A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes I can. Coming from the position of efferent vision (which looks out through the eyes, as a window), the Sun is a mirror image at the retina. It's instant LadyShea because a mirror image is just the opposite side of the same photographic coin.

Merely pointing out that it is a mirror image doesn't explain why it must be instantaneous. On the afferent model, mirror images are not instantaneous. They look the same as the object viewed directly because that perception is dated too. You have to do more than just point out that it is a mirror image to explain how and why it is allegedly instantaneous.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But where I am disagreeing with this? The only thing I am disagreeing with is that the wavelength that the object is reflecting is being carried along without the object being present. It's a fallacy.

So what happens to the light (of which that wavelength was a property) when the object ceases to exist? What wavelength (if any) will it then come to have?

It can't just default to white sunlight, because this is not a single color. It is a combination of light of multiple wavelengths, and would require the coming-into existence of a whole bunch of extra new light of different colors for the original light to become a component part.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Merely pointing out that it is a mirror image doesn't explain why it must be instantaneous. On the afferent model, mirror images are not instantaneous. They look the same as the object viewed directly because that perception is dated too. You have to do more than just point out that it is a mirror image to explain how and why it is allegedly instantaneous.

I only have to point out what a mirror image is. If there is light in between a mirror image, it's not a mirror image Spacemonkey. In other words, a mirror image is just that: the opposite side of the imaginary coin. How can there be two separate images separated by light if what you are looking at is one and the same thing?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So what happens to the light (of which that wavelength was a property) when the object ceases to exist? What wavelength (if any) will it then come to have?

When the object is no longer present, white light takes its place. White light didn't change its property; it just revealed the external world through the ability of matter to absorb light. When the substance that is seen is no longer in range, the full spectrum of light shows up again because it was never gone.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I only have to point out what a mirror image is. If there is light in between a mirror image, it's not a mirror image Spacemonkey. In other words, a mirror image is just that: the opposite side of the imaginary coin. How can there be two separate images separated by light if what you are looking at is one and the same thing?

Because light in similar but flipped patterns is arriving at your eyes at the same time from slightly different directions, but both images are dated by the travel time involved. This is all explained on the afferent model. You can't just declare that mirror images can only be explained in the way you want them to be. And merely declaring this doesn't actually explain how they work on your account either. Nothing about mirror images requires them to be instantaneous. Nor have you explained how they could be.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How do light and film need physical proximity when they are one and the same thing?

Light=electromagnetic radiation, aka energy, that is in constant motion at a finite speed

Film=A sheet of plastic coated with an emulsion containing light-sensitive silver halide salts bonded by gelatin

One and the same?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no physical distance between them at all.

Yes, there is. The photons at the newly ignited sun, and camera film on Earth, are physically separated by 93 million miles

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When the object is no longer present, white light takes its place. White light didn't change its property; it just revealed the external world through the ability of matter to absorb light. When the substance that is seen is no longer in range, the full spectrum of light shows up again because it was never gone.

That makes literally no sense whatsoever. If there is blue light coming from an object because it has absorbed the rest of the spectrum, then that means the rest of the spectrum has gone. That's what absorbed means. What happens to a single photon of that travelling blue light when the object disappears? Does it retain its blue wavelength and suddenly have a bunch of other newly existing photons of all different colors suddenly surrounding it?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because the light that is being reflected from the object cannot exist independently without the object.

Wrong, stupid.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A mirror image is instantaneous because the image that shows up on the water is the opposite side of the same thing. If you think of the mountain scene as a screen (and eliminate the false notion that light carries (or becomes) the wavelength of the object such that the object can be removed but the wavelength remains), you will more easily understand why there is no time element in this at all even though there is still an interaction between light and the surface of the water. But you need to think in terms of efferent vision in order to visualize this.

Objects do not have wavelengths. You're the only one who keeps saying that they do.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not answering your stupid questions anymore. You just keep repeating yourself. And you've been especially nasty today. You're not even listening to my explanation to see if Lessans' observation is plausible. Instead, you make some off the wall comment about me going to a doctor. You think that's nice? I already put NA on ignore. I can't stomach that guy, and I won't hesitate to put you on ignore as well. Enough is enough. Don't test me because it won't be fake.

Do you think anyone here gives a shit if you put him or her on ignore, you weasel?

You are giving up trying to answer Spacemonkey's questions

BECAUSE YOU CAN'T.


Every time you try to answer his questions, you run straight into contradiction and reveal yourself, and Lessans, to be buffoons.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're lying to yourself again. As I've told you every single time you've used this blatantly false excuse, my questions do not come from any other different position, but are based purely on your answers and claims. For instance:

- You've said there is light at the camera film when the photograph is taken which determines the nature of the photograph. If that is true, then that same light either existed just before that moment, or it didn't. And if it did then it must have existed at some specifiable location. None of this involves any afferent assumptions or comes from any position but your own.

