A revolution in thought - Page 653

thedoc · #**16301** 05-10-2012, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because although light travels, non-absorbed light does not go beyond the inverse square law.

I am going to pretend, for the sake of argument, that the above actually means something. So, supposing that it does mean something, what happens to the non-absorbed light after it reaches this so-called limit?

It becomes white light because light energy from the Sun contains all of the colors of the visible spectrum, and that is what travels.

Can you describe the process by which it "becomes" white light? What kind of light is it before it "becomes" white light? Does it change its properties?

And what frequency is 'white light'?

Often

L.O.L. Thankyou.

That was good, and I raise another glass to you.

Spacemonkey · #**16302** 05-11-2012, 12:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my gosh, you have disregarded every single thing I said. You are constipated Spacemonkey because you can't get off the idea that images, without the object, are interpreted in the brain. You can't even begin to compare these two models because you keep interjecting ideas that come from the afferent model. Seriously, I give up.

I'm not interjecting any ideas from the afferent model. Apparently you've repeated this lie so many times it's actually become a part of your delusion. THERE IS NO AFFERENT ASSUMPTION HERE. If you think otherwise, then tell me what it is. All I'm doing is asking for the locations (at certain times) of the nonabsorbed photons and the photons comprising the alleged mirror image. You agree that these photons exist, and if they exist then they have to have locations at any time they exist. Nothing else is presupposed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

1) Where are the unabsorbed photons 0.0001sec after they have hit the object? [Insert answer here]

Are they about 30 meters away from the object and traveling away from it? [Yes or No]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

2) Where were the photons (which are at the film comprising the mirror image when the photograph is taken) 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken? [Insert answer here]

Are they about 30 meters away from the camera film and traveling towards it? [Yes or No]

Bump.

Spacemonkey · #**16303** 05-11-2012, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, you'll need to address this again, because your previous answer claimed that the non-absorbed light does not travel, and that it can instead teleport to the camera film. As you've indicated that you didn't intend to make either of these claims, you'll need to reanswer the post without saying these things.

I correct that. It does travel but the actual image that is seen is instant because of how the eyes work and which photons it is capturing at the retina. Is that better or are you going to search for another fake error so that you don't have to face the fact that images are not seen in the past without the object being present.

No, that's not any better. You need to do more than just correct your false claims (that the nonabsorbed light doesn't travel, and that it teleports). Your only response to my refutation was based on those false claims, so you need to provide a new response. That's why I reposted the refutation for you. Once more:

Peacegirl, here's a very simple disproof of efferent vision and real-time photography. Both require a camera to be able to record the color change of a distant object in real-time. So when a distant ball changes from blue to red, a camera must be able to photograph it as red as soon as it has become red. But if the camera is inside the range where the traveling non-absorbed light has yet to return to 'white full-spectrum' light, then all that light will be blue before the color change. And at the very moment the ball changes to red (i.e. has turned into a ball that absorbs all but red photons) there are no red photons at the camera. They were previously all being absorbed by the ball, and are only now free to bounce off the ball and begin traveling towards the camera. So none of them can be at the camera yet. But the camera cannot produce a red image on film without any red photons there to chemically interact with the film. So the camera cannot produce a real-time image of the newly red ball, and real-time photgraphy and efferent vision are thereby disproved. QED.

The problem here is that you are still thinking in terms of afferent vision. The minute you mention that the pattern of light has bounced off the ball, what I'm saying won't make sense. If that were the case, then yes, the color could change within that time. If we see efferently, then the distance is not millions of miles away. Seeing a candle in a dark room meets the requirements of efferent vision and seeing the moon at night meets the requirements of efferent vision, but we know there's a great disparity because the visual cortex is able to interpret the true distance.

Are you now saying that the non-absorbed red photons from the light hitting the newly red ball do not bounce off and travel towards the camera?

Is this what you are saying? [Y/N]

If so, then what happens to these red photons immediately after hitting the ball? Where are they at the very next moment?

Bump.

Spacemonkey · #**16304** 05-11-2012, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm not interjecting any ideas from the afferent model.

But yes you are.

Really? What idea did I interject from the afferent model then?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Apparently you've repeated this lie so many times it's actually become a part of your delusion. THERE IS NO AFFERENT ASSUMPTION HERE.

