A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not at all.

Really? What if the reason the laser shut off is because it was destroyed?

You keep claiming that light cannot exist independently of its source. So shutting off the laser emitter -- by whatever means -- means that the light the laser had been emitting should immediately cease to exist.

And this is indeed an experiment that has been done many, many times.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's just the point, the original photons do not travel to the film/retina. They are there instantly at the film/retina, which is exactly why we are able to use this mirror image that is interacting with the film/retina to see the present or to take a photograph in real time.

So white light arrives at the object, some of it is absorbed, and the light that corrosponds to the color of the object is then instantly at the film or the retina so that we can either take a picture or see it? What happens to any light that is reflected in other directions, not absorbed or interacting with film or retina?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Really? What if the reason the laser shut off is because it was destroyed?

You keep claiming that light cannot exist independently of its source. So shutting off the laser emitter -- by whatever means -- means that the light the laser had been emitting should immediately cease to exist.

And this is indeed an experiment that has been done many, many times.

She's been caught out in yet another contradiction -- she has very clearly stated that when an object ceases to exist, the light it emits or reflected ceases to exist also -- which is utter bilge, of course, but that is what she said. Now, when confronted wtih that same scenario, about light ceasing to exist when its source goes out, she says, "not at all!"

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by thedoc

So white light arrives at the object, some of it is absorbed, and the light that corrosponds to the color of the object is then instantly at the film or the retina so that we can either take a picture or see it? What happens to any light that is reflected in other directions, not absorbed or interacting with film or retina?

Also what happens to this light if the object ceases to exist?

[The Lone Ranger]

I'm especially intrigued by the magical ability of the eye to somehow "look out" through the opaque choroid and sclera, via the lens.

Seeing as how the choroid and sclera are, you know, between the lens and the brain.

Not to mention that the lens is not living tissue and contains no receptors of any kind.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't you see that there is no traveling blue photon?

I thought you claimed to understand me earlier. If an object is blue, it absorbs other light wavelengths and reflects blue light. There is a blue photon, and after it reflects off the blue object, it travels in a straight line until it hits something else and absorbed or reflected.

Again, this is all very well empirically tested and verifiable. Again, any claim about vision that defies these facts are necessarily false.

When you say "There is no travelling blue photon." You are really telling me, "My statements are verifiably false."

[davidm]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I'm especially intrigued by the magical ability of the eye to somehow "look out" through the opaque choroid and sclera, via the lens.

Seeing as how the choroid and sclera are, you know, between the lens and the brain.

Not to mention that the lens is not living tissue and contains no receptors of any kind.

It's as she explained for why we see the moons of Jupiter in delayed time when Lessans predicted we would see them in real time: "It's a coincidence!"

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When the brain is looking, through the eyes, at the external world (which is everything that is in your visual range, not just one object), a mirror image of your entire field of view (or screen) shows up instantly on the film/retina. This mirror image that shows up at the film/retina is analogous to the water showing the mirror image of the mountain. Your lack of understanding the efferent version of sight is causing you to revert back to the afferent model which requires travel time. That's why what I'm saying still doesn't make sense to you.

1000 Pictures - Free Desktop Wallpaper

You are not answering the question, or explaining anything.

How does this mirror imaging negate physical distance to allow photons- that are not physically present at the same location as the film because they have to travel (that's a property of light) to get there- and film to actually touch.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by thedoc

The energy of that light, that has been absorbed, has been used to produce Hydrocarbons that the plant can then use as food. If that plant is burned at some time in the future, some of that energy is released as heat, and some as light from the fire.

Right, which is why I carefully worded it that it does not return to it's original form of white sunlight.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Right, which is why I carefully worded it that it does not return to it's original form of white sunlight.

Just trying to help, unfortunately I think I'm begining to understand how Peacegirl thinks, and what it takes to phrase a question so that she can't answer it any other way, except if she totally ignores it.

[LadyShea]

lol thedoc, I had to think about it longer then normal to ensure I worded is very precisely, for that very reason.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I'm especially intrigued by the magical ability of the eye to somehow "look out" through the opaque choroid and sclera, via the lens.

Seeing as how the choroid and sclera are, you know, between the lens and the brain.

Not to mention that the lens is not living tissue and contains no receptors of any kind.

No, it is the 'Brain' that is looking out and it must be looking from just in front of the choroid and sclera, therefore it's view is not obstructed. This is all in spite of the fact that there are no efferent nerve fibers from the brain to the eye, or are there? Do scientists really know what they are looking since they are seeing afferently, which is clearly the wrong way to see.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

lol thedoc, I had to think about it longer then normal to ensure I worded is very precisely, for that very reason.

