A revolution in thought - Page 659

Spacemonkey · #**16451** 05-12-2012, 10:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So the difference is one of speed? Do you think the nonabsorbed photons "move forward" but do so slower than the speed of light? Is that what you are saying? Do you even know what you are saying?

Efferent vision cannot change ACTUAL distances, and it is only actual distances that I am talking about. If the nonabsorbed photons are moving forward at a finite speed then they are not instantly at any distant film or retina, no matter how close or far away it is.

WHAT is "absolutely an efferent assumption"? I'm not saying anything about the distance traveled by the nonabsorbed light. I'm saying only that it travels, which it has to do unless it either stays stationary, ceases to exist, or teleports somewhere else.

Fine then.

No, not fine. I asked you questions. Are you admitting that efferent vision is disproved? If not, then are you saying that the nonabsorbed photons move forwards at a different speed than the speed of light? Are you agreeing now that I am not making afferent assumptions? If you still disagree, then what afferent assumptions do you think I am making?

Spacemonkey · #**16452** 05-12-2012, 10:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my gosh, you have disregarded every single thing I said. You are constipated Spacemonkey because you can't get off the idea that images, without the object, are interpreted in the brain. You can't even begin to compare these two models because you keep interjecting ideas that come from the afferent model. Seriously, I give up.

I'm not interjecting any ideas from the afferent model. Apparently you've repeated this lie so many times it's actually become a part of your delusion. THERE IS NO AFFERENT ASSUMPTION HERE. If you think otherwise, then tell me what it is. All I'm doing is asking for the locations (at certain times) of the nonabsorbed photons and the photons comprising the alleged mirror image. You agree that these photons exist, and if they exist then they have to have locations at any time they exist. Nothing else is presupposed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

1) 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

2) 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]

Bump.

Spacemonkey · #**16453** 05-12-2012, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, here's a very simple disproof of efferent vision and real-time photography. Both require a camera to be able to record the color change of a distant object in real-time. So when a distant ball changes from blue to red, a camera must be able to photograph it as red as soon as it has become red. But if the camera is inside the range where the traveling non-absorbed light has yet to return to 'white full-spectrum' light, then all that light will be blue before the color change. And at the very moment the ball changes to red (i.e. has turned into a ball that absorbs all but red photons) there are no red photons at the camera. They were previously all being absorbed by the ball, and are only now free to bounce off the ball and begin traveling towards the camera. So none of them can be at the camera yet. But the camera cannot produce a red image on film without any red photons there to chemically interact with the film. So the camera cannot produce a real-time image of the newly red ball, and real-time photgraphy and efferent vision are thereby disproved. QED.

Peacegirl, you'll need to address this again, because your previous answer claimed that the non-absorbed light does not travel, and that it can instead teleport to the camera film. As you've indicated that you didn't intend to make either of these claims, you'll need to reanswer the post without saying these things.

Bump.

peacegirl · #**16454** 05-12-2012, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

All I'm saying is that if it turns out that the brain, in fact, looks through the eyes as a window, then he would still be correct to say that the eyes are not a sense organ.

If (what lessans said) is correct, then he would still be correct. Indeed!

This is another fine example of Lessanese Science. An actual observation (light strikes afferent nerve endings) directly contradicts what he says. But due to the Lessanese principle of future proof, this does not mean we can conclude he was wrong.

The reasoning behind this is that there may be a chance that one day we will discover that it is possible for him to be right after all. Hence, we cannot rule out that he is right.

For some reason this does not apply to my theory that the colour blue causes crime. It can also not be ruled out, and yet peacegirl does not find it plausible. This is because of part B of the first principle of Lessanese science, which is that the principle of potential future evidence does not apply to ideas that do not originate from Lessans.

