A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

I don't have a smart phone. Anybody here who has a video phone, a ceiling fan, and a flashlight or laser pointer willing to make a video demonstration of a light on the ceiling through spinning fan blades?

How about taping a note to the ceiling and video taping it through the spinning fan blades to demonstrate that you can see perfectly through the gaps in a spinning fan....well enough to read?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's just the point, in the case of measuring the speed of light, travel time is a factor, but this has nothing to do with seeing the world in real time. You just don't see the difference.

In the experiment the light can be seen through the spinning wheel at almost all speeds of rotation. Is it seen in real time or not?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In the afferent model, there is non-absorbed light that bounces off of objects, which reveals a pattern LadyShea. Why the word games, and why are you avoiding answering the question honestly?

You still do not get it, therefore you misrepresent optics with every word.

A pattern is not revealed.

What question am I not answering?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I'm sorry, I keep on talking to you like you have the capability of understanding.

Let's talk about the experiment for a second. Suppose we set it all up so that the gear is not moving. If we set the gear so that the beam of light passes through a gap in the gear, we see the light source. If we set the gear so that a gear tooth is in the beam of light, we don't see the light.

If we rotate the gear slowly, we alternate between seeing the light for short bursts, and seeing nothing for short bursts.

With me so far?

We start rotating the gear faster and faster, the light now appears to be flickering, because it's alternating very quickly between the teeth and gaps. If we start rotating the gears fast enough (really fast, 1000s of RPM), the amount of light that gets through get less and less, and eventually at the right speed, no light gets through.

Funny thing is, if we speed up the spinning gear even more, we start to see light again!

At no time does the light change in its brightness, and whenever the gap in the gear is in that beam of light, we have a direct line of sight to that light source.

When the wheel is spinning at the right speed, the light source is bright enough to be seen and the object is in the field of view, but none of its light is reaching the eye.

What should we be seeing then?

When the wheel is spinning at the right speed, the light gets through the spinning gear, but we don't see the light bulb, or light source, because it's not large enough. It's ten miles away. It is not in the field of view of the rotating wheel. Light is arriving, that's true, but there is no corresponding image.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You still do not get it, therefore you misrepresent optics with every word.

A pattern is not revealed.

What question am I not answering?

What is non-absorbed light other than a pattern that interacts with our retina? Call it whatever you want.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In the experiment the light can be seen through the spinning wheel at almost all speeds of rotation. Is it seen in real time or not?

Yes, we're seeing light in real time, but this doesn't mean we can see it before it gets to us. We are talking about the properties of light, which we know has a finite speed. Anything with a finite speed that is traveling from one point to another is not going to be seen before it arrives. But what you don't seem to understand is that efferent vision has nothing to do with the time it takes for light to arrive because light is not bringing the image; it is revealing the object.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When the wheel is spinning at the right speed, the light gets through the spinning gear, but we don't see the light bulb, or light source, because it's not large enough. It's ten miles away. It is not in the field of view of the rotating wheel. Light is arriving, that's true, but there is no corresponding image.

I have no idea what you are trying to convey. Are you saying we see light but not the object that generates the light?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What is non-absorbed light other than a pattern that interacts with our retina? Call it whatever you want.

What do you mean "What is non-absorbed light"? You act like "non absorbed light" has it's own special definition of "a pattern that interacts with our retina", which is a strawman and misrepresentation of the principles of optics.

Light that hasn't been absorbed is light, so I will call it light since that is what it is. There is no other definition. It's light, it has the properties of light.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, we're seeing light in real time, but this doesn't mean we can see it before it gets to us. We are talking about the properties of light, which we know has a finite speed. Anything with a finite speed that is traveling from one point to another is not going to be seen before it arrives. But what you don't seem to understand is that efferent vision has nothing to do with the time it takes for light to arrive because light is not bringing the image; it is revealing the object.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

we don't see the light bulb, or light source, because it's not large enough. It's ten miles away. It is not in the field of view of the rotating wheel. Light is arriving, that's true, but there is no corresponding image.

Then you are contradicting Lessans statements regarding seeing distant stars instantly, in real time, without needing to await their light to reach us.

You can't see the "source" of starlight, there is no other visible part of a distant star* and nothing of the star is being "revealed".

So do we see stars in real time as Lessans stated or only after the light arrives on Earth as you seem to be stating now?



*Do not try to weasel as you did with this statement a few weeks ago

Lessans didn't say we are seeing starlight in real time. He said we are seeing the actual star in real time.

The only part of a star that is visible is its light, so there is no "actual star" to see unless you are proposing we can see elemental atoms from millions of miles away.

Also you contradicted yourself in that same post by saying

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If an explosion is bright enough for us to see it, it doesn't mean the light has traveled all the way to Earth.

So, according to YOU if light is bright enough to be seen we can see it without the light having to travel to Earth. All that can be seen of a supernova is its light, there is no such material object called "an explosion" to be seen

So, when you say

"Anything with a finite speed that is traveling from one point to another is not going to be seen before it arrives."

does that apply to the light from a supernova explosion?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Which is only for split seconds at a time, which is why the light looks as if it is flickering

Did you watch the video of the zoetrope? Are you completely retarded or are you just willing to look like a total moron to maintain your faith position?

