A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not say that the photons would be at the film or retina on Earth because there are no photons on Earth in this hypothetical example

Are you fucking kidding me? You've said many times that light is "at the film" at 12 noon, before they have had time to travel there at 12:08. Do you need me to get your quotes?

You are a liar.

[LadyShea]

Yu never answered this one

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What are you talking about? This is word salad.

The light has arrived and continues to arrive from those galaxies, but must be collected by a sensor over very long periods of time because it is so faint. Our eyes cannot do this, but the Hubble can. Therefore they don't work the same way.

If we have to wait for the photons to arrive to see the light, then we would have to wait 8 minutes for the light to arrive for the camera to utilize the light to create an image. Therefore, even if Lessans were right, and we could SEE the newly ignited Sun at noon with our brains looking through our eyes, we couldn't photograph it. Cameras require light photons to be "here" (wherever the camera is).

These cameras use infrared light. Infrared works the same as all light does. So, if a camera can detect the object, but the eyes cannot, they don't, in fact, work the same way...correct?

[davidm]

From nearly a year and a half ago:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't matter what you think Spacemonkey. You're no longer relevant. BTW, I have not contradicted myself whatsoever. We can see the sun as long as it is bright enough to be seen, which does not require photons to travel 186,000 miles per second to Earth. And I will not be sucked into this conversation again due to your namecalling. Game over.

LOL. Jesus. Christ.

[davidm]

In November of 2012, peacegirl demanded to know why Dr. Ruth was posting in this thread, writing: "I would think she would be out in the world helping people with sexual problems."

Honestly, this thread is … one strange thing.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, there you go, trying to make fun of a man whose observations and inferences were accurate. He may have used the wrong word because he wasn't in the field, but that didn't make his observations inaccurate. Boy are you mixed up.

Light does not carry any charge itself, so it does not attract or repel charged particles like electrons. Instead light is an oscillating electric and magnetic field. If you take an electron and put it in a static electric field (e.g. around a Van der Graaff Generator) then the electron feels a force due to the field and will move. This happens when an electron interacts with a light wave, but because the light wave is an oscillating field the electron moves to and fro and there is no net motion. If you could watch an electron as light passes by you'd see it start oscillating to and fro, but it's net position wouldn't change.

Why is light called an 'electromagnetic wave' if it's neither electric nor magnetic? - Physics Stack Exchange

Yes, light is form of electromagnetic radiation. Images are not.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm trying to explain why the efferent model, being the complete opposite of the afferent model, changes everything. I cannot state enough times that you ARE coming from the afferent model of thinking the minute you discuss photons traveling. There is nothing in the photons that can bring a delayed image to the eye through space/time. I'm beginning to realize how difficult these concepts are, and why it took so long for these discoveries to be made.

These concepts are not difficult. They are incoherent.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Right, but there comes a point where the light no longer produces an image because the object is too far away (out of range), so all we will get on film is white light.

If there comes a point where the light no longer produces an image, then there must have been some point prior to that when light did produce an image. So, you now appear to be claiming that light produces images. This appears to contradict your claim that light does not cause vision but is merely a condition of vision.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It would follow the same principle as if we were seeing the object directly. I never said the properties of light are any different. Reflection off of a mirror would still occur, but distance and time would not be factors; only size and brightness. So if the Sun was bright enough and large enough to be within our field of view, we would see the Sun in the mirror in real time.

If a mirror works because, in your words, "[i]t's the nonabsorbed photons that have been reflected so I can see myself" then it must be the case that the image of the sun which you see in the mirror is caused by the photons from the sun striking the mirror and being reflected off the surface of the mirror. In order for the photons from the sun to strike the surface of the mirror and be reflected off of it those photons must have been in motion for some period of time (i.e. traveling). Likewise, for those photons that are reflected off the surface of the mirror to strike your retinas, they also must be in motion for some period of time (however infintesimal). You thus have two distinct periods of time to account for, the time it takes for the photons from the sun to reach the surface of the mirror and the time it takes for the photons reflected by the mirror to reach your retinas. Under no conceivable account can the image of the sun appear in the mirror and be visible to someone looking in the mirror at the same time.

I remind you that Lessans said that even though we would see the newly ignited sun instantly it would still take 81/2 minutes before we could see someone standing next to us. In this scenario the mirror is the exact equivalent of someone standing next to us. So, according to Lessans account it would take 81/2 minutes before we could even see the mirror or any image in the mirror. By your own admission we can see an image in a mirror because of the photons that are being reflected off the mirror. A mirror which we could not possibly see before at least 81/2 minutes had elapsed since the sun was ignited.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Are you fucking kidding me? You've said many times that light is "at the film" at 12 noon, before they have had time to travel there at 12:08. Do you need me to get your quotes?

You are a liar.

Would you stop calling me a liar LadyShea? If I misunderstand something that you post, I don't call you a liar. Why do you all throw this word around like it's nothing. It's an attack on my character, and it's wrong. Doesn't your conscience bother you even a little bit?

