A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No-one is overlooking that. It is exactly what the Hubble pictures provide.

Yes they are overlooking it. No one has been able to give me an explanation as to why objects out of the field of view won't show up on film. Hubble pictures are not part of an Earthly experiment. The Hubble pictures have now become a red herring.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Time has already told. You and Lessans are wrong. You claim to see the problem and have absolutely no solution. That means your claims have been refuted. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

You can't explain, even in your own terms and by reference to your own beliefs about how light works, how real-time photography is even possible. And yet you require real-time photography to maintain the possibility of efferent vision.

Can you at least agree that efferent vision/real-time photography are impossible given the assumptions about light and physics you had agreed to in the answers you gave to my questions? And that efferent vision will therefore require rejecting at least some of these basic properties of light and physics?

You've just agreed that you are holding contradictory beliefs in your attempt to maintain belief in efferent vision. Why aren't you interested in resolving those contradictions? Why is it more important to you to continue believing in efferent vision than it is to be logically consistent and avoid false beliefs (contradictory beliefs imply that at least one must be false)?

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I've been asking you to follow through the implications of your own beliefs about light and physics. And so far they show that these beliefs make efferent vision impossible. I've given you all the pieces of the puzzle. So you need to work out which part(s) you need to reject for efferent vision or real-time photography to be possible. If you cannot reconcile efferent vision with your own beliefs about light, then the rational thing to do is to either reject efferent vision or work out which of your beliefs about light are wrong.

The logic of how light works that is causing you trouble is not just mine. It is also yours. You are having trouble due to what you have agreed to about how light works. So if you want to maintain efferent vision, you need to work out how much of this basic science you will have to reject. At the moment you keep trying to agree with as much of the science as you can, only to then run straight into a wall of contradictions. It follows then, that you will have to reject a great deal of the basic science of light for efferent vision to be possible.

My questions and examples do not disagree with the fact that photons are arriving in a constant stream. That is not in question. You still need to follow through on the implications of your own claims to see how efferent vision/real-time photography is completely impossible given what is known about the physics and behaviour of light.

Here are your current answers to my questions. Note that due to the number of times you've reversed yourself on Q4, I currently have no answer to that question:

Feel free to change any of these if you like. But given these answers, you still need to address the following examples. Your previous answer (that nothing bounces off the object and heads towards the camera) is inconsistent with your agreement that this is what defines the color of the object.

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Wuh? If an object is out of range (assuming some sensible definition of that), the standard theory of light predicts we won't be able to get an image on the film.

Why not?

Originally Posted by Dragar

That's not a problem, it's a confirmation of the usual theory. The fact a range exists at all is only explainable by the theory of light.

I thought a lens is a collector of light so if the wavelength that bounces off an object is traveling straight toward the lens, why don't we see the image on film if the object is just out of the field of view?

Originally Posted by Dragar

We can predict (using our knowledge of light) how far away we can see for a given camera setup. It all works. Lessans ideas, on the other hand...

Wuh? A given camera setup doesn't even enter into it. Another red herring.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, are you retracting your agreement that it is the wavelength of light at the film which determines the color of the resulting photographic image, and that this light has arrived there from somewhere else?

If you are retracting this, then what determines the color of the image and where did that thing come from?

If you are not, then did the light have the same or different wavelength properties just before it got to the camera?

Bump.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes they are overlooking it. No one has been able to give me an explanation as to why objects out of the field of view won't show up on film. Hubble pictures are not part of an Earthly experiment. The Hubble pictures have now become a red herring.

Yes, you were given the explanation. Here it is again.

You cannot photograph an object when the apparent size (due to distance) is too small for the camera to resolve. You can correct for the apparent size due to distance using a telephoto lens and or adjusting exposure time.

There is no reason whatsoever for the condition of "Earthly" experiment to be put on this question except so you can deflect and distract. That's YOUR your red herring, not ours.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, you're beginning to upset me. You have no idea what you're talking about, so please don't.

Sure I know what I am talking about.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I've been asking you to follow through the implications of your own beliefs about light and physics. And so far they show that these beliefs make efferent vision impossible. I've given you all the pieces of the puzzle. So you need to work out which part(s) you need to reject for efferent vision or real-time photography to be possible. If you cannot reconcile efferent vision with your own beliefs about light, then the rational thing to do is to either reject efferent vision or work out which of your beliefs about light are wrong.

