A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it doesn't fall apart, not even a little bit. You never understood, and still don't, why the eye and camera work the same way in this model.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I don't understand because you have been unable to explain it without changing the properties of light or violating the laws of physics

That's just it; it doesn't change the properties of light, but it does change the function of light.

He didn't change the properties of light LadyShea, that's just the point.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If light can be at a location, such as inside a camera, without traveling to get there, then yes, that requires a change to the properties of light.

You keep saying that. Light does travel LadyShea, but the light that is reflected and crosses large distances (without the object in sight), will not produce an image on the sensor that can be developed into a photograph.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's just it; it doesn't change the properties of light, but it does change the function of light.

Yet every time you say light can be somewhere before it has had time to travel there, you ARE changing the properties of light.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are back to putting the same light at two different places. Light that is still traveling from the Sun to the Earth cannot 'reach across' space to also be at the retina or film at the same time. That is pure lunacy.

So, Peacegirl, in your "box" example, the "box" being your newest idiocy, if we can see the sun in real time because light reaches across the "box" to our eyes, then why can't we see anything on earth? Why can't we see our neighbor? After all, if the photons have reached our neighbor's eyes, they must have reached the rest of him was well. Why can't we see our neighbors and the rest of the world in real time just like we see the sun in real time?

Peacegirl, you know that you're talking twaddle. Please give it up. You'd be amazed how much happier you'd be if you could shuck off the burden of your idiot father and deal with life as it actually is. Life as it actually is, can be amazingly gratifying.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yet every time you say light can be somewhere before it has had time to travel there, you ARE changing the properties of light.

I never said that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

So, Peacegirl, in your "box" example, the "box" being your newest idiocy, if we can see the sun in real time because light reaches across the "box" to our eyes, then why can't we see anything on earth? Why can't we see our neighbor? After all, if the photons have reached our neighbor's eyes, they must have reached the rest of him was well. Why can't we see our neighbors and the rest of the world in real time just like we see the sun in real time?

Because the light has to be reflected or emitted from the object David. We can't see each other yet because no light on earth has been reflected. It's dark, remember? We can't see black holes either because no light is being emitted.

Originally Posted by davidm

Peacegirl, you know that you're talking twaddle. Please give it up. You'd be amazed how much happier you'd be if you could shuck off the burden of your idiot father and deal with life as it actually is. Life as it actually is, can be amazingly gratifying.

David, you are in la la land. To think that you believe in wormholes where we could theoretically go back in time is hysterical. You are the biggest hypocrite of all.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said that.

Of course you have! You've repeatedly claimed that the light will be at the film or retina on Earth as soon as the Sun is first ignited, which is 8min before that light has had time to travel there.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why can't it illuminate a black hole?

Actually it does, there is a lot of light falling into a black hole surrounding it in photons, and if efferent vision is correct, we should be able to see the mass of the black hole directly.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He didn't change the properties of light LadyShea, that's just the point. How many times do I have to say this? Efferent vision only changes the function of light when it comes to what light does (it reveals the external world; it does not reflect it. ). What it doesn't do is change technology. It doesn't change GPS systems. It doesn't change fiber optics. These technologies make use of light in amazing ways. But none of this negates efferent VISION, which shows me how little people have understood in 3 years.

No, it just shows how little you and Lessans understand about light and vision.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What do you think I am, a moron?

Let me guess, you are getting very close to understanding what people here think of you.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it doesn't fall apart, not even a little bit. You never understood, and still don't, why the eye and camera work the same way in this model.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I don't understand because you have been unable to explain it without changing the properties of light or violating the laws of physics

[quote=peacegirl;1192420]That's just it; it doesn't change the properties of light, but it does change the function of light.

He didn't change the properties of light LadyShea, that's just the point.

The function of light is based on the properties of light and you can't change one without changing the other. They go together and the one determines the other.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Let me guess, you are getting very close to understanding what people here think of you.

Hey, Doc, why don't you tell us all again about them pickaninnies in shop class, as you "explained" in the climate change thread, and let's find out what people here think of you.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey, Doc, why don't you tell us all again about them pickaninnies in shop class, as you "explained" in the climate change thread, and let's find out what people here think of you.

Why don't you tell us what you think, that is if you think at all, rather than just typical knee jerk reactions. I already have a good idea what people here think of me, and it doesn't mean much to me.

(quote Henry)

[thedoc]

FYI, at times I feel a bit sorry for Peacegirl, she's so wrapped up in her delusion that I fear that it is taking her away from her grandchildren, which would be a much better use of her time. But then most zealots have families that suffer from the lack of attention.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep saying that. Light does travel LadyShea, but the light that is reflected and crosses large distances (without the object in sight), will not produce an image on the sensor that can be developed into a photograph.

Hubble Deep Field

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Reflection does occur. How could the lens be in optical range without light traveling (remember the box example?). But the image does not come to us over space/time as once thought. That's why he said the "image" (the nonabsorbed photons that are at the eye when we are gazing at the actual object) is not actually being reflected due to the change in light's function, although light (the full spectrum) does get reflected and does travel.

Ridiculous and impossible things!

All light travels, not just full spectrum.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because light is impinging (he said nothing, other than light), but no image or picture is impinging on the optic nerve.

I quoted you quoting Lessans saying that nothing impinges on the optic nerve. There was no "other than light" in either of the passages that were quoted.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times did I say that efferent vision causes light to be at the eye because it is in reverse.

To many times to count. What you have failed to do, even once, is provide a mechanism that explains how efferent vision causes light to be at the eye.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's the nonabsorbed photons that have been reflected so I can see myself. They are at my eye, just like they would be if the Sun was turned on at noon, which you fail to understand.

Peacegirl, suppose that when God turned on the sun at noon you were facing away from the sun and looking in a mirror that was turned toward the sun. Would the image of the sun appear in the mirror instantly or would it take 8 1/2 minutes for the image of the sun to appear in the mirror?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Sure, Mr 'molecules-of-light' knew exactly what he was talking about, lol.

Don't forget the "electric images" carried by waves of light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Of course you have! You've repeatedly claimed that the light will be at the film or retina on Earth as soon as the Sun is first ignited, which is 8min before that light has had time to travel there.

Because of the way the eyes work, not because of the way light works. You are still not understanding why light (which without the object does not bring the image to be interpreted) does not have to travel to Earth first.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Hubble Deep Field

I told you this does not conflict. We are seeing light, which we see when it turns daylight closer to home. I am only referring to matter. Matter is revealed through light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Sure, Mr 'molecules-of-light' knew exactly what he was talking about, lol.

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.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Don't forget the "electric images" carried by waves of light.

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

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because of the way the eyes work, not because of the way light works. You are still not understanding why light (which without the object does not bring the image to be interpreted) does not have to travel to Earth first.

There you go again claiming that light can be somewhere before it has had time to travel there. Why did you deny saying this, when you've just said it again? Whenever you say this you are changing the properties of light. And you're damn right I don't understand how light can be at the retina or film without having traveled there. That's why we keep asking you to explain it. That you never do shows that you don't understand it either.

[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.)

Bump.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you this does not conflict. We are seeing light, which we see when it turns daylight closer to home. I am only referring to matter. Matter is revealed through light.

Galaxies don't contain matter?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

light that is reflected and crosses large distances (without the object in sight), will not produce an image on the sensor that can be developed into a photograph.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you this (Hubble Deep Field) does not conflict. We are seeing light, which we see when it turns daylight closer to home. I am only referring to matter. Matter is revealed through light.

Below are pics of exoplanets. Planets are made of matter, and planets reflect light rather than emit it, the planets are not "in sight", or in optical range, or in the field of view...they can't be seen with our eyes even with a telescope you look through. Collecting traveling photons on a sensor is how these images were created.




The world’s newest and most powerful exoplanet imaging instrument, the recently-installed Gemini Planet Imager (GPI) on the 8-meter Gemini South telescope, has captured its first-light infrared image of an exoplanet: Beta Pictoris b, which orbits the star Beta Pictoris, the second-brightest star in the southern constellation Pictor. The planet is pretty obvious in the image above as a bright clump of pixels just to the lower right of the star in the middle (which is physically covered by a small opaque disk to block glare.) But that cluster of pixels is really a distant planet 63 light-years away and several times more massive — as well as 60% larger — than Jupiter!

Read more: Super-sensitive Camera Captures a Direct Image of an Exoplanet



The spots marked b in the pics above are planets. FW Tau is 470 light years from Earth and orbits a binary star
Exoplanets: Three directy imaged planets added to list

Originally Posted by Phil Plait

I’m fascinated by these direct images of planets. For now, given our technology, the ones we see this way are young, hot, and massive. But we’re getting better at this. As we make bigger telescopes equipped with better detectors, and use more sophisticated techniques in our observations, more planets will be found. I have no doubt that we’re getting closer to being able to physically see a planet like the Earth, orbiting some nearby star. It may yet be several years away, but that time is coming.

Two groups of researchers searching for extrasolar planets—planets orbiting stars other than our own sun—laid claim today to an astronomy milestone: photographing extrasolar planets directly, rather than inferring their presence through effects on their parent stars. Out of this World Pictures: First Direct Photos of Exoplanets - Scientific American