A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, you didn't always maintain that. You explicitly denied it when you said "I did not say that the photons would be at the film or retina on Earth because there are no photons on Earth in this hypothetical example." There is no lack of clarity there, so you were either lying or confused about your own statements.

How can light be there before it has had time to get there?

Well then I misled you inadvertently. That does not make me a liar Spacemonkey. You are working overtime to try to ruin my credibility. It won't work.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That is not anybody's premise at all, let alone first premise.

Do you like looking like an idiot? If so, carry on with your stupid strawman, if not, then stop using it.

Science states that light travels through space-time. Full stop. Your additions of images being brought or carried is moronic.

Of course has everything to do with the first premise. You won't admit it, but the very fact that you discuss traveling photons (which you continue to reason from) when I'm telling you that this has nothing whatsoever to do with this account, makes this entire discussion fruitless. You are trying very hard to play games with the words "light" and "nonabsorbed photons" as if they are synonymous. It doesn't work because light and nonabsorbed photons have a specific meaning and you can't just handwave it away by saying light is light. The afferent model DOES NOT describe reality regardless of how real it looks to you. And who are you anyway LadyShea that you have the last word? You quickly jumped to the conclusion that my father's observation as to why man's will is not free was an assertion on a subject that you never delved into to any great degree. Now you are the expert? You don't have the slightest clue as to whether he was right or not.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Hell, to keep it more comparable to your example; What if the sun is suddenly turned off? In your efferent vision model would we see the sun appear to vanish the instant it was turned off yet still continue to have light for 8.5min? If we looked up would we just see a bright but empty sky (I don't mean litterally empty, I assume there would still be clouds, birds, planes, ect... the moon and stars would still be visible from the dark side of the earth... the moon for few minutes at least)

According to science, light would continue until it petered out. This really has no bearing on the function of light in regard to matter. I think people are getting confused because of this.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

According to science, light would continue until it petered out.

No, that is not what science says.

I think people are getting confused because of this.

The only person who has ever been confused in this thread is you.

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

According to science, light would continue until it petered out. This really has no bearing on the function of light in regard to matter. I think people are getting confused because of this.

However, I asked if you would still be able to see the source of the light, the sun. Or would the light not have a visible source?

It seems like if you could see the sun "turn on" without regard to light being at the observer, then you wouldn't be able to see the sun anymore if it were "turned off", regardless of light being at the observer.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

No, that is not what science says.

The only person who has ever been confused in this thread is you.

David, you have no credibility at all. All people see if your defensiveness. If anyone has ruined it for themselves, it is you.

[LadyShea]

Light has properties, peacegirl, and traveling away from the source is one of them. Light is required to be on the surface of camera film to take a photograph. If you cannot explain how that happens in your account, exactly how traveling light lands on camera film before traveling light arrives on Earth, specifically in Lessans Sun on at noon scenario, then your model fails.

It astounds me how you'd rather appear galactically stupid then attempt to to find a feasible solution to the glaring problem with your so called model...which isn't even Lessans model at all.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

According to science, light would continue until it petered out. This really has no bearing on the function of light in regard to matter. I think people are getting confused because of this.

No, light doesn't "peter out" and science doesn't say anything of the sort. You have zero idea what the properties of light even are, yet you claim to not be refuting them!

Once again, slowly. Light travels. If it is light it is traveling.
Light doesn't stop traveling unless it comes into contact with matter that absorbs it. At that point it ceases being light.
If the matter does not absorb it, it will either be reflected or transmitted, and it will continue traveling.

No petering out anywhere.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

However, I asked if you would still be able to see the source of the light, the sun. Or would the light not have a visible source?

It seems like if you could see the sun "turn on" without regard to light being at the observer, then you wouldn't be able to see the sun anymore if it were "turned off", regardless of light being at the observer.

That would be true. We may still get light, but we would not be able to get an image if the object was no longer there. People are so entrenched with the idea that we would be able to see the past (e.g., Columbus discovering America) that is is hard to overcome this resistance.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, light doesn't "peter out" and science doesn't say anything of the sort. You have zero idea what the properties of light even are!

I do know what the properties of light are, and I am refuting them correctly. You're right, I shouldn't have said "petered out".

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well then I misled you inadvertently. That does not make me a liar Spacemonkey. You are working overtime to try to ruin my credibility. It won't work.

