#38401  
Old 07-20-2014, 01:55 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
It has EVERYTHING to do with whether the light is comprised of nonabsorbed photons or the full spectrum. I don't know what your problem is but this is integral to the issue we're discussing.
It has nothing at all to do with what I'm asking you about. There is no absorption or reflection in the newly ignited Sun example, and the only light involved is full spectrum.
So what are you saying Spacemonkey?
I'm saying that my questions below have nothing to do with non-absorbed photons, full vs partial spectra, or information, and that you need to re-answer them without contradicting yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Can they arrive at the camera film less than 8min after leaving their source?

Will you answer these questions, or just weasel and ignore them?

Will you weasel by going off on an irrelevant tangent about information or reflection?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #38402  
Old 07-20-2014, 02:04 PM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The only hill in Oxford
Gender: Male
Posts: MVCMXCIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
It has EVERYTHING to do with whether the light is comprised of nonabsorbed photons or the full spectrum. I don't know what your problem is but this is integral to the issue we're discussing.
It has nothing at all to do with what I'm asking you about. There is no absorption or reflection in the newly ignited Sun example, and the only light involved is full spectrum.
So what are you saying Spacemonkey? How in the world can light reveal the Sun without it revealing matter? Photons can't reveal themselves, can they? The Sun is made up of matter. Do you agree? If you have a different take on this, please let me know.
Honestly, who knows? :shrug: You've made up all this stuff about 'revealing', and there's no experimental data to say one way or the other, nor is it clear there could be with your accounts.

So who knows what the made up rules should be? :shrug:
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (07-20-2014)
  #38403  
Old 07-20-2014, 03:37 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
How in the world can light reveal the Sun without it revealing matter? Photons can't reveal themselves, can they?
The Sun is not "revealed" by light, the Sun emits full spectrum light as a product of nuclear fusion.

There are no "non absorbed" photons in the newly ignited Sun scenario, only newly produced and emitted photons. So what is all this crap about?
Quote:
how can we decode an image from the light when the inverse square law would turn into full spectrum light?
In the newly ignited Sun scenario, the inverse square law only speaks to the intensity of the emitted light as it travels. Light from the Sun is more intense when it reaches Mercury, less intense when it reaches Venus.

Do you even understand what dispersion means?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-21-2014)
  #38404  
Old 07-20-2014, 03:49 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Where is the evidence (you are always asking me for evidence, so now I'm asking you) that Jesus was the Son of God?
Firstly, where have I made such a claim? Please quote the post in which you think I made the claim. Secondly, if I were to make such a claim I would certainly not claim that it was scientific, mathematical or undeniable. It would instead be in the nature a faith statement and, as such, no empirical evidence would be required.
It's not about you personally making the claim Angakuk; it's about the collective claim that Jesus was the embodiment of God. The whole story is completely fabricated in the minds of real thinkers, yet I love the story because it actually has wisdom to share. I can't get through the day without hearing from Joyce Meyer. :smile:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Thirdly, you have repeatedly said that there is evidence that supports your claims regarding efferent vision. It is therefore incumbent upon you to produce such evidence and subject it to critical inquiry. To date you have failed to do so.
Angakuk, there is evidence but it has to be explored. Is there true evidence that Jesus was the embodiment of God? Come on, stop playing games with me. I know Christianity is an amazing religion, but it still doesn't answer the literal truth of Jesus being born again after three days.
He clearly said it is a faith statement. WTF is wrong with you?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-21-2014)
  #38405  
Old 07-20-2014, 05:07 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

added:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
No Spacemonkey, they do work. Something is wrong with the way you are interpreting what I'm saying. I didn't say the same photons that arrive at Earth are the same photons that are already there. This is like pulling teeth, I swear. :doh:
Then you have obviously misread the questions and need to re-answer them. Because what you actually said in your answers was flatly contradictory. I asked you about the photons at the film when the Sun is first ignited, and you answered that they were traveling photons that cannot be at the film until 8min after the Sun is ignited. That is what you actually said, whether you meant it or not. Obviously that doesn't work, but it's the only answer you've given.
Well if I said it would take 81/2 minutes to strike the film, that was a mistake on my part.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
What photons are not the same as what other photons? The ONLY photons we have been discussing are the ones at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited. No other photons are relevant to the questions you were meant to be answering.
But these photons are constantly being replaced. So I'm not sure what photons you're referring to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
I just told you EXACTLY which photons I'm referring to. I don't know how to make it any clearer. Replacement of photons by other photons is irrelevant, for you need to first explain how these photons got to the film before you can start worrying about them being replaced by any others (which will also take 8min to get there).
I already explained this. How many more times am I going to have to repeat myself?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Will you weasel by going off on an irrelevant tangent about information or reflection?
In this model, the photons would not have any information in them such that we need to think about traveling blue photons before red...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
You've done it again.
Done what again? I am not going off onto a tangent. The Sun is made up of matter, whether it's emitting or reflecting light. This is relevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
You said they were traveling 93 million miles at just over 11 million miles per minute. That doesn't get photons anywhere instantly. It takes 8 minutes. This is simple mathematics.
Forget the word "instant", okay? It could be nanoseconds...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Nope, not nanoseconds. It takes 8 minutes for light to travel 93 million miles at just over 11 million miles per minute. Again, simple mathematics.
Yes, that's right, and that's why if we're looking at the Sun directly, it would take a nanosecond for the mirror image (the light) to be at our eyes or film.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
This again flatly contradicts your previous claim that the photons at the film traveled there from the Sun. How many times will you continue to flip-flop on this simple point? Did these traveling photons travel there or not?
I'm really not flip flopping. The photons did travel and they are different photons that are at the eye every single second.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
We're not talking about the eye but only a camera film, and we're not talking about any photons other than the ones at the film when the Sun is first ignited. Did THOSE photons travel the actual distance from the Sun to the Earth?
It doesn't matter whether we're talking about the eyes or camera film. THOSE photons were there within a nanosecond because of the mirror image effect which only takes a nanosecond when you compare this closed system to light traveling from the Sun to Earth, which takes 81/2 minutes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
If they didn't travel the actual distance from the Sun to the Earth, then where did they travel from and where did they travel to?
I'm trying to tell you that the light is traveling from the Sun to Earth...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
But that's the exact opposite of what you just said ("...which does not require light to travel the actual distance to Earth..."). Are you still talking about the light I was asking you about (the photons at the camera film when the Sun is ignited), or are you here talking about completely different light when you say it is traveling from the Sun to the Earth?
It doesn't matter whether it's the naked eye or a camera Spacemonkey. Why are you making an issue over this? We talking about light that is emitted from the Sun Spacemonkey, but the light that travels to Earth does not contain information that would allow us to see the Sun in the light itself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
If our eyes were afferent we would be waiting to interpret the light, but how can we decode an image from the light when the inverse square law would turn into full spectrum light?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
The light we are talking about started as, and has always been, full spectrum light, so it cannot change into this at all - and certainly not due to your made up nonsense about the inverse square law, which is something you still don't understand.
Then explain it Spacemonkey since you have dubbed yourself the authority on this issue. How can we get an image of anything with full spectrum light?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Time and distance don't apply in this account even if it takes a nanosecond for the light to travel. For all intents and purposes, there is virtually no delay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Time and distance DOES apply, because the light we are talking about needs to change its location by a DISTANCE of 93 million miles, and it can ONLY do so by traveling at the speed of light, which takes 8 minutes of TIME.
Not true.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Things that actually don't apply to what you are being asked about: Absorption, reflection, non-absorbed partial spectrum, information, eyes and brains, traveling images, and different photons (from those at the film when the Sun is first ignited).
All those things count, especially when his claim has to do with the eyes and brain. You're trying to throw me off but it isn't working.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #38406  
Old 07-20-2014, 05:10 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

dupe
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #38407  
Old 07-20-2014, 05:10 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You're absolutely wrong. I am trying to show you that it is consistent with the known facts about the properties of light.
And you are failing. Your only given answers to questions based on the known facts about the properties of light have been and remain flatly contradictory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The only change is with vision, not light. It does show that light traveling 93 million miles would not have the information that would allow anyone to form an image in the brain.
Again, the questions you are being asked to address have NOTHING to do with whether or not information is in the light. The questions concern ONLY how light can be where and when you need it to be in your model.
It has everything to do with it because scientists believe that light bounces off of the object bringing the information in the light that can be transformed into an image. This is central to what we're discussing.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #38408  
Old 07-20-2014, 05:20 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
You clearly need to re-answer the questions below. Please answer ONLY with respect to the specific photons being asked about (i.e. those at the film when the Sun is first ignited).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Can they arrive at the camera film less than 8min after leaving their source?

Will you answer these questions, or just weasel and ignore them?

