A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This whole idea regarding Supernovas isn't even related to the topic. Light is a medium that reveals matter. It does not bring the image over space/time. Measuring how old a Supernova is by means of neutrinos does not prove that an image of Columbus discovering America (an event that is long gone), or any other event in the past, is still traveling around through space and time.

A Supernova is relevant because it disproves Lessans.

Light is the image that arrives over space and time, the vector and the frequency are interpreted by the brain to form an image.

And yes the images of events in the past are traveling through space, we only need to get to the right place and time to see them again. Of course if the day was clouded over there would be no image traveling, just the image of clouds. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? Lessans was wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He had more knowledge and ability than you have on your little finger.

You are really loosing your grip, I would suggest that you hold on to your suitcase for your trip to the sanitarium.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is such a joke I don't know where to begin.

You also don't know where to stop.

[GdB]

Peacegirl, I am still waiting on an answer on this posting.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

Peacegirl, I am still waiting on an answer on this posting.

I actually answered that post. The two statements are not the same by a long shot. I don't have time right now to look it over, but I'll try later. I may not have time until Friday.

[peacegirl]

duplicate

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

A Supernova is relevant because it disproves Lessans.

Light is the image that arrives over space and time, the vector and the frequency are interpreted by the brain to form an image.

And yes the images of events in the past are traveling through space, we only need to get to the right place and time to see them again. Of course if the day was clouded over there would be no image traveling, just the image of clouds. Why is that so difficult for you to understand? Lessans was wrong.

No, if light is that far away the light that has been emitted has to travel to get to Earth, just like the Sun first being turned on has to travel 8 minutes for that light to get to Earth. If the Supernova was the one that was in our Solar System, we would see it when it was first exploding if our gaze happened to be in that direction. Other Supernovas are too far to be seen by the naked eye or a telescope, so we would have to wait to receive the light coming from them, which would be in delayed time. Your example proves nothing.

[Dragar]

If we saw the supernova explosion in 'real time', the delay between the neutrinos and seeing the event should be hundreds of years. It is not. Therefore Lessans' account is wrong.

Likewise, looking at the position of the moons of Jupiter in a telescope allows us to determine the speed of light. If we saw things 'instantly', this wouldn't work. But it does. Therefore Lessans' account is wrong.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the Supernova was the one that was in our Solar System, we would see it when it was first exploding if our gaze happened to be in that direction. Other Supernovas are too far to be seen by the naked eye or a telescope, so we would have to wait to receive the light coming from them, which would be in delayed time.

You do not even understand what you are talking about, do you? (Super)novas are explosions of stars, and there is only one star in our solar system. And Supernovas surely can be seen with the naked eye:

Other well-known supernova remnants include the Crab Nebula, Tycho, the remnant of SN 1572, named after Tycho Brahe who recorded the brightness of its original explosion

Bold by me.

For a complete list, see here. Look at the apparent magnitude column: every supernova with a magnitude smaller then +6 can bee seen with the naked eye. (magnitudes scale is reversed: the lower the number, the brighter the object). Of many of them we have historical records: the number after the 'SN' is the year of the supernova explosion. Click on a few 'SN-links', you will be surprised.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, if light is that far away the light that has been emitted has to travel to get to Earth, just like the Sun first being turned on has to travel 8 minutes for that light to get to Earth. If the Supernova was the one that was in our Solar System, we would see it when it was first exploding if our gaze happened to be in that direction. Other Supernovas are too far to be seen by the naked eye or a telescope, so we would have to wait to receive the light coming from them, which would be in delayed time. Your example proves nothing.

Since you are only parroting what your father has written, your answer proves that neither you nor Lessans knew/knows anything about astronomy. Many supernova outside the Milky Way are visible to the naked eye, and the distance has been calculated by comparing the arrival of the light and the arrival of the neutrinos.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I actually answered that post. The two statements are not the same by a long shot. I don't have time right now to look it over, but I'll try later. I may not have time until Friday.

