#15676  
Old 03-16-2012, 11:58 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
But what does this have to do with efferent sight? This radiation is not part of the visual spectrum.
What are you talking about? Light is electromagnetic radiation. The spectrum is called the electromagnetic spectrum, only a small part of it is visible light, but all of the spectrum is subject to the same laws of physics.
Let me repeat: Although light travels at a finite speed, and this light is part of the electromagnetic spectrum, the visual part of this spectrum doesn't work in the same way.
So, you are then saying that efferent vision requires light to have different properties than it is known to have and is subject to different laws of physics than it is known to be subject to.

Great, thanks for finally admitting it.
So now visible light obeys a different set of physical laws thus far undiscovered by science. Peacegirl, could you describe these alternate laws for us and elaborate on the tests that would be needed to confirm these laws?
:lol: The visual part? Whose visual part? The optical part that humans see? The UV part insects see? The infrared part other creature see? The X-ray part some alien life might see?
You know what I meant, at least I thought you did. The visual spectrum does not work in the same way as the entire electro-magnetic spectrum because of how the eyes work, which is an important aspect to all of this. The only thing that changes is that the non-absorbed light does not travel beyond the film/retina such that this pattern of light will be detected at some future date.
Reply With Quote
  #15677  
Old 03-17-2012, 12:09 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: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You know what I meant, at least I thought you did. The visual spectrum does not work in the same way as the entire electro-magnetic spectrum because of how the eyes work, which is an important aspect to all of this.
Hence Dragar's question: Which 'visual spectrum' works differently? The part of the electromagnetic spectrum that humans can see differs from that which other creatures can see. The visual spectrum differs for different species.

And this still contradicts the laws of physics, which say that the whole spectrum works in the same way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The only thing that changes is that the non-absorbed light does not travel beyond the film/retina such that this pattern of light will be detected at some future date.
It doesn't matter what the pattern of light does beyond the point where the camera is. As long as it has to travel that distance to get to the camera, it will be dated information by the time it arrives.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (03-17-2012), LadyShea (03-18-2012)
  #15678  
Old 03-17-2012, 01:41 AM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCLXXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Light does not bounce off of objects ... This does not mean that any of laws of physics have been broken, so I have nothing to admit.
Unabsorbed light that does not bounce/reflect off of objects does break the laws of physics. It really is just that simple.
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (03-17-2012), Spacemonkey (03-17-2012)
  #15679  
Old 03-17-2012, 02:05 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The only thing that changes is that the non-absorbed light does not travel beyond the film/retina such that this pattern of light will be detected at some future date.

This is not a change, in afferent vision the light that hits the film/retina is absorbed and does not travel beyond that point. Other non-absorbed light that does not strike film or retina will continue to travel untill it does incounter some object.

