A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

If you extend this knowledge, the light would have to be at the camera because there needs to be a physical interaction for a picture to be developed. Even though he didn't talk about this, that in itself does not mean he thought that the interaction between light and the retina or film was unnecessary. I know you want to believe this so you can finally have a reason to scrap this claim. He didn't believe in magic LadyShea.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

It doesn't conflict.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

I stand by his claim that if the Sun was just turned on we would see it instantly if it meets the requirements, but we would not see each other, or anything else in our immediate environment, until 8 1/2 minutes later. I am not disputing optics. In fact, optics works exactly as described.

[peacegirl]

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?

You are completely ignoring his claim, for if the object has to be within optical range (which is the polar opposite of your account), it becomes a closed system where only the reflected light is necessary for the film to be in range as long as the requirements of brightness and size are met. Remember, if we see the object this means that the nonabsorbed photons are already at the film, as explained in the analogy with the block. The lens is already within the object's field of view. There is no waiting time. I guess I'll have to repeat this another hundred times. P.S. This IS the third option.

[LadyShea]

Requirements for efferent hearing: The sound must be loud enough and close enough for us to hear it, and when these conditions are met, we hear the sound instantly.

All it takes is the sound to meet the requirements of the efferent hearing model (remember, tape recorder work in the same way as the ears), and we will be in auditory range of the object because the sound waves would already be at the ear or recorder.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

"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

Discussing light photons without taking into consideration the main difference between the two models (his being that the object must be present because we are not decoding the light) is the reason why this account seems impossible. It is true that I cannot see light until it has arrived, but we are talking about the function of light in relation to matter. You and Spacemonkey, without realizing it, are going right back to the afferent account every time you talk about the location of the traveling photons, which makes it look impossible for my account to work.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Requirements for efferent hearing: The sound must be loud enough and close enough for us to hear it, and when these conditions are met, we hear the sound instantly.

All it takes is the sound to meet the requirements of the efferent hearing model (remember, tape recorder work in the same way as the ears), and we will be in auditory range of the object because the sound waves would already be at the ear or recorder.

It sounds the same, but there is a major difference. The sound waves do have to travel from point A to point B in order to strike the ear drum since the ears are a sense organ and distance is relevant. This is not a fair analogy. Again, I'm not saying that light isn't traveling. I'm just saying that the eyes function differently than the ears, so you cannot really compare.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you extend this knowledge, the light would have to be at the camera because there needs to be a physical interaction for a picture to be developed.

Huh? That's not an extension of Lessans "knowledge", that's just standard optics. Light has to be physically located on the film for the interaction to occur which produces an image.

You have been unable to resolve how Lessans ideas regarding instant sight with our brains can be applied to cameras, because you are both unable and unwilling to explain how the light gets to the film/sensor or where it came from, yet continue to assert that there is no conflict. You are either lying about that, or you are a moron....which is it?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It sounds the same, but it's not because sound waves have to travel and strike the ear drum since the ears are a sense organ. This is not a fair analogy.

Light has to travel to strike the camera film or sensor because that's how light and cameras work.

It is a perfectly fair analogy using your own words. See how stupid it sounds?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Discussing light photons without taking into consideration the main difference between the two models (his being that the object must be present because we are not decoding the light) is the reason why this account seems impossible.

You can't ignore or handwave away light photons and their location when discussing photography. I am and have been only talking about photography, and your account is impossible for cameras as you keep demonstrating.

[LadyShea]

1. if the object has to be within optical range (which is the polar opposite of your account)

No, it's actually not. Standard optics doesn't say we can see things we cannot see, which is all optical range means.

2. it becomes a closed system where only the reflected light is necessary for the film to be in range as long as the requirements of brightness and size are met.

How is it a "closed" system? What are the parameters and barriers that differentiate it from an open system?

Light photons must be on the camera film or sensor. The film does not look out through the lens, the lens does not do anything except focus received light ONTO the camera film or sensor

3. Remember, if we see the object this means that the nonabsorbed photons are already at the film

Where did they come from and how did they get there?

4. The lens is already within the object's field of view.

Lenses aren't magical, and field of view does not explain light's location. Lenses can't see out, and they can't make light teleport to the film or sensor...so you still have a problem.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bump

Light works the same way it has always worked. The block's size is irrelevant. That's why I keep saying that the only requirements necessary to put the lens or the eye within the object's field of view are brightness and size. That's also why distance and time have no place in this model. As long as the lens is aimed at the object, this creates the closed system I was referring to. It doesn't matter how large or small the block is if the conditions of real time seeing or photography are met.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I stand by his claim that if the Sun was just turned on we would see it instantly if it meets the requirements, but we would not see each other, or anything else in our immediate environment, until 8 1/2 minutes later. I am not disputing optics. In fact, optics works exactly as described.

