A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh really? So what is the inverse square law then? If the light travels at an angle depending on the way it strikes the object, the viewer won't be able to see the object if it is out of range. You know I'm right but you can't bring yourself to admit it.

Huh? What does light traveling at an angle even mean?

The inverse square law simply describes the decrease in intensity of light as it travels away from the source.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

It is quite true that there must be light at the eye in order for us to see an object. If we see an object then if follows that there is light at the eye. So far, so good. What is missing is any evidence that the light which is at the eye and enables us to see an object came to be at the eye without traveling from the object to the eye.

It's not about the light not traveling. Light travels. What is missing is that you don't understand why the efferent account puts the object within visual range if the object can be seen. The box example exemplifies what is happening and why light is at the eye without light having to travel to Earth first. There is no information in the light without the object. That is the difference between the efferent and afferent models. You are thinking in terms of the afferent model, which is why you don't get it.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Do you have any evidence that such is the case? If you do, then it is high time that you trot it out for us to examine it.

I have given it to you many times over. It's high time you pay attention to what I'm saying instead of putting the blame for your lack of understanding on me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Huh?

The inverse square law describes the decrease in intensity of light as it travels away from the source.

Exactly! Eventually there are no nonabsorbed photons on the retina because the light is too far away from the source.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Exactly! Eventually there are no nonabsorbed photons on the retina because the light is too far away from the source.

Eventually the light is not intense enough for our puny retinas to resolve. What does that have to do with light traveling at an angle or not having information in it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You have again messed up your tags and proceeded to talk to the wrong person. The last part of this post was Artemis, not me. Also, the Sun does NOT cover 75% of the solar system. It contains 99.8% of the MASS of the solar system. You've been corrected on this already.

There is nothing that proves we couldn't see the Sun in real time.

Earth and sun proportions: If the sun was the size of a basketball
Sun photo at UV wavelengths in the public domain, courtesy of NASA.
Sun photo at UV wavelengths in the public domain, courtesy of NASA.

NBA basketballs vary slightly in size from one to the other, but a typical circumference is 29.75 inches (75.6 cm). If the sun of our solar system was this size, how large and how far away would the Earth proportionately be?

The real sun is 2,715,000 miles (4,379,000 km) in circumference. Shrunk down to basketball size, planet Earth would be reduced to eight-hundredths of an inch (two millimeters) in diameter, by comparison.

Earth has a slight variation in its orbit, and is closest to the sun in early January, and furthest in early July every year. With the sun at basketball size, the distance of the Earth from the sun would range between 83.5 feet (25.4 meters) and 86.3 feet (26.3 meters).

This means that if a basketball were placed directly underneath a goal on an NBA court, the Earth would proportionately be located underneath the other goal (they are about 84 feet, or 25.5 meters, apart).

If the sun were an inch across, how far away would the planets be? | Tano Calvenoa's Natural Sciences Blog

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Eventually the light is not intense enough for our puny retinas to resolve. What does that have to do with light traveling at an angle or not having information in it?

It has everything to do with it. In fact, it actually supports Lessans' claim of light and sight. If an object is too far away, the image will not be resolved on film. No telescope could pick up an image if there IS no image to be resolved due to the fact that the object is out of range. I don't care how much light is present, or how powerful the telescope might be, without the object in the lenses field of view, no image will ever show up.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It has everything to do with it. In fact, it actually supports Lessans' claim of light and sight. If an object is too far away, the image will not be resolved on film. No telescope could pick up an image if there IS no image to be resolved due to the fact that the object is out of range.

It can be resolved on a sensor or film if the equipment is such that it can gather light for a long period of time...like the Hubble. That's how the Deep Field image was created, it collected light for over a million minutes. That's how long exposure photography works.


A long exposure on a starry night can produce beautiful light trails created by the stars and the rotation of the earth. The best way to frame the image is to include an element of interest such as an old tree in the foreground. Place your camera on a tripod and focus the lens to infinity. You’ll want to use a cable release to eliminate camera shake of any kind, as it will RUIN your photo. Set the camera to B "Bulb" shooting mode and set your aperture between f/2.8 - f/4 for optimal results. Depress the remote to open the shutter. You should keep your ISO at 100 to keep the digital noise at a minimum. To complete the photo after your desired elapsed time, depress the remote again, and release the shutter. These exposures can be 15 minutes to several hours long. Long Exposure Photography Tips | Night Photography Tips

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It is indeed the opposite. The first says the light will be at the film, while the second says the light will not be at the film.

That's because you are basing this comment as it relates to Earth. Photons do not have to reach Earth for the light to be at the retina. This changes the function of light but does not violate the laws of physics.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said there can be no light at the retina ON EARTH if the light hasn't gotten to Earth yet, but that doesn't mean the nonabsorbed light (the light that is revealing the object) is not at the retina...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Of course it does. If there is no light at the retina (which is on Earth), then you cannot also say that the light is at the retina (which is on Earth). That is as plain a contradiction as anything can be.

