A revolution in thought - Page 1520

peacegirl · #**37976** 07-09-2014, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not contradicting myself...

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've never denied that light travels...

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Bump.

I retracted that statement. This is more difficult to explain than I ever imagined it would be. I know photons travel Spacemonkey, but the image is not interpreted in the damn light. :fuming:

peacegirl · #**37977** 07-09-2014, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nooooo Spacemonkey, it doesn't work that way. Yes, it takes light to get to Earth 81/2 minutes, but this is not how we use the light to see in real time. It's a different animal altogether, and you're not getting it.

Stop weaseling and address the problem. Here it is again:

Quote:

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. 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.

This is never going to be reconciled in here, so just face it Spacemonkey and move on. :wave:

Dragar · #**37978** 07-09-2014, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are making an assumption that the light being reflected is delayed (which is true), therefore we are seeing a delayed image. :sadcheer:

You told me mirrors work by reflecting a pattern of light. So if the pattern of light hasn't reached the mirror, it can't reflect it. So a mirror can't work in real time. It's your explanation and assumptions, not mine!

Angakuk · #**37979** 07-09-2014, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is only one light, yes, but in relation to whether it is a partial or full spectrum, it is not the same. They are assuming that just because light is absorbed, the nonabsorbed light has to be bouncing off of the object and traveling through space/time. It's such a logical conclusion that for someone to debate this seems absurd.

Again, it is neither an assumption or a logical construct. It is an empircally demonstrated fact. If efferent vision requires the facts regarding the behavior of light to be different, then it requires changes in physical laws describing that behavior.

Not at all Angakuk. We have to follow where this account leads to determine if the laws of physics are violated. And as far as I can see, they aren't.

Your claim is that the nonabsorbed photons do not travel. All photons travel. Therefore, nonabsorbed photons also travel, becaue they are still photons. Your claim that the nonabsorbed photons don't travel violates the known behavior of photons. Therefore, your claim, in order to be true, requires a change in the known physical laws governing the behavior photons. If you can't see that, then you just can't see very far.

Angakuk · #**37980** 07-09-2014, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not true. You believe man's will is free. You can see the speck in my eye but you can't see the pole in yours.

I am pretty certain that I have never taken a position, in this or any other thread, on that question. If you think otherwise, then post a link to where I have taken such a position.

Angakuk · #**37981** 07-09-2014, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the the Sun works in the same way the candle does where luminosity and size matter more than distance and time, we would already be in optical range without the light having to travel 93 million miles.

Seeing the Sun and the candle flame do work the same way. Neither one takes place instantly.

According to your and Lessans' account we see the Sun the instant it is turned on, but we would not see other objects in our vicinity until 81/2 minutes later, after the light from the Sun has had time to reach those objects. If this is were true for the Sun, it would also be true for the candle. We would be able to see the candle flame instantly, but we would not be able to see the candle itself until the light from the flame has had time to reach the candle. Has it been your experience that there is a delay between seeing the candle flame and the candle? Keep in mind that the candle's flame and the candle are two different things and that we can only see the candle after the light from the candle's flame has had time to reach the candle.

peacegirl · #**37982** 07-09-2014, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are making an assumption that the light being reflected is delayed (which is true), therefore we are seeing a delayed image. :sadcheer:

You told me mirrors work by reflecting a pattern of light. So if the pattern of light hasn't reached the mirror, it can't reflect it. So a mirror can't work in real time. It's your explanation and assumptions, not mine!

As I said earlier, time in this so-called closed system would be like the light that travels when someone lights a candle in a normal sized room. If we couldn't see the candle, the light would not be at our photoreceptors, but it is, because we are able to see the lit candle. It works in reverse of the afferent model. We're not waiting for the light. Once again, we're not talking about light traveling 81/2 minutes because we're not decoding images from light that has finally arrived.

peacegirl · #**37983** 07-09-2014, 11:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not true. You believe man's will is free. You can see the speck in my eye but you can't see the pole in yours.

I am pretty certain that I have never taken a position, in this or any other thread, on that question. If you think otherwise, then post a link to where I have taken such a position.

I assumed that this is your belief because most religions state very emphatically that man has free will since God has given them a choice to do evil or not to do evil; to choose life or to choose death.

Angakuk · #**37984** 07-10-2014, 12:00 AM

Perhaps you should avoid making assumptions.

Spacemonkey · #**37985** 07-10-2014, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not contradicting myself...

