A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What happens to the unabsorbed remainder of the light hitting the object, if it doesn't bounce off and travel away?

As long as the object is present and absorbs some of the light, the non-absorbed light is there if we are looking in that direction to allow us to see said object. It does not bounce and travel Spacemonkey.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

This is the difficulty at the heart of the problem with the efferent account. The distance between the object and the retina is real. Any model that purports to explain how vision works has to take that distance into account. It cannot simply be discounted as if it did not exist. However, that is exactly what you are doing with your so-called "model of efferent vision". You are simply hand-waving it away.

Wrong. In the afferent account, there is an assumption that light is bringing the image. If this is incorrect, the object being in the field of view becomes extremely important and the actual distance becomes irrelevant. That is why time has no meaning since there is no time involved as long as it meets the requirements of efferent vision.

[LadyShea]

So peacegirl, were you lying when you said

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I thought he (Jesus) did forgive me which I am counting on so I can be cleansed and live a good life. I am not being sarcastic.

Someone who "doesn't care about the Biblical perspective" and thinks God should not judge is certainly not a born again Christian, counting on Jesus to be cleansed. If you are not a born again Christian, why are you counting on Jesus to wash away your sins?

Seems to me you lied to both justify lying as well as to put Angukuk on the spot so you could then slam him with your own ideas on morality. As if a Christian who spends considerable time with a bunch of atheists has never been challenged with Biblical inconsistencies and questioned about God's changing nature, so is naive to such tactics...lol.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As long as the object is present and absorbs some of the light, the non-absorbed light is there if we are looking in that direction to allow us to see said object. It does not bounce and travel Spacemonkey.

Where is 'there'? What is the light doing if not bouncing off and traveling away? Are you back to claiming light can be stationary again?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, he was putting different paint chips in the instruments "field of view", and the instrument itself shines white light on whatever is there, then measures the parts of spectrum it reflects. They set the baseline, total reflection, using a pure white disc and showed it on the computer.

Coincidentally, Lessans also used paint chips when he was making his astute observations, although he did use them somewhat differently.

Originally Posted by Dragar

I want the number. 5 metres? 440nm? What length is the wavelength? As Spacemonkey says 'from the sun' is not a wavelength!

I just realised that you probably don't even understand wavelengths are actual lengths!

Now, now. Maybe she's saying that she believes white light to have a wavelength of one AU.

[peacegirl]

duplicate

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[quoe]As long as the object is present and absorbs some of the light, the non-absorbed light is there if we are looking in that direction to allow us to see said object. It does not bounce and travel Spacemonkey.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Where is 'there'? What is the light doing if not bouncing off and traveling away? Are you back to claiming light can be stationary again?

You still aren't getting it Spacemonkey. In the previous example, if you take away the color in front of the white paint chip, the image disappears but the light is still there. It is still traveling. In the efferent account, the object is revealed by the particular wavelengths it absorbs. We are able to see the object when we are looking in that direction. Distance becomes irrelevant because all that is necessary is for the object to be within optical range no matter how distant the object is, if it is large enough and bright enough to be seen. As long as you refuse to think in reverse, you will not understand this account.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Is the light able to be at the film/retina without 'getting there'?

How does the light come to be at the film/retina without having traveled there?

For the hundredth time, there is no "coming to be" or "getting there". When you are looking, or the camera is aimed in the direction of the object, as long as the object is bright enough and large enough, it will be within the field of view of your eyes or lens, which means the non-absorbed photons that allow you to see the object will already be at the retina or film not through teleportation or travel time, but due to the efferent account which puts the eye or film in optical range instantly. If the object is too small to be seen, then there will be no non-absorbed photons at the eye because the object is now out of optical range consequently you would get no image. This is in keeping with optics. Everything remains the same except for this [false] idea that there is a time delay because of the belief that light itself is what is interpreted in the brain as an image. This does not mean that we can't observe substance (or any kind of matter) that is traveling; it just means that we are seeing this substance traveling in real time.

[peacegirl]

added to an earlier post:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Actually, the post to which you are responding does consitute a rather complete response to your earlier post. Any difficulty you may have in understanding my response can, I am pretty sure, be chalked up to your lack of comprehension and not to any lack of clarity on my part,

What clarity? You didn't clarify anything for me?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In some cases lying is necessary if it saves someone from embarrassment or some other negative outcome that could result if one does not lie.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

God forbid that anyone should ever be embarrassed or ever experience any other negative outcomes in their life. We are indeed fortunate to have lying available as an acceptable remedy for such horrible possibilities.

