A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know that.

But it's the landing of photons on different places on our retina that serve as the connection. Who is disagreeing with this?

I'm a weasel just because I'm trying to offer people metaphors and ways to understand what I'm trying to say?

Well that's where we differ. It's very true that light in a certain arrangement is landing on our retina, but the source of that arrangement is always present in some form. Take away the source and no image will show up on a computer screen, a mirror, or a camera. In other words, we need more than just the collection of light to see something.

And here is where you and Lessans are wrong, again. If we see a star, nova or supernova in the sky, the actual object may not still be there. When you take a photo of an object and store the photo on your computer, you can get rid of the object, or even destroy it and you can still look at the image of that object, that image is just light being emitted from the computer screen. If you look at a photo, the subject may be long gone and you will be looking at light that is reflected in a pattern from the photo. You are not seeing the object, just it's image, a photo is not the object. What we see is just light, we don't see the actual object, we don't need the object to be there, just the light from that object, that is how vision works and it has been understood and proven for many years. Lessans was wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm a weasel just because I'm trying to offer people metaphors and ways to understand what I'm trying to say?

No, you're a Weasel because you don't have the slightest understanding of vision or what your father was claiming, so you just make stuff up, no matter how silly it sounds.

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it's the landing of photons on different places on our retina that serve as the connection.

That statement doesn't mean anything. There's no 'connection' involved here. You're making things up.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...but the source of that arrangement is always present in some form.

No it isn't.

When I see a rainbow, what's the source of that 'arrangement'? A rainbow isn't a real thing, you know?

Besides: why can I trick someone into thinking they are seeing something else just be changing the pattern of light? So much for the 'connection' when all you need is light to change what people see.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

And here is where you and Lessans are wrong, again. If we see a star, nova or supernova in the sky, the actual object may not still be there. When you take a photo of an object and store the photo on your computer, you can get rid of the object, or even destroy it and you can still look at the image of that object, that image is just light being emitted from the computer screen. If you look at a photo, the subject may be long gone and you will be looking at light that is reflected in a pattern from the photo. You are not seeing the object, just it's image, a photo is not the object. What we see is just light, we don't see the actual object, we don't need the object to be there, just the light from that object, that is how vision works and it has been understood and proven for many years. Lessans was wrong.

We all know you can store a photograph which is just a snapshot of something that has already occurred. Of course the event doesn't have to be there anymore for the photograph to provide us with a memory of that event. We're talking about the moment the original snapshot is taken and whether the event has to be present in order for an image to show up on film.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

That statement doesn't mean anything. There's no 'connection' involved here. You're making things up.

No it isn't.

When I see a rainbow, what's the source of that 'arrangement'? A rainbow isn't a real thing, you know?

No, but light is interacting with the atmosphere to produce a rainbow.

A rainbow is a meteorological phenomenon that is caused by reflection, refraction and dispersion of light in water droplets resulting in a spectrum of light appearing in the sky. It takes the form of a multicoloured arc. Rainbows caused by sunlight always appear in the section of sky directly opposite the sun.

Originally Posted by Drager

Besides: why can I trick someone into thinking they are seeing something else just be changing the pattern of light? So much for the 'connection' when all you need is light to change what people see.

Light can cause us to see something that's not there, or in a distorted way, if certain atmospheric conditions are present. Our brains can't process what it is we are seeing due to something in the environment that is causing light to create this distortion. Sometimes we get optical illusions. This happens when it's very hot out. We get a mirage. If the object wasn't present, how would we get a distortion? It's light plus the object that causes this phenomenon.

mi·rage
məˈräZH/
noun
an optical illusion caused by atmospheric conditions, especially the appearance of a sheet of water in a desert or on a hot road caused by the refraction of light from the sky by heated air.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Optical illusions: caused by eye or brain?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We all know you can store a photograph which is just a snapshot of something that has already occurred. Of course the event doesn't have to be there anymore for the photograph to provide us with a memory of that event. We're talking about the moment the original snapshot is taken and whether the event has to be present in order for an image to show up on film.

