A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The new model of sight is the following: In efferent vision, the brain looks through the eyes, as a window, and sees the external world (or one's field of vision) because of the ability of objects to absorb light, not (N) reflect light. Light therefore becomes a condition of sight, not a cause, since light is not bouncing off of the object and taking the wavelength of the object with it. This also means that the object must be in range for it to be resolved since light alone does not travel with the wavelength that is (N) reflected off of the object.

Photons coming from the Sun are always being emitted and this full spectrum light is traveling at the speed of light which is why the model of efferent sight does not negate any new technologies based on the speed of light or how it's used to measure distance and location. The reason efferent vision works is because we don't have to wait for light to traverse a certain distance (the real distance between the object and the eye or film) for us to get an image. All that is necessary to meet the requirements for sight is for the object to be in range and for it to be large enough or bright enough to be seen, for then a mirror image shows up on the retina or film instantly. The visual cortex is able to process the visual information to determine the object's actual location whether it's a few feet away or a 93 million miles away.

The green bit remains impossible by definition, for brains do not have eyes and cannot 'look'. The blue bit remains inconsistent wth your claim that the full spectrum is always (N)reflected, for then objects would have no (N)absorptive properties at all. And the red bit remains a ridiculous strawman, for the afferent account never makes any such claim (and doesn't posit wavelengths of objects).


This 'model' also remains radically incomplete, as it does not yet provide any answer to this question concerning (N)reflected sunlight...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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?

...or to these questions concerning the blue-wavelength photons contianed within sunlight which hits a blue object (your previous answers posited stationary light which you said you did not want within your model)...

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?]

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

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

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

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

If none of the above, then what? [Insert answer here]

... or to these questions concerning the history of photons composing the instantaneous (P)reflected image at the film (for which you also previously posited stationary light):

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]

2. If so, then according to efferent vision where were those specific photons at the moment in time immediately preceding the taking of the photograph? [State a location]

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

An adequate model needs to be able to answer all of these questions without contradicting itself. Can yours do that now?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There probably wouldn't be a time delay because the light is traveling very fast...

If it has anything to do with the speed of light at all (as you indicate with your "because" above) then that finite speed will introduce a time delay (no matter how small).

Originally Posted by peacegirl

WE CANNOT GET AN IMAGE OF THE AIRPLANE FROM LIGHT ALONE; THE OBJECT MUST BE IN VIEW. AND NO ONE CAN DISPUTE THIS.

The Hubble telescope still completely refutes this. It forms pictures from the arriving light alone, of objects which are not in view or visual range (even if you were to look through the telescope). CAPSLOCK will not change this simple fact (which alone completely refutes your model).

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light exists in the form of light energy or photons which are emitted continually and travel at the speed of light. This is the nature of light. It never changes or disappears. The full spectrum of light from the Sun stays the same. Light gets absorbed by matter which may cause the light to change form (i.e., photosynthesis), but we see the object due to the absorption properties of the object itself, not the object's reflective properties along the brain's ability to see efferently, which is key. This is also why science never entertained this model due to the belief that light carried the image of the object and that the eyes were a sense organ. The light being emitted from the Sun that bounces off of any object remains in the full spectrum which is why light does not bring the wavelength of the object to us. We see the object only because it's there to be seen due to efferent vision.

Strawman alert! (red)

And another contradiction! (blue)

If all of the sunlight is (N)reflected (i.e. bounces off the object) then by definition, none of it is (N)absorbed (i.e. prevented from bouncing off teh object by being converted into a different form of energy).

Please explain your version of absorption. Copypasting a scientific definition will not be adequate, because the scientific definition is not consistent with what you are saying about it. As an example, please explain the "absorptive properties" of objects by telling me how the light-absorptive properties of, say, a green leaf differ from that of a blue ball.

If a leaf takes some of the non-green photons out of the sunlight and uses it for photosynthesis, how can the remaining light still be full spectrum?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When I say that ball has no properties of reflection, that's exactly what I mean.