I can't even get people to see that his observations are plausible, let alone credible.

peacegirl · #**16455** 05-12-2012, 11:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, here's a very simple disproof of efferent vision and real-time photography. Both require a camera to be able to record the color change of a distant object in real-time. So when a distant ball changes from blue to red, a camera must be able to photograph it as red as soon as it has become red. But if the camera is inside the range where the traveling non-absorbed light has yet to return to 'white full-spectrum' light, then all that light will be blue before the color change. And at the very moment the ball changes to red (i.e. has turned into a ball that absorbs all but red photons) there are no red photons at the camera. They were previously all being absorbed by the ball, and are only now free to bounce off the ball and begin traveling towards the camera. So none of them can be at the camera yet. But the camera cannot produce a red image on film without any red photons there to chemically interact with the film. So the camera cannot produce a real-time image of the newly red ball, and real-time photgraphy and efferent vision are thereby disproved. QED.

Peacegirl, you'll need to address this again, because your previous answer claimed that the non-absorbed light does not travel, and that it can instead teleport to the camera film.

I said that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

As you've indicated that you didn't intend to make either of these claims, you'll need to reanswer the post without saying these things.

Show me where I said that and then I'll answer the post.

davidm · #**16456** 05-12-2012, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

All I'm saying is that if it turns out that the brain, in fact, looks through the eyes as a window, then he would still be correct to say that the eyes are not a sense organ.

If (what lessans said) is correct, then he would still be correct. Indeed!

This is another fine example of Lessanese Science. An actual observation (light strikes afferent nerve endings) directly contradicts what he says. But due to the Lessanese principle of future proof, this does not mean we can conclude he was wrong.

The reasoning behind this is that there may be a chance that one day we will discover that it is possible for him to be right after all. Hence, we cannot rule out that he is right.

For some reason this does not apply to my theory that the colour blue causes crime. It can also not be ruled out, and yet peacegirl does not find it plausible. This is because of part B of the first principle of Lessanese science, which is that the principle of potential future evidence does not apply to ideas that do not originate from Lessans.

I can't even get people to see that his observations are plausible, let alone credible.

That is because they are not plausible. They are not even logically possible. They are empirically wrong, imbecilic and disproved.

Wow, have you really sunk your own money into trying to publish and promote this nonsense? I would say that is a kind of small tragedy, were you not such a dishonest and thoroughly dislikable person.

peacegirl · #**16457** 05-12-2012, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So the difference is one of speed? Do you think the nonabsorbed photons "move forward" but do so slower than the speed of light? Is that what you are saying? Do you even know what you are saying?

Efferent vision cannot change ACTUAL distances, and it is only actual distances that I am talking about. If the nonabsorbed photons are moving forward at a finite speed then they are not instantly at any distant film or retina, no matter how close or far away it is.

WHAT is "absolutely an efferent assumption"? I'm not saying anything about the distance traveled by the nonabsorbed light. I'm saying only that it travels, which it has to do unless it either stays stationary, ceases to exist, or teleports somewhere else.

Fine then.

No, not fine. I asked you questions. Are you admitting that efferent vision is disproved? If not, then are you saying that the nonabsorbed photons move forwards at a different speed than the speed of light?

Light is light, so the speed doesn't change.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are you agreeing now that I am not making afferent assumptions? If you still disagree, then what afferent assumptions do you think I am making?

You are not taking into account that the object is present. This is key. You are acting as if all that is necessary is light, with or without the object, because you're afferent assumption is that the eyes are just light detectors. This is only partly true because there's more to it. You also didn't answer my questions satisfactorily yet you blame me for forgetting, which is not the case.

Spacemonkey · #**16458** 05-12-2012, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, here's a very simple disproof of efferent vision and real-time photography. Both require a camera to be able to record the color change of a distant object in real-time. So when a distant ball changes from blue to red, a camera must be able to photograph it as red as soon as it has become red. But if the camera is inside the range where the traveling non-absorbed light has yet to return to 'white full-spectrum' light, then all that light will be blue before the color change. And at the very moment the ball changes to red (i.e. has turned into a ball that absorbs all but red photons) there are no red photons at the camera. They were previously all being absorbed by the ball, and are only now free to bounce off the ball and begin traveling towards the camera. So none of them can be at the camera yet. But the camera cannot produce a red image on film without any red photons there to chemically interact with the film. So the camera cannot produce a real-time image of the newly red ball, and real-time photgraphy and efferent vision are thereby disproved. QED.

