A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nothing happens to the blue photon Spacemonkey. As long as the object absorbs non-blue light, the blue wavelength will be (P) reflected until the light fades due to dispersion. If the object is no longer present, the blue wavelength will no longer be (P) reflected.

Is the process of (P)reflection instantaneous, or does it take time?

If it is instantaneous, then where is the blue-wavelength photon after being (P)reflected (i.e. at the point in time immediately after it has hit the blue ball)?

And why do you persist in talking of the "blue-wavelength" rather than the "blue-wavelength photons/light"? 'Blue-wavelength' is an adjective, not a noun. It is a property, not a thing. Why can't you get this simple point right?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Photons have to come from somewhere Spacemonkey.

I agree. That's why you need to re-answer my questions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that if you're looking at an object in real time (efferent vision), you would see the blue object because of what it reveals, not what it (N) reflects. The blue wavelength light will be at the film/retina instantly if the lens if aimed at the object, as long as the (P) reflected light has not dispersed to the point where it can no longer be picked up by the film or the retina (inverse square law).

Dispersion applies only to travelling light. And if the blue-wavelength light is ever at the ball at one moment, and then instantly at the film/retina at the very next moment, then by definition you have it teleporting once more.

And if there are multiple cameras and/or eyes nearby, then which ones will the blue-wavelength photons be (P)reflected (a.k.a. teleported) too? All of them? Will the photons be at multiple places at once? Or, if there are two cameras, will half the photons be (P)reflected to each one? Does that mean what we see or photograph will be dimmer and less intense the more people you have looking at or photographing it?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The blue-wavelength photons are part of the full spectrum light unless one is looking directly at the object. When the lens is aimed at the object the blue wavelength light becomes the medium which allows the object to be seen. or photographed. But in order for this to happen the object must be in the field of view of the person or the camera. You seem to believe that because an object absorbs light, it must be (N) reflecting the non-absorbed light which continues on forever. That's a fallacy. I'm sorry if I can't explain it any better.

Merely looking at things cannot change the physical composition of sunlight. The full spectrum must always contain blue light. If it doesn't, then by definition it is not full spectrum sunlight. And I'm not assuming that the non-absorbed light must bounce off and continue forever. I'm asking you what happens instead if this is not the case. So far you are telling me that it teleports to nearby lenses and retinas (which is impossible) so long as it hasn't dispersed too much (which is also impossible for light not travelling the intervening distance).

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that nothing happens to it. Blue light does not bounce off the object, only white light, but as light is passing over the object it absorbs the non-blue light. The object reveals itself but only when we're looking at it because that's when blue wavelength light shows up as a mirror image on film or retina. This blue light is present until it fades due to the distance between the observer and the object (the inverse square law). When this happens, the film will show nothing but white light because you cannot get an image from light alone when the object is not present in some form.

Light doesn't "pass over" things. Light doesn't fade. And only travelling light can disperse. Objects cannot absorb non-blue light from the sunlight if all of the light (i.e. white light) bounces off. Blue-wavelength light at the ball cannot "show up" instantly at the distant film/retina without having thereby teleported. You are talking pure nonsense while ignoring these problems which have already been repeatedly pointed out to you.

Answer my two sets of questions please and stop this ridiculous weaselling.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Can you list some of these specific things lessans was wrong about? Can you list some of the specific mistakes he admitted to?

This one should be easy for preacegirl. There was that time when Lessans thought he was wrong, but he was really right.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I agree. That's why you need to re-answer my questions.

I stated that light is constantly moving so dispersion does apply. You're so missing this concept, it's unfortunate because I know you're trying.

Spacemonkey, optics is alive and well. This is not some out the door theory. Depending on the angle of the camera, the photograph will turn out differently on film. Are you playing with me? The number of people looking at or photographing the object has nothing to do with the light's intensity.

