It makes no difference in the efferent account because all that matters is that enough light is surrounding the object, which does not require time.
In the efferent account of vision, do you believe that light surrounds the object being seen like a cloud. Do you think that photons are somehow floating around the object illuminating it so we can see it?
This entire model works the complete opposite from your perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
I am coming from your perspective. I am asking only Yes or No questions concerning the things that YOU have said to me. The only perspective you seem to accept is one that ignores all the problems with what you are saying.
No, you are not coming from my perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The mirror image of any object in the external world is at the retina instantly because of how the eyes work; the image does not get reflected; and it does not travel through space/time. The only reason we can see it is because it is there to be seen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
I already understand this much just fine. There will be mirror image photons instantly at the retina on Earth at the very moment the Sun is first ignited. My question is where they came from and how they got there.
I told you that if the object is bright enough to be seen, then the photons are already at the retina which provide the mirror image in the efferent account, or we wouldn't be able to see the object. You are, once again, thinking about photons traveling. You obviously are not picturing what I'm picturing and that's the problem. I wish I could give you a diagram.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Once again, these photons are already there (the light energy is continuously derived from the Sun so nothing is teleporting) when we see the object.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Light cannot be continuously arriving from the Sun at the very first moment it is ignited, for none of it has yet had time to get there. So this doesn't explain how the instantaneous mirror image photons got to the retina without teleporting.
Your line of reasoning is throwing you off. Light energy is continually flowing, but the non-absorbed light only flows until it is dispersed and when there are no more photons at the retina, the light still flows but it is full spectrum light.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There is no time involved and this is not a contradiction. When the non-absorbed light is dispersed to the point where the object cannot be seen from any distance, then the light is no longer blue or red or green, it is the full visual spectrum.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Does the non-absorbed light bounce off objects and travel away at light speed to the retina? If not, then it cannot disperse.
As light energy travels, it gets split between absorbed and non-absorbed light as the full spectrum light strikes the object. This non-absorbed light gets dispersed but it does not travel through space/time.
The object must be bright enough, and the object must be large enough.
Can you determine or define "bright enough" or "large enough" without being tautological? If you answer is "we can see it if it is bright enough and large enough to be seen", that is meaningless.
It is far from meaningless LadyShea. If there is no object in our field of view, according to the efferent account, we will not see the object no matter how much light is present or how straight the path of the object toward our eyes. We've been over this before. The afferent model states that all we need is light since it is believed the light contains the pattern that has bounced off of an object and therefore the object (the physical substance) is no longer necessary for sight.
I already thought about it, and you're a lousy reader.
...
He never said anything about intellectual competition. That was not the point he was making.
...
He did not condemn intellectual competition or any kind of competition for that matter.
I love firsts. This is the first time I've every been accused of being a lousy reader and having poor comprehension skills. How very amusing.
Please provide me with the text where Lessans explains the intellectual equivalent for desisting from competition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Amazing Lessans, p498
This is why every competition possible will be designed to test the mettle of each individual for this is the only way a person can get to know himself. The ones who lose in sports will search for an activity in which they can succeed, and if they cannot find any, then they will desist from competition.
Surely you agree that some people run slowly and some people aren't good at philosophy. But what keeps a student from practising philosophy if they're not good at it? He gives us a way to stop the slow runner from entering the Olympics.
Would you please stop speaking in riddles to show-off your ingenuity, and be straightforward? I'm not going to work that hard.
Asking yes or no questions does not mean you're coming from the efferent perspective.
Yes or No questions do not come from any perspective, for from every perspective the answer must be either Yes or No. And I've only asked about the things YOU have been telling me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
They are instantly at the retina but light energy is constantly moving. The only difference is that the non-absorbed photons only get dispersed to a certain point, and then the full spectrum takes over.
There is no absorption or non-absorption involved. We are talking about the Sun which simply EMITS light. And any light instantly at the retina when the Sun is first ignited cannot have traveled there, for that takes 8 minutes and the Sun was not emitting photons 8 minutes before it was ignited. So where did these mirror image photons come from and how did they get there? If they are from the Sun then they cannot be there instantly without teleporting.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You are not hearing me. I said that if the Sun is not bright enough, then there will be no photons at the eye. Therefore, we might not see the Sun explode instantly, but that changes nothing insofasr as this discovery goes. There are many objects we don't see because they aren't bright enough to see them. So what? That just means they don't meet the conditions for sight. It does not mean that the afferent model is true by default.
