A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you are falsely calling these discoveries assertions based on your limited knowledge and capabilities.

He falsely called his assertions discoveries based only on his own limited knowledge and capabilities, and you have falsely done the same based only on your even more limited knowledge and capabilities.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

He falsely called his assertions discoveries based only on his own limited knowledge and capabilities, and you have falsely done the same based only on your even more limited knowledge and capabilities.

Maybe, maybe not. I never said light doesn't travel and that we can't see light as it strikes our telescopes, but we will never get an image of any bit of matter that is not within our visual range because that's not the function of light. It is to reveal the external world, not to travel with the information in it and arrive in delayed time. You can take it or leave it. May the best man win. Oh, and by the way, I found a thesis on incompatibilism. When more people take this position, it will be much easier for his discovery on determinism and the implications for the betterment of our world to be taken seriously.

Abstract

This essay provides an examination of our perceived capacity to consciously will certain actions.
Several topics are explored, including (but not limited to) conscious will, moral responsibility,
and action causation. I begin by defining the abstract notion of “free will.” What follows is an
analysis of incompatibilism by way of elementary logic. My thesis is that incompatibilism is the
only logical position one can uphold in regards to human freedom. I then explore the two
outcomes this position seems to entail: partial determinism and complete determinism. I shall
also refute the compatibilists attempt to reconcile free will and determinism. Throughout the
discussion I highlight our use of incompatibilism as an explanation of criminal behavior. This
method will illustrate that we already entertain some degree of action causation in explaining
certain types of human behavior. I conclude by addressing the consequences each of these
positions entails concerning the issue of moral responsibility.

http://www.sewanee.edu/philosophy/in...006/Hannon.pdf

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe, maybe not.

There's no 'maybe' involved.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said light doesn't travel...

On the contrary, you've regularly said this of the light at the film or retina.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...but we will never get an image of any bit of matter that is not within our visual range because that's not the function of light.

Yet the Hubble space telescope does precisely that all the time, as we've told you several times.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is to reveal the external world, not to travel with the information in it and arrive in delayed time.

As I've also explained to you several times, going on about whether or not information is in the light remains a complete red herring so long as you continue failing to explain how light can get to be where you need it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can take it or leave it. May the best man win.

You've already lost. You continue to lose every time you refuse to address the problems being explained to you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is reflected, is that better? The light is believed to travel with the information. Stop playing these games with me.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

These are not games. You are saying things about afferent vision that are completely wrong, and you keep reverting to these wrong statements no matter how many times you are corrected. Light travels, and traveling light has properties, such as intensity, direction, and wavelength, which ARE information that can be used to create an image.

That's exactly why optics works. It gives us information at the eye. But it doesn't take light to travel 93 million miles to give us this information when the object (the substance) is within our field of view, not just the light which will give us nothing.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

All photons are traveling photons.

I'm not arguing with this.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are arguing with it every time you state that the photons at the film or retina did not have to travel to get there.

No I'm not, but it's not just photons that are necessary for sight. This is YOUR oversight.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You mean you confused yourself by admitting that time is involved as it obviously must be.

Time is involved if we cannot see an object. That means there's no light. If there is enough light present, we will see the object because we will be in optical range. What is it you're not understanding?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm not seeing how the light at the film or retina can be light that traveled to get there if no time is involved. All travel takes time. Light getting from the Sun to the film in zero time is not travel, but teleportation.

We're not talking about the distance from an object to the Earth. We're talking about the intensity of light that would allow us to see it in real time, which, as I said in the example of seeing the Sun, once we can see it, that object is already in optical range. If light is reflected from an object, and it arrives on Earth, according to you the light would have the information to allow us to see the object in delayed time. But if it shows up as the full spectrum, then what Spacemonkey? What happens to your theory then?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It traveled, but that's not the issue.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It is very much the issue. If the light at the film or retina previously traveled to get to where it now is, then that means time is involved, and it must have left its source some time ago. That means if these photons came from the Sun and traveled at light speed, then they left the Sun 8min before the Sun began emitting photons. Does that make any sense to you?

