A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, they are not the same photons.

Then you have incorrectly answered our questions. I asked you quite specifically about the photons which are at the retina at 12:00, and you told me they came from the Sun and were also located at the Sun at 12:00.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Thank you for finally answering my questions. You are now saying that at 12:00 when the newly ignited Sun is first ignited, there will be photons present at the retina on Earth which came from the Sun, and were located at the Sun at the exact same time of 12:00. That means you have these photons at two places at once. At 12:00 they are located both at the retina and at the Sun. That is what you have just told me. Yet this directly contradicts your above claim that photons will not be in two places at the same time. Can you resolve this contradiction?

No Spacemonkey. I did not say that photons will be at the retina on Earth at the same time the Sun is first ignited. The properties of light do not change. The only thing that changes is the wavelength/frequency after the non-absorbed light has dispersed and there are no more photons at the retina because the object is too far away to be seen.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, they are not the same photons. They are traveling, but as they strike the object some get absorbed and some don't.

The object is the Sun, and in this scenario it is the only source of any photons anywhere, there are no photons being absorbed or not absorbed or striking objects at all. They are being newly emitted by the newly ignited Sun at noon. The retina is 93 million miles away at noon. There are no photons on Earth until 12:08. Where did the photons at the retina originate if not the Sun and how can they be on the retina if they haven't traveled there?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So I don't know where you are imagining that I am saying that the photons are in two different places at the same time.

The Sun and the retina are two locations. There are photons being emitted by the Sun and it is the only source of photons in this scenario. If the photons at the retina came from the Sun, and are there instantly, then they must be the same photons.

If they are not the same photons, where did the photons at the retina originate and how did they get to the retina?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Is that an accurate description of what you think is the case?

L.O.L. I just watched the end of an episode of Ozie and Harriet, where no-one could understand the other person.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Spacemonkey. I did not say that photons will be at the retina on Earth at the same time the Sun is first ignited.

You said that the photons which are at the retina when the Sun is first ignited were located at the Sun at 12:00. Did you forget that the time at which the Sun is first ignited was 12:00? Can you answer these questions again while keeping that in mind?

Did the photons which are at the retina (at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited) come from the Sun? [Yes or No]

Were they ever located at the Sun? [Yes or No]

If so, when were they located at the Sun? [State a time relative to the moment of ignition of the Sun]

If not, where did they come from? [State a physical object or location]

[thedoc]

Either Peacegirl really doesn't understand what we are asking, or she is a really slipprey 'Snake Oil' salesman.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Spacemonkey. I did not say that photons will be at the retina on Earth at the same time the Sun is first ignited. The properties of light do not change. The only thing that changes is the wavelength/frequency after the non-absorbed light has dispersed and there are no more photons at the retina because the object is too far away to be seen.

Now this is an extraordinary example of how disconected Peacegirl's mind is from what is going on in the world. She has conviently transposed location into dispersion without really understanding the meaning of either. I would guess that it is soon time for a mental 'reset' for Peacegirl.

[peacegirl]

Another touching video. Pull out your kleenex.

https://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.ph...type=2&theater

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no physical distance in this account. It's not like shaking hands across the internet.

According to the laws of physics there is physical distance and it is exactly like shaking hands across the Internet. So, you need new laws of physics for your model to work as well as new properties of light.

Originally Posted by peacegir

That's what I'm trying to tell you. But you can't see this because you are thinking in terms of light instead of the eyes.

I am asking about light, it's locations and properties, in your model, based on statements about the locations and properties of light you've made.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only difference is that non-absorbed light, as opposed to absorbed light, does not get reflected and travel through space time.

So you were totally mistaken when you said "light does not have to have completely different properties. None whatsoever." because it obviously does.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The physics of light remains the same.

Um no. Because in light physics all light travels through space and time and light does get reflected if it is not absorbed or transmitted.

Your statements are completely contrary to the properties of light

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes it does.

Not unless you are requiring light have different properties than it is known to have.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already answered this. The photons would be at the eye when the Sun is just turned on at noon if there was a strong ignition. If it was ignited but grew in size, then we would not see it instantly. Lessans was trying to make a distinction between seeing the sun according to the requirements of efferent vision, and seeing the Sun only after the photons traveled for 8 minutes and reached Earth.

Lessans said nothing about "strong ignition" or growing in size.

Lessans scenario stated if the Sun, as we know it to be, was newly turned on at noon by God, we would see the Sun at noon. Quit mealy mouthing and weasling.

Is your answer that at noon, light photons are located at the newly turned on Sun and at the retina? If yes, that is two places at the same time.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Another touching video. Pull out your kleenex.

https://www.facebook.com/#!/photo.ph...type=2&theater

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bullshit, or distract them with something totally irrelevant.

[koan]

You just had to come back because I was wrong?
Oh, I guess you're screwed then.

