A revolution in thought

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is very true, but it doesn't prove that the light bounces and travels. It proves that certain wavelengths have been absorbed.

It is trivial to measure the light that is reflected off the object and confirm that the part of the spectrum that is reflected is that which is not absorbed by the object. There is not a shred of doubt what happens there. The mathematical laws that describe what happens are known with extreme precision.

It is true that the intensity and color of that light is what is at the retina, but the contention is whether that wavelength that is at the retina traveled to get there

No it isn't. There is no wiggle room there. The known and tested physical laws describe exactly how the light is reflected, travels to the observer at the speed of light, is refracted by the lens in the eye, absorbed by the chemicals in the retina, and turned into an image by the brain.

or if the retina (the observer) was already within visual range of the object thus putting the frequency/wavelength at the retina instantly.

No such kind of instant magic is allowed by the known laws of physics, and it is completely unnecessary to explain anything, because we already know precisely how it works.

This is a legitimate alternative view, which you are opposing only because you can't believe that science may have gotten it wrong.

No, it isn't legitimate, it's incoherent nonsense.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

You're changing the topic again. The light that is reflected off the object very well takes the wavelengths / frequencies / spectrum with it. Those are exactly those wavelengths / frequencies / spectral lines that were present in the light that hit the object and were not absorbed by the object.

That is very true, but it doesn't prove that the light bounces and travels. It proves that certain wavelengths have been absorbed.

Originally Posted by But

It is trivial to measure the light that is reflected off the object and confirm that the part of the spectrum that is reflected is that which is not absorbed by the object. There is not a shred of doubt what happens there. The mathematical laws that describe what happens are known with extreme precision.

This isn't even being disputed But. I agree that there isn't a shread of doubt that the part that is not absorbed is part of the spectrum that allows us to make out the object. As to whether the nonabsorbed light is reflected through space/time is another story.

It is true that the intensity and color of that light is what is at the retina, but the contention is whether that wavelength that is at the retina traveled to get there

Originally Posted by But

No it isn't. There is no wiggle room there. The known and tested physical laws describe exactly how the light is reflected, travels to the observer at the speed of light, is refracted by the lens in the eye, absorbed by the chemicals in the retina, and turned into an image by the brain.

There is no conclusive proof that the objects we see are not the actual objects themselves but only images of the objects. That is why it is important to test the validity of his claim regarding efferent sight, which is key.

or if the retina (the observer) was already within visual range of the object thus putting the frequency/wavelength at the retina instantly.

Originally Posted by But

No such kind of instant magic is allowed by the known laws of physics, and it is completely unnecessary to explain anything, because we already know precisely how it works.

This has nothing to do with magic. Afferent vision is a long held "theory" that has graduated into hardened fact. This has made it difficult for Lessans to be heard but should this be enough to throw his claim out without further investigation? I don't think so.

This is a legitimate alternative view, which you are opposing only because you can't believe that science may have gotten it wrong.

Originally Posted by But

No, it isn't legitimate, it's incoherent nonsense.

Say it 100 more times. Maybe then you'll believe what you're saying is the absolute truth.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This isn't even being disputed But. I agree that there isn't a shread of doubt that the part that is not absorbed is part of the spectrum that allows us to make out the object. As to whether the nonabsorbed light is reflected through space/time is another story.

Read slowly and carefully. The light that is not absorbed is reflected and travels through space, as all light does. There is no doubt about that.

It is not "another story". That it happens this way and not any other way is described exactly by the known and tested laws of physics.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Read slowly and carefully. The light that is not absorbed is reflected and travels through space, as all light does. There is no doubt about that.

Light travels through space; Lessans never disputed that, but this does not negate his claim that the nonabsorbed photons (the photons that strike the eye) don't travel through space/time, which is a logical assumption.

Originally Posted by But

It is not "another story". That it happens this way and not any other way is described exactly by the known and tested laws of physics.

There is no way physics has tested and proved that we interpret an image from light itself. This is an inference [only] based on other tested and proven observations regarding the properties of light, but it is not a cold hard fact.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is going nowhere LadyShea. Lessans stated (and I believe he was right) that light doesn't bounce (or get reflected) off of the object TAKING THE WAVELENGTH/FREQUENCY with it through space/time. You have yet to counter anything substantial that proves he is wrong, but you are so sure you are right that you believe this justifies your negative judgment, as if you are the investigator that will win a Nobel prize. The good news is that your investigation (which is sloppy) only heightens awareness of this unintentional error, which is a good thing.

LadyShea has no reasonable expectation of winning the Nobel prize, as this was established science since before the Nobel prize was founded.

Speaking of which, Gabriel Lippmann received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1908 for a method of color photography.

