A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No objects reflect light;

... some surfaces don't absorb any wavelengths due to their composition, but that does not mean that the object is reflecting anything.

If the light is neither absorbed nor reflected, where does it go, derper?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So some objects can reflect light? Then you need to change your statement from "objects only absorb light; they don't reflect it." to "some objects only absorb light; they don't reflect it",

No objects reflect light; some surfaces don't absorb any wavelengths due to their composition, but that does not mean that the object is reflecting anything.

Then how does the light from a flashlight pointed at a mirror get to the ceiling or wall in my home experiment- that BTW -every person in the modern world, except you apparently, has done? An experiment any person can do right this second with a mirror and a light source like a flashlight?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And how is a spot of light on the ceiling from a light pointed at a mirror a reflection of the objects in the room? There are no objects in the image on the wall or ceiling, just a spot of light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That only means that the angle of the mirror facing the ceiling is not at the right angle for the objects in the room to be seen. The angle of the mirror only shows reflected light because of how it's positioned (I hope you understand what I mean by reflected).

No, I don't understand what you mean, because you are not explaining how or why a light spot will always, in every instance, show up on the wall or ceiling at a specific angle to the mirror when you shine a light at a mirror. You can move the mirror to any angle you want, and you will see only the spot of reflected light moving around the wall/ceiling/floor. You can control where it goes even.

WTF are you talking about?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

WTF are you talking about?

She has no clue. She babbles at random.

[LadyShea]

that does not mean that the object is reflecting that light (which implies that the light is separate from its source and can travel with that wavelength beyond the field of view, which is impossible.

You have reverted all the way back to light not being separate from it's emitting source now, and added a new spin that light doesn't travel with it's own wavelength at all. How many more steps backward are you going to take?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Define these please, as the way you are using them suggests a different definition of light sensitive than the one I am familiar with

I believe it's any surface that responds to light by its ability to interact with it whether it's reflecting an image (qualifying the term reflecting), or interacting with it so that an image can be seen or photographed. But any surface can suffice as a light sensitive backdrop if the conditions allow (i.e., pinhole cameras).

Retina - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have reverted all the way back to light not being separate from it's emitting source now, and added a new spin that light doesn't travel with it's own wavelength at all. How many more steps backward are you going to take?

Oh my god, I never changed this concept ever! How many times do I have to say that light that is (P) reflected from the object is not separate from the object. It can't be. That's why we get the mirror image on the retina which allows us to see the object. Mirrors are not light emitting sources. Only light from the Sun travels far and near at breakneck speed, not the object's wavelength.

[LadyShea]

I believe it's any surface that responds to light by its ability to interact with it whether it's reflecting an image (qualifying the term reflecting), or interacting with it so that an image can be seen or photographed. But any surface can suffice as a light sensitive backdrop if the conditions allow (i.e., pinhole cameras).

No, that is not the commonly understood definition of light sensitive (better known as photosensitive).

Photosensitive materials and surfaces interact with light in such a way as to cause a reaction or energy transformation. Such as a photoelectric effect or photochemical reaction.

Reflection is a physical interaction, but not commonly understood to be an effect or reaction as those that happen when light interacts with the silver hallides in film or the receptors in retinas or CCDs or plant chlorophyll

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Mirrors are not light emitting sources. Only light from the Sun travels far and near at breakneck speed, not the object's wavelength.

That negates known and empirically observed light physics. So, let's see your new model of light.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god, I never changed this concept ever! How many times do I have to say that light that is (P) reflected from the object is not separate from the object. It can't be.

You can state this until the end of time, Dumbo, but it's wrong. Photons are separate from the object from which they are emitted or reflected, obviously. This has been known, like, just about forever. And it's easily demonstrated!

You also stated that some surfaces neither absorb nor reflect light.

Then what happens to the photons? Do they -- POOF! -- vanish?

