A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by davidm

But he also then said we would have to wait eight and a half minutes for the photons to arrive on the earth in order for us to see our neighbor standing next to us. It follows from this that if the neighbor is holding a camera, of logical necessity it must also be the case that it would take eight and a half minutes for the photons to reach the film.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's true. I am not arguing with this. Time and distance do matter in terms of light traveling eight and a half minutes to reach the film

You argue with it every time you say light photons are instantly at the film! You are contradicting yourself!

A camera cannot record any image unless it has light photons on the camera film or sensor. If it takes 8 1/2 minutes to get there, then it would take 8/12 minutes to take a picture of the newly turned on Sun. Even if we could see it with our window eyes, we could not see each other NOR could we take a picture of the Sun.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You argue with it every time you say light photons are instantly at the film! You are contradicting yourself!

Actually I'm not if you begin with the premise that the object must be in view. You are stuck on the idea that what we see is coming from light ONLY.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

A camera cannot record any image unless it has light photons on the camera film or sensor. If it takes 8 1/2 minutes to get there, then it would take 8/12 minutes to take a picture of the newly turned on Sun. Even if we could see it with our window eyes, we could not see each other NOR could we take a picture of the Sun.

That is where you are confused. We would see the object because the conditions of this account of vision does not require travel time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You argue with it every time you say light photons are instantly at the film! You are contradicting yourself!

A camera cannot record any image unless it has light photons on the camera film or sensor. If it takes 8 1/2 minutes to get there, then it would take 8/12 minutes to take a picture of the newly turned on Sun. Even if we could see it with our window eyes, we could not see each other NOR could we take a picture of the Sun.

You are offering the afferent position which is what is being disputed. Do you not get this? You cannot offer as proof what is being contested. This is why I say that you continually go right back to your basic premise (which is not proof) of what is actually happening and will dismiss anything that disputes this theory. The proposed account of efferent vision does not in any way violate the laws of physics, yet you can't see it because you believe the image is in the light, which YOU BELIEVE is all that is necessary to prove your case. We all know nonabsorbed photons ARE AT THE RETINA OR FILM, but there is much confusion as to how this occurs. I don't know if I will ever be able to convince people that this observation does not discredit Lessans' observation of real time seeing.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is where you are confused. We would see the object because the conditions of this account of vision does not require travel time.

Light that gets from the Sun to the retina or film 90 million miles away without any travel time is teleporting light.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is the afferent position you are offering. This is exactly why I say that you go right back to your understanding (which is not proof) of what is actually happening. This understanding does not in any way violate anything, yet you can't see it because you believe the image is in the light, which is all that is necessary. We all know nonabsorbed photons are involved, but there is so much confusion as to how this occurs I don't know if I will ever get through to people that this observation does not discredit Lessans' observation of real time seeing.

You're not confused. You're just dishonest. Cameras cannot take pictures without light in contact with the film, and light cannot be somewhere before it gets there. You know these points to be true, yet you go on claiming otherwise knowing full well you are spouting nonsense. You father would not be impressed. I doubt he ever would have wanted you to lie for him like this.

[peacegirl]

dupe

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're not confused. You're just dishonest. Cameras cannot take pictures without light in contact with the film, and light cannot be somewhere before it gets there. You know these points to be true, yet you go on claiming otherwise knowing full well you are spouting nonsense. You father would not be impressed. I doubt he ever would have wanted you to lie for him like this.

No, I am not dishonest. I am speaking from what I have learned to be true. Dishonesty is an intention to deceive. I am doing no such thing.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I am not dishonest. I am speaking from what I have learned to be true. Dishonesty is an intention to deceive. I am doing no such thing.

That's exactly what you are attempting. It's just not working.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually I'm not if you begin with the premise that the object must be in view.

In Lessans scenario the Sun is "in view" meaning people on Earth can see it, but there are no photons on Earth yet, again according to Lessans himself.

No photons located in the same place as the camera = no photographs, because of how cameras actually work. Cameras don't work any other way.

You are stuck on the idea that what we see is coming from light ONLY.

I am "stuck" on the fact that a camera cannot record a photographic image without photons being located on the film or sensor and for photons to be somewhere, they have to travel there, as even Lessans said.

We would see the object because the conditions of this account of vision does not require travel time.

"The object" in this scenario is the Sun and the time is noon and the Sun was just turned on. I said even if we could see it as Lessans stated, we could not photograph it.

[Dragar]

peacegirl, if photons are so irrelevant to your silly ideas about how vision works, why do you have no explanations for mirrors, or lenses, or red-shifts, that doesn't involve light?

I think the problem is you know that lots of things (all things!) about vision are explained by optics, and you are desperately trying to keep photons around in your theory even while trying to sell us your daft ideas about vision being instant.

And because you can't get rid of that pesky light, Spacemonkey has you trapped in your own inconsistent account that you refuse to even respond to.

(These were all Astute Observations, by the way.)

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

you believe the image is in the light

No, I don't.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We all know nonabsorbed photons ARE AT THE RETINA OR FILM

Non-absorbed (reflected) photons are not involved at all in Lessnas "Sun turned on at noon" scenario. We are only talking about photons newly emitted from the newly ignited Sun in this case. They cannot be at the film until they arrive at the film after traveling 93 million miles from the Sun. They are the same photons Lessans said would allow us to see our neighbor standing next to us. They are required for photography.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

but there is much confusion as to how this occurs

There is no confusion. Light must travel to a location or be created at that location in order to be "at" that location, according to physics.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know if I will ever be able to convince people that this observation does not discredit Lessans' observation of real time seeing.

