A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

I'm still waiting for your answers, Peacegirl.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I'm saying if efferent vision is true (which I believe it is), then we would see the distant object in its actual position.

The Moons of Jupiter observation disproves this

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Isn't this the crux of our debate; whether we see the image after light reaches our eyes, or whether we see the image in real time?

Yes, and this is what the Moons of Jupiter observation answers, and that answer is we see the image after light reaches our eyes.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But could we please not discuss this right now because people are going to accuse me of denying the moons of Jupiter experiment.

You are denying it. You just did it again in this very post.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I'm saying if efferent vision is true (which I believe it is), then we would see the distant object in its actual position. Isn't this the crux of our debate; whether we see the image after light reaches our eyes, or whether we see the image in real time?

And yet we don't ...

[peacegirl]

[quote=Dragar;994250]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light has everything to do with what we see, but it's how light works that counts. Everyone is so confused it's no wonder Lessans is considered the crackpot.

What detectors are you talking about? Do you mean cameras, telescopes, eyes, special lenses?

Originally Posted by Dragar

We know how light works. Unless you are now saying we do not. But, I thought you said you didn't have to rewrite known physics for Lessans to be right, peacegirl? You are welcome to correct me or change your stance.

Although this is not about rewriting physics (light works the same way it always has), this knowledge regarding the eyes has a profound affect on our understanding of human nature and our relationship to our world.

[LadyShea]

Why would you want variables we can manipulate-which is subject to bias-when we have perfectly excellent, human-bias free conditions in space? The moons of Jupiter and the Hubble Deep Field images are what they are- regardless of the observer's personal feelings about the subject.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And yet we don't ...

I don't know what's going on with Jupiter's IO. At this point in our discussion it seems to me that this is a distraction. We can always come back to this experiment after we determine whether Lessans' claim has validity. I will not be satisfied until I get an answer to this question. Can an image of an object be detected on a lens without the object being in the field of view of the lens but in a direct line with it? In other words, shouldn't an image of the object (the wavelength) that is now part of the light that is being reflected strike the lens regardless of whether the object is in the camera's field of view, if there is nothing obstructing, deflecting, refracting, or dispersing that light?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What detectors are you talking about? Do you mean cameras, telescopes, eyes, special lenses?

Yes, all of them. And CCDs, and photo-electric diodes, and photographic film, and chemicals that change colour when struck by photons. Anything else you care to mention. We always find that what we see with our eyes matches what the light tells us independently of our eyes. That's not what Lessans says we should find.

Although this is not about rewriting physics (light works the same way it always has), this knowledge regarding the eyes has a profound affect on our understanding of human nature and our relationship to our world.

No. We understand light quite independently from our eyes, and your assertions about how light works that you keep making in order to save this pet theory keep contradicting well known physics.

Also, you dodged; do you need to rewrite well known physics or not? Because most of your answers to obvious disproofs of Lessans seem to rely on changing our understanding of light.

[LadyShea]

I don't know what's going on with Jupiter's IO. At this point in our discussion it seems to me that this is a distraction. We can always come back to that after we can determine whether Lessans' claim has validity.

The Moons of Jupiter observation is not a distraction; it is a direct, repeatable, easily explained, and easily self observed refutation of Lessans claims about real time seeing. Therefore, his claim is invalid.

You don't want to look at it or understand it because you know it is a clear refutation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Can an image of an object be detected [*by a detecting device] without the object being in the field of view of the lens but in a direct line with it?

Yes, see the galaxies in the Hubble Deep Field and Hubble Ultra Deep Field images.





*Replaced "on the lens" which has no meaning

[Dragar]

...shouldn't an image of the object (the wavelength) that is now part of the light be reflected on the lens even if the object is not in the camera's field of view?

Yes, and it is (assuming I understand what you mean by this sentence, as it is constructed out of terms with very well defined meanings that make very little sense in this context). For instance, the image of a distant moon can be taken with a camera, or however else you care to make in image, long after the moon has (in real time) moved behind the planet. We should no longer be able to see it if you are right (the planet is in the way), but we can - because the light takes time to reach us.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know what's going on with Jupiter's IO. At this point in our discussion it seems to me that this is a distraction.

Of course it's a distraction! It's distracting you from your fantasy world and forcing upon you the real world, which is what you can't abide.

We can always come back to this experiment after we determine whether Lessans' claim has validity.

No, no, no, this is how we determine whether his claim has validity: a simple experiment that anyone can perform with the right equipment. We conduct the experiment, compare the results with what Lessans predicted, and discover that Lessans' predictions are false!

It's just as simple as that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why would you want variables we can manipulate-which is subject to bias-when we have perfectly excellent, human-bias free conditions in space? The moons of Jupiter and the Hubble Deep Field images are what they are- regardless of the observer's personal feelings about the subject.

If you believe that this is a correct observation, then any experiment done on Earth should only confirm it, and if it doesn't, we need to rethink what is actually going on. No one has ever contested afferent vision, so there was no need to think about whether the conclusions that were drawn were correct. Whether or not there is bias depends on the type of experiment we're conducting. Working with a camera and testing what we see when we move forward and backward within the camera's field of view does not contain any bias whatsoever. It's very clear cut.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one has ever contested afferent vision, so there was no need to think about whether the conclusions that were drawn were correct.