Will you weasel by going off on an irrelevant tangent about information or reflection?
Unacceptable responses:

#1 Insisting that they have already been answered.
#2 Responding without giving at least a Yes or No as part of your answer.
#3 Answering by talking about photons other than those asked about.
#4 Insisting that previous and since retracted answers should be good enough.
#5 Insisting that contradictory answers should be good enough.
#6 Refusing to answer because of name-calling.
#7 Answering with irrelevant nonsense about mirror images, information, reflection, full spectrum light, absorption, the inverse square law, etc.
#8 Answering by talking about the eyes or brain instead of the camera and film being asked about.
#9 Fake conceding.
#10 Trying to change the subject.
I have answered your questions with a yes or no, I have discussed the photons you are talking about, I have not answered with irrelevant nonsense about mirror images, information, reflection, full spectrum light, absorption, the inverse square law. I will continue to discuss the eyes and brain because his discovery was regarding efferent vision. If I feel the need to fake concede that's what I will do. I will change the subject when I decide to; I won't have to try.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #38409  
Old 07-20-2014, 05:43 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Sigh Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
If our eyes were afferent we would be waiting to interpret the light, but how can we decode an image from the light when the inverse square law would turn into full spectrum light?
The light we are talking about started as, and has always been, full spectrum light, so it cannot change into this at all - and certainly not due to your made up nonsense about the inverse square law, which is something you still don't understand.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
:lol:
Jesus. Christ. After all this time, you simply know nothing of what you are talking about!

No wonder you can say that "uncalculable" numbers of photons can fall every second on earth, while at the same time saying that the inverse square law would make the sun unresolvable by the eye! You have no idea what the inverse square law is. As we all knew, of course, but it's breathtaking that you can be this off.

This is not a contradiction if Lessans is right because the arriving photons (whose numbers are incalculable) have no bearing on this model, which you should know by now.

1. The inverse square law has nothing to do with light's spectrum. Literally nothing. Anyway full-spectrum light does arrive from the sun, and we see it just fine!

I do too. I see full spectrum light every morning arriving at my window.

2. You don't really know what wavelengths are, do you, and what they mean?

Light travels as waves of energy. Waves of light have different wavelengths (the distance between the top of one wave and the top of the next). Different colors of light have different wavelengths. Purple and blue light waves have short wavelengths. Red light has a longer wavelength. This picture shows the lengths of the waves of different colors of light. The longest red waves are about 700 nanometers long. The shortest purple waves are 400 nanometers long. Light waves with short wavelengths carry more energy than ones with long wavelengths. "Light" waves shorter than 400 nm are called "ultraviolet" or "UV" light. "Light" waves longer than 700 nm are called "infrared" or "IR" light. Some people use a distance unit called an Ångström to measure light waves. There are 10 Ångströms in one nanometer. Green light has a wavelength of 5,500 Ångströms, which is the same as 550 nanometers.
Original Windows to the Universe artwork by Randy Russell.

Widows to the Universe Image:/physical_science/magnetism/images/visible_spectrum_waves_big.jpg


3. The inverse square law has only to do with the decrease in the density of photons as they travel away in all directions from a light source. Nothing else. Since, as you yourself say, "uncalculable" numbers of photons arrive from the sun on the earth, though far fewer than left the sun (most are not even traveling in earth's direction) it is perfectly obvious that we have enough photons at the eye to see the sun in the sky, as it was eight minutes in the past (the time it takes the photons to arrive).

You are assuming we are seeing the image of the Sun in the light. What looks perfectly obvious is not necessarily perfectly correct.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
You are really one of a kind. Please take your schtick to Talk Rats -- how amusing that would be!
I may do just that if I get no other participants. Artemis was the only newcomer in a long time and that's not enough. We're going in circles, and the sad part is you think you won!
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #38410  
Old 07-20-2014, 06:07 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

added more:

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
No Spacemonkey, they do work. Something is wrong with the way you are interpreting what I'm saying. I didn't say the same photons that arrive at Earth are the same photons that are already there. This is like pulling teeth, I swear. :doh:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Then you have obviously misread the questions and need to re-answer them. Because what you actually said in your answers was flatly contradictory. I asked you about the photons at the film when the Sun is first ignited, and you answered that they were traveling photons that cannot be at the film until 8min after the Sun is ignited. That is what you actually said, whether you meant it or not. Obviously that doesn't work, but it's the only answer you've given.
The light is at the film in an instant because of the inverse square law and the closed system which does not require light to travel 93 million miles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
What photons are not the same as what other photons? The ONLY photons we have been discussing are the ones at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited. No other photons are relevant to the questions you were meant to be answering.
But these photons are constantly being replaced. So I'm not sure what photons you're referring to.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
I just told you EXACTLY which photons I'm referring to. I don't know how to make it any clearer. Replacement of photons by other photons is irrelevant, for you need to first explain how these photons got to the film before you can start worrying about them being replaced by any others (which will also take 8min to get there).
I told you how they get to the film, and I've explained this over and over and over again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Will you weasel by going off on an irrelevant tangent about information or reflection?
In this model, the photons would not have any information in them such that we need to think about traveling blue photons before red...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
You've done it again.
Done what again? I need to talk about information in the light. Okay, maybe not when we're discussing the Sun because it only emits light but it's still an essential element to what we're discussing. It would be like leaving out whether we can choose freely when we're discussing free will.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
You said they were traveling 93 million miles at just over 11 million miles per minute. That doesn't get photons anywhere instantly. It takes 8 minutes. This is simple mathematics.
Forget the word "instant", okay? It could be nanoseconds...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Nope, not nanoseconds. It takes 8 minutes for light to travel 93 million miles at just over 11 million miles per minute. Again, simple mathematics.
No argument there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
This again flatly contradicts your previous claim that the photons at the film traveled there from the Sun. How many times will you continue to flip-flop on this simple point? Did these traveling photons travel there or not?
I'm really not flip flopping. The photons did travel and they are different photons that are at the eye every single second.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
We're not talking about the eye but only a camera film, and we're not talking about any photons other than the ones at the film when the Sun is first ignited. Did THOSE photons travel the actual distance from the Sun to the Earth?
You still don't understand this model, and all of your interrogation isn't getting us any closer to the truth. The photons that are traveling are at the film (when the lens is focused on the object) which does not require light to reach Earth even though the camera is located on Earth. This is only because of what Lessans explained: that light only has to be coming from the object which, due to the inverse square law, would be at the film faster than a nanosecond, just like with the candle.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
If they didn't travel the actual distance from the Sun to the Earth, then where did they travel from and where did they travel to?
I'm trying to tell you that the light is traveling from the Sun to Earth...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
But that's the exact opposite of what you just said ("...which does not require light to travel the actual distance to Earth..."). Are you still talking about the light I was asking you about (the photons at the camera film when the Sun is ignited), or are you here talking about completely different light when you say it is traveling from the Sun to the Earth?
You will not even consider my analogy with the box, which is why we aren't getting anywhere. I said it would take a nanosecond or however long for the light to travel to the other end of the box where the film is, not the distance of 93 million miles, although light would still be traveling to Earth which would allow us to take photographs of things on Earth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
If our eyes were afferent we would be waiting to interpret the light, but how can we decode an image from the light when the inverse square law would turn into full spectrum light?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
The light we are talking about started as, and has always been, full spectrum light, so it cannot change into this at all - and certainly not due to your made up nonsense about the inverse square law, which is something you still don't understand.
So if the round ball of fire is just light, then that's what we're seeing in real time. But the Sun is not just made up of photons; it is made up of other gaseous material.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Time and distance don't apply in this account even if it takes a nanosecond for the light to travel. For all intents and purposes, there is virtually no delay.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Time and distance DOES apply, because the light we are talking about needs to change its location by a DISTANCE of 93 million miles, and it can ONLY do so by traveling at the speed of light, which takes 8 minutes of TIME.
Afferent account. You certainly know it well.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Things that actually don't apply to what you are being asked about: Absorption, reflection, non-absorbed partial spectrum, information, eyes and brains, traveling images, and different photons (from those at the film when the Sun is first ignited).
All of these things matter and are an essential element to what we're discussing.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 07-20-2014 at 06:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #38411  
Old 07-20-2014, 06:32 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
You haven't been clarifying what Lessan meant about vision. You've been making things up because you don't know what he meant or how it could be made consistent with the known facts about the properties of light.
You're absolutely wrong...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Am I? I don't think so...

Light needed at the retina according to Lessans' account? You made that up.
NO I DIDN'T. LESSANS SAID NOTHING "OTHER THAN LIGHT" MEANING LIGHT IS AT THE EYE

Lenses that can affect distant light not yet at the lens? You made that up.

NOT TRUE. LIGHT IS AT THE LENS IF THIS ACCOUNT IS RIGHT

Mirror images arriving at a film or retina before light gets there? You made that up.

AGAIN, LIGHT IS AT THE FILM BECAUSE THE LIGHT IS THERE SO THIS IS A FALSE CONCLUSION

Non-absorbed light not being reflected? You made that up.

IMAGES (OR NONABSORBED LIGHT) ARE NOT REFLECTED BECAUSE THERE IS NOTHING BEING DECODED FROM THE LIGHT ITSELF. IF THIS ACCOUNT IS TRUE THIS STATEMENT IS ALSO TRUE.

'Closed systems' somehow negating actual distances? You made that up.

IT'S NOT THE ACTUAL DISTANCE THAT COUNTS; IT'S THE ENTIRE MECHANISM OF EFFERENT SIGHT THAT CAUSES REAL TIME SEEING


Traveling partial spectra turning into full spectrum light? You made that up.

ALL THAT MEANS IS THAT FULL SPECTRUM LIGHT ARRIVES ON EARTH, NOT A PARTIAL SPECTRUM, AND THAT WE WOULD SEE THE MOON (IF THE SUNLIGHT WAS FIRST STRIKING IT) DUE TO THE INVERSE SQUARE LAW WHICH WOULD PUT US IN OPTICAL RANGE IN LESS THAN 1 1/3 SECONDS WHEN WE GAZE IN THAT DIRECTION.

