A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Or use a prism or two to refract the light around a corner. Either way, you could take a picture of LadyShea without her being in the camera's field of view.

That's even better, as you could probably refract the light around the corner without the prism even being in the field of view of the camera!

[LadyShea]

If I am using playground tactics, then what do you call the tactics people have used in here to try to embarrass me and make me look like a fool? Huh?

What tactics? Asking you to support your assertions with valid evidence and rational explanations and to stay on topic?

[Vivisectus]

Exactly. Stars are different than the light they project but the light is not separate from its source.

Are we back to this again? If light is dependent on its source for existence, then how come radar works? It sends a beam of light, shuts off, and waits for the beam to bounce back.

Of course we can explain it because the changes are actually taking place externally, and efferent vision sees those external changes. But we cannot see an old picture of reality as if this is the same phenomena.

No, we can explain it when we use the afferent theory, but efferent sight does not explain it. According to it, we see the image as it is, not as it seems because what we detect is light. Efferent vision does not give us an explanation for the change in color, and in fact predicts that no such change would occur.

I have said over and over that you cannot compare doppler radar (which is a proven technology) as a way to discount efferent vision.

I dont see why not. It is technology that uses light, and that shows that light does not work as it would work if efferent vision were true. Just unilaterally deciding it is not permissible does not do away with that fact.

If I am using playground tactics, then what do you call the tactics people have used in here to try to embarrass me and make me look like a fool? Huh?

You are the only adult I know that thinks that "Well they started it!" is a good response to an accusation of using playground tactics.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What tactics? Asking you to support your assertions with valid evidence and rational explanations and to stay on topic?

That is not what I am referring to. That's just another tactic of yours to make me look bad. I have never gone off topic, even though this is not a topic I relish because of the reaction.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That's even better, as you could probably refract the light around the corner without the prism even being in the field of view of the camera!

Do you actually think this negates what I'm saying? Okay, so technically LadyShea is not in the camera's view. But her presence permits the refracted light to allow her to be seen, although indirectly. If she leaves the scene altogether, do you think her image will still show up in the mirror?

[LadyShea]

One of the largest and brightest* events in the Universe, is a Gamma Ray Burst**. Gamma rays are on the Electromagnetic Spectrum known as light, but are not within the visible spectrum.

So, it's large, it's bright (in fact the most luminous event known to us, currently), and it can be detected by special instruments.

If we see, as you and Lessans claim "what is there to be seen if it is large enough and bright enough to be seen" we should be able to see gamma ray bursts.

If we see by our eyes detecting visible light only, (afferent model), we should not be able to see gamma ray bursts.

We cannot see gamma ray bursts.


* Bright as in "Emitting or reflecting light readily or in large amounts"

** They are the most luminous electromagnetic events known to occur in the universe. Bursts can last from ten milliseconds to several minutes, although a typical burst lasts 20–40 seconds. The initial burst is usually followed by a longer-lived "afterglow" emitted at longer wavelengths (X-ray, ultraviolet, optical, infrared, micro and radio). Gamma-ray burst - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you actually think this negates what I'm saying? Okay, so technically LadyShea is not in the camera's view. But her presence permits the refracted light to allow her to be seen, although indirectly. If she leaves the scene altogether, do you think her image will still show up in the mirror?

The only thing in the camera's view in the mirror or prism scenario, is the light being reflected off me, which is what our eyes and cameras detect.

If I am not there to have light reflect off me for the eyes and camera to detect, they will detect the reflected light off whatever is there that is not me.

Who here has said any different?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not what I am referring to. That's just another tactic of yours to make me look bad. I have never gone off topic, even though this is not a topic I relish because of the reaction.

We're talking about red shift and photographing light and you are talking about taking a picture of me when I am not there and atmospheric diffusion in space. Either you are off topic purposefully to confuse the discussion, or you are so confused as to not know what the topic is.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

then what do you call the tactics people have used in here to try to embarrass me and make me look like a fool? Huh?

