A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They say all we need is light because, according to them, the object is reflecting the image

No, they don't say that. LOL, you still use that tired old strawman after how many years?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

the nonabsorbed photons that reveal said object will be at our eyes or film instantly as our gaze turns in that direction.

You specifically disclaimed this idea last week, now you are back to asserting it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't agree.

What don't you agree with? Are you taking issue with the very definition of the word 'teleport'? Or are you denying that your photons at the film/retina came from the Sun 90 million miles away?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All that is necessary is for light to be surrounding the object...

Nope. Light has to be in contact with the film or retina as well. And as soon as you claim it will be, you then need to explain where it came from and how it got there.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you imagine the object and the viewer as a block (or a closed system), and light is coming from one end of that block such that it reaches the other end (because distance and time are not as important as size and brightness), the viewer would be within optical range even though light has not reached Earth yet.

How is this meant to help? Your closed-system/block still has a 90 million mile real distance between its two ends, and light that gets from one end to the other is still either traveling through that distance or teleporting across it. (These two options are jointly exhaustive by definition, so there can be no third option.)

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Number one, I'm not dishonest Spacemonkey. Number two, you didn't know my father, so stop acting like you know what his thoughts would be.

Number one, yes you are. And number two, are you actually suggesting your father would have wanted you to lie for him?

[Angakuk]

I just want to say how thankful I am that peacegirl has returned from her previous self-imposed exile. My life was circling the drain of existential despair in the absence of her posts. Now that she is back hope and joy have returned as well. There is a totally impersonal intelligent force governing the universe and I thank that impersonal intelligent force that governs the universe for restoring meaning to my life.

May the totally impersonal intelligent force that governs the universe bless peacegirl.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please don't tell me that this is not scientific therefore this excerpt doesn't apply, and please don't tell me that you've already done the investigation.

But it really isn't scientific, and we really have already done the investigation. We have looked into efferent vision and seen that it requires impossible things of light, such as it being in places before it can get there. We have seen that these serious problems cannot be overcome, and that efferent vision's only living proponent will lie and weasel to avoid addressing them.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm trying to be specific...

No, you really aren't. You just posted "Nope, not in the efferent account" without explaining what you were disagreeing with, and even now you have not clarified what you meant.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He never denied that light travels...

Again, YOU do. Every time you claim the light at the film/retina didn't travel there you are denying that all light travels.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...but due to efferent vision the entire theory as to what is going on is turned upside down, literally.

Is this you trying to be specific?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Efferent vision states that if we are within the field of view of the object (I am working the problem backwards which is the only way to understand it)...

No, you are not working it backwards. You simply start by positing what you need, and then STOP there instead of continuing backwards to work out how what you need might possibly be achieved.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...the nonabsorbed photons that reveal said object will be at our eyes or film instantly as our gaze turns in that direction.

Fine. The photons are at the film/retina instantly. Now where did they come from? How did they get from wherever they came from to the film/retina? (This is the next step in working it backwards!)

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We don't have to wait for these nonabsorbed photons to travel to us because there is no time delay involved in this account.

How is the time delay avoided? How can photons change location by 90 million miles in zero time without having traveled or teleported?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have said this countless times in many different ways, but you will not even try to understand what I'm saying.

Of course I'm trying to understand. Asking relevant questions is what one does when one is trying to understand something that doesn't make sense to them. (And refusing to answer such questions is what one does when one knows that what was said doesn't make sense at all.)

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Let's try this another way, Peacegirl. Let's start by assuming that the photons at the film/retina came from the Sun.

Assumption #1: The photons at the film/retina came from the Sun.

Now lets define traveling and teleporting. Traveling is getting from A to B by passing through all intervening points. Teleporting is getting from A to B without passing through all intervening points. Clearly these are jointly exhaustive - if you get from A to B you must do so either by passing through the intervening points or by not passing through them. So...

Conclusion #1: If the photons came from the Sun then they either traveled there or teleported there.

Now you insist that they neither traveled there nor teleported, so we can conclude via modus tollens (If A then B, not B, therefore not A) that these photons cannot have come from the Sun.

Assumption #2: The photons at the film/retina did not travel or teleport there.

Conclusion #2: The photons at the film/retina did not come from the Sun.

