|
|
05-08-2012, 11:34 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
This thread will only confirm how difficult it was for me, but the compassion will only be felt after this discovery is confirmed valid.
|
Well don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.
BTW, your main difficulty is that the data you are trying to present is stupid and wrong.
|
Data? peacegirl has not presented a single piece of data. I don't think she knows what data is. She on the other hand has been presented with lots of data that refutes Lessans, but since she has no idea what data is, it's gone past her without effect.
|
That would depend on your definition of 'data'. If that includes true and accurate, then you are correct. But if it consists of saying that her father wrote this, then she has presented 'data', pertaining to what her father wrote. Point of view makes a big difference, also semantics.
|
05-08-2012, 11:40 PM
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
This thread will only confirm how difficult it was for me, but the compassion will only be felt after this discovery is confirmed valid.
|
Well don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.
BTW, your main difficulty is that the data you are trying to present is stupid and wrong.
|
Data? peacegirl has not presented a single piece of data. I don't think she knows what data is. She on the other hand has been presented with lots of data that refutes Lessans, but since she has no idea what data is, it's gone past her without effect.
|
That would depend on your definition of 'data'. If that includes true and accurate, then you are correct. But if it consists of saying that her father wrote this, then she has presented 'data', pertaining to what her father wrote. Point of view makes a big difference, also semantics.
|
Well if you are referring to (P) data then you're right. But I was referring to the more widely accepted kind of data.
|
05-08-2012, 11:40 PM
|
|
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I am not avoiding locating the photons. If the object is within visual range, then the light that is captured at the retina will necessarily reflect that object (the pattern seen in the light cannot exist without the object's presence in this model), due to the inverse square law. There is a difference between light energy that is always traveling, and the light that is present at the retina or film instantly because of how the brain and eyes work.
|
If the light is captured by the retina that means that it was not present at the retina before it was captured. Where was the light before it was captured by the retina and how did it get to the point where the retina was able to capture it?
Also, light is light and photons are photons. The only difference between light that is traveling and light that is at the retina is that the light at the retina has been absorbed by the retina and ceased to be light. Neither the brain nor the eyes nor the two working together have the ability to alter any of the characteristics of light and have the light remain light.
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful.
|
05-08-2012, 11:47 PM
|
|
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I think she is redefining "interacting" as simply "seeing". She is saying if you are seeing something, then the light is interacting with the retina.
We, of course, are defining it as a photochemical physical interaction requiring immediate proximity.
|
Wrong. If the eyes are capable of seeing an object in real time, then... (and this is what you're missing) the non-absorbed light is instantly at the retina.
|
How did the light get to the retina instantly?
|
The light did not have to travel to get to the retina. If the eye can see the object in real time (that is the first premise) even though it's millions of miles away, then the light is also at the eye. They work hand in hand.
|
Does the eye generate its own light? If it doesn't, then the light at the retina had to have its origin somewhere other than at the retina itself. If it originated somewhere else, how did it get from its point of origin to the retina?
|
Where did I ever say that the retina generates its own light? I said that if we look out at the world through the eyes, as a window, then we don't wait for the light to reach us. We see the object because it is there to be seen. The light mirrors what we see. There is nothing more I can say on this topic until further testing.
|
Where did I say that you said that? I asked if that was what you were claiming. I only asked that because the only way for light to be at the retina, if it did not originate there, is if it came from somewhere else. If it came from somewhere else then you need to account for how it got to the retina.
I will let someone else deal with the boneheaded idiocy of the claim that "light mirrors what we see".
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful.
|
05-09-2012, 12:39 AM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
No, you are not trying to help me. You are frustrated and you're trying to goad me on to give what you think is a reasonable answer.
|
I am trying to help you recognize your own mental illness.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Teleportation is a term that refers to a number of theories and notions concerning the transfer of matter from one point to another without traversing the physical space between them.
