A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Slightly more elaborate, the Moons of Jupiter are orbiting (of all things), Jupiter, and their orbits are unaffected by their distance from the Earth and even less so by the seasonal changes on Earth. Their distance from Earth only effects how long it takes the light, from the Moons, to get here, and therefore when we see them.

Of course! Hey, peacegirl, how in the world do you suppose seasonal change on earth would change the orbital time of the moons that orbit Jupiter?

[davidm]

Hey peacegirl! From here.

It would be reassuring to measure the speed of a beam of light between two points on the ground, rather than making somewhat indirect deductions based on apparent slight variations in the positions of stars. We can see, though, that if the two lanterns are ten miles apart, the time lag is of order one-ten thousandth of a second, and it is difficult to see how to arrange that. This technical problem was solved in France about 1850 by two rivals, Fizeau and Foucault, using slightly different techniques. In Fizeau’s apparatus, a beam of light shone between the teeth of a rapidly rotating toothed wheel, so the “lantern” was constantly being covered and uncovered. Instead of a second lantern far away, Fizeau simply had a mirror, reflecting the beam back, where it passed a second time between the teeth of the wheel. The idea was, the blip of light that went out through one gap between teeth would only make it back through the same gap if the teeth had not had time to move over significantly during the round trip time to the far away mirror. It was not difficult to make a wheel with a hundred teeth, and to rotate it hundreds of times a second, so the time for a tooth to move over could be arranged to be a fraction of one ten thousandth of a second. The method worked. Foucault’s method was based on the same general idea, but instead of a toothed wheel, he shone the beam on to a rotating mirror. At one point in the mirror’s rotation, the reflected beam fell on a distant mirror, which reflected it right back to the rotating mirror, which meanwhile had turned through a small angle. After this second reflection from the rotating mirror, the position of the beam was carefully measured. This made it possible to figure out how far the mirror had turned during the time it took the light to make the round trip to the distant mirror, and since the rate of rotation of the mirror was known, the speed of light could be figured out. These techniques gave the speed of light with an accuracy of about 1,000 miles per second.

I believe this was already discussed with you, wasn't it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Of course! Hey, peacegirl, how in the world do you suppose seasonal change on earth would change the orbital time of the moons that orbit Jupiter?

But aren't the orbits elliptical?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Dragar, this is the kind of thing that made me bring up the Deep Field Image. It was what came to mind when I thought of photos without objects "present".

Here's a free video "Introduction to Light" peacegirl

&feature=player_embedded

Even if we are seeing remnants from the past, we are seeing them in real time if Lessans is right. How can photons not be emitting light for a telescope to detect them?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Even if we are seeing remnants from the past, we are seeing them in real time if Lessans is right.

We are seeing the past in real time? Real time where? Who's real time?

You need to define "real time", as you aren't making any sense with that.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can photons not be emitting light for a telescope to detect them?

They are light. What part is confusing you? Does water emit water? Does air emit air?

Emitting is a verb, meaning there is emitting happening from a process and what is emitted is a product of that process. Light is a product emitted during several processes/reactions...in the case of stars the process is fusion.

[peacegirl]

Even if we are seeing remnants from the past, we are seeing them in real time if Lessans is right.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We are seeing the past in real time? Real time where? Who's real time?

We are seeing bits of the past if photons have broken off from the actual light source.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You need to define "real time", as you aren't making any sense with that.

It would be like finding a fossil. When we find a fossil, we aren't seeing the past as it was. We are getting a clue as to what the past was like by this piece of information.

How can photons not be emitting light for a telescope to detect them?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

They are light. What part is confusing you? Does water emit water? Does air emit air?

If that's the case, these photons are mere remnants. We are not seeing the actual event from this light; we're collecting relics (bits and pieces) of a distant past. This does not contradict the efferent model.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Emitting is a verb, meaning there is emitting happening from a process, what is emitted is a product of that process. Light is a product emitted during several processes/reactions, in the case of stars the process is fusion.

