A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Unfortunately, most modern experiments doing this use extremely complicated technology. I don't want to get into a discussion about this technology. Instead, let's use the example of seeing the moon Io appear from behind Jupiter. This was done such a long time ago that the basic principles (even the technology) is readily instead, and we don't need to get embroiled in the details of what is going on. Instead we can focus on what we see.

You can read about it here. The only difference is that instead of turning on a torch, the moon Io comes back into view from behind Jupiter. We see it after the fact. If we didn't, our calculations should not need to include a 'travel time' for the light.

Could you explain why this appears to completely contradict what Lessans says? It seems from carefully examining the world, that we don't see in 'real time' at all.

I understand that it seems contradictory, and it's also gotten a lot of people peeved. That's why I want to do an experiment that is less costly and will either confirm that we see objects due to the finite speed of light, or that we see objects in real time.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand that it seems contradictory, and it's also gotten a lot of people peeved. That's why I want to do an experiment that is less costly and will either confirm that we see objects due to the finite speed of light, or that we see objects in real time.

I think that if you took some time to read into the history of optics (particularly measurements of the speed of light) you'd see we have done hundreds of thousands of such experiments. There are a dozen or so famous ones that make quite good stories.

If you want to try to do an experiment yourself, I encourage you to try. But you will need to learn a great deal about optics, science and mathematics before you begin, and depending on how you want to do the experiment, spend some money. (The cheapest method is probably to repeat the earliest and look at the moons of Jupiter! It's probably the most fun, too.)

I should add I think it's very strange you'd want to test this yourself. Why don't you just read a lot of books about it? Unless you think there is some strange conspiracy, or that all these scientists are making a mistake that you alone can spot, what do you really think will happen when you do this experiment?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Is it light which interacts with the film to produce the image? If so, WHERE is the light whose properties intereact with the film to produce that image? Does the film interact with light at the object? Light in transit between the object and the camera? Or can the film only interact with the light actually present at the camera striking the film?

And what ARE those properties? In the world the rest of us live in, those properties are the wavelength, intensity, and distribution of the light present at the retina/film of the eye/camera. For us, a BLUE image requires BLUE light to be present and striking the film in order to interact with it and produce a BLUE photographic image. How do things work in the magical world of efferent vision and instantaneous photography? What properties of what determine the nature of the resulting image?

I know you'd love to drop this and change the subject. You try to do this whenever the cognitive dissonance gets too strong for you. But I want to know how a real-time BLUE image can be produced instantaneously, i.e. before any BLUE light has had time to travel from the newly-BLUE object to the distant camera. Does the light already reaching the camera magically change its wavelength to match the color of the distant changing object? Or does the BLUE light only just beginning to be emitted/reflected from the object's surface act at a distance to affect the film which it has not yet had time to reach?

Do you have any idea how much of the established physics of light are you actually going to have to reject to maintain real-time photography and vision?

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are again dishonestly evading the issue. If it is to be the BLUE light which determines the color of the photograph, then a real-time image requires either for that BLUE light to reach the camera instantaneously by travelling faster than light, or for it to act at a distance by interacting with the film BEFORE it has arrived at the camera. It doesn't help you to point out that light is already present when that light is a different color than the present color of the ball.

The RED ball reflects RED light towards the camera. At the moment in time when the ball changes from RED to BLUE, the light which is already at the camera is RED. So if the film is to interact with BLUE light to form a real-time image of the now BLUE ball, it cannot do so on the basis of the present RED light at the camera. You have only three options:

(i) The RED light presently at the camera (which was previously reflected from the surface of the ball wen it was still red) magically changes while in transit between the ball and the camera to match the changing color of the ball.

(ii) The film does not interact with the RED light present at the camera, but instead the BLUE light only just beginning to be emitted interacts with the film, somehow travelling faster than the speed of light to reach the film as soon as the ball changes color.

(iii) The film does not interact with the RED light present at the camera, but rather with the BLUE light only just beginning to be emitted. None of the light actually striking the film has any effect upon it, and the film instead chemically reacts to the distant BLUE light via magical action at a distance.

If you think you can provide any other option, please explain exactly what it is that interacts with the film in the camera, and which properties of that interacting thing will determine the color of the resulting image.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light, which is emitted and absorbed in tiny "packets" called photons...

