A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Thank you. It would be fascinating to have her perspective on all of this. Would you mind then if I were to extend the invitation to her daughter as well?

One day I'll ask her to register and answer a few questions, but I know she won't stay on long because she's in business and doesn't have time to hang out on the forum. That's not her thing either. She would never put up with the name calling. She just wouldn't. The first time someone would call her a name or be disrespectful, the conversation would be over. Her children never got involved in the book because they are into their own life. They adored their poppy though. They both have websites. One is an artist, and one is a singer. One of my sister's grandchildren is interested in the book, but I haven't discussed it with him yet. He's 17.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If you aren't familiar with the conditions of an experiment how can even begin to evaluate the reliability of the experiment?

Sometimes experiments are not conducive to what it is that is being tested. That's why I said that empirical observation is sometimes more accurate than a controlled experiment that assumes certain things are true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because I know dogs can't recognize photographs...

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Isn't it rather premature to discount the results of an experiment just because those results contradict what you believe to be true? Why can't you give those scientists the benefit of the doubt and accept that they know what they are doing?

I'm not saying they don't know what they're doing, but when a basic premise is believed to be absolute fact (afferent vision), then the results could easily be misinterpreted to fit the premise. It's understandable given that everyone on earth believes that light brings us the image long after the event is gone.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It was in the same place because the blue photons did not travel.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If the blue photons did not travel then they were either stationary or had ceased to exist. You have previously agreed that light is never stationary. If it has not been absorbed, it is not stationary and it is not traveling, then it has ceased to exist. Are you suggesting that light can be destroyed?

No, not at all. I'm just saying that non-absorbed light is not bouncing. It is being replaced by new photons that continue traveling, just as certain photons are continually being absorbed, but as the inverse square law clearly demonstrates, when the image can no longer be resolved on the sensor, the non-absorbed light becomes white light, which does show up on the sensor. This is the point at which the blue photons meet up, so to speak, with all the other light in the visible spectrum, which does continue on through space and time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nothing violates the laws of physics because the non-absorbed light is not traveling anywhere.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If non-absorbed is not traveling then it has either been destroyed or it is stationary. Both the destruction of light and stationary light violate the laws of physics.

But that's not what's happening. There is no destruction and there is no stationary light. But there is also no bouncing, or (N) reflection of the non-absorbed photons. This is the misconception and the only reason scientists could never see this error is because everybody believed that the eyes were a sense organ, therefore there was no way they would have been able to make this correction until someone came along to show them why the eyes work differently than the other senses.

[peacegirl]

I just want people to know that after next week, I won't be here for 9 or 10 days because I'm going to my son's wedding, but I will be back. I'm sorry if I've disappointed anyone in saying I'm coming back! I'm sure I'll be sorely missed by some.

[LadyShea]

Mazel Tov!

[Vivisectus]

Hey I was just going to write that!

Mazel Tov PG!

[LadyShea]

There is no destruction and there is no stationary light. But there is also no bouncing, or (N) reflection of the non-absorbed photons. This is the misconception and the only reason scientists could never see this error is because everybody believed that the eyes were a sense organ

Light being reflected has been empirically observed and measured. This isn't a belief regarding eyes being a sense organ at all. See spectrometry.

Isn't your son a radiologist? Ask him about the laws of electromagnetic radiation, reflection, absorption, transmission etc. His job depends on these laws of physics being accurate as described by science

Radiation:
Physics .
a.
the process in which energy is emitted as particles or waves.
b.
the complete process in which energy is emitted by one body, transmitted through an intervening medium or space, and absorbed by another body.
c.
the energy transferred by these processes.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And I'm trying to tell you that because of the eyes being efferent, which means they don't have to wait for the light to reach Earth in order to see, changes the mechanism. I'm trying to show you that the requirements for sight are such that when the object is in view, the light becomes a mirror image, instead of said light having to travel through space and time in order for us to receive the incoming image. If you just grasp just this, even if you still don't understand it entirely, we will have made some progress.

I believe that most of us here can understand what you are saying, but there is one detail that needs to be explained and that is how do the photons and the film or retina come into contact? Just saying that they do so is not enough, how does it happen? What is the means that is not in conflict with the laws of physics?

bump please.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And I'm trying to tell you that because of the eyes being efferent, which means they don't have to wait for the light to reach Earth in order to see, changes the mechanism.

And I am trying to explain to you that "eyes are efferent" does not even come close to explaining the non-laws-of-physics breaking, physical mechanism by which photons come to occupy the same location as camera film.

If it changes the mechanism, then explain that "changed" mechanism. So far, you have been unable to do anything but assert that it happens, you have offered nothing to explain how it happens or how that mechanism is compatible with physics.

I'm trying to show you that the requirements for sight are such that when the object is in view, the light becomes a mirror image, instead of said light having to travel through space and time in order for us to receive the incoming image.

You've simply placed the photons at a different location, that being the location of the "mirror image", and still haven't explained how the photons come to be at that location.