Thanks for that bit of information. I'm learning a lot.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If that's the case, these photons are mere remnants. We are not seeing the actual event from this light; we're collecting relics (bits and pieces) of a distant past.

Yes, we are. Seeing is precisely this, just like hearing is our ears collecting old sound waves something emitted when they finally reach us.

This does not contradict the efferent model.

Except when you actually look at the world, our sight seems to match perfectly with how we would see if sight was collecting photons emitted in the past that finally reach our eyes.

And sight seems to behave completely differently to Lessans' efferent 'model'.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We are seeing bits of the past if photons have broken off from the actual light source.

What do you mean "if" and what do you mean "bits"? You think a couple hundred photons break off so we're only getting little portions or what exactly is it you are seeing in your mind?

It would be like finding a fossil. When we find a fossil, we aren't seeing the past as it was. We are getting a clue as to what the past was like by this piece of information.

No, a better analogy would be we looking at a video of the past, which would offer a much more complete picture of what the time period was like.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If that's the case, these photons are mere remnants.

What do you mean by mere remnant?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We are not seeing the actual event from this light; we're collecting relics (bits and pieces) of a distant past.

Is watching a movie (with no sound) of someone giving birth not seeing the actual birth event as it happened in the past?

As it's limited to visual information it is technically only a "piece" of that event (can't videotape the emotions or tactile sensations), but this is what we are talking about when we talk about light from distant stars/galaxies. It's a full visual record.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But aren't the orbits elliptical?

Yes, to my knowledge all orbits in a planetary system are ellipses, but these ellipses are precisely known in our solar system, so the calculations and predictions can be very accurate.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Originally Posted by thedoc

Appart from an object being too far away, these phrases mean the same thing.

Okay.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Yes, we are. Seeing is precisely this, just like hearing is our ears collecting old sound waves something emitted when they finally reach us.

Except when you actually look at the world, our sight seems to match perfectly with how we would see if sight was collecting photons emitted in the past that finally reach our eyes.

And sight seems to behave completely differently to Lessans' efferent 'model'.

It behaves exactly the same way in either case; it's just a matter of direction.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Of course! Hey, peacegirl, how in the world do you suppose seasonal change on earth would change the orbital time of the moons that orbit Jupiter?

Slight correction here, the Earths gravity as well as that of all the other planets do have a very tiny effect on the orbits of the other planets and Moons, but this effect is very small, and the time difference in the orbits of the Moons of Jupiter is much greater, so this small difference does not alter the facts that we see the Moons of Jupiter as they were some measurable time in the past. I believe the time delay was mentioned somewhere in this thread, or if someone could post it, it would be appreciated. The difference in time for the eclipses of the Moons of Jupiter would equal the time it takes for light to cross the orbit of the Earth. That distance is equal to the difference between the furtherest and the nearest that the Earth is to Jupiter. So knowing that time difference, and the speed of light, would verify the size of the orbit of the Earth.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It behaves exactly the same way in either case; it's just a matter of direction.

Let me try to understand.

a) There is no possible experiment that you can do to determine if Lessans' 'efferent vision' idea is different to our 'light vision' way of seeing?

b) Direction?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

This is a point worth noting. Even if relativity theory were an incorrect theory, and we lived in a different kind of world, if the speed of light were finite, then Lessan's claims are automatically invalid. It could be the case, for example, that light behaved the way in which the Michelson-Morley experiments assumed it would: traveling at different rates of speed under different conditions. That turned out not to be the case. It was Einstein's insight that the speed of light was constant relative to all observers that introduced relativity theory.

But even in a non-relativistic world, unless the speed of light were infinite, then Lessan's claims are impossible. We know the speed of light is finite. Hence, Lessans' claims are all false.

Why can't the speed of light be constant and still produce different effects based on its interaction with the physical world?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What do you mean "if" and what do you mean "bits"? You think a couple hundred photons break off so we're only getting little portions or what exactly is it you are seeing in your mind?

No, a better analogy would be we looking at a video of the past, which would offer a much more complete picture of what the time period was like.

What do you mean by mere remnant?

