A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

To be compatible with the laws of physics, the light currently located at the film/retina had to come to be at that location by some physical mechanism.

Quit with the mealy mouthing and describe that mechanism, otherwise you do not have a model compatible with the simplest laws of physics.

I'm not going to talk to you LadyShea if you keep describing my effort to explain things as "mealy mouthing" or "weaseling". You could have left that first part out and just asked me a question. I know you're moving in the direction of greater satisfaction but for what reason, I have no clue.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Somebody else is going to get involved because you're just not getting it.

I just told you that if you don't understand how efferent vision works, and you keep thinking in terms of photons traveling (or bouncing off of objects) you will never get this because this concept works hand in hand with this version of sight.

More pathetic weaselling. These questions do not presuppose anything about traveling or bouncing light. Stop weaseling and answer the questions.

If something exists at a given location, and neither came into existence there nor always existed in that location, then how can it be there without ever getting there?

How did the (P)light at the film get there? Where was it 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

More pathetic weaselling. These questions do not presuppose anything about traveling or bouncing light. Stop weaseling and answer the questions.

If something exists at a given location, and neither came into existence there nor always existed in that location, then how can it be there without ever getting there?

How did the (P)light at the film get there? Where was it 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken?

You're getting all mixed up between white light and (P) light. That's the problem. And you have no understanding of the importance of the object being in one's visual range due to the brain, looking through the eyes, as a window. It's like you're trying to fit one aspect of physics into this version of sight, and it doesn't work because you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. You have tunnel vision regarding photons = travel = destination, which is why you're not getting it.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not going to talk to you LadyShea if you keep describing my effort to explain things as "mealy mouthing" or "weaseling". You could have left that first part out and just asked me a question. I know you're moving in the direction of greater satisfaction but for what reason, I have no clue.

Quite weaseling and mealy mouthing* and describe the physical mechanism by which the light currently located at the film/retina came to be present at that location, otherwise you do not have a model compatible with the simplest laws of physics

*(mealy-mouthed) mealymouthed: hesitant to state facts or opinions simply and directly as from e.g. timidity or hypocrisy

ETA: You could leave out the mealy mouthed weaseling and just answer the fargin' question.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're getting all mixed up between white light and (P) light. That's the problem. And you have no understanding of the importance of the object being in one's visual range due to the brain, looking through the eyes, as a window. It's like all you're seeing in tunnel vision regarding photons = travel = destination, which is why you're not getting it.

Pg, you are being all incoherent again. Try to pay attention.

We are investigating IF objects are seen in real time. We have no proof THAT this happens. Nor do you have any plausible mechanism BY WHICH it could happen. Now IF instant sight was correct, then yes, light somehow needs to arrive at the retina at infinite speed.

However - this is not possible. Light travels at a finite speed and needs to cross the intervening space.

THEREFORE objects are not seen in real time.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by davidm

My personal opinion is that it would be inappropriate to contact her sister. I don't think the Internet should be used as a venue for prying into peoples' "real lives." It can cause no end of havoc. People have lost jobs because of crap they posted on the Internet. I'm in favor of a "non-overlapping magesteria" concept of the Web and real life.

As I have said a number of times before, if you are really concerned for her mental health -- and I do think she has some form of mental illness, though I'm not qualified to say what it is -- the best strategy is for everyone to stop posting to her. Yes, she will migrate to some other board, as she has done in the past, but the difference is this: probably every other board she goes to will eventually lock her insane threads, as they have been locked at boards she has frequented in the past. Here, these threads will never be locked. If people here would stop responding to her and then she went on to new boards and found another string of locked threads, perhaps she might at last be forced to confrot whatever is driving her obsessions. Or, perhaps not.

Originally Posted by thedoc

One somewhat neutral means would be to advise the sister to review the threads and decide for herself what an appropriate course of action would be. You could also include links to previous forums that she has been on, might add weight to the impression from this thread.

What are your thoughts on this, Peacegirl? Would you have any serious objection to our contacting your sister and directing her attention to your threads here and elsewhere?

[LadyShea]

peacegirl

In your model, are there photons located at the film or retina? Yes or No?

Do you understand that the laws of physics do not allow photons to be at a location without always having been there, or somehow getting there? Yes or No?

