A revolution in thought - Page 591

Spacemonkey · #**14751** 03-02-2012, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't call you names Spacemonkey. You are constantly belittling me. You are doing this to puff yourself up in order to make me look ignorant in comparison.

I am respectful towards you when you answer questions instead of weaseling. When all you do is weasel and ignore questions I have no respect for you at all. If you don't like being called a weasel, then stop weaseling. Answer my questions.

Spacemonkey · #**14752** 03-02-2012, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Absolutely wrong. The distance is nil when one is focused on the object. The corresponding light that is captured by the lens is not the light that has traveled to arrive at the film because of how the eyes work, not how light works. Until you understand how completely different efferent vision is from afferent, you will never grasp why this is not teleportation, and yet we are getting the photons as a mirror image on film or retina.

No, the distance is not nil. There is a very real and actual non-zero distance between the object and the camera. They are not in the same place. They are not in contact. Focus cannot change this real actual distance between them. And the bold sentence directly contradicts your previous answer where in response to a question about the light at the film YOU said: "I answered you. They were traveling to the film right before the photograph was taken." Didn't you just claim to have never changed your position? Not quite true that, was it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you're missing half of this equation.

You're completely ignoring the problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you why. Light does not travel with the image, so red would not come before blue in the efferent model. As the eyes focus on the object, the corresponding light must be blue. Distance has nothing to do with it.

The problem I presented does not involve any image traveling with the light. Nor does it involve any eyes. Yet the distance has everything to do with it. Try again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said that I might have attributed my words to you, but that was an easy mistake to make. I didn't answer to my name, I just put the wrong name next to the wrong quote. So what? Even if they were my words that I typed, and then accidentally put your name next to it, this could easily occur when I'm answering so many questions and so many posts. Why are you belaboring this to such an extent? Do you think that this error makes me incapable of understanding what it is I'm explaining? There has to be a reason why you are doing this.

The point isn't just that you misattributed your own words to me. It's that you then proceeded to argue against those words which you yourself had just typed during that very same reply. (I will drop this as soon as you acknowledge what you did.)

Bump.

2nd bump.

Spacemonkey · #**14753** 03-02-2012, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Stop weaselling, and address the problem:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, you've said that countless times. Unfortunately it is still wrong, even on your own efferent model. You've said that when the photograph is taken, there is sunlight hitting the ball, blue photons from that light are bouncing off and beginning to travel towards the camera, and other different blue photons are already at the camera film which were previously traveling towards it.

You've said that no light ever instantly teleports anywhere. That is why the light at the film is a different set of photons from those that have just bounced off the surface of the ball when the photograph is taken. That also means the photons already at the film were previously traveling to get there and took time to arrive.

Is there any part of this which you disagree with?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Given this, I can construct the same problem using either set of photons. First, take those blue photons already at the film. They did not teleport there but instead travelled there at a finite speed across the non-zero distance between the ball and the camera. That means they left the surface of the ball before the photograph was taken. If the ball was then red rather than blue (changing from red to blue while this light was traveling) then either the red ball reflected (i.e. bounced-off) these photons as blue photons (which is impossible, for a red ball would have absorbed them and bounced-off only red photons), or these particular photons (which are blue when they get to the film) were initially red and changed color during their journey.

What is your solution to this problem?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The same problem can be stated for the other different set of blue photons which have only just bounced off the ball's surface to begin traveling when the photograph is taken. Because they are traveling at a finite speed across the non-zero distance between the ball and the camera, they will only arrive at the film at a later time. Suppose a second photograph is taken at this later time when they arrive at the film. Suppose also that the ball has changed color during this time and is now red. Do we get a blue photo of the now-red ball? Or do these blue photons interact with the film to produce a red image? Or have these initially blue photons changed color while traveling to become red photons matching the real-time color of the ball?

What is your solution to this problem?

Bump.

2nd bump.

3rd bump.

davidm · #**14754** 03-02-2012, 10:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your temper is getting the best of you. Come back when you've cooled off and address me respectfully or I will not engage with you.