Careful, now! You are about to rewrite the laws of physics again!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A mirror image is seen instantly if the efferent model is correct. I maintain that mirror images are reflections that do not involve travel time, This mirror image on the retina/film is instant. the camera creates a photograph of the object using the light that is instantly at the film.

1000 Pictures - Free Desktop Wallpaper

The only real problem with the efferent model of vision is that it has an image problem, it's been getting a bad reputation because of all the negative comments being made about it. I would suggest a little image improvement via. a name change. How about 'Netflex Vision', I'm sure Peacegirl could sweet-talk her way arround any copyright issues, and could benefit from the mutual advertising. They say you can watch a TV show or movie instantly and Peacegirl says you can now see it instantly as it plays on the TV no matter how far away you are. Sound's like a plan.

[Dragar]

So peacegirl, if we fired some light at a distant object (say an aeroplane), there will of course be a reflection from the plane, and we can make an image of the aeoroplane using this light.

According to Lessans, should we expect a time delay between our firing of the light, and receiving the reflection back from the aeroplane?

This has been tried before. But let's try again.

[LadyShea]

In your model, where and in what state of being does light exist if it has been emitted by the sun, but has not been absorbed by some form of matter?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then how does the light from a flashlight pointed at a mirror get to the ceiling or wall in my home experiment- that BTW -every person in the modern world, except you apparently, has done? An experiment any person can do right this second with a mirror and a light source like a flashlight?

You are so missing the point of what I mean by (P) reflection.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And how is a spot of light on the ceiling from a light pointed at a mirror a reflection of the objects in the room? There are no objects in the image on the wall or ceiling, just a spot of light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That only means that the angle of the mirror facing the ceiling is not at the right angle for the objects in the room to be seen. The angle of the mirror only shows reflected light because of how it's positioned (I hope you understand what I mean by reflected).

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, I don't understand what you mean, because you are not explaining how or why a light spot will always, in every instance, show up on the wall or ceiling at a specific angle to the mirror when you shine a light at a mirror. You can move the mirror to any angle you want, and you will see only the spot of reflected light moving around the wall/ceiling/floor. You can control where it goes even.

Of course you can, but without the mirror (the object that is reflecting the (P) light) you won't see the light on the ceiling because that light disappears when the mirror is no longer reflecting that light.

WTF are you talking about?

Let's stick to objects, okay?

[davidm]

LadyShea, you are so missing the point of what pecegirl means by p reflection! Yes, you are!

Meanwhile, can't we get back to discussing QM? I know, LS thinks we should do it in a new thread, but it would be nice to turn this thread into something worthwhile.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god, I never changed this concept ever! How many times do I have to say that light that is (P) reflected from the object is not separate from the object. It can't be. That's why we get the mirror image on the retina which allows us to see the object. Mirrors are not light emitting sources. Only light from the Sun travels far and near at breakneck speed, not the object's wavelength.

The object doesn't have a wavelength. I'm pretty sure we've mentioned that already. Several times in fact. But thank you for finally making an effort to distinguish your alternate usage of 'reflected' from what everyone else uses the term to mean. You've been causing endless confusion by not doing so.

But you have yet to tell me whether or not you want stationary light to be a part of your model. Or what happens to the (N)reflected sunlight from the object when some of it eventually reaches the camera film.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In your model, where and in what state of being does light exist if it has been emitted by the sun, but has not been absorbed by some form of matter?

It's everywhere during daylight hours as the full spectrum of light is constantly being emitted at the speed of light.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have to distinguish between objects that are in our visual field, and light that travels at a finite speed. These are two different phenomena, yet scientists have clumped them together. Optics absolutely supports efferent vision. There is never a photograph taken without an object being present. The farther away the object is, the smaller the mirror image will be on film, which is exactly in keeping with this model of sight.

I am distinguishing between the objects and light. I am asking what happens when this full spectrum of (N)reflected sunlight (which bounced off the object) later arrives at the camera film. There will then be both the (P)reflected instantaneous photons present there composing the instant image at the film, and the arriving (N)reflected sunlight which previously bounced off the object. How will the film know which set of photons to interact with?

