A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

No, I want to know where they were just before the object turned red.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

So the very same photons that are at the film were also in the exact same place just before this? So you have stationary non-travelling photons just staying there at the film? Is that your answer. Is it an answer that satisfies you?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, they are traveling...

Again, what they are doing was not the question. I am asking you WHERE THEY ARE LOCATED. Are they 30 meters from the object or not?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

The location is "long gone"? It was one ten-thousandth of a second ago! What photon is not the one that is captured on film? This question is only asking you about the previous location of the photons that ARE NOW at the film. Where were they 0.0001sec beforehand? I'm not here asking about the photons that don't end up at the film, so your entire response here is irelevant to what was asked. And I already explained this to you before!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

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?

I'm not mischaracterizing the meaning of image. According to the present day account, it is the pattern of light that the object reflects which then travels through space and time, eventually striking the retina or film, which then gets interpreted through signals in the brain, or as a photograph.

[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.

[But]

Originally Posted by But

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?

Bump

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, I want to know where they were just before the object turned red.

I told you that the non-absorbed photons are constantly being replaced by new ones, so there are no non-traveling photons anywhere in this model. Which photons are captured on film is what is at issue here. You are trying to make sense out of this coming from an afferent perspective but it's impossible the way you're going about it.

Again, what they are doing was not the question. I am asking you WHERE THEY ARE LOCATED. Are they 30 meters from the object or not?

The location is "long gone"? It was one ten-thousandth of a second ago! What photon is not the one that is captured on film? This question is only asking you about the previous location of the photons that ARE NOW at the film. Where were they 0.0001sec beforehand? I'm not here asking about the photons that don't end up at the film, so your entire response here is irelevant to what was asked. And I already explained this to you before!

You are thinking of light as if they were drops of water going downstream and you want me to admit that the first drop has to be felt before the second drop. That's why this is a futile discussion.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are thinking of light as if they were drops of water going downstream and you want me to admit that the first drop has to be felt before the second drop. That's why this is a futile discussion.

No, I'm asking you about the locations of specific sets of photons which YOU AGREE must have locations at the times I am asking about.

And you keep WEASELLING by giving me actions instead of locations, and answers about different photons than the ones I am asking about.

Why can't you answer the questions. If you don't know the answers, even for your own model, then just say so.

[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.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

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?

How can we something that's too bright? It would be blinding.

Originally Posted by But

Can we see a reflection on a piece of glass in real time?

No.

Originally Posted by But

Or something that's painted white?

No.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are thinking of light as if they were drops of water going downstream and you want me to admit that the first drop has to be felt before the second drop. That's why this is a futile discussion.

Quite right peacegirl. A schizophrenic can feel the second drop first.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[
The light mirrors the object and is instantly at the film, which is why we get a real time photograph.

The problem with this is that we don't get real time photography because the light and the image is not at the film instantly, the whole idea is just wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are thinking of light as if they were drops of water going downstream and you want me to admit that the first drop has to be felt before the second drop.

That is a rather good analogy of how light really works.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, I'm asking you about the locations of specific sets of photons which YOU AGREE must have locations at the times I am asking about.

And you keep WEASELLING by giving me actions instead of locations, and answers about different photons than the ones I am asking about.

Why can't you answer the questions. If you don't know the answers, even for your own model, then just say so.

There is no way I can measure the exact location of where those photons are. It's irrelevant to this model because those photons are not bringing us the image. There's no time involved, remember? All I need to know is that the photons that are captured on the film or retina reveal the object as it is now, not as it was. I don't think you will ever accept that this is even possible unless further empirical testing is done regarding the eyes and brain. There's no way I will ever be able to answer you adequately as long as you have a different point of view as to the role that light plays when it comes to sight.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no way I can measure the exact location of where those photons are...

No-one is asking you to measure any location. We're only asking you to specify your model, not test it.

If the nonabsorbed photons that hit an object travel away from it at light speed, then they should be 30 meters away after 0.0001sec.

If the photons at the film travelled to get there at light speed, then 0.0001sec beforehand they should have been about 30 meters away from the camera.

There is no measurement involved in this. Just a simple calculation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's irrelevant to this model because those photons are not bringing us the image. There's no time involved, remember? All I need to know is that the photons that are captured on the film or retina reveal the object as it is now, not as it was. I don't think you will ever accept that this is even possible unless further empirical testing is done regarding the eyes and brain. There's no way I will ever be able to answer you adequately as long as you have a different point of view as to the role that light plays when it comes to sight.

