A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

1. Will the photons at the film before the photograph is taken be the same photons which are at that same place at the next moment when the photograph is taken?

Photons are not parked, if that's what you mean. The most important point to understand here is that efferent vision does not require light to travel. It is like I described earlier, a mirror image but upside down on the film or retina. You have to picture the visual range as a canvas, and the photons interact directly with the film but without having to travel to the film.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You haven't answered the question. You said that "photons would already be at the film before the photograph is taken". I want to know if those will be the same or different photons which are in that same place at the next moment when the photograph is taken. Which is it? Are they the same photons or different ones?

Because even though it's a different photon at the film, it doesn't matter. You think that a red photon is going to strike the film first, therefore, we will see red before blue. But this is not what's happening. The photons are revealing the object instantly because we're getting an upside down mirror image) on the film.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

2. If something is at the same place at two consecutive times, is it moving during that time period, or is it stationary?

I can see your confusion again because you're not thinking in terms of efferent vision. You are only coming from an afferent point of view which involves the speed of light. Photons are not stationary. They are moving, but, regardless, it's the object that is determining the color at the film, so if the object turns red from blue, that is what will show up instantly on the film.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Again, you haven't answered the question I asked: If something is at the same place at two consecutive times, is it moving during that time period, or is it stationary? Which is it? Moving or stationary?

If I am driving my car to my son's house, it cannot be parked in front of my house and at my son's house at the same time. It is moving during that time period. But please don't compare this example to what I'm trying to explain in regard to efferent vision.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Is it an assumption of afferent vision that something which remains at the same place over two consecutive moments in time hasn't moved during that time? Is that an assumption you wish to challenge with efferent vision?

Something which remains in the same place over two consecutive moments in time and hasn't moved is not an assumption of afferent vision. Photons are constantly in motion, so the photon that was present a second ago isn't the same photon that is present when a photograph is taken, but the original photon is not separating itself from the object. Although we can see the image of an object far from where the object is, the object always has to be within the field of view. When you shine a laser pen, we see the exact image across a field, but that light will change to green from red the instant the laser pen changes from green to red. If the laser goes out, the image also across the field goes out instantly. This has nothing to do with the speed of light.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

3. Can light (i.e. photons) ever be stationary, or is it always in motion?

We've been over this before. Constant energy is always in motion.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, we have been over this one before. I would like you to keep this answer in mind when re-answering questions 1, 2, & 4.

It's not necessary for me to re-answer the questions with this in mind because I've already answered the questions correctly.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

4. For the photons which are at the film when the photograph is taken, where were they just before the photograph was taken?

At the film.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How can they be at the same place at two consecutive times if they are always in motion and never stationary?

I see the stumbling block and all I can say is that I hope there will be a breakthrough soon.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I see the stumbling block and all I can say is that I hope that we will get a breakthrough soon.

We all hope you will get a brain soon.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Have you forgotten agreeing that wavelength is an inherent property of light (and not of objects), and that travelling light always has a wavelength?

In fact, the word "wavelength" is meaningless unless the thing in question is moving. Immobile objects cannot have wavelengths; they can only vibrate.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because even though it's a different photon at the film, it doesn't matter...

Oh, but it does matter! I asked you where the light which is at the camera when the photograph is taken was just before the photograph was taken. You said it was at the camera. But if the light at the camera just before the photograph was taken was different light, then you have incorrectly answered this first question. Because the light you are talking about is not the light I was asking about. So...

Did those specific photons (at the camera when the photograph is taken) exist immediately before the photograph was taken? [Yes or No]

If so, then where were those specific photons at the moment in time immediately preceding the taking of the photograph? [State a location]

Remember that you cannot answer "At the film/camera" to the second question, because you have just agreed that the light at that location just before the photograph is taken will be different light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I am driving my car to my son's house, it cannot be parked in front of my house and at my son's house at the same time. It is moving during that time period.

What? I asked you about light at the same place at different times, and you answer by speaking of something not being at different places at the same time? I'll ask you again:-

If something is at the same place at two consecutive times, is it moving during that time period, or is it stationary?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not challenging the assumption that remains in the same place over two consecutive moments in time hasn't moved, but photons are constantly in motion, so the photon that was present a second ago isn't the same photon the same photon that is present when the photograph is taken.

If the light which was at the camera just before the photograph is taken was different light from that present at the camera at the next moment when the photograph is taken, then you have yet to tell me where this latter light was at the former time. It can't have been at the camera.

