A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, we are seeing light. These photons have traveled from light years away and are now reaching the lens of our most powerful telescope. Therefore, this does not discount efferent vision. Thanks for that photograph. It's majestic.

Neither the objects or images were "in view" yet we got a picture of them

[LadyShea]

information transfer is unrelated to efferent sight

Sight/seeing involves information transfer...that is its function, that is what sight is. You don't want it to be, but it is.

[LadyShea]

By the way, you are more than welcome to come have fun on the rest of the board, talk about cooking or babies or space exploration, or take a break from this thread and have real life fun

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What I need to know is if the wavelengths that you are speaking of can be detected, or is there a possibility that there are wavelengths coming from the Sun. I'm curious about this.

What?????

Wavelengths are not things. Asking if there are wavelengths coming from somewhere is like asking if there are heights or weights coming from somewhere. Light comes from the sun, and wavelength is a detectable and measurable property of that light.

[LadyShea]

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What?????

Wavelengths are not things. Asking if there are wavelengths coming from somewhere is like asking if there are heights or weights coming from somewhere. Light comes from the sun, and wavelength is a detectable and measurable property of that light.

I think, despite the incorrect understanding of the relationship of wavelengths to light, peacegirl has a question that can be answered. I was curious what (and how much) electromagnetic energy the Sun emits.

High Altitude Observatory, Education Pages, Sun Research, National Center for Atmospheric Research

What kind of light does the Sun emit?
The light or photons emitted from the Sun cover a broad spectrum from very long wavelengths such as radio to very short wavelengths such as xray. Long term exposure to UV and xrays are very damaging. So, it is a good thing the Earth's atmosphere shields us from the harmful portions of the Suns photons, otherwise there would be very little life on Earth. (At least as we know it!)

Courtesy of The Multispectral Sun


I find it very interesting that the sun emits more visible light than anywhere else in the EM spectrum. It must be a remarkable coincidence!

[Kael]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I find it very interesting that the sun emits more visible light than anywhere else in the EM spectrum. It must be a remarkable coincidence!

More likely is that organisms on Earth that developed light-sensitive organs evolved to utilize the most abundant wavelengths of light, which are in what we now call the "visible spectrum" simply because that's the part we can see. If we had evolved to see primarily in different wavelengths, that would be the part we would now call the "visible spectrum."

[LadyShea]

Yes, quite a coincidence that our eyes evolved to use the most abundant wavelengths in sunlight!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is blue light interacting with the film, but the blue light is not traveling. You can't seem to grasp this concept as to why, if efferent vision is true, light becomes a condition of sight, not a cause. The blueness was there instantaneously when the snapshot was taken by the lens. I never said anything about blueness traveling separately from the light itself.

There was no arrival. If there was, it would have been red.

You're reversing your position yet again! And yet you don't even realize it because you clearly don't understand a single word of what you are even saying. *sigh*

At T1 light is present at the camera and interacting with the film. You agreed that a blue image will be produced due to the specific properties of that light, and you agreed that this light travelled from the ball to the camera, meaning the light and its properties arrived.

The blueness in question is the specific wavelength/color properties of the light which has just arrived, and which you say will determine the color of the image. Neither the light nor the blueness can travel independently of the other when you have agreed that the latter is a property of the former. If I throw a ball to you, you cannot catch the ball before its shape arrives, nor have the shape arrive before the ball. Understand?

Any light that is at the camera at T1 must have travelled to get there. So at T-1 it had not quite yet reached the camera, but was in transit between the ball and the camera. Yes? And if it is the specific properties of that light at T1 determining the color (again, think of the shape of a ball), then we can ask whether those properties of that light were the same or different at T-1 just before it arrived. (Remember, if the light arrived, then so did it's properties - whether those properties changed or not).

Here's an analogy: If I throw shaped objects to you, and the shape (say, cube or sphere) determines which of two boxes you will put the shaped object into, then when you catch a cube, what I am asking is what shape that cube was just before you caught it. Was the cube still a cube just before you caught it, or was it a sphere at that point and then changed into a cube while in flight? (Rhetorical question.)

The shape of the thrown object is analagous to the color/wavelength of the light which travelled to and arrived at the camera. (This is what you have agreed to by agreeing both that it is the specific properties of the light determining the color of the image, and that the the light travelled to get there.) So...

At T-1, just a moment before the light in question arrived at the camera, did it have the same or different wavelength/color properties then as it does at T1 when interacting with the film?

[davidm]

Jesus Christ, Spacemonkey, you're conversing with a lunatic! You do realize this, right? After all the disproofs of Lessans that she has been given, both empirical and logical, numbering by this time literally in the hundreds and sprawled across more than five hundred pages, you're giving her analogies? You might as well give a volume on quantum physics to a pig.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

You might as well give a volume on quantum physics to a pig.

Davidm, that 'pig' analogie is just a bit much, accurate maybe, but definately unkind. Shame on you for calling such a nice girl like Peacegirl a 'pig'.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by davidm

Jesus Christ, Spacemonkey, you're conversing with a lunatic! You do realize this, right? After all the disproofs of Lessans that she has been given, both empirical and logical, numbering by this time literally in the hundreds and sprawled across more than five hundred pages, you're giving her analogies? You might as well give a volume on quantum physics to a pig.

