A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

that light being reflected is full-spectrum light?

If the full spectrum was reflected, that means none of the light was absorbed

[thedoc]

I believe that Peaegirl has stated that all photons have all the wavelength and therefor all light that travels is white light. But since each photon has all the wavelengths with it when a photon interacts with film or retina it can do so with the color of the object.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

our entire visual range (not just the object) becoming a mirror image instantly on film/retina.

Is this mirror image a 2 dimensional visual representation or a 3 dimensional full duplication of the world?

If it is 2 dimensional and only a visual representation, like actual reflections in reality are, then photons cannot interact at the film/retina because it is not a physically accessible actual real location.

A photon could no more physically interact with such a mirror image than you could walk through a mirror into a backwards reality, ala Alice Through the Looking Glass, and shake hands with your own reflection.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I believe that Peaegirl has stated that all photons have all the wavelength and therefor all light that travels is white light. But since each photon has all the wavelengths with it when a photon interacts with film or retina it can do so with the color of the object.

Is this the case peacegirl? Do you think each photon travels at all the wavelengths?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Is this the case peacegirl? Do you think each photon travels at all the wavelengths?

Peacegirl doesn't even know what she's saying. She bursts out with word salad in order to save her fragile mental state, and doesn't remember from post to post what she even said to "prove" us wrong.

My daughter hates asking me questions about her math homework, because I have a tendency to tell her about the concepts and theory behind the problems she's working on. It frustrates me that she doesn't care, but I figure that some of it sinks in regardless.

I'm hoping that if I repeat the same concepts over and over again, it will stick and maybe provide an anchor in reality that she can use, if she chooses to. Hasn't worked yet, and I'm not that patient.

[LadyShea]

I am trying to understand what light physics would even have to entail to make it so that all light traveled at all wavelengths all the time.

The concept isn't even really imaginable as a fantasy story. That's like saying all the cars go all the speeds all the time or something.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So explain to me how the brain "looks out" through the eyes, given all the opaque material -- including bone -- that lies between the eyes and the brain.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

The problem here Peacegirl, is that you don't understand (N)reflection or (N)absorption (i.e. what we mean by 'reflection' and 'absorption') well enough to understand when you are confusing them with your own invented (P) meanings.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What the *#($. Where did I ever say none of the light is absorbed Spacemonkey?

You say so in the very next part of your present post, when you say that the "light being reflected is full-spectrum light". If it is all being (N)reflected (i.e. all of it is bouncing off the object) then none of it is being (N)absorbed (i.e. prevented from bouncing off the object).

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can reflected light have anything to do with what is seen or photographed when that light being reflected is full-spectrum light? The blue wavelength that identifies the object is there as long as there is light surrounding the object and the lens of a camera or eye are present to take a photograph or see the object in real time.

Exactly. You are here agreeing with what I just said. And you are directly contradicting your previous comment above (about not claiming that nothing is (N)absorbed) which you wrongly tried to use to disregard my whole summary.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Spacemonkey, it's not an entirely new blue-wavelength. It's the same wavelength that is a part of the visible spectrum but can only be seen when we're viewing the object; not when the light arrives at our eye. This again has to do with efferent vision and how the brain works.

It's not meant to. It concerns only photography, not vision or brains. And I didn't say there was any new blue-wavelength. What is new is the photons with that wavelength coming into existence at the film as part of the mirror image. They are new because they didn't exist anywhere previous to their appearance at the film. There is nowhere for them to have previously existed, because all of the original sunlight is still out there travelling, both before and after it hits the object, and photons cannot be in two places at once.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I thought that non-blue parts of the sunlight are (N) absorbed, according to the afferent version of sight. According to the efferent model, the non-blue light which allows the object to be seen (I don't know what you mean by "coming into existence"; it's already in existence) is due to our entire visual range (not just the object) becoming a mirror image instantly on film/retina.

That's right. On the afferent model, the non-blue parts of the sunlight are (N)absorbed by the blue ball. But on your account they are not. They are only (P)absorbed, meaning non-blue photons are prevented from coming into existence on the film. The blue photons must be coming into existence at the film (as part of the mirror image), because if they (i.e. the very same photons) were already there, then that makes them stationary rather than always in motion. (We went over this before and you agreed that any blue photons already there previously will have been different blue photons from those there now.)