Of course it does. I'm not saying that it doesn't take time for light to get here on Earth. All I'm saying is that the photons that would allow us to see the external world don't come from traveling photons. We wouldn't get an image even though light itself has certain properties. Why? Because images don't get reflected. We use those properties to see the real thing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The issue is whether the object is bright enough (which means there are traveling photons) and large enough, for then we will be able to see it. If the object was too far away, it wouldn't be bright enough to be seen because the light hasn't reached us. In the hypothetical example of the Sun, it would have taken less than a nanosecond for the brightness of the Sun to reveal itself, therefore putting the Sun as a mirror image on our photoreceptors as we gaze outward. This is what I mean by working the model backwards. This is not the same thing as light having to travel to Earth first, so this claim still stands whether you understand it or not.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are here contradicting your previous answer. Light cannot travel from the Sun to the film or retina on Earth in less than a nanosecond. And you then flatly deny that the light traveled to Earth just a few sentences after having stated that it did travel to get to where it is.

Maybe I'm not explaining this clearly, so it needs more careful examination. I am still maintaining that if the object itself has enough luminosity, the nonabsorbed photons will be at the eye instantly since we will already be within optical range of the object without any travel time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

More semantic bullshit. You know what I mean, so stop it already!

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Stop saying things you don't mean and I'll stop correcting you on your strawman nonsense.

It's not strawman nonsense, that's just it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The mirror image is there instantly. It reveals the object which does not require any travel time once it meets the requirements, SO THERE IS NO MAGIC, CONTRADICTION, OR TELEPORTATION IN THIS MODEL OF SIGHT!

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You still have contradictions everywhere. Is this mirror image composed of light? Light cannot get from the Sun to the film or retina instantly with no travel time if it is traveling light. What you are describing is teleporting light, whether you admit to it or not. What you are saying meets all the conditions for the definition of teleportation.

No, I'm not describing teleporting light Spacemonkey. If you put the brightness of the object in combination with its size, that light will be revealing the object because the nonabsorbed photons are not traveling. They are being replaced by new photons which continue to travel but the image that allows us to see the object does not travel. We will be able to see the object as long as it remains within our optical range as it continues to absorb the partial spectrum.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is where your reasoning has gone south. If there is nothing in the light because the object that reflected it is gone (and therefore there is no image to be decoded), then this discredits the afferent model right there.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You misunderstand me. I am not agreeing that light has no information that can be used to create an image. We know light does contain such information, for this is exactly how photography works. My point is rather that your denial of this fact remains irrelevant to the matter at hand, for even if you were right about information, it wouldn't help you in the slightest in explaining how light could get to be where you need it in your model.

Because distance is not a factor, as I said many times. An object (real substance, not just light) could be so large that it could be in optical range. Maybe we would see a tiny dot because it's so far away, but we would see it in real time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Spacemonkey, distance is not a factor. Time is not a factor either. Distance does matter when light is traveling from A to B...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So how did the light at the film on Earth (B) get there without having traveled there from the Sun (A)?

You're still believing that light brings the information to Earth. The light has to be reflected off of an object whether it's on Earth or in space, for us to be able to see. But again, the actual image is not being reflected. We can't see this by looking at mirrors. We can only come to this conclusion by the example he gave regarding the Sun. That's why you cannot talk about traveling photons as bringing the information. I already said that the full spectrum travels and is constantly being replaced. The issue here is that the nonabsorbed photons that allow us to see in real time do not travel from A to B.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...but if the information is not traveling in the light, then it follows that we aren't looking to the light to bring us anything other than a reflection of what's out there. The mirror image shows up on the retina or film instantly because we're already in optical range when the object is in our field of view. We're not waiting for light to arrive. I know you don't get this, but it doesn't cause any violations of the laws of physics.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But it does cause violations of physics. That is why you cannot answer my questions. Suppose I accept that there is no information in the light, and that the light is at the film instantly with no time or distance involved. You will still need to explain where this light came from and how it got to be there without time and distance becoming factors. This is what you are failing to do.

Light does travel Spacemonkey but in the efferent model we get nothing from these photons in which to form an image if the object isn't present. Again, you are not looking at this backwards. You are focusing only on traveling photons which will bring us nothing, no image at all. At the very least, think about this instead of giving me the same knee jerk reaction.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because you don't get it doesn't mean I'm weaseling Spacemonkey. And would you please stop calling me a liar?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It is your complete refusal to even respond to my bumped post that makes you a weasel, and it is your denial of being a weasel that makes you a liar.

