A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am arguing for it, and I've never changed my position.

You've never argued for your position. You've only ever asserted it. And your position is constantly changing. But because you mostly have no idea what you're saying, you don't realize when you've begun to say something different. Plus you tend to forget what you've previously said.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There might be confusion as to how this model is tenable, but that is a communication problem.

Yes, there is confusion on that - on your part. Your confusion is that you wrongly think that you have a tenable model. You don't. And your communication problem is that you don't know how to use words.

[LadyShea]

Fizeau–Foucault apparatus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Century old experiment using mirrors that has been repeated countless times.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, YOU said the blue photons hitting the ball travel away from it and that the photons already at the film were previously traveling towards it. Given that the distance involved is non-zero, YOUR answers mean there is time involved. The only way not to have time involved is to have the photons teleporting again.

Absolutely wrong. The distance is nil when one is focused on the object. The corresponding light that is captured by the lens is not the light that has traveled to arrive at the film because of how the eyes work, not how light works. Until you understand how completely different efferent vision is from afferent, you will never grasp why this is not teleportation, and yet we are getting the photons as a mirror image on film or retina.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right, it doesn't matter as long as the ball is in range. So why do you keep talking about photons traveling to distant cameras?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I didn't say that it doesn't matter. I said the exact opposite. The distance DOES matter, regardless of how long or short that distance is. I am talking about photons traveling to the distant camera because that is what YOU told me happens.

But you're missing half of this equation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sorry, it's not implausible because the reasons you've given are not a factor in efferent vision, only afferent.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Wrong. I just explained why they ARE a factor on YOUR account. You've just ignored the problem again and merely asserted that it isn't a problem.

I told you why. Light does not travel with the image, so red would not come before blue in the efferent model. As the eyes focus on the object, the corresponding light must be blue. Distance has nothing to do with it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If this is such a big issue to you, find me the quote where I talked to myself, and show me that it said my name and I was responding to myself. I know you want to make me look ridiculous, in order to prop up your argument.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It didn't say your name. Why would it? They weren't your words from some previous post. They were your words from the very reply you were typing when you replied to them.

In this post you typed these words and put them in a quote box attributed to me: "No, you've got it all wrong." You then replied to it saying: "No I don't." Both of these sentences were YOUR words, typed during the SAME REPLY. Here is the post of mine you were replying to. Do you see either of these above quoted sentences ANYWHERE in that post?

I'm not making you look ridiculous. You ARE ridiculous. You started arguing against your own words typed during your own reply. And you're making yourself look even sillier by failing to acknowledge the mistake.

I said that I might have attributed my words to you, but that was an easy mistake to make. I didn't answer to my name, I just put the wrong name next to the wrong quote. So what? Even if they were my words that I typed, and then accidentally put your name next to it, this could easily occur when I'm answering so many questions and so many posts. Why are you belaboring this to such an extent? Do you think that this error makes me incapable of understanding what it is I'm explaining? There has to be a reason why you are doing this.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Absolutely wrong. The distance is nil when one is focused on the object. The corresponding light that is captured by the lens is not the light that has traveled to arrive at the film because of how the eyes work, not how light works. Until you understand how completely different efferent vision is from afferent, you will never grasp why this is not teleportation, and yet we are getting the photons as a mirror image on film or retina.

No, the distance is not nil. There is a very real and actual non-zero distance between the object and the camera. They are not in the same place. They are not in contact. Focus cannot change this real actual distance between them. And the bold sentence directly contradicts your previous answer where in response to a question about the light at the film YOU said: "I answered you. They were traveling to the film right before the photograph was taken." Didn't you just claim to have never changed your position? Not quite true that, was it?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you're missing half of this equation.

You're completely ignoring the problem.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you why. Light does not travel with the image, so red would not come before blue in the efferent model. As the eyes focus on the object, the corresponding light must be blue. Distance has nothing to do with it.

The problem I presented does not involve any image traveling with the light. Nor does it involve any eyes. Yet the distance has everything to do with it. Try again.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said that I might have attributed my words to you, but that was an easy mistake to make. I didn't answer to my name, I just put the wrong name next to the wrong quote. So what? Even if they were my words that I typed, and then accidentally put your name next to it, this could easily occur when I'm answering so many questions and so many posts. Why are you belaboring this to such an extent? Do you think that this error makes me incapable of understanding what it is I'm explaining? There has to be a reason why you are doing this.

