A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This does not even make sense. If an object absorbs light, and the rest of the light travels until it strikes another object, how can that light be effective if it is not the full spectrum?

Of course it makes no sense when you don't understand what is being discussed at all.

Light, lots and lots of it, is traveling in all directions away from the source. Some of that light may intersect with matter that absorbs some of it, like a planet maybe, some won't intersect with any matter at all. There aren't light absorbing obstacles in every conceivable direction.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What happens if the blue wavelength was absorbed by the last object?

If some of the light encounters matter that absorbs only the blue wavelength, then the other wavelengths will either be reflected or transmitted through (depending on the matter) and continue traveling. This is an immutable property of light that has been explained to you many times.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What happens to the next object if it absorbs all but blue? How will the light allow us to see blue if there is no blue wavelength in the light?

Huh? What do you mean the next object? Not all of the light from the emission source is traveling in the same direction or encounters the same matter. It is not a laser beam.

Light that has encountered matter but was not absorbed will have been reflected or transmitted through.

Jupiter looks brown/red and Uranus looks blue, correct? Both are receiving white sunlight, but are reflecting different wavelengths.

If an object is not reflecting or emitting any light of any wavelength at all, we cannot see it. That's why we can't see black holes.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We're talking about the requirements for efferent vision.

No, we are talking about the location of light photons, based on your statements, and the mechanism by which they became located there.

Answer the questions please.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I think we can all agree that there are a few major stumbling blocks here:

1: You do not understand enough about optics to understand what it actually is you are disagreeing with. Because of this, you regularly argue against positions that no-one actually holds: your famous recurring travelling images are a good example of this.

2: Efferent vision is not really a theory: it is a conclusion. No-one, including you, knows how it works! Based on some (undisclosed) other ideas, the conclusion that sight must be efferent has been reached by you and your father, but as far as I can tell neither of you ever knew, or spent any time finding out, how it is supposed to work.

3: The reasons why this conclusion that sight is efferent was reached by you and your father has not been shared so far. We are simply expected to assume that there is a good reason to assume this is how sight works: the reason itself is not present in my version of the book.

It is my understanding that Lessans was working backwards from the idea that the brain was projecting words onto objects that were being seen. His objection was that these words were imparting meaning to those objects or persons that Lessans objected to, such as beautiful and educated. Lessans was neither and resented that others were. In order to project these words onto the 'undeniable substance' he needed to revive the idea of efferent vision where the brain is looking out and projecting these words onto the object or person.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you playing with me? How many crackpots claim stuff that is disregarded? Why are you still here?

We are still here because you are still here.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by thedoc

You are correct, we would not be able to see the blue object if there were no blue light to be reflected. This has been tested and demonstrated, but you will need to search the internet for a video of the demonstration, or perhaps someone can find one and post it.

You ask how the light can be effective as if some deficiency of photons makes light incapable of functioning as light. But a red laser, which is composed of only photons that are of a frequency that corosponds to the color red, can function and produces a red spot when shown on an object.

A curious question comes up for someone to answer with an appropriate demonstration, if you shine a red laser on a red wall of just the right color, will you see the red spot. Assume that there is some other illumination in the room, I would assume that in a darkened room there will be a visible spot.

Did you miss this?

If one object reflects only blue light and that light then falls on an object that absorbs blue light, there would be no light reflected, and without other light being present, we would not see the object.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This does not even make sense. If an object absorbs light, and the rest of the light travels until it strikes another object, how can that light be effective if it is not the full spectrum?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What happens if the blue wavelength was absorbed by the last object?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What happens to the next object if it absorbs all but blue? How will the light allow us to see blue if there is no blue wavelength in the light?

We would not see the next object, there is no light to reflect. This has been observed and tested in the real world and is consistant with the afferent model of vision. Before you critisize a body of knowledge you should first know what that body of knowledge is, ignorance is no excuse.

[LadyShea]

Bump

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Where did the photons come from and how did they get there?

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, there is no "copy" . Just light.