That's exactly why I will take my time answering you. Calling me names isn't helping the situation, so why don't you try a different strategy for a change. The one you're using obviously isn't working.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's exactly why optics works. It gives us information at the eye. But it doesn't take light to travel 93 million miles to give us this information when the object (the substance) is within our field of view, not just the light which will give us nothing.

The information I just mentioned consists of the properties of the light AT THE RETINA. This light cannot be there without first getting from the Sun to the eye. That DOES involve traveling 93 million miles.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No I'm not, but it's not just photons that are necessary for sight. This is YOUR oversight.

It doesn't matter if more than just light is needed. You still do need light at the retina, and you still can't explain where it comes from or how it gets there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We're not talking about the distance from an object to the Earth. We're talking about the intensity of light that would allow us to see it in real time, which, as I said in the example of seeing the Sun, once we can see it, that object is already in optical range. If light is reflected from an object, and it arrives on Earth, according to you the light would have the information to allow us to see the object in delayed time. But if it shows up as the full spectrum, then what Spacemonkey? What happens to your theory then?

Light is not reflected in the newly ignited Sun example. The Sun emits light. It does not reflect it. It makes no difference whether the arriving light is full or partial spectrum at the moment. Whatever it is, it still cannot get to the retina or film on Earth until 8min after the Sun is first ignited, because that is how long it will take the first emitted photons to get from the Sun to the eye or film.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course it does.

How? How can it make sense for photons to be leaving the surface of the Sun 8min BEFORE the Sun begins to emit any photons????

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not saying that it doesn't take time for light to get here on Earth.

Yes you are. You are saying that the photons will be at the film/retina on Earth instantly, which is 8min before they can get there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I'm saying is that the photons that would allow us to see the external world don't come from traveling photons.

ALL PHOTONS ARE TRAVELING PHOTONS. There is no other kind of photons.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We wouldn't get an image even though light itself has certain properties. Why? Because images don't get reflected. We use those properties to see the real thing.

No-one says that images get reflected. Only light gets reflected.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe I'm not explaining this clearly, so it needs more careful examination. I am still maintaining that if the object itself has enough luminosity, the nonabsorbed photons will be at the eye instantly since we will already be within optical range of the object without any travel time.

That is still 8min before those photons can get there from the Sun without teleporting. So where do they come from and how do they get there?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not strawman nonsense, that's just it.

But it is. Every time you speak of traveling images you are reverting to your father's strawman.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I'm not describing teleporting light Spacemonkey.

Yes, you are. Light from the Sun which is at the film or retina instantly with no travel time is TELEPORTING light, by definition.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you put the brightness of the object in combination with its size, that light will be revealing the object because the nonabsorbed photons are not traveling.

ALL LIGHT TRAVELS, remember?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They are being replaced by new photons which continue to travel but the image that allows us to see the object does not travel.

There's your traveling images strawman again.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're still believing that light brings the information to Earth.

No, I'm not. As I just explained to you, whether or not information is in the light is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the present point. You just said that distance doesn't matter, and would only matter if light were traveling from the Sun to the eye. So how does light get to the eye without traveling there from the Sun?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We can only come to this conclusion by the example he gave regarding the Sun.

That's the example I'm asking you to address.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why you cannot talk about traveling photons as bringing the information.

I'm not. I'm simply asking you about the photons you need to have at the retina. Where did they come from and how did they get there?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already said that the full spectrum travels and is constantly being replaced.

And yet none of that spectrum can get to the film or retina on Earth until 8min after the Sun is ignited.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The issue here is that the nonabsorbed photons that allow us to see in real time do not travel from A to B.

Is that because these photons are not at B (the film/retina)? Or because they traveled from somewhere other than A (the Sun)? Or is it because they are non-traveling photons?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light does travel Spacemonkey but in the efferent model we get nothing from these photons in which to form an image if the object isn't present. Again, you are not looking at this backwards. You are focusing only on traveling photons which will bring us nothing, no image at all.

