A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

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.

To put it simply, the Sun is as big as more than 1 million Earth masses put together. It is 1,287,000 times bigger than a solitary Earth. The Sun has a diameter of 1,392,000 km (865,000 miles) while the Earth’s diameter is only 12,742 km (7,918 miles). In terms of weight, the Sun is 333,000 times heavier than the Earth and accounts for 98% of all mass in the solar system. Following are some other fun and interesting facts about the Sun.

http://planetfacts.org/how-big-is-th...-to-the-earth/

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.)

There is definitely a third option which is why I don't like your multiple choice. It's unfair since it leaves the third option completely out.

Once again (my head is spinning from having to repeat myself so many times), the block example has no bearing on distance. Whether it's 93 million miles away, or 5 miles away, if the requirements of efferent vision are met (intensity of the light and the size of the object), the eyes or sensor will be within optical range.

[davidm]

If The Moon Were Only One Pixel: a tediously accurate scale model of the solar system.

Scroll continuously to the right, and be astounded at the sheer emptiness of our solar system. Budget lots of time for this exercise. Yeah, that Mars sure is big! Anyone can hit it using any calculation whatever! LOL.

I reiterate, Peacegirl, you are on Ignore with me. I don't read your posts. The only stuff of yours that I read any longer are the quoted scraps I pick up from others. So save your breath. There is no need to reply to my posts, since I don't read your replies. Anyone who still, after all these years being educated by her betters, still insists that science claims that "images" are reflected by objects is too useless to bother with.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

I'm not. Why are you refusing to say what it was you were disagreeing with? Why are you again refusing to be specific?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Calling it a 'closed system' doesn't address the problem or help you in the slightest.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

And I granted you that. The question remaining is where it came from and how it got there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Remember I said we have to work this backwards?

Remember how I explained to you that the next step in working it backwards is to investigate the possible options for where the light at the film/retina could have come from and how it could have gotten there?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Think of the object and the retina inside a box. Light is shining bright such that it reaches the other side of the box.

After traveling the length of the box, yes. Anything else violates physics and optics, and remains just as inexplicable as your present photon problem.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Closed system or no, photons still can't be anywhere they have not traveled to (unless they are emitted there).

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Because you still can't explain it. Photons in a box still have to travel from one end to the other. This still involves both distance and time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't even conceive of what I'm talking about.

That's why I ask you questions about it. That you don't answer shows me that you don't know what you're talking about either.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is definitely a third option which is why I don't like your multiple choice. It's unfair since it leaves the third option completely out.

What is that third option? What option have I supposedly left out?

Your response shows only that you still haven't even read the post explaining this which I've bumped for you at least a dozen times to no response. To quote from that post:

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.

How can there be a third option beyond P and not-P?

[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.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is definitely a third option which is why I don't like your multiple choice. It's unfair since it leaves the third option completely out.

Once again (my head is spinning from having to repeat myself so many times), the block example has no bearing on distance. Whether it's 93 million miles away, or 5 miles away, if the requirements of efferent vision are met (intensity of the light and the size of the object), the eyes or sensor will be within optical range.

"Within optical range" doesn't explain the location of light photons or how they come to be located there. You can repeat it a million times, but it's meaningless to the questions you are being asked

[LadyShea]

Bump

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Also, by the way, where did this "closed system" stuff come from? I used that phrase to describe the spectrography equipment, and explain why the reflected light in the apparatus couldn't escape to travel indefinitely...did you glom onto it thinking I meant something else?

How does your closed system actually work? What does that even mean in the efferent account? You say light "reaches" from one end of the "block" to the other. How big is the block and what defines its size and shape? If light does exist in the whole "closed system" how does it come to fill that space/distance, what is the mechanism? If it's light, it is necessarily traveling, since that is one of its immutable properties. So does it travel the distance from one end to the other?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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...

This is batshit insane. She actually seems to be claiming that the brightness of light can be located somewhere before the light itself gets to be there. Makes you wonder what she thinks brightness is.

[LadyShea]

I am imagining like an atmosphere or halo around and somehow part of the "object", like an aura maybe, but who knows WTF she is talking about.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am imagining like an atmosphere or halo around and somehow part of the "object", like an aura maybe, but who knows WTF she is talking about.

It's possible that someone could take what she posts and make some kind of sense out of it, but it is almost certain that Peacegirl has no idea what she is talking about. I think it all goes back to Lessans description of an object being surrounded by light, as if he were implying that there were a "Halo" of light around an object. It also seems to relate to his comment about Light hanging around the Earth at night just waiting for the "Sun to shine on us again.". I remember reading it in the book, but I am certainly not going to spend time looking for it.

[LadyShea]

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

Okay peacegirl, what is "brightness" if not light and how does it "extend" long distances without traveling?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm not. Why are you refusing to say what it was you were disagreeing with? Why are you again refusing to be specific?

I am being as specific as I can, but the fact remains that being specific would guarantee your rightness. It doesn't. You base everything you have ever believed on the idea that nonabsorbed photons travel (which they do) to the destined target. I will say again that I am not disputing optics. The only thing I'm denying is that what we see involves time. That's all my father referred to. It's up to you to get it right since you are the philosopher who is supposed to question everything.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Calling it a 'closed system' doesn't address the problem or help you in the slightest.

Of course it does, but you can't even see the reason behind it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And I granted you that. The question remaining is where it came from and how it got there.

Same false problem. That's why you are not following the reasoning at all even though you may be trying your hardest.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Remember I said we have to work this backwards?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Remember how I explained to you that the next step in working it backwards is to investigate the possible options for where the light at the film/retina could have come from and how it could have gotten there

Of course, but the options were not complete, therefore you were railroading me into a choice I didn't want to make. You have not worked this very difficult problem backwards. That's why you are having a problem.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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 Spacemonkey

After traveling the length of the box, yes. Anything else violates physics and optics, and remains just as inexplicable as your present photon problem.