- You've said that when the newly ignited yellow/green alternating Sun is ignited, yellow then green alternating light will be constantly coming into existence at the observer's eyes before any light has had time to travel from the Sun to the Earth. You've also said that the original non-duplicate light exists at the Sun. So it has to be either true or false that some of this original light will be travelling towards the Earth during this time. None of this involves any afferent assumptions or comes from any position but your own.

- You've said that the frequency/wavelength of the light travelling away from an object cannot continue to exist when that object ceases to exist. So when this happens, either the light with this frequency also ceases to exist, or it continues to exist with no frequency, or it mus continue to exist with a new frequency. None of this involves any afferent assumptions or comes from any position but your own.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

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?

[Spacemonkey]

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?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Photons don't change form; they reflect objects.

"Photons reflect objects."



Let's see, we now have:

Question: How do we see?

Answer:


"Voila! We see!"

Question: How do you explain the fact that hundreds of years of observations of the moons of Jupiter prove that we see in delayed time, if, as Lessans claims, we see in real time?

Answer:

"It's a coincidence!"

Question: What do photons do?

Answer:

"They reflect objects!"

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When the object is no longer present, white light takes its place. White light didn't change its property; it just revealed the external world through the ability of matter to absorb light. When the substance that is seen is no longer in range, the full spectrum of light shows up again because it was never gone.

Any light that was absorbed was converted to some other form of energy. Light is not somehow released in it's original form when the absorbing matter ceases to exist.

For example, green leaves absorb light and convert it to energy the plant uses for metabolic functions. If the plant dies or is destroyed, the light it absorbed over its lifetime is not restored to it's original white sunlight form.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light=electromagnetic radiation, aka energy, that is in constant motion at a finite speed

Film=A sheet of plastic coated with an emulsion containing light-sensitive silver halide salts bonded by gelatin

One and the same?

I'm talking about how they interact with light LadyShea. Are you playing with me?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no physical distance between them at all.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, there is. The photons at the newly ignited sun, and camera film on Earth, are physically separated by 93 million miles

I can't believe that you still don't get it, even when I ask you to envision everything you see in front of you as a screen. I'm gonna have to say goodbye to this part of the discussion if not one person can understand what I'm asking. I'm tired of talking to myself.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When the object is no longer present, white light takes its place. White light didn't change its property; it just revealed the external world through the ability of matter to absorb light. When the substance that is seen is no longer in range, the full spectrum of light shows up again because it was never gone.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Any light that was absorbed was converted to some other form of energy. Light is not somehow released in it's original form when the absorbing matter ceases to exist.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

For example, green leaves absorb light and convert it to energy the plant uses for metabolic functions. If the plant dies or is destroyed, the light it absorbed over its lifetime is not restored to it's original white sunlight form.

That's really not what I meant. Even if light is converted to some other form of energy when it's absorbed, when the object (such as a plant) dies or is destroyed we don't see the plant anymore because it's no longer revealing itself through light's properties. I don't mean the photons that were absorbed somehow get restored to its original sunlight form. When I say light takes its place I mean the light energy from the Sun that is in continual motion is still present. For example, if I have in my visual field a cherry tree, and I chop it down, I will see an empty space (or daylight) in place of the tree because the photons coming from the Sun are still being emitted.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't believe that you still don't get it, even when I ask you to envision everything you see in front of you as a screen. I'm gonna have to say goodbye to this part of the discussion if not one person can understand what I'm asking. I'm tired of talking to myself.

She can't believe you still don't get it, LadyShea. Frown and tell off!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's really not what I meant.

How can you expect anyone to understand you when what you say is never what you actually mean?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When I say light takes its place I mean the light energy from the Sun that is in continual motion is still present. For example, if I have in my visual field a cherry tree, and I chop it down, I will see an empty space (or daylight) in place of the tree because the photons coming from the Sun are still being emitted.

No-one was asking you about the next bit of light that replaces what was there. We are asking about the particular light that was there, travelling through space with a certain frequency after hitting an object, because all the light of other frequencies got absorbed. What happens to the frequency of that light when the object ceases to exist? Does it change, or remain the same?

[LadyShea]

[quote=peacegirl;1024290]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light=electromagnetic radiation, aka energy, that is in constant motion at a finite speed

Film=A sheet of plastic coated with an emulsion containing light-sensitive silver halide salts bonded by gelatin

One and the same?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm talking about how they interact with light LadyShea.

What on Earth does "they" refer to in this sentence?

I stated, clearly, that light photons and film, two different things, have to be in physical contact to interact chemically. In response to that you tell me light and film are one and the same.

So, no I am not playing with you, I am trying to get a sensical answer that doesn't sound like insane ravings.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't believe that you still don't get it, even when I ask you to envision everything you see in front of you as a screen. I'm gonna have to say goodbye to this part of the discussion if not one person can understand what I'm asking. I'm tired of talking to myself.

Envisioning screens and mirror images does not explain how it is possible for photons and film to interact at a physical distance, because we know, for a fact, that they must be in physical contact to interact as their physical properties do not allow them to interact any other way
.