So now the million-dollar question: Where the fuck did these photons come from? We can note also that the exact same reasoning as above will still apply for any location other than the Sun - as long as the photons are getting from A to B, they have to either travel there or teleport there - so we can know that...

Conclusion #3: The photons at the film/retina did not get there from anywhere else.

That leaves two remaining possibilities: (i) These photons were always there, i.e. sitting stationary at the film/retina surface; or (ii) They did not previously exist, and instead came into existence at the film/retina. But of course neither of these are plausible either, as photons cannot be stationary, and they do not pop into existence in our eyes or on film. But unless you accept one of these options we are forced to conclude that...

Conclusion #4: Assumption #2 was bollocks.

Basically, what we have proven is that you have only four options for the photons at the film/retina:

(i) Traveling photons.
(ii) Teleporting photons.
(iii) Stationary photons.
(iv) Newly existing photons.

So which is it going to be? (Remember, weaseling and fake-conceding are not honest responses.)

Bump.

[davidm]

Color him unamused: Arthur Schopenhauer, above, has a bone to pick with peacegirl, below.



TRENDS IN CYBERSPACE
Report: If Only Peacegirl Could Understand Motherfucking Modus Tollens, We Could All Stop Posting in This Lame-Ass Thread and Get On With Our So-Called Lives

Famed German pessimist philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer Also Cites Perplexing Failure of Veteran Internet Dumb-Ass to Grasp Aristotle's Law of Non-Contradiction

FREETHOUGHT-FORUM (Internet News Service) -- If only peacegirl could understand motherfucking modus tollens, we could all stop posting in this lame-ass thread and get on with our so-called lives, it was revealed late Saturday.

"The problem with peacegirl is not so much that she fails to understand science, though she clearly does fail to understand it," said the late Arthur Schopenhauer, the famed German pessimist philosopher. "The more basic problem is that she fails to grasp elementary logic."

In her pathetic Internet posts on light and sight, Schopenhauer noted, peacegirl has argued that while it takes light about eight minutes to travel from the sun to earth, the light would nevertheless be instantly on the retina if God turned on the sun at noon. At the same time, Schopenhauer pointed out, she denied that the photons from the sun either traveled to the earth or were teleported there.

"It's pretty fucking elementary," an irritated and slightly drunken Schopenhauer said during an interview in his underground graveyard office, his laptop open to peacegirl's execrable "Revolution in Thought" thread. "Under peacegirl's retarded scenario, if the light came from the sun, and arrived on earth instantly, then it either traveled there instantly through intervening spaces, or was teleported there without traversing space. There is no other logical option. But she claims it did neither. If it did neither, then it did not come from the motherfucking sun. Duh-oh!"

"Light coming instantly from sun, P, implies either travel or teleportation, Q. P implies Q; if not Q, therefore not P. See? Then the light could not have come from the sun after all. Motherfucking modus tollens!"

Schopenhauer quickly cautioned that modus tollens should not be confused with modus ponens, though they are logically related, and it especially should not be confused with the formal fallacy of affirming the consequent, but, "whatever," he added. "Really, who gives a shit? Jesus Christ, why are people wasting time arguing with peacegirl? Why don't you read my goddamned books instead? They're all online! And I'm better than Nietzsche, who basically just stole from me, just like Heidegger stole from both of us."

"God," he went on, "I need a drink. How long have I been dead? This peacegirl piece of work shows why I wrote, hundreds of years ago, that the world would be better off if life had never arisen and it had remained in a crystalline state, like the moon."

Schopenhauer went on to explain that peacegirl's claim that light can be at the eye some eight minutes before the photons reach the eye is also a violation of Aristotle's Law of Non-Contradiction. "But beyond that, it's just fucking unbelievably stupid," he added. "You don't have to be fucking Aristotle or even fucking Einstein to see just how fucking stupid that is."

"Also, I notice that this idiot spent years attributing a ridiculous quote to me that I never said. I don't appreciate it one fucking bit. Her dishonest idiocy is enough to wake the dead, as it has in fact done with me."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, they don't say that. LOL, you still use that tired old strawman after how many years?

