A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Thank you. Now given that there has to be light at the camera when the photograph is taken, and that this light cannot be anywhere else at that time, and cannot be in the same place at the immediately preceding time, where did it come from and how did it get there?

Did those specific photons (at the camera when the photograph is taken) exist immediately before the photograph was taken? [Yes or No]

If so, then where were those specific photons at the moment in time immediately preceding the taking of the photograph? [State a location]

Were they at the camera? Were they at the object? Were they somewhere inbetween? Were they somewhere else entirely? Where were they?

Bump.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Henceforth this thread will be known as the "pinwheel thread", due to all the flip-floping by the posters, in honor of 'Old Pinwheel Lessans'. With Peacegirl promoting his book, I can't imagine that he is resting easy in his grave.

I wouldn't be so sure that Lessans is not resting easy. Based on his book he didn't look like the picture of mental health. He might be thinking, 'Way to go peacegirl, chip off the old block!'

[davidm]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I wouldn't be so sure that Lessans is not resting easy. Based on his book he didn't look like the picture of mental health. He might be thinking, 'Way to go peacegirl, chip off the old block!'

Chip off the old blockhead, more like it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I wouldn't be so sure that Lessans is not resting easy. Based on his book he didn't look like the picture of mental health. He might be thinking, 'Way to go peacegirl, chip off the old block!'

Hmm, I thought death and the afterlife was supposed to reveal the truth to the 'dearly departed', so he couldn't still hold onto his fantisy and must have found out just how sick he and peacegirl were. One out of two knowing the truth is better than none.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because something is not easy to test empirically doesn't rule out that it can't be done. It also means that there will eventually be corroborating evidence that his observations were spot on.

In the first sentence I think you must have meant to say that "[j]ust because something is not easy to test empirically doesn't rule out that it could be done". As for your second sentence, that is just plain wrong. That the possibility exits that something could be done does not mean that it will be done. So, it most certainly does not mean that "there will eventually be corroborating evidence that his observations were spot on".

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I could care less what people on other forums (who had a small amount of time to hear my reasoning which amounted to nothing) thought about this discovery.

Truer words were never written. All of your reasoning has amounted to exactly nothing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What word he used has no bearing on what he was trying to explain.

Another true statement. You are on quite a roll, peacegirl. Most of the words that Lessans used had no bearing on anything he was trying to explain. That being the case, one must consider the possibility that he was using the wrong words.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're the one making a total fool of yourself and it's going to be here permanently for people to see...

naturalist.atheist has repeatedly made a total fool of himself in countless threads. Oddly enough, despite your claim to the contrary, this is one thread where he has not yet done so. That strikes me as being more than just a little ironic.

[Angakuk]

I am going to take a stab at parsing peacegirl's claims about how light interacts with a camera under efferent vision. Please bear with me as this is a veritable Gordian's Knot of confusion.

An object A, which is located at point X at time T is rendered visible by the presence of light L at point X at time T. Camera B, is located at point Y and point Y is separated from point X by distance D. At time T camera B takes a picture of object A using the very same light L that concurrently renders object A visible at time T. This means that light L is present at both point X and point Y at time T even though point X and point Y remain separated by distance D. Thus light L is simultaneously present at both point X and point Y though point X and point Y remain separated by distance D. Spooky action at a distance has got nothing on this.

For some inexplicable reason this scenario reminds me of one of my favorite comedy albums from the halcyon days of my misspent and drug addled youth. To whit,

How Can You Be Two Places At Once When You're Not...

[Angakuk]

I won't even try to pretend that I understand this, but I am pretty sure that there is no possible theory of efferent vision that could explain it.

To conduct their time-stopping experiment, described this week in the journal Nature, Gaeta and colleagues aimed a laser beam at a probe and passed the beam through a device called a time lens.

While a conventional optical lens bends a beam of light in space, the time lens modifies the light's temporal—not spatial—distribution.

"It's a way of being able to really control the properties of a light beam in the time domain, and shape and distort and do funny things like this to light in the time domain," Gaeta said.

Study co-author Moti Fridman, also of Cornell University's School of Applied and Engineering Physics, devised a method in which he crossed the laser beam aimed at the probe with a strong "pulse" laser inside specialized fiber optic glass.

"This changed the frequency and wavelength of the beam so it moved at a different velocity, and this is why a [time] gap was created," he explained.

A second pulse laser on the other side of the time hole reversed the changes, restoring the beam to its original properties.