I said the light would be at the film instantly if we gaze at the object (the efferent model of sight), but this does not mean the light had to travel to Earth in order for this interaction to take place. What do you think this entire debate has been about?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said the light would be at the film instantly...

Which is precisely what you just denied ever having said.

So were you lying, or were you actually confused as to what you yourself have said?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Let's imagine that an optical filter in the form of a blue bubble is placed directly around the sun. Up to the instant the filter is placed around the sun it is sending out white light, aftwards the light will be blue. Now if you're on earth looking at the sun you would expect to see the sun turn blue the moment that that the filter is placed around it even though your eyes will still be bathed in white light for 8.5min? Why?

This is very hypothetical because there is no filter around the Sun. The Sun's light is always the full spectrum. If we see a sunset, the same principle applies. We are able to see these colors in real time due to the interaction of light with changes in the atmosphere.

What Determines Sky's Colors At Sunrise And Sunset?

The colors of the sunset result from a phenomenon called scattering. Molecules and small particles in the atmosphere change the direction of light rays, causing them to scatter. Scattering affects the color of light coming from the sky, but the details are determined by the wavelength of the light and the size of the particle.

What Determines Sky's Colors At Sunrise And Sunset? -- ScienceDaily

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Which is precisely what you just denied ever having said.

So were you lying, or were you actually confused as to what you yourself have said?

Spacemonkey, you better watch how you talk to me. I'm not in the mood to coddle you today.

Yes, the light will be at the film instantly, BUT THE LIGHT DOES NOT HAVE TO REACH EARTH FOR THIS TO OCCUR. I have always maintained this. If I wasn't clear, that's another story, but I DID NOT LIE WHICH MEANS I HAD AN INTENTION TO DECEIVE.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, the light will be at the film instantly... I have always maintained this. If I wasn't clear, that's another story...

No, you didn't always maintain that. You explicitly denied it when you said "I did not say that the photons would be at the film or retina on Earth because there are no photons on Earth in this hypothetical example." There is no lack of clarity there, so you were either lying or confused about your own statements.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, the light will be at the film instantly, BUT THE LIGHT DOES NOT HAVE TO REACH EARTH FOR THIS TO OCCUR.

How can light be there before it has had time to get there?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Let's try this another way, Peacegirl. Let's start by assuming that the photons at the film/retina came from the Sun.

Assumption #1: The photons at the film/retina came from the Sun.

Now lets define traveling and teleporting. Traveling is getting from A to B by passing through all intervening points. Teleporting is getting from A to B without passing through all intervening points. Clearly these are jointly exhaustive - if you get from A to B you must do so either by passing through the intervening points or by not passing through them. So...

Conclusion #1: If the photons came from the Sun then they either traveled there or teleported there.

Now you insist that they neither traveled there nor teleported, so we can conclude via modus tollens (If A then B, not B, therefore not A) that these photons cannot have come from the Sun.

Assumption #2: The photons at the film/retina did not travel or teleport there.

Conclusion #2: The photons at the film/retina did not come from the Sun.

So now the million-dollar question: Where the fuck did these photons come from? We can note also that the exact same reasoning as above will still apply for any location other than the Sun - as long as the photons are getting from A to B, they have to either travel there or teleport there - so we can know that...

Conclusion #3: The photons at the film/retina did not get there from anywhere else.

That leaves two remaining possibilities: (i) These photons were always there, i.e. sitting stationary at the film/retina surface; or (ii) They did not previously exist, and instead came into existence at the film/retina. But of course neither of these are plausible either, as photons cannot be stationary, and they do not pop into existence in our eyes or on film. But unless you accept one of these options we are forced to conclude that...

Conclusion #4: Assumption #2 was bollocks.

Basically, what we have proven is that you have only four options for the photons at the film/retina:

(i) Traveling photons.
(ii) Teleporting photons.
(iii) Stationary photons.
(iv) Newly existing photons.

So which is it going to be? (Remember, weaseling and fake-conceding are not honest responses.)

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Would you stop calling me a liar LadyShea? If I misunderstand something that you post, I don't call you a liar. Why do you all throw this word around like it's nothing. It's an attack on my character, and it's wrong. Doesn't your conscience bother you even a little bit?

Explain how this statement not a lie

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Noooo, I said that the image would be at the sensor (which works in this reverse model). I did not say that the photons would be at the film or retina on Earth because there are no photons on Earth in this hypothetical example

I said the light would be at the film instantly if we gaze at the object (the efferent model of sight), but this does not mean the light had to travel to Earth in order for this interaction to take place.

Yes, you've always said that, which makes your flip flop above, claiming you had NOT said that, a lie

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is very hypothetical because there is no filter around the Sun. The Sun's light is always the full spectrum.

Yes, it is meant to be hypothetical, just like the idea of turning on the sun at noon. The sun can't be turned on and off like a light bulb. I don't see how one is "more" hypothetical than the other.
I guess I took it for granted that the focus of my hypothetical situation was the filter being at the sun, not on how the Earth's atmosphere effects the light. The point is that the light is filtered very far away, not close to the observer. So to make it clearer, lets also assume that the observer was in orbit or on the moon.
Or if you like you can put the sun, the filter, and the observer alone in a 93million mile long box.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The Sun's light is always the full spectrum.