Nothing you say above even addresses this question.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The object doesn't have a wavelength. I'm pretty sure we've mentioned that already.Several times in fact

All I mean by that is the non-absorbed wavelength that is believed to be reflected by the object. You're right that the object doesn't have a wavelength and it doesn't (N) reflect a wavelength either.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But thank you for finally making an effort to distinguish your alternate usage of 'reflected' from what everyone else uses the term to mean. You've been causing endless confusion by not doing so.

But you have yet to tell me whether or not you want stationary light to be a part of your model. Or what happens to the (N)reflected sunlight from the object when some of it eventually reaches the camera film.

It is there at the film as long as the lens of the camera is focused on the object. If a large object can be seen for miles away, then that light will be at the film or retina as a mirror image instantly. Eventually that non-absorbed wavelength (P) reflected from the object will fade out and will no longer be seen because it's no longer within visual range. There is no (N) reflected light coming from the object because object's do not have the property of reflection; only absorption. Gosh I hope you get this soon.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have to distinguish between objects that are in our visual field, and light that travels at a finite speed. These are two different phenomena, yet scientists have clumped them together. Optics absolutely supports efferent vision. There is never a photograph taken without an object being present. The farther away the object is, the smaller the mirror image will be on film, which is exactly in keeping with this model of sight.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I am distinguishing between the objects and light. I am asking what happens when this full spectrum of (N)reflected sunlight (which bounced off the object) later arrives at the camera film. There will then be both the (P)reflected instantaneous photons present there composing the instant image at the film, and the arriving (N)reflected sunlight which previously bounced off the object. How will the film know which set of photons to interact with?

Nothing you say above even addresses this question.

Spacemonkey, objects do not reflect images of themselves, therefore the light that is present at the film can only be Sunlight, but, to repeat, the Sunlight does not carry the image of the object. We see the object due to the object's property of absorption. That's what efferent vision is. No image from the object is being reflected; we are seeing the object directly. As far as a camera goes, the light is a mirror image which is instantly at the film when the lens is focused on the object.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I mean by that is the non-absorbed wavelength that is believed to be reflected by the object. You're right that the object doesn't have a wavelength and it doesn't (N) reflect a wavelength either.

Objects don't have wavelengths, so stop saying they do. There is no reason why this should be difficult for you. You also need to distinguish between (N)absorption and (P)absorption. On your model no single specific wavelength of light is (N)reflected because all of them are (N)reflected and none of them are (N)absorbed (even though all but the blue light within that sunlight will be (P)absorbed).

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is there at the film as long as the lens of the camera is focused on the object. If a large object can be seen for miles away, then that light will be at the film or retina as a mirror image instantly. Eventually that non-absorbed wavelength (P) reflected from the object will fade out and will no longer be seen because it's no longer within visual range. There is no (N) reflected light coming from the object because object's do not have the property of reflection; only absorption. Gosh I hope you get this soon.

There were two different questions here, so I'm not sure what your "it" refers to. And I'm not asking about the instantaneously (P)reflected blue light. However, there will be (N)reflected light coming from the object, because you've said all the sunlight bounces off the blue ball. That means the ball has properties of (N)reflection but not of (N)absorption.

So what happens when some of that (N)reflected sunlight bouncing off the ball gets to the camera film?

[LadyShea]

You are so missing the point of what I mean by (P) reflection.

Then you need to state your definition of reflection

Let's stick to objects, okay?

A mirror is an object. It's a piece of glass painted silver. Do you need to redefine object as well so that it doesn't include glass mirrors or silver plated serving trays or anything chromed (all of which can reflect light spots as predicted by light physics)?