No, it isn't. You're saying that all of the sunlight bounces off the ball. That means the ball has the (N)reflective properties of reflecting all wavelengths of light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because light bounces off of a blue ball does not mean the object is causing this...

So it's just a coincidence that the light happens to change direction at the same point in space where the ball happens to be? The ball had nothing to do with it?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...or that there is any interaction whereby the light takes on the ball's characteristics as it bounces off the ball.

Strawman!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The ball has no properties of (N) reflection whatsoever.

Of course it does. On your model it has the property of (N)reflecting all of the sunlight.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The ball only has properties of (N) absorption, which means there is no duplicate light coming from the ball and coming from the Sun.

Um, no. That's not (N)absorption at all. If the ball has properties of (normal)absorption, that means some of the light striking it doesn't bounce off.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

IT'S ALL COMING FROM THE SUN. The only reason we see the ball is due to efferent vision, which negates that the light is anything less than the full visible spectrum. We are seeing the ball because it's there to be seen when it's within our field of view.

We see because we can see! The new efferent tautological model of vision! Do you realize that in all of this you've completely neglected to answer either of the two questions you were replying to?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The belief that light is carrying the image of the object beyond the range that the object can be seen is absolutely false.

And no-one has ever held this belief. It existed only in the deluded imagination of your father.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because the full spectrum of light continues on even though the object absorbs part of that wavelength.

Again, this is still false by definition, unless you want to redefine either wavelength, sunlight, or absorption.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are assuming that the wavelength the object absorbs is no longer part of the full spectrum of light when the light bounces off the object. That is a misunderstanding.

Your misunderstanding is that the above is any kind of assumption, rather than a simple consequence of the meanings of words. You are saying that even though the monster swallowed some of the marbles, he still spits all of them back out to you and into the bag. You clearly neglected to read this earlier post:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

As long as any light at all ever bounces off of objects, then objects do (N)reflect light in the standard sense. What you mean is that they don't (N)reflect only one particular wavelength of light representing the color of the object. But you misrepresent this by speaking of the "wavelength of the blue table", for no such thing exists on the afferent model you are arguing against. The blue wavelength is a property of the light, not of the table. The reflected blue light was exactly the same (i.e. also blue) before it got to the object. The only difference after reflection is that the other colors of light aren't there with it anymore. Because they got absorbed. If you allow objects to have any absorptive properties at all, then the (N)reflected light bouncing off it will not be white sunlight. It will be travelling, and it will now represent the color of the object. This is a pure matter of logic, and is not any kind of assumption.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Truth: We see objects as they reveal themselves through light due to the property of absorption and (P) reflection.

Fallacy: Images of the object travel to the eye in the light itself even when the object is no longer present.

Peacegirl's fallacy: That the above 'fallacy' involving travelling images has ever formed any part of the modern scientific account of afferent vision.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Spacemonkey, brains don't have eyes. They see through the eyes. After my entire explanation of how efferent vision works, that's all you have to say?

Why not? An object can absorb wavelengths without (N) reflecting the remaining wavelengths. The (P) reflected light continues as far as the light will go in proportion to the size and brightness of the object, but it is not (N) reflected which only means that it does not have the ability to travel for eternity such that if we were on a star we would be able to see the distant past (e.g., the time of Socrates).

It's not inconsistent if you understand that light does nothing more than reveal the external world to us. But the only way you can understand this is through the efferent model of sight, for it won't make sense otherwise.

Objects reflecting wavelengths. You know what I mean.

Spacemonkey, all you have to remember is that in the efferent version of sight, we can see the object if there is light surrounding it because we get a mirror image instantly if we are looking at it. Note: When I use the word surrounding I don't mean stationary. Light is always in motion. If it's at night, we will see the object that is (P) reflecting that light but we won't see anything else because it's dark. If that light reaches the blue ball, we will see that ball because light must be present. If the traveling Sunlight reaches the camera that means that it's daylight so when we take a picture there will be no darkness on the film.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

...or to these questions concerning the blue-wavelength photons contained within sunlight which hits a blue object (your previous answers posited stationary light which you said you did not want within your model)...

