A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So what you're saying is that if the Sun was turned off tomorrow, we would still have light because light travels independently of the Source? How long would this light last, 8 minutes, a year, a thousand years, forever?

Zod Almighty.

Of COURSE light travels independently of the source. What in hell do you think the light coming from your flashlight is? Part of the flashlight?

If God turned off the sun, we would see the sun for eight minutes after God turned it off, the time it would take for the last light from the sun to reach our eyes. In the same way, if God turned on the sun at noon, we would see it here on earth eight minutes later, which means we would be seeing the sun as it was eight minutes in the past. Thus Lessans was WRONG.

That's all there is to it. It's that simple. And for your whole life, you've been pushing a claim that is demonstrably false.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

What physical change in the atmosphere is caused by refraction?

You're right, the atmosphere doesn't change. What I meant is that the interaction between the light and the hot air (the atmospheric condition) allows us to see the shimmering.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Scientific experiments are limited by the variables that they know of, which can give them a false understanding of what is actually going on. There are so many unknown factors that come into play, that it's no wonder they are wrong a lot of the time. They just don't have enough information, therefore their conclusions are not conclusive at all.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Therefore they are not undeniable and scientific cannot be a valid synonym for undeniable.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no way to observe a light wave directly to see if it's a partial spectrum or a the full spectrum. The only way we can see what wavelength/frequency the light has is by what it reveals as we look outside our windows.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Get yourself a prism.

We know a prism shows us the constituent spectral colors; red, orange, yellow, green, blue and violet by refracting white light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Zod Almighty.

Of COURSE light travels independently of the source. What in hell do you think the light coming from your flashlight is? Part of the flashlight?

If God turned off the sun, we would see the sun for eight minutes after God turned it off, the time it would take for the last light from the sun to reach our eyes. In the same way, if God turned on the sun at noon, we would see it here on earth eight minutes later, which means we would be seeing the sun as it was eight minutes in the past. Thus Lessans was WRONG.

That's all there is to it. It's that simple. And for your whole life, you've been pushing a claim that is demonstrably false.

So where does the light go after the 8 minutes?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is true that if enough light is captured for the sensor to create an image, with "enough" determined by the sensor's capabilities, an image will be created. You may or may not notice that this is a tautology.

And science doesn't just believe this, it has demonstrated it to be a fact over and over again with every image ever created.

The question isn't whether an image is created by light. The question is whether the original object or event needs to be present in some form for an image to show up on film or a telescope or a retina.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So what you're saying is that if the Sun was turned off tomorrow, we would still have light because light travels independently of the Source? How long would this light last, 8 minutes, a year, a thousand years, forever?

On the Earth we would see Sunlight for another 8.5 minutes, the farther away you were the longer it would last. If you were 100 light years away you would see the Sun for another 100 years.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What do you mean that's what you meant? Why didn't you say what you meant, instead of stating some crazy shit about the atmosphere physically changing?

What about the actual point I made? You've said light doesn't travel away from the object. Refraction and dispersion both happen to traveling light, only. So are they still a part of your model? If so, how?

Also, why have you dropped your line of reasoning about organized light?

I am not arguing that point LadyShea. But what we are seeing is an exact image of the object because the minute we see the object we are in optical range OF THAT OBJECT. If the object is far away, the dispersed light will make the object appear small. If the object is closer to us, the light will make the object appear large. There is a lot of confusion here because it is believed that all that is needed to form an image is light. But take away the object and see what happens. Lessans says there will be no image; not on a telescope, a retina, or film because the conditions that are necessary for sight have not been met.

I can't find anymore information on organized light, so I'm not going to confuse the conversation with that term.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right, the atmosphere doesn't change. What I meant is that the interaction between the light and the hot air (the atmospheric condition) allows us to see the shimmering.

We know a prism shows us the constituent spectral colors; red, orange, yellow, green, blue and violet by refracting white light.

The prism will only show the part of the spectrum that enters it. Light that is not a full spectrum will only show a partial spectrum. What is confusing you is that most of the demonstrations use a full spectrum of white light in order to show the full rainbow of colors. If you only shine red light at the prism you will only get the red part of the spectrum.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So where does the light go after the 8 minutes?

If it does not strike some object and get absorbed it will travel on through space till it does strike an object. If ithe light gets reflected it will travel in a different direction till it strikes an object and is absorbed or reflected again.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Zod Almighty.

I prefer Zarquon, much more reliable.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

On the Earth we would see Sunlight for another 8.5 minutes, the farther away you were the longer it would last. If you were 100 light years away you would see the Sun for another 100 years.

But what happens to the Sunlight? Does it peter out or does it travel forever even with no Sun emitting those photons?

[thedoc]

First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you go home and cry yourself to sleep.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But what happens to the Sunlight? Does it peter out or does it travel forever even with no Sun emitting those photons?