Oh my god, all you are doing is deflecting the point of this discussion by telling me that scientists never said that images aren't reflected. Well then tell me how to formulate in words what I'm trying to say other than images are believed to be reflected. This is synonymous with nonabsorbed photons LadyShea. I've been telling you this for how many years?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

the nonabsorbed photons that reveal said object will be at our eyes or film instantly as our gaze turns in that direction.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You specifically disclaimed this idea last week, now you are back to asserting it.

No I did not. I said that light travels, but nonabsorbed light will be at the retina if the object meets the requirements of size and brightness. How many more times will I have to repeat this?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

(Changed properties of light in the efferent account include...) that only white light travels, and reflected light does something else entirely...hangs around objects waiting for us to direct our gaze at it, apparently.

Wrong again. You cannot tell me that nonabsorbed light that has scattered to the point that there is no resolution on the film or eye should be seen? There is no hanging around. The only thing I'm guilty of is not explaining it clearly.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Color him unamused: Arthur Schopenhauer, above, has a bone to pick with peacegirl, below.



TRENDS IN CYBERSPACE
Report: If Only Peacegirl Could Understand Motherfucking Modus Tollens, We Could All Stop Posting in This Lame-Ass Thread and Get On With Our So-Called Lives

Famed German pessimist philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer Also Cites Perplexing Failure of Veteran Internet Dumb-Ass to Grasp Aristotle's Law of Non-Contradiction

FREETHOUGHT-FORUM (Internet News Service) -- If only peacegirl could understand motherfucking modus tollens, we could all stop posting in this lame-ass thread and get on with our so-called lives, it was revealed late Saturday.

"The problem with peacegirl is not so much that she fails to understand science, though she clearly does fail to understand it," said the late Arthur Schopenhauer, the famed German pessimist philosopher. "The more basic problem is that she fails to grasp elementary logic."

In her pathetic Internet posts on light and sight, Schopenhauer noted, peacegirl has argued that while it takes light about eight minutes to travel from the sun to earth, the light would nevertheless be instantly on the retina if God turned on the sun at noon. At the same time, Schopenhauer pointed out, she denied that the photons from the sun either traveled to the earth or were teleported there.

"It's pretty fucking elementary," an irritated and slightly drunken Schopenhauer said during an interview in his underground graveyard office, his laptop open to peacegirl's execrable "Revolution in Thought" thread. "Under peacegirl's retarded scenario, if the light came from the sun, and arrived on earth instantly, then it either traveled there instantly through intervening spaces, or was teleported there without traversing space. There is no other logical option. But she claims it did neither. If it did neither, then it did not come from the motherfucking sun. Duh-oh!"

"Light coming instantly from sun, P, implies either travel or teleportation, Q. P implies Q; if not Q, therefore not P. See? Then the light could not have come from the sun after all. Motherfucking modus tollens!"

Schopenhauer quickly cautioned that modus tollens should not be confused with modus ponens, though they are logically related, and it especially should not be confused with the formal fallacy of affirming the consequent, but, "whatever," he added. "Really, who gives a shit? Jesus Christ, why are people wasting time arguing with peacegirl? Why don't you read my goddamned books instead? They're all online! And I'm better than Nietzsche, who basically just stole from me, just like Heidegger stole from both of us."

"God," he went on, "I need a drink. How long have I been dead? This peacegirl piece of work shows why I wrote, hundreds of years ago, that the world would be better off if life had never arisen and it had remained in a crystalline state, like the moon."

Schopenhauer went on to explain that peacegirl's claim that light can be at the eye some eight minutes before the photons reach the eye is also a violation of Aristotle's Law of Non-Contradiction. "But beyond that, it's just fucking unbelievably stupid," he added. "You don't have to be fucking Aristotle or even fucking Einstein to see just how fucking stupid that is."

"Also, I notice that this idiot spent years attributing a ridiculous quote to me that I never said. I don't appreciate it one fucking bit. Her dishonest idiocy is enough to wake the dead, as it has in fact done with me."

