A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

peacegirl, you still don't understand the Fizeau experiment at all, do you? You sound like a complete idiot.

Here is the pertinent bit

I already answered this. We can't see light until it gets here, but this does not relate to what I'm trying to explain.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes. So stop asking this question. You are an interrogator Spacemonkey, no different than the police who interrogate those who are not guilty, but who are made to confess that they are. Are you happy now? Now I want you to leave me alone, okay? Forget this thread and go back to your other responsibilities.

What did this 'Yes' mean, Peacegirl. Which question were you answering?

[Spacemonkey]

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]

Originally Posted by But

The experiment unambiguously shows that the light has to travel to the eye, otherwise nothing can be seen. The object (whether it is the light source or the mirror) is obviously bright enough and big enough to be seen, the line of sight is unobstructed, yet nothing can be seen. The light is not instantly at the eye, or this wouldn't happen. Do you understand that or is there a specific point that needs more explanation?

How in the world can this be an accurate test for the purposes of proving efferent vision wrong, if light is traveling so fast, and the mirror is so close to us. As in the example given yesterday, it is true that when it's morning, our eyes respond by allowing us to see things around us (we don't see photons though), even if we don't see the Sun because it's below the horizon.

[Spacemonkey]

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?

Bump.

[peacegirl]

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?

I'm talking white and you're talking black, and the two shall never meet.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm talking white and you're talking black, and the two shall never meet.

The photons I'm asking about existed and had locations at the times I'm asking about, according to YOU and according to YOUR model. So why can't you tell me what those locations are?

What do you think the different possible locations are for each of the two questions? Which possible locations do you think can be definitely ruled out as implausible? Can't you even narrow down the options?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes. So stop asking this question. You are an interrogator Spacemonkey, no different than the police who interrogate those who are not guilty, but who are made to confess that they are. Are you happy now? Now I want you to leave me alone, okay? Forget this thread and go back to your other responsibilities.

What did this 'Yes' mean, Peacegirl. Which question were you answering?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already answered this. We can't see light until it gets here, but this does not relate to what I'm trying to explain.

If we can't see light until it travels to the eye, then we can't see stars (or the newly turned on Sun) instantly, in real time, as Lessans claimed.

You just refuted Lessans yourself.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How in the world can this be an accurate test for the purposes of proving efferent vision wrong, if light is traveling so fast, and the mirror is so close to us. As in the example given yesterday, it is true that when it's morning, our eyes respond by allowing us to see things around us (we don't see photons though), even if we don't see the Sun because it's below the horizon.

You don't understand the experiment at all. Read each sentence below carefully, twice.

This instrument consists of a rotating toothed wheel through which a beam of light is passed.
The light is then reflected by a distant mirror, which reflects it back to the wheel.
When the rotation speed is low, the light beam returns quickly enough so as to pass through the same opening through which it was transmitted.
As the rotation speed increases, the light is blocked because the wheel has advanced one-half the distance between openings.
Further increasing the speed, the wheel advances the entire distance between openings, and the beam again passes through.
Knowing all the dimensions involved and the speeds at which the light beam passed or didn't pass, Fizeau could calculate the speed of light.
Fizeau Wheel -- from Eric Weisstein's World of Physics

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The photons I'm asking about existed and had locations at the times I'm asking about, according to YOU and according to YOUR model. So why can't you tell me what those locations are?

You need to stop talking about photons because it's going to get you in trouble. It's not that I'm trying to avoid your query. It just doesn't work in this way.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What do you think the different possible locations are for each of the two questions? Which possible locations do you think can be definitely ruled out as implausible? Can't you even narrow down the options?

The photons that do not show up as a mirror image have nothing to do with this model.

[LadyShea]

You need to stop talking about photons because it's going to get you in trouble. It's not that I'm trying to avoid your query. It just doesn't work in this way.
The photons that do not show up as a mirror image have nothing to do with this model.

We are asking about the photons that are on the surface of the camera film at the moment the photograph is taken. They have everything to do with your claims and photography absolutely works "that way".

Where were those photons located a fraction of a second before they were located on the surface of the camera film?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You don't understand the experiment at all. Read each sentence below carefully, twice.

I read this more than once, and I get it, but it doesn't answer the question of efferent vision at all. It's funny that you tell me to read each sentence carefully, twice, when you didn't even read the book once, and think you've got it down pat.

[peacegirl]

Intermission: How to stop a nightmare

How to stop a nightmare | ScienceDump

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We are asking about the photons that are on the surface of the camera film at the moment the photograph is taken. They have everything to do with your claims and photography absolutely works "that way".

But you're thinking in terms of travel time, which is why you are failing to understand this one iota.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Where were those photons located a fraction of a second before they were located on the surface of the camera film?

