A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Yes, right, if your idea of efferent vision was correct. But this is not what happens. If the mirror is obstructed just as the light hits it, the light can be seen between the teeth of the wheel. This shows that the light travels (and has to travel) from the mirror to the eye, the same way that it traveled to the mirror, just in the opposite direction. When the light has traveled to the wheel, the wheel has turned further and the mirror is unobstructed again, so the light can pass between the teeth and it can be seen. This should not happen if what you say is true.

It proves that there has to be an interaction between the light and the eye, there's no doubt about that, and there's no doubt that light travels, but what you're missing is the idea that if the brain is looking through the eyes, as a window, that when we are looking directly at the object, the light is already at the eye. It is a necessary condition only. We don't have to wait for the pattern that is captured by the retina, to travel. It's already there by virtue that we see the object. I know this doesn't make sense to you, but keep trying.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Go on then. Answer these to the best of your ability:

Yes, saying that efferent vision is the cause of this phenomenon is an answer, and if it's correct, it's the only answer I need to give. The mechanism needs to be better understood, but just because I can't explain how the lens of the eye or camera can capture objects in real time due to this phenomenon, doesn't make it automatically wrong.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand what you're trying to get at.

I'm not trying to get at anything. All I'm trying to do is get answers to my questions, which you have just evaded yet again.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're trying to get me to admit that time is involved when the speed of light is finite because the light must reach our eyes through space/time in order for the light to strike our eyes. All I can tell you is that efferent vision, which requires the object to be in one's visual range, automatically puts the light at the eye (as long as said object is bright enough for the object to be seen in real time) because the phenomenon that allows this to occur has to do with how the brain and eyes work, and thus how cameras work.

None of this has anything to do with the questions I asked. Just answer the questions please. Here they are again:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, in real-time photography, in a scenario involving only an object, a camera, and light (and no eyes, brains, or vision)...

1) You agree that some of the light which hits the object is not absorbed, still exists 0.0001sec after hitting the object, and must have a location at that time. So what is the location of these nonabsorbed photons 0.0001sec after they have hit the object? Are they about 30 meters from the object and traveling away from it at light speed? Yes or No? If no, then where are they located at this time?

2) You agree that there are photons at the camera film (interacting with it to determine the color of the resulting image) when the photograph is taken, that this light also existed 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken, and that it must have had a location at this time. So what is the location of these photons 0.0001sec before they are at the camera film (i.e. 0.0001sec before the photograph is taken)? Were they about 30 meters away from the camera film and traveling towards it at light speed? Yes or No? If no, then were were they located at this time?

Answer these questions please.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Teleportation is a term that refers to a number of theories and notions concerning the transfer of matter from one point to another without traversing the physical space between them.

Teleportation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I know what teleportation is. You are the one who keep wrongly equating it to having photons in two places at the same time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Didn't you agree that I should take a break and start a new thread that didn't discuss this topic? So why were you were the first one to start this discussion up again? You believe Lessans is wrong, so why do you keep pressing me? Just to prove that I'm a fundie?

I do think you should quit this thread. But you're not doing that. So as long as you keep posting here, I will require you to answer my questions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I don't think she has the faintest idea of what the word 'dispersed' even means. She seems to think it is something that happens at a specific distance from the object.

I already answered this. When the light gets dispersed to the point where we no longer can use this light to see the object (the inverse square law), that is because the non-absorbed photons have joined with the other light in the visual spectrum, which will not show any pattern at all on the film/retina. At that point we will not get any image.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, saying that efferent vision is the cause of this phenomenon is an answer, and if it's correct, it's the only answer I need to give. The mechanism needs to be better understood, but just because I can't explain how the lens of the eye or camera can capture objects in real time due to this phenomenon, doesn't make it automatically wrong.

Yet another reply without any answers. Why do you do this? Answers please:

Does light have to be at the eye, or does it only have to be surrounding the object? Which is it?

And how did the light at the eye get there, if it never traveled there? ('Because of how efferent vision works' is not an answer. Neither is listing conditions that must be satisfied.)

Care to remind us again of how the red photons get to be at the camera film at the very moment the distant object first turns red? Where did you say those same photons where just a moment beforehand?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already answered this. When the light gets dispersed to the point where we no longer can use this light to see the object, that is because the non-absorbed photons have joined with the other light in the visual spectrum, which will not show any pattern at all on the film/retina. At that point it will only be white light.