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't understand. What do you mean by the ball is taken as primitive?

I don't expect you to. That was for others. For those who already understand the concept of reductive explanation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Categorically NO.

But you haven't actually disagreed with any part of it. So I still think my above summary is an entirely accurate representation of what you've been trying to say. And this distinction between (N)absorption and (P)absorption is the only way to make any coherent sense out of your otherwise blatantly contradictory claims that all of the sunlight bounces off the object and that the object has light-absorptive properties. Try answering some simple questions on this for me:


1) On your account, when the sunlight strikes the blue ball, is any of it (N)absorbed (meaning that some of it is prevented from bouncing off the object and continuing to travel)?
Yes or no?

2) Is all of that sunlight (N)reflected (meaning that all of the entire spectrum bounces off the ball and keeps travelling)?
Yes or no?

3) Is some of the sunlight striking the ball (P)reflected to the film (meaning that blue, but not non-blue light will instantly exist as part of a mirror image at the film)?
Yes or no?

4) Is none of the sunlight striking the ball (P)absorbed (meaning that light of the entire spectrum is turning up instantaneously as part of the mirror image at the film)?
Yes or no?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am trying to understand what light physics would even have to entail to make it so that all light traveled at all wavelengths all the time.

The concept isn't even really imaginable as a fantasy story. That's like saying all the cars go all the speeds all the time or something.

I think it would be more like all cars going the same speed, but each car is all the colors, make and model of every car. So when you drive you are driving every car just at the same speed as everyone else. It's as if Peacegirl is useing a non-dualistic model of light, each photon is all photons of all colors. And since the concept is non-dualistic there is no here or there, all light is everywhere all the time, her concession to light moveing is just due to the pressure of this thread.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is travelling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Does it bounce off the surface to travel away from it?

Is it absorbed by the blue object?

Does it cease to exist?

Does it stay there, at the surface of the blue object?

Does it teleport itself instantly to any nearby films or retinas?

If none of the above, then what?

Non-dualistic light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If the full spectrum was reflected, that means none of the light was absorbed

That's not true LadyShea. We're talking about two different things. One is the ability to see the object because of the object's absorption properties (which can only be seen when we look at the object efferently, not when the blue wavelengths travels to our eyes) and the other is the Sun's photons which contain all of colors of the visible spectrum. I have a feeling you still can't picture what I'm talking about.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not true LadyShea. We're talking about two different things. One is the ability to see the object because of the object's absorption properties (which can only be seen when we look at the object efferently, not when the blue wavelengths travels to our eyes) and the other is the Sun's photons which contain all of colors of the visible spectrum. I have a feeling you still can't picture what I'm talking about.

We are talking about the properties and behavior of light right now. There are no "two different things" to discuss when it comes to how light works.

If you ever indicate you understand the slightest thing about light physics, you may talk about efferent vision and how it is compatible with light physics.

So, back to how light works; If the full spectrum of light is reflected from any object, that necessarily means no light was absorbed at all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is travelling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Does it bounce off the surface to travel away from it?

The white light bounces off the surface.

Is it absorbed by the blue object?

All the non-blue light is absorbed.

Does it cease to exist?

The blue light does not cease to exist but it only exists when we're looking at the object. It doesn't travel through time and space.

Does it stay there, at the surface of the blue object?

No, the blue light will show up at any distance as a mirror image if the blue object is in the field of view. We can see how this works using a pinhole camera.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Does it teleport itself instantly to any nearby films or retinas?

Please stop using the word teleport because that's not what it's doing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We are talking about the properties and behavior of light right now. There are no "two different things" to discuss when it comes to how light works.

If you ever indicate you understand the slightest thing about light physics, you may talk about efferent vision and how it is compatible with light physics.

So, back to how light works; If the full spectrum of light is reflected from any object, that necessarily means no light was absorbed at all.

When light bounces off of objects, it is in the full light spectrum. Only when we are looking at the object efferently do we see the blue object because of it's ability to absorb the non-blue light. I'm trying to show you that efferent vision is compatible with light physics but there is a misunderstanding as far as what is being reflected.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The white light bounces off the surface.

Then none of the light has been absorbed.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All the non-blue light is absorbed.

