A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

So does only white light have a wavelength, or does white light not have its own wavelength? It's as if you have no idea what you're talking about!

White light is a mixture of colors, so it has no particular wavelength.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

White light is a mixture of colors, so it has no particular wavelength.

So how is it that only white light travels with a wavelength if it doesn't have a wavelength? Does light cease traveling if one of the wavelengths gets absorbed, such as through a colored filter? If so, how does colored light (hence not white light) travel at all such as from a colored flashlight or laser?


Three colored spotlights - red, green and blue - illuminate a white screen. A hand is placed between the screen and the lights, thus casting overlapping shadows on the screen. From left to right, you will observe a yellow, magenta and cyan shadow. The yellow shadow is produced by the blocking of the blue light; the red and green lights converge to produce yellow. The magenta shadow is produced by the blocking of the green light; red and blue lights converge to produce magenta. And finally, the cyan shadow is produced by the blocking of the red light; blue and green light converge to produce the cyan. The colors red and blue are produced where the shadows overlap. The photo demonstrates principles of color subtraction and color addition.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

White light is a mixture of colors, so it has no particular wavelength.

So why did you claim that only white light travels with a wavelength?

You have no idea what you are saying, do you?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You still aren't getting it Spacemonkey. In the previous example, if you take away the color in front of the white paint chip, the image disappears but the light is still there. It is still traveling. In the efferent account, the object is revealed by the particular wavelengths it absorbs. We are able to see the object when we are looking in that direction. Distance becomes irrelevant because all that is necessary is for the object to be within optical range no matter how distant the object is, if it is large enough and bright enough to be seen. As long as you refuse to think in reverse, you will not understand this account.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You keep using the word 'there' without explaining what location you are referring to. You also say it is traveling, but you don't tell us in what direction it is traveling. So this is still a complete non-answer. Reality and simple observation tells us that when light hits an object, the part of that light which is not absorbed bounces off that object and travels away from it. What do you think happens instead? Where will the non-absorbed light be a moment after hitting the object, and in what direction will it be moving?

I don't want to go back to this discussion again. This isn't even how he came to his understanding regarding sight. You are trying to prove him wrong by saying that the "simple" observation that you believe is obviously correct (because it appears that way) cancels his observation out because the mechanism as to how this occurs doesn't fit into the framework of what you believe is happening.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So why did you claim that only white light travels with a wavelength?

You have no idea what you are saying, do you?

White light contains all of the wavelengths of the visible spectrum.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

White light contains all of the wavelengths of the visible spectrum.

So why did you say only white light travels with a wavelength?

[LadyShea]

[LadyShea]

bump

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The problem you have is with the physical location of light photons at any given time during the process of seeing. You (not Lessans) have light photons located both at the Sun and at the retina/film on Earth at the same time* in Lessans scenario of the Sun being turned on at noon.

Nothing about images arriving.


*This is two locations at once, right? So how do you reconcile that with your assertion

As long as you keep talking about light "being there" (at the retina/film), without a physical mechanism accounting for how it is there, then you are talking about magic and violating the laws of physics.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Because you continue to lie and when in caught out in a lie you try to rationalize and justify it rather than confess and repent. You are, in short, a consistent and unrepentent liar.

Wow! it seems like I've missed a lot, but this looks like a good place to jump in.

So far as I know, no-one on this forum is God or Jesus Christ (though I might get challenged on that), so whether they forgive you is rather a moot point. The other factor, as pointed out by Angakuk, is the part about repentance. You, Peacegirl have not admitted to lying till it was pushed in your face, and then you still tried to deny that it was a lie. So it seems to me that your lie still stands since you are totally unrepentant.

And since none of us are God or Jesus Christ we are not under the same obligation to forgive you, we just run the risk of not being forgiven ourselves. and even if we do forgive you, we are not obliged to forget, and not hold you accountable for the lie. So when are you going to make confession so we can move on?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't want to go back to this discussion again. This isn't even how he came to his understanding regarding sight. You are trying to prove him wrong by saying that the "simple" observation that you believe is obviously correct (because it appears that way) cancels his observation out because the mechanism as to how this occurs doesn't fit into the framework of what you believe is happening.

I'm simply asking you to explain your bizarre claim that non-absorbed light isn't reflected off objects.

You really do say the most absurd things.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Let's try this another way, Peacegirl. Let's start by assuming that the photons at the film/retina came from the Sun.

Assumption #1: The photons at the film/retina came from the Sun.