Wow. Seriously? Now the FUCKING SUN is not big enough or bright enough to be seen in real time? Go take a look outside, Janis. Is the Sun big enough and bright enough to be seen? If something has to be bigger or brighter than the Sun to be seen in real time, then NOTHING is seen in real time. The Sun is as big and bright as things get. Apart from the sheer insanity of claiming that the Sun is not big or bright enough to be seen, you are disagreeing with Lessans, who specifically claimed that the newly ignited Sun will be seen in real time. Was Lessans wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Not true.
It is true. Dispersion is a property of traveling light. Two things disperse if they travel from A to B and end up further apart at B than they were at A. If non-absorbed light does not travel from the object to the retina then it cannot disperse over this distance. And there is NO ABSORPTION in the example we are discussing anyway.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
It doesn't matter whether a source is emitting light (in which case I don't believe there would be any absorption), or it is using light from another source to reveal itself. It makes no difference in the efferent account because all that matters is that enough light is surrounding the object, which does not require time.
If there is no absorption then stop talking about absorption. And we are not talking about the light surrounding the object. I am asking about the mirror image light allegedly instantly at the retina. Where did it come from and how did it get there? Is it light that came from the Sun? If so, when was it at the Sun? If not, where did it come from? Did it travel from the Sun to the retina? If so, how long did it take? If not, then how did it get from the Sun to the retina?
__________________ video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
In the scenario of the Sun being turned on at noon and light being on the retina or camera film at noon, reflection/non absorption isn't a factor.
It is very much a factor because the non-absorbed photons are what allows us to see the object.
There is no absorption or nonabsorption in the case of the Sun. It is a light SOURCE involving only the EMISSION of light. Reflection and non-absorption is NOT a factor.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
We are talking about newly emitted light from a newly turned on Sun.
I know that.
Then stop talking about absorption/non-absorption.
__________________ video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
You are confused here Spacemonkey because you think photons have to travel from the Sun to Earth.
YOU said that is how they got there. Were you wrong? How did they get there then?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You are missing the most important element in all of this which is how the eyes work, just as you are missing the most important element in how conscience works...
Why do you keep trying to change the subject to other topics you refuse to discuss?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The reason I can't do this anymore is because I don't like your attitude toward me, which is very patronistic.
All I'm doing is asking you to answer my questions.
Are the mirror image photons at the retina instantly, or did they travel there from the Sun?
If these photons are there instantly, then they haven't traveled there from the Sun. And you say they didn't teleport there, so how did they get there? Did they come from the Sun or not? If so, then when were they at the surface of the Sun?
Yes light energy does travel but the non-absorbed photons, which land on the retina when we're in the optical range, reveal the object, but do not bounce off of the object and travel through space/time.
What? How exactly are these photons traveling to and landing on the retina without traveling through space/time? You just contradicted yourself again. And who said anything about bouncing off objects? We're talking about seeing the Sun, which involves only the emission and not reflection of photons. There is no absorption/non-absorption or bouncing-off/reflection of light involved at all in the scenario I am asking you about. If the mirror image photons at the retina had to travel 93 million miles to get there, then they cannot be at the retina instantaneously as soon as the Sun is first ignited. Try again.
Are the mirror image photons at the retina instantly, or did they travel there from the Sun?
If there is emission we would still see the Sun if it was bright enough (we wouldn't see it instantly if it was not that bright) because by that time the photons would already be at our eyes in the efferent account. We are not talking 93 million miles in this model. We are talking about the external world being a big box where any object seen in that box gives us an instant mirror image. As long as you think 93 million miles for light to reach us before we are able to see an object, we will be at a standstill. In fact, you will continue to tell me that this model isn't even plausible which is false.