Truth and Honesty.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

One of the largest and brightest* events in the Universe, is a Gamma Ray Burst**. Gamma rays are on the Electromagnetic Spectrum known as light, but are not within the visible spectrum.

So, it's large, it's bright (in fact the most luminous event known to us, currently), and it can be detected by special instruments.

If we see, as you and Lessans claim "what is there to be seen if it is large enough and bright enough to be seen" we should be able to see gamma ray bursts.

If we see by our eyes detecting visible light only, (afferent model), we should not be able to see gamma ray bursts.

We cannot see gamma ray bursts.


* Bright as in "Emitting or reflecting light readily or in large amounts"

** They are the most luminous electromagnetic events known to occur in the universe. Bursts can last from ten milliseconds to several minutes, although a typical burst lasts 20–40 seconds. The initial burst is usually followed by a longer-lived "afterglow" emitted at longer wavelengths (X-ray, ultraviolet, optical, infrared, micro and radio). Gamma-ray burst - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That's not what he meant LadyShea. He is not defying all of science. I didn't know I would have to spell it out in such detail. If a gamma ray burst is not within the visible spectrum, then we would not be able to see it, just like we can't see radiation. Obviously, the word "bright" is not being used in the same context.

[LadyShea]

That's not what he meant LadyShea. He is not defying all of science. I didn't know I would have to spell it out in such detail.

He made enormous claims regarding light and time, that's cosmology for fuck's sake, refuting decades of scientific inquiry in a few unsupported sentences, and you're surprised you would be asked to explain the model in detail? Really?

If a gamma ray burst is not within the visible spectrum, then we would not be able to see it, just like we can't see radiation. Obviously, the word "bright" is not being used in the same context

Why is the visible spectrum even addressed in efferent sight if our eyes are not detecting light when we see?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He is not defying all of science. I didn't know I would have to spell it out in such detail.

Actually, he is defying all of science by pretending his undocumented "astute observations" trump hundreds of years of scientific inquiry. His thoughts on vision alone piss on physics, biology, and astronomy.

[LadyShea]

What did you mean when you said:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We are not seeing the light from that star; but rather the actual star.

Let's take a brown dwarf, in a category which does not emit EM radiation in the visible light spectrum. Do you think we can see the "actual star"?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you actually think this negates what I'm saying? Okay, so technically LadyShea is not in the camera's view. But her presence permits the refracted light to allow her to be seen, although indirectly. If she leaves the scene altogether, do you think her image will still show up in the mirror?

Well, yeah it does rather. Shea is not in the field of view of either the camera or the eye. Efferent sight sees the object, not the light reflected off the object, so it sees nothing. A camera works afferently as it just detects light, so it DOES see Shea.

In reality this - once again! - does not happen.

Or do you think that a prism, hidden around a corner, somehow sucks sight in so the efferent view is the same?

[Vivisectus]

Another fun fact: Peacegirl moved the goalposts, by saying that if she was out of the area entirely, this would change things. But it doesn't have to. We can bounce the light reflected off Shea past a few mirrors, and then use a lens to re-focus it miles away. It would be complex, but it can be done. We could have a camera and an observer standing with their back to Shea, and still make her visible, just by redirecting the light that reflects off her.

How can efferent sight account for that? All that is being manipulated is light, and yet we can see her AND photograph her. We should just be able to photograph her!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The only thing in the camera's view in the mirror or prism scenario, is the light being reflected off me, which is what our eyes and cameras detect.

If I am not there to have light reflect off me for the eyes and camera to detect, they will detect the reflected light off whatever is there that is not me.

Who here has said any different?

It is true that you are detecting the light that is reflecting off whatever is there that is not you, but the camera doesn't know that it's not you. The camera will take a photograph of an image whether it is from refracted light, or reflected light. This is not the same thing as a camera taking a photograph of a person without the person being present.