But yes there is.

Really? What is my afferent assumption then?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your entire theory is a presupposition Spacemonkey. How ironic.

I think you're full of shit, Peacegirl. You are dishonestly weaseling.

Bump.

Spacemonkey · #**16305** 05-11-2012, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The non-absorbed light DOES NOT TRAVEL, but the photons get replaced by new photons, so there is nothing static. The nonabsorbed photons are present at the film/retina because they are the mirror image. Therefore, they reveal what exists; they bring nothing. How many times to I have repeat this?

The non-absorbed photons at the surface of the object cannot get replaced there by other photons unless they either cease to exist or move somewhere else. And they can't be instantly at the distant film or retina without teleporting there. They have to start at the surface of the object because that is where absorption either occurs or does not occur. So how did they get from there to the distant film or retina without either traveling or teleporting? You have no idea, do you Peacegirl? You have absolutely no idea what you are saying.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If it doesn't teleport then you need to stop making claims that require teleportation. You need to stop saying that light from the newly ignited Sun can arrive at the eyes without traveling the intervening distance. You need to stop saying that non-absorbed light at the object can be instantly at the distant camera film. To make these claims is to say that light does teleport.

You are getting confused over non-absorbed photons and N light.

No I'm not. I'm specifically asking you about the non-absorbed photons. They hit the object and do not get absorbed. Then what? Where are they at the next moment? You don't know, do you Peacegirl? You're just making this up as you go, unaware of the fact that you are flipflopping and contradicting your own words with each alternate post. If the nonabsorbed photons still exist and do not stay there at rest or teleport anywhere else, then they have to be traveling away from the object. If they still exist and do not stay there at rest or begin traveling away from the object then they have teleported somewhere else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It's true. You keep repeating the worthless claim that light works the same for vision and for photography, despite not being able to explain how it works in either case. So all you are effectively saying is that it is real-time in both cases, but you have no idea how this is achieved.

I will say, once again, that there is no difference between a camera and the eyes because both meet the requirements of real time vision and photography.

So after I explain why your claim is utterly worthless, you decide an appropriate response is to repeat the worthless claim? Saying that X works just like Y is absolutely pointless if you can't explain how either X or Y works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Do you disagree with that 'mantra'? Do you still believe that light can reach a location without either traveling there or teleporting? Please explain your further option if you have one.

I just explained it.

You haven't explained any further option. You've simply described teleportation yet again. You've said above that the nonabsorbed photons do not travel, but are instead instantly at the distant film or retina. That is teleportation, as you've been told a thousand times already.

Don't forget to flip-flop. In this post you've said that non-absorbed light does NOT travel. So in your next post you need to say that it DOES travel, so that in the post after that you'll be able to deny you ever said so and instead deny that it travels again. You really do need psychological treatment, Peacegirl. You're absolutely out to lunch.

thedoc · #**16306** 05-11-2012, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

[
So after I explain why your claim is utterly worthless, you decide an appropriate response is to repeat the worthless claim? Saying that X works just like Y is absolutely pointless if you can't explain how either X or Y works.

Well . . . Yes, . . that has been her MO for about 10 years. However I will say we had a reasonable exchange about grandchildren and murder in March '11. No it wasn't murdering grandchildren there were 2 seperate subjects. Try talking to her about something other than the book and her mental illness.

Vivisectus · #**16307** 05-11-2012, 10:39 AM

[quote=peacegirl;1056763]

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's exactly what he did, he worked backwards. peacegirl has even asserted that the kind of conditioning Lessans proposed could not happen if vision were not efferent. She offered it as the proof of efferent vision at least once.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He did not start off with an assumption. He started off with an observation about how the brain works when it comes to learning words, and how we become conditioned. He then came to the conclusion that the eyes cannot be sense organs. Please reread this again.

[I]Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality pp. 129-131

Quote:

From the time we were small children our relatives, parents,
friends and acquaintances have expressed their personal likes and
dislikes regarding things that definitely exist in the external world.
The words beautiful, pretty, cute, adorable, handsome, etc., heard over
and over again with an inflection of pleasure as to someone’s physical
appearance, took a picture of the similarities between this type of
physiognomy and developed negatives which also contained the degree
of feeling experienced.