If it is absorbed it cannot also be bounced off.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The blue light does not cease to exist but it only exists when we're looking at the object. It doesn't travel through time and space.

All light travels all the time unless it has been absorbed (at which point it ceases to be light energy and transforms into some other form of energy). Some light has a blue wavelength. Light doesn't change its behavior or properties by looking at it.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When light bounces off of objects, it is in the full light spectrum.

No, that statement contradicts the known properties and behavior of light

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not true LadyShea. We're talking about two different things.

That's what I've been telling you! We've been talking about (N)reflection and (N)absorption, while you've been talking about (P)reflection and (P)absorption.

It is true by definition that if the full spectrum was (N)reflected, then none of the light was (N)absorbed. (This just means that if all of the photons bounced off the object, then none of them didn't bounce off the object.)

It is not true for you because you are talking about an entirely different notion of being 'absorbed' or 'reflected'.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

One is the ability to see the object because of the object's absorption properties (which can only be seen when we look at the object efferently, not when the blue wavelengths travels to our eyes) and the other is the Sun's photons which contain all of colors of the visible spectrum.

Does each individual photon contain all of colors of the visible spectrum on your view? Or does each photon contain only one color?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The problem here Peacegirl, is that you don't understand (N)reflection or (N)absorption (i.e. what we mean by 'reflection' and 'absorption') well enough to understand when you are confusing them with your own invented (P) meanings.

You say so in the very next part of your present post, when you say that the "light being reflected is full-spectrum light". If it is all being (N)reflected (i.e. all of it is bouncing off the object) then none of it is being (N)absorbed (i.e. prevented from bouncing off the object).

The only reason it seems contradictory is because you believe that blue light is being reflected, but no blue light is being reflected at all; only white light. Only when we look at the object through our eyes or a camera can we see the blue object because of the object's ability to absorb non-blue light.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

...meaning that all of the arriving sunlight bounces off the ball and continues travelling. None of this (N)reflected light has anything to do with what is seen or photographed.

How can reflected light have anything to do with what is seen or photographed when that light being reflected is full-spectrum light? The blue wavelength that identifies the object is there as long as there is light surrounding the object and the lens of a camera or eye are present to take a photograph or see the object in real time.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Exactly. You are here agreeing with what I just said. And you are directly contradicting your previous comment above (about not claiming that nothing is (N)absorbed) which you wrongly tried to use to disregard my whole summary.

I said that the object is absorbing light ONLY when we look at the object. The blue light does not get reflected. I'm not contradicting anything.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But because the ball is blue*, the blue part of the sunlight arriving at the ball is (P)reflected to the camera, meaning that entirely new blue-wavelength photons are instantaneously coming into existence at the film forming a circular mirror image to interact with the film.

No Spacemonkey, it's not an entirely new blue-wavelength. It's the same wavelength that is a part of the visible spectrum but can only be seen when we're viewing the object; not when the light arrives at our eye. This again has to do with efferent vision and how the brain works.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It's not meant to. It concerns only photography, not vision or brains. And I didn't say there was any new blue-wavelength. What is new is the photons with that wavelength coming into existence at the film as part of the mirror image.

Coming into existence implies traveling? I just want to clarify that a mirror image does not travel, not even for a nanosecond. It shows up because of a particular surface allows it to be seen.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

They are new because they didn't exist anywhere previous to their appearance at the film. There is nowhere for them to have previously existed, because all of the original sunlight is still out there travelling, both before and after it hits the object, and photons cannot be in two places at once.

You're right, they didn't exist before. They only exist in reference to the object.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I thought that non-blue parts of the sunlight are (N) absorbed, according to the afferent version of sight. According to the efferent model, the non-blue light which allows the object to be seen (I don't know what you mean by "coming into existence"; it's already in existence) is due to our entire visual range (not just the object) becoming a mirror image instantly on film/retina.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That's right. On the afferent model, the non-blue parts of the sunlight are (N)absorbed by the blue ball. But on your account they are not.

Yes they are.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

They are only (P)absorbed, meaning non-blue photons are prevented from coming into existence on the film. The blue photons must be coming into existence at the film (as part of the mirror image), because if they (i.e. the very same photons) were already there, then that makes them stationary rather than always in motion. (We went over this before and you agreed that any blue photons already there previously will have been different blue photons from those there now.)

