I love how peacegirl, who doesn't understand much about anything and nothing at all about science, nonetheless feels sufficiently credentialed to tell scientists what they can and can't do, and specifically to tell them that they can't do something that they have done for a long, long time. You'd think by now that they would have noticed that they can't do the Fizeau experiment!
Notice how the just can't cope with Mars and NASA!
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?
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.
"At which point" shows your misunderstanding.
It had nothing to do with when one could see the light, only if one could see the light
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?
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.
, answer the question, explain the experiment and why the rotation speed determined if the viewer could or could not see the light. If real time seeing were true it would not matter because we would always be able to see the light. It is a 100% vision based experiment. Real time seeing would have had different results.
Light has to be at the eye, that's true, but if the eyes see the world in real time, then the light is already at the film/retina instantly due to how the eyes work. This is exactly why Lessans said light doesn't have to travel to Earth first, which would involve travel time.
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.
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.
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.
If something is blocking light, then it's obvious that we won't be able to see it, and that we can measure its speed this way. So what? Lessans never said light doesn't travel at a finite speed. In fact he agreed with this:
Our scientists, becoming enthralled over the discovery that light
travels approximately 186,000 miles a second...
< snip >
Once again certain facts have been confused and all the reasoning
except for light traveling at a high rate of speed are completely
fallacious.
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?
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.
The (P) light is instant and all other light is finite. (P) light has the pattern and and the finite light does not. Lessans was able to "keenly observe" the instant light because his eyes were superman eyes, but he knew that other people without superman eyes would not be able to see flickering light and would never be able to see the finite light well enough to measure its speed visually. But when everyone accepts the great man's vision they would all be able to see the instant light.
Schizophrenia at its finest.
Why is everyone so dense? peacegirl is in lala land.
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?
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.
, answer the question, explain the experiment and why the rotation speed determined if the viewer could or could not see the light. If real time seeing were true it would not matter because we would always be able to see the light. It is a 100% vision based experiment. Real time seeing would have had different results.
We can see light arriving. We see light appear every day at dawn. But seeing this light is not the same thing as seeing light in delayed time that would show a pattern or image. If I'm looking at an object in real time, but something is blocking the light, I won't be able to see the object because light must still interact with the retina. It's just that the interaction is instantaneous when the brain is looking out through the eyes, rather than the light bringing the image to the eyes, as I've said before.
Light has to be at the eye, that's true, but if the eyes see the world in real time, then the light is already at the film/retina instantly due to how the eyes work. This is exactly why Lessans said light doesn't have to travel to Earth first, which would involve travel time.
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.
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.
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.
If something is blocking light, then it's obvious that we won't be able to see it, and that we can measure its speed this way. So what?
The observer can see the flickering light when the wheel is rotating at some speeds. They see the light through the gaps and it flickers due to the teeth in the wheel obscuring the light for a fraction of a second.
However at another speed they cannot see the light through the gaps at all....not flickering, nothing at all.
The gaps are still there that allowed the light to be seen at slower and faster speeds, why does this speed obscure the light completely?
Same number of gaps, same light that could be seen at X and z rpms cannot be seen at y rpms. The eyes are the same, so if they saw in real time the rotation speed would be irrelevant.
We can see light arriving and we can measure it by this experiment. We see light arriving every day when dawn arrives. But seeing this light is not the same as seeing light arrive in delayed time with a pattern that is indicative of an object that it must have bounced off of.
Yes it is.
With that out of the way, now explain the experiment, will you?
Why can't we see/photograph a supernova long (years at minimum) before we can detect the photons from it?
Why do we detect the photons, which had to travel the distance between the supernova and Earth, within minutes, hours or days of when we can see and photograph it?
If something is blocking light, then it's obvious that we won't be able to see it
Can you see the birds through the gaps because of the spin? The line of sight is blocked MOST OF THE TIME. Same concept. If you could get this spinning fast enough you would NOT see the animation.
Obviously a few inches is not enough distance to get the necessary speed, but this is the same idea. We can see through spinning gaps. Look up at your celing fan through the spinning blades.
