A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nope, maybe you're not able to picture what is happening because you've believed the afferent version for so long.

I can't picture what you think is happening because you simply aren't telling me. What causal mechanism prevents the light leaving the object from continuing in that same pattern it then has, when that object later changes or ceases to exist? How could that traveling light know to change its wavelength and pattern of distribution to match changes occuring at the now distant location of the object?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We're back at this again? The P light is traveling and as it travels it catches up, so to speak, with the other light that is no longer absorbed because it's too far away from the object. But you're still missing half of the equation, which is that the lens must be aimed at the object. You still think that light is bringing a pattern and being interpreted by the brain, which is back to your version. No wonder you don't get it.

There is no (P)light. There is only the nonabsorbed light that just hit the ball. How can it later be traveling or catching up with anything if it hasn't bounced off and traveled away from the ball? I don't believe anything is being interpreted by the brain, because there is no brain in my example. Only light, an object, and a camera.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because it's what the eyes do, not what light does, that changes everything about what we know regarding light and sight. AND IT DOESN'T VIOLATE THE LAWS OF PHYSICS.

It violates the laws of physics for light to be at the film without getting there, or getting there without traveling there, or to traveling there without taking any time to do so. It doesn't matter what you think the eyes do. You still have to account for what the light does as well. And at the moment you still have it doing things that are physically impossible.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It works the same way with a camera because the person behind the camera is looking out at the object, and the camera's lens must be aimed AT THE OBJECT, for this mirror image to show up instantly. You are still thinking about light ONLY.

Are you saying that a camera will not be able to take a picture unless there is a person behind it and looking through it? Because that is easily testable. There is no such person in my example. Only light, an object, and a camera. That means you have to be able to explain what happens in terms of light only.

You also didn't answer the question: If there are photons at the film constantly replacing others, then the new ones are obviously getting there somehow. How are they doing that if they are not travelling there?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just told you. And stop telling me I'm weaseling because I'm not.

Your claim that they are traveling and catching up with other light directly contradicts your insistence that they don't bounce off and travel away from the object.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And stop telling me I'm weaseling because I'm not.

If you're not weaselling, then why do I stilll have no answers to these questions:


1) So where are the unabsorbed photons 0.0001sec after they have hit the object? [Insert answer here]

2) So where were the photons (which are at the film comprising the mirror image when the photograph is taken) 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken? [Insert answer here]


I've asked them several times.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What would Lessans think if he could see your ridiculous avoidance here?

Are you Sirius? Did you read the book? Lessans is either rolling in his grave because Peacegirl doesn't get the joke, or he's popping buttons being proud of his little chip of the ol'e blockhead.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Are you Sirius? Did you read the book? Lessans is either rolling in his grave because Peacegirl doesn't get the joke, or he's popping buttons being proud of his little chip of the ol'e blockhead.

Sure, but Peacegirl doesn't think that. So she should be ashamed to think of what he would think of her constant dishonest avoidance.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

2nd bump.

3rd bump.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl doesn't think.

And that is exactly the point.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The object does not (N) reflect (or bounce) the image or pattern of itself, which then travels through space and time; the light that is present reveals the image in real time. Whether you understand this concept or not doesn't change the truth; it just keeps us ignorant.

Forget about the damn image for a moment (the post you are responding to intentionally makes no mention of images or patterns) and try to focus on how light behaves. Unabsorbed light that does not bounce/reflect off of objects does break the laws of physics. Maybe the laws of physics are wrong, but you have yet to demonstrate that such is the case.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't disagree with anything you said. Light works exactly the way you described...

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are still coming from the afferent position when you say that the non-absorbed light is bouncing and traveling. It is not.

These two statements are mutually contradictory. Spacemonkey's description of how light works includes light bouncing/reflecting off objects and travelling away from said objects. Rationally, you can't agree with Spacemonkey's description of how light works and disagree with some element of that description at the same time.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no other form of light Spacemonkey. But non-absorbed blue light does not bounce, it reveals the object when we're looking.