In other words it may take till Fri. till she can make up some silly fictional story to explain it.

[LadyShea]

It's obvious that a beam of light that hasn't reached my eye will not cause my pupils to dilate because the light hasn't gotten there.

Likewise in the Sun turned on at noon scenario, it's obvious that a beam of light that hasn't reached the camera film will not cause a photochemical reaction because the light hasn't gotten there.

If the observer was using a camera, the light would be instantly at the film instead of the retina.

What if it is a camera on a tripod with a timer and there is no "observer" with a brain or retina using the camera?

therefore the photograph would be a picture of the Sun in real time, not 8 minutes later. If the light had not gotten to Earth yet, we would be able to see the Sun turned on instantly with our eyes or with a photograph, but we wouldn't be able to see each other until the Sun's light reached Earth.

just like the Sun first being turned on has to travel 8 minutes for that light to get to Earth.

Then how can the light strike the camera film instantly? You are being inconsistent.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

If we saw the supernova explosion in 'real time', the delay between the neutrinos and seeing the event should be hundreds of years. It is not. Therefore Lessans' account is wrong.

Likewise, looking at the position of the moons of Jupiter in a telescope allows us to determine the speed of light. If we saw things 'instantly', this wouldn't work. But it does. Therefore Lessans' account is wrong.

From your premise it makes him look wrong. That's why his claim needs to be tested independently which would involve a different set of conditions. If his observations turn out to be accurate, then scientists will need to go back and rethink the moons of Jupiter theory and all the other theories regarding the eyes and how they work. You are assuming that Romer had it right when he calculated the speed of light based on what he thought was going on. I know you think I'm a fundie. What can I say?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Likewise in the Sun turned on at noon scenario, it's obvious that a beam of light that hasn't reached the camera film will not cause a photochemical reaction because the light hasn't gotten there.

Light can strike the camera when it gets to Earth, but you're missing an important aspect. This is not contradictory. A camera works like an eye, therefore if the conditions of efferent vision are present, it would work the same way with a camera because the camera would already be in the object's field of view. The frequency/wavelength would not have to travel 8 minutes to be at the film, just as it wouldn't have to travel 8 minutes to be at the retina if the requirements have been met.

If the observer was using a camera, the light would be instantly at the film instead of the retina.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What if it is a camera on a tripod with a timer and there is no "observer" with a brain or retina using the camera?

Why would that be any different? It's the same conditions whether the light is at the retina or at the film. It would still be in real time either way.

therefore the photograph would be a picture of the Sun in real time, not 8 minutes later. If the light had not gotten to Earth yet, we would be able to see the Sun turned on instantly with our eyes or with a photograph, but we wouldn't be able to see each other until the Sun's light reached Earth.

just like the Sun first being turned on has to travel 8 minutes for that light to get to Earth.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then how can the light strike the camera film instantly? You are being inconsistent.

You're still not grasping why camera photography would show the same real time image on film as on the retina. You're still thinking in terms of the afferent account that light is bringing the image through space/time which takes time to get there, like a car traveling from one destination to another. That's what is confusing you.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light can strike the camera when it gets to Earth, but you're missing an important aspect. This is not contradictory. A camera works like an eye, therefore if the conditions of efferent vision are present, it would work the same way with a camera because the camera would already be in the object's field of view. The frequency/wavelength would not have to travel 8 minutes to be at the film, just as it wouldn't have to travel 8 minutes to be at the retina if the requirements have been met.

The Sun doesn't have a field of view. And requirements don't teleport light 93 millions miles to interact with camera film. As you well know, Weasel.

Why would that be any different? It's the same conditions whether the light is at the retina or at the film. It would still be in real time either way.

Lessans said the brain is looking out through the eyes and the conditions are only for seeing (by the brain). Camera film requires the physical immediate presence of light at its surface. You cannot compare the two at all.