The point isn't just that you misattributed your own words to me. It's that you then proceeded to argue against those words which you yourself had just typed during that very same reply. (I will drop this as soon as you acknowledge what you did.)

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Stop weaselling, and address the problem:

Is there any part of this which you disagree with?

What is your solution to this problem?

What is your solution to this problem?

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm also going to return to my earlier two sets of questions...

Your present answer to this appears to be that these blue-wavelength photons hitting the blue object do indeed bounce off the surface and travel away from it. Is that correct?

Your present answers here would seem to be that these photons did indeed exist before the photograph was taken and were then traveling between the ball and the camera. Is that correct?

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Fizeau–Foucault apparatus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Century old experiment using mirrors that has been repeated countless times.

What does this have to do with negating efferent vision LadyShea? Where does it show that light at the film is red (due to travel time) when the object itself has turned blue?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You've never argued for your position. You've only ever asserted it. And your position is constantly changing. But because you mostly have no idea what you're saying, you don't realize when you've begun to say something different. Plus you tend to forget what you've previously said.

Not true in the slightest. It will continue to be an assertion until more testing is done to prove that the brain looks out, through the eyes. But the model is tenable. My position isn't changing. I am trying to understand where you are having an issue, so I can show you where the problem is in your thinking.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There might be confusion as to how this model is tenable, but that is a communication problem.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, there is confusion on that - on your part. Your confusion is that you wrongly think that you have a tenable model. You don't. And your communication problem is that you don't know how to use words.

Now you are getting into unnecessary belittling. I'm not interested in further communication if this is the direction you plan on going.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But the model is tenable.

No it isn't (and I've shown you why).

Originally Posted by peacegirl

My position isn't changing.

Yes it is (and I've shown you where).

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am trying to understand where you are having an issue, so I can show you where the problem is in your thinking.

Have you considered the possibility that the problem may be in your thinking (or even that of Lessans)?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What does this have to do with negating efferent vision LadyShea?

You asked Vivisectus for lab results regarding travel time from a mirror to the eye

The travel time is so fast at short distances like found on Earth as to not be noticeable to us, but it can be measured with sensitive enough timers.

[LadyShea]

Bump

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But light doesn't work the way you are positing it to work.

I want you to tell me what you think light does when it encounters a leaf, when there are no lenses around.

Please answer without mentioning vision, lenses, retinas, or the brain, as I have asked you to do for months. Only light and leaf. If you have no idea how light behaves when it is not being seen or photographed, you can't possibly hope to understand or refute objections regarding how you have it behaving in your model.

[Vivisectus]

Here is one of the older and simpler tests, since you wanted lab results. Lifted from http://skullsinthestars.com/2008/03/...peed-of-light/

The work of Hippolyte Fizeau (1819-1896), who in 1849 designed a new technique to measure the speed of light. In essence, it is a reimagining of Galileo’s unsuccessful experiment, and is illustrated schematically below:




Light leaves a source, is reflected off of a partially reflecting mirror, and illuminates the spokes of a rapidly rotating toothed wheel. The teeth of the wheel break the light up into ‘pulses’, each of which travel to a distant mountaintop and are reflected by a mirror there. If the pulse returns while a gap in the teeth is present, the pulse passes through and reaches the eye of the observer. Knowing the distance to the mountain, the number of teeth on the wheel and the frequency of rotation at which the returning pulse reaches the eye, one can accurately measure the speed of light.

Fizeau’s results were published in Comp. Rend. Acad. Sci. (Paris) 29 (1849), 90-92. (This reference was extremely hard to pin down, and I’m going to reprint it and a translation in its entirety in another blog post.) How is this an improvement over Galileo’s mountain to mountain experiment? To quote from (a Babelfish-translation of) Fizeau’s own words,

When a disc turns in its plan around the centre of face with a great speed, one can consider the time employed by a point of the circumference to traverse a very small angular space, 1/1000 of the circumference, for example.

