A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Apart from this I feel you should answer Freemonkeys questions. You say that you are interested in the truth - here is a chance to find out. Are you really, or are you lying and unwilling to accept truth if you do not like it?

First of all, his name is Spacemonkey. Second of all, I could say the same thing to you. Are you really interested in the truth or are you just willing to accept, at face value, what you've been taught is true?

[peacegirl]

[quote=Vivisectus;993378]

This makes so little sense I am sure even you would realize this when you read it back. Light does not travel when looked at through a lens, but does arrive at that lens instantly somehow to turn into a mirror image? And this seems a reasonable response to you?

Are you on drugs or something?

I read this back and it makes perfect sense. Where did I say "light does not travel when looked at through a lens, but does arrive arrive at that lens instantly and turns into a mirror image?" I can tell by your response that you are having trouble grasping this concept, so please don't put the blame on me for your lack of understanding.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, your responses are contradictory and completely inconsistent:

Read through the above carefully, and try to identify your error.

Wavelength is not some separate thing that might or might not be carried along in addition to the light. Wavelength is a property of the light itself. Light travelling without its wavelength is as nonsensical as a triangle travelling along without its shape.

You clearly do not understand what you are claiming to agree with.

I understand that a wavelength is a property of light. That's why I clarified that I was not creating a strawman when I used the phrase "light carrying the image." There was no other way to express what I was trying to say, and I might still use that phrase at certain times. Even if the frequency and wavelength change as the light interacts with the material world doesn't mean we can see that image due to light itself. I have said this all along. The lens is not a bucket collecting photons. The lens must be focused on the object for the light to be the vehicle that allows us to see. This is an interesting link. I really don't see a problem with the make up of light and efferent vision.

http://www.antonine-education.co.uk/...ses_and_ha.htm

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

...but you do not explain it at all. You just turn a lens into a magical object, that through the mysterious action of "focusing" somehow communicates directly with the object, not with the incoming light.

How this happens we still do not know.

Where is focusing a lens on an object magical Vivisectus? There is nothing magical here at all. You're just trying to bring anything you can into the discussion to make it look as if there is no scientific basis to this observation.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand that, and I also understand that white light can be broken into a spectrum of colors. Depending on atmospheric conditions we are able to see all kinds of colorful phenomena such as rainbows, sunsets, blue skies, clouds, etc.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So if you agree that the light at the camera at T1 has a color/wavelength (blue), that it is this blue light interacting with the film, that the blue light had to travel to get to the camera, and that the blueness is not something which can travel separately from the light itself..

It is blue light interacting with the film, but the blue light is not traveling. You can't seem to grasp this concept as to why, if efferent vision is true, light becomes a condition of sight, not a cause. The blueness was there instantaneously when the snapshot was taken by the lens. I never said anything about blueness traveling separately from the light itself.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

...then what color was that light at T-1, just before it arrived at the camera?

There was no arrival. If there was, it would have been red.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

peacegirl, this has nothing to do with vision. This is just about light. Since you claim not to reject any of the rules of how light behaves, why should any of our understanding different from yours on the rules of light?

This is not as much about the rules of light as it is about the rules of sight.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

According to Peacegirl and Lessans, I think the mechanism works like this:

1. Any object that is currently lit can be seen, or photographed instantly. The eye, or camera, looks out and can instantly perceive objects that are not dark.

2. Some 'active' objects, such as the sun, or a light bulb, emit their own light. The instant they are turned on, they are lit and we can therefore see them immediately. A camera can also photograph these objects immediately.

3. A second class of 'passive' objects - which includes the vast majority of objects - do not provide their own light and must be lit with light from an active source before they can be seen. The light can travel directly from the source to the object, or it can be reflected (ambient) light that will also ultimately have come from some active source.

4. Passively lit objects, described in (3) above, providing they are lit, can also be seen immediately and without delay. They can also be photographed in real time.

This requires that the efferent action of the eye works at infinite speed. Cameras also possess this same infinite speed efferent action - presumably we must have designed this feature into them by accident even though we misguidedly thought we were building passive light detectors.

The apparent changing times for the eclipses of the moons of Jupiter are due to some as-yet-unexplained interaction between the earth's position and the orbits of the moons.

The fact that we sometimes manage to send space probes to their destinations, despite misguidedly aiming them in the wrong direction is down to luck.