The finished plate was illuminated from the front at a nearly perpendicular angle, using daylight or another source of white light containing the full range of wavelengths in the visible spectrum. At each point on the plate, light of approximately the same wavelength as the light which had generated the laminae was strongly reflected back toward the viewer. Light of other wavelengths which was not absorbed or scattered by the silver grains simply passed through the emulsion, usually to be absorbed by a black anti-reflection coating applied to the back of the plate after it had been developed. The wavelengths, and therefore the colours, of the light which had formed the original image were thus reconstituted and a full-colour image was seen.

Gabriel Lippmann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


In other words, he created a method of photography where thin layers on a glass reflected different wavelengths of light, so when white light shined on it, a color image is formed.

Lippmann invented this technique in 1886.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light travels through space; Lessans never disputed that, but this does not negate his claim that the nonabsorbed photons (the photons that strike the eye) travel through space/time, which is a logical assumption.

I think you meant to say "the nonabsorbed photons do not travel through space/time", right?

There is no way physics has tested and proved that we interpret an image from light itself. This is an inference [only] based on other tested and proven observations regarding the properties of light, but it is not a cold hard fact.

I was saying it is a proven fact that the light which is not absorbed travels through space like any other light.

But that we get an image from light alone is a proven fact too, because it is known how the eyes work. BTW, have you read The Lone Ranger's essays on light and sight by now? Have you ever read any book on the basics of light?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

I think you meant to say "the nonabsorbed photons do not travel through space/time", right?

Thanks. I fixed it.

There is no way physics has tested and proved that we interpret an image from light itself. This is an inference [only] based on other tested and proven observations regarding the properties of light, but it is not a cold hard fact.

Originally Posted by But

I was saying it is a proven fact that the light which is not absorbed travels through space like any other light.

But that we get an image from light alone is a proven fact too, because it is known how the eyes work. BTW, have you read The Lone Ranger's essays on light and sight by now? Have you ever read any book on the basics of light?

There is nothing in his essay that proves that normal sight is decoded in the brain. Did you try to understand why Lessans came to the conclusions he did? Do you know what his observations were, or are you just parroting what you have been taught is true?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

LadyShea has no reasonable expectation of winning the Nobel prize, as this was established science since before the Nobel prize was founded.

Speaking of which, Gabriel Lippmann received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1908 for a method of color photography.

Gabriel Lippmann - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


In other words, he created a method of photography where thin layers on a glass reflected different wavelengths of light, so when white light shined on it, a color image is formed.

Lippmann invented this technique in 1886.

This is a wonderful discovery that Lippmann made, but this has nothing to do with Lessans' claim, and certainly doesn't conflict with it.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thanks. I fixed it.

No you didn't.

Do you understand that this claim contradicts the tested laws of physics? Do you understand that it can easily be tested?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thanks. I fixed it.

Originally Posted by But

No you didn't.

Yes I did.

Light travels through space; Lessans never disputed that, but this does not negate his claim that
the nonabsorbed photons (the photons that strike the eye) do not travel through space/time,
which is a logical assumption.

Originally Posted by But

Do you understand that this claim contradicts the tested laws of physics?
Do you understand that it can easily be tested?

No it doesn't. He never denied that light travels, but if the object doesn't get reflected (i.e., the light doesn't travel through space/time with these nonabsorbed photons), then they need to take a second look at what is actually occurring. Everything that has been tested is accurate except this idea that we see in delayed time. The Fizeau example doesn't disprove real time seeing because we know that light travels and has a finite speed, and this experiment helped to determine what that speed is.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it doesn't. He never denied that light travels, but if the object doesn't get reflected (i.e., the light doesn't travel through space/time with these nonabsorbed photons), then they need to take a second look at what is actually occurring.

Yes it does. If the nonabsorbed photons were not traveling through space, they would be missing. If we put any kind of detector near the object, it would detect that some or all of the light that isn't absorbed would be missing.

And no, you didn't fix the original post.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing in his essay that proves that normal sight is decoded in the brain. Did you try to understand why Lessans came to the conclusions he did? Do you know what his observations were, or are you just parroting what you have been taught is true?

Neither you nor Lessans have ever elaborated on exactly what his observations were. You both have just asserted that they were spot on and he didn't make any mistakes.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Yes it does. If the nonabsorbed photons were not traveling through space, they would be missing. If we put any kind of detector near the object, it would detect that some or all of the light that isn't absorbed would be missing.

And no, you didn't fix the original post.

I'll have to go back and fix the original. Thanks for reminding me. I understand that they would be missing. They aren't being absorbed by the object so that makes sense. The nonabsorbed photons are what allow us to see the object in real time, but that doesn't mean these photons are traveling through space/time forever and ever until they happen to strike our eyes. That's a theory.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

 Everything that has been tested is accurate except this idea that we see in delayed time.

