A revolution in thought - Page 719

thedoc · #**17951** 06-01-2012, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

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'.

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

People here have been giving you a break by providing real information and accurate data about how things work in the real world. There is no 'mystrey' Lessans was wrong about almost everything, he was either very misinformed, a crackpot, or making an elaborate joke.

But · #**17952** 06-01-2012, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Quote:

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.

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

The light is not being obstructed. The line of sight to the mirror intersects one of the wheel's teeth when the light hits the mirror. The tooth obstructs the mirror from the point of view of the observer. This is just when the light has completed one half of its round trip. According to your idea, we should see nothing, because we don't see directly at the object (the tooth is in the way) when the light is at the object. Then the light is reflected by the mirror and travels all the way back to the wheel. When it arrives at the wheel, the wheel has rotated by a small angle. The passage is now free. The light passes between two adjacent teeth and it is seen.

LadyShea · #**17953** 06-01-2012, 03:42 PM

Quote:

the phenomenon that allows this to occur has to do with how the brain and eyes work, and thus how cameras work

How do you get a "thus how cameras work" from "how the brain and eyes work" when a camera has neither brain nor eyes?

It's like saying "The phenomena that allows people to move forward has to do with how the brain and limbs work and thus how self propelled vacuums work"

Dragar · #**17954** 06-01-2012, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Quote:

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.

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

The light is not being obstructed. The line of sight to the mirror intersects one of the wheel's teeth when the light hits the mirror. The tooth obstructs the mirror from the point of view of the observer. This is just when the light has completed one half of its round trip. According to your idea, we should see nothing, because we don't see directly at the object (the tooth is in the way) when the light is at the object. Then the light is reflected by the mirror and travels all the way back to the wheel. When it arrives at the wheel, the wheel has rotated by a small angle. The passage is now free. The light passes between two adjacent teeth and it is seen.

In other words peacetime, we can see the object even though at that instant there is no direct path between our eyes and the object - it is blocked by the tooth of a wheel.

We see with a delay - we see the past, when the wheel had not rotated so far round, and there was a gap, and so there was a direct path. In the past. Not in real time.

Real time gets it wrong, our current understanding gets it right.

LadyShea · #**17955** 06-01-2012, 04:41 PM

Quote:

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 (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.

We will always get an image of something, the dispersion simply means we are not receiving light reflected from a particular object with enough intensity to resolve that object as the reflected light from larger and closer matter is more intense. There is no white light reaching our eyes, though, we will still receive the reflected light from other matter.

Imagine putting a drop of red food coloring into the center of a swimming pool. Where the drop enters the water is an intense spot of red color, as the colored water disperses (travels) through the clear water in all directions, and you move further from the entry point, the color becomes less and less intense until you see no red at the edges of the pool. The red water has not disappeared, the red water has not "become" clear water, the red water is still there, it's just that there is one part red water to say one million parts clear water, so it is not intense enough to see.

peacegirl · #**17956** 06-01-2012, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Quote:

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.

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

The light is not being obstructed. The line of sight to the mirror intersects one of the wheel's teeth when the light hits the mirror. The tooth obstructs the mirror from the point of view of the observer. This is just when the light has completed one half of its round trip. According to your idea, we should see nothing, because we don't see directly at the object (the tooth is in the way) when the light is at the object. Then the light is reflected by the mirror and travels all the way back to the wheel. When it arrives at the wheel, the wheel has rotated by a small angle. The passage is now free. The light passes between two adjacent teeth and it is seen.

If light is being blocked because of one of the wheel's teeth, we wouldn't be able to see the light in the mirror, or any image for that matter, since light is a necessary condition of sight. If there is no light, there is no sight, period. You are implying that, according to this model, we should be able to see an object even if there is no light in which to see it. That's false.

peacegirl · #**17957** 06-01-2012, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

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 (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.

We will always get an image of something, the dispersion simply means we are not receiving light reflected from a particular object with enough intensity to resolve that object as the reflected light from larger and closer matter is more intense. There is no white light reaching our eyes, though, we will still receive the reflected light from other matter.

