A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, you're going to have to condense your questions to one or two. I cannot answer a post that goes on this long. It takes much too much time. Sorry.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Okay.

The white sunlight hitting the ball consists of two parts: the blue light and the non-blue light. Nothing else. If the non-blue part of that sunlight is absorbed, then that part doesn't bounce off. If the blue part of it turns up at the distant film, then that part doesn't bounce off either. So if neither part of the sunlight hitting the ball bounces off, then how can white sunlight still be bouncing off the ball?

You're still not understanding how this works in relation to efferent vision. When you say the blue turns up at the distant film, how far are you talking about? It's really not that far if you think in terms of the object always having to be in one's field of view. The blue shows up on film because the other wavelength light has been absorbed which allows the object to reveal itself, not bring the image to our eyes through time and space. But as the blue light disperses (the inverse square law), that light no longer will present a mirror image up at the film/retina. White light will show up unless the lens is focused on another object in the external world, in which case, that non-absorbed light will show up instantly at the film/retina.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The two key questions you have been unable to answer are these:

1) Where are the blue-wavelength photons, contained within the sunlight striking the blue ball, at the point in time immediately after they hit the ball?

They are being (P) reflected. I don't know what you are trying to get at.

2) Where were the blue photons, which are at the film interacting with it to produce a photographic image of the blue ball when the photograph is taken, at the point in time immediately before the photograph is taken.

To refresh your memory on the 7-photon ROYGBIV example:

I don't know what you mean by photons being in more than one place. That would be teleporting. The ROYGIV photons get sucked up. The B photons get (P) reflected (or revealed) which means that the white light is not white light anymore due to the absorption of the non-blue light. So there is only blue light until the light scatters and there is no more resolution on the film/retina. But the light that continues traveling through space and time is white light.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If you want to speak of blue light, non-blue light, or white sunlight, then the following definitions apply with respect to our seven photons:

Blue light =(def) The blue photon.

Non-blue light =(def) The red, orange, yellow, green, indigo, and violet photons.

White sunlight =(def) All seven photons.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You answered:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

There were 7 photons hitting the ball. If 6 of them are absorbed, and one of them appears instantly at the distant retina, then how many of them are left to bounce off the surface of the ball, Peacegirl? 7 minus 6, minus 1 equals...?

Huh? It's not a distant retina. If the object can be seen, the light is already at the retina. That's why there is no travel time.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And if the blue photon was hitting the ball at one moment, and is then present at the distant film at the very next moment - such that it has gotten itself from one point to another distant point in no time at all, and without traveling through the intervening points in space - then it has teleported. That is what the word means. You have yet to distinguish any difference whatsoever between teleportation and what you are describing.

That's because you are not recognizing that when an object is in our field of view, it takes no time for the light to be at the retina if the lens is focused on the object (or matter). That is also why we cannot resolve an image from light alone, without the object being present.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, you've got it all wrong.

No I don't.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm not asking you about what we see at different times and distances. I'm simply asking you about the physical behavior, motion, and position of these 7 photons. You have yet to give any answers which do not require them to be in multiple places at once.

I do not see where the efferent vision model requires these photons to be in multiple places at once.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're still not understanding how this works in relation to efferent vision. When you say the blue turns up at the distant film, how far are you talking about? It's really not that far if you think in terms of the object always having to be in one's field of view. The blue shows up on film because the other wavelength light has been absorbed which allows the object to reveal itself, not bring the image to our eyes through time and space. But as the blue light disperses (the inverse square law), that light no longer will present a mirror image up at the film/retina. White light will show up unless the lens is focused on another object in the external world, in which case, that non-absorbed light will show up instantly at the film/retina.

You didn't answer the question, so I must ask you again:

The white sunlight hitting the ball consists of two parts: the blue light and the non-blue light. Nothing else. If the non-blue part of that sunlight is absorbed, then that part doesn't bounce off. If the blue part of it turns up at the distant film, then that part doesn't bounce off either. So if neither part of the sunlight hitting the ball bounces off, then how can white sunlight still be bouncing off the ball?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

1) Where are the blue-wavelength photons, contained within the sunlight striking the blue ball, at the point in time immediately after they hit the ball?

They are being (P) reflected. I don't know what you are trying to get at.

I didn't ask what happens to them. I asked you where they are. It's hardly a complicated question. Saying they are being (P)reflected does not tell me where they are. Once more:

1) Where are the blue-wavelength photons, contained within the sunlight striking the blue ball, at the point in time immediately after they hit the ball?

