A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said that photons weren't in constant motion.

I'm not participating in this nonsense anymore, but who can resist dropping in briefly every now and then? The amazing thing about peacegirl is she is like a dartboard labeled "bullshit." Instead of the bullshit being in the bull's eye, it's the whole board, so no matter where you throw a dart you hit bullshit! Just so, no matter what line that she writes that one's eyes randomly fall upon, she again says something totally foolish. Not just some or most of her statements are bullshit, they ALL are!

Take the above. You are now contradicting Daddy again, peacegirl. Because that is PRECISELY what he said (and what you yourself have said in the past, because you keep changing your story because you yourself have no clue what you are trying to say).

Lessans said that when we are asleep, the same photons shining on the other side of the world are the ones that "smile on us" when we wake up in the morning! That means he thinks the photons on the other side of the world are stationary, waiting to smile on us when we wake up!

Let's see the weasel sping into action!

Someone please quote this in case she currently has me on pretend ignore.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's because you're not understanding that the distance from the object to the retina does not require the photons to travel to Earth. That's what I mean when I say you are not thinking in terms of efferent vision.

That is possibly true, but then your version of Efferent Vision has not been well explained or described. Most of us who are trying to understand what you are trying to say must do so on our own as your posts have been no help at all and are often contradictory. it would help if you were to explain clearly and consicely what Lessans was trying to say, the book is not at all clear about the details of how it works.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

I'm not participating in this nonsense anymore, but who can resist dropping in briefly every now and then? The amazing thing about peacegirl is she is like a dartboard labeled "bullshit." Instead of the bullshit being in the bull's eye, it's the whole board, so no matter where you throw a dart you hit bullshit! Just so, no matter what line that she writes that one's eyes randomly fall upon, she again says something totally foolish. Not just some or most of her statements are bullshit, they ALL are!

Take the above. You are now contradicting Daddy again, peacegirl. Because that is PRECISELY what he said (and what you yourself have said in the past, because you keep changing your story because you yourself have no clue what you are trying to say).

Lessans said that when we are asleep, the same photons shining on the other side of the world are the ones that "smile on us" when we wake up in the morning! That means he thinks the photons on the other side of the world are stationary, waiting to smile on us when we wake up!

Let's see the weasel sping into action!

Someone please quote this in case she currently has me on pretend ignore.

Done, but a futile gesture as I believe she has me on 'pretend ignore' as well.

Would someone else like to bump this and my last one?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

I'm not participating in this nonsense anymore, but who can resist dropping in briefly every now and then? The amazing thing about peacegirl is she is like a dartboard labeled "bullshit." Instead of the bullshit being in the bull's eye, it's the whole board, so no matter where you throw a dart you hit bullshit! Just so, no matter what line that she writes that one's eyes randomly fall upon, she again says something totally foolish. Not just some or most of her statements are bullshit, they ALL are!

Take the above. You are now contradicting Daddy again, peacegirl. Because that is PRECISELY what he said (and what you yourself have said in the past, because you keep changing your story because you yourself have no clue what you are trying to say).

Lessans said that when we are asleep, the same photons shining on the other side of the world are the ones that "smile on us" when we wake up in the morning! That means he thinks the photons on the other side of the world are stationary, waiting to smile on us when we wake up!

Let's see the weasel sping into action!

Someone please quote this in case she currently has me on pretend ignore.

That's not what he meant David. He was saying in reference to the Sun being turned on, that now that the light energy has reached Earth, it doesn't go away. It shines upon us when morning arrives because of the Earth's rotation. It's interesting to observe that the first person to jump down Lessans' throat is the least person who has any knowledge as to what this book is about. Is it any surprise that ignorance is wont to laugh and find funny what is not understood?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans didn't say anything about any of this. All of this "revealing" and "only white light travels" and "mirror images" is 100% YOU.

You are throwing Lessans under the bus.

