A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

If it didn't meet Lessans requirements it wouldn't be detectable at all...according to Lessans and you. The test for something meeting the requirements is if it can be seen or detected by a lens, right? And, If we can see it, we see it in real time remember?

So to be consistent with your own model the laser either shouldn't be detectable at all, or detectable in real time with no delay.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because it had arrived supposedly without it actually traveling to get there.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Stop using pronouns without explaining what the hell you are talking about. Anyway, no, that is not the problem with the postman's explanation. The problem is that he was asked about one letter and gave an answer for a completely different letter. Just as YOU do when asked about the photons at the film

But you're missing the fact that this one photon (this one letter) can be used to see the Sun if it happens to be the light that forms the mirror image which takes virtually no time (think about the candle and how the Sun example is analogous. This photon is still in the process of traveling to Earth which takes 81/2 minutes. These are two completely different phenomena. Your question is fair. I just hope you realize that there is no conflict between the traveling photon and using this same photon to see what's out there before it actually arrives on Earth.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Photons arrive on Earth or they wouldn't get here 81/2 minutes later...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But those are not the photons I asked about, are they?

I just explained that this one photon can be used to see the Sun as I look at it in real time, but this lasts only an instant. This same photon continues traveling to Earth and if I keep my eye on the Sun, there are many different photons that will be taking its place because it's not the photon that has any individual characteristics other than the full spectrum; it's what these photons are revealing as we look in that direction.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...this automatically has the light at the film or retina.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

THOSE are the photons I asked about. Did THOSE photons come from the Sun and get to the film by traveling?

Of course. Photons travel and each and every second they are in a different place in time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If it didn't meet Lessans requirements it wouldn't be detectable at all...according to Lessans and you. The test for something meeting the requirements is if it can be seen or detected by a lens, right? And, If we can see it, we see it in real time remember?

So to be consistent with your own model the laser either shouldn't be detectable at all, or detectable in real time with no delay.

It can only be detected by a lens if it meets the requirements. Why are you missing this aspect when I've stated it in almost every post since the time I've been discussing this topic. The object has to be large enough and bright enough to be seen. The flash could not be detected by the telescope because no telescope could detect a flash that small relative to the lens. It wouldn't show up.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Not all light is full spectrum light, that is demonstrably false. We can analyze light, remember?

Stellar Spectroscopy The Message of Starlight

You are asserting things that are provably incorrect, as well as silly, so you are not proving your case.

I know that light has a wavelength/frequency. How else could we see objects? But the object seen has to be present for that wavelength to show up on a lens. If the object would suddenly disappear, the wavelength that is revealing the object would also disappear. That is why Lessans said the image does not get reflected which only means "the wavelength/frequency does not travel through space/time".

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Full spectrum is NOT a wavelength. And LadyShea was quite right to say that all light always has a wavelength even without the light source remaining in existence. You were wrong to claim otherwise.

I agree with you. Full spectrum light is made up of many wavelengths. This doesn't change what I'm trying to get across, but thanks for clarifying.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I agree with you. Full spectrum light is made up of many wavelengths. This doesn't change what I'm trying to get across, but thanks for clarifying.

It rather does change what you were trying to get across which was "the information (the wavelength/frequency) does not exist without the object."

Wavelength absolutely does exist without objects, because it is a property of light to have a wavelength, and light exists independent of its source.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, I won't change the subject until you directly and honestly answer my questions.

Well I may not stick around for long then. It amazes me that there is no interest in determinism. On every other forum I've been to, this is discussed quite often.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

BTW, where did your avatar come from? Did you choose it yourself?

It came from the list of avatars that was offered. I chose it myself but I only chose it because I'm constantly thinking WTF when people misunderstand what I'm saying. I have no idea what the picture represents. Do you?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Now you are back to light photons being at two locations at the same time, which is not compatible with the principles of optics or the properties of light.

1. At the object being viewed
2. At the film/retina

I think I see the confusion. I hope I cleared it up in a recent post.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know that light has a wavelength/frequency. How else could we see objects? But the object seen has to be present for that wavelength to show up on a lens. If the object would suddenly disappear, the wavelength that is revealing the object would also disappear. That is why Lessans said the image does not get reflected which only means "does not travel through space/time".

Light that reaches Earth, from stars for example, is not necessarily full spectrum...contrary to your assertion.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I can't really see the avatar clearly. What exactly is emerging from the person's ass?

Is that what it is? I couldn't make heads or tails out of it. I just like the comment because that's what I'm thinking most of the time.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think I see the confusion. I hope I cleared it up in a recent post.

LOL, you are only now understanding the very simple objection we've been talking about for years?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Is that what it is? I couldn't make heads or tails out of it. I just like the comment because that's what I'm thinking most of the time.

