A revolution in thought - Page 1523

Angakuk · #**38051** 07-11-2014, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If we saw an object in space, we would already be in optical range or else we wouldn't be able to see the object, which means the light IS ALREADY AT THE RETINA OR FILM! This is not magic. You are assuming the light would have to travel to Earth first, which is simply wrong.

Of course it is true that if we see an object that means the light is already at the retina. We couldn't see it otherwise. To the best of my knowledge no one here disputes that point, so you can quit making it. There is, however, no empirical evidence in support of your claim that this takes place instantly. That is simply an assertion, unsupported by any evidence, on the part of yourself and Lessans. There is also no assumption involved in the claim that the light at the retina has to travel to Earth in order to be at the retina, which is also on Earth. I say there is no assumption involved because this fact has been demonstrated empirically and is supported by a substantial amount of evidence. Empirical evidence is something in which your account is markedly deficient.

Angakuk · #**38052** 07-11-2014, 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe I haven't learned all of the technical terms, but I know enough to figure out how to reconcile my father's claim with the laws of physics.

Obviously not, since you have been such a signal failure at doing so.

Angakuk · #**38053** 07-11-2014, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

It was you who said it first. The discussion was on the speed of light, and you said that light would be traveling too fast to see, that was your statement.

I don't think so because I was asking the question, so why would I be answering myself?

That would hardly be the only time that you have answered yourself and even disagreed with yourself because you thought you were responding to someone else. As to why you do that, I wouldn't even care to hazard a guess.

Spacemonkey · #**38054** 07-11-2014, 01:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not select it again. I said photons travel. I already addressed the reasoning.

No, you haven't. And yes, you did select option (i) again after retracting your explicit rejection of that option. Option (i) is for the light at the film or retina to be light that got there by traveling there. It doesn't work for you because traveling from the Sun to the film or retina would take 8min which means you will not see the newly ignited Sun until 8min after it has been ignited.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I retracted that statement. I said full spectrum light does not get reflected, but that doesn't mean that the photons travel 93 million miles and are received by the eyes which then have to be transduced into impulses which then have to be decoded into an image by the brain in delayed time.

You didn't retract anything. You just instantly flip-flopped and started saying the exact opposite of what you had just said in your preceding post. And why do you keep going on about reflection? There is no reflecting going on in the newly ignited Sun example you are being asked to address.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say zero time. I said the same time it would take us to see a lighted candle. It's the same principle because distance and time are not factors in this account.

You have repeatedly said that the photons will be at the retina or film instantly. Instantly means zero time. If they are not there instantly then there will be a delay, meaning vision will no longer be occurring in real time. And if you modify your account to introduce a time delay based on how long light takes to travel from a candle to your eyes, then extending this to a case where the distance is 15 billion times greater will require either a 15 billion fold increase in the time delay or it will require light to travel 15 billion times faster than the speed of light.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I mean 93 million. Another :oops:

Yes, photons travel and light would appear but no information that could be decoded due to the inverse square law.

Stop using terms you don't understand. And for the millionth time, information has nothing to do with what I am asking you to address.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think I understand it. I don't think the math adds up. We're talking about 93 million miles to receive an image of the Sun when we're already out of optical range? I meant the inverse square law, not dispersed. Sorry to confuse you.

You don't understand it. Why on Earth would you say we are out of optical range? You can see the Sun can't you???

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Full spectrum light isn't being reflected when we're in optical range because the light is revealing the object, but as the light disperses full spectrum light continues its path to Earth. That's exactly why he said the image isn't reflected; the object is revealed which means that even though we see the object in real time, full spectrum light continues to travel. When the faraway object is too far to be seen, we get white light on our telescopes, not an image that would reveal matter. You are making a huge assumption that the partial light spectrum bounces and travels through space/time forever and ever until it strikes another object. That's the big fallacy.

You haven't understood a word that's been said to you about dispersion. What you have said here is worse than wrong. It is entirely meaningless. A traveling collection of partial spectrum light cannot magically change into full spectrum light at a certain distance from the object, nor does this bear any connection to the actual process of dispersion. Try explaining back to me what I explained to you about how dispersion works. I bet you can't. i bet you never paid any attention to my explanation at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not a present problem. All light is traveling and ALL light is located somewhere...

Was the light now at the retina or film previously traveling? Where was it located 5sec before the Sun was ignited?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

IF WE SEE THE OBJECT, the light would already be at our eyes just like it would be at our eyes watching someone light a candle.

You can't see a candle in real time either. And you are again just asserting the light will be where you need it to be without actually explaining where it comes from or how it gets there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are making distance and time a major factor because you are assuming that light has to be striking the retina on earth, when it doesn't have to do. There is still a physical interaction between light and the retina, or light and a camera, but you are failing to understand the reason why.

