A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

The only dispute is that the partial spectrum gets reflected.

That is a dispute with optics....the spectrum can be measured....you know this right?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That is a dispute with optics....the spectrum can be measured....you know this right?

I don't know why you're not getting this. The spectrum can be measured but the measurement does not negate the claim that the non-absorbed photons are at the eye only when we are looking at the object itself.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know why you're not getting this. The spectrum can be measured but the measurement does not negate the claim that the non-absorbed photons are at the eye only when we are looking at the object itself.

I am not getting it because you are not saying anything that relates to reality, and this statement is not rleated to your original statement which was "The only dispute is that the partial spectrum gets reflected." .

We can measure the spectrum found in reflected light and see that some wavelengths are missing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am not getting it because you are not saying anything that relates to reality, and this statement is not rleated to your original statement which was "The only dispute is that the partial spectrum gets reflected." .

We can measure the spectrum found in reflected light and see that some wavelengths are missing.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/6p7Q6ppY7r4" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Obviously, some wavelengths are missing as this is what gives substance its unique form and character. This in no way negates efferent vision.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously, some wavelengths are missing as this is what gives substance its unique form and character. This in no way negates efferent vision.

So you now agree that the partial spectrum can and does get reflected off objects? This seems to contradict your previous statement "The only dispute is that the partial spectrum gets reflected. "

[LadyShea]

Bump

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It can't what?

Toptica: TOPTICA - HighFinesse High Precision Wavelength Meters

NASA - Sun Primer: Why NASA Scientists Observe the Sun in Different Wavelengths

All light travels and all light has a wavelength. Light can be reflected off objects. What is your actual argument?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So you now agree that the partial spectrum can and does get reflected off objects? This seems to contradict your previous statement "The only dispute is that the partial spectrum gets reflected. "

No, the partial spectrum allows the object to be seen if one is looking in that direction, but this does not prove that the non-absorbed light gets reflected. The theory that the partial spectrum bounces (or is reflected) off of objects which then travels through space/time has not been proven in any conclusive way. No wavelength/frequency will show up as an image without the actual object being present or within optical range.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bump

All light travels and all light has a wavelength. Light can be reflected off objects. What is your actual argument?

I am not debating that the sun has different wavelengths that can teach us a lot about the Sun's surface. Actually, it's fascinating. Thanks for sharing.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, the partial spectrum allows the object to be seen if one is looking in that direction, but this does not prove that the non-absorbed light gets reflected. The theory that the partial spectrum bounces (or is reflected) off of objects which then travels through space/time has not been proven in any conclusive way. No wavelength/frequency will show up as an image without the actual object being present or within optical range.

The measurements were were discussing, that show missing wavelengths, are direct, empirical measurements of reflected light. How could it be any more conclusive than that? I even gave you a video! Nobody "looking" in a direction, just a detector sending information to the computer.

You agreed that these measurements can be taken and that they show missing wavelengths, but you now disagree that they are measuring reflected light?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not debating that the sun has different wavelengths that can teach us a lot about the Sun's surface. Actually, it's fascinating. Thanks for sharing.

So what did you mean when you said "It actually can't", Weasel?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The measurements were were discussing, that show missing wavelengths, are direct, empirical measurements of reflected light. How could it be any more conclusive than that? I even gave you a video! Nobody "looking" in a direction, just a detector sending information to the computer.

You agreed that these measurements can be taken and that they show missing wavelengths, but you now disagree that they are measuring reflected light?

The guy was using an instrument to measure the particular wavelengths coming from a light source which was in the proximity of the table he was sitting at (I believe). This light was then recorded on a computer. This does not prove that non-absorbed light bounces (or is reflected) off of objects and travels through space and time. I appreciate how hard you are trying to figure this out, but this example, although interesting, doesn't prove what you think it does.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So what did you mean when you said "It actually can't", Weasel?

I was saying that without the object present, there will be no wavelength to be measured. All we will get is white light. I've said that all along and never changed my position or waffled. I think we need a break from this discussion. It's very frustrating for both of us.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have the book Maturin. That is my documentation.

Uh huh.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not what he wrote. He never said the eye doesn't need light in order to function. Why are you lying about things he didn't say?