All I'm doing is trying to get people to see that this is a viable model. I am trying to extend his observations regarding sight in a way that will be acceptable to science. You're absolutely right; he did not get into all of this, but that doesn't mean my extension of these principles is wrong. If you look deeper into this, there is a way to reconcile any discrepancies that people are having a problem with. I am in no way throwing Lessans under a bus. I am trying to help his cause, which is extremely important if it turns out that he was right.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How does light interact with matter when nobody is looking at it?

How and why does light behave differently when vision is involved and when vision is not involved?

There is no difference. Light works the same way whether we're looking at something or not, but understanding how the brain works makes the world of difference as far as knowing what it is we're actually seeing (i.e., the past or the present). This was the only differentiation Lessans was making, and his reasons for why he believed science got it wrong.

[LadyShea]

I am not asking about what we're seeing. I am specifically asking about what we are not seeing, and, so far, you have light behaving in ways it doesn't behave.

Your model, as you are presenting it, requires all of optics and light physics to change.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am not asking about what we're seeing. I am specifically asking about what we are not seeing, and, so far, you have light behaving in ways it doesn't behave.

Your model, as you are presenting it, requires all of optics and light physics to change.

That is not true LadyShea. Where does anything change except for the interaction between the LENS and LIGHT? Light alone works the way it works, but the lens of the eye, becomes part of the equation. You can't leave this out when we're talking about efferent vision, which is Lessans' actual claim. As far as lenses of cameras and telescopes go, you are going to have to accept Lessans' claim where the retina is concerned in order to understand why the lens of a telescope or camera work the same way.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not true LadyShea. Where does anything change except for the interaction between the LENS and LIGHT? Light alone works the way it works, but the lens of the retina, becomes part of the equation. You can't leave this out when we're talking about efferent vision, which is Lessans' actual claim. As far as lenses of cameras and telescopes go, you are going to have to accept Lessans' claim where the retina is concerned in order to understand why the lens of a telescope or camera work the same way.

See the bolded part above - is this a typo? Because it's a nonsensical statement.

[LadyShea]

But light doesn't work the way you are positing it to work.

I want you to tell me what you think light does when it encounters a leaf, when there are no lenses around.

Please answer without mentioning vision, lenses, retinas, or the brain, as I have asked you to do for months. Only light and leaf. If you have no idea how light behaves when it is not being seen or photographed, you can't possibly hope to understand or refute objections regarding how you have it behaving in your model.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

See the bolded part above - is this a typo? Because it's a nonsensical statement.

Thanks for pointing this out.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But light doesn't work the way you are positing it to work.

I want you to tell me what you think light does when it encounters a leaf, when there are no lenses around.

Please answer without mentioning vision, lenses, retinas, or the brain, as I have asked you to do for months. Only light and leaf. If you have no idea how light behaves when it is not being seen or photographed, you can't possibly hope to understand or refute objections regarding how you have it behaving in your model.

Light does the same thing that optics says it does except when it strikes matter, in this case a leaf. All the parts of the visible spectrum get absorbed except for green which gets (P) reflected and allows the leaf to be revealed. The (P) reflection is always present as long as the leaf is present, but this reflection (or the green wavelength light that reveals the leaf) does not travel through space and time after the leaf dies.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I'm doing is trying to get people to see that this is a viable model. I am trying to extend his observations regarding sight in a way that will be acceptable to science.

I am trying to help his cause, which is extremely important if it turns out that he was right.

There-in lies the problem it has not been demonstrated to be a viable model, in fact in many ways it is in contradiction to known science, optics and physics. So any extension of this model will necessarily be wrong, and will not be acceptable to science because it contradicts what is known to be true.

Lessans cause is lost because he was wrong.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light does the same thing that optics says it does except when it strikes matter, in this case a leaf. All the parts of the visible spectrum get absorbed except for green which gets (P) reflected and allows the leaf to be revealed. The (P) reflection is always present as long as the leaf is present, but this reflection (or the green wavelength light that reveals the leaf) does not travel through space and time after the leaf dies.

This is nonsense. What the hell are you talking about the leaf dying for, what the hell are you talking about "being revealed" for, when that is specifically something to do with vision? No vision, no eyes or cameras to be revealed to.