Then I wasn't being clear because there is no light that parks itself anywhere. Light energy is constantly being emitted by the sun.

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?

Nothing happens. The light continues on with all of the wavelengths contained in it. But when we look at the object, we are able to see blue because of the object' ability to absorb all the non-blue wavelengths.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Does it bounce off the surface to travel away from it? [Y/N?]

No.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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

No.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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

No. If the object exists, the blue wavelength that reveals the object exists.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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

Yes.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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

No. It is seen as a mirror image. And it doesn't have to be close by to see a mirror image. We get a mirror image of the moon because of the way the brain and eyes work. A mirror image does not teleport anything. It's the same exact image at the same exact time because the light that is (P) reflected is already there when the lens draws the light in.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If none of the above, then what? [Insert answer here]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

... or to these questions concerning the history of photons composing the instantaneous (P)reflected image at the film (for which you also previously posited stationary light):

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

Specific photons? Photons were at the film when the photograph was taken, but they were not stationary.

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]

The (P) light had to be at the film or else a picture could not be taken. But this doesn't mean (N) light had to travel thousands of miles to strike the film. This is where the confusion is. The light has to be at the object. If the lens is focused on the object, the light is at the film instantly (the mirror image I keep bringing up). In efferent vision the light from the moon doesn't have to travel 1.3 seconds to be at the film (like it does in afferent vision) for an instant mirror image to be at the film. That's the difference between afferent vision and efferent vision.

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?

It's moving.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

An adequate model needs to be able to answer all of these questions without contradicting itself. Can yours do that now?

There's no contradiction. When we look at an object efferently, we are not getting the blue photon first and then the red, which you seem to be implying. We are getting a mirror image of that object which means it's instant (not a nano-second delay). Therefore, if the object changes colors, we get an instant mirror image of that change, which in your original example we would be seeing red, not blue (which would indicate delayed time). If you fail to understand the reasoning behind efferent vision, the rest of it won't follow. I don't think you agree that a mirror image is instant. That's why you are not getting the concept.

[davidm]

Hey, dunderhead (aka peacegirl), scientists do not say that light carries an image, even though Daddy Dumbkins wrote that they did. M'kay? If there were no eyes or brains in their universe, then there would be no images either.

And having been told all this now for the umpteenth time, peacegirl will return to talking about light carrying an image according to the standard scientific account in five, four, three, two, one...

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't have to answer this...

For the purposes of this discussion, it's unimportant...

I don't have to answer that...

You're not listening LadyShea.

You're not listening ladyShea! Why won't you listen when she's working so hard to avoid having to answer any of your questions?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But the only way we can see the object is by observing it through the lens of our eyes. Have you ever seen someone observe anything in the natural world without a lens, whether it's a camera or the retina?

You mean like a pinhole camera?

[davidm]

Hey, peacegirl, we all want to hear again about how it's "just a coincidence" that every time we have looked at the moons of Jupiter for the last 350 years we see them in delayed time. That was a good one, almost on par with "voila, we see!"

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is a very appropriate definition:

(Physics / General Physics) Physics a reduction of the intensity of any form of radiated energy as a result of energy conversion in a medium, such as the conversion of sound energy into heat.

absorption - definition of absorption by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

To be fair, this is one way objects could absorb part of the sunlight without preventing the (N)reflected sunlight from still representing the full spectrum. Objects could absorb equal proportions of each wavelength present, meaning the reflected sunlight will be reduced in intensity but will still consist of the same balance of all wavelengths.

The problem is that absorption of this sort will necessarily be completely irrelevant to vision, and cannot possibly explain perceived color. That perceived color of any object must correspond to some point on the spectrum of visible light, and if every object just absorbs more or less of the same set of wavelengths, then with respect to that spectrum they all have exactly the same absorptive properties. Meaning that something other than 'absorption' (as here defined) will be required to explain why we see different objects in different colors.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You mean like a pinhole camera?

Or like the eyes of scallops, which uses reflector eyes. No lens required. If we're lucky, TLR will come explain all about them.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Again, this is still false by definition, unless you want to redefine either wavelength, sunlight, or absorption.