Instant vision has been tested and found wanting.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

Yes it does. If the nonabsorbed photons were not traveling through space, they would be missing. If we put any kind of detector near the object, it would detect that some or all of the light that isn't absorbed would be missing.

And no, you didn't fix the original post.

There are no photons that do not travel at c in a vacuum, and photons do not get from one place to another instantly. Once a photon is absorbed it is no longer a photon but is converted to another form of energy, sometimes that energy is re-emitted as a photon that is of a wavelength that corresponds to the color of the object.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's a theory.

Yes it's a theory that has been tested many times over the years and has always been found to be true, and many times the tests have been done with the purpose of disproving the theory, but it has always been found to be true.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'll have to go back and fix the original. Thanks for reminding me. I understand that they would be missing. They aren't being absorbed by the object so that makes sense. The nonabsorbed photons are what allow us to see the object in real time, but that doesn't mean these photons are traveling through space/time forever and ever until they happen to strike our eyes. That's a theory.

So let's make this more precise. Do all of the photons (that strike an object and are not absorbed) disappear, or only the ones that land at the retina when we look at the object? If we look at the object, is a small part of the photons, enough to see something, removed instantly and appears at the retina?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is a wonderful discovery that Lippmann made, but this has nothing to do with Lessans' claim, and certainly doesn't conflict with it.

Really? Because this:

[...]that light doesn't bounce (or get reflected) off of the object TAKING THE WAVELENGTH/FREQUENCY with it through space/time.

contradicts:

[...]he created a method of photography where thin layers on a glass reflected different wavelengths of light, so when white light shined on it, a color image is formed

Lippmann created a technique by which, using white light and reflective surfaces, a color image is formed. Somehow, this "confused" scientist, who thinks that the eye detects light and only light managed to use that information to correctly recreate an image using light and only light. He invented this technique approximately 25 years before Lessans was even born.

Lessans, if he had any sense, should have known that you can't overturn generations of scientific discovery with just a handful of examples and some words describing his idea. He needed to have come up with an alternate explanation to how Lippmann's technique works, he needed to explain how Rømer observed changes in the observed transitions in Jupiter's moons, he needed to explain why Fizeau's (and other) experiments still accurately calculated the speed of light, he needed to explain how rainbows worked.

In other words, he needed to have an explanation for every observed phenomenon that seemingly relies on the eyes as a sense organ. He needed to do this because he's upending hundreds of years of established science. What he had in the book was insufficient at best.

...and that's just in the realm of physics. You keep on forgetting that "efferent vision" is in contradiction with the established science in biology as well.

[peacegirl]

[quote=But;1231635]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'll have to go back and fix the original. Thanks for reminding me. I understand that they would be missing. They aren't being absorbed by the object so that makes sense. The nonabsorbed photons are what allow us to see the object in real time, but that doesn't mean these photons are traveling through space/time forever and ever until they happen to strike our eyes. That's a theory.

Originally Posted by But

So let's make this more precise. Do all of the photons (that strike an object and are not absorbed) disappear, or only the ones that land at the retina when we look at the object? If we look at the object, is a small part of the photons, enough to see something, removed instantly and appears at the retina?

Huh? What do you mean disappear? Of course they don't disappear and they don't teleport. The nonabsorbed photons are what allow us to see the object. But they don't travel through space/time. Light is a condition of sight so we must have light at the retina to see anything. Depending on how close we are to the object and how bright the object is will determine how many photons are at the retina. We would see the same thing in the afferent account. The only difference is that in the efferent account light is revealing the actual object (as long as we're in optical range) in real time whereas in the afferent account we are decoding the light in delayed time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Really? Because this:

contradicts:

Lippmann created a technique by which, using white light and reflective surfaces, a color image is formed. Somehow, this "confused" scientist, who thinks that the eye detects light and only light managed to use that information to correctly recreate an image using light and only light. He invented this technique approximately 25 years before Lessans was even born.

Lessans, if he had any sense, should have known that you can't overturn generations of scientific discovery with just a handful of examples and some words describing his idea. He needed to have come up with an alternate explanation to how Lippmann's technique works, he needed to explain how Rømer observed changes in the observed transitions in Jupiter's moons, he needed to explain why Fizeau's (and other) experiments still accurately calculated the speed of light, he needed to explain how rainbows worked.

In other words, he needed to have an explanation for every observed phenomenon that seemingly relies on the eyes as a sense organ. He needed to do this because he's upending hundreds of years of established science. What he had in the book was insufficient at best.

...and that's just in the realm of physics. You keep on forgetting that "efferent vision" is in contradiction with the established science in biology as well.