You agree that because light is energy it cannot be destroyed, correct?

You agree that light photons are discrete existing things that have inherent properties, right, and one of those properties is that it travels unless absorbed?

So, according to the laws of physics, the reflected light photons MUST STILL EXIST and it MUST HAVE A LOCATION. Where, as in a location, are the photons with a green wavelength 1 second after they are reflected off the leaf?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Let's start over. The photons are traveling, but if we can see the object (which is not just light which is assumed in the afferent model), then the light is at the film/retina instantly due to the fact that we could not see the object otherwise. I have said over and over that if the object is large enough and bright enough to be seen, by definition, the light is at the film/retina. That does not mean that the light is not traveling; it's just not (N) traveling through space and time such that we would be able to detect an image from a past event.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are saying "the" light is at the film instantly, but as you acknowledge below, this light is not the same light (i.e. not the same set of photons) as that which just hit the object. So sure, there is light at the film at the very next instant just after the blue photons in question hit the ball. But this light is different light, and light which, according to you, has also previously traveled to get to the film. So consider the following two times:

Time T2: This is the moment at which the photograph is taken. Of the sunlight which just hit the ball, all but the blue wavelength photons have just been absorbed by the blue ball. The blue photons have just bounced off the ball and are beginning their journey towards the camera. Other blue photons are instantly at the film and interacting with it to create a blue image on the photographic film. These blue photons at the film were previously travelling towards the film.

Time T1: This is an earlier time, prior to the taking of the photograph, and is the moment when the above photons (i.e. those which are at the film at T2) bounced off the ball and began traveling towards it. I am going to stipulate that at this time the ball was red rather than blue - that means it was then absorbing all but red photons, such that only red photons can be bouncing off. That means that the photons which are blue photons at T2 when they have just reached the film were red photons when they earlier left the ball at T1.

So when, how, and why did they change color (i.e. wavelength) during their journey from the ball (at T1) to the camera (at T2)?

They did not change color during their journey. The word journey implies a noticeable length of time between point A (the object) and point B (the eye). But if the eyes are efferent, which means the lens must be focused on the ball in order to see it, the light being (P) reflected would be a mirror image of what is happening now, just like if we looked in a mirror from across a room, and decided to change to a different color. We wouldn't see the original color we were wearing, we would see the new color. If we were detecting light alone without the need for the object to be present, then red would be seen before blue.

Wrong. Light resumes its full spectrum when the object is out of range because, at that point, the light is too far away which means that the absorbed light is not being sucked in. Blue light does not travel on forever and ever.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Full spectrum light consist of photons of ALL wavelengths. If some are missing, then they would need to be replaced with newly existing photons while this light is traveling for the light to resume its full spectrum. You would have new photons popping into existence from nowhere to reconstitute the full spectrum. And objects can only absorb parts of the light that is hitting them. They cannot reach out and absorb parts of the spectrum from light that has already bounced off. There can be no set distance along the light bouncing off the ball from which the ball is able to absorb certain wavelengths. Absorption occurs at the surface of the ball, and concerns only those photons hitting the ball at any given moment.

I am not disagreeing that absorption occurs at the surface of the ball, and concerns only those photons hitting the ball at any given moment. And as long as this is occurring, we will be able to see the blue ball when we're focused on it, because the non-absorbed light will continue to be (P) reflected. You say that if some are missing, then they would need to be replaced with newly existing photons while this light is traveling for the light to resume its full spectrum, but it is clear that when the (P) reflection is too far away to be within one's visual field due to the inverse square law, the light is no longer going to reflect a mirror image of the object on the film/retina. We will get light which contains the full spectrum once again because it is light that is coming from the Sun.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then explain to me how it does work. In the ROYGBIV example there are 7 photons hitting the blue ball (red, orange, yellow, green, blue, indigo, and violet).