If you ever try to leave this thread you'll be stuck knowing that one of us will write the thread summary explaining how wrong Lessans is based on all the accumulated knowledge and scientific advancement since he wrote his book. How will you deal with the knowledge that someone got the last word and might have made you look bad? Can you deal with it? Could you walk away knowing that one of us "out there" probably made you look nuts? That's what'll happen. It's inevitable because we've already shown that you're nuts. How can you leave until you prove us wrong?

It's a dilemma. I know how to solve it but I won't tell you because you're so mean to me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You said that the photons which are at the retina when the Sun is first ignited were located at the Sun at 12:00. Did you forget that the time at which the Sun is first ignited was 12:00? Can you answer these questions again while keeping that in mind?

Did the photons which are at the retina (at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited) come from the Sun? [Yes or No]

Were they ever located at the Sun? [Yes or No]

If so, when were they located at the Sun? [State a time relative to the moment of ignition of the Sun]

If not, where did they come from? [State a physical object or location]

No Spacemonkey, there is no teleportation. This is not magic.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by koan

You just had to come back because I was wrong?
Oh, I guess you're screwed then.

If you ever try to leave this thread you'll be stuck knowing that one of us will write the thread summary explaining how wrong Lessans is based on all the accumulated knowledge and scientific advancement since he wrote his book. How will you deal with the knowledge that someone got the last word and might have made you look bad? Can you deal with it? Could you walk away knowing that one of us "out there" probably made you look nuts? That's what'll happen. It's inevitable because we've already shown that you're nuts. How can you leave until you prove us wrong?

It's a dilemma. I know how to solve it but I won't tell you because you're so mean to me.

Oh be quiet koan. You didn't even respond to the post or the explanation I gave you because it made sense. You don't like that it made sense. You want to be right at all costs because you want Lessans to be wrong. You are a terrible reader because you have not understood a word he said. You don't even know what the discovery is. If I feel like responding to misinterpretations of this book, I will continue to do so, and you can do nothing about it. Think what you want about me, I could care less. You don't get to generalize your thoughts about me to everyone. This is your only validation, but it doesn't work because you don't know what other people think. Far from it. You are a wannabe shrink, and you're failing miserably. You don't know the first thing about psychoanalysis; you're speaking total psychobabble.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

According to the laws of physics there is physical distance and it is exactly like shaking hands across the Internet. So, you need new laws of physics for your model to work as well as new properties of light.

I am asking about light, it's locations and properties, in your model, based on statements about the locations and properties of light you've made.

So you were totally mistaken when you said "light does not have to have completely different properties. None whatsoever." because it obviously does.

Um no. Because in light physics all light travels through space and time and light does get reflected if it is not absorbed or transmitted.

Your statements are completely contrary to the properties of light

Not unless you are requiring light have different properties than it is known to have.

Lessans said nothing about "strong ignition" or growing in size.

Lessans scenario stated if the Sun, as we know it to be, was newly turned on at noon by God, we would see the Sun at noon. Quit mealy mouthing and weasling.

Is your answer that at noon, light photons are located at the newly turned on Sun and at the retina? If yes, that is two places at the same time.

I already answered this LadyShea. This is not magic. He was making a distinction between light that has to reach Earth (which takes 8 minutes), and light that does not have to reach Earth before seeing the Sun. In order to see the Sun though, it has to be bright enough. If it was turned on and it didn't have the brilliance that allows us to see it because it has to expand in size, it wouldn't meet the requirements of efferent vision. If it was ignited and instantly was large enough and bright enough to be seen by the eye, then the photons would instantly be at the retina.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already answered this LadyShea. This is not magic. He was making a distinction between light that has to reach Earth (which takes 8 minutes), and light that does not have to reach Earth before seeing the Sun.

Right. We know why he laid out the scenario. However he said nothing about light being located on the retina in order to see. He only said we could see the Sun immediately upon it being ignited without needing photons to be located on Earth (indicating he did not think photons need be present at the retina in order to see). He said nothing at all about light physically interacting with the eyes or camera film or being located at the retina or on camera film.

You have added this physical interaction between light and retina/film. You added it in order to include real time photography in efferent vision, since light MUST physically interact with the film/ccd in order to get a photograph. Since you have added it, you need to explain it. As of right now, you have stated that light is physically located on the retina and on the Sun both at 12:00:00.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In order to see the Sun though, it has to be bright enough.

That is a given in this scenario, since Lessans said we would see it immediately. I am not changing Lessans scenario in any way, why are you?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If it was turned on and it didn't have the brilliance that allows us to see it because it has to expand in size, it wouldn't meet the requirements of efferent vision.

That is not a factor in this scenario, because Lessans said we would see it immediately at 12:00

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If it was ignited and instantly was large enough and bright enough to be seen by the eye, then the photons would instantly be at the retina.

