A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then why did you say "No it does not" when my point absolutely stands?

The retina is a location and the Sun is a location. If the Sun is newly turned on at noon, and the photons are on the retina at noon as well as being emitted by the Sun at noon, that means light is in two places at the same time.

I did not say "no it does not" when the conditions are favorable. What are you talking about LadyShea, and why are you trying, as koan does, to implicate me on things that have no bearing on this discussion?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not mad, I'm perplexed.

Yes, there was enough light surrounding the object, but we're talking about fuel and how it interacts with the environment.

No we're not, we are talking about the eyes and how and why they can see things and what conditions must be met.

In the standard model where we must have visible light emitted or reflected from the object to travel to and strike our retina, the invisibility of these fires, and black holes, is easily explained.

It is not at all explained by the listed conditions for efferent sight, which does not require to emitted from or reflected off the object, only light surrounding it according to you.

I have given you two examples now of things that meet your stated requirements for sight, but are not visible. You are now saying that efferent vision has even more, completely unstated conditions for seeing things, and that it can't explain why some objects are invisible. The explanations you have posted apply to the standard model...but shouldn't apply to your model.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When I said light has to be surrounding the object, I was alluding to objects that are made up of materials that can absorb light and reflect light.

No you weren't, because at the time we were talking about the Sun, which neither absorbs or reflects light, it only emits light.

Are you now admitting, finally, that if the Sun only emitted light outside the visible spectrum, that it too would be invisible? When I asked you this before, you insisted that no, we could still see the "actual Sun"; the plasma that makes up the Sun. Do you retract that now?

When I asked you before what we saw when we looked at visible flames, you insisted it wasn't the emitted light, but the hot gases, that we see. You said we see the "actual fire". Do you retract that statement now?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If we're talking about a star, we don't need daylight to see it. We just need enough intensity of light coming from the star that would allow it to be bright enough to be seen by the naked eye or a telescope.

Oh wow, you mean things must be visible in order to be seen! Call the newspapers!

What happened to us seeing the "actual star" and not the light the star is emitting?

That's exactly what you said with his discovery regarding "greater satisfaction." When did you become the final artiber of what is true and what isn't? If you don't think there is any way to investigate this claim, then drop the subject.

According to your answers and attempts at explaining, efferent vision is unable to pre-determine or predict what should be visible (what the exact necessary conditions for sight are. What is "enough") or explain why real things are or are not visible. Your only answer is that if it can be seen it meets the requirements and if it can't be seen it doesn't. That's not a model nor an explanation of any mechanism. It says absolutely nothing more that "we can see what we can see"...another tautology. So two of Lessans discoveries are completely non-explanatory and circular.

That is a really good indication that it is not true.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not say "no it does not" when the conditions are favorable. What are you talking about LadyShea, and why are you trying, as koan does, to implicate me on things that have no bearing on this discussion?

What are you talking about with favorable conditions? We are using Lessans scenario of the Sun being turned on at noon, and being able to see the Sun at noon when no photons, at all, are on Earth..again according to his very own scenario. These "conditions" are very clearly stated in the quoted posts above.

You have stated that photons will physically interact with retinas and camera film under these conditions at noon.

That means you have photons located 1. on the Sun, and 2. on camera film or retinas, at noon. That's two different locations (count them) at the same time(noon).

[LadyShea]

Your analogies also fail on this issue.

The "opposite sides of a coin" also represent two distinct locations, 1. one side 2. the other side. There are no conditions under which if some physical thing is put on one side of the coin will also simultaneously appear on the opposite side.

A "big box" represents an astronomical number of physical locations for something very tiny like a photon, all of which are separated by physical distance that must be traversed to get from one location to another.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your analogies also fail on this issue.

The "opposite sides of a coin" also represent two distinct locations, 1. one side 2. the other side. There are no conditions under which some physical thing is put on one side of the coin will also simultaneously appear on the opposite side.

A "big box" represents an astronomical number of physical locations for something very tiny like a photon, all of which are separated by physical distance that must be traversed to get from one location to another.