Have you noticed how David has escalated in his vitriol? The minute I get any traction, here he comes with another satire just to make sure no one takes me seriously. He is extremely threatened because he thinks this would negate special relativity, otherwise, why would he waste time here? He left and then he came back. Go figure. Unfortunately, he has failed to even consider how the efferent model works. He is not a scientist in any sense of the word. All he is determined to do is scrap this claim because [he believes] it somehow violates his worldview. He won't even try to look at this claim in an unbiased way. Ironically, this new understanding does not violate any physical laws, which I've said 1000 times. Do you think he's listening? Of course not. Again, I'm not blaming him but I am saddened that he is so determined to ruin it for anyone who has the slightest bit of interest. They would never live it down since he would make them look like idiots for even questioning what this is about. Do you see why no new people come around? It would be suicidal, and no one will do what could hurt them in the long run. That's just human nature. The good news is that beyond this thread, he is impotent to stop this knowledge from coming to light whether it's in our lifetime, 100 years from now, or even 1000. That's a drop in the bucket according to God's timing. While the example regarding the Sun does allow us to see it instantly due to the explanation given, photons are in the process of traveling to earth (which takes 81/2 minutes) whereupon we will be able to see each other. I have to give it to you David, you keep outdoing yourself; your ridiculous spoofs continue to be a hoot even though they're at my expense.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't agree.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What don't you agree with? Are you taking issue with the very definition of the word 'teleport'? Or are you denying that your photons at the film/retina came from the Sun 90 million miles away?

Why are you forgetting the requirements of my account so quickly and so conveniently?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All that is necessary is for light to be surrounding the object...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Nope. Light has to be in contact with the film or retina as well. And as soon as you claim it will be, you then need to explain where it came from and how it got there.

To remind you once again, efferent vision creates a closed system: the object + the viewer = instant sight or photograph. In lieu of the example I gave yesterday, the light has to be at the retina the moment we see the object. Remember I said we have to work this backwards? Think of the object and the retina inside a box. Light is shining bright such that it reaches the other side of the box. The person, as they turn their gaze toward the object, are already within optical range of the object since the nonabsorbed photons have made contact with the eye in this closed system. If the eyes were afferent, there would be no closed system, therefore we would have to wait for the light (the image or nonabsorbed photons) to reach us across a large distance which means we would see in delayed time. But in this model of sight, it does not take photons to travel away from the object across lightyears to be at the eye which you are finding difficulty grasping. You can't even conceive of what I'm talking about. You are in a deep deep groove of misguided thought (which I know you will deny) which I cannot penetrate.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god, all you are doing is deflecting the point of this discussion by telling me that scientists never said that images aren't reflected. Well then tell me how to formulate in words what I'm trying to say other than images are believed to be reflected.

Light is reflected. Just light, only light. You've been told that many times over the years.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is synonymous with nonabsorbed photons LadyShea.

But it isn't synonymous, not even close. You are changing what light is and what light does. You even refuse to use the word reflected, preferring "nonabsorbed" why??

Light travels, at all times
Light consists of quanta of energy called photons
Light has a wavelength
If light meets matter it may be reflected, transmitted, or absorbed

That's it. Why do you have such a hard time with these simple properties?

No I did not. I said that light travels, but nonabsorbed light will be at the retina if the object meets the requirements of size and brightness.

So if light travels, are you saying it travels to the film or retina? If it doesn't travel there, by what mechanism does it come to be "at" it?

Conditions and requirements are not explanations of mechanisms.

How many more times will I have to repeat this?

It doesn't matter how many times you assert it, you are still failing to explain how this is possible given the known properties of light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wrong again. You cannot tell me that nonabsorbed light that has scattered to the point that there is no resolution on the film or eye should be seen?

I have never said that we can see things that we cannot see (which is all you are saying here)

There is no hanging around.

Then what does directing our gaze at it have to do with what light is doing? Why do you say things like this?

the nonabsorbed photons that reveal said object will be at our eyes or film instantly as our gaze turns in that direction.

If you agree that all properties of light are the same in efferent vision, then you agree that reflected light is traveling...correct? So how can it be somewhere else instantly without traveling there?

If you would just admit that the efferent account requires changes to the known principles of optics you could move on to trying to work out a plausible model. Right now you just look particularly ignorant and weaselly. It is you trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, by trying to force light to do things it cannot and does not do, and trying to make cameras some mysterious thing we don't understand the workings of.

[LadyShea]

[quote=peacegirl;1191076]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why are you forgetting the requirements of my account so quickly and so conveniently?