Yes I am. I am asking only Yes or No questions about the light YOU have said is at the retina. Your perspective needs answers to what I am asking.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I told you that if the object is bright enough to be seen, then the photons are already at the retina which provide the mirror image in the efferent account, or we wouldn't be able to see the object. You are, once again, thinking about photons traveling. You obviously are not picturing what I'm picturing and that's the problem. I wish I could give you a diagram.
This doesn't answer my question. I already know you are saying the photons will be there at the retina instantly. There is no need to keep repeating this. The question you are still not answering is where they came from and how they got there. I am not assuming that they are traveling. I am asking you whether or not they got there by traveling. If they didn't then you can say so. But if they didn't travel there, then you need to explain how they covered 93 million miles without traveling (if they came from the Sun), or where they came from (if they did not come from the Sun).
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Your line of reasoning is throwing you off. Light energy is continually flowing, but the non-absorbed light only flows until it is dispersed and when there are no more photons at the retina, the light still flows but it is full spectrum light.
You cannot appeal to a constant flow of light energy between the Sun and the retina at the very first moment the Sun is ignited, because no light has yet had time to flow to the retina. And there is still no absorption/non-absorption in this case - there is only the emission of light.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
As light energy travels, it gets split between absorbed and non-absorbed light as the full spectrum light strikes the object. This non-absorbed light gets dispersed but it does not travel through space/time.
Absorption/non-absorption is only a factor for emitted light which hits an object. This is not happening with the Sun which is itself a light source rather than something light travels towards and hits. And again, light that is not traveling through space/time cannot disperse. Dispersion is something that happens to traveling things over the distance traveled.
So again: Regarding the mirror image light you need to be instantly at the retina, where did it come from, and how did it get from there to the retina?
__________________ video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
If there is emission we would still see the Sun if it was bright enough (we wouldn't see it instantly if it was not that bright) because by that time the photons would already be at our eyes in the efferent account.
The newly ignited Sun is big enough and bright enough to be seen in real-time at the very moment it is ignited. Lessans said so, remember?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
We are not talking 93 million miles in this model.
Yes we are, because this is the actual distance between the Sun and the retina, and this actual distance is what any photons from the Sun have to cover in order to be at the retina. If they cover this actual distance instantly and without traveling then they have teleported.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
We are talking about the external world being a big box where any object seen in that box gives us an instant mirror image. As long as you think 93 million miles for light to reach us before we are able to see an object, we will be at a standstill. In fact, you will continue to tell me that this model isn't even plausible which is false.
Until you can explain where these instantly present mirror image photons at the retina came from and how they got there, your account is not plausible.
__________________ video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Yes light energy does travel but the non-absorbed photons, which land on the retina when we're in the optical range, reveal the object, but do not bounce off of the object and travel through space/time.
In the scenario of the Sun being turned on at noon and light being on the retina or camera film at noon, reflection/non absorption isn't a factor.
It is very much a factor because the non-absorbed photons are what allows us to see the object.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
We are talking about newly emitted light from a newly turned on Sun.
I know that.
Apparently you don't know that. What object is not absorbing light and thus allowing itself to be seen in the scenario described?
If there is emission we would still see the Sun if it was bright enough (we wouldn't see it instantly if it was not that bright) because by that time the photons would already be at our eyes in the efferent account.
The newly ignited Sun is big enough and bright enough to be seen in real-time at the very moment it is ignited. Lessans said so, remember?
He also said that any substance that we see has to be bright enough and large enough to be seen. There are plenty of stars we cannot see because they are not bright enough or they are too far away.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
We are not talking 93 million miles in this model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Yes we are, because this is the actual distance between the Sun and the retina, and this actual distance is what any photons from the Sun have to cover in order to be at the retina. If they cover this actual distance instantly and without traveling then they have teleported.
No Spacemonkey, you are separating the object from photons again. If the object is large enough to be seen, the photons are already at the retina because the object is within our optical range. You're, once again, separating the photons as if they are separate entities that bring the pattern through space/time to the eye instead of the other way around where the photons become a condition of sight, which allow the object to be revealed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
We are talking about the external world being a big box where any object seen in that box gives us an instant mirror image. As long as you think 93 million miles for light to reach us before we are able to see an object, we will be at a standstill. In fact, you will continue to tell me that this model isn't even plausible, which is false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Until you can explain where these instantly present mirror image photons at the retina came from and how they got there, your account is not plausible.