There are only 2 options for light, it is either absorbed or will continue to travel even if reflected. Light only stops when it is absorbed.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (03-17-2012)
  #15680  
Old 03-17-2012, 12:52 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You know what I meant, at least I thought you did. The visual spectrum does not work in the same way as the entire electro-magnetic spectrum because of how the eyes work, which is an important aspect to all of this.
Hence Dragar's question: Which 'visual spectrum' works differently? The part of the electromagnetic spectrum that humans can see differs from that which other creatures can see. The visual spectrum differs for different species.
No, it does not work differently in other species. What are you not getting? :doh: Put your thinking cap on. If the object is in the animal's field of view, the non-absorbed light will be present at the retina. If something is magnified, it will be in the field of view, therefore, the light will be present at the film.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
And this still contradicts the laws of physics, which say that the whole spectrum works in the same way.
The spectrum does work in the same way, but the confusion is what is traveling: P light or N light. This does not violate any laws of physics just because Lessans claimed that we see efferently, which means N light is traveling through space and time, not P light.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The only thing that changes is that the non-absorbed light does not travel beyond the film/retina such that this pattern of light will be detected at some future date.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
It doesn't matter what the pattern of light does beyond the point where the camera is. As long as it has to travel that distance to get to the camera, it will be dated information by the time it arrives.
Again, you're losing the concept. I keep saying that until you start from the position of the brain looking through the eyes, instead of the other way around, you will not understand why the light becomes a mirror image, even though N light is constantly being emitted and replacing those non-absorbed photons. I am sorry that you are failing to understand, but this does not make Lessans' claim implausible or inaccurate.
Reply With Quote
  #15681  
Old 03-17-2012, 12:57 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Light does not bounce off of objects ... This does not mean that any of laws of physics have been broken, so I have nothing to admit.
Unabsorbed light that does not bounce/reflect off of objects does break the laws of physics. It really is just that simple.
The object does not (N) reflect (or bounce) the image or pattern of itself, which then travels through space and time; the light that is present reveals the image in real time. Whether you understand this concept or not doesn't change the truth; it just keeps us ignorant.
Reply With Quote
  #15682  
Old 03-17-2012, 01:12 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: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
So then where is that non-absorbed light 0.0001sec after it hits the object?
It's traveling, but I already explained that the pattern does not continue after it no longer is at the film/retina. The blue wavelength light joins with the rest of the visual spectrum, which forms white light.
So the unabsorbed blue photons do bounce off and travel away from the object, yes? (Forget about what else you think it does later and just answer the bit I'm asking you about.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
And where is the light at the film (when the photograph is taken) 0.0001sec before the photograph is taken?
It's 0.0001 sec before, but you are still failing to understand why we're getting a mirror image; we cannot get red before blue.
"0.0001sec before" is a TIME not a location. Are you agreeing now that this light at the film previously traveled to get there?
Bump.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #15683  
Old 03-17-2012, 01:13 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: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
The non-absorbed light has to at least start at the surface of the object, because that is where the absorption/non-absorption occurs. But it can't stay there because then it would be stationary, and also because you've just said that it gets replaced by other photons. So what happens to these original non-absorbed photons that just hit the object? They can't stay at the surface of the object. If they start travelling away from the object then that means they have just bounced off it. If they turn up anywhere else without traveling there then they have teleported. They also cannot join up with other photons at a certain distance from the object to become white light unless they have bounced off the object to travel away from it. So where are the unabsorbed photons 0.0001sec after they have hit the object?

If there is no reflection/bouncing of non-absorbed photons, then what happens to them right after they hit the surface of the object? Were are they at the very next moment and what are they doing? They can't be in the same place without being stationary. And they can't be anywhere else without either teleporting or having bounced off the object.
Please address the above points by either answering the question in bold, or by identifying and quoting an afferent assumption which you reject and explaining exactly where you think the above reasoning is mistaken.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
And if there are no stationary photons, then you were wrong in your last post when you said that the photons at the film were also at the film 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken. Being at the same place at two different consecutive times makes them stationary. In 0.0001sec, those photons should have travelled about 30 meters. So where were these photons (which are at the film comprising the mirror image when the photograph is taken) 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken? (They can't also be at the film at that time if they are never stationary.)
Please address the above points by either answering the question in bold, or by identifying and quoting an afferent assumption which you reject and explaining exactly where you think the above reasoning is mistaken.
Bump.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #15684  
Old 03-17-2012, 01:21 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: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
No, it does not work differently in other species. What are you not getting? :doh: Put your thinking cap on. If the object is in the animal's field of view, the non-absorbed light will be present at the retina. If something is magnified, it will be in the field of view, therefore, the light will be present at the film.
Oh dear. Reading comprehension, Peacegirl. I didn't say that the visual spectrum works differently for different species. The point was rather that the part of the full electromagnetic spectrum that consititutes the visible part differs for different species.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The spectrum does work in the same way, but the confusion is what is traveling: P light or N light. This does not violate any laws of physics just because Lessans claimed that we see efferently, which means N light is traveling through space and time, not P light.
If the full spectrum works in the same way, then you were wrong when you previously claimed otherwise. And you are violating the laws of physics simply by distinguishing between (P) and (N)light.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Again, you're losing the concept. I keep saying that until you start from the position of the brain looking through the eyes, instead of the other way around, you will not understand why the light becomes a mirror image, even though N light is constantly being emitted and replacing those non-absorbed photons. I am sorry that you are failing to understand, but this does not make Lessans' claim implausible or inaccurate.
Again, you're weaselling. I am starting from YOUR claims and trying to work backwards to see how they could be true. And as long as the light travels some distance to the camera, it will be dated by the time it arrives. The only one failing here is you.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #15685  
Old 03-17-2012, 01:22 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

[quote=Spacemonkey;1044609]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
The non-absorbed light has to at least start at the surface of the object, because that is where the absorption/non-absorption occurs. But it can't stay there because then it would be stationary, and also because you've just said that it gets replaced by other photons. So what happens to these original non-absorbed photons that just hit the object? They can't stay at the surface of the object. If they start travelling away from the object then that means they have just bounced off it. If they turn up anywhere else without traveling there then they have teleported. They also cannot join up with other photons at a certain distance from the object to become white light unless they have bounced off the object to travel away from it. So where are the unabsorbed photons 0.0001sec after they have hit the object?