[LadyShea]

Bump

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You've said it doesn't travel away from the object. Refraction and dispersion both happen to traveling light, only.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bump

Exactly what I said. If reflected light is at an angle that is opposite of light that is going at opposite angles, how can this light ever be collected?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What.The.Fuck. Reflected light at an angle opposite to light that is going at opposite angles? What does that even mean? It's complete gibberish

Stop making this sound like gibberish, okay? If light is radiating in a straight line in every direction from the source, where will the light be millions of years from now, and how can that light be gathered to form an image, even if the light is being collected from the strongest telescope ever made?

I'm just asking. Wouldn't that mean an image would not be recognizable? Can you recognize half a face? This is not a hologram.

What are you talking about partial images?

How in the world can you get just enough light to recognize what something is? What you're saying makes no sense.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

So it's OK to eat egg yokes now? Have you had bacon and eggs lately?

Yes, but nitrates are in the bacon so that's another no no.

Originally Posted by thedoc

A long time ago people didn't eat tomatos because they thought they were toxic, and the greens are, but the fruit is't. Trichinosis used to be a problem which lead to many cultures restricting the eating of ham and pork, but science has discovered the cause and the cure, so now everyone can eat the meat of the pig, if they just cook it completely.
Actually I don't remember the "Egg Fiasco" or did you just make that up?

You don't remember the announcement to stop eating egg yolks that scared the country half to death? Where were you?

Egg yolks almost as bad for your heart as smoking cigarettes, says study - NY Daily News

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

No-one says the light brings an image, light strikes the retina and the retina signals the brain which receptor recieved which color of light and how much. From these signals the brain can intrepret the image of the object. The light may have been reflected from an object that is far away, and after the light leaves the surface of the object it travels independent of the object, and the object can disapear and we can still see the image of the object.

What happens if the light strikes another object before the light gets to us? Does that mean we will never see the object?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Light doesn't come with a use-by date.

So what you are saying is that we would indefinitely receive light from the Sun even if the Sun burned out? Then why do scientists say that if something happened to the Sun, life on earth could not exist. Do you realize that you are contradicting science?

If The Sun Went Out, How Long Would Life On Earth Survive? | Popular Science

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So what you are saying is 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?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Light doesn't come with a use-by date.

Then why do scientists say that if something happened to the Sun, life on earth could not exist?

If the sun went dark how long would it be before earth knew

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then why do scientists say that if something happened to the Sun, life on earth could not exist?

If the sun went dark how long would it be before earth knew

You are just ... beyond belief.

Did you notice the linked answer agrees with science, agrees with what I told you in my last post before this one, and disagrees with Lessans?

As to your foolish question about what happens to the last light that reaches our eyes after the sun is turned off, this has been explained to you for ten years. It keeps going. That is why, when we here on earth learn that the sun has been turned off, eight minutes after this happens, anyone on Mars will still be seeing the sun. The last light will have to travel a ways farther to reach Martian eyes. If the sunlight is not absorbed, it could travel a billion light years, meaning people will be seeing the sun as it was billions of years in the past.

Unbelievable how dense you are.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, but nitrates are in the bacon so that's another no no.

You don't remember the announcement to stop eating egg yolks that scared the country half to death? Where were you?

Egg yolks almost as bad for your heart as smoking cigarettes, says study - NY Daily News

Did you actually read the article and comments, or just the headline? It doesn't say what you think is said. How the body reacts to egg yokes, fat, and cholesterol in general varies with the individual. I have eaten eggs all my life but have cut down lately, I always eat the fattiest part of the meat especially red meat, butter on almost everything, and lots of cheese. By all accounts of the "Health Experts" my arteries and veins should be clogged with Cholesterol, but they are clear, they were checked only a few years ago with a catheter inserted up to my heart. Some time later my cardiologist took several biopsies to find out what was happening, no plaque was found. BTW my blood pressure is normally below normal, but with my heart medications it is now even lower, sometimes I can feel the effect, but apparently it's not low enough to be a problem. Perhaps a few people that you knew were scared over this report, but I would guess that most ignored it. It certainly didn't make the news around here.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How in the world can you get just enough light to recognize what something is? What you're saying makes no sense.

