A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

First, you need to picture the outside world, or your entire field of vision, as a big screen, not just one object. I don't think you've done that. Then I can show you where the photons interact with the retina and film.

What do you mean "not just one object"? I don't think of the world as one object. A screen is 2 dimensional and flat and being projected on. That won't work as an analogy.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Optics does not support your ideas about vision. For example, as pointed out in the other thread, there should be no steller abberation if Lessans is correct. But we see it! Oops, optics rules out Lessans again. You'll tell me now that there's some reason for this, but you don't know what it is, right?

It does not rule out efferent vision at all. How the aberration occurs is a physical phenomenon, but so are mirror images. I don't see where the two are mutually exclusive.

Originally Posted by Dragar

As for relativity, that isn't related to seeing at all. As has been explained to you repeatedly, it does forbid any sort of causal effect to be instant across any distance however - completely contradicting your claims that light instantly interacts across a huge distance.

If you want to contradict relativity fine. We're hardly going to believe an incoherent, falsified theory over relativity, however.

Dragar, once again, there is no conflict if you understand that efferent vision has nothing to do with traveling faster than the speed of light. I will repeat: Is a mirror image incorrect because it doesn't involve a time delay? You may think it does, but it doesn't, and if it doesn't, then there is no conflict with this phenomena and relativity.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Your actual question isn't even grammatical.

I'll fix it. Where in the picture would the image point (i.e., the point where the the object and the mirror image intersect) converge?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And there will be a different image point for every part of the iceberg.

Exactly. That's what I needed you to say.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why are you even asking this question? How is this supposed to help you? (Other than by providing a distraction from questions you can't answer.) Do you realize that the image point is defined in terms of the travelling reflected light which has bounced off an object?

There is no bouncing at the intersection. The photons from the object are not in two different places. That's why a mirror image is one and the same or the opposite side of the same imaginary coin.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

At best you're going to end up with a series of image points in space corresponding to points on the object. But if you try to put the actual image there which you think interacts with the film or retina, then it will no longer be at the film or retina to interact with it. So again, what exactly is the point of your present diversion?

Yes it will be there to interact with it. That's where you're wrong. This is not meant to divert the important parts of the discussion. This IS the important part, so you'll have to bear with me until you get it [hopefully].

[LadyShea]

Mirrors are perfectly explained with the standard model of sight, and yes there is a time delay involved because photons are traveling and reflecting from point to point. You have simply extended the "instantaneous" seeing to include mirror images.

It still doesn't explain anything peacegirl. Photons at point A (the Sun) and a piece of camera film on Earth at point B are physically separated by 93 million miles. That's where your explanation must start.

Mirror images doesn't explain how those points are brought together (is spacetime folded?) nor have you offered a mechanism for the photons to get from A to B without traveling, duplicating, or teleporting.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I did respond here: Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Thank you! I'm trying to show two things. One, that there is an image point at which the light and matter interact. Secondly, I am trying to show you, by understanding efferent vision, that the object is not reflecting the image. We see the object because it's there to be seen due to its absorptive properties, but the light does not leave the object with that wavelength and travel away from the object.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Mirrors are perfectly explained with the standard model of sight, and yes there is a time delay involved because photons are traveling and reflecting from point to point. You have simply extended the "instantaneous" seeing to include mirror images.

It still doesn't explain anything peacegirl. Photons at point A (the Sun) and a piece of camera film on Earth at point B are physically separated by 93 million miles. That's where your explanation must start.

Mirror images doesn't explain how those points are brought together (is spacetime folded?) nor have you offered a mechanism for the photons to get from A to B without traveling, duplicating, or teleporting.

First of all, if efferent vision is correct, mirrors do not involve a time delay. Yes, I am presupposing that efferent vision is correct in order to explain how this works. Spacemonkey keeps coming from an afferent position and can't understand why he is confused. I must start from this premise in order to explain Lessans' observations. Of course everyone says that the afferent perspective explains everything perfectly, but does it, or could it be mistaken? It does not mean that just because mirror images are perfectly explained with the standard model of sight, that it is 100% correct. What do you think this discussion has been about if not to show you a different way of looking at what's going on? I need to discuss mirror images in order to show you how it works in an efferent model, and why the photons don't have to traverse 93 million miles to intersect the film/retina.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where in the picture would the image point (i.e., the point where the the object and the mirror image intersect) converge?

Exactly. That's what I needed you to say.

