A revolution in thought - Page 679

thedoc · #**16951** 05-20-2012, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nothing is being violated.

Only our rational sensability, and dignity. (What's left of it.)

LadyShea · #**16952** 05-20-2012, 02:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you already that the non-absorbed photons don't travel. It doesn't work that way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

the photons that allow us to see the object are not traveling

Photons travel, it is an inherent physical property of light. If there is something that isn't traveling in your model, it cannot consist of photons. Non traveling photons is a violation of the laws of physics.

LadyShea · #**16953** 05-20-2012, 02:46 PM

peacegirl. Below are facts and/or laws of physics. Can you explain your model in such a way that none of these facts need to be changed, and each is fully explained and incorporated in the model?

1. Light, aka electromagnetic energy, always travels. If light encounters matter it can either be absorbed, be transmitted (passed through), or be reflected based on its wavelength. There are no other options. It must be one of those three. Light is light is light...electromagnetic energy. There are different wavelengths and frequencies, but there are not different "forms" of light that do not travel, or are not subject to reflection, absorption, and transmission.

2. Light that is absorbed ceases to be light energy and transforms to some other kind of energy as per the laws of conservation.

3. Light that is transmitted or reflected continues to travel

4. Photochemical processes such as what happens on the surface of camera film, require photons to touch the film and be absorbed.

5. Physical distances cannot be negated or eliminated by any means. They can be traversed,

peacegirl · #**16954** 05-20-2012, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

peacegirl. Below are facts and/or laws of physics. Can you explain your model in such a way that none of these facts need to be changed, and each is fully explained and incorporated in the model?

1. Light, aka electromagnetic energy, always travels. If light encounters matter it can either be absorbed, be transmitted (passed through), or be reflected based on its wavelength. There are no other options.

No one is denying this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It must be one of those three. Light is light is light...electromagnetic energy. There are different wavelengths and frequencies, but there are not different "forms" of light that do not travel, or are not subject to reflection, absorption, and transmission.

There are not different forms of light, but the expression of light and what it does is not what you think. You are accusing me of changing physics to fit my premise, but this is totally and utterly false.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

2. Light that is absorbed ceases to be light energy and transforms to some other kind of energy as per the laws of conservation.

No one is disagreeing with this.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

3. Light that is transmitted or reflected continues to travel

Light that is reflected continues to travel, but the non-absorbed light that is revealing the object is not being reflected therefore it is not traveling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

4. Photochemical processes such as what happens on the surface of camera film, require photons to touch the film and be absorbed.

When an object is in one's field of view, the light IS touching the film and being absorbed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

5. Physical distances cannot be negated or eliminated by any means. They can be traversed,

No one is saying physical distances are negated. Light travels and it takes 8 minutes to reach Earth.

LadyShea · #**16955** 05-20-2012, 03:37 PM

Quote:

1. Light, aka electromagnetic energy, always travels. If light encounters matter it can either be absorbed, be transmitted (passed through), or be reflected based on its wavelength. There are no other options.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one is denying this.

Oh?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you already that the non-absorbed photons don't travel. It doesn't work that way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

the photons that allow us to see the object are not traveling

LadyShea · #**16956** 05-20-2012, 03:38 PM

Quote:

the expression of light and what it does is not what you think.

Explain and define "expression of light"

LadyShea · #**16957** 05-20-2012, 03:40 PM

3. Light that is transmitted or reflected continues to travel

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light that is reflected continues to travel, but the non-absorbed light that is revealing the object is not being reflected therefore it is not traveling.

Please refer to number 1. Not absorbed and not reflected and not traveling is not a possible state of light.

LadyShea · #**16958** 05-20-2012, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When an object is in one's field of view, the light IS touching the film and being absorbed.

What is the physical mechanism by which light photons come to be located at the surface of camera film in a scenario where the camera and object are at a physical distance of 10 feet?

How did the light touching the camera film get to be located there?

LadyShea · #**16959** 05-20-2012, 04:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one is saying physical distances are negated.

Oh?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because we're not dealing with actual distance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said that the space (which is distance) between the moon and the eye, or a candle and the eye, are the same

peacegirl · #**16960** 05-20-2012, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

1. Light, aka electromagnetic energy, always travels. If light encounters matter it can either be absorbed, be transmitted (passed through), or be reflected based on its wavelength. There are no other options.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one is denying this.

Oh?

Not at all. Seeing the real world through light does not stop the flow of photons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you already that the non-absorbed photons don't travel. It doesn't work that way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

the photons that allow us to see the object are not traveling

That's true. When light splits into absorbed and non-absorbed photons, these non-absorbed photons are present at the film/retina which allow us to see what exists in real time. But that doesn't mean that electromagnetic energy doesn't travel.

peacegirl · #**16961** 05-20-2012, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When an object is in one's field of view, the light IS touching the film and being absorbed.