I didn't say anything about seeing the Sun. I only mentioned photographing it...which you know full well Weasel.

It's noon, and the Sun is turned on right now. We can see it at noon, according to Lessans. The question is, can we photograph the Sun at noon peacegirl? Yes, or no?

[LadyShea]

As long as the lens is aimed at the object, this creates the closed system I was referring to. It doesn't matter how large or small the block is if the conditions of real time seeing or photography are met.

How does a camera lens aimed at a distant object get light photons to the surface of the cameras film or sensor-a requirement of photography- and where do those light photons come from?

Also, you keep saying the "object's field of view"...the object doesn't have such a thing.

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.

Optical range doesn't explain how light is where it hasn't traveled, namely on the camera film or sensor. You are disputing optics, yet again. Why do you keep asserting that you are not disputing what you very clearly are?

I am not disputing optics. In fact, optics works exactly as described.

If that is the case, then light at the camera film or sensor traveled to get there, which takes time. Are you saying you are not disputing this? That makes you a liar.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, it's actually not. Standard optics doesn't say we can see things we cannot see, which is all optical range means.

Right, but optics says that all we need is light. It does not say we need the object.

2. it becomes a closed system where only the reflected light is necessary for the film to be in range as long as the requirements of brightness and size are met.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How is it a "closed" system? What are the parameters and barriers that differentiate it from an open system?

An open system is light + viewer. A closed system is object + light + viewer.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light photons must be on the camera film or sensor. The film does not look out through the lens, the lens does not do anything except focus received light ONTO the camera film of sensor

No, the lens focuses the light but it is aimed at the object. This is the difference between two different [theories]. Present day science believes the lens is aimed at delayed light --- not the actual object --- which produces the photograph. This is the difference between night and day as far as these two concepts are concerned.

3. Remember, if we see the object this means that the nonabsorbed photons are already at the film

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Where did they come from and how did they get there?

I told you that in a closed system the reflected light is still traveling at 186,000 miles a second. What puts the film in optical range is due to the fact that when the lens is aimed at the object, (which means that the ACTUAL object can be seen through the lens), this means that the lens has to be within the range of the nonabsorbed photons or we couldn't see the object through the lens. Do you see how it's a closed system and how we have to work this out in reverse?

4. The lens is already within the object's field of view.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lenses aren't magical, and field of view does not explain light's location. Lenses can't see out, and they can't make light teleport to the film or sensor...so you still have a problem.

I never said lenses are magical. Who is saying that lenses can make light teleport? Is this how far we've come? The only problem is in how I'm explaining it. There is no problem with this model if it's fully understood.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Objects are required to see those objects. If there is no tree, we cannot see the tree. If the light reflecting off the tree is blocked or absorbed, or if it is too dispersed by distance, we cannot see the tree because the light from the tree cannot intersect with our retina . What are you talking about?

If you are referring to galactic distances, where the light travel time delay becomes noticeable, then the object still has to exist somewhere/somewhen in spacetime. But since you used a tree as an example, I assume you are not talking about objects from outside of the Earth.

Bump

[peacegirl]

As long as the lens is aimed at the object, this creates the closed system I was referring to. It doesn't matter how large or small the block is if the conditions of real time seeing or photography are met.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How does a camera lens aimed at a distant object get light photons to the surface of the cameras film or sensor-a requirement of photography- and where do those light photons come from?

Also, you keep saying the "object's field of view"...the object doesn't have such a thing.

I told you in the block example how this occurs. The size of the block is irrelevant in this account. The size of the object is relevant. The other important thing is that the light is bright enough for us to see the object. If it is, then that light has reached the film which is the only way the object can be seen. You are thinking in terms of distance and time, which is going to continue to confuse you and why I will not talk about traveling photons and their location.

I meant to say that the viewer is in the object's field of view.

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.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Optical range doesn't explain how light is where it hasn't traveled, namely on the camera film or sensor. You are disputing optics, yet again. Why do you keep asserting that you are not disputing what you very clearly are?

I'm disputing afferent vision which leads us to the debate over real time or delayed time seeing. The light in photography is the same light in vision, so if my father is right regarding efferent vision, we would get the same photograph in a picture. Refraction, reflection, inverse square law, the speed of light all remain the same.

I am not disputing optics. In fact, optics works exactly as described.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If that is the case, then light at the camera film or sensor traveled to get there, which takes time. Are you saying you are not disputing this? That makes you a liar.