I'm not angry. I'm just calling you a weasel whenever you weasel. Why don't you come back when you're prepared to actually answer my questions instead of disrespectfully weaselling out of them? If you want to be shown respect, then start showing some yourself.

I don't call you names Spacemonkey. You are constantly belittling me. You are doing this to puff yourself up in order to make me look ignorant in comparison.

Nope. You expose yourself as ignorant by your own answers.

Why do we see the moons of Jupiter in delayed time if we see in real time, peacegirl? Why does NASA send spacecraft to Mars using delayed-time calculations if real-time seeing is true? Why, here on earth, can we demonstrate delayed-time seeing using fast-flickering lanterns if real-time seeing is true?

Answer those three questions without your usual lies and cowardly evasions if you want respect. Of course, there is only one answer -- Lessans was wrong -- so you won't answer them. And, thus exposed yet again as a duplicitous clown, you will receive no respect from anyone.

Spacemonkey · #**14755** 03-02-2012, 10:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm also going to return to my earlier two sets of questions...

Quote:

FIRST SET

When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is travelling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Does it bounce off the surface to travel away from it? [Y/N?]

Is it absorbed by the blue object? [Y/N?]

Does it cease to exist? [Y/N?]

Does it stay there, at the surface of the blue object? [Y/N?]

Does it teleport itself instantly to any nearby films or retinas? [Y/N?]

If none of the above, then what? [Insert answer here]

Your present answer to this appears to be that these blue-wavelength photons hitting the blue object do indeed bounce off the surface and travel away from it. Is that correct?

Quote:

SECOND SET

1. Did the specific photons (at the camera when the photograph is taken) exist immediately before the photograph was taken? [Yes or No]

2. If so, then according to efferent vision where were those specific photons at the moment in time immediately preceding the taking of the photograph? [State a location]

Your present answers here would seem to be that these photons did indeed exist before the photograph was taken and were then traveling between the ball and the camera. Is that correct?

Bump.

2nd bump.

3rd bump.

Are your present answers those I just stated or not?

4th bump.

peacegirl · #**14756** 03-02-2012, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm also going to return to my earlier two sets of questions...

Quote:

FIRST SET

When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is travelling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Does it bounce off the surface to travel away from it? [Y/N?]

Is it absorbed by the blue object? [Y/N?]

Does it cease to exist? [Y/N?]

Does it stay there, at the surface of the blue object? [Y/N?]

Does it teleport itself instantly to any nearby films or retinas? [Y/N?]

If none of the above, then what? [Insert answer here]

Your present answer to this appears to be that these blue-wavelength photons hitting the blue object do indeed bounce off the surface and travel away from it. Is that correct?

Quote:

SECOND SET

1. Did the specific photons (at the camera when the photograph is taken) exist immediately before the photograph was taken? [Yes or No]

2. If so, then according to efferent vision where were those specific photons at the moment in time immediately preceding the taking of the photograph? [State a location]

Your present answers here would seem to be that these photons did indeed exist before the photograph was taken and were then traveling between the ball and the camera. Is that correct?

Bump.

2nd bump.

3rd bump.

Are your present answers those I just stated or not?

4th bump.

Even if blue photons bounce off and travel, the fact that the object must be in one's field of view means that those photons, when the lens of the eyes or camera is focused on the object, are present at the film/retina in nanoseconds. There is virtually no distance because of the way the eyes work in the efferent version model of sight. This eliminates teleportation and it also answers the question as to why we will always get a mirror image on the film/retina, regardless of how far away the object is as long as it meets the requirements of being bright enough and large enough to be seen.

Spacemonkey · #**14757** 03-02-2012, 11:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Even if blue photons bounce off and travel, the fact that the object must be in one's field of view means that those photons, when the lens of the eyes or camera is focused on the object, are present at the film/retina in nanoseconds. There is virtually no distance because of the way the eyes work in the efferent version model of sight. This eliminates teleportation and it also answers the question as to why we will always get a mirror image on the film/retina, regardless of how far away the object is as long as it meets the requirements of being bright enough and large enough to be seen.