This can be easily checked: if this were correct, then people who are deaf from birth are unable to internalize the aesthetic norms regarding the human form that the rest of us have.

However, this is not the case: deaf-born people of any culture tend to have the same ideas about human beauty as the people of their culture who can hear. So whatever DOES go on, it is not what he is claiming happens here.

And you cannot simply claim he arrived at his conclusions through "observation", either. An observation is something recordable, something someone else can repeat, something you can share. I can observe that rocks fall when not somehow supported. I cannot observe gravity: I can only deduce it from the observed falling rocks.

So it seems that Lessans simply assumed that sight works the way he thought it worked, and then looked for things to support that. In this passage, there is no set of observations that make the particular type of conditioning he talks about the best logical explanation. There is not even an argument in favour of his idea. There is just Lessans claiming over and over again THAT it works this way.

If this is to claim to be a scientific work, it needs to be re-written. Get rid of the laborious and unscientific "screens of undeniable differences" and "Essences", as they are meaningless terms and make it look stupid. Merely stick to a simple and easily proven point, like "Beauty is subjective and learned", and you have achieved what takes Lessans long passages of laborious blather to achieve.

Vivisectus · #**16308** 05-11-2012, 11:35 AM

But this means we STILL have not found any argument in favour of sight being instant and efferent. There is simply no reason to assume it is so!

No matter if conditioning happens the way Lessans says or not, conditioning does not require sight to be efferent. There ARE afferent nerve endings in the eye. Dog sight and infant sight do not require efferent sight.

So where is the argument in favour of this idea? Did you forget to include it when you were editing?

peacegirl · #**16309** 05-11-2012, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Mind slides projecting words out onto reality. Totally serious.

...which kind of makes you wonder how we deal with anything new and unexpected!

But that is part of the conclusion, not the reason for the conclusion. You cannot say that sight being the mind projecting word-slides unto reality is an observable fact that makes efferent sight the only possible conclusion. I am asking: what is the conclusion that this is what is going on based on?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ceptimus

I think it starts with simple intuitive notions of seeing - such as we probably all had as children before we learned about light, lenses and such.

Seeing feels like an active process: we choose to aim our eyes in a certain direction and then we get to know what objects are in that direction. It's analogous to the sense of touch: we reach out with our arms so that our hands can feel an object. Using our eyes, we also 'reach out' and 'feel' an object or scene - a process we call seeing.

The same reasoning can't be as easily applied to the senses of hearing, smell or taste: those senses are not directional and we can't 'switch them off' as we can with sight by looking away or closing our eyes.

What does this have to do with his observations Ceptimus? Srsly! :glare:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ceptimus

I think Lessans had the desire to show that we don't see reality but rather project our preconceived notions out onto the world. Most of us would probably agree with him about that, but we don't need the efferent sight model to support the idea.

This is not about projecting preconceived ideas. This is about how the brain actually works when it comes to learning words and why the eyes can't be a sense organ, because they don't work like a sense organ.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ceptimus

Lessans hit on the idea of using the efferent sight model as a natural explanation of such projection. He was too uneducated and too bombastic to consider that he might be wrong and he gradually added layer upon layer of supporting belief to the erroneous idea. In his own mind, the efferent sight model became part of the foundations for his world peace scheme so of course he was very reluctant to give up on efferent vision, even when challenged with evidence that proved it wrong.

So now you're jumping on the Lessans bashing bandwagon? That always seems to happen when people have no real come back. They just don't like his claims so they'll do anything to tear him down.

peacegirl · #**16310** 05-11-2012, 12:03 PM

[quote=Spacemonkey;1056671]

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, you'll need to address this again, because your previous answer claimed that the non-absorbed light does not travel, and that it can instead teleport to the camera film. As you've indicated that you didn't intend to make either of these claims, you'll need to reanswer the post without saying these things.

I correct that. It does travel but the actual image that is seen is instant because of how the eyes work and which photons it is capturing at the retina. Is that better or are you going to search for another fake error so that you don't have to face the fact that images are not seen in the past without the object being present.

