A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He said we see stars in real time, not only after the light has arrived. He mentioned no exceptions in real time seeing, and mentioned absolutely nothing different for seeing light vs. seeing other things. He said everything we see is seen in real time.

You have stated that light is seen with efferent vision in real time in the form of rainbows, the Aurora, TV's, computer monitors, stars, lasers and flashlights, as well as flames and lightning.

Are you now saying we can't see light until it travels to our eyes, so we see all of those things in delayed time? Light exists in the material world and needs to be accounted for in any physical model.

Light is accounted for. The only change is in how the eyes work, but this does not stop light from traveling, or change it's properties. To repeat: The only thing that changes is how the eyes work which is the complete opposite of how they are believed to work. All of the things you mentioned are seen in real time, even though it's just a pattern of light that we see. The reason we see these different patterns of light is related to the interaction of light and the environment.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

That is what the experiment shows can't be true. If what you are saying was true, then the lamp's image in the mirror should be seen regardless of the speed with which the wheel turns. That is not what is observed. The experiment shows that light has to travel physically to the eye, through space, at light speed, which takes time.

That's not true. There is no way that we would be able to determine when the lightbulb is actually seen, considering that light travels so fast. Has this ever been done? You are making up something that hasn't been tested because it's impossible to test the exact moment we see the lightbulb from a location of five miles away. We can't focus our eyes in a milisecond? By that time the light would already have traveled to our eyes, and the experiment would be flawed.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is accounted for.

No it isn't. If it was you'd be able to answer our questions about it. You haven't even begun to account for the behavior and location of light in your model. You have no idea how it is supposed to work.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only change is in how the eyes work, but this does not stop light from traveling, or change it's properties.

That's obviously not true. If you are saying that light does not travel independently of its source, then you are changing its properties from the afferent account. And you have to change more than just how the eyes work if real time photography is to be possible. There are no eyes involved in photography, so if you changed only how eyes work then photography would remain exactly the same, i.e. not real time.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is accounted for. The only change is in how the eyes work, but this does not stop light from traveling, or change it's properties. To repeat: The only thing that changes is how the eyes work which is the complete opposite of how they are believed to work. All of the things you mentioned are seen in real time, even though it's just a pattern of light that we see. The reason we see these different patterns of light is related to the interaction of light and the environment.

Then we're back to the beginning. If real time seeing were true, Fizeau's experiment would have failed to reveal the speed of light, because the viewer would be able to see the light all the time regardless of the speed of rotation of the wheel.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not true. There is no way that we would be able to determine when the lightbulb is actually seen, considering that light travels so fast. Has this ever been done? You are making up something that hasn't been tested because it's impossible to test the exact moment we see the lightbulb from a location of five miles away. We can't focus our eyes in a milisecond? By that time the light would already have traveled to our eyes, and the experiment would be flawed.

You still do not understand the experiment. It wasn't about when the viewer could see the light, it was about if the viewer could see the light. A yes/no question. "Can you see the light at all?"

Let's make it simple:

When the wheel was rotating at one speed let's use X, so x rpms, the viewer could see the light. It was flickery like an old movie but could be seen

When the wheel was rotating at a different speed, so y rpms, the viewer could not see the light at all.

Other speeds also allowed the light to be seen. There was one speed of rotation where the light couldn't be seen at all, so that was the speed used in the calculation.

Nothing changed except the speed at which the wheel was rotating. If we saw in real time, then the speed at which the wheel was rotating would have been irrelevant to the viewers ability to see the light....if they could see it at one speed they could see it at any speed.

Do you get it yet?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not true. There is no way that we would be able to determine when the lightbulb is actually seen, considering that light travels so fast. Has this ever been done? You are making up something that hasn't been tested because it's impossible to test the exact moment we see the lightbulb from a location of five miles away. We can't focus our eyes in a milisecond? By that time the light would already have traveled to our eyes, and the experiment would be flawed.

It doesn't matter when exactly the light bulb is seen. What matters is whether it is seen or not. In the time it takes the nerve impulses to carry the signal to the visual cortex, the light has made several round trips to the mirror and back. That's not the point. You can't explain the result of the experiment. It is inconsistent with your real time seeing. It is perfectly consistent with, explained by and predicted numerically by the established theories of physics, optics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, logic, ontology, epistemology, Maxwell's equations, quantum mechanics, quantum optics, special and general relativity, calculus, algebra, quantum chemistry, neurology, neurochemistry, etc.

When the wheel rotates at a certain speed, the line of sight from the observer to the mirror is unobstructed, there is enough light at the mirror and the lamp, but the lamp cannot be seen in the mirror. When the wheel turns with a different speed, the lamp can be seen although the path is blocked when the light is at the mirror and at the lamp.

You cannot explain this result. It is inconsistent with real time seeing. It shows clearly that it isn't true. There is no problem with the established theories, they exactly predict and explain it. It's exactly what one would expect, as in every other case, like the moons of Jupiter.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No it isn't. If it was you'd be able to answer our questions about it. You haven't even begun to account for the behavior and location of light in your model. You have no idea how it is supposed to work.