That's not what I asked you. I said:

Are your present answers those I just stated or not?

Why do you keep weaselling? Why didn't you answer the question? Just answer the questions please.

(And the photons won't be there at the film in nanoseconds. If they have to travel at the speed of light, then the time involved will be proportional to the distance between the object and the camera. Where this distance is large, so is the time. If they are getting there any faster than this then they are either traveling faster than light or they are teleporting.)

:weasel:

davidm · #**14758** 03-02-2012, 11:31 PM

Here, I fixed your last "answer" via random text scrambler:

Quote:

Originally Posted by random text scrambler

No in of way the be of enough how of far are and eliminates that teleportation photons, on off sight. object the in one's is eyes a nanoseconds. it object photons field mirror the also image lens bright long being when model. This be the the meets the as travel, to is efferent the of film/retina the it we the as as the that if answers because will is regardless enough why film/retina, view distance version or fact object, requirements present. Even There get those in must bounce focused means of away camera to the large at and and always seen. the blue eyes the work on virtually question of.

There. That makes much more sense that what you just wrote. :lol:

Spacemonkey · #**14759** 03-02-2012, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm also going to return to my earlier two sets of questions...

Quote:

FIRST SET

When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is travelling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Does it bounce off the surface to travel away from it? [Y/N?]

Is it absorbed by the blue object? [Y/N?]

Does it cease to exist? [Y/N?]

Does it stay there, at the surface of the blue object? [Y/N?]

Does it teleport itself instantly to any nearby films or retinas? [Y/N?]

If none of the above, then what? [Insert answer here]

Your present answer to this appears to be that these blue-wavelength photons hitting the blue object do indeed bounce off the surface and travel away from it. Is that correct?

Quote:

SECOND SET

1. Did the specific photons (at the camera when the photograph is taken) exist immediately before the photograph was taken? [Yes or No]

2. If so, then according to efferent vision where were those specific photons at the moment in time immediately preceding the taking of the photograph? [State a location]

Your present answers here would seem to be that these photons did indeed exist before the photograph was taken and were then traveling between the ball and the camera. Is that correct?

Bump.

2nd bump.

3rd bump.

Are your present answers those I just stated or not?

4th bump.

5th bump.

Are your present answers those I just stated or not?

:weasel:

davidm · #**14760** 03-02-2012, 11:32 PM

*Bump* for the dishonest :weasel:

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Why do we see the moons of Jupiter in delayed time if we see in real time, peacegirl? Why does NASA send spacecraft to Mars using delayed-time calculations if real-time seeing is true? Why, here on earth, can we demonstrate delayed-time seeing using fast-flickering lanterns if real-time seeing is true?

Answer those three questions without your usual lies and cowardly evasions if you want respect. Of course, there is only one answer -- Lessans was wrong -- so you won't answer them. And, thus exposed yet again as a duplicitous clown, you will receive no respect from anyone.

peacegirl · #**14761** 03-03-2012, 12:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Even if blue photons bounce off and travel, the fact that the object must be in one's field of view means that those photons, when the lens of the eyes or camera is focused on the object, are present at the film/retina in nanoseconds. There is virtually no distance because of the way the eyes work in the efferent version model of sight. This eliminates teleportation and it also answers the question as to why we will always get a mirror image on the film/retina, regardless of how far away the object is as long as it meets the requirements of being bright enough and large enough to be seen.

That's not what I asked you. I said:

Are your present answers those I just stated or not?

Why do you keep weaselling? Why didn't you answer the question? Just answer the questions please.

(And the photons won't be there at the film in nanoseconds. If they have to travel at the speed of light, then the time involved will be proportional to the distance between the object and the camera. Where this distance is large, so is the time. If they are getting there any faster than this then they are either traveling faster than light or they are teleporting.)

:weasel:

You're still missing the point that if the object is seen or photographed, the light is already present at the film/retina. You can't have one without the other because the object (the material substance, not just the light) must be within range. If efferent vision is correct, there is no way you are seeing an image of the object (such as Jupiter's moons) from light alone.

