A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

You are not answering my questions at all, and I don't "get it" because you are not saying anything meaningful or coherent.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

we are seeing this change in real time

Real time where? The star's real time, which is however many light years away (remember a light year denotes distance as well as time), or your real time which is not the same time as the star's?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

unless that event exists in the present

The present where? At the star, which is however many light years away (remember a light year denotes distance as well as time), or the present for the observer which is not the same present as the star's?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Then please explain to me in your own words how cameras work (don't just say they take a picture, describe the mechanism by which they do this) and then explain to me why a camera, which has to wait for the light to travel, does not see something different from the human eye.

I can't take the time to explain in my own words how a camera works, but I will cut and paste a quick run down of the parts of a camera. A camera is a technological advancement that proves light is what a camera detects, otherwise a picture could not develop. A camera doesn't see something different from the human eye because the light is already present in both situations. A camera detects light being reflected off of an object; an eye sees the object directly using that same light as a necessary condition. You seem to think that we would see the object long before the camera is able to detect that same light, therefore a different picture would show up, but that doesn't follow logistically. I hope this satisfies you.

Camera Parts and Functions
A Short Vocabulary List

When using many of the automatic cameras today, many of the features listed below are obsolete. This list is provided for those students who are enthusiasts of the manual camera.

Lens - It draws the light into the camera and focuses it on the film plane.

Shutter - It open and closes to control the length of time light strikes the film. There are two types of shutters: a leaf shutter, located between or just behind the lens elements, and a focal plane shutter, located in front of the film plane.

Shutter Release - The button that releases or "trips" the shutter mechanism.

Film Advance Lever or Knob - It transports the film from one frame to the next on the roll of film.

Aperture - It dilates and contracts to control the diameter of the hole that the light passes though, to let in more or less light. It is controlled by the f-stop ring.

Viewfinder - The "window" through which you look to frame your picture.

Film Rewind Knob - This knob rewinds the film back into the film cassette.

Camera Body - The casing of the camera which holds the encloses the camera pats.

Flash Shoe - This is the point at which the flash or flash cube is mounted or attached.

Self-Timer - This mechanism trips the shutter after a short delay - usually 7 to 10 seconds - allowing everyone to be in the photograph.

Shutter Speed Control - This know controls the length of time the shutter remains open. Typical shutter speeds are measured in fractions of a second, such as: 1/30 1/60 1/125 1/250 1/500 and 1/1000 of a second.

Camera Parts and Functions

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are not answering my questions at all, and I don't "get it" because you are not saying anything meaningful or coherent.

Real time where? The star's real time, which is however many light years away (remember a light year denotes distance as well as time), or your real time which is not the same time as the star's?

If I take a picture of the sun, I am taking a picture of this ball of gas in real time. If I take a picture of a shift in color due to changes in the atmosphere, I would be taking a picture of the light that has traversed a certain distance. But this change in color would still be seen in real time (efferently)

Originally Posted by peacegirl

unless that event exists in the present

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The present where? At the star, which is however many light years away (remember a light year denotes distance as well as time), or the present for the observer which is not the same present as the star's?

You keep talking about lightyears away, and I'm saying that if we see efferently, the entire picture changes. Of significance is how large and how bright that star is at that great distance which then allows us to see the star with the naked eye or with a telescope. This would also mean that by the time a camera is able to take a picture, the light would have already reached us and therefore we would see the same exact image as a camera would. You have to be coming from the premise that the brain does not interpret the image from light itself. Otherwise, what I'm saying won't make any sense.

[Vivisectus]

Ok then- so if someone turns on a hugely powerful flashlight 3 lightyears away, how long before you see it?

And if the person switches off the light, how long before we stop seeing it?

And also, if that person only leaves the flashlight on for 1.5 years, how long do we see it for, and when?

[Vivisectus]

I can't take the time to explain in my own words how a camera works, but I will cut and paste a quick run down of the parts of a camera. A camera is a technological advancement that proves light is what a camera detects, otherwise a picture could not develop. A camera doesn't see something different from the human eye because the light is already present in both situations. A camera detects light being reflected off of an object; an eye sees the object directly using that same light as a necessary condition. You seem to think that we would see the object long before the camera is able to detect that same light, therefore a different picture would show up, but that doesn't follow logistically. I hope this satisfies you.

