A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Who said it does? Who disagrees with this, do you think? We've never said that the image or pattern travels. Not once. That is a stupid strawman mischaracterization of optics.

All any of us has ever said is that light travels and that light is independent of its source. Period.

She is a fucking idiot and a liar to boot. How many times -- how many! -- must this gibbering little huckster be corrected on this elementary fucking point? How many times have we patiently explained to her what science ACTUALLY says, only to have her little chewed-up piece of bubblegum of a brain reset to its default idiocy and repeat the same old pathetic strawman?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are all so matter of fact it makes me cringe.

That's because the scientific model of vision is based on fact. Lessans' ideas are not based on observed reality, and science is.

By any way you choose to evaluate it, Lessans' ideas on vision are incorrect. We can be matter of fact because is it a matter of fact.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, because the light is too bright, but this has NOTHING to do with these claims.

Too bright for what?

[davidm]

Normal brain


Peacegirl's brain:

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times do I have to say that this does not conflict with real time seeing? It does not destroy Lessans' claims although I know you are trying hard to convince yourself that it does.

Is the reflected light seen in real time or delayed time, peacegirl?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, because the light is too bright, but this has NOTHING to do with these claims. Do you actually think this one example proves Lessans wrong? Of course. You are all so matter of fact it makes me cringe.

So if it is bright enough to be seen, we can see it in real time, but if it's too bright, then we can't. Is that right?

Can we see a reflection on a piece of glass in real time? Or something that's painted white?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The sun is made up of mass, that's why we would see it.

"The sun is made up of mass."

It's going to have to be, for now. If his observations are taken seriously, further testing will be an option at a later date.

No, you little idiot, an "explanation" consists of explaining, physically, HOW the eyes work, not merely that they DO work.

We would not see the moon in the reflected light David, if the moon is not within our visual range. Somewhere along the line you've gotten confused between full spectrum light that does travel, and patterns of light that don't.

Patterns of light don't travel, as has been repeatedly explained to you.

Whatever you say!

Seriously, did you ever actually attend school at all?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by davidm

She is a fucking idiot and a liar to boot. How many times -- how many! -- must this gibbering little huckster be corrected on this elementary fucking point? How many times have we patiently explained to her what science ACTUALLY says, only to have her little chewed-up piece of bubblegum of a brain reset to its default idiocy and repeat the same old pathetic strawman?

As many times as it takes till you realize she is schizophrenic. The only way peacegirl will make any progress is through treatment.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

She is a fucking idiot and a liar to boot. How many times -- how many! -- must this gibbering little huckster be corrected on this elementary fucking point? How many times have we patiently explained to her what science ACTUALLY says, only to have her little chewed-up piece of bubblegum of a brain reset to its default idiocy and repeat the same old pathetic strawman?

All your ranting and raving doesn't change a thing David, and anybody that has read this thread long enough knows this isn't a strawman. Let me repeat: No pattern gets reflected in the light and travels long distances apart from the object that produced it, strikes the retina, which then gets interpreted by the brain through transduced signals.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All your ranting and raving doesn't change a thing David, and anybody that has read this thread long enough knows this isn't a strawman.

Care to take a poll?

Let me repeat:

She is going to repeat herself now. That's always fun to watch.

No pattern gets reflected in the light ...

And, once again, asshat, nobody ever said that light carries patterns, or that patterns get "reflected" in the light, whatever that asshattery is even supposed to mean. Light does not "reflect" anything; light gets reflected.

...and travels long distances apart from the object that produced it, strikes the retina, which then gets interpreted by the brain through transduced signals.

So now you're back to saying that light does not travel? Of course it travels, it does nothing but travel. Light cannot do anything else but travel at velocity c in a vaccuum, and it will continue to do that until it is absorbed.

You're welcome,

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

I'm not in disagreement with you on this count.

Originally Posted by davidm

You're not in disagreement?? So now you are saying that source light is seen instantly, but reflected light is not?



