A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You haven't established that at all. You've yet to show any way in which real-time vision could be possible without light having to behave completely differently from how it does. This is just another faith claim.

The reason no one is grasping the plausibility of this model is because no one can see how efferent vision would allow the very thing that sounds physically impossible. But if the brain is looking out, through the eyes, as a window to the world, we don't have to wait for light to reach Earth. All that is necessary, as I've said a thousand times, is for light to be surrounding the object, and for the object to be large enough to be seen. These conditions are what you are refuting because you don't see how it's possible without photons actually traveling thousands of miles to impinge on the retina. But even before this phenomenon would ever be taken seriously, there has to be more empirical studies to determine whether, in fact, we see efferently. People say there is evidence that we interpret images in the brain itself, but this is not a proven fact. If there is no further interest, then this claim will never be validated and people will continue to believe that we see images (I'm not talking about N light) from the distant past even though the event has been long gone.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

1. The Sun newly ignited at noon
2. Camera film on Earth at noon
3. No photons of light on Earth until 12:08 ACCORDING TO LESSANS HIMSELF
4. No light on Earth means no photons for the camera film to physically touch which is required for absorption and photochemical reaction.

How do photons come to be in contact with camera film on Earth, 93 million miles away, at noon if the photons have neither traveled to Earth, nor teleported to the camera film?

If you can't describe a mechanism that doesn't break the laws of physics (which bar photochemical reactions at a physical distance), then your claims regarding cameras taking photographs in real time are proven false.

This all boils down to whether the conditions that would allow this phenomenon of real time seeing to occur are in violation with physical laws or not. I don't believe they are. I am not saying that there is a photochemical reaction at a physical distance because that would violate the laws of physics. But if the lens of the eye or camera are aimed at substance, that means the light is at the film/retina instantly. There is no teleporting at all, because there is no travel time at all where photons have to traverse a long distance. This is the source of the confusion, but in order to see that this is not breaking any laws of physics, there has to be more empirical testing on whether efferent vision is valid. There is no getting around it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The reason no one is grasping the plausibility of this model is because no one can see how efferent vision would allow the very thing that sounds physically impossible.

Exactly. No-one can see this - INCLUDING YOU. That is why it is not plausible.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These conditions are what you are refuting because you don't see how it's possible without photons actually traveling thousands of miles to impinge on the retina.

The photons have to be there at the film or retina to interact with it. And you have given no explanation of how they get there if they do not either travel there or teleport there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This all boils down to whether the conditions that would allow this phenomenon of real time seeing to occur are in violation with physical laws or not. I don't believe they are.

Because this is a faith position for you. You certainly have no evidence or argument to show that real-time vision is consistent with physical laws. The whole point of my questions has been to help you work out how much of established physics you will have to reject to maintain your faith-based conclusions. That you refuse to address those questions shows that you have no interest in finding this out.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But if the lens of the eye or camera are aimed at substance, that means the light is at the film/retina instantly. There is no teleporting at all, because there is no travel time at all where photons have to traverse a long distance.

That's exactly what makes it teleportation. Getting from one place to another without traveling though the intervening distance (no matter how short that distance is) is teleportation. If there is some non-zero actual distance covered without any travel time then THAT is teleportation. There's no getting around it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

As long as photons travel then I'm not discussing afferent vision by asking about them, am I?

What does this instant mirror image at the film consist of?

Photons that traveled to get there? Photons that got there instantly from somewhere else (i.e. teleported)? Newly existing photons that popped into existence at the film? Something other than photons? What?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are there traveling photons striking the object on your account, which do not get absorbed by the object? If so, where are they immediately after they hit the object? Are they traveling away from the surface of the object or not?

Are there photons at the film and interacting with it when the photograph is taken? Are they photons which were previously traveling towards the camera or not? If not, did they exist at all prior to the photograph being taken? If they did previously exist, then where were they immediately before the photograph was taken?

(Note how none of these questions presuppose anything about afferent vision or traveling photons.)

Bump.