The only thing that I am redefining is that objects do not (N) reflect their wavelength so that a replica of that object is in the light. We see the object because when look at it, the non-absorbed light is revealing the object to us.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are assuming that the wavelength the object absorbs is no longer part of the full spectrum of light when the light bounces off the object. That is a misunderstanding.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Your misunderstanding is that the above is any kind of assumption, rather than a simple consequence of the meanings of words. You are saying that even though the monster swallowed some of the marbles, he still spits all of them back out to you and into the bag. You clearly neglected to read this earlier post:

That's fair enough.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But you misrepresent this by speaking of the "wavelength of the blue table", for no such thing exists on the afferent model you are arguing against. The blue wavelength is a property of the light, not of the table.

That's what I meant.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The reflected blue light was exactly the same (i.e. also blue) before it got to the object. The only difference after reflection is that the other colors of light aren't there with it anymore.

True.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If you allow objects to have any absorptive properties at all, then the (N)reflected light bouncing off it will not be white sunlight. It will be travelling, and it will now represent the color of the object. This is a pure matter of logic, and is not any kind of assumption.

But that's false Spacemonkey. And empirical testing will bear this out eventually.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Truth: We see objects as they reveal themselves through light due to the property of absorption and (P) reflection.

Fallacy: Images of the object travel to the eye in the light itself even when the object is no longer present.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl's fallacy: That the above 'fallacy' involving travelling images has ever formed any part of the modern scientific account of afferent vision.

You know what I meant. I'm sorry if I'm not expressing this concept to your satisfaction but if you get the gist, that's all that matters. Lessans made it very clear that objects do not reflect replicas of themselves and (N) travel through space and time. Here it is again for your reading enjoyment.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality pp. 119-122

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. What they tried to make us believe is
that if it takes 8 minutes for the light from the sun to reach us it
would take hundreds of years for the reflection of Columbus to reach
Rigel, even with a powerful telescope. But why would they need a
telescope? Let me show you how confused these scientists are.

They reasoned that since it takes longer for the sound from an
airplane to reach us when 15,000 feet away than when 5000; and
since it takes longer for light to reach us the farther it is away when
starting its journey, light and sound must function alike in other
respects — which is false — although it is true that the farther away
we are from the source of sound the fainter it becomes, as light
becomes dimmer when its source is farther away. If the sound from
a plane even though we can’t see it on a clear day will tell us it is in
the sky, why can’t we see the plane if an image is being reflected
towards the eye on the waves of light? The answer is very simple. An
image is not being reflected. We cannot see the plane simply because
the distance reduced its size to where it was impossible to see it with
the naked eye, but we could see it with a telescope. We can’t see
bacteria either with the naked eye, but we can through a microscope.

The actual reason we are able to see the moon is because there is
enough light present and it is large enough to be seen. The
explanation as to why the sun looks to be the size of the moon —
although much larger — is because it is much much farther away,
which is the reason it would look like a star to someone living on a
planet the distance of Rigel. This proves conclusively that the
distance between someone looking, and the object seen, has no
relation to time because the images are not traveling toward the optic
nerve on waves of light, therefore it takes no time to see the moon,
the sun, and the distant stars.

To paraphrase this another way; if you
could sit upon the star Rigel with a telescope powerful enough to see
me writing this very moment, you would see me at the exact same
time that a person sitting right next to me would — which brings us
to another very interesting point. If I couldn’t see you standing right
next to me because we were living in total darkness since the sun had
not yet been turned on but God was scheduled to flip the switch at 12
noon, we would be able to see the sun instantly — at that very
moment — although we would not be able to see each other for 8
minutes afterwards. The sun at 12 noon would look exactly like a
large star; the only difference being that in 8 minutes we would have
light with which to see each other, but the stars are so far away that
their light diminishes before it gets to us.