There is no bouncing at the intersection. The photons from the object are not in two different places. That's why a mirror image is one and the same or the opposite side of the same imaginary coin.

To be very clear, the photons from the object and the photons from the reflection are different photons that travel to the eye along different paths, and arrive at the eye at slightly different angles. Each photon is then focused onto the retina but not at a point, rather an image that is the reverse of the real image. therefore the individual photons will cross paths behind the lens and in front of the retina but do not interfere. So the image projected onto the retina is unside down and backwards but the brain intreprets and corrects it to match reality. This is Vision that has been observed, tested, and verified, not some wild speculation.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We see the object because it's there to be seen due to its absorptive properties, but the light does not leave the object with that wavelength and travel away from the object.

Now we're back to the properties of light. Light that has not been absorbed by an object it comes into contact with is either reflected or passed through, but it must still be traveling with it's own wavelength, because that's what light is always, unerringly, observed to do.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What do you mean "not just one object"? I don't think of the world as one object. A screen is 2 dimensional and flat and being projected on. That won't work as an analogy.

I'm trying to make a distinction between light leaving an object and traveling 93 million miles, and looking at the world outside of you as a two-dimensional screen. Remember, the brain interprets 3-D, so please let's not go there at this point.

[davidm]

I propose ignoring peacegirl's drivel and keeping the discussion going on QM. That is the only place where this thread is remotely interesting.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

First of all, if efferent vision is correct, mirrors do not involve a time delay.

But this can be demonstrated easily, and has been in the lab. You can set up multiple mirrors at specific angles, shine a light on the first one and measure the time it takes to reflect from one to the other until the light reaches a final point. The time is measured in fractions of a second, but it is still time.

We have a mirror on the moon, and can shoot light at it via laser for goodness sake http://science.nasa.gov/science-news...004/21jul_llr/

Of course everyone says that the afferent perspective explains everything perfectly, but does it, or could it be mistaken?

If it is mistaken, we have not yet found any example not perfectly explained by traveling light.

It does not mean that just because mirror images are perfectly explained with the standard model of sight, that it is 100% correct.

Nope, it doesn't. But, you have to show where there is a problem to look for a different solution

What do you think this discussion has been about if not to show you a different way of looking at what's going on?

There's no unexplained problem in the current model, that I am aware of, in need of an alternate solution.

I need to discuss mirror images in order to show you how it works in an efferent model, and why the photons don't have to traverse 93 million miles to intersect the film/retina.

I don't want you to use vision to explain it though. Light and matter (in this case camera film) work how they work with or without an observer. Any explanation must also work with or without an observer. If it doesn't, then you are presupposing instantaneous seeing, which is the point at issue.

So, can you explain how light and matter interact across 93 million miles without presupposing instantaneous seeing is factual?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

So now water is light sensitive just like the retina and film, and that is why if you see a reflection of a mountain one day and come back the next day the reflection will still be there? Amazing, I didn't know that.

Wait a minute. Are you telling me that you won't see a reflection the next day as long the mountain and water converge at the image point?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by davidm

I propose ignoring peacegirl's drivel and keeping the discussion going on QM. That is the only place where this thread is remotely interesting.

I would like a QM thread. It's difficult for me, and I would appreciate a full, separate discussion of it.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm trying to make a distinction between light leaving an object and traveling 93 million miles, and looking at the world outside of you as a two-dimensional screen. Remember, the brain interprets 3-D, so please let's not go there at this point.

But the world is not a 2 dimensional screen being projected upon. It's 3 dimensional and filled with matter that occupies physical locations in spacetime.

That analogy won't work.

[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? [Y/N?]

No. All the blue light does is reveal the object. If you can't get the difference you will not understand the efferent vision model.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Is it absorbed by the blue object? [Y/N?]

No, but the object does not reflect that blue wavelength.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Does it cease to exist? [Y/N?]

No, it is there as long as we're looking at the object. It is not there if we are not looking at the object.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Does it stay there, at the surface of the blue object? [Y/N?]

Yes, in the sense that the object does not reflect the blue wavelength. This can get confusing because we can see the object, as a mirror image, across a large expanse of space (as long as the blue object is within range of the image that is seen).

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Does it teleport itself instantly to any nearby films or retinas? [Y/N?]

Absolutely not. I've said this 100 times Spacemonkey, so why are you bringing this up again?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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

I've answered this. Yes, there has to be photons at the film for a photograph to be taken.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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]

At the film.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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

No, it is not moving IF the photons and matter converge at the same exact place. There are no two consecutive times, just one.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

There are however requirements for coherence and evidence, neither of which you are able to meet.