When those photons hit the ball, which ones are absorbed (i.e. sucked in and used up by the ball)? red, orange, yellow, green, indigo, and violet

Which ones will at the very next moment (after hitting the ball) be instantly at the distant camera film?
the blue photons will be instantly at the film/retina because the distance is negligible. In other words, the camera is no more distant relative to the eyes than a lighted object that is much closer in actual miles because both meet the requirements; the object is large enough and bright enough for a photograph to be taken.

Which ones are left to bounce off the ball and begin travelling away from it at at finite speed?

The blue light is (P) reflected off of the ball until the light fades. Your logic tells you that the light can never be full spectrum because the object has absorbed certain wavelength light which would render white light gone, but, according to efferent vision, that's not how it works.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The blue photon (there is only one) cannot be both instantly at the film, and traveling towards the camera. It's one or the other. If this very same blue photon is instantly at the film, then it has teleported. And if it is rather the one and only photon bouncing off the ball (after the rest were absorbed) then what is bouncing off is blue light, and not full spectrum sunlight. If on efferent vision, part of the spectrum can be absorbed and used up while the whole spectrum still bounces off, then efferent vision is incoherent, contradictory, and/or in conflict with basic optics over the nature of white light.

I didn't say the whole spectrum bounces off. I said that the blue wavelength light will reveal the object because of the absorption property of said object. It will be (P) reflected but it will be limited according to the inverse square law. If the blue light fades out, it only means that the full spectrum light is now back to its original color since the Sun's light is no longer being absorbed by the object at that distance.

The blue photon is traveling, but the problem is that you don't understand why the distance between the photon and the film/retina is, for all intents and purposes, instant. If the object must be in view, then you cannot extend this reasoning, as LadyShea did, by saying that even if it's a nano-second difference in time, as the object gets further and further away, the light that has bounced off of that object is now further and further in the past as it strikes our telescopes, because there is no such thing as light containing the image of the object without the object present in some form.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The distance is not insignificant, no matter how small, so long as light always has to travel at a finite speed between the two points. Any photons which are instantly at the film cannot be the same ones which were at the object at the immediately previous moment (without teleportation), so they are rather photons which have themselves previously traveled to get there. And if they traveled that distance at a finite speed, then that distance makes a difference.

The photons are not the same, but because of efferent vision, the distance, no matter how far away something is, is insignificant, as long as the object is large enough and bright enough to be seen. I've said this countless times.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

When the blue wavelength photons hit the ball, are the photons which are instantly at the film at the very next moment, the same or different photons?

Different

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If they are the same, then how is this not teleportation? If they are different, then where are the specific blue wavelength photons that were hitting the ball?

Traveling.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Were these different photons also of blue wavelength just before they arrived at the film? What about when they were halfway between the ball and the film? What about when they first bounced off the ball? What if the ball was then red at that earlier time? Do you see the problem yet?

I see the problem, but I also see the solution.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It often happens that a previous answer is only partially copied and therefore it doesn't mention the person who quoted it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But those words were not part of the previous post at all. They were not my words or anyone else's in the post you were replying to. The only way they could have gotten themselves into your reply is if YOU typed them.

I told you that I did not know they were not your words. Sometimes you mimick me. I didn't see my name next to that comment, so I answered it thinking it was your comment. Why can't you leave well enough alone? This is insignificant, just like the distance between the eye and the object.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I'm doing is trying to get people to see that this is a viable model.

Then you are failing, because what you are presenting is not a viable model.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am trying to extend his observations regarding sight in a way that will be acceptable to science.

Then you are failing, because what you are presenting is not acceptable to science.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're absolutely right; he did not get into all of this, but that doesn't mean my extension of these principles is wrong.

Your extension of these principles is wrong because it is contradictory, incoherent, and incompatible with the observable evidence.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you look deeper into this, there is a way to reconcile any discrepancies that people are having a problem with.

If so, you haven't found it yet. Which makes this just another faith claim.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am in no way throwing Lessans under a bus. I am trying to help his cause, which is extremely important if it turns out that he was right.

He has turned out to be wrong, and you are not helping his cause or your own.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said that photons weren't in constant motion.