Now you're back to magical camera films reaching out and interacting with light that is not yet in contact with it. You are flip-flopping wildly between completely different yet equally impossible 'resolutions' to your problem, with no concern whatsoever for logical consistency or plausibility. You're simply not taking any of this seriously.

Spacemonkey · #**38055** 07-11-2014, 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just the fact that the Sun emits the light that we need to survive and to see. The light coming from stars won't let us see anything on Earth.

Another stupidly false claim. Of course you can see things at night by starlight.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Liar. You have NOT explained where the light at the film or retina came from and how it got there.

Yes I have.

You are lying again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have ignored my metaphors, so it's no wonder you fail.

Another lie. Show me any metaphor you think I have ignored rather than directly addressed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I most certainly have explained why it doesn't matter whether it's a camera or the eyes; if Lessans is right then light will be at both.

But in neither case can you explain how light gets to be there before it has had time to travel there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That has nothing to do with the problem you are still weaseling out of addressing.

It's all related.

Yes, your weaseling is very much related to the problems you are not addressing.

Spacemonkey · #**38056** 07-11-2014, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Of course it's true, dingbat. If the photons you need at the retina travel to get there, then they cannot also be there instantaneously, because travel takes time.

Oh my goodness! You are now officially on probation. The sooner you apologize, the faster I'll invite you back, otherwise, we're done. :wave:

Don't be ridiculous. I haven't called you anything you haven't called yourself.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know I'm a dingbat. It's okay. :laugh:

Spacemonkey · #**38057** 07-11-2014, 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe I haven't learned all of the technical terms, but I know enough to figure out how to reconcile my father's claim with the laws of physics.

Then why have you not yet reconciled them?

Spacemonkey · #**38058** 07-11-2014, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

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.)

BTW, I'm not just asking you to choose an option. I'm asking you to address the reasoning presented in this post. I shouldn't have to bump it 50 times and wait a month for you to even try.

Bump.

Dragar · #**38059** 07-11-2014, 09:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But there's no conflict talking about patterns of light bouncing of mirrors. I don't know where you've been?

Of course there's conflict. Light takes time to travel, while you claim we see instantly. So if our vision requires (patterns of) light to bounce off things first, your father's crazy claims are completely incompatible with how you just told me mirrors work.

Maybe you need to make up a new explanation for mirrors? You've made everything else up so far...

Quote:

Maybe I haven't learned all of the technical terms, but I know enough to figure out how to reconcile my father's claim with the laws of physics.

Like how we can't see reflections of the sun in water? :lol:

Or that you don't understand why we see the glow of the sun even after it is behind the horizon?

peacegirl · #**38060** 07-11-2014, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But there's no conflict talking about patterns of light bouncing of mirrors. I don't know where you've been?

Of course there's conflict. Light takes time to travel, while you claim we see instantly. So if our vision requires (patterns of) light to bounce off things first, your father's crazy claims are completely incompatible with how you just told me mirrors work.

Maybe you need to make up a new explanation for mirrors? You've made everything else up so far...

Quote:

Maybe I haven't learned all of the technical terms, but I know enough to figure out how to reconcile my father's claim with the laws of physics.

Like how we can't see reflections of the sun in water? :lol:

Or that you don't understand why we see the glow of the sun even after it is behind the horizon?

Dragar, I get the logic, I really do. I also get why people are so up in arms. But in all honesty, I cannot shake the idea that what has been accepted as fact regarding light and sight is incomplete. Let me make clear that I do understand the idea that photons travel, strike an object, and bounce (or get reflected) and that this delayed light brings us the image of all that exists. I also understand that people believe there is no way around this, so Lessans has to be wrong. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. I refuse to let go of his observations because they also make absolute sense.

I realize that no scientist will pay him the time of day if the whole idea of bouncing and traveling photons isn't resolved. It all seems very counter-intuitive that we can see in real time, but as I said, I will not give up on this NOT because he was my father but because his explanation of what's going on makes sense in light of his observations. At this time, I know I'm the only one in the world who is even thinking about this, but who cares. Whether something is right or wrong is not based on a popularity contest.

Spacemonkey · #**38061** 07-11-2014, 01:43 PM

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Can they arrive at the camera film less than 8min after leaving their source?

Will you answer these questions, or just weasel and ignore them?

Will you weasel by going off on an irrelevant tangent about information or reflection?

LadyShea · #**38062** 07-11-2014, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All light comes from the Sun LadyShea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Um, no it doesn't. Not even close.

In this galaxy.

So your bedside lamp is the Sun? A fire is the Sun?

