A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, what is it that interacts with the film in the camera to produce the real-time image?

And don't just answer "light". I want to know which light.

What do you mean which light? It's the light coming from the source. But it is not that light which is giving us an image. You are not listening.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If it is the light present at the camera and physically striking the film, then which properties of that light will determine the color of the image?

The properties that allow us to look through the retina, to see the color of the light source. Don't you get it yet?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If it is the color (i.e. wavelength) of that light present at the camera, then how can the BLUE light from a ball which has only just changed from RED to BLUE be instantaneously present at the camera when the ball has only just begun to reflect blue light towards it?

Light is a condition of sight; it doesn't just change colors unless it is the light source. If you can't understand this, we're at a total and complete dead end, and there is no reason for me to continue.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Wow N.A. you joined this thread kinda tut-tutting us for being meanies to peacegirl. Now look at you!

Maybe he's frustrated?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Not what I've been taught but what I've observed. I grew up in the era when every good physics wannabe was required to recreated the classic experiments of the past for themselves and experience personally the results that led to our current scientific understanding.

Be that as it may, peacegirl I gotta say that you have missed your era. You would have made a perfect USSR communist party member. I am completely sure that you would have had no trouble telling the western press that under the brilliant leadership of the communist party there was no prostitution, theft or malfeasance in the USSR.

You go girl. Keep the Lessans flag flying, but when you die, Lessans is dead. I doubt your kids will keep this charade going.

But I hear there may be some openings in North Korea. Better hurry before it too bites the dust of history. Rigid adherence to completely discredited dogma is what they are looking for.

I'm giving you amnesty today only. If you abuse this privilege natural.atheist, you will be on ignore for a long long time. So be careful what you say and how you say it.

This knowledge has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism or communism. So don't try to ruin this knowledge by lying. I will say again that you better be careful how you respond because next time I will put you on ignore for a long long time.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What do you mean which light? It's the light coming from the source. But it is not that light which is giving us an image. You are not listening.

The properties that allow us to look through the retina, to see the color of the light source. Don't you get it yet?

Light is a condition of sight; it doesn't just change colors unless it is the light source. If you can't understand this, we're at a total and complete dead end, and there is no reason for me to continue.

We aren't talking about sight and retinas. We are talking about cameras.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That was all part of his example regarding God turning on the sun and us seeing it instantly. Would you please stop talking about that excerpt? It has become a sore spot. He did not have this excerpt in all of his books, so it is non-essential.

Why has it become a sore spot?

OMG found it. You did...you actually did change molecules to photons.

Once the light is here it remains here because the molecules of light emitted by the constant energy of the sun surround us. When the earth rotates on its axis so the section on which we live is in darkness, this only means the molecules of light are on the other side. When our rotation allows the sun to smile on us again this does not mean that it takes another eight minutes for this light to reach us because these molecules are already present. If the sun were to explode while we were looking at it we would see it the instant it happened, not 8 minutes later. We are able to see the moon, the sun, the distant stars, etc., not because the one is 3 seconds away, the other 8 minutes away, and the last many light years away, but simply because these objects are large enough to be seen at their great distance when enough light is present. This fallacy has come into existence because the eyes were considered a sense organ, like the ears. Since it takes longer for the sound from an airplane to reach our ears when it is a thousand feet away than when five thousand, it was assumed that the same thing occurred with the object sending a picture of itself on the wings of light. If it was possible to transmit a television picture from the earth to a planet as far away as the star Rigel, it is true that the people living there would be seeing the ships of Columbus coming into America for the first time because the picture would be in the process of being transmitted through space at a certain rate of speed.

Tut-tut, you and your talk of ethics and outrage at suggestions that you name yourself co-author and make changes to the book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No I'm not. I know that light is constantly being emitted which allows us to see objects and images in real time.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Peacegirl, what is it that interacts with the film in the camera to produce the real-time image?

And don't just answer "light". I want to know which light.

What do you mean which light? It's the light coming from the source. But it is not that light which is giving us an image. You are not listening.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If it is the light present at the camera and physically striking the film, then which properties of that light will determine the color of the image?