If there is no reflection/bouncing of non-absorbed photons, then what happens to them right after they hit the surface of the object? Were are they at the very next moment and what are they doing? They can't be in the same place without being stationary. And they can't be anywhere else without either teleporting or having bounced off the object.
Please address the above points by either answering the question in bold, or by identifying and quoting an afferent assumption which you reject and explaining exactly where you think the above reasoning is mistaken.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
And if there are no stationary photons, then you were wrong in your last post when you said that the photons at the film were also at the film 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken. Being at the same place at two different consecutive times makes them stationary. In 0.0001sec, those photons should have travelled about 30 meters. So where were these photons (which are at the film comprising the mirror image when the photograph is taken) 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken? (They can't also be at the film at that time if they are never stationary.)
Please address the above points by either answering the question in bold, or by identifying and quoting an afferent assumption which you reject and explaining exactly where you think the above reasoning is mistaken.
Spacemonkey, you're missing half the equation (the part that has to do with the eyes), which is why you're not getting it. I think I need to draw a diagram or something. I'm not sure how to explain this so you'll understand. :(
Reply With Quote
  #15686  
Old 03-17-2012, 01:34 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: VMCLXXIII
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
Light does not bounce off of objects ... This does not mean that any of laws of physics have been broken, so I have nothing to admit.
Unabsorbed light that does not bounce/reflect off of objects does break the laws of physics. It really is just that simple.
The object does not (N) reflect (or bounce) the image or pattern of itself, which then travels through space and time; the light that is present reveals the image in real time. Whether you understand this concept or not doesn't change the truth; it just keeps us ignorant.
The non-absorbed light at the surface of the object has to bounce off and travel away. Otherwise it would be either stationary, teleporting, or ceasing to exist.

Now imagine a red spot in the center of our blue ball. White light hits the ball. The red dot in the center absorbs all light hitting it except for the red photons, which bounce off and begin traveling away. The surrounding parts of the ball's surface absorb all light hitting it except for the blue photons, which bounce off and begin traveling away. The total light bouncing away in any given direction therefore forms a pattern, as the light leaving the central spot is red while the light leaving the outer parts will be blue. When this traveling light later arrives at the camera film and strikes it in the same pattern you then get a photograph consisting of a red dot surrounded by a blue circle because the red photons have hit the center of the film while the blue photons have struck the surrounding outer parts.

This is not complicated. Children can understand this. And if you want to tell a different story you will need to explain what happens to the photons - i.e. where they are and what they are doing - at each step of the process.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (03-18-2012)
  #15687  
Old 03-17-2012, 01:35 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: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Spacemonkey, you're missing half the equation (the part that has to do with the eyes), which is why you're not getting it. I think I need to draw a diagram or something. I'm not sure how to explain this so you'll understand. :(
You're weaselling. And there are no eyes in my example. If you want me to understand, then try answering my questions about what you are saying. Try again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
The non-absorbed light has to at least start at the surface of the object, because that is where the absorption/non-absorption occurs. But it can't stay there because then it would be stationary, and also because you've just said that it gets replaced by other photons. So what happens to these original non-absorbed photons that just hit the object? They can't stay at the surface of the object. If they start travelling away from the object then that means they have just bounced off it. If they turn up anywhere else without traveling there then they have teleported. They also cannot join up with other photons at a certain distance from the object to become white light unless they have bounced off the object to travel away from it. So where are the unabsorbed photons 0.0001sec after they have hit the object?