Radar works because although the reflections can be 'seen' immediately once the radar beam illuminates the target, the radar waves still have to travel out to the object before it becomes 'visible'. Radar waves must actually travel at half the speed we assume they do - we think they have to travel to the target and back, but really they only have to travel out to the target.

I'm sure all the other technologies that work, such as GPS, that we thought depended on afferent theory can also be explained using efferent theory, if we only try hard enough.

Halfway through your explanation was correct, but suddenly your explanation morphed into something else altogether.

[peacegirl]

I want to add to the conversation that if the frequencies and wavelengths of light, without the object in view, give us a picture of that object, then Lessans was wrong. But this has not shown up anywhere. We cannot take a picture of light alone. If anyone can show me that this is possible, I will admit that Lessans' observations were off. Doesn't everyone want to prove him wrong? So show me the proof that he is wrong.

I also want to say that I was the one that asked for a party because I needed it. I wanted to have some fun. LadyShea, I think everyone who was thinking of themselves was selfish because they only cared about their discomfort, not anyone else's. I've said my piece, and now I feel better.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, do you agree that light can be of different colors, that the color of light is constituted by its wavelength, and that neither light nor its wavelength can exist one without the other?

What I need to know is if the wavelengths that you are speaking of can be detected, or is there a possibility that there are wavelengths coming from the Sun. I'm curious about this.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Doesn't everyone want to prove him wrong? So show me the proof that he is wrong.

We've shown you so many proofs, ass hat, that it boggles the mind. There are more than 500 pages in this thread, and there are at least that many proofs shown to you.

Get lost.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What I need to know is if the wavelengths that you are speaking of can be detected, or is there a possibility that there are wavelengths coming from the Sun. I'm curious about this.

Oh, look, the derper claims to be "curious" about something.

Why don't you read The Lone Ranger's essay? What a plan!

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Halfway through your explanation was correct, but suddenly your explanation morphed into something else altogether.

Okay, I've removed the last half, so that we have a 'correct' explanation to work from:

Originally Posted by ceptimus

According to Peacegirl and Lessans, I think the mechanism works like this:

1. Any object that is currently lit can be seen, or photographed instantly. The eye, or camera, looks out and can instantly perceive objects that are not dark.

2. Some 'active' objects, such as the sun, or a light bulb, emit their own light. The instant they are turned on, they are lit and we can therefore see them immediately. A camera can also photograph these objects immediately.

3. A second class of 'passive' objects - which includes the vast majority of objects - do not provide their own light and must be lit with light from an active source before they can be seen. The light can travel directly from the source to the object, or it can be reflected (ambient) light that will also ultimately have come from some active source.

4. Passively lit objects, described in (3) above, providing they are lit, can also be seen immediately and without delay. They can also be photographed in real time.

Let us know if there is anything in that summary you don't agree with. If it correctly summarizes your thoughts, this could be a useful reference.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Okay, I've removed the last half, so that we have a 'correct' explanation to work from:

Let us know if there is anything in that summary you don't agree with. If it correctly summarizes your thoughts, this could be a useful reference.

That's perfectly fine.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

There's another effect that can be used to determine whether Lessans' model is correct. This effect is known as Stellar Abberation and was first successfully measured by James Bradley in 1725.

The effect produces an apparent displacement of all stars, galaxies and other astronomical objects, regardless of their distance, and is due to the Earth's motion around the Sun.

Note that this is NOT a parallax effect due to the Earth's changing position. The parallax effect can be used to measure the distance of some nearby stars, but Stellar Aberration affects all the stars in the same part of the sky equally, regardless of their distance.

Stellar Aberration is not due to the Earth's changing position, rather it is due to the Earth's changing velocity. Velocity is not the same thing as speed - velocity also includes direction. Although the Earth is always orbiting the Sun at a roughly constant speed of 66,600 miles per hour, it is moving in a circle.

The usual analogy to explain Stellar Aberration is that of walking in the rain.

Imagine you are outside on a calm day when rain is falling. When you stand still the rain comes from directly overhead and falls straight down. If you have an umbrella, you will hold it directly above your head to keep yourself dry.

Now when you begin to walk, the rain appears to slant towards you from the direction you are walking towards. You will hold your umbrella tilted forward to keep yourself dry. If you run, you will have to tilt the umbrella more.

