A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Define 'visual range', for any experiment to be conducted all the factors need to be precisely accounted for, and all the terms need to be clearly defined or there can be no valid results. 'Visual Range' is somewhat ambiguous and needs clarification. Does 'out of visual range' mean that the object is too far away to see?

Yes, anything that we are able to see is due to the object being in range. This is related to pixels in a camera or photoreceptors in the eye, but it doesn't change the fact that these photons will not be picked up if they are too small and therefore out of range.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already answered this. Just because the Sunlight has not reached the camera only means that light has not reached Earth (I'm assuming you mean regular cameras, not cameras that take photographs in space). The only difference is that the light striking the camera will allow a photograph to be taken of each other since daylight would have arrived. If the photons have not arrived at the camera, it would be dark so how can a picture be taken of anything nearby? You have to remember that efferent vision only requires a faraway object to be surrounded by Sunlight. This is what allows a mirror image to occur. In a mirror image the photons are actually touching the points on the photosensitive film or retina. Therefore, these faraway objects do not require photons to travel to Earth to be seen.

Yes, you did answer this before. And you misunderstood it then, just as you've misunderstood it here. I am not asking about what happens when sunlight in general makes its way to the general area of the camera. I am asking about the specific rays of light coming from one precise direction, from the point on the ball corresponding to the same point on the film which it hits when it gets to the camera.

I already clarified this for you in post #4864, which I will again repeat here:

You haven't understood the question. Think of it in terms of one single point on the film, receiving light from one particular direction, and representing one particular point on the resulting photograph of the blue ball. At first there is no light there at all, as the Sun has not yet been ignited. Later, once the Sun has been ignited, and sunlight has just reached the surface of the blue ball, there will be instantaneous blue photons in existence at our particular point on the film. A photograph taken then will show that point to be blue, because only blue photons are at that point to interact with the film.

Later than this, after the (N)reflected sunlight has bounced off the ball, and some of it (bouncing off in the direction of the camera, and coming from the point on the ball corresponding to our designated point on the film) has had time to travel to and arrive at the camera, there is now more than just the instantaneous blue photons at our point on the film. There is white light there as well - photons of all wavelengths hitting that same point on the film. So which photons will interact with the film at that specific point? What color will result at this particular point on the resulting photograph?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sure that light can strike a telescope and we can see it as it comes into view, but whether this light is an exact replica of a past event is what is being challenged. Photons from a Supernova, like ashes from a fire, can travel and show up at a later date, but images that alter the wavelength of photons to match the event that took place cannot, if Lessans is correct.

Put those goalposts back! You said we can't form an image from light alone when the object is not in range, yet that is exactly what the Hubble telescope does. If you look through the telescope, you still won't be able to see what it manages to take a picture of. It is not there to be seen, even through the telescope. And it forms a picture of galaxies, not (just) supernovae. And the afferent model doesn't say anything about images altering the wavelengths of photons. That is just yet another ridiculous strawman.

[Spacemonkey]

Can you please try to answer these questions below without positing stationary light anywhere?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is travelling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Does it bounce off the surface to travel away from it? [Y/N?]

Is it absorbed by the blue object? [Y/N?]

Does it cease to exist? [Y/N?]

Does it stay there, at the surface of the blue object? [Y/N?]

Does it teleport itself instantly to any nearby films or retinas? [Y/N?]

If none of the above, then what? [Insert answer here]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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

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

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

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But there is evidence TLR. You just refuse to consider that it could be true. That makes you a bad candidate for someone to do the testing because you are biased and that will skew the results.

Peacegirl, there is no evidence, just two claims from two obviously mentally ill people. Evidence is something that others can corroborate on their own. As such you have none. Just the babbling of lunatics.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But there is evidence TLR. You just refuse to consider that it could be true. That makes you a bad candidate for someone to do the testing because you are biased and that will skew the results.

So anyone who believes the current afferent model will be too biased to reliably perform the testing? But that rules out everyone but you, and you're more biased on this topic than anyone else on the planet!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never intended to be insulting but I'm also not going to agree with something I don't. That does not make me willfully ignorant or anything else. You are all trying your best to intimidate me. It's not going to work.

