A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Flip-flopping is defined by what you write, not by what you wanted to write, or somehow intended to convey, or otherwise wish you had said. When you give one answer, then subsequently reverse it, only to later revert back to the initial answer, that is flip-flopping. And that is exactly what you have done. Over and over again.

If I accidentally flip-flopped it doesn't mean Lessans was wrong or that there was an inconsistency that didn't match his observation. I just have to explain better.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

In fact, the word "wavelength" is meaningless unless the thing in question is moving. Immobile objects cannot have wavelengths; they can only vibrate.

I get that. Where did you get the idea that I thought objects have wavelengths? Light has wavelengths.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Duplicate copies? Would you call a mirror image a duplicate copy?

Yes.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

One second later the observer would see green.

Good. So there is then green light coming into existence at the observer's eyes.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How could it be the same light that was there before when light is constantly moving?

Exactly. The photons are constantly coming into existence in the observer's eyes, matching the real-time color of the Sun.

Great.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no yellow light traveling to the eye. That's what I'm trying to tell you. It's there already the instant the Sun changes color.

Wait, what? When I say that the Sun is ignited, I mean that a great ball of photon-emitting fusing hydrogen and helium comes to exist. What do you mean?

Does light never exist at the Sun? Is the newly existing Sun not emitting any light? When first ignited, is the yellow light only in the observer's eyes and not at the Sun? Or does the yellow light at the Sun cease to exist as it leaves the Sun's surface, such that it never travels anywhere?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I accidentally flip-flopped it doesn't mean Lessans was wrong or that there was an inconsistency that didn't match his observation. I just have to explain better.

That you have previously flip-flopped has nothing to do with whether it was deliberate or accidental. Nor does it prove Lessans wrong. That you can't stop flip-flopping however does show efferent vision to be an incoherent and inconsistent mess.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I get that. Where did you get the idea that I thought objects have wavelengths? Light has wavelengths.

Probably from here:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nooo, that's not what is happening. You think that light is taking the frequency and wavelength with it through space and time, correct? I am not purposely creating a strawman. I'm trying to tell you that wavelengths of objects do not get carried along without the object being present in some fashion, even if it's behind the horizon, or around a corner as in a mirror.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Oh, but it does matter! I asked you where the light which is at the camera when the photograph is taken was just before the photograph was taken. You said it was at the camera. But if the light at the camera just before the photograph was taken was different light, then you have incorrectly answered this first question. Because the light you are talking about is not the light I was asking about. So...

This is not going to work. You're never going to understand this the way you're going about it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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

Yes.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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

Remember that you cannot answer "At the film/camera" to the second question, because you have just agreed that the light at that location just before the photograph is taken will be different light.

According to afferent vision, they would be traveling toward the film.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Again, you haven't answered the question I asked: If something is at the same place at two consecutive times, is it moving during that time period, or is it stationary? Which is it? Moving or stationary?

If I am driving my car to my son's house, it cannot be parked in front of my house and at my son's house at the same time. It is moving during that time period.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What? I asked you about light at the same place at different times, and you answer by speaking of something not being at different places at the same time? I'll ask you again:-

If something is at the same place at two consecutive times, is it moving during that time period, or is it stationary?

This question is confusing me. I'm not sure what you mean.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not challenging the assumption that remains in the same place over two consecutive moments in time hasn't moved, but photons are constantly in motion, so the photon that was present a second ago isn't the same photon the same photon that is present when the photograph is taken.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If the light which was at the camera just before the photograph is taken was different light from that present at the camera at the next moment when the photograph is taken, then you have yet to tell me where this latter light was at the former time. It can't have been at the camera.

So where was it?

According to afferent vision, it was traveling toward the camera.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not going to work. You're never going to understand this the way you're going about it.

By asking you questions and expecting you to answer them?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes.

According to afferent vision, they would be traveling toward the film.

And according to efferent vision?

Where were those specific photons at the moment in time immediately preceding the taking of the photograph?
[State a location]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This question is confusing me. I'm not sure what you mean.