No, this is not all you need to know. You also need some explanation for how the light at the film got there. I am not adopting any different point of view about the role of light. I have adopted YOUR VIEW according to which the photons at the camera also existed 0.0001sec beforehand and had some specific location at that time. I want to know what ON YOUR VIEW that location might be.

[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?

Why can you not answer these questions?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can we something that's too bright? It would be blinding.

The light in the mirror in the Fizeau experiment is bright enough to be seen, but it's not blinding. That's not the point. Why can't we see aluminium foil in real time when we can see other objects in real time?

No.

So we have to wait for the light reflected from the glass to reach us before we can see it (the glass or the light)?

No.

So we have to wait for the light reflected from the white object to see it (the light or the white object)?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think you will ever accept that this is even possible unless further empirical testing is done regarding the eyes and brain. There's no way I will ever be able to answer you adequately as long as you have a different point of view as to the role that light plays when it comes to sight.

I agree, more testing of eyes and in particular the brain needs to be done. Since this is what you think should be done you should go to a doctor right now and have your brain examined. And getting your eyes checked wouldn't hurt. Make sure you get the doctor to examine your efferent vision. You may need to explain it to them.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No.

No, you say. "No."

Simply unfuckingbelievable.

You spent hundreds of pages telling us why EVERYTHING, including light from mirrors, is seen in real time. Remember your asinine "it must be a smudge" retort to Angakuk's proposed reflected light experiment?

Now you completely change your story, without any explanation of WHY you are changing it, without admitting honestly that in so changing it you are contradicting Lessans, and without any apology to all of us who brought up the Fizeau experiment hundreds of fucking pages ago and wasted all this time trying to tutor you.

You are pathetic.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, I'm asking you about the locations of specific sets of photons which YOU AGREE must have locations at the times I am asking about.

And you keep WEASELLING by giving me actions instead of locations, and answers about different photons than the ones I am asking about.

Why can't you answer the questions. If you don't know the answers, even for your own model, then just say so.

If the Sun was just turned on and it met the requirements of efferent vision, we would get a mirror image on our retina as we're looking directly at it. All the other photons would be traveling to Earth, which takes 8 1/2 minutes.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

No, you say. "No."

Simply unfuckingbelievable.

You spent hundreds of pages telling us why EVERYTHING, including light from mirrors, is seen in real time. Remember your asinine "it must be a smudge" retort to Angakuk's proposed reflected light experiment?

Now you completely change your story, without any explanation of WHY you are changing it, without admitting honestly that in so changing it you are contradicting Lessans, and without any apology to all of us who brought up the Fizeau experiment hundreds of fucking pages ago and wasted all this time trying to tutor you.

You are pathetic.

I thought it was a trick question. What was his point in asking me this, that's what I want to know?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

The light in the mirror in the Fizeau experiment is bright enough to be seen, but it's not blinding. That's not the point. Why can't we see aluminium foil in real time when we can see other objects in real time?

We can see aluminum foil in real time, why wouldn't we?

No.

So we have to wait for the light reflected from the glass to reach us before we can see it (the glass or the light)?

No.

So we have to wait for the light reflected from the white object to see it (the light or the white object)?[/QUOTE]

I didn't understand the point of his question. We would see the white object in real time. Again, why wouldn't we? Why would this be any different than any other object that is interacting with light?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the Sun was just turned on and it met the requirements of efferent vision, we would get a mirror image on our retina as we're looking directly at it. All the other photons would be traveling to Earth, which takes 8 1/2 minutes.

1) What does this have to do with the questions you keep evading?

2) Does this mirror image consist of photons?

3) If so, then how did they get there?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why can you not answer these questions?

BUMP.

[Spacemonkey]

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?

Why won't you even try to answer this, Peacegirl?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

The light in the mirror in the Fizeau experiment is bright enough to be seen, but it's not blinding. That's not the point. Why can't we see aluminium foil in real time when we can see other objects in real time?

We can see aluminum foil in real time, why not?

No.

So we have to wait for the light reflected from the glass to reach us before we can see it (the glass or the light)?

No.

Originally Posted by But

So we have to wait for the light reflected from the white object to see it (the light or the white object)?

I didn't understand the point of your question. We would see the white object in real time as long as it was within our visual range and there was enough light. Why would a white object cause us to see it any differently than a colored object?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the Sun was just turned on and it met the requirements of efferent vision, we would get a mirror image on our retina as we're looking directly at it. All the other photons would be traveling to Earth, which takes 8 1/2 minutes.

What is the relevant difference between the sun being turned on and the light reflecting from the mirror in Fizeau's experiment? The mirror is full of smudges, it is coated with a fine layer of dirt and dust that is brightly illuminated by the light reflected from the mirror and bright enough to be seen.