Who turns out to be right is still up for grabs. If Lessans turns out to be right, what will you say then? You keep going back to photons as if they are separate entities that display an image without the object. This is the elephant in the room. It's a strawman to say we are separated by physical distance, because this is not being disputed. The reason you keep bringing this up is because you don't understand how the eyes function which allow real time vision to occur, therefore you call it magical. Obviously, it doesn't matter what I say because LadyShea knows best.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep going back to photons as if they are separate entities

I keep going back to that because it is a fact. Light is a distinct thing with it's own physical properties.

Can we shake hands over Skype? Unlike your analogies, mine is actually comparable to the situation at hand.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's a strawman to say we are separated by physical distance, because this is not being disputed.

You dispute this every time you say light from the Sun is also on the retina or camera film at noon, in Lessans scenario of the Sun being turned on at noon. So, it's not a strawman, it's what you have actually stated to be your position, multiple times.

It is up to you to explain how light can be in two distinct locations at the same time. If you can't, then efferent vision is indeed magic.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If Lessans turns out to be right, what will you say then?

I don't know, it depends on the explanations provided. We will cross that bridge if we come to it. Definitely I will say that you were unable to explain it coherently.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I'm not mad, I'm perplexed.

Yes, there was enough light surrounding the object, but we're talking about fuel and how it interacts with the environment.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No we're not, we are talking about the eyes and how and why they can see things and what conditions must be met.

Yes, the conditions have to be met which are denied by ethanol combustion. What is your issue here?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In the standard model where we must have visible light emitted or reflected from the object to travel to and strike our retina, the invisibility of these fires, and black holes, is easily explained.

So what? The fact that these phenomenon can be explained does in no way negate efferent vision, which you are trying desperately to do.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is not at all explained by the listed conditions for efferent sight, which does not require to emitted from or reflected off the object, only light surrounding it according to you.

No, but it requires light, and if invisible fires do not produce the light necessary for sight, it's understandable why we can't see these fires. You fail in your effort to bring Lessans down because that's what this is all about.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have given you two examples now of things that meet your stated requirements for sight, but are not visible. You are now saying that efferent vision has even more, completely unstated conditions for seeing things, and that it can't explain why some objects are invisible. The explanations you have posted apply to the standard model...but shouldn't apply to your model.

No, these requirements that you speak of are not met. It ends right here LadyShea. You are changing the goalposts to meet your needs to discredit Lessans. That is what it's all about. Admit it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When I said light has to be surrounding the object, I was alluding to objects that are made up of materials that can absorb light and reflect light.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No you weren't, because at the time we were talking about the Sun, which neither absorbs or reflects light, it only emits light.

That's fine, but they also are the source of light, which is at the eye instantly if we are able to see matter, which I have said all along cannot be seen by photons alone.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Are you now admitting, finally, that if the Sun only emitted light outside the visible spectrum, that it too would be invisible? When I asked you this before, you insisted that no, we could still see the "actual Sun"; the plasma that makes up the Sun. Do you retract that now?

I said that the Sun is made up of plasma, which is matter.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

When I asked you before what we saw when we looked at visible flames, you insisted it wasn't the emitted light, but the hot gases, that we see. You said we see the "actual fire". Do you retract that statement now?

I did not say the hot gases are what we see if those gases do not produce the visible flames necessary. If the Sun produced invisible flames, we wouldn't be able to see them either because the conditions of sight would not be met. There is nothing in your argument that disproves these claims. Nothing at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If we're talking about a star, we don't need daylight to see it. We just need enough intensity of light coming from the star that would allow it to be bright enough to be seen by the naked eye or a telescope.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Oh wow, you mean things must be visible in order to be seen! Call the newspapers!

What happened to us seeing the "actual star" and not the light the star is emitting?

Oh my god, forget it LadyShea. You are not the one that is going to resolve this issue as much as you believe you are the 21st century sleuth.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You seem to be saying what you've said all along...which is absolutely nothing more than "we see what can be seen because we can see it". You have nothing at all to offer as far as investigative opportunities.

That's exactly what you said with his discovery regarding "greater satisfaction." When did you become the final artiber of what is true and what isn't? If you don't think there is any way to investigate this claim, then drop the subject.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

According to your answers and attempts at explaining, efferent vision is unable to pre-determine or predict what should be visible (what the exact necessary conditions for sight are. What is "enough") or explain why real things are or are not visible. Your only answer is that if it can be seen it meets the requirements and if it can't be seen it doesn't. That's not a model nor an explanation of any mechanism. It says absolutely nothing more that "we can see what we can see"...another tautology. So two of Lessans discoveries are completely non-explanatory and circular.