You also skipped Q2 without any response at all:

2) Where were the blue photons, which are at the film interacting with it to produce a photographic image of the blue ball when the photograph is taken, at the point in time immediately before the photograph is taken.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know what you mean by photons being in more than one place. That would be teleporting.

No it wouldn't. Teleporting does not involve being in more than one place at the same time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The ROYGIV photons get sucked up. The B photons get (P) reflected (or revealed) which means that the white light is not white light anymore due to the absorption of the non-blue light. So there is only blue light until the light scatters and there is no more resolution on the film/retina. But the light that continues traveling through space and time is white light.

You just contradicted yourself yet again. If the white light (hitting the ball) is not white light anymore (after hitting the ball, and due to the absorption of the non-blue light), then what bounces off and continues traveling through space and time obviously cannot be white light.

And you have only partially answered the questions from the ROYGBIV example. You've said that all but the blue one gets sucked up. So where is the remaining blue photon 0.0001sec after it hits the ball? And which, if any, of the 7 photons bounce off and start traveling away from the ball at the speed of light? (Remember that you've said 6 of the 7 have been sucked in and used up.) Which of the 7 photons will instantly appear at distant films or retinas?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Huh? It's not a distant retina. If the object can be seen, the light is already at the retina. That's why there is no travel time.

The term 'distant retina' means only that the retina exists at some distance from the object. The retina is 'distant' in the sense that there exists some spatial distance between it and the object. Note that you did not answer the question here either. Once again:

There were 7 photons hitting the ball. If 6 of them are absorbed, and one of them appears instantly at the distant retina, then how many of them are left to bounce off the surface of the ball, Peacegirl? 7 minus 6, minus 1 equals...?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And if the blue photon was hitting the ball at one moment, and is then present at the distant film at the very next moment - such that it has gotten itself from one point to another distant point in no time at all, and without traveling through the intervening points in space - then it has teleported. That is what the word means. You have yet to distinguish any difference whatsoever between teleportation and what you are describing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's because you are not recognizing that when an object is in our field of view, it takes no time for the light to be at the retina if the lens is focused on the object (or matter). That is also why we cannot resolve an image from light alone, without the object being present.

But I do recognize that you are claiming it takes no time. That's exactly what makes it teleportation. Again, you haven't addressed the point: If the blue photon was hitting the ball at one moment, and is then present at the distant film at the very next moment - such that it has gotten itself from one point to another distant point in no time at all, and without traveling through the intervening points in space - then it has teleported. That is what the word means. You have yet to distinguish any difference whatsoever between teleportation and what you are describing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No I don't.

Huh? I didn't post those words. You appear to have typed them yourself and then responded to them as if they were mine.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do not see where the efferent vision model requires these photons to be in multiple places at once.

If the blue wavelength photons (contained within the sunlight hitting the ball) are at the next moment both contained within the sunlight bouncing off the ball and instantly at the camera film/retina then they are in two places at once. If they are not still contained within the sunlight bouncing off the ball, then that light is no longer white sunlight - it is instead missing the blue part of the spectrum.

And don't complain about the length of this post. It would have been a damn sight shorter if you'd actually answered the questions I asked instead of forcing me to repeat them all again.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're still not understanding how this works in relation to efferent vision. When you say the blue turns up at the distant film, how far are you talking about? It's really not that far if you think in terms of the object always having to be in one's field of view. The blue shows up on film because the other wavelength light has been absorbed which allows the object to reveal itself, not bring the image to our eyes through time and space. But as the blue light disperses (the inverse square law), that light no longer will present a mirror image up at the film/retina. White light will show up unless the lens is focused on another object in the external world, in which case, that non-absorbed light will show up instantly at the film/retina.

I don't know what you mean by photons being in more than one place. That would be teleporting. The ROYGIV photons get sucked up. The B photons get (P) reflected (or revealed) which means that the white light is not white light anymore due to the absorption of the non-blue light. So there is only blue light until the light scatters and there is no more resolution on the film/retina. But the light that continues traveling through space and time is white light.

Huh? It's not a distant retina. If the object can be seen, the light is already at the retina. That's why there is no travel time.

That's because you are not recognizing that when an object is in our field of view, it takes no time for the light to be at the retina if the lens is focused on the object (or matter). That is also why we cannot resolve an image from light alone, without the object being present.

I do not see where the efferent vision model requires these photons to be in multiple places at once.