The logic of how light works that is causing you trouble is not just mine. It is also yours. You are having trouble due to what you have agreed to about how light works. So if you want to maintain efferent vision, you need to work out how much of this basic science you will have to reject. At the moment you keep trying to agree with as much of the science as you can, only to then run straight into a wall of contradictions. It follows then, that you will have to reject a great deal of the basic science of light for efferent vision to be possible.

My questions and examples do not disagree with the fact that photons are arriving in a constant stream. That is not in question. You still need to follow through on the implications of your own claims to see how efferent vision/real-time photography is completely impossible given what is known about the physics and behaviour of light.

Here are your current answers to my questions. Note that due to the number of times you've reversed yourself on Q4, I currently have no answer to that question:

Feel free to change any of these if you like. But given these answers, you still need to address the following examples. Your previous answer (that nothing bounces off the object and heads towards the camera) is inconsistent with your agreement that this is what defines the color of the object.

What defines the color of the object is the object's absorption properties. We have to work backwards in order to understand why there is a no time delay photograph. In other words, if efferent vision is true then there is an instant lightwave from the Source to the lens. There is no travel time, no arriving, no going from point A to point B. I am not saying that light doesn't travel at a finite speed, but when it comes to the relationship between the object and the lens, there is no time delay since the lightwave is at the film the instant the lens focuses on the object.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, given your current answers I have three stories of light for you to consider.

Story 1: The sun emits some light which, along with all the light of other wavelengths, contains red light which travels towards the ball. The ball is red, so (this means) it absorbs all the other light, reflecting only our red light which bounces off and heads towards the camera. The photograph happens to be taken when this red light arrives at the camera, so the shutter opens as the red light arrives and this red light hits the film resulting in a red photograph of the red ball.

Do you have any problems with this story?

Story 2: The sun emits some light which, along with all the light of other wavelengths, contains blue light which travels towards the ball. The ball is blue, so (this means) it absorbs all the other light, reflecting only our blue light which bounces off and heads towards the camera. The photograph happens to be taken when this blue light arrives at the camera, so the shutter opens as the blue light arrives and this blue light hits the film resulting in a blue photograph of the blue ball.

Do you have any problems with this story?

Story 3: The sun emits some light which, along with all the light of other wavelengths, contains red light which travels towards the ball. The ball is red, so (this means) it absorbs all the other light, reflecting only our red light which bounces off and heads towards the camera. However, the ball changes color from red to blue immediately after reflecting this red light towards the camera (and therefore before our red light gets to the camera). So the ball was red when the red light hit it and bounced off towards the camera, but is blue (i.e. has begun absorbing red light and reflecting only blue light) during the time this previously reflected red light is in transit between the ball and the camera. The photograph happens to be taken when this red light arrives at the camera, so the shutter opens as the red light arrives and this red light hits the film resulting in a red photograph of the blue ball.

Where does this story go wrong, according to your version of what is happening?

You have said that:

1. The color of the image is determined by the wavelength of light at the camera.

2. That light has previously travelled to the camera from the object.

3. The wavelength of that light will be determined by the absorptive properties of the object at the time that light struck and bounced off it.

4. The wavelength of that light will also match the absorptive properties of the object at the time that light reaches the camera.

But these claims are inconsistent for any case where the object has different absorptive properties for the earlier time when the light bounced off the object compared to the present time when the photograph is actually taken. Points (3) and (4) are not consistent, and this is a big fat contradiction right in the middle of your account of real-time photography.

I don't see any contradiction if you think in terms of a very short distance between an object and a lens. You are thinking in terms of something being millions of lightyears away and the time it would take to reach the lens, but that's not what's happening if efferent vision is true.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes they are overlooking it.

Nope. You're overlooking the evidence and explanations you've been given.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one has been able to give me an explanation as to why objects out of the field of view won't show up on film.

Field of view concerns simply the angle, not distance, so you are still misusing the term. That things can be in the field of view and yet still too small or far away to show up on film is due to the dispersion of light and the resolution of the camera.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Hubble pictures are not part of an Earthly experiment.

And the experiment has to be an "Earthly" one because...?

The Hubble pics show you exactly what you claim cannot happen. An image can be formed from distant light arriving from objects too far away to be seen.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The Hubble pictures have now become a red herring.

And they are a red herring because...? What? Because they disprove your claims, so you don't want to have to talk about them any more?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thank you.

You are welcome. Just so you know, you are still wrong, about almost everything.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Look, if you all really don't think he has anything valid, then let's be done with this thread. Rickoshay is right. You don't think in terms of maybe. God forbid I have someone that takes my side. You're like a pack of wolves going for the jugular.

If you want to be done with the thread, stop posting in it. It is that simple. I honestly hope that you won't stop posting. I am intensely interested in seeing just how long you can keep this up.