I'm not saying it's the best remedy and I'm not referring to myself. I'm just saying that many people (not all) will lie or rationalize if they feel that by not lying, it will make it worse for them. I remember my son when he was a little boy took some money out of his father's wallet. He wanted to find out which child did it, so he promised not to punish the person as long as he came forward. Sure enough one of my sons admitted it was him because the repercussion of telling the truth wasn't so threatening now that punishment was off the table. His father stuck to his word. All he said was to never do it again without asking because it would be stealing. And he never did. More importantly, he didn't get punished which his father promised. He learned a lot from that experience. If he knew he would be punished, I think he would have lied to protect himself.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So why am I not forgiven?

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Because you continue to lie and when in caught out in a lie you try to rationalize and justify it rather than confess and repent. You are, in short, a consistent and unrepentent liar.

I'm glad I don't have to come to your sermon on forgiveness.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

This is the difficulty at the heart of the problem with the efferent account. The distance between the object and the retina is real. Any model that purports to explain how vision works has to take that distance into account. It cannot simply be discounted as if it did not exist. However, that is exactly what you are doing with your so-called "model of efferent vision". You are simply hand-waving it away.

Distance is not being discounted. We know the distance between Earth and the moon, and we know how long it takes for light to reach us, but if the eyes function the way Lessans' [theorized], then traveling photons which involve distance and time don't play a part.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

What wavelength is 'white light', peacegirl?

It is all of the colors of the rainbow.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is all of the colors of the rainbow.

Sorry, can't resist. At least this post of yours was short and sweet, in addition to be the usual Stupid. So I read it by accident. Gosh, you are dumb.

"All the colors of the rainbow" is not a length. The question is, what is the alleged wavelength of white light?

Also, peacegirl, why is the sky blue? Why is grass green? Why is an apple red? Do you even know the answers to these questions, which kindergartners ask and learn about? You don't, do you?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I wasn't trying to negate your father's claims with the video or this line of discussion about partial spectrum reflection, I was refuting a single statement of yours. This one.

I want to concentrate on just that, but you keep moving all over the place and bringing unrelated stuff in. Lessans never said a word about the partial spectrum....that's YOUR idea, not his.

This is not my idea. I am just trying to use your terminology. He used "images on the waves of light". That is not a scientific expression, I realize that, but it means the same thing.

p. 116 The eyes
are the windows of the brain through which experience is gained not
by what comes in on the waves of light as a result of striking the optic
nerve, but by what is looked at in relation to the afferent experience
of the senses. What is seen through the eyes is an efferent experience.

>snip>

p. 118 If the sound from
a plane even though we can’t see it on a clear day will tell us it is in the
sky, why can’t we see the plane if an image is being reflected towards
the eye on the waves of light? The answer is very simple. An image
is not being reflected.

You think the speed of light will prove that images are gotten from light which takes time

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, I've never said anything of the sort. The speed of light is simply a property of light. Where did this come from? This has nothing to do with the evidence we've been talking about.

The evidence you've been sharing isn't even under dispute. What is being disputed is that the non-absorbed partial spectrum in an open area gets reflected.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Sorry, can't resist. At least this post of yours was short and sweet, in addition to be the usual Stupid. So I read it by accident. Gosh, you are dumb.

"All the colors of the rainbow" is not a length. The question is, what is the alleged wavelength of white light?

Also, peacegirl, why is the sky blue? Why is grass green? Why is an apple red? Do you even know the answers to these questions, which kindergartners ask and learn about? You don't, do you?

This "visible light" corresponds to a wavelength range of 400 - 700 nanometers (nm) and a color range of violet through red. White light does not have its own wavelength.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What happens to the unabsorbed remainder of the light hitting the object, if it doesn't bounce off and travel away?

It turns into white light. In other words, the non-absorbed photons that would create an image does not get reflected.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't care about the Biblical perspective.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then what was all that mess about Jesus and God and forgiveness for lying and asking Angukuk to explain it to you?

Because of the idea that lying is a sin. That's what got me into this. Angakuk answered and I know he is a minister, so I wanted to understand lying from his perspective since he keeps calling me an unrepentant liar.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

God does not slay.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

YHWH sure does. Other concepts of deity are of course different

I don't want to get off onto this tangent. I do believe a lot of fear has been created from the Old Testament. I am not sure about the New.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

we cannot judge anyone which God seems to be doing.

Originally Posted by ladyShea

Yes, God judges us, according to Scripture. DUH!

That's where there are many inconsistencies. God supposedly knows our every move (even before we do it) from the day we are born, yet he will judge us harshly when we die. That being said, the Bible is filled with words of wisdom that people can live by.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

ETA: Please note that these quotes by peacegirl have since been edited.

So what if they've been edited. I didn't like what I wrote so I changed it. Haven't you ever done that?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

My claim was that reflected light can be observed and measured including partial spectrum reflected light. Spectrography supports my claim.

Do you have anything that supports yours?