You've got to admit, Peacegirl is making everyone much more careful how they say things or she will run totally off on another tangent trying to dsitract and deflect the line of the thread.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes.

Photons. Please don't start asking me which came first, blue or red photons.

At the film/retina.

I'm just trying to work out what it is that you're imagining here. So now at the moment the photograph is taken there's a mirror image at the camera film consisting of photons at the film which are not duplicates of the unabsorbed light at the object. Yes?

What happens to the unabsorbed light? When we say that some of the light is unabsorbed we mean it bounces off the surface instead and continues to travel away from the object. What do you mean? Are you saying that a blue object will absorb all but the blue light from the sunlight, and that the remaining blue light will cease to exist as it hits the object and will instantly reappear at the film without ever bouncing off the object?

How is that not faster-than-light teleportation of photons?

If you're not saying that, then what are you saying? Do you even know?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Mirror images do not teleport.

Oh my god, you're starting this again?

Well I'm sorry, but I don't know how else to describe what you are saying.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not true. Neutral light from the Sun is constantly in motion. I already said this, but when we're looking through the eyes, at the external world, we get a mirror image due to the eyes being efferent. Until you can envision what I'm saying, you will think it's absurd, but it doesn't make it so.

I didn't say anything about the neutral light from the Sun. I spoke only of reflected light which, according to your present answers, is never in motion. By our definition of 'reflection' it never even gets reflected. It never bounces off an object to continue travelling (which incidentally means that there can be no such thing as 'angle of reflection' in optics). Whenever sunlight strikes an object, some of it gets absorbed and the rest disappears and instantly reappears at any nearby films or retinas. So the sunlight travels, but reflected light never travels at all, and only ever exists momentarily at the surface of films and retinas.

If this is not what you are trying to convey to me, then please correct this description. Tell me what happens to unabsorbed light if it is not what I've just said.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh really? Is that what's happening when we see mirror images? They are teleporting faster than the speed of light?

Not according to me, but it seems to be exactly what you are describing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They never did exist Spacemonkey. Only the full spectrum of light exists. The only reason we see blue is because the object absorbed the other colors of the visible spectrum, but this has nothing to do with light traveling with the blue wavelength.

If the unabsorbed photons never existed, then how can their not being absorbed explain their presence at the film or retina? If the object is being struck by sunlight, then that sunlight will contain blue-wavelength photons, right? If the object is blue, then it absorbs all but the blue photons, yes? So the unabsorbed blue photons did exist, and were part of sunlight arriving at the blue object. (If not, then they weren't there to not be absorbed.) So what happens to them?

You seem to have been saying that they disappear as they hit the object and instantaneously reappear at the nearest films and retinas. Is that wrong?

If so, then what does happen to them?

[LadyShea]

If a mirror image is a duplication (as per the definition you used, peacegirl) then the photons must also be duplications.

The properties of light do not allow duplications to instantly appear at some other location.

And I can envision what you are saying. The world we see when open our eyes is a screen and everything happening is mirrored in our eyes. That doesn't work though, without changing the properties of light and the laws of physics.

[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.

In the mountain picture, if light was traveling with the wavelength of the mountain, wouldn't the reflection of the mountain continue to show up in the water? And why do we never see images of mountains unless the mountain is actually present? I have never seen an image in the water coming from light without the actual object (in this case the mountain) right above it. This is a clue that we never see images of objects coming from light alone.

1000 Pictures - Free Desktop Wallpaper

[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?

It doesn't actually default to white sunlight. It never changed from white sunlight. An object absorbs certain wavelengths so we can see the object. Don't you get this yet? When the object is not there, white light is what we see because the photons (which contain the entire spectrum of light) coming from the Sun are not being absorbed.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

Why would it 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 when nothing in the original light coming from the Sun has altered in any way? I really have no idea what you're talking about. This is getting nuttier by the minute, and it's your misunderstanding that's causing it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

You think that light is travelling to create the mirror image, even if it's a nano-second. I'm saying that the image is there instantly because there is no light traveling. I know this is not going to satisfy you, but that is the presupposition and I will continue to discuss why the efferent version of sight explains these inconsistencies.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When the brain is looking, through the eyes, at the external world (which is everything that is in your visual range, not just one object), a mirror image of your entire field of view (or screen) shows up instantly on the film/retina. This mirror image that shows up at the film/retina is analogous to the water showing the mirror image of the mountain. Your lack of understanding the efferent version of sight is causing you to revert back to the afferent model which requires travel time. That's why what I'm saying still doesn't make sense to you.

http://www.1000pictures.com/view.htm...jpg+x1024+y768

Mirror images are the new focusing, aren't they? It is a concept you do not understand, and so you just imagine that that is where the magic happens that allows an image to magically appear instantly.