Really? What part is confusing you? If something is at place A at time t1, and also at place A at the immediately following time t2, has it moved or remained stationary during the time period t1-t2?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

According to afferent vision, it was traveling toward the camera.

And where was it according to efferent vision?


Why would you answer these questions according to afferent vision when you know damn well that this is not what I am asking you to do?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Probably from here:

That was my mistake. I meant to say that wavelengths of light that are being reflected from the object...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

I answered this to the best of my ability, and it doesn't change a darn thing. Will you try to understand the efferent version, because your logic is going to conclude that efferent vision is wrong every single time? The very first thing you need to understand is that photons, although they are being replaced every second, cannot exist independently without the object. Try to grasp that one thought before telling me it's wrong, and maybe I can break through this thick wall of confusion.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't negate the properties of light, that's just the point.

So, if the sun was turned on at noon, could we photograph it at noon, the same time we could see it with our efferent vision, or would we have to wait until 12:08.5 when the physical light arrives to come in physical contact with the film?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I answered this to the best of my ability, and it doesn't change a darn thing. Will you try to understand the efferent version, because your logic is going to conclude that efferent vision is wrong every single time? The very first thing you need to understand is that photons, although they are being replaced every second, cannot exist independently without the object. Try to grasp that one thought before telling me it's wrong, and maybe I can break through this thick wall of confusion.

We cross-posted. I bumped at the same time you answered. I have since edited that post to provide a reply. And no, you haven't answered to the best of your ability. You have deliberately answered according to afferent vision, knowing perfectly well that this was not what was being asked of you. Which means the actual questions have not been answered at all.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I accidentally flip-flopped it doesn't mean Lessans was wrong or that there was an inconsistency that didn't match his observation. I just have to explain better.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We would be able to take a photograph of the Sun at the same time we see the Sun. That's why we always get the same exact photograph as what we are seeing.

Camera film is exactly like the retina. It works the same way. The only difference is that a camera takes a picture using the light; and we see the actual object using the same light.

LadyShea, nothing changes. The only thing that has been misunderstood is the belief that a camera detects light (whether the object is in view or not) and forms an image, whereas in efferent vision (which involves the same principles using a camera), the camera still detects light but that light is a mirror image that shows up on the film instantaneously, which means that the object must be in the lenses' field of view.

No, that's not how film works. The film must be in physical contact with the light. It cannot do so with 93 million miles between the photons and the film.

What are you not understanding here?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

? The very first thing you need to understand is that photons, although they are being replaced every second, cannot exist independently without the object. Try to grasp that one thought before telling me it's wrong.

Are you trying to say that photons can only exist as long as the object exists, and if the object would cease to exist the photons that were reflected or emmited from that object would also cease to exist?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're misunderstanding what I meant by "canvas". I'll have to give you another metaphor.

It doesn't even matter what you meant. My canvas analogy still applies to light and film..

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes.

Why would you answer 'Yes' to this?

You've said that for the newly ignited Sun light is constantly coming into existence inside the observer's eyes. Other than the obvious reason - that this suggestion is completely insane - why wouldn't you say the same thing for photography by denying that this particular bit of light (at the camera when the photograph is taken) existed before the photograph was taken?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Exactly. The photons are constantly coming into existence in the observer's eyes, matching the real-time color of the Sun.

Whoa, peacegirl! Are you seriously suggesting that when I look at the sun, photons all magically appear in my eyes to interact with my retina, with a wavelength that matches the instaneously matches the colour of the sun at that moment 8.4 light minutes away?

Do they do that for every object around the Sun, too? Or just retinas and photographic film?

What about intervening empty space, do they appear there as well?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Wait, what? When I say that the Sun is ignited, I mean that a great ball of photon-emitting fusing hydrogen and helium comes to exist. What do you mean?

Does light never exist at the Sun? Is the newly existing Sun not emitting any light? When first ignited, is the yellow light only in the observer's eyes and not at the Sun? Or does the yellow light at the Sun cease to exist as it leaves the Sun's surface, such that it never travels anywhere?

