A Revolution in Thought: Part Two - Page 163

davidm · #**4051** 01-07-2012, 07:07 PM

Actually there must be four objects; the tree, the reflected tree, and the tree in the eye and the reflected tree in the eye! Remember, there is no distance between the object and the eye in Efferent VisionTM and so the two objects (one upside down) in the external world are inside the eye too! Have we got that right, Perfesser Peacegirl?

This gives a whole new meaning to the phrase "the sun got in my eye" when a ball player drops a pop fly. The sun really was in his eye! Of course this raises the serious problem of why the ballplayer was not instantly incinerated with the big hot goddam sun physically in his eye. But that is just a detail and peacegirl does not have to answer that question. It was probably a coincidence.

thedoc · #**4052** 01-07-2012, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, why aren't you answering me? I know you're here because you just responded to a post. If you don't want to answer the question, can someone else step forward? People can scroll down to get a larger image. I would like to know in this mirror image picture, are the photons being teleported?

March Digital Photography Competition Results - Opinion - Trusted Reviews

No the photons are being reflected off the scene above and then reflected off the water to the camera along with the light comeing directly from the scene. Light striking the scene is reflected in all directions, but 2 of those directions happen to be to the camera and also to the water and then to the camera to form the total image.

thedoc · #**4053** 01-07-2012, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

? The very first thing you need to understand is that photons, although they are being replaced every second, cannot exist independently without the object. Try to grasp that one thought before telling me it's wrong.

Are you trying to say that photons can only exist as long as the object exists, and if the object would cease to exist the photons that were reflected or emmited from that object would also cease to exist?

The photons would exist, but the wavelength and frequency of the object would not exist. That's what I mean by light reveals the external world; it doesn't bring the external world to us.

So if the object ceases to exist along with it's frequency, what happens to the photons that were at the object and reflected from it, after it disappeared.

Dragar · #**4054** 01-07-2012, 07:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not assuming anything. These are accurate observations...

How do you know? Nobody else thinks they are accurate, everyone disagrees with his observations, and his conclusions contradict the known laws of physics.

And no, that's not just because I'm looking at things from the 'wrong' perspective. If we, as you claim, saw in real time, that means information (provided by vision) can propagate instantly across any distance. That breaks relativity completely, ruining causality. That's only one of dozens of physical principles wrecked by Lessans daft proposal. And before you claim "That's because you're looking at it from the wrong perspective!", nothing about vision or even the behavior of light underpins relativity. Granting your claims about vision are true can not and does not change the conclusions of relativity - conclusions that contradict your claims about vision.

It does not mean that anything can propagate instantly across any distance.

Of course it does. Sun goes off, I see that happen instantly. Boom, information has propagated instantly from the Sun to me. Forbidden by relativity unless you want to abandon causality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

So how do you know his 'observations' (which they aren't - they are claims, not observations) are correct?

They are his observations based on his understanding of how the brain works. You can't tell me that he is wrong because we are in the rudimentary stages of understanding the brain.

By the same token you can't tell me they are right. How do you know his understanding of the brain is correct? Especially given everything seems aligned to point to the fact he was wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

You can't explain why gravitational lensing produces two images of a galaxy, one being an image at a different time to another. You say, "Oh, I'm sure there's some reason. That must be to do with gravity."

Gravitational lensing is two different light pathways. That doesn't negate efferent vision.

Of course it does. According to Lessans, we see the galaxy instantly. So why can we see two different images of the same galaxy? That's easy for me to explain - light takes longer to go down one path than the other, so I see a slight delay in one image. But for you, it flat out contradicts 'instant' vision. Or is there a magical reason you can't tell me for this too?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

You can't explain why our rockets can reach distant planets using what is (according to you) a flawed calculation of their present position. That shouldn't work if Lessans is right, but what do you say? "Oh, there must be some explanation. I don't have to explain what it is, but Lessans is right, so there must be one."

Those calculations have nothing to do with efferent vision. Remember, we can calculate the speed of light and come to a correct conclusion, but when it comes to sight that's a different story if sight is efferent.