Completely irrelevant to the point. You said I made it sound like teleportation by saying that the blue photons hitting the ball would (P)reflect to the film instantly. But that is exactly what YOU were telling me.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said that the blue photons are not (N) reflected.

Yes, you previously denied that the blue photons hitting the ball bounce off and travel away from it, either alone or as part of traveling white sunlight. That's what I just said. In your last post you reversed your position on this so as to avoid teleporting light. You said that these blue photons are traveling away from the ball.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not true because the distance is miniscule. If the eyes are focused on the object then the subsequent light that is captured on film is a mirror image of the object as it is presently.

How can the light captured on FILM depend upon the focus of my EYES? There are no eyes in my example. Only a camera. And how can you know that the distance is "miniscule"? The distance between the ball and the camera is not specified in my example. It could be a few centimeters or it could be a thousand miles. All that matters is that it is NON-ZERO. You don't get to just assert that this distance will make no difference. You have to explain this and justify this claim with reference to the example.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's because you're not understanding that the distance from the object to the retina does not require the photons to travel to Earth. That's what I mean when I say you are not thinking in terms of efferent vision.

What are you talking about? Which photons don't have to travel where? Earth isn't even a part of the example I've been giving you. My example involves ONLY the sun, emitted light, a blue ball (at an unspecified distance from the sun), and a camera and film (at an unspecified distance from the ball). If there are photons anywhere in the model which didn't have to travel to get there, then you have them teleporting again.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And I said that energy from the Sun is in constant motion, so how can the blue photons not be moving? They cannot be stationary.

What are you even talking about? My question wasn't about whether the photons at the film (when the photograph is taken) were moving or stationary. I was just trying to get you to tell me WHERE they were just before that. You have answered that they were between the ball and camera and travelling towards the camera. That means they were not instantly at the camera, but rather travelled to get there from the ball. That means the ball might have been a different color back when these photons began their journey.

You can't have it both ways. The light at the camera film has either traveled to get there taking time to do so, or it has instantly teleported there. If the former, and if the ball was earlier a different color, then the light will have had to change color while travelling to match the real-time color of the ball at the time this light arrives at the film.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not what he meant David. He was saying in reference to the Sun being turned on, that now that the light energy has reached Earth, it doesn't go away. It shines upon us when morning arrives because of the Earth's rotation. It's interesting to observe that the first person to jump down Lessans' throat is the least person who has any knowledge as to what this book is about. Is it any surprise that ignorance is wont to laugh and find funny what is not understood?

Hey, stupid, why don't you copy and paste the exact quote from that passage and see what Daddy Dumbkins actually said, hmm? Remember, don't go tampering with it, the way that you dishonestly changed the idiot's "molecules of light" to "photons." Other people here have copies of the book on their hard drives.

Also, stupid, if we see in real time, why do we always see the moons of Mars in delayed time?

Also, stupid, if real-time seeing is true, why does NASA factor in delayed-time seeing to send spacecraft to Mars and other celestial bodies?

Any chance you'll get around to answering those questions, liar?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They did not change color during their journey. The word journey implies a noticeable length of time between point A (the object) and point B (the eye). But if the eyes are efferent, which means the lens must be focused on the ball in order to see it, the light being (P) reflected would be a mirror image of what is happening now, just like if we looked in a mirror from across a room, and decided to change to a different color. We wouldn't see the original color we were wearing, we would see the new color. If we were detecting light alone without the need for the object to be present, then red would be seen before blue.

You are just giving me the outcome rather than the mechanism responsible for it. I know you want the properties of the light at the film to match the real-time nature of what is happening. The problem is that you cannot explain how this could be the case.