No information in the arriving light? You made that up.

WHAT INFORMATION IS IN THE LIGHT THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO DECODE AN IMAGE IN THE BRAIN IF IT'S FULL SPECTRUM LIGHT?

The inverse square law preventing traveling light from being resolved? You made that up.

THERE IS NO INVERSE SQUARE LAW FROM THAT DISTANCE. THAT'S WHY I SAID BY THE TIME THE LIGHT GETS HERE IT IS FULL SPECTRUM LIGHT. WE DON'T RESOLVE AN IMAGE FROM FULL SPECTRUM LIGHT.

The fiction that your
account is plausible and contradiction-free? You made that up too.

IT CERTAINLY IS PLAUSIBLE AND WITHOUT CONTRADICTION, BUT YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT APPEAR OTHERWISE.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 07-20-2014 at 06:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #38412  
Old 07-20-2014, 06:45 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Where is the evidence (you are always asking me for evidence, so now I'm asking you) that Jesus was the Son of God?
Firstly, where have I made such a claim? Please quote the post in which you think I made that claim.

Secondly, if I were to make such a claim I would certainly not claim that it was scientific, mathematical or undeniable. It would instead be in the nature a faith statement and, as such, no empirical evidence would be required.

Thirdly, you have repeatedly said that there is evidence that supports your claims regarding efferent vision. It is therefore incumbent upon you to produce such evidence and subject it to critical inquiry. To date you have failed to do so.
I also said that these observations are difficult to test empirically, but they are not unfalsifiable. Eventually they will be empirically tested and proven to be valid.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #38413  
Old 07-20-2014, 06:49 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Forget the word "instant", okay? It could be nanoseconds to see the Sun when it's first turned on, but this delay doesn't mean that another object would be further delayed. No matter what the distance between an object and the viewer, it would take a nanosecond to be within optical range if the object was large enough and bright enough to be seen otherwise we would be out of optical range because the object would be too far away or too dim therefore not meeting the requirements.
If I recall correctly it was Lessans who said that if the Sun was turned on we would see it instantly. Instantly, not a nanosecond later. Are you now disavowing Lessans' claim?
It doesn't change anything Angakuk. Whether it's a nanosecond or an instant, the time it takes for an object in space to be seen in this account would not take the length of time that scientists believe it would take due to delayed light. If we're not seeing the image based on light, that means we are not waiting for the light to arrive. This is why there is virtually no time involved in this account as opposed to the belief that the farther away an object is the longer it would take to see it due to its distance and the finite speed of light.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #38414  
Old 07-20-2014, 07:07 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
The light is at the film in an instant because of the inverse square law and the closed system which does not require light to travel 93 million miles.
How does the inverse square law relate at all to instantaneous photons appearing on the surface of camera film when the Sun is newly ignited?
Reply With Quote
  #38415  
Old 07-20-2014, 07:13 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
I told you how they get to the film, and I've explained this over and over and over again.
No, you've only ever asserted that they are at the the film, you've never explained any kind of actual mechanism. Do you know what the word "how" means?
Reply With Quote
  #38416  
Old 07-20-2014, 09:11 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
How in the world can light reveal the Sun without it revealing matter? Photons can't reveal themselves, can they?
The Sun is not "revealed" by light, the Sun emits full spectrum light as a product of nuclear fusion.

There are no "non absorbed" photons in the newly ignited Sun scenario, only newly produced and emitted photons. So what is all this crap about?
Nothing at all.
Quote:
how can we decode an image from the light when the inverse square law would turn into full spectrum light?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
In the newly ignited Sun scenario, the inverse square law only speaks to the intensity of the emitted light as it travels. Light from the Sun is more intense when it reaches Mercury, less intense when it reaches Venus.

We all know that a light, such as a candle or a streetlight, looks dimmer the farther away from it we get. The brightness of light is the power (energy per second) per area. As the energy spreads out over a larger area the brightness (or intensity) of light decreases. Since the area increases as the square of the distance, the brightness of the light must decrease as the inverse square of the distance. Thus, brightness follows the inverse square law.

http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/583137main_I...w_of_Light.pdf


Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Do you even understand what dispersion means?
This doesn't relate to the inverse square law.

Dispersion: Visible light is actually made up of different colors. Each color bends by a different amount when refracted by glass. That's why visible light is split, or dispersed, into different colors when it passes through a lens or prism. Shorter wavelengths, like purple and blue light, bend the most. Longer wavelengths, like red and orange light, bend the least.
Diagram demonstrating how a prism uses refraction to create a spectrum.