Do you think efferent vision changes the known properties of film? Do you think efferent vision changes the known properties of light energy? Do you think efferent vision negates the known physical laws that require the film to come into contact with light photons to chemically react and form an image?

[peacegirl]

[quote=Spacemonkey;1024267]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When the object is no longer present, white light takes its place. White light didn't change its property; it just revealed the external world through the ability of matter to absorb light. When the substance that is seen is no longer in range, the full spectrum of light shows up again because it was never gone.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That makes literally no sense whatsoever. If there is blue light coming from an object because it has absorbed the rest of the spectrum, then that means the rest of the spectrum has gone. That's what absorbed means. What happens to a single photon of that travelling blue light when the object disappears? Does it retain its blue wavelength and suddenly have a bunch of other newly existing photons of all different colors suddenly surrounding it?

You're very confused Spacemonkey and I'm not going to work this hard if you don't meet me half way. You're obviously not reading my posts or taking them seriously.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're very confused Spacemonkey and I'm not going to work this hard if you don't meet me half way. You're obviously not reading my posts or taking them seriously.

What on earth makes you say that? I've gone to ridiculous lengths to try to understand and make sense of what you say. You're the one refusing to respond here. You're the one refusing to explain yourself or answer questions. If people do not understand then you have only yourself to blame. Why do you constantly accuse others of being confused when you're the one who can't say what you mean, or post without self-contradiction? Why do you accuse others of not meeting you half-way then they are constantly trying to work out what you mean, while you keep refusing to answer questions about what you are saying?

If there is blue light coming from an object because it has absorbed the rest of the spectrum, then that means the rest of the spectrum has gone. That's what absorbed means. So what happens to a single photon of that travelling blue light when the object disappears? Does it retain its blue wavelength and suddenly have a bunch of other newly existing photons of all different colors suddenly surrounding it to make that photon a part of travelling white light? What happens?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light=electromagnetic radiation, aka energy, that is in constant motion at a finite speed

Film=A sheet of plastic coated with an emulsion containing light-sensitive silver halide salts bonded by gelatin

One and the same?

I'm talking about how they interact with light LadyShea.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What on Earth does "they" refer to in this sentence?

The retina and the film.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I stated, clearly, that light photons and film, two different things, have to be in physical contact to interact chemically. In response to that you tell me light and film are one and the same.

I was referring to the retina and film working the same way because they are both have to interact with light. Oops!

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, no I am not playing with you, I am trying to get a sensical answer that doesn't sound like insane ravings.

Come on, stop it LadyShea. If the eyes are efferent (which they are, I believe), light is instantly interacting with film and the eye in the same manner.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no physical distance between them at all.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, there is. The photons at the newly ignited sun, and camera film on Earth, are physically separated by 93 million miles

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't believe that you still don't get it, even when I ask you to envision everything you see in front of you as a screen. I'm gonna have to say goodbye to this part of the discussion if not one person can understand what I'm asking. I'm tired of talking to myself.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Envisioning screens and mirror images does not explain how it is possible for photons and film to interact at a physical distance, because we know, for a fact, that they must be in physical contact to interact as their physical properties do not allow them to interact any other way

I can't believe how you just hand-waved my presentation away as if it means nothing. What I'm trying to tell you is that if we're seeing a mirror image upside down with no space in between, there is an actual interaction between the light and our retina or the film of a camera.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Do you think efferent vision changes the known properties of film? Do you think efferent vision changes the known properties of light energy? Do you think efferent vision negates the known physical laws that require the film to come into contact with light photons to chemically react and form an image?

Of course not, but efferent vision doesn't change the known properties of light, and it doesn't negate the known physical laws that require the film to come in contact with light photons to chemically react and form an image. This is also another way of proving that Lessans was right.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're very confused Spacemonkey and I'm not going to work this hard if you don't meet me half way. You're obviously not reading my posts or taking them seriously.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What on earth makes you say that? I've gone to ridiculous lengths to try to understand and make sense of what you say. You're the one refusing to respond here. You're the one refusing to explain yourself or answer questions. If people do not understand then you have only yourself to blame. Why do you constantly accuse others of being confused when you're the one who can't say what you mean, or post without self-contradiction? Why do you accuse others of not meeting you half-way then they are constantly trying to work out what you mean, while you keep refusing to answer questions about what you are saying?

If there is blue light coming from an object because it has absorbed the rest of the spectrum, then that means the rest of the spectrum has gone. That's what absorbed means. So what happens to a single photon of that travelling blue light when the object disappears? Does it retain its blue wavelength and suddenly have a bunch of other newly existing photons of all different colors suddenly surrounding it? What happens?

Don't you see that there is no traveling blue photon? Blue is what is seen; the blue wavelength does not bounce off of the object and travel to our eyes. This is where you're confused. We see blue as long as the object is present and is absorbing all the other wavelengths of the visual spectrum, but if the object is no longer there, we see daylight which are photons that are constantly being emitted from the Sun that are neutral in color, not blue.