That makes no sense. Dispersion happens continually at a fixed rate across the entire distance, beginning at the surface of the object. Joining other photons can only occur at a specific point for any given photon.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

New questions Peacegirl!

1) Do you accept that you have significant memory impairment?

2) Are you presently in institutional care of any sort?

3) Have you ever been diagnosed or treated for any mental health related condition?


(You can either answer these questions or my questions about photons, but they won't go away until at least one or the other set of questions has been answered.)

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm not trying to get at anything. All I'm trying to do is get answers to my questions, which you have just evaded yet again.

None of this has anything to do with the questions I asked. Just answer the questions please. Here they are again:

Those non-absorbed photons are traveling 0.0001sec after they hit the object. Yes, they are traveling away from the object at light speed.

2) You agree that there are photons at the camera film (interacting with it to determine the color of the resulting image) when the photograph is taken, that this light also existed 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken, and that it must have had a location at this time. So what is the location of these photons 0.0001sec before they are at the camera film (i.e. 0.0001sec before the photograph is taken)? Were they about 30 meters away from the camera film and traveling towards it at light speed? Yes or No? If no, then were were they located at this time?

By the time these photons have traveled away from the object, they are not the same photons that will be captured on the film/retina to determine the color of the resulting image. They would have already become white light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Teleportation is a term that refers to a number of theories and notions concerning the transfer of matter from one point to another without traversing the physical space between them.

Teleportation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I know what teleportation is. You are the one who keep wrongly equating it to having photons in two places at the same time.

Fair enough.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Didn't you agree that I should take a break and start a new thread that didn't discuss this topic? So why were you were the first one to start this discussion up again? You believe Lessans is wrong, so why do you keep pressing me? Just to prove that I'm a fundie?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I do think you should quit this thread. But you're not doing that. So as long as you keep posting here, I will require you to answer my questions.

The reason I'm posting here is because YOU started asking me questions again. I don't understand whether you're trying to see if this model is plausible, or if you're trying to prove to everyone that I'm just another version of a fundie. If your motive is the latter, then there's no point in my being here.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It proves that there has to be an interaction between the light and the eye, there's no doubt about that, and there's no doubt that light travels, but what you're missing is the idea that if the brain is looking through the eyes, as a window, that when we are looking directly at the object, the light is already at the eye. It is a necessary condition only. We don't have to wait for the pattern that is captured by the retina, to travel. It's already there by virtue that we see the object. I know this doesn't make sense to you, but keep trying.

"Trying" has nothing to do with it. This is nonsense, period. Merely repeating the same statements that make no sense to anyone but yourself is never going to change anything. If it doesn't make sense to us, the only way we can make sense of it is by asking you questions to clarify what you mean. But you can't clarify or explain any of it. All you can do is repeat yourself. You can't explain how any of it is meant to actually work, because you simply don't know.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It proves that there has to be an interaction between the light and the eye, there's no doubt about that, and there's no doubt that light travels, but what you're missing is the idea that if the brain is looking through the eyes, as a window, that when we are looking directly at the object, the light is already at the eye. It is a necessary condition only. We don't have to wait for the pattern that is captured by the retina, to travel. It's already there by virtue that we see the object. I know this doesn't make sense to you, but keep trying.

No, that doesn't work. In the experiment, when the wheel rotates at a certain speed, we are looking directly at the object, the path is unobstructed, but the light can't be already at the eye, because we don't see anything. This is because the light has to travel physically, through space, to the eye. It isn't already at the eye when we look.

When the wheel rotates faster, we see the light again, but the mirror is obstructed by a tooth when the light arrives at the mirror, so according to your idea, we shouldn't see anything, but we do.

[Spacemonkey]

Thank you for trying to answer these questions. I've been waiting literally for several months for you to even try, so thank you. You can only imagine my excitement.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Those non-absorbed photons are traveling 0.0001sec after they hit the object. Yes, they are traveling away from the object at light speed.

So close to an answer! You've told me what they are doing, but not where they are. Are they about 30 meters away from the object? (This is how far they should be if they have been travelling away from the object for 0.0001sec at light speed.)

Originally Posted by peacegirl

By the time these photons have traveled away from the object, they are not the same photons that will be captured on the film/retina to determine the color of the resulting image. They would have already become white light.