You are asserting, you see, not explaining. You are not providing a physical mechanism that is compatible with known physical laws.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sometimes experiments are not conducive to what it is that is being tested. That's why I said that empirical observation is sometimes more accurate than a controlled experiment that assumes certain things are true.

Supposing that this is true, on what grounds can you declare that a particular experiment was not conducive to what was being tested if you are not familiar with the details of how the experiment was conducted?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not saying they don't know what they're doing, but when a basic premise is believed to be absolute fact (afferent vision), then the results could easily be misinterpreted to fit the premise.

Again, supposing that this is true in principle, on what grounds do you assert that the principle applies to this particular experiment?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, not at all. I'm just saying that non-absorbed light is not bouncing. It is being replaced by new photons that continue traveling, just as certain photons are continually being absorbed, but as the inverse square law clearly demonstrates, when the image can no longer be resolved on the sensor, the non-absorbed light becomes white light, which does show up on the sensor. This is the point at which the blue photons meet up, so to speak, with all the other light in the visible spectrum, which does continue on through space and time.

But that's not what's happening. There is no destruction and there is no stationary light. But there is also no bouncing, or (N) reflection of the non-absorbed photons. This is the misconception and the only reason scientists could never see this error is because everybody believed that the eyes were a sense organ, therefore there was no way they would have been able to make this correction until someone came along to show them why the eyes work differently than the other senses.

Call it whatever you like. Call it bouncing, call it reflecting, call it sashaying, promenading or truckin'. You can even call it (P) reflecting if that makes you happy. By whatever name you call it those non-absorbed photons are either in motion or they are not. If they are not in motion then they are either stationary or have been destroyed. Both of those states are violations of the current laws of physics, which you claim that your "model" does not violate.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

One day I'll ask her to register and answer a few questions, but I know she won't stay on long because she's in business and doesn't have time to hang out on the forum. That's not her thing either. She would never put up with the name calling. She just wouldn't. The first time someone would call her a name or be disrespectful, the conversation would be over. Her children never got involved in the book because they are into their own life. They adored their poppy though. They both have websites. One is an artist, and one is a singer. One of my sister's grandchildren is interested in the book, but I haven't discussed it with him yet. He's 17.

Not what I asked, but as you haven't raised any objection I'll invite her too.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, not at all. I'm just saying that non-absorbed light is not bouncing. It is being replaced by new photons that continue traveling, just as certain photons are continually being absorbed, but as the inverse square law clearly demonstrates, when the image can no longer be resolved on the sensor, the non-absorbed light becomes white light, which does show up on the sensor. This is the point at which the blue photons meet up, so to speak, with all the other light in the visible spectrum, which does continue on through space and time.

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?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that's not what's happening. There is no destruction and there is no stationary light. But there is also no bouncing, or (N) reflection of the non-absorbed photons. This is the misconception and the only reason scientists could never see this error is because everybody believed that the eyes were a sense organ, therefore there was no way they would have been able to make this correction until someone came along to show them why the eyes work differently than the other senses.

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.

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.)

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Mazel Tov!

Awww, thank you LadyShea. I really appreciate your regards.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Hey I was just going to write that!

Mazel Tov PG!

Thank you Vivisectus!!! It was really sweet of you to acknowledge!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light being reflected has been empirically observed and measured. This isn't a belief regarding eyes being a sense organ at all. See spectrometry.

But that is N light and I'm not disputing this at all.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Isn't your son a radiologist? Ask him about the laws of electromagnetic radiation, reflection, absorption, transmission etc. His job depends on these laws of physics being accurate as described by science

Radiation:
Physics .
a.
the process in which energy is emitted as particles or waves.
b.
the complete process in which energy is emitted by one body, transmitted through an intervening medium or space, and absorbed by another body.
c.
the energy transferred by these processes.

Yes, my son is in his fellowship and, as a matter of fact, he just accepted a job offer to start in September in Miami. There is no doubt that electromagnetic radiation is real, but this radiation travels at a finite speed that we are able to detect and use. But what does this have to do with efferent sight? This radiation is not part of the visual spectrum.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that is N light and I'm not disputing this at all.

The light that is observed to bounce off and travel away from objects is the light that hit them and was not absorbed.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, my son is in his fellowship and, as a matter of fact, he just accepted a job offer to start in September in Miami.

That's great. Is there any chance of your inviting him here? I don't have his email address to ask him myself.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no doubt that electromagnetic radiation is real, but this radiation travels at a finite speed that we are able to detect and use. But what does this have to do with efferent sight? This radiation is not part of the visual spectrum.

The visual spectrum is electromagnetic radiation. Light is electromagnetic radiation.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that is N light and I'm not disputing this at all.

Yes, my son is in his fellowship and, as a matter of fact, he just accepted a job offer to start in September in Miami. There is no doubt that electromagnetic radiation is real, but this radiation travels at a finite speed that we are able to detect and use. 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.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This radiation is not part of the visual spectrum.

