A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is a contradiction right there. For particles to disperse they have to travel.

I just told you that white light is traveling. When it passes over matter part of that light energy IS absorbed and the remaining non-absorbed light IS allowing the object to be seen BUT THIS REMAINING LIGHT DOES NOT BOUNCE AND CONTINUE ON INDEFINITELY.

[LadyShea]

How are you defining white light? You seem to have an idiosyncratic definition in mind since how you are using it makes no sense.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But in efferent vision, you cannot just detect light without the object, because it would show up as white light, no image. And no one has answered my question, which is why does an image not show up on film if a person steps out of visual range slightly, but is in a straight line with the lens of a camera, but when he steps within range, his image is resolved on film.

It is explained right here

At that point the ball will represent a smaller part of the image than the smallest detector, and the ball will cease to show up on the image. That central detector will have a decision to make as to whether or not to create a red dot in the image, and as it is receiving more non-red than red light, it will not indicate red.

You know what's hilarious, this seems to be what you are referring to as "becoming white light".

It's not that the red photons aren't traveling, it's that they've dispersed to the point where they are not intense enough to resolve an image, because the other light (white light in your model) is equally intense. Remember the definition of white light? All wavelengths being present in equal intensity? When a red object is close by, the red light is more intense than the other wavelengths, so we see the red object. When that intensity decreases too much due to dispersion over distance, we no longer see the object

So, your model is just confusingly and unnecessarily positing crazy non-traveling light to explain the physical mechanism already explained by standard optics.

This proves that it's not only light that is necessary here. It is the substance that must be within the camera's field of view

No, it proves that to see something the reflected light from it must be intense enough to resolve an image by the detector or sensor in question. Some sensors/detectors are more sensitive in general, or especially configured to be more sensitive to specific wavelengths, etc.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If we saw the supernova in "real time" meaning instantly, as it happened, we wouldn't detect the neutrinos from that event until long after we were able to see it. This is because the neutrinos must travel the distance, which takes time, while we could see it without any time delay.

So if we saw, in real time. a supernova of a star 100 light years away from Earth, the neutrinos would take about 100 years to arrive to be detected.

However this doesn't happen. The neutrinos are detected around the same time we can see the supernova, which is strong evidence that we see the supernova only after the light has traveled that distance, not in real time as it happens.

This has been gone over many times before. What part do you not understand?

I never said light did not travel, and if a neutrino came before these photons, it would be letting us know that soon light will be detected, but to use this example as proof that we see an exact image of a past event due to light bringing that image to us, is far from conclusive.

[LadyShea]

Bump

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I answered, and it's so simple I can't imagine what part is confusing to you.

All light of all wavelengths, blue, green, red, etc. always travels in a straight line. When light encounters matter it is either absorbed (and transformed so no longer light), reflected, or transmitted, with or without refraction. If it is reflected it travels in a straight line in another direction (determined by angles).

Your dad was a pool player, right? Imagine breaking the balls, you have balls going in straight lines in different directions. Some hit the side and reflect and travel in a new direction. Some go in a pocket and are no longer on the table (like absorption). This is not unlike photons. Imagine a pool table with billions and billions of tiny little balls.

Tree leaves absorb blue wavelength light, so if the blue wavelength that reflected off a blue object a few minutes ago, then encounters a leaf it will be absorbed. The blue light is not the ONLY light hitting that leaf, there is light previously reflected coming in from other directions, direct and indirect sunlight. Photons of all wavelenghts are zooming everywhere all the time.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said light did not travel, and if a neutrino came before these photons, it would be letting us know that soon light will be detected, but to use this example as proof that we see an exact image of a past event due to light that is bringing that pattern of light to us, is far from conclusive.

Lessans' claim is that we can see stars and other heavenly bodies in real time, without having to await the photons to reach Earth. That was his point of the hypothetical about seeing the sun turned on at noon, even though the light wouldn't reach us for another 8.5 minutes. Which is why I said this:

If we saw the supernova in "real time" meaning instantly, as it happened, we wouldn't detect the neutrinos from that event until long after we were able to see it. This is because the neutrinos must travel the distance, which takes time, while we could see it without any time delay.