What is the physical mechanism by which light photons come to be located at the surface of camera film in a scenario where the camera and object are at a physical distance of 10 feet?

How did the light touching the camera film get to be located there?

The physical mechanism that allows light to be at the film are twofold. I've explained this more times than I can count.

1. There is enough light surrounding the object.

2. The object is within our visual range (not just the light).

peacegirl · #**16962** 05-20-2012, 05:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

3. Light that is transmitted or reflected continues to travel

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light that is reflected continues to travel, but the non-absorbed light that is revealing the object is not being reflected therefore it is not traveling.

Please refer to number 1. Not absorbed and not reflected and not traveling is not a possible state of light.

But it is. Non-absorbed light which is the counterpart of absorbed light does not have to be reflected when viewed from the efferent perspective because it doesn't violate the laws of physics. It makes no sense if viewed from the afferent perspective. This has nothing to do with the fact that light energy travels through space and time.

peacegirl · #**16963** 05-20-2012, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

the expression of light and what it does is not what you think.

Explain and define "expression of light"

The expression of light means the way in which light performs and what its properties consist of that allow real time seeing to work.

thedoc · #**16964** 05-20-2012, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light that is reflected continues to travel, but the non-absorbed light that is revealing the object is not being reflected therefore it is not traveling.

This is a direct contradiction, light is either absorbed, or is reflected and is travelling. 'Non-absorbed light that does not travel is impossible, it is a non-existant fiction.

Light that strikes the retina or film is absorbed and is no longer light.

davidm · #**16965** 05-20-2012, 06:25 PM

LadyShea · #**16966** 05-20-2012, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When an object is in one's field of view, the light IS touching the film and being absorbed.

What is the physical mechanism by which light photons come to be located at the surface of camera film in a scenario where the camera and object are at a physical distance of 10 feet?

How did the light touching the camera film get to be located there?

The physical mechanism that allows light to be at the film are twofold. I've explained this more times than I can count.

1. There is enough light surrounding the object.

2. The object is within our visual range (not just the light).

Neither 1 nor 2 represents a physical mechanism.

LadyShea · #**16967** 05-20-2012, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

3. Light that is transmitted or reflected continues to travel

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light that is reflected continues to travel, but the non-absorbed light that is revealing the object is not being reflected therefore it is not traveling.

Please refer to number 1. Not absorbed and not reflected and not traveling is not a possible state of light.

But it is. Non-absorbed light which is the counterpart of absorbed light does not have to be reflected when viewed from the efferent perspective because it doesn't violate the laws of physics. It makes no sense if viewed from the afferent perspective. This has nothing to do with the fact that light energy travels through space and time.

Please refer to number 1. Not absorbed and not reflected and not traveling is not a possible state of light. Asserting another state of light is to propose a new law of physics or a change in the laws of physics.

This is in regard to the properties of light, vision is not a factor in the properties of light

davidm · #**16968** 05-20-2012, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

3. Light that is transmitted or reflected continues to travel

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light that is reflected continues to travel, but the non-absorbed light that is revealing the object is not being reflected therefore it is not traveling.

Please refer to number 1. Not absorbed and not reflected and not traveling is not a possible state of light.

But it is. Non-absorbed light which is the counterpart of absorbed light does not have to be reflected when viewed from the efferent perspective because it doesn't violate the laws of physics. It makes no sense if viewed from the afferent perspective. This has nothing to do with the fact that light energy travels through space and time.

Please refer to number 1. Not absorbed and not reflected and not traveling is not a possible state of light. Asserting another state of light is to propose a new law of physics or a change in the laws of physics.

This is in regard to the properties of light, vision is not a factor in the properties of light

To make this precise, she has now asserted that the light is not reflected, not traveling, not absorbed but also not static! (Lessans plainly said it was static -- she contradicts The Great Profound Thinker).

It is one thing to propose a model that contradicts the laws of physics -- if you can support the model, and show that it accounts for empirical reality, good for you. She can't do this, of course.

But it is worse than that for her ramblings. What she has described is not just contrary to the laws of physics and also contrary to observed reality. It is contray to the laws of logic.

Logically speaking, regardless of what physical laws are, there are only a limited number of options for the states that physical entities like photons can be in. Those states are: reflected, absorbed, traveling, static. There are no other possible states, and she denies that the photon is any of the above states. :yawn:

peacegirl · #**16969** 05-20-2012, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When an object is in one's field of view, the light IS touching the film and being absorbed.

What is the physical mechanism by which light photons come to be located at the surface of camera film in a scenario where the camera and object are at a physical distance of 10 feet?

How did the light touching the camera film get to be located there?

The physical mechanism that allows light to be at the film are twofold. I've explained this more times than I can count.

1. There is enough light surrounding the object.

2. The object is within our visual range (not just the light).

Neither 1 nor 2 represents a physical mechanism.