Upon hearing this
explanation, someone asked, “If we don’t need light around us to see
the stars, would we need light around us to see the sun turned on at
12 noon?” Once the light is here it remains here because the photons
of light emitted by the constant energy of the sun surround us. When
the earth rotates on its axis so the section on which we live is in
darkness, this only means the photons of light are on the other side.
When our rotation allows the sun to smile on us again this does not
mean that it takes another eight minutes for this light to reach us
because these photons are already present. If the sun were to explode
while we were looking at it we would see it the instant it happened, not
8 minutes later. We are able to see the moon, the sun, the distant
stars, etc., not because the one is 3 seconds away, the other 8 minutes
away, and the last many light years away, but simply because these
objects are large enough to be seen at their great distance when
enough light is present.

This fallacy has come into existence because
the eyes were considered a sense organ, like the ears. Since it takes
longer for the sound from an airplane to reach our ears when it is a
thousand feet away than when five thousand, it was assumed that the
same thing occurred with the object sending a picture of itself on the
waves of light. If it was possible to transmit a television picture from
the earth to a planet as far away as the star Rigel, it is true that the
people living there would be seeing the ships of Columbus coming into
America for the first time because the picture would be in the process
of being transmitted through space at a certain rate of speed. But
objects do not send out pictures that travel through space and impinge
on the optic nerve. We see objects directly by looking at them and it
takes the same length of time to see an airplane, the moon, the sun,
or distant stars.

To sum this up — just as we have often observed
that a marching band is out of step to the beat when seen from a
distance because the sound reaches our ears after a step has been
taken, so likewise, if we could see someone talking on the moon via a
telescope and hear his voice on radio we would see his lips move
instantly but not hear the corresponding sound for approximately 3
seconds later due to the fact that the sound of his voice is traveling
186,000 miles a second, but our gaze is not, nor is it an electric
image of his lips impinging on our optic nerve after traversing this
distance. Because Aristotle assumed the eyes functioned like the
other four and the scientific community assumed he was right, it
made all their reasoning fit what appeared to be undeniable.
According to their thinking, how else was it possible for knowledge to
reach us through our eyes when they were compelled to believe that
man had five senses? Were they given any choice?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, brains don't have eyes. They see through the eyes. After my entire explanation of how efferent vision works, that's all you have to say?

Of course it's not all I have to say. If it was, my post would have been a lot shorter! When a person looks out a window, they can do so because (i) they have eyes; and (ii) their eyes are not the same as the window they are looking out of. Brains do not have eyes distinct from their 'windows'. That means they cannot 'look out' in any analogous way. Brains cannot look. Period. Only people ever look.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why not? An object can absorb wavelengths without (N) reflecting the remaining wavelengths. The (P) reflected light continues as far as the light will go in proportion to the size and brightness of the object, but it is not (N) reflected which only means that it does not have the ability to travel for eternity such that if we were on a star we would be able to see the distant past (e.g., the time of Socrates).

It's not inconsistent if you understand that light does nothing more than reveal the external world to us. But the only way you can understand this is through the efferent model of sight, for it won't make sense otherwise.

If some of the wavelengths of light are absorbed, then they don't all bounce off the object. If all of them bounce off the object, then none of them have been absorbed. That's just what '(N)absorb' and '(N)reflect' mean.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Objects reflecting wavelengths. You know what I mean.

That paraphrase of your strawman doesn't work, because on your account objects do reflect wavelengths. They reflect all of them. Why can't you just stop repeating phrases, like 'wavelength of the object', which you've been repeatedly told are incorrect? The best current theory on that is that you are so mentally ill that you are incapable of learning. Is that what you want us to believe?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, all you have to remember is that in the efferent version of sight, we can see the object if there is light surrounding it because we get a mirror image instantly if we are looking at it. Note: When I use the word surrounding I don't mean stationary. Light is always in motion. If it's at night, we will see the object that is (P) reflecting that light but we won't see anything else because it's dark. If that light reaches the blue ball, we will see that ball because light must be present. If the traveling Sunlight reaches the camera that means that it's daylight so when we take a picture there will be no darkness on the film.