You won't be able to convince anyone unless you can actually explain Lessans account without invoking impossibilities. Every time you say photons are located "at the film" but didn't travel there, you are stating an impossibility according to the laws of physics.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually I'm not if you begin with the premise that the object must be in view. You are stuck on the idea that what we see is coming from light ONLY.

This premise is faulty, if it includes the stipulation that the object must be in view at the time of vision. The object must have been in view, when the photons reflected from that object, started toward us, after that the object is no longer necessary.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is where you are confused. We would see the object because the conditions of this account of vision does not require travel time.

This is where you and Lessans are confused, we do not "see the object", we see the light that has been reflected from that object. There is no physical way for the retina to be in direct physical contact with the object, only the light from that object.

[Cynthia of Syracuse]

Talking to Janis about the real world- it's deja vu all over again

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Keep making fun of me David. You are doing exactly what your nature (no free will) is directing you to do so I am really not angry, just frustrated. I get that it's just too hard for you to accept that science may have gotten it wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually I'm not if you begin with the premise that the object must be in view.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In Lessans scenario the Sun is "in view" meaning people on Earth can see it, but there are no photons on Earth yet, again according to Lessans himself.

No photons located in the same place as the camera = no photographs, because of how cameras actually work. Cameras don't work any other way.

You are stuck on the idea that what we see is coming from light ONLY.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am "stuck" on the fact that a camera cannot record a photographic image without photons being located on the film or sensor and for photons to be somewhere, they have to travel there, as even Lessans said.

If you follow the reasoning, you will understand the the light IS at the film or sensor if the object (or substance) meets the conditions of size and brightness. Consequently if the object is within view of the lens, it is automatically within optical range. There is no waiting or delay. I don't know how else to explain it.

We would see the object because the conditions of this account of vision does not require travel time.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

"The object" in this scenario is the Sun and the time is noon and the Sun was just turned on. I said even if we could see it as Lessans stated, we could not photograph it.

Not true because the principle that works for the eyes also works for photographs.

[thedoc]

[quote=peacegirl;1190880]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you follow the reasoning, you will understand the the light IS at the film or sensor if the object (or substance) meets the conditions of size and brightness. Consequently if the object is within view of the lens, it is automatically within optical range. There is no waiting or delay. I don't know how else to explain it.

Not true because the principle that works for the eyes also works for photographs.

What is that "Principle", you and Lessans have stated conditions but have proposed no mechanism that would account for vision due to the presence of, or lack of, photons at the film or retina.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I get that it's just too hard for you to accept that science may have gotten it wrong.

You've given no-one any reason to think that science has gotten it wrong, and you've shown only that YOU are unable to accept that your father has gotten it wrong.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you follow the reasoning, you will understand the the light IS at the film or sensor if the object (or substance) meets the conditions of size and brightness.

There is no reasoning to follow. You still have no idea where the light you need at the film/retina could have come from or how it could have gotten there. All you can do is state conditions, which isn't any kind of explanation at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not true because the principle that works for the eyes also works for photographs.

But you still have no idea at all of how either could work in real-time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Light that gets from the Sun to the retina or film 90 million miles away without any travel time is teleporting light.

No it is not. Optics still works, but the fact that the object must in view changes the idea that photons are the only thing that is necessary in sight or photography. Why can't you at the very least try to understand the basic reasoning here? You aren't even trying. All you are doing is trying to show how wrong Lessans was, therefore it will not allow to grasp the reason why he came to this conclusion, nor will it allow you to follow why it does not violate any laws of physics, so we're at a standstill.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

photons are the only thing that is necessary in sight or photography

They aren't the only thing necessary for photography...the photosensitive material that interacts with the photons is equally necessary for image creation. But, they are necessary. And light does have a set of properties that you are still denying and follows a set of laws your account is still violating.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you follow the reasoning, you will understand the the light IS at the film or sensor if the object (or substance) meets the conditions of size and brightness.

Okay, for arguments sake so you can move on, I concede this. You still need to answer the question of how the light is at the film/sensor rather than just asserting it is so.

If it is light, it had to be emitted from somewhere and traveled to it's location...anything else is a violation of the laws of physics and the principles of optics.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not true because the principle that works for the eyes also works for photographs.

So you are saying that a "principle" changes the properties of light and laws of physics to allow light to be somewhere it hasn't traveled to? Really?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

nor will it allow you to follow why it does not violate any laws of physics

Your statements demonstrate that the efferent model of photography very clearly does violate them.

You keep saying optical range and "in view of the lens" as if this explains the physical location of photons. It doesn't.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it is not.

Of course it is! If the light has got from one place to another place in zero time and without traveling, then it has teleported - because that is exactly what the term 'teleport' means.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why can't you at the very least try to understand the basic reasoning here? You aren't even trying.

Projection. You're the one not even trying here. You're at a standstill because you lie and weasel instead of honestly addressing people's posts.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why can't you at the very least try to understand the basic reasoning here? You aren't even trying.

You really are the world's most blatant hypocrite. Have you even tried to understand the basic reasoning here:

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.)

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You argue with it every time you say light photons are instantly at the film! You are contradicting yourself!

A camera cannot record any image unless it has light photons on the camera film or sensor. If it takes 8 1/2 minutes to get there, then it would take 8/12 minutes to take a picture of the newly turned on Sun. Even if we could see it with our window eyes, we could not see each other NOR could we take a picture of the Sun.

Not true if you are looking at this as a closed system. You are only thinking in terms of photons traveling long distances to a destination that contains the information that allows us to see. This is so theoretical it boggles my mind that you think the model I am offering is impossible.