Imagine putting a drop of red food coloring into the center of a swimming pool. Where the drop enters the water is an intense spot of red color, as the colored water disperses (travels) through the clear water in all directions, and you move further from the entry point, the color becomes less and less intense until you see no red at the edges of the pool. The red water has not disappeared, the red water has not "become" clear water, the red water is still there, it's just that there is one part red water to say one million parts clear water, so it is not intense enough to see.

Even if the red food coloring doesn't disappear, it becomes so diluted (disperses) that it has been rendered incapable of being seen. Homeopathy works on the principle that we can still get a beneficial effect even though the diluted preparation is no longer detected.

LadyShea · #**17958** 06-01-2012, 05:50 PM

Quote:

it becomes so diluted (disperses) that it has been rendered incapable of being seen

Yes, that is how light dispersion works as well. The intensity of reflected light from the object becomes too dilute amongst the emitted and reflected light from other sources to resolve the image. No "becoming" or "joining white light"

thedoc · #**17959** 06-01-2012, 05:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are implying that, according to this model, we should be able to see an object even if there is no light in which to see it.

No, what this model implies is that we get an image (in this case the light) from the light even when the direct line to the object is blocked. You can't eve intrepret the experiment correctly.

But · #**17960** 06-01-2012, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

The light is not being obstructed. The line of sight to the mirror intersects one of the wheel's teeth when the light hits the mirror. The tooth obstructs the mirror from the point of view of the observer. This is just when the light has completed one half of its round trip. According to your idea, we should see nothing, because we don't see directly at the object (the tooth is in the way) when the light is at the object. Then the light is reflected by the mirror and travels all the way back to the wheel. When it arrives at the wheel, the wheel has rotated by a small angle. The passage is now free. The light passes between two adjacent teeth and it is seen.

If light is being blocked because of one of the wheel's teeth, we wouldn't be able to see the light in the mirror, or any image for that matter, since light is a necessary condition of sight. If there is no light, there is no sight, period. You are implying that, according to this model, we should be able to see an object even if there is no light in which to see it. That's false.

No, read again carefully. When the light is at the mirror, the path to the eye is not blocked. When the light has traveled the distance from the mirror to the wheel, the path is blocked because the wheel has turned during the time it took the light to get there. No light is seen. All your criteria for seeing the light in the mirror are met, and yet, no light can be seen.

In the other case, at a different rotation speed, the opposite is true: the path is blocked when the light is at the mirror, it is not blocked when it has arrived at the wheel after being reflected by the mirror, and the light can be seen.

peacegirl · #**17961** 06-01-2012, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

the phenomenon that allows this to occur has to do with how the brain and eyes work, and thus how cameras work

How do you get a "thus how cameras work" from "how the brain and eyes work" when a camera has neither brain nor eyes?

It's like saying "The phenomena that allows people to move forward has to do with how the brain and limbs work and thus how self propelled vacuums work"

Well there is a common denominator: energy. In the case of cameras and eyes, the common denominator is light.

thedoc · #**17962** 06-01-2012, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

the phenomenon that allows this to occur has to do with how the brain and eyes work, and thus how cameras work

How do you get a "thus how cameras work" from "how the brain and eyes work" when a camera has neither brain nor eyes?

It's like saying "The phenomena that allows people to move forward has to do with how the brain and limbs work and thus how self propelled vacuums work"

Well there is a common denominator: energy. In the case of cameras and eyes, the common denominator is light.

Finally, you get it, when the eyes and film detect light we get an image, and only when light travels to the eye or camera.

peacegirl · #**17963** 06-01-2012, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

The light is not being obstructed. The line of sight to the mirror intersects one of the wheel's teeth when the light hits the mirror. The tooth obstructs the mirror from the point of view of the observer. This is just when the light has completed one half of its round trip. According to your idea, we should see nothing, because we don't see directly at the object (the tooth is in the way) when the light is at the object. Then the light is reflected by the mirror and travels all the way back to the wheel. When it arrives at the wheel, the wheel has rotated by a small angle. The passage is now free. The light passes between two adjacent teeth and it is seen.