Unfortunately, due to your own flawed reasoning, you can't see why what we see is what we see, is not circular. You are caught up in your own flawed reasoning, and you cannot get beyond it. I can't help you here, sorry.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That is a really good indication that it is not true.

Then stick by your convictions. People should do that.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, the conditions have to be met which are denied by ethanol combustion. What is your issue here?

Which condition is "denied" and why? If light only needs to surround the object, which it is, why does the object need to also emit light?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So what? The fact that these phenomenon can be explained does in no way negate efferent vision, which you are trying desperately to do.

Your inability to explain why this phenomena happens in the efferent model negates your model.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, but it requires light, and if invisible fires do not produce the light necessary for sight, it's understandable why we can't see these fires.

There is lots and lots of sunlight, all over the place. We can see everything else in the race car fire video, except the fire itself. So, there is enough light to see by obviously.

Why does efferent sight suddenly require more than this when it didn't before?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, these requirements that you speak of are not met.

Which requirement isn't met? There is plenty of light, we can see everything else. The fire is quite large and quite close.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's fine, but they also are the source of light, which is at the eye instantly if we are able to see matter, which I have said all along cannot be seen by photons alone.

Why can't we see the matter in a alcohol fire if we don't see the light it emits anyway?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said that the Sun is made up of plasma, which is matter.

You stated that matter is what we actually see, and that the light it emits is secondary.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not say the hot gases are what we see if those gases do not produce the visible flames necessary.

Yes you did, shall I get the quotes? You said we do not see the light, we see the "actual fire".

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the Sun produced invisible flames, we wouldn't be able to see them either because the conditions of sight would not be met. There is nothing in your argument that disproves these claims. Nothing at all.

The Sun doesn't produce flames. It produces light. Are you now saying that if the Sun only produced gamma rays, for example, that the Sun would be invisible? What about the matter?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god, forget it LadyShea. You are not the one that is going to resolve this issue as much as you believe you are the 21st century sleuth.

Oh my God you cannot explain your model or be consistent so go off in a snit.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Unfortunately, due to your own flawed reasoning, you can't see why what we see is what we see, is not circular. .

Of course it is circular.

We x what we x is the definition of tautology. I cannot believe you even wrote that sentence with a straight face.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your analogies also fail on this issue.

The "opposite sides of a coin" also represent two distinct locations, 1. one side 2. the other side. There are no conditions under which if some physical thing is put on one side of the coin will also simultaneously appear on the opposite side.

I didn't say it simultaneously appears. If the Sun was just turned on we might not see it if the light isn't bright enough. It may take seconds for it to intensify, but once it does, we will be able to see it, and a mirror image will show up on the retina.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

A "big box" represents an astronomical number of physical locations for something very tiny like a photon, all of which are separated by physical distance that must be traversed to get from one location to another.

You are talking about photons as if the object is unimportant here. You're also not thinking how these positions are opposite, and applying your reasoning therefrom. A big box does not represent the astronomical number you are imagining, but you can't see it because you're still coming from the afferent perspective which only considers the actual distance to Earth, photons, and the speed of light, not the object.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

And there is your problem, you believe that Peacegirl is interested in being honest. Either she is alrady in therapy and this is part of her treatment, or she somehow sees this as a means to promote her book as a meal ticket. So she is either very delusional, beyond rationality, or very cleaverly baiting everyone here to keep the thread going. I think that she occasionally slips up and displays too much expertise to be truely delusional, but is puting on a very clevar act. She is not uneducated, her vocabulary gives that away, and she once mentioned a college degree, so her feigned ignorance must be very carefully crafted to keep it going.

Errrr doc, anyone who would think that they could make money off of Lessans book would have to be very delusional. Either way peacegirl is delusional.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The object (alcohol fire flames) is not bright enough.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why are you mad? You said the following just last week so I am trying to follow your reasoning.

I'm not mad, I'm perplexed.

