A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's true, but that's not the same thing as the first comment.

They are the same unless you can explain how in a physical, chemical interaction, such as required for photgraphing, the agents that are interacting (light and surface of film) don't have to be located the same place. On Earth in this example.

Remember, it's a physical interaction just like sexual intercourse or shaking hands is

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Your explanation does not solve, nor even address, the problem of the location of light photons.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

This claim, which you have repeated incessantly, is part of the complex defense mechanisms you have built up to sustain your delusional world. Nobody here is angry at your claims, which are ridiculously false and actually logically contradictory, as I have already shown. The strong responses you get are not because of your claims, but because of you. You are a dishonest weasel, which naturally offends people like us, who are both knowledgeable and honest.

Why don't you run these claims by your radiologist son, and see what he says? Oh, that's right, he's got too much on his plate!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People definitely have said the light would be traveling too fast to be able to see the image. It's not important.

Nobody said that. What was said that the light travel time delay is too small to be noticeable or measurable at very short distances such as found on Earth because light moves too fast to clock it.

[peacegirl]

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.

Originally Posted by davidm

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?

Nothing. Light continues to strike the object which absorbs some of the light. It is assumed that the nonabsorbed photons get reflected, but they don't. That's why time is not involved. Science thinks that just because some of the light energy has been absorbed, the remaining light or partial spectrum now travels all over the universe until it strikes another object. Not!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nobody said that. What was said that the light travel time delay is too small to be noticeable or measurable at very short distances such as found on Earth because light moves too fast to clock it.

That's fine, it still doesn't change anything. It does not negate this very plausible account of sight.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

This claim, which you have repeated incessantly, is part of the complex defense mechanisms you have built up to sustain your delusional world. Nobody here is angry at your claims, which are ridiculously false and actually logically contradictory, as I have already shown. The strong responses you get are not because of your claims, but because of you. You are a dishonest weasel, which naturally offends people like us, who are both knowledgeable and honest.

Why don't you run these claims by your radiologist son, and see what he says? Oh, that's right, he's got too much on his plate!

I will. I have talked to him about this before; it's not like he doesn't know about this claim. If you worked overnight shifts reading people's CT scans and making critical life or death diagnoses, you would have too much on your plate too.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What's your point Angakuk? We see the Sun and it appears the shape of a disc.

So, what does the Sun look like, apart from its shape?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If Lessans is right (which I believe he is), then seeing the Sun when it's first turned on would be as fast as seeing a candle when it's first lit.

This is quite true. In both cases we see the object just as soon as we can see it. That being as soon as the light from the object strikes the retina (plus the the time time it takes for the neurons to make the long and arduous journey along the optic nerve to the brain). You still have not provided any evidence for the claim that all this happens instantly.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Logically speaking, wouldn't the light be so dispersed that there would be no way for the information in the light to show up on the retina?

No, but then you don't care about logic anyway because sometimes it can be wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's the entire debate LadyShea; whether or not the photons have to travel to Earth to be interacting with the film or eye? You think it's a contradiction because you don't understand the physics behind it.

Clearly, neither do you. If you do understand the physics behind efferent vision then you should be able to provide a coherent and non-contradictory description of the physical mechanism that allows it to work. Thus far you have failed to produce anything even resembling a description of the physical mechanism that allows efferent vision to work.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

When you look at the Sun or stars what do you see that would be considered matter? Do you see anything other than light?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

If the "nonabsorbed photons" are not traveling then, by definition, they are not photons.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is instantly at the eye or film, but not by reaching across the solar system through space/time.

How does the light come to be there?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is assumed that the nonabsorbed photons get reflected, but they don't.

In the first place, this is not an assumption. This is an empirically demonstrated fact.

In the second place, what happens to those nonabsorbed photons that don't get reflected?

[thedoc]

I was just sitting on my deck and looked up in the sky and saw an airplane, then I carefully listened and I could hear the sound of the plane. This would put Lessans claim that we always hear the airplane before we see it, as a lie, and completely untrue. If Lessans was wrong about this small thing, he was probably wrong about a lot of other big things.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Science thinks that just because some of the light energy has been absorbed, the remaining light or partial spectrum now travels all over the universe until it strikes another object. Not!

You are proposing new properties of light that have never been observed nor can they be. What happened to no change to the properties of light or optics?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's fine, it still doesn't change anything. It does not negate this very plausible account of sight.

Nope, it just demonstrates your lack of credibility and severe memory problems yet again.

Remember how you got stuck on criticizing the use of levers in experiments with dogs, even though you yourself made it up and there never were any levers?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

There is no non-absorbed light in the Sun ignited at noon scenario. It's all full spectrum, newly emitted sunlight. Does it have to travel to the camera on Earth to take a photograph?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Anything that is similar to a lens works the same way LadyShea. You are now creating a strawman. The principle of a pinhole camera and a camera with a lens works in the same exact way. The object is still in view and the tiny hole focuses the light (because of the object) which shows up on the back of the makeshift camera. It works every single time.

How does a hole in a Quaker Oats box change the properties of light in a way a plant leaf does not?

You say they work the same way, but have failed to explain how lenses work to make light change location instantly. That's a big claim for a piece of glass, or better yet a hole in cardboard

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was referring to a parallel beam. This is an informative sight.

Geometrical Optics

Referring to a parallel beam when, with the candle? Candles do not emit parallel beams. What are you on about?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was referring to a parallel beam. This is an informative sight.

Geometrical Optics

Did anyone actually look at the article, skim through or read it. It's all about traveling light and how it reacts to different materials. It totally refutes Lessans claims about light so I'm sure Peacegirl didn't read it or understand any of it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are proposing new properties of light that have never been observed nor can they be. What happened to no change to the properties of light or optics?