So where was it?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Something which remains in the same place over two consecutive moments in time and hasn't moved is not an assumption of afferent vision. Photons are constantly in motion, so the photon that was present a second ago isn't the same photon that is present when a photograph is taken, but the original photon is not separating itself from the object. Although we can see the image of an object far from where the object is, the object always has to be within the field of view.

If the photon is at the camera film, then it is separate from the object being photographed, because that object is not inside the camera. And if photons are constantly in motion, then for any photon which is at the camera film when the photograph is taken, where was that photon one second before that time?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I see the stumbling block and all I can say is that I hope there will be a breakthrough soon.

I see it too. It's name is Peacegirl. You are your own stumbling block.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That would only be true if efferent vision were correct. So you can't use it to explain or support efferent vision. The claim that a mirror image of light on water can be instantaneous suffers from the exact same problems you are supposed to be explaining.

I realize that, but I want you to at least get the picture of what I'm talking about so you will see that it's plausible.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Well this should pretty much settle things for anyone with half a brain that still works. For Peacegirl to claim that anything is instantly anywhere, violates every known law of physics, that has been verified by testing, experimentation, and observation for a long time. This is not something that has been handed down by a bunch of arrogant authoratian scientists, but by repeated testing, experimentation, and observation. Nothing moves anywhere instantly, it just doesn't work that way.

And I'm not saying it does.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The contradictions have nothing to do with where people are coming from, and everything to do with the simple fact that you are making contradictory claims. Such as that the light at the object will also be at the camera or retina... without being in two places at once. Or that the light at the camera film stays at the same place at two consecutive moments... despite always being in motion.

The light at the object is at the retina and film instantly, because it's a mirror image that is upside down. Mirror images are the opposite side of the same thing. There is no travel time. And I never said the light at the camera film stays at the same place at two consecutive moments. The light that is captured in a snapshot is different than the light that would have been captured in a snapshot a second ago, but it doesn't matter since the light isn't bringing anything. It is revealing something. Therefore, when the snapshot is taken, the light becomes an exact mirror image of what is in the lenses' field of view.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I realize that, but I want you to at least get the picture of what I'm talking about so you will see that it's plausible.

The best way for you to do that is to answer my questions. Please feel free to skip any of my previous posts on vision/photography and go straight to Post #3929 which represents the present problem you need to address.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light at the object is at the retina and film instantly, because it's a mirror image that is upside down. Mirror images are the opposite side of the same thing. There is no travel time.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Remarkable, isn't it, that some could write such utter bilge and actually post it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am talking about photography not sight. Even if vision works the way you are describing, camera film does not.

We are talking about the known properties of light, and the known interaction between light and film which requires physical contact.

Your explanation requires light and film to change their properties and be able to come into physical contact while there is a physical distance between them.

You need to explain how efferent vision negates the known properties of light and camera film.

It doesn't negate the properties of light, that's just the point.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You've changed your position since the last thread. Awfully strange how efferent vision keeps changing like this. You were previously claiming light at the eyes to be a necessary condition of vision.

Obviously, light has to be at the eyes, but the light does not have to be around the person. It could be dark, yet we could see something far away because the light from that object will instantly be at the retina.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Now you're saying light only has to exist at the Sun (and not at our eyes) for the Sun to be visible. But if we can see without any light at our eyes, then why do we have light detectors in our retinas?

That's not what I'm saying. Light is definitely interacting with the retina when we look at the Sun or the moon.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light at the object is at the retina and film instantly, because it's a mirror image that is upside down.

That the light is an upside down mirror image does not explain how or why it is at the film instantly. So your use of "because" above makes no sense. And if the light at the object is also instantaneously at the film, then it is in two places at once. It is both at the object and at the film. If not, then it isn't instantaneous.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And I never said the light at the camera film stays at the same place at two consecutive moments.

Yes, you did. That's exactly what you said. You've changed your answer now, but that just means I have no answer for where the-light-which-was-at-the-camera-when-the-photograph-was-taken was just before the photograph was taken.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light that is captured is when the snapshot is taken, but the light is a mirror image of exactly what's in the lenses' field of view.

And where was that captured light just before the photograph was taken?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But they are forming a photochemical reaction because the light is interacting with the film.

If the light from the Sun has not hypothetically gotten here yet, we would not be able to see each other because there's no light around the individual we are looking at. But we would see the Sun because there is light around the Sun which is all that is required in the efferent version of sight.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You didn't answer the question.

Would we be able to take a photograph of the sun at the same time we see the sun, or when we can see each other 8.5 minutes later when the photons arrive?

