|
|
06-28-2014, 04:57 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Artemis, light has to be striking the eye. This is not magic.
|
You hear that, Artemis? This is not magic! How dare you think it was magic? Even though the last time peacegirl was pressed on the "mechanism" of her "model," she said, all the conditions are met, and -- "Voila! We see!" But yes, Artemis, you were correct, Lessans' idea was specifically that light did not need to strike the eyes. Peacegirl changed that, and now is defending her own nonsense, rather than Lessans' nonsense.
Quote:
I understand the confusion.
|
She understands the confusion. Let's see how well she understands it.
Quote:
Light travels, true, and it's also true that according to the inverse square law, the image cannot be seen if we're out of range because the light does not have the information in it.
|
Total baffegab, word from first to last. After all these years being tutored by your betters, you STILL have not even an elementary understanding of the scientific account of light and sight. What you wrote above means absolutely NOTHING.
|
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.
|
06-28-2014, 04:57 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
|
06-28-2014, 04:59 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Artemis, light has to be striking the eye. This is not magic.
|
You hear that, Artemis? This is not magic! How dare you think it was magic? Even though the last time peacegirl was pressed on the "mechanism" of her "model," she said, all the conditions are met, and -- "Voila! We see!" But yes, Artemis, you were correct, Lessans' idea was specifically that light did not need to strike the eyes. Peacegirl changed that, and now is defending her own nonsense, rather than Lessans' nonsense.
Quote:
I understand the confusion.
|
She understands the confusion. Let's see how well she understands it.
Quote:
Light travels, true, and it's also true that according to the inverse square law, the image cannot be seen if we're out of range because the light does not have the information in it.
|
Total baffegab, word from first to last. After all these years being tutored by your betters, you STILL have not even an elementary understanding of the scientific account of light and sight. What you wrote above means absolutely NOTHING.
|
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?
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.
|
06-28-2014, 05:04 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Artemis, light has to be striking the eye. This is not magic.
|
You hear that, Artemis? This is not magic! How dare you think it was magic? Even though the last time peacegirl was pressed on the "mechanism" of her "model," she said, all the conditions are met, and -- "Voila! We see!" But yes, Artemis, you were correct, Lessans' idea was specifically that light did not need to strike the eyes. Peacegirl changed that, and now is defending her own nonsense, rather than Lessans' nonsense.
Quote:
I understand the confusion.
|
She understands the confusion. Let's see how well she understands it.
Quote:
Light travels, true, and it's also true that according to the inverse square law, the image cannot be seen if we're out of range because the light does not have the information in it.
|
Total baffegab, word from first to last. After all these years being tutored by your betters, you STILL have not even an elementary understanding of the scientific account of light and sight. What you wrote above means absolutely NOTHING.
|
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?
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.
|
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?
|
06-28-2014, 05:08 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You are stating the first premise as the conclusion. The premise which states that light can only be absorbed through the eye due to speed and distance IS the afferent position, which is the very thing being disputed. This is circular reasoning and doesn't prove anything.
|
Ok I guess that is where we are with the argument.
Light is absorbed through contact with the eye. Which requires to reach the eye. In order for anything to for the light to be there it has to get from the sun to the eye. Light moves at a known speed so it takes time to get there.
|
Right, but if we can see the Sun (the material object), we know the light is already there otherwise we couldn't see it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
So you are either arguing that the light somehow at more than one place at once; at the sun and at the eye.
Or you're arguing that the eye can detect the light from 93million miles away, without any means of explaining this detection.
|
Neither Spacemonkey. I said that the distance between the object and the eye is not important because all it takes is for the object to be large enough to be seen. Obviously, the Sun is a very large object covering 75% of the entire solar system. If it wasn't that large, we wouldn't be able to see it because the light would not have reached our eyes. But remember, this account involves both the object and the light to be present (a closed system), for us to see, not just the light. Light would give us no image at all if the object was not there because the light is revealing the actual object. The light is not bringing the information about the object through space/time.
|
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
|
06-28-2014, 05:13 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Artemis, light has to be striking the eye. This is not magic.
|
You hear that, Artemis? This is not magic! How dare you think it was magic? Even though the last time peacegirl was pressed on the "mechanism" of her "model," she said, all the conditions are met, and -- "Voila! We see!" But yes, Artemis, you were correct, Lessans' idea was specifically that light did not need to strike the eyes. Peacegirl changed that, and now is defending her own nonsense, rather than Lessans' nonsense.