Inadvertently? You typed these words

"I did not say that the photons would be at the film or retina on Earth because there are no photons on Earth in this hypothetical example."

How is that inadvertent?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That would be true. We may still get light, but we would not be able to get an image if the object was no longer there.

Yes, we would. The image is in the brain, not on "wings of light," as Lessans said, and the Hubble telescope routinely receives light from galaxies as they were billions of years in the past, which means that we see them now, as they were billions of years ago. These galaxies are no longer present at those locations, and many of them no longer even exist at all. The ones that do exist are in a totally different location, and have physically changed considerably.

That's just how things really are, and all your caterwauling won't change reality one bit.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Inadvertently? You typed these words

"I did not say that the photons would be at the film or retina on Earth because there are no photons on Earth in this hypothetical example."

How is that inadvertent?

Yes I typed this. There are no photons on Earth in this hypothetical example, but there is an interaction between the film and the object in the efferent model. You have disregarded the basis for this claim entirely, and yet you call me a liar. This is really getting disturbing.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course has everything to do with the first premise. You won't admit it, but the very fact that you discuss traveling photons (which you continue to reason from) when I'm telling you that this has nothing whatsoever to do with this account, makes this entire discussion fruitless.

Your account requires light photons because photography requires light photons. You must explain them in your account, specifically how they come to be at locations, or your account is nonsense.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are trying very hard to play games with the words "light" and "nonabsorbed photons" as if they are synonymous.

They are synonymous. Light photons are light. It doesn't matter if they've been emitted, reflected, or transmitted or what their frequency or wavelength is, they are light and they are traveling. The properties of light don't change due to striking matter without being absorbed...they never change. They are immutable.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't work because light and nonabsorbed photons have a specific meaning and you can't just handwave it away by saying light is light.

No, the term nonabsorbed photons doesn't have a separate, specific meaning except to you. Light is light. The properties of light don't change due to striking matter without being absorbed...they never change. They are immutable.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes I typed this. There are no photons on Earth in this hypothetical example,

You stated over and over that light photons are at the camera film (which is on Earth) at noon in Lessans scenario, then you suddenly flip-flopped and said no, you never said that. How is that inadvertent and how is that not a lie?

but there is an interaction between the film and the object in the efferent model.

There cannot be a physical interaction between light photons and camera film with light photons being physically located inside the camera, physically on the film or sensor. You have to explain how they get there and where they come from, or you are talking about magic

[LadyShea]

People are so entrenched with the idea that we would be able to see the past (e.g., Columbus discovering America) that is is hard to overcome this resistance.

LOL, Lessans made that up. Nobody anywhere, except Lessans, ever talked about being able to see Columbus discovering America.

[Artemis Entreri]

There are no photons on Earth in this hypothetical example, but there is an interaction between the film and the object in the efferent model.

Please explain this interaction. How does it work?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, you are way too smug for me. You need to make an attitude adjustment or we can't communicate.

LOL, I don't need to do anything. You can ignore me, engage me, leave, or whatever. If you want me to change my attitude towards you though, you should start answering questions and quit being a weaselly, dishonest, drama queen.

You have done this all along before you even knew whether Lessans was right or not.

I have done what, challenged you to back your shit up with evidence and valid arguments? That is exactly what I flat out told you I would do on day 1.

Anyway, back to the point, Weasel. Where the hell did you get the idea that "science" says light peters out, when you have been specifically told that is not the case many times over many years? Is it in a science book? Did you talk to a scientist outside of ? Maybe it was in Lessans completely imaginary encyclopedia that he says talked about seeing Columbus discovering America from the vicinity of Rigel?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light has properties, peacegirl, and traveling away from the source is one of them. Light is required to be on the surface of camera film to take a photograph. If you cannot explain how that happens in your account, exactly how traveling light lands on camera film before traveling light arrives on Earth, specifically in Lessans Sun on at noon scenario, then your model fails.

It astounds me how you'd rather appear galactically stupid then attempt to to find a feasible solution to the glaring problem with your so called model...which isn't even Lessans model at all.

LadyShea, you are not going to accuse Lessans of being wrong just because you are incapable of understanding why the requirements of this model change the way we see, and the function of light, and why there is still an interaction between light and the sensor even though the light hasn't reached Earth first. I understand why, at first glance, you would ask how this can be, but you haven't been able to move past this logic in order to delve deeper. He gave the example of the Sun being turned on because he wanted to make sure people understood that time and distance are not factors, and why light alone, without the object, does not have the necessary information that can be decoded. Please don't tell me that this isn't his model. He did not believe in magic. Your accusation is unfair and unwarranted.

