A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

First of all, his name is Spacemonkey. Second of all, I could say the same thing to you. Are you really interested in the truth or are you just willing to accept, at face value, what you've been taught is true?

I happily explore things people tell me and see what the implications are, how it could be testable, and compare it the tests we have already done and know the outcome of. Depending on how likely they seem after that I make a judgement call: do I find it is likely true? Also, is it useful? In the case of Lessans, the asnwer is no on both counts.

Lessans sight is extremely unlikely to be true, roughly in the same cathegory of the moor loopy Scientilogy beliefs. Sure, there is a remote possibility that an evil warlord called Zemu brought spaceships that looked like Boeing 747's to earth millions of years ago to commit galactic genocide, but there without any evidence we have to dismiss it as a fairytale.

[Vivisectus]

#

Thermal imaging is another great technology that allows us to use infrared light to form an image through heat detection. The question remains: Is it possible for the special lens to create an image using this system if the object is out of view of the special lens? I don't see why an image couldn't be created using that same electromagnetic energy that just bounced off the object and is striking the special lens. In other words, if wavelengths are the property of light (which they are), and it is those infrared wavelengths that are detected using temperature patterns, we should be able to form an image (without the actual object in view) from the electromagnetic energy alone using this thermal technology, shouldn't we?

We do, all the time. Leave a IR camera on an animal and set the shutter speed to slow, and you will see a bright spot where it is, and a vague smear where it was. This is useful for tracking animals.

There is also backround infrared radiation in space that is caused by lond-dead stars but still shows up on our IR and Microwave telescopes. There is other radiation that we figure is what is left over from the Back Bang itself that is still hanging around.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How many times do I have to post the Hubble Deep Field or Hubble Ultra Deep Field before you will admit Lessans was wrong?

True - most of those objects do not even exist anymore. The ones that do occupy a far, far different position right now.

Another on is out dear old sun, 8 minutes before it sets. By the time you see it, the earth would have alsready have moved it beyond the view of direct vision.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I happily explore things people tell me and see what the implications are, how it could be testable, and compare it the tests we have already done and know the outcome of. Depending on how likely they seem after that I make a judgement call: do I find it is likely true? Also, is it useful? In the case of Lessans, the asnwer is no on both counts.

Lessans sight is extremely unlikely to be true, roughly in the same cathegory of the moor loopy Scientilogy beliefs. Sure, there is a remote possibility that an evil warlord called Zemu brought spaceships that looked like Boeing 747's to earth millions of years ago to commit galactic genocide, but there without any evidence we have to dismiss it as a fairytale.

Vivisectus, that's why Lessans said the following in the foreword:

Should you jump ahead
and read other chapters this work could appear like a fairy tale,
otherwise, the statement that truth is stranger than fiction will be
amply verified by the scientific world, or by yourself, if you are able to
follow the reasoning of mathematical relations.

And this in Chapter Six: The New Economic World

As you begin reading
this chapter it is assumed that you thoroughly understand the
two-sided equation, otherwise the rest of the book will appear like a
fairy tale. Remember, at one time landing men on the moon seemed
like an unimaginable thought and nothing more than complete
science fiction until it was understood how this apparent miracle could
be accomplished.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

By the way, you are more than welcome to come have fun on the rest of the board, talk about cooking or babies or space exploration, or take a break from this thread and have real life fun

I might take you up on that because it's hard being hammered day in and day out without any real progress being made.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Neither the objects or images were "in view" yet we got a picture of them

We're talking about two different things. For the sake of consistency, let's focus on objects instead of images. If it turns out that Lessans was right in that we don't see objects in the past --- we see them in real time --- we can extend this knowledge to images. That's why I wanted to do experiments that were closer to home because it's too easy to misconstrue what he was trying to convey and then come to the conclusion that he was wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What?????

Wavelengths are not things. Asking if there are wavelengths coming from somewhere is like asking if there are heights or weights coming from somewhere. Light comes from the sun, and wavelength is a detectable and measurable property of that light.

I get that wavelengths are properties of the Sun, and I asked this for a reason. Don't those wavelengths produce white light, or light that has no real color unless something in the atmosphere causes the colors of the visible spectrum which is a mixture of red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and violet light to show up?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Sight/seeing involves information transfer...that is its function, that is what sight is. You don't want it to be, but it is.

Let's not go back to that conversation again. We are always getting information from our environment. But seeing in real time does not mean that we're getting information faster than the speed of light, because it's not competing with the speed of light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Thanks for that diagram. Understanding the properties of light is so interesting.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, quite a coincidence that our eyes evolved to use the most abundant wavelengths in sunlight!