Quote:
I understand the confusion.
|
She understands the confusion. Let's see how well she understands it.
Quote:
Light travels, true, and it's also true that according to the inverse square law, the image cannot be seen if we're out of range because the light does not have the information in it.
|
Total baffegab, word from first to last. After all these years being tutored by your betters, you STILL have not even an elementary understanding of the scientific account of light and sight. What you wrote above means absolutely NOTHING.
|
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?
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.
|
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.
|
06-28-2014, 05:19 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
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
|
06-28-2014, 05:24 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Here is what I wrote:
Yes, the light will be at the film instantly, BUT THE LIGHT DOES NOT HAVE TO REACH EARTH FOR THIS TO OCCUR.
|
Nope. HERE'S what you wrote:
"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."
Note how this says the exact opposite of what you said above.
|
It is not the opposite.
|
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.
Quote:
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...
|
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
|
Quote:
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.
Last edited by peacegirl; 06-28-2014 at 05:35 PM.
|
06-28-2014, 05:32 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
|
06-28-2014, 05:39 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
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
|
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.
Last edited by peacegirl; 06-28-2014 at 10:48 PM.
|
06-28-2014, 05:41 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You are stating the first premise as the conclusion. The premise which states that light can only be absorbed through the eye due to speed and distance IS the afferent position, which is the very thing being disputed. This is circular reasoning and doesn't prove anything.
|
Ok I guess that is where we are with the argument.
Light is absorbed through contact with the eye. Which requires to reach the eye. In order for anything to for the light to be there it has to get from the sun to the eye. Light moves at a known speed so it takes time to get there.
|
Right, but if we can see the Sun (the material object), we know the light is already there otherwise we couldn't see it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
So you are either arguing that the light somehow at more than one place at once; at the sun and at the eye.
Or you're arguing that the eye can detect the light from 93million miles away, without any means of explaining this detection.
|
Neither Spacemonkey. I said that the distance between the object and the eye is not important because all it takes is for the object to be large enough to be seen. Obviously, the Sun is a very large object covering 75% of the entire solar system. If it wasn't that large, we wouldn't be able to see it because the light would not have reached our eyes. But remember, this account involves both the object and the light to be present (a closed system), for us to see, not just the light. Light would give us no image at all if the object was not there because the light is revealing the actual object. The light is not bringing the information about the object through space/time.
|
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
|
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
Quote:
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!
|
|
06-28-2014, 05:43 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
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.
|
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.
|
06-28-2014, 05:46 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
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
Quote:
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).
|
06-28-2014, 05:50 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
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
|
06-28-2014, 05:50 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
|
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.
|
06-28-2014, 06:03 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
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"
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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
|
06-28-2014, 06:04 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
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
|
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.
|
06-28-2014, 06:07 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
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"
Quote:
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.
|
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.
|
06-28-2014, 06:15 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
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
|
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.
|
06-28-2014, 06:17 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Obviously, the Sun is a very large object covering 75% of the entire solar system. If it wasn't that large, we wouldn't be able to see it because the light would not have reached our eyes.
|
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.
|
06-28-2014, 06:18 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
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"
Quote:
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.
|
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?
Quote:
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?
|
06-28-2014, 06:23 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
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
|
Yes, light has all those properties.
|
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.
Quote:
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.
Last edited by peacegirl; 06-28-2014 at 06:34 PM.
|
06-28-2014, 06:24 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Obviously, the Sun is a very large object covering 75% of the entire solar system. If it wasn't that large, we wouldn't be able to see it because the light would not have reached our eyes.
|
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.
|
Without the actual light from the Sun physically getting inside a camera on Earth, we could not take a photograph.
|
06-28-2014, 06:26 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
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
|
Yes, light has all those properties.
|
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.
|
But you did comment on the properties of light when you said it does not contain information apart from its source
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
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.
|
Not as far as the properties of light. All light has the same properties.
|
06-28-2014, 06:29 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
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?
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 42 (0 members and 42 guests)
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:22 PM.
|
|
|
|