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've never denied that light travels...

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Bump.

I retracted that statement. This is more difficult to explain than I ever imagined it would be. I know photons travel Spacemonkey, but the image is not interpreted in the damn light. :fuming:

Are the photons at the retina or film traveling photons? If so then vision will be delayed by the amount of time it takes them to arrive at the retina or film. This will be the case even if no image is ever interpreted from the arriving light.

Spacemonkey · #**37986** 07-10-2014, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nooooo Spacemonkey, it doesn't work that way. Yes, it takes light to get to Earth 81/2 minutes, but this is not how we use the light to see in real time. It's a different animal altogether, and you're not getting it.

Stop weaseling and address the problem. Here it is again:

Quote:

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. 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.

This is never going to be reconciled in here, so just face it Spacemonkey and move on. :wave:

More weaseling evasion of the fact that your account doesn't work. You can't address even the simplest of problems.

Spacemonkey · #**37987** 07-10-2014, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

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.

Bump.

thedoc · #**37988** 07-10-2014, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know photons travel Spacemonkey, but the image is not interpreted in the "damn light". :fuming:

You don't know that, you only believe it because your father wrote it. And that should be "reflected light".

thedoc · #**37989** 07-10-2014, 12:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not true. You believe man's will is free. You can see the speck in my eye but you can't see the pole in yours.

I am pretty certain that I have never taken a position, in this or any other thread, on that question. If you think otherwise, then post a link to where I have taken such a position.

I assumed that this is your belief because most religions state very emphatically that man has free will since God has given them a choice to do evil or not to do evil; to choose life or to choose death.

It seems that you assume a lot of things, just as your father assumed that his wild ideas were true.

LadyShea · #**37990** 07-10-2014, 02:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

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! :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?

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

You are saying that, in your model, there is a category of light that is not absorbed but also not reflected and non-traveling.

Even if light is reflected, it still doesn't negate the possibility of seeing in real time due to the mirror image effect which would not involve actual distance (actual distance is interpreted in the brain) because we would already be in optical range.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light with these properties has never been observed in reality, so these are new properties you are talking about. That would be a major change to the properties of light in your model.

If I said photons don't travel, I would be changing the properties of light. So I renig on that, although I still believe, due to the claim of efferent vision, everything works in reverse which does change the function of light. I understand the compelling evidence in favor of afferent vision, but I don't believe this claim has been analyzed to the extent that it should be thrown out by any means.

So now, finally, you retract your claim that non absorbed photons don't travel? What about partial spectrum light?

It doesn't matter that photons travel because his claim that the image is not reflected still means that what we are seeing is not related to distance or time.

His claim that the image is not reflected is meaningless because nobody ever said images are reflected in the first place.

Additionally, there is no reflection at all in the Sun ignited at noon scenario. Only newly emitted, full spectrum light. All of my questions have been in reference to that scenario, because Lessans used it so you should be able to answer questions about it.

peacegirl · #**37991** 07-10-2014, 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the the Sun works in the same way the candle does where luminosity and size matter more than distance and time, we would already be in optical range without the light having to travel 93 million miles.

Seeing the Sun and the candle flame do work the same way. Neither one takes place instantly.

According to your and Lessans' account we see the Sun the instant it is turned on, but we would not see other objects in our vicinity until 81/2 minutes later, after the light from the Sun has had time to reach those objects. If this is were true for the Sun, it would also be true for the candle. We would be able to see the candle flame instantly, but we would not be able to see the candle itself until the light from the flame has had time to reach the candle. Has it been your experience that there is a delay between seeing the candle flame and the candle? Keep in mind that the candle's flame and the candle are two different things and that we can only see the candle after the light from the candle's flame has had time to reach the candle.

I know that Angakuk, but you're not following me at all.

peacegirl · #**37992** 07-10-2014, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

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.

Bump.

That's because you don't respond to me or even care about what I'm saying. You have a one track mind and your questions don't apply to this account. For that reason I will continue to pass over your posts because you falsely think this proves your case. It doesn't. It just shows that you have not understood how or why the efferent account works. I cannot fit your account (traveling photons that take 812 minutes) into my account which you are trying to use to discredit me. As I have said, it would be like trying to fit a square into a hole. Just because my account can't be explained in terms of your account doesn't mean there is anything false about my account. It just means the two accounts don't mix.