In the experiment, an event that happened inside the time hole wasn't detected by the probe.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I am going to take a stab at parsing peacegirl's claims about how light interacts with a camera under efferent vision. Please bear with me as this is a veritable Gordian's Knot of confusion.

An object A, which is located at point X at time T is rendered visible by the presence of light L at point X at time T. Camera B, is located at point Y and point Y is separated from point X by distance D. At time T camera B takes a picture of object A using the very same light L that concurrently renders object A visible at time T. This means that light L is present at both point X and point Y at time T even though point X and point Y remain separated by distance D. Thus light L is simultaneously present at both point X and point Y though point X and point Y remain separated by distance D. Spooky action at a distance has got nothing on this.

That would be an accurate representation except for this:-

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Spacemonkey.

Which suggests that she is rather thinking along the lines of the instantaneous teleportation of duplicate light, rather than the same light being in two different places. Which then leads to the problem pointed out here. Of course, any reconstruction of her position is as much creative as it is interpretive, seeing as she doesn't seem to have any specific model in mind and is obviously just making this up as she goes.

[LadyShea]

No. There has to be an interaction between the light and the film, but the light originates at the object.

What do you mean originates at the object? Do you mean the light that is now physically interacting with the film was formerly reflected or emitted by the object being photographed?

[LadyShea]

Bump

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How is light chemically interacting with the film if they are not in physical contact?

How can light "strike" the film (which is physical contact) if the photons have not yet arrived?

Are you aware that you are now saying that light does not have to be "at the film" for a photograph to be taken since the light has not yet arrived from the turned on sun? You just flip flopped again!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That would be an accurate representation except for this:-

Which suggests that she is rather thinking along the lines of the instantaneous teleportation of duplicate light, rather than the same light being in two different places. Which then leads to the problem pointed out here. Of course, any reconstruction of her position is as much creative as it is interpretive, seeing as she doesn't seem to have any specific model in mind and is obviously just making this up as she goes.

I wonder if she thinks of light like air when we're on land or water if one were fully submerged.

Air is always both here and there when you're standing on the ground, and if you were at the bottom of the ocean, water is both here and there. Specific, particular molecules of water or air are not in two places at once of course, but air/water is located both places

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We could take a picture of the sun at the same time we could see it it if we are coming from an efferent perspective since the same light that is interacting with the retina is the same light that is interacting with the film.

What difference does the "Perspective we are coming from" make at all, what do you mean by this? The physiology of the eye, and the physics of optics and light are what they are, and what man believes about how they work does not effect them at all. If all mankind believes that sight is afferent, that does not make it so. If all mainkind believes that sight is efferent, that does not make it so. All the tests, experiments, and documented observations show scientists and everyone else how the eye and light work. Making a lot of claims without any testing, experimenting or proof is meaningless and if contradicts what has already been learned, it's probably wrong. There are many tests that are easy to do, that can be done by anyone. Preform the tests and experiment, keep accurate notes and report what you find. To be valid everything must be repeatable by others and they must get the same results.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

What difference does the "Perspective we are coming from" make at all, what do you mean by this? The physiology of the eye, and the physics of optics and light are what they are, and what man believes about how they work does not effect them at all. If all mankind believes that sight is afferent, that does not make it so. If all mainkind believes that sight is efferent, that does not make it so. All the tests, experiments, and documented observations show scientists and everyone else how the eye and light work. Making a lot of claims without any testing, experimenting or proof is meaningless and if contradicts what has already been learned, it's probably wrong. There are many tests that are easy to do, that can be done by anyone. Preform the tests and experiment, keep accurate notes and report what you find. To be valid everything must be repeatable by others and they must get the same results.

Everyone is so quick to dismiss this knowledge that it's too hard for me to continue. It really hurts to hear the responses that mean absolutely nothing in so far as this discovery is concerned, but you are all so ignorant it makes my stomach churn. Therefore, I have to leave because I cannot deal with the people who claim to be scientists but are so far removed from this word that I could puke.

[LadyShea]

Okay see you tomorrow!

[LadyShea]

Everyone is so quick to dismiss this knowledge that it's too hard for me to continue.

I like how 9 months of discussion and allowing her to make her case is a quick dismissal. We could have had a baby, a whole new human being, by now

[Vivisectus]

Quick to dismiss? I would say the subject has been discussed in detail and has had lots and lots of attention - certainly more than it deserves. You just cannot accept the fact that it is easily shown to be nonsense.