Lots of things besides the Sun generate light as a product.

Dragar · #**38063** 07-11-2014, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dragar, I get the logic, I really do. I also get why people are so up in arms. But in all honesty, I cannot shake the idea that what has been accepted as fact regarding light and sight is incomplete. Let me make clear that I do understand the idea that photons travel, strike an object, and bounce (or get reflected) and that this delayed light brings us the image of all that exists. I also understand that people believe there is no way around this, so Lessans has to be wrong. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. I refuse to let go of his observations because they also make absolute sense.

It doesn't matter how much sense they make (which is: none at all) - when tested against reality, they turn out wrong. Sorry! Nobody is up in arms about this, by the way; you're just one of the hundreds of thousands of people on the internet, peddling their own crackpot theory. We get more worked up about your flagrant dishonesty than any of the incoherent mess of ideas you've presented - they're more entertaining than anything.

Quote:

It all seems very counter-intuitive that we can see in real time, but as I said, I will not give up on this NOT because he was my father but because his explanation of what's going on makes sense in light of his observations. At this time, I know I'm the only one in the world who is even thinking about this, but who cares. Whether something is right or wrong is not based on a popularity contest.

I think it's probably more counter-intuitive we see with a delay, given the delay is almost undetectable at everyday lengths and times. The problem is that his explanation makes no sense at all - you can't answer Spacemonkey's questions, for instance.

The other problem is your Dad's ideas are useless. Whenever it comes to actually explaining something - like mirrors - you have to fall back on explaining it with light. Whenever it comes to doing something practical - like calculating path a spacecraft needs to take - we ignore your father and go on ahead. And it works.

peacegirl · #**38064** 07-11-2014, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dragar, I get the logic, I really do. I also get why people are so up in arms. But in all honesty, I cannot shake the idea that what has been accepted as fact regarding light and sight is incomplete. Let me make clear that I do understand the idea that photons travel, strike an object, and bounce (or get reflected) and that this delayed light brings us the image of all that exists. I also understand that people believe there is no way around this, so Lessans has to be wrong. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. I refuse to let go of his observations because they also make absolute sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

It doesn't matter how much sense they make (which is: none at all) - when tested against reality, they turn out wrong. Sorry! Nobody is up in arms about this, by the way; you're just one of the hundreds of thousands of people on the internet, peddling their own crackpot theory. We get more worked up about your flagrant dishonesty than any of the incoherent mess of ideas you've presented - they're more entertaining than anything.

Quote:

It all seems very counter-intuitive that we can see in real time, but as I said, I will not give up on this NOT because he was my father but because his explanation of what's going on makes sense in light of his observations. At this time, I know I'm the only one in the world who is even thinking about this, but who cares. Whether something is right or wrong is not based on a popularity contest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

I think it's probably more counter-intuitive we see with a delay, given the delay is almost undetectable at everyday lengths and times. The problem is that his explanation makes no sense at all - you can't answer Spacemonkey's questions, for instance.

I have answered his questions honestly but I am still having a problem with the "evidence" that the nonabsorbed photons bounce off of an object and travel over space/time until they strike another object. Even if light is absorbed, this does not prove that the nonabsorbed light does what science thinks it does. That is a logical assumption.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

The other problem is your Dad's ideas are useless. Whenever it comes to actually explaining something - like mirrors - you have to fall back on explaining it with light. Whenever it comes to doing something practical - like calculating path a spacecraft needs to take - we ignore your father and go on ahead. And it works.

We've already been through this. Using light to measure distances is an observed fact, but using the light/time delay to determine the accuracy of where a spacecraft lands is questionable, even though David laughs at this.

thedoc · #**38065** 07-11-2014, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what someone said a long time ago when I discussed being in a field where the light travels in a straight line. I think it was thedoc who said the reason we wouldn't be able to see the image is because the light is traveling too fast.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Peacegirl, if you are going to accuse me of something I didn't do, you could at least do me the courtesy of reading and responding to my posts that I do make. FYI that was your claim, not mine, I tried to explain that it was not true.

Quote:

I said I thought it was you. I didn't say for sure that it was you. The person responding (maybe it wasn't you) said that the light would be traveling to fast for the object to be seen. That wouldn't make sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

It was you who said it first. The discussion was on the speed of light, and you said that light would be traveling too fast to see, that was your statement.

I don't think so because I was asking the question, so why would I be answering myself?

As Angakuk says it wouldn't be the first time you were answering yourself, but in this case others were explaining how the speed of light was so fast that seeing an object would seem to be instantaneous when it is just very fast, so fast that you couldn't tell it from instantaneous without special instruments. You then asked, "How could the eye see the light, if it was moving by so fast", implying that light was moving too fast to see.