The little light sensors in a camera just detect light. If the light that hits the little sensor is of wavelength A, then it creates a dot that has colour A. Lots of those little dots together form an image. That is all they do: we design them that way.

Given that this is the case, how can an image magically appear if there is no light for the sensor or film to react WITH? Mirror-images do not explain that in the slightest.

[peacegirl]

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.

I get that part.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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 keep talking about that "travelling blue light". This is the crux of our problem. There is no travelling blue light. Until you get this (which will require more effort on your part to envision what I'm saying), you will fail to understand this concept.

[LadyShea]

In the mountain picture, if light was traveling with the wavelength of the mountain,

Light doesn't travel with the "wavelength of the mountain".

Light travels with it own wavelength. When white light comes in contact with matter, like the rocks and dirt and plants on the mountain, some wavelengths are absorbed by that matter. Others are reflected and continue to travel. They do not change their own wavelength, they simply were reflected.

If a crowd of people each wearing different colors walked toward a building, and some got let in, but all those wearing red were turned away, and the people who were wearing red all walk away in another direction, they are still the same person they were when they approached the building. They just got reflected.

wouldn't the reflection of the mountain continue to show up in the water.I have never seen an image in the water coming from light without the actual object (in this case the mountain) right above it. This is a clue that we never see images of objects coming from light alone.

Seeing reflections is a function of various angles; the angle the light hits the object, the angle of object to the reflecting surface, the angle of the reflecting surface to our eyes or film. If the angles aren't specific, we won't see a reflection.

This is geometrical optics including the Law of Reflection, and it is all this perfectly explained and predicted. We can even work out exactly when and from where we should or shouldn't see a reflection using geometric formulas.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Mirror images are the new focusing, aren't they? It is a concept you do not understand, and so you just imagine that that is where the magic happens that allows an image to magically appear instantly.

The little light sensors in a camera just detect light. If the light that hits the little sensor is of wavelength A, then it creates a dot that has colour A. Lots of those little dots together form an image. That is all they do: we design them that way.

Who is arguing with this?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Given that this is the case, how can an image magically appear if there is no light for the sensor or film to react WITH? Mirror-images do not explain that in the slightest.

The water in this case is the light sensor. Nothing magically appears. Because light is striking the water, we are able to see the mirror image of the mountain. It works in the same exact way with our eyes. Any light that is in our visual field is instantly (due to efferent vision) at the retina (which is the light sensor) allowing us to see the world in real time.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep talking about that "travelling blue light". This is the crux of our problem. There is no travelling blue light. .

You agreed that light always travels. This is a property of light. So why is the light of a blue wavelength no longer traveling if it has not been absorbed?

[thedoc]

Peacegirl, in an effort to clarify what you seem to be saying, Are you in fact saying that light is arriving from the Sun all the time (on the side of the earth facing the Sun) and when some of that light strikes an object the object absorbs some of the wavelengths of light but not those corrosponding to the color of the object? Then other light from the Sun strikes the film or retina at the same time which allows us to see, but interacts with the film or retina to create the image for the eye of the correct shape and color of the object? Or is it the light at the object that is not absorbed and is then instantly at the film or retina?

[Vivisectus]

That's not true. Neutral light from the Sun is constantly in motion. I already said this, but when we're looking through the eyes, at the external world, we get a mirror image due to the eyes being efferent. Until you can envision what I'm saying, you will think it's absurd, but it doesn't make it so.

But YOU don't even know how it works, Peacegirl. You have absolutely no idea. You just said that when we are looking, we see an image, and this is due to the eyes being efferent. It explains nothing, it does not even mean anything except for "When we look, we see something. This is because sight is efferent like my daddy said."

That is your idea of an answer. A string of words with no information in it. You don't even know how efferent vision is supposed to work. You are just madly inventing word-salads to try to hide that fact, with hilarious results.

There can be no greater proof of the complete crackpottery of Lessans and all he wrote than this: that his editor and only disciple cannot make sense of it, cannot explain it, and has absolutely no idea how it would work even if it WERE true! After decades of study, and years of talking about it, you cannot make heads or tails of it yourself - you, the most uncritical reader he will ever get!

What a fantastic joke, what a hilarious farce! If it didn't already exist, I would have to invent it.