It is very clearly a dark skinned man with his ass in the air, but something is sticking up out of his ass, and I can't see what it is.

[peacegirl]

[quote=LadyShea;1198504]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Come on LadyShea, you offered this sentence (and I thank you for that) because you felt it was clearer to the reader.

Originally Posted by LadyShea"It more clearly conveyed the meaning you wanted.[/quote]

You were helping me to clarify what was meant. I liked it. I used it. Thanks. This one sentence using the word "own" did not change the meaning in any significant way as David professes.

[quote="LadyShea

It changes the original meaning, sure. That's why I said the interpretation of the original is your responsibility.

At the time you didn't think so, or I don't believe you would have offered it. You were just trying to make the intended meaning more clear. And you did.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It can only be detected by a lens if it meets the requirements.

Exactly my point. Since the laser light is detected in actuality, then it must meet the requirements. Angukuk went over this exact point. What is confusing you?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well I may not stick around for long then.

When did you first say this? Back in early 2011?

It amazes me that there is no interest in determinism. On every other forum I've been to, this is discussed quite often.

Desperately trying to change the subject from light and sight again, are we?

We've been over your "two-sided equation." It's not an equation, and it's rubbish.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

BTW, where did your avatar come from? Did you choose it yourself?

It came from the list of avatars that was offered. I chose it myself but I only chose it because I'm constantly thinking WTF when people misunderstand what I'm saying. I have no idea what the picture represents. Do you?

You are priceless. You are the greatest generator of WTF in the history of the Internet.

I think that's a horse's tail coming out of the rear end. It is suggesting that you are a horse's ass.

[LadyShea]

[quote=peacegirl;1198552]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

At the time you didn't think so, or I don't believe you would have offered it. You were just trying to make the intended meaning more clear. And you did.

I offered you language to help you clarify the meaning you told me you were trying to get across, as per your interpretation of Lessans intended meaning. Whether that meaning was actually in accordance with Lessans original meaning doesn't matter to me....never has. I don't have to agree with a piece of text to help edit it for clarity.

[peacegirl]

[quote=LadyShea;1198550]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LOL, you are only now understanding the very simple objection we've been talking about for years?

You have to remember that my father came to this finding indirectly. From this observation he realized that two things are necessary for sight (which I've been repeating for years); that the object has to be bright enough and large enough to be seen. In other words, the photon that is traveling may be there at that exact moment when I'm looking at the Sun. It will not be there an instant later, for photons are constantly being replaced, so what photon happens to be revealing the object (the Sun) is immaterial since photons do not, in and of themselves, bring any information to the eye through space/time. That's why this account is not contradictory if it's understood.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

God, make it stop!

Really? You're going to go over this with her again? Obviously she has already forgotten what she accepted some pages back -- the proof that full-spectrum light does not have a wavelength! Once again, her little brain has hit the Reset button! She has completely forgotten what she herself Googled up.

I am sure she still does not grasp the elementary fact that wavelengths are associated with individual colors, whereas white light (full spectrum) is a mix of all the wavelengths and thus cannot itself have a wavelength. But go ahead and explain that to her again -- and then flash forward five years from now and you'll be explaining to her exactly the same thing!

All one has to do is go to practically any page at random and you'll find, if the discussion isn't about her idiotic "two-sided equation," then it's about light and sight, and the questions and answers will be virtually identical!

Why is it almost identical? Because that's what this thread is about and it has been for 3 years. Spacemonkey and a few others want to understand. I can't say the same for you. You've already made up your mind that Lessans was wrong so you have decided to turn this thread into a joke. By the way, you have no understanding as to the significance of the two-sided equation. You can't even understand why determinism (Lessans' proposal which has nothing to do with predicting what a person will choose) is not a modal fallacy. That means Scwartz was wrong, Spinoza was right.

Originally Posted by davidm

Why go through the trouble of re-creating reruns? Just read the reruns and save yourself the wear and tear on the keyboard!

I know what full spectrum light is. It is light that comprises all the colors or wavelengths in the visible spectrum. So stop using this thread as your personal lulz train and get off at the next stop.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have to remember that my father came to this finding indirectly. From this observation he realized that two things are necessary for sight (which I've been repeating for years); that the object has to be bright enough and large enough to be seen. In other words, the photon that is traveling may be there at that exact moment when I'm looking at the Sun.

You are just weaseling again because you can't come up with a model that doesn't contradict observed reality and known principles of physics.

If a light photon is somewhere, it had to either be emitted there, or traveled there at the speed of light. Make that work with light photons being instantly on camera film on Earth or admit that your model is nonsense.

