A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Some more eclipse data:

1955AJ.....60..115H Page 115

Observation of Eclipses of Jupiter's Satellites - Todd - 2006 - Astronomische Nachrichten - Wiley Online Library

JSTOR: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

Shall we keep going? How many more observations would you like? And these are just random ones (two are even pre-1900s) I've found on the internet; there are books and books of this stuff in journals at libraries. Convinced that we do this regularly and often yet?

I'm sure there are many books on this phenomenon. I can't dispute their calculations. All I can do is share Lessans' claim of efferent vision in the hope of elucidating what is actually going on in reality.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Refuting? No. But you are rejecting them.

I don't think I am. Light works the way it's been observed to work. I am rejecting afferent vision, that's all.

[Vivisectus]

Apart from this, I think Peacegirl should answer Spacemonkeys questions.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think I am. Light works the way it's been observed to work. I am rejecting afferent vision, that's all.

Then answer my questions please, and see for yourself how you are rejecting the basic rules of light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Because we see instantly (according to you!). So the photons arriving at us right now can be any colour at all, but we should see the instantaneous colour of the distant object. This is your version of reality, I shouldn't have to explain it to you!

But the light takes a long time to get to us. The colour of light will be the colour of the object when it emitted the light, a long time ago. Are you now saying we don't see color in real time? Or does the light change colour to match the object en route, if the emitting object should change colour?

It doesn't matter; we can take a picture (i.e. get an image) of a supernova. Yes, using a camera. Yes, using a lens and a CCD. That is the same as seeing (according to you!).

Because we are supposed to see in real time. But we know light travels at a finite speed, so when we look at its direction, we will see it coming from where the distant planet was. Like a hosepipe being waved around peacegirl, if you follow a straight line back from the direction the water arrives at you (not following the water) it leads back where the hosepipe was, not where it is now.

We've done more experiments. Do you believe ESO (the European version of NASA)? Because I gave you a website from ESO with plenty more observations. Shall we see if we can dig up NASA observations too? Or some observations from a different year by ESO?

If photons are coming from an explosion, then we can use those photons to learn more about the event that created them. But a photon is not an actual event. It is a clue to an event. An ember is not a fire; it is a clue that there has been a fire. I still maintain that photons coming from an event will not show up on a lens as the actual event, which is what has been theorized. It has been theorized that if we were sitting on the star Rigel, we would be able to see Columbus discovering America from photons that have traveled and finally reached our telescopes. This is false.

[Dragar]

I've no idea what you're talking about. Of course a photon is not the same as the thing it emitted. We can, however, see supernovae. Using a camera, or our eyes (of course, using a telescope). Also, we can detect the light. For most people this is the same thing, but I appreciate your snowflake qualities.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then answer my questions please, and see for yourself how you are rejecting the basic rules of light.

I don't want to answer the questions as you have framed them because there seems to be a lot of confusion. I have said over and over that I can see colors changing if there is a phenomenon such as a rainbow. Whichever color shows up first I would see first. But you want me to say I would see red before blue coming from a light source, even though photons are not red or blue, they are white. How can I see a white photon? It's like saying I can see daylight.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't want to answer the questions as you have framed them because there seems to be a lot of confusion. I have said over and over that I can see colors changing if there is a phenomenon such as a rainbow. Whichever color shows up first I would see first. But you want me to say I would see red before blue coming from a source, even though photons are not red or blue, they are white. How can I see a white photon? It's like saying I can see daylight.

peacegirl, a rainbow has all the colours of light. Do you see white in a rainbow?

photons are not white. photons are not any colour really (the colour of an object is the colour photons it emits, and photons don't emit photons...or if you prefer, we can't even in principle 'see' photons, so how can we ever say they have a colour?), but they do have a frequency that corresponds to what we see (or so the standard theory goes), so we colloquially call photons cause red sense-perceptions as red. A white object is an object that reflects all colours of photons in equal measure.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Nonsense. Not even Lessans was stupid enough to think that people go around literally shooting words from their brains out of their eyes so that they fly out and hit objects. The reality of the psychological projection of values is entirely compatible with regular afferent vision, and Lessans' efferent vision adds nothing whatsoever to any such explanation.

