A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you're not being consistent. They should be able to do what we observe they cannot do which calls into question the accuracy of afferent vision.

No, afferent vision/photography does not predict that objects too far away to be photographed can still be photographed. That would be a contradiction in terms. It does however predict that objects too far away to be seen can still be photographed with the right conditions and equipment, and that is exactly what the Hubble pictures show us. The afferent model can explain how and why objects can be too small or too far away to be seen, whereas your efferent model cannot. There is nothing here calling the afferent model into question. You are making incorrect predictions for it based on your attrociously poor understanding of that model, so its failure to meet those predictions is no fault of the model.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He liked the idea of no blame, but he didn't understand that this was not a free for all to do anything one wants to do. He didn't understand that this knowledge increases responsibility.

Hmmm, as long as he thought he could pursue illegal or disaproved activities he was all for it, but when he found out he still had to obey the law he bailed. Or maybe he was just in it for the free sex but without the attatchment of marrage. How was he in bed Peacegirl?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If this is not the case I ask those of you who agree that I make no sense in the discussion below to let me know, because I LIKE gaining knowledge and learning to communicate better.

LadyShea, I applaud you for your patience and diligence. You have treated peacegirl fairly and firmly. However, you can explain optics to a person with severe learning and comprehension problems along with obsessive delusions until you are blue in the face and it will get you nowhere.

Everyone here treating peacegirl as if she were just dim witted or deceptive is enabling her disease. It is unlikely that you or anyone else on the internet is gonna talk peacegirl out of her illness. She needs to get help. It may take some serious pharma.

[ceptimus]

If LadyShea explained till she was blue in the face, would peacegirl still be able to see her if the illumination was from a red lamp?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, afferent vision/photography does not predict that objects too far away to be photographed can still be photographed. That would be a contradiction in terms.

Where is it a contradiction in terms? If light that has just bounced off of an object and is hurling toward the film in a straight line, should the lens not focus the light to create an image on the film regardless of whether the object is in the camera's field of view?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It does however predict that objects too far away to be seen can still be photographed with the right conditions and equipment, and that is exactly what the Hubble pictures show us.

I agree that with certain equipment we can get sharper, brighter, or larger images, but the light has to be within the telescope's field in order to get an image at all. Light works the same way as objects in that sense. This is an interesting link:

Magnification and Aperature

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The afferent model can explain how and why objects can be too small or too far away to be seen, whereas your efferent model cannot.

Then please explain, and after that please explain why we never get an image from an object that doesn't require a telescope. So far everyone is handwaving or bringing up unrelated topics.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

There is nothing here calling the afferent model into question. You are making incorrect predictions for it based on your attrociously poor understanding of that model, so its failure to meet those predictions is no fault of the model.

My failure to meet those predictions may be the fault of the model, not Lessans' claim. There should be no reason why we can't replicate a Jupiter moons' experiment here on Earth where we would know absolutely and positively that we are seeing an image of the object, not the actual object.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then what travels outwards from the lens?

Field of view is not limited by distance. You are still misusing the term.

So long as the light is traveling at a finite speed it will remain possible for the object to change color while the light is in transit, so this doesn't help. Afferent vision/photography agrees that the time delay will usually be very small. But very small is not the same as non-existent, so this doesn't help you.

Not at all. And you didn't answer my questions:

You've agreed that the color of the photograph is determined by the wavelength of the light at the camera, which has previously travelled from the object to get there. So if the object is blue at the time that light is arriving at the camera, and was not blue at any moment before that, then...

Why is the arriving light of blue wavelength?

What color wavelength was that light just before it arrived at the camera?

(Why don't you explore the possibilities for yourself? Can you think of what the problem will be if the light WAS blue just before it arrived? Can you think of what the problem will be if it was NOT blue just before it arrived? Which option, if either, seems more plausible to you? If neither is plausible to you, then what does that tell you about real-time photography?)

2nd bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Hmmm, as long as he thought he could pursue illegal or disaproved activities he was all for it, but when he found out he still had to obey the law he bailed. Or maybe he was just in it for the free sex but without the attatchment of marrage. How was he in bed Peacegirl?

I think he liked the idea of not being blamed, but I don't think he was thinking in terms of getting away with illicit activities. As far as the other comment, why would he need this book to have free sex without any attachment? That's already in vogue.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I don't know what other term to use. Is this better? As far as the eye can see?

So long as the light is traveling at a finite speed it will remain possible for the object to change color while the light is in transit, so this doesn't help.