I don't see this account as changing the properties of light. It seems very plausible to me that full spectrum light gets reflected but creates a mirror image of the object on our retina or on film when we're looking in the direction of the object whether through a telescope, a camera, or the naked eye.

I can see that this position is not being received well to the point that I am a laughingstock in here, only to be used for entertainment and to show everyone what a fundie looks like. As long as science believes the light that is not absorbed is reflected over space/time and that this light is transduced into impulses that get decoded in the brain, I won't have a chance. If this view is correct, then let us continue to accept this explanation. I don't want to fight anymore.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Referring to a parallel beam when, with the candle? Candles do not emit parallel beams. What are you on about?

Lasers do, don't they?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is no non-absorbed light in the Sun ignited at noon scenario. It's all full spectrum, newly emitted sunlight. Does it have to travel to the camera on Earth to take a photograph?

All light comes from the Sun LadyShea. You keep asking me the same question. I have said all along that full spectrum light has to strike any object for us to see it or take a photograph of it. You think I'm changing physical laws by saying the light doesn't have to be here to interact with the camera. If light is at the camera, then an interaction takes place. How this happens without light having to travel to Earth IS explained. This mirror image of the object IS doing the interacting. But this will never be accepted as long as it is believed that the nonabsorbed photons bounce and travel. I know it doesn't make any sense to you, but I am not convinced that science's logic is correct.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

You obviously haven't worked it backwards, as what you are saying now is inconsistent with your selection of option A. This option was for the photons at the film or retina to be traveling photons that got there by traveling from the Sun. Blabbing about reflection and absorption is also completely irrelevant in this scenario, for there is no reflection or absorption going on.

You've also been through this failed attempt at a resolution about a dozen times before. Each time you revert to claiming that non-absorbed photons are not reflected, we press you to explain what happens to them instead, and you eventually admit that you never meant to deny that they are reflected but meant only that they don't bring the information to the eye.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

You are wrong. ALL light, full spectrum or otherwise, takes 8 minutes to travel 93 million miles. Your selection of option A was to have the light at the film travel there from the Sun. That takes 8min. If it gets there any faster, it cannot be traveling there, meaning you have selected the wrong option.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

No-one is asking you anything about information. You said that the light which needs to be at the film or retina on Earth got there by traveling. But no traveling light from the newly ignited Sun can travel there until 8min after the Sun has been ignited. So either the newly ignited Sun cannot be seen until 8min after it has been ignited, or you have selected the wrong option.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Here you are straight-out contradicting your previous selection of option A by denying that the photons at the retina or film traveled to get there. Option A was to say that they were traveling photons. Here you insist that they are NOT traveling photons. How can you do things like this and then still insist that you are not contradicting yourself?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Option A doesn't work for you at all, and you have explicitly rejected it in this post. You are also not thinking through the things that you are saying. For instance, WHERE is this 'left behind' light you mention? You describe it as if it hits the object, is not absorbed, and just sits there floating at the surface of the object waiting for someone to look at it, and then magically relocates itself across millions of miles of intervening space to be at the retina of anyone who happens to look in that direction. That is crazy talk. But no doubt you will deny you meant anything of the sort, yet will be completely unable to explain what you really meant - because you are obviously just making this crap up as you go along.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

You have no principle to explain real-time vision in either the candle or the Sun scenario. With a candle ten meters away, you will see it one-thirty-millionth of a second after it is ignited. In proportion, you will see the 93-million-mile-distant newly ignited Sun 8min after it has been ignited.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sure, you're talking about full spectrum light.

Nope. I'm just talking about whatever light it is that you say is at the film or retina. And you are weaseling because you cannot address the problem.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm trying to fit it all together for you.

No you're not. You're deliberately avoiding the problem.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see this account as changing the properties of light.

And yet it does. Every time you say that non-absorbed photons are not reflected you are changing the properties of light. Every time you say that the light at the film or retina gets there instantly and without traveling you are changing the properties of light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It seems very plausible to me that full spectrum light gets reflected but creates a mirror image of the object on our retina or on film when we're looking in the direction of the object whether through a telescope, a camera, or the naked eye.

And yet it isn't plausible at all. For instance, how can the full spectrum be reflected from an object that is absorbing (i.e. using up) some of that spectrum? And how can reflected full spectrum light create anything at the film or retina before it has had time to travel there?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All light comes from the Sun LadyShea.

Um, no it doesn't. Not even close.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep asking me the same question.

And you keep right on weaseling whenever it is asked.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have said all along that full spectrum light has to strike any object for us to see it or take a photograph of it.

It also has to strike the camera film. You need it to be there before it could possibly get there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If light is at the camera, then an interaction takes place. How this happens without light having to travel to Earth IS explained.

Nope. Not by you. Not anywhere in this thread. Not anywhere in your decade-long internet-based crusade against reality.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This mirror image of the object IS doing the interacting.

You and your magical 'mirror images', lol. Is this 'mirror image' composed of light? Where did it come from and how did it get to the camera film?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But this will never be accepted as long as it is believed that the nonabsorbed photons bounce and travel.

There is nothing else they could possibly do. They are not absorbed, so they cannot cease to exist. They can't stay there, because all photons must be traveling. And they can't keep going in the same direction because there is an object in the way.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not contradicting myself...

Are you sure about that? Take a look at this:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've never denied that light travels...

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...these photons that provide the mirror image are not being reflected so they are not traveling...

[Spacemonkey]

FFS, there never even was any 'option A'. They are numbered (i) to (iv).

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.)

BTW, I'm not just asking you to choose an option. I'm asking you to address the reasoning presented in this post. I shouldn't have to bump it 50 times and wait a month for you to even try.