So, if we do have to await the arriving photons to see a supernova that happened 100 years ago (because it is a hundred light years away), that is seeing a past event, correct?

This disproves Lessans claim.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is explained right here

You know what's hilarious, this seems to be what you are referring to as "becoming white light".

It's not that the red photons aren't traveling, it's that they've dispersed to the point where they are not intense enough to resolve an image, because the other light (white light in your model) is equally intense. Remember the definition of white light? All wavelengths being present in equal intensity? When a red object is close by, the red light is more intense than the other wavelengths, so we see the red object. When that intensity decreases too much due to dispersion over distance, we no longer see the object

So, your model is just confusingly and unnecessarily positing crazy non-traveling light to explain the physical mechanism already explained by standard optics.

Not at all. I'm saying it seems quite strange that the only time resolution occurs is when an actual piece of matter is in range. You keep explaining how detectors work, which is all well and good, but they don't work at all if there if the object is not present. I've said this all along. It does not make sense logically that there would be no image detected when someone steps slightly out of range if the pattern of light is in a direct in line with the sensor. Thank you for explaining how sensors work and why red shows up, but you still have not answered the simple question as to why objects (substance) must be in view for the reflected light to be detected.

This proves that it's not only light that is necessary here. It is the substance that must be within the camera's field of view

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, it proves that to see something the reflected light from it must be intense enough to resolve an image by the detector or sensor in question. Some sensors/detectors are more sensitive in general, or especially configured to be more sensitive to specific wavelengths, etc.

All things being equal, if a person is not within visible range, the strongest sensor would still not pick up or detect an image if that individual is literally a few steps back that put that person out of range.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bump

That sounds bizarre, seriously. Think carefully about what Occam's razor says, and you will see what I mean.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans' claim is that we can see stars and other heavenly bodies in real time, without having to await the photons to reach Earth. That was his point of the hypothetical about seeing the sun turned on at noon, even though the light wouldn't reach us for another 8.5 minutes. Which is why I said this:

So, if we do have to await the arriving photons to see a supernova that happened 100 years ago (because it is a hundred light years away), that is seeing a past event, correct?

This disproves Lessans claim.

No it doesn't, because detection of neutrinos is different than efferent sight. They don't go hand in hand. That's why Lessans said that seeing the Sun turned on does not mean that photons have to have reached Earth. We just wouldn't be able to see each other until those photons arrived. By the same token, we can see in real time, and detect neutrinos when they get close enough to Earth.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why Lessans said that seeing the Sun turned on does not mean that photons have to have reached Earth. We just wouldn't be able to see each other until those photons arrived. By the same token, we can see in real time, and detect neutrinos when they get close enough to Earth.

LOL, he said that because he was an ignorant buffoon.

Seriously, are you crazy? Do you really believe that hundreds of years of careful investigation and observation by untold numbers of scientists that show delayed-time seeing, a delayed-time seeing that is proven daily in hundreds of thousands of ways, by every spacecraft that we launch, by every picture we snap of the heavens, by every machine in existence that uses light in some fashion -- that all of this is magically and inexplicably wrong, because some jabbering seventh-grade dropout pool hustler said so?

I know you don't believe it. You know Lessans is wrong just like everyone, but you prefer to bluster and bluff and lie your way through life, probably in the hope of making a buck off the book. As has been said to you before, and it's good advice: If you really want to find suckers to pay for that piece of tripe, you need to find a venue full of dumb people who can easily be gulled and swindled.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not at all. I'm saying it seems quite strange that the only time resolution occurs is when an actual piece of matter is in range. You keep explaining how detectors work, which is all well and good, but they don't work at all if there if the object is not present.

Now we're back to images that can seen and photographed without any "actual piece of matter being in range", like stars, rainbows, television and computer monitor images, even photographs...the paper is an object, but the image is not. The image is nothing but colored dots of different intensities.

The object is important in standard optics because it reflects light, and the qualities of that reflection (intensity, color, angles) is what determines the image resolved by the sensor.

I've said this all along. It does not make sense logically that there would be no image detected when someone steps slightly out of range if the pattern of light is in a direct in line with the sensor.