Also the projection mentioned is entirely inside the brain, the brain applies these words to the image that it is intrepreting from the information it is receiving from the eyes afferently. This is well understood by psychology, it is only Lessans who totally misconstrued how it happened.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't matter that photons are constantly being replaced. The continuum of photons does not cease, therefore when a snapshot is taken of an object, it will be an instantaneous reflection of that object due to light that is being seen on the lens.

The light at the lens is from the continuous stream of photons that has traveled from the object, therefore it is aged and separate from the source. I don't really understand what exactly you are trying to describe as the process.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't want to answer the questions as you have framed them because there seems to be a lot of confusion. I have said over and over that I can see colors changing if there is a phenomenon such as a rainbow. Whichever color shows up first I would see first. But you want me to say I would see red before blue coming from a light source, even though photons are not red or blue, they are white. How can I see a white photon? It's like saying I can see daylight.

Stop your dishonest avoidance and answer my questions, Peacegirl. I'm not asking anything about seeing white photons. Photons are not white. Are you even reading what you are replying to?

You've said that for the newly-blue ball at T1, the film in the camera will be presently reacting to blue light at the camera. I am asking you about that blue light. Did it travel from the ball to get there? And was it blue the whole time it was travelling from the ball to the camera?

1. Did the blue light present at the camera at T1 take time to arrive?

2. Did the blue light present at the camera at T1 travel from the object to the camera?

3. If your answer is yes to (1) and (2), then where was that light at T-1?

4. What color was that light at T-1?

5. What color was that light when it was first reflected or emitted by the object?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't want to answer the questions...

Of course you don't. You're afraid of the implications of your own claims and will do anything to avoid facing up to them.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

The scramble begins. Who will have the first post on page 500?

The other question is just what should that post consist of?

Personally, I would like some nice music.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

I've no idea what you're talking about. Of course a photon is not the same as the thing it emitted. We can, however, see supernovae. Using a camera, or our eyes (of course, using a telescope). Also, we can detect the light. For most people this is the same thing, but I appreciate your snowflake qualities.

But they aren't the same thing. A supernova is made of more than just light. The light either allows us to see a supernova in real time (if it's close enough to our galaxy), or we use photons that are detected to learn about the time and place of the actual event.

Astronomers believe that supernovas occur in our galaxy roughly once every hundred years on average. Why are such infrequent events so interesting and important? The enormous amount of energy released in a supernova explosion has major effects on the interstellar medium (the gas between the stars). The explosion itself involves the core of the massive star, which is primarily composed of iron by the time it explodes. When the star is born, it is made of 90% hydrogen and 10% helium.

The nuclear fusion that occurs in the center of the star combines hydrogen nuclei (protons) to form helium nuclei, releasing the energy that fuels the star during most of its life. Once the hydrogen in the core is exhausted, the helium is fused to form carbon, nitrogen, and oxygen, releasing more energy. This process continues, with the inner core of the star being converted to larger and larger nuclei, until finally the star is composed of an iron/nickel core surrounding by shells of silicon/sulpher, neon/magnesium, carbon/nitrogen/oxygen, helium, and hydrogen. The structure is like an onion.

Once the inner core is converted to iron/nickel, no more energy is available from the fusion process and the inner core collapses catastrophically to form a neutron star or black hole. In the resulting explosion, the outer layers of the star are blown out into space with a velocity of up to 15,000 km/s (more than 30 million mph!).

Supernova Remnants

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by thedoc

The other question is just what should that post consist of?

Personally, I would like some nice music.

I'd like a nice quiet story-time.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But they aren't the same thing. A supernova is made of more than just light. The light either allows us to see a supernova in real time (if it's close enough to our galaxy), or we use photons that are detected to learn about the time and place of the actual event.

I didn't say they were the same thing. I said we can both see a supernova (I know you think we see it in realtime), and also we can detect the light. We can do both (for instance, I could have one telescope taking all the photons to a CCD, and another to look through).

So please answer, why is the light we detect from the supernovae the same colour as we see the supernova to be? The light we are detecting took many years to arrive. The light is many years old, and was emitted long before the star went supernova, of a colour that is completely different to the colour of light emitted after the supernova. The colour of the light (according to you) should therefore have no relationship to the colour we see, as one is the colour of the supernova many years ago, and one is the colour of the supernova now. And yet, the colour of the light always matches the colour we see. This is the opposite of what Lessans predicts.

[thedoc]

All photons have a specific frequency and each photon will then excite the rods or cones in the retina to send the appropriate signal to the brain to be intrepreted as a color. If the light consists of photons of all frequencies in roughly equal proportions we will see it as white light. When one frequency is dominate or the only frequency we see it as color. Photons also exist that are of frequencies that the eye does not detect and these are outside the range of visable light, so to the human eye they would have no color at all. Color is a result of the frequency of the photons that are detected by the eye.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't want to answer the questions as you have framed them because there seems to be a lot of confusion. I have said over and over that I can see colors changing if there is a phenomenon such as a rainbow. Whichever color shows up first I would see first. But you want me to say I would see red before blue coming from a light source, even though photons are not red or blue, they are white. How can I see a white photon? It's like saying I can see daylight.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Stop your dishonest avoidance and answer my questions, Peacegirl. I'm not asking anything about seeing white photons. Are you even reading what you are replying to?

You've said that for the newly-blue ball at T1, the film in the camera will be presently reacting to blue light at the camera. I am asking you about that blue light. Did it travel from the ball to get there? And was it blue the whole time it was travelling from the ball to the camera?

The light that is seen on a lens is not traveling for the 100th time. If it was, you would be right.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

1. Did the blue light present at the camera at T1 take time to arrive?

No.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

2. Did the blue light present at the camera at T1 travel from the object to the camera?

No.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

3. If your answer is yes to (1) and (2), then where was that light at T-1?

My answer was not yes, so I don't have to answer this question.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

4. What color was that light at T-1?

This is a continuation of the previous question so I don't have to answer this one either.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

5. What color was that light when it was first reflected or emitted by the object?

Red.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

All photons have a specific frequency and each photon will then excite the rods or cones in the retina to send the appropriate signal to the brain to be intrepreted as a color. If the light consists of photons of all frequencies in roughly equal proportions we will see it as white light. When one frequency is dominate or the only frequency we see it as color. Photons also exist that are of frequencies that the eye does not detect and these are outside the range of visable light, so to the human eye they would have no color at all. Color is a result of the frequency of the photons that are detected by the eye.

That was a very clear explanation.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'd like a nice quiet story-time.

How about one for Peacegirl, after all this seems to be her mantra,

"It's in the Book" - Johnny Standley ...

The title, that is.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light that is seen on a lens is not traveling for the 100th time. If it was, you would be right.

No.

No.

Then you are denying the basics of how light works. There is no such thing as light that doesn't travel. Light consists of photons which travel at given speed. So if you are saying that the film reacts to the wavelengths of something at the camera which has not travelled or taken time to get there, then you are not talking about light. You are either completely redefining what light is, or you are talking about something completely different. Light travels. Light takes time to arrive anywhere it gets to. These are the basics of light which you have now completely rejected.

You've now claimed light can be present somewhere without having travelled to get there. That raises more questions:

1. How do you reconcile this with your previous claim not to be rejecting the rules of light?

2. Where did that blue light come from, if it didn't travel to get there?

3. And what is that 'light'? Does it consist of photons, or something else?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sure there are many books on this phenomenon. I can't dispute their calculations. All I can do is share Lessans' claim of efferent vision in the hope of elucidating what is actually going on in reality.

What is going on in reality has been elucidated many times. Lessans was a narcissistic crackpot, and you are mentally ill.

That is what's going on in reality.

[thedoc]

What we have here is a failure to communicate.

Who's on first? - YouTube

&feature=related

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by thedoc

How about one for Peacegirl, after all this seems to be her mantra,

"It's in the Book" - Johnny Standley - YouTube

The title, that is.

I was rather hoping Peacegirl would read to us from her book, providing us with more wisdom from Seymour (See-More) Lessans.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That was a very clear explanation.

So do you understand the implications of that bit of knowledge?