A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Cameras do decode light because that's what cameras do. Brains, on the other hand, don't decode light. They use light striking the retina, to see objective reality. Cameras are light detectors, as you accurately described. But if efferent vision is valid, then there is no time for the light to travel from the object to the lens which means that a camera is photographing the same exact event that the eyes see.

If cameras are decoding light that is present at the camera and has taken time to arrive at the camera, then the image formed will be a dated one and cannot possibly be real-time.

You still haven't answered my posts questioning what it is that you think interacts with the film to determine the color of the resulting image. If it is the wavelengths of the light at the camera, then you require either the ariving light to magically change in transit to match the real-time properties of the object, or the newly emitted light after a color change must travel faster than light to reach the camera instantaneously, or you have magical action at a distance where the film interacts with light which isn't even there yet.

[LadyShea]

I understand your disagreement, and it seems that this is how it works. If it works the way everyone says, it should be possible to do an experiment where an object is placed a mile away, out of sight of the camera's lens. The experimenter then takes a picture. Shouldn't the photons reflecting off of that object show up on the lens? There are no obstructions to deflect the photons.

"out of sight" in what way?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Which of the multiple photos in this article are the "actual image" of the sun?

I would imagine all of them because of the solar flares.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

"out of sight" in what way?

Where the object is not in the camera's view. The object is too small to be seen at that distance, but it's in the direct line of the lens.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If cameras are decoding light that is present at the camera and has taken time to arrive at the camera, then the image formed will be a dated one and cannot possibly be real-time.

You still haven't answered my posts questioning what it is that you think interacts with the film to determine the color of the resulting image. If it is the wavelengths of the light at the camera, then you require either the ariving light to magically change in transit to match the real-time properties of the object, or the newly emitted light after a color change must travel faster than light to reach the camera instantaneously, or you have magical action at a distance where the film interacts with light which isn't even there yet.

I can see the dilemma, and the only answer I can give is that there is a missing piece. It seems to me that anytime light is drawn into a lens, the image or object has to be present, and I maintain that until someone proves differently. Even in the Deep Hubble Field, the images had to come into the section of the sky where the light was within the field of view of the lens where it could then be magnified.

[LadyShea]

You really don't get it do you? I can't even explain your experiment because you don't have the slightest clue how anything works...how photons disperse from the source, how cameras interact with light, how size and distance interact in optics

Here's a discussion about just one aspect of photography regarding using a telephoto lens About Lenses

But you can ask, "How big a lens do I need to fill the frame with a zebra that is 2 meters high but is standing 50 meters away?" That's because once you know the height and the distance, you effectively know the angular size of the zebra. The same lens that would work for the zebra would also fill the frame for a 4 meter elephant 100 meters away or a 1 meter child who is 25 meters away.

To calculate the angle of the subject, divide the height of the subject by the distance to the subject. For the zebra—elephant, child- example above, that will be 2/50 = 4/100 = 1/25 = .04. This number is, in fact, the tangent of the angle. For small numbers, the tangent of the angle is approximately equal to the angle in radians, so in this example, the angle would be about .04 radians. (If we really take the arctangent to get it exactly, the answer is .03998 radians, so the approximation is very good. For objects nearby, you do need to take the arctangent. If the object is one meter tall and one meter away, the tangent is 1/1 = 1, but the arctangent of 1 is 0.7854—quite a large error.) To convert radians to degrees, multiply by 180/π = 180/3.14159 = 57.2958, so in our zebra example, the angular height of the zebra (and the elephant and the child) is .04*57.2958 = 2.29 degrees.

So, to even mentally set up your experiment, you would need to have the angular size of your subject, understand lenses and exposure and accommodate/correct for that depending on conditions, know what lenses actually exist, etc.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can see the dilemma, and the only answer I can give is that there is a missing piece. It seems to me that anytime light is drawn into a lens, the image or object has to be present, and I maintain that until someone proves differently. Even in the Deep Hubble Field, the images had to come into the section of the sky where the light was within the field of view of the lens where it could then be magnified.

You understand how photons travel away from a source, right? You understand that they can be absorbed, deflected and dispersed right?

Of course the emitting or reflecting object had to exist at the time of emission or reflection for those photons to be traveling away from it.

Your refusal to accept that time is relative is leading you into a brick wall.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can see the dilemma, and the only answer I can give is that there is a missing piece. It seems to me that anytime light is drawn into a lens, the image or object has to be present...

Had to be present. Once upon a time. Not present tense. Past. Light takes a finite time to get places.

This doesn't need to be very complicated.

Two guys stand on hills a great distance apart. Earlier they synchronised their watches.

One person turns on their torch at midnight. They turn it off several seconds later.

Some time after midnight, the other guy on the distant hill sees the torch light. Several seconds after the torch is turned off, the light they see vanishes from the first guy's hill. Note that they still see the light even after the torch has been switched off, and do not see the torch for some time even though the torch has been switched on.

The obvious interpretation is that light takes time to travel from place to place.

This is how the world works, because we've done this experiment.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Had to be present. Once upon a time. Not present tense. Past. Light takes a finite time to get places.

This doesn't need to be very complicated.

Two guys stand on hills a great distance apart. Earlier they synchronised their watches.

One person turns on their torch at midnight. They turn it off several seconds later.

Some time after midnight, the other guy on the distant hill sees the torch light. Several seconds after the torch is turned off, the light they see vanishes from the first guy's hill. Note that they still see the light even after the torch has been switched off, and do not see the torch for some time even though the torch has been switched on.

The obvious interpretation is that light takes time to travel from place to place.

This is how the world works, because we've done this experiment.