We would be able to take a photograph of the Sun at the same time we see the Sun. That's why we always get the same exact photograph as what we are seeing.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Remember, the photons and the film have to be in physical contact, they have to be touching. Camera film is not efferent eyes and brain.

Camera film is exactly like the retina. It works the same way. The only difference is that a camera takes a picture using the light; and we see the actual object using the same light.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans didn't say anything about photography, which is problematic for you because of all the discrepancies created if vision is efferent and cameras work as they are known and designed to work. You have had to come up with some form of efferent photography...and you can't make it fit without breaking the laws of physics.

LadyShea, nothing changes. The only thing that has been misunderstood is the belief that a camera detects light (whether the object is in view or not) and forms an image, whereas in efferent vision (which involves the same principles using a camera), the camera still detects light but that light is a mirror image that shows up on the film instantaneously, which means that the object must be in the lenses' field of view.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously, light has to be at the eyes, but the light does not have to be around the person. It could be dark, yet we could see something far away because the light from that object will instantly be at the retina.

So when the Sun is first ignited, such that before this time there was no light at the Earth or any observer's eyes, are you saying that light will instantly materialize and come into existence inside the Earthbound observer's eyes at that moment?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not what I'm saying at all, and it's that misconception that makes this whole thing appear magical. How can it be magical when it follows the principles of physics?

Because afferent vision appears logical, and there seems to be no other explanation, but if you can look from the efferent position [even temporarily just to see what Lessans saw], then you will begin to understand that this is not hogwash at all. It makes sense.

Because these observations are valid. Why would anyone want to believe in something that's false? Our determination to understand reality won't let us, especially those of us who are scientifically inclined.

Originally Posted by Dragar

You say it follows the principles of physics, yet it's been repeatedly pointed out to you that your nonsense theory breaks most principles of physics. It doesn't follow them at all, it contradicts them.

You say 'it makes sense', and yet every explanation you give is self-contradictory. Just look at how much you have changed your answers when talking to Spacemonkey and LadyShea. In fact, I think you don't even understand it at all - you just parrot out Lessans catchphrases (or your own) and then change your answers when a contradiction is pointed out as immediately apparent.

No, I haven't changed anything but it's more difficult than I realized it would be to explain. That's why it sounds like I'm flip-flopping but I'm not. Actually, thinking this through has made it even more clear to me.

Originally Posted by Dragar

You say you are 'scientificly inclined', but your response to an observation that contradicts Lessans is to make something up to save your pet theory, without even admitting this completely undermines what you are trying to save. That's the oppposite of scientific. You don't dare actually test Lessans claims, you just assume they are right.

That's not true either.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Introduction

The reasoning in this work is not
a form of logic, nor is it my opinion of the answer; it is mathematical,
scientific, and undeniable, and it is not necessary to deal in what has
been termed the ‘exact sciences’ in order to be exact and scientific.
Consequently, it is imperative to know that this demonstration will be
like a game of chess in which every one of your moves will be forced
and checkmate inevitable but only if you don’t make up your own
rules as to what is true and false which will only delay the very life you
want for yourself.

The laws of this universe, which include those of
our nature, are the rules of the game and the only thing required to
win, to bring about this Golden Age that will benefit everyone... is to
stick to the rules. But if you decide to move the king like the queen
because it does not satisfy you to see a pet belief slipping away or
because it irritates your pride to be proven wrong or checkmated, then
it is obvious that you are not sincerely concerned with learning the
truth but only with retaining your doctrines at all cost.

Originally Posted by Dragar

You also didn't understand my last question: why do you need to make up all these mysterious reasons to save your theory from observations like the moons of Jupiter, and neutrinos from a supernova, and steller abberration, and gravitational lensing, and so on?

Because if the efferent version of sight turns out to be correct, these different phenomena need to be explained in terms of this new understanding.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So when the Sun is first ignited, such that before this time there was no light at the Earth or any observer's eyes, are you saying that light will instantly materialize and come into existence inside the Earthbound observer's eyes at that moment?

Exactly. But you have to understand why Spacemonkey. You're not getting it yet, so it sounds crazy because the light hasn't reached the eyes ACCORDING TO THE AFFERENT MODEL OF SIGHT.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I haven't changed anything but it's more difficult than I realized it would be to explain. That's why it sounds like I'm flip-flopping but I'm not. Actually, thinking this through has made it even more clear to me.