It necessarily follows from the hypothetical. Do you really not see that, or are you just yankin' our lariats?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that IS an explanation because that is what creates the conditions that allow us to see the material world in real time.

No, it isn't. You're essentially saying, "Efferent vision makes sense because of efferent vision." That "explanation" is 100% information-free and thus has no explanatory value at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I had said we see in real time without the explanation of efferent vision, then it wouldn't make sense because of the retina being 96 million miles away.

So instead you say, "We see in real time because of efferent vision." That really makes sense to you, or it this just more lariat yankin'?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's her problem. I am honest. In order for me to produce the documentation (which I shouldn't have to do) I would have to scan that page and upload it. I don't have a scanner but I could ask my son later to help me. I think he has a scanner but I'm not sure.

Don't trouble yourself.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was saying that without the object present, there will be no wavelength to be measured. All we will get is white light. I've said that all along and never changed my position or waffled. I think we need a break from this discussion. It's very frustrating for both of us.

Nothing was mentioned about an object. Quit moving the goalposts.

I said"There is no argument as to whether light reflects, and travels with a wavelength. It does. It can be directly observed and measured."

You said "It actually can't"

What were you referring to? What actually can't what? Stop weaseling and waffling.

These were my claims:
1. Light reflects
2. Light travels with a wavelength
3. Light's wavelength can be measured

Do you agree or disagree with each claim?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by davidm

Everyone quite properly will proceed as they wish, but I recommend that everyone cut off, cold turkey, the cocaine of attention that she craves.

That's sage advice. I'm gonna have another go at getting clear of this train wreck. As Doctor X noted back when this thread was but two months old, "there exists no further point to this thread other than occasionally whacking at an idiot and laughing when it squeals," which is "[n]ot the diversion of Gentlemen."

I've tried to break away before, but ...

show spoiler

Time to try again. Wish me luck guys!

Happy trails, peacegirl. Here's wishing you health, happiness and success in your future endeavors. Take good care of those doggies.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The guy was using an instrument to measure the particular wavelengths coming from a light source which was in the proximity of the table he was sitting at (I believe).

No, he was putting different paint chips in the instruments "field of view", and the instrument itself shines white light on whatever is there, then measures the parts of spectrum it reflects. They set the baseline, total reflection, using a pure white disc and showed it on the computer.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have the book Maturin. That is my documentation.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Uh huh.

What do you mean by that?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not true.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Well, that's what he wrote.

That is not what he wrote. He never said the eye doesn't need light in order to function. Why are you lying about things he didn't say?

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

It necessarily follows from the hypothetical. Do you really not see that, or are you just yankin' our lariats?

Only if you are coming from the stance that the eyes are a sense organ, which is what is being disputed. That's why Davidn went so ballistic. None of you seem to be able to envision what he is even talking about.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it isn't. You're essentially saying, "Efferent vision makes sense because of efferent vision." That "explanation" is 100% information-free and thus has no explanatory value at all.

I have explained how this concept would allow real time vision to take place. Whether you agree or not is up to you. You can accept it or reject it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I had said we see in real time without the explanation of efferent vision, then it wouldn't make sense because of the retina being 96 million miles away.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

So instead you say, "We see in real time because of efferent vision." That really makes sense to you, or is this just more lariat yankin'?

But that's true. If Lessans is right about how the brain works and eyes work, being able to see in real time would not violate the laws of physics.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's her problem. I am honest. In order for me to produce the documentation (which I shouldn't have to do) I would have to scan that page and upload it. I don't have a scanner but I could ask my son later to help me. I think he has a scanner but I'm not sure.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Don't trouble yourself.

Why not? You think I'm a liar so wouldn't that clear things up?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, he was putting different paint chips in the instruments "field of view", and the instrument itself shines white light on whatever is there, then measures the parts of spectrum it reflects. They set the baseline, total reflection, using a pure white disc and showed it on the computer.

Thanks for explaining it. If they remove the paint chip, there will be no partial spectrum to measure since the light is not being reflected. All this means is that the light is not bouncing off of the paint chip and traveling through space/time forever and ever. The object (the paint chip in this example) is within optical range of the instrument which allows the guy to observe the measurements being taken. Take the paint chip away from the instrument's field of view and all you will get is white light. The instrument is just measuring and computing the results on a monitor.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thanks for explaining it.