But then a camera must somehow work efferently too - and it clearly does not. It is a mere light-detector. Even if the light of a star has already reached us, the light that shows us what it going on now is only just beginning its multi-lightyear journey. This follows from the fact that cameras detects light, translate it into little dots on a screen or a piece of paper, which is the image that we see.

So there very much should be a difference between what we see and what we can photograph. But there isn't.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ok then- so if someone turns on a hugely powerful flashlight 3 lightyears away, how long before you see it?

This is where afferent vision and efferent vision clash. You are trying to separate the light source from the light that is being emitted.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And if the person switches off the light, how long before we stop seeing it?

And also, if that person only leaves the flashlight on for 1.5 years, how long do we see it for, and when?

Once again, you are separating the light from its source, so that it appears that a camera and the eye would not see the same thing. Isn't that your reasoning?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

you are separating the light from its source

Of course. Once the light photons leave the source, they are separated from it. Just like If I send you a letter in the mail, the information in that letter is separated from me, the source, by both time and distance.

Do you think that the light is somehow connected to the source? Like a long string tethered to the star?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But then a camera must somehow work efferently too - and it clearly does not. It is a mere light-detector.

I never said cameras are efferent because cameras don't have brains.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Even if the light of a star has already reached us, the light that shows us what it going on now is only just beginning its multi-lightyear journey. This follows from the fact that cameras detects light, translate it into little dots on a screen or a piece of paper, which is the image that we see.

So there very much should be a difference between what we see and what we can photograph. But there isn't.

The dots that would show up on a screen or a piece of paper would be the exact same image that we see if we were looking directly at that same screen. So if the light turned red in route, it would show up as red on a screen, which is exactly what we would see with our eyes.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is where afferent vision and efferent vision clash. You are trying to separate the light source from the light that is being emitted.

Once again, you are separating the light from its source, so that it appears that a camera and the eye would not see the same thing. Isn't that your reasoning?

Ah so we are back with light being dependent on it's source for it's existence? But we already know that light does not work that way, and this has been explained to you. Radar, for starters, depends on light nor working that way. So does Fiberoptic technology.

So can you now please actually answer the question?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course. Once the light photons leave the source, they are separated from it. Just like If I send you a letter in the mail, the information in that letter is separated from me, the source, by both time and distance.

Do you think that the light is somehow connected to the source? Like a long string tethered to the star?

I am saying that without the object that is reflecting the light, or an image emitting the light, we would not be able to produce a picture of the image or object through lightwaves alone. Cameras are light detectors but they focus the lends on the image, they don't focus on the light. You cannot compare the analogy of a letter being sent in the mail --- to the properties of light. Good try though.

[Vivisectus]

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said cameras are efferent because cameras don't have brains.

But you say they give the same result as efferent eyes. This means they must somehow work faster than light, just like efferent eyes - if they did not, then there would be a difference. There is no such difference.

The dots that would show up on a screen or a piece of paper would be the exact same image that we see if we were looking directly at that same screen. So if the light turned red in route, it would show up as red on a screen, which is exactly what we would see with our eyes.

Indeed. And since a camera only detects light and translates that into an image, it should work differently from efferent eyes. But they do not.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am saying that without the object that is reflecting the light, or an image emitting the light, we would not be able to produce a picture of the image or object through lightwaves alone. Cameras are light detectors but they focus the lends on the image, they don't focus on the light. You cannot compare the analogy of a letter being sent in the mail --- to the properties of light. Good try though.

Actually, no. Cameras are designed to detect light and translate that into an image made up of colored dots. Nothing more. Unless you are trying to argue that we somehow designed a whole technology that works radically different by accident, while trying to simply design an accurate light detector?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ah so we are back with light being dependent on it's source for it's existence? But we already know that light does not work that way, and this has been explained to you. Radar, for starters, depends on light nor working that way. So does Fiberoptic technology.

So can you now please actually answer the question?