Light - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The article is correct. Your quoted comments were not. The article does not support what you said.

[thedoc]

If I might interject something here, in the example of God turning on the sun, Lessans has contradicted himself. In other passages he clearly states that light is a condition of sight, light must be present at the observer in order for that observer to see anything. However if God suddenly turns on the sun Lessans just as clearly indicates that it takes 8 1/2 min. for the light from the sun to arrive. Even if efferent vision is correct and we see things instantly, (provided light is present), the light from the sun has not yet arrived and the eye will not have the light necessary as a condition of sight. We would not see the sun because the light has not yet arrived, and we would not be able to see the sun for 8 1/2 min. because the light has not arrived and light is a necessary condition of sight.

[Vivisectus]

No, this proves that for sight to occur, light only needs to be present at the object, not at the eye.

Making a difference between cameras and eyes even more obvious. A difference we do not observe in reality.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by thedoc

If I might interject something here, in the example of God turning on the sun, Lessans has contradicted himself. In other passages he clearly states that light is a condition of sight, light must be present at the observer in order for that observer to see anything. However if God suddenly turns on the sun Lessans just as clearly indicates that it takes 8 1/2 min. for the light from the sun to arrive. Even if efferent vision is correct and we see things instantly, (provided light is present), the light from the sun has not yet arrived and the eye will not have the light necessary as a condition of sight. We would not see the sun because the light has not yet arrived, and we would not be able to see the sun for 8 1/2 min. because the light has not arrived and light is a necessary condition of sight.

I don't believe Lessans says anything about light at the eye or camera (as opposed to just light at the object) being a condition of sight. That was rather Peacegirls' interpretation made in an attempt to reconcile his claims with the obvious evidence refuting them.

[ceptimus]

The moons of Jupiter experiment ISN'T costly. All you need is a cheap pair of binoculars, and a quartz watch.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

I think that if you took some time to read into the history of optics (particularly measurements of the speed of light) you'd see we have done hundreds of thousands of such experiments. There are a dozen or so famous ones that make quite good stories.

If you want to try to do an experiment yourself, I encourage you to try. But you will need to learn a great deal about optics, science and mathematics before you begin, and depending on how you want to do the experiment, spend some money. (The cheapest method is probably to repeat the earliest and look at the moons of Jupiter! It's probably the most fun, too.)

I should add I think it's very strange you'd want to test this yourself. Why don't you just read a lot of books about it? Unless you think there is some strange conspiracy, or that all these scientists are making a mistake that you alone can spot, what do you really think will happen when you do this experiment?

It does seem silly that I would want to repeat an experiment that's been done hundreds of thousands of times, but not when I'm coming from a completely different perspective. I don't think there's some kind of strange conspiracy, just a different take of what's going on.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can you say photons are not their own light source? They are producing light. It's like a battery pack. Yes, it got its energy from another source, but the battery now contains it's own energy which can be used to turn things on.

Photons are not a 'light source' they do not emmit light, 'Photons are light'. They contain a finite amount of energy that they received when they were emitted and can only transmit that energy to whatever object it finally encounters. Their speed and direction are fixed and can only be altered by outside influences, they are not like tiny spaceships that can fly arround wherever they want.

Oh, it seems like I'm on ignore, but I don't know why, so could someone quote this so Peacegirl see's it?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It does seem silly that I would want to repeat an experiment that's been done hundreds of thousands of times, but not when I'm coming from a completely different perspective. I don't think there's some kind of strange conspiracy, just a different take of what's going on.

A different 'take' won't change what actually is seen though. So why does it matter if you do the experiment? Do you think you will see something different?

For example, what's your explanation for the delay with the moon coming out of eclipse? We see it takes longer for the moon to come out from behind Jupiter it it moves ten light minutes further away in the intervening time. Ten minutes longer in fact. Why does that happen, if we are not seeing things only when the light reaches us?

I'm sorry, but the only conclusion is that your book is simply wrong on how we see. If you don't believe that, okay - but nobody will (or should) ever believe your book. It flat out contradicts very basic experiments. As ceptimus says, one of which you can do with a pair of good binoculars and a watch (and an astronomical almanac or an internet connection).