That's obviously not true. If you are saying that light does not travel independently of its source, then you are changing its properties from the afferent account. And you have to change more than just how the eyes work if real time photography is to be possible. There are no eyes involved in photography, so if you changed only how eyes work then photography would remain exactly the same, i.e. not real time.

The sun's energy travels, but objects do not reflect light whereby the image that we see is carried through space/time. What is it you do not understand?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

It doesn't matter when exactly the light bulb is seen. What matters is whether it is seen or not. In the time it takes the nerve impulses to carry the signal to the visual cortex, the light has made several round trips to the mirror and back. That's not the point. You can't explain the result of the experiment. It is inconsistent with your real time seeing. It is perfectly consistent with, explained by and predicted numerically by the established theories of physics, optics, biology, chemistry, mathematics, logic, ontology, epistemology, Maxwell's equations, quantum mechanics, quantum optics, special and general relativity, calculus, algebra, quantum chemistry, neurology, neurochemistry, etc.

Now you're just evading the question. You are right that it takes nerve impulses in either efferent or afferent vision, but it doesn't explain how we see. It is the point exactly. The rest of your post is an attempt to make it appear that your example was spot on, although it was nothing of the sort.

Originally Posted by But

When the wheel rotates at a certain speed, the line of sight from the observer to the mirror is unobstructed, there is enough light at the mirror and the lamp, but the lamp cannot be seen in the mirror. When the wheel turns with a different speed, the lamp can be seen although the path is blocked when the light is at the mirror and at the lamp.

You cannot explain this result. It is inconsistent with real time seeing. It shows clearly that it isn't true. There is no problem with the established theories, they exactly predict and explain it. It's exactly what one would expect, as in every other case, like the moons of Jupiter.

This experiment, as I said, is flawed. What are you failing to comprehend?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Um, you actually think that after your attacking me as being mentally ill, that I am going to continue to engage you? You can talk to yourself all you want, but until you stop with these idiotic posts, you will never an answer from me.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The sun's energy travels, but objects do not reflect light whereby the image that we see is carried through space/time. What is it you do not understand?

How do light photons come to be located on the surface of camera film at the moment a photgraph is taken if they did not travel there, did not come into spontaneous existence there, nor teleport there?

What was the location of those specific photons before they were on the surface of the camera film?

Remember, you are not proposing any changes to the properties of light, so these photons had to come to be located on the surface of camera film by some mechanism and had to have previous locations.

This is no different than explaining how you came to be sitting on a chair. Were you born in the chair? Did you teleport to the chair? Did you have a previous location a moment before becoming located on the seat of that chair?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Now you're just evading the question. You are right that it takes nerve impulses in either efferent or afferent vision, but it doesn't explain how we see. It is the point exactly. The rest of your post is an attempt to make it appear that your example was spot on, although it was nothing of the sort.

This experiment, as I said, is flawed.

Since you don't even understand the experiment at all, how can you possibly state it was flawed?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Since you don't even understand the experiment at all, how can you possibly state it was flawed?

Duh! Of course she thinks the experiment is flawed! It contradicts Lessans!

And, no, she doesn't have to understand it, even though a kindergartner could. If it contradicts, it must be wrong!

What part of that are you not getting, Lady Shea? How many times does she have to explain this?

Hey, peacegirl, why does NASA use delayed-time seeing calculations to send spacecraft to Mars and other planets? If they used real-time seeing calculation, they would miss their mark every time! You can't say "the experiment is flawed" because it succeeds every time a probe makes a successful rendezvous with another world.
'
Oh, wait, I forgot!

"There's something else going on there!"

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You still do not understand the experiment. It wasn't about when the viewer could see the light, it was about if the viewer could see the light. A yes/no question. "Can you see the light at all?"

Let's make it simple:

When the wheel was rotating at one speed let's use X, so x rpms, the viewer could see the light. It was flickery like an old movie but could be seen

When the wheel was rotating at a different speed, so y rpms, the viewer could not see the light at all.

Other speeds also allowed the light to be seen. There was one speed of rotation where the light couldn't be seen at all, so that was the speed used in the calculation.

Nothing changed except the speed at which the wheel was rotating. If we saw in real time, then the speed at which the wheel was rotating would have been irrelevant to the viewers ability to see the light....if they could see it at one speed they could see it at any speed.

Do you get it yet?

I understand this perfectly, but it doesn't apply at all to what Lessans is saying. How do you expect to prove that we see, or don't see, in real time, when light is traveling so fast? As I said in the previous post, by the time we even have a chance to look, the light has reached our eyes, so there is no way we can answer the question of real time seeing with this example.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Since you don't even understand the experiment at all, how can you possibly state it was flawed?

The experiment was not flawed for its intended purpose LadyShea. And, btw, I do understand the experiment, so once again, you are wrong in your conclusions.

[Dragar]

How is it flawed? If we could see in realtime, we would see instantly through the hole between the 'spokes' of the wheel. And when the hole is blocked by the spoke, we shouldn't at that instant be able to see what is behind the spoke. Which of these do you disagree with?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand this perfectly, but it doesn't apply at all to what Lessans is saying.