[Vivisectus]

It is true that you are detecting the light that is reflecting off whatever is there that is not you, but the camera doesn't know that it's not you. The camera will take a photograph of an image whether it is from refracted light, or reflected light. This is not the same thing as a camera taking a photograph of a person without the person being present.

lol the what and the how now?

[Vivisectus]

It is true that you are detecting the light that is reflecting off whatever is there that is not you, but the camera doesn't know that it's not you. The camera will take a photograph of an image whether it is from refracted light, or reflected light. This is not the same thing as a camera taking a photograph of a person without the person being present.

What you just said actually contradicts efferent vision just on its own. But on top of that:

Ok then - we set it up like this: the light reflects off shea, and we then bounce it around on mirrors and lenses to increase the distance the light has to travel. We do this over such a distance that it takes up 5 minutes. It will take a LOT of mirrors and we would have to make sure they are pretty good mirrors so we do not lose too much of the beam.

In the meantime Shea gets up, wanders off, and makes a cup of tea.

By the time the light hits the camera she is not there anymore but guess what? It still records the image as if she was.

[LadyShea]

It is true that you are detecting the light that is reflecting off whatever is there that is not you, but the camera doesn't know that it's not you. The camera will take a photograph of an image whether it is from refracted light, or reflected light. This is not the same thing as a camera taking a photograph of a person without the person being present.

I thought our eyes, and cameras, don't detect light at all?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

What you just said actually contradicts efferent vision just on its own. But on top of that:

Ok then - we set it up like this: the light reflects off shea, and we then bounce it around on mirrors and lenses to increase the distance the light has to travel. We do this over such a distance that it takes up 5 minutes. It will take a LOT of mirrors and we would have to make sure they are pretty good mirrors so we do not lose too much of the beam.

In the meantime Shea gets up, wanders off, and makes a cup of tea.

By the time the light hits the camera she is not there anymore but guess what? It still records the image as if she was.

Can't possably negate efferent vision, it just means Peacegirl will need to invent some more elaborate fiction to make it sound like it could work.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He made enormous claims regarding light and time, that's cosmology for fuck's sake, refuting decades of scientific inquiry in a few unsupported sentences, and you're surprised you would be asked to explain the model in detail? Really?

Why is the visible spectrum even addressed in efferent sight if our eyes are not detecting light when we see?

Obviously we can see light in the visible spectrum if the atmospheric conditions allow, such as rainbows or other phenomena. I never said that our eyes don't detect light.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I am using playground tactics, then what do you call the tactics people have used in here to try to embarrass me and make me look like a fool? Huh?

It is not necessary to try to embarrass you and make you look like a fool. You accomplish that quite effectively all by yourself.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I thought our eyes, and cameras, don't detect light at all?

I can't count how many times I have said that we need light to see. Cameras detect light, but only when the object that is reflecting that light exists in the present. For instance, we cannot see an image of Columbus discovering America because that event does not exist, therefore the light that reflected off of this event can never be seen. If afferent vision were true we could see all kinds of past events as the light reaches us, but this never happens. I wonder why?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

It is not necessary to try to embarrass you and make you look like a fool. You accomplish that quite effectively all by yourself.

Then let's end this conversation.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Another fun fact: Peacegirl moved the goalposts, by saying that if she was out of the area entirely, this would change things. But it doesn't have to. We can bounce the light reflected off Shea past a few mirrors, and then use a lens to re-focus it miles away. It would be complex, but it can be done. We could have a camera and an observer standing with their back to Shea, and still make her visible, just by redirecting the light that reflects off her.

How can efferent sight account for that? All that is being manipulated is light, and yet we can see her AND photograph her. We should just be able to photograph her!

We can manipulate light, that is true, but the object (in this case LadyShea) is present in the here and now. The light is reflecting off of her as we see her image in the mirror, therefore no matter how complex the set up is, the light that is reflected or refracted will allow her image to be seen. But we can't see anything in a mirror no matter how complex the set up is, if there is no object or event that is reflecting that light. Therefore we could never see the actual event of Columbus discovering America from light alone. This is getting stupid.