[LadyShea]

Yes, peacegirl, I am saying you are wrong because you can't explain your model in such a way that it fits with observed reality. If it requires a change in the properties of light and laws of physics, then it is not compatible with this reality.

Light is required to be on the surface of camera film to take a photograph. If you cannot explain how that happens in your account, exactly how traveling light lands on camera film before traveling light arrives on Earth, specifically in Lessans Sun on at noon scenario, then your model fails.

Lessans never said a word about photography, so this is not his model at all, but yours.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, you are way too smug for me. You need to make an attitude adjustment or we can't communicate. You have done this all along before you even knew whether Lessans was right or not. Trust me, you are not smarter than him and I don't appreciate that you are using your limited knowledge to assert that he is wrong when you don't have a friggin clue.

Nice dodge, you have totally avoided addressing LadyShes's post by spewing venom and hostility. An honest person would answer the criticism and make some effort to clarify what is being addressed, but you have simply tried to divert the thread by criticizing LadyShea. It clearly indicates that you haven't got a clue.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said the light would be at the film instantly if we gaze at the object (the efferent model of sight), but this does not mean the light had to travel to Earth in order for this interaction to take place.

For any interaction to take place between light and film the two must be in the same place. Do you disagree with this?

If the film is on Earth then any interaction involving the film must take place on Earth, where the film is. Do you disagree with this?

If the film is on Earth and there is an interaction taking place between the film and light, then the light must also be on Earth. Do you disagree with this?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm wracking my brain to figure out what I can do with a very very limited budget. I hope any money that comes in, I can get real scientists to study this work. This is my hope, which is for the benefit of everyone, not just me.

Now, that is a fine example of delusional thinking. Very fine indeed.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

David, you have no credibility at all. All people see if your defensiveness. If anyone has ruined it for themselves, it is you.

Who are these people and how do you what they see or don't see? Have you conducted a poll?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Inadvertently? You typed these words

"I did not say that the photons would be at the film or retina on Earth because there are no photons on Earth in this hypothetical example."

How is that inadvertent?

She said something that was true (i.e. " there are no photons on Earth in this hypothetical example"). I am sure that was inadvertent.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, light doesn't "peter out" and science doesn't say anything of the sort. You have zero idea what the properties of light even are!

I gave you all my reasoning. I have tried to explain this account of vision. Maybe I failed to explain it clearly, but that has no bearing on its validity. The mechanism of afferent vision may sound logical, but if it's wrong, what good is it? You made up your mind that he was wrong early on which prevented you from looking at this with unbiased eyes. You have not taken the time to understand this model even when I have created examples to help you. Additionally, none of the empirical tests have proven conclusively that dogs are able recognize their masters through sight alone, even though you say they have.

LadyShea, you are way too smug for me. You need to make an attitude adjustment or we can't communicate.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, I don't need to do anything. You can ignore me, engage me, leave, or whatever. If you want me to change my attitude towards you though, you should start answering questions and quit being a weaselly, dishonest, drama queen.

I'm not being a drama queen. I have answered as dispassionately and directly as I can, so stop making these false accusations. You come off like you own this forum. Your attitude speaks volumes. It tells me that you, with the support of your cronies, are more interested in being right than being correct.

You have done this all along before you even knew whether Lessans was right or not.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have done what, challenged you to back your shit up with evidence and valid arguments? That is exactly what I flat out told you I would do on day 1.

But your accusations are false; they are based on a limited understanding. Instead of using your own abilities to judge whether this knowledge is accurate, you should leave room for the possibility that maybe, just maybe, there is something to this even though you don't yet grasp how it's possible. That's what scientists do.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Anyway, back to the point, Weasel. Where the hell did you get the idea that "science" says light peters out, when you have been specifically told that is not the case many times over many years? Is it in a science book? Did you talk to a scientist outside of ? Maybe it was in Lessans completely imaginary encyclopedia that he says talked about seeing Columbus discovering America from the vicinity of Rigel?

If the object is too far away, we won't be able to see it because the light that reveals it will not have reached our eyes. Yes, light travels which I have never denied.