12
   

Is there a now?

 
 
Banana Breath
 
  2  
Reply Fri 9 Jan, 2015 09:23 pm
@carloslebaron,
You obviously know nothing about the visual system, light, physics, or any other relevant topic. Photons must activate a pattern on the retina for an image to be recorded transmitted to the occipital cortex and interpreted. Whether the photons are reflected or directly transmitted to the retina makes no difference whatsoever. Light emitting diodes arranged in an array are an example of this; if you prefer we can use pixel-sized lasers at each point on a screen each beaming its portion of an image to the back of the eye; the eye doesn't care. A threshold is reached by the light sensitive cone and rod cells to cause them to fire, thus transmitting their information to the retinotopically mapped portion of the occipital cortex.
For more detail, see Kosslyn, S., Image and Brain, 1994
Kosslyn has served as chair of Psychology & Neuroscience and Dean of Social Sciences at Harvard, and director of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford. Yeah, he knows quite a bit more than you about this.

Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2015 05:59 am
Is there a question ?
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2015 07:56 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Yes there is a question. The question is can there be a discussion of now, that does not actually happen in the past, as now is gone, before you can contemplate it.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2015 09:30 am
@DNA Thumbs drive,
When can you do such a question, or when can I read it ? In the face of it I insist is there a question to be made when you attempt a is there a now ? Seriously ??? Wink
(don't bother explaining distinction between getting the information and the brain decoding it I know the argument)
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2015 09:33 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
More interesting would be to ask Now in relation to what ?...
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2015 09:38 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Ok, is there a now, in relation to now?
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2015 01:03 pm
@DNA Thumbs drive,
DNA Thumbs drive wrote:
Ok, is there a now, in relation to now?
Yes . . . .Oh, wait ... .
Well, there was
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2015 05:31 pm
@neologist,
Is that a now assertion ?
Oh wait...
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2015 06:04 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Good, "now" in relation to "then"--the present in relation to the past and the future. And of course they never stay still each becoming the other(s); that's why I describe the whole dynamic process as empty.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Sat 10 Jan, 2015 06:26 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Always just a bit too late .. ..
0 Replies
 
carloslebaron
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2015 01:49 pm
@Banana Breath,
Fil Albuquerque said:

Quote:
Light reflects is the keyword. It means it bounces and end up eventually hitting your eyes. You keep contradicting yourself sentence by sentence. It useless to keep feeding your nonsense you lack the most basic knowledge to keep producing any meaningful conversation. As I have no further intention to expose your degree of incapacity, it is not an human thing to do, I rather leave you talking to someone else. All the best in life !


You said:

Quote:
You obviously know nothing about the visual system, light, physics, or any other relevant topic. Photons must activate a pattern on the retina for an image to be recorded transmitted to the occipital cortex and interpreted. Whether the photons are reflected or directly transmitted to the retina makes no difference whatsoever. Light emitting diodes arranged in an array are an example of this; if you prefer we can use pixel-sized lasers at each point on a screen each beaming its portion of an image to the back of the eye; the eye doesn't care. A threshold is reached by the light sensitive cone and rod cells to cause them to fire, thus transmitting their information to the retinotopically mapped portion of the occipital cortex.
For more detail, see Kosslyn, S., Image and Brain, 1994
Kosslyn has served as chair of Psychology & Neuroscience and Dean of Social Sciences at Harvard, and director of the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences at Stanford. Yeah, he knows quite a bit more than you about this.


WELCIOME TO THE PERCEPTIONAL LAW.

Fil Albuquerque didn't show any link supporting his "beliefs", and your explanation is good to explain the process inside our system of perception AFTER the stimuli has reached our body, by internal or external means.

Here, we are not discussing Kosslyn, because Kosslyn is not explaining the process of perceiving images from the source, and if he did that, surely he also has failed in the same old same old fallacy that we perceive "past images" of stars because the "reflected light arrives to us thousands of years later". Lol.

And, I'm going to tell you that all those theories are crap to the square.

I will prove you that the current ideas that we can perceive images of bodies thru light traveling at 186,00 miles per second are crap.

Notice that THE PERCEPTIONAL LAW rules that our eyes are perceiving the images of the entire cosmos in its current present simultaneously with ours.

You won't be capable to prove the contrary.