Definition: Dispersion





__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #38417  
Old 07-20-2014, 09:42 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Where is the evidence (you are always asking me for evidence, so now I'm asking you) that Jesus was the Son of God?
Firstly, where have I made such a claim? Please quote the post in which you think I made the claim. Secondly, if I were to make such a claim I would certainly not claim that it was scientific, mathematical or undeniable. It would instead be in the nature a faith statement and, as such, no empirical evidence would be required.
It's not about you personally making the claim Angakuk; it's about the collective claim that Jesus was the embodiment of God. The whole story is completely fabricated in the minds of real thinkers, yet I love the story because it actually has wisdom to share. I can't get through the day without hearing from Joyce Meyer. :smile:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Thirdly, you have repeatedly said that there is evidence that supports your claims regarding efferent vision. It is therefore incumbent upon you to produce such evidence and subject it to critical inquiry. To date you have failed to do so.
Angakuk, there is evidence but it has to be explored. Is there true evidence that Jesus was the embodiment of God? Come on, stop playing games with me. I know Christianity is an amazing religion, but it still doesn't answer the literal truth of Jesus being born again after three days.
He clearly said it is a faith statement. WTF is wrong with you?
I know it was a faith statement but in both Christianity and Judaism people are making great efforts to try and back up their faith with evidence. People have searched for remnants of Noah's Ark, for example, looked for artifacts to support the parting of the Red Sea, etc. It's called Biblical Archaeology. I was just wondering if there is any evidence to support the events that happened in the New Testament, or is it just based on faith alone because the Bible is assumed to be the Word of God so you don't question it?

Biblical archaeology involves the recovery and scientific investigation of the material remains of past cultures that can illuminate the periods and descriptions in the Bible, be they from the Old Testament (Tanakh) or from the New Testament, as well as the history and cosmogony of the Judeo-Christian religions. The principal location of interest for this branch of the archaeological sciences is what is known in the relevant religions as the Holy Land, which from a western perspective is also called the Middle East. Even though the main reference points of biblical archaeology are mainly theological and religious, the study of these references is a methodical science. The scientific techniques used are the same as those used in general archaeology, such as excavation and radiocarbon dating among others. In contrast, the archaeology of the ancient Middle East simply deals with the Ancient Near East, or Middle East, without giving any especial consideration to whether its discoveries have any relationship with the Bible.

Biblical archaeology - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 07-20-2014 at 10:16 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #38418  
Old 07-20-2014, 10:15 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
It has EVERYTHING to do with whether the light is comprised of nonabsorbed photons or the full spectrum. I don't know what your problem is but this is integral to the issue we're discussing.
It has nothing at all to do with what I'm asking you about. There is no absorption or reflection in the newly ignited Sun example, and the only light involved is full spectrum.
So what are you saying Spacemonkey? How in the world can light reveal the Sun without it revealing matter? Photons can't reveal themselves, can they? The Sun is made up of matter. Do you agree? If you have a different take on this, please let me know.
Honestly, who knows? :shrug: You've made up all this stuff about 'revealing', and there's no experimental data to say one way or the other, nor is it clear there could be with your accounts.

So who knows what the made up rules should be? :shrug:
It's not made up stuff Dragar. If you understand the claim and follow the reasoning, it becomes clear that the function of light changes from bringing the external world into our eyes to revealing the external world because it's there to be seen. Light becomes a necessary condition of sight, or a bridge between the internal and external world, but it does not cause sight. In other words, it does not have anything in the light that could bring the information to our eyes. The object has to be present in some form. It also means that we would never ever get an image of a past event such as Columbus discovering America because there is no such light traveling through the universe. Please don't tell me this is a strawman because, according to the afferent account, this should be possible.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #38419  
Old 07-20-2014, 11:05 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
I told you how they get to the film, and I've explained this over and over and over again.
No, you've only ever asserted that they are at the the film, you've never explained any kind of actual mechanism. Do you know what the word "how" means?
Of course I've explained it. You just can't see how light can be resolved instantly (or in a nanosecond) when the lens is pointed at a faraway object because you still believe it takes a certain amount of time for the light to reach the sensor, which is on Earth. I really do get it, but there is something missing in this analysis. I have explained the mechanism but it still doesn't make sense to anyone. Lessans used the example of the Sun being turned on at noon, but it seems to be confusing people because the Sun makes photons which come from the Sun but are not the Sun. Photons don't contain matter, but the Sun does therefore it makes no difference whether the light is emitted or reflected, we will still see the Sun in real time in the same way we would see any object that contains matter, if this account is correct (which I believe it is).
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #38420  
Old 07-20-2014, 11:12 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
The light is at the film in an instant because of the inverse square law and the closed system which does not require light to travel 93 million miles.
How does the inverse square law relate at all to instantaneous photons appearing on the surface of camera film when the Sun is newly ignited?
This goes back to the original claim LadyShea. If efferent vision turns out to be true (and I know this has to be proven), then we would get an image of the Sun on the sensor within a nanosecond of it being turned on, just like we would get an image of any object on the sensor in a nanosecond, if it meets the requirements of brightness and size, because this substance (which is part of the external world) is what light is revealing.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #38421  
Old 07-20-2014, 11:14 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

I'm still waiting on answers to these questions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Can they arrive at the camera film less than 8min after leaving their source?