LadyShea · #**37993** 07-10-2014, 01:08 PM

Quote:

You have a one track mind and your questions don't apply to this account.

If efferent vision takes place in the real world where there is light, then the questions do apply.

Spacemonkey · #**37994** 07-10-2014, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's because you don't respond to me or even care about what I'm saying.

You're lying again. You know I have responded to you. You are the one not responding to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have a one track mind and your questions don't apply to this account.

Of course they apply. As long as you insist the photons at the film or retina are there instantly, the questions of where they came from and how they got there need to be answered for your account to be at all plausible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

For that reason I will continue to pass over your posts because you falsely think this proves your case.

So you intend to continue dishonestly weaseling out of addressing my reasoning, and deliberately ignoring the problem. Am I supposed to be surprised by that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It just shows that you have not understood how or why the efferent account works.

Neither do you, because it doesn't. You still need light to be somewhere before it can possibly get there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I cannot fit your account (traveling photons that take 812 minutes) into my account which you are trying to use to discredit me.

I'm not asking you to do that. As of your latest answers, it is YOUR account that the photons at the film or retina traveled there. So it is YOUR account alone that remains contradictory and impossible.

LadyShea · #**37995** 07-10-2014, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As I have said, it would be like trying to fit a square into a hole. Just because my account can't be explained in terms of your account doesn't mean there is anything false about my account. It just means the two accounts don't mix.

Again, your account makes specific claims about light, therefore questions about the properties of light, and light's location, and how light comes to be at that location are very relevant questions that need to be addressed. If you don't address them, by weaseling like this, then you have a magical fairy account that does not "mix" with observed reality.

Quote:

It just shows that you have not understood how or why the efferent account works.

It doesn't work unless you can address the issues that arise from your claims about light

Dragar · #**37996** 07-10-2014, 02:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are making an assumption that the light being reflected is delayed (which is true), therefore we are seeing a delayed image. :sadcheer:

You told me mirrors work by reflecting a pattern of light. So if the pattern of light hasn't reached the mirror, it can't reflect it. So a mirror can't work in real time. It's your explanation and assumptions, not mine!

As I said earlier, time in this so-called closed system would be like the light that travels when someone lights a candle in a normal sized room.

Yes, that light takes time to travel from the candle across the room. So as I said, not real time, your mystical usage of the words 'closed system' notwithstanding.

thedoc · #**37997** 07-10-2014, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know that Angakuk, but you're not following me at all.

Most people can follow what you are trying to say, and most understand it. But most also disagree that what you say is correct, and this is where the problem is. You cannot accept that anyone could understand what you say and still disagree, to you Lessans words are obviously true, with nothing further to be said. Unfortunately, for you, his explanations are incomplete and not based on reality, and you have no understanding how to complete them or of the reality on which they should be based.

peacegirl · #**37998** 07-10-2014, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All light comes from the Sun LadyShea.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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

In this galaxy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep asking me the same question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And you keep right on weaseling whenever it is asked.

I've answered it, but you want me to concede which I won't do.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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

But that's not true if you are coming from the efferent account. The light IS there because the actual distance between the object and the viewer is not what matters here. I've said this umpteen times.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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

I have been working hard (you got to give me this) to get you to see the plausibility of this model. Maybe I haven't done a good job, but I have sure hell tried.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This mirror image of the object IS doing the interacting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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?

Of course it's composed of light Spacemonkey. This is not magic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

I'm not disputing any of this.

peacegirl · #**37999** 07-10-2014, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not contradicting myself...

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've never denied that light travels...

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Bump.

I told you that photons travel, but they don't have to travel 81/2 minutes in this account. You see the Sun in the same time frame you would see a candle when it was first lit.

peacegirl · #**38000** 07-10-2014, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nooooo Spacemonkey, it doesn't work that way. Yes, it takes light to get to Earth 81/2 minutes, but this is not how we use the light to see in real time. It's a different animal altogether, and you're not getting it.

Stop weaseling and address the problem. Here it is again:

Quote:

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. 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.

And I'm saying there is a third option, but you won't get it if you don't understand my metaphor of the box. If we are seeing the actual object, it creates a closed system. If we can see the object, it puts us instantly in optical range because the light is already at our eye. But this is only due to the way the eyes and brain work. Obviously light is traveling at 186,000 miles a second, but instead of the photons bringing the image to the eye through space/time (the afferent account), we are seeing the object in real time which does not violate the laws of physics.