Of course they do. Because we use where we see the planets to be to work out where they are. If we assumed we saw them instantly like Lessans claims, we would get it wrong. Instead we assume that we see them with a delay due to the travel of light, and get it right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

THERE IS NO MAGICAL EXPLANATION; JUST OBSERVATION BASED ON A DIFFERENT PREMISE!

Oh really?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We don't know if there is another explanation yet because scientists haven't looked.

A magical one?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just as in the moons of Jupiter, there may be a different explanation than the one proposed.

Another magical one? Really?

Bump, as you chose to respond (twice more) to my previous post, instead of this.

naturalist.atheist · #**4055** 01-07-2012, 07:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Note how in that picture one side of the mountain is darker? How come? What explains that in efferent vision? What difference does it make once the requirements are met?

In afferent vision we know why this is.

What causes the reflection in efferent vision anyway? Why is it there? Afferent vision explains it perfectly, and also explains why the reflection that is further away from the base of the mountain is darker and more blurry. What causes that in efferent vision?

Note how the sky is blue? Air is not blue, and nor is anything else out there! What causes us to see a blue sky even though there is no such object? Afferent vision explains it perfectly.

Why does the water look so dark? That water is not that colour at all if you pick some of it up with a translucent bucket. So how come it looks so dark? Afferent vision explains it perfectly. Efferent vision has no explanation at al.

That picture is full of dark mysteries where efferent vision is concerned. Afferent vision has clear answers though.

It is a perfect example of what is wrong with efferent vision as a theory. It explains nothing.

Vivisectus, keep on pluggin. One day that horse will sing.

peacegirl · #**4056** 01-07-2012, 07:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

? The very first thing you need to understand is that photons, although they are being replaced every second, cannot exist independently without the object. Try to grasp that one thought before telling me it's wrong.

Are you trying to say that photons can only exist as long as the object exists, and if the object would cease to exist the photons that were reflected or emmited from that object would also cease to exist?

The photons would exist, but the wavelength and frequency of the object would not exist. That's what I mean by light reveals the external world; it doesn't bring the external world to us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

So if the object ceases to exist along with it's frequency, what happens to the photons that were at the object and reflected from it, after it disappeared.

There is still light traveling; the light from the Sun. That's why Lessans said that light does not carry the image (which only means the frequency and wavelength) when the object is no longer present.

davidm · #**4057** 01-07-2012, 07:56 PM

[quote=peacegirl;1023953]

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

? The very first thing you need to understand is that photons, although they are being replaced every second, cannot exist independently without the object. Try to grasp that one thought before telling me it's wrong.

Are you trying to say that photons can only exist as long as the object exists, and if the object would cease to exist the photons that were reflected or emmited from that object would also cease to exist?

The photons would exist, but the wavelength and frequency of the object would not exist. That's what I mean by light reveals the external world; it doesn't bring the external world to us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

So if the object ceases to exist along with it's frequency, what happens to the photons that were at the object and reflected from it, after it disappeared.

There is still light traveling; the light from the Sun. That's why Lessans said that light does not carry the image (which only means the frequency and wavelength) when the object is no longer present.

davidm · #**4058** 01-07-2012, 07:57 PM

No, peacegirl, you've got it conceptually wrong as well. In any case of, "That's why Lessans said x," he said x because he was a big dumb clueless buffoon. :yup:

peacegirl · #**4059** 01-07-2012, 07:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, why aren't you answering me? I know you're here because you just responded to a post. If you don't want to answer the question, can someone else step forward? People can scroll down to get a larger image. I would like to know in this mirror image picture, are the photons being teleported?

March Digital Photography Competition Results - Opinion - Trusted Reviews

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

No the photons are being reflected off the scene above and then reflected off the water to the camera along with the light comeing directly from the scene. Light striking the scene is reflected in all directions, but 2 of those directions happen to be to the camera and also to the water and then to the camera to form the total image.

That's not what is happening. And my question had nothing to do with cameras at this point. I asked one question and that was: In the mirror image is it being teleported, or is it at the water instantly. Answer yes or no. I gave you a hint...

A mirror image is a reflected duplication of an object that appears identical but reversed.

1000 Pictures - Free Desktop Wallpaper

thedoc · #**4060** 01-07-2012, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, why aren't you answering me? I know you're here because you just responded to a post. If you don't want to answer the question, can someone else step forward? People can scroll down to get a larger image. I would like to know in this mirror image picture, are the photons being teleported?