Originally Posted by peacegirl on 1/19/13

The only requirement for sight is that the object is large enough and the light surrounding the object is bright enough.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In the race car fire it was full daylight, more than enough light was surrounding the object. Why do flames need to emit light in order to see them in the efferent account?

Yes, there was enough light surrounding the object, but we're talking about fuel and how it interacts with the environment.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No we're not, we are talking about the eyes and how and why they can see things and what conditions must be met.

Yes, the conditions have to be met which are denied by ethanol combustion. What is your issue here?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Which condition is "denied" and why? If light only needs to surround the object, which it is, why does the object need to also emit light?

We can have light surrounding an object but if the object is not capable of producing anything that light can reveal, we won't see it. Therefore, if the incomplete combustion of that liquid fuel is unable to produce a visible fire, then nothing will show up no matter how much light is present. There has to be something that light can contrast. In most instances, substance absorbs light and the non-absorbed photons are able to reveal the object. We are able to see the Sun that is within the visible spectrum when the gases heat up to an extremely high degree. I'm not sure where you believe anything here disproves efferent vision, which only has to do with how the eyes function, not how light functions.

Visible light is the most obvious type to use. This light that we can see is typical of matter heated to a few thousand kelvins. The photosphere, from which comes the visible light, is not hot enough, however, for the plasma to be completely ionized. It is still in an atomic state, which means that nuclei do have electrons orbiting them, though they are missing outer electrons. The light given off by the photosphere is produced mainly by electrons jumping to lower energy levels. By analyzing this light, we can see absorption lines which tell us that the solar atmosphere is about 92% hydrogen and 7.8% helium, which is typical of the stars we can see. We can also see the granules which mark convection patterns of rising and sinking plasma, and sunspots.

Ways of Seeing the Sun

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In the standard model where we must have visible light emitted or reflected from the object to travel to and strike our retina, the invisibility of these fires, and black holes, is easily explained.

So what? The fact that these phenomenon can be explained does in no way negate efferent vision, which you are trying desperately to do.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your inability to explain why this phenomena happens in the efferent model negates your model.

No it doesn't.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is not at all explained by the listed conditions for efferent sight, which does not require to emitted from or reflected off the object, only light surrounding it according to you.

No, but it requires light, and if invisible fires do not produce the light necessary for sight, it's understandable why we can't see these fires.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is lots and lots of sunlight, all over the place. We can see everything else in the race car fire video, except the fire itself. So, there is enough light to see by obviously.

Why does efferent sight suddenly require more than this when it didn't before?

In order for us to see something, light must have something to reveal in its interaction with that substance, which does not occur in invisible fires. How can light reveal a visible fire when the incomplete combustion of the liquid fuel does not produce it?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have given you two examples now of things that meet your stated requirements for sight, but are not visible. You are now saying that efferent vision has even more, completely unstated conditions for seeing things, and that it can't explain why some objects are invisible. The explanations you have posted apply to the standard model...but shouldn't apply to your model.

No, these requirements that you speak of are not met.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Which requirement isn't met? There is plenty of light, we can see everything else. The fire is quite large and quite close.

It's large and it's close but it's invisible LadyShea. There are no photons that can reveal something that is beyond our ability to see.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When I said light has to be surrounding the object, I was alluding to objects that are made up of materials that can absorb light and reflect light.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No you weren't, because at the time we were talking about the Sun, which neither absorbs or reflects light, it only emits light.

That's fine, but they also are the source of light, which is at the eye instantly if we are able to see matter, which I have said all along cannot be seen by photons alone.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why can't we see the matter in a alcohol fire if we don't see the light it emits anyway?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Are you now admitting, finally, that if the Sun only emitted light outside the visible spectrum, that it too would be invisible? When I asked you this before, you insisted that no, we could still see the "actual Sun"; the plasma that makes up the Sun. Do you retract that now?

I said that the Sun is made up of plasma, which is matter.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You stated that matter is what we actually see, and that the light it emits is secondary.

We can only see that which is in the visible spectrum. There is other electromagnetic radiation that is being emitted that we can't see. When I said light is secondary I was referring to photons, which come from the Sun and without this light we cannot see the Sun that emits this light, or anything else that is made up of matter.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

When I asked you before what we saw when we looked at visible flames, you insisted it wasn't the emitted light, but the hot gases, that we see. You said we see the "actual fire". Do you retract that statement now?