The properties that allow us to look through the retina, to see the color of the light source. Don't you get it yet?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If it is the color (i.e. wavelength) of that light present at the camera, then how can the BLUE light from a ball which has only just changed from RED to BLUE be instantaneously present at the camera when the ball has only just begun to reflect blue light towards it?

Your mindset is still on afferent vision, which is why you can't understand a thing I'm saying.

Light is a condition of sight; it doesn't just change colors unless it is the light source. If you can't understand this, we're at a total and complete dead end, and there is no reason for me to continue.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

We aren't talking about sight and retinas. We are talking about cameras.

How in the world does that change anything that I've explained??

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That was all part of his example regarding God turning on the sun and us seeing it instantly. Would you please stop talking about that excerpt? It has become a sore spot. He did not have this excerpt in all of his books, so it is non-essential.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why has it become a sore spot?

Because I don't think he was clear and it's causing confusion. It has nothing to do with the validity of efferent vision, which you're trying to make it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

OMG found it. You did...you actually did change molecules to photons.

You are acting like you found something that I was hiding. I clearly admitted that Lessans used words that were not in keeping with present day terminology. I also have stated over and over that he was not a physicist. This does not prove anything Ladyshea. Your effort to discredit him has just gone down the tubes.

Once the light is here it remains here because the molecules of light emitted by the constant energy of the sun surround us. When the earth rotates on its axis so the section on which we live is in darkness, this only means the molecules of light are on the other side. When our rotation allows the sun to smile on us again this does not mean that it takes another eight minutes for this light to reach us because these molecules are already present. If the sun were to explode while we were looking at it we would see it the instant it happened, not 8 minutes later. We are able to see the moon, the sun, the distant stars, etc., not because the one is 3 seconds away, the other 8 minutes away, and the last many light years away, but simply because these objects are large enough to be seen at their great distance when enough light is present. This fallacy has come into existence because the eyes were considered a sense organ, like the ears. Since it takes longer for the sound from an airplane to reach our ears when it is a thousand feet away than when five thousand, it was assumed that the same thing occurred with the object sending a picture of itself on the wings of light. If it was possible to transmit a television picture from the earth to a planet as far away as the star Rigel, it is true that the people living there would be seeing the ships of Columbus coming into America for the first time because the picture would be in the process of being transmitted through space at a certain rate of speed.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Tut-tut, you and your talk of ethics and outrage at suggestions that you name yourself co-author and make changes to the book.

You know what I have to say to that? BULLSHIT. That's right. I said I changed wording or examples that had nothing to do with his concept. You lost LadyShea by giving this as some kind of proof that Lessans was wrong. You actually helped his cause inadvertently.

[LadyShea]

Spacemonkey asked about light interacting with cameras and you responded talking about retinas. Cameras are not eyes.

Once again Spacemonkey asked about light interacting with cameras and you responded talking about afferent vision. Cameras are not eyes.

You are trying to deflect the topic from light interacting with cameras, by talking about human vision

You screwed up the quote tags again. I have corrected them above

[LadyShea]

Light and time have EVERYTHING to do with the validity of efferent vision, because his idea refutes the observed physics of light and time. You can't defend the premise so you want to eliminate it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are acting like you found something that I was hiding.

You were point blank asked if this was true in several posts over the last two pages and you didn't answer. Instead you decided to just remove the whole portion of the book and eliminate your problem.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I clearly admitted that Lessans used words that were not in keeping with present day terminology.

You think photon is a modern term for molecule? No. That is not the case. Lessans obviously had no understanding of light, at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I also have stated over and over that he was not a physicist. This does not prove anything Ladyshea. Your effort to discredit him has just gone down the tubes.

He was making strong claims about light and time when he had no understanding of either concept. If he wasn't a physicist, he should have stayed away from physics. He didn't though.

Pontificating on topics one knows nothing about, while claiming to be absolutely and undeniably correct, absolutely indicates a lack of credibility.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know what I have to say to that? BULLSHIT. That's right. I said I changed wording or examples that had nothing to do with his concept. You lost LadyShea by giving this as some kind of proof that Lessans was wrong. You actually helped his cause inadvertently.