I don't think so. Not if the lens focuses on the object which makes the space between the object and lens very small.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Afferent vision/photography agrees that the time delay will usually be very small. But very small is not the same as non-existent, so this doesn't help you.

You could say virtually non-existent, but it could still work. I'm not saying this is the answer but at least it gives you a possibility.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have to remember that the distance from the object to the lens, according to the camera, is just as close as the lens is to a flickering candle in a dark room. Does that help?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Not at all. And you didn't answer my questions:

You've agreed that the color of the photograph is determined by the wavelength of the light at the camera, which has previously travelled from the object to get there. So if the object is blue at the time that light is arriving at the camera, and was not blue at any moment before that, then...

Why is the arriving light of blue wavelength?

What color wavelength was that light just before it arrived at the camera?

(Why don't you explore the possibilities for yourself? Can you think of what the problem will be if the light WAS blue just before it arrived? Can you think of what the problem will be if it was NOT blue just before it arrived? Which option, if either, seems more plausible to you? If neither is plausible to you, then what does that tell you about real-time photography?)

Following the logic of the afferent model, I would agree that it would be red before blue. But I believe Lessans is right so I will continue to try to reconcile the discrepancy so that the efferent model is not thrown out.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where is it a contradiction in terms? If light that has just bounced off of an object and is hurling toward the film in a straight line, should the lens not focus the light to create an image on the film regardless of whether the object is in the camera's field of view?

It always does, although the image may be too small to be of any use, depending on what lens is used. How many times must we repeat this?

By the way, the 'field of view' you keep talking about, despite being told you are using the words incorrectly, does not exist. The reason there is a contradiction in terms is because your only definition of 'out of field of view' appears to be 'unable to see', which is why we're all astounded you keep asking us 'why can't we see something if we can't see it?'

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can only reconcile this by saying that the lens acts efferently.

Then what travels outwards from the lens?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think so. Not if the lens focuses on the object which makes the space between the object and lens very small.

The lens cannot change the physical distance between the object and itself. So no, the lens does not make this space small. And so long as there is any distance at all, and so long as light travels at a constant finite speed, it will remain logically possible for the object to change color while that light is in transit between the non-zero distance between the object and the camera. So the contradiction remains.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Following the logic of the afferent model, I would agree that it would be red before blue. But I believe Lessans is right so I will continue to try to reconcile the discrepancy so that the efferent model is not thrown out.

Do you mean that there would have been red light arriving before the blue light? Or do you mean that the actual blue light now at the film was itself red before it got there? Because these are two separate questions.

The afferent model does say that when the red ball changes from red to blue, there will be red light arriving before blue light arrives. But that is NOT what the questions were asking you about. So please try again, and actually answer the specific questions being asked (and not just 'according to the afferent model' but rather according to how you think the efferent model might work):

You've agreed that the color of the photograph is determined by the wavelength of the light at the camera, which has previously travelled from the object to get there. So if the object is blue at the time that light is arriving at the camera, and was not blue at any moment before that, then...

Why is the arriving light of blue wavelength?

What color wavelength was that light just before it arrived at the camera?

Can you think of what the problem will be if the light WAS blue just before it arrived?

Can you think of what the problem will be if it was NOT blue just before it arrived?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

It always does, although the image may be too small to be of any use, depending on what lens is used. How many times must we repeat this?

But I'm not talking about something that is too small to see like bacteria. I'm talking about objects that, if the reflected light is traveling toward us, should strike the film. How many times must I repeat this?

Originally Posted by Dragar

By the way, the 'field of view' you keep talking about, despite being told you are using the words incorrectly, does not exist. The reason there is a contradiction in terms is because your only definition of 'out of field of view' appears to be 'unable to see', which is why we're all astounded you keep asking us 'why can't we see something if we can't see it?'

No. Out of view does not just mean unable to see. We may not be able to see something due to a number of factors but it doesn't necessarily indicate that the object is "out of the field of view." There is definitely a visual range that our eyes are capable of seeing, and beyond that they cannot. If something is not large enough to be seen, according to efferent vision, it can't be seen because light alone (without the object in view) is incapable of providing that image.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think so. Not if the lens focuses on the object which makes the space between the object and lens very small.

Just how small would the space need to be for the image of the object to be instantly at the lens without exceding the speed of light?

[LadyShea]

A relic is something that we can learn from if it comes from a source that existed long ago.

So high resolution pictures of entire galaxies are "relics"?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Just how small would the space need to be for the image of the object to be instantly at the lens without exceding the speed of light?

Spacemonkey, I seriously hope you are not holding your breath waiting for a rational answer from Peacegirl.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then what travels outwards from the lens?