We're going in circles Vivisectus. We are talking about vision only; how the eyes see. We are not talking about detection of radar. I already said that if light from a laser pen (as an example) would travel and land on a screen, we would see the image on the screen in real time because the light from the light source (the laser) traveled that distance. But the light source would be somewhere close by. The further away the light source would be, the dimmer would be the image on the screen.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We're going in circles Vivisectus. We are talking about vision only. We are not talking about detection of radar. I already said that light from a laser pen (as an example) would travel and land on a screen. We would see the change in color (if there was a change) on the screen in real time because the light traveled that distance. But the light source would be somewhere close by. The further away the light source would be, the dimmer would be the image on the screen.

Wrong again - a radar depends on light NOT being dependent on its source for its existence. It must be off while it waits for the beam of light to return - a beam that it is the source of itself!

Also, that was not my question. Please re-read and have another stab at it.

[LadyShea]

Cameras are light detectors but they focus the lends on the image, they don't focus on the light.

Wrong

You cannot compare the analogy of a letter being sent in the mail --- to the properties of light

Sure I can, because I understand the properties of light

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Actually, no. Cameras are designed to detect light and translate that into an image made up of colored dots. Nothing more. Unless you are trying to argue that we somehow designed a whole technology that works radically different by accident, while trying to simply design an accurate light detector?

Cameras are light detectors; when did I say they aren't?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Cameras are light detectors; when did I say they aren't?

As such they are limited by the speed of light and have to wait for it. Unlike efferent eyes.

[Vivisectus]

I notice you still do not answer the simple question - If I point a powerful laser at earth from 3 lightyears away, how long before you see it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ok then- so if someone turns on a hugely powerful flashlight 3 lightyears away, how long before you see it?

I know you want me to say 3 years.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And if the person switches off the light, how long before we stop seeing it?

I think you want me to say 3 years because that light is already in route.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And also, if that person only leaves the flashlight on for 1.5 years, how long do we see it for, and when?

If we're 3 light years away, it would take another 1.5 years to see it. Am I right?

Now let me answer this way. If we could see an image of the moon shining through a pinhole onto a screen, and the moon was suddenly turned off, the image of the moon would disappear instantly. We are not on the same wavelength (no pun intended) because you are talking about light and I am talking about the light source. There IS no flashlight that could be that powerful to emit light that would travel that far and still be visible. This was an interesting post which will either confuse everyone more (which I suspect), or help to clarify things:

My Question: How far will a light beam travel? If there was an extremely strong light beam that could be seen for miles, where would the light stop? If a flashlight has low batteries, how far will its light beam travel?
Joe's explanation Forever and ever and ever! Each little bit of light travels in a straight line, to the end of the universe. That's why we can see the stars. But I think you meant something else: from how far away can you still see a dim flashlight? Now there are three issues:

*No light beam is perfectly collimated -- that is, to some extent it contains light that is traveling in different directions. Then as you get farther and farther away, the beam is spread out over a larger area, and is correspondingly dimmer. The stars are as bright as the sun, when you are close to them, but very distant stars are hard to see. A laser makes a pretty good beam, but the best laser beam we know how to make is a mile wide by the time it arrives at the moon. A man on the moon would not be able to see it -- it would be too dim.

*If we try to do the experiment on earth, we have to deal with the atmosphere, which is not completely transparent. A little bit of haze (small droplets of water or something), dust, bugs, or even temperature variations in the air can affect the light beam. If the light is being scattered into other directions, it is ruining the collimation. If the light is being absorbed, it's just gone.

*Finally, when we say we can't see the light, what we usually mean is that we see something else. We can't see through fog because it is bright -- it is scattering light into our eyes which blots out the light that is trying to go directly through the fog. The result is that on a foggy day, a distant building can barely be seen -- there is only a slightly different shade of gray against the sky behind it. The gray is the light the fog is sending; the slight extra brightness of the sky is the light that has made it through the fog to show us the scene beyond. This is also why most people can't see the stars at night: they are hidden behind the glow in the sky caused by the lights of the city they live in.