If you are positing the existence of non-absorbed light that does not bounce/reflect off of objects, then you are positing the existence of a form of light that is different from that which is described by the laws of physics. That means that you are implicitly claiming that there are two different kinds of light, light whose behavior conforms to that which is described by the laws of physics and light whose behavior does does not conform to that which is described by the laws of physics.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The P light is traveling and as it travels it catches up, so to speak, with the other light that is no longer absorbed because it's too far away from the object.

All light travels at the same rate of speed in the same medium. That being the case, how can some light catch up with some other light? The light that is catching up would have to be traveling faster than the light that it is catching up to. This would be another example of light violating the laws of physics.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

These two statements are mutually contradictory. Spacemonkey's description of how light works includes light bouncing/reflecting off objects and travelling away from said objects. Rationally, you can't agree with Spacemonkey's description of how light works and disagree with some element of that description at the same time.

(P)agreement = fake agreement.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by thedoc

And that is exactly the point.

If I may point this out again.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because it's what the eyes do, not what light does, that changes everything about what we know regarding light and sight. AND IT DOESN'T VIOLATE THE LAWS OF PHYSICS.

Since everything we know regarding light and sight necessarily includes the laws of physics that describe what we know about light, then changing everything we know about light and sight necessarily means changing the laws of physics. Changing the laws of physics requires violating the laws of physics as they are currently understood.

[thedoc]

Peacegirl does not think, does not comprehend, does not understand anything, her total body of knowledge is the book, and anything outside that work is, in her mind, false and unacceptable. Lessans writings are the end all, and be all, of all knowledge, If you do not understand this, you do not understand Peacegirl.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Changing the laws of physics requires violating the laws of physics as they are currently understood.

What are you doing here? Shouldn't you be working on your sermon for tomorrow? Where is your sense of responsability?

[Angakuk]

The sermon is ready to go. Thanks for your concern though.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The sermon is ready to go. Thanks for your concern though.

You're welcome, looking forward to tomorrow morning, have had some interesting messages lately.

FYI My grandaughter is 2 years old and has been baptized and in our church every baptized member can take communion and we usually do intinction. The first time she did it on her own and got her fingers in the wine, since then I have held her hand so only the tip of the wafer gets into the wine.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nope, maybe you're not able to picture what is happening because you've believed the afferent version for so long.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I can't picture what you think is happening because you simply aren't telling me. What causal mechanism prevents the light leaving the object from continuing in that same pattern it then has, when that object later changes or ceases to exist? How could that traveling light know to change its wavelength and pattern of distribution to match changes occuring at the now distant location of the object?

It doesn't know to change its wavelength Spacemonkey. As the light gets too far away from the object (which is one of the requirements of efferent vision), and is no longer present at the film/retina using the inverse square law, it joins (it does not catch up) with the other wavelength light in the visual spectrum that is now too far away from the object to be absorbed.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We're back at this again? The P light is traveling and as it travels it catches up, so to speak, with the other light that is no longer absorbed because it's too far away from the object. But you're still missing half of the equation, which is that the lens must be aimed at the object. You still think that light is bringing a pattern and being interpreted by the brain, which is back to your version. No wonder you don't get it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

There is no (P)light. There is only the nonabsorbed light that just hit the ball.

The minute you say "hit the ball" you're thinking in terms of photons and not in terms of the eyes, and you're going to be thrown off track.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How can it later be traveling or catching up with anything if it hasn't bounced off and traveled away from the ball? I don't believe anything is being interpreted by the brain, because there is no brain in my example. Only light, an object, and a camera.

I told you that in order to know what's going on, you have to think in terms of the eyes and brain. You can then transfer this knowledge to cameras and telescopes because the lens of these instruments works in the same way (even though there is no brain).