When the number of revolutions is rather large, this time is generally very short; for ten and hundred turns a second, it is only 1/10000 and 1/100000 of second. If the disc is divided has its circumference, with the manner of the toothed wheels, in equal intervals alternatively empty and full, one will have, for the duration of the passage of each interval by the same point of space, the same very-small fractions.

During such short times the light traverses limited enough spaces, 31 kilometers for the first fraction, 3 kilometers for the second.

The fast moving disc takes the place of the slow human reaction time. Supposing the wheel has N teeth, the gaps in the teeth are separated by an angle

.

(Using radians =360 degrees.) The time for a pulse to traverse the distance to the mountain and back again is

.

A bright spot will appear on the observation screen if the disc has rotated to the adjacent gap at exactly the time the pulse returns; the ‘magic’ angular frequency is given by

;

in terms of rotations/second, this becomes:

.

Solving this equation for c gives us

.

What estimate can we get with Fizeau’s results? Fizeau used a disc with 720 teeth. The experiment was done with two posts, one at “a house located at Suresnes, the second on the height of Montmartre, at an approximate distance of 8633 meters.” The first appearance of a luminous point occurred at turns/second. Plugging these numbers into our equation, we get a result of

m/s,

which is roughly 4% off the actual value!

If Efferent vision was correct, this should not work. If not, and if there IS a time delay in what we see, then we have a simple yet effective way of measuring the speed of light, pretty accurately

[Vivisectus]

How many times do I have to repeat myself that focusing means the same thing. It redirects light coming from a point on an object so it hits a corresponding point on the film or retina. But it is not just a light detector which, according to the afferent version, is all that we need because the image is believed to be traveling through space and time, even if the event is no longer present (e.g., Columbus discovering America). Why are you having such a hard time with this unless you have ignored reading my posts?

But focussing cannot mean the same thing, as you admit in this sentence without realizing it: it means redirecting light coming from a point on an object so it hits a corresponding point on the film or retina.

The light from the object is not there yet: it will not be until it has crossed the intervening space, which takes time. You say we can see without that delay, and that the light does not carry the information.

The word "focussing" only has meaning in the framework of optics. You just do not realize this, and are using the word without really understanding what it means.

It has nothing to do with teleportation Vivisectus. When the lens is focused on the object it is getting a mirror image. The film or eye is capturing only those photons that are present at the object, which is why the light is the opposite side of the coin, so to speak.

You just admitted that in fact it IS teleportation: the film or eye captures those photons which are present at the object, without requiring those to cross the intervening space. This is pretty much the definition of teleportation.

Lenses cannot be "focussed on an object". Lenses focus light. They do not magically teleport photons.

You are once again arguing against yourself without noticing.

I'd like to see the lab results.

You already have. I have posted some of the simpler ones for your perusal prior to this post.

What word are you talking about? Mirror image?

It is true that you also do not understand what a mirror image is, but I was referring to the word "focussing". Your use of the word shows that you do not understand it.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Your position is so utterly untenable that you cannot help but argue against it, even when you think you are trying to argue for it. It just cannot be done: it is completely irrational.

I am arguing for it, and I've never changed my position. There might be confusion as to how this model is tenable, but that is a communication problem.

I fully realize that is what you think. But your explanations are so nonsensical and contradictory that you are actually doing the reverse. It is just that you do not notice, or ignore that fact.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Fizeau–Foucault apparatus - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Century old experiment using mirrors that has been repeated countless times.

This is why it's useful to check in on this trainwreck once in a while -- to drive another nail into the to keep her squirming.

The link you give is just another breathtaking measure of her boundless chutzpah, willful ignnorance and almost sociopathic dishonesty. This experiment was explained to her in detail, and the explanation came hundreds of pages ago. Among those who explained it to her, over a series of pages, was The Lone Ranger. I, myself, on I reckon at least ten separate occasions, have provided the with this link, which not only discusses the moons of Jupiter, but the experiment to which you link above, under the heading "Fast-flickering lanterns."

Not only has the completely forgotten, or dishonestly chooses to ignore, the LONG discussion with The Lone Ranger and others on the experiment above, she has NEVER responded to the content of the link I am again giving above.

