A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because there has to be a connection between us and the outside world, and that is light. Obviously, the brain, looking through the eyes [the cones and rods], wouldn't be able to see if light wasn't present.

Actually "the brain, looking through the eyes [the cones and rods]," is just another way of saying that the brain is receiving the impulses from the eye through the optic nerve and intrepreting that information as images, contained in the light, received by the eye. This is reality, this is the way the eyes and brain work together to 'see' the outside world, it's called afferent vision and it is the way the world works, in reality, not fantasy. The connection to the outside world is the eye sensing light and the brain processing that information as images.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

<snip>

How about the moons of Jupiter, peacegirl?

[thedoc]

Peacegirl, Just to be perfectly clear, in my opinion your posts on this forum and your fathers book amount to nothing more than an accumulation of excrement from the north end of a south bound horse, I would not want you to be under any misapprehension on this point.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because there has to be a connection between us and the outside world, and that is light. Obviously, the brain, looking through the eyes [the cones and rods], wouldn't be able to see if light wasn't present.

Lessans didn't think so. He thought light only had to be at the object illuminating it, and it could then be seen even if there were no light at all present at the viewer's location. I'm glad you agree he was wrong about that, but your version remains just as wrong as his.

I'm still waiting on your answer as to what properties of what (and where) determine the color of a real-time photograph.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If the speed of light remains constant, then how does newly emitted BLUE light from a now-BLUE object get from the object to the camera instantaneously to interact with the film? Or how can the already present light be BLUE when it was RED just before it arrived (when the object was still RED)?

This example seems logical, but I don't believe this is how it works. If it did, a camera's lens would be able to form images from photons of a certain wavelength and frequency, without the object being present, but this is not what happens. I want to end this discussion because no one thinks Lessans is right, and no one is going to think Lessans is right. I can't believe it's gone on this long.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Lessans didn't think so. He thought light only had to be at the object illuminating it, and it could then be seen even if there were no light at all present at the viewer's location. I'm glad you agree he was wrong about that, but your version remains just as wrong as his.

I am not going to talk about that one excerpt, which Lessans himself would have removed from all the commotion.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm still waiting on your answer as to what properties of what (and where) determine the color of a real-time photograph.

Seeing in color involves a combination of the properties of light and the properties of the retina.

There are about 120 million rods and about 6 to 7 million cones, in the human eye.

Rods are more sensitive than the cones but they are not sensitive to colour, they perceive images as black, white and different shades of grey. More than one thousand times as sensitive, the rods respond better to blue but very little to red light.

Colour Perception

Each cone contains one of three pigments sensitive to either RED GREEN or BLUE.

Each pigment absorbs a particular wavelength of colour. There are short wavelength cones that absorb blue light, middle wavelength cones that absorb green light, and long wavelength cones that absorb red light.


The eye picks up colour and light by the Rods and Cones in the eye. It is the Cones that detect Colour. Each cone contains one of three pigments sensitive to either RED GREEN or BLUE.

When we observe a colour that has a wavelength between that of the primary colours red, green and blue, combinations of the cones are stimulated. An example could be that yellow light stimulates cones that are sensitive to red and to green light. The result is that we can detect light of all colours in the visible spectrum.

Colour Perception

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This example seems logical, but I don't believe this is how it works. If it did, a camera's lens would be able to form images from photons of a certain wavelength and frequency, without the object being present, but this is not what happens. I want to end this discussion because no one thinks Lessans is right, and no one is going to think Lessans is right. I can't believe it's gone on this long.

You haven't answered the question, Peacegirl. Stop running away from the issue. You want to know and understand why Lessans was demonstrably wrong? This is it. Right here. So answer the question, and see for yourself how efferent vision is impossible.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I want to end this discussion because no one thinks Lessans is right, and no one is going to think Lessans is right. I can't believe it's gone on this long.

No, you want to end this discussion because you and Lessans have been conclusively demonstrated to be incorrect, and this you can't abide.

[davidm]

Look at her run and weasel. She posts a bunch of copypasta about color vision. How about sticking to the point and answering the questions instead of running away from them?

What about the moons of Jupiter, peacegirl? If Lessans had been right, the moons of Jupiter example would NOT have yielded the results it did, obviously!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not going to talk about that one excerpt, which Lessans himself would have removed from all the commotion.