I did not say the hot gases are what we see if those gases do not produce the visible flames necessary.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes you did, shall I get the quotes? You said we do not see the light, we see the "actual fire".

We see the light that is produced from the fire. There is a chemical process going on which give the flames visibility.

Flames are the result of oxidation reactions which essentially vaporize the burning material. The vapors resulting from this chemical reaction contain many atoms with electrons in highly excited orbitals. Flames are the visible light emitted by these electrons decaying to lower energy levels. This also explains why different chemicals (materials) have different color flames. The flame colors are determined by the chemical composition of the burning material.

What exactly is fire? Archive - Physics Forums Archive

If the Sun produced invisible flames, we wouldn't be able to see them either because the conditions of sight would not be met. There is nothing in your argument that disproves these claims. Nothing at all.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The Sun doesn't produce flames. It produces light. Are you now saying that if the Sun only produced gamma rays, for example, that the Sun would be invisible? What about the matter?

Gamma rays are outside of the visible spectrum, so the Sun would not be seen. It is the visible spectrum that allows the external world to come into view.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If we're talking about a star, we don't need daylight to see it. We just need enough intensity of light coming from the star that would allow it to be bright enough to be seen by the naked eye or a telescope.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Oh wow, you mean things must be visible in order to be seen! Call the newspapers!

What happened to us seeing the "actual star" and not the light the star is emitting?

Oh my god, forget it LadyShea. You are not the one that is going to resolve this issue as much as you believe you are the 21st century sleuth.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Oh my God you cannot explain your model or be consistent so go off in a snit.

This has nothing to do with efferent sight. The only difference is the conditions that must be met. You're off and running on another tangent in an effort to find inconsistencies that are not there. Just remember that I have never disputed physics, or how fuel burns, or the composition of the Sun, so why you are bringing these things up, as if to prove me wrong, is beyond my comprehension.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You seem to be saying what you've said all along...which is absolutely nothing more than "we see what can be seen because we can see it". You have nothing at all to offer as far as investigative opportunities.

That's exactly what you said with his discovery regarding "greater satisfaction." When did you become the final artiber of what is true and what isn't? If you don't think there is any way to investigate this claim, then drop the subject.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

According to your answers and attempts at explaining, efferent vision is unable to pre-determine or predict what should be visible (what the exact necessary conditions for sight are. What is "enough") or explain why real things are or are not visible. Your only answer is that if it can be seen it meets the requirements and if it can't be seen it doesn't. That's not a model nor an explanation of any mechanism. It says absolutely nothing more that "we can see what we can see"...another tautology. So two of Lessans discoveries are completely non-explanatory and circular.

Unfortunately, due to your own flawed reasoning, you can't see why what we see is what we see, is not circular.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course it is circular.

No it is not. If light is at the retina, we know that the object is present because we would not be able to see the object in any form through light alone. That's all that is necessary to know in the efferent account. Doesn't science assume that when light strikes the retina, we get the pattern that has traveled throughout eternity? Where is this anymore explanatory than what Lessans is proposing?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We x what we x is the definition of tautology. I cannot believe you even wrote that sentence with a straight face.

If we have normal vision, then what is in our field of view is what will be seen. This has less to do with distance (which the afferent account focuses on) than with the size and brightness of the object.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Errrr doc, anyone who would think that they could make money off of Lessans book would have to be very delusional. Either way peacegirl is delusional.

Have you ever read 'Last Exit to Brooklyn' or seen the movie 'Plan 9 from Outer Space', both were so bad they became popular, and the book was banned in Italy. Just tell someone they can't read, or shouldn't watch, and that is exactly what they will do. I read the review on Amazon and I still struggled through the book, even ch. 10, which I can no longer access. I would guess that there are other books just as bad as lessans that are selling, Peacegirl just needs to get the right hook to sucker people in.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say it simultaneously appears.

Of course you did. YOu said if we can see something then photons are at the retina immediately at that same moment. You are backpedaling

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the Sun was just turned on we might not see it if the light isn't bright enough. It may take seconds for it to intensify, but once it does, we will be able to see it, and a mirror image will show up on the retina.

