A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Quantum Photons - Quantum Entanglement,

Quantum entanglement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

When photons leave the Sun or any other source of light, their qhantum states are aligned and when one encounters a physical object and interacts with it and the corosponding other photons are at an eye or camera, then due to quantum entanglement the other photons will reveal the object to the eye or camera. All very simple really and voilates no known laws of physics, and because there is a constant stream of Quantumly Entangled photons arriving from the Sun.

Ooops, that still doesn't explain how we see the Sun before the photons arrive from a newly turned on Sun. Oh well, back to the book.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Neither.

Then how do photons come to be in the same physical location as camera film? Remember the marble and the envelope across the room from each other? It is the exact same type of physics to get a photon to camera film.

[thedoc]

OK I've got it now we just extend Quantum Entanglement to all subatomic particles everywhere so not the eye can see everything instantly because the particles in the eye are interacting with every other particle in the universe. Einstein didn't like this "Spooky Actions at a Distance" but thats OK he wouldn't have liked Efferent Vision so it's out with Einstein. Well I'm glad I could settle that.

Ooops, now why cant we see everything in the universe all at the same time, Hmmm.

Ahh, "Selective Quantum Entanglement", now all I need to do is to get a bunch of respected scientists to endorse it. Maybe the 'Woo' crowd can help?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I would disagree that it proves efferent vision is not correct. If we're looking sideways there is no substance from which to see the image. It's very clear to me. I hope it will become clear to you eventually. The fact that substance reflects (P) light (which involves no time since it is an exact replica or mirror image) is what allows the eyes to see in the present, not the past. Without the substance that the light is shining on (so to speak), we get no image. That is exactly why looking sideways would not give us an image of anything.

Ah so it is not teleportation, but replication! Fabulous. How does it work? If we can mimic the mechanism by which it works, we could potentially solve all resource- and energy shortages.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then how do photons come to be in the same physical location as camera film? Remember the marble and the envelope across the room from each other? It is the exact same type of physics to get a photon to camera film.

You need to remember that the lens of a camera works the same way as the eye, therefore the object or substance must be in view for the light, which is present at the film, to be an exact mirror image. If all that was needed was light to be detected, the lens would not have to be focused on the object or substance at all. We would just need to focus light and we would get an image of a past event. But this is not the case.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ah so it is not teleportation, but replication! Fabulous. How does it work? If we can mimic the mechanism by which it works, we could potentially solve all resource- and energy shortages.

So now you think I'm talking about images replicating themselves? I didn't think we could get more off track than we already have, but I take that back.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then how do photons come to be in the same physical location as camera film? Remember the marble and the envelope across the room from each other? It is the exact same type of physics to get a photon to camera film.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You need to remember that the lens of a camera works the same way as the eye, therefore the object or substance must be in view for the light, which is present at the film, to be an exact mirror image.

But camera film or the CCD require photons to be physically on the surface of the film or CCD to be absorbed. Is the mirror image made of photons?

Your explanation still fails to address the physical requirements of photography.

[LadyShea]

If all that was needed was light to be detected, the lens would not have to be focused on the object or substance at all. We would just need to focus light and we would get an image of a past event. But this is not the case.

HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Hubble's Deepest View of the Universe Unveils Bewildering Galaxies across Billions of Years (01/15/1996) - Release Images

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that substance reflects (P) light (which involves no time since it is an exact replica or mirror image) is what allows the eyes to see in the present, not the past. Without the substance that the light is shining on (so to speak), we get no image. That is exactly why looking sideways would not give us an image of anything.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ah so it is not teleportation, but replication! Fabulous. How does it work? If we can mimic the mechanism by which it works, we could potentially solve all resource- and energy shortages.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So now you think I'm talking about images replicating themselves? I didn't think we could get more off track than we already have, but I take that back.

You said....since it is an exact replica

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If all that was needed was light to be detected, the lens would not have to be focused on the object or substance at all. We would just need to focus light and we would get an image of a past event. But this is not the case.

