A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will never talk to you if you continue calling me names. You're defeating yourself because you're doing nothing to further the discussion.

TRANSLATION: "I haven't got a fucking clue how to answer this simple, yet absolutely crucial, question (I've already said several times in this thread "I don't know" what the method is); so I will try to avoid dealing with this vital subject by pretending to be offended when someone identifies me for what I am -- an asshat."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light has definite properties. Light travels with certain frequencies and wavelengths as the object reflects that light that is now traversing a certain distance. We can therefore see an image of that object across a large expanse because the light has traveled to that destination. BUT WE ARE NOT INTERPRETING THOSE IMAGES IN OUR BRAIN; WE ARE SEEING THOSE IMAGES DIRECTLY (OR EFFERENTLY). It is assumed that we would see the image of an event or object in the light itself, which is why it is believed we would see Columbus discovering America even though the actual event is over. This is not true if Lessans is correct because we are able to see the present only, not the past.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

ok - so light bounces off an object and travels to us. When that light reaches us, we can see the object, but we see that object instantly and as it is in that moment of time?

It is my understanding that if we are able to see an object, such as a supernova, we can see it because it is large enough or bright enough to be seen with the naked eye or with a telescope. This also means that if we are able to see the supernova in real time, we would also be able to take a picture of the supernova and get the same image. There would be no discrepancy because the light is already here.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The odd thing is that that means that if a star 2 lightyears away, and that begins to burn, but burns for only 1 lightyear it would send us a years worth of light, and yet would never be visible! It would not exist and have light reach us at the same time.

Also, and more amazingly, that would mean that we should be able to see stars that no longer exist wink out of existence at the very moment they go out - but invisible light would continue to reach us for many, many more years! Or rather, we should see a ray of light but no star!

Not if the ray of light is dependent on the star for its very existence. Light apart from a light source cannot exist. If a flashlight is turned off, so is the light that is being emitted from that source.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I could travel 30 light minutes away, and flash a flashlight at an observer on earth. Then, I quickly run to the side - and magically, the flashes of light come from besides me, not from where I am, bacause the light from my flashlight never reached him until then!

Even better - I can be 2 lightyears away, on a well-established lightsource. An observer can see me hold up a sign. Because he can see me, and can read the sign I am holding up, the knowledge of what is on my sign reaches him infinitely faster than the speed of light could ever carry a message.

The time it takes for us to get the message from the light versus an observer seeing you hold up the message while standing on the lightsource is virtually identical.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This means it is theoretically possible for me to be holding up an answer to a question he has not asked yet!

I don't see where that's possible.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

TRANSLATION: "I haven't got a fucking clue how to answer this simple, yet absolutely crucial, question (I've already said several times in this thread "I don't know" what the method is); so I will try to avoid dealing with this vital subject by pretending to be offended when someone identifies me for what I am -- an asshat."

La la la la la. I am not listening to anything you have to say because you show no respect which is a vital ingredient in any discussion.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said it's both. I said we see efferently, which means that we can see an image of an object after the light has traveled, but we are not decoding that same image the brain.

[quote peacegirl]
Light has definite properties. Light travels with certain frequencies and wavelengths as the object reflects that light that is now traversing a certain distance. We can therefore see an image of that object across a large expanse because the light has traveled to that destination. BUT WE ARE NOT INTERPRETING THOSE IMAGES IN OUR BRAIN; WE ARE SEEING THOSE IMAGES DIRECTLY (OR EFFERENTLY). It is assumed that we would see the image of an event or object in the light itself, which is why it is believed we would see Columbus discovering America even though the actual event is over. This is not true if Lessans is correct because we are able to see the present only, not the past.[/quote]


It is difficult for me to believe that anyone could say these things let alone believe anything so stupid as this. I can only assume that Peacegirl is an inmate at some institution with access to the internet as some kind of therapy. Unfortunately there are a lot of people who believe stupid things and then try to convince others of the truth of that stupidity. Peacegirl, its probably time for your meds. They might want to increase the dose as you still aren't quite rational.