That's true, they are not the same photons because they are constantly in motion, there when we see take a picture, these are different photons than 5 minutes later, but the results are the same. The object is absorbing all non-blue wavelengths which allows us to see the color blue.

But if your reductive explanation concludes that my explanation is wrong, then it's important for me to understand it so I can show you where it isn't.

No. That's the whole point. Lessans states:

Once again certain facts have been confused and all the reasoning
except for light traveling at a high rate of speed are completely
fallacious. Scientists made the assumption that since the eyes are a
sense organ it followed that light must reflect an electric image of
everything it touches which then travels through space and is received
by the brain through the eyes.

2) Is all of that sunlight (N)reflected (meaning that all of the entire spectrum bounces off the ball and keeps travelling)?
Yes or no?

Yes.

3) Is some of the sunlight striking the ball (P)reflected to the film (meaning that blue, but not non-blue light will instantly exist as part of a mirror image at the film)?
Yes or no?

Yes, but just remember that mirror images do not travel, and that's what is at issue here.

4) Is none of the sunlight striking the ball (P)absorbed (meaning that light of the entire spectrum is turning up instantaneously as part of the mirror image at the film)?
Yes or no?

No, only the non-absorbed light is turning up instantaneously as part of the mirror image at the film.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The white light bounces off the surface.

All the non-blue light is absorbed.

By the standard definitions of terms, you have just contradicted yourself here. For us, the white light is a combination of light of different colors, such that the blue light in question is just a part of the white light. So if all the non-blue light is absorbed, then what is reflected will no longer be white light (as the blue part will be missing). And if the white light gets reflected, then the blue part must still be there and cannot have been absorbed.

So you are operating with either a different account of what white light is, or a different account of what absorption is (or both).

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The blue light does not cease to exist but it only exists when we're looking at the object. It doesn't travel through time and space.

Does the blue light ever exist as a component part of white light?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, the blue light will show up at any distance as a mirror image if the blue object is in the field of view. We can see how this works using a pinhole camera.

Please stop using the word teleport because that's not what it's doing.

You'll first have to stop telling me that light teleports. In this very quoted section you have told me that blue light will instantly show up at a distance. That is teleportation by any reasonable definition.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not true LadyShea. We're talking about two different things.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That's what I've been telling you! We've been talking about (N)reflection and (N)absorption, while you've been talking about (P)reflection and (P)absortion.

I've been talking about the same (N) reflection and (N) absorption as you are. Stop making this my idiosyncratic version.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It is true by definition that if the full spectrum was (N)reflected, then none of the light was (N)absorbed. (This just means that if all of the photons bounced off the object, then none of them didn't bounce off the object.)

This is where you're confused. Objects can absorb light so we can see them without reflecting that light (which indicates that the blue wavelength is traveling).

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It is not true for you because you are talking about an entirely different notion of being 'absorbed' or 'reflected'.

No I'm not. I'm just explaining how the retina and film works in relation to light. Nothing is being teleported.

TELEPORTATION (noun)

Sense 1 teleportation
Meaning:
A hypothetical mode of instantaneous transportation; matter is dematerialized at one place and recreated at another
Classified under:
Nouns denoting acts or actions
Hypernyms ("teleportation" is a kind of...):
conveyance; transfer; transferral; transportation (the act of moving something from one location to another)


What does teleportation mean? definition and meaning (Free English Language Dictionary)


NOTHING IS BEING RECREATED OR TRANSFERRED. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT A MIRROR IMAGE IS.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

One is the ability to see the object because of the object's absorption properties (which can only be seen when we look at the object efferently, not when the blue wavelengths travels to our eyes) and the other is the Sun's photons which contain all of colors of the visible spectrum.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Does each individual photon contain all of colors of the visible spectrum on your view? Or does each photon contain only one color?

It contains all colors of the visible spectrum if you mean a single wavelength.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only reason it seems contradictory is because you believe that blue light is being reflected, but no blue light is being reflected at all; only white light. Only when we look at the object through our eyes or a camera can we see the blue object because of the object's ability to absorb non-blue light.

For us, the blue light is a component part of the white light, such that the white light would not be white light if that blue part were missing (as it would be if it were (N)absorbed rather than (N)reflected).