Teleportation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You know this is what I meant, so why are you working so hard to make me look scatterbrained?
|
I'm not working hard at anything, and if you look scatterbrained then it is your own fault. You were wrong to say that teleportation is where light is in two places at once, and I was right to say that your claims (such as that light can reach the retina without traversing the intervening distance) require teleportation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
It's not a contradiction Spacemonkey. I have said all along that light energy from the Sun travels, but when light gets absorbed by substance, the remaining non-absorbed light does not travel millions of miles to reach our eyes. It allows the object to be revealed through its light. That's what I mean when I say light is a condition. You believe non-absorbed light (the pattern of the object) bounces off of the object and travels forever, which is a misconception.
|
It is a contradiction to say that there is no non-traveling light and that the non-absorbed light does not travel. And that is what you said. If you meant something other than what you said, then you'll need to reanswer my previous post without saying things that you know are not true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Spacemonkey, you can't just think in terms of light without thinking in terms of the object. You are acting as if light is traveling toward the eye, which leaves out the object entirely. Wasn't it you who said it doesn't matter if the object is present or not? That is the opposite of the efferent model and the reason you're so confused.
|
I am not relying on the fact that the object need not be present to be seen when presenting you with these problems. I am using only the facts that you have agreed with. You have agreed that the unabsorbed light travels away from the object for at least a certain finite distance. I have placed the camera within that distance in my example, and I am asking you about this light which you agree is traveling to the camera.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
05-09-2012, 12:41 AM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
So you are saying that when the Sun is turned on, there will be a 'mirror image' at the eye but no light yet at the eye, right?
So what does that mirror image consist of?
|
A mirror image is non-absorbed light that is at the retina.
|
So then how did it get there? The non-absorbed light starts at the surface of the object, because that is where light either does or does not get absorbed. So how does it get from the object to the distant film or retina in no time and without travelling the intervening distance, and without teleporting there?
How can light be at the eye before any light has arrived at the eye?
|
Bump.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
05-09-2012, 12:42 AM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
How many times do I have to explain why a photographs would work the same way as the retina? And I already explained 1000 times that regardless of where the object is in the camera's field of view, the same mirror image will show up as it would on the retina.
|
That's a weasel Peacegirl. Saying it works the same as for the retina doesn't help, because you can't tell me how it works for the retina either. Asserting that mirror images will magically show up doesn't answer my questions about the location and behavior of photons during this process.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
1) Where are the unabsorbed photons 0.0001sec after they have hit the object? [Insert answer here]
|
Are they about 30 meters away from the object and traveling away from it? [Yes or No]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
2) Where were the photons (which are at the film comprising the mirror image when the photograph is taken) 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken? [Insert answer here]
|
Are they about 30 meters away from the camera film and traveling towards it? [Yes or No]
|
|
Bump.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
05-09-2012, 12:46 AM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Peacegirl, here's a very simple disproof of efferent vision and real-time photography. Both require a camera to be able to record the color change of a distant object in real-time. So when a distant ball changes from blue to red, a camera must be able to photograph it as red as soon as it has become red. But if the camera is inside the range where the traveling non-absorbed light has yet to return to 'white full-spectrum' light, then all that light will be blue before the color change. And at the very moment the ball changes to red (i.e. has turned into a ball that absorbs all but red photons) there are no red photons at the camera. They were previously all being absorbed by the ball, and are only now free to bounce off the ball and begin traveling towards the camera. So none of them can be at the camera yet. But the camera cannot produce a red image on film without any red photons there to chemically interact with the film. So the camera cannot produce a real-time image of the newly red ball, and real-time photgraphy and efferent vision are thereby disproved. QED.
|
Peacegirl, you'll need to address this again, because your previous answer claimed that the non-absorbed light does not travel, and that it can instead teleport to the camera film. As you've indicated that you didn't intend to make either of these claims, you'll need to reanswer the post without saying these things.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
05-09-2012, 01:07 AM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
This thread will only confirm how difficult it was for me, but the compassion will only be felt after this discovery is confirmed valid.
|
Well don't hold your breath waiting for that to happen.