A part of. Like a drop of water is a part of a river, but it isn't the river. An ember is a part of a fire, but it isn't the fire.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We are not seeing the actual event from this light; we're collecting relics (bits and pieces) of a distant past.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Is watching a movie (with no sound) of someone giving birth not seeing the actual birth event as it happened in the past?

Yes, because a movie is taped. That is different than real time seeing.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As it's limited to visual information it is technically only a "piece" of that event (can't videotape the emotions or tactile sensations), but this is what we are talking about when we talk about light from distant stars/galaxies. It's a full visual record.

I'm only discussing the visual field, not pieces of information that come from the other senses.

So what you're saying is that these lights are exact duplicates of the original galaxy? Then what does this person mean when he says photons often escape into the atmosphere? That doesn't sound like a full visual record to me. I posted this earlier. Please read it and respond.

It turns out, light from the star encodes a wealth of information about the physical state of its outer atmosphere. Light is produced in the inner regions of a star and works its way out to the "surface" -- which is really a part of the gaseous atmosphere called the photosphere. Photons produced in the photosphere have a good chance to escape outwards into space and, eventually, reach us. As photons fly through the outermost layers of the stellar atmosphere, however, they may be absorbed by atoms or ions in those outer layers. The absorption lines produced by these outermost layers of the star tell us a lot about the chemical compositition, temperature, and other features of the star.

http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys301...pec_lines.html

[LadyShea]

Here's some background Dragar. This is what has informed peacegirl's opinions and what she is trying to confirm. I edited out the fake dialog Lessans was so fond of.

Originally Posted by Lessans Pages 117-120

We simply need light to see, just as other things are a condition of hearing. If there was no light we could not see, and if there was nothing to carry the sound waves to our ears, we could not hear. The difference is that the sound is being carried to our eardrums whereas there is no picture traveling from an object on the waves of light to impinge on our optic nerve.

If a newborn infant was not permitted to have any sense experiences, the brain would never desire to focus the eyes to look through them at the external world no matter how much light was present. Consequently, even though the lids were removed, and even though many colorful objects were placed in front of the baby, he could never see because the brain is not looking.

The eyes are the windows of the brain through which experience is gained not by what comes in on the waves of light as a result of striking the optic nerve, but by what is looked at in relation to the afferent experience of the senses. 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. The brain records various sounds, tastes, touches and smells in relation to the objects from which these experiences are derived, and then looks through the eyes to see these things that have become familiar as a result of the relation. This desire is an electric current which turns on or focuses the eyes to see that which exists - completely independent of man’s perception-in the external world

He doesn’t see these objects because they strike the optic nerve; he sees them because they are there to be seen. But in order to look, there must be a desire to see.

Consequently, to include the eyes as one of the senses when this describes stimuli from the outside world making contact with a nerve ending is completely erroneous and equivalent to calling a potato, a fruit.

Once again certain facts have been confused and all the reasoning except for light traveling at a high rate of speed are completely fallacious. Scientists made the assumption that since the eyes are a sense organ it followed that light must reflect an electric image of everything it touches which then travels through space and is received
by the brain through the eyes. What they tried to make us believe is that if it takes 8 minutes for the light from the sun to reach us it would take hundreds of years for the reflection of Columbus to reach Rigel, even with a powerful telescope. But why would they need a telescope? Let me show you how confused these scientists are.

The actual reason we are able to see the moon is because there is enough light present and it is large enough to be seen. The explanation as to why the sun looks to be the size of the moon — although much larger — is because it is much much farther away, which is the reason it would look like a star to someone living on a planet the distance of Rigel. This proves conclusively that the distance between someone looking, and the object seen, has no relation to time because the images are not traveling toward the optic nerve on waves of light, therefore it takes no time to see the moon, the sun, and the distant stars.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It behaves exactly the same way in either case; it's just a matter of direction.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Let me try to understand.

a) There is no possible experiment that you can do to determine if Lessans' 'efferent vision' idea is different to our 'light vision' way of seeing?