Well, this is something you are wrong about, the Sun and other stars do not emit full spectrum light, there are always absorption lines where part of the spectrum is blocked out. These lines are detectable by instruments on Earth, so the light that traveled to Earth was not full spectrum, but had gaps.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/l.../spectrum.html

You should really try to learn something about the subjects you post about. So far much of what you have posted has been shown to be incorrect, which leads us to believe that the information that you post that we cannot verify, might also be incorrect. You have very little credibility.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

A camera film can only react with light that makes physical contact with its surface. The light has to actually hit the film to react with it. Camera film does not have magical powers by which it could reach out and interact with traveling light still 93 million miles away.

Bumping this because I am very interested in the response

[LadyShea]

wt

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And how many times did I tell you that it is dark before sunrise? It's the same thing. This is not what I am addressing, and the fact that you harp on this shows me your lack of understanding.

Why is it word salad? I am just repeating what you yourself said.

What in the world does this have to do with anything? If our eyes can't see the object (brightness), how do we expect to see the image whether afferent or efferent? LadyShea, you are grasping at anything you can to discredit me because you still can't believe this is a genuine discovery. I get it, but it's time to let go of your guard.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bumping this because I am very interested in the response

For the 100th time, you just don't get this model at all, not even a little bit. I know Spacemonkey doesn't get it either; he is thinking in terms of logic, not mathematics (I don't want to argue what the difference is so don't go there because I won't answer you). Until you can grasp why the efferent account changes what we see, you will continue your campaign to prove me wrong, just as you have done with your limited understanding of why determinism is true, so you continue to fight me tooth and nail as your way of confronting me and being right at all costs. What can I do other than try to get you to grasp this knowledge because it is spot on whether you see it or not.

I am putting the ebook online as a .pdf. It will cost $4.95 with the disclaimer that if people give away the password, I will have to change it from time to time, which will cause people to lose their access. I'm wracking my brain to figure out what I can do with a very very limited budget. I hope any money that comes in, I can get real scientists to study this work. This is my hope, which is for the benefit of everyone, not just me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Yes, it is meant to be hypothetical, just like the idea of turning on the sun at noon. The sun can't be turned on and off like a light bulb. I don't see how one is "more" hypothetical than the other.
I guess I took it for granted that the focus of my hypothetical situation was the filter being at the sun, not on how the Earth's atmosphere effects the light. The point is that the light is filtered very far away, not close to the observer. So to make it clearer, lets also assume that the observer was in orbit or on the moon.
Or if you like you can put the sun, the filter, and the observer alone in a 93million mile long box.

I appreciate your question, but it doesn't fit in the model that I am presenting so it still makes it appear that time and distance are factors, when they aren't. I hope you pay attention as to why the efferent model (the way the eyes work) changes our reality. I have no desire to debate this when the very first premise is based on the assumption that light, as it travels through space/time, brings the image or nonabsorbed photons to the eye. This is circular; it contains a presupposition. Do you see why this is a skewed debate?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

the very first premise is based on the assumption that light, as it travels through space/time, brings the image or nonabsorbed photons to the eye.

That is not anybody's premise at all, let alone first premise.

Do you like looking like an idiot? If so, carry on with your stupid strawman, if not, then stop using it.

Science states that light travels through space-time. Full stop. Your additions of images being brought or carried is moronic.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What in the world does this have to do with anything?

It refutes several of your statements.

If our eyes can't see the object (brightness), how do we expect to see the image whether afferent or efferent?

My point was that cameras can, and do, detect and photograph things we can't see, which you said was not possible

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

For the 100th time, you just don't get this model at all, not even a little bit.

And you can't answer simple questions about your model, so you don't get it either.

[Artemis Entreri]

[quote=peacegirl;1192742]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I appreciate your question, but it doesn't fit in the model that I am presenting so it still makes it appear that time and distance are factors, when they aren't. I hope you pay attention as to why the efferent model (the way the eyes work) changes our reality. I have no desire to debate this when the very first premise is based on the assumption that light, as it travels through space/time, brings the image or nonabsorbed photons to the eye. This is circular; it contains a presupposition. Do you see why this is a skewed debate?

It's not that different from the hypothetical experiment you're presenting. We're both presenting a sudden change from a distant light source. The major difference is that in your scenario the observer is in darkness and in mine the observer is in light. In your model you believe that an observer will be able to instantly see the change at the sun (turning on). In my model I ask if you believe that the viewer would still be able to instantly see the change at the sun(light from the sun filtered blue)

[Artemis Entreri]

Hell, to keep it more comparable to your example; What if the sun is suddenly turned off? In your efferent vision model would we see the sun appear to vanish the instant it was turned off yet still continue to have light for 8.5min? If we looked up would we just see a bright but empty sky (I don't mean litterally empty, I assume there would still be clouds, birds, planes, ect... the moon and stars would still be visible from the dark side of the earth... the moon for few minutes at least)