You are right. I don't take either Lessans or you seriously. I don't think Lessans has anything valid or revolutionary to say. Let me remind you that you are the one who came here to promote something. It was pointed out to you, almost from the first page, that if you want people to take what you are promoting seriously, then you need to give them a reason to do so. To quote JoeP

Originally Posted by JoeP

I think the onus is on the poster to distinguish herself from all the woo bathwater out there when diving straight in with the message at a new forum.

To date, after more than 500 pages, you still have not managed to distinguish the product you are pitching from all the other "woo bathwater" out there.

I believe that there is a very good reason for why you have been unable, here and elsewhere, to convince anyone that Lessans' work has any value. It is not about undue skepticism, it is not about resistance to new ideas, it is not about defending the status quo and it is not about a public that is too lazy to do the hard work of reading the book. You have been unable to convince anyone that Lessans' work is of value, simply because it isn't.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wuh? A given camera setup doesn't even enter into it.

OPTICS! Look it up peacegirl, for goodness sake.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes they are overlooking it. No one has been able to give me an explanation as to why objects out of the field of view won't show up on film. Hubble pictures are not part of an Earthly experiment. The Hubble pictures have now become a red herring.

How convenient. Whenever someone provides evidence that disproves one of your claims, you simply declare it to be irrelevant.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Hell, if the majority of people have no real interest, this has truly been a waste of time.

Don't sell yourself short, peacegirl. You are totally discounting the entertainment value of this thread. Your performance thus far has been well worth the price of admission, hardly a waste of time.

Kudos as well to the rest of the troupe (myself included). No vaudevillian ever had the opportunity to work with such a talented and dedicated group of straight men as that which has graced this stage.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Here are your current answers to my questions. Note that due to the number of times you've reversed yourself on Q4, I currently have no answer to that question:

Care to answer Q4, Peacegirl?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What defines the color of the object is the object's absorption properties. I am saying that we have to work backwards. In other words, if efferent vision is true, then there is an instant lightwave from the Source to the lens. I am not saying that light doesn't travel at a finite speed, but when it comes to the relationship between the object and the lens, there is no time delay since the lightwave is at the film the instant the lens focuses on the object.

Yes, light is already there at the camera. But unless that light magically materialized there, it must have previously travelled before arriving. And if it travelled at a finite speed, then that took time. So if it is the wavelength of that light already at the camera which determines the color of the resulting image, and if that wavelength was determined by the absorptive properties of the object back when that light now at the camera earlier bounced off the object without being absorbed, then the object can change color during the travel time of this light such that the resulting image will not be real-time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see any contradiction at all if you think in terms of a very short distance between an object and a lens. You are thinking in terms of objects millions of lightyears away and the time it takes to reach the lens, but that's not what's happening if efferent vision is correct.

If efferent vision or real-time photography is correct, then it makes no difference how long or short the distance is. And if your answers to my questions is correct, then the contradiction explained above remains no matter how short the distance.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Sure I know what I am talking about.

You think you do, but you don't. I read your summary of Lessans' first discovery, and you're way off. You think you can tell me what is and what is not scientific when you don't even have a basic grasp of the subject matter.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You think you do, but you don't. I read your summary of Lessans' first discovery, and you're way off. You think you can tell me what is and what is not scientific when you don't even have a basic grasp of the subject matter.

So, Lessans' work was scientific. Great! So you won't mind answering a few basic questions -- questions that the author(s) of any legitimate scientific enquiry will be expected to answer:

What, exactly, were the experiments that he conducted?

How large were his sample sizes?

What was his methodology?

What were his controls?

Did he use blinded protocols? If not, why?

How did he analyze his data?

Why hasn't it been submitted for peer review?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why not?

I provided a huge post explaining this earlier, that you obviously failed to either read or comprehend.

We understand why, and why we cannot, see objects at a great distance. We build telescopes designed to see a certain distance, and they match our predictions in this way. Using, I should add, our knowledge of vision via light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I thought a lens is a collector of light so if the wavelength that bounces off an object is traveling straight toward the lens, why don't we see the image on film if the object is just out of the field of view?

A lens is not a collector of light; a telescope (or a camera, or whatever) is. And if light travels straight toward the lens of a camera, we do see the image on film. You are the only one asserting we do not, and have yet to provide an example of this actually happening beyond your say-so.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wuh? A given camera setup doesn't even enter into it. Another red herring.