Imagine you are running around a large circle. You will sometimes be tilting the umbrella North, later East, later still South and West and eventually North again. From your (moving) point of view, you would say that the rain is coming from these different directions as you traverse the circle.

Exactly the same thing happens with light from the stars as it reaches the moving Earth. When we look up at the sky at right angles to the plane of the Earth's orbit, we see all the stars slightly deflected towards the current direction of the Earth's travel.

Six months later, when the Earth is travelling in the opposite direction, the stars appear to be slightly deflected the opposite way.

Now you can see, from the rain analogy, that the apparent deflection angle is down to the ratio of the speed of fall of the raindrops, compared to your speed of movement. If you could run (or more likely drive) forwards at the same speed the raindrops fall, then your would see the raindrops approach you at an angle of 45.

Because the speed of the Earth is so low compared to the speed of light, the actual angles of Stellar Aberration are tiny, so observers have to carefully allow for other effects, such as the diffraction caused by the Earth's atmosphere in order to measure them. Nevertheless, Bradley and others were able to make these measurements, and surprise surprise they agree exactly with predictions based on the known speed of light and the speed of the Earth on its orbit.

Infinite speed seeing would not be affected by Stellar Aberration, so we have yet another strand of conclusive evidence that proves we do not see distant objects instantly.

The speed of light is still an important factor when making measurements that help us to understand how our universe works. Where did you get the idea that efferent vision is infinite speed seeing? This implies we are seeing faster than the speed of light, which doesn't relate.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I get it. Light only travels when we aren't looking at anything. As soon as we look at an object the light stops traveling. This is very helpful.

That's not it at all. I already told everyone I am not refuting that light travels at a constant speed, but what it reflects is seen instantly due to how the lens of the eye works.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[I]Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality pp. 119-121

Again my reply was, “Are you positive because you were told this,
or positive because you, yourself, saw the relations revealing this
truth? And if you are still positive, will you put your right hand on
the chopping block to show me how positive you really are?”

“I am not that positive...”

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I am with the teacher here. No matter how positive I was about my facts I would not put my hand on a chopping block in Lessans presence if he was armed with a cleaver of some sort. Not because I was not sure of my facts, but because I was not sure of Lessans.

Don't worry, he wouldn't chop your hand off. He was a nice guy.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality pp. 119-121

Scientists made the assumption that since the eyes are a
sense organ it followed that light must reflect an electric image of
everything it touches which then travels through space and is received
by the brain through the eyes.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

What in the hell is an "electric image"? Lessans appears to think that light is like a man in black suit walking through a room full of cats. With each cat that he comes into contact with during his passage he picks up some new samples of cat hair. When he arrives at his destination he takes his suit to the drycleaners and the drycleaner is able to describe back to him the appearance and characteristics of each cat that he came into contact with.

This thread is so educational. I learn something new with nearly every one of peacegirl's posts.

An electric image means that light carries electrical energy that is sent to the brain for processing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why you are accusing me of being wrong, when it is your lack of understanding of efferent vision that's the problem.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Not to speak for any of the other posters here, but I have to agree that I do not understand efferent vision. However, I believe that the reason that I do not understand efferent vision is because it is entirely incoherent. In any case, I am not accusing you and Lessans of being wrong because I don't understand efferent vision. I am accusing you and Lessans of being wrong because you are wrong. It really is that simple.

Of course you think it's Lessans that is wrong, but it doesn't mean he is wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

To hell with that noise. I look forward to my daily dose of peacegirl with an ever growing sense of eager anticipation. I am like a junkie jonesing for my next fix. Withdrawal could be well be fatal.

David, what have I ever done to you that you want to cause me such pain? Do you hate me that much?

That even made me giggle.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

So peacegirl, are you willing to have your hand chopped off is Lessans is wrong?

I would be willing to have my hand on the chopping block, but not coming from your analysis. I'm afraid you'd be chopper hungry.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where did I say "light does not travel when looked at through a lens, but does arrive arrive at that lens instantly and turns into a mirror image?"