Peacegirl, you'll need to address this again, because your previous answer claimed that the non-absorbed light does not travel, and that it can instead teleport to the camera film.

I said that?

Yes. You said the non-absorbed red photons (only just beginning to not be absorbed by the ball's surface) don't travel, and can be instantly at the distant camera film.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

As you've indicated that you didn't intend to make either of these claims, you'll need to reanswer the post without saying these things.

Show me where I said that and then I'll answer the post.

Here: http://www.freethought-forum.com/for...33#post1055933

Now answer the objection without saying things you don't mean.

Spacemonkey · #**16459** 05-12-2012, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't even get people to see that his observations are plausible, let alone credible.

That's because his 'observations' are neither plausible, credible, nor observations.

Vivisectus · #**16460** 05-12-2012, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

All I'm saying is that if it turns out that the brain, in fact, looks through the eyes as a window, then he would still be correct to say that the eyes are not a sense organ.

If (what lessans said) is correct, then he would still be correct. Indeed!

This is another fine example of Lessanese Science. An actual observation (light strikes afferent nerve endings) directly contradicts what he says. But due to the Lessanese principle of future proof, this does not mean we can conclude he was wrong.

The reasoning behind this is that there may be a chance that one day we will discover that it is possible for him to be right after all. Hence, we cannot rule out that he is right.

For some reason this does not apply to my theory that the colour blue causes crime. It can also not be ruled out, and yet peacegirl does not find it plausible. This is because of part B of the first principle of Lessanese science, which is that the principle of potential future evidence does not apply to ideas that do not originate from Lessans.

I can't even get people to see that his observations are plausible, let alone credible.

That is because they are not plausible in the normal sense of the word. They may be (L) plausible, but that has little to do with what the rest of the world understands the term to be.

Your problem is that you treat whatever your father wrote as gospel: you assume it to be true first, and then go looking for any possible way you can shoe-horn this belief into reality. It does not fit, which is why your attempts makes you look nuts.

Spacemonkey · #**16461** 05-12-2012, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is light, so the speed doesn't change.

So then you were wrong to appeal to a difference between taking two steps forward and sprinting, and I was right to say that photons "moving forwards" requires them to be traveling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are you agreeing now that I am not making afferent assumptions? If you still disagree, then what afferent assumptions do you think I am making?

You are not taking into account that the object is present. This is key. You are acting as if all that is necessary is light, with or without the object, because you're afferent assumption is that the eyes are just light detectors. This is only partly true because there's more to it.

Wrong. The questions I have been asking you allow that the object is always present at all times. I don't believe you are correct about this needing to be the case, but it is not a point challenged by my scenario or my questions, so this cannot be an afferent assumption preventing you from answering those questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You also didn't answer my questions satisfactorily yet you blame me for forgetting, which is not the case.

I've answered all of your questions satisfactorily. You asked me before to repeat my earlier answers, which I did, but then all you did was assert that they were unsatisfactory without explaining why. When I pointed this out, you dropped the subject.

Vivisectus · #**16462** 05-12-2012, 11:36 PM

Quote:

I'm not being willfully ignorant. I just don't see where there is absolute proof that the brain is doing what scientists believe, that is, interpreting signals and creating an image.

