A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Lessans appears to have an unlimited capacity for treating hypotheticals as if they demonstrated and proven facts.

No, his ability to see beneath the surface was rare. That's why no one else had uncovered this finding up until the time of his passing. Hypotheticals did not prove anything, but this was as close as he could get at explaining what it was he had observed. He used them as examples, is all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

If I've done my own math correctly, light travels 982,080,000 feet in one second. That's nine-hundred-eighty-two-MILLION, eighty thousand feet in one second. Capice, peacegirl?

So figure out how long it would take light to travel two feet, posting a candle lighted two feet from your eyes. It's not instantaneous, it just seems that way.

I actually can't believe I am writing this to an adult person. She really thinks seeing a candle is instantaneous!

And you actually believe that we receive information from objects that have to travel in the light that far away and land on our eyes? What happens to the inverse square law? Logically speaking, wouldn't the light be so dispersed that there would be no way for the information in the light to show up on the retina?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

you supposedly understand optics and the properties of light...yet you ask this question?

Again how can you say your model doesn't violate optics when you don't even understand optics well enough to keep from saying something this stupid?

I understand optics which is why I constantly say that if we saw the object, we would be in optical range. According to the afferent account, if we saw the image of the candle in delayed time, the light (or image) would be traveling straight to our eyes. So why shouldn't this light travel the same path and reach our eyes if the candle was slightly out of range but directly in line with our eyes? That's a fair question which I don't think you have an answer for. Don't tell me the light is traveling too fast because that is a major weasel.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Solar panels and plant leaves physically interact with light in the exact same way camera film or a sensor does (in that physical contact and the same location are required), and you insisted, explicitly, that lenses made the difference between these and cameras. If a lens is not the key factor, what is? Why would a lensless camera interact with light instantly in the newly ignited Sun scenario, but neither a leaf or solar panel would?

Anything that is similar to a lens works the same way LadyShea. You are now creating a strawman. The principle of a pinhole camera and a camera with a lens works in the same exact way. The object is still in view and the tiny hole focuses the light (because of the object) which shows up on the back of the makeshift camera. It works every single time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Every analogy you have used has been flawed, and they show only that you still have no idea what you are talking about.

Agreed. Because what he says is impossible.

Another sad and pathetic attempt to change the subject.

As long as your account remains contradictory and impossible, I won't believe it no matter who is endorsing it.

It's fine if you don't agree. I'm not here to convince you. You have a problem with his proof of determinism as well. Here too, you don't know what you're talking about because you haven't analyzed it correctly. You're not alone, so don't worry.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No-one claims that images are reflected or picked up. This is not some minor semantic correction. It is you completely misrepresenting what I am saying and what afferent vision involves. Hubble forms images of material objects that are out of visual range from nothing but arriving light. It is in principle no different than what your own camera does when it photographs your own living room, which also forms an image of material objects from nothing but arriving light. Hubble does exactly what you claim cannot be done. You make your own position untestable and unfalsifiable (and therefore unscientific) when you try to claim that any examples contradicting your claim are somehow images of light rather than images of material objects.

I'm sorry to say but we cannot see anything resembling matter in the Hubble deep field.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm quite happy to say that we do indeed see images of actual galaxies composed of matter, and these images are formed by Hubble using only the arriving light from objects that are beyond our visual range - which is exactly what you have repeatedly claimed to be impossible.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We see images of light...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, we see images of galaxies. These images are formed by the light arriving from them, but then that is true of EVERYTHING we ever see or photograph.

I see light. The light gives us certain kinds of information about the galaxy, but I don't see anything that would be considered matter.

HubbleSite - Picture Album: Hubble Deep Field Image Unveils Myriad Galaxies Back to the Beginning of Time

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are other ways to prove that we see in real time besides this.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Really? Odd then that you've been hiding these proofs for so many years. Why don't you present some of them?