So what's so difficult about doing the experiment again, even if it's just to confirm what has already been done? What's the harm?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So what's so difficult about doing the experiment again, even if it's just to confirm what has already been done? What's the harm?

The experiment is done all the time, every day, in hundreds of different ways. The result is always exactly the same: Lessans is wrong.

So sorry!

[LadyShea]

You need to set up the exact experiment, peacegirl. Every aspect of it. Do you remember the inverse square law and understand how it will affect the experiment? Do you know what the angular size is is so you know what size lens you would need? Does such a lens exist? Good telephoto lenses run in the thousands of dollars, who is paying for this experiment and why?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You understand how photons travel away from a source, right? You understand that they can be absorbed, deflected and dispersed right?

Of course the emitting or reflecting object had to exist at the time of emission or reflection for those photons to be traveling away from it.

Your refusal to accept that time is relative is leading you into a brick wall.

You are misunderstanding me. I am not refusing to believe that those photons had to exist at the time of emission or reflection. I am saying that those photons have to be within the field of view of the telescope's lens for an image to show up.

[Vivisectus]

I notice you are conveniently ignoring the red/blue thought experiment.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You need to set up the exact experiment, peacegirl. Every aspect of it. Do you remember the inverse square law and how it will affect the experiment? Do you know what the angular size is is so you know what size lens you would need? Does such a lens exist?

This is not hard to set up. I don't need some special lens. All I would have to do is have someone go far enough that he would be out of direct view of a standard digital or film camera. It would have to be a clear day with no obstructions that could cause the light to be dispersed, absorbed, or deflected. If we are getting the image from the photons bouncing off of this person, it should show up on the lens. If it shows nothing, what does that tell us? I would then tell the person to come into view of the camera's field of view. If one of the pictures shows nothing, and one shows the image of the person, there is a discrepancy that should not be present.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are misunderstanding me. I am not refusing to believe that those photons had to exist at the time of emission or reflection. I am saying that those photons have to be within the field of view of the telescope's lens for an image to show up.

Well yeah duh, for a detector to detect light the light has to interact with the detector meaning there has to be light there to detect. Do you think we've been saying different?

"Field of view" of course varies with size and shape of the detector.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can see the dilemma, and the only answer I can give is that there is a missing piece. It seems to me that anytime light is drawn into a lens, the image or object has to be present, and I maintain that until someone proves differently. Even in the Deep Hubble Field, the images had to come into the section of the sky where the light was within the field of view of the lens where it could then be magnified.

Go back and answer my posts please. This is not good enough. I want you to follow through the implications of your own claims. Otherwise you will never see what you keep asking us to show you - how Lessan's claims are not compatible with known physics.

You keep backing off from the issue and then denying that you can see any fatal problem. The problem is right here in the issue you are presently avoiding. What is it the that interacts with the film in a camera to produce the real-time image? If light, then which properties of the light, where is the light doing this interacting, and how do the properties of that light manage to represent real-time properties of the object?

Go back and answer my previous posts. Instead of falling back on your faith that there must be some solution that will work, follow through the implications of your own position and see for yourself why it will not work.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You really don't get it do you? I can't even explain your experiment because you don't have the slightest clue how anything works...how photons disperse from the source, how cameras interact with light, how size and distance interact in optics

Here's a discussion about just one aspect of photography regarding using a telephoto lens About Lenses

So, to even mentally set up your experiment, you would need to have the angular size of your subject, understand lenses and exposure and accommodate/correct for that depending on conditions, know what lenses actually exist, etc.

To make sure I was doing the experiment correctly, I would even pay a professional photographer to help me. Different shapes and sizes of lens would be used to make sure that all of the important variables were very carefully controlled.

[LadyShea]

So you have thousands of dollars to spend on powerful telephoto lenses?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Well yeah duh, for a detector to detect light the light has to interact with the detector meaning there has to be light there to detect. Do you think we've been saying different?

"Field of view" of course varies with size and shape of the detector.

Of course. The photons broken off from the original event become their own light source. So we're able to detect the photons as a light source unto themselves within the telescope's field of view.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not hard to set up. I don't need some special lens. All I would have to do is have someone go far enough that he would be out of direct view of a standard digital or film camera. It would have to be a clear day with no obstructions that could cause the light to be dispersed, absorbed, or deflected. If we are getting the image from the photons bouncing off of this person, it should show up on the lens. If it shows nothing, what does that tell us? I would then tell the person to come into view of the camera's field of view. If one of the pictures shows nothing, and one shows the image of the person, there is a discrepancy that should not be present.

You have no understanding of how light works or how cameras work. Yes, you would have to have a special lens to enable to camera to collect enough light reflected off the object to decode into an image.

Inverse square law. And subtended angles. And the laws of perspective.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course. The photons broken off from the original event become their own light source. So we're able to detect the photons as a light source unto themselves within the telescope's field of view.

What happened to your insistence that the source object be in present existence and the field of view?

And no, photons are not their own "light source" they are simply traveling light that were emitted from a source.

[ceptimus]

If we had efferent vision, why would anyone need to wear spectacles?

[LadyShea]

You've flip flopped again peacegirl. Now you've let go of your "object or image must be present". The gaps in your knowledge you have been trying to fit Lessans into are getting smaller and smaller, I take it?

That's happens with hardcore apologists sometimes.

[Vivisectus]

I wonder if we will hit the "God created the earth 6000 years ago... but HE created it millions of years old!!! pre-aged, but without history!!" stage anytime soon.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You've flip flopped again peacegirl. Now you've let go of your "object or image must be present". The gaps in your knowledge you have been trying to fit Lessans into are getting smaller and smaller, I take it?

That's happens with hardcore apologists sometimes.

It's a "Lessans of the Gaps" argument. (I'm sure peacegirl won't pick up on the reference).