Think of white light as a bag of marbles. Every single marble has a single color. (There are no multi-colored marbles.) White light only exists when there are marbles of every color in the bag. Now imagine throwing the bag's contents at a monster. He catches them all in his mouth and then spits them all back at you into the bag. If they are all still there then 'white light' has been reflected. If the monster instead swallows all the blue marbles and spits back the rest, then you have a bag containing only non-blue marbles so what has been reflected is no longer 'white light'. The monster just absorbed the 'blue light' and what gets reflected will no longer be white but will be tinted away from the blue end of the spectrum.

So if any part of the white light gets (N)absorbed, then what gets (N)reflected will no longer be white light of the full spectrum. The reflected spectrum will be missing whatever part got absorbed, and will no longer be white light. Of course, this remains entirely distinct from the question of what gets (P)reflected or (P)absorbed.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said that the object is absorbing light ONLY when we look at the object. The blue light does not get reflected. I'm not contradicting anything.

If the blue light does not get (N)reflected, then what does get (N)reflected will not be white light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Coming into existence implies traveling? I just want to clarify that a mirror image does not travel, not even for a nanosecond. It shows up because of a particular surface allows it to be seen.

I never said you were saying that the mirror image travels. Nor did I say anything here about exstence implying travelling.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right, they didn't exist before. They only exist in reference to the object.

Finally! I've been asking you this question for weeks and you kept telling me they did exist before. I even told you that was the wrong answer given what else you've been saying, but you ignored me and kept telling me otherwise.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No.

Yes.

Yes.

No.

Thank you. You've just demonstrated that you are in full agreement with the summary I posted. When the sunlight strikes the ball, all of it is (N)reflected and none of it is (N)absorbed. Yet all of it but the blue light is (P)absorbed such that only blue light is (P)reflected into existence at the camera film to interact with the film. Thank you for your agreement.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When light bounces off of objects, it is in the full light spectrum. Only when we are looking at the object efferently do we see the blue object because of it's ability to absorb the non-blue light. I'm trying to show you that efferent vision is compatible with light physics but there is a misunderstanding as far as what is being reflected.

You do realize that we have devices that can directly measure how much light of different wavelengths (colors) a given object absorbs and reflects? I've used them in my own research.


Oh, and when are you going to get around to explaining to us the magical process by which the brain manages to "look out" through the eyes, despite the fact that there are several layers of opaque tissues -- including bone -- between the brain and the retina of the eye?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've been talking about the same (N) reflection and (N) absorption as you are. Stop making this my idiosyncratic version.

No, you really haven't. You just don't understand what the rest of us mean by our words well enough to understand when you are using them differently.

For instance, it is a blatant contradiction to say that an object (N)absorbs some light and also (N)reflects all of it, which is what you are saying when you claim that all the white sunlight always bounces off the object and that the same object has light-absorptive properties.

For this to even be a coherent possibility, you must be using these terms in a different sense.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is where you're confused. Objects can absorb light so we can see them without reflecting that light (which indicates that the blue wavelength is traveling).

Sorry, but I can't be confused over a pure matter of definition. If you think that what I said was wrong, then that means you are using these words to mean something other than what we are using them to mean. If objects (N)absorb light, then that means some of the light hitting it doesn't get (N)reflected, so what does get (N)reflected cannot be the full spectrum of white sunlight.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

NOTHING IS BEING RECREATED OR TRANSFERRED. YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT A MIRROR IMAGE IS.

You seem to be having trouble with your CAPSLOCK key again. I know what an actual mirror image is. I also have a pretty good idea of what you think it is - a pattern of newly existing photons coming into existence at the film or retina in a pattern representing the object being looked at or photographed. I also know that this contradicts the known properties of light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It contains all colors of the visible spectrum if you mean a single wavelength.

Wavelengths are not things. They are properties of photons. So I could not have meant "a single wavelength". Are you saying that a single photon can have a wavelength containing all the colors of the visible spectrum? Is that what you are saying?

Does it not concern you that this contradicts the known properties of light along with the very definition of wavelength?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Non-dualistic light.

Looks like you were right on the money. Peacegirl wants to redefine the basic physical properties of light itself.