No, that's not any better. You need to do more than just correct your false claims (that the nonabsorbed light doesn't travel, and that it teleports). Your only response to my refutation was based on those false claims, so you need to provide a new response. That's why I reposted the refutation for you. Once more:

Peacegirl, here's a very simple disproof of efferent vision and real-time photography. Both require a camera to be able to record the color change of a distant object in real-time. So when a distant ball changes from blue to red, a camera must be able to photograph it as red as soon as it has become red. But if the camera is inside the range where the traveling non-absorbed light has yet to return to 'white full-spectrum' light, then all that light will be blue before the color change. And at the very moment the ball changes to red (i.e. has turned into a ball that absorbs all but red photons) there are no red photons at the camera. They were previously all being absorbed by the ball, and are only now free to bounce off the ball and begin traveling towards the camera. So none of them can be at the camera yet. But the camera cannot produce a red image on film without any red photons there to chemically interact with the film. So the camera cannot produce a real-time image of the newly red ball, and real-time photgraphy and efferent vision are thereby disproved. QED.

The problem here is that you are still thinking in terms of afferent vision. The minute you mention that the pattern of light has bounced off the ball, what I'm saying won't make sense. If that were the case, then yes, the color could change within that time. If we see efferently, then the distance is not millions of miles away. Seeing a candle in a dark room meets the requirements of efferent vision and seeing the moon at night meets the requirements of efferent vision, but we know there's a great disparity because the visual cortex is able to interpret the true distance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are you now saying that the non-absorbed red photons from the light hitting the newly red ball do not bounce off and travel towards the camera?

Is this what you are saying? [Y/N]

If so, then what happens to these red photons immediately after hitting the ball? Where are they at the very next moment?

This is exactly the crux of the problem. You're not understanding why the non-absorbed photons are not bouncing, but rather are revealing, and at the same time light energy (the full spectrum of light that makes light a neutral color) continues to travel through space and time. When light strikes an object, the absorbed light becomes separated from the non-absorbed light, but that's all it does. Once again, the misconception is that the light that allows the object to be illuminated for us to see, travels to us which would indicate a time delay.

peacegirl · #**16311** 05-11-2012, 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times did I ask this question: Why are there never images seen when the object (the material substance) is not within visual range. Everyone is conveniently ignoring this question or their answers are unsatisfactory. The inverse square law does not answer the question.

No-one is ignoring your eternally recurring question. It has been answered, and answered correctly, a thousand times over. You however, have made it clear that you will continue to reject these correct answers as unsatisfactory simply because they are not what you want to believe. Continuing to ask the same question under these circumstances is strongly indicative of mental illness.

You are really testing my patience Spacemonkey. I already asked you to stop playing these games about my mental illness, or else your posts will be passed over. I am asking you to kindly repeat your answer to this question, so I make sure I have it right.

peacegirl · #**16312** 05-11-2012, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Remember, light does not have to travel millions of miles to reach the eye or film if the lens is focused on the OBJECT.

No, peacegirl, we've been through this. Lenses aren't magic, remember? We can takes pictures without lenses that you insist are also 'real-time'. Some animals see without lenses.

Oh really? Show me someone or something that has no lenses and can see objects? Yes, they can detect light, but where are the objects?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Or have you forgotten all of that discussion? You cannot start bringing up magical properties of lenses again.

What magical properties are you talking about? A lense helps to focus light, but this doesn't change that the object must be present.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Did you forget the pinhole camera?

What about it? It acts exactly like a lens.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

And the 'magical properties' being that it lets a retina instantly interact with an object billions of miles away (in violation of special relativity, I should add).

This is your proof that we see in delayed time? You are just as lost as everyone else. You can think whatever you want about me, it doesn't matter. I feel bad that I am upsetting the apple cart to this degree. I suggest you all ignore me and go back to your way of thinking. I never intended to cause this much angst.

A hole does not act like a lens! :tmlol:

A hole does not focus light, nor is a pinhole camera focused on an object. Try again?

In a pinhole camera, the hole acts like a lens by only allowing a narrow beam of light to enter.

Make a pinhole camera

A pinhole camera is not focused on the object but the requirements of real time photography are still in place. The object is present and it is large enough and bright enough for that pattern of light to show up on film or a backdrop. The inverse square law is in effect.

So focusing on an object has nothing to do with light magically having no distance to travel.

