A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Peacegirl, if you want to know how light works, you can play around a bit with this applet:
Electrodynamics Simulation (TM)

Why does light have to be focused on the retina?

My Java plug-in isn't working right now. Can you give me the gist?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Again, it depends whether we are seeing the light source moving toward us (such as someone walking with a flashlight, in which case it would be red before blue); or if we are talking about seeing the emitted light. In that case we would be seeing the blue light, not the red.

Nope, we are talking about a camera taking a picture of a distant but stationary ball. The ball was red but is now blue. The light present at the camera and interacting with the film to form an image is RED but the ball is currently BLUE. So either the red light causes a real-time blue image, or the camera forms a dated red image from the red light. That is what you need to explain.

[LadyShea]

Whether light is a condition or a cause of sight does not change how light travels and functions. Whether light is a condition or a cause of sight does not change how cameras function, which is by collecting incoming light.

You cannot change how light behaves, nor can you make cameras work efferently like human eyes.

So, it is up to you to explain how it is possible for cameras to work as they do, and for light to behave as it does yet give us the same image as our eyes do.

Your "field of view" idea doesn't work for cameras because lenses to do not focus out, nor does a camera have a brain to look out through the lens.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, you do not get to end the discussion and change the subject. You need to face up to the facts and deal with them.

Light DOES travel independently of the nature of the object. When the object is RED, it is emitting or reflecting RED light which will travel away from the object and will remain RED. The travelling RED light cannot change from RED to BLUE just because the object has changed color and has now begun to emit BLUE light.

That's where we differ. Unless it is the actual light source, we can't see photons.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So at the time of the change, the camera is receiving only RED light while the object is now BLUE. The BLUE light will take further time to reach the camera. So the camera must either form a DATED red image from the present RED light at the camera, or use the present RED light to form a BLUE image. The only light present to interact with the film is RED. The film cannot interact with the BLUE light which is only just beginning to be emitted and has yet to reach the camera.

But if the light is already at the lens, and the camera is focused on the subject, in the here and now, which is reflecting said light, then it is the present, not the past, that will be materialized on film.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Again, it depends whether we are seeing the light source moving toward us (such as someone walking with a flashlight, in which case it would be red before blue); or if we are talking about seeing the emitted light. In that case we would be seeing the blue light, not the red.

What if there was light source 60 light minutes away, that was turned on as red, then after 30 minutes the source changed to blue (at the source, which is 60 light minutes away).

When would you be able to see and photograph the source as appearing blue?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That directly contradicts the known mechanism of how cameras operate, along with the elementary physics of light. Photons DO travel independently of subsequent changes in the object from which they have been emitted or reflected. The specific wavelengths, intensity, and distribution of light at the camera is what interacts with the film to produce an image. That cannot change instantly to match changes occurring in the object AFTER that light has left the object. Light cannot be "reflected instantly" because light can only travel at the speed of light.

This has all been explained to you before, and only a pig-headed refusal to face reality can explain your continued lack of comprehension.

I am trying to figure out how efferent vision would work if Lessans is right. I may not doing a great job of it, but that doesn't prove him wrong. If we see in real time, that would mean light is a condition of sight (as I just mentioned in an earlier post), which has nothing to do with the finite speed of light. There is no time involved in taking a picture, just as there is no time involved in seeing an object.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's where we differ. Unless it is the actual light source, we can't see photons.

But if the light is already at the lens, and the camera is focused on the subject, in the here and now, which is reflecting said light, then it is the present, not the past, that will be materialized on film.

Nope, because that light already at the lens is RED while the ball is currently BLUE. So any image formed by that light interacting with the film will be an image of a RED ball, which means that image is dated and not real-time.

The reflected BLUE light cannot travel instantaneously to reach and interact with the film, regardless of focus.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am trying to figure out how efferent vision would work if Lessans is right. I may not doing a great job of it, but that doesn't prove him wrong. If we see in real time, that would mean light is a condition of sight (as I just mentioned in an earlier post), which has nothing to do with the finite speed of light. There is no time involved in taking a picture, just as there is no time involved in seeing an object.

You're not trying to understand the problem. You're trying desperately to avoid properly addressing it.

Cameras are not physically capable of taking instantaneous real-time pictures. Cameras can only function afferently. They work by allowing the specific properties of the arriving light to interact with the film, and that light takes time to arrive. Any light already present has taken time to travel to the camera and does not represent real-time information about the objects from which it was reflected or emitted.