Now this is amazing, Peacegirl is certainly following in her fathers footsteps with her ability to throw together meaningless words and phrases and claim a proof of some nonsensical idea. I must admit that I am constantly entertained with her ability to create diversions and avoid a direct answer to a simple question. She has improved over her father as he could make up his own questions, but she has to deal with questions from others that she has no control over and putting her at a bit of a disadvantage compaired to her father.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're still not understanding how this works in relation to efferent vision. When you say the blue turns up at the distant film, how far are you talking about? It's really not that far if you think in terms of the object always having to be in one's field of view. The blue shows up on film because the other wavelength light has been absorbed which allows the object to reveal itself, not bring the image to our eyes through time and space. But as the blue light disperses (the inverse square law), that light no longer will present a mirror image up at the film/retina. White light will show up unless the lens is focused on another object in the external world, in which case, that non-absorbed light will show up instantly at the film/retina.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You didn't answer the question, so I must ask you again:

The white sunlight hitting the ball consists of two parts: the blue light and the non-blue light. Nothing else. If the non-blue part of that sunlight is absorbed, then that part doesn't bounce off. If the blue part of it turns up at the distant film, then that part doesn't bounce off either. So if neither part of the sunlight hitting the ball bounces off, then how can white sunlight still be bouncing off the ball?

I can see the dilemma, and again your logic makes it appear that it's impossible for white light to be able to travel if the object absorbed certain parts of the visible spectrum. But you must bear in mind that there are two things going on. Maybe it's the word "bounce" that is causing the problem. That's why I said light that is passing over the object. In other words, just because light is allowing an object to reflect its nature by its absorption properties, does not mean that as light continues on that it is taking that light with it beyond it's limited parameters which is defined by optics.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

1) Where are the blue-wavelength photons, contained within the sunlight striking the blue ball, at the point in time immediately after they hit the ball?

They are being (P) reflected. I don't know what you are trying to get at.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I didn't ask what happens to them. I asked you where they are. It's hardly a complicated question. Saying they are being (P)reflected does not tell me where they are. Once more:

1) Where are the blue-wavelength photons, contained within the sunlight striking the blue ball, at the point in time immediately after they hit the ball?

The blue wavelengths are at the film/retina (that's the only way we can see the object or take a photograph), although they are constantly being replaced. Without the lens focusing on the object, you wouldn't be asking me this question because we wouldn't be seeing the object at all.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You also skipped Q2 without any response at all:

2) Where were the blue photons, which are at the film interacting with it to produce a photographic image of the blue ball when the photograph is taken, at the point in time immediately before the photograph is taken.

It's the photon that comes next in line, but you're never going to get a blue photon before red, if the object changes to red since the distance between the object and lens is negligible, and also because in order for that object to be seen, the lens has to be focused on it, not just the light. That changes everything.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The sunlight striking the blue ball simply consists of photons of all wavelengths in the visible spectrum. This spectrum is often represented by the acronym ROYGBIV (red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, violet). So let's use a simplified model where there is one photon of each of these colors hitting the blue ball (like little marbles).

These seven differently colored photons are hitting the ball. They comprise the sunlight hitting the ball. I want you to tell me where each one of them is 0.0001sec after this collection of photons hits the ball. Which ones are absorbed (such that they get sucked in and used up, and do not bounce off)? Which ones bounce off and start traveling away from the ball at the speed of light? Which ones instantly appear at distant films or retinas? Which ones, if any, are in more than one place 0.0001sec after hitting the ball?

I don't know what you mean by photons being in more than one place. That would be teleporting.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No it wouldn't. Teleporting does not involve being in more than one place at the same time.

It means being at one place and suddenly showing up at another without any travel in between.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The ROYGIV photons get sucked up. The B photons get (P) reflected (or revealed) which means that the white light is not white light anymore due to the absorption of the non-blue light. So there is only blue light until the light scatters and there is no more resolution on the film/retina. But the light that continues traveling through space and time is white light.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You just contradicted yourself yet again. If the white light (hitting the ball) is not white light anymore (after hitting the ball, and due to the absorption of the non-blue light), then what bounces off and continues traveling through space and time obviously cannot be white light.

No I didn't. You're just not understanding the efferent model which reveals the object even though white light is the default spectrum that travels through space and time if there is nothing in the external world to be revealed.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And you have only partially answered the questions from the ROYGBIV example. You've said that all but the blue one gets sucked up. So where is the remaining blue photon 0.0001sec after it hits the ball? And which, if any, of the 7 photons bounce off and start traveling away from the ball at the speed of light? (Remember that you've said 6 of the 7 have been sucked in and used up.) Which of the 7 photons will instantly appear at distant films or retinas?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Huh? It's not a distant retina. If the object can be seen, the light is already at the retina. That's why there is no travel time.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The term 'distant retina' means only that the retina exists at some distance from the object. The retina is 'distant' in the sense that there exists some spatial distance between it and the object. Note that you did not answer the question here either.