Merely looking at things cannot change the physical composition of sunlight. The full spectrum must always contain blue light. If it doesn't, then by definition it is not full spectrum sunlight. And I'm not assuming that the non-absorbed light must bounce off and continue forever. I'm asking you what happens instead if this is not the case. So far you are telling me that it teleports to nearby lenses and retinas (which is impossible) so long as it hasn't dispersed too much (which is also impossible for light not travelling the intervening distance).

No, the blue light does not teleport. We get a mirror image even though the object is continually absorbing and (P) reflecting light. This is where you're not understanding efferent vision at all. How can I talk to you in a sensible way if you're not trying to understand the difference between afferent and efferent?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that nothing happens to it. Blue light does not bounce off the object, only white light, but as light is passing over the object it absorbs the non-blue light. The object reveals itself but only when we're looking at it because that's when blue wavelength light shows up as a mirror image on film or retina. This blue light is present until it fades due to the distance between the observer and the object (the inverse square law). When this happens, the film will show nothing but white light because you cannot get an image from light alone when the object is not present in some form.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Light doesn't "pass over" things. Light doesn't fade. And only travelling light can disperse. Objects cannot absorb non-blue light from the sunlight if all of the light (i.e. white light) bounces off. Blue-wavelength light at the ball cannot "show up" instantly at the distant film/retina without having thereby teleported. You are talking pure nonsense while ignoring these problems which have already been repeatedly pointed out to you.

Light bounces off of things, is that better? It doesn't matter how I express it; light is necessary for absorption and (P) reflection. Objects can absorb non-blue light from the sunlight which (P) reflects the blue light. I didn't mean light fades. I said photons disperse as the distance between the object and the observer grows wider. Blue-wavelength light shows up as a mirror image WHEN THE LENS IS FOCUSED ON THE OBJECT. NOTHING BUT NOTHING IS TELEPORTED. You are still talking afferent, while I'm talking efferent. I'm not talking pure nonsense but it will sound like it if you keep coming from the vantage point of afferent VISION. We have to discuss vision, as well as light, or it will never make sense.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Answer my two sets of questions please and stop this ridiculous weaselling.

If you all don't stop accusing me of things I'm not doing, I'm outta here.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

This one should be easy for preacegirl. There was that time when Lessans thought he was wrong, but he was really right.

I just know that it took him years and years to understand the significance of his discovery, and many more years to write it down in a way that people could understand it. At the time he burned his books, he probably felt that he hadn't written it clearly enough. It was his first attempt and he wasn't satisfied. I remember seeing him burning his books and because I was so young, I didn't understand why he was doing it.

[LadyShea]

Light photons are required to be absorbed by camera film to take a photograph. You have yet to state where those photons were just prior to them being absorbed by the camera film. You are jumping around this point like a frog.

Where were the photons, that have now been absorbed by the camera film (and are therefore converted to some other type of energy), half a second before that absorption occurred? And half a second before that?

[LadyShea]

You don't think burning years worth of work, rather then rewriting and editing and improving is a rather...extreme... reaction to dissatisfaction? Not unlike suing the President. Lessans didn't seem to have much by way of effective coping skills.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just know that it took him years and years to understand the significance of his discovery, and many more years to write it down in a way that people could understand it.

Too bad he never actually succeeded in that task.

Corollary: That his work is unintelligible is not evidence that it is either profound or correct.

[seebs]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said that photons are continually being emitted from the Sun.

This is totally irrelevant.

I take a picture. At the instant I take the picture, photons are reaching the camera's sensor or film. Where were those photons right before I took the picture?

"Emitted from the sun" is something that happened to them at least eight minutes ago. That's not relevant. We're talking immediately before the picture was taken.

And your answer was that those photons were "newly created". And now you're saying they weren't.

If you can't decide what you mean, how could anyone else?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just know that it took him years and years to understand the significance of his discovery, and many more years to write it down in a way that people could understand it. At the time he burned his books, he probably felt that he hadn't written it clearly enough. It was his first attempt and he wasn't satisfied. I remember seeing him burning his books and because I was so young, I didn't understand why he was doing it.