Of course it does. That's why we can make images on film of further objects using a fancy telescope than we can using a pair of binoculars, which are in turn better than than using our eyes.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Here are your current answers to my questions. Note that due to the number of times you've reversed yourself on Q4, I currently have no answer to that question:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Care to answer Q4, Peacegirl?

Yes, but now that it's there is what counts.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What defines the color of the object is the object's absorption properties. I am saying that we have to work backwards. In other words, if efferent vision is true, then there is an instant lightwave from the Source to the lens. I am not saying that light doesn't travel at a finite speed, but when it comes to the relationship between the object and the lens, there is no time delay since the lightwave is at the film the instant the lens focuses on the object.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, light is already there at the camera. But unless that light magically materialized there, it must have previously travelled before arriving.

You're never going to agree because you think that the Source does not supply the wavelength. You believe that once the light leaves the Source, it travels toward the object. I'm saying that's not how it happens if efferent vision is true. Even if light is constantly travelling, the [blue] wavelength will still show up as blue on the lens. If you can show me an experiment where red would show up first even after the ball changed to blue, I would have to admit I was wrong.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And if it travelled at a finite speed, then that took time. So if it is the wavelength of that light already at the camera which determines the color of the resulting image, and if that wavelength was determined by the absorptive properties of the object back when that light now at the camera earlier bounced off the object without being absorbed, then the object can change color during the travel time of this light such that the resulting image will not be real-time.

I understand your reasoning but I don't think you're right. Your logic is right, but your premise is wrong [in my humble opinion].

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see any contradiction at all if you think in terms of a very short distance between an object and a lens. You are thinking in terms of objects millions of lightyears away and the time it takes to reach the lens, but that's not what's happening if efferent vision is correct.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If efferent vision or real-time photography is correct, then it makes no difference how long or short the distance is. And if your answers to my questions is correct, then the contradiction explained above remains no matter how short the distance.

Okay, so may the best man win. Can we now change subjects? We can agree to disagree. There's no way anyone will accept Lessans' claim of efferent vision at this point, so just use it as food for thought. Just hold onto your belief in afferent vision unless further evidence proves otherwise.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

I provided a huge post explaining this earlier, that you obviously failed to either read or comprehend.

We understand why, and why we cannot, see objects at a great distance. We build telescopes designed to see a certain distance, and they match our predictions in this way. Using, I should add, our knowledge of vision via light.

I don't want to talk about space and telescopes at this time for obvious reasons.

Originally Posted by Dragar

That's not a problem, it's a confirmation of the usual theory. The fact a range exists at all is only explainable by the theory of light.

I thought a lens is a collector of light so if the wavelength that bounces off an object is traveling straight toward the lens, why don't we see the image on film if the object is just out of the field of view?

Originally Posted by Dragar

A lens is not a collector of light; a telescope (or a camera, or whatever) is. And if light travels straight toward a lens, we do see the image on film. You are the only one asserting we do not, and have yet to provide an example of this actually happening beyond your say-so.

That is the entire debate. But I'm not talking about detecting light, which telescopes can do. I am trying to prove that we don't get an image of an object from light alone. We have to have the object within the field of view. If anyone can give me a reason why this never happens, I might reconsider, but so far nobody can explain this or show me an Earth example where light coming from an object outside of the range of the camera creates an image.

Originally Posted by Dragar

We can predict (using our knowledge of light) how far away we can see for a given camera setup. It all works. Lessans ideas, on the other hand...

A given camera setup doesn't even enter into it. Another red herring.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Of course it does. That's why we can make images on film of further objects using a fancy telescope than we can using a pair of binoculars, which are in turn better than than using our eyes.

Regardless of the largeness or narrowness of the field of view (depending on the camera's, binocular's, or telescope's capabilities), the question remains: Can an object (that is outside of the field of view of whatever type of equipment you are using) be seen on film as an image, if the photons reflected off of the object are in a direct line with the lens?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't want to talk about space and telescopes at this time for obvious reasons.

That post isn't about space and telescopes. It's about under what conditions we can't make an image out of light.

That is the entire debate. But I'm not talking about detecting light, which telescopes can do. I am trying to prove that we don't get an image of an object from light alone. We have to have the object within the field of view. If anyone can give me a reason why this never happens, I might reconsider, but so far nobody can explain this or show me an Earth example where light coming from an object outside of the range of the camera creates an image.

Tell me, how do you tell if something is out of range of a camera? What does that mean?

Can an object's (that is slightly outside of that equipment's field of view) be seen on film as an image, if the photons reflected off of the object are in a direct line with the lens?