It's also quite a coincidence that the visible spectrum allows us to see things that exist out there in the external world, for if we didn't have the ability to see these objects, we would be bumping into them and wouldn't be able to function. It would be like being blind.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I get that wavelengths are properties of the Sun, and I asked this for a reason. Don't those wavelengths produce white light, or light that has no real color unless something in the atmosphere causes the colors of the visible spectrum which is a mixture of red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and violet light to show up?

No. Wavelengths are not properties of the Sun.

Wavelength is a property of LIGHT.

Why do keep agreeing with this and claiming to understand it, only to then make completely crazy claims which contradict it?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, you claim that at the time of an object's color change (from red to blue), a camera's film will be reacting to the blue wavelength of the light present at the camera, and that this light has previously travelled from the object to get there.

So was the wavelength of that light red or blue just before that light arrived (i.e. just before the object changed color)?

Bump.

[peacegirl]

[quote=Spacemonkey;993748]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is blue light interacting with the film, but the blue light is not traveling. You can't seem to grasp this concept as to why, if efferent vision is true, light becomes a condition of sight, not a cause. The blueness was there instantaneously when the snapshot was taken by the lens. I never said anything about blueness traveling separately from the light itself.

There was no arrival. If there was, it would have been red.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're reversing your position yet again! And yet you don't even realize it because you clearly don't understand a single word of what you are even saying. *sigh*

I misunderstood you, that's all.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

At T1 light is present at the camera and interacting with the film. You agreed that a blue image will be produced due to the specific properties of that light, and you agreed that this light travelled from the ball to the camera, meaning the light and its properties arrived.

No, that's wrong. There is no arriving in efferent vision. There is seeing.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The blueness in question is the specific wavelength/color properties of the light which has just arrived, and which you say will determine the color of the image.

No, the light passing through is reflecting the color blue as we look out at the ball in real time.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Neither the light nor the blueness can travel independently of the other when you have agreed that the latter is a property of the former. If I throw a ball to you, you cannot catch the ball before its shape arrives, nor have the shape arrive before the ball. Understand?

Yes, I understand. But you are associating the blueness with the light that now travels together. The blueness is associated with the object, not the Sun's light, therefore as the Sun's light passes over the object, it does not take the blue wavelength with it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Any light that is at the camera at T1 must have travelled to get there. So at T-1 it had not quite yet reached the camera, but was in transit between the ball and the camera. Yes? And if it is the specific properties of that light at T1 determining the color (again, think of the shape of a ball), then we can ask whether those properties of that light were the same or different at T-1 just before it arrived. (Remember, if the light arrived, then so did it's properties - whether those properties changed or not).

This is where the confusion is. The properties of the ball do not travel with the light. The light reflects the properties of the ball for us to see in real time, but as the light bounces off the ball it does not take the wavelength of blue with it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Here's an analogy: If I throw shaped objects to you, and the shape (say, cube or sphere) determines which of two boxes you will put the shaped object into, then when you catch a cube, what I am asking is what shape that cube was just before you caught it. Was the cube still a cube just before you caught it, or was it a sphere at that point and then changed into a cube while in flight? (Rhetorical question.)

Of course the shape would be a cube just before I caught it, but this is not an accurate analogy.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The shape of the thrown object is analagous to the color/wavelength of the light which travelled to and arrived at the camera. (This is what you have agreed to by agreeing both that it is the specific properties of the light determining the color of the image, and that the the light travelled to get there.) So...

But that's not what is happening.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

At T-1, just a moment before the light in question arrived at the camera, did it have the same or different wavelength/color properties then as it does at T1 when interacting with the film?

You keep talking about light arriving. In efferent vision there is no light arriving. We're seeing the object because of light's properties; the light that is reflecting the blueness of the ball is what interacts with the film, not red, because there is no redness or blueness in the light itself. Light remains neutral.

[Dragar]

If light has nothing to do with the colour we see, why does the colour of light we measure in our detectors always match the colour of light we see, peacegirl?

[LadyShea]

[quote=peacegirl;993964]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Neither the objects or images were "in view" yet we got a picture of them

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We're talking about two different things.

No we aren't. Those galaxies were in direct line with the Hubble but too distant and faint to be in immediate view. It took a million minutes to collect enough photons to get that image.

Originally Posted by HubbleSite

The Hubble observations detected objects as faint as 30th magnitude. The faintest objects the human eye can see are at sixth magnitude. Ground-based telescopes also can detect 30th-magnitude objects. Those objects, however, are so dim they are lost in the glare of brighter, nearby galaxies.

Searching for the faintest objects in the Ultra Deep Field is like trying to find a firefly on the Moon. Light from the farthest objects reached the Hubble telescope in trickles rather than gushers. The orbiting observatory collected one photon of light per minute from the dimmest objects. Normally, the telescope collects millions of photons per minute from nearby galaxies. http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/arc...eases/2004/07/

Originally Posted by peacegirl

For the sake of consistency, let's focus on objects instead of images.