It will not be there an instant later, for photons are constantly being replaced

Weasel

You need to tell us where those specific photons, the ones that are being absorbed by camera film on Earth at exactly 12:00 noon at the exact moment the Sun was turned on, came from and how they got to the camera film on Earth without a travel time delay.

Everything else you are rambling about it just red herrings. Answer the questions or shut the fuck up already.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just explained that this one photon can be used to see the Sun as I look at it in real time, but this lasts only an instant. This same photon continues traveling to Earth

Are you fucking insane? Is this what you've been thinking all this time when you've argued against what seemed to all of us to be a very simple point regarding location?

A photon is "used" by camera film or the retina by being absorbed and ceasing to exist as a light photon. Light that is "used" is no longer light at all, let alone traveling light! It can't be both "used" by the camera film or retina and continue traveling at the same time.

That is physically impossible, logically impossible, and even the most basic common sense reveals this is a total contradiction.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not all light is full spectrum light, that is demonstrably false. We can analyze light, remember?

Yes, but it cannot be proven that light bounces off an object with that wavelength/frequency and travels through space/time until it strikes another object. All scientists are able to do is show that objects absorb and reflect light, but, once again, they don't know whether that light reveals the object or travels with the wavelength/frequency bringing the information to the eye or film through space/time.

You aren't saying anything new, and therefore you are not proving your case.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are asserting things that are provably incorrect, as well as silly, so you are not proving your case.

What is provably correct is not even being disputed.

LadyShea, you have completely ignored this model of sight. I never said that we don't need nonabsorbed light to get the information needed to see anything, but unbeknownst to you, this does not prove him wrong at all.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, none of that has anything to do with what I was saying.

You believe it has been proven conclusively that nonabsorbed photons (or the partial spectrum) travel through space/time until they strike another object. So it does have something to do with what you are saying.

It just shows that the photons that allow us to see in real time are instantly at the eye

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then you need to explain where they come from and how they get to the eye, or your model is incompatible with reality. The laws of physics are God's laws, right? If you don't like them, take it up with God.

But it doesn't violate physics if it's understood. I admit that I may not be explaining it in the best way, but it is not incompatible with reality. Ironically, this account is much more consistent with reality than the present model.

whereas the photons that travel to Earth encompass full spectrum light

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Not true. If it were true, all light would be the same (full spectrum), and we couldn't analyze anything with spectroscopy

Who in the world ever said that all we ever get is full spectrum light when that light strikes an object?

Spectroscopy is the analysis of light we observe from an object. It is a measure of the amount of light received at each wavelength. It is a powerful tool in astronomy. In fact, most of what we know in astronomy is a result of spectroscopy: it can reveal the temperature, velocity and composition of an object as well as be used to infer mass, distance and many other pieces of information. Spectroscopy is done at all wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum, from radio waves to gamma rays; here we will focus on optical or visible light having wavelengths between 360 and 760 nanometers (nm) - from the deep blue to the far red. Stellar Spectroscopy The Message of Starlight

Thanks for the definition, but this account is not inconsistent with this. Obviously, light has measurable properties. No one is denying this.

until they strike an object ON EARTH. Do not tell me you know what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I know what you are talking about, but you are wrong.

The verdict is still out so it's premature of you to make such a bold claim.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Are you fucking insane?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Are you fucking insane? Is this what you've been thinking all this time when you've argued against what seemed to all of us to be a very simple point regarding location?

A photon is "used" by camera film or the retina by being absorbed and ceasing to exist as a light photon. Light that us "used" is no longer light at all, let alone traveling light! It can't be both "used" by the camera film or retina and continue traveling at the same time.

That is physically impossible, logically impossible, and even the most basic common sense reveals this is a total contradiction.

You're right. If that particular photon is no longer traveling because it strikes the film or retina, then that particular photon will not arrive on Earth 81/2 minutes later. So what? Where does this observation negate this model of sight?

[Artemis Entreri]

Wow, I was wondering if someone had hacked her account and added that avatar as a prank. I can't believe that's actually something she chose. Ha!
And I believe it is a vase of roses.
Never ever change it PG.
I think it's has perfect symbolism; Lessans pulled all these ideas out of his ass and you think they're perfect, like roses.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It rather does change what you were trying to get across which was "the information (the wavelength/frequency) does not exist without the object."

Wavelength absolutely does exist without objects, because it is a property of light to have a wavelength, and light exists independent of its source.

I'm only talking about the partial spectrum that is the mirror image of the object when we are looking at it. I did not say light doesn't travel independently but this light is full spectrum light. You are trying to make it seem that light is light, but light has properties LadyShea and whether it is partial or full spectrum light is central to this discussion.