A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep saying that but you keep forgetting the most important thing. The object HAS TO BE PRESENT. If you can show me someone that is not in view of the camera and the lens collects the photons and forms an image of that person, I will concede that my father was completely wrong.

Obviously if the object is not in the line of sight, you cannot take a picture, if it is in the line of sight, you can take a picture. This whole line is a 'red herring' just to confuse the issue with nonsense. The question is, if an object is far enough away, that light takes a substantial length of time to arrive, say several minutes, the object is in view but is removed while the light is in transit, the camera will still be able to take a picture for the length of time the light takes to get here, from the time the object was removed from sight. That will prove that Lessans was wrong, and it has, in fact, been observed to happen many times. One example, there are mirrors on the Moon that scientists are useing to measure the distance from the Earth to the moon, based on shining a laser light onto the Moon and measuring the time it takes for the light to return. They have found that the Moon is slowly moving away from the Earth, and has been since it was formed, billions of years ago. FYI a laser is just a very focused beam of light, the same frequencies that the eye can see, and the light sent to the Moon was in very short bursts that could easily be measured and timed. So the light source was turned on and then off very quickly (light source was removed) and the time of transit was measured, because the flash in the mirror on the Moon was not seen imediately.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Obviously if the object is not in the line of sight, you cannot take a picture, if it is in the line of sight, you can take a picture. This whole line is a 'red herring' just to confuse the issue with nonsense.

I didn't say "if the object is not in the line of sight". I said "if the object is in the line of sight."

Originally Posted by thedoc

The question is, if an object is far enough away, that light takes a substantial length of time to arrive, say several minutes, the object is in view but is removed while the light is in transit, the camera will still be able to take a picture for the length of time the light takes to get here, from the time the object was removed from sight. That will prove that Lessans was wrong, and it has, in fact, been observed to happen many times. One example, there are mirrors on the Moon that scientists are useing to measure the distance from the Earth to the moon, based on shining a laser light onto the Moon and measuring the time it takes for the light to return. They have found that the Moon is slowly moving away from the Earth, and has been since it was formed, billions of years ago. FYI a laser is just a very focused beam of light, the same frequencies that the eye can see, and the light sent to the Moon was in very short bursts that could easily be measured and timed. So the light source was turned on and then off very quickly (light source was removed) and the time of transit was measured, because the flash in the mirror on the Moon was not seen imediately.

Measuring the distance from the moon to the Earth can definitely be measured and timed. Seeing a delay of the flash in the mirror due to the beam being turned on and off only means that the speed of light is finite.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The article is correct. Your quoted comments were not. The article does not support what you said.

It was mentioned that photons can break away from stars and and fly (that was the word used, I believe) independently.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, this proves that for sight to occur, light only needs to be present at the object, not at the eye.

Making a difference between cameras and eyes even more obvious. A difference we do not observe in reality.

You're trying to make an artificial distinction between how a camera works and how an eye works, but it's not working.

[LadyShea]

They are produced by and travel away from the source. They are not producing light.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're trying to make an artificial distinction between how a camera works and how an eye works, but it's not working.

If eyes are only windows for the brain, how would that translate to a camera?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Photons are not a 'light source' they do not emmit light, 'Photons are light'. They contain a finite amount of energy that they received when they were emitted and can only transmit that energy to whatever object it finally encounters. Their speed and direction are fixed and can only be altered by outside influences, they are not like tiny spaceships that can fly arround wherever they want.

Oh, it seems like I'm on ignore, but I don't know why, so could someone quote this so Peacegirl see's it?

So if photons have a limited amount of energy, how can they not eventually peter out when there is no more light source from which they get their energy? LadyShea says that photons travel forever and ever. Actually, nothing is a light source if you want to get technical, except for the sun (or other stars) from which all light energy is derived.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If eyes are only windows for the brain, how would that translate to a camera?

Because the lens and film of a camera are very similar to the lens and retina of the eye. If it turns out that we see efferently (I will use the word 'if" to keep everyone from going bonkers), although it's the brain that we're trying to understand in reference to direction, it allows us to look at the lens of a camera differently than what was purported to be occurring, just as it allows us to look at the lens and retina of the eye differently than what was originally believed to be occurring.

In a normal eye, the light rays come to a sharp focusing point on the retina. The retina's functions much like the film in a camera.

http://www.nkcf.org/en/about-keratoc...eye-works.html

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So if photons have a limited amount of energy, how can they not eventually peter out when there is no more light source from they can get more energy? LadyShea says that photons travel forever and ever.

the doc stated it "can only transmit that energy to whatever object it finally encounters". "Peter out" refers to energy being transferred or converted to another form...with a moving object that has mass, kinetic (motion) energy can dissipate as thermal energy (heat) due to friction if there is something else, like the atmosphere, for it to interact with.

Space is a vacuum so light traveling in space is not transferring it's energy to anything- as happens with friction*- so no "petering out". Light will travel indefinitely until/unless it interacts with something else. And light can and does interact with all kinds of things; it is absorbed and the energy converted as in photosynthesis and photography for two examples.