So, do you stand by your claim that we cannot conclusively demonstrate that partial spectrum light gets reflected, seeing as how we can use instruments to directly and empirically measure a partial spectrum from reflected light?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nothing was mentioned about an object. Quit moving the goalposts.

No LadyShea, the paint chip IS the object being measured. It is a piece of matter, and all matter works in the same way.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I said"There is no argument as to whether light reflects, and travels with a wavelength. It does. It can be directly observed and measured."

Your example does not prove that.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You said "It actually can't"

What were you referring to? What actually can't what? Stop weaseling and waffling.

It does not prove that light gets reflected (i.e., bounces and travels). It just measures which part of the light spectrum is present, and records it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

These were my claims:

1. Light reflects:

The full spectrum of light travels through space/time

2. Light travels with a wavelength:

Only white light

3. Light's wavelength can be measured:

As long as the object is in view, we can easily measure the partial spectrum on a mirror, a telescope, a camera, or the eye.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If they remove the paint chip, there will be no partial spectrum to measure since the light is not being reflected.

Correct.

All this means is that the light is not bouncing off of the paint chip and traveling through space/time forever and ever.

Um, of course not with this instrument. It is a closed box so all the reflected light is absorbed by the sensor or the black sides of the box, which are just a few centimeters away from the item. Light that has been absorbed is no longer traveling as it is no longer light. Which you've been told.

The object (the paint chip in this example) is within optical range of the instrument which allows the guy to observe the measurements being taken. Take the paint chip away from the instrument's field of view and all you will get is white light.

Again, correct, because the instrument uses white light as the source in a closed system and a sensor to measure the reflection...which it does by absorption.

Do you stand by your claim that partial spectrum light does not get reflected?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, do you stand by your claim that we cannot conclusively demonstrate that partial spectrum light gets reflected, seeing as how we can use instruments to directly and empirically measure a partial spectrum from reflected light?

You keep calling it reflected light. How do you know that the partial spectrum light is reflected when the paint chip is taken out? That's what you are saying.

[LadyShea]

Bold=LadyShea
Standard=peacegirl

1. Light reflects: Light travels

Does light not reflect off anything? How about a mirror?

2. Light travels with a wavelength: No, the full spectrum travels

The full spectrum is light with wavelengths traveling, so what do you mean "No"?

3. Light's wavelength can be measured: As long as the object is in view, we can easily measure the partial spectrum on a mirror, a telescope, a camera, or the eye.

So yes, we can measure the wavelengths of light.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep calling it reflected light. How do you know that the partial spectrum light is reflected when the paint chip is taken out? That's what you are saying.

I am not saying anything of the sort! The baseline of the instrument is a pure white disc with total reflection (all wavelengths), the partial spectrum is reflected when a surface that absorbs part of the spectrum is put under it, rather than a totally reflective surface.

Do you not even understand that simple demo? How about this one using Gummy Bears, if you can't understand it you are very subnormal intelligence wise.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If they remove the paint chip, there will be no partial spectrum to measure since the light is not being reflected.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Correct.

All this means is that the light is not bouncing off of the paint chip and traveling through space/time forever and ever.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Um, of course not with this instrument. It is a closed box so all the reflected light is absorbed by the sensor or the black sides of the box, which are just a few centimeters away from the item. Light that has been absorbed is no longer traveling as it is no longer light. Which you've been told.

So the light has converted to another form of energy. Okay, but if it wasn't a closed system, it is your belief that this "reflected" light, this partial spectrum would travel forever and ever, unless it struck another object, right?

The object (the paint chip in this example) is within optical range of the instrument which allows the guy to observe the measurements being taken. Take the paint chip away from the instrument's field of view and all you will get is white light.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Again, correct, because the instrument uses white light as the source in a closed system and a sensor to measure the reflection...which it does by absorption.

All I am saying is that the partial spectrum (the part of the spectrum that is believed to get reflected and travel through space/time (long after the object from which it bounced is gone) where it strikes the eye and is interpreted as an image, has not been proven conclusively.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Do you stand by your claim that partial spectrum light does not get reflected?

Yes I do.