The Sunlight continues forever if it isn't absorbed by an object or reflected. The Sun has already emitted the photons and thay continue to travel independent of the Sun, the photons do not need the Sun's energy to push them along, the photons received all the energy they need at the moment they are emitted. The light (photons) will spread out (difuse) the farther away from where the sun was but the individual photons will continue to travel till they strike an object. Light is photons that travel at the speed of light, if photons are not traveling they are not photons, they have been converted into another form of energy.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where is this my stupid strawman? Doesn't light bring something to the eye, according to the theory? Yes or no?

No, light doesn't bring anything to the eye.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What is it that allows us to see an image if not for the light (the non-absorbed photons) that are interacting with the retina? Why are you shooting yourself in the foot?

Why do you keep talking about images when we are talking about light? Non-absorbed photons are not images. They are light.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is known, for a fact, is that light that travels until or unless it is absorbed. Light that is reflected or refracted or transmitted still travels because it is still light and retains the immutable properties of light. This can be empirically observed and measured. It is also known that light has a wavelength or frequency. All light has this, also an immutable property of light...so this statement below is nonsensical.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who the hell is arguing with this?

You are. You said " white light (the full spectrum which has a different wavelength/frequency)" as if white light has its own frequency, which is doesn't

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Great! So there should be no problem in understanding what we see based on this knowledge.

Huh? We already know that we can see partial spectrum light. You are the only one who doesn't understand this.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I wasn't talking about infrared light. Why are you trying to confuse everyone?

Who said anything about infrared? And who is confused aside from you?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are there photons located at the retina of a blind person?

Of course they are, but there is a problem with the eye. What's your point and how does this change anything I've said?[/quote]
Where did the photons come from and how did they get there?

Originally Posted by peacegiril

So what does it mean that photons travel, strike a light receptor, and bring the image of an object to the brain that is no longer in existence? Explain this your own words.

The light doesn't "bring the image of an object to the brain". This has been explained to you many, many, many times. You've stated you understand it many times. Obviously you don't.

Photons travel, strike a light receptor, and an image is created in the brain after processing the information received from the light. This information includes the light's intensity, angle, and wavelength.

Nothing is brought or carried, there is no traveling image. Just light.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But what happens to the Sunlight? Does it peter out or does it travel forever even with no Sun emitting those photons?

Light travels until or unless it is absorbed. It cannot and does not "peter out".

Some light would interact with matter that absorbs it and cease being light, any light that this does not happen to will continue traveling.

There won't be any new light emitted since the Sun is off, however the light it had already emitted, and hadn't been absorbed by something, would still out there traveling.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What premise? There is no premise here, Peacegirl. This is simply me asking you whether certain things are possibly an option or definitely not an option for your own account of vision. There are no assumptions. You can answer either Yes or No. So stop weaseling and answer.

She can't just answer Yes or No. Unequivocal responses leave insufficient wiggle roon. Peacegirl needs all the wiggle room she get.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why do you think he clarified redefined the terms in the introduction?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So where does the light go after the 8 minutes?

Over your head. Like just about everything else.

[Vivisectus]

If the object is far away, the dispersed light will make the object appear small. If the object is closer to us, the light will make the object appear large.

What an amazingly weird statement. How does the dispersion of light do that, and why is that the effect? Can you draw me a simple representation to explain what you mean by this?

Because in actual optics, dispersion does not cause perspective: it is the fact that the farther away an object is, the larger the area that is looked at, which means the object makes up less and less of that area.

So can you please explain how in efferent sight, the exact same effect is caused by a completely unrelated mechanism?

Alternately you can just admit you have no idea what you were talking about again.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

She can't just answer Yes or No. Unequivocal responses leave insufficient wiggle roon. Peacegirl needs all the wiggle room she get.

Does the Wiggle Room come with padded walls?

[Angakuk]

Let me try this one

As light disperses it means that there are fewer and fewer photons available to strike the retina. Fewer photons at the retina means that less of the object is revealed by the light. Less is equivalent to smaller. Therefore, if fewer photons are striking the retina less of the object is revealed and it appears to be smaller.

How did I do?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Does the Wiggle Room come with padded walls?

One would certainly hope so.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Let me try this one

As light disperses it means that there are fewer and fewer photons available to strike the retina. Fewer photons at the retina means that less of the object is revealed by the light. Less is equivalent to smaller. Therefore, if fewer photons are striking the retina less of the object is revealed and it appears to be smaller.

How did I do?

Not bad! I am still missing the classic circular element, passed off as an explanation, but I have only a few minutes before work starts so I don't have the time to insert one.

Something along the lines of "When an object can be seen that means it is in visible range which means that the photons are at the retina because the object is large enough and bright enough to be seen".

You know. 4 ways of saying "something is visible".

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is true that if enough light is captured for the sensor to create an image, with "enough" determined by the sensor's capabilities, an image will be created. You may or may not notice that this is a tautology.

You are either purposefully avoiding the issue, or doing this unintentionally. I'm not sure.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And science doesn't just believe this, it has demonstrated it to be a fact over and over again with every image ever created.

Again, you are either avoiding the very point of this discussion, or you are doing it unintentionally. All you are doing is repeating what science believes is true. It has not demonstrated factually that an object can be eliminated entirely, and the pattern of that light goes on forever until it strikes another object. That is a theory, and a very flimsy one at that.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.