I said that it may take time for an object to be bright enough for THE OBJECT to be seen by the lens of a camera, but once THE OBJECT can be seen because it is bright enough and large enough, this automatically puts the lens in optical range of THE OBJECT. Without the light being at the film, the viewer could not see THE OBJECT. Time is not involved whatsoever if these particular conditions are met. Light is a necessary condition but it alone does nothing to bring the image over space/time to the viewer whereby we would be seeing Columbus discovering America in today's world if only the conditions were such that we were in the right path of the light.

[LadyShea]

Right, but optics says that all we need is light. It does not say we need the object.

Yes, a TV or computer screen demonstrates that we do not need a real tree to see a tree.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

An open system is light + viewer. A closed system is object + light + viewer.

That doesn't sound like differentiation between an open and closed system. Please elaborate.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bump

No LadyShea. That's not the function of light if Lessans is right. In the morning I see it getting light out, so we can see light arriving, but if Lessans is right light does not bring us images (nonabsorbed photons) of the external world in delayed time. It reveals the external world to us in real time. I am talking about objects outside of the Earth as well. Meteors are bits of matter outside of the Earth. We would be seeing these meteors traveling in real time.

[LadyShea]

The light in photography is the same light in vision, so if my father is right regarding efferent vision, we would get the same photograph in a picture. Refraction, reflection, inverse square law, the speed of light all remain the same.

Then you still must explain how light photons from the Sun turned on at noon get to the camera film on Earth at noon without traveling there as per the properties of light and laws of physics.

[LadyShea]

I told you that in a closed system the reflected light is still traveling at 186,000 miles a second. What puts the film in optical range is due to the fact that when the lens is aimed at the object, (which means that the ACTUAL object can be seen through the lens), this means that the lens has to be within the range of the nonabsorbed photons or we couldn't see the object through the lens.

The phrase Optical Range does not account for or explain the location and source of the photons required for photography. Specifically in Lessans "Sun turned on at noon" scenario

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, a TV or computer screen demonstrates that we do not need a real tree to see a tree.

We can see a representation of a tree in real time. I didn't say we have to see a real tree in real time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

An open system is light + viewer. A closed system is object + light + viewer.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That doesn't sound like differentiation between an open and closed system. Please elaborate.

Why don't you explain how you used the term and I'll try to elaborate on that. Even if I didn't use the term in the conventional way, it helped to explain what I was trying to get across.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said that it may take time for an object to be bright enough for THE OBJECT to be seen by the lens of a camera, but once THE OBJECT can be seen because it is bright enough and large enough, this automatically puts the lens in optical range of THE OBJECT. Without the light being at the film, the viewer could not see THE OBJECT. Time is not involved whatsoever if these particular conditions are met. Light is a necessary condition but it alone does nothing to bring the image over space/time to the viewer whereby we would be seeing Columbus discovering America in today's world if only the conditions were such that we were in the right path of the light.

Then you ARE disputing optics and every time you say you are NOT disputing optics you are lying.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The phrase Optical Range does not account for or explain the location and source of the photons required for photography. Specifically in Lessans "Sun turned on at noon" scenario

As long as you talk about the location of the photons, and not the actual object being seen (which is the source of the reflected light), you will be unable to understand why this works.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

added:

Light does a lot of interesting things. I only said that the actual object has to be present in some form. A mirror allows us, by the way the surface reflects the light...

What does light have to do with anything? That's my explanation for vision, not yours! How you've explained vision is that light has to be at the object. So why does the behaviour of light bouncing off a mirror have any bearing on your ridiculous ideas about vision?

Explain - as I asked - how a mirror works without referring to light. Since, according to you, it's should be irrelevant.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As long as you talk about the location of the photons, and not the actual object being seen (which is the source of the reflected light), you will be unable to understand why this works.

The location of photons is a critical factor in photography. You must be able to explain and account for it, or your model is indeed impossible and absolutely does not work.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Because you were changing the properties of light. Only now you realize how absurd it was to claim brightness can be somewhere where light has not reached, so you are backtracking from what you said.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your entire argument is that it is impossible for light to be where it hasn't traveled...

Yes, and it is an excellent argument - and one that you have completely failed to address.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...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 opposite of afferent is light coming out of the eyes and traveling towards objects. What you mean by 'the opposite of afferent' seems to be simply ignoring the problem and refusing to address it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...the requirements necessary for sight or photography DO allow the film or retina to be within optical range.

Stating requirements and conditions still is NOT explanatory. You have no mechanism or explanation for HOW meeting said requirements gets the light where it needs to be.