Actually this is the case in the real world, Lenses focus light, they do not focus on anything, there is nothing in optics that focuses on an object. A person when studying or engaging in some mental activity will focus their attention on something but this has nothing to do with vision or optics. Again Lessans misunderstood a psychological process and tried to describe it in physiological terms. A person can focus their attention on an object or activity but this is not a visual process but a mental process, easy for an uneducated person to confuse, by not understanding when a word is figurative and not literal.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You need to remember that the lens of a camera works the same way as the eye, therefore the object or substance must be in view for the light, which is present at the film, to be an exact mirror image. If all that was needed was light to be detected, the lens would not have to be focused on the object or substance at all. We would just need to focus light and we would get an image of a past event. But this is not the case.

Lenses do nothing but bend the path of light. That is all lenses do. You're ascribing magic properties to lenses that do not exist.

The science of vision is well established, and has been since well before Lessans made his ideas public. Lessans is wrong and remains wrong.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So now you think I'm talking about images replicating themselves? I didn't think we could get more off track than we already have, but I take that back.

No, photons. Because according to you, when you look at something, the same light is both at the object and at the eyes. Or is it teleported in stead - but then why use the word "replicate", or speak of mirror images?

You see, this is one of those examples where you do not even understand what you are actually writing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But camera film or the CCD require photons to be physically on the surface of the film or CCD to be absorbed. Is the mirror image made of photons?

Your explanation still fails to address the physical requirements of photography.

Before we talk about cameras (which involves the same light), you need to understand why efferent vision does not violate the laws of physics. As long as you keep discussing light only, and not the eyes, you're going to miss the reason why real time seeing is a viable model.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, photons. Because according to you, when you look at something, the same light is both at the object and at the eyes. Or is it teleported in stead - but then why use the word "replicate", or speak of mirror images?

You see, this is one of those examples where you do not even understand what you are actually writing.

No, if the eyes are efferent, the light is at the film/retina, as you look at the object or substance. The light is not at two places at once.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Lenses do nothing but bend the path of light. That is all lenses do. You're ascribing magic properties to lenses that do not exist.

The science of vision is well established, and has been since well before Lessans made his ideas public. Lessans is wrong and remains wrong.

You're right, the lens doesn't focus the object, it focuses the light, but it must be aimed at the object for the light to be focused. That's what I meant to say.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You said....since it is an exact replica

Wrong word. Thanks for correcting me.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, if the eyes are efferent, the light is at the film/retina, as you look at the object or substance. The light is not at two places at once.

Ah, so it is teleportation then, not replication. Still impossible though.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right, the lens doesn't focus the object, it focuses the light, but it must be aimed at the object for the light to be focused. That's what I meant to say.

From Peacegirls discription of vision it would probably be advisable for her to have an eye examination, it sounds like she is suffering from 'Tunnel Vision'. She discribes looking directly at an object as the only way to see anything and every where else is a blurr of white as if she has no peripheral vision, but not as if there is nothing there but just a white fog. She has, in the past, stated that you need to be looking directly at the object and all else is just white light.

define tunnel vision - Bing DICTIONARY

Actually both definitiions could apply to Peacegirl.

Bump please.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ah so it is not teleportation, but replication! Fabulous. How does it work?

Relax, it doesn't, we're back to plane old afferent vision, how boreing.
It all comes from eye problems Peacegirl probably inherited it from her father.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

HubbleSite - NewsCenter - Hubble's Deepest View of the Universe Unveils Bewildering Galaxies across Billions of Years (01/15/1996) - Release Images

All I can say in defense is that what appears to be clear-cut may not be what it seems.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ah, so it is teleportation then, not replication. Still impossible though.

If the photons are not in two places at once without traversing the distance, it is not teleportation. Now you're just grasping at anything that will make it appear that real time seeing is an impossibility.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wrong. Maybe you don't, but I do see how efferent vision changes the very thing that is believed to be impossible.