[Vivisectus]

This all boils down to whether the conditions that would allow this phenomenon of real time seeing to occur are in violation with physical laws or not. I don't believe they are. I am not saying that there is a photochemical reaction at a physical distance because that would violate the laws of physics. But if the lens of the eye or camera are aimed at substance, that means the light is at the film/retina instantly. There is no teleporting at all, because there is no travel time at all where photons have to traverse a long distance. This is the source of the confusion, but in order to see that this is not breaking any laws of physics, there has to be more empirical testing on whether efferent vision is valid. There is no getting around it.

A particle that appears in a different place without crossing the space between where it was and where it is now is the definition is teleportation. The fact that there is no travelling is what makes it teleportation.

If it DOES cross the intervening space, but does so at infinite speed (required to make the effect instantaneous) then we have FTL travel, which also breaches the laws of physics. Actually, it is worse than that: we have something travelling at infinite speed, which is problematic for all sort of different reasons.

So either physics is wrong and teleportation and FTL travel are not just possible, but something that happens around lenses all the time, or you are just trying to defend an idea which is clearly wrong.

You just contradicted yourself again. This happens to you a lot, because your point of view is irrational.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

TLR, something about your eagerness to know the truth makes me believe you haven't given up. Maybe I'm wrong, but my intuition tells me I'm not.

TLR holds you in contempt, for exactly the same reason that I do: You are willfully ignorant and dishonest.

[peacegirl]

I have to share this!

Pitbull vs. Kitten. [VIDEO]

[davidm]

How about sharing your thoughts on this, asshat?

If real-time seeing is true, why do we actually see the moons of Jupiter, and all other celestial bodies, in delayed time, as is easily empirically shown and is not a premise, as you have dishonestly maintained?

Also, asshat, why does NASA use delayed-time seeing calculations to send spacecraft to Mars, Titan, and other worlds? If Lessans were correct, NASA's spacecraft would miss their targets by a wide margin. Instead, using delayed-time seeing, NASA always hits its target.

Why is that, asshat?



Oh, I know!

Something else must be going on there!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This all boils down to whether the conditions that would allow this phenomenon of real time seeing to occur are in violation with physical laws or not. But if the lens of the eye or camera are aimed at substance, that means the light is at the film/retina instantly.

This is in violation of known physical laws, there is no confusion except on Peacegirls part since she does not understand the known physical laws yet arrogantly claims that they are wrong.

[davidm]

No, the light is not at the film/retina instantly. This is easily emprirically demonstrated, as it has been shown to you hundreds of times over the course of this thread. Your father was wrong. Too bad.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This all boils down to whether the conditions that would allow this phenomenon of real time seeing to occur are in violation with physical laws or not. I don't believe they are. I am not saying that there is a photochemical reaction at a physical distance because that would violate the laws of physics. But if the lens of the eye or camera are aimed at substance, that means the light is at the film/retina instantly.

Instantly 93 million miles away breaks the laws of physics.

There is no teleporting at all, because there is no travel time at all where photons have to traverse a long distance.

Something appearing a long distance away without taking time traversing the distance is the definition of teleportation.

We know what the physical laws are that cause photographic images to appear on film. Photons have to come into physical contact with the film....which means they must occupy the same physical location. To do that, they have to come to be in the same physical location.

Travel, or teleportation? Which do you pick?

[But]

Originally Posted by davidm

Why is that, asshat?



Oh, I know!

Something else must be going on there!

Now let's not get sloppy here, okay?
Something else must be going on there, if efferent vision is correct.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Exactly. No-one can see this - INCLUDING YOU. That is why it is not plausible.

Wrong. Maybe you don't, but I do see how efferent vision changes the very thing that is believed to be impossible.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These conditions are what you are refuting because you don't see how it's possible without photons actually traveling thousands of miles to impinge on the retina.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The photons have to be there at the film or retina to interact with it. And you have given no explanation of how they get there if they do not either travel there or teleport there.

EFFERENT VISION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This all boils down to whether the conditions that would allow this phenomenon of real time seeing to occur are in violation with physical laws or not. I don't believe they are.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Because this is a faith position for you. You certainly have no evidence or argument to show that real-time vision is consistent with physical laws. The whole point of my questions has been to help you work out how much of established physics you will have to reject to maintain your faith-based conclusions. That you refuse to address those questions shows that you have no interest in finding this out.

