A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Does anyone remember "Neptune all Night"? I stayed up all night to record it, off air, on VHS. I had watched those tapes a few times since. But the tapes are gone now.

Neptune All Night - YouTube

I think there were about 8 or 10 hours of program and I recorded it in the 2 hr mode, so I was changing tapes a lot.

I also recorded the PBS specials that were based on this program.

It's interesting to note that the images broadcast showed every other pixel from every other line that was broadcast from voyager. So the images shown were 25% of the resolution of the images that NASA received.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Sorry but that is clearly nonsense. He says explicitly that this proves that he is correct - a rare instance of him actually trying to prove anything at all, rather than simply promising to prove it later and then never getting back to it - but he is obviously wrong about that. There is no proof there that I can see.

Why say "This proves conclusively that the distance between someone looking, and the object seen, has no relation to time" when it does not prove that at all - even if sight WAS efferent?

I will not get into this argument again without a good reason, so please don't take this as an invitation. I just wanted to add (which I am entitled to do) that he could not understand why we should not get images as light reaches us if the eyes were a sense organ. Images do die out just like sound dies out, but we don't say that sound should go on and on forever. It doesn't. No one can explain this discrepancy. Well, that doesn't bode well for the afferent model of sight. Have I missed something? I'm sure you will all flock to tell me how wrong I am.

[Vivisectus]

I will not get into this argument again without a good reason, so please don't take this as an invitation. I just wanted to add (which I am entitled to do) that he could not understand why we should not get images as light reaches us if the eyes were a sense organ.

But we do get images as the light reaches us? What are you trying to say here?

Images do die out just like sound dies out, but we don't say that sound should go on and on forever. It doesn't. No one can explain this discrepancy.

You seem to be having a Bill O'Reilly moment. Tide goes in, tide goes out? Or are you more Insane Clown Posse fan: Fucking magnets, how do they work?

There is no discrepancy as far as I can see: light has different properties than sound waves. That is really all there is to that. What do you feel needs explaining, exactly?

Well, that doesn't bode well for the afferent model of sight. Have I missed something? I'm sure you will all flock to tell me how wrong I am.

Why don't you explain exactly what you feel is not boding well for the afferent account? Because I am having a hard time understanding what it is you feel is going on.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But we do get images as the light reaches us? What are you trying to say here?

You seem to be having a Bill O'Reilly moment. Tide goes in, tide goes out? Or are you more Insane Clown Posse fan: Fucking magnets, how do they work?

There is no discrepancy as far as I can see: light has different properties than sound waves. That is really all there is to that. What do you feel needs explaining, exactly?

The fact that there is a limit to what light can provide our eyes, if the source of that light is too far away or non-existent.

Well, that doesn't bode well for the afferent model of sight. Have I missed something? I'm sure you will all flock to tell me how wrong I am.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Why don't you explain exactly what you feel is not boding well for the afferent account? Because I am having a hard time understanding what it is you feel is going on.

What doesn't bode well with the afferent account is the claim that there is no need for the original light source to be present, and the denial that the resolution of the image is circumscribed by distance, size, and brightness of the actual object.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Or are you more Insane Clown Posse fan: Fucking magnets, how do they work?

Or, since peacegirl is still "not discussing" light and sight,

show spoiler

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that there is a limit to what light can provide our eyes, if the source of that light is too far away or non-existent.

What doesn't bode well with the afferent account is the claim that there is no need for the original light source to be present, and the denial that the resolution of the image is circumscribed by distance, size, and brightness of the actual object.

We can see galaxies that are billions of light years away which don't even exist anymore in the form we see them.

[Vivisectus]

The fact that there is a limit to what light can provide our eyes, if the source of that light is too far away or non-existent.

Not sure what that even means... what are you trying to get at?

What doesn't bode well with the afferent account is the claim that there is no need for the original light source to be present, and the denial that the resolution of the image is circumscribed by distance, size, and brightness of the actual object.

I still do not know what you think the problem is.

[thedoc]

Light and sound are fundamentally different, sound is the vibration of a substance that is transmitted through a substance. If there is no substance there is no sound, sound does not transmit through a vacuum. Light is photons and photons are particles of energy that travel through a vacuum and transparent substances, but at a slightly slower speed through a substance. Light continues in a straight line till is is absorbed by a substance, bent by a force, or redirected by a surface. Photons of light vibrate, and these vibrations determine the color, the rate of vibration is determined by the energy when the photon is emitted. Because light travels in a straight line, except for the exceptions noted, it will spread out as it moves away from the source. Light always travels at the speed of light through a vacuum and slightly slower through a transparent substance. There is no such thing as a white light photon or a black light photon, white light is just all the colors together, and black is the absence of light. Pigments are not the same as photons and should not be confused, the color of a pigment is determined by which photons are reflected and which are absorbed.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What doesn't bode well with the afferent account is the claim that there is no need for the original light source to be present, and the denial that the resolution of the image is circumscribed by distance, size, and brightness of the actual object.

Afferent vision, which has been verified many times over, states that we see due to the photons that strike the retina of the eye. If the photons have left an object that is a great distance away (such as a distant star) the image that is perceived could be of a star that no longer exists. For terrestrial objects light travels so fast that there is not enough time to remove the object so that it can be seen for more than a few nanoseconds after the object is taken away. Certainly not enough time for people to notice under normal circumstances.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Images do die out just like sound dies out, but we don't say that sound should go on and on forever. It doesn't. No one can explain this discrepancy.