If there is no reflection/bouncing of non-absorbed photons, then what happens to them right after they hit the surface of the object? Were are they at the very next moment and what are they doing? They can't be in the same place without being stationary. And they can't be anywhere else without either teleporting or having bounced off the object.
Please address the above points by either answering the question in bold, or by identifying and quoting an afferent assumption which you reject and explaining exactly where you think the above reasoning is mistaken.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
And if there are no stationary photons, then you were wrong in your last post when you said that the photons at the film were also at the film 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken. Being at the same place at two different consecutive times makes them stationary. In 0.0001sec, those photons should have travelled about 30 meters. So where were these photons (which are at the film comprising the mirror image when the photograph is taken) 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken? (They can't also be at the film at that time if they are never stationary.)
Please address the above points by either answering the question in bold, or by identifying and quoting an afferent assumption which you reject and explaining exactly where you think the above reasoning is mistaken.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #15688  
Old 03-17-2012, 03:14 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
No, it does not work differently in other species. What are you not getting? :doh: Put your thinking cap on. If the object is in the animal's field of view, the non-absorbed light will be present at the retina. If something is magnified, it will be in the field of view, therefore, the light will be present at the film.
Oh dear. Reading comprehension, Peacegirl. I didn't say that the visual spectrum works differently for different species. The point was rather that the part of the full electromagnetic spectrum that consititutes the visible part differs for different species.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The spectrum does work in the same way, but the confusion is what is traveling: P light or N light. This does not violate any laws of physics just because Lessans claimed that we see efferently, which means N light is traveling through space and time, not P light.
If the full spectrum works in the same way, then you were wrong when you previously claimed otherwise. And you are violating the laws of physics simply by distinguishing between (P) and (N)light.
How so?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Again, you're losing the concept. I keep saying that until you start from the position of the brain looking through the eyes, instead of the other way around, you will not understand why the light becomes a mirror image, even though N light is constantly being emitted and replacing those non-absorbed photons. I am sorry that you are failing to understand, but this does not make Lessans' claim implausible or inaccurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Again, you're weaselling.
Where?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
I am starting from YOUR claims and trying to work backwards to see how they could be true. And as long as the light travels some distance to the camera, it will be dated by the time it arrives. The only one failing here is you.
The only one that fails is YOU because, once again, you think you are trying to work backwards to see how this could be true, but by the very things you say show me that you are not working backwards to see how this could be true. That's the problem Spacemonkey. :sadcheer:
Reply With Quote
  #15689  
Old 03-17-2012, 09:08 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: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
The non-absorbed light has to at least start at the surface of the object, because that is where the absorption/non-absorption occurs. But it can't stay there because then it would be stationary, and also because you've just said that it gets replaced by other photons. So what happens to these original non-absorbed photons that just hit the object? They can't stay at the surface of the object. If they start travelling away from the object then that means they have just bounced off it. If they turn up anywhere else without traveling there then they have teleported. They also cannot join up with other photons at a certain distance from the object to become white light unless they have bounced off the object to travel away from it. So where are the unabsorbed photons 0.0001sec after they have hit the object?

If there is no reflection/bouncing of non-absorbed photons, then what happens to them right after they hit the surface of the object? Were are they at the very next moment and what are they doing? They can't be in the same place without being stationary. And they can't be anywhere else without either teleporting or having bounced off the object.
Please address the above points by either answering the question in bold, or by identifying and quoting an afferent assumption which you reject and explaining exactly where you think the above reasoning is mistaken.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
And if there are no stationary photons, then you were wrong in your last post when you said that the photons at the film were also at the film 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken. Being at the same place at two different consecutive times makes them stationary. In 0.0001sec, those photons should have travelled about 30 meters. So where were these photons (which are at the film comprising the mirror image when the photograph is taken) 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken? (They can't also be at the film at that time if they are never stationary.)
Please address the above points by either answering the question in bold, or by identifying and quoting an afferent assumption which you reject and explaining exactly where you think the above reasoning is mistaken.
Bump.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #15690  
Old 03-17-2012, 09:09 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: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
So then where is that non-absorbed light 0.0001sec after it hits the object?
It's traveling, but I already explained that the pattern does not continue after it no longer is at the film/retina. The blue wavelength light joins with the rest of the visual spectrum, which forms white light.
So the unabsorbed blue photons do bounce off and travel away from the object, yes? (Forget about what else you think it does later and just answer the bit I'm asking you about.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
And where is the light at the film (when the photograph is taken) 0.0001sec before the photograph is taken?
It's 0.0001 sec before, but you are still failing to understand why we're getting a mirror image; we cannot get red before blue.
"0.0001sec before" is a TIME not a location. Are you agreeing now that this light at the film previously traveled to get there?
Bump.
2nd bump.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #15691  
Old 03-17-2012, 09:39 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: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Oh dear. Reading comprehension, Peacegirl. I didn't say that the visual spectrum works differently for different species. The point was rather that the part of the full electromagnetic spectrum that consititutes the visible part differs for different species.
[...*crickets*...]
Are you still claiming that there is a part of the electromagnetic spectrum that works differently than all the rest? If so which part? That which comprises the visual spectrum for humans? ...for dogs? ...for birds? ...for fish?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
If the full spectrum works in the same way, then you were wrong when you previously claimed otherwise. And you are violating the laws of physics simply by distinguishing between (P) and (N)light.
How so?
Because according to the laws of physics, all light is traveling electromagnetic radiation, and these laws do not allow for another form of light that doesn't travel through space and time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Again, you're weaselling.
Where?
In every post you make to me where you avoid my questions. You are weaselling whenever you claim I am starting from an afferent position but do not show me any afferent assumption or presupposition in my questions. You are weaselling whenever you bring up eyes and vision in response to a scenario that does not involve any eyes. You are weaselling every single time you post.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The only one that fails is YOU because, once again, you think you are trying to work backwards to see how this could be true, but by the very things you say show me that you are not working backwards to see how this could be true.
Such as...? Please quote for me something that I've said which is inconsistent with me working backwards exactly as I've said I'm doing. Why can't you just stop weaselling and actually answer the occasional question?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (03-18-2012)
  #15692  
Old 03-17-2012, 10:02 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Light does not bounce off of objects ... This does not mean that any of laws of physics have been broken, so I have nothing to admit.
Unabsorbed light that does not bounce/reflect off of objects does break the laws of physics. It really is just that simple.
The object does not (N) reflect (or bounce) the image or pattern of itself, which then travels through space and time; the light that is present reveals the image in real time. Whether you understand this concept or not doesn't change the truth; it just keeps us ignorant.
The non-absorbed light at the surface of the object has to bounce off and travel away. Otherwise it would be either stationary, teleporting, or ceasing to exist.