That's only because the concept is not clear to you yet.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And you do realize an image is a 2 dimensional visual representation and not a fully existing reality. You cannot pick up a moon rock from it's reflection just as film cannot absorb a photon from it's reflection.

I am not talking about film absorbing a photon from it's reflection. I'm talking about film absorbing the actual photon that is interacting with it.

[LadyShea]

Presupposing efferent vision while trying to work out your model is expected. However, you must be ready to abandon the model and start over as soon as you hit a brick wall with observed reality. You may also adjust the presupposition, provided it remains coherent.

Meaning, any model that is accurate will not require changes to any observed, tested, and repeated phenomena or known laws. Any conclusion that is accurate will explain all examples of observed reality.

A good example is the Moons of Jupiter observation, which remains unexplainable by efferent vision. So, you either need to adjust the efferent vision conclusion, or you must find a model for efferent vision that includes an explanation for this observation.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

So you actually are asking for the virtual image point? It's several miles below the surface of the lake, looking at your picture. Given a mountain is an extended object, and you haven't specified a point on it, that's the best anyone can answer.

But the mirror image shows up at the top of the lake due to the interaction of light coming from the Sun, and the light sensitive water.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Note, however, what your article says:

For plane mirrors, virtual images are formed. Light does not actually pass through the virtual image location; it only appears to an observer as though the light is emanating from the virtual image location.

Emph mine. It's a virtual image. It's not real, peacegirl. It's an optical illusion.

Of course light doesn't pass through the virtual image location. But the way mirror images work, it allows us to see and use this virtual image in many ways. For example, we could see only the image of the mountain at the water's edge, and know that there has to be a real mountain right there since the image point where matter and water meet cause this phenomenon to occur.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

A good example is the Moons of Jupiter observation, which remains unexplainable by efferent vision. So, you either need to adjust the efferent vision conclusion, or you must find a model for efferent vision that includes an explanation for this observation.

She already did! Here is what she said about the moons of Juputer flatly contradicting Lessans' claims, every time the moons have been observed for the last 350 some years:

"It's a coincidence!"

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, but the object does not reflect that blue wavelength.

If it is not absorbed and not reflected, then it must be passed through the object...otherwise it isn't behaving as light behaves.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Does it cease to exist? [Y/N?]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it is there as long as we're looking at the object. It is not there if we are not looking at the object.

Light behaves as it behaves with or without an observer. So this cannot be right unless light does one thing when it is observed and something else when it is not.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Presupposing efferent vision while trying to work out your model is expected. However, you must be ready to abandon the model and start over as soon as you hit a brick wall with observed reality. You may also adjust the presupposition, provided it remains coherent.

Meaning, any model that is accurate will not require changes to any observed, tested, and repeated phenomena or known laws. Any conclusion that is accurate will explain all examples of observed reality.

A good example is the Moons of Jupiter observation, which remains unexplainable by efferent vision. So, you either need to adjust the efferent vision conclusion, or you must find a model for efferent vision that includes an explanation for this observation.

No, the moons of Jupiter observation is just that, an observation. The explanation as to what is happening is in contradiction to the efferent model. All I need to do is show you that this model is based on physical properties. There is no teleporting here. If this model shows promise, and is finally confirmed valid through more empirical testing, then it's up to scientist to revise their previous explanations accordingly. It's not up to me to do this.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not talking about film absorbing a photon from it's reflection. I'm talking about film absorbing the actual photon that is interacting with it.

Great, then any model you propose must explain how the photon and the camera film came to be at the same location in spacetime.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, the moons of Jupiter observation is just that, an observation. The explanation as to what is happening is in contradiction to the efferent model. All I need to do is show you that this model is based on physical properties. There is no teleporting here. If this model shows promise, and is finally confirmed valid through more empirical testing, then it's up to scientist to revise their previous explanations accordingly. It's not up to me to do this.

It is up to you to explain why Lessans' model is correct when the observations of the moons of Jupiter, and every other single astronomical observation, flatly contradicts real-time seeing.

Of course you HAVE no explanation; nor could you have one. These astronomical observations prove that we see light, and see it in delayed time. If Lessans' model were correct, we could not possibly see the moons of Jupiter, and all other astronomical bodies, the way that we actually see them. Therefore Lessans' model goes to the trash bin. So sorry!