A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I see light. The light gives us certain kinds of information about the galaxy, but I don't see anything that would be considered matter.

HubbleSite - Picture Album: Hubble Deep Field Image Unveils Myriad Galaxies Back to the Beginning of Time

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You see galaxies. Galaxies are made of matter. Your linked picture is what galaxies look like.

Nope, we're seeing light that comes from galaxies. We're not seeing matter.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I haven't. You are just in denial so you don't remember.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You don't have any proofs of real-time vision. You don't have any evidence at all. You can't even explain it without contradicting yourself and saying ridiculous things about light.

I'm not contradicting myself. That's what you want to believe because you're not following the reasoning, and you don't want to follow it. You haven't even tried.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not say that Dragar. I have said all along that light has to be interacting with the film or it can't cause a chemical reaction.

Originally Posted by Dragar

You did say it! Here it is again:

That's true, but that's not the same thing as the first comment. Light does have to be interacting with the film or it can't cause a chemical reaction. You just don't understand how this is possible without light reaching Earth first. That's the difference between the efferent and afferent positions.

Originally Posted by Dragar

And obviously the light can't interact with the film if the light isn't on Earth. With the film. Light can't magically reach across the solar system and tweak atoms in the film.

Do you want me to go find the post # so you can check for yourself?

There is no magic here Dragar. If light is a condition of sight, we are not waiting for light to reach us because THERE IS NOTHING IN THE LIGHT THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO SEE. There would be no nonabsorbed photons interacting with the film. We're not talking about reaching across the solar system and tweaking atoms in the film. We are looking at this from a completely different mechanism, which no one seems to be getting.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because I have addressed your post (I said A in your multiple choice), but you have not addressed my account whatsoever.

Actually, you didn't say A at all. But now that you have we can keep working backwards to see if this option works for you. Unfortunately it does not, as this option is not compatible with real-time vision.

You have chosen the option of having the light at the film be light that got there by traveling from the Sun. That takes 8 minutes. So either the light must have left the Sun 8 minutes ago in order to now be arriving (which is impossible because the Sun was not switched on to emit photons 8min ago), or this light will arrive 8 minutes AFTER the Sun has been ignited, rendering a real-time photographic image of the newly igniting Sun impossible.

Do you agree that option A doesn't work? If not, please address the above problem. If so, please return to select a different option.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no magic here Dragar. If light is a condition of sight, we are not waiting for light to reach us because THERE IS NOTHING IN THE LIGHT THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO SEE.

Light is all that we see! Remember how you Googled how mirrors work, because you're the only person on earth who doesn't know how they work, and you've several times copy-pasted the correct explanation, which contradicts you and Lessans?

There would be no nonabsorbed photons interacting with the film. We're not talking about reaching across the solar system and tweaking atoms in the film. We are looking at this from a completely different mechanism, which no one seems to be getting at all.

So now you are RETRACTING your claim that the light is instantly at the eye or the film , on the grounds that it does not need to be? But you've just spent about a thousand pages telling us that the light is instantly at the eye, even though it takes eight minutes to get there!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As if that is an explanation. Could it be you don't have an answer?

I gave you a detailed explanation too, and have linked you back to it twice already. You have completely ignored it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nope, we're seeing light that comes from galaxies. We're not seeing matter.

Then you are not seeing matter when you look at your own sofa either. You are only seeing light that has traveled from it to your eyes. What do you think the actual galaxies themselves (as opposed to light arriving from them) would look like, if not the Hubble pictures you've been shown?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not contradicting myself. That's what you want to believe because you're not following the reasoning, and you don't want to follow it. You haven't even tried.

You are projecting again. You are the one not making an effort here. And you have repeatedly contradicted yourself on pretty much every single aspect of your own account of photography and vision - the most obvious example being on whether or not the light at the retina traveled to get there.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You aren't making any effort to show how either example can work without time and distance becoming factors. Light cannot be at the eye from a candle or from the Sun before it has had time to get there.