Ooh. Not so good here I'm afraid. Firstly, the camera is inside the range at which nonabsorbed light joins up with the rest (it would have to be if it is close enough to actually take a photograph of the object, right?). Secondly, and more importantly, this question was not asking you about the same light as the first question. It is not asking you about the nonabsorbed light that just hit the object. If you read the question again you will see that this question is instead asking you about the light which is at the film (when the photograph is taken). This light obviously cannot fail to be the light that will be captured on the film. So you have misread the question, and answered regarding the wrong set of photons. Please try again. You can do this! Don't give up!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That makes no sense. Dispersion happens continually at a fixed rate across the entire distance, beginning at the surface of the object. Joining other photons can only occur at a specific point for any given photon.

That's true, and this point is not picked up by the retina due to the opposite direction in which the eyes see. This is what you are not getting. And to tell me that I am mentally ill just because you don't get it, is a big slap in the face.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's true, and this point is not picked up by the retina due to the opposite direction in which the eyes see. This is what you are not getting. And to tell me that I am mentally ill just because you don't get it, is a big slap in the face.

I suggest you read my post again. Something that happens continuously across an extended distance cannot be explained in terms of something that happens at a single point. So dispersion cannot be explained in terms of joining up with other photons.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Thank you for trying to answer these questions. I've been waiting literally for several months for you to even try, so thank you. You can only imagine my excitement.

Are you serious Spacemonkey. I'm sorry I waited so long, but I'm sure this excitement will be dampened quickly. I think you're trying to trick me with your flattery.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Those non-absorbed photons are traveling 0.0001sec after they hit the object. Yes, they are traveling away from the object at light speed.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So close to an answer! You've told me what they are doing, but not where they are. Are they about 30 meters away from the object? (This is how far they should be if they have been travelling away from the object for 0.0001sec at light speed.)

They are gone Spacemonkey, not gone in the sense of disappearing, but they have passed the point at which we can use them to see THE OBJECT.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

2) You agree that there are photons at the camera film (interacting with it to determine the color of the resulting image) when the photograph is taken, that this light also existed 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken, and that it must have had a location at this time. So what is the location of these photons 0.0001sec before they are at the camera film (i.e. 0.0001sec before the photograph is taken)? Were they about 30 meters away from the camera film and traveling towards it at light speed? Yes or No? If no, then were were they located at this time?

By the time these photons have traveled away from the object, they are not the same photons that will be captured on the film/retina to determine the color of the resulting image. They would have already become white light.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Ooh. Not so good here I'm afraid. Firstly, the camera is inside the range at which nonabsorbed light joins up with the rest (it would have to be if it is close enough to actually take a photograph of the object, right?). Secondly, and more importantly, this question was not asking you about the same light as the first question. It is not asking you about the nonabsorbed light that just hit the object. If you read the question again you will see that this question is instead asking you about the light which is at the film (when the photograph is taken). This light obviously cannot fail to be the light that will be captured on the film.

Wrong. I know YOU BELIEVE this contradicts physical laws, but it does not. Think carefully about this Spacemonkey. You're trying desperately (and, believe me, I am not accusing you of doing anything wrong because I understand your dilemma), to make me appear mentally ill, but your logic is not cracked up to be what you believe it to be, so your conclusion that I am mentally ill may be completely wrong. Does this not register in your thought process in any way?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So you have misread the question, and answered regarding the wrong set of photons. Please try again. You can do this! Don't give up!

I won't give up, will you? You think I'm wrong and with that question you are sure that if I don't agree somehow, I am at fault. Give it up Spacemonkey, okay? I really do have to change direction temporarily, or this thread will condemn me prematurely. I refuse to let people think that they are ACTUALLY CORRECT in their analysis, because I do NOT believe they are correct (not even a little bit), and as I said earlier, I have to be true to myself.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That makes no sense. Dispersion happens continually at a fixed rate across the entire distance, beginning at the surface of the object. Joining other photons can only occur at a specific point for any given photon.

You are both wrong, individual photons DO NOT join with other photons in any meaningful way, all photons continue to travel independently. That photons heve dispersed means that the individual photons reflected from an object are too far apart to collect with a lens and form an image, nothing more. However this is only relative to the size of the lens and how long the lens can collect photons. A very large lens or mirror collecting for a long time can form images from much further away than a smal lens and short exposure time. Individual photons travel in a straight line unless effected by gravity or some object that reflecte or refracts them. Photons may briefly come near to other photons but their individual trajectories will then carry them apart again. Photons do not join with other photons, this is just Lessans nonsense.