Please explain how astronomers can take a photograph of objects and events that no longer exist? Some of those objects and events were thousands, millions, or billions of years in the past, yet astronomers can still observe them from only the light that has traveled over that long distance to reach us.

The objects or events no longer need to exist, just the light reflected or emitted needs to reach our eyes for us to see the object or event. This has been demonstrated and proven to be true for many years, you need to stop living in the past with your father, let him rest in peace.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the object wasn't present, how would we get a distortion? It's light plus the object that causes this phenomenon.

No, it's only the light that is distorted, and often it is heat that causes the light passing through the hot air to be distorted.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, but light is interacting with the atmosphere to produce a rainbow.

So there atmosphere looks like a rainbow?

Imagine if that light just came into being, magically, heading straight for our eyes, as if it came from rainbow. What would see when the light reached us?

Light can cause us to see something that's not there, or in a distorted way, if certain atmospheric conditions are present.

Only because we 'interpret' the physical pattern of light landing on our retinas. It's no explanation at all if we don't.

But hey, now you're saying we can see something that's not there! So we don't need an object to be present to see something, after all!

[The Lone Ranger]

As was pointed out years ago, another observed phenomenon that completely contradicts Lessans' claims and that cannot be accounted for by Lessans' "theory" is that of gravitational lensing.

In the above picture, the gravity from the galaxy in the center of the image bends light from the quasar behind it, creating the illusion that there are four quasars when there is, in fact, only one.

[thedoc]

In Nov. 2013 I was at my dentist and in the exam room was a Scientific American calendar for that year that featured photos from the Hubble telescope. I must have seemed a bit excited when I saw it and was explaining that the photo for that month included several examples of Gravitational Lensing. The people in the office gave me the photo right away, and later had saved the entire calendar and gave it to my wife for me. The younger galaxy was being magnified by Abell 383. The younger galaxy was estimated to be 13.7 billion years old and Abell 383 is a cluster of galaxies, not just one.

http://cdn.spacetelescope.org/archiv.../heic1106a.jpg

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

As was pointed out years ago, another observed phenomenon that completely contradicts Lessans' claims and that cannot be accounted for by Lessans' "theory" is that of gravitational lensing.

In the above picture, the gravity from the galaxy in the center of the image bends light from the quasar behind it, creating the illusion that there are four quasars when there is, in fact, only one.

I don't see anything here that contradicts real time vision which does not mean that there are not unusual phenomenon that make us see something that's not there. I explained that to Dragar. Light is what allows us to see, and if light bends in a certain way we will see the unusual results IN REAL TIME.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it's the landing of photons on different places on our retina that serve as the connection.

Originally Posted by Dragar

That statement doesn't mean anything. There's no 'connection' involved here. You're making things up.

No I'm not making things up. There is a definite connection between light and what we see.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...but the source of that arrangement is always present in some form.

Originally Posted by Dragar

No it isn't.

That's exasctly what is being tested.

Originally Posted by Dragar

When I see a rainbow, what's the source of that 'arrangement'? A rainbow isn't a real thing, you know?

I know that, but he didn't say we can't see light that interacts in specific ways with the atmosphere. The source of the arrangement IS the way droplets of water reflect light.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Imagine if that light just came into being, magically, heading straight for our eyes, as if it came from rainbow. What would we see when the light reached us?

I don't understand what you're getting at. Magically heading straight for our eyes? There is no magic because light IS already at the eye in this account, which no one seems to understand. In the afferent account the rainbow would have disappeared before it reached our eyes. You're saying we would see the rainbow even if it already dispersed.

Light can cause us to see something that's not there, or in a distorted way, if certain atmospheric conditions are present.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Only because we 'interpret' the physical pattern of light landing on our retinas. It's no explanation at all if we don't.

Interpret is a loaded word. We see what is not really there because of light's interaction with the atmosphere.

Originally Posted by Dragar

But hey, now you're saying we can see something that's not there! So we don't need an object to be present to see something, after all!