Now lets define traveling and teleporting. Traveling is getting from A to B by passing through all intervening points. Teleporting is getting from A to B without passing through all intervening points. Clearly these are jointly exhaustive - if you get from A to B you must do so either by passing through the intervening points or by not passing through them. So...

Conclusion #1: If the photons came from the Sun then they either traveled there or teleported there.

Now you insist that they neither traveled there nor teleported, so we can conclude via modus tollens (If A then B, not B, therefore not A) that these photons cannot have come from the Sun.

Assumption #2: The photons at the film/retina did not travel or teleport there.

Conclusion #2: The photons at the film/retina did not come from the Sun.

So now the million-dollar question: Where the fuck did these photons come from? We can note also that the exact same reasoning as above will still apply for any location other than the Sun - as long as the photons are getting from A to B, they have to either travel there or teleport there - so we can know that...

Conclusion #3: The photons at the film/retina did not get there from anywhere else.

That leaves two remaining possibilities: (i) These photons were always there, i.e. sitting stationary at the film/retina surface; or (ii) They did not previously exist, and instead came into existence at the film/retina. But of course neither of these are plausible either, as photons cannot be stationary, and they do not pop into existence in our eyes or on film. But unless you accept one of these options we are forced to conclude that...

Conclusion #4: Assumption #2 was bollocks.

Basically, what we have proven is that you have only four options for the photons at the film/retina:

(i) Traveling photons.
(ii) Teleporting photons.
(iii) Stationary photons.
(iv) Newly existing photons.

So which is it going to be? (Remember, weaseling and fake-conceding are not honest responses.)

Bump.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

White light is a mixture of colors, so it has no particular wavelength.

So why did you say only white light travels with a wavelength?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So why did you claim that only white light travels with a wavelength?

You have no idea what you are saying, do you?

I really see your dilemma, but you are refusing to consider why the eyes change everything. Light does travel, there is no contesting this, but the fact that light disperses shows us that the image (the non-absorbed light) does not continue on indefinitely. Optics still works. Do you understand this, or do you not? So much unnecessary contention begins with a belief in mind that becomes untouchable: a sacred cow. My question to you is: If you know Lessans is wrong why do you continue to argue with me? To save the world from someone who is a fraud? To make yourself the winner? I don't get you at all Spacemonkey because you would never admit that you are trying to figure out whether Lessans could be right. I do appreciate your determination to find out. I give you that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

So why did you say only white light travels with a wavelength?

Because I don't always verbalize what I mean since this is new to me. You have to remember that Lessans did not come to his conclusions through cosmology. This is difficult to accept, granted, but I hope you don't give up on him.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm simply asking you to explain your bizarre claim that non-absorbed light isn't reflected off objects.

You really do say the most absurd things.

Okay, tell me what happens with dispersed light? I have now become your student. If light is dispersed to the point that there are no photons on the retina, how can we get an image?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I really see your dilemma, but you are refusing to consider why the eyes change everything. Light does travel, there is no contesting this, but the fact that light disperses shows us that the image (the non-absorbed light) does not continue on indefinitely. Optics still works. Do you understand this, or do you not? So much unnecessary contention begins with a belief in mind that becomes untouchable: a sacred cow. My question to you is: If you know Lessans is wrong why do you continue to argue with me? To save the world from someone who is a fraud? To make yourself the winner? I don't get you at all Spacemonkey because you would never admit that you are trying to figure out whether Lessans could be right. I do appreciate your determination to find out. I give you that.

You're waffling off-topic again. My only dilemma is that you never answer what is asked.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Okay, tell me what happens with dispersed light? I have now become your student. If light is dispersed to the point that there are no photons on the retina, how can we get an image?

If there are no photons on the retina you don't get an image. Why are you changing topics to dispersion? You still haven't told me what happens to the non-absorbed light yet. Can't we try dealing with one confusion at a time? You're all over the place here.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Let's try this another way, Peacegirl. Let's start by assuming that the photons at the film/retina came from the Sun.

Assumption #1: The photons at the film/retina came from the Sun.

Now lets define traveling and teleporting. Traveling is getting from A to B by passing through all intervening points. Teleporting is getting from A to B without passing through all intervening points. Clearly these are jointly exhaustive - if you get from A to B you must do so either by passing through the intervening points or by not passing through them. So...

Conclusion #1: If the photons came from the Sun then they either traveled there or teleported there.