Again, even if the photons bring nothing at all, you still need them to be at the film or retina, and you still can't explain where they come from or how they get there.

[LadyShea]

Behold, the lens! Not just a piece of transparent material little different than the bottom of a Coke bottle, no sir! Lenses have the power to cause light to relocate instantly to camera film from 93 million miles away!



Oh wait, we know exactly how lenses work, and it can be directly observed and measured.




Okay peacegirl, you have a solar panel and a camera next to each other on Earth. God has decided to demonstrate his existence by turning the Sun off for a day, and then turning it on at noon tomorrow.

You put the camera on a tripod, aimed at the Sun's location, and set the timer on the camera to snap a photo at noon. You have the solar panel hooked to a solar powered clock that will automatically turn on when any of the photocells on the panel are activated by sunlight.

You check both at 1pm. Will there be a photograph on the camera? How much time will have elapsed on the clock hooked to the solar panel?

[thedoc]

Decline and Fall of All
Evil
The Most Important Discovery
of Our Times
Seymour Lessans
Compiled and edited by Janis Rafael

Chapter 4 of the 2011 PDF page 117, 118, 119.

"In fact, if an infant was placed in a soundproof room
that would eliminate the possibility of sense experience which is a
117
prerequisite of sight, even though the eyelids were permanently
removed, he could never have the desire to see. If a newborn infant
was not permitted to have any sense experiences, the brain would
never desire to focus the eyes to look through them at the external
world no matter how much light was present. Consequently, even
though the lids were removed, and even though many colorful objects
were placed in front of the baby, he could never see because the brain
is not looking. Furthermore, and quite revealing, if this infant was
kept alive for fifty years or longer on a steady flow of intravenous
glucose, if possible, without allowing any stimuli to strike the other
four organs of sense, this baby, child, young and middle aged person
would never be able to focus the eyes to see any objects existing in that
room no matter how much light was present or how colorful they
might be because the conditions necessary for sight have been
removed, and there is absolutely nothing in the external world that
travels from an object and impinges on the optic nerve to cause it. We
need light to see, just as other things are a condition of hearing.
Sight takes place for the first time when a sufficient accumulation
of sense experience such as hearing, taste, touch, and smell — these
are doorways in — awakens the brain so that the child can look
through them at what exists around him. He then desires to see the
source of the experience by focusing his eyes, as binoculars. The eyes
are the windows of the brain through which experience is gained not
by what comes in on the waves of light as a result of striking the optic
nerve, but by what is looked at in relation to the afferent experience
of the senses. What is seen through the eyes is an efferent experience.
If a lion roared in that room a newborn baby would hear the sound
and react because this impinges on the eardrum and is then
transmitted to the brain. The same holds true for anything that
makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far
from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve
ending in this organ. The brain records various sounds, tastes,
touches and smells in relation to the objects from which these
experiences are derived, and then looks through the eyes to see these
things that have become familiar as a result of the relation. This
desire is an electric current which turns on or focuses the eyes to see
that which exists — completely independent of man’s perception —
118
in the external world. He doesn’t see these objects because they strike
the optic nerve; he sees them because they are there to be seen. But
in order to look, there must be a desire to see. The child becomes
aware that something will soon follow something else which then
arouses attention, anticipation, and a desire to see the objects of the
relation. Consequently, to include the eyes as one of the senses when
this describes stimuli from the outside world making contact with a
nerve ending is completely erroneous and equivalent to calling a
potato, a fruit. Under no conditions can the eyes be called a sense
organ unless, as in Aristotle’s case, it was the result of an inaccurate
observation that was never corrected."

I would like to know when these tests or experiments were conducted, who conducted them, and the exact conditions. How was the accuracy verified?

[thedoc]

Last evening I was sitting out waiting for a fireworks display, and I looked up in the sky and saw an airplane, but heard nothing. Later I was able to see several more airplanes in the sky, but again heard nothing, and I was able to see them, not the airplane itself, but the light from the flying lights. I seem to remember Lessans or Peacegirl stating that we always hear an airplane before we see it, because the brain must receive some sense stimulus, such as hearing, in order to look for the object, but in all these cases, I saw the airplane but heard nothing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

There's no 'maybe' involved.