Removing that one excerpt (where you explicitly DISAGREE with Lessans) doesn't change the fact that it is YOU and not him claiming light must be present at the eye. Lessans never made any such claim.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Seeing in color involves a combination of the properties of light and the properties of the retina.

<cut and paste snipped>

Don't just cut and paste material you don't understand. Answer my question please.

What properties determine the color of a photographic image?

If properties of light, then WHERE is the light whose properties determine this?

If properties of light AT THE CAMERA, then how can light of color matching a newly changed object be at the camera instantaneously to interact with the film?

Stop falling back on faith and avoidance. Follow through and deal with the logical implications of your own claims.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're trying to make an artificial distinction between how a camera works and how an eye works, but it's not working.

I refer you back to the red/blue thought experiment, where a camera would observe something different from the eye, unless cameras are also efferent. We know they are not.

It is really very simple.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This example seems logical, but I don't believe this is how it works. If it did, a camera's lens would be able to form images from photons of a certain wavelength and frequency, without the object being present, but this is not what happens. I want to end this discussion because no one thinks Lessans is right, and no one is going to think Lessans is right. I can't believe it's gone on this long.

Dragar, this is the kind of thing that made me bring up the Deep Field Image. It was what came to mind when I thought of photos without objects "present".

Here's a free video "Introduction to Light" peacegirl

Introduction to Light - YouTube

&feature=player_embedded

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

How about the moons of Jupiter, peacegirl?

I don't know if there is another explanation. That's why experiments closer to home are the only way to find out.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know if there is another explanation. That's why experiments closer to home are the only way to find out.

What are you trying to test or demonstrate that the Jupiter's moon experiment won't work for? You need nothing except a pair of binoculars and a watch to do it yourself, and you only need a minimal understanding of the science/math involved to do it.

For your photography experiment you would need all kinds of specific conditions, and specialized knowledge and equipment.

[Dragar]

a) What does 'the object being present' mean? Do you mean having an instantaneous clear path between the observer and the object, or the object at the observer's location, or the object being seen at that moment by the observer, or something else?

b) You don't need experiments closer to home. But even those have been done already, they are just more complicated (because it's a lot harder on small distances to notice any speed to light).

[peacegirl]

[quote=Spacemonkey;989801]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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

Not if the light is already at the eye. The only way a camera can take a picture is if the light is already present, which means that there is no travel time. It just means that camera is focused on the present scene (whether object or image) and the light that is formed on the lens is instant.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The RED ball reflects RED light towards the camera.

No, that's not it. The RED ball does not reflect RED light towards the camera. That implies distance and time.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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

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

Well we know that's not true because there's no magic involved.

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

We know that's not true because the BLUE light is not traveling faster than the speed of light. That's a strawman.

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

Again, this can't be true because nothing magical is occurring. There is a definite scientific answer.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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

I have tried to explain the other option, but it's not working. The light has to be present already, so there is no travel time. Even though photons are continuously moving through space and time, the lens focuses on the object. Therefore, what is seen on film as it focuses on the object is an instant mirror image of the object due to light's properties as a condition, not a cause. Therefore it is not the red photon that shows up on film; it is the actual object in real time, which is blue, that shows up on film.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Seems to me that in peacegirls experiment that other light here on Earth would overwhelm the light being reflected off the distant person, and the image would be overexposed (all white) with any normal camera.

I don't get that. Why would the light being reflected off the distant person be overexposed when a few feet forward the image would not be overexposed?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know if there is another explanation. That's why experiments closer to home are the only way to find out.

We've already done experiments right here on earth that conclusively demonstrate both that light is of finite speed and the cause of sight, thereby ruling out Lessans' claims. And these experiments were also pointed out to you in some detail. And you don't remember that discussion either, do you? Or you claim not to recall it. Shall I freshen your memory, hmm?



In fact, experiments ruling out Lessans' claims are done routinely, all the time; the technological apparatus of the world is possible precisely because Lessans was completely wrong.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So if photons have a limited amount of energy, how can they not eventually peter out when there is no more light source from which they get their energy? LadyShea says that photons travel forever and ever.

Ever heard of a little thing called The First Law of Thermodynamics? [Energy can be neither created nor destroyed.]

Actually, nothing is a light source if you want to get technical, except for the sun (or other stars) from which all light energy is derived.

Gods, your ignorance is staggering! Yet, for some reason, you insist on parading it around for everyone to see.

