A revolution in thought - Page 675

peacegirl · #**16851** 05-19-2012, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

I do not believe we ever get a picture from light alone.

Perhaps not, however it is a known fact that the photochemical reaction that occurs during film photography requires the absorption of photons at the surface of the camera film. Photons that are not on physically touching the surface of the camera film cannot be absorbed.

In the efferent vision model, what is the physical mechanism by which photons come to be located at the surface of camera film?

The size and brightness of the object and the resulting reflection (which does not have to travel to reach the film when the object is photographed IN REAL TIME) create the conditions that allow the interaction of light and film to occur.

Spacemonkey · #**16852** 05-19-2012, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

All the two questions below are asking you for is the locations of these two sets of photons at the times concerned. You have agreed that both sets of photons exist at these times, and that they must have locations at these times. And that is all the questions presuppose. They say nothing at all about whether or not an object has to be present, what brains or lenses do, what else other than light may be necessary, changing distances, or instant mirror images. For the purposes of these two questions you can assume that your own answers concerning such matters are all accepted. All I'm asking for is the location of these photons at the times concerned according to your own model. That's it. Nothing else. You can take all the rest of your model as a given, and use it to provide the answers which you have agreed these two questions must have. No more excuses. Stop being such a big baby and just answer the questions already.

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.

Remember how you said that you are answering my questions and that you never weasel?

Spacemonkey · #**16853** 05-19-2012, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The size and brightness of the object and the resulting reflection (which does not have to travel to reach the film when the object is photographed IN REAL TIME) create the conditions that allow the interaction of light and film to occur.

Specifying conditions is not the same thing as providing a mechanism. And what does the "resulting reflection" consist of? If light, then how can you have light that gets from the object to the film, but does so without traveling there and without teleporting?

peacegirl · #**16854** 05-19-2012, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it doesn't travel with anything but it is a particular wavelength and frequency.

But you AGREE with that. The strawman claim you started with was meant to be what you think the afferent view wrongly assumes.

I don't agree with that. The afferent position wrongly assumes that this wavelength and frequency travel forever and that it is this meeting of distance and time which photons must traverse in order to interact with the film. You've got it backwards, even though I don't think you're ever going to understand how it's possible for light to interact with film in the efferent account without light traveling to earth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the object itself is not traveling, then, yes, we would be able to take a real time photograph of red, not blue, because the blue light would be out of range and joining the other colors of the spectrum.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How does all the blue light get to be out of range at this time? At the immediately preceding moment there were blue photons only just beginning to travel away from the surface of the object after not being absorbed. How do they get to be beyond the camera at the very next instant in time? Now you even have the light which is not being used to form the image teleporting!

Because we're not dealing with actual distance. We're dealing with a different phenomenon entirely when the object is presumed to be seen in real time. Your questions go right back to the afferent account. What follows logically in your account will continue to contradict the efferent account and make it appear as if this account is implausible because of the belief that it violates the laws of physics.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But there is no way we would be getting blue if the camera was in visual range of the object.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

At the immediately preceding moment there were blue photons striking the film and other blue photons right behind them ready to replace them. Where do those next blue photons go at the next moment (when the object turns red and the photograph is taken)? Why don't they turn up at the film?

Because the efferent account is not waiting for the blue photons to travel long distances and arrive at the film. The light that is present at the film when the object is in our field of view is within a very small range, therefore we're going to get red at the film. You have to think reverse. The efferent account is the opposite of the afferent account and until you see this, it won't make any sense to you at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How do these red photons get to the film? Where did they come from? Where were they at the immediately previous moment (when the object was still blue)?

They were being absorbed by the blue object.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Nope. If they were previously absorbed by the object then they have been used up and no longer exist. The same photons cannot then later turn up at the camera film.

You're right, but there are new photons that are replacing the old, so those photons will show up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You have given me an answer for red photons in general rather than for the specific red photons I am referring to. At the previous moment the object was blue and all red photons hitting the object are getting absorbed. But those photons cease to exist, as they get absorbed and used up. So none of those photons can ever turn up at the film.

I am asking you about the specific red photons which are at the film when the photograph is taken. How do they get to the film? Where did they come from? Where were they at the immediately previous moment (when the object was still blue)?