There are experiments that can be done to show that "efferent vision" is different than our "light vision" way of seeing, although it has no effect on the the picture of what we see. It's just that one is the actual image versus an interpretation of that image.

Originally Posted by Dragar"

b) Direction?

Right. It's just a difference in direction (i.e., whether the brain interprets light impulses afferently, or whether it sees, through the eyes, that same image, efferently) which makes a big difference to the scientific community.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So what you're saying is that these lights are exact images of the original galaxy?

What "lights"? Are you thinking photons are little individual lights, like a swarm of lightning bugs?

Is the image below an "exact image" of the "original" galaxy according to your thinking?

The Pinwheel Galaxy lies in the northern circumpolar constellation, Ursa Major (The Great Bear) at a distance of 25 million light-years from Earth. We are seeing the galaxy from Earth today as it was at the beginning of Earth's Miocene Period when mammals flourished and the Mastodon first appeared on Earth. The galaxy fills an area on the sky of one-fifth the area of the full moon. http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/heic0602/

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then what does this guy mean when he says photons often escape into the atmosphere?

He didn't say into the atmosphere, he said into space. And he means exactly what he says; photons are produced in a star and many have a good chance of being emitted out into space as light energy.

He further says some are absorbed by atoms or ions before escaping the star's outer atmosphere.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not if the light is already at the eye. The only way a camera can take a picture is if the light is already present, which means that there is no travel time. It just means that camera is focused on the present scene (whether object or image) and the light that is formed on the lens is instant.

That doesn't explain how light matching the color of a newly-blue object can be instantaneously present at the camera.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, that's not it. The RED ball does not reflect RED light towards the camera. That implies distance and time.

You don't think red objects reflect red light? Then what color light do they reflect? Or is there no traveling light at all on your model?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well we know that's not true because there's no magic involved.

We know that's not true because the BLUE light is not traveling faster than the speed of light. That's a strawman.

Again, this can't be true because nothing magical is occurring. There is a definite scientific answer.

If there is a definite answer, then what is it? You just rejected the only logical possibilities. You deny that emitted light changes color after it has left the object to match a real-time color change in the object. You deny that newly emitted blue light can get from the newly-blue object to the camera instantaneously. And you deny that the camera's film can interact with the newly emitted blue light at a distance. So what the hell is it that interacts with the film to produce a real-time blue image of a newly-blue object? How is this possible? What is it that interacts with the film to determine the color of the resulting photographic image?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have tried to explain the other option, but it's not working. The light has to be present already, so there is no travel time. Even though photons are continuously moving through space and time, the lens focuses on the object. Therefore, what is seen on film as it focuses on the object is an instant mirror image of the object due to light's properties as a condition, not a cause. Therefore it is not the red photon that shows up on film; it is the actual object in real time, which is blue, that shows up on film.

You have NOT tried to explain any alternative. You've simply rejected all the logical possibilities and refused to provide any further explanation at all. What color is the light present at the film, and how did it get to be that color? If it is the wavelength of the light present at the camera determining the color of the photograph, then that light must be blue. So given that the object has only just become blue, either the previously arriving red light changed color to match the change in the object instantaneously, or it travelled from the object to the camera instantaneously. Your only other option is that the film does not react to light, but instead ignores the present red light to form a blue image on the basis of an instantaneously present 'reflection' consisting of something other than light. And that means we're back to magic again.

So my question remains unanswered: What properties of what, and where, interact with the camera's film to determine the color of a photographic image?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Seeing in color involves a combination of the properties of light and the properties of the retina.

This kind of dishonest non-answer is why people get angry with you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Stop making me the bad guy, okay? I'm only trying to express what I believe to be true. I see the implications of Lessans' claims and they are perfectly clear to me. Maybe they're not clear to you yet, but you don't have to go to such lengths to belittle me. This is not about faith and avoidance, by the way.

This is entirely about your faith and avoidance. If you don't want to be the bad guy, then answer the questions instead of avoiding them. If you can see the implications of Lessans' claims with such perfect clarity, then what are the implications for what it is that interacts with a camera's film to determine the color of an allegedly real-time photgraphic image? If it is the properties of the light present at the camera, then how does that light get to be the same color as the object which has only just now changed color?