No, but it indicates that without the object in the field of view, THERE IS NO IMAGE TO SPEAK OF!

So, out of interest, what would happen if we just sent light through the hole in a pattern as if it had bounced off an object? Would we see an image?

That's the entire point of this discussion. If there was just light without the material substance present in some form (the actual object), the pattern of light would not exist. It would be the full visual spectrum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Maybe we could make a device that shone light in just such a pattern through a hole. What do you think?

If you could do that, you'd win a Nobel prize.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

So explain: how does a hole magically cause this?

Quote:

The hole doesn't cause anything, but it gathers light due to the object being present. You are assuming that all that is necessary is light. That is why I am harping on doing experiments here on Earth. How many times did I ask this question: Why are there never images seen when the object (the material substance) is not within visual range. Everyone is conveniently ignoring this question or their answers are unsatisfactory. The inverse square law does not answer the question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

So the hole doesn't cause anything.

So when you said:

"Remember, light does not have to travel millions of miles to reach the eye or film if the lens is focused on the OBJECT."

what did you actually mean? Because currently you have denied it had anything to do with a lens, or focusing. So what did you mean to say?

"Remember, light does not have to travel millions of miles to reach the film if".

There is no if. Light is making contact because of the requirements of efferent vision or photography. But if the light has not reached Earth, which takes 8 minutes, we would not be able to take a picture of anyone or see anything, as there would be no light in which to do this.

peacegirl · #**16313** 05-11-2012, 12:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because although light travels, non-absorbed light does not go beyond the inverse square law.

I am going to pretend, for the sake of argument, that the above actually means something. So, supposing that it does mean something, what happens to the non-absorbed light after it reaches this so-called limit?

It becomes white light because light energy from the Sun contains all of the colors of the visible spectrum, and that is what travels.

Can you describe the process by which it "becomes" white light? What kind of light is it before it "becomes" white light? Does it change its properties?

No LadyShea. It does not change properties. It just becomes white light when the object is no longer in our visual range because it is too small or too dim to see with the naked eye or a telescope.

peacegirl · #**16314** 05-11-2012, 12:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because although light travels, non-absorbed light does not go beyond the inverse square law

There is no "beyond" the inverse square law, because it is not in a location, it is has no mass nor does it take up space, nor does it have a limited size nor an outer perimeter nor any kind of boundary whatsoever. There is no end point to go beyond or anything to prohibit going beyond.

So, what do you really mean when you say this, since obviously you must mean something other than what you said, as what you said makes no sense at all.

It means exactly what it says. If the object is not in view then that means the non-absorbed light which reveals the object has now joined with the other colors in the visual spectrum, which is why we only will get white light on the retina/film, not the pattern that supposedly travels forever and ever and ever.

That's not at all what it says. It says "non-absorbed light does not go beyond the inverse square law". As if the inverse square law has a locational boundary.

It does have a boundary. If it's too far away for the eyes to see (the visual range of a human), then that's the boundary. If an animal has a broader visual range and can see an object because the animal has more light receptors, then it might be able to see an object that a human can't. So what? That doesn't change this phenomenon, or make it wrong.

Vivisectus · #**16315** 05-11-2012, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Why are there never images seen when the object (the material substance) is not within visual range.

I have provided you with a careful explanation, and asked you to please try to remember it this time. You were not able to point out any gaps in it.

It is you who owes us as explanation, in fact, as you have not yet told us why distance is a factor at all in efferent sight. If the interaction between eye and observed object is instant over any distance, then why would distance be of any importance at all?

Vivisectus · #**16316** 05-11-2012, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Maybe we could make a device that shone light in just such a pattern through a hole. What do you think?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you could do that, you'd win a Nobel prize.

LadyShea · #**16317** 05-11-2012, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because although light travels, non-absorbed light does not go beyond the inverse square law

There is no "beyond" the inverse square law, because it is not in a location, it is has no mass nor does it take up space, nor does it have a limited size nor an outer perimeter nor any kind of boundary whatsoever. There is no end point to go beyond or anything to prohibit going beyond.

So, what do you really mean when you say this, since obviously you must mean something other than what you said, as what you said makes no sense at all.