Those are photons that have not been absorbed when the object changes color. These new photons are always replacing old, which I've said all along.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The whole debate rests on whether light can be at the film instantly, without teleporting, when the actual object is being photographed, for then light would necessarily be at the film.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, the debate rests upon whether or not light with wavelengths representing the real-time nature of the object can be at the film instantly. And so far you have not been able to explain how this could be possible without either the teleportation or duplication of light.

I'm sorry you don't get it, but this is neither teleportation or duplication.

peacegirl · #**16855** 05-19-2012, 12:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

All the two questions below are asking you for is the locations of these two sets of photons at the times concerned. You have agreed that both sets of photons exist at these times, and that they must have locations at these times. And that is all the questions presuppose. They say nothing at all about whether or not an object has to be present, what brains or lenses do, what else other than light may be necessary, changing distances, or instant mirror images. For the purposes of these two questions you can assume that your own answers concerning such matters are all accepted. All I'm asking for is the location of these photons at the times concerned according to your own model. That's it. Nothing else. You can take all the rest of your model as a given, and use it to provide the answers which you have agreed these two questions must have. No more excuses. Stop being such a big baby and just answer the questions already.

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.

Remember how you said that you are answering my questions and that you never weasel?

I don't want to keep repeating the same answer to the same questions over and over again, as if somehow I'm going to change my answer. The very second you talk about traveling, you are not taking into consideration the fact that, although photons get replaced, the lens is capturing the mirror image of the object instantly. That's why I keep saying that although light travels, the light or image that is captured on film is not light that has traveled through space and time; it is present as a reverse image, or negative, of the actual object. I know you're trying your best to understand this concept. Maybe in time it will begin to make sense, but as for now I think we're beating a dead horse. I'd like to move on to a different topic for a change.

Spacemonkey · #**16856** 05-19-2012, 12:48 PM

I'm ignoring most of this post to focus on the important part.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How do these red photons get to the film? Where did they come from? Where were they at the immediately previous moment (when the object was still blue)?

They were being absorbed by the blue object.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Nope. If they were previously absorbed by the object then they have been used up and no longer exist. The same photons cannot then later turn up at the camera film.

You're right, but there are new photons that are replacing the old, so those photons will show up.

Of course the red photons are replacing the blue photons that were at the film a moment ago. But that's not what I'm asking you about. I want to know where these red photons were a moment ago, and how they got to be at the camera film.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You have given me an answer for red photons in general rather than for the specific red photons I am referring to. At the previous moment the object was blue and all red photons hitting the object are getting absorbed. But those photons cease to exist, as they get absorbed and used up. So none of those photons can ever turn up at the film.

I am asking you about the specific red photons which are at the film when the photograph is taken. How do they get to the film? Where did they come from? Where were they at the immediately previous moment (when the object was still blue)?

Those are photons that have not been absorbed when the object changes color. These new photons are always replacing old, which I've said all along.

But this isn't going to be possible without teleportation. You say that the red photons at the film are photons which were not absorbed by the object once the object turns red. This has to happen AT THE OBJECT, because that is where absorption either happens or does not happen. And it has to happen when the object turns red, because prior to this the object would have absorbed the red photons. But at the VERY NEXT INSTANT you need to have these very same photons AT THE DISTANT FILM. So you have them at the object and not being absorbed as the object changes color to red, and at the very first moment when the object is this now red, you have them at the film. You have them at one location at one moment, and then at a different and distant location instantly at the very next moment. That is teleportation again.

What you are saying requires teleportation. So what part of what you are telling me do you not understand?

Spacemonkey · #**16857** 05-19-2012, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't want to keep repeating the same answer to the same questions over and over again, as if somehow I'm going to change my answer.

Repeating what answer? You haven't given one yet. All you've given me are weaseling excuses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The very second you talk about traveling, you are not taking into consideration the fact that, although photons get replaced, the lens is capturing the mirror image of the object instantly.

The questions ask you for no more than the locations which you have agreed they must have. They do not presuppose anything at all about traveling light, and you can take it as given that all your other considerations hold. All I'm asking you for is the locations.

peacegirl · #**16858** 05-19-2012, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't want to keep repeating the same answer to the same questions over and over again, as if somehow I'm going to change my answer.