I just explained why that is. Are you unable of comprehending simple sentences in English?

Thank you for explaining how sensors work and why red shows up, but you still have not answered the simple question as to why objects (substance) must be in view for the reflected light to be detected.

Because that's what "in view" means. In view means the sensor can resolve an image. Nothing more or less.

All things being equal, if a person is not within visible range, the strongest sensor would still not pick up or detect an image if that individual is literally a few steps back that put that person out of range.

The "visible range" is determined by the sensor. Some sensors have a longer range, others shorter. This is why telescopes and telephoto lenses and binoculars were invented. This is why some animals can see further and/or in more detail than others.

At some distance the Earth itself gets in the way, but there are instruments that can extend the visible range all the way to the horizon.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it doesn't, because detection of neutrinos is different than efferent sight. They don't go hand in hand. That's why Lessans said that seeing the Sun turned on does not mean that photons have to have reached Earth. We just wouldn't be able to see each other until those photons arrived. By the same token, we can see in real time, and detect neutrinos when they get close enough to Earth.

You are confused by the example I guess, let me break it down to the simplest of terms.

Star is 100 light years away
Star goes supernova at star time T1
Neutrinos will take around 100 years to get to Earth to be detected, because they travel at close to light speed, so T1+100 years

According to Lessans claims, we would see the supernova at T1 with our instant efferent vision, but we would not detect neutrinos from that supernova for another hundred years.

What happens in reality is that we detect the neutrinos and see the supernova within the same general time frame (often within hours of each other), not a hundred or more years apart. This demonstrates that we can't see stars instantly, we can only see them when the photons have reached Earth.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That sounds bizarre, seriously. .

LOL what sounds bizarre? That there are photons everywhere? Do you know how many photons the sun emits?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL what sounds bizarre? That there are photons everywhere? Do you know how many photons the sun emits?

I believe that some time ago on this or the other thread TLR (I think) posted a number for how many photons hit the Earth in a given length of time. It was a pretty big number, at least higher than I can count on my hands and feet.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Ahh, I'm glad you asked. 'M' light is the kind of light that is absorbed by piano strings, and allows me to know where the keys are so that I can play the right notes. Since my piano is about 100 years old the light that reaches my ears to be intrepreted by my brain takes a long time to get there, (must be very tired light) and so my playing is a bit slow sometimes. The really interesting thing is that now, because each string 'M' reflects light at a different frequency, I am hearing many different colors when I play, but for some reason when I hit a wrong note everything goes white?

Well I've got a big smile on my face, I just played it through from memory without music, and I didn't hear any white.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just told you that white light is traveling. When it passes over matter part of that light energy IS absorbed and the remaining non-absorbed light IS allowing the object to be seen BUT THIS REMAINING LIGHT DOES NOT BOUNCE AND CONTINUE ON INDEFINITELY.

But the white light has nothing to do with the image. It is the non-white, non-absorbed light after an interaction with an object that does that. Since this does not travel in your model, it should never disperse.

[Vivisectus]

No it doesn't, because detection of neutrinos is different than efferent sight. They don't go hand in hand. That's why Lessans said that seeing the Sun turned on does not mean that photons have to have reached Earth. We just wouldn't be able to see each other until those photons arrived. By the same token, we can see in real time, and detect neutrinos when they get close enough to Earth.

But we know neutrinos travel at just below lightspeed. If efferent vision were true, and we were to see a supernova, and then start detecting neutrinos within the year, that would mean the supernova that is happening less than a lightyear away from us! We know this is not the case, because we have failed to burn to a crisp

You see, supernovas are what scientists technically call very, very big. They can be as big as 10 lightyears across. That is just the explosion itself - not the terrible wave of extreme radiation that emanates further out from it.

So either neutrinos can travel instantly without travelling as well, or efferent vision must be false.

[Vivisectus]

By the way I am still waiting to be told about the levers. I have been looking forward to it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

By the way I am still waiting to be told about the levers. I have been looking forward to it.

They are called 'keys' and they activate a mechanism that operates a hammer that strikes the strings and produces the very colorful sounds.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You just implied that the object is not important once the light is reflected.