Will you answer these questions, or just weasel and ignore them?

Will you weasel by going off on an irrelevant tangent about information or reflection?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #38422  
Old 07-20-2014, 11:49 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Well if I said it would take 81/2 minutes to strike the film, that was a mistake on my part.
Well, you did say exactly that in the only answers you have given me. And yet you insist that my questions have even answered and don't need answering again. Even though you here acknowledge your given answers to be mistaken. Is that reasonable?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I already explained this. How many more times am I going to have to repeat myself?
You explained what? You were blabbing about replaced photons, and I just explained why this is not relevant.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Done what again? I am not going off onto a tangent. The Sun is made up of matter, whether it's emitting or reflecting light. This is relevant.
You went off on an irrelevant tangent about light not having information in it. That has nothing to do with what I am asking you about. And who said or implied anything about the Sun not being made of matter??? Where did that come from?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Yes, that's right, and that's why if we're looking at the Sun directly, it would take a nanosecond for the mirror image (the light) to be at our eyes or film.
But you just agreed that it takes 8min, not nanoseconds.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
It doesn't matter whether we're talking about the eyes or camera film. THOSE photons were there within a nanosecond because of the mirror image effect which only takes a nanosecond when you compare this closed system to light traveling from the Sun to Earth, which takes 81/2 minutes.
There is no 'mirror image effect' capable of relocating photons by 93 million miles in a nanosecond. You just made that up. And you didn't answer the question: We're not talking about the eye but only a camera film, and we're not talking about any photons other than the ones at the film when the Sun is first ignited. Did THOSE photons travel the actual distance from the Sun to the Earth?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
It doesn't matter whether it's the naked eye or a camera Spacemonkey. Why are you making an issue over this? We talking about light that is emitted from the Sun Spacemonkey, but the light that travels to Earth does not contain information that would allow us to see the Sun in the light itself.
Again, information is not relevant to what I am asking, and you have again evaded the question you were replying to: Are you still talking about the light I was asking you about (the photons at the camera film when the Sun is ignited), or are you here talking about completely different light when you say it is traveling from the Sun to the Earth?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Then explain it Spacemonkey since you have dubbed yourself the authority on this issue. How can we get an image of anything with full spectrum light?
The parts of the film exposed to arriving full spectrum light from the Sun react and turn white. The parts that are not exposed to this full spectrum light do not turn white. The result is an image of a white circle - an image of the Sun.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Time and distance DOES apply, because the light we are talking about needs to change its location by a DISTANCE of 93 million miles, and it can ONLY do so by traveling at the speed of light, which takes 8 minutes of TIME.
Not true.
Which part of it was not true? Can light from the Sun be at the film on Earth without any change of location? Is the Sun not 93 million miles away? Can this light change location by this distance in any way other than by traveling? Can it travel at any speed other than the speed of light? Can it travel 93 million miles at light speed in less than 8min?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Things that actually don't apply to what you are being asked about: Absorption, reflection, non-absorbed partial spectrum, information, eyes and brains, traveling images, and different photons (from those at the film when the Sun is first ignited).
All those things count, especially when his claim has to do with the eyes and brain. You're trying to throw me off but it isn't working.
None of those things have anything to do with what I am asking you about.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-21-2014)
  #38423  
Old 07-20-2014, 11:55 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Again, the questions you are being asked to address have NOTHING to do with whether or not information is in the light. The questions concern ONLY how light can be where and when you need it to be in your model.
It has everything to do with it because scientists believe that light bounces off of the object bringing the information in the light that can be transformed into an image. This is central to what we're discussing.
It is central to the afferent account of vision, and is certainly an important aspect of your account given that it is something you dispute. But it still has absolutely nothing at all to do with the questions I am asking you, which concern ONLY the location and movement of the photons you need to have at the camera film. So whenever you bring up information you are weaseling and evading the problem.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-21-2014)
  #38424  
Old 07-20-2014, 11:59 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
You clearly need to re-answer the questions below. Please answer ONLY with respect to the specific photons being asked about (i.e. those at the film when the Sun is first ignited).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Can they arrive at the camera film less than 8min after leaving their source?

Will you answer these questions, or just weasel and ignore them?