The fact that there is a limit to what light can provide our eyes, if the source of that light is too far away or non-existent.

Photons of light do not die out and neither does the image that can be formed from these photons. Sound only travels as long as there is some substance to transmit it. Photons of light travel till they are absorbed or reflected, there is no limit to how far an unobstructed photon can go and photons do not slow down or loose energy by themselves, the energy level of a photon can only be changed by some outside factor.

There is no limit to what light can provide to our eyes as far as distance is concerned, but for a distant object there can be too few photons to create an image, that is why astronomers use telescopes, to gather more photons and focus them into an image. Once the photons have left the object they are independent of that object and the presence or absence of the object is irrelevant.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just wanted to add that he could not understand why we should not get images as light reaches us if the eyes were a sense organ.

This explains the whole reason Lessans wrote his book. Something a little education could have prevented.

We do get images as light reaches us, because the eyes are sense organs.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If anyone wants to understand why real-time efferent vision is a false concept, this post spells it out.

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

We can see galaxies that are billions of light years away which don't even exist anymore in the form we see them.

Using an example closer to Earth, it seems to me that if we didn't need the object, just the light being reflected or emitted, we would continue to see images of things that are no longer in existence. I know what you will say? Light travels too fast. As the distance gets greater in terms of planets and galaxies, it would become more apparent that it's the light that we're interpreting. I'm not satisfied with that answer. The fact that the object must be within our field of view (I'm talking about objects on Earth) indicates to me that it's not the light that is bringing anything. It's a condition of sight ONLY. If something is too small to be seen, you can have all the light in the world shining on that object but if it's out of our optical range, it won't permit us to see it even though light is traveling from that object right toward our eyes because there will be no resolution.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If something is too small to be seen, you can have all the light in the world shining on that object but if it's out of our optical range, it won't permit us to see it even though light is traveling from that object right toward our eyes because there will be no resolution.

There is no "too small to be seen". You can see a single atom if you shine light on it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

There is no "too small to be seen". You can see a single atom if you shine light on it.

Something may be too small to be seen But. I can hold up a nickel and you can see it. I back up until the nickel is out of your optical range. You cannot see it anymore because there's no resolution on your retina. There would be no image on film either.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Something may be too small to be seen But. I can hold up a nickel and you can see it. I back up until the nickel is out of your optical range. You cannot see it anymore because there's no resolution on your retina. There would be no image on film either.

And if you shine a really bright light on it, you see it, no matter how big the distance is.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

And if you shine a really bright light on it, you see it, no matter how big the distance is.

How could you shine a bright light on something that you didn't see because it was out of range?

[Vivisectus]

Using an example closer to Earth, it seems to me that if we didn't need the object, just the light being reflected or emitted, we would continue to see images of things that are no longer in existence. I know what you will say? Light travels too fast.

Pretty much. Though we can show that this is what is happening with one of those really old devices for calculating lightspeed:

Fizeau–Foucault apparatus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That device should not work if sight is efferent. And yet it does.

As the distance gets greater in terms of planets and galaxies, it would become more apparent that it's the light that we're interpreting.

Yup.

I'm not satisfied with that answer. The fact that the object must be within our field of view (I'm talking about objects on Earth) indicates to me that it's not the light that is bringing anything.

Why?

It's a condition of sight ONLY. If something is too small to be seen, you can have all the light in the world shining on that object but if it's out of our optical range, it won't permit us to see it even though light is traveling from that object right toward our eyes because there will be no resolution.

What does "resolution" even mean in efferent terms? Also, apparently you are wrong.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How could you shine a bright light on something that you didn't see because it was out of range?

Have you been at the sauce again?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How could you shine a bright light on something that you didn't see because it was out of range?

There is no "out of range". We can see galaxies that are (or were) billions of light years away.

Imagine putting the nickel on the moon, on a big big sheet of black velvet. Then put a really really powerful spotlight next to it and shine it on the nickel. If the light source is powerful enough, you can see the nickel.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

out of your optical range. You cannot see it anymore becau

How could you shine a bright light on something that you didn't see because it was out of range?

I keep saying to myself, Peacegirl can't really be that stupid, and then you post something like this. But didn't say the observer needed to see the object to shine a light on it, he just said that it had to be lit up by a really bright light for an observer really far away to see it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Have you been at the sauce again?

That must be it, she's so drunk, she's stupid.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that the object must be within our field of view (I'm talking about objects on Earth) indicates to me that it's not the light that is bringing anything. It's a condition of sight ONLY.

This is one of those peculiar abilities she learned from her father, to take one idea as proof of some unrelated idea, and then challenge anyone who disagrees to explain why something that doesn't happen, happens.

[thedoc]

Even when an object is too small to be seen with normal illumination, if you shine more light on it there will be more photons reflecting from the object, and with enough light there will be enough photons reaching the eye to make an image, even if it's just a pinpoint of light, the object will be visible.

[thedoc]

If you shine more light on an object there will be more photons being reflected. Some might try to use a water hose as an analogy, but this analogy breaks down because molecules of water take up a fixed amount of space and to make more molecules of water come out of the hose you need to raise the pressure and the water will come out faster and there will be more molecules. However photons of light are already to being emitted at the speed of light and cannot move any faster so increasing the illumination increases the number of photons, apparently photons do not take up a particular amount of space, and as to how many can occupy a small space, I don't know that there is an upper limit, except the limit of how many are available.