If cameras could function efferently to record real-time images without any brain to do the 'looking out', then the brain wouldn't need to 'look out' to see in real-time either. So you are undermining Lessans' own 'explanation' of vision with this desperate silliness.

The problem isn't your inability to explain things for Lessans. The problem is that Lessans' claims require afferent cameras to produce different images than our efferent visual system. And that just doesn't happen.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Actually, you did state that the ciliary muscles are extraocular, when in fact they're intraocular -- on at least two occasions that I noted. Go back and read your own posts.

Specifically, you talked about the innervation of the ciliary muscles and the other extraocular muscles.


But then, we've already established that you can't keep track of your own claims ...

When I said "other", you might have taken it that I included the ciliary muscles as part of the extraocular muscles, but that's not what I meant. I was trying to show that they were not part of the 6 voluntary muscles of the eye. You don't have to explain over again that they are still considered voluntary.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And you know, it really doesn't help your claims when you quote stuff that you clearly don't understand.

I admit, I am learning as I go. So what? You seem to believe that my explanation as to why efferent vision is not a crazy concept, is wrong. Until you can prove --- not theorize --- that there is no way efferent vision is even possible, then I will continue to support Lessans' claim that what we are actually seeing is the present, not the past.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I admit, I am learning as I go.

There's about as much evidence for that as there is for Lessans' claims.

You've been at this YEARS and you still don't understand even the most basic aspects of how a camera functions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're not trying to understand the problem. You're trying desperately to avoid properly addressing it.

Cameras are not physically capable of taking instantaneous real-time pictures. Cameras can only function afferently. They work by allowing the specific properties of the arriving light to interact with the film, and that light takes time to arrive. Any light already present has taken time to travel to the camera and does not represent real-time information about the objects from which it was reflected or emitted.

You keep bringing up that light takes time to arrive as if light is the only condition necessary for a photograph to be taken. I'm saying that a camera, although a light detector, is connected to the object that it is photographing. It is believed that a picture could be taken just by light striking the lens, without the object in view or present in some form (such as in a mirror). I'm saying that's impossible. That's why you will never see a camera picking up or detecting photons of a past event and turning them into a picture.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If cameras could function efferently to record real-time images without any brain to do the 'looking out', then the brain wouldn't need to 'look out' to see in real-time either. So you are undermining Lessans' own 'explanation' of vision with this desperate silliness.

I don't see where I'm undermining Lessans' explanation. People are saying that cameras and the eyes see and photograph the same thing. Their explanation is that it's the light striking the lens and the retina at the same time. I'm showing that there is another explanation as to why a camera and the eyes would see the same object or image without it being due to the finite speed of light.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The problem isn't your inability to explain things for Lessans. The problem is that Lessans' claims require afferent cameras to produce different images than our efferent visual system. And that just doesn't happen.

I'm trying to show you that there is another explanation that would explain this phenomenon. Cameras are not afferent. That's why you're not getting it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep bringing up that light takes time to arrive as if light is the only condition necessary for a photograph to be taken. I'm saying that a camera, although a light detector, is connected to the object that it is photographing. It is believed that a picture could be taken just by light striking the lens, without the object in view or present in some form (such as in a mirror). I'm saying that's impossible. That's why you will never see a camera picking up or detecting photons of a past event and turning them into a picture.

I don't see where I'm undermining Lessans' explanation. People are saying that cameras and the eyes see and photograph the same thing. Their explanation is that it's the light striking the lens and the retina at the same time. I'm showing that there is another explanation as to why a camera and the eyes would see the same object or image without it being due to the finite speed of light.

I'm trying to show you that there is another explanation that would explain this phenomenon. Cameras are not afferent. That's why you're not getting it.

But you're NOT providing any alternative explanation. You've reduced the functioning of cameras to pure magic. You are denying that the photographic image is created by the chemical interactions between the properties of the light actually at the camera and the photographic film. There is simply no possible mechanism by which the distant BLUE object can interact with the film instantaneously to form a BLUE image when the only light at the camera capable of interacting with the film is still RED.

How can cameras not be afferent? Cameras passively receive light, and the properties of the received light determines the nature of the image on the film. With no brain in the camera to 'look out' what part of this process could possibly be efferent?