It means exactly what it says. If the object is not in view then that means the non-absorbed light which reveals the object has now joined with the other colors in the visual spectrum, which is why we only will get white light on the retina/film, not the pattern that supposedly travels forever and ever and ever.

That's not at all what it says. It says "non-absorbed light does not go beyond the inverse square law". As if the inverse square law has a locational boundary.

It does have a boundary. If it's too far away for the eyes to see (the visual range of a human), then that's the boundary. If an animal has a broader visual range and can see an object because the animal has more light receptors, then it might be able to see an object that a human can't. So what? That doesn't change this phenomenon, or make it wrong.

That's not a boundary of the inverse square law, nor is it a stopping point for reflected light.

All you're saying is that light detectors like eyes have limitations to what can be resolved. This is known and is an important factor in optics, and it has been explained to you may times.

LadyShea · #**16318** 05-11-2012, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because although light travels, non-absorbed light does not go beyond the inverse square law.

I am going to pretend, for the sake of argument, that the above actually means something. So, supposing that it does mean something, what happens to the non-absorbed light after it reaches this so-called limit?

It becomes white light because light energy from the Sun contains all of the colors of the visible spectrum, and that is what travels.

Can you describe the process by which it "becomes" white light? What kind of light is it before it "becomes" white light? Does it change its properties?

No LadyShea. It does not change properties. It just becomes white light when the object is no longer in our visual range because it is too small or too dim to see with the naked eye or a telescope.

How does it "become" white light?

LadyShea · #**16319** 05-11-2012, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Remember, light does not have to travel millions of miles to reach the eye or film if the lens is focused on the OBJECT.

No, peacegirl, we've been through this. Lenses aren't magic, remember? We can takes pictures without lenses that you insist are also 'real-time'. Some animals see without lenses.

Oh really? Show me someone or something that has no lenses and can see objects? Yes, they can detect light, but where are the objects?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Or have you forgotten all of that discussion? You cannot start bringing up magical properties of lenses again.

What magical properties are you talking about? A lense helps to focus light, but this doesn't change that the object must be present.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Did you forget the pinhole camera?

What about it? It acts exactly like a lens.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

And the 'magical properties' being that it lets a retina instantly interact with an object billions of miles away (in violation of special relativity, I should add).

This is your proof that we see in delayed time? You are just as lost as everyone else. You can think whatever you want about me, it doesn't matter. I feel bad that I am upsetting the apple cart to this degree. I suggest you all ignore me and go back to your way of thinking. I never intended to cause this much angst.

A hole does not act like a lens! :tmlol:

A hole does not focus light, nor is a pinhole camera focused on an object. Try again?

In a pinhole camera, the hole acts like a lens by only allowing a narrow beam of light to enter.

Make a pinhole camera

A pinhole camera is not focused on the object but the requirements of real time photography are still in place. The object is present and it is large enough and bright enough for that pattern of light to show up on film or a backdrop. The inverse square law is in effect.

So focusing on an object has nothing to do with light magically having no distance to travel.

No, but it indicates that without the object in the field of view, THERE IS NO IMAGE TO SPEAK OF!

So, out of interest, what would happen if we just sent light through the hole in a pattern as if it had bounced off an object? Would we see an image?

That's the entire point of this discussion. If there was just light without the material substance present in some form (the actual object), the pattern of light would not exist. It would be the full visual spectrum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Maybe we could make a device that shone light in just such a pattern through a hole. What do you think?

If you could do that, you'd win a Nobel prize.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

So explain: how does a hole magically cause this?

Quote:

The hole doesn't cause anything, but it gathers light due to the object being present. You are assuming that all that is necessary is light. That is why I am harping on doing experiments here on Earth. How many times did I ask this question: Why are there never images seen when the object (the material substance) is not within visual range. Everyone is conveniently ignoring this question or their answers are unsatisfactory. The inverse square law does not answer the question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

So the hole doesn't cause anything.

So when you said:

"Remember, light does not have to travel millions of miles to reach the eye or film if the lens is focused on the OBJECT."

what did you actually mean? Because currently you have denied it had anything to do with a lens, or focusing. So what did you mean to say?

"Remember, light does not have to travel millions of miles to reach the film if".