There is spatial distance, and the brain recognizes this, but as far as the eyes go, they see what is there to be seen because it meets the requirements of efferent vision; I hope by now you know what those are.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Once again:

There were 7 photons hitting the ball. If 6 of them are absorbed, and one of them appears instantly at the distant retina, then how many of them are left to bounce off the surface of the ball, Peacegirl? 7 minus 6, minus 1 equals...?

You're logic is off so I'm not answering this question because it will it appear to you that this model is implausible, and that's not true.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And if the blue photon was hitting the ball at one moment, and is then present at the distant film at the very next moment - such that it has gotten itself from one point to another distant point in no time at all, and without traveling through the intervening points in space - then it has teleported. That is what the word means. You have yet to distinguish any difference whatsoever between teleportation and what you are describing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's because you are not recognizing that when an object is in our field of view, it takes no time for the light to be at the retina if the lens is focused on the object (or matter). That is also why we cannot resolve an image from light alone, without the object being present.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But I do recognize that you are claiming it takes no time. That's exactly what makes it teleportation. Again, you haven't addressed the point: If the blue photon was hitting the ball at one moment, and is then present at the distant film at the very next moment - such that it has gotten itself from one point to another distant point in no time at all, and without traveling through the intervening points in space - then it has teleported. That is what the word means. You have yet to distinguish any difference whatsoever between teleportation and what you are describing.

You keep saying it's teleportation, and you're absolutely wrong. I am not saying that one photon hits the ball and is instantly at the film. Those photons travel, but the lens, having to focus on the object in order to resolve the light, means that the corresponding light (although traveling) becomes an instant snapshot of that object as it is in real time. Remember, if we can see the object that means that the light is already at the film/retina, by definition.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No I don't.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Huh? I didn't post those words. You appear to have typed them yourself and then responded to them as if they were mine.

Well it wasn't clear who said it, and I though you were mimicking me, as you sometimes do.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do not see where the efferent vision model requires these photons to be in multiple places at once.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If the blue wavelength photons (contained within the sunlight hitting the ball) are at the next moment both contained within the sunlight bouncing off the ball and instantly at the camera film/retina then they are in two places at once. If they are not still contained within the sunlight bouncing off the ball, then that light is no longer white sunlight - it is instead missing the blue part of the spectrum.

No, they are different photons, but when the lens of the camera is present, it is focused on the object which causes the light to be a mirror image. It doesn't matter how far away the object is, if there is enough light present and the object is large enough to be seen by the lens of a camera, telescope, or retina, that light is a reflection of that object as it appears NOW, not IN THE PAST.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And don't complain about the length of this post. It would have been a damn sight shorter if you'd actually answered the questions I asked instead of forcing me to repeat them all again.

I'm trying to grapple with your questions so I can see where the problem is, so please don't shoot the messenger.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can see the dilemma, and again your logic makes it appear that it's impossible for white light to be able to travel if the object absorbed certain parts of the visible spectrum. But you must bear in mind that there are two things going on. Maybe it's the word "bounce" that is causing the problem. That's why I said light that is passing over the object. In other words, just because light is allowing an object to reflect its nature by its absorption properties, does not mean that as light continues on that it is taking that light with it beyond it's limited parameters which is defined by optics.

It's the photon that comes next in line, but you're never going to get a blue photon before red, if the object changes to red since the distance between the object and lens is negligible, and also because in order for that object to be seen, the lens has to be focused on it, not just the light. That changes everything.

No I didn't. You're just not understanding the efferent model which reveals the object even though white light is the default spectrum that travels through space and time if there is nothing in the external world to be revealed.

There is spatial distance, and the brain recognizes this, but as far as the eyes go, they see what is there to be seen because it meets the requirements of efferent vision; I hope by now you know what those are.

You keep saying it's teleportation, and you're absolutely wrong. I am not saying that one photon hits the ball and is instantly at the film. Those photons travel, but the lens, having to focus on the object in order to resolve the light, means that the corresponding light (although traveling) becomes an instant snapshot of that object as it is in real time. Remember, if we can see the object that means that the light is already at the film/retina, by definition.

No, they are different photons, but when the lens of the camera is present, it is focused on the object which causes the light to be a mirror image. It doesn't matter how far away the object is, if there is enough light present and the object is large enough to be seen by the lens of a camera, telescope, or retina, that light is a reflection of that object as it appears NOW, not IN THE PAST.

T.W.I.M.C. Any one who is reading these posts by Peacegirl and is completely and clearly understanding them, you have my deepest sympathy.