March Digital Photography Competition Results - Opinion - Trusted Reviews

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

No the photons are being reflected off the scene above and then reflected off the water to the camera along with the light comeing directly from the scene. Light striking the scene is reflected in all directions, but 2 of those directions happen to be to the camera and also to the water and then to the camera to form the total image.

That's not what is happening. And my question had nothing to do with cameras at this point. I asked one question and that was: In the mirror image is it being teleported, or is it at the water instantly. Answer yes or no. I gave you a hint...

A mirror image is a reflected duplication of an object that appears identical but reversed.

1000 Pictures - Free Desktop Wallpaper

Your link was to a photography contest that were pictures taken by a camera, but it doesn't matter because if a person were there they would see what the camera took a picture of the light being reflected off of the scene both to the eye and off the water and then to the eye, the combination creates the double but opposite image. In this case upside down. You should also note that part of the reflected image is distorted because the water is not perfectly smooth.

Now answer my question about the star.

And what happens to the light reflected from an object when the object no longer exists, is it replaced by new light from the sun?

peacegirl · #**4061** 01-07-2012, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

So why is a mirror image reversed?

The rest of humanity knows why! A reflection is reversed because reflected light follows rules of incidence and reflection.

But for peacegirl? It just magically happens to teleport precisely to the right spot in our eye to be reversed!

Dragar, where is there teleporting of light? The angle of incidence is correct, but what I'm asking is this: In a mirror image does the duplicate image that shows up on water get there from light that has traveled, or is it instantaneous?

naturalist.atheist · #**4062** 01-07-2012, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

So why is a mirror image reversed?

The rest of humanity knows why! A reflection is reversed because reflected light follows rules of incidence and reflection.

But for peacegirl? It just magically happens to teleport precisely to the right spot in our eye to be reversed!

Dragar, where is there teleporting of light? The angle of incidence is correct, but what I'm asking is this: In a mirror image does the duplicate image that shows up on water get there from light that has traveled, or is it instantaneous?

Ahhhh, I get it. The light that was reflected was at one time at the mirror, (surface of the water) so it's still at the surface of the water as we speak even if the sun set long ago and that is why there are two objects.

davidm · #**4063** 01-07-2012, 08:25 PM

Dragar · #**4064** 01-07-2012, 08:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

So why is a mirror image reversed?

The rest of humanity knows why! A reflection is reversed because reflected light follows rules of incidence and reflection.

But for peacegirl? It just magically happens to teleport precisely to the right spot in our eye to be reversed!

Dragar, where is there teleporting of light? The angle of incidence is correct, but what I'm asking is this: In a mirror image does the duplicate image that shows up on water get there from light that has traveled, or is it instantaneous?

For me, it's obviously travelled from the objects in the reflection, to the water, and then to my eye which is why I can see it.

For you? At this point, who knows! As far as I can gather the light instantly appears in my eyes (or in the water?! or both?!), at the same time light travels from the Sun at a finite speed. Your explanations make zero sense, they are all over the place, self-contradictory, and completely incompatible with all of known physics. At this point I'm just waiting anxiously to see how much crazier it can get.

Spacemonkey · #**4065** 01-07-2012, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well then I would agree that when we use light to create a picture, the photons interacting with the film is a duplicate copy.

Fine. So the efferent model requires instantaneous duplicates of distant photons constantly coming into existence at the film. Keep this in mind, and I will eventually show you the problem that results from this (even if it were possible).

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Good. So there is then green light coming into existence at the observer's eyes.

I gave you this answer because it follows logically (and I knew that was the answer you were looking for), but that doesn't mean this is what is actually going on.

What? I'm not asking you to tell me what I want to hear or give answers that you don't actually believe to be true! I'm asking you to tell me how you think efferent vision works! The Sun has been in existence for 1 second. It was yellow a second ago, now it is green. No light has reached the Earth by travelling there yet. Will the yellow light which came into existence in the observer's eyes one second ago have been replaced by new green light coming into existence there or not?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Exactly. The photons are constantly coming into existence in the observer's eyes, matching the real-time color of the Sun.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Great.