BTW, your main difficulty is that the data you are trying to present is stupid and wrong.
|
Data? peacegirl has not presented a single piece of data. I don't think she knows what data is. She on the other hand has been presented with lots of data that refutes Lessans, but since she has no idea what data is, it's gone past her without effect.
|
That would depend on your definition of 'data'. If that includes true and accurate, then you are correct. But if it consists of saying that her father wrote this, then she has presented 'data', pertaining to what her father wrote. Point of view makes a big difference, also semantics.
|
Well if you are referring to (P) data then you're right. But I was referring to the more widely accepted kind of data.
|
As in 'accurate and true', then yes you are correct, Peacegirls posts are strangely deficient in 'data'.
|
05-09-2012, 02:05 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I am not avoiding locating the photons. If the object is within visual range, then the light that is captured at the retina will necessarily reflect that object (the pattern seen in the light cannot exist without the object's presence in this model), due to the inverse square law. There is a difference between light energy that is always traveling, and the light that is present at the retina or film instantly because of how the brain and eyes work.
|
If the light is captured by the retina that means that it was not present at the retina before it was captured.
|
Of course it does.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Where was the light before it was captured by the retina and how did it get to the point where the retina was able to capture it?
|
It was being replaced by new photons.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Also, light is light and photons are photons. The only difference between light that is traveling and light that is at the retina is that the light at the retina has been absorbed by the retina and ceased to be light. Neither the brain nor the eyes nor the two working together have the ability to alter any of the characteristics of light and have the light remain light.
|
Who is altering any characteristics of light? The only thing that's being challenged is the belief that the eyes are a sense organ.
|
05-09-2012, 02:21 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I am not avoiding locating the photons. If the object is within visual range, then the light that is captured at the retina will necessarily ...
|
So, there are photons located at the retina? Yes or no?
|
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
If yes what is the physical mechanism by which photons come to be at the retina and where did they come from? What was the location prior to becoming located at the retina?
|
They were traveling.
Quote:
There is a difference between light energy that is always traveling, and the light that is present at the retina or film instantly because of how the brain and eyes work.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
A difference in the properties of the photons? What differences? Differences in the properties of photons?
|
I didn't say there is a difference in the properties of photons, but there is a huge difference in what we see because of how the eyes work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Are you positing different properties for photons based on whether they are being looked at by a brain? Really? And you wonder why you sound like an idiot that might also be insane?
|
No, that's not what I'm saying. But if we see in real time (that is the premise), you cannot say that light brings the pattern to the eye through space and time because you're right back to the afferent model. You're leaving out the object entirely. The light doesn't travel to the eyes. The eyes see the object due to the light. You are not following this at all.
|
05-09-2012, 02:25 AM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Where was the light before it was captured by the retina and how did it get to the point where the retina was able to capture it?
|
It was being replaced by new photons.
|
This is the kind of response that makes people think you are ether pathologically dishonest or mentally ill. An action is not a location.
Here is how to answer two different kinds of question:
1) Where was X? Acceptable answer: It was at location Y.
2) What was X doing? Acceptable answer: It was [verb]ing.
Unacceptable weasel answer:
3) Where was X? It was [verb]ing.
Do you really expect people to believe that you are so stupid as to be unable to understand that a 'Where...?' question requires a location and not an action as an answer?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
05-09-2012, 02:27 AM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
If yes what is the physical mechanism by which photons come to be at the retina and where did they come from? What was the location prior to becoming located at the retina?
|
They were traveling.
|
Is 'traveling' a location?
If those photons traveled to get to the retina, did they get there instantly?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
05-09-2012, 02:38 AM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
So, there are photons located at the retina? Yes or no?
|
Yes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
What was the location prior to becoming located at the retina?
|
They were traveling.
But if we see in real time (that is the premise), you cannot say that light brings the pattern to the eye through space and time because you're right back to the afferent model. You're leaving out the object entirely. The light doesn't travel to the eyes. The eyes see the object due to the light. You are not following this at all.
|
Traveling or not traveling? Peacegirl has no idea, and can't even avoid contradicting herself within the same post.
