A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What studies are you talking about? I have read the links for the most part, and nothing is going to convince me that Lessans is wrong until more empirical tests are done.

Nothing will ever convince you Lessans is wrong, because you're flat-out nuts.

Now, then, why are ignoring how NASA sends space ships to celestial bodies?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You should know me by now.

Yes, we know that you're a serial liar.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not the point I'm making. I'm not saying that this world is a mirror image, but I can use this phenomenon to help you understand how the (P) reflection of an object will give us a mirror image on the film or retina, assuming that efferent vision is true.

But you haven't explained how the "mirror image" can be physically interacted with in such a way that a photon at the sun can also be absorbed by camera film at the same time with 93 million miles separating the sun and the camera film.

Either the photon has to travel, teleport, or come into spontaneous duplicate physical existence at the film. There are no other explanations.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I do understand what you're saying. But I don't think you do. You've just said that the photons teleport themselves from the object to the camera film.

How can they teleport themselves when the (P) reflection from the object is instantly at the film as long as the object is within one's field of view (optics)? You're also forgetting that the object does not create the mirror image. Think of your field of view as a screen which becomes the mirror image on the retina/film, not just one object within that view. You're having a problem believing that a mirror image is what's occurring, so you keep going back to the idea that you will see a blue photon first, if it's ahead of red.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And if there are two cameras both pointing at the same object, can you tell me which of those two camera films a given photon will go to? Or will it simultaneously exist at both film locations?

The reflected light will be coming from different angles, so the mirror image on the film of each camera will be slightly different.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And if the blue photons are disappearing from the object's surface to appear instantly at one or more camera films, then they aren't still there at the object to bounce off as part of (N)reflected sunlight. So how can that (N)reflected sunlight still be full spectrum? The blue part of that spectrum will have teleported itself away to any and all nearby cameras.

In a mirror image there are no photons leaving the surface, so how can the blue part of the spectrum teleport itself? That's what you are failing to understand.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is obvious that the closer I get to showing people that Lessans was right, the people in here get meaner.

L.O.L. What a copy-cat, that is exactly what I said about Peacegirl several posts ago. She's just like a little kid on the playground, if you come up with a good comeback she turns it right around, she can't come up with anything herself, just watch.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And if there are two cameras both pointing at the same object, can you tell me which of those two camera films a given photon will go to? Or will it simultaneously exist at both film locations?

Good question

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But you haven't explained how the "mirror image" can be physically interacted with in such a way that a photon at the sun can also be absorbed by camera film at the same time with 93 million miles separating the sun and the camera film.

Either the photon has to travel, teleport, or come into spontaneous duplicate physical existence at the film. There are no other explanations.

She has them teleporting. She just doens't like the word 'teleport'.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The reflected light will be coming from different angles, so the mirror image on the film of each camera will be slightly different.

So the light is traveling to the film, after all? Where is it "coming from" that it has an angle of trajectory?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

L.O.L. What a copy-cat, that is exactly what I said about Peacegirl several posts ago. She's just like a little kid on the playground, if you come up with a good comeback she turns it right around, she can't come up with anything herself, just watch.

She has the mentality of a small child, and the knowledge base as well.

[davidm]

*Bump*

Why have you ignored this post, peacegirl? It answers the question you asked.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Well found! The section on Barycentering describes the process peacegirl is freaking out about and demanding evidence for.

So there's your evidence, peacegirl.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But you haven't explained how the "mirror image" can be physically interacted with in such a way that a photon at the sun can also be absorbed by camera film at the same time with 93 million miles separating the sun and the camera film.

Either the photon has to travel, teleport, or come into spontaneous duplicate physical existence at the film. There are no other explanations.

Because you don't understand the first thing about efferent vision, and why we see is in real time as a result, which does not violate the laws of physics at all. So why not try to understand how efferent vision works, instead of telling me it's impossible.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can they teleport when the (P) reflection from the object is there as long as the object is in range (optics)? You're having a problem believing that a mirror image is what is happening, so you keep thinking that red comes before blue.

(P)reflection just is teleportation. You have photons at the surface of the blue ball at one moment and then instantly at the surface of the distant film at the next moment. That is teleportation by definition.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The reflected light will be coming from different angles, so the mirror image on the film of each camera will be slightly different.

What does that have to do with what I just asked? You have a blue photon in existence at the camera film when the photo is taken. You said that at the previous moment it was at the blue ball's surface. At that moment, if there had been two cameras pointing at the ball, how would the photon have known which one to instantly go to? Would the same photon have turned up at both camera films?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In a mirror image there are no photons leaving the surface, so how can the blue part of the spectrum teleport itself? That's what you are failing to understand.

You have blue-wavelength photons disappearing from the surface of the object (not from any mirror image) and appearing instantly at the film. That means they are not still there near the ball as part of the full spectrum light bouncing off the ball. So that light won't be full spectrum.

If you don't want any of the photons at the film to have previously just left the surface of the object, then you gave me the wrong answer in post #5409 where you said that the photons at the camera previously existed at the object. If they were at the object just before, and are now at the film, then they aren't still at the object's surface (and if they were then that would make them stationary again).