Goodness gracious peacegirl, that's the biggest bunch of idiot stew that you've cooked up yet! Why would we see source light instantly but reflected light in delay?

The sun is made up of mass, that's why we would see it.

Originally Posted by davidm

"The sun is made up of mass."

At present, its mass is approximately 75% hydrogen and 25% helium (92.1% hydrogen and 7.8% helium by number of atoms)

The Sun

Originally Posted by davidm

And no, "because of how the eyes work" is not an explanation!

It's going to have to be, for now. If his observations are taken seriously, further testing will be an option at a later date.

Originally Posted by davidm

No, you little idiot, an "explanation" consists of explaining, physically, HOW the eyes work, not merely that they DO work.

The mechanism as to how it works is not as important as the fact that it DOES work in the way described.

Originally Posted by davidm

Oh, and peacegirl? This bizarre change of position on your part, in addition to contradicting previous statements of your own, directly contradicts Lessans, who said we would see the moon instantly. Except, of course, the moon gives off reflected light, which you now admit we would see in delayed time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We would not see the moon in the reflected light David, if the moon was not within our visual range. Somewhere along the line you've gotten confused between full spectrum light that does travel, and patterns of light that don't.

Originally Posted by davidm

Patterns of light don't travel, as has been repeatedly explained to you.

You're right, they don't.

Originally Posted by davidm

Wow, what a muddle you are in! Shows what happens when you don't get an edumucation!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Whatever you say!

Originally Posted by davidm

Seriously, did you ever actually attend school at all?

Resorting to these type of remarks make you look desperate.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

I don't need a poll to know for a fact that that this is not a strawman.

She is going to repeat herself now. That's always fun to watch.

I did not say "carries patterns". Objects do not reflect the pattern of light without the object being in visible range.

So now you're back to saying that light does not travel? Of course it travels, it does nothing but travel. Light cannot do anything else but travel at velocity c in a vaccuum, and it will continue to do that until it is absorbed.

You're welcome,

You're so mixed up, this whole discussion has gone right over your head since day one.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have answered them, but you won't be happy until I agree with you, so your mind tells you I have not answered them.

No you haven't, you lying weasel. You haven't answered either set of questions yet.

You made one attempt at answering one pair of questions, but you only half answered the first, and completely misread the second, talking about the wrong set of photons.

You actually told me that the photons which are at the film were previously photons that will never be at the film. You answered as if I was asking about the nonabsorbed photons that hit the object, when the question clearly asked you instead about the photons which are at the film.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A bit fat NOOOOOOOOOOO. I did not say that Spacemonkey. I said that photons are replaced by new photons as the old photons move forward, but the image or pattern itself does not travel in the sense of independently leaving the object from which it came. Are you kidding me?

Well, then your own words are going to come as a shock to you...

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nothing in my account stops non-absorbed light from traveling in a pattern.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The mechanism as to how it works is not as important as the fact that it DOES work in the way described.

Of course it matters. Without any plausible mechanism for how it works, there is no way that it even could work in the way described.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

At present, its mass is approximately 75% hydrogen and 25% helium (92.1% hydrogen and 7.8% helium by number of atoms)

The Sun

Oh, look, it's always so much fun when she puts Google to work. Google is her friend (not!)

So tell us, derper, what does the sun's composition have to do with how we see it?

Also, what is your current, ever changing position on the following: are you now saying we have to wait to see reflected light, but we see source light right away?

Originally Posted by davidm

And no, "because of how the eyes work" is not an explanation!

The mechanism as to how it works is not as important as the fact that it DOES work in the way described.

Resorting to these type of remarks make you look desperate.

Did you ever attend school? At all?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All your ranting and raving doesn't change a thing David, and anybody that has read this thread long enough knows this isn't a strawman. Let me repeat: No pattern gets reflected in the light and travels long distances apart from the object that produced it, strikes the retina, which then gets interpreted by the brain through transduced signals.