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I don't believe Lessans says anything about light at the eye or camera (as opposed to just light at the object) being a condition of sight. That was rather Peacegirls' interpretation made in an attempt to reconcile his claims with the obvious evidence refuting them.

Well I'm not going to wade thru 500 pages of drivel to find it, but I seem to remember reading somewhere that light, as a condition of sight, needed to impinge on the optic nerve (peacegirl clarified that as meaning the retnia) so that the brain would know to look out thru the eye to see the object. This would clearly indicate that light must be present at the observer as well as the object.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I don't believe Lessans says anything about light at the eye or camera (as opposed to just light at the object) being a condition of sight. That was rather Peacegirls' interpretation made in an attempt to reconcile his claims with the obvious evidence refuting them.

This reference clearly indicates he knew that light strikes the retina.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality p. 116

The dictionary states that the word ‘sense’ is
defined as any of certain agencies by or through which an individual
receives impressions of the external world; popularly, one of the five
senses. Any receptor, or group of receptors, specialized to receive and
transmit external stimuli as of sight, taste, hearing, etc. But this is
a wholly fallacious observation where the eyes are concerned because
nothing from the external world, other than light, strikes the optic
nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch and smell.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This reference clearly indicates he knew that light strikes the retina.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality p. 116

The dictionary states that the word ‘sense’ is
defined as any of certain agencies by or through which an individual
receives impressions of the external world; popularly, one of the five
senses. Any receptor, or group of receptors, specialized to receive and
transmit external stimuli as of sight, taste, hearing, etc. But this is
a wholly fallacious observation where the eyes are concerned because
nothing from the external world, other than light, strikes the optic
nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch and smell.

Yes, he wrongly states that light strikes the optic nerve. But even if we make the appropriate correction, he nowhere states that light at the eye is necessary for vision to be possible. That is only YOUR additional claim.

(It is also a strawman argument, as the eyes being sense organs doesn't require anything other than light to be striking the retina. Light is what our eyes detect, just as our ears detect sound waves.)

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

A different 'take' won't change what actually is seen though. So why does it matter if you do the experiment? Do you think you will see something different?

I'm trying to establish whether there is an alternate explanation as to what we're seeing.

Originally Posted by Dragar

For example, what's your explanation for the delay with the moon coming out of eclipse? We see it takes longer for the moon to come out from behind Jupiter it it moves ten light minutes further away in the intervening time. Ten minutes longer in fact. Why does that happen, if we are not seeing things only when the light reaches us?

I'm sorry, but the only conclusion is that your book is simply wrong on how we see. If you don't believe that, okay - but nobody will (or should) ever believe your book. It flat out contradicts very basic experiments. As ceptimus says, one of which you can do with a pair of good binoculars and a watch (and an astronomical almanac or an internet connection).

It would be interesting to observe. I understand that there seems to be no other explanation for the difference in the time it takes for the moon to come out from behind Jupiter, but please explain why my experiment could not be performed accurately? Why would the speed of light cause the experiment to fail? You said I would need to know a lot about optics, science and mathematics before I begin. Why is that? And what kind of money are you talking about? All I would need is a professional photographer to help me set it up. I feel more secure doing an experiment close to home where I could control the variables.

[Spacemonkey]

I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions concerning cameras. I want to know exactly what it is you think interacts with the film to determine the color of the resulting image. For me it is the wavelengths of the light present at the camera which interacts with the film to determine the resulting color. My answers:

What properties? Wavelength.

Properties of what? Light.

Where is the relevant light? At the camera.

Your answers...?

What properties? ...

Properties of what? ...

Where is the 'what' with these properties? ...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, he wrongly states that light strikes the optic nerve. But even if we make the appropriate correction, he nowhere states that light at the eye is necessary for vision to be possible. That is only YOUR additional claim.

As I said, this hypothetical example was misunderstood and doesn't negate his claim of efferent vision. That's why I'm taking it out.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It is also a strawman argument, as the eyes being sense organs doesn't require anything other than light to be striking the retina. Light is what our eyes detect, just as our ears detect sound waves.

It all boils down to whether light is a condition of sight, as Lessans claims, or whether it is a cause of sight by how the brain functions.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This reference clearly indicates he knew that light strikes the retina.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality p. 116
But this is a wholly fallacious observation where the eyes are concerned because
nothing from the external world, other than light, strikes the optic nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch and smell.