PART 1

Here we go.

1)- Use a desk earth globe, a video camera, binoculars or a telescope, a school eraser, some papers with a red X sign on it, and a huge field.

2)- The globe earth will be your headquarters. The eraser will be a spacecraft. The huge field will be the cosmos.

3)- From "earth" send the spacecraft to the outer space. And follow it. Record the depart and traveling in your video camera without stopping.

4)- Measuring a scale distance, from earth arrive to Jupiter's orbit location. Put an X sign. Keep recording without stop.

5)- Keep making the spacecraft going away and put an X sign on Pluto's orbit, and after that go the further the binoculars allow you to keep seeing the image of the eraser. Keep recording the most you can until the eraser finally "disappears".

Part 2

Now, lets do the same, but at this time idealizing that from earth a spacecraft will be sent to the outer solar system.

1)- You will record in a video the spacecraft. Starting from a closed filming touching the surface of the spacecraft with the lens of the video camera, you will keep filming going inside the building to protect yourself from the spaceship depart. You never stop filming.

2)- You will keep a daily recording of the spacecraft since its depart the whole travel throughout space. Day and night, everyday, no rest.

3)- You are catching the traveling of the spacecraft which is going now close to the orbit of Jupiter.

4)- You know, that the spacecraft "is right there at this moment simultaneously with you" because you have been following its IMAGE since it was in front of you and you touched its surface with the video camera lens.

5)- The spacecraft keep going away and after days, weeks, months, it reaches the orbit of Pluto. And you know that the spacecraft "is right there at this moment simultaneously with you" because you have been following its IMAGE since it was in front of you and you touched its surface with the video camera lens.

6)- The spacecraft is now coming out of the solar system, and you keep filming its IMAGE all the time without stop.

7)- You know that when you watch the IMAGE of the spacecraft when it was on earth and when it was in outer space, you have been watching its current and present image, because you have been filming it without stop.

8)- But, a lunatic, one of those who are abundant around, comes to your place, watch the current traveling of the spacecraft thru the telescope you use for recording the whole event, this dude asks you the date of depart and speed of the spacecraft, and after making his calculations in base of the speed of light traveling from the spacecraft to earth, he said: "the image of that spacecraft is a 21 hours past image when it was in that location".

9)- Then you ask, "well, if not there, then, where is the spacecraft now?"

10)- Of course he will tell you that he doesn't know, because "the current light coming from the spacecraft is not arriving yet"... ha ha ha... what a dump!

_________________________________________

If you disagree that we are not perceiving the entire cosmos as it is in its current "now", then, explain:

1)- Where is the image of the spacecraft if not at the place where you are seeing it at the present moment?

2)- Using both examples (Part 1, Part 2), how and when the current image of the spacecraft has separated itself from its former image, so we receive its past image instead of its current one? Show your "formulas and equations" supporting such point of yours, and compare them with the video showing always the present image AND location of the spacecraft.

3)- The video is showing the "current image" of the spacecraft since depart up to reaching the outer solar system, how are you going to explain that we are seeing it in its "now" simultaneously with our "now" in base of the assumed speed of light as 186,000 miles per second?

4)- Use the first part of this message with the field experiment, which is 100% valid, because is made at "scale", and the results will be exactly the same than the idealized experiment of the second part of this message.

NO EXCUSES ARE ACCEPTED

IF YOU DISAGREE, USE THE SAME OR OTHER EXPERIMENTS/TESTS TO PROVE YOUR SIDE AS CORRECT.

NO LINKS ARE ACCEPTED, NO INSULTS ARE ACCEPTED, YOU MUST FACE THIS CHALLENGE AND PROVE YOUR POINT WITH SCIENTIFIC SUPPORT.

THE TEST IN PART 1 IS SCIENTIFIC, AND THE TEST IN PART 2 IS A SCALE SIZE OF THE TEST IN PART 1.

NO COMPUTER SIMULATIONS ARE ACCEPTED WITHOUT A PHYSICAL TEST MADE AS ON PART 1 OF THIS MESSAGE.

I put the above in capital letters, because this is not a contract to hide something fishy, but... because there is no trick here but the complete understanding of the perception of the universe explained with simple facts.