You're not even trying to address or understand the issue. You're just saying whatever nonsense you can come up with to allow you not to have to admit the obvious.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Whether light is a condition or a cause of sight does not change how light travels and functions. Whether light is a condition or a cause of sight does not change how cameras function, which is by collecting incoming light.

You cannot change how light behaves, nor can you make cameras work efferently like human eyes.

So, it is up to you to explain how it is possible for cameras to work as they do, and for light to behave as it does yet give us the same image as our eyes do.

Your "field of view" idea doesn't work for cameras because lenses to do not focus out, nor does a camera have a brain to look out through the lens.

Oh really? So what are the lenses focusing on LadyShea? Photons?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, light is already present at the camera. But WHAT COLOR is that light? If the object has only just changed from RED to BLUE, then it has only just begun to reflect or emit BLUE light. The light already present at the camera (and which will be used to form the image) will still be RED. The BLUE light will not be present at the camera until it has had time to travel from the now-BLUE object to the camera.

What you are saying is either that the RED light which is now at the camera magically changes from RED to BLUE to match the changed object (exactly what you just denied claiming), or that the newly emitted BLUE light travels from the object to the camera instantaneously at the time of the change (i.e. the BLUE light manages to travel faster than the speed of light).

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are treating photons as if they are independent of the object and they travel along a path that reaches the lens in the order in which they arrived.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, because that is how light works, once it is emitted it is independent of its source and traveling in all directions, and cameras work by gathering light. You keep saying you understand these facts.

I understand your explanation; whether they are facts or not (which you contest because science does not discuss facts; so why are you going against your own convictions?) is yet to be determined.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But what I'm saying is that it's the object that the lens is focusing on

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And we've explained that camera lenses cannot and do not focus "out" on the object, they focus the incoming light into the camera and either onto photosensitive film or a digital device.

That's not true LadyShea. They focus on the object or lightsource. You don't know what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

therefore if there is a change in the object it will be reflected instantly onto the lens

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What you are saying is that cameras are efferent like you think eyes are, that they somehow reach out to take pictures. This is not how cameras work, and you have stated over and over again that they do not work efferently.

I never said they reach out to do anything. Don't you see how your definitions are f'd up LadyShea? They are not reflective of anything real, but you will defend to the death, yet I'm the one targeted as a nut case? Cameras are neither efferent or afferent. They focus on the object and the light is instantly projected onto the lens.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

For example, if the camera is taking a picture of a girl who has her hair in a pony tail and she takes her pony tail out, the lens will not take a picture of her with her pony tail while I see her with no pony tail. It will take the same exact picture of her without a pony tail.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is because light travels too fast for the delay to be detectable photographing a girl here on Earth, the light is past the camera and 183 thousand miles away within a second. Again, you know this, so this is a weasel.

That's an extension of your wrong take on what light does. I am not weaseling, you are, so that you can be right, and you get the confidence from what science tells you is right.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's why my hypothetical -that you have ignored- had the light emitting, color changing source 60 light minutes away.

Wrong again. The color of the lightsource would be seen instantly since THERE IS NO TIME INVOLVED WHEN SEEN EFFERENTLY. YOU ARE BASING EVERY CONCLUSION ON THE PREMISE THAT LIGHT IS AFFERENT.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're not even trying to address or understand the issue. You're just saying whatever nonsense you can come up with to allow you not to have to admit the obvious.

For many people, the obvious, isn't.

Much the same as common sense, isn't common.

[peacegirl]

[quote=peacegirl;988253]You keep bringing up that light takes time to arrive as if light is the only condition necessary for a photograph to be taken. I'm saying that a camera, although a light detector, is connected to the object that it is photographing. It is believed that a picture could be taken just by light striking the lens, without the object in view or present in some form (such as in a mirror). I'm saying that's impossible. That's why you will never see a camera picking up or detecting photons of a past event and turning them into a picture.

I don't see where I'm undermining Lessans' explanation. People are saying that cameras and the eyes see and photograph the same thing. Their explanation is that it's the light striking the lens and the retina at the same time. I'm showing that there is another explanation as to why a camera and the eyes would see the same object or image without it being due to the finite speed of light.

I'm trying to show you that there is another explanation that would explain this phenomenon. Cameras are not afferent. That's why you're not getting it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But you're NOT providing any alternative explanation. You've reduced the functioning of cameras to pure magic.