Spectography does not support the claim of "reflected" light. The light source is present in these experiments LadyShea. The only way to prove that the partial light spectrum gets reflected (bounces and travels) is to remove the light source to see if we still get an image. As far as I know, never has an image been seen without the actual object (substance) present. This has not been conclusively established.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

2. Light travels with a wavelength:

Only white light

Originally Posted by peacegirl

White light does not have its own wavelength.

So does only white light have a wavelength, or does white light not have its own wavelength? It's as if you have no idea what you're talking about!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You still aren't getting it Spacemonkey. In the previous example, if you take away the color in front of the white paint chip, the image disappears but the light is still there. It is still traveling. In the efferent account, the object is revealed by the particular wavelengths it absorbs. We are able to see the object when we are looking in that direction. Distance becomes irrelevant because all that is necessary is for the object to be within optical range no matter how distant the object is, if it is large enough and bright enough to be seen. As long as you refuse to think in reverse, you will not understand this account.

You keep using the word 'there' without explaining what location you are referring to. You also say it is traveling, but you don't tell us in what direction it is traveling. So this is still a complete non-answer. Reality and simple observation tells us that when light hits an object, the part of that light which is not absorbed bounces off that object and travels away from it. What do you think happens instead? Where will the non-absorbed light be a moment after hitting the object, and in what direction will it be moving?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

For the hundredth time, there is no "coming to be" or "getting there". When you are looking, or the camera is aimed in the direction of the object, as long as the object is bright enough and large enough, it will be within the field of view of your eyes or lens, which means the non-absorbed photons that allow you to see the object will already be at the retina or film not through teleportation or travel time, but due to the efferent account which puts the eye or film in optical range instantly. If the object is too small to be seen, then there will be no non-absorbed photons at the eye because the object is now out of optical range consequently you would get no image. This is in keeping with optics. Everything remains the same except for this [false] idea that there is a time delay because of the belief that light itself is what is interpreted in the brain as an image. This does not mean that we can't observe substance (or any kind of matter) that is traveling; it just means that we are seeing this substance traveling in real time.

This is another weaseling non-answer. You tell me again only that there is no 'getting there', when the very question being asked is how light can be at the film/retina WITHOUT ever getting there. Also, "due to the efferent account" is not an explanation for how the light can be there, for efferent vision still has no account at all of how this is possible. If light is ever at some place without having traveled there, it must have either always been there or have come into existence there. So which is it? How does it get to be the case that this light is at the film/retina if it didn't teleport there, and never traveled there?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Distance is not being discounted. We know the distance between Earth and the moon, and we know how long it takes for light to reach us, but if the eyes function the way Lessans' [theorized], then traveling photons which involve distance and time don't play a part.

Are there some kind of magical non-traveling photons playing a part in your version of vision then? Or do photons not play a part in vision at all, according to you? Because according to reality, photons do play a major part in vision, and they are always traveling. And as long as photons are traveling across an actual distance between objects and our eyes, those photons will have a travel time. This is because the distance is real, the photons can only travel at a finite speed, and they cannot ever be anywhere without having traveled there.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This "visible light" corresponds to a wavelength range of 400 - 700 nanometers (nm) and a color range of violet through red. White light does not have its own wavelength.

Do you realize that this is the complete opposite of your original answer that only white light travels with a wavelength?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It turns into white light. In other words, the non-absorbed photons that would create an image does not get reflected.

You've already said they're not reflected. I want to know where they will be located just after hitting the object, and in what direction they will be traveling. And how can it 'turn into' white light? It was a partial spectrum because some of it got absorbed by the object. Where does the extra light come from needed to make up for that missing light and restore it to a full spectrum?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So what if they've been edited. I didn't like what I wrote so I changed it. Haven't you ever done that?

I wanted to clarify that I didn't make up the quotes.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So peacegirl, were you lying when you said

Someone who "doesn't care about the Biblical perspective" and thinks God should not judge is certainly not a born again Christian, counting on Jesus to be cleansed. If you are not a born again Christian, why are you counting on Jesus to wash away your sins?

I'm not. I was just trying to understand the Biblical perspective when I was posting to Angakuk. I do believe in forgiveness. We all have the chance to begin again no matter where we are in life. When this new world comes into existence, we will have gained the understanding to prevent that for which forgiveness was previously necessary. This will be our final deliverance from evil as man develops into maturity. Until then, there is no doubt that certain Biblical principles contain wisdom and can help people change their lives for the better.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Seems to me you lied to both justify lying as well as to put Angukuk on the spot so you could then slam him with your own ideas on morality.

I have no desire to slam anyone with my ideas on morality.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As if a Christian who spends considerable time with a bunch of atheists has never been challenged with Biblical inconsistencies and questioned about God's changing nature, so is naive to such tactics...lol.

LOL