So even Lessans thought his stuff was crap. So which was the mistake? Lessans thinking he was right after burning his "books"? Or thinking what he wrote was crap?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just know that it took him years and years to understand the significance of his discovery, and many more years to write it down in a way that people could understand it. At the time he burned his books, he probably felt that he hadn't written it clearly enough. It was his first attempt and he wasn't satisfied. I remember seeing him burning his books and because I was so young, I didn't understand why he was doing it.

So then you have absolutely no idea of what specific things he was ever wrong about, or what specific mistakes he ever admitted to?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I stated that light is constantly moving so dispersion does apply. You're so missing this concept, it's unfortunate because I know you're trying.

Is the (P)reflected light travelling between the object and the camera? If not then it cannot disperse over that distance.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, optics is alive and well. This is not some out the door theory. Depending on the angle of the camera, the photograph will turn out differently on film. Are you playing with me? The number of people looking at or photographing the object has nothing to do with the light's intensity.

That doesn't answer what I asked. If the blue-wavelength photons are "instantaneously turning up" at the camera film (yet somehow not teleporting there), then what happens if there are multiple cameras? Will the same photons turn up at each camera simultaneously (thereby being in more than one place at the same time)? Say there are 50 blue-wavelength photons hitting the ball. If there are two cameras, will 25 of them turn up at one camera and 25 turn up at the other? If there are three cameras, will 17 turn up at two of the cameras while only 16 turn up at the third? What happens?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, the blue light does not teleport. We get a mirror image even though the object is continually absorbing and (P) reflecting light. This is where you're not understanding efferent vision at all. How can I talk to you in a sensible way if you're not trying to understand the difference between afferent and efferent?

You could start by actually answering my questions about it. That might help. At one moment the blue-wavelength photons are hitting the ball. If at the very next moment they are at the camera film and interacting with it then they have just teleported. If that is not happening, then where are they just after hitting the ball?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light bounces off of things, is that better? It doesn't matter how I express it; light is necessary for absorption and (P) reflection. Objects can absorb non-blue light from the sunlight which (P) reflects the blue light. I didn't mean light fades. I said photons disperse as the distance between the object and the observer grows wider. Blue-wavelength light shows up as a mirror image WHEN THE LENS IS FOCUSED ON THE OBJECT. NOTHING BUT NOTHING IS TELEPORTED. You are still talking afferent, while I'm talking efferent. I'm not talking pure nonsense but it will sound like it if you keep coming from the vantage point of afferent VISION. We have to discuss vision, as well as light, or it will never make sense.

Yes, light bounces off things. It does not "pass over" them. Of course it matters how you express things. If you express things wrongly then you will be wrong and no-one will understand what you mean. If you express things correctly you'll still be wrong, but at least you'd be saying what you actually mean for once. And if an object absorbs the non-blue light from the sunlight, then what bounces off cannot be full spectrum sunlight, because only the blue light is still there to bounce off. The rest was absorbed.

If nothing is teleported then the blue-wavelength light that was just hitting the ball cannot be instantaneously turning up at the film. Something instantaneously turning up at a distant location from where it was at the previous instant is the very definition of teleportation. So either the blue-wavelength photons are "showing up" at the film without actually being there at the film (in which case you haven't told me where those blue-wavelength photons actually are, and you will have no explanation for what is at the film interacting with it), or the blue-wavelength photons "showing up" and actually present at the film are different photons from those at the ball at the immediately preceding moment (in which case you still haven't told me what happens to the original photons that were hitting the ball).

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you all don't stop accusing me of things I'm not doing, I'm outta here.

Why is it unreasonable of me to accuse you of not answering my questions when you are in fact not answering my questions? If you don't want to be called a weasel, then stop weaselling and answer my questions. I will bump them again for you after this post.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Don't Peacegirl.

Bump #97382

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just know that it took him years and years to understand the significance of his discovery, and many more years to write it down in a way that people could understand it. At the time he burned his books, he probably felt that he hadn't written it clearly enough. It was his first attempt and he wasn't satisfied. I remember seeing him burning his books and because I was so young, I didn't understand why he was doing it.