No, I haven't. You are just in denial so you don't remember.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

you are saying that every time you say light photons are physically located inside a camera, or at the retina at noon if the Sun is newly turned on at noon

That's because you have refused, like Spacemonkey, to consider why brightness and size matter more than traveling photons. You ignore the example that I gave with the candle and the fact that it's a closed system; the same exact thing that occurs with the Sun. You are stuck in a groove and you can't get out.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

That's right, it takes 8 1/2 minutes for the light to reach the camera, but it doesn't take 8 1/2 minutes for light to reach the camera! Until everyone else understands this, no progress will be made!

The camera does not require light to be on Earth to take a picture of the Sun being turned on. If there was no light on Earth for 81/2 minutes, the camera could not take a photograph of anything on Earth and get an image because there is no light being reflected (I am not disputing this; I am disputing that light is all that is necessary for sight), but it could take a photograph of the Sun because the Sun meets the requirements of brightness and size, which I've maintained all along.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nooooo, you're wrong. If what you were saying were true, then why is it when we move a candle slightly out of optical range, do we not see it if the light is traveling directly towards us?

Are you seriously asking, why can't we see something when we move it further away?

I've already answered this for you, in great detail, time and time again. Why don't you answer a question for once?

Like, how do mirrors work? ("They reflect light" isn't an explanation - walls reflect light. So how do mirrors work, peacegirl?)

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The camera does not require light to be on Earth to take a picture of the Sun being turned on.

So physically, what causes the chemicals in the photographic film to change, according to you? Because we have an answer, and it involves light and the way the chemicals on the film react to it. But you can't use that answer, because you just said we don't need light to be there.

Now you're changing the rules of photochemistry too...

You've also changed your answer again. You've told Spacemonkey many times that the light does need to be on Earth to take a picture of the Sun.

[peacegirl]

added:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not my position. It obviously takes 81/2 minutes but it doesn't take 81/2 minutes for light to be at the camera, even though the camera is on Earth

Since when is that not your position? How many countless times have you said the light photons will be at the retina instantly, at the same time the Sun is turned on?

You are being dishonest.

Just to make sure that I didn't miss anything, I went over each date, and they are consistent.


From 6/28

The light is at the eye but it has not yet arrived on Earth.

True.

Photons do not have to reach Earth for the light to be at the retina.

True.

From 6/24

there needs to be light at the retina, but the light does not have to travel 8 minutes to connect with the eye

True.

From 6/17

The camera and the retina work the same in both cases but you're having a hard time understanding how the light could be at the sensor without the light traveling to Earth.

True.

From 6/4

You don't understand efferent vision and why the requirements necessary would allow light to be at the eye without the light from the Sun having to travel 8 minutes to reach Earth.

True

Originally Posted by peacegirl

due to the fact that the information from the object that allows us to see does not get sent through space/time. You don't get this part.

True.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How can we "get" anything you say when you keep flip flopping, and using new terms in idiosyncratic ways? Now you are on about "information" instead of images or non-absorbed photons. Please define "information" as you are using it, so we can be on the same page.

Why did I change it to "information"? Because you objected to my use of the other terms. I can't satisfy you. And I'm not flipflopping at all. The answers are consistent.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No David, you are assuming that we're seeing the candle in delayed time.

You can't explain how we could see a lit candle in real time either. The light still has to get to from the candle to the retina, and that cannot happen instantly.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If Lessans is right (which I believe he is), then seeing the Sun when it's first turned on would be as fast as seeing a candle when it's first lit. We are just dealing with a bigger space (or box), but so is the Sun a bigger object, so the principle remains exactly the same.

Neither the Sun nor the candle example can be made to work instantaneously. In both cases time and distance are involved. The bigger the distance, the longer the time.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And you actually believe that we receive information from objects that have to travel in the light that far away and land on our eyes? What happens to the inverse square law? Logically speaking, wouldn't the light be so dispersed that there would be no way for the information in the light to show up on the retina?

No.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand optics...