There is no fraction of a second before, don't you understand that yet? Not when you're viewing the world from the inside out, not the outside in.

[LadyShea]

Fizeau developed a method for measuring the speed of light in air. On the peak of a hill he set up a light source and a spinning gear, arranged so that the light would shine through the gear's teeth. As it spun, the gear would alternately block and unblock the light, so that it would flash. On another hilltop 5 miles (8 km) away he positioned a mirror that reflected the light back to its source. Fizeau spun the gear very fast, so that light passing through one gap in the gear's teeth would travel to the mirror, bounce back, and reenter through the next gap. By using a timer, he was able to determine the amount of time it took light to travel 10 miles (16 km)--the distance there and back.

Armand-Hippolyte-Louis Fizeau Biography | BookRags.com

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where does it rule out Lessans? What is there to see if all we are doing is measuring the speed of light? It is obvious that we can't see light until it arrives.

What is there to see? The light source. The mirror. None of these things is seen in real time. Are you now saying that light has to travel to the eye in order to be seen? I would agree.

As I said, light is a necessary condition. It must be surrounding the object, not the person.

That doesn't work. There is plenty of light at the mirror and plenty of light at the lamp, which is also a visible object, the line of sight is unobstructed, and yet neither the lamp nor the mirror can be seen. This couldn't happen if real-time seeing were true.

This experiment doesn't answer the question as to the role light plays in sight. Does light reveal the world in real time, or does light bring us the world in delayed time? Nothing about this experiment proves Lessans wrong.

Sure it does. Your dad is wrong. Real-time seeing doesn't explain the results of this experiment and is incompatible with it, and there's no way around it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already answered this. We can't see light until it gets here, but this does not relate to what I'm trying to explain.

We can't see the lamp or the mirror either until the light has traveled to the eye.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How in the world can this be an accurate test for the purposes of proving efferent vision wrong, if light is traveling so fast, and the mirror is so close to us. As in the example given yesterday, it is true that when it's morning, our eyes respond by allowing us to see things around us (we don't see photons though), even if we don't see the Sun because it's below the horizon.

The wheel has a lot of small teeth and rotates at a speed that makes the effect noticeable. The speed of light can be measured with great precision if the speed of the wheel is measured accurately, which isn't too hard. If you don't understand something about the experiment, you can ask. But of course you don't want to know more, because it destroys your whole fantasy if you understand it. You have to go through impressive mental contortions to avoid that.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you're thinking in terms of travel time, which is why you are failing to understand this one iota.

I didn't say anything about travel time.

I am asking you about the locations of photons that must exist for a photographic image to be created on camera film.

They must be located on the surface of camera film at the moment a photograph is taken.

In your model, what was the location of those specific photons a fraction of a second prior to them being located on the surface of the camera film?

They have to be somewhere just before they are on the surface of camera film. Where is it?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no fraction of a second before

Of course there is, unless you are stopping time when you take a photograph. There is the moment the photochemical process begins by the absorption of photons and there is a fraction of a second before that.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

don't you understand that yet?

Of course I don't understand that, it's absurd.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not when you're viewing the world from the inside out, not the outside in.

What are you babbling about?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I read this more than once, and I get it, but it doesn't answer the question of efferent vision at all.

It refutes instant, real time seeing. If you get it, then you would see this problem with Lessans claims.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you're thinking in terms of travel time, which is why you are failing to understand this one iota.

There is no fraction of a second before, don't you understand that yet? Not when you're viewing the world from the inside out, not the outside in.

Others have said that Peacegirl doesn't understand the efferent model, which is why she can't explain it, when all she needs to say is that "The photon that is now at the film, was previously traveling to the object. And on striking the object and not being absorbed, it is instantly at the film or retina." However she doesn't understand the model herself so is incapable of forming this simple explination according to efferent vision. It will be interesting to see if she now denies my explination?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You need to stop talking about photons because it's going to get you in trouble. It's not that I'm trying to avoid your query. It just doesn't work in this way.

It doesn't work in what way? By having photons with locations at different times? You already agreed to all that my questions presuppose.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The photons that do not show up as a mirror image have nothing to do with this model.

Well that's fine, because my questions didn't ask you about those photons. I'm asking you about the ones that do.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Others have said that Peacegirl doesn't understand the efferent model, which is why she can't explain it, when all she needs to say is that "The photon that is now at the film, was previously traveling to the object. And on striking the object and not being absorbed, it is instantly at the film or retina." However she doesn't understand the model herself so is incapable of forming this simple explination according to efferent vision. It will be interesting to see if she now denies my explination?

But as soon as she says that, she has to admit to positing teleporting light.

[Spacemonkey]

Apparently taking a photograph now causes the past to cease to exist.

[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?

[LadyShea]

the past doesn't exist according to peacegirl. She doesn't believe in time either