The insulting part is not your disagreement. It's your ridiculous claim that we would all be acting very differently and would be much more receptive if only this 'knowledge' were coming from some expert or authority.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry you resent me so much, but I believe Lessans' observations were correct, and the only way to know this for sure is through empirical testing which you say has already been done. No one has tested these observations for the express purpose of setting out to prove or negate this [theory]. The only empirical tests that have been done were to confirm the afferent model, which is why the conclusions have always matched the premises or turned out to be statistically significant which was far from foolproof. .

Wrong again, you dishonest, willful ignoramus. What you describe above is the opposite of how science works. Scientists do NOT test theories to confirm their preconceptions; they test theories to FALSIFY them. If the theory fails to match with reality, out it goes. Stop telling lies about scientific practice, birdbrain. No one here will fail to spot your lies, and your lies about science won't help you or Lessans one bit. All of Lessans' claims about light and sight were proven wrong long ago.

[davidm]

I want to apologize for calling peacegirl a "birdbrain" in my most recent post. I want to apologize to birds, that is. Many birds are quite intelligent, and should not be defamed by likening them to peacegirl or Lessans. Pigeons, for instance, were recently shown to understand not just counting but abstract mathematical relations.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only thing that I am redefining is that objects do not (N) reflect their wavelength so that a replica of that object is in the light. We see the object because when look at it, the non-absorbed light is revealing the object to us.

A drunken moneky banging away at a computer keyboard randomly would make more sense than you do in the gibberish quoted.

Objects reflect their wavelenghts? Huh? WTF does that even mean, peacegirl? You think this is a claim of science?

You think science claims that a replica of the object is in the light? No, this is not a claim of any science.

Now according to you, the object is not reflected by the light, or the light is not reflected by the object -- whatever the fuck you imagine yourself to be saying -- but also it is not absorbed. So if it is neither reflected nor absorbed, what the fuck happens to it? Does it simply sit there stationary at the object? If you are claiming that, then you are contradicting yourself yet again, as you have admitted that light moves continuously!

Also, if you are claiming now that the light allows us to see because it somehow clings to the object without being absorbed or reflected, how the fuck does that permit us to see the object? HOW do we see light that has not traveled to our eyes, which appears to be your latest batshit-insane claim? What is the PHYSICAL MECHANISM for this miracle, and no, "voila, we see!" will not cut it!

She may have me on Pretend Ignore for the time being, so if anyone is interested in copying this for her perusal, feel free.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, anything that we are able to see is due to the object being in range. This is related to pixels in a camera or photoreceptors in the eye, but it doesn't change the fact that these photons will not be picked up if they are too small and therefore out of range.

So if it is in range we can see it, if it is out of range we can't see it, afferent vision DOES NOT CLAIM THAT WE CAN SEE SOMETHING OR TAKE A PICTURE IF WE CAN'T SEE IT. This it just a rediculous strawman that means nothing and proves nothing. Of course if we can't see it we can't see it. However it has been demonstrated many times that we can see an object and take a picture from it's light after the object has disapeared. Afferent vision states that we can see and photograph from light only, and this has been stated on this forum and the examples have been quoted, but you in your willful ignorance refuse to acknowledge them. Don't say you didn't see the posts, that is a deliberate lie.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Peacegirl, there is no evidence, just two claims from two obviously mentally ill people. Evidence is something that others can corroborate on their own. As such you have none. Just the babbling of lunatics.

Is that why Davidm keep going on about Moons?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, anything that we are able to see is due to the object being in range. This is related to pixels in a camera or photoreceptors in the eye, but it doesn't change the fact that these photons will not be picked up if they are too small and therefore out of range.

peacegirl, I want you to think very carefully about what you've just said.

You want an 'experiment' to find out "if an object that is out of visual range...could be seen."

But you have just told us that 'out of visual range' means it cannot be seen.

So what on Earth do you think you are testing here? Nobody in the whole wide world thinks we could see something we that cannot be seen.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

peacegirl, I want you to think very carefully about what you've just said.

You want an 'experiment' to find out "if an object that is out of visual range...could be seen."

But you have just told us that 'out of visual range' means it cannot be seen.

So what on Earth do you think you are testing here? Nobody in the whole wide world thinks we could see something we that cannot be seen.

Dragar, but why can't it be seen is the issue. Don't you understand your own science? If the wavelength is reflected off of the object and leaves behind the absorbed wavelengths, the image should be able to strike our photoreceptors and go to our brain for interpretation whether the object is present or not. But this never happens. Show me one instance where this happens, and I'll think twice. I'm talking about objects right now, not light, which will confuse everyone.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe so.