You should also get professional help.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can see the dilemma, and again your logic makes it appear that it's impossible for white light to be able to travel if the object absorbed certain parts of the visible spectrum. But you must bear in mind that there are two things going on. Maybe it's the word "bounce" that is causing the problem. That's why I said light that is passing over the object. In other words, just because light is allowing an object to reflect its nature by its absorption properties, does not mean that as light continues on that it is taking that light with it beyond it's limited parameters which is defined by optics.

If you can see the dilemma then you need to either resolve it or change your claims to remove the contradiction. You cannot continue to claim that full spectrum sunlight is bouncing off the ball when every part of the sunlight hitting the ball is either absorbed or reappearing at distant locations. If that were true then there could not be any sunlight bouncing off the ball. Every bit of the sunlight hitting the ball would either get absorbed or would reappear at distant films and retinas, so there would be nothing left to bounce off the surface of the ball. You can't just ignore or gloss over this problem. You need to change what you are saying so that it will no longer be contradictory.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The blue wavelengths are at the film/retina (that's the only way we can see the object or take a photograph), although they are constantly being replaced. Without the lens focusing on the object, you wouldn't be asking me this question because we wouldn't be seeing the object at all.

Two problems with that answer: If the blue photons in the sunlight hitting the ball are at the very next moment at the distant film/retina, then (i) they cannot still be in the light (if any) bouncing off the ball (as the light bouncing off will be missing the blue photons comprising the blue part of the spectrum); and (ii) they have just teleported - they were at the ball at one moment and then at the distant film/retina at the very next moment, so they got from one place to another instantly without travelling through the intervening space.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's the photon that comes next in line, but you're never going to get a blue photon before red, if the object changes to red since the distance between the object and lens is negligible, and also because in order for that object to be seen, the lens has to be focused on it, not just the light. That changes everything.

You haven't answered the question (a 'where' question requires a location as an answer):

2) Where were the blue photons, which are at the film interacting with it to produce a photographic image of the blue ball when the photograph is taken, at the point in time immediately before the photograph is taken.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It [teleportation] means being at one place and suddenly showing up at another without any travel in between.

Which is exactly what you've just told me happens to the blue wavelength photons hitting the ball. You have them teleporting from the ball to the film/retina. If you think otherwise then you need to explain: (i) What you mean by teleportation as something which never happens on your model; and (ii) How this differs from the behavior of the (P)reflected blue-wavelength photons which is a part of your model. At the moment there is no difference at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No I didn't. You're just not understanding the efferent model which reveals the object even though white light is the default spectrum that travels through space and time if there is nothing in the external world to be revealed.

You can't just accuse me of not understanding you every time you say something blatantly contradictory. Not without actually addressing or explaining your contradictory statements. You said the sunlight striking the ball both ceases to be white light and continues as white light after hitting the ball. These can't both be true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're logic is off so I'm not answering this question because it will it appear to you that this model is implausible, and that's not true.

You don't get to just ignore reasonable questions because you have no plausible answers. Where is my logic 'off'? There are 7 photons hitting the ball. You've said 6 of them are absorbed and used up, and that one of them reappears instantly at (i.e. teleports to) the distant camera film. So how many of those seven photons can still be bouncing off the ball's surface? If your answer is anything other than 'zero', then what part of this logic is incorrect?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep saying it's teleportation, and you're absolutely wrong.

Then how does it differ? You said the blue-wavelength photons hitting the ball will at the very next moment be at the distant camera film. I call that teleportation because that is what it is. That is what you are describing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not saying that one photon hits the ball and is instantly at the film. Those photons travel, but the lens, having to focus on the object in order to resolve the light, means that the corresponding light (although traveling) becomes an instant snapshot of that object as it is in real time. Remember, if we can see the object that means that the light is already at the film/retina, by definition.

If the blue wavelength photons hitting the ball are at the very next moment travelling away from the ball rather than instantly at the film, then you incorrectly answered Q1 above. In response to that question you did tell me that the blue wavelength photons hitting the ball will be instantly at the film. That is exactly what you said.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well it wasn't clear who said it, and I though you were mimicking me, as you sometimes do.

How can it not be clear who said it? YOU TYPED THOSE WORDS. They were not a part of the post you were replying to. You typed them and then proceeded to argue with yourself.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, they are different photons, but when the lens of the camera is present, it is focused on the object which causes the light to be a mirror image. It doesn't matter how far away the object is, if there is enough light present and the object is large enough to be seen by the lens of a camera, telescope, or retina, that light is a reflection of that object as it appears NOW, not IN THE PAST.