Take another look at what you just posted, Peacegirl. You say there are photons at the retina (i.e. at the eyes)... which were previously traveling towards the eyes... and that light (i.e. photons) do not travel to the eyes.
Just think about that for a moment. Think about what you wrote.
Can you explain this and your other repeated mistakes in any other way than by positing mental illness? Can you? Would a sane person not only contradict herself, but constantly contradict herself over and over on the exact same points like this?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
05-09-2012, 03:01 AM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
No, that's not what I'm saying.
|
Does anyone here realize that posting to Peacegirl is like posting to a brick wall where everything is already written on that wall and you only need to read it to know what Peacegirl will post in response to any comment or question? Posting to Peacegirl is like banging you head against said wall, it feels so much better when you stop, unless you are addicted and can't stop.
|
05-09-2012, 03:13 AM
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
No, that's not what I'm saying.
|
Does anyone here realize that posting to Peacegirl is like posting to a brick wall where everything is already written on that wall and you only need to read it to know what Peacegirl will post in response to any comment or question? Posting to Peacegirl is like banging you head against said wall, it feels so much better when you stop, unless you are addicted and can't stop.
|
Wow! I never noticed. It's like her brain works as well as a broken record. Like she has mental illness.
Nahhhh, you're just projecting.
|
05-09-2012, 03:21 AM
|
|
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Where was the light before it was captured by the retina and how did it get to the point where the retina was able to capture it?
|
It was being replaced by new photons.
|
Where?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Also, light is light and photons are photons. The only difference between light that is traveling and light that is at the retina is that the light at the retina has been absorbed by the retina and ceased to be light. Neither the brain nor the eyes nor the two working together have the ability to alter any of the characteristics of light and have the light remain light.
|
Who is altering any characteristics of light? The only thing that's being challenged is the belief that the eyes are a sense organ.
|
You are. Right here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There is a difference between light energy that is always traveling, and the light that is present at the retina or film instantly because of how the brain and eyes work.
|
So, pray tell, what exactly is the difference between "light energy that is always traveling" and "light that is present at the retina or film instantly" and how do you account for this difference if you are not positing "how the brain and eyes work" as the cause of the difference?
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful.
|
05-09-2012, 03:34 AM
|
|
Flyover Hillbilly
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
I'm not assuming anything; I'm just going by what you wrote. It was you who said both that "light is interacting with the retina" and that the light "hasn't arrived yet." My question was premised on your own clear and unequivocal statements.
|
I explained yesterday and in the previous post that vision is not dependent on light traveling.
|
I understand that, but it has nothing to do with our exchange. You wrote that "light is interacting with the retina" even though it "hasn't arrived." Obviously, if it hasn't arrived, it isn't here. AFAIK, the only way the retina and light interact is via direct physical contact, which can't be happening if the light hasn't arrived. By "interacting" do you mean something other than direct physical contact? If so, what?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
2) The subject matter of this exchange is light interacting with the retina. Why are you talking about cameras?
|
How many times do I have to repeat myself?
|
Only you can answer that question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
It doesn't matter whether I am referring to retinas or film because they work in the same way.
|
Of course it matters. Consistency counts for a great deal, doesn't it? And I find it hard to believe that you really think that the retina and camera film operate identically in every respect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
3) I thought your position was that light doesn't carry, form or constitute images. If that's the case, why are you equating the light that illuminates the object with a "mirror image"?
|
I never said that light was not necessary.
|
I didn't accuse you of denying the necessity of light. I was simply wondering why you equated light with an image when you believe that light doesn't form or carry images. If you'd rather not answer, that's fine.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
Well, we know with certainty that Lessans was wrong in claiming that there are no "afferent nerve endings" in the eye. In truth, the human visual system is laden with "afferent nerve endings." Had Lessans know that he was incorrect about the physiology, do you think that knowledge would have affected his claims about vision at all? If so, how?
|
He was right in what he was trying to explain.
|
For the reasons that follow, he wasn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
He was trying to show that we are not receiving signals from the optic nerve that allow the brain to interpret the image, which is what a "sense organ" is supposed to do, by definition.
|
Well, he wasn't trying to "show" anything in the passage under consideration. He was simply making a declarative statement about his views regarding vision vis-vis the other senses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You can make an issue over this to your heart's content.
|
I already new that, but thanks just the same.