Now you insist that they neither traveled there nor teleported, so we can conclude via modus tollens (If A then B, not B, therefore not A) that these photons cannot have come from the Sun.

Assumption #2: The photons at the film/retina did not travel or teleport there.

Conclusion #2: The photons at the film/retina did not come from the Sun.

So now the million-dollar question: Where the fuck did these photons come from? We can note also that the exact same reasoning as above will still apply for any location other than the Sun - as long as the photons are getting from A to B, they have to either travel there or teleport there - so we can know that...

Conclusion #3: The photons at the film/retina did not get there from anywhere else.

That leaves two remaining possibilities: (i) These photons were always there, i.e. sitting stationary at the film/retina surface; or (ii) They did not previously exist, and instead came into existence at the film/retina. But of course neither of these are plausible either, as photons cannot be stationary, and they do not pop into existence in our eyes or on film. But unless you accept one of these options we are forced to conclude that...

Conclusion #4: Assumption #2 was bollocks.

Basically, what we have proven is that you have only four options for the photons at the film/retina:

(i) Traveling photons.
(ii) Teleporting photons.
(iii) Stationary photons.
(iv) Newly existing photons.

So which is it going to be? (Remember, weaseling and fake-conceding are not honest responses.)

How about a reply to this post, Peacegirl?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I really see your dilemma, but you are refusing to consider why the eyes change everything. Light does travel, there is no contesting this, but the fact that light disperses shows us that the image (the non-absorbed light) does not continue on indefinitely.

Non-absorbed light is not an image. Reflected light is light. Light travels until and unless it is absorbed and then is no longer light.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because I don't always verbalize what I mean since this is new to me.

So what did you mean if not what you said?

And this is not new to you, we've discussed it for years.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

bump

Incorrect. As I have said many times, light travels, but if our eyes see efferently, the requirements for sight are 180 degrees opposite than what was once thought. It works backwards. What it does is puts our eyes in optical range instantly but it does not change the angle of reflection or the angle of incidence. Nothing at all changes in optics. What allows this instant sight is the way the brain and eyes work. I am frustrated because all Spacemonkey does is make it appear that I am changing the properties of light for this model to work, which I'm not doing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Non-absorbed light is not an image. Reflected light is light. Light travels until and unless it is absorbed and then is no longer light.

Non-absorbed light is what allows the brain (according to present day theory) to interpret the image. Do you not agree with that? You keep creating a strawman.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are completely wrong LadyShea. As I have said many times, light travels, but if our eyes see efferently, the requirements for sight are 180 degrees opposite than what was thought. It works backwards. What it does is puts our eyes in optical range instantly but it does not change the angle of reflection or the angle of incidence. Nothing at all changes in optics. What allows this instant sight is the way the brain sees through the eyes, which everyone is dismissing. That's why I am frustrated because all Spacemonkey does is make it appear that I am changing the properties of light for this model to work, which I'm not doing.

Yet again, you have completely avoided addressing the issue which is the location of light photons when we are seeing the Sun that was turned on at noon.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As I have said many times, light travels...

Did the light at the film/retina travel to get there? Does non-absorbed light travel away from an object after hitting it?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What it does is puts our eyes in optical range instantly but it does not change the angle of reflection or the angle of incidence.

How can the angle of reflection not change if the non-absorbed light isn't even reflected? What does the angle measure?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What allows this instant sight is the way the brain sees through the eyes, which everyone is dismissing.

That doesn't get you out of the problem, because you say that cameras somehow achieve the same result without any brain looking through any eyes.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why I am frustrated because all Spacemonkey does is make it appear that I am changing the properties of light for this model to work, which I'm not doing.

But you are. You just don't realize it (or are too dishonest to care) because you have no idea what you are saying when you type your replies. It is a property of light that it cannot be anywhere without traveling there or coming into existence there. It is a property of light that it will bounce off and travel away from opaque objects when not absorbed. It is a property of light that it always travels with a wavelength. It is a property of light that it cannot transform itself from partial to full spectrum. You have routinely and repeatedly denied all of these things.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Non-absorbed light is what allows the brain (according to present day theory) to interpret the image. Do you not agree with that? You keep creating a strawman.

The strawman is your "non-absorbed light"- because you quite bizarrely refuse to use the correct term which is reflected- and your non traveling light and traveling images.

Light travels unless and until it is absorbed. Light is absorbed by and stimulates the receptors in our eyes and our brain creates images using this information. That is what I will agree to.