This is another principle of Lessanese Science:

4) Anything that criticises or in any way argues with what Lessans said requires Absolute Proof. This proof needs to be more ironclad than the proof for evolution, relativity, the theory that bacteria can cause infections, and the current theory of Where Babies Come From as well as the current theory of Why My Pants Don't Fit Anymore... because we have no Absolute Proof for any of these, and yet we tend to believe these theories are pretty damn useful.

peacegirl · #**16463** 05-13-2012, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, here's a very simple disproof of efferent vision and real-time photography. Both require a camera to be able to record the color change of a distant object in real-time. So when a distant ball changes from blue to red, a camera must be able to photograph it as red as soon as it has become red. But if the camera is inside the range where the traveling non-absorbed light has yet to return to 'white full-spectrum' light, then all that light will be blue before the color change. And at the very moment the ball changes to red (i.e. has turned into a ball that absorbs all but red photons) there are no red photons at the camera. They were previously all being absorbed by the ball, and are only now free to bounce off the ball and begin traveling towards the camera. So none of them can be at the camera yet. But the camera cannot produce a red image on film without any red photons there to chemically interact with the film. So the camera cannot produce a real-time image of the newly red ball, and real-time photgraphy and efferent vision are thereby disproved. QED.

Peacegirl, you'll need to address this again, because your previous answer claimed that the non-absorbed light does not travel, and that it can instead teleport to the camera film.

I said that?

Yes. You said the non-absorbed red photons (only just beginning to not be absorbed by the ball's surface) don't travel, and can be instantly at the distant camera film.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

As you've indicated that you didn't intend to make either of these claims, you'll need to reanswer the post without saying these things.

Show me where I said that and then I'll answer the post.

Here: A revolution in thought - Page 642 - Freethought Forum

Now answer the objection without saying things you don't mean.

The non-absorbed photons do travel. I said they are constantly being replaced by light energy, which means they travel. You are imagining that the photons are traveling toward the film and therefore the non-absorbed red photon would come before blue. That is the afferent account. You are separating the light from the object. But if the camera works like the eye, and if sight is efferent, then it would work the same way. If the requirements are met, which is that the object is bright enough and large enough, we would get a mirror image because the light that is captured and shows up on film does not require that the light travel all the way to Earth. Going back to the eyes, if our eyes are able to view the actual object, doesn't it follow that in order for this to occur, a mirror image has to show up? Light does not travel independently which is why this account is so opposite from the afferent account.

peacegirl · #**16464** 05-13-2012, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

I'm not being willfully ignorant. I just don't see where there is absolute proof that the brain is doing what scientists believe, that is, interpreting signals and creating an image.

This is another principle of Lessanese Science:

4) Anything that criticises or in any way argues with what Lessans said requires Absolute Proof. This proof needs to be more ironclad than the proof for evolution, relativity, the theory that bacteria can cause infections, and the current theory of Where Babies Come From as well as the current theory of Why My Pants Don't Fit Anymore... because we have no Absolute Proof for any of these, and yet we tend to believe these theories are pretty damn useful.

But there are ways to prove that bacteria causes infection and how babies are born and why we get fat. And for many centuries, we didn't know. Why isn't it possible that Lessans could be right? His observations are not so far out. They are not based on fairy dust as you keep implying?

Spacemonkey · #**16465** 05-13-2012, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Now answer the objection without saying things you don't mean.

The non-absorbed photons do travel. I said they are constantly being replaced by light energy, which means they travel. You are imagining that the photons are traveling toward the film and therefore the non-absorbed red photon would come before blue. That is the afferent account. You are separating the light from the object. But if the camera works like the eye, and if sight is efferent, then it would work the same way. If the requirements are met, which is that the object is bright enough and large enough, we would get a mirror image because the light that is captured and shows up on film does not require that the light travel all the way to Earth. Going back to the eyes, if our eyes are able to view the actual object, doesn't it follow that in order for this to occur, a mirror image has to show up? Light does not travel independently which is why this account is so opposite from the afferent account.

This doesn't answer my objection. You agree that the non-absorbed photons are traveling. Then you say that because I am saying they travel, that I am assuming the afferent account. That makes no sense. I am assuming only what YOU just agreed with.

You then say that I am separating the light from the object, but my objection doesn't say anything at all about whether or not the object must still be present. The object IS still present at all points in the scenario my refutation describes, so this cannot be the problem with it.