Bullshit. As been repeatedly pointed out to you, the early experimenters thought that vision was efferent somehow. It was their own experiments which disproved the idea.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you believe that this is a correct observation, then any experiment done on Earth should only confirm it, and if it doesn't, we need to rethink what is actually going on. No one has ever contested afferent vision, so there was no need to think about whether the conclusions that were drawn were correct. Whether or not there is bias depends on the type of experiment we're conducting. Working with a camera and testing what we see when we move forward and backward within the camera's field of view does not contain any bias whatsoever. It's very clear cut.

The time it takes for light to travel the small distance you could travel back and forth on foot (or even with transport) is completely undetectable without extraordinarily good equipment, peacegirl. That's why the first discovery of the speed of light was astronomy; the distances are large enough to make a large effect.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Of course it's a distraction! It's distracting you from your fantasy world and forcing upon you the real world, which is what you can't abide.

No, no, no, this is how we determine whether his claim has validity: a simple experiment that anyone can perform with the right equipment. We conduct the experiment, compare the results with what Lessans predicted, and discover that Lessans' predictions are false!

It's just as simple as that.

You're right, it's just that simple, so why can't we do it? I mean the experiment with the camera. What are you afraid of David? Why are you so threatened by this knowledge?

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will not be satisfied until I get an answer to this question. Can an image of an object be detected on a lens without the object being in the field of view of the lens but in a direct line with it?

Yes. At times, Io will have moved behind Jupiter, so it will not be in the field of view of the lens. Io will still be in line with the lens, but it won't be in the field of view because of being blocked by Jupiter.

However, as we are seeing the light that Io reflected many minutes ago, we will still get an image of it in our camera, or telescope.

So we are able to photograph Io when we know that, in real time, it is behind Jupiter, and therefore would NOT be visible, according to the Lessans model.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

New questions for Peacegirl...

1. What is it that interacts with the film in a camera to determine the color of the resulting image?

2. Where is whatever it is which does this (when it interacts)?

3. Which properties of whatever it is that does this will determine the color of the resulting image?

4. Did the light present at the camera initially travel from the object to get there?

5. Can light travel to the camera without arriving at the camera?

6. Can light travel faster than light?

7. Is wavelength a property of light?

8. Can light travel without any wavelength?

9. Do objects reflect light or does light reflect objects?

10. What does a reflection consist of?

11. What does light consist of?

(Please think carefully about your answers, and ask for clarification if any question is unclear to you.)

2nd bump.

[LadyShea]

Then feel free to explain how we can construct an experiment and create the conditions needed here on Earth, taking into account all the factors found in the field of physics known as OPTICS and correcting for the variables.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Working with a camera and testing what we see when we move forward and backward within the camera's field of view does not contain any bias.

There can be bias in the way the experiment is constructed

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

The time it takes for light to travel the small distance you could travel back and forth on foot (or even with transport) is completely undetectable without specialist equipment, peacegirl. That's why the first discovery of the speed of light was astronomy; the distances are large enough to make a large effect.

That makes absolutely no sense. Taking one step forward and light allowing an image to be seen on a lens, and one step backward out of visual range and it doesn't show up on a lens, tells us something unless we're weaseling.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That makes absolutely no sense. Taking one step forward and light allowing an image to be seen on a lens, and one step backward out of visual range and it doesn't show up on a lens, tells us something unless we're weaseling.

It tells us about optics.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That makes absolutely no sense. Taking one step forward and light allowing an image to be seen on a lens, and one step backward out of visual range and it doesn't show up on a lens, tells us something unless we're weaseling.

Oh, I assumed you had understood something and were just badly articulating an experiment. Actually your experiment makes no sense at all!

Taking 'a step back' doesn't take anything out of 'visual range'. Light doesn't work like that.

We would learn something. Mostly we would learn the point at which the detector needs a longer exposure time to gather enough light from the source to produce the signal level desired.

Why, what do you think we would learn, peacegirl?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right, it's just that simple, so why can't we do it? I mean the experiment with the camera. What are you afraid of David? Why are you so threatened by this knowledge?

Oh, what a zany, dishonest little ditz you are!

We have done it! Did you not read the links repeatedly given to you, to show the results of the experiment?

We've done the experiment! Many times! It shows that Lessans' prediction of real-time seeing is false!

And, as always, you are

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right, it's just that simple, so why can't we do it? I mean the experiment with the camera. What are you afraid of David? Why are you so threatened by this knowledge?

It's been explained to you several times already that we HAVE done the experiment here on Earth.

Light travels really really quick. It would go right around the world seven whole times in one second! So you can't just have two guys with lanterns covering and uncovering them with cloths and trying to time the delay with a stop watch.

What you need is a way of producing very brief flashes of light, and a detector that only remains 'open' for very brief periods. The simplest mechanical ways of doing this, using rotating toothed wheels and rotating multi-faceted mirrors, have already been explained to you.

Nowadays we do the experiments with fast-switching lasers controlled by complex modern electronics.

If you can't understand the moons of Jupiter experiment, or the rotating toothed wheel experiment done here on Earth, then you have little chance of understanding the modern laser-based light speed measuring systems.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then feel free to explain how we can construct and experiment and create the conditions needed here on Earth, taking into account all the factors found in the field of physics known as OPTICS and correcting for the variables.

Actually the only variable is moving forward and backward into visual range or out of visual range. All other factors remain constant such as weather conditions, time of day, type of lens, etc. You're bringing aspects of physics into this experiment that are not relevant. What does OPTICS have to do with anything other what I just mentioned?

[Dragar]

Nm.

[Dragar]

peacegirl, your 'experiment' must be testing something. That means you should expect one outcome if X is true, and one if X is not true.

What is X?

It would also be helpful if we could know why the experiment will produce one outcome if X is true, and another if X is not true.