From here, remember, we see objects because light hits (reflects on) their bodies, and that light traveling to us is INVINSIBLE, and that images do not travel as light at 186,000 miles per second.

I don't know what the hell Kosslyn was thinking about the perception of images, but if he was like you, thinking that we can see past images because their distance from us, then, throw out his books to the trash.

THE PERCEPTIONAL LAW rules.
Banana Breath
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2015 01:55 pm
@carloslebaron,
Yawn yawn yawn.
Posting nonsense from a nonsense source doesn't make it true.
My source has headed perception laboratories at Harvard and Stanford.
Your source makes **** up.
I'll stick with my source.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2015 03:54 pm
@Banana Breath,
He would learn better if he tried to put a huge clock on the outside of the ship while looking at his own in his arm...it is not that in his filming he will perceive time going slower like in relativity, let concede the ship goes slow enough to avoid that, but rather that he will have gaps on the info arriving at frames per second while the camera is recording...In sum analogic info lag.
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2015 04:04 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
More interesting would be to try and film a high power laser pointed to Mars till the beam arrives there and check if it was instantaneous...
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  2  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2015 04:08 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Why would a laser to Mars be instantaneous, as it would be traveling the speed of light, which has a definite speed?
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2015 10:17 pm
@DNA Thumbs drive,
Read again...you missed the word check...I am de constructing what he suggests to be true.
DNA Thumbs drive
 
  1  
Reply Sun 11 Jan, 2015 10:25 pm
@Fil Albuquerque,
Actually with the right equipment, this could be done, in fact the Mars rover could do this now, not with film, but just by recording the arrival time.
0 Replies
 
carloslebaron
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2015 10:59 am
@Banana Breath,
Quote:
Yawn yawn yawn.
Posting nonsense from a nonsense source doesn't make it true.
My source has headed perception laboratories at Harvard and Stanford.
Your source makes **** up.
I'll stick with my source.


OK, here (the one from above) is one loser.

Lets see how many more losers who are incapable to demonstrate THE PERCEPTIONAL LAW as invalid can be count.

Ha ha ha... THE PERCEPTIONAL LAW is UNBEATIBLE!!! Vive la France!!!

"Now" is universal, we perceive the present of everything in the universe simultaneously with our present.

0 Replies
 
carloslebaron
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2015 11:14 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
He would learn better if he tried to put a huge clock on the outside of the ship while looking at his own in his arm...it is not that in his filming he will perceive time going slower like in relativity, let concede the ship goes slow enough to avoid that, but rather that he will have gaps on the info arriving at frames per second while the camera is recording...In sum analogic info lag.


The givers of the Nobel Prize in Physics were wrong in 1922 when they stated that no Nobel Prize will given to idiot Einstein because his Relativity was not science but "poor philosophy"... because actually, Relativity is not philosophy either but is mythology!!! ha ha ha...

Let me tell you this, take out the "environment conditioner" inside the airplane and all the passengers will arrive sick and even many of them will die (including the pilot) just traveling from New York to China. Do you understand?

The whole thing about Relativity is a "conditioned" crap input in thought experiments. We can't even travel in outer space more than 6 months, otherwise the human body will deteriorate to unknown conditions. Right now, after 6 months in space, astronauts must be in recover up to two years.

Your ideas are based in fantasies.

So, here (the one from above) is another loser who can't prove THE PERCEPTIONAL LAW as invalid.

THE PERCEPTIONAL LAW is UNBEATABLE! Vive la France!!!!

0 Replies
 
carloslebaron
 
  1  
Reply Mon 12 Jan, 2015 11:23 am
@Fil Albuquerque,
Quote:
More interesting would be to try and film a high power laser pointed to Mars till the beam arrives there and check if it was instantaneous...


Lol

So, you must direct your camera to the first light waves all the time and follow them with your video camera. Wherever they go, you follow them as the "head of the laser beam", and you will see "the image of the head of the laser beam" in its current "now" simultaneously with your "now".

Even more, install a mirror on Mars, and make the laser beam to hit and reflect on the mirror back to you. By following the "head of the laser beam" you will prove yourself that you have always detected its present status and location simultaneously with yours.

I told you, THE PERCEPTIONAL LAW is UNBEATABLE. Vive la France!!!
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Is there a now?
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 01/24/2022 at 07:03:06