Spacemonkey · #**14762** 03-03-2012, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That's not what I asked you. I said:

Are your present answers those I just stated or not?

Why do you keep weaselling? Why didn't you answer the question? Just answer the questions please.

:weasel:

You're still missing the point that if the object is seen or photographed, the light is already present at the film/retina. You can't have one without the other because the object (the material substance, not just the light) must be within range. If efferent vision is correct, there is no way you are seeing an image of the object (such as Jupiter's moons) from light alone.

Are your present answers those I just stated or not?

Are your present answers those I just stated or not?

Are your present answers those I just stated or not?

Are your present answers those I just stated or not?

Are your present answers those I just stated or not?

Are your present answers those I just stated or not?

Are your present answers those I just stated or not?

Are your present answers those I just stated or not?

Are your present answers those I just stated or not?

Are your present answers those I just stated or not?

:weasel:

davidm · #**14763** 03-03-2012, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're still missing the point that if the object is seen or photographed, the light is already present at the film/retina.

You're still missing the point (or probably not, since you are a serial liar) that what you claim here is empirically false. Therefore your entire inane, incoherent and brain-damaged apologetic for your crackpot father's daydreams is superfluous and a waste of time.

Spacemonkey · #**14764** 03-03-2012, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're still missing the point that if the object is seen or photographed, the light is already present at the film/retina.

But the light that is already at the film is DIFFERENT light from that just now bouncing off unabsorbed from the object. And only this latter light has properties determined by the absorptive properties of the object at the time the photograph is taken. This light hasn't got to the film yet. The former light which is already there at the film - unless it either teleported, traveled faster than light, materialized there, or changed wavelengths enroute - instead has properties determined by the absorptive properties of the object at the earlier time when this light first left the surface of the object.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If efferent vision is correct, there is no way you are seeing an image of the object (such as Jupiter's moons) from light alone.

Yes, if efferent vision is correct, then efferent vision is correct. But it isn't correct. It isn't even a coherent possibility.

davidm · #**14765** 03-03-2012, 12:31 AM

I also encourage people to stop calling it "efferent vision." That's peacegirl's term, borrowed from Lessans, who of course had no clue what he was talking about. Efferent means signal out. It has nothing to do with real-time seeing. If eyes sent signals out, then this would entail nothing about seeing in real time. As it happens, though, eyes DO NOT send signals out; as was pointed out to the charlatan some 800 pages ago, the eyes has no efferent structures at all. So Lessans is doubly wrong: there is no signal out from the eye. Now, real-time seeing is a separate claim from "signal out." And, of course, it's also emprically incorrect.

peacegirl · #**14766** 03-03-2012, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're still missing the point that if the object is seen or photographed, the light is already present at the film/retina.

But the light that is already at the film is DIFFERENT light from that just now bouncing off unabsorbed from the object. And only this latter light has properties determined by the absorptive properties of the object at the time the photograph is taken. This light hasn't got to the film yet. The former light which is already there at the film - unless it either teleported, traveled faster than light, materialized there, or changed wavelengths enroute - instead has properties determined by the absorptive properties of the object at the earlier time when this light first left the surface of the object.

But the light is connected to the object. It does not travel carrying the image with it in a separate manner (you know what I mean when I say "carry"), therefore if the object changes in color, it will reflect that change in the light. I'm sorry if you can't logically accept this account of how the eyes work and the reason we see in the present, but it makes perfect sense if you're coming from the efferent perspective.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If efferent vision is correct, there is no way you are seeing an image of the object (such as Jupiter's moons) from light alone.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, if efferent vision is correct, then efferent vision is correct. But it isn't correct. It isn't even a coherent possibility.