[Vivisectus]

[quote=peacegirl;977480]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light has definite properties. Light travels with certain frequencies and wavelengths as the object reflects that light that is now traversing a certain distance. We can therefore see an image of that object across a large expanse because the light has traveled to that destination. BUT WE ARE NOT INTERPRETING THOSE IMAGES IN OUR BRAIN; WE ARE SEEING THOSE IMAGES DIRECTLY (OR EFFERENTLY). It is assumed that we would see the image of an event or object in the light itself, which is why it is believed we would see Columbus discovering America even though the actual event is over. This is not true if Lessans is correct because we are able to see the present only, not the past.

It is my understanding that if we are able to see an object, such as a supernova, we can see it because it is large enough or bright enough to be seen with the naked eye or with a telescope. This also means that if we are able to see the supernova in real time, we would also be able to take a picture of the supernova and get the same image. There would be no discrepancy because the light is already here.

Right. However, this leads to the strange results I pointed out.

Not if the ray of light is dependent on the star for its very existence. Light apart from a light source cannot exist. If a flashlight is turned off, so is the light that is being emitted from that source.

Ah - so light is somehow bound to its emitter somehow and cannot exist separately from it? Amazing. How does the light disappear? What makes this happen? As far as we know, light is made up of photons. There do not have any connection to the object they originate from, much like there is no direct connection between me and a thrown ball. Once I throw the ball, it's trajectory is determined by the force I applied to it - I can disappear from the face of the earth for all it cares, it will not matter anything to the ball.

For the ball to change direction, or disappear, something needs to somehow influence it. The same applies to the photons.

The time it takes for us to get the message from the light versus an observer seeing you hold up the message while standing on the lightsource is virtually identical.

I don't see where that's possible.

Well, it isn't. This is because efferent vision is impossible. So are the amazing disappearing photons by the way.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not if the ray of light is dependent on the star for its very existence. Light apart from a light source cannot exist. If a flashlight is turned off, so is the light that is being emitted from that source.

That is so far off the deep end, as to be beyond comprehension. That is completely contrary to everything we know about light and optics.

[Corona688]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not if the ray of light is dependent on the star for its very existence. Light apart from a light source cannot exist.

You might have heard of this thing called RADAR, it was used during the war.

It works by creating a pulse of microwave radiation (a form of light), then immediately turning off before any reflection returns. The light continues on, by itself, bounces off the target, and returns carrying precise targeting information.

The ability switch between transmitting and receiving fast enough to switch off before the light returns was a technical challenge, but they solved it.

Light is most apparently not dependent upon the source to exist, unless you think microwaves aren't light.

And if you don't, many experiments used to measure the speed of visible light involve repeatedly interrupting a beam of light, and trying to get the timing of returning reflections to match up with the beam itself. If light was dependent on its source, there would be no difference in timing, but it is this difference in timing that lets you measure it...

[thedoc]

I certainly hope Lessans was better at hustling pool than he was at making up science fiction and fantasy.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not if the ray of light is dependent on the star for its very existence. Light apart from a light source cannot exist. If a flashlight is turned off, so is the light that is being emitted from that source.

Lady, if your stupid were made into a mountain, it would make Mt. Everest look like a molehill.

Yes, if a flashlight is turned off, the light being emitted from that source stops being emitted -- that is, you know, sort of what it means to "turn off a light." But, hey, here is a question for you: suppose you turn on a flashlight, shine it in a certain direction for five minutes, and then turn off the light. Now, here is the question:

After the flashlight is turned off, what happens to the photons that were released from the flashlight during the five minutes that the flashlight was on?

[Vivisectus]

Let's see - what would the ramifications be of making any radiation dependent on its source for existence? Let us limit ourselves to light...

Ok - so here is one. We shine a light that is 0.5 light seconds away unto a mirror. It is aimed in such a way that the light would hit the mirror, and then be deflected to hit a light sensor that is positioned another 0.5 light seconds away.

We then turn the light on for 0.6 seconds.

The light hits the mirror after 0.5 seconds and is reflected off it - much like light is reflected off the moon. It begins its journey to the sensor.

