A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Um, you could answer the question. The speed of light is only one if its properties, do you accept the other properties of light?

Yes, except where it is said that non-absorbed light bounces and travels ad infinitum. That light or pattern becomes the full spectrum the instant there is no remaining photons of non-absorbed light at the retina (which means the object is too far away or too dim) to be seen.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You assume that non-absorbed light (or the partial light spectrum) goes on forever. I disagree. It is joined (so to speak) by the full light spectrum as it disperses.

You disagree that light has the properties it is known and measured to have.

How many times have you denied that efferent visions requires a change in the properties of light or a change in the laws of physics? It clearly does, do you now admit it?

But that's an assertion LadyShea.

No, that's a known and measurable property of light.

You are constantly calling me out on my assertions; well now it's my turn. You have no actual proof of that this non-absorbed light (this partial spectrum of light) travels through space/time and only transforms when it strikes another object.

Sure there's proof. When light encounters matter it is either absorbed, reflected, or transmitted. This can be measured using various instruments. Reflection, Transmission, and Absorption

You have repeatedly denied that efferent vision requires a change to the laws of physics or the known properties of light. Do you now admit that the properties of light and laws of physics must be different in order for efferent vision to be true?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Energy is neither created or destroyed. When light strikes an object, the most common effect is the object is heated. There are other forms of energy that light can be converted to, like electricity (photoelectric effect in solar cells), or potential energy in chemical bonds (photosynthesis in plants). There's probably more effects than I'm aware of.

Anything that contradicts with the known behavior of light contradicts so much fundamental science, you will never succeed in convincing anyone who has any even basic understanding of science. This is why Lessans failed.

I am not even debating this specious_reasons. You should know that by now.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, except where it is said that non-absorbed light bounces and travels ad infinitum.

So you are now claiming that when light encounters matter, but is not absorbed by it, it is transformed to something other than light. Light travels constantly, if it is not traveling it is not light.

So what is your non absorbed stuff, since it cannot possibly be light?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You just implicated yourself as being no different than a supremasist. I am not suprised.

Added to post:

Just a play on words thedoc. I wasn't being serious. I don't know you well enough to accuse you of being a racist. You can now better appreciate the false charges that continue to made againt me, which you've participated in.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So you are now claiming that when light encounters matter, but is not absorbed by it, it is transformed to something other than light. Light travels constantly, if it is not traveling it is not light.

So what is your non absorbed stuff, since it cannot possibly be light?

Where did I ever say that non-absorbed light doesn't travel? It becomes white light as it disperses the farther away it gets from the object.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You disagree that light has the properties it is known and measured to have.

How many times have you denied that efferent visions requires a change in the properties of light or a change in the laws of physics? It clearly does, do you now admit it?

No, that's a known and measurable property of light.

Sure there's proof. When light encounters matter it is either absorbed, reflected, or transmitted. This can be measured using various instruments. Reflection, Transmission, and Absorption

You have repeatedly denied that efferent vision requires a change to the laws of physics or the known properties of light. Do you now admit that the properties of light and laws of physics must be different in order for efferent vision to be true?

No LadyShea. The only thing I'm refuting is that non-absorbed light (the partial light spectrum) travels independent of the object itself. As long as the non-absorbed photons are at the retina, the object is within the optic range. Once we can no longer see the object because it is too distant, only white light will remain. This means that if the object or event is no longer present, and we were sitting on the star Rigel, the image of Columbus discovering America (as an example) would never show up on the retina some million light years later.

[LadyShea]

No LadyShea.The only thing I'm refuting is that non-absorbed light (the partial light spectrum) travels beyond independent of the object itself.

Then you mean "Yes". Because non-absorbed light is light, and has the same properties as light has....which means it is traveling because that is a property of light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where did I ever say that non-absorbed light doesn't travel?

You said it right here

Originally Posted by peacegirl

except where it is said that non-absorbed light bounces and travels ad infinitum

It becomes white light

How does it "become" white light? That makes no sense.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then you mean "Yes". Because non-absorbed light is light, and has the same properties as light has....which means it is traveling because that is a property of light.