What does the word "unless" mean in this sentence?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light travels and light arrives unless we're looking at an object or image through a lens

Unless usually means that the the preceding statement does not apply under the circumstances following the word "unless"

Such as "We will be leaving at 6:00 unless Joe has to work late", meaning if Joe has to work late, we won't be leaving at 6:00

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The speed of light is still an important factor when making measurements that help us to understand how our universe works. Where did you get the idea that efferent vision is infinite speed seeing? This implies we are seeing faster than the speed of light, which doesn't relate.

Lessans' argument is that we are seeing things as they really are right now. According to you and your father, we ARE seeing them faster than the speed of light.

Assuming we are looking at a star that is at right angles to the line of the Earth's current motion, then the angle of Stellar Abberation is the arctangent of the Earth's orbital speed divided by the speed at which the object is seen.

Earth's orbital speed is 2.98 x 104 m/s. The speed of light is 3 x 108 m/s. This gives a Stellar Abberation angle of 20.5 arc seconds.

With an infinite speed of seeing we would be dividing the Earth's orbital speed by infinity, which results in zero. Arctangent of zero is zero, so there would be no Stellar Aberration.

Are you now claiming that we see stars as they really are right at this moment, but we still see them in a displaced position due to Stellar Aberration? It seems odd that we would see them AS they really are, but not WHERE they really are.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What does the word "unless" mean in this sentence?

Unless usually means that the the preceding statement does not apply under the circumstances following the word "unless"

Such as "We will be leaving at 6:00 unless Joe has to work late", meaning if Joe has to work late, we won't be leaving at 6:00

No, it just means that light continues to travel (the Sun never stops emitting photons), but when we're looking at something we're getting an instant snapshot of the material world due to how the lens, light, and our retina function as one entity.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I want to add to the conversation that if the frequencies and wavelengths of light, without the object in view, give us a picture of that object, then Lessans was wrong.

Detailed analyses of mankind's deepest optical view of the universe, the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF), by several expert teams have at last identified what may turn out to be some of the earliest star-forming galaxies. The sensitivity of Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS), combined with the penetrating power of the Near Infrared Camera and Multi-Object Spectrometer (NICMOS), finally revealed these long-sought faint galaxies. The HUDF shows that close to a billion years after the big bang the early universe was filled with dwarf galaxies, but no fully formed galaxies like our Milky Way.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

I think this is backwards, even for Lessans. Presumably this is a simple mistake and he meant to write 'less time' rather than 'longer'.

You're right. I just changed it to less time. See, Lessans was human. Thanks Ceptimus.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Detailed analyses of mankind's deepest optical view of the universe, the Hubble Ultra Deep Field (HUDF), by several expert teams have at last identified what may turn out to be some of the earliest star-forming galaxies. The sensitivity of Hubble's Advanced Camera for Surveys (ACS), combined with the penetrating power of the Near Infrared Camera and Multi-Object Spectrometer (NICMOS), finally revealed these long-sought faint galaxies. The HUDF shows that close to a billion years after the big bang the early universe was filled with dwarf galaxies, but no fully formed galaxies like our Milky Way.

Yes, we are seeing light. These photons have traveled from light years away and are now reaching the lens of our most powerful telescope. Therefore, this does not discount efferent vision. Thanks for that photograph. It's majestic.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

An electric image means that light carries electrical energy that is sent to the brain for processing.

Light is electromagnetic energy.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What I need to know is if the wavelengths that you are speaking of can be detected, or is there a possibility that there are wavelengths coming from the Sun.

All light, always has a wavelength. So of course there are wavelengths coming from the sun. Some wavelengths are visible to the human eye, others are not.

You said you understood that wavelengths are a property of light, not something separate....what happened?

Understanding how light works, and the different wavelengths, has allowed us to create technology like thermal imaging cameras

This image was taken at night in near total darkness.

Suspect at 2:49 AM in total darkness


As well as night vision devices

The technology usually called night vision is actually a form of image intensification. Very low levels of light are amplified, or intensified, to produce an image our eyes can view.

Light energy is composed of photons, elementary physical particles that are way too small to describe. The more light there is, the more photons are present. Night vision devices use the photoelectric effect to eject electrons from a metal plate when the plate is struck by photons, then shoot the electrons at a phosphor screen, converting the electrons back into photons and making portions of the screen glow. The glow pattern is the image seen by the user.