Repeating what answer? You haven't given one yet. All you've given me are weaseling excuses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The very second you talk about traveling, you are not taking into consideration the fact that, although photons get replaced, the lens is capturing the mirror image of the object instantly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The questions ask you for no more than the locations which you have agreed they must have. They do not presuppose anything at all about traveling light, and you can take it as given that all your other considerations hold. All I'm asking you for is the locations.

I told you Spacemonkey that the traveling light continues on as it joins the rest of the spectrum. What is it that you not get? And your accusatory attitude is very pompous and not helping the situation. Light has the same location is always has, but the senses are what we're talking about. I'm really getting tired of the attacks, therefore I am going to let go of this conversation.

LadyShea · #**16859** 05-19-2012, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Light has the same location is always has

And what is that location and by what mechanism did it come to be at that location?

LadyShea · #**16860** 05-19-2012, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

I do not believe we ever get a picture from light alone.

Perhaps not, however it is a known fact that the photochemical reaction that occurs during film photography requires the absorption of photons at the surface of the camera film. Photons that are not on physically touching the surface of the camera film cannot be absorbed.

In the efferent vision model, what is the physical mechanism by which photons come to be located at the surface of camera film?

The size and brightness of the object and the resulting reflection (which does not have to travel to reach the film when the object is photographed IN REAL TIME) create the conditions that allow the interaction of light and film to occur.

This response does not offer a mechanism by which photons come to be located at the surface of camera film.

LadyShea · #**16861** 05-19-2012, 02:29 PM

Quote:

The afferent position wrongly assumes that this wavelength and frequency travel forever

According to the laws of physics, electromagnetic energy travels indefinitely unless it is absorbed and transformed into some other kind of energy. Traveling is an inherent property of electromagnetic energy as is wavelength/frequency. Are you saying that the laws of physics are "wrong" in this regard?

If so, do you retract your previous statements that your model does not require any change to the laws of physics?

Spacemonkey · #**16862** 05-19-2012, 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you Spacemonkey that the traveling light continues on as it joins the rest of the spectrum.

That doesn't constitute an answer to either of my two questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What is it that you not get?

Answers to my questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And your accusatory attitude is very pompous and not helping the situation.

Your dishonest weaseling attitude isn't exactly helping things either. And I think I should be allowed to accuse you of avoiding my questions when that is what you are doing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm really getting tired of the attacks, therefore I am going to let go of this conversation.

No you're not. You're not about to let go of anything. Another 24hrs and you will have forgotten ever having said this.

Why won't you answer my questions by telling me the locations of the photons concerned at the times I am asking about? You've agreed that they have to have locations at these times on your account. So what are those locations?

peacegirl · #**16863** 05-19-2012, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

I do not believe we ever get a picture from light alone.

Perhaps not, however it is a known fact that the photochemical reaction that occurs during film photography requires the absorption of photons at the surface of the camera film. Photons that are not on physically touching the surface of the camera film cannot be absorbed.

In the efferent vision model, what is the physical mechanism by which photons come to be located at the surface of camera film?

The size and brightness of the object and the resulting reflection (which does not have to travel to reach the film when the object is photographed IN REAL TIME) create the conditions that allow the interaction of light and film to occur.

This response does not offer a mechanism by which photons come to be located at the surface of camera film.

I told you from the very beginning that I did not have to explain the mechanism in order to explain his observations. I am being interrogated unnecessarily because I agreed, and still do, that testing will determine who is right. Anything short of that will not provide what everyone is demanding.

LadyShea · #**16864** 05-19-2012, 02:58 PM

Quote:

I told you from the very beginning that I did not have to explain the mechanism in order to explain his observations. I am being interrogated unnecessarily because I agreed, and still do, that testing will determine who is right. Anything short of that will not provide what everyone is demanding.

You have also stated that you could and would demonstrate that this is a plausible model. Without a physical mechanism by which photons come to be located at the surface of camera film as required for film photography, your model is not possible at all. Therefore efferent vision is disproven due to impossibility.

davidm · #**16865** 05-19-2012, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you from the very beginning that I did not have to explain the mechanism in order to explain his observations.