No, I must have missed the link.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, you can't shine a light through spinning fan blades when my fan is on high speed and see the light on the ceiling.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No? Really? Your answer is no? Did you actually try this simple home experiment or are you saying no to maintain your faith position even though it makes you appear to be crazy and an imbecile?

As long as there's an opening where light can pass through, we will see it, whether the blades are going at a slow speed or a super high speed, but this doesn't have anything to do with what Lessans is claiming.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What do you mean "What is non-absorbed light"? You act like "non absorbed light" has it's own special definition of "a pattern that interacts with our retina", which is a strawman and misrepresentation of the principles of optics.

Light that hasn't been absorbed is light, so I will call it light since that is what it is. There is no other definition. It's light, it has the properties of light.

When a part of the visual spectrum gets absorbed, what is left? Non-absorbed light. What is it that allows us to identify an object? Non-absorbed light. Am I missing something?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When a part of the visual spectrum gets absorbed, what is left? Non-absorbed light. What is it that allows us to identify an object? Non-absorbed light. Am I missing something?

It's still just light doing what light does and being what light is. There is nothing special about it and it certainly isn't defined as "a pattern that interacts with our retina"

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I must have missed the link.

As long as there's an opening where light can pass through, we will see it, whether the blades are going at a slow speed or a super high speed,

So your original answer of "No" was incorrect? Was it a mistake or a purposeful response meant to mislead in some way?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

but this doesn't have anything to do with what Lessans is claiming.

It has to do with your claims regarding the Fizeau experiment as an extension of Lessans claims.

The light could be seen through the rotating wheel EXCEPT at a specific rotation speed. If real time seeing is true, why does the wheel's rotation speed determine what we can or cannot see?


Click here for the post with the Zoetrope video

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He didn't say we see starlight. He said we see stars. Stars are made up of gases which are mass. That's what we see.

I don't see the contradiction. We can detect electromagnetic energy, but we cannot see images coming from that energy if the object is not in view because the image does not travel in the light, or with the light, or a part of the light. Got it?

Why can't we molecules that are made up of high density gases?

Also you contradicted yourself in that same post by saying

So, according to YOU if light is bright enough to be seen we can see it without the light having to travel to Earth. All that can be seen of a supernova is its light, there is no such material object called "an explosion" to be seen

I didn't say that if light is bright enough to be seen we can see it. I said if the object is bright enough we can see it. A supernova occurs when it can't hold its own weight. We can see a Supernova because it becomes so bright that we know it has exploded.

What causes the supernova to blow up is that gravity gives the supernova it's energy. Once the core has gained so much mass that it can't withstand it's own weight, the core implodes. When the collapse is stopped by the neutrons, a bounce happens and explodes.

supernova

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, when you say

does that apply to the light from a supernova explosion?

We can see any kind of explosion if it's within our field of view. What's the difference between seeing a gas explosion or seeing a star explode? They both are based on the same principle. Boy are you working overtime to try and make me look foolish.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say that if light is bright enough to be seen we can see it. I said if the object is bright enough we can see it. We can see a Supernova because it becomes so bright that we know it has exploded.

Your exact words were If an explosion is bright enough for us to see it, what "object" are we seeing in an explosion?

What is the material, or "object" part of a supernova...or any explosion for that matter, that we can see and photograph? Is it seen and photographed in real time, or only once the traveling light has reached the Earth?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We can see any kind of explosion if it's within our field of view. What's the difference between seeing a gas explosion or seeing a star explode? They both are based on the same principle. Boy are you working overtime to try and make me look foolish.

What's the difference between seeing a flame and seeing light from a lamp and seeing light from a star? One minute you say we can't see light from a lamp until the light travels to us then you say we can see light in the form of an explosion or from a distant star in real time.

What is an actual flame? What is the material, or "object" part of a flame? What do you think we are seeing when we see an explosion and is it in real time or delayed time because it is light and not an object?

You are the one insisting there is some sort of difference between seeing light and seeing objects. Your inconsistency and nonsensical answers is making you look foolish, not anything I am saying

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, we're seeing light in real time, but this doesn't mean we can see it before it gets to us.

So we can see light in real time but only after it has taken time to travel to us? WTF?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He didn't say we see starlight. He said we see stars. Stars are made up of gases which are mass. That's what we see.

Are you saying when we look up at the stars we can see gasses from 100's of millions of miles away in real time, and that it looks just like light? If that's the case why can't we see a lamp from 10 miles away that looks just like light also in real time?

Do you think if we used a full spectrum filter on a photograph of a star we could see this visible mass and gas? LOLOL!

You cannot the star's mass, if we could see all mass we could see black holes.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We can detect electromagnetic energy, but we cannot see images coming from that energy if the object is not in view because the image does not travel in the light, or with the light, or a part of the light.

When you look up at the night sky and see stars (so they are in the field of view because Hey! You can see them!), that look only like points of light even when magnified by a telescope, are you seeing them in real time, or are you seeing their light only after it has traveled to Earth?