OK. One more question. Are the photons that are present at the exact image point/film/retina the same photons that are present at the object?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dragar, but why can't it be seen is the issue. Don't you understand your own science? If the wavelength is reflected off of the object and leaves behind the absorbed wavelengths, the image should be able to strike our photoreceptors and go to our brain for interpretation whether the object is present or not. But this never happens. Show me one instance where this happens, and I'll think twice. I'm talking about objects right now, not light, which will confuse everyone.

Holy shit, do you never stop lying? How many times has the Hubble Telescope been explained to you?

WHAT ABOUT THE MOONS OF JUPITER?

There are two fucking instances right there that have been repeatedly explained to you in detail.

Are you truly daft?

Note: the above question is rhetorical. You are truly crazy.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Objects do reflect light (as Spacemonkey helped clarify), but they don't (N) reflect their own image beyond the range where the object can be seen. So if a light is striking a mirror, the mirror will reflect light on the ceiling. This reflection will be seen on the ceiling as long as the mirror is positioned where we can see the reflection. If we remove the mirror (the object that is doing the reflecting), we will not see a mirror image.

That is to be expected, since we were seeing reflected light and not a mirror image in the first place. What was your point?

Also, if I recall correctly, you have previously explicitly stated that objects do not possess the physical property of reflecting light. If that is the case, one wonders how in the world a mirror, which is clearly an object, can reflect any light at all, whether onto the ceiling or anywhere else.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So anyone who believes the current afferent model will be too biased to reliably perform the testing? But that rules out everyone but you, and you're more biased on this topic than anyone else on the planet!

The insulting part is not your disagreement. It's your ridiculous claim that we would all be acting very differently and would be much more receptive if only this 'knowledge' were coming from some expert or authority.

Think about this Spacemonkey. If Lessans turns out to be right, how is everyone going to feel? I believe very strongly that the group think in here is so thick that there is no way this knowledge will ever be taken seriously even though you say you are unbiased and that titles don't matter.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dragar, but why can't it be seen is the issue. Don't you understand your own science? If the wavelength is reflected off of the object and leaves behind the absorbed wavelengths, the image should be able to strike our photoreceptors and go to our brain for interpretation whether the object is present or not. But this never happens. Show me one instance where this happens, and I'll think twice. I'm talking about objects right now, not light, which will confuse everyone.

Your hopeless word salad aside, afferent vision states that light (photons that all have a characteristic wavelength) is reflected from an object and travels to the eye or camera and continues to travel even if the object disapears. So if the distance is great enough the eye can still see the image of the object after the object is no longer there. Anything else that you say about afferent vision is probably not true and is a serious misunderstanding, or a deliberate misrepresentation of afferent vision for the sole purpose of setting up a strawman to knock down. Your ignorance, whether willful or otherwise, is painfully obvious to anyone reading this thread. What else is obvious is that you have no understanding of any, science real or fictional.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

That is to be expected, since we were seeing reflected light and not a mirror image in the first place. What was your point?

Also, if I recall correctly, you have previously explicitly stated that objects do not possess the physical property of reflecting light. If that is the case, one wonders how in the world a mirror, which is clearly an object, can reflect any light at all, whether onto the ceiling or anywhere else.

Whether the light is a mirror image or just nano-second reflected light is in question, so you can't just repeat what afferent vision dictates is true. A mirror is certain kind of object whose surface does not absorb light, so it's no surprise that any image that is reflected off of the mirror will be a "mirror" image.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Whether the light is a mirror image or just nano-second reflected light is in question, so you can't just repeat what afferent vision dictates is true. A mirror is certain kind of object whose surface does not absorb light, so it's no surprise that any image that is reflected off of the mirror will be a "mirror" image.

If the spot of light on the ceiling is a mirror image what is it a mirror image of?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Think about this Spacemonkey. If Lessans turns out to be right, how is everyone going to feel? I believe very strongly that the group think in here is so thick that there is no way this knowledge will ever be taken seriously even though you say you are unbiased and that titles don't matter.

There is a chance that Lessans is right, just about the same as 'Dark Sucker' theory being true, or that the Earth is flat and held up by 4 Elephants standing on a giant Tortoise, or how about the Earth is only 7,000 years old and was only made to look old? Did you know that the Mayans were actually Alliens who came here to impart their superior wisdom to humans, how did that work out?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Whether the light is a mirror image or just nano-second reflected light is in question, so you can't just repeat what afferent vision dictates is true. A mirror is certain kind of object whose surface does not absorb light, so it's no surprise that any image that is reflected off of the mirror will be a "mirror" image.