Quote:

I am being interrogated unnecessarily because I agreed, and still do, that testing will determine who is right. Anything short of that will not provide what everyone is demanding.

The testing has already been done, for hundreds of years, as has been repeatedly explained to you. The buffoon was wrong.

peacegirl · #**16866** 05-19-2012, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you Spacemonkey that the traveling light continues on as it joins the rest of the spectrum.

That doesn't constitute an answer to either of my two questions.

Quote:

As far as I'm concerned it does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What is it that you not get?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Answers to my questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And your accusatory attitude is very pompous and not helping the situation.

Your dishonest weaseling attitude isn't exactly helping things either. And I think I should be allowed to accuse you of avoiding my questions when that is what you are doing.

Accuse me or not accuse me, this is not what this discussion is about. This entire conversation is about YOUR premise, and YOUR conclusions as if they are the only way to perceive what's going on. I don't have to fight you, I only have to explain what his observations were and have them tested for accuracy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm really getting tired of the attacks, therefore I am going to let go of this conversation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No you're not. You're not about to let go of anything. Another 24hrs and you will have forgotten ever having said this.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You have such pomposity that you don't even see what you're doing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why won't you answer my questions by telling me the locations of the photons concerned at the times I am asking about? You've agreed that they have to have locations at these times on your account. So what are those locations?

I told you that I'm not continuing the conversation. You seem to be the only person left to talk to, and that's not enough for me to hang on. I know this thread is on its last legs because I'm not willing to continue, and I know the other thread is done because no one seems to be interested in his discovery that demonstrates how there is a way to prevent war. I'm not going to beg you people. I will move on to another forum, and I will ignore you if you try to dissuade people from listening. You're not the gestapo.

davidm · #**16867** 05-19-2012, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're not the gestapo.

davidm · #**16868** 05-19-2012, 04:07 PM

Peacegirl, shown above, is practically out the door already.

NAMES IN THE NEWS

Peacegirl’s Stay at Freethought Forum Dwindles Down to Precious Few Million More Posts

FREETHOUGHT-FORUM (Internet News Service) – Peacegirl is leaving the Freethought Forum, sources confirmed Saturday, just as soon as she makes a few million more posts.

“She’s out the door,” E. Mota Khan, a message board analyst with the RAND Corporation, confirmed. “She knows this thread is on its last legs because she’s not willing to continue, and she knows the other thread is done because no one seems to be interested in the discovery that demonstrates how there is a way to prevent war. So, you know, she is all like, ‘Sayonara!’”

“Just as soon as she makes a few million more posts,” Khan added.

Peacegirl, who has spent the last year at the board promoting a book by the late pool hustler Seymour Lessans, has received an increasingly rough reception lately. Poster Spacemonkey has relentlessly accused her of weaseling, poster LadyShea has interrogated her needlessly, and a screech owl in Evanston, Ill., has demanded that she “STFU, already.”

“I'm really getting tired of the attacks, therefore I am going to let go of this conversation,” peacegirl posted Saturday, “just as soon as I make a few million more posts.”

peacegirl · #**16869** 05-19-2012, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

The afferent position wrongly assumes that this wavelength and frequency travel forever

According to the laws of physics, electromagnetic energy travels indefinitely unless it is absorbed and transformed into some other kind of energy. Traveling is an inherent property of electromagnetic energy as is wavelength/frequency. Are you saying that the laws of physics are "wrong" in this regard?

If so, do you retract your previous statements that your model does not require any change to the laws of physics?

No I don't retract my previous statement. Never did I say or imply that light doesn't travel or that the laws of physics are wrong in this regard.

LadyShea · #**16870** 05-19-2012, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Never did I say or imply that light doesn't travel or that the laws of physics are wrong in this regard.

I see no other way in which to interpret this, other than you are saying science's statement that light travels forever is a wrong assumption.

Quote:

the afferent position (which is known as optics, a branch of physics regarding light) wrongly assumes that this wavelength and frequency travel forever

What did you really mean?

peacegirl · #**16871** 05-19-2012, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I'm not angry at all. You'd like me to be, but at this point, I'm just really sad for you. Seriously, it's like listening to my Grandma tell me that my dead Grandpa's just stepped out for a while, but will be back soon.