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

*Bump*

Why have you ignored this post, peacegirl? It answers the question you asked.

I said that this link is interesting but I need an explicit section where they explain how they mathematically compensate for delayed time in order to calculate their accurate projections.

[LadyShea]

Because you don't understand the first thing about efferent vision, and why we see is in real time as a result, which does not violate the laws of physics at all. So why not try to understand how efferent vision works, instead of telling me it's impossible.

I don't have to understand your model to ask you questions about your model and expect logical answers as to how your model is possible within the laws of physics. You are supposed to be explaining it

How can a photon physically located at the Sun be simultaneously absorbed by camera film physically located 93 millions miles away with traveling, teleporting, or coming into duplicate physical existence?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

(P)reflection just is teleportation. You have photons at the surface of the blue ball at one moment and then instantly at the surface of the distant film at the next moment. That is teleportation by definition.

What does that have to do with what I just asked? You have a blue photon in existence at the camera film when the photo is taken. You said that at the previous moment it was at the blue ball's surface. At that moment, if there had been two cameras pointing at the ball, how would the photon have known which one to instantly go to? Would the same photon have turned up at both camera films?

You have blue-wavelength photons disappearing from the surface of the object (not from any mirror image) and appearing instantly at the film. That means they are not still there near the ball as part of the full spectrum light bouncing off the ball. So that light won't be full spectrum.

It is a mirror image but you can't visualize it yet. When you fold a peace of paper and line up dots on either side, what allows this to happen? What connects the two sides?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

O don't have to understand your model to ask you questions about your model and expect logical answers.

How can a photon located at the Sun be simultaneously absorbed by camera film at a location 93 millions miles away?

You're doing what Spacemonkey does. You're trying to understand this model in terms of the afferent model and then you're telling me that it can't work because light has to travel millions of miles to interact with the retina. The irony is that optics explains exactly what Lessans is saying.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

peacegirl claimed that she wanted to see the proof that NASA must take into account the delay in when we see distant planets when launching space probes. She further specified that she wanted to see the actual equations, as proof.

LadyShea gave her exactly what she demanded as proof that NASA must take into account the delay in when we see things when calculating the trajectory of space probes.

Strange that she's ignoring that fact ...

I'm sorry but I'm not sure she is ignoring anything, after all to ignore something there would first need to be some semblance of understanding and if something is totally beyond comprehension it would be difficult to ignore. It's more like she is just not aware of it at all. After all just how much do you comprehend of a foreign language that you do not speak or read.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said that this link is interesting but I need an explicit section where they explain how they mathematically compensate for delayed time in order to calculate their accurate projections.

That is the explicit section explaining it. I gave an actual math formula earlier as well.

As I said, it's understandable that astrophysics and the math involved is incomprehensible to us laypeople, but NASA wrote that for their physicists, not to explain the math to us.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're doing what Spacemonkey does. You're trying to understand this model in terms of the afferent model and then you're telling me that it can't work because light has to travel millions of miles to interact with the retina. The irony is that optics explains exactly what Lessans is saying.

I am not talking about vision or retinas, I am talking about physics of light and camera film.

A photon is a physical thing. Absorption of a photon by camera film is a physical process. Just as shaking hands is a physical process. No observer or brain looking through eye windows or seer is necessary for this physical process to occur.

You need to explain how this is physically possible, since you're the one claiming it is not only possible, but actually happening in fact.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said that this link is interesting but I need an explicit section where they explain how they mathematically compensate for delayed time in order to calculate their accurate projections.

LadyShea gave you the equation in the post!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is a mirror image but you can't visualize it yet. When you fold a peace of paper and line up dots on either side, what allows this to happen? What connects the two sides?

The physical movement of the paper allows for the two sides to meet at the same physical location in space.

[davidm]

You don't need the maths, peacegirl. You wouldn't understand them anyway. The concept is so simple that an eight-year-old could effortlessly grasp it, and you DO grasp it, which accounts for your earlier tantrum and for the fact that you are now desperately avoiding dealing with this question and with Spacemonkey's chart, which you claimed to "like."

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said that this link is interesting but I need an explicit section where they explain how they mathematically compensate for delayed time in order to calculate their accurate projections.

Yes, the Barycentering section does that.

So, Lessans is wrong.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is a mirror image but you can't visualize it yet. When you fold a peace of paper and line up dots on either side, what allows this to happen? What connects the two sides?

The fact that the paper is physically folded and the two points are at the very same point in physical space. That doesn't happen even in efferent vision. Space cannot fold itself in half and make distant points in space come into physical contact. So this is a daft analogy.

If you want me to be able to visualize what you are trying to say, then it would really help if you were to answer these questions:

When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is travelling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Does it bounce off the surface to travel away from it? [Y/N?]

Is it absorbed by the blue object? [Y/N?]

Does it cease to exist? [Y/N?]

Does it stay there, at the surface of the blue object? [Y/N?]

Does it teleport itself instantly to any nearby films or retinas? [Y/N?]

If none of the above, then what? [Insert answer here]

[LadyShea]

Nevermind I was incorrect about what the new member did for NASA