Molecule and photon are not synonyms therefore it was a dishonest edit on your part, because you were trying to cover up the completely incorrect concept that Lessans claimed was undeniable truth

You can't change hat to shoe and still be talking about the same type of outerwear

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No they aren't eyes, but they work similar to the retina. That's why cameras are often compared to the eyes in the way they function.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Once again Spacemonkey asked about light interacting with cameras and you responded talking about afferent vision. Cameras are not eyes.

That's right, cameras are not eyes, yet everyone seems to think I'm implying that cameras reach out to take a picture when that's not what I'm saying at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is a condition of sight; it doesn't just change colors unless it is the light source. If you can't understand this, we're at a total and complete dead end, and there is no reason for me to continue.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We aren't talking about sight and retinas. We are talking about cameras.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How in the world does that change anything that I've explained??

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are trying to deflect the topic from light interacting with cameras, by talking about human vision

I'm not deflecting from the topic. Human vision and cameras can be compared, which I have used in the effort to make this concept clearer, but I guess it's becoming more confusing. I'm not sure if that's my fault, or yours.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You screwed up the quote tags again. I have corrected them above

Thanks. I'll keep trying to get it right.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Human vision and cameras can be compared, which I have used in the effort to make this concept clearer, but I guess it's becoming more confusing. I'm not sure if that's my fault, or yours.

They can be compared if the current scientific explanation of vision (afferent) is true. They cannot be compared if Lessans was correct about efferent vision. This is because we (humans) make cameras, and know exactly how they work because they were designed to work that way.

You have switched positions yet again and now concede that cameras create an image from incoming light, is that correct?

If so, then you have to refute this sound argument from Vivisectus without resorting to cameras focusing out on the object somehow (because they don't), and without explaining eyes instead of cameras because the whole point of the argument is that if efferent vision is true, cameras and eyes should see different things in certain cases of distant objects.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Thus the thought experiment stands: the emitter is 10 light minutes away. It starts to emit a stream of photons in the wavelength we see as red. Then it switches to emitting photons in the blue wavelength after 5 minutes. Then it switches off.

If efferent sight were true, the naked eye would see red the moment it was switched on. The camera would see nothing. Then after 5 minutes, the naked eye would see it switch to blue. The camera would still see nothing. Then after 10 minutes, the eye would see the light switch off. the camera would record red for 5 minutes, and then blue for 5 minutes, before seeing the light switch off 10 minutes after the fact.

These differences are never seen in reality. Thus efferent sight is not correct.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light and time have EVERYTHING to do with the validity of efferent vision, because his idea refutes the observed physics of light and time. You can't defend the premise so you want to eliminate it.

This excerpt was an afterthought which means it is not a central point. It's not worth the confusion it's causing, especially since it has no bearing on whether or not efferent vision is valid.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are acting like you found something that I was hiding.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You were point blank asked if this was true in several posts over the last two pages and you didn't answer. Instead you decided to just remove the whole portion of the book and eliminate your problem.

If what were true? What are you talking about? Since day one, everyone has been harboring on this one paragraph about God turning on the sun. Don't tell me that I haven't thought carefully about what to do with this tiny section of the book, which is counterproductive. I didn't have to put in in the first place because it was not necessary to his demonstration. Whether he was right or not about this afterthought, it doesn't invalidate his claims.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I clearly admitted that Lessans used words that were not in keeping with present day terminology.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You think photon is a modern term for molecule? No. That is not the case. Lessans obviously had no understanding of light, at all.

LadyShea, you cannot intimidate me by telling me that Lessans didn't use the right word therefore he didn't know what he was talking about. He had three discoveries on his head. Do you have any idea how difficult this endeavor was to get this all down on paper? Of course not, therefore you are too quick to criticize. No matter how you try to discredit this man by the way in which he expressed himself, it does not invalidate his message.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I also have stated over and over that he was not a physicist. This does not prove anything Ladyshea. Your effort to discredit him has just gone down the tubes.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He was making strong claims about light and time when he had no understanding of either concept. If he wasn't a physicist, he should have stayed away from physics. He didn't though.