This has to do with the eyes, and consequently film, and what they are able to do because of their properties.
So tell us, clearly, what eyes and film do because of their properties, and how do they do it?
peacegirl can't do anything clearly. It's part of her mental illness. To ask a schizophrenic to be clear is like asking a blind person to see. It's a rather mean thing to do. She can't help being crazy, she needs to get help.
peacegirl can't do anything clearly. It's part of her mental illness. To ask a schizophrenic to be clear is like asking a blind person to see. It's a rather mean thing to do. She can't help being crazy, she needs to get help.
Oh shut up. If you are looking for schizophrenics to armchair diagnose, take a look at the Turkish guy. Or carry on with your awful philosophizing.
peacegirl can't do anything clearly. It's part of her mental illness. To ask a schizophrenic to be clear is like asking a blind person to see. It's a rather mean thing to do. She can't help being crazy, she needs to get help.
Oh shut up. If you are looking for schizophrenics to armchair diagnose, take a look at the Turkish guy. Or carry on with your awful philosophizing.
No 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.
So we are back to the idea that light is traveling too fast for the eye to catch it, therefore we can't see afferently because light goes by too fast. That is not even close to the way the eyes see. The light travels in a straight line from the object, straight through the pupil, is focused by the lens onto the retina. Any light that does not pass through the pupil does not contribute at all to a persons vision. It seems that you and Lessans thought that the brain through the eyes could reach out and gather the photons from the object and that any photons that were traveling were just too fast to catch.
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.
No-one is attacking you as being mentally ill. People are genuinely concerned for your mental health because you keep saying and doing things that no sane person would say or do. If you refuse to answer my questions about light than I will ask you about your mental condition. It doesn't seem to make any difference what I ask you about, because you never answer my questions anyway no matter what the topic.
__________________ video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
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.
Quote:
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.
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?
I don't understand how this is meant to address the points in my post. You still can't account for the behavior and location of light in your non-model, and you still can't decide you are changing only how the eyes work, or if you are also changing the basic properties and behavior of light. And now you're back to your retarded strawman of images being carried through space and time. You really are hopeless, Peacegirl.
__________________ video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Light exists Spacemonkey, and light travels. I don't want to bring up the word photon because you're treating it like a drop of water that separates from the larger body of water, but this is not how it happens when it comes to sight.
Physics says that light is electromagnetic energy consisting of photons. Photons are defined as quanta of electromagnetic energy. I'm not interested at this point in whether or not you think they travel independently. We can get to that later. All I'm asking you is whether or not photons defined as quanta of electromagnetic energy exist on your account. Do they?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
2) On YOUR account, is (or was) there such a thing as the past?
In memory, yes, but in reality we live and die in the present. I told you my position on this already, so why are you asking me this again? Do you have a memory loss?
Of course events only ever occur in the present. That is not the question. Nor am I aksing about memory. I am asking if there are true statements about how things were at past moments in time. Is the past merely a fictional construct that never really happened? Or is it true that there really were past moments when past events occurred?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
3) On YOUR account, do cameras take photographs in real time?
If we see in real time, we take photographs in real time. I've answered this more times than I can count.
When I start over, that means I may need to repeat certain questions. But now that you've answered this, please note that I will now only be asking you about supposedly real-time photography. I am not going to be asking you anything about vision. That means eyes and brains are irrelevant, and any answer you give which mentions them will be immediately invalid. I am going to be talking only of scenarios where there are no eyes or brains at all. If you want to say that something is happening which would be the same as it is for vision, then you have to instead describe that something as it works when there are no eyes or brains.
At this point I still need you to revise your above answers to indicate whether or not your account includes photons and past moments in time.
Bump.
__________________ video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
I will not answer anymore posts when they are a repetition of the same old thing.
That would only be reasonable if they were questions you had previously answered. They are not. Do you think that after merely ignoring a set of questions a few hundred times you should be exempted from having to answer them at all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You can't accept that you could be wrong which makes it very difficult for me to get through to you.
Of course I could be wrong. Could Lessans have been wrong?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You are not investigating this from the efferent perspective the minute you talk about photons arriving.