Is there no part of your shattered mind that is aware of what a blatant falsehood this is? What you have actually been saying has repeatedly changed and flip-flopped. That there is some consistent position behind all of this patent changing and flip-flopping which you have been trying to share is both a claim you have yet to substantiate and completely irrelevant to the accurate charge of flip-flopping.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Exactly. But you have to understand why Spacemonkey. You're not getting it yet, so it sounds crazy because the light hasn't reached the eyes ACCORDING TO THE AFFERENT MODEL OF SIGHT.

But this is exactly what I was describing as instantaneous teleportation of duplicate light before, and you denied that was what happens. (On this model, the light at the surface of the object is constantly creating and updating duplicate copies of itself at the film or retina.)

Imagine the Sun is ignited, but comes into existence alternating between yellow and green every second. When it first ignites, it is yellow, and yellow light comes into existence at the observer's eyes. So there is yellow light at the observer's eyes and at the Sun. One second later, what color is the light in the observer's eyes? Is this light the same light that was there just before, but with a new color (frequency)? Or is there new light constantly coming into existence in the observer's eyes, matching the real-time color of the Sun? And where is the yellow light which was at the Sun a second ago? Is any of it travelling towards the observer at this point?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

A canvas where? A canvas doing what or having what done to it?

In order to interact with a canvas, the paint or ink must touch the canvas. You cannot draw or paint on a canvas if there is a physical distance between the canvas and the materials it is interacting with...unless you throw the paint or ink (which means travel time).

It's the same with light and film. You cannot get a photographic image on the film unless they physically interact through physical contact.

In order for that the happen the light has to get to the film to touch it, somehow. We know light is in constant motion. We know it travels at a finite speed. We know it cannot be in two places at once. We know it cannot appear at a location instantly.

How does that happen according to you?

You're misunderstanding what I meant by "canvas". I'll have to give you another metaphor.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am talking about photographic film and how it can somehow break the laws of physics to create photographic images instantly.

I have said, at least 4 times now, that even if we assume- for arguments sake- that we can see in real time, without the need for the light to physically arrive at our eyes after travel time, camera film MUST have the light TOUCHING it, physically. That requires the light to physically get to the film, somehow .

If eyes and film work differently (eyes do not require light to travel and film does), you then have the known discrepancies regarding when we can see something versus when we can photograph that same thing.

As I just posted, eyes and film must interact with light so if our eyes see the external world instantly, a camera would work the same exact way.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Is there no part of your shattered mind that is aware of what a blatant falsehood this is? What you have actually been saying has repeatedly changed and flip-flopped. That there is some consistent position behind all of this patent changing and flip-flopping which you have been trying to share is both a claim you have yet to substantiate and completely irrelevant to the accurate charge of flip-flopping.

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. And please don't get nasty on me Spacemonkey. I am trying to understand your questions and answer them appropriately. This is not easy to explain, therefore it may appear inconsistent but as we move along you'll see that I'm not flip-flopping at all.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry, but you're wrong. And please don't get nasty on me Spacemonkey. I am trying to understand your questions and answer them appropriately. This is not easy to explain, therefore it may appear inconsistent but as we move along you'll see that I'm not flip-flopping at all.

Flip-flopping is defined by what you write, not by what you wanted to write, or somehow intended to convey, or otherwise wish you had said. When you give one answer, then subsequently reverse it, only to later revert back to the initial answer, that is flip-flopping. And that is exactly what you have done. Over and over again.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Exactly. But you have to understand why Spacemonkey. You're not getting it yet, so it sounds crazy because the light hasn't reached the eyes ACCORDING TO THE AFFERENT MODEL OF SIGHT.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But this is exactly what I was describing as instantaneous teleportation of duplicate light before, and you denied that was what happens. (On this model, the light at the surface of the object is constantly creating and updating duplicate copies of itself at the film or retina.)

Duplicate copies? Would you call a mirror image a duplicate copy?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Imagine the Sun is ignited, but comes into existence alternating between yellow and green every second. When it first ignites, it is yellow, and yellow light comes into existence at the observer's eyes. So there is yellow light at the observer's eyes and at the Sun. One second later, what color is the light in the observer's eyes?

One second later the observer would see green.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Is this light the same light that was there just before, but with a new color (frequency)?

How could it be the same light that was there before when light is constantly moving?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Or is there new light constantly coming into existence in the observer's eyes, matching the real-time color of the Sun?

Exactly. The photons are constantly coming into existence in the observer's eyes, matching the real-time color of the Sun.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And where is the yellow light which was at the Sun a second ago? Is any of it travelling towards the observer at this point?

There is no yellow light traveling to the eye. That's what I'm trying to tell you. It's there already the instant the Sun changes color.