A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey, peacegirl:

Now what?

I never said we couldn't pinpoint a target by using the speed of light as a measurement.

I did it again. I think that anytime a person corrects a mistake, it takes the thanks away. Don't worry about it Ceptimus. I'll know for next time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, you do not understand how a CCD works

Changing from film to digital changes the tool used to see reality, but does not change the reality.

The digital camera is one of *the most remarkable instances of this shift because it is so truly different from its predecessor. Conventional cameras depend entirely on chemical and mechanical processes -- you don't even need electricity to operate them. On the other h*and, all digital cameras have a built-in computer, and all of them record images electronically.

The new approach has been enormously successful. Since film still provides better picture quality, digital cameras have not completely replaced conventional cameras. But, as digital imaging technology has improved, digital cameras have rapidly become more popular.

HowStuffWorks "How Digital Cameras Work"

[ceptimus]

You need to make up your mind, Peacegirl. When we look at a distant moving object, do you believe we see it where it is NOW, or where it was WHEN the light that travels from it left it?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is also true that I am doing my best to see if what they are saying renders efferent vision impossible. So far I haven't seen that.

You haven't seen it because you aren't looking at any information.

Did you or did you not read TLR's essay completely? Did you or did you not look up the terms optics, angle of view, subtended angles and tried to understand how these would affect your experiment? Did you or did you not read about how CCD's and other digital light recording devices work?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The saying, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating" is absolutely true.

It's a vapid idiom and such folksy, horse sense, aw-shucks phrases have no place in serious discussions about scientific discoveries.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, this is not a projection. You never called me names before.

I haven't been this frustrated with you before. You seem to be regressing into complete fanatical contrariness rather than progressing into at least understanding the science, even if you disagree with it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What am I suppose to think other than you're beginning to imitate what everyone else is saying.

Maybe you can think "Gee, I seem to have really pissed LadyShea off" rather than assume I am hiveminding.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

No, peacegirl. Light cannot provide instantaneous information about the present state of its source, having taken a finite time to reach us. That is even worse than light moving instantly.

If that idea were correct, we could never take an image, using light, of the Sun at dawn, peeking over the horizon.

Why not?

Originally Posted by Dragar

Recall that when light first reaches the CCD (for example) from the Sun (having taken eight minutes, remember), then the Sun would no longer be peeking over the horizon - it would have risen eight minutes ago. Our first images constructed from light from the Sun should show it eight minutes over the horizon, never just peeking over. Pictures of the Sun when at dawn (i.e. when we first see it), using light (which arrives after we first see it - light takes time, seeing doesn't, remember?), would be impossible.

So, now what? Is it now the case we cannot use light to form any images at all?

No, it doesn't mean that as long as the object or light source is present in some form.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Or that we can make images of the sun using light, before its light has reached us? Or does light now travel instantaneously? Or something else?

We can make images of the sun (the light source), assuming that the photons of visible light being emitted from the sun are striking the CCD chip and the sun is above the horizon.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Changing from film to digital changes the tool used to see reality, but does not change the reality.

The digital camera is one of *the most remarkable instances of this shift because it is so truly different from its predecessor. Conventional cameras depend entirely on chemical and mechanical processes -- you don't even need electricity to operate them. On the other h*and, all digital cameras have a built-in computer, and all of them record images electronically.

The new approach has been enormously successful. Since film still provides better picture quality, digital cameras have not completely replaced conventional cameras. But, as digital imaging technology has improved, digital cameras have rapidly become more popular.

HowStuffWorks "How Digital Cameras Work"

Did you read the whole article? Do you understand that CCD's work by converting incoming light into electric impulses and then interpreting those impulses to create the image? Did you watch the animation illustrating photons hitting a photosite and releasing electrons?

The image sensor employed by most digital cameras is a charge coupled device (CCD). Some cameras use complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) technology instead. Both CCD and CMOS image sensors convert light into electrons. If you've read How Solar Cells Work, you already understand one of the pieces of technology used to perform the conversion. A simplified way to think about these sensors is to think of a 2-D array of thousands or millions of tiny solar cells.

Once the sensor converts the light into electrons, it reads the value (accumulated charge) of each cell in the image. This is where the differences between the two main sensor types kick in:

* A CCD transports the charge across the chip and reads it at one corner of the array. An analog-to-digital converter (ADC) then turns each pixel's value into a digital value by measuring the amount of charge at each photosite and converting that measurement to binary form.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Oh and the term is cognitive dissonance.

I knew it didn't sound right and I corrected it. But I do appreciate when you correct me, especially when those corrections are correct.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We can make images of the sun (the light source), assuming that the photons of visible light being emitted from the sun are striking the CCD chip and the sun is above the horizon.

If so, peacegirl, according to you, we see the Sun instantly, the moment it comes above the horizon. But the photons take eight minutes to reach our CCD chip after the sun has come above the horizon.

We see the sun a full eight minutes (according to you) before the photons have reached us. According to you, we see the Sun before the photons arrive. So why can we make images of the Sun using a CCD chip the moment we see the sun, eight minutes before the photons have reached us?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

You need to make up your mind, Peacegirl. When we look at a distant moving object, do you believe we see it where it is NOW, or where it was WHEN the light that travels from it left it?

We see it in real time. Why can a sound be in earshot (even if the source of the sound is turned off), but not in the case of an image? For example, why can't we see an image of an airplane long before it enters our visual field if we're seeing the airplane due to light alone, just as we can hear sound due to sound waves that have traveled to our eardrums?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

why can't we see an image of an airplane long before it enters our visual field if we're seeing the airplane due to light alone

It's not light alone, it's how that light interacts with the detector and that is affected by the properties of the detector (size and configuration, etc.).