[Vivisectus]

Or can you get her to post? I would love another siblings view of your fathers life and work. We don't have to do it in this thread - we can start a new one especially for it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're getting all mixed up between white light and (P) light. That's the problem.

How so? I'm not asking about the white light at all. I'm simply asking you a straightforward question about the (P)light at the film.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And you have no understanding of the importance of the object being in one's visual range due to the brain, looking through the eyes, as a window.

That's irrelevant to my present question, as I already explained. The light at the film still has to get there somehow, even if the object must still be in existence and range when the photograph is taken.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's like you're trying to fit one aspect of physics into this version of sight, and it doesn't work because you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. You have tunnel vision regarding photons = travel = destination, which is why you're not getting it.

But I'm not assuming that the photons must travel to their destination. I've been quite specifically asking you to explain how they get to the film if they don't have to travel there. And YOU have no answer.

If something exists at a given location, and neither came into existence there nor always existed in that location, then how can it be there without ever getting there?

How did the (P)light at the film get there? Where was it 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken?

Are you going to answer? Or will you just keep weaselling?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quite weaseling and mealy mouthing* and describe the physical mechanism by which the light currently located at the film/retina came to be present at that location, otherwise you do not have a model compatible with the simplest laws of physics

*(mealy-mouthed) mealymouthed: hesitant to state facts or opinions simply and directly as from e.g. timidity or hypocrisy

ETA: You could leave out the mealy mouthed weaseling and just answer the fargin' question.

I already explained it LadyShea. The only way to know what you're having a hard time with is to tell me what you understand so far, if anything.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

More pathetic weaselling. These questions do not presuppose anything about traveling or bouncing light. Stop weaseling and answer the questions.

If something exists at a given location, and neither came into existence there nor always existed in that location, then how can it be there without ever getting there?

What do you mean "never getting there". It's already there the moment we see the object because this non-absorbed wavelength light is just the opposite side of the coin. It doesn't go anywhere. It reveals. You don't get that part.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How did the (P)light at the film get there? Where was it 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken?

You're getting all mixed up between white light and (P) light. That's the problem.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How so? I'm not asking about the white light at all. I'm simply asking you a straightforward question about the (P)light at the film.

P light has to be at the film if the lens is focused on the object, because all this light is doing is revealing. It is traveling nowhere; only white light travels.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And you have no understanding of the importance of the object being in one's visual range due to the brain, looking through the eyes, as a window.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That's irrelevant to my present question, as I already explained. The light at the film still has to get there somehow, even if the object must still be in existence and range when the photograph is taken.

No, that's where you're mistaken. Certain light gets absorbed and certain light is not absorbed, and the part that's not absorbed doesn't go anywhere. That's why Lessans said it isn't reflected, and if it's not reflected, it doesn't travel. But you can't understand this without looking at how the eyes work, which you say is irrelevant. Not only is it not irrelevant; it is the central theme of this entire thread.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's like you're trying to fit one aspect of physics into this version of sight, and it doesn't work because you're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. You have tunnel vision regarding photons = travel = destination, which is why you're not getting it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But I'm not assuming that the photons must travel to their destination. I've been quite specifically asking you to explain how they get to the film if they don't have to travel there. And YOU have no answer.

When you look at an object, the light is instantly at the film/retina for the simple reason that you are able to see the object, which means the requirements of efferent vision have been met.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If something exists at a given location, and neither came into existence there nor always existed in that location, then how can it be there without ever getting there?

Remember when I said that white light is continually traveling and replacing photons? That's how it's happening.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How did the (P)light at the film get there? Where was it 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken?

Are you going to answer? Or will you just keep weaselling?

It was in the same place because the blue photons did not travel. You are still coming from the afferent perspective even though you don't see it. All the non-absorbed light does is reveal the external world to us. It is white light that allows this to occur, because it is white light that is in constant motion. Do you see now why you are getting P light confused with N light? Of course not.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

peacegirl

In your model, are there photons located at the film or retina? Yes or No?

Do you understand that the laws of physics do not allow photons to be at a location without always having been there, or somehow getting there? Yes or No?

Of course LadyShea, that's why I'm constantly referring to white light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Pg, you are being all incoherent again. Try to pay attention.