Yes, this is the scenario. It is large enough and bright enough to be seen at 12:00. If light photons are also on the retina at 12:00, that's two physical locations of light at the same time, 12:00. That's what you are being asked to explain. Did the photons at the retina at 12:00 come from the Sun?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Spacemonkey, there is no teleportation. This is not magic.

Answer the questions then. If it's not teleportation, and it's not magic, you must be able to explain this bi-location of photons within the known laws of physics and in keeping with the known properties of light.

If you can't explain it, then you have magic and teleportation

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Answer the questions then. If it's not teleportation, and it's not magic, you must be able to explain this bi-location of photons within the known laws of physics and in keeping with the known properties of light.

If you can't explain it, then you have magic and teleportation

Is it time yet for Peacegirl to appeal to future emperical evidence.

Someday Lessans will be vindicated!

[thedoc]

Let me see if I understand this. The Sun is turned on at 12;00 noon, like a light bulb, and begines emmiting photons, that are 93 million miles from the earth. And someone standing on the earth will be able to see the Sun imediately at 12:00 noon. The photons have not traveled the distance (93 million miles) yet to Earth (taking about 8.5 minutes). Now somehow that person on the Earth is able to see the Sun, their brain looking through the eyes can directly see the Sun itself (the physical body of the Sun) directly, and according to Lessans we see the object without any assistance from the photons (except that the object needs to be surrounded by a cloud of photons like a swarm of flies, but Peacegirl claims that the photons emited by the sun are instantly in contact with the retina of the eye, so the brain eye is somehow negating the distance from the sun to the Earth (93 million miles) and the time it takes light to travel from the Sun to the Earth (aproximately 8.5 minutes).
-
(Is anyone still reading this?)
-
So all we need to to figure out is how the eye can acquire an image over that distance, and instantly, (according to Lessans), or figure out how photons can get from the Sun to the retina of the eye, again over 93 million miles and instantly instead of 8.5 minutes later. Does anyone really see a problem with this?
-
FTL transmission of information, sounds like a Nobel prize to me, I understand they serve a really good dinner with that. (I wonder if it's takeout?)

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Spacemonkey, there is no teleportation. This is not magic.

That wasn't the question. You contradicted yourself with your last attempt to answer these questions, so for efferent vision to be plausible you will need to try again.

Did the photons which are at the retina (at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited) come from the Sun? [Yes or No]

Were they ever located at the Sun? [Yes or No]

If so, when were they located at the Sun? [State a time relative to the moment of ignition of the Sun]

If not, where did they come from? [State a physical object or location]

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then you have incorrectly answered our questions. I asked you quite specifically about the photons which are at the retina at 12:00, and you told me they came from the Sun and were also located at the Sun at 12:00.

Not the same photons Spacemonkey. Photons at the retina are not the same photons that are at the Sun. You have misunderstood me all this time? But this does not change the fact that what we are seeing is a mirror image of the object. We are not getting blue photons before red, although it's completely logical in the afferent account.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Photons at the retina are not the same photons that are at the Sun.

Did the light at the retina originate on or come from the Sun?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not the same photons Spacemonkey. Photons at the retina are not the same photons that are at the Sun. You have misunderstood me all this time?

No, you've misunderstood me. The photons I asked you about were those at the retina, and you told me they came from the Sun and were located there at 12:00. But that is the same time that they are at the retina. If you were talking about different photons then you weren't answering what I asked.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But this does not change the fact that what we are seeing is a mirror image of the object. We are not getting blue photons before red, which would be logical in the afferent account since distance and time are factors that do not exist in the efferent account.

I'm still not saying anything at all about blue vs. red photons. Please answer my questions, without contradiction this time:-


Did the photons which are at the retina (at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited) come from the Sun? [Yes or No]

Were they ever located at the Sun? [Yes or No]

If so, when were they located at the Sun? [State a time relative to the moment of ignition of the Sun]

If not, where did they come from? [State a physical object or location]

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Answer the questions then. If it's not teleportation, and it's not magic, you must be able to explain this bi-location of photons within the known laws of physics and in keeping with the known properties of light.

If you can't explain it, then you have magic and teleportation

There is no bi-location LadyShea. That's a total misconception. Light energy is in constant motion. Photons are constantly replaced so there's no photon in two different places at the same time. That does not mean we aren't getting a mirror image. You are, once again, coming from the afferent perspective which states that light is all that is necessary for sight.

[LadyShea]

How does light get to the retina and where did the light at the retina come from in the efferent account, supposing the scenario of the newly ignited Sun, at noon?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no bi-location LadyShea. I have no idea what you're talking about. Light energy is in constant motion. Photons being emitted are constantly replaced so there's no photons in two different places at the same time. That does not mean we can't get a mirror image. You are, once again, coming from the afferent perspective and you don't even realize it.

You just missed a key part of LadyShea's post. It was this:-

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Answer the questions then.