You said it right here

How does it "become" white light? That makes no sense.

I really don't think you will be able to grasp what I'm saying because you're so entrenched with your way of thinking. Everything remains the same as far as the physical properties of light. I have no other way of explaining this at the moment. Hey, when does the party start? Maybe I'll join in later if there's no mashed potatoes.

[LadyShea]

What you are saying makes no sense and you can't explain it in any concrete terms. You are just making it up as you go along. How does light become light? It already is what it is.

Everything remains the same as far as the physical properties of light.

Then that means you agree that reflected light travels until/unless it encounters matter that absorbs it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What you are saying makes no sense and you can't explain it in any concrete terms. You can't even conceive of a model.

Yes I can LadyShea. The second you open your eyes you're in optical range. You're getting a mirror image of everything you see. This does not involve time or delayed sight due to the finite speed of light. When you cannot see an object because it is too far away or not bright enough, you will not see said object because the non-absorbed light has dispersed to the point where there is no more resolution at the retina. Why is this? Because the object is no longer within our visual field.

[traumaturgist]

1. Visits this thread briefly after a hiatus
2. Smiles as he sees that some things never change
3. Wanders off happily

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So if light doesn't bring anything, as you claim, then how can the brain interpret images coming from said light?

Because the light itself is information about what is out there in the direction we are looking. If only blue light is arriving from one point in our visual field while only green light is arriving from a point just to the left, then this tells us that in the direction we are looking there is something green just to the left of something blue. This doesn't require light to carry or bring images or anything other than itself.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why do you keep bringing up that absorbed light is transformed? I know that. We're talking about non-absorbed light. You assume that non-absorbed light (or the partial light spectrum) travels on forever. I disagree with this. The partial light spectrum is joined (so to speak) by the full light spectrum as it disperses.

Apart from the fact that this is nonsensical, it is also completely irrelevant to the discussion. You are talking about what happens with light beyond the point at which we can see the object, so this has no bearing on what happens when we are looking at and seeing an object. In that case light is hitting the object, and the nonabsorbed light is bouncing off and traveling to the retina in your explanation as well as in ours.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When you cannot see an object because it is too far away or not bright enough, you will not see said object because the non-absorbed light has dispersed to the point where there is no more resolution at the retina. Why is this? Because the object is no longer within our visual field.

You don't even realize what you are saying do you? I will parse it for you.

When you cannot see an object because you cannot see it, you will not see said object because you cannot see it. Why is this? Because the object is no longer able to be seen.

Seriously, your statement has zero information, you are just repeating "we can we see what we can see because we can see it" using different terms that sound meaningful but explain nothing at all.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing contradictory unless you don't understand the version of sight that is being explained. The onus is on you Spacemonkey, but I have no desire to continue discussing this as you will find a way to make this concept look implausible.

YOU don't understand the efferent version of sight which you are still failing to explain. Your account is and remains completely contradictory, as you've proven every time you've tried to answer my questions about it only to contradict yourself in the process. If you think the problem is my lack of understanding, then how am I supposed to overcome this when you refuse to actually answer my questions about how it is supposed to work?

That the light is already at the eye is not the issue. Your problem is that you have no explanation for where that light came from or how it got there. The afferent account can explain where light at the retina came from and how it got there. Your efferent account cannot, and that is why it fails.

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]

[LadyShea]

So if light doesn't bring anything, as you claim, then how can the brain interpret images coming from said light?

The brain creates images based on the properties of the light that strikes the photoreceptors.

There are no images coming from, carried in, or brought by light. Images do not travel through space. Light travels. Light is absorbed by photoreceptors and then the brain takes over.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Because the light itself is information about what is out there in the direction we are looking. If only blue light is arriving from one point in our visual field while only green light is arriving from a point just to the left, then this tells us that in the direction we are looking there is something green just to the left of something blue. This doesn't require light to carry or bring images or anything other than itself.