That's not true if you are thinking in terms of light being a condition of sight. You are entrenched with the idea that light is a cause of sight; that's why it's so hard for you to see. You've grown up with this idea, and you've accepted it wholeheartedly because science is never wrong.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are denying that the photographic image is created by the chemical interactions between the properties of the light actually at the camera and the photographic film.

Not at all. I'm just saying that the photographic film is taking a picture of "now", not "before".

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

There is simply no possible mechanism by which the distant BLUE object can interact with the film instantaneously to form a BLUE image when the only light at the camera capable of interacting with the film is still RED.

That's not true if light is a condition. It is dependent on the lightsource for its reflection as it is projected onto the lens; it is not dependent on time travel.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How can cameras not be afferent? Cameras passively receive light, and the properties of the received light determines the nature of the image on the film. With no brain in the camera to 'look out' what part of this process could possibly be efferent?

It is true that cameras passively receive light, but what you're missing is that the object that is reflecting that light is picked up instantly by the lens. I never said cameras were afferent or efferent. I am only showing that there is another explanation as to why cameras photograph the same image as the eye other than the belief in afferent vision.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're not even trying to address or understand the issue. You're just saying whatever nonsense you can come up with to allow you not to have to admit the obvious.

I am coming up with an alternative explanation which came about indirectly based on Lessans' insights as a whole. It just so happens he observed certain principles that completely reject the "supportive" evidence that we see the past due to the finite speed of light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

She ignored my post too, about the astronaut on the moon shining his laser back at us when he sees our laser turn on.

I didn't miss your post intentionally. Could you repeat it?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh really? So what are the lenses focusing on LadyShea? Photons?

They don't focus out on anything, they gather and concentrate incoming light to a small point. "Focus on" is used casually as a kind of shorthand, but it does not describe the actual process.

You can demonstrate the concept of lensing to yourself with a magnifying glass in the sun. The smaller and sharper you make the point of light, the more focused (concentrated) it is and therefore the more energy in a small area.

Definition of focus: A point at which rays of light or other radiation converge or from which they appear to diverge, as after refraction or reflection in an optical system: the focus of a lens. Also called focal point.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh really? So what are the lenses focusing on LadyShea? Photons?

The lens doesn't focus 'on' anything, it focuses the light (by redirecting it's direction of motion of the photons) onto the film, retina, or light collecting device, and thus forming a clear image on that surface. Peacegirls real problem is that she does not clearly understand English, many of the words seem to confuse her.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand your explanation; whether they are facts or not (which you contest because science does not discuss facts; so why are you going against your own convictions?) is yet to be determined.

Science does not discuss facts? What are you babbling about now?

Of course it is a fact that photons, once released from a source, are independent of the source! So even IF it were true that light is a condition of, but not the actual cause, of seeing (and this is not true), then it still follows that what we see, would be images from the past! Of course, all this has been painstakingly explained to you about a thousand times.

Light consists of photons. They have an independent existence when released from the source, and of course are independent of the object off of which they may be reflected. This, like the structure of the eye, which makes Lessan's claim that it is not a sense organ impossible, is a verified, emprical fact; every experiment ever done with light, for hundreds of years, relies on this to be a correct fact, and ensures that it is a correct fact through the results of the experiment. Were it otherwise, the experiments would not work, but they do work. Lessans did not know any of this because he was ignorant. So he just spewed anything that came to mind, and you defend his babble like a mindless robot.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When I said "other", you might have taken it that I included the ciliary muscles as part of the extraocular muscles, but that's not what I meant. I was trying to show that they were not part of the 6 voluntary muscles of the eye. You don't have to explain over again that they are still considered voluntary.

No, that won't fly. You specifically said "the ciliary muscles and the other extraocular muscles". Plus, just a few minutes earlier, you wrote, while referring to the ciliary muscles:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am trying to understand the difference between the extraocular muscles of the eye that are voluntary and the ones that aren't.

In short, you very clearly indicated that you thought that the ciliary muscles are extraocular, when, in fact, they aren't. Now you're trying to pretend that isn't what you said.

[Incidentally, all of the extraocular eye muscles are voluntary.]