Repeating your conclusion of real-time vision does not help resolve the blatant contradictions in your account of how that allegedly happens. What are different photons to what? At the moment you have blue photons in three places (at two different times) - before the sunlight hits the ball you have blue photons in that light heading towards the ball, and after the sunlight hits the ball you have blue photons both at the distant film and within full spectrum sunlight traveling away from the ball. Which of these three sets of photons are the same and which are different?

If the photons travelling towards the ball are the same as the ones later travelling away within the reflected sunlight, and different from those at the film/retina, then where did the photons at the film/retina come froim and how did they get there?

If the photons travelling towards the ball are the same as the ones later at the film/retina, and different from those travelling away within the reflected sunlight, then where did those blue wavelength photons within that travelling light come from and how did they get there?

[LadyShea]

white light is the default spectrum that travels through space and time if there is nothing in the external world to be revealed.

Where, on Earth, is there nothing to be revealed?

Are you positing a space devoid of matter for light to interact with somewhere here on Earth?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Where, on Earth, is there nothing to be revealed?

Two places, Lessans book and Peacegirls mind.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Where, on Earth, is there nothing to be revealed?

Are you positing a space devoid of matter for light to interact with somewhere here on Earth?

I'm saying that light that travels at a finite speed through space and time comprises the full visible spectrum and only when we're looking at something in the external world does light play a part. Due to efferent vision, light becomes a condition of sight, not a cause, which means that if there is no substance to be seen because it's not in range, we will only get white light.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm saying that light that travels at a finite speed through space and time comprises the full visible spectrum and only when we're looking at something in the external world does light play a part.

So you are saying that absorption of parts of the spectrum are not a way light interacts with matter we are not looking at?

When we are not looking at a leaf, that leaf doesn't absorb the non-green wavelength light and use it in photosynthesis?

Due to efferent vision, light becomes a condition of sight, not a cause, which means that if there is no substance to be seen because it's not in range, we will only get white light

My question was where, on the planet Earth, is there no substance to be seen at all? That's not possible.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If you can see the dilemma then you need to either resolve it or change your claims to remove the contradiction. You cannot continue to claim that full spectrum sunlight is bouncing off the ball when every part of the sunlight hitting the ball is either absorbed or reappearing at distant locations. If that were true then there could not be any sunlight bouncing off the ball. Every bit of the sunlight hitting the ball would either get absorbed or would reappear at distant films and retinas, so there would be nothing left to bounce off the surface of the ball. You can't just ignore or gloss over this problem. You need to change what you are saying so that it will no longer be contradictory.

Two problems with that answer: If the blue photons in the sunlight hitting the ball are at the very next moment at the distant film/retina, then (i) they cannot still be in the light (if any) bouncing off the ball (as the light bouncing off will be missing the blue photons comprising the blue part of the spectrum); and (ii) they have just teleported - they were at the ball at one moment and then at the distant film/retina at the very next moment, so they got from one place to another instantly without travelling through the intervening space.

You haven't answered the question (a 'where' question requires a location as an answer):

2) Where were the blue photons, which are at the film interacting with it to produce a photographic image of the blue ball when the photograph is taken, at the point in time immediately before the photograph is taken.

Which is exactly what you've just told me happens to the blue wavelength photons hitting the ball. You have them teleporting from the ball to the film/retina. If you think otherwise then you need to explain: (i) What you mean by teleportation as something which never happens on your model; and (ii) How this differs from the behavior of the (P)reflected blue-wavelength photons which is a part of your model. At the moment there is no difference at all.

You can't just accuse me of not understanding you every time you say something blatantly contradictory. Not without actually addressing or explaining your contradictory statements. You said the sunlight striking the ball both ceases to be white light and continues as white light after hitting the ball. These can't both be true.

You don't get to just ignore reasonable questions because you have no plausible answers. Where is my logic 'off'? There are 7 photons hitting the ball. You've said 6 of them are absorbed and used up, and that one of them reappears instantly at (i.e. teleports to) the distant camera film. So how many of those seven photons can still be bouncing off the ball's surface? If your answer is anything other than 'zero', then what part of this logic is incorrect?

Then how does it differ? You said the blue-wavelength photons hitting the ball will at the very next moment be at the distant camera film. I call that teleportation because that is what it is. That is what you are describing.

If the blue wavelength photons hitting the ball are at the very next moment travelling away from the ball rather than instantly at the film, then you incorrectly answered Q1 above. In response to that question you did tell me that the blue wavelength photons hitting the ball will be instantly at the film. That is exactly what you said.

How can it not be clear who said it? YOU TYPED THOSE WORDS. They were not a part of the post you were replying to. You typed them and then proceeded to argue with yourself.