Holy shit!



Light IS the electromagnetic spectrum, you little fool, of which visible light is a smal part!

you presume to lecture others on physics and you don't even know what the electromagnetic spectrum is. Fucking incredible.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And I'm trying to tell you that because of the eyes being efferent...

LOL. Full stop, you fucking idiot. Eyes aren't efferent.

And I do hope when you are gone for nine days, these stupid threads of yours are appropriately deep-sixed and when you come back and bump them, the few people who still bother with your shit have the discretion to ignore them and you completely.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

LOL. Full stop, you fucking idiot. Eyes aren't efferent.

And I do hope when you are gone for nine days, these stupid threads of yours are appropriately deep-sixed and when you come back and bump them, the few people who still bother with your shit have the discretion to ignore them and you completely.

What about the party?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And I'm trying to tell you that because of the eyes being efferent, which means they don't have to wait for the light to reach Earth in order to see, changes the mechanism.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And I am trying to explain to you that "eyes are efferent" does not even come close to explaining the non-laws-of-physics breaking, physical mechanism by which photons come to occupy the same location as camera film.

Unfortunately, you still haven't been able to grasp the significance between efferent versus afferent vision, which does not violate any laws of physics.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If it changes the mechanism, then explain that "changed" mechanism. So far, you have been unable to do anything but assert that it happens, you have offered nothing to explain how it happens or how that mechanism is compatible with physics.

I disagree. I have been explaining the mechanism. As a consequence of knowing how the eyes work, we can see why light becomes a condition of sight, not a cause of sight.

I'm trying to show you that the requirements for sight are such that when the object is in view, the light becomes a mirror image, instead of said light having to travel through space and time in order for us to receive the incoming image.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You've simply placed the photons at a different location, that being the location of the "mirror image", and still haven't explained how the photons come to be at that location.

The photons are not in a different location. The very words you use show me you're confused because you're not thinking in reverse. If you are looking at something in real time, the light that is on the film/retina has to be a mirror image of what is seen. You're thinking in terms of light traveling, which then leads to a contradiction.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The photons are not in a different location. They are where they've always been.

No photon ever stays where it's always been. If it did it would be stationary, and stationary photons contradict the laws of physics.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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. It is believed that this N light, which is always traveling, is all that is necessary to detect an image. I will continue to maintain that Lessans was right when he showed where the mistake originated which has everything to do with how the brain and eyes work. You are not taking his observation about vision into account at all. You keep focusing on photons, but if you follow his observation you will see that if the brain is looking through the eyes outward, the light has to be a mirror image, as I said in the last post. You are starting from the wrong position. You are starting from the object which then sends the light along a path to a destination. Efferent vision is starting from the light at the film/retina which then allows the object to be seen in real time.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Unfortunately, you still haven't been able to grasp the significance between efferent versus afferent vision, which does not violate any laws of physics.

To not violate the laws of physics there must be a physical mechanism by which photons come to be in the same physical location as the camera film. Without a physical mechanism you are saying that efferent vision is magic.

Is efferent vision sufficient to explain how your car got into your garage?
Is efferent vision sufficient to explain how you got into the bathroom?
Can you efferent vision a marble into an envelope from across the room?

Photons are physically existing things. They cannot just be at any location without getting there.

Light being a condition of sight does not change the known physical properties of light or the physical laws light is subject to.

Either your model is compatible with these properties and laws or it violates them.

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm trying to show you that the requirements for sight are such that when the object is in view, the light becomes a mirror image, instead of said light having to travel through space and time in order for us to receive the incoming image.

No? Surface of camera film is one location and surface of the object is another. Those are two different physical locations.

If you can touch something with your finger, where your finger is is a location. Can you touch camera film? Yes. Can you touch the object? Yes. Can you touch the object and the camera film with the same finger at the same moment? Not unless they are at the same location, because they are at two different locations

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you are looking at something in real time, the light that is on the film/retina has to be a mirror image of what is seen.

You don't understand that the laws of physics require that photons have a location and a mechanism by which they came to be at that location.

If their current location is "surface of the camera film", fine. Where were they .001 second before they were at the camera film?

How did they come to be at the camera film without traveling, and without teleporting, and without coming into spontaneous existence there?
There are no other options except magic.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Although light travels at a finite speed, and is part of the continuum of the full spectrum, the visual part of this spectrum doesn't work the same way.

Then you're contradicting the laws of physics which say that it does work the same way.

And why would only the specific part of the spectrum that we happen to have evolved visual sensitivity to just so happen to work differently? Note also that the 'visual' part of the spectrum differs for different species and different kinds of eyes. So why should that one part of that spectrum happen to work completely differently than all the rest?

And how did the light at the film get there?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No photon ever stays where it's always been. If it did it would be stationary, and stationary photons contradict the laws of physics.

How many times do I have to say that the Sun's emissions continue to replace light, even though the non-absorbed light is not bringing the pattern to the eye through space and time. Again, you are not taking efferent vision into account at all.