Just like you dismiss any criticism out of hand even though you are unable to supply a reason to believe why he was right about the central idea of this book. And why you simply claim all errors are just not there, even though you are unable to explain the blatant fallacies. And why you cling to efferent vision, an idea that requires almost complete ignorance of even basic physics to even attempt to accept, and which is incompatible with even simple observations and technologies. You simply claim this is not the case, even though you cannot even begin to explain why we see and measure the things we do.

This is because you believe your father was right first, and then work backwards based on that belief. This is a belief you hold so deeply that you rather deny reality than examine the likelihood if him being wrong.

If people object, you just claim they are stupid. If they show you why the book is silly, you just call them biased. If there is empirical evidence that contradicts the book, you ignore it or dismiss it, often on rather idiotic grounds. Evidence from space was dismissed by you on the basis that it was from space. Neutrinos where dismissed because we had only just started measuring them, even though we have been doing so since before the damn book was written. Logic is simply claimed to not be valid, even though you are unable to say how or why.

This is because you are convinced of something that is impossible to defend.

[specious_reasons]

My officemate is having discipline problems with her youngest child. She messed up and gave a stranger her account and password for an online game site. He them promptly hijacked the account and bought a bunch of in-game stuff.

This got her into a bit of trouble, but what made it worse was that she wouldn't admit that she gave away her account and password. Someone else must have done it, even though no one else was supposed to have her password. She even refused to admit she did it when they found the chat log which showed her giving the password to the person who hijacked her account.

Consequently, she's banned from using the computer until she stops lying. It's been a month.

Why do I bring this up? I suspect this girl isn't lying as such, and she really does believe she was hacked in some other way. I used peacegirl as an example of someone who is willing to go to any lengths to deny reality because of belief.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Everyone is so quick to dismiss this knowledge that it's too hard for me to continue. It really hurts to hear the responses that mean absolutely nothing in so far as this discovery is concerned, but you are all so ignorant it makes my stomach churn. Therefore, I have to leave because I cannot deal with the people who claim to be scientists but are so far removed from this word that I could puke.

Do some of the tests and experiments and try to prove efferent vision, if you dare, but keep careful notes so that others can repeat them and verify your results. Or is your belief in Lessans claims not strong enough to actually put them to the test, you're OK as long as you just make assertions, but when it comes to the test you don't follow through. Where it your faith now?

You say you know he's right, do the tests and experiments and prove it, but then faith doesn't need proof, does it? Faith is believing without proof, knowing is proven.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...but you are all so ignorant...

Damn, if only all of us had dropped out of school in the seventh grade! Then we'd be like smart!

Therefore, I have to leave because I cannot deal with the people who claim to be scientists but are so far removed from this word that I could puke.

Returning in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I wonder if she thinks of light like air when we're on land or water if one were fully submerged.

Air is always both here and there when you're standing on the ground, and if you were at the bottom of the ocean, water is both here and there. Specific, particular molecules of water or air are not in two places at once of course, but air/water is located both places

You still don't understand the concept of efferent vision, which is why you can't contemplate that light can be interacting with the retina even if the light has not yet reached Earth.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I like how 9 months of discussion and allowing her to make her case is a quick dismissal. We could have had a baby, a whole new human being, by now

I admit that it's such a waste of time being here. At least being pregnant gives you a reward at the end of 9 months.

[LadyShea]

You still don't understand the concept of efferent vision, which is why you can't contemplate that light can be interacting with the retina even if the light has not yet reached Earth.

Light cannot physically interact with camera film, however, if there is measurable, physical distance between the actual photons and the film.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Do some of the tests and experiments and try to prove efferent vision, if you dare, but keep careful notes so that others can repeat them and verify your results. Or is your belief in Lessans claims not strong enough to actually put them to the test, you're OK as long as you just make assertions, but when it comes to the test you don't follow through. Where it your faith now?

You say you know he's right, do the tests and experiments and prove it, but then faith doesn't need proof, does it? Faith is believing without proof, knowing is proven.

The proof will come out in the wash, mark my words. No one ever tested to see if this could be true, which is why I said that empirical testing is needed.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by davidm

Returning in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1...

Like clockwork.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You still don't understand the concept of efferent vision, which is why you can't contemplate that light can be interacting with the retina even if the light has not yet reached Earth.

Apparently you don't understand efferent vision either, which is why you cannot tell me where the light at the camera was before the photograph was taken and how it got to the camera, despite claiming that it originated at the object.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light cannot physically interact with camera film, however, if there is measurable, physical distance between the actual photons and the film.

Light can physically interact with the camera film if the object is in the camera's field of view and the lens is focused on the object. That's what you are failing to grasp.