Based upon YOUR answer that the light at the film was previously traveling towards the camera and did not instantly teleport there, and the fact that there is some non-zero distance between the ball and the camera, it is true that there is a journey involved that will have taken some non-zero amount of time. This means the ball could have been a different color (i.e. allowing only a different wavelength of light to bounce off) at the earlier time when this journey began. And that means the traveling photons would HAVE TO have changed color during their journey. Otherwise they will still be red when they get to the camera, while the real-time color of the ball is then blue.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not disagreeing that absorption occurs at the surface of the ball, and concerns only those photons hitting the ball at any given moment. And as long as this is occurring, we will be able to see the blue ball when we're focused on it, because the non-absorbed light will continue to be (P) reflected. You say that if some are missing, then they would need to be replaced with newly existing photons while this light is traveling for the light to resume its full spectrum, but it is clear that when the (P) reflection is too far away to be within one's visual field due to the inverse square law, the light is no longer going to reflect a mirror image of the object on the film/retina. We will get light which contains the full spectrum once again because it is light that is coming from the Sun.

No-one is asking you about the light coming directly from the sun rather than that which has bounced off the object. What happens to the blue light bouncing off the object (i.e. the non-absorbed blue photons)? Do you agree that they simply bounce off in various directions and continue travelling at the speed of light? That they will disperse over distance but will never themselves change into white light?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say the whole spectrum bounces off. I said that the blue wavelength light will reveal the object because of the absorption property of said object. It will be (P) reflected but it will be limited according to the inverse square law. If the blue light fades out, it only means that the full spectrum light is now back to its original color since the Sun's light is no longer being absorbed by the object at that distance.

On the contrary, you have repeatedly claimed that only full spectrum light bounces off objects. I'm glad you're finally acknowledging this to be false. The specific light which has bounced off the ball can never itself switch back to white light (without the magical addition of new photons), but at a distance where the bounced-off blue photons are highly dispersed you are welcome to say that other light from the sun may be present.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The photons are not the same, but because of efferent vision, the distance, no matter how far away something is, is insignificant, as long as the object is large enough and bright enough to be seen. I've said this countless times.

Yes, you've said that countless times. Unfortunately it is still wrong, even on your own efferent model. You've said that when the photograph is taken, there is sunlight hitting the ball, blue photons from that light are bouncing off and beginning to travel towards the camera, and other different blue photons are already at the camera film which were previously traveling towards it.

You've said that no light ever instantly teleports anywhere. That is why the light at the film is a different set of photons from those that have just bounced off the surface of the ball when the photograph is taken. That also means the photons already at the film were previously traveling to get there and took time to arrive.

Given this, I can construct the same problem using either set of photons. First, take those blue photons already at the film. They did not teleport there but instead travelled there at a finite speed across the non-zero distance between the ball and the camera. That means they left the surface of the ball before the photograph was taken. If the ball was then red rather than blue (changing from red to blue while this light was traveling) then either the red ball reflected (i.e. bounced-off) these photons as blue photons (which is impossible, for a red ball would have absorbed them and bounced-off only red photons), or these particular photons (which are blue when they get to the film) were initially red and changed color during their journey.

The same problem can be stated for the other different set of blue photons which have only just bounced off the ball's surface to begin traveling when the photograph is taken. Because they are traveling at a finite speed across the non-zero distance between the ball and the camera, they will only arrive at the film at a later time. Suppose a second photograph is taken at this later time when they arrive at the film. Suppose also that the ball has changed color during this time and is now red. Do we get a blue photo of the now-red ball? Or do these blue photons interact with the film to produce a red image? Or have these initially blue photons changed color while traveling to become red photons matching the real-time color of the ball?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I see the problem, but I also see the solution.

Perhaps then you could be so kind as to share this solution with the rest of us? I'm sure we'd all be very interested to hear it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that I did not know they were not your words. Sometimes you mimick me. I didn't see my name next to that comment, so I answered it thinking it was your comment. Why can't you leave well enough alone? This is insignificant, just like the distance between the eye and the object.

If you are agreeing that when replying to my post YOU added those words and then proceeded to argue against yourself during that same reply, then I will drop it. I've only pressed you on this because you tried to deny that this happened and said I was just trying to make you look like a numbskull. Regardless of how it makes you look (and I see no reason to disagree with your judgment on that) I was dead right about what you did.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is nonsense. What the hell are you talking about the leaf dying for, what the hell are you talking about "being revealed" for, when that is specifically something to do with vision? No vision, no eyes or cameras to be revealed to.