No, you don't.

Explain the complete experiment, then explain the results.

[LadyShea]

I understand this perfectly, but it doesn't apply at all to what Lessans is saying. How do you expect to prove that we see, or don't see, in real time, when light is traveling so fast?

If we see in real time, the flickering light could be seen regardless of the whee'ls rotation speed. If it could be seen at one speed it could be seen at all speeds, because the speed of the wheel's rotation would be completely irrelevant. If you understood the experiment you would understand this simple point.

At a specific speed of rotation the viewer could not see the light. At all. The light could be seen at both faster and slower rotation speeds however. The only difference was the rotation speed of the wheel.

How do you explain this?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand this perfectly, but it doesn't apply at all to what Lessans is saying. How do you expect to prove that we see, or don't see, in real time, when light is traveling so fast? As I said in the previous post, by the time we even have a chance to look, the light has reached our eyes, so there is no way we can answer the question of real time seeing with this example.

You're looking and you see a flickering light. The light is reaching your eyes.

The speed of the wheel is changed, and you can't see the light, at all, no matter how hard you look or how long you look.

The speed changes again, you can now see the light.

You've never moved, the light has never moved or been turned off. The only difference between seeing the light and not seeing the light is the speed at which the wheel is rotating.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand this perfectly, but it doesn't apply at all to what Lessans is saying. How do you expect to prove that we see, or don't see, in real time, when light is traveling so fast? As I said in the previous post, by the time we even have a chance to look, the light has reached our eyes, so there is no way we can answer the question of real time seeing with this example.

You realize that that's the brilliance of Fizeau's experiment? Scientists knew that the speed of light was really incredibly fast, so they had to concoct methods using fast spinning objects to manipulate the light.

You never answered this question:
Suppose a light source is bright enough to be seen at a fairly long distance (Say several miles). Lessans predicts that you will see the light source a tiny fraction of a second before the light reaches our eyes. What does the light source look like to us?

The reason why I ask that question is because in Fizeau's experiment, the light source is bright enough to be seen from miles away. When the wheel is spinning at the right speed, the light source is bright enough to be seen and the object is in the field of view, but none of its light is reaching the eye.

Lessans predicts that we would "see" this light source. what might it look like?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How do light photons come to be located on the surface of camera film at the moment a photgraph is taken if they did not travel there, did not come into spontaneous existence there, nor teleport there?

What was the location of those specific photons before they were on the surface of the camera film?

Remember, you are not proposing any changes to the properties of light, so these photons had to come to be located on the surface of camera film by some mechanism and had to have previous locations.

This is no different than explaining how you came to be sitting on a chair. Were you born in the chair? Did you teleport to the chair? Did you have a previous location a moment before becoming located on the seat of that chair?

I told you exactly how. This has nothing to do with light traveling, so it doesn't relate to teleportation or light transferring from one point to another without traversing the distance. This has to do with the eyes, and consequently film, and what they are able to do because of their properties.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

You realize that that's the brilliance of Fizeau's experiment? Scientists knew that the speed of light was really incredibly fast, so they had to concoct methods using fast spinning objects to manipulate the light.

You never answered this question:
Suppose a light source is bright enough to be seen at a fairly long distance (Say several miles). Lessans predicts that you will see the light source a tiny fraction of a second before the light reaches our eyes. What does the light source look like to us?

The reason why I ask that question is because in Fizeau's experiment, the light source is bright enough to be seen from miles away. When the wheel is spinning at the right speed, the light source is bright enough to be seen and the object is in the field of view, but none of its light is reaching the eye.

Lessans predicts that we would "see" this light source. what might it look like?

No specious_reasons, we could never test whether we see in real time using this experiment because there is no way we can determine at which point we would see the light bulb when light is traveling so fast.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No specious_reasons, we could never test whether we see in real time using this experiment because there is no way we can determine at which point we would see the light bulb when light is traveling so fast.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If we see in real time, the flickering light could be seen regardless of the whee'ls rotation speed. If it could be seen at one speed it could be seen at all speeds, because the speed of the wheel's rotation would be completely irrelevant. If you understood the experiment you would understand this simple point.

At a specific speed of rotation the viewer could not see the light. At all. The light could be seen at both faster and slower rotation speeds however. The only difference was the rotation speed of the wheel.

How do you explain this?

Why don't you understand that seeing in real time does not negate the fact that light travels at a certain speed. You still think seeing in real time would disprove that light travels at a finite speed, which is not true. It's just that this light does not travel with a pattern of the object.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you exactly how. This has nothing to do with light traveling, so it doesn't relate to teleportation or light transferring from one point to another without traversing the distance. This has to do with the eyes, and consequently film, and what they are able to do because of their properties.

No, you've never stated how they got to be at that location, you've only stated that they are at that location. "Because of how the eyes work" is not a mechanism nor explanation of how....it is an assertion

Explain how photons get to the surface of camera film as if explaining how you came to be sitting in a chair.