That's not true. We see the distortion BECAUSE OF LIGHT. If the object wasn't there, there would be nothing for light to distort.

[Dragar]

Each of those four images is of the same quasar, peacegirl. However, they all look a little different, partly because light takes a different amount of time to travel. We are seeing each quasar from a different point in time.

Since you believe we see instantly, which of those images is the 'real' quasar, and which is the ones we are seeing from the past/future, peacegirl?

[Dragar]

No I'm not making things up. There is a definite connection between light and what we see.

Because we 'interpret' the pattern? Or because...

I know that, but he didn't say we can't see light that interacts in specific ways with the atmosphere. The source of the arrangement IS the way droplets of water reflect light.

Absolutely. But 'the way' water reflects (actually scatters) light is not a 'thing' we are seeing, is it? Droplets of water don't look anything like a rainbow, nor does the atmosphere. So what we're seeing is clearly not an object. So we don't need objects to see things. Just light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't understand what you're getting at. Magically heading straight for our eyes?

Yes. It's called a hypothetical. What would we see if light magically appeared and headed straight for our eyes, as if it were coming from a rainbow? (But actually, there is no rainbow, nor anything - it's just some light heading for us.) What would we see?

No, that's not true. We see the distortion BECAUSE IT IS THERE.

You just told me we can see things aren't there.

"We see what is not really there because of light's interaction with the atmosphere. "

So it sure sounds like all that matters is light, and we see whatever we see based on what pattern of light lands on our retinas. No object required, just light. Even you are struggling to deny it at this point, though I'm sure you'll try, despite that obviously being wrong.

A distortion isn't 'there'. A distortion is just a distortion. You can get distortion of light rays due to gravity too. In such cases, are you claiming we're 'seeing gravity'?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not true. We see the distortion BECAUSE OF LIGHT. If the object wasn't there, there would be nothing for light to distort.

What object is there in distortion? See the dome in this picture? What object are we seeing when we see that dome?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see anything here that contradicts real time vision which does not mean that there are not unusual phenomenon that make us see something that's not there. I explained that to Dragar. Light is what allows us to see, and if light bends in a certain way we will see the unusual results IN REAL TIME.

Correction, you don't want to see anything there that contradicts real time vision, because you don't understand that "gravitational lensing" depends on light traveling and taking time to get from the source to the observer. If instant real time vision were true we could only see the one main image of the Quasar and not the 4 images from the light that is bent around the near object, in fact we wouldn't see the quasar at all because the other galaxy is obscuring our view of it. The Quasar would not be in our field of view. So this is an example of our being able to see an object that is not in our field of view, our view is obscured by the near galaxy, according to Lessans version of efferent vision we shouldn't be able to see the Quasar at all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Each of those four images is of the same quasar, peacegirl. However, they all look a little different, partly because light takes a different amount of time to travel. We are seeing each quasar from a different point in time.

Since you believe we see instantly, which of those images is the 'real' quasar, and which is the ones we are seeing from the past/future, peacegirl?

We see instantly only if the light is at our eyes. If the light from these quasars is too far away, it would take a certain amount of time for the star to be within our field of view. Light is the connection to the outside world afterall. The fact that we would get four distinct quasars when there are only one is no surprise. Remember, the requirements for efferent vision have to be met, which means the star must be luminous enough. With a star this far away and due to how the light is bending, it may take more time for light from one angle of the quasar to be at our eyes. Therefore we would see this distortion as if it were real. IOW, a certain of time is involved if the light is too dim (or too distant) for us to get a view of the quasar at that angle, therefore there would be a discrepancy. The question still remains: Are we seeing the star (the actual matter) in real time once the light from that section of the star has reached our eyes (which may take a certain length of time), or are we creating an image from light only? I'm sure you will say I am contradicting myself.

p. 118 The sun at 12 noon would look exactly like a large star,
the only difference being that in 8 minutes we would have light with
which to see each other, but the stars are so far away that their light
diminishes before it gets to us.