You go on to say that a real-time mirror image must be present if your account is to work. I agree, but this is not possible given what you have just previously agreed to. If the newly non-absorbed red photons (at the object) do indeed travel away from the object towards the camera (as you just agreed) then they cannot also be instantly forming a mirror image at the camera film.

At no point have you said anything to counter my refutation. You've simply agreed with me by saying that the nonabsorbed photons travel, and then contradicted this agreement by saying they must also be instantly at the film - when the whole point of the objection is that this can't be the case if they are instead traveling.

Spacemonkey · #**16466** 05-13-2012, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

1) 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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

2) 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]

Peacegirl, you keep dishonestly claiming that these questions are based upon afferent assumptions. So I am instead going to build up to them from simpler questions so that you can see this is not the case.

1) On your efferent model, are some of the photons that hit an object not absorbed? [Y/N]

2) On your efferent model, are there photons at the camera film (interacting with it and responsible for the color of the resulting image) at the time the photograph is taken? [Y/N]

thedoc · #**16467** 05-13-2012, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light does not travel independently which is why this account is so opposite from the afferent account.

Opposite and wrong, light is independent of the source, as confirmed by accurate scientific observations.

Vivisectus · #**16468** 05-13-2012, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

I'm not being willfully ignorant. I just don't see where there is absolute proof that the brain is doing what scientists believe, that is, interpreting signals and creating an image.

This is another principle of Lessanese Science:

4) Anything that criticises or in any way argues with what Lessans said requires Absolute Proof. This proof needs to be more ironclad than the proof for evolution, relativity, the theory that bacteria can cause infections, and the current theory of Where Babies Come From as well as the current theory of Why My Pants Don't Fit Anymore... because we have no Absolute Proof for any of these, and yet we tend to believe these theories are pretty damn useful.

But there are ways to prove that bacteria causes infection and how babies are born and why we get fat. And for many centuries, we didn't know. Why isn't it possible that Lessans could be right? His observations are not so far out. They are not based on fairy dust as you keep implying?

Because 1) there is no evidence that he was right, or even a reason to believe that he was, and 2) there is evidence that he was wrong. It is that simple.

Your problem is that you argue that 1) is no reason to assume he was wrong, and then treat that as a reason to assume he was right, and that you argue that 2) does not exist because none of the evidence is "absolute"

As I pointed out, we have no way to absolutely prove that bacteria cause infections, that eating makes us fat and that babies are generated the way we believe they are generated. We can merely show that it is extremely likely that it is so.

Just like we can show that it is extremely likely sight is not instant by aiming a laser at the moon and measuring how long it takes for the little dot to show up.

Spacemonkey · #**16469** 05-13-2012, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...Going back to the eyes...

You need to stop doing that. There are no eyes in my scenario. None at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light does not travel independently which is why this account is so opposite from the afferent account.

So if the light does not travel independently, then what happens to traveling nonabsorbed blue light (that has come from a previously blue object) at the very moment when that now distant blue object first becomes red? Does this traveling light magically change frequency while in transit to match that distant object?

(When I asked you this just before, you tried to deny that this light had any travel time. You can't say that now because you've just agreed that the nonabsorbed light travels.)

Angakuk · #**16470** 05-13-2012, 03:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But I'm not talking about a bad experience. I'm talking about someone telling you that a certain food is delicious. No matter how many times they say this, if you don't like it, you cannot become conditioned to like it just by hearing the word "delicious" because others like it.

Nor are any other preferences conditioned in the manner you describe. With regard to the example you provide there are two likely results. One, someone would come to associate the word 'delicious' with nasty tasting stuff, thus redefining the meaning of the word by that association. Two, someone who is repeatedly told that something nasty tasting was delicious would begin to question the credibility of the person who told them that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When light strikes an object, the full spectrum divides depending on what light is absorbed and what light is not. When something is removed (the absorbed photons), we see the remainder of what is left. Seeing what is left over does not mean that what is left over has to do anything. That is why, although these photons are replaced which means they continue to move forward, they do not bounce off of the object and travel through space and time as white light does. When I say you are coming from the afferent position, that's what I'm talking about. You are not thinking in terms of efferent vision at all.