It isn't correct, just like his observation of how conscience works isn't correct. Too bad your reasoning is not as sound as you think it is. Unfortunately, because you think you have proved Lessans wrong, you will resist opening your mind to the fresh air of undeniable knowledge.

peacegirl · #**14767** 03-03-2012, 12:59 AM

Intermission: Hope you enjoy!

http://healthypets.mercola.com/sites...to-guitar.aspx

thedoc · #**14768** 03-03-2012, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

I also encourage people to stop calling it "efferent vision." That's peacegirl's term, borrowed from Lessans, who of course had no clue what he was talking about. Efferent means signal out. It has nothing to do with real-time seeing. If eyes sent signals out, then this would entail nothing about seeing in real time. As it happens, though, eyes DO NOT send signals out; as was pointed out to the charlatan some 800 pages ago, the eyes has no efferent structures at all. So Lessans is doubly wrong: there is no signal out from the eye. Now, real-time seeing is a separate claim from "signal out." And, of course, it's also emprically incorrect.

Damn, Wish I'd said that.

thedoc · #**14769** 03-03-2012, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by random text scrambler

No in of way the be of enough how of far are and eliminates that teleportation photons, on off sight. object the in one's is eyes a nanoseconds. it object photons field mirror the also image lens bright long being when model. This be the the meets the as travel, to is efferent the of film/retina the it we the as as the that if answers because will is regardless enough why film/retina, view distance version or fact object, requirements present. Even There get those in must bounce focused means of away camera to the large at and and always seen. the blue eyes the work on virtually question of.

Damn, wish I could say that?

thedoc · #**14770** 03-03-2012, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It isn't correct, just like his observation of how conscience works isn't correct.

Finally the truth comes out!

davidm · #**14771** 03-03-2012, 01:26 AM

*Bump*

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

*Bump* for the dishonest :weasel:

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Why do we see the moons of Jupiter in delayed time if we see in real time, peacegirl? Why does NASA send spacecraft to Mars using delayed-time calculations if real-time seeing is true? Why, here on earth, can we demonstrate delayed-time seeing using fast-flickering lanterns if real-time seeing is true?

Answer those three questions without your usual lies and cowardly evasions if you want respect. Of course, there is only one answer -- Lessans was wrong -- so you won't answer them. And, thus exposed yet again as a duplicitous clown, you will receive no respect from anyone.

Spacemonkey · #**14772** 03-03-2012, 01:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But the light is connected to the object. It does not travel carrying the image with it in a separate manner (you know what I mean when I say "carry"), therefore if the object changes in color, it will reflect that change in the light. I'm sorry if you can't logically accept this account of how the eyes work and the reason we see in the present, but it makes perfect sense if you're coming from the efferent perspective.

What connects the traveling light to the object (which it was only previously in contact with)? Are photons connected by bits of string to every object they've bounced off of? By something else? And are you saying that the traveling light changes its wavelength properties while in transit to match the real-time absorptive properties of the object? Exactly as per the objection I've been raising against your present account? How is this possible? And no, I don't know what you mean by carrying an image. Afferent vision does not involve traveling images. Only your father's strawman of it does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It isn't correct, just like his observation of how conscience works isn't correct. Too bad your reasoning is not as sound as you think it is. Unfortunately, because you think you have proved Lessans wrong, you will resist opening your mind to the fresh air of undeniable knowledge.

You mean the 'undeniable' knowledge which has been rationally denied by every single person you've presented it to? That 'undeniable' knowledge? Too bad you can't support your assertion that my reasoning is not sound. Are you ready to answer my questions yet, or do you still have some more weaselling to do?

Spacemonkey · #**14773** 03-03-2012, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Absolutely wrong. The distance is nil when one is focused on the object. The corresponding light that is captured by the lens is not the light that has traveled to arrive at the film because of how the eyes work, not how light works. Until you understand how completely different efferent vision is from afferent, you will never grasp why this is not teleportation, and yet we are getting the photons as a mirror image on film or retina.

No, the distance is not nil. There is a very real and actual non-zero distance between the object and the camera. They are not in the same place. They are not in contact. Focus cannot change this real actual distance between them. And the bold sentence directly contradicts your previous answer where in response to a question about the light at the film YOU said: "I answered you. They were traveling to the film right before the photograph was taken." Didn't you just claim to have never changed your position? Not quite true that, was it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you're missing half of this equation.