You're still not grasping why camera photography would show the same real time image on film as on the retina.

Because you are not explaining anything to grasp, you are just asserting that it happens...despite it being physically impossible.

You're still thinking in terms of the afferent account that light is bringing the image through space/time which takes time to get there, like a car traveling from one destination to another. That's what is confusing you.

I am only thinking and speaking in terms of optics and light physics as it relates to cameras. And, indeed, light has to physically travel to camera film in order to interact with it in any way.

And traveling images = stupid strawman claim that nobody believes. So you should stop using it.

[But]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And traveling images = stupid strawman claim that nobody believes. So you should stop using it.

I still think that it's perfectly fine to say that.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

From your premise it makes him look wrong. That's why his claim needs to be tested independently which would involve a different set of conditions. If his observations turn out to be accurate, then scientists will need to go back and rethink the moons of Jupiter theory and all the other theories regarding the eyes and how they work. You are assuming that Romer had it right when he calculated the speed of light based on what he thought was going on. I know you think I'm a fundie. What can I say?

Describe such a test. What are the different conditions that need to be specified. And what results, (other than simply saying Lessans was right), would you accept as proof.

More accurately we know that you are a fundie. You could try telling the truth based on reality.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A camera works like an eye, therefore if the conditions of efferent vision are present, it would work the same way with a camera because the camera would already be in the object's field of view. The frequency/wavelength would not have to travel 8 minutes to be at the film, just as it wouldn't have to travel 8 minutes to be at the retina if the requirements have been met.

So now the camera has to be in the object's field of view? What if the camera is pointed in a direction away from the object? What if it is an inanimate object that doesn't have eyes, and no field of view? Or did you just screw up again and say it wrong?

How does the frequency/wavelength get to the film or the retina, if it doesn't travel for 8.5 minutes?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

I still think that it's perfectly fine to say that.

If you mean "traveling images" then it is not correct to say that, because Lessans and Peacegirl have described it as if the light and the image are separate things, much like a person carrying a basket of apples, or a car carrying the people inside. This interpretation is totally wrong and that is why it is not OK to use that term when referring to the discussion about Lessans book. In reality the light that travels, is the image, and there is no separation of light and image.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by But

I still think that it's perfectly fine to say that.

If she was using it as a metaphor the way we all would use it, it would be, but she's not. Lessans described standard optics as "images being carried on the wings of light"...so while peacegirl will admit that light travels, she states that images do not travel, indicating she thinks that light and "images" are separate things.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

From your premise it makes him look wrong.

It's not a premise, it's a repeatedly observed actual phenomena....meaning reality

That's why his claim needs to be tested independently which would involve a different set of conditions.

No, his claim needs to explain observed reality.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

From your premise it makes him look wrong.

Those 'premises' are how we built the computer you're using, you idiot. They're not premises at all: they're facts about the world we've discovered. Sorry it doesn't line up with your crackpot views you inherited from your dad.

You realise this doesn't matter? You're just one amusing nutter ranting on a fairly irrelevant forum on the internet. There are lots like you, with their own crackpot ideas, and you're indistinguishable from all of them. Meanwhile, we'll keep on ignoring everything your dad said, and things will keep working and vaccines will keep saving lives, and all of this nonsense you're spouting will be forgotten. You get that, right? That you're not convincing anyone of anything, and are mostly presenting your father's work here for cheap laughs?

Stop wasting your time. I'm not going to go all N.A. on you and tell you to get help, but why don't you stop with this obsession for a bit?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The Sun doesn't have a field of view. And requirements don't teleport light 93 millions miles to interact with camera film. As you well know, Weasel.

The object would be in the camera's field of view, okay? You know what I meant. And this has nothing to do with teleportation. Just because you don't get it doesn't mean I'm weaseling.

[Why would that be any different? It's the same conditions whether the light is at the retina or at the film. It would still be in real time either way.