When an object absorbs light, the remaining light is instantly at our eyes for the reasons given. When I say instant I mean instant. If the object can be seen, then the light that serves as a condition, is there already. It allows us to see the real world; it does nothing more. There is no waiting time for the information to be transmitted through space/time, which would show up as plain light, just like when light arrives in the morning. That's what he meant when he said the image is not reflected.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then you are not seeing matter when you look at your own sofa either. You are only seeing light that has traveled from it to your eyes. What do you think the actual galaxies themselves (as opposed to light arriving from them) would look like, if not the Hubble pictures you've been shown?

It would be much more detailed. With powerful telescopes we can see plasma swirling around on the Sun, for example.

Video: Massive Blasts of Plasma Swirl on Sun’s Surface | Science | WIRED

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not contradicting myself. That's what you want to believe because you're not following the reasoning, and you don't want to follow it. You haven't even tried.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are projecting again. You are the one not making an effort here. And you have repeatedly contradicted yourself on pretty much every single aspect of your own account of photography and vision - the most obvious example being on whether or not the light at the retina traveled to get there.

No I haven't, and if you eventually understand this model, you will see that I haven't.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When an object absorbs light, the remaining light is instantly at our eyes for the reasons given. When I say instant I mean instant.

That is a 93 million mile relocation of photons that you have yet to explain. It is also the very definition of teleportation. Plus it flatly contradicts your own multichoice selection of (A) (saying that this light traveled to the film) which you gave me barely half an hour ago.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's true, but that's not the same thing as the first comment. Light does have to be interacting with the film or it can't cause a chemical reaction. You just don't understand how this is possible without light reaching Earth first. That's the difference between the efferent and afferent positions.

That's not a difference between efferent and afferent. That's a difference between photons reaching out magically across the solar system to tweak the atoms without being there, or not.

There would be no nonabsorbed photons interacting with the film.

Then how do the molecules of the film get changed? Because that's why a film changes colour and develops into a photograph - chemistry, from light being absorbed by the atoms. So you're telling me that even though light hasn't yet reached the film, the film will get changed as if light were striking the molecules, and for no reason you can articulate.

That's magic.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It would be much more detailed. With powerful telescopes we can see plasma swirling around on the Sun, for example.

Video: Massive Blasts of Plasma Swirl on Sun’s Surface | Science | WIRED

How silly. You can see more detail in your sofa too using a microscope. Does that mean when you look at it normally you are only seeing light from it rather than the real sofa? How much detail makes the difference between seeing an object and seeing only light from the object, in your view?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No I haven't, and if you eventually understand this model, you will see that I haven't.

But you have indeed contradicted yourself, pretty much constantly. You did it again in your last post. You must be truly delusional not to recognize this. Only half an hour ago you said the light at the film traveled there, yet you just minutes ago told me the light gets from the Sun to the film instantly. An instantaneous 93 million mile relocation is not travel, Peacegirl. Light takes 8min to travel that distance.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sure it can, which is what distinguishes it from a wall.

So why is the pattern of light important? I thought you've been saying for years now that it isn't the pattern of light that is important for seeing...

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Neither light nor its brightness can be anywhere before the light itself has had time to get there.

Because the further away something is, the less intense will be the light arriving from it. Imagine you are at the center of a light bulb, emitting light equally in all directions. Someone now holds a golf ball right up against the bulb, blocking most of your vision. A fairly large proportion of the total light being emitted is hitting the golf ball, as from your perspective the golf ball fills up most of your view. As the golf ball is moved further and further away from you, it appears to get smaller and smaller, filling up less and less space in your field of view. That means, with light being emitted equally in all directions, less and less of the total light being emitted is leaving the bulb in a direction that will still hit the golf ball. This is dispersion. Now imagine you are on the golf ball looking back at the light bulb. Eventually, as the bulb gets further and further away, there will be so little light leaving the bulb and traveling in a direction that will still hit the golf ball, that you will no longer be able to see the bulb. All this is standard optics.