[LadyShea]

Are we seeing the actual quasar in real time,

Obviously not, since we are seeing 4 slightly different images of the actual 1 quasar and the actual single quasar is not in our field of view because there is a galaxy blocking it.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are we seeing the star in real time...

We can't be seeing it in real time, can we? Each 'copy' of that 'star' is from a different time. So which is 'real time', and which are we seeing from the past/future?

[The Lone Ranger]

Also, a quasar is not a star.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Also, a quasar is not a star.

It's possibly eaten a few though. But I didn't want to go into that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Correction, you don't want to see anything there that contradicts real time vision, because you don't understand that "gravitational lensing" depends on light traveling and taking time to get from the source to the observer. If instant real time vision were true we could only see the one main image of the Quasar and not the 4 images from the light that is bent around the near object, in fact we wouldn't see the quasar at all because the other galaxy is obscuring our view of it. The Quasar would not be in our field of view. So this is an example of our being able to see an object that is not in our field of view, our view is obscured by the near galaxy, according to Lessans version of efferent vision we shouldn't be able to see the Quasar at all.

I don't see the problem. If we couldn't see around the bend, maybe we can't see the Quasar directly but we could see (in real time) the light that has reached the lens. So what? This doesn't prove that under normal circumstances we aren't seeing the object directly if light allows us to. Furthermore, I didn't say an object has to be within our field of view directly. It has to be present in some form. We don't see a scene in a mirror directly either (it's not within our direct field of view), but it is present in the background.

I never did like the phrase space/time because it's misleading, as if time itself is a dimension that can be bent.

Scientists suggest spacetime has no time dimension
April 25, 2011 by Lisa Zyga report

Scientists propose that clocks measure the numerical order of material change in space, where space is a fundamental entity; time itself is not a fundamental physical entity. Image credit: Wikimedia Commons.
(PhysOrg.com) -- The concept of time as a way to measure the duration of events is not only deeply intuitive, it also plays an important role in our mathematical descriptions of physical systems. For instance, we define an object’s speed as its displacement per a given time. But some researchers theorize that this Newtonian idea of time as an absolute quantity that flows on its own, along with the idea that time is the fourth dimension of spacetime, are incorrect. They propose to replace these concepts of time with a view that corresponds more accurately to the physical world: time as a measure of the numerical order of change. In two recent papers (one published and one to be published) in Physics Essays, Amrit Sorli, Davide Fiscaletti, and Dusan Klinar from the Scientific Research Centre Bistra in Ptuj, Slovenia, have described in more detail what this means.

No time dimension

They begin by explaining how we usually assume that time is an absolute physical quantity that plays the role of the independent variable (time, t, is often the x-axis on graphs that show the evolution of a physical system). But, as they note, we never really measure t. What we do measure is an object’s frequency, speed, etc. In other words, what experimentally exists are the motion of an object and the tick of a clock, and we compare the object’s motion to the tick of a clock to measure the object’s frequency, speed, etc. By itself, t has only a mathematical value, and no primary physical existence.

This view doesn’t mean that time does not exist, but that time has more to do with space than with the idea of an absolute time. So while 4D spacetime is usually considered to consist of three dimensions of space and one dimension of time, the researchers’ view suggests that it’s more correct to imagine spacetime as four dimensions of space. In other words, as they say, the universe is “timeless.”

“Minkowski space is not 3D + T, it is 4D,” the scientists write in their most recent paper. “The point of view which considers time to be a physical entity in which material changes occur is here replaced with a more convenient view of time being merely the numerical order of material change. This view corresponds better to the physical world and has more explanatory power in describing immediate physical phenomena: gravity, electrostatic interaction, information transfer by EPR experiment are physical phenomena carried directly by the space in which physical phenomena occur.”

As the scientists added, the roots of this idea come from Einstein himself.
“Einstein said, ‘Time has no independent existence apart from the order of events by which we measure it,’” Sorli told PhysOrg.com. “Time is exactly the order of events: this is my conclusion.” In the future, the scientists plan to investigate the possibility that quantum space has three dimensions of space, as Sorli explained.