There is no contradiction specious_reasons. This sounds like spectrometry and there is absolutely nothing that negates what Lessans is demonstrating. Fizeau's calculations do not negate or contradict Lessans' findings, and the fact that at different times of year the orbit of Jupiter's moons showed a longer time to see the moon coming from beyond the eclipse does not prove that we are seeing the image of the moon coming from light, and not the actual moon itself. Believe me, he didn't have to prove his case by disproving theirs. That would be like saying I have to disprove all of the false theories that say one plus one is three. I don't. I only have to prove that one plus one is two, and that's what Lessans did. It can be further tested, but he did an accurate job at explaining why the eyes don't work like the other four, so they can't be considered a sense organ.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Huh? What do you mean disappear? Of course they don't disappear and they don't teleport.

Well, they can't be at the object and at the retina at the same time, can they?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no contradiction specious_reasons. This sounds like spectrometry and there is absolutely nothing that negates what Lessans is demonstrating. Fizeau's calculations do not negate or contradict Lessans' findings, and the fact that at different times of year the orbit of Jupiter's moons showed a longer time to see the moon coming from beyond the eclipse does not prove that we are seeing the image of the moon coming from light, and not the actual moon itself. Believe me, he didn't have to prove his case by disproving theirs. That would be like saying I have to disprove all of the false theories that say one plus one is three. I don't. I only have to prove that one plus one is two, and that's what Lessans did. It can be further tested, but he did an accurate job at explaining why the eyes don't work like the other four, so they can't be considered a sense organ.

You just don't get it. Even though you say there's no contradiction, there's pretty good evidence there is. This needs to be addressed for anyone to consider Lessans ideas as even worth testing, and considering how nonsensical it is how do you think the hurdle of plausibility is going to be vaulted?

All the evidence indicates that he didn't understand the implication of his ideas. Pretty much everything we've discussed was established science 25-100 years before Lessans was born. Einstein's theory of relativity was at about as old as he was, and was in the public eye for at least 15 years from Lessans' first "discovery" in 1959.

Lessans has no excuse. Every critique is made from science that was available for public consumption during Lessans' lifetime. If Lessans understood anything, he should have understood there would be resistance to his idea, he would have anticipated the critiques and he would have addressed them.

He didn't. I'm sorry you wasted so much time on this, but Lessans' ideas are very unlikely to catch on. They are pretty awful.

[LadyShea]

You seem to have forgotten our discussion about spectrometers and how reflected traveling light and its wavelength can be directly observed and recorded.

Nice tantrum though

This is going nowhere LadyShea. Lessans stated (and I believe he was right) that light doesn't bounce (or get reflected) off of the object TAKING THE WAVELENGTH/FREQUENCY with it through space/time. You have yet to counter anything substantial that proves he is wrong, but you are so sure you are right that you believe this justifies your negative judgment, as if you are the investigator that will win a Nobel prize. The good news is that your investigation (which is sloppy) only heightens awareness of this unintentional error, which is a good thing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

You just don't get it. Even though you say there's no contradiction, there's pretty good evidence there is. This needs to be addressed for anyone to consider Lessans ideas as even worth testing, and considering how nonsensical it is how do you think the hurdle of plausibility is going to be vaulted?

All the evidence indicates that he didn't understand the implication of his ideas. Pretty much everything we've discussed was established science 25-100 years before Lessans was born. Einstein's theory of relativity was at about as old as he was, and was in the public eye for at least 15 years from Lessans' first "discovery" in 1959.

Lessans has no excuse. Every critique is made from science that was available for public consumption during Lessans' lifetime. If Lessans understood anything, he should have understood there would be resistance to his idea, he would have anticipated the critiques and he would have addressed them.

He didn't. I'm sorry you wasted so much time on this, but Lessans' ideas are very unlikely to catch on. They are pretty awful.

He explained very carefully what his observations were. He could not take the time to dispute every single critique people would have against him. He also knew what he was up against. What can I say? Either he was right or he wasn't. No matter what anyone thinks, the truth always wins in the end.

Just as my first discovery was not that
man’s will is not free but the knowledge revealed by opening that door
for a thorough investigation, so likewise my second discovery is not
that man does not have five senses but what significant knowledge lies
hidden behind this door. Many years later we have an additional
problem which is more difficult to overcome because this fallacious
observation has graduated dogmatically into what is considered
genuine knowledge, for it is actually taught in school as an absolute
fact, and our professors, doctors, etc. would be ready to take up arms,
so to speak, against anyone who would dare oppose what they have
come to believe is the truth without even hearing, or wanting to hear
any evidence to the contrary. I am very aware that if I am not careful
the resentment of these people will nail me to a cross, and they would
do it in the name of justice and truth.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You seem to have forgotten our discussion about spectrometers and how reflected traveling light and its wavelength can be directly observed and recorded.

Nice tantrum though

No LadyShea, you cannot determine whether the wavelength/frequency is traveling through space/time from this experiment. You have failed to even understand the first thing about his claim. Take away the object that is giving you this information, and see if traveling light coming from the object can still be observed and recorded. Let me know what you find.