Repeating your conclusion of real-time vision does not help resolve the blatant contradictions in your account of how that allegedly happens. What are different photons to what? At the moment you have blue photons in three places (at two different times) - before the sunlight hits the ball you have blue photons in that light heading towards the ball, and after the sunlight hits the ball you have blue photons both at the distant film and within full spectrum sunlight traveling away from the ball. Which of these three sets of photons are the same and which are different?

If the photons travelling towards the ball are the same as the ones later travelling away within the reflected sunlight, and different from those at the film/retina, then where did the photons at the film/retina come froim and how did they get there?

If the photons travelling towards the ball are the same as the ones later at the film/retina, and different from those travelling away within the reflected sunlight, then where did those blue wavelength photons within that travelling light come from and how did they get there?

Bump.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

My question was where, on the planet Earth, is there no substance to be seen at all? That's not possible.

LadyShea, you are forgetting one very important aspect of efferent vision, when everything gets quiet and still, there is no sound, nothing to smell, or touch, the 4 senses are not stimulated and therefore the brain is not stimulated to look out through the eyes, and then will not focus on anything. At that point vision goes blank where only white photons and a blank screen of undeniable substance are preceived. Along with this the brain must also go blank which would explaine why Peacegirl sees nothing but white photons when her eyes are not focused on any object. When the mind is a blank, so also the world is a blank screen, what wonderful peace and quiet. 'Willfull ignorance is bliss'.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

2nd bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm saying that light that travels at a finite speed through space and time comprises the full visible spectrum and only when we're looking at something in the external world does light play a part.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So you are saying that absorption of parts of the spectrum are not a way light interacts with matter we are not looking at?

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying only one thing and one thing only: The non-absorbed light does not travel through space and time to reach our eyes. It is there only because the object is there which reveals itself through the non-absorbed light --- which is instantly present when the lens of the eye or camera are focused on it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

When we are not looking at a leaf, that leaf doesn't absorb the non-green wavelength light and use it in photosynthesis?

Of course it does. It has nothing to do with whether we're looking at it or not. I don't know where you got the idea that this is what I'm saying.

Due to efferent vision, light becomes a condition of sight, not a cause, which means that if there is no substance to be seen because it's not in range, we will only get white light

Originally Posted by LadyShea

My question was where, on the planet Earth, is there no substance to be seen at all? That's not possible.

Substance cannot be seen when the (P) light being reflected is dispersed to where it has faded out (inverse square law of optics). When that happens, what is present on the film/retina is full spectrum light. This doesn't mean that the object doesn't absorb new photons continually, as light from the Sun constantly emits its energy. It just means, due to efferent vision, the object is too far away to be seen (which is one of the requirements), and therefore we cannot get an image on our film/retina no matter how much light is present.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I'm not saying that at all. I'm saying only one thing and one thing only: The non-absorbed light does not travel through space and time to reach our eyes. It is there only because the object is there which reveals itself through the non-absorbed light --- which is instantly present when the lens of the eye or camera are focused on it.

What does non-absorbed light do when we aren't looking at it? Does it I have been asking this for months, why can't you answer?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

When we are not looking at a leaf, that leaf doesn't absorb the non-green wavelength light and use it in photosynthesis?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course it does. It has nothing to do with whether we're looking at it or not. I don't know where you got the idea that this is what I'm saying.

This statements of yours gave me that idea

only when we're looking at something in the external world does light play a part.

It is there only because the object is there which reveals itself through the non-absorbed light

These statements indicate that you believe light doesn't absorb and reflect unless a lens is present. That this function is solely for the purpose of "revealing" to lenses. I want to know what interactions there are between light and matter when there is no lens around in your model.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

My question was where, on the planet Earth, is there no substance to be seen at all? That's not possible.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Substance cannot be seen when the (P) light being reflected is dispersed to where it has faded out (inverse square law of optics). When that happens, what is present on the film/retina is full spectrum light.

That's not what I asked. In my experience of the planet there is always matter or substance of some kind somewhere in our field of view. Where on Earth is there no substance to be seen at all that we will only "get" white light?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have answered this countless times LadyShea. Light is constantly in motion but we can only see substance when we're looking at it. Light allows us to look at it and see it in real time because it is a condition of sight; it doesn't cause sight. In other words, it does not travel through space and time to reach our eyes when the event is no longer present.

But I clarified that many times. Light does what it does due to its properties, but we will not see what light reflects unless we're looking at the substance that it is reflecting.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

My question was where, on the planet Earth, is there no substance to be seen at all? That's not possible.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Substance cannot be seen when the (P) light being reflected is dispersed to where it has faded out (inverse square law of optics). When that happens, what is present on the film/retina is full spectrum light.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's not what I asked. In my experience of the planet there is always matter or substance of some kind somewhere in our filed of view. Where on Earth is there no substance to be seen at all that we will only "get" white light?