Now imagine a red spot in the center of our blue ball. White light hits the ball. The red dot in the center absorbs all light hitting it except for the red photons, which bounce off and begin traveling away. The surrounding parts of the ball's surface absorb all light hitting it except for the blue photons, which bounce off and begin traveling away. The total light bouncing away in any given direction therefore forms a pattern, as the light leaving the central spot is red while the light leaving the outer parts will be blue. When this traveling light later arrives at the camera film and strikes it in the same pattern you then get a photograph consisting of a red dot surrounded by a blue circle because the red photons have hit the center of the film while the blue photons have struck the surrounding outer parts.

This is not complicated. Children can understand this. And if you want to tell a different story you will need to explain what happens to the photons - i.e. where they are and what they are doing - at each step of the process.
I don't disagree with anything you said. Light works exactly the way you described, but light alone would not bring a pattern to the eyes if the object wasn't present, so explaining this aspect doesn't discount efferent vision. The problem is that you are not seeing what happens when the brain is looking out, through the eyes, as a window to the world. You are still coming from the afferent position when you say that the non-absorbed light is bouncing and traveling. It is not. Assuming for a moment that light does not get interpreted by signals in the brain, and that the object must be in one's field of view, then the question arises: What allows us to see the object? The answer is light.

Light becomes a condition of sight. For us to see the object though, the P light would already be at the film/retina as a mirror image, otherwise there would be no physical interaction and it would violate the laws of physics. In order to grasp this concept, you have to consider what the requirements are. The object has to be large enough and bright enough to be seen which is the efferent position. Even though the non-absorbed photons are constantly being replaced by new light, they are not traveling, they are revealing, so when you start asking about the location of the photons, this has nothing to do with this version of sight.

The light cannot be red before blue which would mean that light alone is bringing the image. Every time you start with the premise that the light is bouncing off of the object, the conclusion will always be the same and that conclusion is wrong. If you start off with the premise that the brain is looking through the eyes, as a window, and seeing the world in real time (because that is the premise of this version of sight), it will be easier for you to picture what is happening. There is no teleportation of photons, and there are no photons that are at two places at the same time.
Reply With Quote
  #15693  
Old 03-17-2012, 10:04 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
And you are violating the laws of physics simply by distinguishing between (P) and (N)light.

Let's get back to reality and the extablished laws of physics and optics that have been emperically demonstrated to be correct. There is no such thing as (P) light and (N) light, that was just a convient shorthand description of how real (N) light worked, and how Peacegirl's fictional (P) light was supposed to work. There is only 'light' and it behaves acording to the laws of physics of the electromagnetic spectrum, every thing else is nonsense, except for (M) light, but that is something else altogether.

Please see page 615 post #15374 for further elaboration.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (03-18-2012)
  #15694  
Old 03-17-2012, 10:10 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Light does not bounce off of objects ... This does not mean that any of laws of physics have been broken, so I have nothing to admit.
Unabsorbed light that does not bounce/reflect off of objects does break the laws of physics. It really is just that simple.