*I am not sure if light is subject to friction in any medium, but definitely not in space

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because the lens and film of a camera are very similar to the lens and retina of the eye. If it turns out that we see efferently (I will use the word 'if" to keep everyone from going bonkers), although it's the brain that we're trying to understand in reference to direction, it allows us to look at the lens of a camera differently than what was purported to be occurring, just as it allows us to look at the lens and retina of the eye differently than what was originally believed to be occurring.

In a normal eye, the light rays come to a sharp focusing point on the retina. The retina's functions much like the film in a camera.

How the Eye Works

So if the eye lens and retina act as a camera lens and film, that means the image has come IN through the lens and is on the retina as the image is on film?

Then why does the brain need to look "out" at all if the image comes IN through the lens to the retina?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

They are produced by and travel away from the source. They are not producing light.

So are they part the source, or are they independent of the source?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So if the eye lens and retina act as a camera lens and film, that means the image has come IN through the lens and is on the retina as the image is on film?

Then why does the brain need to look "out" at all if the image comes IN through the lens to the retina?

I can't answer you. I can only observe what is happening. That's like saying why did God give us two ears, two eyes, two nostrils, and one mouth?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So are they part the source, or are they independent of the source?

They are a product of the source process, in the case of stars that process is fusion.

Just like carbon dioxide is a product of the process of respiration.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't answer you. I can only observe what is happening. That's like saying why did God give us two ears, two eyes, two nostrils, and one mouth?

There are rational reasons for those, having nothing to do with God

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

the doc stated it "can only transmit that energy to whatever object it finally encounters". "Peter out" refers to energy being transferred or converted to another form...with a moving object that has mass, kinetic (motion) energy can dissipate as thermal energy (heat) due to friction if there is something else, like the atmosphere, for it to interact with.

Space is a vacuum so light traveling in space is not transferring it's energy to anything- as happens with friction*- so no "petering out". Light will travel indefinitely until/unless it interacts with something else. And light can and does interact with all kinds of things; it is absorbed and the energy converted as in photosynthesis and photography for two examples.


*I am not sure if light is subject to friction in any medium, but definitely not in space

Explanation accepted, but I am now unsure as to where this plays a part in the discussion, which seems to happen a lot.

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So are they part the source, or are they independent of the source?

The photons are emitted by the source, but after emission they are independent of it.

Once the photons are travelling away from the source, nothing that happens at the source can affect them. For something to affect the photons, it would need to catch up with them. This would involve travelling faster than the photons themselves and nothing can do that.

Note that the emission source may have an associated gravitational field that can affect the photons as they move away (red shifting them). However, it's the field at the time of emission that matters. In the unlikely event that the gravitational field of the object changes after the photons have been emitted, then even that can't affect the photons. It may cause a gravity wave to pursue the photons, but even gravity waves can't travel faster than light.

An analogy is a gun shooting bullets. After the bullets have been fired, the gun could be moved, painted blue, dropped in a bucket of water or be crushed. None of this would affect the flight of the bullets in any way.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There are rational reasons for those, having nothing to do with God

You can replace God with evolution. It could be that we only have one mouth and two of everything else because our foot is always in our mouth. We talk too much with nothing much to say.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

The photons are emitted by the source, but after emission they are independent of it.

Once the photons are travelling away from the source, nothing that happens at the source can affect them. For something to affect the photons, it would need to catch up with them. This would involve travelling faster than the photons themselves and nothing can do that.

Note that the emission source may have an associated gravitational field that can affect the photons as they move away (red shifting them). However, it's the field at the time of emission that matters. In the unlikely event that the gravitational field of the object changes after the photons have been emitted, then even that can't affect the photons. It may cause a gravity wave to pursue the photons, but even gravity waves can't travel faster than light.

So are you saying that photons don't emit their own light?

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So are you saying that photons don't emit their own light?

Yes.

The photons ARE the light. That is what light is. Light consists of photons.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

not in the line of sight, .

[/QUOTE]


Appart from an object being too far away, these phrases mean the same thing.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So are you saying that photons don't emit their own light?

Yes.

Jesus Christ. They are the light.

Peacegirl, the moons of Jupiter example by itself, given to you originally at page 39 of a thread now nearly 500 pages long, conclusively rules out all of Lessans' claims about light and sight.

I believe you know this. Nobody could fail to understand something so simple unless they were actually brain damaged.

So this is the measure of your irrationality. You don't care that Lessans was wrong. You are going to continue to insist that he was right, even though you know he was wrong.

Goofy, sad and tragic all at the same time.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So are they part the source, or are they independent of the source?

Photons are independent of the source, once they leave the source. How many times do we have to show this to you? Holy shit.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So are you saying that photons don't emit their own light?

And you've been at this how many years now, Peacegirl?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So if photons have a limited amount of energy, how can they not eventually peter out when there is no more light source from which they get their energy?

This is your level of understanding, less than that of a kindergartener, after all the years wasted doing what you do, and after all the information we gave you right here in this thread, including papers linked that explain exactly what photons are and what they do, and The Lone Ranger's essay on light and sight?

You are utterly pathetic.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So if the eye lens and retina act as a camera lens and film, that means the image has come IN through the lens and is on the retina as the image is on film?

Then why does the brain need to look "out" at all if the image comes IN through the lens to the retina?

Because there has to be a connection between us and the outside world, and that is light. Obviously, the brain, looking through the eyes [the cones and rods], wouldn't be able to see if light wasn't present.