You haven't understood the question. Think of it in terms of one single point on the film, receiving light from one particular direction, and representing one particular point on the resulting photograph of the blue ball. At first there is no light there at all, as the Sun has not yet been ignited. Later, once the Sun has been ignited, and sunlight has just reached the surface of the blue ball, there will be instantaneous blue photons in existence at our particular point on the film. A photograph taken then will show that point to be blue, because only blue photons are at that point to interact with the film.

Later than this, after the (N)reflected sunlight has bounced off the ball, and some of it (bouncing off in the direction of the camera, and coming from the point on the ball corresponding to our designated point on the film) has had time to travel to and arrive at the camera, there is now more than just the intantaneous blue photons at our point on the film. There is white light there as well - photons of all wavelengths hitting that same point on the film. So which photons will interact with the film at that specific point? What color will result at this particular point on the resulting photograph?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nothing happens. The light continues on with all of the wavelengths contained in it. But when we look at the object, we are able to see blue because of the object' ability to absorb all the non-blue wavelengths.

No.

You just contradicted yourself again. If the blue-wavelength light contained within the arriving sunlight does not bounce off the surface to travel away from it, then the light which does bounce off and continue on no longer contains all of the wavelengths within it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes.

Then it is stationary again. If any particular bit of light ever stays at one location for any amount of time, then that means it is then stationary for that time. This is what 'stationary' means. If you don't want stationary light on your model, then you will have to reanswer these questions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Specific photons? Photons were at the film when the photograph was taken, but they were not stationary.

That wasn't the question. Did they exist immediately before the photograph was taken?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The (P) light had to be at the film or else a picture could not be taken...

Now you have stationary light again. If the same bit of light is ever at the same place both at one time and at the immediately preceding time, then it didn't move. It was stationary.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's moving.

How can you get this question wrong? Did you even read it? I don't understand how anything short of mental illness can explain this. How can the thing have moved if it is now in the exact same place as it was just a moment ago. Isn't that the very definition of stationary?

I'm afraid you'll need to answer these questions all over again, as you are still positing stationary light with your current answers.

[The Lone Ranger]

There are indeed quite a number of animals that use mirrors, not lenses to focus light onto their photoreceptors. Not only do many molluscs (such as scallops) do so, there is at least one species of vertebrate that has reflector eyes, the "Brownsnout Spookfish" (Dolichopteryx longipes).

The spookfish is interesting because it has, in effect, four eyes. Each eye has two openings in the cornea. The upward-facing opening allows light to pass into a standard tubular eye that uses a lens to focus the light. The downward-facing opening allows light to fall onto a curved, reflective structure that acts as a mirror to focus the incoming light onto a second retina.

In this way, the fish can look forward and upward with its refractive eyes while simultaneously looking downward with its reflective eyes.

In fact, the reflector eyes have greater light-gathering power than do the refractor eyes (as anyone who is familiar with optics would predict), and are ideal for looking downward into the gloomy water below. A pretty nifty trick.

The dual eye system of a Spookfish.
The main eye (2) is a standard refractor-type eye that uses the cornea and lens (c) to focus light onto a photosensitive retina (d).
The secondary eye -- properly known as the diverticulum (1) -- uses a curved bed of reflective crystals (b) to focus light onto a separate retina




The eyes of Dolichopteryx longipes. The reflector eyes look darker than do the refractor eyes because even the retinas of the refractor eyes are somewhat translucent (this deep-sea fish has a body that is almost transparent), while the mirrors of the reflector eyes are opaque from the outside.

Indeed, quite a lot of telescopes use only mirrors to gather and focus light. (Some reflecting telescopes have one or more lenses to help "fine tune" the focus, but this is by no means universally so.) In several ways, reflector telescopes are more efficient than are telescopes that use lenses to gather and focus light. This is part of the reason why virtually all of the major astronomical telescopes are reflectors, not refractors.

Diagram of a lens-less reflecting telescope.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only thing that I am redefining is that objects do not (N) reflect their wavelength so that a replica of that object is in the light. We see the object because when look at it, the non-absorbed light is revealing the object to us.