Nothing travels outward from the lens. The lens of a camera act similar to the lens of the eye. That's a big clue, I believe. If efferent vision is true, a camera works in a similar fashion.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think so. Not if the lens focuses on the object which makes the space between the object and lens very small.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The lens cannot change the physical distance between the object and itself. So no, the lens does not make this space small.

The lens does not change the actual physical distance but it acts as if the object is closer than it is because of its ability to focus on the object within the camera's field of view.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And so long as there is any distance at all, and so long as light travels at a constant finite speed, it will remain logically possible for the object to change color while that light is in transit between the non-zero distance between the object and the camera. So the contradiction remains.

The conflict will remain as long as you follow the afferent vision model.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Following the logic of the afferent model, I would agree that it would be red before blue. But I believe Lessans is right so I will continue to try to reconcile the discrepancy so that the efferent model is not thrown out.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The afferent model doesn't claim that the light in question was red before it was blue, and the only logic I'm asking you to follow relates to your own claims about light. So are you now saying that the most plausible option is that the arriving light changes color (wavelength) while in transit (between the object and the camera) to match the color change of the object when it happens? Can you explain how such action at a distance is possible? It's hard for me to tell if this was your intended answer because you didn't actually answer the questions...

All I'm saying is that the lightwave between the camera and the object is shorter if my explanation pans out. That means that even if the color was different than the color change that is now happening, it would not show up on film.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You've agreed that the color of the photograph is determined by the wavelength of the light at the camera, which has previously travelled from the object to get there. So if the object is blue at the time that light is arriving at the camera, and was not blue at any moment before that, then...

Why is the arriving light of blue wavelength?

What color wavelength was that light just before it arrived at the camera?

Can you think of what the problem will be if the light WAS blue just before it arrived?

Can you think of what the problem will be if it was NOT blue just before it arrived?

If it was blue according to your way of thinking it wouldn't make sense because red was arriving first. If it was not blue according to your way of thinking that would mean that we don't see in real time. I'm saying that there is another explanation that has yet to be explored. We will keep going in circles because the answer is not going to found in this thread. Why is it that no one can be patient until further evidence comes in? Am I the actual experiment to see how long it takes for me to concede? What is it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So high resolution pictures of entire galaxies are "relics"?

For lack of a better word, yes. A galaxy is made up of stars and interstellar material that would need to reflect an image of itself when the photons were first emitted. It all goes back to what we believe we're seeing based on the different models of sight. I refuse to get into another discussion about Hubble's Deep Field.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nothing travels outward from the lens.

Then the lens doesn't act efferently, does it? The lens simply receives incoming light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The lens does not change the actual physical distance but it acts as if the object is closer than it is because of its ability to focus on the object within the camera's field of view.

As long as there is a distance to be travelled by light travelling at a finite speed, it will remain possible for the object to change color after the light in question has left its surface, but before it has arrived at the camera.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The conflict will remain as long as you follow the afferent vision model.

Wrong. The conflict here has nothing to do with the afferent model. The conflict is right here in the middle of your efferent model, and has yet to be resolved.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I'm saying is that the lightwave between the camera and the object is shorter if my explanation pans out. That means that even if the color was different than the color change that is now happening, it would not show up on film.

The "lightwave ... is shorter"? What on earth are you talking about? Do you even know?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If it was blue according to your way of thinking it wouldn't make sense because red was arriving first.

My questions have absolutely nothing to do with the order of arriving light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If it was not blue according to your way of thinking that would mean that we don't see in real time.

Wrong. So long as the light is blue when it gets to the film, the image will match the real-time color of the object. It doesn't matter if the light was a different color before it got there. That is not the problem. The problem is that you haven't understood the questions. Forget about all the light which arrived either before or after the light arriving at the moment of the object's color change. The only light I'm asking about is this particular light (which is blue when it gets to the camera).

Why is that arriving light of blue wavelength?

What color wavelength was that particular light just before it arrived at the camera?

Can you think of what the problem will be if the light WAS blue just before it arrived?

Can you think of what the problem will be if it was NOT blue just before it arrived?

(Individual answers to these specific questions would be appreciated.)

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

For lack of a better word, yes. A galaxy is made up of stars and interstellar material that would need to reflect an image of itself when the photons were first emitted. It all goes back to what we believe we're seeing based on the different models of sight. I refuse to get into another discussion about Hubble's Deep Field.