What properties determine the color of a photographic image?

If properties of light, then WHERE is the light whose properties determine this?

If properties of light AT THE CAMERA, then how can light of color matching a newly changed object be at the camera instantaneously to interact with the film?

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But aren't the orbits elliptical?

Yes, yes they are.

Scientists have measured the orbits quite accurately. Here are the data for Jupiter and Earth:

Orbital parameters

                                   Jupiter      Earth   Ratio (Jupiter/Earth)

Semimajor axis (10^6 km)            778.57      149.60        5.204   

Sidereal orbit period (days)      4,332.589     365.256      11.862   

Tropical orbit period (days)      4,330.595     365.242      11.857

Perihelion (10^6 km)                740.52      147.09        5.034      

Aphelion (10^6 km)                  816.62      152.10        5.369

Synodic period (days)               398.88        -             -

Mean orbital velocity (km/s)         13.07       29.78        0.439    

Max. orbital velocity (km/s)         13.72       30.29        0.453        

Min. orbital velocity (km/s)         12.44       29.29        0.425       

Orbit inclination (deg)               1.304       0.000         -

Orbit eccentricity                    0.0489      0.0167      2.928

Sidereal rotation period (hours)      9.9250     23.9345      0.415  

Length of day (hrs)                   9.9259     24.0000      0.414

Obliquity to orbit (deg)              3.13       23.44        0.134 

The most relevant figures here (giving a feel for how elliptical the orbits are) are the perihelion (closest approach to the sun) and aphelion (greatest distance from the sun). Earth's orbit is almost a circle. Jupiter's orbit is more eccentric (this is a mathematical term that expresses how much the orbit deviates from a circle). However, if you saw it drawn out, you'd be hard pressed to see that it wasn't a circle, unless you used measuring instruments.

But for the moons of Jupiter experiment, these eccentricity figures can be mostly ignored. The most important fact is that Jupiter's year (the time for one complete orbit of the sun) is about twelve Earth years. It's a bit like the hour and minute hands on a clock - the Earth races around, and Jupiter has only moved through one twelfth of its orbit in the time it takes Earth to move from closest Jupiter approach to being on the opposite side of the Sun, and back to closest approach again.

So the dominant effect in the apparent changes of the eclipse times is due to the Earth's orbit (virtually circular) and the effects of the eccentricity of Jupiter's orbit are smaller, and happen over a period about twelve times as long.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are experiments that can be done to show that "efferent vision" is different than our "light vision" way of seeing, although it has no effect on the the picture of what we see.

peacegirl, you are not making any sense.

You say that there are experiments that can show we see with this 'efferent vision' and not via light. But then you say it has no effect on what we see.

And yet you said before:

"It behaves exactly the same way in either case; it's just a matter of direction."

So on one hand you say it makes no difference, but on the other it doesn't behave exactly the same way. It behaves in a completely different way!

In fact, it behaves in a way that is inconsistent with out observations of the orbital periods of the moons of Jupiter. I think you realise this, hence why you want to suddenly hire a photographer and do new experiments.

But tell me: what differences in the world could we look for to test this efferent vision idea? So far you are saying we can look for differences but 'it has no effect on the the picture of what we see'. But if it doesn't affect what we see, how can there be differences?

[LadyShea]

That doesn't really work either, because you are basically saying "Light is part of the light but isn't the light".

What do you think it's a part or remnant of, exactly?

Light is light. Light emitted from the process of fusion in a star consists of photons just as light emitted from the process of combustion in a fire is.

[Dragar]

Perhaps it would help to say photons from the sun are like the sound waves from a guitar. Presumably peacegirl doesn't think we hear efferently too, right?

[LadyShea]

No, she believes all other senses are afferent and work as science claims they do.

I edited my post to simplify my point, BTW. She seems to think photons are broken off pieces of the "actual" star...like an ember is a broken off bit of the unconsumed fuel

*She has never explained what she thinks the "actual" star looks like or is made of