Again with the strawman? The object doesn't have a wavelength! No-one says that light contains replicas! Why do you keep saying such things? Do you want everyone to think you're insane?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what I meant.

It's not what you've said. Why can't you learn to say what you mean instead of repeatedly using expressions you know to be wrong?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that's false Spacemonkey. And empirical testing will bear this out eventually.

It's true by definition! Empirical testing doesn't even enter into it. If the monster swallows some marbles then it can't also spit all of them back to you. If photons of some wavelengths are absorbed by the object, then the light which bounces off no longer contains those absorbed photons. So that light is no longer a full spectrum.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know what I meant. I'm sorry if I'm not expressing this concept to your satisfaction but if you get the gist, that's all that matters. Lessans made it very clear that objects do not reflect replicas of themselves and (N) travel through space and time.

Then he made it very clear that he had no understanding of afferent vision and was arguing against a strawman. As are you. No-one has ever claimed that objects reflect travelling replicas of themselves. That's almost as retarded as efferent vision. You are not making merely a few insignificant errors of expression. Your repeated mistakes reveal a fundamental failure to understand either what afferent vision says or what you are actually saying yourself. And your inability to correct any of your mistakes, by expressing yourself without saying things you know to be wrong, continues (along with your compulsive copypasting) to make you look quite seriously mentally ill.

[LadyShea]

It's not inconsistent if you understand that light does nothing more than reveal the external world to us.

Light does lots of stuff more than that. Light exists and has properties and interacts with all kinds of matter in regions of the world and the universe where there is no "us" or close approximation of "us" for anything to be revealed to. Light reaches Jupiter! Light encounters matter on Jupiter! Light interacts in various ways with that matter on Jupiter! There are no lenses of any kind on Jupiter.

So, can you or can you not talk about how light behaves and what it does when there is no us around? You keep saying you can, then go right back to sight and seeing and lenses and retinas.

No lenses, no retinas, no film just light and matter. Can you do that?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's moving.

Seriously, how does anyone ever manage to get this wrong? And not just once, but repeatedly, over and over again.

This was not a complicated question, Peacegirl!

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Seriously, how does anyone ever manage to get this wrong? And not just once, but repeatedly, over and over again.

This was not a complicated question, Peacegirl!

Spacemonkey, are you setting this up? When someone acts like they have severe brain dysfunction perhaps they have severe brain dysfunction.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

To be fair, this is one way objects could absorb part of the sunlight without preventing the (N)reflected sunlight from still representing the full spectrum. Objects could absorb equal proportions of each wavelength present, meaning the reflected sunlight will be reduced in intensity but will still consist of the same balance of all wavelengths.

The problem is that absorption of this sort will necessarily be completely irrelevant to vision, and cannot possibly explain perceived color. That perceived color of any object must correspond to some point on the spectrum of visible light, and if every object just absorbs more or less of the same set of wavelengths, then with respect to that spectrum they all have exactly the same absorptive properties. Meaning that something other than 'absorption' (as here defined) will be required to explain why we see different objects in different colors.

This would also mean that every object would appear 'white' since the light reflected would have a proportion of frequencies similar to the original white light.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by thedoc

This would also mean that every object would appear 'white' since the light reflected would have a proportion of frequencies similar to the original white light.

Yes, though I think the more fundamental point is that a factor which remains constant across all cases cannot explain a difference in outcome between those cases.

She has said that 'absorptive properties' of objects are responsible for their perceived colors. Yet her posted definition of what she means by absorption - once made consistent with her claim that the full spectrum is always reflected - doesn't allow for any variation in absorptive properties with respect to the color spectrum.

Of course, what she's done is simply to go googling for an accepted definition, relying on the completely deluded assumption that what she is trying to say is the same as what science already says. But it isn't. She requires some new redefinition of absorption which she is incapable of formulating for herself.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, though I think the more fundamental point is that a factor which remains constant across all cases cannot explain a difference in outcome between those cases.

She has said that 'absorptive properties' of objects are responsible for their perceived colors. Yet her posted definition of what she means by absorption - once made consistent with her claim that the full spectrum is always reflected - doesn't allow for any variation in absorptive properties with respect to the color spectrum.