BTW, Peacegirl, do you have any idea how many photons strike the surface of the Earth during the day? I found this answer, but I'm sure someone will have a slightly different answer.

Q - "If the sunlight consists of photons with an average wavelength of 510.0 nm, how many photons strike a 5.10 cm2 area per second?"

A - 9.13x10^26 (FYI, according to my figures? that's 913 trillion x 1 trillion.)

(5.10 cm2, is a 2" square)

The pupil of the eye averages between 3.14 mm2, - to 7.85 mm2, so that's still a lot of photons passing through the pupil per second during the day.
Taking the average pupil size as 5.1 mm2 (makes the math easier for me) the pupil is 1/100th of the 5.1 cm2 which gives us 913 trillion x 1 billion photons that could be passing through the eye each second, but it's probably a little less than that, depending on how bright it is outside.

thedoc · #**38066** 07-11-2014, 05:08 PM

I found more interesting information here,

Retina - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

About 7 million cones in the retina and from 75 to 150 million rods, and the capability is about 600,000 bits of information per second that can be transmitted to the brain. So there are a lot more photons striking the retina than can be processed, so the strongest signals get priority, which is why very dim or dispersed light doesn't form an image.

Spacemonkey · #**38067** 07-11-2014, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have answered his questions honestly...

Liar.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Can they arrive at the camera film less than 8min after leaving their source?

Will you answer these questions, or just weasel and ignore them?

Will you weasel by going off on an irrelevant tangent about information or reflection?

peacegirl · #**38068** 07-11-2014, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All light comes from the Sun LadyShea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Um, no it doesn't. Not even close.

In this galaxy.

So your bedside lamp is the Sun? A fire is the Sun?

Lots of things besides the Sun generate light as a product.

All I said is that light on our planet originates from the Sun. If we didn't have the Sun, we wouldn't have the raw material to create lamps or make fires.

thedoc · #**38069** 07-11-2014, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All light comes from the Sun LadyShea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Um, no it doesn't. Not even close.

In this galaxy.

So your bedside lamp is the Sun? A fire is the Sun?

Lots of things besides the Sun generate light as a product.

All I said is that light on our planet originates from the Sun. If we didn't have the Sun, we wouldn't have the raw material to create lamps or make fires.

So now you're back peddling to say that all energy on the Earth comes from the Sun? A lot but not all, there is a considerable source of heat from the interior of the Earth, and not just residual heat from the formation of the Earth, but heat generated from the decay of radioactive materials in the core of the Earth. I'm sure there are materials on the Earth that can generate light, that are not dependent on the Sun for energy, but I'll let someone else enumerate those materials.

ceptimus · #**38070** 07-11-2014, 11:12 PM

It's moot. If it wasn't for light from the sun, then there'd most likely not be any life on earth. Certainly there'd be no oxygen-rich atmosphere supporting oxygen breathing animals such as humans.

thedoc · #**38071** 07-12-2014, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus

It's moot. If it wasn't for light from the sun, then there'd most likely not be any life on earth. Certainly there'd be no oxygen-rich atmosphere supporting oxygen breathing animals such as humans.

The discussion was not about whether there would be anyone or anything to see the light, just the existence of light or the materials to make light. Certainly the absence of oxygen would preclude fire as a source of light, but I believe there are other sources, other than bioluminescence.

peacegirl · #**38072** 07-12-2014, 12:34 PM

I'm sure this is what scientists would use as PROOF that dogs can not only see, but identify what they see, just like humans do. :chin:

I Can’t Believe What Dad Caught His Dog Doing! This Is Seriously One Of The CUTEST Videos Ever! | PetFlow Blog - The most interesting news for pet parents around the world.

LadyShea · #**38073** 07-12-2014, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sure this is what scientists would use as PROOF that dogs can not only see, but identify what they see, just like humans do. :chin:

Yeah, scientists frequently use cute pet videos on the internet for proof.

And of course dogs can see. Do you need proof of that?

thedoc · #**38074** 07-12-2014, 01:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sure this is what scientists would use as PROOF that dogs can not only see, but identify what they see, just like humans do.

You really have no idea what science is, or how scientists do science, do you? This is anecdotal and might pose a good subject to start investigating, but it is certainly not, by itself, scientific evidence.

Anecdotal evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

peacegirl · #**38075** 07-12-2014, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sure this is what scientists would use as PROOF that dogs can not only see, but identify what they see, just like humans do. :chin:

Yeah, scientists frequently use cute pet videos on the internet for proof.

And of course dogs can see. Do you need proof of that?

Why do you misinterpret what I write?

...but identify what they see