Lessans said we would see the Sun at noon immediately upon it being turned on at noon. That's the scenario. Why are you mealy mouthing about intensification? This is Lessans statement you have been asked to explain.
Are the photons at the retina at noon at the same moment we could see the Sun? Yes or no?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are talking about photons as if the object is unimportant here.

No I am not. The object is "in the box" in your analogy, correct? Even a shoebox represents many billions of possible physical locations for something as small as photon. So if the object is on one end of the box, and the camera film on the other, there is still physical distance between them

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Unfortunately, due to your own flawed reasoning, you can't see why what we see is what we see, is not circular.

Well that just about wraps it up for logic, rational thought, science and philosophy, and just about all the accumulated knowledge of mankind for the last several thousand years. We may as well just throw it all out and start over with 'I am what I am', and stop right there. .

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not sure where you believe anything here disproves efferent vision, which only has to do with how the eyes function, not how light functions.

Then quit saying that light functions differently than it does and start explaining how the eyes do these things.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not say "no it does not"...

Why do you keep denying your very own words? Even when they are right there for all to see?

You have very clearly stated that the same light is in two different places at the same time.

Do you believe this to be possible? If not, how do you intend to resolve this problem? Where did the photons at the retina come from? If they are from the Sun, then when were they located there?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Have you ever read 'Last Exit to Brooklyn' or seen the movie 'Plan 9 from Outer Space', both were so bad they became popular, and the book was banned in Italy. Just tell someone they can't read, or shouldn't watch, and that is exactly what they will do. I read the review on Amazon and I still struggled through the book, even ch. 10, which I can no longer access. I would guess that there are other books just as bad as lessans that are selling, Peacegirl just needs to get the right hook to sucker people in.

If peacegirl was merely out to make money instead of out of her mind, she would be the first to note just how bad the book is.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not a contradiction LadyShea, but there is no way I can convince you that as long as the object is in the camera's field of view, or the eyes visual range, a mirror image will show up in the efferent account. I'm sorry you feel I led you in the wrong direction.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How does the efferent account explain this bi-location of light?

A mirror image does not have a bi-location. It is the opposite side of the same hypotheical coin. But you won't get that either only because of your stubbornness at failing to take this account seriously.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are stubbornly refusing to answer the very relevant and valid questions.

The retina is a location and the Sun is a location. If the Sun is newly turned on at noon, and the photons are on the retina at noon as well as being emitted by the Sun at noon, that means light is in two places at the same time.

No it does not. It means the photons are at the retina, and the object is in one's visual field.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There are no photons being emitted by the Sun? Where did the photons at the retina come from?

Of course they are, otherwise, there would no photons at the retina when the Sun is bright enough to be seen, which is one of the requirements.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then why did you say "No it does not" when my point absolutely stands?

No it does not stand. Light energy is constantly traveling so how can photons be at two places at the same time?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The retina is a location and the Sun is a location. If the Sun is newly turned on at noon, and the photons are on the retina at noon as well as being emitted by the Sun at noon, that means light is in two places at the same time.

I did not say "no it does not" when the conditions are favorable. What are you talking about LadyShea, and why are you trying, as koan does, to implicate me on things that have no bearing on this discussion?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What are you talking about with favorable conditions? We are using Lessans scenario of the Sun being turned on at noon, and being able to see the Sun at noon when no photons, at all, are on Earth..again according to his very own scenario. These "conditions" are very clearly stated in the quoted posts above.

You have stated that photons will physically interact with retinas and camera film under these conditions at noon.

Only if the Sun is so bright that we are able to see this star when it's first turned on. If it takes a little longer for the Sun to build in intensity, then we wouldn't see it, but this has nothing to do with the afferent position.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That means you have photons located 1. on the Sun, and 2. on camera film or retinas, at noon. That's two different locations (count them) at the same time(noon).

No it doesn't. It's like we're on a highway going in two different directions. You are looking at the photons traveling to Earth before we can see the Sun (the afferent perspective), and I'm on the other side of the highway looking at the Sun which, if bright enough, allows me to see it instantly which means that the photons are at the retina (the mirror image) by virtue of the fact that the Sun (the substance) is within my optical range (the efferent perspective).

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why do you keep denying your very own words? Even when they are right there for all to see?