No you don't. If you did then you'd be capable of telling us how it does so. But you can't.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

EFFERENT VISION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

That's just a word. It is not an explanation. According to "EFFERENT VISION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" how do the photons at the film get there if they do not either travel there or teleport there?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wrong again. I don't have to reject physics to maintain that these claims are valid. That I refuse to address those questions is because you're missing the most important aspect of all this --- efferent vision. All you're doing is following the afferent version of sight, which would be a problem because in this version time is a factor.

But I'm not following the afferent version of sight. I'm doing EXACTLY as you asked by starting with the assumption that vision is real-time and working backwards to see how that could be possible. You refuse to address my questions about this, showing that you do not know how much of physics will be compatible with it, and that you have no interest in finding out.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But in efferent vision, there is no non-zero actual distance covered, so there is no travel time and, consequently, THERE IS NO TELEPORTATION.

Sorry, but your model doesn't get to change or deny the ACTUAL distance between the object and the eye or camera. If there is no such distance in your model, then your account is not modelling what it is meant to explain. In REALITY there is a real physical distance between objects and the camera/retina.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the photons are not in two places at once without traversing the distance, it is not teleportation. Now you're just grasping at anything that will make it appear that real time seeing is an impossibility.

Wrong. Teleportation does not require the photons to ever be two places at once. You've made that mistake before. You've been corrected on it before.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the photons are not in two places at once without traversing the distance, it is not teleportation. Now you're just grasping at anything that will make it appear that real time seeing is an impossibility.

No, that is not the case. If the photon is in one place one minute, and in a different place the next without crossing the intervening space (a process which takes time), then what we have there is teleportation.

It would be great if it was possible, because it would open up possibilities for time travel or FTL space travel. But as far as we know, it is not possible.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes you are.

No, I'm not. You just told me that photons travel. So if there are traveling photons under BOTH models, then you can't claim that I am discussing one model rather than the other when I ask about traveling photons. When I ask about traveling photons, I am asking about them under YOUR model. (If there are no traveling photons under real-time vision, then either photons do not exist or they exist but are always stationary. Which is it?)

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, in the efferent version there are no traveling photons. There is a mirror image with no travel between the object and the mirror image that is on the film/retina. This is obviously a different point of view than mirror images in the afferent version because, in this version, it is believed that light is still bringing the image through space, and therefore time, however quick it occurs.

What does the instant mirror image at the film consist of?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you see how you are constantly talking about photons, not the eye, which is what the claim is referring to?

Do you see how you are weaseling out of answering another question about YOUR claims?

What does the instant mirror image at the film consist of?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why do you keep talking about photons popping into existence? You are creating a space in time that does not exist in efferent vision. The eyes are focusing on the object because of light, not the other way around. You are thinking reverse when you talk about photons needing to arrive, which is causing the conflict.

You haven't answered the fucking question. Weasel.

What does the instant mirror image at the film consist of?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are presupposing that the only way to see is for light to be traveling. This is the afferent position. You are failing to understand the difference between these two versions, which, once again, highlights where the problem is originating.

Lies. And you just weaselled again. Note the parts I just put in bold. I am not presupposing anything here about traveling photons. The questions specifically ask whether or not the photons concerned will be or were traveling. You just weaselled.

If you accept that there are photons hitting the ball, and that the absorptive properties of the object are relevant to what is seen or photographed, then I get to ask about these photons. If you accept that there are photons at the film and interacting with it when the photograph is taken to produce the photographic image, then I get to ask about these photons as well. So stop your dishonest weaselling and address the damn questions. Here they are again:


Are there traveling photons striking the object on your account, which do not get absorbed by the object? If so, where are they immediately after they hit the object? Are they traveling away from the surface of the object or not?

Are there photons at the film and interacting with it when the photograph is taken? Are they photons which were previously traveling towards the camera or not? If not, did they exist at all prior to the photograph being taken? If they did previously exist, then where were they immediately before the photograph was taken?

(Note how none of these questions presuppose anything about afferent vision or traveling photons.)