In any event, I didn't make an issue of it. Lessans did. Let's review carefully the relevant excerpt:
Quote:
What is seen through the eyes is an efferent experience. If a lion roared in that room a newborn baby would hear the sound and react because this impinges on the eardrum and is then transmitted to the brain. The same holds true for anything that makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve ending in this organ.
|
Lessans is saying that ears are sense organs. Why? Because sound strikes the eardrum and gets transmitted to the brain via afferent nerve endings.
He's also saying that the eyes are not sense organs. Why not? "Because" (you father's word, not mine) there are no afferent nerve endings in the eye. In other words, your father's view that vision is an efferent experience is grounded in his view that the eyes contain no efferent nerve endings. How he came to that belief regarding human physiology is a mystery to me, but there it is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
It doesn't invalidate the claim.
|
Well, yes, it kinda does. We know for a fact that, contrary to Lessans' view, the neurons in the optic nerve are in fact afferent. Thus, the basis of his assertion that vision is an efferent experience turned out to be factually incorrect. I'd wager that if Lessans were alive today and we showed him that his views about the physiology of the human visual system are inaccurate, he'd substantially revise his claims about vision.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
|
05-09-2012, 05:48 AM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
No, that's not what I'm saying.
|
Does anyone here realize that posting to Peacegirl is like posting to a brick wall where everything is already written on that wall and you only need to read it to know what Peacegirl will post in response to any comment or question? Posting to Peacegirl is like banging you head against said wall, it feels so much better when you stop, unless you are addicted and can't stop.
|
Wow! I never noticed. It's like her brain works as well as a broken record. Like she has mental illness.
Nahhhh, you're just projecting.
|
Yeah, you're probably right.
|
05-09-2012, 12:17 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I think she is redefining "interacting" as simply "seeing". She is saying if you are seeing something, then the light is interacting with the retina.
We, of course, are defining it as a photochemical physical interaction requiring immediate proximity.
|
Wrong. If the eyes are capable of seeing an object in real time, then... (and this is what you're missing) the non-absorbed light is instantly at the retina.
|
How did the light get to the retina instantly?
|
The light did not have to travel to get to the retina. If the eye can see the object in real time (that is the first premise) even though it's millions of miles away, then the light is also at the eye. They work hand in hand.
|
Does the eye generate its own light? If it doesn't, then the light at the retina had to have its origin somewhere other than at the retina itself. If it originated somewhere else, how did it get from its point of origin to the retina?
|
Where did I ever say that the retina generates its own light? I said that if we look out at the world through the eyes, as a window, then we don't wait for the light to reach us. We see the object because it is there to be seen. The light mirrors what we see. There is nothing more I can say on this topic until further testing.
|
Where did I say that you said that? I asked if that was what you were claiming. I only asked that because the only way for light to be at the retina, if it did not originate there, is if it came from somewhere else. If it came from somewhere else then you need to account for how it got to the retina.
I will let someone else deal with the boneheaded idiocy of the claim that "light mirrors what we see".
|
How many times do I have to say that light travels (I'm not disagreeing with that), but when the light splits up due to absorption, the remaining light is instantly at the retina as long as the object can be seen due to the inverse square law. When I say the eyes capture the photons, it is because of how the brain and eyes work. It's the complete opposite of afferent vision, therefore it makes it possible for those photons that are the closest to the object, to provide a mirror image. Remember, light does not have to travel millions of miles to reach the eye or film if the lens is focused on the OBJECT. All you're doing is repeating the afferent model, just like everyone else, and completely forgetting the very premise upon which this model is based.
|
05-09-2012, 12:28 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
No, you are not trying to help me. You are frustrated and you're trying to goad me on to give what you think is a reasonable answer.
|
I am trying to help you recognize your own mental illness.
|
You're really doing a disservice Spacemonkey. Your acting this way is either due to frustration or arrogance. I'm not sure which.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Teleportation is a term that refers to a number of theories and notions concerning the transfer of matter from one point to another without traversing the physical space between them.