Listen carefully: virtually everything in the Universe is a light source, including you and that table over there in the corner. Pick up an elementary-school-level textbook once in awhile.

Even if, by the above staggeringly-ignorant claim, you mean that everything other than stars simply absorbs and then re-emits light, you're still spectacularly wrong. Plenty of things other than stars emit photons that were not originally absorbed from any star.

The most charitable interpretation of your claim possible is that you're actually referring to the fact that almost all of the energy used in Earthly biological systems comes ultimately from a star. Even if that is what you actually meant, it's still an incredibly ignorant claim that you just made.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know if there is another explanation. That's why experiments closer to home are the only way to find out.

This really is another O'Reilly moment isn't it? I don't know how stuff works, therefor Lessans is right.

We know the orbit of Jupiter. We know the orbits of its moons. We know them well enough to be able to fire unmanned craft right past them to get a close-up look both at the moons and at Jupiter - and we have done so.

We know the time it really takes for the moons to orbit Jupiter. We have observed these orbits up close using those same unmanned craft.

There is a difference in timing of the eclipses of Jupiters moons. A difference that matches the difference in distance from Jupiter to us on that particular instance of its orbit, measured in light-minutes.

It is clear evidence that sight is not direct. Unilaterally deciding that evidence from astronomy does not count does not change that. If only he had not looked down on academic study so much he could have known this - a simple adult course science 101 would have sufficed.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not going to talk about that one excerpt, which Lessans himself would have removed from all the commotion.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Removing that one excerpt (where you explicitly DISAGREE with Lessans) doesn't change the fact that it is YOU and not him claiming light must be present at the eye. Lessans never made any such claim.

You are searching for a red herring to divert the issue.

I'm saying that even if Lessans was wrong about this one excerpt, it does not negate the possibility of efferent vision being correct. So give it up already.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Seeing in color involves a combination of the properties of light and the properties of the retina.

Don't just cut and paste material you don't understand. Answer my question please.

What properties determine the color of a photographic image?

If properties of light, then WHERE is the light whose properties determine this?

If properties of light AT THE CAMERA, then how can light of color matching a newly changed object be at the camera instantaneously to interact with the film?

Stop falling back on faith and avoidance. Follow through and deal with the logical implications of your own claims.

Stop making me the bad guy, okay? I'm only trying to express what I believe to be true. I see the implications of Lessans' claims and they are perfectly clear to me. Maybe they're not clear to you yet, but you don't have to go to such lengths to belittle me. This is not about faith and avoidance, by the way.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This really is another O'Reilly moment isn't it? I don't know how stuff works, therefor Lessans is right.

We know the orbit of Jupiter. We know the orbits of its moons. We know them well enough to be able to fire unmanned craft right past them to get a close-up look both at the moons and at Jupiter - and we have done so.

We know the time it really takes for the moons to orbit Jupiter. We have observed these orbits up close using those same unmanned craft.

There is a difference in timing of the eclipses of Jupiters moons. A difference that matches the difference in distance from Jupiter to us on that particular instance of its orbit, measured in light-minutes.

It is clear evidence that sight is not direct. Unilaterally deciding that evidence from astronomy does not count does not change that. If only he had not looked down on academic study so much he could have known this - a simple adult course science 101 would have sufficed.

Couldn't it be as simple as the farther away something is from the earth's axis (due to seasonal changes), the longer it will take to orbit, which would account for the longer time to see the eclipse? Just a thought, so don't get crazy on me.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stop making me the bad guy, okay? I'm only trying to express what I believe to be true. I see the implications of Lessans' claims and they are perfectly clear to me. Maybe they're not clear to you yet...

Au contrarie, peacegirl, they are crystal clear to us. And they're WRONG. As has been spelled out for you in lilterally hundreds of different ways for nearly 500 pages!

Hey, peacegirl:

MOONS OF JUPITER.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Couldn't it be as simple as the farther away something is from the earth's axis (due to seasonal changes), the longer it will take to orbit, which would account for the longer time to see the eclipse?

Uh....No!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Uh....No!

Slightly more elaborate, the Moons of Jupiter are orbiting (of all things), Jupiter, and their orbits are unaffected by their distance from the Earth and even less so by the seasonal changes on Earth. Their distance from Earth only effects how long it takes the light, from the Moons, to get here, and therefore when we see them.