You cannot dictate what he should and shouldn't have involved himself with. Obviously you don't understand that someone can bring new information outside of a particular field and be right.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Pontificating on topics one knows nothing about, while claiming to be absolutely and undeniably correct, absolutely indicates a lack of credibility.

There is not one ounce of dogmatism or pompousness in his writings, which means that it is you who is being pompous, judgmental, and dogmatic.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know what I have to say to that? BULLSHIT. That's right. I said I changed wording or examples that had nothing to do with his concept. You lost LadyShea by giving this as some kind of proof that Lessans was wrong. You actually helped his cause inadvertently.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Molecule and photon are not synonyms therefore it was a dishonest edit on your part, because you were trying to cover up the completely incorrect concept that Lessans claimed was undeniable truth

That word was insignificant to the larger point he was making, just as the words scientific and mathematical have no bearing on the validity of his findings. Once again, you're grasping at straws.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You can't change hat to shoe and still be talking about the same type of outerwear

That was not what he was doing, and you know it. There was no confusion as to what he meant, even if the word photon wasn't used.

[LadyShea]

There is not one ounce of dogmatism or pompousness in his writings, which means that it is you who is being pompous, judgmental, and dogmatic.

No U!

[LadyShea]

Seriously, he made claims about light and time that were false, peacegirl. He used three hypotheticals to try to illustrate what he thought was a discovery about sight...not one, three (the Sun being turned on, the Sun exploding, observer on Rigel, and the nonsense about molecules of light could be considered a 4th).

You have been trying to defend this for almost a decade, and now, finally, you are going to remove it from the book? Why is it not important today, but has been for the last 8 or so years?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Actually, they can be compared to the eyes up to the retina. I am not changing how cameras work to fit the definition of efferent vision, therefore they can be used in support.

I really don't understand why you are having such a hard time. Cameras detect light only, but the light is present as a mirror image of the object or light source. That's like the 100th time I've repeated myself.

And what I'm saying is that if efferent vision is true, there is another explanation than incoming light forming on the lens and being interpreted by the brain. That explanation shows that cameras and eyes should not see different things; they should see the exact same thing which they do.

Wrong. The camera would show red if the red was coming from the light source. If it switched to blue, the camera would show blue just as the eyes would see blue. You keep thinking there is this time delay, and that's because your mind is blocked. You can't envision what I'm trying to get across so you keep going back to what you're accustomed to believing is true.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Cameras detect light only, but the light is present as a mirror image of the object or light source.

This statement is absolutely meaningless, peacegirl. Repeating it doesn't make it not gibberish.

You need to explain it some other way.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep thinking there is this time delay, and that's because your mind is blocked.

I keep thinking there is a time delay because light travels at a specific speed, and so takes time to travel from the source to the camera, and in the thought experiment that distance/time is 10 minutes.

You had previously stated that you understood that light travels. You have stated you understand that light is separate from the source once emitted. You admit that cameras receive incoming light to convert to an image.

So, explain how those things do not add up to a 10 minute time delay for photographing the light source in the thought experiment?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Seriously, he made claims about light and time that were false, peacegirl. He used three hypotheticals to try to illustrate what he thought was a discovery about sight...not one, three (the Sun being turned on, the Sun exploding, observer on Rigel, and the nonsense about molecules of light could be considered a 4th).

You're trying to make this bigger than it is. It is not 4 hypotheticals, okay? It is one. And he was correct about the observer on Rigel, so don't include that, thank you very much.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have been trying to defend this for almost a decade, and now, finally, you are going to remove it from the book? Why is it not important today, but has been for the last 8 or so years?

I was hemming and hawing about taking this excerpt out for some time, but now I am convinced because of the misunderstanding it has caused. But, and I will say it again until you finally get it, this has no bearing on whether his claim is true. Even if light has to impinge on the retina, it's what the brain is doing that is the issue here. If the brain is looking through the eyes, as a window (not decoding signals), then Lessans is right.

[LadyShea]

And he was correct about the observer on Rigel, so don't include that, thank you very much.

If he was correct about the observer on Rigel then the Theory of Relativity is incorrect. Are you able to argue that now when you failed so badly before?