Your requirements and conditions don't explain how light gets from the Sun to camera film on Earth

To remind you once again, efferent vision creates a closed system: the object + the viewer = instant sight or photograph.

That's an assertion, not an explanation of anything. HOW does this happen unless you change the known properties of light?

In lieu of the example I gave yesterday, the light has to be at the retina the moment we see the object.

Great, how does it get there? Remember the simple properties of light, and if you change them, then you admit that efferent vision requires a change to optics and the laws of physics.

Remember I said we have to work this backwards? Think of the object and the retina inside a box. Light is shining bright such that it reaches the other side of the box.

According to optics and physics, it travels from one side of the box to the other. That cannot be instant.

If you are saying that the light has already traveled that distance, and so when we look at it there is light striking the retina because it has traveled there, I agree....that does not work with Lessans Sun on at noon scenario, however.

The person, as they turn their gaze toward the object, are already within optical range of the object since the nonabsorbed photons have made contact with the eye in this closed system.

That makes no sense unless you are saying that light doesn't travel from A to B, but instead comes into spontaneous existence at all locations in your closed system, regardless of how large that "box" is. Is that what you are saying?

Back to Lessans scenario. There is 93 millions miles of space and atmosphere between the newly ignited Sun and the camera on Earth at noon. If the light is traveling that distance, as Lessans said, and will take 8 1/2 minutes to get Earth how is the light also at the other end of the "closed system" (the surface of the camera film) instantly? You have light either teleporting to the camera film or coming into existence on the camera film. Those are the only two options...which is it in your account?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is not true in a closed system? Which of my claims below do you think is "not true"?

1. It would 8 1/2 minutes for light photons from the newly ignited Sun to reach Earth (this is exactly what Lessans said, I am using his own hypothetical)

2. In order to record a photographic image, light photons are required to be located on the surface of camera film or digital sensor.

In the case of film the physical mechanism (which you are lacking) for image creation is a photochemical reaction and for a digital sensor the physical mechanism is a photoelectric reaction (minute details of both processes are readily available)

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What about your own statement "Time and distance do matter in terms of light traveling eight and a half minutes to reach the film". Is that true or not true?

You know according to the efferent model this is not true.

You are only thinking in terms of photons traveling long distances to a destination that contains the information that allows us to see. This is so theoretical it boggles my mind that you think the model I am offering is impossible.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is theoretical? Photography? Not a damn thing theoretical about it. We know exactly how it all works to the smallest detail of the physical process.

But in this account, the physical mechanism which involves both the photochemical and photoelectric reactions (depending on what type of camera is being used) are still occurring.

Originally Posted by "LadyShea

The best you can come up with to explain photography in your account is that we have clues that cameras work like eyes and brains somehow and that lenses and the "field of view" are important but the mechanism by which they actually work is a mystery.

Cameras do work like eyes up to the retina. Everyone knows this. Obviously, cameras don't have brains but the principle remains the same. I also said that the only difference is when we gaze at a faraway object, as long as it meets the conditions of brightness and size, we will see it in real time, and in photography we will get a real time snapshot.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is not true in a closed system? Which of my claims below do you think is "not true"?

1. It would 8 1/2 minutes for light photons from the newly ignited Sun to reach Earth (this is exactly what Lessans said, I am using his own hypothetical)

2. In order to record a photographic image, light photons are required to be located on the surface of camera film or digital sensor.

In the case of film the physical mechanism (which you are lacking) for image creation is a photochemical reaction and for a digital sensor the physical mechanism is a photoelectric reaction (minute details of both processes are readily available)

Just going to ignore this I guess? And you call yourself an honest person?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

NOT TRUE

Your statement, that you made, is now not true? Really?

But in this account, the physical mechanism which involves both the photochemical and photoelectric reactions (depending on what type of camera is being used) are still occurring.

Great! So how does the light get to the camera film? Since you keep saying the properties of light haven't changed, then they must have traveled there, right?

Only you said that once, you said "Time and distance do matter in terms of light traveling eight and a half minutes to reach the film" then you just now said your previous statement is NOT TRUE. That's inconsistent!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Cameras do work like eyes up to the retina. Everyone knows this.

Sure, if you have light traveling and coming in contact with the film/sensor as in the standard model.

Your model does not incorporate traveling light, though. You have been unable to explain how light gets to the film or sensor, specifically in Lessans scenario where light photons have not reached Earth yet.