However, suddenly the lightsource is turned off! Thus, the beam of light ceases to exist.

But this leaves us with the problem that to the sensor, the mirror is the source of light! It still exists. Light has reflected off it. Why does it now disappear? How does this happen? Is all light dependent on its original emitter only? How does the light know when and how to cease existing? The message to stop doing so would have to travel faster than light.

Also - what if we set up a light-source on a planet that is 1 lightyear way. This planet is travelling at 200 thousand miles an hour, heading straight up from the point of view of the earth. We shine our light right at where the earth will be on year from now.

The beam of light hits the earth - but the planet has moved! It is no longer in the spot that the angle of the beam of light suggests! What do the observers on earth see?

[Vivisectus]

We can move this experiment a lot closer to home - what if a solar flare occurs? at 8 light minutes, it will have died down before it reaches us. How come we still feel its effects? It has ceased to exist before the light reached us!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Right. However, this leads to the strange results I pointed out.

I certainly hope you aren't expecting Peacegirl to comprehend any of this, However it is nice for the rest of us to see these rational explinations of phenomena that we might not have given much thought before.

[davidm]

Tell me, does this woman actually believe that the photons emitted by a light source go out of existence when the light source itself goes out of existence? Surely she must not believe that; she just must be expressing herself poorly. Surely. Right? Please tell me that's right. Please.

[Stephen Maturin]

First and foremost, I don't see how any of this negates efferent vision.

Originally Posted by davidm

After the flashlight is turned off, what happens to the photons that were released from the flashlight during the five minutes that the flashlight was on?

Oh, davidm! It should be obvious even to you that the photons are frolicking together on the other side of the earth, waiting for morning so they can come round and smile upon us once again.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Corona688

You might have heard of this thing called RADAR, it was used during the war.

It works by creating a pulse of microwave radiation (a form of light), then immediately turning off before any reflection returns. The light continues on, by itself, bounces off the target, and returns carrying precise targeting information.

The ability switch between transmitting and receiving fast enough to switch off before the light returns was a technical challenge, but they solved it.

Light is most apparently not dependent upon the source to exist, unless you think microwaves aren't light.

And if you don't, many experiments used to measure the speed of visible light involve repeatedly interrupting a beam of light, and trying to get the timing of returning reflections to match up with the beam itself. If light was dependent on its source, there would be no difference in timing, but it is this difference in timing that lets you measure it...

We've gotten way off track to what the purpose of this discussion is supposed to be about. According to the afferent model of sight we are not seeing the actual event in real time; we are seeing the distant past due to the time it takes for the light from the event to reach our eyes. This would mean that light travels independently of its source and regardless of how long ago an event occurred, we would just be seeing it as the light from that event strikes our eyes. But this is completely fallacious, according to Lessans. Please don't kill the messenger.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

. Please don't kill the messenger.

Too late, it appears that the messenger is already Brain Dead and incapable of rational intelligent thought.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As I said, this is a necessary truth even if you don't see it yet, so why aggravate myself with theories that do not come close to discrediting this knowledge. If Lessans is right, then it doesn't matter what links someone gives me, it cannot negate a principle that is based on natural law.

As you say, it is only a necessary truth if Lessans is right. If Lessans is not right, then it may not be a necessary truth (it could still be a necessary truth, but for some other reason). If you made the effort to educate yourself from sources other than Lessans, it is just possible that you might figure out that Lessans was wrong. I am pretty sure that this is the reason you don't make that effort.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just saying good decent science supports afferent vision without carefully considering that science could have gotten a part of it wrong, is just as bad as asserting something is true without an explanation as to why it is true.

Like you and Lessans do, repeatedly.

Your assumption that those who are citing scientific principles have not considered the possibility that science could be mistaken is an unwarranted assumption. On the other hand, the assumption that you have not considered the possiblity that Lessans may have been mistaken is fully warranted, based on you own testimony.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You cannot see light;

And we're back to 300 pages ago. If we can't see light that means we can't see rainbows, images on TVs, computer monitors, mirror reflections, stars, or the sun...because those things are ONLY visible light, there is no "object".