I am asking you to tell me what it is you are seeing with your own eyes, not about traveling images or any such bullshit weasel.

And yes, we are in total agreement that "the image does not travel in the light, or with the light, or a part of the light" that's what I have been trying to tell you. NOBODY thinks that images travel in, with, or as part of light. Nobody.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why can't we (see?)molecules that are made up of high density gases?

Can you see the air in a balloon? Can you see the helium in a helium balloon? Can you see the air between you and your computer monitor? Does liquid hydrogen have a visible component? liquid oxygen? Can you see water molecules in this picture?



Without visible light, there would be nothing visible in a star

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I have no idea what you are trying to convey. Are you saying we see light but not the object that generates the light?

Yes, that's what I'm saying. In order to see the light source, or the object, it has to be large enough to be seen, according to the efferent view.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because of your obnoxiousness, you have now been demoted into the cateogory "no response". Sorry, but I won't be answering your questions.

Oh noes! Demoted from "no answers (weasels only)" to "no response at all". What ever am I to do? Apparently I'm obnoxious for continuing to ask the questions that you cannot answer.

Hey Peacegirl, why don't you remind us all again of where the red photons at the film were just a moment before the object turned red and the photograph was taken.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, that's what I'm saying. In order to see the light source, or the object, it has to be large enough to be seen, according to the efferent view.

How is that compatible with Lessans? You're saying that the eyes detect light. If eyes detects light, how are the eyes NOT a sense organ?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your exact words were If an explosion is bright enough for us to see it, what "object" are we seeing in an explosion?

What is the material, or "object" part of a supernova...or any explosion for that matter, that we can see and photograph? Is it seen and photographed in real time, or only once the traveling light has reached the Earth?

We see everything in real time, so we would see a supernova in real time also. We can't see the mixture of hot gases interacting, but we see the effects.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We can see any kind of explosion if it's within our field of view. What's the difference between seeing a gas explosion or seeing a star explode? They both are based on the same principle. Boy are you working overtime to try and make me look foolish.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What's the difference between seeing a flame and seeing light from a lamp and seeing light from a star?

Seeing light that comes from a flame, a lamp, or a star is not the same thing as seeing the actual light source whether it's from a flame, a lamp, or a star.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

One minute you say we can't see light from a lamp until the light travels to us then you say we can see light in the form of an explosion or from a distant star in real time.

If light is being emitted from a light source we won't detect that light until it arrives, but in order to see the actual light source, such as the Sun, it has to be within our field of view. Remember, two things are going on. Light is always traveling, but what we see when we're looking at something in real time is a mirror image of everything in view because of how the eyes work.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is an actual flame? What is the material, or "object" part of a flame? What do you think we are seeing when we see an explosion and is it in real time or delayed time because it is light and not an object?

For the most part, fire is a mixture of hot gases. Flames are the result of a chemical reaction, primarily between oxygen in air and a fuel, such as wood or propane. In addition to other products, the reaction produces carbon dioxide, steam, light, and heat. If the flame is hot enough, the gases are ionized and become yet another state of matter: plasma.

What is the State of Matter of Fire or Flame? Is it a Liquid, Solid, or Gas?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are the one insisting there is some sort of difference between seeing light and seeing objects. Your inconsistency and nonsensical answers is making you look foolish, not anything I am saying

It's not foolish at all. We can't see photons. We detect light, that is true, and it is light that allows us to see whatever it is that exists. It does not bring us images as it travels. You keep saying light is light, which is true. The only misconception is that when light is absorbed, the non-absorbed light (or image) is reflected and therefore it takes time to arrive. Again, this doesn't mean that light is static and doesn't move. Light is in continuous motion as it constantly replaces old photons with new. The old photons continue traveling through space/time, but they do not bring the pattern of the object, since this non-absorbed (or image) light is not reflected.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We can't see photons. We detect light, that is true

How can we detect light if we can't see photons?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

How is that compatible with Lessans? You're saying that the eyes detect light. If eyes detects light, how are the eyes NOT a sense organ?

The eyes detect anything in the atmosphere that is interacting with light. If the visual spectrum is split up due to droplets of water in the atmosphere, we will see a rainbow. But we see this rainbow in real time if it's within our visual range. When light is not interacting with anything in the atmosphere, we will detect white light only, but we won't get an image.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We see everything in real time, so we would see a supernova in real time also. We can't see the mixture of hot gases interacting, but we see the effects.

Nope, that's not possible. You say we don't see the supernova until the light arrives at our eyes. And you also say we see in realtime. So when the light arrives at our eyes, the supernova has been underway for potentially hundreds of thousands of years.

So we should never see the start of a supernova.

But we do.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

How can we detect light if we can't see photons?

I detect light, but I can't see photons since they have no mass.

A photon isn't MADE of anything. It is the simplest particle form of light. And matter is still the only building block in the universe, because photons have no mass, and cannot be constructed into anything

What are photons made up of, unless is something completely different from matter?? - Yahoo! Answers