“The idea of time being the fourth dimension of space did not bring much progress in physics and is in contradiction with the formalism of special relativity,” he said. “We are now developing a formalism of 3D quantum space based on Planck work. It seems that the universe is 3D from the macro to the micro level to the Planck volume, which per formalism is 3D. In this 3D space there is no ‘length contraction,’ there is no ‘time dilation.’ What really exists is that the velocity of material change is ‘relative’ in the Einstein sense.”
Numerical order in space

The researchers give an example of this concept of time by imagining a photon that is moving between two points in space. The distance between these two points is composed of Planck distances, each of which is the smallest distance that the photon can move. (The fundamental unit of this motion is Planck time.) When the photon moves a Planck distance, it is moving exclusively in space and not in absolute time, the researchers explain. The photon can be thought of as moving from point 1 to point 2, and its position at point 1 is “before” its position at point 2 in the sense that the number 1 comes before the number 2 in the numerical order. Numerical order is not equivalent to temporal order, i.e., the number 1 does not exist before the number 2 in time, only numerically.

As the researchers explain, without using time as the fourth dimension of spacetime, the physical world can be described more accurately. As physicist Enrico Prati noted in a recent study, Hamiltonian dynamics (equations in classical mechanics) is robustly well-defined without the concept of absolute time. Other scientists have pointed out that the mathematical model of spacetime does not correspond to physical reality, and propose that a timeless “state space” provides a more accurate framework.

The scientists also investigated the falsifiability of the two notions of time. The concept of time as the fourth dimension of space - as a fundamental physical entity in which an experiment occurs - can be falsified by an experiment in which time does not exist, according to the scientists. An example of an experiment in which time is not present as a fundamental entity is the Coulomb experiment; mathematically, this experiment takes place only in space. On the other hand, in the concept of time as a numerical order of change taking place in space, space is the fundamental physical entity in which a given experiment occurs. Although this concept could be falsified by an experiment in which time (measured by clocks) is not the numerical order of material change, such an experiment is not yet known.
“Newton theory on absolute time is not falsifiable, you cannot prove it or disprove it, you have to believe in it,” Sorli said. “The theory of time as the fourth dimension of space is falsifiable and in our last article we prove there are strong indications that it might be wrong. On the basis of experimental data, time is what we measure with clocks: with clocks we measure the numerical order of material change, i.e., motion in space.”

<snip>

The researchers also briefly examine how this new view of time fits with how we intuitively perceive time. Many neurological studies have confirmed that we do have a sense of past, present, and future. This evidence has led to the proposal that the brain represents time with an internal “clock” that emits neural ticks (the “pacemaker-accumulator” model). However, some recent studies have challenged this traditional view, and suggest that the brain represents time in a spatially distributed way, by detecting the activation of different neural populations. Although we perceive events as occurring in the past, present, or future, these concepts may just be part of a psychological frame in which we experience material changes in space. Finally, the researchers explain that this view of time does not look encouraging for time travelers. “In our view, time travel into the past and future are not possible,” Sorli said. (Sorry David )“One can travel in space only, and time is a numerical order of his motion.”


cont. at: Scientists suggest spacetime has no time dimension

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never did like the phrase space/time because it's misleading, as if time itself is a dimension that can be bent.

You idiot. The article you quoted doesn't even support your prejudice!

"So while 4D spacetime is usually considered to consist of three dimensions of space and one dimension of time, the researchers’ view suggests that it’s more correct to imagine spacetime as four dimensions of space."

In fact, it says the opposite!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

We can't be seeing it in real time, can we? Each 'copy' of that 'star' is from a different time. So which is 'real time', and which are we seeing from the past/future?

I already said, so what? We know light travels. If the Sun was just turned on but that light was diverted (or curved) around something blocking our view, we would not be able to see it being turned on at that instant. We would then have to wait for the light to go around the blockage for us to get an image, which takes time. This does not negate real time vision under normal circumstances.