Putting all this together: the brightness of the light source and how well it is collimated are important, but the real answer to your question lies in factors outside the light source. The light beam doesn't stop -- it just gets harder and harder to see, and eventually disappears into the background.

The Question Board -- Light

[Vivisectus]

Nope. You are 3 lightyears away. it would take 3 years for the light to reach the earth. If you left it on for 1.5 years, and then turned it off, you would see the light begin on earth 3 years hence, you would see it for 1.5 years, and then it would wink out, even though the person shining at you stopped doing so ages ago!

The rest of your copy-pasta just deals with obstructions to light, as an attempt at weaseling. Let us assume there are no such obstructions in this case.

Efferent sight would predict that the beam of light would reach us, but we would see nothing, since there is no longer anyone there shining. But since a camera is a simple light-detector, it WOULD see it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

As such they are limited by the speed of light and have to wait for it. Unlike efferent eyes.

That is true but the length of time it takes for the light to get to its destination is calculated differently coming from real time seeing, or efferent vision. This is the crux of the problem.

[LadyShea]

And she's back to recalculating the speed of light

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Nope. You are 3 lightyears away. it would take 3 years for the light to reach the earth. If you left it on for 1.5 years, and then turned it off, you would see the light begin on earth 3 years hence, you would see it for 1.5 years, and then it would wink out, even though the person shining at you stopped doing so ages ago!

The rest of your copy-pasta just deals with obstructions to light, as an attempt at weaseling. Let us assume there are no such obstructions in this case.

I'm not weaseling. I thought it was interesting.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Efferent sight would predict that the beam of light would reach us, but we would see nothing, since there is no longer anyone there shining. But since a camera is a simple light-detector, it WOULD see it.

I still maintain that there has to be a light source or object reflecting that light to be able to develop into a photograph. I realize that this is in complete opposition to present day thinking, but if you're coming from my perspective that would mean that a camera would be able to detect an event from the past when no such event exists. If a camera can detect light (or photons), that's one thing, but to think that the light coming from a past event would show up on film without the actual event being present is completely false and a logical error (if Lessans is correct). I use the word if because saying because Lessans is correct would get a lot of people angry. Maybe I haven't figured this whole thing out to your satisfaction, but you haven't either. Only further testing will confirm or disprove Lessans' claim.

[LadyShea]

Let's take this supernova that is 21 million light years away. The star that was there has long since disappeared from the local time perspective in that part of the universe. There may be a black hole there now.

However it sent out light while it did exist, and that light is just now reaching us, so we here in Earth's present see the supernova that happened 21 million years ago, even though the source star no longer exists.

)))))))))))))))))))))))
_ ))))))))))))))))))))))

The light doesn't cease existing or stop traveling just because the source has stopped emitting

How can you believe in some immeasurable and undetectable "germinal substance" that allows consciousness, which is nothing more than a property of a living brain, to pass on and on through reproduction, but discount that light is a physical measurable thing that travels independently away from it's source?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not weaseling. I thought it was interesting.

I still maintain that there has to be a light source or object reflecting that light to be able to develop into a photograph. I realize that this is in complete opposition to present day thinking, but if you're coming from my perspective that would mean that a camera would be able to detect an event from the past when no such event exists. If a camera can detect light (or photons), that's one thing, but to think that the light coming from a past event would show up on film without the actual event being present is completely false and a logical error (if Lessans is correct). I use the word if because saying because Lessans is correct would get a lot of people angry. Maybe I haven't figured this whole thing out to your satisfaction, but you haven't either. Only further testing will confirm or disprove Lessans' claim.

A camera is a simple light-detector. This means it just registers a beam of light. To say this is not the case is to imply that we somehow magically designed a machine that works totally differently, while trying to design a simple light-detector.

To claim a camera takes pictures in real-time over any distance is to claim it somehow works efferently too. I am sure even you would see this is ridiculous.

If it does not, then there should be a difference in what we detect with it. It really is that simple. Just repeating "No it isn't" does not change reality one bit.

You know you have no explanation for the fact that cameras see the same as we do. You did not have one except "Yeah but if my daddy is right it works like this anyway". Indeed - but we are testing to see if he is right. The result of the test is that he was wrong, plain and simple.