[LadyShea]

If the brain is looking through the eyes, as a window (not decoding signals), then Lessans is right.

Yes, if Lessans was right he was right. And if I am right I am right. And if Einstein was right he was right.

So, how do we best determine whether someone is right about something, aside from painfully obvious circular reasoning?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Cameras detect light only, but the light is present as a mirror image of the object or light source.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This statement is absolutely meaningless, peacegirl. Repeating it doesn't make it not gibberish.

It is not meaningless, but it's difficult for you because of your orientation.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You need to explain it some other way.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep thinking there is this time delay, and that's because your mind is blocked.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I keep thinking there is a time delay because light travels at a specific speed, and so takes time to travel from the source to the camera, and in the thought experiment that distance/time is 10 minutes.

You had previously stated that you understood that light travels. You have stated you understand that light is separate from the source once emitted. You admit that cameras receive incoming light to convert to an image.

And I also said that a photograph of an object will not show up on film unless that object is present in some form. I did not say that cameras receive incoming light which would incorrectly imply that all we need is light for a picture to turn out. But that's not true. We see the LIGHT SOURCE because of light's presence (there's a difference between light's presence, and incoming light which is time related), which would mean that the image is not delayed.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, explain how those things do not add up to a 10 minute time delay for photographing the light source in the thought experiment?

Because there is no travel time. If you look at a scene in your field of vision; it's already there. Just because your lens draws in the light doesn't change the fact that there is no time delay in what you are seeing. The same holds true for a camera. It's similar to the retina. It draws in light that is already present; it just changes the angle of that light so the image is clear.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not say that cameras receive incoming light which would incorrectly imply that all we need is light for a picture to turn out. But that's not true. We see the LIGHT SOURCE because of light's presence (there's a difference between light's presence, and incoming light which is time related),.

This still makes no sense. You need to explain exactly what it means to say "light is present" or "light's presence" and how it is different from incoming light. Light is constantly incoming, unless you mean to say that the light arrives and hangs around somehow not traveling anymore and simply being present.

If light is present it is because light is arriving, just like if rain is present it is because raindrops are arriving.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This knowledge has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism or communism.

She's so stupid she doesn't even understand what an analogy is.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know what I have to say to that? BULLSHIT.

So Seymour the Buffoon actually thought that light was made of molecules, and then you tampered with the text to make him look like less of a fool. Interesting!

Unfortunately, if you really wanted to help out in this way, you would simply delete all the pages from the beginning through the end.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And he was correct about the observer on Rigel, so don't include that, thank you very much.

No, he was not correct about the observer on Rigel, thank you very much! He was wrong about the observer on Rigel for the exact same reason that he was wrong about all his other claims with respect to light and sight.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are again dishonestly evading the issue. If it is to be the BLUE light which determines the color of the photograph, then a real-time image requires either for that BLUE light to reach the camera instantaneously by travelling faster than light, or for it to act at a distance by interacting with the film BEFORE it has arrived at the camera. It doesn't help you to point out that light is already present when that light is a different color than the present color of the ball.

The RED ball reflects RED light towards the camera. At the moment in time when the ball changes from RED to BLUE, the light which is already at the camera is RED. So if the film is to interact with BLUE light to form a real-time image of the now BLUE ball, it cannot do so on the basis of the present RED light at the camera. You have only three options:

(i) The RED light presently at the camera (which was previously reflected from the surface of the ball wen it was still red) magically changes while in transit between the ball and the camera to match the changing color of the ball.

(ii) The film does not interact with the RED light present at the camera, but instead the BLUE light only just beginning to be emitted interacts with the film, somehow travelling faster than the speed of light to reach the film as soon as the ball changes color.

(iii) The film does not interact with the RED light present at the camera, but rather with the BLUE light only just beginning to be emitted. None of the light actually striking the film has any effect upon it, and the film instead chemically reacts to the distant BLUE light via magical action at a distance.

If you think you can provide any other option, please explain exactly what it is that interacts with the film in the camera, and which properties of that interacting thing will determine the color of the resulting image.

Bump.