You have very clearly stated that the same light is in two different places at the same time.

Do you believe this to be possible? If not, how do you intend to resolve this problem? Where did the photons at the retina come from? If they are from the Sun, then when were they located there?

I wasn't clear then. I have repeatedly said that photons at the retina indicate that the object is within optical range, so if the Sun's energy has not expanded to the point where it is bright enough, then obviously there would be no photons at the retina. But there is no teleportation, which is what you're trying to get me to admit.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then quit saying that light functions differently than it does and start explaining how the eyes do these things.

I never said light acts differently except for the fact that there is a disputation in the function of light as it relates to the eyes, but light energy travels at a finite speed. I have never contested that, nor have I contested anything related to optics.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course you did. YOu said if we can see something then photons are at the retina immediately at that same moment. You are backpedaling

No, I'm not backpedaling, I'm working this backwards due to the efferent position. If we can see an object, this means that the photons are already at the retina or film. If we cannot see the object because it's too small or it's not bright enough, then there will be no photons at the retina. This is in keeping with optics; the only difference being that the object must be within one's visual range, not just light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the Sun was just turned on we might not see it if the light isn't bright enough. It may take seconds for it to intensify, but once it does, we will be able to see it, and a mirror image will show up on the retina.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans said we would see the Sun at noon immediately upon it being turned on at noon. That's the scenario. Why are you mealy mouthing about intensification? This is Lessans statement you have been asked to explain.
Are the photons at the retina at noon at the same moment we could see the Sun? Yes or no?

Only if the explosion was so powerful that the Sun's brightness would put the Sun in our visual range. I am not mealy mouthing about intensification. Intensification = brightness. If the Sun is turned on and it slowly expands and therefore is not yet bright enough for it to be seen, then obviously there would be no photons at the retina. Once again, this is not backpedaling. This is how you have to work this model in order to understand it. To repeat: If there are photons at the retina (the mirror image), that would indicate that the Sun (or substance) HAS TO BE within optical range.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

A "big box" represents an astronomical number of physical locations for something very tiny like a photon, all of which are separated by physical distance that must be traversed to get from one location to another.

You are talking about photons as if the object is unimportant here.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No I am not. The object is "in the box" in your analogy, correct? Even a shoebox represents many billions of possible physical locations for something as small as photon. So if the object is on one end of the box, and the camera film on the other, there is still physical distance between them

But the distance in the shoebox going on the other side of the highway is not the same distance that you are imagining must be traversed for there to be an interaction.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I wasn't clear then.

Then you should have admitted that you misspoke and that what you said was incorrect, instead of trying to deny that you said it.

Originally Posted by Tercon

I have repeatedly said that photons at the retina indicate that the object is within optical range, so if the Sun's energy has not expanded to the point where it is bright enough, then obviously there would be no photons at the retina. But there is no teleportation, which is what you're trying to get me to admit.

This idea that the newly ignited Sun may not at first be bright enough to be seen is ridiculous nonsense, and worse (for you) it DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS LESSANS. He said that we would see the newly ignited Sun instantly at noon, at the very moment it is first ignited. Was Lessans wrong?

If the photons are not in two places at once then they cannot be both at the retina and also at the surface of the Sun at noon. If there is no teleportation, then they cannot be at the surface of the Sun at one instant and then at the retina at the next moment. And if they are from the Sun, then they have to have been at the Sun at some point in time, but they cannot be at the Sun at the same time that they are at the retina (i.e. at noon), for that puts them in two places at once. And they cannot have been at the Sun before noon, for the Sun was not then ignited. So how can these photons be from the Sun? All you are doing is ignoring the problem.


Those questions again:-

Regarding the photons present at the retina at the very moment the Sun is first ignited, did they come from the Sun? [Yes or No]

Were they ever located at the Sun? [Yes or No]

If so, when were they located at the Sun? [State a time relative to the moment of ignition of the Sun]

If not, where did they come from? [State a physical object or location]

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

If peacegirl was merely out to make money instead of out of her mind, she would be the first to note just how bad the book is.

Maybe? I agree she is probably out of her mind, I'm just exploring other possibilities. P. T. Barnum said "There's a Sucker Born every Minute", that's over a half a million potential sales every year. It's worth a try.