Your analogy doesn't work. You will see a lit candle as soon as the light from the candle has had time to reach your eyes. If the candle is say 10 meters away, this will be 1/29,991,000th of a second after it is lit. That is to say the light could have traveled that distance thirty million times in a second.

But we do not see the candle instantly. We see it after 1/29,991,000th of a second. If the room is say 15 billion times longer than our above 10m room (equivalent to the distance between the Sun and the Earth), it will take 15 billion times longer to see it. That equates to a bit over 8 minutes.

Bump.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

: how can light that is traveling millions of miles not be completely dispersed by the time it has reached us?

What do you mean by "completely dispersed", if you mean disappeared, no, light continues to travel till it is absorbed by an object. The proper instruments can detect one single photon, no matter how far it has traveled, and it will still have the speed c and the frequency that it started with.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because I have addressed your post (I said A in your multiple choice), but you have not addressed my account whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Actually, you didn't say A at all. But now that you have we can keep working backwards to see if this option works for you. Unfortunately it does not, as this option is not compatible with real-time vision.

I said photons travel Spacemonkey. I have worked this backwards and it fits like a glove when you're looking at it from the efferent perspective. What happens is that full spectrum light strikes an object. The object absorbs certain wavelengths which allows the nonabsorbed photons to reveal the object but they don't get reflected, even though full spectrum light travels. The photons are at the eye instantly as long as the object is within our field of view (large enough) and it has enough luminosity, so the only time we can see it is when we're gazing directly at it, for then the conditions of efferent vision are met.

schoolphysics ::Welcome::

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You have chosen the option of having the light at the film be light that got there by traveling from the Sun. That takes 8 minutes.

Wrong. It takes 8 minutes for full spectrum light to get to Earth, but it does not take any time to be at the film if the lens is focusing the nonabsorbed light as it aims the lens at the object.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So either the light must have left the Sun 8 minutes ago in order to now be arriving (which is impossible because the Sun was not switched on to emit photons 8min ago), or this light will arrive 8 minutes AFTER the Sun has been ignited, rendering a real-time photographic image of the newly igniting Sun impossible.

You are right, it will take the Sun 8 minutes AFTER the Sun has been ignited to get to Earth, but this is not what brings information that could give us a way to decode the image in the brain. Don't you understand that the nonabsorbed photons do not get reflected? All the light is doing is striking the object and traveling at the angle of reflection. When we look in the direction of the object, we get a mirror image of the nonabsorbed photons on the film or retina instantly (these photons that provide the mirror image are not being reflected so they are not traveling by definition) because we are already in the field of view of the object IF AND ONLY IF THE ACTUAL OBJECT CAN BE SEEN.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Do you agree that option A doesn't work? If not, please address the above problem. If so, please return to select a different option.

Option A doesn't work if you are thinking in terms of the nonabsorbed photons being reflected through space/time. That is not what's happening Spacemonkey. If you think of it in terms of full spectrum light traveling, striking the object, and leaving behind the remaining light to be revealed when we're looking in that direction, you will begin to understand what I'm talking about. Just remember that as long as the object keeps absorbing light, the nonabsorbed photons will also be there to reveal the object as long as we're in optical range.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't you understand that the nonabsorbed photons do not get reflected?

As long as you live, you'll never understand how stupid you sound when you say shit like this. Why don't you show this sentence to your son, the radiologist? Oh, that's right, he's got too much on his plate to read a single sentence written by his mother, a sentence upon which world peace hangs in the balance!

So, these photons of which you speak are neither absorbed, nor reflected. What happens to them? Be specific, please!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What the fuck? If the candle is 10m away then the Sun is 15 billion times further away! How is that in proportion????

It is in proportion to the space it's in. The proportion of the size of the candle to our eyes is very similar to the proportion of the Sun in relation to our eyes. It just involves a larger visual field (a bigger box, so to speak) and a larger object, but the principle remains the same.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You aren't making We're not talking about actual distance and light traveling.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I am. You're not because you're weaseling.