Peacegirl seems to think that the photons in white light (a collection of all the different frequencies) are somehow joined together to form that light. All the photons contained in the spectrum are individuals traveling independently and can be seperated as is demonstrated by a prisim. For all practicle purposes there is no connection between the photons of light to anythihg else, be that other photons or an object.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I suggest you read my post again. Something that happens continuously across an extended distance cannot be explained in terms of something that happens at a single point. So dispersion cannot be explained in terms of joining up with other photons.

We're not talking about something that happens at a single point. I am allowing for this extended distance, but not in terms of the eyes. You don't get it, and I don't think you ever will unfortunately. Let's move on.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

By the time these photons have traveled away from the object, they are not the same photons that will be captured on the film/retina to determine the color of the resulting image. They would have already become white light.

More Lessans nonsense, photons do not change as they travel, photons have the same frequency and speed till they are absorbed, and then they are converted to another form of energy. This is the only fate for a photon, to continue to be the same color and travel at c, till it is no longer a photon.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by thedoc

You are both wrong, individual photons DO NOT join with other photons in any meaningful way...

Well, yes. Obviously. I was just granting her that much to show how she was still talking nonsense by equating dispersion and 'joining up'.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Well, yes. Obviously. I was just granting her that much to show how she was still talking nonsense by equating dispersion and 'joining up'.

But by useing it and not challenging it just lends credability to a part of her fiction. Like it or not, you useing the phrase does seem to give it credability. To be accurate we must be consistant.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you serious Spacemonkey. I'm sorry I waited so long, but I'm sure this excitement will be dampened quickly. I think you're trying to trick me with your flattery.

Well, my excitement has certainly dampened now that you have immediately given up again, after only half answering one of the two questions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They are gone Spacemonkey, not gone in the sense of disappearing, but they have passed the point at which we can use them to see THE OBJECT.

There is no seeing. We are discussing only photography, remember? Are you saying that no photographs can ever be taken beyond a 30 meter range? I'm going to stipulate here that my camera is 90 meters away from the object, and that the object is big enough to be photographed at that range. So 0.0001sec after the photons hit the object and are not absorbed, and are now traveling away from the object (presumably at light speed), are they about 30 meters away from the object? [Y/N]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wrong. I know YOU BELIEVE this contradicts physical laws, but it does not. Think carefully about this Spacemonkey. You're trying desperately (and, believe me, I am not accusing you of doing anything wrong because I understand your dilemma), to make me appear mentally ill, but your logic is not cracked up to be what you believe it to be, so your conclusion that I am mentally ill may be completely wrong. Does this not register in your thought process in any way?

I didn't say anything here about violating physical laws. It's a simple (and obvious!) matter of logic that the light at the camera film cannot have 0.0001sec earlier been light that will never be at the camera film. You misread the question and answered regarding the wrong set of photons. That should be obvious, even to you. You just need to reread the question and answer it again: Where was the light which is at the camera film when the photograph was taken, 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by thedoc

But by useing it and not challenging it just lends credability to a part of her fiction. Like it or not, you useing the phrase does seem to give it credability. To be accurate we must be consistant.

Sometimes we have to pick our battles. I'm trying to do as she has asked, by granting her the majority of her claims, and trying to work backwards with her to see how they might be possible. This strategy doesn't allow me to reject every bit of crazy she posts. Let me know if your method has better results.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

No, that doesn't work. In the experiment, when the wheel rotates at a certain speed, we are looking directly at the object, the path is unobstructed, but the light can't be already at the eye, because we don't see anything. This is because the light has to travel physically, through space, to the eye. It isn't already at the eye when we look.

When the wheel rotates faster, we see the light again, but the mirror is obstructed by a tooth when the light arrives at the mirror, so according to your idea, we shouldn't see anything, but we do.

THERE IS NO WAY IN THE WORLD WE CAN SEE AN OBJECT WITH LIGHT BEING OBSTRUCTED. WHAT THE HELL????

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Well, yes. Obviously. I was just granting her that much to show how she was still talking nonsense by equating dispersion and 'joining up'.

Are you agreeing with thedoc, as if he holds the key to this mystery in hand? Give me a break.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Let me know if your method has better results.

L.O.L. since I get only very limited response to my posts, and none from Peacegirl, I do not expect any results. I'm just posting for the lurkers.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you agreeing with thedoc, as if he holds the key to this mystery in hand? Give me a break.

Can you answer my questions, peacegirl? You came so very close to doing so. Please try to finish the job.