When an object absorbs light, it causes the object to be seen by the non-absorbed light that is present. It is not bouncing, even though the photons are being replaced. Therefore, when the light is too far away to be seen, those photons become white light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because it's what the eyes do, not what light does, that changes everything about what we know regarding light and sight. AND IT DOESN'T VIOLATE THE LAWS OF PHYSICS.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It violates the laws of physics for light to be at the film without getting there, or getting there without traveling there, or to traveling there without taking any time to do so. It doesn't matter what you think the eyes do. You still have to account for what the light does as well. And at the moment you still have it doing things that are physically impossible.

No true. I have always maintained that photons from the Sun are continually traveling, and replacing the non-absorbed photons, but when you use the term bouncing, it confuses the issue because it implies that all we need is light, and no object, which is a fallacy.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It works the same way with a camera because the person behind the camera is looking out at the object, and the camera's lens must be aimed AT THE OBJECT, for this mirror image to show up instantly. You are still thinking about light ONLY.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are you saying that a camera will not be able to take a picture unless there is a person behind it and looking through it? Because that is easily testable. There is no such person in my example. Only light, an object, and a camera. That means you have to be able to explain what happens in terms of light only.

No, what I'm saying is that a lens needs to be aimed at the object. If there is no object, there is no image.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You also didn't answer the question: If there are photons at the film constantly replacing others, then the new ones are obviously getting there somehow. How are they doing that if they are not travelling there?

They did travel there, but they are not bouncing which implies the image (or pattern) is traveling in the light whether the object from which it came is present or not. That's wrong. That's why Lessans kept saying "light is a condition of sight"; in other words, it reveals the world as it is now, not as it was. It allows us to see what exists in real time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just told you. And stop telling me I'm weaseling because I'm not.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Your claim that they are traveling and catching up with other light directly contradicts your insistence that they don't bounce off and travel away from the object.

There is no catching up. That was misleading on my part. Light keeps being replaced as new photons move along, but the problem is you keep thinking in terms of bouncing, or being N reflected. This is the crux of the problem, and until you stop thinking in terms of light hitting the film/retina, which implies that the light is a cause of sight, not a condition of sight, we will be stuck.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

All light travels at the same rate of speed in the same medium. That being the case, how can some light catch up with some other light? The light that is catching up would have to be traveling faster than the light that it is catching up to. This would be another example of light violating the laws of physics.

That was the wrong word. I should have said "joined".

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't know to change its wavelength Spacemonkey. As the light gets too far away from the object (which is one of the requirements of efferent vision), and is no longer present at the film/retina using the inverse square law, it joins (it does not catch up) with the other wavelength light in the visual spectrum that is now too far away from the object to be absorbed.

If the traveling light doesn't change its wavelength while traveling then it will be dated information when it reaches the film, and it will no longer be capable of interacting with it to create a real-time image. And any light that is not in direct contact with the object is too far away to be absorbed. Objects cannot absorb light at a distance.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The minute you say "hit the ball" you're thinking in terms of photons and not in terms of the eyes, and you're going to be thrown off track.

But the photons do hit the ball, and there are no eyes in this example. So you need to be able to explain what happens after they hit the ball, and you need to do it without relying upon anything done by eyes.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that in order to know what's going on, you have to think in terms of the eyes and brain. You can then transfer this knowledge to cameras and telescopes because the lens of these instruments works in the same way (even though there is no brain).

No, YOU have to transfer what you think is happening with eyes to the case with only cameras. If what the eyes and brain do is important, then cameras cannot work in the same way. You need to forget about eyes and brains and just work out what you think light is doing in examples that do not involve eyes or brains.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When an object absorbs light, it causes the object to be seen by the non-absorbed light that is present. It is not bouncing, even though the photons are being replaced. Therefore, when the light is too far away to be seen, those photons become white light.

Non-absorbed light that is present where? The non-absorbed light has to start at the surface of the object. If that light is going to interact with the film, then it first has to get there. Without teleportation that will take time. During that time the object can change color. That means either we will not see colors in real time, or the traveling light must magically change its properties while traveling to match the distant object.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No true. I have always maintained that photons from the Sun are continually traveling, and replacing the non-absorbed photons, but when you use the term bouncing, it confuses the issue because it implies that all we need is light, and no object, which is a fallacy.