As I've been saying, even if Lessans was correct that we would be able to see the Sun at noon with our brains looking through our window eyes, there is no way for a camera could take a photograph of the Sun at noon because there are no photons on Earth yet for the film or sensor to use to create a photographic image...again according to Lessans himself.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am trying to tell you that the film or sensor, just like the eyes, will already be within the field of view of the OBJECT, which is not required in the afferent account. That is what creates the closed system I have been referring to. Although the distance between the faraway object and the sensor traverses a large expanse of distance, the efferent model causes the light from the object to be at the sensor or film without travel time as long as the lens is aimed at the object and as long as the object is shining bright enough (it extends to the other side of the box, so to speak, where the sensor is located). This puts the sensor within the object's field of view thereby failing to violate any laws of physics or optics.

That's an assertion, not an explanation of anything. HOW does this happen unless you change the known properties of light?

Great, how does it get there? Remember the simple properties of light, and if you change them, then you admit that efferent vision requires a change to optics and the laws of physics.

I'm not changing the properties of light. Light is traveling all the time. The only difference is that the nonabsorbed photons allow us to see the object only when we're gazing in that direction. When we can no longer see the object because it's too far away, it only means the nonabsorbed photons have dispersed to the point where there is no longer any resolution.

Remember I said we have to work this backwards? Think of the object and the retina inside a box. Light is shining bright such that it reaches the other side of the box.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

According to optics and physics, it travels from one side of the box to the other. That cannot be instant.

It may take time for the object to reach the intensity that would meet the requirements for sight or photography. Obviously, the object would be too dim to be seen. But that's not the point. The point here is that this brightness that extends to the other side of the box, is not the same phenomenon as light having to travel through space/time 81/2 minutes to reach the sensor.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If you are saying that the light has already traveled that distance, and so when we look at it there is light striking the retina because it has traveled there, I agree....that does not work with Lessans Sun on at noon scenario, however.

I'm saying that we're able to see the object in real time, not in delayed time, as long as the conditions are met. Obviously, if the nonabsorbed photons are not intense enough, the object will be too dim to be seen. This is in keeping with optics. Nothing has been violated.

The person, as they turn their gaze toward the object, are already within optical range of the object since the nonabsorbed photons have made contact with the eye in this closed system.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That makes no sense unless you are saying that light doesn't travel from A to B, but instead comes into spontaneous existence at all locations in your closed system, regardless of how large that "box" is. Is that what you are saying?

No LadyShea. Light is continually traveling. There is no teleportation or anything of the sort. It has no bearing on how large the box is as long as the object reflecting the light is such that it meets the requirement. It also means the Sun would have to be so large as to cover a large portion of the solar system, which it does.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Back to Lessans scenario. There is 93 millions miles of space and atmosphere between the newly ignited Sun and the camera on Earth at noon. If the light is traveling that distance, as Lessans said, and will take 8 1/2 minutes to get Earth how is the light also at the other end of the "closed system" (the surface of the camera film) instantly? You have light either teleporting to the camera film or coming into existence on the camera film. Those are the only two options...which is it in your account?

There is a third option LadyShea, which is what I'm trying to explain.

It's only instant if the requirements are met. Nothing is instant if the Sun isn't bright enough, or if it wasn't as large as it is. When these two conditions are put together, along with the fact that we're looking directly at the object through the lens, it follows that in this closed system (based on the efferent account even though we're talking about cameras), we will be within optical range and we will see the object instantly, not have to wait until the light strikes the eye after traversing space and time over millions of miles.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Just going to ignore this I guess? And you call yourself an honest person?

Your statement, that you made, is now not true? Really?

Great! So how does the light get to the camera film? Since you keep saying the properties of light haven't changed, then they must have traveled there, right?

Only you said that once, you said "Time and distance do matter in terms of light traveling eight and a half minutes to reach the film" then you just now said your previous statement is NOT TRUE. That's inconsistent!

Sure, if you have light traveling and coming in contact with the film/sensor as in the standard model.

Your model does not incorporate traveling light, though. You have been unable to explain how light gets to the film or sensor, specifically in Lessans scenario where light photons have not reached Earth yet.