I'm not talking about photons arriving. I'm taking about the photons that are already there at the film, and asking where they were before that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Photons without the object in view cannot provide an image so your blue versus red example doesn't even apply.
The object is in view the whole time in my examples, so this excuse of yours doesn't apply.
Bump.
__________________ video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Peacegirl, in real-time photography, in a scenario involving only an object, a camera, and light (and no eyes, brains, or vision)...
1) You agree that some of the light which hits the object is not absorbed, still exists 0.0001sec after hitting the object, and must have a location at that time. So what is the location of these nonabsorbed photons 0.0001sec after they have hit the object? Are they about 30 meters from the object and traveling away from it at light speed? Yes or No? If no, then where are they located at this time?
2) You agree that there are photons at the camera film (interacting with it to determine the color of the resulting image) when the photograph is taken, that this light also existed 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken, and that it must have had a location at this time. So what is the location of these photons 0.0001sec before they are at the camera film (i.e. 0.0001sec before the photograph is taken)? Were they about 30 meters away from the camera film and traveling towards it at light speed? Yes or No? If no, then were were they located at this time?
Bump.
Bump.
Bump.
Bump.
__________________ video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
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?
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.
"At which point" shows your misunderstanding.
It had nothing to do with when one could see the light, only if one could see the light
Peacegirl, in real-time photography, in a scenario involving only an object, a camera, and light (and no eyes, brains, or vision)...
1) You agree that some of the light which hits the object is not absorbed, still exists 0.0001sec after hitting the object, and must have a location at that time. So what is the location of these nonabsorbed photons 0.0001sec after they have hit the object? Are they about 30 meters from the object and traveling away from it at light speed? Yes or No? If no, then where are they located at this time?
2) You agree that there are photons at the camera film (interacting with it to determine the color of the resulting image) when the photograph is taken, that this light also existed 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken, and that it must have had a location at this time. So what is the location of these photons 0.0001sec before they are at the camera film (i.e. 0.0001sec before the photograph is taken)? Were they about 30 meters away from the camera film and traveling towards it at light speed? Yes or No? If no, then were were they located at this time?
Bump.
Bump.
Bump.
Bump.
This doesn't apply Spacemonkey, and I'm sick and tired of you badgering that I am avoiding the question.
Light exists Spacemonkey, and light travels. I don't want to bring up the word photon because you're treating it like a drop of water that separates from the larger body of water, but this is not how it happens when it comes to sight.
Physics says that light is electromagnetic energy consisting of photons. Photons are defined as quanta of electromagnetic energy. I'm not interested at this point in whether or not you think they travel independently. We can get to that later. All I'm asking you is whether or not photons defined as quanta of electromagnetic energy exist on your account. Do they?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
2) On YOUR account, is (or was) there such a thing as the past?
In memory, yes, but in reality we live and die in the present. I told you my position on this already, so why are you asking me this again? Do you have a memory loss?
Of course events only ever occur in the present. That is not the question. Nor am I aksing about memory. I am asking if there are true statements about how things were at past moments in time. Is the past merely a fictional construct that never really happened? Or is it true that there really were past moments when past events occurred?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
3) On YOUR account, do cameras take photographs in real time?
If we see in real time, we take photographs in real time. I've answered this more times than I can count.
When I start over, that means I may need to repeat certain questions. But now that you've answered this, please note that I will now only be asking you about supposedly real-time photography. I am not going to be asking you anything about vision. That means eyes and brains are irrelevant, and any answer you give which mentions them will be immediately invalid. I am going to be talking only of scenarios where there are no eyes or brains at all. If you want to say that something is happening which would be the same as it is for vision, then you have to instead describe that something as it works when there are no eyes or brains.
At this point I still need you to revise your above answers to indicate whether or not your account includes photons and past moments in time.
Bump.
I need you to stop posting as if I'm mentally ill. If you continue, then I will not talk to you anymore. Take it or leave it.
Re: A revolution in thought
just can't cope with Mars and NASA! 
Linear Mode