You mean YOU get confused by the term 'bouncing' and don't understand what it means. It doesn't imply any of what you say above. All it means is that the light travels away from the surface of the object it just hit.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, what I'm saying is that a lens needs to be aimed at the object. If there is no object, there is no image.

Why? Why would the photons that previously left the surface of a now non-existent object fail to interact with the film when they later hit it?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They did travel there, but they are not bouncing where the image is traveling in the light when there is no object present. That's why Lessans kept saying "light is a condition of sight". It allows us to see what exists in real time.

No-one has said anything about images traveling in the light. Now that you finally admit that the photons at the film traveled to get there (contrary to your previous denials of this fact), can you tell me if they had the same wavelength just before they arrived as they do when they hit the film? Presumably they are blue at the time they hit the film and produce a blue image. Are they also blue just before they arrive, or is it possible for them to have changed wavelength?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no catching up. Light keeps being replaced as new photons move along, but the problem is you keep thinking in terms of bouncing, or being N reflected. This is the crux of the problem, and until you stop thinking in terms of light hitting the film/retina, which implies that the light is a cause of sight, not a condition of sight, we will be stuck.

But light does bounce off objects, and it does hit the film/retina, both on our model and on yours. You need to be able to expain real-time photography in such terms if you want to have a plausible and coherent model.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

1) So where are the unabsorbed photons 0.0001sec after they have hit the object? [Insert answer here]

Are they about 30 meters away from the object and traveling away from it? [Yes or No]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

2) So where were the photons (which are at the film comprising the mirror image when the photograph is taken) 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken? [Insert answer here]

Are they about 30 meters away from the camera film and traveling towards it? [Yes or No]

[LadyShea]

itchy animation - quirky illustration and characters by Richard Yot


The main source of light is the sun, whilst the blue sky supplies a second source of light with very different characteristics. Some light is also bouncing between the white base and the ball and supplies a third source of light.


White light from the sun is made up of a continuous spectrum of colours which, conventionally, is divided into the colours of the rainbow (with progressively longer wavelengths: violet, indigo, blue, green, yellow, orange and red). It is the mixture of these colours that produces white.

However what happens to light when it travels through the atmosphere of the earth is that the shorter wavelengths of light become scattered. Our atmosphere is made from various gases and the atoms and molecules that these are formed from are suspended within it. Photons travelling through the atmosphere physically collide with these atomic particles and a collision will deflect the photons and make them bounce in another direction. Shorter wavelengths are more likely to be deflected than longer ones, so that the photons which are scattered in all directions by these collisions are predominantly blue.


The light reflecting from this venetian blind is projecting the wood's colour onto the wall.
So if white light hits a red surface the photons this surface reflects will be red. When these photons hit the next surface in their path they will therefore be illuminating it with red light. This phenomenon is called radiance, and the colours of adjacent objects will have an affect on each other because of this.

How cameras and eyes differ

Most light sources that we encounter in everyday situations have a colour cast, however our brain is very good at filtering this out. As long as there is a vague mixture of the three primaries in the light our brain interprets it as white. Even under lighting with very strong colour we have the ability to filter the information our eyes receives and make sense of the colours so that we perceive them in a relative rather than absolute manner.

The most obvious way of demonstrating this is to use a digital camera with the white balance set to daylight: this is a neutral setting which will reflect the colours that are actually there. In the example below I have shot the image with a window acting as the light source. The light is coming indirectly from an overcast sky and is relatively neutral.


In the next photograph I have closed the blinds and used a standard household 60 watt lightbulb as my light source:

The strength of the colour cast in this image may well have surprised you, since we don't tend to perceive tungsten lighting as being such a bright yellow/orange. Our brain converts the colours to make them resemble the first image, but in this case it's the camera which is painting the true picture.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They did travel there, but they are not bouncing which implies the image (or pattern) is traveling in the light whether the object from which it came is present or not. That's wrong. That's why Lessans kept saying "light is a condition of sight"; in other words, it reveals the world as it is now, not as it was. It allows us to see what exists in real time.