Of course, what she's done is simply to go googling for an accepted definition, relying on the completely deluded assumption that what she is trying to say is the same as what science already says. But it isn't. She requires some new redefinition of absorption which she is incapable of formulating for herself.

Perhaps what is happening is that when 'white' light strikes an object some of the frequencies are absorbed, but the remaining photons politely re-arrange themselves along the spectrum to fill the gaps and not to crowd anyone. You know they are all so nice, thats why they all look like a smiley face, just so happy to be nice.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course it's an object but the mirror does not absorb; it (P) reflects. That's why we get a mirror image on the ceiling.

But in this example we don't get a mirror image on the ceiling. We get a spot of reflected light. Just light, nothing else. If objects don't reflect light and a mirror is an object then how do you account for that spot of light on the ceiling?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If you don't mind (and even if you do) I would like to continue to explore this explanation by asking another question.

Is the "exact image point" located at the film/retina?

I believe so.

In two dimensions
In geometry, the mirror image of an object or two-dimensional figure is the virtual image formed by reflection in a plane mirror; it is of the same size as the original object, yet different, unless the object or figure has reflection symmetry (also known as a P-symmetry).
Two-dimensional mirror images can be seen in the reflections of mirrors or other reflecting surfaces, or on a printed surface seen inside out.

In three dimensions
The concept of mirror image can be extended to three-dimensional objects, including the inside parts, even if they are not transparent. The term then relates to structural as well as visual aspects. This is also called enantiomer or enantiomorph.

If a point of an object has coordinates (x, y,z) then the image of this point (as reflected from the mirror in y, z plane) has coordinates (-x, y,z) - so mirror reflection is a reversal of the coordinate axis perpendicular to the mirror's surface. Thus, a mirror image does not have reversed right and left (or up and down), but rather reversed front and back. The left-right reversal of the mirror image only holds in relation a normal (i.e. unreflected) picture that we see in front of us; see schematic illustration at the right. For instance, if we look at a picture or object in our hand and then turn it towards a mirror, the picture and thus its mirror reflection have made a left-to-right 'flip over' of 180 degrees. The same principle holds when we stand with our back towards the mirror and face a picture or object in front of the mirror, and then compare it with its reflection by turning our head or body 180 degrees towards the mirror. It is thus not the mirror itself, but our own relative position and viewing point that has caused the apparent left-to-right reversal.

In the case of two mirrors, in planes at an angle α, looking through both from the sector which is the intersection of the two halfspaces, is like looking at a version of the world rotated by an angle of 2α; the points of observations and directions of looking for which this applies correspond to those for looking through a frame like that of the first mirror, and a frame at the mirror image with respect to the first plane, of the second mirror. If the mirrors have vertical edges then the left edge of the field of view is the plane through the right edge of the first mirror and the edge of the second mirror which is on the right when looked at directly, but on the left in the mirror image.

Mirror image - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

But in this example we don't get a mirror image on the ceiling. We get a spot of reflected light. Just light, nothing else. If objects don't reflect light and a mirror is an object then how do you account for that spot of light on the ceiling?

Objects do reflect light (as Spacemonkey helped clarify), but they don't (N) reflect their own image beyond the range where the object can be seen. So if a light is striking a mirror, the mirror will reflect light on the ceiling. This reflection will be seen on the ceiling as long as the mirror is positioned where we can see the reflection. If we remove the mirror (the object that is doing the reflecting), we will not see a mirror image.

The law of reflection

Most visible objects are seen by reflected light. There are few natural sources of light, such as the sun, stars, and a flame; other sources are man-made, such as electric lights. For an object to be visible, light from a source is reflected off the object into our eyes (except in the special case of phosphors). In Figure 2 , the light is coming from the sun, parallel due to the distance of the source. The light reflects off the object and travels in straight lines to the viewer. Through experience, the viewer has learned to extend the reflected rays entering the eye back to locate the object.

http://www.cliffsnotes.com/study_gui...eId-10441.html