No, you do not.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

According to the afferent account, if we saw the image of the candle in delayed time, the light (or image) would be traveling straight to our eyes. So why shouldn't this light travel the same path and reach our eyes if the candle was slightly out of range but directly in line with our eyes? That's a fair question which I don't think you have an answer for.

And it's one I already answered for you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't tell me the light is traveling too fast because that is a major weasel.

No-one has ever told you that.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's fine if you don't agree. I'm not here to convince you. You have a problem with his proof of determinism as well. Here too, you don't know what you're talking about because you haven't analyzed it correctly. You're not alone, so don't worry.

You look particularly stupid and pathetic when you weasel by trying to change the subject like this.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I see light. The light gives us certain kinds of information about the galaxy, but I don't see anything that would be considered matter.

HubbleSite - Picture Album: Hubble Deep Field Image Unveils Myriad Galaxies Back to the Beginning of Time

You see galaxies. Galaxies are made of matter. Your linked picture is what galaxies look like.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I haven't. You are just in denial so you don't remember.

You don't have any proofs of real-time vision. You don't have any evidence at all. You can't even explain it without contradicting yourself and saying ridiculous things about light.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's because you have refused, like Spacemonkey, to consider why brightness and size matter more than traveling photons. You ignore the example that I gave with the candle and the fact that it's a closed system; the same exact thing that occurs with the Sun. You are stuck in a groove and you can't get out.

Your candle example doesn't work. It is just as problematic as your newly ignited Sun example, and for exactly the same reason. You can't explain how we can see the candle before light has had time to get from the candle to the eye any more than you can explain how we could see the Sun before the light has had time to get from the Sun to the retina on Earth.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The term closed system has no explanatory power in this context, therefore nobody understands why you keep using it. Can you describe the system, in detail?

A closed system means that there is an enclosed space in which an object and a viewer appear. The size of the space or how far away the object is from the viewer is irrelevant because the principle still works in either case.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The camera does not require light to be on Earth to take a picture of the Sun being turned on.

Of course it does. When the Sun is first turned on there are only photons at the Sun, and the camera film is on Earth where there are no photons at all and cannot form an image unless photons are in physical contact with it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A closed system means that there is an enclosed space in which an object and a viewer appear. The size of the space or how far away the object is from the viewer is irrelevant because the principle still works in either case.

What encloses the Sun and the Earth? How are they in an enclosed space?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, you do not.

I understand it as well as I need to. You even helped me at one point by explaining that the last photon at the retina is red.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

According to the afferent account, if we saw the image of the candle in delayed time, the light (or image) would be traveling straight to our eyes. So why shouldn't this light travel the same path and reach our eyes if the candle was slightly out of range but directly in line with our eyes? That's a fair question which I don't think you have an answer for.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And it's one I already answered for you.

That's all well and good, but the question remains: How in the world can we see matter from light alone when it has dispersed not only over the span of millions of miles, but forever and ever? This has led to the belief that we would be able to see an event that happened long ago if we were in the right location to receive that light, whether or not the source of that light existed at all. That is where science got it wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't tell me the light is traveling too fast because that is a major weasel.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No-one has ever told you that.

People definitely have said the light would be traveling too fast to be able to see the image. It's not important.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand it as well as I need to.

No, you do not. You still can't grasp even the basics.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People definitely have said the light would be too fast to be able to see it.

No, they have not. You are the only person who ever said that. LadyShea even reproduced the relevant posts for you.

[Spacemonkey]

Seriously, Peacegirl. I've bumped this about 50 times now. Will you ever do me the courtesy of actually addressing it?

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 Spacemonkey

What encloses the Sun and the Earth? How are they in an enclosed space?

Nothing actually encloses the Sun and the Earth. It is our field of view that encloses what we are able to see.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Seriously, Peacegirl. I've bumped this about 50 times now. Will you ever do me the courtesy of actually addressing it?

Would you please stop it? I already said that light travels, so give it up Spacemonkey.