No it isn't, and I've explained why it isn't. If the eyes were afferent, we would have to wait to receive the information contained in the light, but light does not contain information apart from the source. It reveals the source, as we look outward. I give up explaining this to you because it's obviously falling on deaf ears.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We're on different sides of the highway, remember? This creates an entirely different mechanism, one that does not violate the laws of physics.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'll stick to the side of the highway that doesn't contradict itself. Never mind violating physics, you're flat out violating basic logic by claiming that light both is and is not at the retina.

When did I ever say light both is and is not at the retina? It either is or it isn't, but the mechanism that puts light at the retina is different in both accounts. The light that lands on the retina in the efferent account, which reveals the object, is not being reflected (although the full spectrum of light travels) so we will never get an image without the object in view. You are still presupposing that light alone brings the information to the eyes, which is a misconception.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No telescope could pick up an image if there IS no image to be resolved due to the fact that the object is out of range

Also, again, telescopes do not "pick up images". Telescopes focus incoming light to the eye or sensor.

I don't care how much light is present, or how powerful the telescope might be, without the object in the lenses field of view, no image will ever show up.

Hubble Deep Field. You keep saying that the Hubble images cannot exist, yet they do exist. How do you explain it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It can be resolved on a sensor or film if the equipment is such that it can gather light for a long period of time...like the Hubble. That's how the Deep Field image was created, it collected light for over a million minutes. That's how long exposure photography works.


A long exposure on a starry night can produce beautiful light trails created by the stars and the rotation of the earth. The best way to frame the image is to include an element of interest such as an old tree in the foreground. Place your camera on a tripod and focus the lens to infinity. You’ll want to use a cable release to eliminate camera shake of any kind, as it will RUIN your photo. Set the camera to B "Bulb" shooting mode and set your aperture between f/2.8 - f/4 for optimal results. Depress the remote to open the shutter. You should keep your ISO at 100 to keep the digital noise at a minimum. To complete the photo after your desired elapsed time, depress the remote again, and release the shutter. These exposures can be 15 minutes to several hours long. Long Exposure Photography Tips | Night Photography Tips

I'm not sure how this relates. I already said that we can see light if it strikes the lens. So this does not conflict.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing that proves we couldn't see the Sun in real time.

Earth and sun proportions: If the sun was the size of a basketball
Sun photo at UV wavelengths in the public domain, courtesy of NASA.
Sun photo at UV wavelengths in the public domain, courtesy of NASA.

NBA basketballs vary slightly in size from one to the other, but a typical circumference is 29.75 inches (75.6 cm). If the sun of our solar system was this size, how large and how far away would the Earth proportionately be?

The real sun is 2,715,000 miles (4,379,000 km) in circumference. Shrunk down to basketball size, planet Earth would be reduced to eight-hundredths of an inch (two millimeters) in diameter, by comparison.

Earth has a slight variation in its orbit, and is closest to the sun in early January, and furthest in early July every year. With the sun at basketball size, the distance of the Earth from the sun would range between 83.5 feet (25.4 meters) and 86.3 feet (26.3 meters).

This means that if a basketball were placed directly underneath a goal on an NBA court, the Earth would proportionately be located underneath the other goal (they are about 84 feet, or 25.5 meters, apart).

If the sun were an inch across, how far away would the planets be? | Tano Calvenoa's Natural Sciences Blog

You made a false statement, the Sun does not cover 75% of the solar system. Admit you made a mistake, hypocrite. Here is the simple math from davidm

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey, peacegirl, the diameter of the solar system, out to the heliopause, is about 17 billion miles.

The diameter of the sun is just over 865,000 miles.

So: the solar system is some 17 billion miles in diameter.

And the diameter of the sun is less than a million miles.

This means the sun takes up 0.005088235294117647 percent of the total solar system. Not 75 percent! Big difference!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not sure how this relates. I already said that we can see light if it strikes the lens. So this does not conflict

You said . If an object is too far away, the image will not be resolved on film. this is false. See the Hubble Deep Field images for proof of the incorrectness of your statement.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When did I ever say light both is and is not at the retina?

You've said it dozens and dozens of times, every time you say light is at the retina without having traveled to Earth first in Lessans scenario of the Sun being turned on at noon.

If the light is at the retina on Earth
And the light is not on Earth yet because it hasn't reached there.
Then light is both at the retina and not at the retina

The light that lands on the retina in the efferent account, which reveals the object, is not being reflected (although the full spectrum of light travels) so we will never get an image without the object in view.

Lessans scenario of the Sun being turned on at noon has no reflection involved at all, as it posits only newly emitted sunlight (ie full spectrum).

[LadyShea]

light does not contain information apart from the source

Light contains information about itself and is fully independent of it's source once emitted. It has frequency, wavelength, intensity, angle, and direction of travel...information

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Also, again, telescopes do not "pick up images". Telescopes focus incoming light to the eye or sensor.

Hubble Deep Field. You keep saying that the Hubble images cannot exist, yet they do exist. How do you explain it?