You still have not owned up to anything he was wrong about, I notice: it was just not clear enough for other people.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light photons are required to be absorbed by camera film to take a photograph. You have yet to state where those photons were just prior to them being absorbed by the camera film. You are jumping around this point like a frog.

Where were the photons, that have now been absorbed by the camera film (and are therefore converted to some other type of energy), half a second before that absorption occurred? And half a second before that?

What do you mean where were they? Photons are constantly traveling so a half a second ago they were still in route. But you're obviously thinking in terms of afferent vision, so you will tell me that time therefore was involved.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You don't think burning years worth of work, rather then rewriting and editing and improving is a rather...extreme... reaction to dissatisfaction? Not unlike suing the President. Lessans didn't seem to have much by way of effective coping skills.

Seriously LadyShea, you did not know what this man went through and why he was so dissatisfied. He edited his books plenty of times, but this was just at the beginning when he was just starting to put his thoughts on paper, and he had to get it right. You are being extremely judgmental.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So then you have absolutely no idea of what specific things he was ever wrong about, or what specific mistakes he ever admitted to?

He admitted to mistakes (he was a human being), but not as far as this discovery is concerned. He would not have made such serious claims if he wasn't sure he was correct.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Too bad he never actually succeeded in that task.

Corollary: That his work is unintelligible is not evidence that it is either profound or correct.

Well that's not true because it is intelligible if you take the time to understand it, which you haven't done TLR, so how can you determine if something is intelligible or not?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So then you have absolutely no idea of what specific things he was ever wrong about, or what specific mistakes he ever admitted to?

None of you understand what is involved when someone is in the process of making a major discovery. How can you judge the method or the process that gets a person from one point to another in this evolution? Why are you trying to get me to admit that he was wrong, when he wasn't wrong? I am just sharing the journey that was involved in getting clarity on what he had discovered and the magnitude of what this knowledge could accomplish, and you're using it against me? I guess I'm not going to share his background anymore until this discovery is recognized because obviously you will use it as fodder for more jokes.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What do you mean where were they? Photons are constantly traveling so a half a second ago they were still in route.

En route from where to where? From the object to the camera film? From the sun to the camera film? From the sun to the object?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by Dragar

In other words, magic!

I just realised. Not only is this magic, it's also nothing to do with how the brain works. Because this is the same for cameras, and though it may surprise peacegirl, they don't have brains.

Why the lies, peacegirl? Why the red herrings and the deception?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well that's not true because it is intelligible if you take the time to understand it, which you haven't done TLR, so how can you determine if something is intelligible or not?

LOL, you just said "It is intelligible if it's intelligible" or "it is understandable if you understand it" as well as told readers they can't determine how clearly something is written.

Is that really what you meant to say? No wonder you don't see Lessans tautologies, you use them yourself as if they are meaningful. Were you told the Earth is a sphere because it is round?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Dragar

I just realised. Not only is this magic, it's also nothing to do with how the brain works. Because this is the same for cameras, and though it may surprise peacegirl, they don't have brains.

Why the lies, peacegirl? Why the red herrings and the deception?

That point has been brought up to her dozens of times. The problem for her is that it is a trivial matter to prove that we can't see in real time yet photograph in delayed time, because we routinely see and photograph the same things at the same time. So either both are delayed or both are instant.

She had to extend efferent vision to cameras (which "work the same as eyes") to get around that simple proof.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Seriously LadyShea, you did not know what this man went through and why he was so dissatisfied. He edited his books plenty of times, but this was just at the beginning when he was just starting to put his thoughts on paper, and he had to get it right. You are being extremely judgmental.

Yes. I judge burning years worth of work and filing lawsuits against the POTUS as very extreme reactions to stress.

[LadyShea]

Photons are constantly traveling so a half a second ago they were still in route. But you're obviously thinking in terms of afferent vision, so you will tell me that time therefore was involved.

Time is involved when travel is involved. If things at one location get to another location without time being involved, they have teleported, not traveled.

That has nothing to do with how our eyes and brains work, that's just a physical law of the universe.