My mother was like that toward the end. Also we could go in, in the morning and visit awhile, go for lunch, and when we came back she didn't remember and it was like another visit. It was a 3 hour drive and every 15 or 20 minutes her memory would reset and we would start over again.

If confronted with the fact that my Grandfather was dead, my Grandmother would retreat into severe confusion - another parallel between her and peacegirl.

One of the mistakes that people frequently make when communicating with those suffering dementia is the attempt to compel them to accept such facts. The usual result is that the person simply experiences the grief over such a loss all over again, repeatedly. The emotional pain, while transient, is nonetheless quite real while it lasts. During the time I was working as a chaplain in a nursing home I observed this phenomenon on several occasions. Unfortunately, the desire to make the person accept and acknowledge facts about the present is almost irresistable to family members. I suspect that it is an expression of the family members' state of denial over the severity of the loved one's dementia.

Let me try to tie this into the discussion with peacegirl. Is it possible that our repeated attempts to force peacegirl to acknowledge the irrationality of her position are expressions of our unwillingness to believe that someone who is capable carrying on a discussion of this sort is really as demented as she appears to be?

I'm not going to let all of you make it appear that I am demented or irrational. It reminds me of a movie where a man wanted out of his marriage so he tried to make his wife look like she was mentally ill and in need of psychiatric care. He ended up committing her. If it wasn't for a friend who caught on to what her husband was doing, she would never have gotten out. Well you're not going to make me look like I'm crazy. Maybe it's my fault that I'm not explaining the concept, or the mechanism, to everyone's satisfaction, but that doesn't make Lessans wrong, or me crazy for believing him.

LadyShea · #**16872** 05-19-2012, 06:18 PM

They are not gaslighting* you, these people are telling you flat out that they think you are mentally ill, they are not tricking you to make you doubt your own perception.

*The movie was called Gaslight

peacegirl · #**16873** 05-19-2012, 06:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Never did I say or imply that light doesn't travel or that the laws of physics are wrong in this regard.

I see no other way in which to interpret this, other than you are saying science's statement that light travels forever is a wrong assumption.

Light travels forever but the non-absorbed light does not get reflected, as Lessans said. I know I keep going back and forth between reflected and non reflected, travel and no travel, but it's a very difficult concept to explain. I am not contradicting myself, so please don't go there.

Quote:

the afferent position (which is known as optics, a branch of physics regarding light) wrongly assumes that this wavelength and frequency travel forever

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What did you really mean?

Exactly what I said. Light that strikes an object splits up due to absorption, which allows the remaining non-absorbed light to reveal the object when we are within visual range of that object. This light is not static because it is constantly being replaced by new light, but it does not bounce off the object and travel. I don't know how else to explain it.

peacegirl · #**16874** 05-19-2012, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

They are not gaslighting* you, these people are telling you flat out that they think you are mentally ill, they are not tricking you to make you doubt your own perception.

*The movie was called Gaslight

I really don't care what they think. What I am concerned about is how they are making me appear to others who don't know me or the discovery of which I speak.

* Thanks for the update!

davidm · #**16875** 05-19-2012, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Exactly what I said. Light that strikes an object splits up due to absorption, which allows the remaining non-absorbed light to reveal the object when we are within visual range of that object. This light is not static because it is constantly being replaced by new light, but it does not bounce off the object and travel. I don't know how else to explain it.

You call this self-contradictory horseshit an explanation?

So, let's recap! The light strikes an object. Some of it is absorbed, some is not. Check!

What happens to the light that is not absorbed?

It is not static! It is constantly being replaced by new light! BUT! It does not bounce off the object and travel, so it is NOT reflected (even though in the past you have said it IS reflected).

Are you really so far gone in brain damage that you cannot understand you have forceclosed ALL OPTIONS for what the light does?

It is not static!

It is not reflected!

It is not absorbed!

And it is constantly replaced!

So ... what happens to it?

Everything that it can possibly do, you say it doesn't do!

And you wonder why people tell you that you're batshit nuts!