Jesus Criminy you need a whole new dictionary just to explain your working model?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, objects do not reflect images of themselves, therefore the light that is present at the film can only be Sunlight, but, to repeat, the Sunlight does not carry the image of the object. We see the object due to the object's property of absorption. That's what efferent vision is. No image from the object is being reflected; we are seeing the object directly. As far as a camera goes, the light is a mirror image which is instantly at the film when the lens is focused on the object.

Again, none of this addresses the question at all. What part of it are you not understanding? I didn't say anything about objects reflecting images of themselves, or of sunlight carrying images. Where are you getting this from? Certainly not from what I posted. And how can the light at the film only be sunlight? If there is a mirror image at the film of the blue ball and consisting of photons, then that image must consist of a circular pattern of blue photons. If the image itself (at the film) consisted only of uniform sunlight, then every single photograph would be plain white.

But back to my unanswered question: Imagine the same sun/blue ball/camera example again, but with the Sun being ignited. When this first happens,the only light anywhere is from the Sun, travelling towards the ball. There is no light anywhere else (assume that the Sun is not within the camera's field of view). When the sunlight first hits the ball, the non-blue light within that sunlight is (P)absorbed while the blue light within that sunlight is (P)reflected, meaning there will now be an instantaneous image consisting of blue photons present at the film.

But at that same moment, none of this sunlight (just now reaching the blue ball for the first time) is (N)absorbed, as it is all (N)reflected as it bounces off the ball's surface. But some of that sunlight bouncing off the ball will end up going in the direction of the camera. So when the sunlight first hits the ball there will be blue photons at the film (forming an instant image) but no sunlight there. At some point in the future, the travelling sunlight will also get there. So what happens then? What prevents the travelling white sunlight from interacting with the film instead of the blue and instantaneous image-comprising photons already there?

And will you please tell me whether or not you want stationary light to be a part of your model?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, that is not the commonly understood definition of light sensitive (better known as photosensitive).

Photosensitive materials and surfaces interact with light in such a way as to cause a reaction or energy transformation. Such as a photoelectric effect or photochemical reaction.

Reflection is a physical interaction, but not commonly understood to be an effect or reaction as those that happen when light interacts with the silver hallides in film or the receptors in retinas or CCDs or plant chlorophyll

Thank you for explaining the distinction.

[thedoc]

She's as thick as a brick, and almost as smart.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Brains don't look, people do. Eyes don't see either, people do. The brain and eyes can't be separated. I already told you that the mechanism may never be completely understood. But that doesn't mean Lessans' observations were wrong, or that he had to explain the exact mechanism for him to be right.

True, the absence of a mechanism does not necessarily mean that Lessans was wrong. It is also true that Lessans does not need to explain the exact mechanism for him to be right. However, if you or Lessans have any interest in convincing anyone that efferent vision is a plausible theory then someone (you or Lessans) does need to explain the mechanism that allows efferent vision to work. Absent such an explanation there are no grounds for considering efferent vision to be a plausible theory.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Is a mirror image incorrect because it doesn't involve a time delay? You may think it does, but it doesn't...

This claim is unsupported by evidence.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I need to do is show you that this model is based on physical properties.

Something you have so far failed to do.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Objects do not reflect light...

Another claim unsupported by evidence.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually, objects only absorb light; they don't reflect it. There is no property in the object that is capable of reflecting light.

Yet another claim unsupported by evidence.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Mirror images are instant reflections...

Still another claim that is not supported by evidence.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is a distinction between light from the Sun bouncing off of objects and non-absorbed light being reflected from objects. Objects do not reflect non-absorbed light.

Still no evidence to support this claim.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light travels and bounces off of objects but that's not the same thing.

Light traveling and bouncing off of objects is exactly the same thing as light being reflected off an object.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What I mean by that is that the object does not reflect the non-absorbing light; but the light coming from the Sun does strike the object (in the full spectrum) and bounces off.

Why does some light bounce/reflect off of objects and some light not bounce/reflect off of objects? Note that I am treating bounce and reflect as equivalent terms because, so far as light is concerned, they are equivalent terms.