[Vivisectus]

I disagree - progress has been made! Light is dependent on its source for it's very existence, which opens up an entirely new can of worms.

Although it would have mind-bending ramifications for those particular manifestations of light!

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We've gotten way off track to what the purpose of this discussion is supposed to be about. According to the afferent model of sight we are not seeing the actual event in real time; we are seeing the distant past due to the time it takes for the light from the event to reach our eyes. This would mean that light travels independently of its source and regardless of how long ago an event occurred, we would just be seeing it as the light from that event strikes our eyes. But this is completely fallacious, according to Lessans. Please don't kill the messenger.

Biut what Corona is pointing out is that we have tested this in labs, and that it turns out it does not work that way.

[Vivisectus]

Another interesting point. What we call light is a small window of frequencies of electromagnetic radiation that we can detect with out eyes. The only thing that is different between light and infra-red light is that it has a higher frequency and a lower wavelength.

So when we are saying that light is dependent of its emitter for it's existence, then this means that the same must apply for all EM radiation.

So how come there is a delay in satellite communication? Even when all the hardware around it works with mere nanosecond delays, there is STILL always at least a quarter of a second delay between the person speaking the words, and the other side receiving them.

Since the object emitting the EM radiation is now emitting something else in real time, the nature of the radiation should have changed to what the person is saying right at that moment. In stead, what we receive is what that person said a quarter of a second ago!

Conventional wisdom says that this is caused by the time it takes for the radiation to hit the satellite and be transmitted back to earth, and that the nature of the photons does NOT change at all once they have been fired off.

[Vivisectus]

Double poaaaasttt!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light apart from a light source cannot exist

Wha?

Photons traveling are like anything traveling. If a million gallons of water is released through a dam, then they shut it off, that million gallons keeps flowing down the river to the ocean or next reservoir or wherever. It doesn't cease to exist the minute they shut off the dam.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

As you say, it is only a necessary truth if Lessans is right. If Lessans is not right, then it may not be a necessary truth (it could still be a necessary truth, but for some other reason). If you made the effort to educate yourself from sources other than Lessans, it is just possible that you might figure out that Lessans was wrong. I am pretty sure that this is the reason you don't make that effort.

Angakuk, I know it's hard to believe that Lessans was right because it goes against present day theories. But, as I have said all along, Lessans was not a hasty man. He was exceptionally capable. He didn't just make a statement and expect people to believe him. He gave his reasons, but no one is hearing what those reasons are or even examining them. They keep throwing theories at me as if somehow these theories are going to prove that his premises were incorrect. I don't care how many theories are out there that may tell us 1 + 1 = 3, I don't have to read them all to know that those theories are wrong because I know that 1 + 1 = 2.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just saying good decent science supports afferent vision without carefully considering that science could have gotten a part of it wrong, is just as bad as asserting something is true without an explanation as to why it is true.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Like you and Lessans do, repeatedly.

But he gave a very clear explanation. No, he didn't collect data but his observations were spot on, and he shows you exactly how he came to those conclusions.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Your assumption that those who are citing scientific principles have not considered the possibility that science could be mistaken is an unwarranted assumption.

Well that's not what it feels like. You would think I'm a criminal to even entertain the possibility that science may have gotten it wrong where afferent vision is concerned.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

On the other hand, the assumption that you have not considered the possiblity that Lessans may have been mistaken is fully warranted, based on you own testimony.

I have no doubt that Lessans got it right. The only reason I say if Lessans is right is for your benefit. I want you to find out for yourself whether Lessans is right or not; I don't want to be a dictator.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Wha?

Photons traveling are like anything traveling. If a million gallons of water is released through a dam, then they shut it off, that million gallons keeps flowing down the river to the ocean or next reservoir or wherever. It doesn't cease to exist the minute they shut off the dam.

LadyShea, that is why I keep saying that photons are not like ashes from a fire. I'll ask you again, why don't we see the light from a laser pen across a field the minute the laser pen is turned off. We should still see the light on the other side of the field, shouldn't we?