If the photons are in a direct line with the lens, it's not outside of the equipment's field of view. Assuming enough photons arrive (to chemically react with the film) and the image is larger than the resolution of the detector (in this case film), it will form a reasonably recognisable image.



ETA: I forgot, you use 'in field of view' in a bizarre way. In that case, as I explained earlier, being outside of the field of view (as you use the words) means that the object is too small to see - in other words, the resolution of the detector is too small. In that case, optics predicts we won't see an image. And lo-and-behold, we don't. Just like vision-via-light predicts.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, but now that it's there is what counts.

Thank you. So you've agreed that the color of the photograph is determined by the wavelength of the light at the camera, which has previously travelled from the object to get there. So if the object is blue at the time that light is arriving at the camera, and was not blue at any moment before that, then...

Why is the arriving light of blue wavelength?

What color wavelength was that light just before it arrived at the camera?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're never going to agree because you think that the Source does not supply the wavelength. You believe that once the light leaves the Source, it travels toward the object. I'm saying that's not how it happens if efferent vision is true. Even if light is constantly travelling, the [blue] wavelength will still show up as blue on the lens. If you can show me an experiment where red would show up first even after the ball changed to blue, I would have to admit I was wrong.

None of this makes a word of sense in the context of the answers you've already provided. I don't know what you're trying to say, and I doubt that you do either. My line of questioning at the moment is not about me disagreeing with you, but rather you disagreeing with yourself. It is your own answers which are inconsistent with your own beliefs.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand your reasoning but I don't think you're right. Your logic is right, but your premise is wrong [in my humble opinion].

Exactly which of my premises is wrong? Because the only premises I've used here are ones which you've explicitly agreed to yourself.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Okay, so may the best man win. Can we now change subjects?

No. We cannot change subjects. You still need to follow through the implications of your own beliefs to see how much science you need to reject in order for real-time photography to be possible. Why aren't you interested in resolving contradictions in your own beliefs? Why is it more important to you to maintain your faith than to maintain consistency?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You think you do, but you don't. I read your summary of Lessans' first discovery, and you're way off. You think you can tell me what is and what is not scientific when you don't even have a basic grasp of the subject matter.

The question of whether man has free will or not cannot be answered with hard data at this time, peacegirl.

I am not sure what it is you think I am claiming that has you so upset, but there is no mechanism currently to provide empirical evidence for or against this.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Time has already told. You and Lessans are wrong. You claim to see the problem and have absolutely no solution. That means your claims have been refuted. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

You can't explain, even in your own terms and by reference to your own beliefs about how light works, how real-time photography is even possible. And yet you require real-time photography to maintain the possibility of efferent vision.

I really don't have to reference anything about light if it's proved that efferent sight is a reality.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Can you at least agree that efferent vision/real-time photography are impossible given the assumptions about light and physics you had agreed to in the answers you gave to my questions? And that efferent vision will therefore require rejecting at least some of these basic properties of light and physics?

I know you're trying to create an inconsistency with cameras to prove that if there is a delayed image, then that means the photograph would be different from what the eyes see, which it never is. That would mean that light travels to the eye as well. I believe that your approach to this problem is logically consistent but not sound. That means somewhere along the line the basic properties of light have to be reevaluated in terms of efferent sight, if it's shown (through further investigation) that there is something to this claim.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You've just agreed that you are holding contradictory beliefs in your attempt to maintain belief in efferent vision. Why aren't you interested in resolving those contradictions? Why is it more important to you to continue believing in efferent vision than it is to be logically consistent and avoid false beliefs (contradictory beliefs imply that at least one must be false)?

Because this is not how he came upon this finding. If you follow the reasoning of science as it stands, you will always conclude that Lessans was wrong because there will be contradictions, just as there are contradictions with his claim of determinism. I believe they are both right and until proven otherwise, I stand with Lessans. You can think I'm a fundie, it's okay.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The question of whether man has free will or not cannot be answered with hard data at this time, peacegirl.

I am not sure what it is you think I am claiming that has you so upset, but there is no mechanism currently to provide empirical evidence for or against this.

But if you understood this knowledge, you would see that there is a premise, a body of content, and a conclusion. His reasoning from beginning to end is accurate. Empirical evidence will only confirm what he knew all along. Neuroscience is not the only field that can provide hard evidence. Talk about narrow minded. I can see that you understood nothing regarding his first discovery, for if you did you would be able to understand why man's will is not free, and why a no blame environment would prevent the very thing that blame and punishment could never accomplish.

[Crumb]

Empirical evidence will only confirm what he knew all along.

Sorry, you have to provide the evidence before anyone has any reason to believe you.