The physical mechanism that allows the light to interact is exactly what I said: the light is surrounding the object and the lens is within the object's field of view, which places the light, or mirror image, at the film. You keep thinking that because light travels (which I'm not disputing), it must be taking the pattern of the object with it, but that is not what is happening. That's why Lessans said the image is not being reflected. If Lessans is right (which I believe he is), we will never get an image from light alone.

LadyShea · #**16970** 05-20-2012, 09:23 PM

Quote:

The physical mechanism that allows the light to interact is exactly what I said: the light is surrounding the object and the lens is within the object's field of view, which places the light, or mirror image, at the film.

This is not a physical mechanism by which the light comes to be located at the surface of camera film. You are stating only that it is located there, not how it comes to be located there.

Quote:

You keep thinking that because light travels (which I'm not disputing), it must be taking the pattern of the object with it, but that is not what is happening.

No, I am thinking that if light is in a location, it had to come to be located there by a physical mechanism, which you are not providing.

naturalist.atheist · #**16971** 05-20-2012, 09:31 PM

So there you have it peacegirl. For at least the hundredth time you've been told that Lessans violates physics. Of course for at least the hundredth time you've insisted that Lessans does not. What people don't realize is that all along you've been talking about (P) physics.

Spacemonkey · #**16972** 05-20-2012, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is the physical mechanism by which light photons come to be located at the surface of camera film in a scenario where the camera and object are at a physical distance of 10 feet?

How did the light touching the camera film get to be located there?

The physical mechanism that allows light to be at the film are twofold. I've explained this more times than I can count.

1. There is enough light surrounding the object.

2. The object is within our visual range (not just the light).

And we've explained to you that specifying conditions is not to provide a mechanism. From two days ago, when you last made this same mistake:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The size and brightness of the object and the resulting reflection (which does not have to travel to reach the film when the object is photographed IN REAL TIME) create the conditions that allow the interaction of light and film to occur.

Specifying conditions is not the same thing as providing a mechanism. And what does the "resulting reflection" consist of? If light, then how can you have light that gets from the object to the film, but does so without traveling there and without teleporting?

A mechanism does not just tell you what conditions have to be met for something to be possible. It specifies a PROCESS by which the allegedly possible event occurs. Even given your above conditions, you still need an actual mechanism by which the light at the film got to be there. Traveling there is a mechanism. Teleportation is a mechanism. Instantaneous duplication of light is a mechanism. These things tell us what is happening, and not just what conditions must first be met. Do you understand the difference yet? Do you understand what you are being asked for?

Spacemonkey · #**16973** 05-20-2012, 10:35 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

All the two questions below are asking you for is the locations of these two sets of photons at the times concerned. You have agreed that both sets of photons exist at these times, and that they must have locations at these times. And that is all the questions presuppose. They say nothing at all about whether or not an object has to be present, what brains or lenses do, what else other than light may be necessary, changing distances, or instant mirror images. For the purposes of these two questions you can assume that your own answers concerning such matters are all accepted. All I'm asking for is the location of these photons at the times concerned according to your own model. That's it. Nothing else. You can take all the rest of your model as a given, and use it to provide the answers which you have agreed these two questions must have. No more excuses. Stop being such a big baby and just answer the questions already.

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.

Remember how you said that you are answering my questions and that you never weasel?

Bump.

Spacemonkey · #**16974** 05-20-2012, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You have given me an answer for red photons in general rather than for the specific red photons I am referring to. At the previous moment the object was blue and all red photons hitting the object are getting absorbed. But those photons cease to exist, as they get absorbed and used up. So none of those photons can ever turn up at the film.

I am asking you about the specific red photons which are at the film when the photograph is taken. How do they get to the film? Where did they come from? Where were they at the immediately previous moment (when the object was still blue)?

Those are photons that have not been absorbed when the object changes color. These new photons are always replacing old, which I've said all along.

But this isn't going to be possible without teleportation. You say that the red photons at the film are photons which were not absorbed by the object once the object turns red. This has to happen AT THE OBJECT, because that is where absorption either happens or does not happen. And it has to happen when the object turns red, because prior to this the object would have absorbed the red photons. But at the VERY NEXT INSTANT you need to have these very same photons AT THE DISTANT FILM. So you have them at the object and not being absorbed as the object changes color to red, and at the very first moment when the object is this now red, you have them at the film. You have them at one location at one moment, and then at a different and distant location instantly at the very next moment. That is teleportation again.

What you are saying requires teleportation. So what part of what you are telling me do you not understand?

Bump.

Bump.

Repeatedly denying that your account involves teleportation doesn't mean anything when the only answers you can give are ones that clearly do require teleportation.

Bump.

Spacemonkey · #**16975** 05-20-2012, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

Bump.

How do red photons get to be at the camera film when at the immediately preceding moment there were no red photons anywhere near the camera?

Bump.