10,000 Galaxies are not objects? This is such a weasel.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why I wanted to do experiments that were closer to home because it's too easy to misconstrue what he was trying to convey and then come to the conclusion that he was wrong.

Closer to home won't work for this kind of photography because distant objects, which are dim due to the loss of intensity over distance (see inverse square law), would be lost in the glare from other light reflecting or emitting objects unless you had special equipment and conditions (such as the Hubble using a "pencil beam" angle of view and hundreds of short duration exposures).

Originally Posted by HubbleSite

The Hubble Ultra Deep Field is called a "pencil beam" survey because the observations encompass a narrow, yet "deep" piece of sky. Astronomers compare the Ultra Deep Field view to looking through an eight-foot-long soda straw.

The Ultra Deep Field's patch of sky is so tiny it would fit inside the largest impact basin that makes up the face on the Moon. Astronomers would need about 50 Ultra Deep Fields to cover the entire Moon.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, that's wrong. There is no arriving in efferent vision. There is seeing.

We're talking about cameras, not vision or seeing. And you agreed that the light travelled to get to the camera. If it travelled to get there, then it arrived. If it didn't travel, then it isn't light. How am I supposed to make sense of your answers when you keep reversing your claims in every other post?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, the light passing through is reflecting the color blue as we look out at the ball in real time.

Light cannot 'reflect' colors. Objects reflect light. Your claim here is incoherent. In any case, if it is the "reflected color blue" (whatever that is) rather than the properties (i.e. wavelength) of the arrived light determining the color of the resulting image, then you are again changing your answer about what it is that interacts with the film. If the "reflected color blue" just is a property of the arrived light, then I can ask if that light had that same property just before it arrived. And if the blueness is some property the light completely lacks before arriving at the camera, then you are no longer talking about wavelength.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, I understand. But you are associating the blueness with the light that now travels together. The blueness is associated with the object, not the Sun's light, therefore as the Sun's light passes over the object, it does not take the blue wavelength with it.

You associated the blue color with the light at the camera when you agreed that this property of that light was what interacts with the film to determine the color of the resulting image. And you are yet again speaking of the wavelength as a thing that the light might or might not carry with it. Wavelength is a property of light. Light always travels, and light always has a wavelength (just like a ball will always have a shape).

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is where the confusion is. The properties of the ball do not travel with the light. The light reflects the properties of the ball for us to see in real time, but as the light bounces off the ball it does not take the wavelength of blue with it.

Light cannot reflect things. Things reflect light. That is how "reflect" is defined. No-one is claiming that the properties of the ball travel with the light, or that light bounces off the ball and takes a wavelength with it. The object is blue because it is absorbing light of non-blue wavelengths and reflecting light of blue wavelengths. Light cannot lack a wavelength. You agreed that it is the properties of the light at the camera interacting with the film, and that this light travelled to get there. I'm simply asking if those properties were the same or different just before that light got there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course the shape would be a cube just before I caught it, but this is not an accurate analogy.

It's a perfect analogy... for anyone who agrees that light travels, that wavelength is a property of light, and that the wavelength of light at the camera is what determines the color of the resulting image. But apparently you 'agreed' to these things without having the faintest idea of what you were agreeing to.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep talking about light arriving. In efferent vision there is no light arriving. We're seeing the object because of light's properties; the light that is reflecting the blueness of the ball is what interacts with the film, not red, because there is no redness or blueness in the light itself. Light remains neutral.

Again, we're talking about cameras, not efferent vision. And you agreed that the light at the camera travelled to get there. That means it arrived. Light does not and cannot remain neutral if wavelength is a property of light, and if the wavelength of the light is what determines the color of the image on the film. How could something completely neutral determine the color of an image? The blueness-of-the-ball is a property of the ball, and not of the light at the camera. And if the light at the camera somehow has properties matching the real time color of the ball, then I can ask if that same light had the same or different properties just before it got to the camera. That is what you have yet to answer.

Given how you've completely botched, misunderstood, and reversed your answers to all of my questions, I'm going to have to start from scratch with a whole new set of questions...

[Spacemonkey]

New questions for Peacegirl...

1. What is it that interacts with the film in a camera to determine the color of the resulting image?

2. Where is whatever it is which does this (when it interacts)?

3. Which properties of whatever it is that does this will determine the color of the resulting image?

4. Did the light present at the camera initially travel from the object to get there?

5. Can light travel to the camera without arriving at the camera?

6. Can light travel faster than light?

7. Is wavelength a property of light?

8. Can light travel without any wavelength?

9. Do objects reflect light or does light reflect objects?

10. What does a reflection consist of?

11. What does light consist of?

(Please think carefully about your answers, and ask for clarification if any question is unclear to you.)