But since Peacegirl has no knowledge of, or understanding of the laws of physics, in her mind she cannot break any of those non-existent laws. But you are correct it is very simple for Peacegirl, they don't exist - she can't break them.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (03-17-2012)
  #15695  
Old 03-17-2012, 10:19 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Oh dear. Reading comprehension, Peacegirl. I didn't say that the visual spectrum works differently for different species. The point was rather that the part of the full electromagnetic spectrum that consititutes the visible part differs for different species.
[...*crickets*...]
Are you still claiming that there is a part of the electromagnetic spectrum that works differently than all the rest? If so which part? That which comprises the visual spectrum for humans? ...for dogs? ...for birds? ...for fish?
Whether the full electromagnetic spectrum which constitutes the visible part differs for different species, or not, doesn't change anything in regard to this version of sight. It also makes no difference that different species can see at different ranges.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
If the full spectrum works in the same way, then you were wrong when you previously claimed otherwise. And you are violating the laws of physics simply by distinguishing between (P) and (N)light.
How so?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Because according to the laws of physics, all light is traveling electromagnetic radiation, and these laws do not allow for another form of light that doesn't travel through space and time.
There is no other form of light Spacemonkey. But non-absorbed blue light does not bounce, it reveals the object when we're looking. Once the image is no longer at the film/retina, white light resumes traveling because the blue light joins with the other light in the visible spectrum. If you don't understand this in the context of efferent vision (how the brain works), this won't make sense.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Again, you're weaselling.
Where?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spcemonkey
In every post you make to me where you avoid my questions. You are weaselling whenever you claim I am starting from an afferent position but do not show me any afferent assumption or presupposition in my questions. You are weaselling whenever you bring up eyes and vision in response to a scenario that does not involve any eyes. You are weaselling every single time you post.
I have explained the presupposition you're making. The second you start talking about bouncing, you're making an assumption that comes from this position. You have yet to think in terms of the efferent perspective and start from this vantage point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The only one that fails is YOU because, once again, you think you are trying to work backwards to see how this could be true, but by the very things you say show me that you are not working backwards to see how this could be true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Such as...? Please quote for me something that I've said which is inconsistent with me working backwards exactly as I've said I'm doing. Why can't you just stop weaselling and actually answer the occasional question?
You're not working backwards because if you were you wouldn't keep making the same mistake. How can there be two sets of photons when you're looking through the light to see the object in real time; or how could the photons be teleporting? If the object is large enough and bright enough, the light is instantly at the film/retina as you use that light, as a condition, to see what exists in reality. This changes the entire picture of what is actually going on with the eyes, and it doesn't violate the laws of physics.
Reply With Quote
  #15696  
Old 03-17-2012, 10:22 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: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I don't disagree with anything you said. Light works exactly the way you described, but light alone would not bring a pattern to the eyes if the object wasn't present...
If light works exactly as I just described, then the light does travel in a pattern to the film. Red light travels from the red bits and blue light travels from the blue bits, and those different wavelengths of light strike different parts of the film to create the image. And there is nothing to prevent this from still occurring if the object were to change or even cease to exist during the travel time of this light.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You are still coming from the afferent position when you say that the non-absorbed light is bouncing and traveling. It is not.
Well I obviously can't come from the efferent position on this point until you can tell me what the non-absorbed light is doing instead. The blue photons are travelling towards the blue ball. Then they hit it but are not absorbed. Then what? Where are they and what are they doing 0.0001sec after hitting the ball?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
For us to see the object though, the P light would already be at the film/retina as a mirror image, otherwise there would be no physical interaction and it would violate the laws of physics.
Exactly. So how did it get there? It contradicts the laws of physics for something to be somewhere without getting there, or to get there without traveling there, or to travel there without taking any time to do so.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Even though the non-absorbed photons are constantly being replaced by new light, they are not traveling, they are revealing, so when you start asking about the location of the photons, this has nothing to do with this version of sight.
Again, I'm asking about photography, not sight. And if there are photons at the film constantly replacing others, then the new ones are obviously getting there somehow. How are they doing that if they are not travelling there? Are they teleporting again?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Every time you start with the premise that the light is bouncing off of the object, the conclusion will always be the same and that conclusion is wrong.
Then you need to answer my questions so as to explain what the nonabsorbed light does do instead. We know that there is light that hits the object and is not absorbed. If you are going to claim that this light does not bounce off and travel away from the object, then you need to give some plausible alternative account of what it does do.