If light is being blocked because of one of the wheel's teeth, we wouldn't be able to see the light in the mirror, or any image for that matter, since light is a necessary condition of sight. If there is no light, there is no sight, period. You are implying that, according to this model, we should be able to see an object even if there is no light in which to see it. That's false.

No, read again carefully. When the light is at the mirror, the path to the eye is not blocked. When the light has traveled the distance from the mirror to the wheel, the path is blocked because the wheel has turned during the time it took the light to get there. No light is seen. All your criteria for seeing the light in the mirror are met, and yet, no light can be seen.

In the other case, at a different rotation speed, the opposite is true: the path is blocked when the light is at the mirror, it is not blocked when it has arrived at the wheel after being reflected by the mirror, and the light can be seen.

Obviously, if light is being reflected from a mirror we can't see that light until it strikes our eyes. But that's a different phenomenon than seeing an object which is interacting with light. That's why we would be able to see the Sun, which is made up of gases, even though the photons that are being emitted have not yet reached Earth.

peacegirl · #**17964** 06-01-2012, 07:04 PM

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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?

Light only has to be surrounding the object, but the eyes can still interact with the light because of the direction in which the eyes see. In other words, picture that a faraway object cannot seen because it's dark, but the eyes, being a window to the external world, could see that object instantly if the light switch was turned on. Light doesn't have to travel anywhere for the object to be seen because we are not interpreting the image in the brain; we are seeing the object directly. That's what he meant by light is a condition of sight, not a cause.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.)

I can't tell you anymore than that this is how efferent vision works, and if you think about it carefully, it is not woo.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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?

Yes, in efferent vision we are looking through the light that is already present at the retina (remember, it doesn't have to travel to Earth first) to see the object in real time. We see it instantly as long as there is enough intensity of light surrounding the object, and the object is within our visual range. We are not seeing the object due to light bouncing off of the object and the pattern traveling through space and time to the eye and being interpreted in the brain, which is going right back to the afferent account.

LadyShea · #**17965** 06-01-2012, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

the light that is already present at the retina (remember, it doesn't have to travel to Earth first

"At the retina" is a location and "already present" is the point in time. How did the light get to that location at that point in time if it didn't travel there? What is the mechanism if the mechanism is not traveling?

Are you ever going to address this most basic question regarding your model? This is the very crux of the violation of the laws of physics problem you have.

davidm · #**17966** 06-01-2012, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously, if light is being reflected from a mirror we can't see that light until it strikes our eyes. But that's a different phenomenon than seeing an object which is interacting with light. That's why we would be able to see the Sun, which is made up of gases, even though the photons that are being emitted have not yet reached Earth.

So now you are saying we see mirror images in delayed time, but the sun in real time? Is there no end to your stupdity? Seriously!

God, but you are stoopid.

LadyShea · #**17967** 06-01-2012, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Obviously, if light is being reflected from a mirror we can't see that light until it strikes our eyes. But that's a different phenomenon than seeing an object which is interacting with light.

If this is a different phenomena, then so is seeing images on a TV or computer monitor, seeing rainbows, seeing laser beams, and seeing the light from car headlights at night.

Are you now saying that seeing emitted light is NOT in real time, but seeing objects is in real time?

Quote:

That's why we would be able to see the Sun, which is made up of gases, even though the photons that are being emitted have not yet reached Earth.

Wait a minute, why do you think we can see the sun? Do you think the Sun is "an object that is interacting with light"? Do you think you see the gases and not the emitted light when you look at the Sun?

And how is that different from seeing light in the Fizeau experiment? The light source is an object emitting light just as the sun is an object emitting light.

davidm · #**17968** 06-01-2012, 08:58 PM

So, peacegirl, you are now saying that if light is reflected from a mirror, we can't see it until it reaches our eyes? Do you have sufficient memory left to realize this is a TOTAL CHANGE from what you've said in the past?

So reflected light from a mirror represents delayed-time seeing, after all? So delayed time seeing is true? What about reflected light from the moon, peacegirl? Remember the laser/moon experiment? It also shows delayed-time seeing.