No, it's not great because you still believe that the color that is now matching the Sun is time related based on the new frequency (color) that is appearing at the observer's eye.

What? All I did was agree with you. What is not time-based? You said there will be photons constantly coming into existence in the observer's eyes, matching the real-time color of the Sun. I haven't even shown you the problem with this yet. What part of it are you wanting to retract?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And where is the yellow light which was at the Sun a second ago? Is any of it travelling towards the observer at this point?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no yellow light traveling to the eye. That's what I'm trying to tell you. It's there already the instant the Sun changes color. :doh:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Wait, what? When I say that the Sun is ignited, I mean that a great ball of photon-emitting fusing hydrogen and helium comes to exist. What do you mean?

I was just following your hypothetical example of the Sun alternating each second between yellow and green.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Does light never exist at the Sun? Is the newly existing Sun not emitting any light? When first ignited, is the yellow light only in the observer's eyes and not at the Sun? Or does the yellow light at the Sun cease to exist as it leaves the Sun's surface, such that it never travels anywhere?

Spacemonkey, you're really not understanding my position at all, but you think you are. Of course the yellow light is at the Sun and at the observer's eyes. The photons are constantly being emitted. Why are you bringing up such a ridiculous notion?

I asked you where the yellow light which was at the Sun when it first ignited would be 1 second later. You are the one who said none of it would be travelling towards the Earthbound observer. So let's try again:

The Sun just ignited. So yellow light comes into existence both at the Sun and in the observer's eyes. One second later the Sun is green, meaning green light is now in existence at the surface of the Sun and has also just come into existence in the observer's eyes. At this time, where is the yellow light that was at the Sun one second ago? Is any of it travelling towards the Earthbound observer at this point?

naturalist.atheist · #**4066** 01-07-2012, 08:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well then I would agree that when we use light to create a picture, the photons interacting with the film is a duplicate copy.

Fine. So the efferent model requires instantaneous duplicates of distant photons constantly coming into existence at the film. Keep this in mind, and I will eventually show you the problem that results from this (even if it were possible).

You do that Spacemonkey. I am sure it will change peacegirls mind. Yup, that's all ya gotta do.

Spacemonkey · #**4067** 01-07-2012, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm trying very hard to show you that Lessans' observations are not only reasonable, but correct. Who's running away? But if you don't allow me to explain this from the "efferent version" point of view, it will keep defaulting into your logic, which will falsely accuse Lessans of being wrong.

You're running away. The only thing you're "trying very hard to do" is to avoid answering questions. You just ignored them again with this post. If your answers to perfectly reasonable questions show Lessans to be wrong, how is that the fault of the questioner?

Spacemonkey · #**4068** 01-07-2012, 08:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well then I would agree that when we use light to create a picture, the photons interacting with the film is a duplicate copy.

Fine. So the efferent model requires instantaneous duplicates of distant photons constantly coming into existence at the film. Keep this in mind, and I will eventually show you the problem that results from this (even if it were possible).

You do that Spacemonkey. I am sure it will change peacegirls mind. Yup, that's all ya gotta do.

Where did I say that I think this will change her mind? Why would you imply that I believe that?

naturalist.atheist · #**4069** 01-07-2012, 08:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well then I would agree that when we use light to create a picture, the photons interacting with the film is a duplicate copy.

Fine. So the efferent model requires instantaneous duplicates of distant photons constantly coming into existence at the film. Keep this in mind, and I will eventually show you the problem that results from this (even if it were possible).

You do that Spacemonkey. I am sure it will change peacegirls mind. Yup, that's all ya gotta do.

Where did I say that I think this will change her mind? Why would you imply that I believe that?

So you don't think it will change her mind?

I'll bet you talk to walls a lot.

Spacemonkey · #**4070** 01-07-2012, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

? The very first thing you need to understand is that photons, although they are being replaced every second, cannot exist independently without the object. Try to grasp that one thought before telling me it's wrong.

Are you trying to say that photons can only exist as long as the object exists, and if the object would cease to exist the photons that were reflected or emmited from that object would also cease to exist?

The photons would exist, but the wavelength and frequency of the object would not exist. That's what I mean by light reveals the external world; it doesn't bring the external world to us.