Wrong again. I don't have to reject physics to maintain that these claims are valid. That I refuse to address those questions is because you're missing the most important aspect of all this --- efferent vision. All you're doing is following the afferent version of sight, which would be a problem because in this version time is a factor.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But if the lens of the eye or camera are aimed at substance, that means the light is at the film/retina instantly. There is no teleporting at all, because there is no travel time at all where photons have to traverse a long distance.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That's exactly what makes it teleportation. Getting from one place to another without traveling though the intervening distance (no matter how short that distance is) is teleportation. If there is some non-zero actual distance covered without any travel time then THAT is teleportation. There's no getting around it.

But in efferent vision, there is no non-zero actual distance covered, so there is no travel time and, consequently, THERE IS NO TELEPORTATION.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have to share this!

Pitbull vs. Kitten. [VIDEO]

We have a thread for this, you know - in fact there is an entire forum here for you to interact with, should you wish to talk about something else for a while. It is good fun - there are some interesting people in this forum.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

As long as photons travel then I'm not discussing afferent vision by asking about them, am I?

Yes you are.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What does this instant mirror image at the film consist of?

Photons that traveled to get there?

No, in the efferent version there are no traveling photons. There is a mirror image with no travel between the object and the mirror image that is on the film/retina. This is obviously a different point of view than mirror images in the afferent version because, in this version, it is believed that light is still bringing the image through space, and therefore time, however quick it occurs.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Photons that got there instantly from somewhere else (i.e. teleported)?

Do you see how you are constantly talking about photons, not the eye, which is what the claim is referring to?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Newly existing photons that popped into existence at the film? Something other than photons? What?

Why do you keep talking about photons popping into existence? You are creating a space in time that does not exist in efferent vision. The eyes are focusing on the object because of light, not the other way around. You are thinking reverse when you talk about photons needing to arrive, which is causing the conflict.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are there traveling photons striking the object on your account, which do not get absorbed by the object? If so, where are they immediately after they hit the object? Are they traveling away from the surface of the object or not?

Are there photons at the film and interacting with it when the photograph is taken? Are they photons which were previously traveling towards the camera or not? If not, did they exist at all prior to the photograph being taken? If they did previously exist, then where were they immediately before the photograph was taken?

(Note how none of these questions presuppose anything about afferent vision or traveling photons.)

You are presupposing that the only way to see is for light to be traveling. This is the afferent position. You are failing to understand the difference between these two versions, which, once again, highlights where the problem is originating.

[Vivisectus]

Quick side-note that may have already been covered: how does efferent sight account for the fact that light itself is actually invisible?

If you take a big oblong box with a vacuum inside, and then project a beam of light through it along it's length, then an observer who is facing the box from the side cannot see that beam of light, even if you put a nice black background to it. That observer can only see it if it is projected directly at him.

This is because when we see a beam of light, what we are really seeing are tiny bits of dust, smoke, or other bits of matter that reflect bits of that beam towards us. If there is nothing to reflect the light towards us, we simply cannot see it.

That seems to me a pretty good empirical test of efferent vision, done here on earth, that proves efferent vision is not correct.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you see how you are constantly talking about photons, not the eye, which is what the claim is referring to?

Why do you keep talking about photons popping into existence? You are creating a space in time that does not exist in efferent vision. The eyes are focusing on the object because of light, not the other way around. You are thinking reverse when you talk about photons needing to arrive, which is causing the conflict.

Once again, you need to drop your insistence that camera film and CCDs, which must have traveling photons physically land on them to create images from the pattern of light, are also real time seeing devices like the eyes and brain.

If it's only about the brain and eyes, then cameras must be excluded from your model. If cameras are included in your model, light physics must be included in your model.

It's pretty simple, peacegirl. You can't have it both ways, again. Even if eyes work as you claim they do, camera film does not. As long as cameras are in your model, so are photons

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is a mirror image with no travel between the object and the mirror image that is on the film/retina.

If the mirror image doesn't consist of photons, then you can't use camera film in your model. If it does consist of photons, you have to describe how they got to the film, without breaking the laws of physics.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

1. The Sun newly ignited at noon
2. Camera film on Earth at noon
3. No photons of light on Earth until 12:08 ACCORDING TO LESSANS HIMSELF
4. No light on Earth means no photons for the camera film to physically touch which is required for absorption and photochemical reaction.