This will require you to actually answer questions instead of weaselling.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (03-18-2012)
  #15697  
Old 03-17-2012, 10:28 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Spacemonkey, you're missing half the equation (the part that has to do with the eyes), which is why you're not getting it. I think I need to draw a diagram or something. I'm not sure how to explain this so you'll understand. :(
You're weaselling. And there are no eyes in my example. If you want me to understand, then try answering my questions about what you are saying. Try again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
The non-absorbed light has to at least start at the surface of the object, because that is where the absorption/non-absorption occurs. But it can't stay there because then it would be stationary, and also because you've just said that it gets replaced by other photons. So what happens to these original non-absorbed photons that just hit the object? They can't stay at the surface of the object. If they start travelling away from the object then that means they have just bounced off it. If they turn up anywhere else without traveling there then they have teleported. They also cannot join up with other photons at a certain distance from the object to become white light unless they have bounced off the object to travel away from it. So where are the unabsorbed photons 0.0001sec after they have hit the object?

If there is no reflection/bouncing of non-absorbed photons, then what happens to them right after they hit the surface of the object? Were are they at the very next moment and what are they doing? They can't be in the same place without being stationary. And they can't be anywhere else without either teleporting or having bounced off the object.
Please address the above points by either answering the question in bold, or by identifying and quoting an afferent assumption which you reject and explaining exactly where you think the above reasoning is mistaken.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
And if there are no stationary photons, then you were wrong in your last post when you said that the photons at the film were also at the film 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken. Being at the same place at two different consecutive times makes them stationary. In 0.0001sec, those photons should have travelled about 30 meters. So where were these photons (which are at the film comprising the mirror image when the photograph is taken) 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken? (They can't also be at the film at that time if they are never stationary.)
Please address the above points by either answering the question in bold, or by identifying and quoting an afferent assumption which you reject and explaining exactly where you think the above reasoning is mistaken.
I have already told you that light energy is constantly being absorbed or being P reflected by the object but in the efferent version this light is not bringing us the image; it is allowing us to see the object. To repeat: Photons keep traveling and being replaced by new photons that reveal the object as long as light from the Sun is being emitted, so when the lens is aimed at the object, you will not get red before blue (you're still confused here). You will get the exact image of the object that provides the link, or condition, that is necessary to see said object in real time.
Reply With Quote
  #15698  
Old 03-17-2012, 10:37 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: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Whether the full electromagnetic spectrum which constitutes the visible part differs for different species, or not, doesn't change anything in regard to this version of sight. It also makes no difference that different species can see at different ranges.
You didn't answer the question: Are you still claiming that there is a part of the electromagnetic spectrum that works differently than all the rest? If so which part?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
There is no other form of light Spacemonkey.
Then you need to stop distinguishing between (P)light and (N)light, and claiming that they do different things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
But non-absorbed blue light does not bounce, it reveals the object when we're looking. I have explained the presupposition you're making. The second you start talking about bouncing, you're making an assumption that comes from this position.
Then what does the non-absorbed light do instead? Where is it and what is it doing 0.0001sec after hitting the object?

It is not a presupposition that this light bounces and travels away. Apart from being an observed fact, it is also the only possible conclusion if that light continues to exist and is neither stationary nor teleporting. There are simply no other possible options. That you have rejected all possible options is precisely why you cannot answer the question and have to keep weaselling instead.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You're not working backwards because if you were you wouldn't keep making the same mistake.
I'm not making any mistake. I'm starting with your claims and working backwards, only to collide with your point blank refusal to answer relevant questions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
How can there be two sets of photons when you're looking through the light to see the object in real time; or how could the photons be teleporting? If the object is large enough and bright enough, the light is instantly at the film/retina as you use that light, as a condition, to see what exists in reality. This changes the entire picture of what is actually going on with the eyes, and it doesn't violate the laws of physics.
Once again, there are NO EYES in my example. That means no seeing and no looking. At all. None.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (03-18-2012), LadyShea (03-18-2012)
  #15699  
Old 03-17-2012, 10:37 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I don't disagree with anything you said. Light works exactly the way you described, but light alone would not bring a pattern to the eyes if the object wasn't present...
If light works exactly as I just described, then the light does travel in a pattern to the film. Red light travels from the red bits and blue light travels from the blue bits, and those different wavelengths of light strike different parts of the film to create the image. And there is nothing to prevent this from still occurring if the object were to change or even cease to exist during the travel time of this light.
Nope, maybe you're not able to picture what is happening because you've believed the afferent version for so long. :(