Please rephrase whatever you are trying to say here without nonsensically speaking of the wavelength of objects or implying that light can ever exist without a wavelength.

Vivisectus · #**4071** 01-07-2012, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Note how in that picture one side of the mountain is darker? How come? What explains that in efferent vision? What difference does it make once the requirements are met?

In afferent vision we know why this is.

What causes the reflection in efferent vision anyway? Why is it there? Afferent vision explains it perfectly, and also explains why the reflection that is further away from the base of the mountain is darker and more blurry. What causes that in efferent vision?

Note how the sky is blue? Air is not blue, and nor is anything else out there! What causes us to see a blue sky even though there is no such object? Afferent vision explains it perfectly.

Why does the water look so dark? That water is not that colour at all if you pick some of it up with a translucent bucket. So how come it looks so dark? Afferent vision explains it perfectly. Efferent vision has no explanation at al.

That picture is full of dark mysteries where efferent vision is concerned. Afferent vision has clear answers though.

It is a perfect example of what is wrong with efferent vision as a theory. It explains nothing.

Vivisectus, keep on pluggin. One day that horse will sing.

I know what you mean, and you may well be right! But I am STILL not ready to give up. I would not hold it against you if you pointed out that that makes me just as silly as Peacegirl or her dad, and I cannot argue with it. But some part of me refuses to believe there can be such a thing - that there is not some small amount of reason that can be reached under all the delusion.

Spacemonkey · #**4072** 01-07-2012, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is still light traveling; the light from the Sun. That's why Lessans said that light does not carry the image (which only means the frequency and wavelength) when the object is no longer present.

This directly contradicts your argeement that wavelength is an inherent property of light. No-one says light carries an image. But light cannot keep travelling without its wavelength just because an object has ceased to exist. Without that wavelength it would not be light.

Spacemonkey · #**4073** 01-07-2012, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

So you don't think it will change her mind?

Of course not. Do you really think any of us still need to be reminded of this? If anyone is still taking part in this for anything other than their own amusement and entertainment then they're as nuts as she is.

Spacemonkey · #**4074** 01-07-2012, 09:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Did those specific photons (at the camera when the photograph is taken) exist immediately before the photograph was taken? [Yes or No]

Yes.

Why would you answer 'Yes' to this?

You've said that for the newly ignited Sun light is constantly coming into existence inside the observer's eyes. Other than the obvious reason - that this suggestion is completely insane - why wouldn't you say the same thing for photography by denying that this particular bit of light (at the camera when the photograph is taken) existed before the photograph was taken?

Bump.

Spacemonkey · #**4075** 01-07-2012, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not going to work. You're never going to understand this the way you're going about it.

By asking you questions and expecting you to answer them?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Did those specific photons (at the camera when the photograph is taken) exist immediately before the photograph was taken? [Yes or No]

Yes.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If so, then where were those specific photons at the moment in time immediately preceding the taking of the photograph? [State a location]

Remember that you cannot answer "At the film/camera" to the second question, because you have just agreed that the light at that location just before the photograph is taken will be different light.

According to afferent vision, they would be traveling toward the film.

And according to efferent vision?

Where were those specific photons at the moment in time immediately preceding the taking of the photograph?
[State a location]

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If something is at the same place at two consecutive times, is it moving during that time period, or is it stationary?

This question is confusing me. I'm not sure what you mean.

Really? What part is confusing you? If something is at place A at time t1, and also at place A at the immediately following time t2, has it moved or remained stationary during the time period t1-t2?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If the light which was at the camera just before the photograph is taken was different light from that present at the camera at the next moment when the photograph is taken, then you have yet to tell me where this latter light was at the former time. It can't have been at the camera.

So where was it?

According to afferent vision, it was traveling toward the camera.

And where was it according to efferent vision?

Why would you answer these questions according to afferent vision when you know damn well that this is not what I am asking you to do?

Bump.

1. Did the specific photons (at the camera when the photograph is taken) exist immediately before the photograph was taken? [Yes or No]

2. If so, then according to efferent vision where were those specific photons at the moment in time immediately preceding the taking of the photograph? [State a location]

3. If something is at the same place at two consecutive times, is it moving during that time period, or is it stationary?