That is so obnoxious.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said light doesn't travel...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

On the contrary, you've regularly said this of the light at the film or retina.

It is because the image is not reflected. If you can't get this, this is your lack of capabilities.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...but we will never get an image of any bit of matter that is not within our visual range because that's not the function of light.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yet the Hubble space telescope does precisely that all the time, as we've told you several times.

Who is arguing with this Spacemonkey? Light travels so we will see light, but we won't see an image of THE EXTERNAL WORLD THAT CONTAINS SUBSTANCE.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is to reveal the external world, not to travel with the information in it and arrive in delayed time.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

As I've also explained to you several times, going on about whether or not information is in the light remains a complete red herring so long as you continue failing to explain how light can get to be where you need it.

No red herring here. This just shows me how your mind is completely blocked because it's too painful to hear the truth.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can take it or leave it. May the best man win.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You've already lost. You continue to lose every time you refuse to address the problems being explained to you.

Nope. I'm not lost. I'm enlightened. I hope you join me one day. Getting support is tough considering how long this belief has been entrenched in our psyche. It will take years to excavate.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is so obnoxious.

Maybe, but it's true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is because the image is not reflected. If you can't get this, this is your lack of capabilities.

No-one claims images are reflected. Nor does that explain why you keep denying ever having said things you've said several times.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who is arguing with this Spacemonkey? Light travels so we will see light, but we won't see an image of THE EXTERNAL WORLD THAT CONTAINS SUBSTANCE.

You are arguing with it. You just said that we will not get an image from light of things that are beyond our visual range, yet that is exactly what Hubble does. We get images of galaxies, which are parts of the external world that contain substance.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No red herring here. This just shows me how your mind is completely blocked because it's too painful to hear the truth.

Blabbing about information is a red herring because our current objection holds regardless of whether or not light contains information.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nope. I'm not lost. I'm enlightened. I hope you join me one day. I need comrades in this fight for truth.

I didn't say you were lost. I said you HAVE lost, and you continue to lose by refusing to address our objections or answer our questions.

[LadyShea]

That is so obnoxious.

Then so is your original comment to me. Why are you such a hypocrite all the time?

It is because the image is not reflected. If you can't get this, this is your lack of capabilities.

Nobody is saying images are reflected, so what exactly is there to "get"?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who is arguing with this Spacemonkey? Light travels so we will see light, but we won't see an image of THE EXTERNAL WORLD THAT CONTAINS SUBSTANCE.

You are arguing it. You said "we will never get an image of any bit of matter that is not within our visual range", which is exactly what the Hubble does and Spacemonkey pointed out to you. The galaxies and nebulae and other images captured by the Hubble are part of the external world and contain substance, but they are not at all within our "visual range"

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then so is your original comment to me. Why are you such a hypocrite all the time?

Nobody is saying images are reflected, so what exactly is there to "get"?

You are arguing it. You said "we will never get an image of any bit of matter that is not within our visual range", which is exactly what the Hubble does and Spacemonkey pointed out to you. The galaxies and nebulae and other images captured by the Hubble are part of the external world and contain substance, but they are not at all within our "visual range"

Seriously, how many times have I said that light can be detected, but an image cannot, because there is nothing in the light to convey this information? By the shape of the galaxy we may glean certain information about the size and shape of the galaxy, but that's not the same thing as what we're talking about.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Noooo LadyShea, what is your problem? Seriously, how many times have I said that light can be seen, but an image of the real world cannot. You are disregarding the point of this thread to make it appear that you know what the hell you're talking about when you don't. This is about arrogance of which you are a poster child because you are putting yourself as some kind of authority when you don't have the capability to do this. But you won't shut up enough to understand why this model works. Please don't respond, which I'm sure you will. It will only be more of the same. You are so in love with yourself that you won't listen to anything I have to say, for who am I in your eyes? I'm sure my response will surprise you, but I'm tired of your charade and I'm tired of having to kowtow to you because of your lack of understanding.

Another ad hom hissyfit that doesn't address the point being made.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then so is your original comment to me. Why are you such a hypocrite all the time?

Nobody is saying images are reflected, so what exactly is there to "get"?