The size and shape of our pupils and lenses limit what we can see, as does our wavelength sensitivity.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Did you read the whole article? Do you understand that CCD's work by converting incoming light into electric impulses and then interpreting those impulses to create the image? Did you watch the animation illustrating photons hitting a photosite and releasing electrons?

I didn't get to watch it yet. The main point here is that a camera (whether digital or film) has to be taking a picture of a present object or light source. How it converts the image electronically is secondary. That's like comparing the chemicals in film that turn an image into a picture, to this new technology. It doesn't change the reality of how light functions.

The image sensor employed by most digital cameras is a charge coupled device (CCD). Some cameras use complementary metal oxide semiconductor (CMOS) technology instead. Both CCD and CMOS image sensors convert light into electrons. If you've read How Solar Cells Work, you already understand one of the pieces of technology used to perform the conversion. A simplified way to think about these sensors is to think of a 2-D array of thousands or millions of tiny solar cells.

Once the sensor converts the light into electrons, it reads the value (accumulated charge) of each cell in the image. This is where the differences between the two main sensor types kick in:

* A CCD transports the charge across the chip and reads it at one corner of the array. An analog-to-digital converter (ADC) then turns each pixel's value into a digital value by measuring the amount of charge at each photosite and converting that measurement to binary form.

Technology is amazing, isn't it?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The camera (whatever the technology) has to be taking a picture of a present object or light source.

Nope, it needs to gather enough data from the light to create an image is all, and how much light it can gather off any object or from any source is affected by the detectors properties and capabilities, as well as the environmental conditions.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We see it in real time. Why can a sound be in earshot (even if the source of the sound is turned off), but not in the case of an image?

I don't understand the question. Are you asking why we can sometimes hear things we cannot see? Around corners and such?

Or are you asking why we cannot see things even after the light source has been turned off (as opposed to sound, where we can hear the sound even after the source has been turned off, such as hearing thunder long after the lightning has hapened if we are far away)?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's not light alone, it's how that light interacts with the detector and that is affected by the properties of the detector (size and configuration, etc.).

The size and shape of our pupils and lenses limit what we can see, as does our wavelength sensitivity.

And there's a limit to what we can see versus what an eagle can see. If a camera can take sharper pictures due to its ability to capture more detail, this does not mean that the object is being decoded from light only. Doesn't a digital camera have a lens?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And there's a limit to what we can see versus what an eagle can see.

All eyes have limitations based on their properties

If a camera can take sharper pictures due to its ability to capture more detail, this does not mean that the object is being decoded from light only. Doesn't a digital camera have a lens?

The camera is limited to what it can detect just as eyes are, which is why I told you you would need special lenses to conduct your experiments.

Technology can be used to extend/change the field of view by changing the size and shape of the lens, for example.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

I don't understand the question. Are you asking why we can sometimes hear things we cannot see? Around corners and such?

No, that's not what I'm saying. I am just trying to understand why we can hear due to the ability of sound waves reaching our ears, but we can't see in the same way. We don't see images of airplanes. We see airplanes when they come into view of our visual field. I know you will say we are seeing a delayed image due to light, and I'm saying no, we are seeing the airplane.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, that's not what I'm saying. I am just trying to understand why we can hear due to the ability of sound waves reaching our ears, but we can't see in the same way.

But we do. You've given no reasons to think we don't, and we've given so many reasons to explain the evidence that this is exactly how we see, and that your alternative model is completely wrong in so many ways.

We don't see images of airplanes.

What would that be like?

I'm not sure at all what you're envisioning, but currently you sound like you are asking ceptimus "how can vision-via-photons possibly be correct, since vision-via-photons is not correct?" - not at all helpful to the discussion, and I'm lost as to why you'd say it.

(I'd also really like a reply to how we can take images of the sun using a CCD at the moment we see it, long before the photons have reached us.)

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

All eyes have limitations based on their properties

The camera is limited to what it can detect just as eyes are, which is why I told you you would need special lenses to conduct your experiments.

Technology can be used to extend/change the field of view by changing the size and shape of the lens, for example.

That's all well and good, but all of those things are just tools. They aren't going to change reality, therefore they will still need to have an object within that camera's field of view in order for a picture to show up on film or on a CCD chip.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course not. That would be like covering a window with a blue coating and seeing the world as blue.

If we see "efferently" then it shouldn't change colors at all. Unless we are not looking at the "actual object".

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're still on time out, so be careful what you say and how you say it natural.atheist. I would hate to put you back on ignore, but that's the alternative that I will have to use if you don't shape up.

Madam, you may put me on ignore, you may never respond to a post I make ever again. You will still be a moron.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Dragar

I really couldn't tell you what she thought at this point.

Like say someone who was out of their mind?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have learned to translate somewhat

Have a care LadyShea, it's not healthy to learn the language of a lunatic.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because light is a condition of sight, we are able to detect colors in the same way as we would if we were interpreting signals. Lessans never said we do not detect the visual spectrum of electromagnetic radiation due to the properties of light.

This is not an "efferent" [outward] process. What you describe is an "afferent" [inward] process.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A light source can project images onto a CCD. There's no conflict here.

Ahhhh, yes there is. That would mean that light alone is sufficient to form an image. And all that nonsense about sight being "efferent" because light was not sufficient to form an image would be nonsense.

Which it is. As well as just about all of Lessans book.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's all well and good, but all of those things are just tools. They aren't going to change reality, therefore they will still need to have an object within that camera's field of view in order for a picture to show up on film or on a CCD chip.

Of course they don't change reality... who made that claim?

Knowledge of optics and how to make these tools allow us to see more of reality because now we can see the microscopic world, and further into the Universe than we can without the tools.

"Field of view" simply means the area in which an eye or camera can detect light within it's mechanical limitations.