We are investigating IF objects are seen in real time. We have no proof THAT this happens. Nor do you have any plausible mechanism BY WHICH it could happen. Now IF instant sight was correct, then yes, light somehow needs to arrive at the retina at infinite speed.

However - this is not possible. Light travels at a finite speed and needs to cross the intervening space.

THEREFORE objects are not seen in real time.

Of course efferent vision has to be correct for this to be plausible, but for purposes of discussion we're assuming it's correct so I can show you how it works. And you are 100% wrong regarding how this works according to this model. Nothing violates the laws of physics because the non-absorbed light is not traveling anywhere. White light replaces the blue photons with new photons. If you can at least grasp this, it may eventually sink in. That's why the inverse square law is supportive of this model and why we are able to interpret distance when looking at an object that we know is large, even though it appears small.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What are your thoughts on this, Peacegirl? Would you have any serious objection to our contacting your sister and directing her attention to your threads here and elsewhere?

She's very busy so I don't know if she will have time to participate, but I can tell you that she is just as enthusiastic because she believes, as I do, that our father has made a genuine discovery.

[LadyShea]

I am having a hard time understanding the physical mechanism by which the light- consisting of photons subject to physical laws- currently located at the film/retina came to be present at that location in your model

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course efferent vision has to be correct for this to be plausible, but for purposes of discussion we're assuming it's correct so I can show you how it works. And you are 100% wrong regarding how this works according to this model. Nothing violates the laws of physics because the non-absorbed light is not traveling anywhere. White light replaces the blue photons with new photons. If you can at least grasp this, it may eventually sink in. That's why the inverse square law is supportive of this model and why we are able to interpret distance when looking at an object that we know is large, even though it appears small.

You know, if I did drugs and were really, really high this might actually make some kind of sense. Efferent vision dosen't violate any laws of physics, yet there are photons that are not moving at the speed of light? Blue photons are replaced with 'white photons'? And she somehow invokes the inverse square law where it does not apply? We must assume that it is correct in order to demonstrate that it is correct?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

She's very busy so I don't know if she will have time to participate, but I can tell you that she is just as enthusiastic because she believes, as I do, that our father has made a genuine discovery.

Next step is that Peacegirl will figure out how to create a sock and pose as her sister, or son, and say how much she believes and supports Peacegirl's efforts here.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am having a hard time understanding the physical mechanism by which the light- consisting of photons subject to physical laws- currently located at the film/retina came to be present at that location in your model

And I can sympathize 100% with your delema, primarily because there is no mechanism in the real world that would account for this. Oh, except for a Lessans fantasy, Happy now?

[thedoc]

Note, If someone would like to bump any of my posts for Peacegirls consideration, Please feel free to do so, 'Of your own Free will' of course.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing wrong with empirical testing, but sometimes the experiment itself is flawed and as a result it may appear that something is true when it really isn't.

If you aren't familiar with the conditions of an experiment how can even begin to evaluate the reliability of the experiment?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because I know dogs can't recognize photographs...

Isn't it rather premature to discount the results of an experiment just because those results contradict what you believe to be true? Why can't you give those scientists the benefit of the doubt and accept that they know what they are doing?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It was in the same place because the blue photons did not travel.

If the blue photons did not travel then they were either stationary or had ceased to exist. You have previously agreed that light is never stationary. If it has not been absorbed, it is not stationary and it is not traveling, then it has ceased to exist. Are you suggesting that light can be destroyed?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nothing violates the laws of physics because the non-absorbed light is not traveling anywhere.

If non-absorbed is not traveling then it has either been destroyed or it is stationary. Both the destruction of light and stationary light violate the laws of physics.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What do you mean "never getting there". It's already there the moment we see the object because this non-absorbed wavelength light is just the opposite side of the coin. It doesn't go anywhere. It reveals. You don't get that part.

Yes, the light is already there at the time the photograph is taken. But it still had to get there before that time. The 'getting there' has to have occurred before the photograph was taken, but it still had to have happened.

Call the camera film point B, and the time that the photograph is taken time T2. You say this light did not come into existence at the film from nowhere, so it previously existed at the point in time just before T2 - call it T1. At T1 this light had to have some physical location - call it point A. If point A was the same location as point B (i.e. at the film), then that light has been stationary. You deny that this was the case. So point A must differ from point B. Then at T1 the light was at point A, which is some location distinct from point B where the same light is at T2. So how did the light get from point A at T1 to point B at T2?