You're right. There is always matter or substance of some kind somewhere in our field of view because the ground we walk on, which is always present, is substance. We don't walk on air.

[LadyShea]

Light does what it does due to its properties,

I want to know what it you think "light does due to it's properties" when nobody is looking at it.

but we will not see what light reflects unless we're looking at the substance that it is reflecting.

Light does not reflect substances.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I want to know what it you think "light does due to it's properties" when nobody is looking at it.

It does nothing. It is there, period. It does not get (N) reflected as scientists believe.

but we will not see what light reflects unless we're looking at the substance that it is reflecting.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light does not reflect substances.

Yes it does. You're starting from an accepted (not proved) position, so of course you will be right LadyShea. If that's the goal, then you're right according to false logic. But the truth is light reflects, or shines on, what exists; objects do not reflect as if they cause light to do anything; their properties absorb light, nothing else. I am tired of this conversation with you. I already said this in my other thread. If you have any doubt that science could be mistaken, that's great. It will give you pause...and help you to be an objective thinker. But I'm not here to convince you LadyShea. I want to move to the other thread, which I have said is more important at this point. If you don't care to discuss it, that's all well and good. Just remember, if you continue to put me down by calling me delusional, I will refuse to answer you, and it will be your loss.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I want to know what it you think "light does due to it's properties" when nobody is looking at it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It does nothing. It is there, period. It does not get (N) reflected as scientists believe.

Light does nothing? Light does not interact with matter? Light does not get absorbed and transform to thermal energy or metabolic energy? Light does not travel at 186 thousand miles per second? It doesn't get filtered, refracted, and reflected according to the laws and principles of optics?

Thanks for finally admitting it!

Why have you made so many statements to the contrary? Why have you said optics is almost all correct when you believe light does nothing that optics says it does?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light does not reflect substances.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes it does. You're starting from an accepted (not proved) position, so of course you will be right LadyShea.

Light reflects matter? How does that work? Can you find anything in optics, which you say is mostly correct, explaining this bona fide miracle?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I want to know what it you think "light does due to it's properties" when nobody is looking at it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It does nothing. It is there, period. It does not get (N) reflected as scientists believe.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light does nothing? Light does not interact with matter? Light does not get absorbed and transform to thermal energy or metabolic energy? Light does not travel at 186 thousand miles per second? It doesn't get filtered, refracted, and reflected according to the laws and principles of optics?

Thanks for finally admitting it!

Why have you made so many statements to the contrary? Why have you said optics is almost all correct when you believe light does nothing that optics says it does?

I never said light doesn't do these things, but when it comes to sight, light's job is to reflect what's out there (that's what I meant when I said light does nothing). Optics is correct except for the idea that all we need to resolve an image is light itself without the object being in our field of view.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light reflects matter? How does that work? Can you find anything in optics, which you say is mostly correct, explaining this bona fide miracle?

Of course not, because this has to do with efferent vision. This goes back to the one thing I said optics is not correct about, and that is the idea that we can resolve an image from light alone, which is the very issue that is being disputed.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said light doesn't do these things, but when it comes to sight...(irrelevant stuff snipped)

I am asking you about light's properties when sight is not involved. I made it perfectly clear when I included "when nobody is looking at it" in my question that you answered with "light does nothing". I have been asking you about that for months. You refuse to answer except with the involvement of sight.

Why is that? Why are you avoiding answering my questions about what you think light is and does when nobody is looking at it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am asking you about light's properties when sight is not involved. I made it perfectly clear when I included "when nobody is looking at it" in my question that you answered with "light does nothing". I have been asking you about that for months. You refuse to answer except with the involvement of sight.

Why is that? Why are you avoiding answering my questions about what you think light is and does when nobody is looking at it?

I have never avoided answering your questions LadyShea. I have said all along that the light that is revealing the object (the non-absorbed light) does not travel through space and time. It is present because the object is present. If the object disappears, so does the (P) light, although (N) light continues to travel at 186,000 miles per second.

[LadyShea]

I have never avoided answering your questions LadyShea. I have said all along that the light that is revealing the object (the non-absorbed light) does not travel through space and time. It is present because the object is present. If the object disappears, so does the (P) light, although (N) light continues to travel at 186,000 miles per second.

How does light interact with matter when nobody is looking at it?

For a specific example,what does light do when it strikes a leaf in the upper canopy of a rainforest with no lenses anywhere within the (p) reflection zone? Step by step, please.