Lessans said that did he? So when exactly did he add "other than light", peacegirl?

That was not present in the sentence back in 2006

But this is a wholly fallacious observation where the eyes are concerned because nothing from the external world impinges on the optic nerve as stimuli do upon the organs of hearing, taste, touch and smell.

Sure looks like you did more editing to correct what Lessans very clearly was wrong about (like with molecules).

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As I said, this hypothetical example was misunderstood and doesn't negate his claim of efferent vision. That's why I'm taking it out.

It all boils down to whether light is a condition of sight, as Lessans claims, or whether it is a cause of sight by how the brain functions.

You are still missing (or deliberately avoiding?) the point that Lessans nowhere claims light AT THE EYE to be a necessary condition of sight.

That is a separate claim that YOU have made up in your attempts to defend him.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm still waiting for you to answer my questions concerning cameras. I want to know exactly what it is you think interacts with the film to determine the color of the resulting image. For me it is the wavelengths of the light present at the camera which interacts with the film to determine the resulting color. My answers:

What properties? Wavelength.

Properties of what? Light.

Where is the relevant light? At the camera.

Your answers...?

What properties? ... Wavelength

Properties of what? ... Light

Where is the 'what' with these properties? ... At the camera

I don't disagree with you. But those questions don't change the fact that the properties of light may still support efferent vision. In other words, if it turns out that light is a condition of sight (which has to do with the brain, not light) then those properties don't automatically negate efferent vision? And if efferent vision turns out to be true, then it would seem to me that a camera, being similar to the eye, would work the same way.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are still missing (or deliberately avoiding?) the point that Lessans nowhere claims light AT THE EYE to be a necessary condition of sight.

That is a separate claim that YOU have made up in your attempts to defend him.

What is most important is finding out how the brain works. If it turns out that we see the world in real time, a camera would take a photograph of the world in real time. I want to leave it at that because this discussion is getting all convoluted.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, he wrongly states that light strikes the optic nerve. But even if we make the appropriate correction, he nowhere states that light at the eye is necessary for vision to be possible. That is only YOUR additional claim.

(It is also a strawman argument, as the eyes being sense organs doesn't require anything other than light to be striking the retina. Light is what our eyes detect, just as our ears detect sound waves.)

The point I was trying to make was that Lessans disputes that the eyes are sense organs.

On the bottom of page 120 of the book one of his imaginary friends asks "If we don't need light around us to see the stars, would we need light around us to see the sun turned on at 12 noon?", Lessans avoids answering the question by stating that the light from the sun is already here. How ever this does contradict other parts of the book. That was not my additional claim, Lessans has made so many contradictory claims, it's easy to find almost anything you want if you look and intrepret to suit.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans said that did he? So when exactly did he add "other than light", peacegirl?

That was not present in the sentence back in 2006

Sure looks like you did more editing to correct what Lessans very clearly was wrong about (like with molecules).

I did not edit that. I might have found "other than light" in another one of his books. I have gone through 7 books and he changed the sentences to clarify them, not me. I improved on the sentence structure, or changed a few words. I also added some examples. But I swear I did not add "other than light."

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What properties? ... Wavelength

Properties of what? ... Light

Where is the 'what' with these properties? ... At the camera

I don't disagree with you. But those questions don't change the fact that the properties of light may still support efferent vision. In other words, if it turns out that light is a condition of sight (which has to do with the brain, not light) then those properties don't automatically negate efferent vision? And if efferent vision turns out to be true, then it would seem to me that a camera, being similar to the eye, would work the same way.

Your answers are inconsistent with your claims that cameras can form real-time images of photographed objects.

When the object is RED, RED light is arriving at the camera. When the object first changes from RED to BLUE, the BLUE light is only just beginning to leave the object to travel towards the camera. And the light presently AT the camera is still RED, having left the object when it was still a RED object. So your answers entail that the formed image will be RED when the real-time object is BLUE.

Hence by your own answers, real-time photography is impossible.

How can blue light from an object only just now turned blue be instantaneously present at the camera to form a real-time blue image? What color was that already present light just before it arrived at the camera?