Will you weasel by going off on an irrelevant tangent about information or reflection?
Unacceptable responses:

#1 Insisting that they have already been answered.
#2 Responding without giving at least a Yes or No as part of your answer.
#3 Answering by talking about photons other than those asked about.
#4 Insisting that previous and since retracted answers should be good enough.
#5 Insisting that contradictory answers should be good enough.
#6 Refusing to answer because of name-calling.
#7 Answering with irrelevant nonsense about mirror images, information, reflection, full spectrum light, absorption, the inverse square law, etc.
#8 Answering by talking about the eyes or brain instead of the camera and film being asked about.
#9 Fake conceding.
#10 Trying to change the subject.
I have answered your questions with a yes or no, I have discussed the photons you are talking about, I have not answered with irrelevant nonsense about mirror images, information, reflection, full spectrum light, absorption, the inverse square law. I will continue to discuss the eyes and brain because his discovery was regarding efferent vision. If I feel the need to fake concede that's what I will do. I will change the subject when I decide to; I won't have to try.
That was unacceptable response #1.

You did answer the questions earlier, but you have since retracted those responses and stated that if you did say what you actually said then that was a mistake on your part. So my questions have not been answered.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #38425  
Old 07-21-2014, 12:23 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The light is at the film in an instant because of the inverse square law and the closed system which does not require light to travel 93 million miles.
Neither the inverse square law nor closed systems explain a 93 million mile instantaneous change of location without travel. Nor does this excuse your refusal to answer my questions again, after admitting that your answers referred to different photons from those I asked about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I told you how they get to the film, and I've explained this over and over and over again.
You told me they traveled to the film at light speed, and arrived 8min after they are already there. That is not an acceptable answer.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Done what again? I need to talk about information in the light. Okay, maybe not when we're discussing the Sun because it only emits light but it's still an essential element to what we're discussing. It would be like leaving out whether we can choose freely when we're discussing free will.
Discuss information when it is relevant. It is NOT relevant to the questions I have been asking you, as you have just agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Nope, not nanoseconds. It takes 8 minutes for light to travel 93 million miles at just over 11 million miles per minute. Again, simple mathematics.
No argument there.
Then stop claiming the light from the Sun can get to the film on Earth in nanoseconds. It can't. It takes 8min to achieve this change in location.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You still don't understand this model, and all of your interrogation isn't getting us any closer to the truth. The photons that are traveling are at the film (when the lens is focused on the object) which does not require light to reach Earth even though the camera is located on Earth. This is only because of what Lessans explained: that light only has to be coming from the object which, due to the inverse square law, would be at the film faster than a nanosecond, just like with the candle.
Photons at the film ON EARTH which traveled to get there are photons that have arrived ON EARTH. Again, can you shake my hand when I'm in the post office without yourself also being in the post office? Again, neither the inverse square law nor candles can explain how light can change location by millions of miles in a nanosecond. And after all that, you still haven't answered the question you were replying to:

We're not talking about the eye but only a camera film, and we're not talking about any photons other than the ones at the film when the Sun is first ignited. Did THOSE photons travel the actual distance from the Sun to the Earth?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You will not even consider my analogy with the box, which is why we aren't getting anywhere. I said it would take a nanosecond or however long for the light to travel to the other end of the box where the film is, not the distance of 93 million miles, although light would still be traveling to Earth which would allow us to take photographs of things on Earth.
I have considered your box analogy. It does not work. Light can travel from one end of a box to the other in nanoseconds only because boxes are very small. This does nothing to explain how light can get from the Sun to the film on Earth in a similar time frame. And you still haven't answered the question you were replying to: Are you still talking about the light I was asking you about (the photons at the camera film when the Sun is ignited), or are you here talking about completely different light when you say it is traveling from the Sun to the Earth?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
The light we are talking about started as, and has always been, full spectrum light, so it cannot change into this at all - and certainly not due to your made up nonsense about the inverse square law, which is something you still don't understand.
So if the round ball of fire is just light, then that's what we're seeing in real time. But the Sun is not just made up of photons; it is made up of other gaseous material.
Who said anything about the Sun being composed of light rather than matter??? Look again at the words you were replying to. What is wrong with you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Time and distance DOES apply, because the light we are talking about needs to change its location by a DISTANCE of 93 million miles, and it can ONLY do so by traveling at the speed of light, which takes 8 minutes of TIME.
Afferent account. You certainly know it well.
I wasn't talking about the afferent account. Your account requires light to change location by a DISTANCE of 93 million miles, and as you agree ALL light is traveling light, this also necessarily involves TIME.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Things that actually don't apply to what you are being asked about: Absorption, reflection, non-absorbed partial spectrum, information, eyes and brains, traveling images, and different photons (from those at the film when the Sun is first ignited).
All of these things matter and are an essential element to what we're discussing.
None of them apply to what I am asking you about.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-21-2014)
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 5 (0 members and 5 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:45 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.33841 seconds with 15 queries