Teleportation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You know this is what I meant, so why are you working so hard to make me look scatterbrained?
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
I'm not working hard at anything, and if you look scatterbrained then it is your own fault. You were wrong to say that teleportation is where light is in two places at once, and I was right to say that your claims (such as that light can reach the retina without traversing the intervening distance) require teleportation.
|
They do not require teleportation. How is that possible if light energy is in a continual stream?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
It's not a contradiction Spacemonkey. I have said all along that light energy from the Sun travels, but when light gets absorbed by substance, the remaining non-absorbed light does not travel millions of miles to reach our eyes. It allows the object to be revealed through its light. That's what I mean when I say light is a condition. You believe non-absorbed light (the pattern of the object) bounces off of the object and travels forever, which is a misconception.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
It is a contradiction to say that there is no non-traveling light and that the non-absorbed light does not travel. And that is what you said. If you meant something other than what you said, then you'll need to reanswer my previous post without saying things that you know are not true.
|
You are misinterpreting what I said. It's the light that is leaving the object that is captured by the eye because of the eye's capabilities, therefore it always gets a mirror image of the OBJECT as it is presently. When I say mirror image, it does not mean that the light is not traveling, but (and this is where the confusion is...) the light does not have to travel millions of miles to reach the eye in this model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Spacemonkey, you can't just think in terms of light without thinking in terms of the object. You are acting as if light is traveling toward the eye, which leaves out the object entirely. Wasn't it you who said it doesn't matter if the object is present or not? That is the opposite of the efferent model and the reason you're so confused.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
I am not relying on the fact that the object need not be present to be seen when presenting you with these problems. I am using only the facts that you have agreed with. You have agreed that the unabsorbed light travels away from the object for at least a certain finite distance. I have placed the camera within that distance in my example, and I am asking you about this light which you agree is traveling to the camera.
|
Exactly, but you are still failing to understand the importance of what the lens is capable of doing. You are still assuming that the image is coming only from light, so wherever the camera is in the journey of that light, that is what will strike the camera. But how is that possible if, in the efferent version, the OBJECT (the actual substance) has to be aimed at for the image to show up?
|
05-09-2012, 12:57 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Where was the light before it was captured by the retina and how did it get to the point where the retina was able to capture it?
|
It was being replaced by new photons
|
Where is the light that was replaced?
If I am watching traffic go by, the cars are being replaced by new cars, the previously present cars are now somewhere else.
If light is being replaced, the previously present light must still be somewhere. Where?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Also, light is light and photons are photons. The only difference between light that is traveling and light that is at the retina is that the light at the retina has been absorbed by the retina and ceased to be light. Neither the brain nor the eyes nor the two working together have the ability to alter any of the characteristics of light and have the light remain light.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Who is altering any characteristics of light? The only thing that's being challenged is the belief that the eyes are a sense organ.
|
You are altering the characteristics of light by acting as if it had no location before it was present at the retina or after it was present at the retina.
|
05-09-2012, 01:00 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Exactly, but you are still failing to understand the importance of what the lens is capable of doing.
|
They bend the light that travels through them. That is all they are capable of doing.
|
05-09-2012, 01:03 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
but when the light splits up due to absorption, the remaining light is instantly at the retina
|
Traveling light cannot be instantly someplace else. If it's at the object it cannot also be instantly at the retina without getting there. How did it get from the object to the retina? Did it travel there? Did it teleport there?
Quote:
Remember, light does not have to travel millions of miles to reach the eye or film if the lens is focused on the OBJECT.
|
Is the object millions of miles away? If it's 2 feet away the light must become instantly present 2 feet away. If 10 feet then it must become instantly present 10 feet away, and a mile and so on.
Millions of miles only applies to objects millions of miles away.
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 guests)
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:40 PM.
|
|
|
|