Lessans said the brain is looking out through the eyes and the conditions are only for seeing (by the brain). Camera film requires the physical immediate presence of light at its surface. You cannot compare the two at all.

He didn't talk about cameras but if you extend the knowledge they work the same way. That means there would be a presence of light at its surface just like there would be a presence of light at the retina. You are trying desperately to find an error, but there isn't one.

therefore the photograph would be a picture of the Sun in real time, not 8 minutes later. If the light had not gotten to Earth yet, we would be able to see the Sun turned on instantly with our eyes or with a photograph, but we wouldn't be able to see each other until the Sun's light reached Earth.

just like the Sun first being turned on has to travel 8 minutes for that light to get to Earth.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then how can the light strike the camera film instantly? You are being inconsistent.

You're still not grasping why camera photography would show the same real time image on film as on the retina.[/QUOTE]
Because

Originally Posted by LadyShea

you are not explaining anything to grasp, you are just asserting that it happens...despite it being physically impossible.

The way you're looking at it it's physically impossible. You have no conception of the difference between afferent and efferent vision. You do what Spacemonkey did. He tried to discredit this claim by the fact that light travels. It doesn't negate the claim at all.

You're still thinking in terms of the afferent account that light is bringing the image through space/time which takes time to get there, like a car traveling from one destination to another. That's what is confusing you.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am only thinking and speaking in terms of optics and light physics as it relates to cameras. And, indeed, light has to physically travel to camera film in order to interact with it in any way.

Yes, light has to physically be at the camera and light has to physically be at the retina which it is. You just don't understand how it's possible, and I don't think I can help you.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And traveling images = stupid strawman claim that nobody believes. So you should stop using it.

If you can offer me a better way of expressing what I mean, then I'll stop using it, but if you can't, I will continue to use it because there isn't a better way.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, light has to physically be at the camera and light has to physically be at the retina which it is.

And how does the light get there? What is the mechanism?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You just don't understand how it's possible, and I don't think I can help you.

You cannot explain to anybody how the light gets there. Because you have no explanation.

Give up, peacegirl, you are arguing against established science, not some area of science where still different hypothesis exist.

Do you think that camera constructors are building cameras on basis of 'efferent vision'? Does the 'efferent vision module' need energy? By a battery?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, light has to physically be at the camera and light has to physically be at the retina which it is. You just don't understand how it's possible, and I don't think I can help you.

If you can offer me a better way of expressing what I mean, then I'll stop using it, but if you can't, I will continue to use it because there isn't a better way.

Cameras are designed and built to be detectors of light. Period. This is all they do, whether film or digital. Lenses focus light onto a flat surface where light detectors are placed. In film cameras, these are chemicals which react to light, in digital cameras, these are a bunch of photovoltaic circuits.

What you are telling us is that an instrument designed to be a detector of light, that has been refined and improved under that exact understanding, that has shown time and again that light is the only, necessary and sufficient condition to create images, is not just a detector of light.

You tell us there must be something else going on, even though literally hundreds of years of science tells us something different.

Our understanding of light from 150 years ago is naive and ignorant compared to what we know now. However, everything we knew then is true now - lenses never worked differently than our understanding, we only learned how to make better lenses and better technology.

If cameras work by detecting light and only light, and they work exactly like our eyes, why is it so hard to believe that our eyes detect light and only light?

Lessans' ideas require that we re-evaluate our understanding of how cameras work, yet our cameras work extremely well based on our current understanding. Lessans' ideas would have to make some sort of vast improvement on the capabilities of cameras to even motivate people to investigate it.

So, what are these vast improvements to our understanding of camera functionality that Lessans' ideas imply? What groundbreaking technological improvement can we expect from testing Lessans' ideas?

Lessans didn't have a fucking clue about any of this did he? If he did, he would have spelled it out - done the math and told the world exactly what this means to the world of physics, biology and chemistry his ideas imply.