How do photons come to be in contact with camera film on Earth, 93 million miles away, at noon if the photons have neither traveled to Earth, nor teleported to the camera film?

If you can't describe a mechanism that doesn't break the laws of physics (which bar photochemical reactions at a physical distance), then your claims regarding cameras taking photographs in real time are proven false.

[thedoc]

Afferent Vision, the photons travel from the source to the object, some of them are reflected and are picked up by the eye or camera and are converted to an image.
Efferent Vision, the light source is emmiting light so we can see it even though there is no explination of how the photons get from the source to the eye or camera. After the photons arrive at an object we can see it but again there is no explination of how the photons get from the object to the eye or camera. A little help here?

PFM?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quick side-note that may have already been covered: how does efferent sight account for the fact that light itself is actually invisible?

Because light illuminates substance in efferent vision. We need light to see the world, like the dust and stuff mentioned in the rest of your post.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Because light illuminates substance in efferent vision. We need light to see the world, like the dust and stuff mentioned in the rest of your post.

Weird. So when light hits an object when an eye looks to it, then it can instantaneously be both at the object and the retina. But if it does not hit an object, this does not happen. Also, if an eye does not look at it, no light instantly non-travels anywhere either.

This means the eyes are teleportation-devices. And so are cameras. Which is odd, because as far as we can determine mechanically, both are essentially passive light detectors.

I love how strange and outlandish the explanations are becoming. You cannot make sense of efferent sight without some form of magic or another.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

According to afferent vision, all we need is light to strike the retina, which gives us the pattern of a past event. Ask David and you'll see that the object doesn't have to be anywhere in sight.

The detector is important too. We can't see the galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field images with our eyes, or with most telescopes and cameras.

However, pointing the Hubble at specific coordinates when it's orbit allowed for it, for a total of a million minutes, captured enough photons to create an image.

It takes specialized equipment to gather enough light to create images when the subject is too far away or too small or too dim to see with our eyes.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

How about sharing your thoughts on this, asshat?

If real-time seeing is true, why do we actually see the moons of Jupiter, and all other celestial bodies, in delayed time, as is easily empirically shown and is not a premise, as you have dishonestly maintained?

Also, asshat, why does NASA use delayed-time seeing calculations to send spacecraft to Mars, Titan, and other worlds? If Lessans were correct, NASA's spacecraft would miss their targets by a wide margin. Instead, using delayed-time seeing, NASA always hits its target.

Why is that, asshat?



Oh, I know!

Something else must be going on there!

You're on ignore.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quick side-note that may have already been covered: how does efferent sight account for the fact that light itself is actually invisible?

If you take a big oblong box with a vacuum inside, and then project a beam of light through it along it's length, then an observer who is facing the box from the side cannot see that beam of light, even if you put a nice black background to it. That observer can only see it if it is projected directly at him.

This is because when we see a beam of light, what we are really seeing are tiny bits of dust, smoke, or other bits of matter that reflect bits of that beam towards us. If there is nothing to reflect the light towards us, we simply cannot see it.

That seems to me a pretty good empirical test of efferent vision, done here on earth, that proves efferent vision is not correct.

I would disagree that it proves efferent vision is not correct. If we're looking sideways there is no substance from which to see the image. It's very clear to me. I hope it will become clear to you eventually. The fact that substance reflects (P) light (which involves no time since it is an exact replica or mirror image) is what allows the eyes to see in the present, not the past. Without the substance that the light is shining on (so to speak), we get no image. That is exactly why looking sideways would not give us an image of anything.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Instantly 93 million miles away breaks the laws of physics.

Something appearing a long distance away without taking time traversing the distance is the definition of teleportation.

We know what the physical laws are that cause photographic images to appear on film. Photons have to come into physical contact with the film....which means they must occupy the same physical location. To do that, they have to come to be in the same physical location.

Travel, or teleportation? Which do you pick?

Neither.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're on ignore.

Can't answer the questions about NASA and the moons of Jupiter, eh, asshat?

I'll say this for Lessans: He makes a good poster boy for why one should stay in school. You should promote him in that way. Maybe the Department of Education can focus a campaign around him and you can make some money off of it.