You agree that because light is energy it cannot be destroyed, correct?

Light energy is not destroyed. The only thing that changes is that the full spectrum comes into play as the blue photons get farther and farther away from the object.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You agree that light photons are discrete existing things that have inherent properties, right, and one of those properties is that it travels unless absorbed?

As I said, when the object is no longer seen because it is too far away, white light appears. The blue photons, or the image of the blue ball, does not bounce off of the object and travel through space and time. I've been saying this all along.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, according to the laws of physics, the reflected light photons MUST STILL EXIST and it MUST HAVE A LOCATION. Where, as in a location, are the photons with a green wavelength 1 second after they are reflected off the leaf?

They are being (P) reflected LadyShea, but those particular photons are the mirror image of the object due to the object's ability to absorb light energy. That's what I mean by "the object reveals itself through light". But the farther away the (P) reflected light is from the object, you will see more white light on the retina/film, which only means that at that distance the object is absorbing less and less light energy.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only thing that changes is that the full spectrum comes into play as the blue photons get further and further away from the object.

The blue photons, or the image of the blue ball, does not bounce off of the object and travel through space and time.

How do the blue photons get further and further away from the object if they don't bounce off it and travel through space and time?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They are being (P) reflected LadyShea...

"Being (P)reflected" is not a location. This has been pointed out to you before.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But the farther away the (P) reflected light is from the object, you will see more white light on the retina/film, which only means that at that distance the object is absorbing less and less light energy.

What possible difference can the distance between the retina/film and the object make to the amount of light being absorbed by the object? This makes no sense at all.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But if the eyes are efferent, which means the lens must be focused on the ball in order to see it, the light being (P) reflected would be a mirror image of what is happening now, just like if we looked in a mirror from across a room, and decided to change to a different color. We wouldn't see the original color we were wearing, we would see the new color. If we were detecting light alone without the need for the object to be present, then red would be seen before blue.

Peacegirl, part of your confusion is that when you look in a mirror the reflection seems to be happening at the same instant that you do it, but what you are failing to understand is that the delay is too small for you to notice it without very special equipment. Light travels about 30 cm in a nanosecond so if you were 15 meters from the mirror (a large room) the total time for the light to travel from you to the mirror and back is about 100 nanosecondsans I doubt that you could notice the time interval by eye. And a nanosecond is,

define nanosecond - Bing DICTIONARY

[LadyShea]

Once again you non-answered the very direct questions and included seeing and vision in your responses.

Weasel

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They did not change color during their journey. The word journey implies a noticeable length of time between point A (the object) and point B (the eye). But if the eyes are efferent, which means the lens must be focused on the ball in order to see it, the light being (P) reflected would be a mirror image of what is happening now, just like if we looked in a mirror from across a room, and decided to change to a different color. We wouldn't see the original color we were wearing, we would see the new color. If we were detecting light alone without the need for the object to be present, then red would be seen before blue.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are just giving me the outcome rather than the mechanism responsible for it. I know you want the properties of the light at the film to match the real-time nature of what is happening. The problem is that you cannot explain how this could be the case.

Based upon YOUR answer that the light at the film was previously traveling towards the camera and did not instantly teleport there, and the fact that there is some non-zero distance between the ball and the camera, it is true that there is a journey involved that will have taken some non-zero amount of time. This means the ball could have been a different color (i.e. allowing only a different wavelength of light to bounce off) at the earlier time when this journey began. And that means the traveling photons would HAVE TO have changed color during their journey. Otherwise they will still be red when they get to the camera, while the real-time color of the ball is then blue.