The technology has evolved through (so far) four generations. Generation Zero or "Gen 0" focused the electrons through a funnel-like anode, accelerating them toward the cathode phosphor screen. The resulting image was highly distorted, so that you knew something was there, but might not be able to tell what it was. The concentrated stream of electrons was also hard on the phosphor screen, so the image tubes didn't last long. http://www.policemag.com/Channel/Tec...l-Imaging.aspx

Objects in near total darkness are not "in view", nor are they "bright enough" to be seen, nor can they project a "mirror image" on the lens.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Which got there... how? Do you mean image as something you experience, or image as something you see on a screen or a photograph? Do you even know?

I mean an image of the object that you see on a screen.

It is strictly due to light that the lens is able to use the light that is there.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Lol?

That was a nonsensical sentence. I'm sure I was tired.

It's a snapshot of a moment in time that is seen instantly. If it is seen instantly by the lens of the eye; it is also an instantaneous mirror image on the lens of a camera because the lens of a camera and the lens of an eye work in the same way.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Gotcha. Lenses are magic! Problem solved.

Sorry, it's not magical at all if you understand why a mirror image shows up on the lens when the lens is focused on the object.

The only difference is that the image that we see with our eyes shows up on our retina, whereas that same image shows up on the lens of a camera.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And then you even get THAT wrong. Camera lenses don't record anything. You mean sensor.

I didn't say record; I said show up. If the image doesn't show up how can a sensor sense anything?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Magic efferent cameras that we accidentally created while designing something else entirely! Capturing images at infinite speed no matter what the distance is! Because of the magic of lenses and light that allows you to use light because of light!

Now you're making fun for no reason other than getting a cheap thrill. Capturing images has nothing to do with infinite speed. I don't know why you people can't get this. And there is no magic just because the lens focuses on the object while the light allows us to see that object.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Groundbreaking stuff. All we need now is a few sattelites around, say, Jupiter and we can start sending messages back in time because we will be able to communicate without having to wait for the boring old speed of light. We can receive answers to questions we have not asked yet, since Lessans is right and we have tested relativity, and it is right as well. Huzzah!

You're 300 pages back. I already explained that information transfer is unrelated to efferent sight, therefore we would not be able to see something before it happened, or get an answer before the question was asked.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

We will have to re-think all of science. Causality is now definitely out the door: that which causes something can now precede that something happening.

But wait a minute! Time being a one-way street is the exact thing that Lessans based his unfree will on, as well as his belief in reincarnation! Lessans is so revolutionary, he even overthrows his own ideas!

Truly this is a revolution in thought - it goes round and round, and everything is back to front.

Oh me oh my! Instead of these concepts becoming clearer, they are becoming harder to understand. Now who's being willfully ignorant. He never mentioned reincarnation except to say that his observations were unrelated to this concept.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Ten: Our Posterity: pp. 483-484

Although the basic principle has been an infallible guide
and miraculous catalyst through the labyrinths of human relations, it
cannot assist me here; but it did not help other scientists discover
atomic energy, nor was it used to reveal itself. However, that of which
it is composed, this perception of undeniable relations that escapes the
average eye will take us by the hand and demonstrate, in a manner no
one will be able to deny, that there is absolutely nothing to fear in
death because we will be born again and again and again. This does
not mean what you might think it means because the life you live and
are conscious of right now has no relation whatsoever to you and your
consciousness in another life.

Therefore, I am not speaking of
reincarnation or a spiritual world of souls or any other theory,
but of the flesh, of a mind and body alive and conscious of existence
as you are this moment. Are you smiling? Can’t you see, once again, Eric
Johnson refusing to listen because he was so certain man’s will is free,
or Nageli not investigating Mendel’s discovery because the very core
was regarded as impossible? Didn’t many of you smile when first
hearing that man does not have five senses? I expect you to be
skeptical, but please give me the benefit of the doubt and deny my
discovery after you have studied the relations, not before. I would like
to share with the reader a conversation I had with my friend regarding
my final discovery in the hope of making these difficult principles
easier to understand.

“Boy does that word ‘death’ give me the creeps! I can’t stand the
thought that one day I’ll be gone from this earth; I won’t see the sun,
the moon, and the stars; I won’t enjoy eating, sleeping, making love.
What a horrible thought! And above all, I might not even be here
when the Golden Age gets officially launched.”
“Your thinking is typical of the majority of mankind.”