A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What are you talking about LadyShea? Light does not illuminate something that it cannot due to its properties. I did not weasel out of anything. Light works the same way it always has.

Why can't it illuminate a black hole?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His observations didn't take the properties of light or laws of physics into account....so you are stuck with trying to make them fit into efferent vision. They don't fit. As soon as you try to talk about cameras your model falls completely apart.

No it doesn't fall apart, not even a little bit. You never understood, and still don't, why the eye and camera work the same way in this model.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Which is more likely, that light has different properties than it is empirically known to have, or that Lessans didn't understand optics and therefore made a mistake?

He didn't change the properties of light LadyShea, that's just the point. How many times do I have to say this? Efferent vision only changes the function of light when it comes to what light does (it reveals the external world; it does not reflect it. ). What it doesn't do is change technology. It doesn't change GPS systems. It doesn't change fiber optics. These technologies make use of light in amazing ways. But none of this negates efferent VISION, which shows me how little people have understood in 3 years.

[LadyShea]

I thought the box example would help you understand, but obviously it didn't.

The box example exhibited the same problem as all of your examples...how does light fill the space that the box encloses to become located at both ends?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why can't it illuminate a black hole?

Because the black hole isn't emitting or reflecting any light LadyShea. What do you think I am, a moron?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The box example exhibited the same problem as all of your examples...how does light fill the space that the box encloses to become located at both ends?

Take a guess.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because the black hole isn't emitting or reflecting any light LadyShea. What do you think I am, a moron?

That wasn't your previous answer. Why is emission or reflection of light important if we don't see the light, but the actual object?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Take a guess.

It travels through the space, if we aren't changing any properties of light.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it doesn't fall apart, not even a little bit. You never understood, and still don't, why the eye and camera work the same way in this model.

I don't understand because you have been unable to explain it without changing the properties of light or violating the laws of physics

He didn't change the properties of light LadyShea, that's just the point.

If light can be at a location, such as inside a camera, without traveling to get there, then yes, that requires a change to the properties of light.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Give me a break Dragar. How many times have I said that this claim does not exclude light from striking the eye or sensor. You just don't understand how because your reasoning is misguided. Obviously, light, or nonabsorbed photons, are at the eye or sensor when we look at a distant object. There are certain requirements or we could not see the object, one being that the photons are at the eye which put us into optical range. I thought the box example would help you understand, but obviously it didn't.

And yet you still can't explain how a mirror works in your daft notion of vision!

[LadyShea]

I wrote this post in January of 2013. Your box analogy still fails for the same reasons

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your analogies also fail on this issue.

The "opposite sides of a coin" also represent two distinct locations, 1. one side 2. the other side. There are no conditions under which if some physical thing is put on one side of the coin will also simultaneously appear on the opposite side.

A "big box" represents an astronomical number of physical locations for something very tiny like a photon, all of which are separated by physical distance that must be traversed to get from one location to another.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are also majorly confused LadyShea. I will never win in here not because Lessans was wrong, but because you come from a position that is inherently incompatible.

I am not the one saying ridiculous and impossible things.

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by Dragar

And yet you still can't explain how a mirror works in your daft notion of vision!

She also can't explain why we can't see through walls and other solid stuff.

You're in a dark room - no light is illuminating the walls so you can't see them. But outside the room all the conditions for efferent vision are met - there are trees, clouds and such - all well lit and within 'optical range'! So how does the Lessans' account explain the fact that we can't see those trees and clouds?

The scientific explanation says we can't see the trees because the photons bouncing off them are blocked from reaching our eyes by the walls. But peacegirl and Lessans say the photons don't have to reach our eyes so what's the explanation of why we can't see the trees? It should be enough that the trees are illuminated and within optical range, and then we should see them instantly.

I'd like to hear the 'efferent' account of how a wall stops us seeing things that are beyond the wall. And then I'd like to understand why a wall stops us seeing through it, but a sheet of glass doesn't.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are such a weasel.

I don't see how. You must be projecting again. If you want to see a world class weasel queen in action, just look into one of those mirrors you still can't explain:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

OMG, after all this time and this is where we have gotten? You understand nada Spacemonkey.

^ That's weaseling.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are also majorly confused LadyShea. I will never win in here not because Lessans was wrong, but because you come from a position that is inherently incompatible.

^ Also weaseling.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then restate what you meant to say, using angle of reflection instead of dispersion. Show how it could possibly make an ounce of sense.

Then complain about the word 'daft' instead of about being told what you have or haven't read. Complaining about the latter makes you an enormous hypocrite.

Complaining about being treated disrespectfully while doing that yourself to us also makes you an enormous hypocrite.

Weasel. You stated that the image is seen only when we're gazing at the object. That is obviously false, for you are not gazing at the object at all when gazing into a mirror.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How might any of what I just said be misleading? Do you have any alternative account for how reflected non-absorbed photons from an object get to your eye when looking in a mirror? Do you have any alternative explanation for how photons from the Sun could get to a camera film on Earth, other than traveling there and taking 8min to do so?

Yes, you agreed the photons at the camera film traveled there. Unfortunately that makes real-time photography of the newly ignited Sun completely impossible, as the photons can't get there until 8min later.