I will say again that you are trying to accuse Lessans of something he didn't do. His claim remains as clear and pristine as it has always been. The only problem is that you are trying to make his claim unworthy because everything you start with has to do with photons and nothing to do with the object. This is your mistake Spacemonkey, not Lessans'

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Closed system or no, photons still can't be anywhere they have not traveled to (unless they are emitted there).

It isn't about where the photons are as much as it is about the fact that the object is in view.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Because you still can't explain it. Photons in a box still have to travel from one end to the other. This still involves both distance and time.

Noooo, all they have to do is shine. The problem you are having has to do with the claim of the eyes, which extends to cameras.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't even conceive of what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That's why I ask you questions about it. That you don't answer shows me that you don't know what you're talking about either.

I do, but you are convinced I'm wrong which puts me at a disadvantage.

[LadyShea]

It isn't about where the photons are as much as it is about the fact that the object is in view.

"In view" doesn't explain the location of light photons, which is what you are being asked about. "Where the photons are", specifically in the camera on the film or sensor, is a critical condition of photography.

You can't just handwave the whole issue of light's location away unless you admit you need to change the properties of light and laws of physics for efferent vision to work.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Noooo, all they have to do is shine

[Spacemonkey]

Fix your formatting, Peacegirl. Sheesh!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am being as specific as I can...

No you're not. Liar. You STILL haven't told me what you were supposedly disagreeing with.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...but the fact is being specific does not involve individual photons that travel with the nonaborbed photons (or image) to the target.

The fuck now? Being specific involves telling me specifically what I said that you were disagreeing with. Where did I say anything about photons traveling with photon/images to a target? Are you drunk?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Same false problem.

How is it a false problem - other than being one you refuse to honestly deal with? You can't have photons somewhere they cannot possibly get to.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course, but the options were not complete, therefore you were railroading me into a choice I didn't want to make. You have not worked this very difficult problem backwards. That's why you are having a problem.

I'm not having a problem, and YOU are still refusing to work the problem backwards. How were the options not complete? What option was not included? How can there be a third option beyond P or not-P? Is there no limit to your evasive dishonesty?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It isn't about where the photons are as much as it is about the fact that the object is in view.

No, your problem concerns the photons and how they can be where you need them to be.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Noooo, all they have to do is shine. The problem you are having has to do with the claim of the eyes, which extends to cameras.

I don't have any problem - you do. And photons don't shine! Shining is what OBJECTS do when they emit or reflect traveling photons.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do, but you are convinced I'm wrong which puts me at a disadvantage.

No, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about - as evidenced by your present and quite new nonsense about 'brightness' and 'shining' getting to places where photons have not yet arrived. If you new what you were talking about you wouldn't say such incredibly stupid things, and you would instead be willing and able to answer questions about what you are saying. But instead, you weasel and evade because you know you aren't making any sense.

[peacegirl]

duplicate

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, brightness has to do with the light that is reflected from the object. How long it extends has nothing to do with the claim.

Of course it does. You are trying to claim that brightness can extend to places where light has yet to reach. You know that is silly.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What is that third option? What option have I supposedly left out?

Your response shows only that you still haven't even read the post explaining this which I've bumped for you at least a dozen times to no response. To quote from that post:

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.

How can there be a third option beyond P and not-P?

Bump.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, brightness has to do with the light that is reflected from the object. How long it extends has nothing to do with the claim.

Has to do with the light in what way? And how does it extend any distance without traveling or traversing it? How does the "brightness" or "shine" fill or become present in all areas of the space represented by this "box" or "block"?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The point here is that this brightness that extends to the other side of the box...

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How long it extends has nothing to do with the claim.

[LadyShea]

You base everything you have ever believed on the idea that nonabsorbed photons travel (which they do) to the destined target. I will say again that I am not disputing optics. The only thing I'm denying is that what we see involves time. That's all my father referred to.

Yes, all your father referred to was seeing, which he was clear that the brain sees and the eyes just act as windows. His writing says nothing about photons needing to be at the retina in order to see things.

Your problem here is photography, as cameras require the photons to have traveled to the target, the film or sensor, in order to work. Your father never even considered photography, or how photography might conflict with his idea.

Every time you say a photograph can be taken of the newly ignited Sun at noon, before the light photons from the Sun have reached Earth, you are "disputing" optics.

[peacegirl]

[quote=peacegirl;1191187]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Okay peacegirl, what is "brightness" if not light and how does it "extend" long distances without traveling?

LadyShea, brightness is the intensity of the light. Forget the word extend. I am not changing the properties of light. Light travels, but the function of light is different in a closed system. All it takes is the OBJECT to meet the requirements of the efferent model (remember, cameras work in the same way as the eyes), and we will be in optical range of the object because the light would already be at the film or retina.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Of course it does. You are trying to claim that brightness can extend to places where light has yet to reach. You know that is silly.

No I'm not. I took out that post because the word "extend" is confusing and you'll accuse me of changing the properties of light. Your entire argument is that it is impossible for light to be where it hasn't traveled, but if you think in terms of the opposite of afferent (which you don't seem to be doing because you think it is unimportant), the requirements necessary for sight or photography DO allow the film or retina to be within optical range.

[LadyShea]

All it takes is the OBJECT to meet the requirements of the efferent model (remember, cameras work in the same way as the eyes), and we will be in optical range of the object because the light would already be at the film or retina.

How is the light at the film and where did it come from? Being in optical range does not answer that question at all.

I doubt you are this dense, so you must be weaseling by dishonestly refusing to address the actual issue here.