To my mind, this is the weirdest part yet. It's like she thinks light only ever exists on the retina in a constantly changing and updating pattern, or that it only exists there and on the surface of objects without ever leaving that surface or travelling anywhere. But on neither of these conceptions does light ever actually move, despite her agreement that light is always in motion.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The very first thing you need to understand is that photons, although they are being replaced every second, cannot exist independently without the object. Try to grasp that one thought before telling me it's wrong, and maybe I can break through this thick wall of confusion.

That thought is 100% wrong. We went over and over and over this until you agreed you understood that photons are their own existing separate thing. Once the photons leave the emitting or reflecting object they continue to exist regardless of the state of the source, because light is energy, and energy cannot be destroyed. They travel unless/until they are absorbed and/or otherwise converted to a different type of energy.

They absolutely exist independently of the emitting source just as you exist independently of your mother.

[davidm]

It is simply awe-inspiring the lengths to which peacegirl will go to defend this insanity. At some level she knows it's all drivel, so she has to constantly flip and flop and hand-wave and misdirect and say one thing and then later on say something the opposite, all because no matter what she says sooner or later she ends up in a flat contradiction. I said long ago that Lessans was not only wrong, he was talking incoherent, self-contradictory gibberish, and peacegirl's hopeless flailing about establishes this point much more clearly than anything anyone else has said. What is especially both galling and amusing is her continued insistence that we don't get it because we are examining her claims on the assumption of afferent seeing. Apart from the fact that afferent sight is not an "assumption" but an established scientific fact, the truth of the matter is that her claims are being examined entirely upon the presumption of her "efferent seeing," to see if efferent seeing makes sense. And, of course, we find that "efferent seeing" resides on the opposite side of the universe from where sense is located.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The very first thing you need to understand is that photons, although they are being replaced every second, cannot exist independently without the object. Try to grasp that one thought before telling me it's wrong, and maybe I can break through this thick wall of confusion.

Isn't that precious? We need to understand something that is absolutely, gob-smackingly, absurdly, one-hundred percent fucking wrong.

No, peacegirl, we do not need to "understand" something so laughably stupid.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Exactly. But you have to understand why Spacemonkey. You're not getting it yet, so it sounds crazy because the light hasn't reached the eyes ACCORDING TO THE AFFERENT MODEL OF SIGHT.

Can anyone summarize the First Law of Thermodynamics for me? Anyone? Bueller?


Aside from the problem that light is being created ex nihilo, you'll note that if peacegirl's claim is true, this would mean the Sun (and all other light-emitting objects) essentially produces an infinite amount of energy.

[thedoc]

First lawThe first law of thermodynamics may be expressed by several forms of the fundamental thermodynamic relation for a closed system:

Increase in internal energy of a system = heat supplied to the system - work done by the system.
For a thermodynamic cycle, the net heat supplied to the system equals the net work done by the system.
The net change in internal energy is the energy that flows in as heat minus the energy that flows out as the work that the system performs on its environment. Work and heat are not defined as separately conserved quantities; they refer only to processes of exchange of energy.

These statements entail that the internal energy obeys the principle of conservation of energy. The principle of conservation of energy may be stated in several ways:

Energy can be neither created nor destroyed. It can only change forms.In any process in an isolated system, the total energy remains the same.


Who else thinks Peacegirl will just hand-wave this away and say it is one of those ideas that needs to be re-examined and tested in light of efferent vision?

While this applies to energy, I believe that the same principle has been applied to matter so that 'Matter can be neither created or destroyed but can only change form', and now with atomic theory that would include matter changing to energy and energy changing to matter in some extreme cases.

[davidm]

Does anyone think that peacegirl has ever even heard of the laws of thermodynamics? Show of hands? Anyone?

[Spacemonkey]

What would happen if you pointed two cameras towards each other during daylight?

Would that be like dividing by zero?

Why don't people's heads explode when they look into each other's eyes?


(This post isn't for you Peacegirl. No need to reply.)