That is because you don't have the slightest understanding of what is stated in the standard model of vision, you only have the nonsense that Lessans was writing in the book, which was mostly wrong.

[davidm]

To be precise -- though only peacegirl could possibly be confused by my explanation -- the minuscule fraction of the light that the sun gives off that reaches our eyes won't travel on. It's all the rest of it, the staggeringly vast number of photons that do not meet our eyes, that will travel on. Peacegirl seems to have the wacko idea that in order to see an object, we must see every single photon that it gives off, or reflects. More of her incredible clueless craziness.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What happens if the light strikes another object before the light gets to us? Does that mean we will never see the object?

If the light strikes another object it can be absorbed or reflected, and if reflected it could still travel to our eyes.

Do you seriously expect me to believe that you can't understand this or figure it out for yourself? The question just seems very dishonest.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So what you are saying is that we would indefinitely receive light from the Sun even if the Sun burned out? Then why do scientists say that if something happened to the Sun, life on earth could not exist. Do you realize that you are contradicting science?

If The Sun Went Out, How Long Would Life On Earth Survive? | Popular Science

That is not what is being said, on the Earth we would still receive Sunlight for about 8.5 minutes, then the Sun would appear to go out. But the Sunlight that did not strike the Earth or another object in the Solar system would continue to travel beyond the Solar system till it strikes another object no matter how long it takes, and the Sunlight that does not strike any object will continue forever, or till the end of the Universe, whichever comes first.

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What happens if the light strikes another object before the light gets to us? Does that mean we will never see the object?

If the light would have reached us but it was prevented from doing so because it struck the other object first, then the technical description of what has happened is that one object is behind the other one.

I realize that these technical terms can be confusing, so you probably need to carefully think about it for a while and maybe draw a diagram in order to achieve a proper understanding.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So what you are saying is that we would indefinitely receive light from the Sun even if the Sun burned out? Then why do scientists say that if something happened to the Sun, life on earth could not exist. Do you realize that you are contradicting science?

If The Sun Went Out, How Long Would Life On Earth Survive? | Popular Science

Did you actually read the article and the comments?

I'm glad the writer referenced someone at Cal Tech otherwise I don't give a lot of credit to 'Popular Science' as a source.

[Vivisectus]

So what you are saying is that we would indefinitely receive light from the Sun even if the Sun burned out? Then why do scientists say that if something happened to the Sun, life on earth could not exist. Do you realize that you are contradicting science?

If The Sun Went Out, How Long Would Life On Earth Survive? | Popular Science

Every time I think you could not be denser, you just reach deep inside yourself and find a new level of imbecility. I did not think it could be done, but you have managed it. Well done!

Would you like a chance to review what people are actually saying, or will we just admit that we were aiming too high when we tried to explain this at junior-high level physics and try, I dunno, projects involving maceroni stuck to cardboard?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How in the world can you get just enough light to recognize what something is? What you're saying makes no sense.

You are making no sense. Your questions are nonsense. Do you think there is only a tiny amount of light out there or what?

Our Sun produces the equivalent energy to a trillion one megaton bombs EVERY SECOND. That energy is emitted as light. That is an enormous amount of light it has put out over how ever many millions years it has existed. It is not the only star, nor is it the largest star. There are and have been trillions of stars, and all that light is traveling through the Universe! All we have to do is stick a light detector out there to catch some of it.

[Vivisectus]

What happens if the light strikes another object before the light gets to us? Does that mean we will never see the object?

Think, now. Think hard. If we shine a small flashlight on the other side of a wall, can you see it? Does our side of the wall light up?

Comd to think of it, why can I not shine light on the inside of a box and make it appear in a dark room? There is light at the object, isn't there? Should that not work to make it visible in efferent vision?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So what you are saying is that we would indefinitely receive light from the Sun even if the Sun burned out?

"We" as in Earthlings? Of course not. We would only receive the Sun's light for 8.5 minutes.

If light is radiating in a straight line in every direction from the source, where will the light be millions of years from now

Most of it will be millions of light years away. Some of it will encounter matter and be transformed to some other kind of energy.