The Hubble images exist. But it doesn't prove that we see in delayed time. If light travels indefinitely, and it strikes the telescope on a small part of the sky, we would be seeing light from the past. But that isn't what I'm talking about. Any light that interacts with matter, we would be seeing in real time. You are confusing the properties of light with the function of light.

[LadyShea]

The Hubble images exist. But it doesn't prove that we see in delayed time. If light travels indefinitely, and it strikes the telescope on a small part of the sky, we would be seeing light from the past.

It does prove that telescopes can create images from light when the "objects" are not in "view" and/or "out of range" contrary to your statement that "No telescope could pick up an image if there IS no image to be resolved due to the fact that the object is out of range"

You are confusing the properties of light with the function of light.

Light has no assigned function. Light is a product of combustion...it just is its properties. Your explanations ignore and/or change the properties of light, which is a violation of physics and optics.

Any light that interacts with matter we would be seeing in real time

The images are created from light interacting with matter. In the case of Hubble images, that matter is the sensor

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light contains information about itself and is fully independent of it's source once emitted. It has frequency, wavelength, intensity, angle, and direction of travel...information

Yes, light has all those properties. But if efferent vision is correct, the nonabsorbed photons (the frequency and wavelength that tells us what the object is) would allow us to see the object. Light is light, but you are failing to understand why light alone (these frequencies and wavelengths) don't travel to us. They reveal. This does not mean light doesn't travel, and it doesn't mean that I am changing the properties of light, but there is a difference between full spectrum light and light that has struck an object and is now revealing the nature of that object as we turn our gaze toward it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It does prove that telescopes can create images from light when the "objects" are not in "view" and/or "out of range" contrary to your statement that "No telescope could pick up an image if there IS no image to be resolved due to the fact that the object is out of range"

Light has no assigned function. Light is a product of combustion...it just is its properties.

It has many assigned functions (but I don't want to get religious on you), just as conscience has a function which is to keep us from doing what we know is wrong. If there wasn't a purpose for these things, they wouldn't exist. It's superficial to say that light is just a product of combustion and that there is no purpose to anything under the Sun other than a physical reaction.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, light has all those properties.

Then you statement that "light does not contain information apart from its source" was incorrect.

The rest of your post was just weaseling word salad. There is no difference between light and "nonabsorbed photons", because photons are light. They aren't a special, separate kind of light, they don't have different properties.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

The sun does NOT cover 75 percent of the entire solar system, and this has been EXPLAINED to you. It does not even cover a minuscule fraction of the solar system! The solar system as a whole is MUCH larger than the sun!

So, you say, we wouldn't be able to see it because the light would not have reached our eyes? How does the light reach our eyes instantly from the sun, when it also takes the light some eight minutes to reach our eyes?

I didn't say we would see daylight from the Sun, which takes 81/2 minutes. We would see the Sun before its light got here (the box example; I am not repeating this again ten more times) due to its composition in combination with the direction that we see, which has never been understood.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It has many assigned functions (but I don't want to get religious on you), just as conscience has a function which is to keep us from doing what we know is wrong. If there wasn't a purpose for these things, they wouldn't exist.

In a universe without a personal deity, and only laws of nature, there are no assigned functions or purposes because there is nothing to do the assigning.

So are you finally admitting that to you God is a real deity that has thoughts and opinions and intentions rather than just the impersonal laws of the Universe?

It's superficial to say that light is just a product of combustion and that there is no purpose to anything under the Sun other than a physical reaction.

It's superstitious and arrogant to say that light has an assigned purpose and function involving humans. Either we live in an impersonal Universe or we live in one governed by a deity that has human-like qualities. Which is it peacegirl?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then you statement that "light does not contain information apart from its source" was incorrect.

I am talking about sight and how light relates to it. I'm not talking about the properties of light which we are well aware of.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The rest of your post was just weaseling word salad. There is no difference between light and "nonabsorbed photons", because photons are light. They aren't a special, separate kind of light, they don't have different properties.

There IS a difference between a partial spectrum of light and a full spectrum of light or light wouldn't consist of all these different wavelengths. I didn't say nonabsorbed photons were different in some elemental way. This is why this discussion on light will not explain to your satisfaction why we are able to see in real time. I've said this all along. The brain and eyes allow us to understand light in a completely different way, and until it's proven that light itself does not bring the information that can be decoded into an image, this discussion will continue to hit a dead end. I want to get off of this discussion for now since it's going in circles.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say we would see daylight from the Sun, which takes 81/2 minutes. We would see the Sun before its light got here (the box example; I am not repeating this again ten more times) due to its composition in combination with the direction that we see, which has never been understood.

Without the actual light from the Sun physically getting inside a camera on Earth, we could not take a photograph.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am talking about sight and how light relates to it. I'm not talking about the properties of light which we are well aware of.

But you did comment on the properties of light when you said it does not contain information apart from its source

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There IS a difference between a partial spectrum of light and a full spectrum of light.

Not as far as the properties of light. All light has the same properties.

[LadyShea]

Do you maintain your claim that the Sun covers 75% of the solar system?
Do you maintain your claim that light contains no information apart from its source?