Sure, you're talking about full spectrum light.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You aren't making We're talking about how the light is at the eye as a mirror image due to the requirements that are necessary for this to occur.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Your stated requirements make no sense without an explanatory mechanism showing how and why these requirements work.

I'm trying to fit it all together for you. Do you see why it took so long for someone to discovery this? It had to come from someone outside of the field.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

As long as you live, you'll never understand how stupid you sound when you say shit like this. Why don't you show this sentence to your son, the radiologist? Oh, that's right, he's got too much on his plate to read a single sentence written by his mother, a sentence upon which world peace hangs in the balance!

So, these photons of which you speak are neither absorbed, nor reflected. What happens to them? Be specific, please!

Exactly, the nonabsorbed photons allow us to see in real time. As full spectrum light strikes the object, some of that light is absorbed which allows us to see the object continually as new light replaces the old. Independent of the object though there will be no nonabsorbed light because this light does not get reflected. These photons disappear with the object because the light is no longer striking it so it can be revealed. To repeat: this light does not travel through space/time; only full spectrum light does that.

[Dragar]

It's incredible how you just make this incoherent nonsense up, and instantly believe it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Light is all that we see! Remember how you Googled how mirrors work, because you're the only person on earth who doesn't know how they work, and you've several times copy-pasted the correct explanation, which contradicts you and Lessans?

It doesn't contradict me at all. If a mirror was out in space, it would work the same way because the principles haven't changed. The object, the mirror, and the viewer would all be within our field of view. Just because the light strikes the mirror and goes off into a different direction doesn't change anything. It just redirects the pattern of light, is all.

There would be no nonabsorbed photons interacting with the film. We're not talking about reaching across the solar system and tweaking atoms in the film. We are looking at this from a completely different mechanism, which no one seems to be getting at all.

Originally Posted by davidm

So now you are RETRACTING your claim that the light is instantly at the eye or the film , on the grounds that it does not need to be?

No I'm not, that's what you're saying because you're dying to make this account untenable. Light is instantly at the eye or film, but not by reaching across the solar system through space/time. You're mixing up these two accounts brilliantly.

Originally Posted by davidm

But you've just spent about a thousand pages telling us that the light is instantly at the eye, even though it takes eight minutes to get there!

And I maintain that, but only under certain conditions is this possible. David you haven't been listening at all to my explanation. You just want to be right at all costs because it threatens your worldview, and who wants to have cognitive/dissonance to deal with?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

To repeat: this light does not travel through space/time; only full spectrum light does that

.
Major change to the properties of light, contrary to your statements that the properties do not change in the efferent model.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Exactly, the nonabsorbed photons allow us to see in real time. As full spectrum light strikes the object, some of that light is absorbed which allows us to see the object continually as new light replaces the old. Independent of the object though there will be no nonabsorbed light because this light does not get reflected. These photons disappear with the object because the light is no longer striking it so it can be revealed. To repeat: this light does not travel through space/time; only full spectrum light does that.

You said "nonabsorbed photons do not get reflected." This means: According to you, there is a class of photons that are not absorbed, but also are not reflected. I am asking: What happens to the photons that are neither absorbed nor reflected?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is instantly at the eye or film

Violation of the laws of physics, contrary to your statements that the violatons do not occur in the efferent model.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

It's incredible how you just make this incoherent nonsense up, and instantly believe it.

It's not nonsense at all. The closer I get to explaining it clearly, the angrier people are going to get. As it has been written:

“To truth only a brief celebration is allowed between the two long
periods during which it is condemned as paradoxical, or
disparaged as trivial.”

Arthur Schopenhauer

Interpretation: Many things we accept today as fact were
ridiculed and opposed in the not so distant past; this goes to
show that just because an idea is unpopular now doesn’t mean it
won’t be unilaterally accepted in the future.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Violation of the laws of physics, contrary to your statements that the violations do not occur in the efferent model.

Nope LadyShea, you are stuck on the word instant. You have not followed the explanation either, not even a smidgeon.