You seem to believe that my explanation as to why efferent vision is not a crazy concept, is wrong. Until you can prove --- not theorize --- that there is no way efferent vision is even possible, then I will continue to support Lessans' claim that what we are actually seeing is the present, not the past.

Actually, that efferent vision is not just demonstrably false but physically impossible has long-ago been "proved" beyond any reasonable doubt. The only way that anyone can claim otherwise is by straying far beyond the bounds of reason.

And for the record, you've just demonstrated once again that you have no idea what the words "proof" and "theory" actually mean.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If photons were dependent on their source, radar would not work. So we know that not to be the case. Thus the camera WOULD have to see something different from the eye - which it doesn't.

I'm sorry, but there is a difference between picking up radar, and seeing the object in real time, which involves the brain and what is actually occurring.

Radar sends out a radio wave and measures the reflected radio wave using it to calculate a target's speed, shape, material the object is made of, and direction of movement.

Read more: What does a radar do

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not true if you are thinking in terms of light being a condition of sight. You are entrenched with the idea that light is a cause of sight; that's why it's so hard for you to see. You've grown up with this idea, and you've accepted it wholeheartedly because science is never wrong.

That's such a despicably dishonest thing to say -- on multiple levels -- that I don't even know how to address it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

No, that won't fly. You specifically said "the ciliary muscles and the other extraocular muscles". Plus, just a few minutes earlier, you wrote, while referring to the ciliary muscles:

I know what I meant to say Lone Ranger. Please don't put words in my mouth, okay? The only thing I'm guilty of is being unclear.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am trying to understand the difference between the extraocular muscles of the eye that are voluntary and the ones that aren't.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

In short, you very clearly indicated that you thought that the ciliary muscles are extraocular, when, in fact, they aren't. Now you're trying to pretend that isn't what you said.

[Incidentally, all of the extraocular eye muscles are voluntary.]

I am not pretending to have said something and now I'm reneging.

You seem to believe that my explanation as to why efferent vision is not a crazy concept, is wrong. Until you can prove --- not theorize --- that there is no way efferent vision is even possible, then I will continue to support Lessans' claim that what we are actually seeing is the present, not the past.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Actually, that efferent vision is not just demonstrably false but physically impossible has long-ago been "proved" beyond any reasonable doubt. The only way that anyone can claim otherwise is by straying far beyond the bounds of reason.

I can't find any proof against efferent vision. I don't want the same old same old literature that is based on old tests. I need actual proof and if you can't give it, then there is nothing that suggests efferent vision is absolutely false.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And for the record, you've just demonstrated once again that you have no idea what the words "proof" and "theory" actually mean.

I do know, and I really don't care about "theory" at this point. I want actual "proof" because this is the only way that I will concede.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand your explanation; whether they are facts or not (which you contest because science does not discuss facts; so why are you going against your own convictions?) is yet to be determined.

We know for a fact how cameras work because we designed them to work that way. We know for a fact that light is emitted (and therefore separate from its source) and travels at a certain speed.

Science doesn't deal in proof when doing experiments, but yes certain things are known facts.

That's not true LadyShea. They focus on the object or lightsource. You don't know what you're talking about.

You are the one who has no idea what you're talking about. There is no mystery in the workings of a camera or of a lens. You simply refuse to learn how it works.

I never said they reach out to do anything. Don't you see how your definitions are f'd up LadyShea?

You are the one who has the fucked up language issues, "reflected instantly onto the lens" has zero meaning in reality. You are talking gibberish. Again I am reminded of a small child explaining photography "You point the camera and it takes a picture".

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They are not reflective of anything real, but you will defend to the death, yet I'm the one targeted as a nut case? Cameras are neither efferent or afferent. They focus on the object and the light is instantly projected onto the lens.

No, that's not how they work. This kind of word salad is what is getting you labeled a nut.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's an extension of your wrong take on what light does.

So you are back to refuting that light travels at a known constant speed? You are back to refuting physics flat out?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wrong again. The color of the lightsource would be seen instantly since THERE IS NO TIME INVOLVED WHEN SEEN EFFERENTLY. YOU ARE BASING EVERY CONCLUSION ON THE PREMISE THAT LIGHT IS AFFERENT.

I was asking you when the camera, which requires the light to be received in order to record the image, would photograph the color change.

Cameras are not eyes or brains. They cannot "see efferently". You are trying to somehow make them work the same as eyes but without the brain to look out. They don't work that way.