Moving forward is doing something. It is, in point of fact, traveling through space and time.

Question for you. What exactly do mean when you say that photons are replaced?
1. Do you mean that the replacement photons shove the old photons out of position?
2. Do you mean that the replacement photons simply take the place of the old photons and the old photons cease to exist?
3. Do you mean that the old photons move on and new (i.e. replacement) photons come to occupy the space formerly occupied by the old photons?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But there is a difference between taking two steps forward and sprinting. :yup:

They also have something in common. They are both degrees of travel. The difference has to do with rate and distance of travel. Are you suggesting that some photons travel faster or further than other photons?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The non-absorbed photons are dependent on the object in the sense that they do not travel independently of said object. If there's no object, then there's no absorbed light, and if there's no absorbed light, then there's no non-absorbed light.

If a previously visible object, upon which the non-absorbed photons are allegedly dependent, is subsequently destroyed what happens to the non-absorbed photons that were formerly associated with that object?

There is no more light that displays a mirror image of that object on the film/retina.

What happened to that light?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because he didn't use the scientific word does not discredit his claim LadyShea. Whether he was wrong in his word usage, I can admit that. He used the molecule which wasn't the right word. But this doesn't change the point he was making. He encouraged people to test his claim, and that is the only way this will ever be resolved. Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

But he did use scientific words. Words like optic nerve and afferent nerve endings. He just used them incorrectly.

Also there is no baby to throw out. It is all bathwater.

Why am I not surprised by your comment? :popcorn:

Because, deep in your heart, you know it is true.

No, I'm not surprised because you don't have a complete grasp of the principles. It's also much easier to throw out the baby with the bathwater and call it a day. That way, you can wash your hands of the whole thread and move on to something more interesting when it starts getting boring.

In that post I posed several very specific questions about light and this is how you respond? Why not try answering the questions I asked you?

Angakuk · #**16471** 05-13-2012, 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is light, so the speed doesn't change.

So, what did you mean by saying that there is difference between sprinting and taking two steps forward? How does that apply to the movement of photons?

Angakuk · #**16472** 05-13-2012, 03:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If the newly non-absorbed red photons (at the object) do indeed travel away from the object towards the camera (as you just agreed) then they cannot also be instantly forming a mirror image at the camera film.

I think you misunderstood peacegirl on this. She agreed that the non-absorbed photons move forward. I don't think that she has agreed that they move toward the camera. I don't know where she thinks they go when they are moving forward and I don't think she knows what she thinks either.

Angakuk · #**16473** 05-13-2012, 03:29 AM

peacegirl,
Question for you. What exactly do mean when you say that photons are replaced?
1. Do you mean that the replacement photons shove the old photons out of position?
2. Do you mean that the replacement photons simply take the place of the old photons and the old photons cease to exist?
3. Do you mean that the old photons move on and new (i.e. replacement) photons come to occupy the space formerly occupied by the old photons?

Angakuk · #**16474** 05-13-2012, 03:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But there is a difference between taking two steps forward and sprinting.

They also have something in common. They are both degrees of travel. The difference has to do with rate and distance of travel. Are you suggesting that some photons travel faster or further than other photons?

Angakuk · #**16475** 05-13-2012, 03:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The non-absorbed photons are dependent on the object in the sense that they do not travel independently of said object. If there's no object, then there's no absorbed light, and if there's no absorbed light, then there's no non-absorbed light.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If a previously visible object, upon which the non-absorbed photons are allegedly dependent, is subsequently destroyed what happens to the non-absorbed photons that were formerly associated with that object?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no more light that displays a mirror image of that object on the film/retina.

What happened to that light?