Why do you bring this up Spacemonkey? I'm not debating this. You're missing the fact that, in the efferent account, non-absorbed light, which indicates the color of the object, cannot show photons on the retina without the object present.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why do you keep bringing up that absorbed light is transformed? I know that. We're talking about non-absorbed light. You assume that non-absorbed light (or the partial light spectrum) travels on forever. I disagree with this. The partial light spectrum is joined (so to speak) by the full light spectrum as it disperses.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Apart from the fact that this is nonsensical, it is also completely irrelevant to the discussion. You are talking about what happens with light beyond the point at which we can see the object, so this has no bearing on what happens when we are looking at and seeing an object. In that case light is hitting the object, and the nonabsorbed light is bouncing off and traveling to the retina in your explanation as well as in ours.

That is true but, once again, without the object present, there would be no nonabsorbed light present at the retina from which an image could be made out.

[peacegirl]

So if light doesn't bring anything, as you claim, then how can the brain interpret images coming from said light?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The brain creates images based on the properties of the light that strikes the photoreceptors.

Assertion!

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There are no images coming from, carried in, or brought by light. Images do not travel through space. Light travels. Light is absorbed by photoreceptors and then the brain takes over.

There has to be only that part of the light spectrum that is not absorbed that is at the retina. Call it whatever you will, but you can't tell me that light does not have information that is used to see the object.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No LadyShea. The only thing I'm refuting is that non-absorbed light (the partial light spectrum) travels independent of the object itself. As long as the non-absorbed photons are at the retina, the object is within the optic range. Once we can no longer see the object because it is too distant, only white light will remain. This means that if the object or event is no longer present, and we were sitting on the star Rigel, the image of Columbus discovering America (as an example) would never show up on the retina some million light years later.

And this is wrong according to the known laws of physics, (which you claim your ideas do not violate). Light, once reflected does travel independent of the object and will continue to travel whether the object exists or not. Also light that is a partial spectrum (say one particular color), does not change or merge back into white light, it continues as that particular color till it strikes some other object (another known law of physics). Your refutation has failed, as has been demonstrated for many years, by established science.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Assertion!

SCIENCE!

See The Lone Ranger's essay for details on the available hard evidence.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There has to be only that part of the light spectrum that is not absorbed that is at the retina. Call it whatever you will, but you can't tell me that light does not have information that is used to see the object.

Light is the information

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're missing the fact that, in the efferent account, non-absorbed light, which indicates the color of the object, cannot show photons on the retina without the object present.

That is true but, once again, without the object present, there would be no nonabsorbed light present at the retina from which an image could be made out.

Here is where the efferent model fails, it has been tested, experiments have been done, and the emperical data is in, light reflects and is independent of the object it has reflected from. Efferent vision fails.

This is where Lessans has failed, I often tell someone that in order to improve or correct something, they must first learn as much about it as possible, and only then are they competent to change or correct. Lessans was totally ignorant about light and vision, as well as several subjects that he felt he could school the world and correct the errors, where in fact there were no errors.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What you are saying makes no sense and you can't explain it in any concrete terms. You are just making it up as you go along. How does light become light? It already is what it is.

Then that means you agree that reflected light travels until/unless it encounters matter that absorbs it.

Noooo LadyShea. You are so missing everything I've worked so hard to explain. Maybe that's my fault, but I can't keep doing this while you, at the same time, accuse me of making no sense.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

And this is wrong according to the known laws of physics, (which you claim your ideas do not violate). Light, once reflected does travel independent of the object and will continue to travel whether the object exists or not. Also light that is a partial spectrum (say one particular color), does not change or merge back into white light, it continues as that particular color till it strikes some other object (another known law of physics). Your refutation has failed, as has been demonstrated for many years, by established science.

No it hasn't thedoc. It's just your belief because of the long tenure of an established theory that has graduated into fact. All you're doing is repeating the same old theory and accepting that I must be wrong. That's exactly what you have done with his first discovery. You don't think for yourself; you don't even read for yourself. You just follow the leader.

[peacegirl]

Will this page ever turn to 1000, or will it remain on page 999 forever? It seems like a pretty long page. I'm ready for my cake and ice cream.

[Crumb]

The next post should do it.