You've got to take the position that the eyes are efferent, for testing purposes, and that the object must be in range in order to see it in real time. From there it follows that if the image is not in the light separate from the object, how in the world can light travel away from the object as if the light is a separate entity apart from the object that it is revealing to us? In other words, if it is true (and we can pretend it's a theory at this point, although I know it's not) that we see the object in real time which makes light a condition of sight, not a cause, how could we see the red wavelength light before blue, if the object has already turned blue based on this new understanding? You still don't get the difference between the two versions of efferent and afferent sight. That is the crux of the problem we're having. Your reasoning will always turn out logically, but not mathematically correct if you follow the premise that all we need is light to give us information. This whole discussion will go nowhere as a result until it is proven, through empirical testing, that the eyes are not a sense organ and that Lessans was right all along. Soon enough he will be vindicated and you'll all be running with your tail between your legs in shame that you called him all these undeserving names.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Who is going to "make absolutely sure the empirical tests are reliable and replicable to guarantee that any unforeseen bias is weeded out"? Any such oversight can only be conducted by someone with expertise in the relevant field. That is to say, a scientist. However, according to you and Lessans' those same scientists are so completely wedded to their existing theories as to be unable to function without a bias in favor of those same theories. I see a serious "catch 22" in your plan.

That link says nothing about light fading out. It is describing the dispersion of light over distance. The individual photons remain as robust as when they were first emitted or reflected. There is no fading out.

The light fades out, which only means the farther our eyes are from the object, the smaller the object becomes until it can no longer be seen. I am not implying that photons themselves fade out. Our ability to see an object, therefore, is dependent on its location relative to the eye or camera.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're still missing the point.

There's something missing in this entire equation. Instead of starting with your position of how light works (which is what Lessans was disputing), and logically following that reasoning, which will always turn out in your favor, you need to work backwards. You've got to take the position that the eyes are efferent, for testing purposes...

Spacemonkey HAS been accepting for testing purposes efferent vision, you shameless little liar, and showing repeatedly, by asking questions that you can't answer without falling straight into contradiction, that the claim is utter bollocks.

And he has been very charitable to you in doing this, a charity that you do not deserve. As I pointed out earlier, this whole discussion is moot. There is no reason to discuss your hypothetical (and completely self-contradictory) mechanisms for efferent seeing, because we do not see efferently, and we do not see in real time. This is not a fucking premise, it is an empirical fact.

Too bad for Daddy!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light fades out,...

No, it does not, you little fool.

Long ago LadyShea even posted diagrams showing exactly what happens with light and why distant objects look smaller and eventually can't be seen. In one ear and out the other of your empty head, eh, peacegirl?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

how in the world can light travel away from the object as if the light is a separate entity apart from the object that it is revealing to us

Because we know, for a fact, that light is a separate entity apart from even it's source, let alone any matter (or objects) it encounters.

Do you really, truly, still not understand what light is? What it does? What its properties are? Electromagnetism/light physics is all empirically observed and measurable fact (see Optics).

You can't change light physics in order to make your model of vision work, your model of vision needs to include and be compatible with the known facts about light physics.

[LadyShea]

Soon enough he will be vindicated and you'll all be running with your tail between your legs in shame that you called him all these undeserving names.

LOL, this is the cry of the crackpot

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light travels at the speed of light in a straight line. When it encounters matter, it is either absorbed (selectively or totally), reflected (selectively or totally), or passed through (transmitted) - either straight through or refracted/bent, depending on the composition of the matter.

If it is reflected, it will travel in a straight line away from the object at the angle of reflection until/unless it meets more matter and again it is either absorbed (selectively or totally), reflected (selectively or totally), or passed through (transmitted)- either straight through or refracted/bent, depending on the composition of the matter.

This is optics 101 stuff, which I thought you understood?

Bump. Do you disagree with the above, peacegirl?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

Soon enough he will be vindicated and you'll all be running with your tail between your legs in shame that you called him all these undeserving names.

Ah so it will all happen during our lifetime now? Awesome! When? Do I have time to invest in a translucent robe factory?

[LadyShea]

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

. Soon enough he will be vindicated and you'll all be running with your tail between your legs in shame that you called him all these undeserving names.

Woooooooooooooo.