This is where you're going back to the afferent version, and you don't even realize it. You still believe that the light itself is bringing the image, even if the object is nowhere to be seen. The very fact that the object must be in the field of view due to efferent vision, changes the actual distance to virtual.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not disagreeing that absorption occurs at the surface of the ball, and concerns only those photons hitting the ball at any given moment. And as long as this is occurring, we will be able to see the blue ball when we're focused on it, because the non-absorbed light will continue to be (P) reflected. You say that if some are missing, then they would need to be replaced with newly existing photons while this light is traveling for the light to resume its full spectrum, but it is clear that when the (P) reflection is too far away to be within one's visual field due to the inverse square law, the light is no longer going to reflect a mirror image of the object on the film/retina. We will get light which contains the full spectrum once again because it is light that is coming from the Sun.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No-one is asking you about the light coming directly from the sun rather than that which has bounced off the object. What happens to the blue light bouncing off the object (i.e. the non-absorbed blue photons)? Do you agree that they simply bounce off in various directions and continue travelling at the speed of light? That they will disperse over distance but will never themselves change into white light?

Blue photons don't change to white light, but the full spectrum, including the blue wavelength light, begins where the blue photons are no longer visible.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say the whole spectrum bounces off. I said that the blue wavelength light will reveal the object because of the absorption property of said object. It will be (P) reflected but it will be limited according to the inverse square law. If the blue light fades out, it only means that the full spectrum light is now back to its original color since the Sun's light is no longer being absorbed by the object at that distance.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

On the contrary, you have repeatedly claimed that only full spectrum light bounces off objects. I'm glad you're finally acknowledging this to be false. The specific light which has bounced off the ball can never itself switch back to white light (without the magical addition of new photons), but at a distance where the bounced-off blue photons are highly dispersed you are welcome to say that other light from the sun may be present.

I corrected that 100 pages ago, so why are you bringing this up?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The photons are not the same, but because of efferent vision, the distance, no matter how far away something is, is insignificant, as long as the object is large enough and bright enough to be seen. I've said this countless times.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, you've said that countless times. Unfortunately it is still wrong, even on your own efferent model. You've said that when the photograph is taken, there is sunlight hitting the ball, blue photons from that light are bouncing off and beginning to travel towards the camera, and other different blue photons are already at the camera film which were previously traveling towards it.

You've said that no light ever instantly teleports anywhere. That is why the light at the film is a different set of photons from those that have just bounced off the surface of the ball when the photograph is taken. That also means the photons already at the film were previously traveling to get there and took time to arrive.

Given this, I can construct the same problem using either set of photons. First, take those blue photons already at the film. They did not teleport there but instead travelled there at a finite speed across the non-zero distance between the ball and the camera. That means they left the surface of the ball before the photograph was taken. If the ball was then red rather than blue (changing from red to blue while this light was traveling) then either the red ball reflected (i.e. bounced-off) these photons as blue photons (which is impossible, for a red ball would have absorbed them and bounced-off only red photons), or these particular photons (which are blue when they get to the film) were initially red and changed color during their journey.

The same problem can be stated for the other different set of blue photons which have only just bounced off the ball's surface to begin traveling when the photograph is taken. Because they are traveling at a finite speed across the non-zero distance between the ball and the camera, they will only arrive at the film at a later time. Suppose a second photograph is taken at this later time when they arrive at the film. Suppose also that the ball has changed color during this time and is now red. Do we get a blue photo of the now-red ball? Or do these blue photons interact with the film to produce a red image? Or have these initially blue photons changed color while traveling to become red photons matching the real-time color of the ball?

The entire problem with your account has to do with the distance you believe the photons are traveling. How can red photons show up in such a short space between the film and the object?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I see the problem, but I also see the solution.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Perhaps then you could be so kind as to share this solution with the rest of us? I'm sure we'd all be very interested to hear it.

Maybe I'm still not explaining it right, but this is not an implausible model.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that I did not know they were not your words. Sometimes you mimick me. I didn't see my name next to that comment, so I answered it thinking it was your comment. Why can't you leave well enough alone? This is insignificant, just like the distance between the eye and the object.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If you are agreeing that when replying to my post YOU added those words and then proceeded to argue against yourself during that same reply, then I will drop it. I've only pressed you on this because you tried to deny that this happened and said I was just trying to make you look like a numbskull. Regardless of how it makes you look (and I see no reason to disagree with your judgment on that) I was dead right about what you did.

You're dead right about everything, aren't you?