You are arguing it. You said "we will never get an image of any bit of matter that is not within our visual range", which is exactly what the Hubble does and Spacemonkey pointed out to you. The galaxies and nebulae and other images captured by the Hubble are part of the external world and contain substance, but they are not at all within our "visual range"

The Hubble telescope captures light, but it does not capture images that are of a material nature. That's not what light does. Images (you know exactly what I mean when I say this) are not reflected, remember?

[peacegirl]

deleted

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What an easy copout LadyShea. Can't you do better than that? It's very easy to look down a list that philosophy has given you, and name it so you can be off the hook of incomplete or unsound reasoning. You can justify almost anything this way. What a joke this has become.

I'm not LadyShea. Of course this thread is a joke. You can't even be bothered to pay enough attention to work out who you are talking to.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The Hubble telescope captures light, but it does not capture images that are of a material nature. Images are not reflected, remember? I stand by this, and you have not been able to refute it as hard as you are trying since you think I'm an underling. I know you LadyShea. You put yourself on some kind of pedestal where you don't belong. Where does what I claim contradict or negate anything that has been posited on Lessans' behalf?

No-one says that images are reflected, remember? We are saying that Hubble forms images of material objects outside our visual range from nothing but arriving light, which is exactly what you denied to be possible.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We're not talking about the distance from an object to the Earth. We're talking about the intensity of light that would allow us to see it in real time, which, as I said in the example of seeing the Sun, once we can see it, that object is already in optical range. If light is reflected from an object, and it arrives on Earth, according to you the light would have the information to allow us to see the object in delayed time. But if it shows up as the full spectrum, then what Spacemonkey? What happens to your theory then?

It has been demonstrated and explained that light reflected from an object does not arrive as a full spectrum but only a partial spectrum, reflecting the color of the object. Even light directly from the sun is not full spectrum, there are small gaps that allow scientists to determine the chemical makeup of the Sun's surface. Since light does not arrive as a full spectrum, Spacemonkey's theory holds up, and Lessans's fails.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No-one says that images are reflected, remember? We are saying that Hubble forms images of material objects outside our visual range from nothing but arriving light, which is exactly what you denied to be possible.

Hubble picks up light Spacemonkey. That's all it does. It does not pick up images. You are saying, in so many words, that images are reflected even if you aren't using those exact words, so once again you are playing semantic games with me in order to be right at all costs.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm not LadyShea. Of course this thread is a joke. You can't even be bothered to pay enough attention to work out who you are talking to.

Because you all sound the same. It's very easy to mistake one for the other because you all sound alike.

[peacegirl]

oops

[peacegirl]

It is because the image is not reflected. If you can't get this, this is your lack of capabilities.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nobody is saying images are reflected, so what exactly is there to "get"?

You know what I'm saying. There is no information in the light to give us the raw materials we need to form an image. If light strikes objects at an angle (point of reflection), then how would the inverse square law hold up over the course of millions of miles?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are arguing it. You said "we will never get an image of any bit of matter that is not within our visual range", which is exactly what the Hubble does and Spacemonkey pointed out to you. The galaxies and nebulae and other images captured by the Hubble are part of the external world and contain substance, but they are not at all within our "visual range"

Actually, they don't. The images formed on the Hubble are from light (photons) only, just like the Sun's light does at sunrise.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Seriously, how many times have I said that light can be seen, but an image of the real world cannot.

What does that even mean?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The images formed on the Hubble are from light (photons) only, just like the Sun's light does at sunrise.

When we look at or photograph the stars or Sun are we seeing or photographing light, or an "image of the real world"? If light only, how can we see them (photograph them*) in real time, without waiting for the light to reach us, as Lessans explicitly stated? If they are an "image of the real world", then what differentiates them from the Hubble images that are from light photons only?

*your addition, Lessans mentioned nothing of photograpy

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Hubble picks up light Spacemonkey. That's all it does. It does not pick up images.

I thought digital cameras (which is basically what Hubble is) worked exactly the same way as eyes on accounta lenses? If eyes and other cameras "pick up images" in efferent vision, why not the Hubble?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no information in the light to give us the raw materials we need to form an image.

Originally Posted by peacegirl in the very same post:

The images formed on the Hubble are from light (photons) only, just like the Sun's light does at sunrise.