From an earlier post:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

They can't disperse unless they are traveling. And no-one says they travel with a pattern. They travel in a pattern. All this means is that the red photons bounce off the parts of the object that are absorbing all non-red light, while blue photons bounce off the parts of the object that are absorbing all non-blue light. The only way to avoid this reflected non-absorbed light from traveling in this pattern is to either violate the laws of the angle of reflection or have light not moving in straight lines. On your account, what stops the nonabsorbed light from traveling in a pattern such that non-absorbed red photons are traveling in a straight line away from the red parts of the object, while non-absorbed blue photons are traveling in a straight line away from the blue parts of the object?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're so mixed up, this whole discussion has gone right over your head since day one.

Can't answer the latest set of questions, eh, peacegirl?

Tell us, O Great Thinker, is there ANYBODY whose head your profound insights has NOT gone over, in the ten years you've spent online humiliating yourself and your father? You've never found a SINGLE PERSON to agree with any of this, have you? More to the point, everyone tells you WHY it's wrong, and they all say the same thing. What does that tell you, peacegirl? Oh, I know, you are a martyr for truth!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The mechanism as to how it works is not as important as the fact that it DOES work in the way described.

So you admit you have no mechanism, so hundreds of pages spent trying to explain a mechanism by incoherently invoking the inverse square law, non-existent "p photons," alleged mirror images instantly at the retina without teleporting or traveling (which is impossible) -- you admit now that these pathetic attempts by you to supply a mechanism for a non-existent phenomenon was pure bullshit. Got it, thanks!

[Spacemonkey]

As explained in this post, you have yet to answer these questions. So you can either address the linked post or reanswer the following:

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?

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.)

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?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't need a poll to know for a fact that that this is not a strawman.

Except, you prevaricating harridan, that is not what you said. What you SAID was, that anyone had followed this thread long enough, would agree with you that you are not setting up a strawman by mischaracterizing the meaning of image in scientific terminology. Would you like to take a poll and see if anyone agrees with you?

[Spacemonkey]

As explained in these posts, you have yet to answer the following questions. So, once more, you can either address the linked posts, or reanswer the following:

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?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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?

Bump.

[davidm]

And finally, as to your moronic "It DOES work in the way described," no it does not. Sorry. The Fizeau experiment, how we actually see the moons of Jupiter, how NASA sends spacecraft to Mars and other planets, the laser/moon experiment, the special theory of relativity, how Hubble photographs distant (and no longer existent) galaxies, and just dozens of other examples we've given you proves that it DOES NOT work in the way the Great Buffoon "described."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I want answers to these questions. Why can't you answer them? I will keep asking them until you answer either these questions or my questions about photons and light.

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?

That's not an answer to any question I have ever asked.

Yes, it is. You want to know where the red photons are.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The red photon is there because in this version, there is no travel time. We are looking directly at the object, and the light allows us to do just that by creating a mirror image on our retina; it does not bring the image to us. That's why we see the object turn red without a delay.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Neither is any of this. You are not answering what I am asking you.

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?

They are at the film. Although light travels (which I don't deny), when the object is within the range of the lens, the camera is able to get a real time photograph because light is used in the same way. I know this isn't going to satisfy you.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And...

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?

Yes, they are traveling, but you're still not understanding why a camera works like a retina, and if it turns out that the efferent model is true, the role of light in photography changes as well. The light mirrors the object and is instantly at the film, which is why we get a real time photograph.

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?

The location of the blue photon 0.0001 sec before the photograph was taken is long gone. It has traveled beyond the scope of the camera's field of view. That is not the photon that is being captured on film when the object turns red. You need to remember that the distance between the film and the object has little to do with the image that will show up on film, which is what is confusing you. This same principle works no matter how far away an object is, as long as it meets the requirements. You are still thinking in terms of a space/time delay.