As I've been saying, even if Lessans was correct that we would be able to see the Sun at noon with our brains looking through our window eyes, there is no way for a camera could take a photograph of the Sun at noon because there are no photons on Earth yet for the film or sensor to use to create a photographic image...again according to Lessans himself.

I'll have to come back to this post, but briefly I will say that you are now lying since this comment was never "according to Lessans himself."

[LadyShea]

I am trying to tell you that the film or sensor, just like the eyes, will already be within the field of view of the OBJECT, which is not required in the afferent account.

How does being in the "field of view" explain the location of light photons and how light photons came to be at that location? It doesn't, peacegirl. You are not explaining anything at all. You are just asserting that "field of view" has explanatory power, when all it is really is a way of saying "it can be seen".

The object in Lessans scenario is the newly ignited Sun at noon. Explain how the light photons are on the surface of camera film at noon, rather than 8 1/2 minutes later when they've traveled the distance.

That is what creates the closed system I have been referring to. Although the distance between the faraway object and the sensor traverses a large expanse of distance, the efferent model causes the light from the object to be at the sensor or film without travel time

This violates the laws of physics and requires changes to the properties of light.

as long as the lens is aimed at the object and as long as the object is shining bright enough (it extends to the other side of the box, so to speak, where the sensor is located).

Neither lenses nor field of view can explain how light is located on the surface of camera film or a sensor unless you are changing the properties of light. Are you? How does the light "extend" from one end of the box to the other in your scenario? Does it come into spontaneous existence at all locations within the box? How?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This puts the sensor within the object's field of view thereby failing to violate any laws of physics or optics.

LOL, you haven't said anything that conforms with the laws of physics or optics at all. You've just stated that light is somewhere with no viable physical mechanism for it being there.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'll have to come back to this post, but briefly I will say that you are now lying since this comment was never "according to Lessans himself."

Lessans absolutely said light from the newly ignited Sun would not reach Earth for 8 minutes, even though he said we would see the Sun before the light arrived. If there is no light on Earth to see each other, there is no light on Earth to interact with camera film or sensors

So no, I am not lying.

Originally Posted by Lessans

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.

[LadyShea]

There is a third option LadyShea, which is what I'm trying to explain.

It's only instant if the requirements are met. Nothing is instant if the Sun isn't bright enough, or if it wasn't as large as it is. When these two conditions are put together, along with the fact that we're looking directly at the object through the lens, it follows that in this closed system (based on the efferent account even though we're talking about cameras), we will be within optical range and we will see the object instantly, not have to wait until the light strikes the eye after traversing space and time over millions of miles.

Optical range, lenses, brightness, and largeness do not explain any physical mechanism by which light from the newly ignited Sun can be located on the surface of camera film or a sensor instantly.

Conditions are not mechanisms and have no explanatory power.

The only possible mechanisms are traveling, coming into spontaneous existence, or teleporting.

By the way, is this a new condition?

along with the fact that we're looking directly at the object through the lens

What about a camera on a tripod with a remote control, where nobody is looking at the object through the lens? Still instant?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It also means the Sun would have to be so large as to cover a large portion of the solar system, which it does

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is of a piece with her original "explanation" of why NASA is able to navigate craft to Mars by ignoring Lessans and calculating trajectories by taking into account delayed-time seeing: Mars is so fucking BIG, don't you know, that you can pretty much use any calculation you want and you'll hit it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They say all we need is light because, according to them, the object is reflecting the image

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, they don't say that. LOL, you still use that tired old strawman after how many years?

It is not a strawman. According to scientists, all we need to see is light that has been reflected even if the object is gone. How many more times do we have to go over this? Without nonabsorbed photons there would be no image to be decoded, so whether I say there is no image in the light as it travels through space/time, or the nonabsorbed photons do not travel through space/time apart from the object, you should know what I mean by now. You are purposely trying to confuse the issue.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

the nonabsorbed photons that reveal said object will be at our eyes or film instantly as our gaze turns in that direction.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You specifically disclaimed this idea last week, now you are back to asserting it.

I never disclaimed this.

I clarified this. Light is always traveling LadyShea, but in the efferent account we can only utilize the nonabsorbed photons to see what's out there in the external world when we are gazing at the actual object or event (taking for granted that he is right in his claim).