Hey, weasel, if we see in real time, how come it is experimentally confirmed that we see the moons of Jupiter and all other celestial bodies in delayed time? And what about the fast flickering lanterns experiment, which proves conclusively that we see in delayed time right here on earth, the very thing you keep dishonestly asserting has never been shown? Now let's enjoy watching you scamper off again, ignore the fast-flickering lanterns experiment, stick your fingers in your ears, shut your eyes and start babbling, "Nah-nah-nah! Lessans is right, HE HAS TO BE RIGHT!"

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What does this have to do with negating efferent vision LadyShea? Where does it show that light at the film is red (due to travel time) when the object itself has turned blue?

It has to do with negating REAL-TIME SEEING, you idiot, as was patiently explained to you over the course of many pages, hundreds of pages ago in this thread, by The Lone Ranger and your other intellectual and moral superiors. If we saw in REAL TIME, the experiment would NOT WORK, and would not be part of the scientific literature.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bump

How a leaf works without understanding how sight works, which is the claim, is absolutely nuts. You can't learn about efferent vision by studying light alone. That's why you don't get it. Part of your not getting it is your disrespect for me and Lessans.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You asked Vivisectus for lab results regarding travel time from a mirror to the eye

The travel time is so fast at short distances like found on Earth as to not be noticeable to us, but it can be measured with sensitive enough timers.

That's not even what I asked about or referred to LadyShea. I said that the object in reference to the eye or film does not act according to time, although we can learn about distance from full spectrum light that (N) travels. Have you been daydreaming?

[LadyShea]

I gave you lab results for these types of experiments. Are you daydreaming? Did you forget what you actually typed in yourself again?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How a leaf works without understanding how sight works, which is the claim, is absolutely nuts. You can't learn about efferent vision by studying light alone. .

It isn't nuts at all. If you weren't so ignorant you would understand why it is a relevant and important question in the context of your claims here. You have light doing stuff it doesn't do.

That's why you don't get it. Part of your not getting it is your disrespect for me and Lessans

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

You tell me you understand the difference between afferent and efferent, but your questions tell me a different story. No matter how you try to get me to see that there is travel time between photon A and photon B (which there is), you're missing the point because the eye is only meeting the photons at the image point where the photons and object meet.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It isn't nuts at all. If you weren't so ignorant you would understand why it is a relevant and important question in the context of your claims here. You have light doing stuff it doesn't do.

Not true.

[davidm]

*Bump* for the liar.

Originally Posted by davidm

It has to do with negating REAL-TIME SEEING, you idiot, as was patiently explained to you over the course of many pages, hundreds of pages ago in this thread, by The Lone Ranger and your other intellectual and moral superiors. If we saw in REAL TIME, the experiment would NOT WORK, and would not be part of the scientific literature.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You tell me you understand the difference between afferent and efferent, but your questions tell me a different story. No matter how you try to get me to see that there is travel time between photon A and photon B (which there is), you're missing the point because the eye is only meeting the photons at the image point where the photons and object meet.

This moronic claim of yours is understood quite well by everyone. It's wrong. First, it suffers from the fatal flaw that you have not posited a mechanism to explain HOW the eyes meet the photons at the image point, before the photons have arrived at the eye. Except, of course, for your moronic, "Voila, we see!"

But actually that is all irrelevant. You needn't bother positing a mechanism, because the above is disproved empirically. If we saw the way that you imagine in your mind (or what passes for it) then NASA would send craft to Mars and other planets based on real-time seeing, and we would see the moons of Jupiter and other celestial objects in real time. But, we don't. So you are full of shit, and Lessans was a buffoon. So sorry!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not true.

Light photons meet the eye at the image point where the object and photons meet or whatever crazy thing that makes no sense you said? Um, yes, true. Light doesn't do crazy things that make no sense.

[LadyShea]

the eye is only meeting the photons at the image point where the photons and object meet.

The photons are physically existing things with a location, the eyes are physically existing things with a location, the object is a physically existing thing with a location.

You have them all in the same location, somehow, but you insist it's not via anything traveling to "meet" nor is anything teleporting to "meet". So how and where (as in physical location) do they "meet"?