I explained it, and I'm not going to repeat myself over and over and over again just because you can't visualize what I'm talking about. It does not mean Lessans was wrong. You are not the ultimate judge Spacemonkey. Again, if you are so sure that this model is not plausible, then why are you here? Let's just end the conversation because it's getting way too redundant for even the most ardent followers.
Yes light energy does travel but the non-absorbed photons, which land on the retina when we're in the optical range, reveal the object, but do not bounce off of the object and travel through space/time.
In the scenario of the Sun being turned on at noon and light being on the retina or camera film at noon, reflection/non absorption isn't a factor.
It is very much a factor because the non-absorbed photons are what allows us to see the object.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
We are talking about newly emitted light from a newly turned on Sun.
I know that.
Apparently you don't know that. What object is not absorbing light and thus allowing itself to be seen in the scenario described?
The Sun, although it is the source of light, is made up of matter. When we look at the Sun, the light that it produces allows us to see this ball of fire.
all that matters is that enough light is surrounding the object
Then why can't we see black holes, which are surrounded by dozens of bright stars and therefore by bright light? Why doesn't the light from these stars illuminate the "object" part of the black hole?
When we look at the Sun, the light that it produces allows us to see this ball of fire.
So we can see the light the Sun produces because of the light it produces?
No LadyShea, when we look at the Sun we are not looking at the photons it produces. We don't see photons. We see daylight. The Sun is made up of hot gases, which are forms of matter.
all that matters is that enough light is surrounding the object
Then why can't we see black holes, which are surrounded by dozens of bright stars and therefore by bright light? Why doesn't the light from these stars illuminate the "object" part of the black hole?
There's no light around or near the black hole even though stars are orbiting it. Black holes are so dense and have such gravitational pull that light can't escape, so how could we see them?
There's no light around or near the black hole even though stars are orbiting it. Black holes are so dense and have such gravitational pull that light can't escape, so how could we see them?
Why wouldn't we see them? Why does light need to escape? I thought light only needed to be surrounding the object? There is a lot of light surrounding black holes. 28 stars put out a lot of light.
Because of the type of fuel it is and the chemical reaction that occurs. I remember you showed me this before.
What causes invisible fire and how is it put out?
Just like any other fire. Through convection, conduction, and radiation. As the flames release the heat, the objects around them are pre-heated to their ignition temp. Once the object reaches above its LFL and conditions are right, then the object will auto ignite and the fire will spread. Typically, a invisible flame is a result of a pure clean burn with little or no carbon release. To achieve an invisible flame is nearly impossible unless you're in a laboratory condition.
As for extinguishing, it will depend on the fuel. CO2 or dry chem extinguishers are your best bet. For larger fires, apply copious amounts of water
There's no light around or near the black hole even though stars are orbiting it. Black holes are so dense and have such gravitational pull that light can't escape, so how could we see them?
Why wouldn't we see them? Why does light need to escape? I thought light only needed to be surrounding the object? There is a lot of light surrounding black holes. 28 stars put out a lot of light.
No there isn't LadyShea. Stars are orbiting the black hole, but there is no light being emitted from the black hole itself.
__________________ The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Because of the type of fuel it is and the chemical reaction that occurs
Yes that's the explanation of the standard model of vision, but isn't consistent with your claims of the requirements for seeing things.
I know how thew standard model of vision explains invisible fire, but why can't we see it according to efferent vision?
It's no different than why we wouldn't see it in afferent vision. The conditions that allow the heat and gases to turn into a visible flame are not present in this type of combustion, so it can't be seen.
We can quantify photons by their effects, but we can't see them, by definition.
The energy contained in a single photon does not depend on the intensity of the radiation. At any specific wavelength -- say, the wavelength of light emitted by a helium-neon laser -- every photon contains exactly the same amount of energy, whether the source appears as dim as a candle or as bright as the sun. The brilliance or intensity is a function of the number of photons striking a given surface area per unit time.
Re: A revolution in thought
Linear Mode