Image =/= non-absorbed photons. No-one is saying any image is reflected. What we are saying is that the non-absorbed photons are reflected, and you have agreed with this part.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And photons from the newly ignited Sun cannot reach Earth until 8min after the Sun is ignited, making real-time photography impossible. So if vision works the same way, then real-time vision is not possible either.

It shows quite conclusively that you cannot see the newly ignited Sun instantly. The eyes need photons at the retina, just as a camera needs photons at the film. And you have agreed that any photons at the film or eye must have traveled there. That means you won't be able to see or photograph the newly ignited Sun until 8min after it has been ignited.

And he was wrong with his example, because he failed to appreciate that photons must be at the eye, and that they cannot be there before they have had time to travel there.

And you have yourself proven this wrong. As you have conceded, any light at the film or retina must be light that has traveled there, but that DOES involve time.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Right. So when the Sun is first ignited, it will take a certain amount of time (8min) for light from the Sun to get to its destination (a retina or film on Earth) to make vision or photography possible.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

This post still applies and has not been replied to even once.

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

That wasn't your previous answer. Why is emission or reflection of light important if we don't see the light, but the actual object?

Reflection does occur. How could the lens be in optical range without light traveling (remember the box example?). But the image does not come to us over space/time as once thought. That's why he said the "image" (the nonabsorbed photons that are at the eye when we are gazing at the actual object) is not actually being reflected due to the change in light's function, although light (the full spectrum) does get reflected and does travel.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

No Spacemonkey. You are still trying to make time and distance an essential element instead of trying to understand why time and distance don't play an essential part in this model.

[peacegirl]

[quote=Spacemonkey;1192405][quote=Spacemonkey;1192310]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Photons travel Spacemonkey, and when they reach Earth we can take photographs of everything on Earth.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And photons from the newly ignited Sun cannot reach Earth until 8min after the Sun is ignited, making real-time photography impossible. So if vision works the same way, then real-time vision is not possible either.

Sure, if vision worked the way you believe it did, it would not be possible to take a photograph in real time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But this doesn't answer the larger question as to why we would be able to see the Sun instantly if it was just turned on.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It shows quite conclusively that you cannot see the newly ignited Sun instantly. The eyes need photons at the retina, just as a camera needs photons at the film. And you have agreed that any photons at the film or eye must have traveled there. That means you won't be able to see or photograph the newly ignited Sun until 8min after it has been ignited.

Granted there needs to be light at the retina, but the light does not have to travel 8 minutes to connect with the eye since the object being seen creates a closed space where the light has already reached the eye or film.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He gave this hypothetical example regarding the sun to show that if the eyes are efferent, and although light travels, the image is not interpreted in the light itself.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And he was wrong with his example, because he failed to appreciate that photons must be at the eye, and that they cannot be there before they have had time to travel there.

Wrong again. He knew what he was saying. He didn't miss a beat.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We would be able to see the object directly, which does not involve time.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And you have yourself proven this wrong. As you have conceded, any light at the film or retina must be light that has traveled there, but that DOES involve time.

The nonabsorbed photons are traveling. There IS a connection between the light and the object. This is not in dispute and you know that. But if you look at the box example, while the light from the Sun is traveling to Earth, we cannot see anything on Earth for 81/2 minutes, but we can see the Sun in real time because the light being emitted reaches across the box and is at our eyes. Distance and time doesn't play a part in this model so the size of the box is irrelevant. What is paramount is that the object is bright enough and large enough to be seen by the viewer as he gazes in that direction.

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

..the object being seen creates a closed space where the light has already reached the film.

what?
Dare I ask... please explain this combination of words you've strung together.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Spacemonkey. You are still trying to make time and distance an essential element instead of trying to understand why time and distance don't play an essential part in this model.

What? I was agreeing with YOUR WORDS that light travels and takes time to reach its destination. You're now arguing with yourself again. YOU have said that the light at the retina or film traveled to get there. That means YOU have made time and distance an element of your account.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sure, if vision worked the way you believe it did, it would not be possible to take a photograph in real time.

YOU are the one who said the light at the retina or film traveled there from the Sun. That means YOU have made it impossible for the newly ignited Sun to be photographed until 8min later.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Granted there needs to be light at the retina, but the light does not have to travel 8 minutes to connect with the eye since the object being seen creates a closed space where the light has already reached the eye or film.

So you are retracting your claim that the light at the film or retina traveled there from the Sun? 'Creating a closed space' doesn't actually mean anything, and certainly doesn't explain how the photons change their location by 93 million miles without traveling. You seem to be trying to pretend that this distance doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wrong again. He knew what he was saying. He didn't miss a beat.

Sure, Mr 'molecules-of-light' knew exactly what he was talking about, lol. And yet photons must be at the eye for vision, and that they cannot be there before they have had time to travel there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The nonabsorbed photons are traveling. There IS a connection between the light and the object. This is not in dispute and you know that. But if you look at the box example, that while the light from the Sun is traveling to Earth, we cannot see anything on Earth, but we can see the Sun in real time because the light being emitted reaches across the box to our eyes.

You are back to putting the same light at two different places. Light that is still traveling from the Sun to the Earth cannot 'reach across' space to also be at the retina or film at the same time. That is pure lunacy.