The light is 'already there' at T2. But it wasn't already there at T1. So how did it get there?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

P light has to be at the film if the lens is focused on the object, because all this light is doing is revealing. It is traveling nowhere; only white light travels.

I'm not asking about the white light. I'm asking you about that P(light) which has to be at the film. How did it get there?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, that's where you're mistaken. Certain light gets absorbed and certain light is not absorbed, and the part that's not absorbed doesn't go anywhere. That's why Lessans said it isn't reflected, and if it's not reflected, it doesn't travel. But you can't understand this without looking at how the eyes work, which you say is irrelevant. Not only is it not irrelevant; it is the central theme of this entire thread.

Light hits the blue ball. The non-blue light at the surface of the ball is absorbed. If the non-absorbed light at the surface of the ball "doesn't go anywhere" (and doesn't cease to exist) then you have it floating there stationary at the ball's surface. And if the non-absorbed light is at the ball's surface then it isn't at the film.

And how the eyes work is irrelevant, because there are no eyes in this example at all. So you have to be able to explain things without bringing up eyes or vision.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When you look at an object, the light is instantly at the film/retina for the simple reason that you are able to see the object, which means the requirements of efferent vision have been met.

Yes, the light is instantly at the film. This is true on our afferent account as well. But on our account that light which is already there previously traveled to get there. How did it get there on your account?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Remember when I said that white light is continually traveling and replacing photons? That's how it's happening.

I'm not asking about the traveling white light. I'm asking about the blue light at the film comprising the mirror image. How did it get there? Are you saying that it travelled to get there, but was white light before it arrived?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It was in the same place because the blue photons did not travel.

If the blue photons at the film were in the same place just before the photograph was taken as they are just after that when the photograph is actually taken, then you have stationary photons again.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

She's very busy so I don't know if she will have time to participate, but I can tell you that she is just as enthusiastic because she believes, as I do, that our father has made a genuine discovery.

Thank you. It would be fascinating to have her perspective on all of this. Would you mind then if I were to extend the invitation to her daughter as well?

[Vivisectus]

Of course efferent vision has to be correct for this to be plausible, but for purposes of discussion we're assuming it's correct so I can show you how it works. And you are 100% wrong regarding how this works according to this model. Nothing violates the laws of physics because the non-absorbed light is not traveling anywhere. White light replaces the blue photons with new photons. If you can at least grasp this, it may eventually sink in. That's why the inverse square law is supportive of this model and why we are able to interpret distance when looking at an object that we know is large, even though it appears small.

You are saying that efferent vision must be plausible in order for efferent vision to be plausible. This is happening because you are mixing up the enquiry into the question if efferent vision is correct with the description of the mechanism by which it works.

IF efferent vision is correct, THEN light needs to somehow interact with the retina at a distance,

OR light can somehow appear at the retina without crossing the intervening space,

OR light can travel at infinite speed.

This is something that is generally held to be impossible. It has never been observed to happen, and our current laws of physics state that none of these things are possible. Generally this would be enough to consider a hypothesis falsified, but we can go a little further, and try to think if we can see some explanation.

So the question is - which of those 3 things occurs in efferent vision? What special circumstances cause light to behave unlike light normally behaves? How do these special circumstances account for the many observations that suggest there is a time-delay to sight?

[LadyShea]

Nothing violates the laws of physics because the non-absorbed light is not traveling anywhere.

Non traveling light breaks the laws of light physics.

White light replaces the blue photons with new photons.

Where do the old photons go? To be compatible with physics all photons must A) be traveling and B) have a current location

That's why the inverse square law is supportive of this model

The inverse square law only applies to photons that are traveling away from the source point

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am having a hard time understanding the physical mechanism by which the light- consisting of photons subject to physical laws- currently located at the film/retina came to be present at that location in your model

And I'm trying to tell you that because of the eyes being efferent, which means they don't have to wait for the light to reach Earth in order to see, changes the mechanism. I'm trying to show you that the requirements for sight are such that when the object is in view, the light becomes a mirror image, instead of said light having to travel through space and time in order for us to receive the incoming image. If you just grasp just this, even if you still don't understand it entirely, we will have made some progress.