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You are still coming from the afferent position when you say that the non-absorbed light is bouncing and traveling. It is not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Well I obviously can't come from the efferent position on this point until you can tell me what the non-absorbed light is doing instead. The blue photons are travelling towards the blue ball. Then they hit it but are not absorbed. Then what? Where are they and what are they doing 0.0001sec after hitting the ball?
We're back at this again? :eek: The P light is traveling and as it travels it catches up, so to speak, with the other light that is no longer absorbed because it's too far away from the object. But you're still missing half of the equation, which is that the lens must be aimed at the object. You still think that light is bringing a pattern and being interpreted by the brain, which is back to your version. No wonder you don't get it. :doh:

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
For us to see the object though, the P light would already be at the film/retina as a mirror image, otherwise there would be no physical interaction and it would violate the laws of physics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Exactly. So how did it get there? It contradicts the laws of physics for something to be somewhere without getting there, or to get there without traveling there, or to travel there without taking any time to do so.
Because it's what the eyes do, not what light does, that changes everything about what we know regarding light and sight. AND IT DOESN'T VIOLATE THE LAWS OF PHYSICS.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Even though the non-absorbed photons are constantly being replaced by new light, they are not traveling, they are revealing, so when you start asking about the location of the photons, this has nothing to do with this version of sight.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Again, I'm asking about photography, not sight. And if there are photons at the film constantly replacing others, then the new ones are obviously getting there somehow. How are they doing that if they are not travelling there? Are they teleporting again?
It works the same way with a camera because the person behind the camera is looking out at the object, and the camera's lens must be aimed AT THE OBJECT, for this mirror image to show up instantly. You are still thinking about light ONLY.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Every time you start with the premise that the light is bouncing off of the object, the conclusion will always be the same and that conclusion is wrong.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Then you need to answer my questions so as to explain what the nonabsorbed light does do instead. We know that there is light that hits the object and is not absorbed. If you are going to claim that this light does not bounce off and travel away from the object, then you need to give some plausible alternative account of what it does do.

This will require you to actually answer questions instead of weaselling.
I just told you. And stop telling me I'm weaseling because I'm not.
Reply With Quote
  #15700  
Old 03-17-2012, 10:42 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: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I have already told you that light energy is constantly being absorbed or being P reflected by the object but in the efferent version this light is not bringing us the image; it is allowing us to see the object. To repeat: Photons keep traveling and being replaced by new photons that reveal the object as long as light from the Sun is being emitted, so when the lens is aimed at the object, you will not get red before blue (you're still confused here). You will get the exact image of the object that provides the link, or condition, that is necessary to see said object in real time.
Stop weaselling and answer the damn questions already. What would Lessans think if he could see your ridiculous avoidance here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
The non-absorbed light has to at least start at the surface of the object, because that is where the absorption/non-absorption occurs. But it can't stay there because then it would be stationary, and also because you've just said that it gets replaced by other photons. So what happens to these original non-absorbed photons that just hit the object? They can't stay at the surface of the object. If they start travelling away from the object then that means they have just bounced off it. If they turn up anywhere else without traveling there then they have teleported. They also cannot join up with other photons at a certain distance from the object to become white light unless they have bounced off the object to travel away from it. So where are the unabsorbed photons 0.0001sec after they have hit the object?

If there is no reflection/bouncing of non-absorbed photons, then what happens to them right after they hit the surface of the object? Were are they at the very next moment and what are they doing? They can't be in the same place without being stationary. And they can't be anywhere else without either teleporting or having bounced off the object.
Please address the above points by either answering the question in bold, or by identifying and quoting an afferent assumption which you reject and explaining exactly where you think the above reasoning is mistaken.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
And if there are no stationary photons, then you were wrong in your last post when you said that the photons at the film were also at the film 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken. Being at the same place at two different consecutive times makes them stationary. In 0.0001sec, those photons should have travelled about 30 meters. So where were these photons (which are at the film comprising the mirror image when the photograph is taken) 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken? (They can't also be at the film at that time if they are never stationary.)
Please address the above points by either answering the question in bold, or by identifying and quoting an afferent assumption which you reject and explaining exactly where you think the above reasoning is mistaken.
1) So where are the unabsorbed photons 0.0001sec after they have hit the object? [Insert answer here]

2) So where were these photons (which are at the film comprising the mirror image when the photograph is taken) 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken? [Insert answer here]
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
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 09:44 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.27278 seconds with 14 queries