There is no if. Light is making contact because of the requirements of efferent vision or photography. But if the light has not reached Earth, which takes 8 minutes, we would not be able to take a picture of anyone or see anything, as there would be no light in which to do this.

Light is making contact even though there is no light to make contact. Is that really what you meant to say?

What if you are taking a picture of the Sun? What light "makes contact" with the film since no light has reached Earth?

Vivisectus · #**16320** 05-11-2012, 01:10 PM

Quote:

You are really testing my patience Spacemonkey. I already asked you to stop playing these games about my mental illness, or else your posts will be passed over. I am asking you to kindly repeat your answer to this question, so I make sure I have it right.

On what grounds do you call Spacemonkeys observation on how your mind works invalid? He simply observed that your mind works that way. He does not need to provide a reason for it. He is simply describing your mind the way you would describe a car!

Dragar · #**16321** 05-11-2012, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you could do that, you'd win a Nobel prize.

You don't think we can make devices that shine out light in a certain pattern?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

So explain: how does a hole magically cause this?

Quote:

The hole doesn't cause anything, but it gathers light due to the object being present. You are assuming that all that is necessary is light. That is why I am harping on doing experiments here on Earth. How many times did I ask this question: Why are there never images seen when the object (the material substance) is not within visual range. Everyone is conveniently ignoring this question or their answers are unsatisfactory. The inverse square law does not answer the question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

So the hole doesn't cause anything.

So when you said:

Quote:

"Remember, light does not have to travel millions of miles to reach the eye or film if the lens is focused on the OBJECT."

what did you actually mean? Because currently you have denied it had anything to do with a lens, or focusing. So what did you mean to say?

"Remember, light does not have to travel millions of miles to reach the film if".

There is no if. Light is making contact because of the requirements of efferent vision or photography. But if the light has not reached Earth, which takes 8 minutes, we would not be able to take a picture of anyone or see anything, as there would be no light in which to do this.

You said 'if' before. So your actual response to LadyShea had nothing to do with lenses or focusing. You made that up. Why are you deliberately attempting to mislead us?

It seems what you actually meant was just, "Remember, light doesn't have to travel millions of miles to interact with film that is millions of miles away!"

All we are learning is that you lie repeatedly, peacegirl.

LadyShea · #**16322** 05-11-2012, 01:20 PM

Quote:

If there was just light without the material substance present in some form (the actual object), the pattern of light would not exist. It would be the full visual spectrum.

Where on Earth is there a place "without material substance present in some form"? You cannot look in any direction at all and find the full spectrum. What do you mean by "the" material substance? Which matter, that is everywhere, is "the" matter?

This is why we use examples from space, because it is so large that it is possible for lots of light to travel without interacting with matter to be absorbed, reflected, or otherwise impeded. That's why we can get the Hubble images.

thedoc · #**16323** 05-11-2012, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Maybe we could make a device that shone light in just such a pattern through a hole. What do you think?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you could do that, you'd win a Nobel prize.

I wonder if Peacegirl has ever been to a movie theatre? Or a planetarium?

peacegirl · #**16324** 05-11-2012, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He is asking for the locations (at certain times) of the nonabsorbed photons and the photons comprising the alleged mirror image. You, peacegirl, agree that these photons exist, and if they exist then they have to have locations at any time they exist.

Where is the afferent assumption?

The instant you talk about bouncing implies travel time. This is wrong and I'm trying to show you why.

peacegirl · #**16325** 05-11-2012, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because although light travels, non-absorbed light does not go beyond the inverse square law.

I am going to pretend, for the sake of argument, that the above actually means something. So, supposing that it does mean something, what happens to the non-absorbed light after it reaches this so-called limit?

It becomes white light because light energy from the Sun contains all of the colors of the visible spectrum, and that is what travels.

Can you describe the process by which it "becomes" white light? What kind of light is it before it "becomes" white light? Does it change its properties?

There is nothing unusual that would make properties of light change. Why would you even ask that after all this time?

You used the word "becomes", which is usually defined as a process involving significant change from one form or set of traits/properties to another form or set of traits/properties.

Are you using the word becomes differently?

If not, describe the process of non-absorbed light becoming (or changing into) white light.

How many times will it take for you to understand that the properties of light DO NOT change. :fuming: