A revolution in thought

[The Lone Ranger]

You're bringing aspects of physics into this experiment that are not relevant. What does OPTICS have to do with anything other what I just mentioned?

Because, as any reasonably well-read adult (or junior-high student, for that matter) understands, the intensity of light varies with the inverse square of the distance. In other words, if the distance from a light source is doubled, the intensity of light received from it decreases by 1/22 = 4 times.

So as you move a reflecting object farther from its light source, it appears to get dimmer. Meaning that you need longer exposure times to photograph it. (If you use a longer exposure time, you're gathering more light.) Or you could use bigger lenses -- bigger lenses gather more light.

That's pure physics. (Optics is a branch of physics.) And it's very-much relevant.

[ceptimus]

You don't know what you're talking about with this talk of 'visual range'.

I can't see a fly that is 100 yards away. But if you painted the fly silver and shone a laser at it, then I would be able to see that same fly, especially at night.

But even with the laser-lit shiny fly, I wouldn't be able to see it if there were some other bright source of light nearby, dazzling me.

If you're going to throw around technical terms like 'visual range', you need to define what you mean.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

It's been explained to you several times already that we HAVE done the experiment here on Earth.

Light travels really really quick. It would go right around the world seven whole times in one second! So you can't just have two guys with lanterns covering and uncovering them with cloths and trying to time the delay with a stop watch.

What you need is a way of producing very brief flashes of light, and a detector that only remains 'open' for very brief periods. The simplest mechanical ways of doing this, using rotating toothed wheels and rotating multi-faceted mirrors, have already been explained to you.

Nowadays we do the experiments with fast-switching lasers controlled by complex modern electronics.

If you can't understand the moons of Jupiter experiment, or the rotating toothed wheel experiment done here on Earth, then you have little chance of understanding the modern laser-based light speed measuring systems.

This is not about measuring the speed of light. If light travels so fast, then how could anything be seen on a lens. And if something is reflected off of an object and seen on a lens, then a few feet back out of the camera's field of view should not change anything. The photons would still be reflecting off of the object toward the lens, therefore the object should be seen. I am realizing that scientists may have a hard time believing that a simple experiment could very well have relevance, which is why they are so resistant.

[Spacemonkey]

Peacegirl, efferent vision is still conclusively disproved by the fact that cameras function afferently and yet do not record different images to what is seen with the eyes. Your account of real-time photography, to the extent that you've provided any account at all, directly contradicts the known physics of light. As you could see for yourself if you would just answer my questions.

[The Lone Ranger]

I am realizing that scientists may have a hard time believing that a simple experiment could very well have relevance, which is why they are so resistant.

You liar. The simplest experiments are often the best, because they're easiest to conduct.

Like, for example, the simple experiment of looking through a telescope to determine if we see Jupiter's (or Saturn's, or Uranus', etc.) moons where they are right now or where they were several minutes ago.

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If light travels so fast, then how could anything be seen on a lens. And if something is reflected off of an object and seen on a lens, then a few feet back out of the camera's field of view should not change anything.

When you move things further away, they appear smaller!!!!!

Surely you've noticed this?

When they become small enough the camera won't be able to resolve them anymore - for example with a digital camera, once something shrinks to a single pixel then you're not going to be able to see any detail - the best you could hope for would be to pick up the average colour and brightness of the object in that one pixel.

Eyes also effectively have pixels - individual rods and cones.

Film cameras have a certain 'grain size' of the film - the smallest particle of light sensitive film that can change chemically as a result of light striking it.

Lenses are also not perfect - whether in cameras or our eyes - there are various distortions and imperfections that mean that an object that subtends less than a certain angle cannot be resolved.

If something is too far away to see clearly with a particular lens, then we can usually simply make use of a larger lens, or system of lenses - which will then bring the object back into clear view - these things are known as 'telescopes'!

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And if something is reflected off of an object and seen on a lens, then a few feet back out of the camera's field of view should not change anything. The photons would still be reflecting off of the object toward the lens, therefore the object should be seen.

Do you honestly believe that if a camera can photograph an object at, say, 20 feet that if you move it to 25 feet, the camera can no longer photograph it? Do you honestly believe that anything in the field of optics predicts that this should be the case?

Not even you could be that ignorant!

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If light travels so fast....

So you are disputing physics? I'm glad we've finally established that.

...then how could anything be seen on a lens.

We don't see things on a lens. A lens focuses light onto a plane (called the focal plane, for obvious reasons). You don't focus an object, you focus light, and you adjust your lens so that your focal plane matches our CCD (or camera film, or whatever else you want to focus the light onto). In the case of our eyes, the light is focused by the lens onto our retinas, allowing us to see the object.

And if something is reflected off of an object and seen on a lens, then a few feet back out of the camera's field of view should not change anything. The photons would still be reflecting off of the object toward the lens

No. I don't know what you mean by 'field of view' here at all, but if you mean further directly away, then there is no such thing as a field of view as you are using it. There is no point at which we won't be able to see the object, assuming we are given sufficient exposure time for our camera to collect enough light. Otherwise, eventually the number of photons arriving will be too few to form a recognisable image.

If by field of view you mean the conventional usage of the word, then the light will not be heading toward the lens (it will be blocked by the camera's walls, or whatever else is restricting the field of view).

therefore the object should be seen. I am realizing that scientists may have a hard time believing that a simple experiment could very well have relevance, which is why they are so resistant.

That's because the experiment was constructed who doesn't understand how light works. Or what they're supposed to be testing. We don't take issue with it's simplicity, we take issue with its incoherent goal.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Do you honestly believe that if a camera can photograph an object at, say, 20 feet that if you move it to 25 feet, the camera can no longer photograph it? Do you honestly believe that anything in the field of optics predicts that this should be the case?

Not even you could be that ignorant!

She is talking about a few feet this side of what is called the "vanishing point" in drawings. I am not sure what the vanishing point is called in vision or photography, but she is talking about getting an image when the distance is such that the object can no longer be seen with the eye or equipment available due to the angle of view or the dimness.

[LadyShea]

Did my description help explain her desired experiment? If so, I would appreciate an education in the correct terms, please.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

out of the camera's field of view should not change anything.

If an object is out of the field of view (out of the line of sight) we cannot take a picture of it, if it is in the field of view (in the line of sight) then we can take a photo of it, even if it needs magnification and a long exposure. This line of reasoning is obvious and proves nothing that is not already known, Just another 'red herring' to distract from the real issues.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Because, as any reasonably well-read adult (or junior-high student, for that matter) understands, the intensity of light varies with the inverse square of the distance. In other words, if the distance from a light source is doubled, the intensity of light received from it decreases by 1/22 = 4 times.

So as you move a reflecting object farther from its light source, it appears to get dimmer. Meaning that you need longer exposure times to photograph it. (If you use a longer exposure time, you're gathering more light.) Or you could use bigger lenses -- bigger lenses gather more light.

That's pure physics. (Optics is a branch of physics.) And it's very-much relevant.

But if we're taking a picture in daylight, wouldn't the intensity of the light stay the same regardless of distance? Of course, the farther away someone is from the camera the smaller they will appear.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

If an object is out of the field of view (out of the line of sight) we cannot take a picture of it, if it is in the field of view (in the line of sight) then we can take a photo of it, even if it needs magnification and a long exposure. This line of reasoning is obvious and proves nothing that is not already known, Just another 'red herring' to distract from the real issues.

This is not a red herring. If it turns out that the object cannot be seen outside of the field of view even though it's in the direct line of a camera, then it would mean that the light that is bouncing off of the object is not carrying the image of the object with it, or it would show up as an image on the lens.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If it turns out that the object cannot be seen outside of the field of view even though it's in the direct line of a camera, then it would mean that the light that is bouncing off of the object is not carrying the image of the object with it, or it would show up as an image on the lens.

If an object is outside the field of view it is not in the direct line of the camera, this is a meaningless contradiction. It is impossible for an object to be in the direct line of the camera (in the line of sight) and at the same time be outside of the field of view, given enough light and no obstructions. Your conditions are nonsense and prove nothing. Your phrasing is much like that of lessans book, meaningless 'word salad'.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But if we're taking a picture in daylight, wouldn't the intensity of the light stay the same regardless of distance? Of course, the farther away someone is from the camera the smaller they will appear.

For practical purposes, barring cloud cover, weather conditions, the effects of latitude, and the like, the intensity of sunlight won't vary here on Earth because the light source (the Sun) is approximately 93,000,000 miles away. There's nowhere on Earth you can go that puts you appreciably farther away from the Sun.

So long as you have a direct line of sight to an object* (i.e., no obstacles are in the way) and the object is sufficiently illuminated with light of the appropriate wavelengths, and the object is not so far away that its apparent size is smaller than what the camera's sensors (whether CCDs, film granules, or photoreceptor cells in the retina of the eye*) can resolve, you can take a picture of it (or see it). That's a straightforward prediction of optics, and has been borne out by countless experiments.

As has been explained to you in detail on more than one occasion.


*That's what it means to say that something is within a camera's (or eye's) field of view. There is a direct line of sight between the object and the lens of the camera (or eye).

*The human eye, for practical purposes, is a camera, which is why it's known as a "camera eye," as opposed to the "compound eyes" of insects, for comparison.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

New questions for Peacegirl...

1. What is it that interacts with the film in a camera to determine the color of the resulting image?

2. Where is whatever it is which does this (when it interacts)?

3. Which properties of whatever it is that does this will determine the color of the resulting image?

4. Did the light present at the camera initially travel from the object to get there?

5. Can light travel to the camera without arriving at the camera?

6. Can light travel faster than light?

7. Is wavelength a property of light?

8. Can light travel without any wavelength?

9. Do objects reflect light or does light reflect objects?

10. What does a reflection consist of?

11. What does light consist of?

(Please think carefully about your answers, and ask for clarification if any question is unclear to you.)

3rd bump.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

3rd bump.

Is the 3rd bump a charm?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know what's going on with Jupiter's IO. At this point in our discussion it seems to me that this is a distraction. We can always come back to this experiment after we determine whether Lessans' claim has validity. I will not be satisfied until I get an answer to this question. Can an image of an object be detected on a lens without the object being in the field of view of the lens but in a direct line with it? In other words, shouldn't an image of the object (the wavelength) that is now part of the light that is being reflected strike the lens regardless of whether the object is in the camera's field of view, if there is nothing obstructing, deflecting, refracting, or dispersing that light?

peacegirl, you have a serious comprehension deficit. There is so much in this post that just screams that you are an ignorant, confused and muddled person. I have no idea how you think you are doing Lessans cause any good at all.

I will say how amazing it is that people persist in trying to educate you when is should be obvious by now that you are completely uneducatable. Your brain has no plasticity. Not one little bit.

Have you seen a neurologist about your condition?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not about measuring the speed of light. If light travels so fast, then how could anything be seen on a lens. And if something is reflected off of an object and seen on a lens, then a few feet back out of the camera's field of view should not change anything. The photons would still be reflecting off of the object toward the lens, therefore the object should be seen. I am realizing that scientists may have a hard time believing that a simple experiment could very well have relevance, which is why they are so resistant.

Again, an excellent example of just how scrambled your comprehension is. It's as if there is a small amount of brain plasticity but that it works against you rather than for you since you do not have anywhere near enough basic knowledge and inference ability to do anything but string these newly acquired terms into an incoherent jumble.

If you did see a neurologist he would probably say that there is nothing much they could do for you. Perhaps you are in early onset for Alzheimer's disease.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Because you dishonestly claim to be interested in evaluating Lessans' claims, while ignoring easily-conducted experiments (Jupiter's moons, the example I gave with a red piece of paper) which conclusively disprove Lessans' claims with respect to how and what we see.

If that is true, then any other experiment should confirm it. So why are you against this?

All you keep saying is that I won't accept any evidence against him.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Because, as you've very clearly demonstrated, you won't.

I will not just concede because you want me to unless there is more evidence (more than just Jupiter's moons) that proves him wrong.

I won't as long as I don't see any evidence against him. And so far I don't.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

That's because you're deliberately squeezing your eyes tightly shut whenever anyone brings up something which disproves Lessans' claims. You're no more interested in honest evaluation of the evidence than you are a Eucalyptus tree.

Not true, but if I can't get objective evaluations in here, then I'll have to go elsewhere. You are not being objective Lone Ranger because you already [know/believe] he is wrong.

No one has explained why a special lens cannot pick up the pattern of light at night that would allow us to see events that we couldn't otherwise see (I'm not talking about white spots of electromagnetic radiation that can be picked up) if the images are out of range, but in direct line, with the thermal sensor. Or why haven't you even attempted to answer my question as to why we wouldn't see objects in daylight if they were out of the camera's field of view but in direct line with the lens.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Because, as has already been explained to you, your "questions" are nonsensical and display a complete lack of understanding of optics. People have tried to explain this to you, only to be ignored.

That's a non-answer.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're 300 pages back. I already explained that information transfer is unrelated to efferent sight, therefore we would not be able to see something before it happened, or get an answer before the question was asked.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You never explained anything. Claiming that x is y is not the same thing as explaining how x is y. All of your so called explanations amount to nothing more than simple and unsupported assertions. None of them have any of the usual characteristics of an explanation.

They are keen observations coming from many different angles. But no one is listening because no one cares. They want to be right at all costs since science has already spoken. Don't you see the bias that exists, which condemns Lessans at the starting gate?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've said this umpteen times. If you can show me that a picture can be taken of an object that is out of view of the lens but in direct line with it, then I will be the first one to admit Lessans was wrong. I'm not here to just accept anything Lessans says, but I'm not convinced that science is right. Why should I be ridiculed for this? If the lightwaves hold the key to sight (the wavelength that bounces off the object and holds that image of the object within it as it travels through space and time), then I will gladly concede.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Hubble Telescope Deep Field Images.

It is much to late for you to be the first one to admit that Lessans was wrong, but you are welcome to get in line.

I said that those images show light coming from the past. It's a definite clue to the age of our universe. I'm not disputing this.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually, this knowledge made me realize that I'm okay even with all my so-called flaws.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Additional evidence, if any were needed, that Lessans so called knowledge is deeply flawed.

All you keep doing is railing against him as if there are actual flaws in his observations, using false refutations to buttress your accusations. How long this back and forth bantering goes on is anyone's guess, but it doesn't change anything or help in furthering your understanding of these discoveries.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

What we see as 'White Light' is a combination of all the colors of light in roughly equal proportions that appears white. In fact there is no such thing as 'White Light' there is no wavelength of light that by itself would appear white, any single wavelength of light by itself would be a color of the spectrum. Objects only appear to be a color because they absorb some frequencies of light and reflect others. The frequency of light is the same as it's wavelength relative to the speed of light, and that is what makes color.

The bottom line is that we see white light. I never said that white light is a single wavelength. What makes color is the absorption and reflection of certain frequencies of light. I have no idea where the speed of light enters into it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The light from Galaxies can be collected and produce an image. Just like the light from rainbows can produce an image, just like the light from the Aurora can produce an image, just like the emitted light on your TV and computer monitors can produce images.

The only reason you want to move the goalposts to "objects" is because you don't like the facts.

I am not moving the goalposts LadyShea. I want to make sure we're on the same page because I don't want his knowledge to be misinterpreted.

keep the controls tight so that we know what we're studying.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The Hubble was well designed, engineered, and constructed and its optics systems are reliable. We know what we're studying when we examine the Deep Field images. That's tightly enough controlled for any rational person to draw conclusions from.

I am not disputing what the telescope picked up in the Deep Hubble Field. Now can we move on to objects and how light interacts? We're wasting a lot of unnecessary time.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If that is true, then any other experiment should confirm it. So why are you against this?

As I've said before, I never can decide what is more breathtaking about you: your density, or your dishonesty.

As has been repeatedly explained to you, exeriments confirming the finitude of light speed, and the fact that we see light and cannot see in real time, are conducted all the time. They are part and parcel of basic technology. Virtually nothing would work the way that it does, or work at all, if light speed and delayed seeing were not confirmed facts.

Now, then, peacegirl, about those moons of Jupiter ... you do understand that this experiment has been run repeatedly for a long, long time, and rules out real-time seeing, don't you?

Now, are you currently being dense, dishonest, or both?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

What does bump mean?