Did you actually say anything intelligent in this pile of word salad?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dragar, but why can't it be seen is the issue. Don't you understand your own science? If the wavelength is reflected off of the object and leaves behind the absorbed wavelengths, the image should be able to strike our photoreceptors and go to our brain for interpretation whether the object is present or not. But this never happens. Show me one instance where this happens, and I'll think twice. I'm talking about objects right now, not light, which will confuse everyone.

So let's think about how this might happen, while ignoring your complete failure to use language properly ('wavelength of the object') as I'm sure everyone else will jump right on that.

So, let's begin. You make four statements (or rather, once your complete trainwreck of a post is salvaged, you make four coherent statements):

(1) The light is reflected off of the object
(2) The light strikes our photoreceptors sending a signal to the brain for interpretation.
(3) This happens whether the object is present or not.
(4) But this never happens when the object is not present.

Unfortunately, it's not at all clear what your complaint with any of the above is, since it's hard for light to be reflected off an object (1) without an object being present (4), and so it all seems perfectly consistent. A charitable interpretation might be that if light bounces off an object, and then the object is removed while the light is in transit, so we should still be able to see an image if the standard explanation is correct.

If you understood anything of the world, you'd know that trying to provide an example of this in everyday life is almost impossible, because distances are very small and light travels very fast. If we are trying to satisfy your implicit premise that the object is removed while the light is in transit, we need to have an object be removed within the tiniest fraction of a second for most everyday length scales. So it should be pretty clear why we can give you no everyday examples of this happening. You also, we should note, cannot provide any examples of it not happening when it should. So if you only want to work with everyday length scales, you have no argument here - we should never expect to notice this effect happening anyway.

On the other hand, on much larger length scales, it's trivial to find examples: we see moons of distant planets even though the object has since moved behind the planet. We see stars that are long dead. We see gas clouds that have long since fallen into a black hole.

So let's summarise:

In every day life, we've no expectation we should be able to provide examples of this effect. Your complaint is empty, as the standard model doesn't predict we would ever even notice this happening.

On larger scales, we do see these things you claim we don't; the standard model of vision is entirely self consistent. I hope you'll stop lying about this, given we've told you this at least a dozen times now.

Finally, you are confused by how reasoning works. Even if I could provide no example of this effect happening, that has no bearing on the truth of the standard explanation for vision. Confirmation is nice and reassuring, but not necessary. What you need to provide, to have any objection at all, is a case where a prediction of the standard model fails; a specific example where we should see something, but don't. Like how Lessans predicts we should see the moons of Jupiter in one position, and yet we don't. Currently, you've given no concrete examples where the standard model ever fails. Meanwhile, we've given dozens of cases where Lessans fails. All you have to explain that are waving your hands and saying, "Well, there must be some other explanation!". Your magical, mysterious, unknown explanation again.

Now, care to address your nonsense statement that you just dodged? Why does your experiment test if we can 'see something that cannot be seen'?

[Kael]

Originally Posted by davidm

Wrong again, you dishonest, willful ignoramus. What you describe above is the opposite of how science works. Scientists do NOT test theories to confirm their preconceptions; they test theories to FALSIFY them. If the theory fails to match with reality, out it goes. Stop telling lies about scientific practice, birdbrain. No one here will fail to spot your lies, and your lies about science won't help you or Lessans one bit. All of Lessans' claims about light and sight were proven wrong long ago.

I'll just leave this here.

Sir Karl Popper's "Science as Falsification" ...

[davidm]

Dragar, you see, she has already been given the above examples more times than anyone can count. And after being given these irrefutable examples that rule out real time seeing, she has the goddamn chutzpah to write:

If the wavelength is reflected off of the object and leaves behind the absorbed wavelengths, the image should be able to strike our photoreceptors and go to our brain for interpretation whether the object is present or not. But this never happens. Show me one instance where this happens, and I'll think twice.

Also, once again she writes utter balderdash like "the image striking our photoreceptors." How many times, in how many ways, has it been explained to her that the light does not carry an image? That the image is built by the brain out of the light-dark and color patterns made by the light? So here as always she ignores and twists everything that everybody has said. Do you really think you are ever going to get through to someone so fundamentally dishonest?