You're completely ignoring the problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you why. Light does not travel with the image, so red would not come before blue in the efferent model. As the eyes focus on the object, the corresponding light must be blue. Distance has nothing to do with it.

The problem I presented does not involve any image traveling with the light. Nor does it involve any eyes. Yet the distance has everything to do with it. Try again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said that I might have attributed my words to you, but that was an easy mistake to make. I didn't answer to my name, I just put the wrong name next to the wrong quote. So what? Even if they were my words that I typed, and then accidentally put your name next to it, this could easily occur when I'm answering so many questions and so many posts. Why are you belaboring this to such an extent? Do you think that this error makes me incapable of understanding what it is I'm explaining? There has to be a reason why you are doing this.

The point isn't just that you misattributed your own words to me. It's that you then proceeded to argue against those words which you yourself had just typed during that very same reply. (I will drop this as soon as you acknowledge what you did.)

Bump.

2nd bump.

3rd bump.

Spacemonkey · #**14774** 03-03-2012, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Stop weaselling, and address the problem:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, you've said that countless times. Unfortunately it is still wrong, even on your own efferent model. You've said that when the photograph is taken, there is sunlight hitting the ball, blue photons from that light are bouncing off and beginning to travel towards the camera, and other different blue photons are already at the camera film which were previously traveling towards it.

You've said that no light ever instantly teleports anywhere. That is why the light at the film is a different set of photons from those that have just bounced off the surface of the ball when the photograph is taken. That also means the photons already at the film were previously traveling to get there and took time to arrive.

Is there any part of this which you disagree with?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Given this, I can construct the same problem using either set of photons. First, take those blue photons already at the film. They did not teleport there but instead travelled there at a finite speed across the non-zero distance between the ball and the camera. That means they left the surface of the ball before the photograph was taken. If the ball was then red rather than blue (changing from red to blue while this light was traveling) then either the red ball reflected (i.e. bounced-off) these photons as blue photons (which is impossible, for a red ball would have absorbed them and bounced-off only red photons), or these particular photons (which are blue when they get to the film) were initially red and changed color during their journey.

What is your solution to this problem?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The same problem can be stated for the other different set of blue photons which have only just bounced off the ball's surface to begin traveling when the photograph is taken. Because they are traveling at a finite speed across the non-zero distance between the ball and the camera, they will only arrive at the film at a later time. Suppose a second photograph is taken at this later time when they arrive at the film. Suppose also that the ball has changed color during this time and is now red. Do we get a blue photo of the now-red ball? Or do these blue photons interact with the film to produce a red image? Or have these initially blue photons changed color while traveling to become red photons matching the real-time color of the ball?

What is your solution to this problem?

Bump.

2nd bump.

3rd bump.

4th bump.

Spacemonkey · #**14775** 03-03-2012, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm also going to return to my earlier two sets of questions...

Quote:

FIRST SET

When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is travelling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Does it bounce off the surface to travel away from it? [Y/N?]

Is it absorbed by the blue object? [Y/N?]

Does it cease to exist? [Y/N?]

Does it stay there, at the surface of the blue object? [Y/N?]

Does it teleport itself instantly to any nearby films or retinas? [Y/N?]

If none of the above, then what? [Insert answer here]

Your present answer to this appears to be that these blue-wavelength photons hitting the blue object do indeed bounce off the surface and travel away from it. Is that correct?

Quote:

SECOND SET

1. Did the specific photons (at the camera when the photograph is taken) exist immediately before the photograph was taken? [Yes or No]

2. If so, then according to efferent vision where were those specific photons at the moment in time immediately preceding the taking of the photograph? [State a location]

Your present answers here would seem to be that these photons did indeed exist before the photograph was taken and were then traveling between the ball and the camera. Is that correct?

Bump.

2nd bump.

3rd bump.

Are your present answers those I just stated or not?

4th bump.

5th bump.

Are your present answers those I just stated or not?

:weasel:

6th bump.