The brainless camera shows the "real world" unless we tell the camera to correct for color to be more like our eyes and brain. Our brain does not look out and see things "as they are", our brain processes the information received by the eyes to create an image in the brain.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Forget about the damn image for a moment (the post you are responding to intentionally makes no mention of images or patterns) and try to focus on how light behaves. Unabsorbed light that does not bounce/reflect off of objects does break the laws of physics. Maybe the laws of physics are wrong, but you have yet to demonstrate that such is the case.

I was trying to distinguish between light that allows us to see the real world, and light that travels Angakuk. That is the whole point of this discussion. There is nothing at all that breaks the laws of physics, and if you don't see it, either I have to try harder to share this model of sight, or you have to try harder to listen to what Lessans explained. I don't know which is the most urgent at this point.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

itchy animation - quirky illustration and characters by Richard Yot


The main source of light is the sun, whilst the blue sky supplies a second source of light with very different characteristics. Some light is also bouncing between the white base and the ball and supplies a third source of light.


White light from the sun is made up of a continuous spectrum of colours which, conventionally, is divided into the colours of the rainbow (with progressively longer wavelengths: violet, indigo, blue, green, yellow, orange and red). It is the mixture of these colours that produces white.

However what happens to light when it travels through the atmosphere of the earth is that the shorter wavelengths of light become scattered. Our atmosphere is made from various gases and the atoms and molecules that these are formed from are suspended within it. Photons travelling through the atmosphere physically collide with these atomic particles and a collision will deflect the photons and make them bounce in another direction. Shorter wavelengths are more likely to be deflected than longer ones, so that the photons which are scattered in all directions by these collisions are predominantly blue.


The light reflecting from this venetian blind is projecting the wood's colour onto the wall.
So if white light hits a red surface the photons this surface reflects will be red. When these photons hit the next surface in their path they will therefore be illuminating it with red light. This phenomenon is called radiance, and the colours of adjacent objects will have an affect on each other because of this.

How cameras and eyes differ

Most light sources that we encounter in everyday situations have a colour cast, however our brain is very good at filtering this out. As long as there is a vague mixture of the three primaries in the light our brain interprets it as white. Even under lighting with very strong colour we have the ability to filter the information our eyes receives and make sense of the colours so that we perceive them in a relative rather than absolute manner.

The most obvious way of demonstrating this is to use a digital camera with the white balance set to daylight: this is a neutral setting which will reflect the colours that are actually there. In the example below I have shot the image with a window acting as the light source. The light is coming indirectly from an overcast sky and is relatively neutral.


In the next photograph I have closed the blinds and used a standard household 60 watt lightbulb as my light source:

The strength of the colour cast in this image may well have surprised you, since we don't tend to perceive tungsten lighting as being such a bright yellow/orange. Our brain converts the colours to make them resemble the first image, but in this case it's the camera which is painting the true picture.

The brainless camera shows the "real world" unless we tell the camera to correct for color to be more like our eyes and brain. Our brain does not look out and see things "as they are", our brain processes the information received by the eyes to create an image in the brain.

Your demonstration is very impressive, and I do appreciate it, but you think that this negates what Lessans says, and you're incorrect. So we still have to start from the beginning to determine who is right, and there are no shortcuts.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was trying to distinguish between light that allows us to see the real world, and light that travels Angakuk. That is the whole point of this discussion. There is nothing at all that breaks the laws of physics, and if you don't see it, either I have to try harder to share this model of sight, or you have to try harder to listen to what Lessans explained. I don't know which is the most urgent at this point.

Light is light. It either always has the same properties and follows the same laws of physics or it doesn't.

If you are distinguishing between light A and light B you are positing that there is some unheard of type of light that does not have the same properties of light nor follows the laws of physics.

So, are you or are you not saying that there is some light that is different from other light? If so, then you are breaking the laws of physics.