So exactly what is happening when you "reflect an image of itself when the photons were first emitted"? Are you talking about the reflection of light? Or are you having another Emily Litella moment and confusing the reflection of light with mental reflection?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We will keep going in circles because the answer is not going to found in this thread.

1. No, you will keep going in circles, apparently because you've lost all reason and rationality. We are not going in circles. We know what we are talking about. You haven't got a clue what you are talking about. You can't even present a coherent, rational description of your ridiculous hypothesis. Lessans didn't even bother to try, no doubt because he was too silly to notice that he was contradicting observed reality AND contradicting himself.

2. You're right, the answer is not going to be found in this thread, because it was already found hundreds of years ago, and all evidence to date supports the answer. The answer is that Lessans was wrong.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then the lens doesn't act efferently, does it? The lens simply receives incoming light.

You can point this out to peacegirl as many times as you like. Her brain can not process this. It just can't do it.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

For lack of a better word, yes. A galaxy is made up of stars and interstellar material that would need to reflect an image of itself when the photons were first emitted. It all goes back to what we believe we're seeing based on the different models of sight. I refuse to get into another discussion about Hubble's Deep Field.

I was actually thinking about the Pinwheel Galaxy. Does the image below represent a relic, a remnant? An object?

A reflected image of itself, whatever the hell that could possibly mean?



Largest ever galaxy portrait - stunning HD image of Pinwheel Galaxy | ESA/Hubble

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can have the correct lenses, detectors, and the necessary exposure time and still not get an image.

Yes you can. That's why they're specified as the correct lenses and necessary exposure times -- these are the lenses and exposure times you need to use to get a picture, given the distance of the object to be photographed, and the amount of light available.

If afferent vision is true, we should still be able to get a picture of an object if light is traveling from that object toward the lens without the need for magnification.

Wrong. For goodness' sake, would you make a minimal effort to learn at least something about optics? You're just embarrassing yourself.

The entire definition of afferent vision is seeing images from light.

No it isn't!

Would you please make a minimal effort to educate yourself instead of spouting ignorant nonsense? It's not like this information is difficult to come by.

Why are you not seeing this?

Because it isn't true.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Yes you can. That's why they're specified as the correct lenses and necessary exposure times -- these are the lenses and exposure times you need to use to get a picture, given the distance of the object to be photographed, and the amount of light available.

Wrong. For goodness' sake, would you make a minimal effort to learn at least something about optics? You're just embarrassing yourself.

Lone Ranger, peacegirl is not capable of learning much new. You can repeat basic information about optics and light forever and it will not register with peacegirl. Don't you find it peculiar that peacegirl can't even pretend in any competent way to know anything about optics and light even if she disagrees with it? I would have thought that by now her condition would be very obvious to just about everybody.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

. As far as the other comment, why would he need this book to have free sex without any attachment? That's already in vogue.

Perhaps it's in vogue with you, as an attitude you got from your father, but it is not common in society in general.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Lone Ranger, peacegirl is not capable of learning much new. You can repeat basic information about optics and light forever and it will not register with peacegirl. Don't you find it peculiar that peacegirl can't even pretend in any competent way to know anything about optics and light even if she disagrees with it? I would have thought that by now her condition would be very obvious to just about everybody.

Oh, it's been very, very obvious for a long time that she's utterly incapable of learning anything. She may be capable of learning in other areas, but she's clearly incapable of incorporating any new information where Lessans and his claims are concerned.

She instantly and unquestioningly accepts anything that she thinks will support Lessans' claims (often without having the slightest comprehension of it). But she's absolutely incapable of incorporating or understanding anything that contradicts his claims -- no matter how well-verified or carefully explained.

One would have as much success trying to reason with an oyster.

I suspect that everyone in the thread is well aware of this. Nonetheless, I just can't resist occasionally rising to the bait to point out the more ridiculous or dishonest claims. Mostly, it's for the benefit of any lurkers who might chance upon the thread and who might conceivably be laboring under the illusion that she has any understanding whatsoever regarding the ludicrousness of her claims, or the implications of those claims for pretty-much all of modern science.

Plus, she does occasionally raise topics that are worthy of discussion. If for no other reason than that it's interesting to discuss why the structure of the eye rules out "efferent" vision, for example, and why special relativity rules out "real time" seeing, for instance.

But as far as peacegirl herself is concerned, I have no illusions whatsoever that she is in any way educable.


Still, by responding to her mad prattle, we do enable her. And it does occur to me from time to time that perhaps the kindest thing to do would be to ignore her and hope that in the absence of attention from us she'll instead seek attention from a qualified therapist.

Cheers,

Michael