Uh-oh! Careful! The whole edifice of your fantasy is starting to crumble! :freakout:

Spacemonkey · #**17969** 06-01-2012, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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

Light only has to be surrounding the object, but the eyes can still interact with the light because of the direction in which the eyes see. In other words, picture that a faraway object cannot seen because it's dark, but the eyes, being a window to the external world, could see that object instantly if the light switch was turned on. Light doesn't have to travel anywhere for the object to be seen because we are not interpreting the image in the brain; we are seeing the object directly. That's what he meant by light is a condition of sight, not a cause.

Then what is the retina for? Why do we have light receptors in our eyes if we can see things even when there is no light at the eyes or in contact with the retina? It is simply false that we can see things when there is no light at the eyes. Our eyes cannot sense or interact with light at a distance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.)

I can't tell you anymore than that this is how efferent vision works, and if you think about it carefully, it is not woo.

You are contradicting yourself again. Your above answer says that light doesn't even have to be at the eyes at all. Yet here you say that light at the eyes is how efferent vision allegedly works (even though you still can't explain how the light gets to be there).

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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?

Yes, in efferent vision we are looking through the light that is already present at the retina (remember, it doesn't have to travel to Earth first) to see the object in real time. We see it instantly as long as there is enough intensity of light surrounding the object, and the object is within our visual range. We are not seeing the object due to light bouncing off of the object and the pattern traveling through space and time to the eye and being interpreted in the brain, which is going right back to the afferent account.

None of this is what I asked. You've completely evaded the question. If your answer is "I don't know" then say "I don't know". The question was:

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 · #**17970** 06-01-2012, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

the phenomenon that allows this to occur has to do with how the brain and eyes work, and thus how cameras work

How do you get a "thus how cameras work" from "how the brain and eyes work" when a camera has neither brain nor eyes?

It's like saying "The phenomena that allows people to move forward has to do with how the brain and limbs work and thus how self propelled vacuums work"

Well there is a common denominator: energy. In the case of cameras and eyes, the common denominator is light.

But you have absolutely no idea what light is doing in either case. The only part you are ever able to talk about is that which is not a common denominator - the brain and eyes.

Spacemonkey · #**17971** 06-01-2012, 10:21 PM

Quote:

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.

Spacemonkey · #**17972** 06-01-2012, 10:21 PM

Quote:

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?

Bump.

peacegirl · #**17973** 06-01-2012, 10:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

it becomes so diluted (disperses) that it has been rendered incapable of being seen

Yes, that is how light dispersion works as well. The intensity of reflected light from the object becomes too dilute amongst the emitted and reflected light from other sources to resolve the image. No "becoming" or "joining white light"

However you want to look at it, the pattern of light does not show up beyond its ability to be resolved. The only difference between the two versions is that in the efferent account, the object must be in one's visual range, which means that light becomes a necessary condition of sight, and in the afferent account it is the pattern of light that travels independently of the object which would make light the cause of sight, which is false, according to Lessans.

LadyShea · #**17974** 06-01-2012, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

the pattern of light does not show up beyond its ability to be resolved.

Patterns don't do anything. The light received at the retina is not sufficiently intense to create a pattern on the retina capable of being resolved.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

in the afferent account it is believed that this pattern travels independently of the object and, therefore, is responsible for seeing the image

No, This is a ridiculous strawman mischaracterization of the standard model of sight.

Patterns don't travel and we don't see images.

Light travels and when it lands on the retina it does so in a pattern of intensity and color that the brain uses to create an image. Do you understand the difference between the actual model and your retarded statements about it?

davidm · #**17975** 06-01-2012, 10:31 PM

Hey, peacegirl, you just admitted that reflected light from a mirror is seen in delayed time. That is the end of real-time seeing right there, because all light that is non-source light is reflected light. Unfortunately, Daddy said light from the moon (reflected light) is seen in real time.

Now that you've admitted reflected light is seen in delayed time, you disagree with The Great Man. Now what?