I just explained why that is. Are you unable of comprehending simple sentences in English?

No, you didn't. You made an assertion that resolution has nothing to do with the object once it is reflected.

Thank you for explaining how sensors work and why red shows up, but you still have not answered the simple question as to why objects (substance) must be in view for the reflected light to be detected.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Because that's what "in view" means. In view means the sensor can resolve an image. Nothing more or less.

Not according to Lessans' perspective which is what we are disputing, so to just say that this is what "in view" means is circular because that is what is being disputed.

All things being equal, if a person is not within visible range, the strongest sensor would still not pick up or detect an image if that individual is literally a few steps back that put that person out of range.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The "visible range" is determined by the sensor. Some sensors have a longer range, others shorter. This is why telescopes and telephoto lenses and binoculars were invented. This is why some animals can see further and/or in more detail than others.

This is actually hysterical because the very thing you're saying disputes efferent vision, is the very thing that supports it. It doesn't matter what the range is for different eyes. What matters is whether the object is in range. An animal's range could be 100 times greater than the range that we can see, but that makes no difference in this account. That's why telescopes work because it is a magnification, which puts the object in range. If all we needed was light, we wouldn't need a telescope, but, of course, you don't get that.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

At some distance the Earth itself gets in the way, but there are instruments that can extend the visible range all the way to the horizon.

You are dealing in theory, not fact.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are dealing in theory, not fact.

No, idiot, it's a fact. If it were not fact, none of our telescopes would work. A single photo from the Hubble telescope is all that is needed to disprove Lessans' jabbering nonsense.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

By the way I am still waiting to be told about the levers. I have been looking forward to it.

I already answered you. You have to prove that dogs have the cognitive ability to understand not only the training of how to push a lever with their paws, but what this means in terms of what they are seeing in a photograph. Prove this, and I'll concede.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You just implied that the object is not important once the light is reflected.

It's not important once the light is reflected

It was explained. Here are the two important sentences.

1. From Spacemonkey

At that point the ball will represent a smaller part of the image than the smallest detector, and the ball will cease to show up on the image. That central detector will have a decision to make as to whether or not to create a red dot in the image, and as it is receiving more non-red than red light, it will not indicate red.

2. From me

they've (the photons with a red wavelength) dispersed to the point where they are not intense enough to resolve an image, because the other light (white light in your model) is equally intense.

What does "in view" mean from Lessans perspective and therefore to you then, if it's so different as to be in dispute?

Does "in view" mean anything more than "can be seen" according to you and Lessans?

In optics in view means the same thing, it can be seen. Optics simply explains the mechanism; the why and how and when something is or is not in view.

This is something your model cannot do, explain the mechanism.

Is it a theory that binoculars extend the visual range? Is it a theory that telescopes extend the visual range? Is it a theory that some animals have a longer visual range than others? What exactly are you referring to as theory rather than factual?

[The Lone Ranger]

So ... the fact that dogs rarely, if ever, mistake photos of their masters for their masters is evidence of ... efferent vision. Yes?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The "visible range" is determined by the sensor. Some sensors have a longer range, others shorter. This is why telescopes and telephoto lenses and binoculars were invented. This is why some animals can see further and/or in more detail than others.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is actually hysterical because the very thing you're saying disputes efferent vision, is the very thing that supports it.

How and when and why an image can be resolved is a big part of optics, I was just describing the mechanisms.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If all we needed was light, we wouldn't need a telescope, but, of course, you don't get that.

And if our brains looked out and saw the real world instantly we wouldn't need telescopes, because we wouldn't need to collect, bend, and focus more light on our retina to extend our visual range.

Seriously, efferent vision says we can see what we can see when we can see it, with no explanation or mechanism. Optics explains why, how, and when we can see stuff.

Efferent vision doesn't offer any mechanism, it doesn't offer any way to determine how far is too far, how small is too small, how dim is too dim. All of this is explained and described and predicted by standard optics, however.

So, can you explain how "too far", "too dim" and "too small" are determined in your model, other than saying "If we can't see it we can't see it?"