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I get that wavelengths are properties of the Sun, and I asked this for a reason. Don't those wavelengths produce white light, or light that has no real color unless something in the atmosphere causes the colors of the visible spectrum which is a mixture of red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and violet light to show up?

The sun produces light in multiple wavelengths. When we see all the wavelengths together we call it white light. When they interact with various types of matter (some things, like plant leaves, absorb some wavelengths and reflect others, the atmosphere acts as a filter, water droplets can cause refraction), the wavelengths can become separated, so we no longer receive all of them and the light we receive is no longer white.

[davidm]

Jesus. Fucking. Christ. Click on the four big words below, peacegirl.

Moons of Jupiter, peacegirl

That's it! Lessans' claim is dead!

In effect, he is claiming that while the speed of light is finite, we see objects in real time. So there is some (never, ever explained!) mechanism that allows us to see. He is saying that light is a necessary, but not sufficient component, of sight. The moons of Jupiter is a direct test of this claim.

For simplicity, take just one of the moons: Io. If Lessan were right, then no matter where Io is, realtive to the earth, then when we point a telescope at it, we should see it immediately! It doesn't matter how far or near it is, we would see it immediately. That is Lessans' claim.

His claim is WRONG. See the link!

The fact that the moons were seen at different times than exepcted, demonstrated both the velocity of light and the fact that we see the moons because of the light, in delayed and not real time.

There is literally nothing else to say.

Why even go on with peacegirl? The moons of Jupiter by itself is a direct and incontrovertable refutation of real-time seeing. Case closed!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Jesus. Fucking. Christ. Click on the four big words below, peacegirl.

Moons of Jupiter, peacegirl

That's it! Lessans' claim is dead!

In effect, he is claiming that while the speed of light is finite, we see objects in real time. So there is some (never, ever explained!) mechanism that allows us to see. He is saying that light is a necessary, but not sufficient component, of sight. The moons of Jupiter is a direct test of this claim.

For simplicity, take just one of the moons: Io. If Lessan were right, then no matter where Io is, realtive to the earth, then when we point a telescope at it, we should see it immediately! It doesn't matter how far or near it is, we would see it immediately. That is Lessans' claim.

His claim is WRONG. See the link!

The fact that the moons were seen at different times than exepcted, demonstrated both the velocity of light and the fact that we see the moons because of the light, in delayed and not real time.

There is literally nothing else to say.

Why even go on with peacegirl? The moons of Jupiter by itself is a direct and incontrovertable refutation of real-time seeing. Case closed!

David, why are you so defensive? The truth will come out eventually. Can't we all come together in respect? You don't have to defend yourself to such an extent that your anger is literally taking over. I am worried about you because you could get high blood pressure. I'm being very serious. Why would you sacrifice your health for anything? It's not worth it.

[LadyShea]

Projecting as a form of deflection aka weasel.

davidm is not getting high blood pressure at all, nor is he even angry. He is bemused, peacegirl.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The sun produces light in multiple wavelengths. When we see all the wavelengths together we call it white light. When they interact with various types of matter (some things, like plant leaves, absorb some wavelengths and reflect others, the atmosphere acts as a filter, water droplets can cause refraction), the wavelengths can become separated, so we no longer receive all of them and the light we receive is no longer white.

Oh my godddd, where does this contradict what I just took all morning to explain?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Projecting as a form of deflection aka weasel.

davidm is not getting high blood pressure at all, nor is he even angry. He is bemused, peacegirl.

No no no, he is not just bemused, he is fuming, like this. He can't stand that someone would come along and ruin his worldview. I hate to be the one to ruin it for him actually. I feel it's my fault, but I can't worry about David. I have to continue on to prove that Lessans was not a liar.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my godddd, where does this contradict what I just took all morning to explain?

1. Wavelengths are not a property of the sun
2. Wavelengths do not produce light
3. The atmosphere doesn't "cause the colors of the visible spectrum"

You keep getting things wrong, which indicates you do not understand

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Jesus Christ, Spacemonkey, you're conversing with a lunatic! You do realize this, right? After all the disproofs of Lessans that she has been given, both empirical and logical, numbering by this time literally in the hundreds and sprawled across more than five hundred pages, you're giving her analogies? You might as well give a volume on quantum physics to a pig.

Why don't you zip your lip and listen for a change? I don't want to hurt at all, but it seems that you are so invested in your understanding of how life works that you can't bear to hear anything that contradicts your preconceived ideas. I really get it, but I want you to know that there is nothing whatsoever to be afraid of. Actually, this knowledge made me realize that I'm okay even with all my so-called flaws.