Maybe she'll understand this time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Neither the objects or images were not "in view" yet we got a picture of them

Yes we did. I think it's useless to continue discussing this subject. I've given people all I can give, and if they don't see the rational basis for this observation, or they don't believe it's even possible to see in real time, then at least I know I tried my best.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've given people all I can give, and if they don't see the rational basis for this observation, or they don't believe it's even possible to see in real time, then at least I know I tried my best.

That's a reasonable approach. Here's hoping you can leave it at that.

[The Lone Ranger]

Back in the late 1800s, so the story goes, a prominent Flat-Earth proponent named John Hampden publicly challenged anyone to prove to his satisfaction that the Earth is, indeed round. He proposed a reward of £500 (roughly equivalent to £35,000 in today's currency) to whoever could do so. Since the challenge was obviously rigged, few people were inclined to take the bet. But the famous naturalist Alfred Russell Wallace took Hampden up on his bet.

Wallace happened to be a qualified surveyor, so he had some expertise in the matter. He had sight lines established some four meters above the Old Bedford River, and several miles apart. The idea was that if the Earth were flat, then when you looked through a horizontally-oriented viewscope, you'd see the other one (which was the exact same distance above the water's surface) as being at the same level. But if the Earth was round, then someone looking through one scope would see the other scope as being noticably lower.

Unsurprisingly, Wallace's experiment clearly indicated that the Earth is, indeed, round. And the judge of the contest declared that Wallace had won the bet. But Hampden refused to accept the results. He declared that the results were due to something called "Zetetic Astronomy."

Zetetic Theory, as best I can tell, is never clearly defined, but it's the standard Flat-Earther's answer to every demonstration that the Earth is round. Supposedly, light passing through the Earth's atmosphere is bent in exactly such a manner as to create the illusion that the Earth is round, even though it's flat. Why does the Earth always cast a circular shadow on the Moon during a lunar eclipse, though this would not be possible if the Earth was flat? "Zetetic Astronomy." Why do ships appear to sink below the horizon as they sail away from us, instead of shrinking to a dot? "Zetetic Astronomy." Why do we see different stars as we sail north or south, as if the Earth was curved? "Zetetic Astronomy!"


Is there any actual evidence in support of Zetetic Theory? Why, no. Does it explain anything that cannot be explained by standard theories of light and its properties? Certainly not. Is it a parsimonious or predictive theory? Absolutely not. Does it conflict with pretty-much everything that we understand about the nature of light? You betcha! Would we have to throw out pretty-much all of physics in order to accept the "theory" of Zetetic Astronomy? Of course. Do proponents of Zetetic Theory claim that the only reason it isn't accepted by the "Mainstream Scientific Community" is because they're too "prejudiced" against it to see how truly magnificent an explanation it is for the world around us? Of course.


According to Samuel Rowbotham, who came up with Zetetic Theory and the modern version of the Flat Earth "theory," the Earth is flat and immobile. The North Pole is at the center, and Antarctica is simply a wall of rock and ice at the edges that holds everything in. The Sun orbits the Earth at a distance of only a few hundred miles.

Why do the other planets look like spheres? Zetetic Astronomy. How is it that the incidence of the Sun's light indicates it to be 93,000,000 miles away, instead of just a few hundred? Zetetic Astronomy. Etc., etc., etc.


And yes, there are people who claim to believe all of this, even today.


Hampden, by the way, refused to accept Wallace's demonstration of a round Earth. He spent years publicly denouncing Wallace as a "fraud" and "cheat." Eventually, he was jailed for libel and for making death threats against Wallace.





Samuel Rowbotham's Zetetic Theory is just like Lessans' "theories." Neither has a shred of evidence to support them. Both are flatly contradicted by literally mountains of evidence, and are, in fact, easily disproved. Both would require us to throw virtually all of modern science out the window in order to accept them. In both cases, followers insist that anyone who doesn't accept their claims uncritically is "close-minded" and/or too stupid to see the "self-evident" truth of their claims. In both cases, followers are absolutely unwilling to accept any disproof of their absurd claims, no matter how ironclad. [Supposedly, when shown photographs of the clearly-round Earth taken by the Apollo astronauts, the president of the Flat Earth Society remarked, "I can see how this would fool the average person into thinking that the Earth is round."]

The only real difference between Rowbotham and Lessans is that Rowbotham was somewhat more successful. Lessans has managed to create only one disciple, apparently.

But like any good True Believer, peacegirl is utterly unreachable. She has all but declared that she will accept no disproof of Lessans' claims, no matter how ironclad.

No evidence and no experiment, no matter how thoroughly-vetted, no matter how often it's replicated, no matter how incontrovertible its results, could possibly convince peacegirl that Lessan was wrong. Neither will the fact that Lessans' claims, if taken at face value, lead to absurdities.

No, as far as she's concerned, Lessans was infallible in his thinking. Any perceived conflicts between Lessans' claims and observed reality are due to people not understanding Lessans' notions of efferent vision and how it works. It doesn't matter that there's no coherent explanation in Lessans' works as to what "efferent vision" actually means, or how it could possibly work. It doesn't matter that every piece of evidence we have demonstrates that "efferent" vision could not possibly work. It doesn't matter that the world would be very different if we could somehow see in "real time."

And the last thing that peacegirl has any interest in is actually learning about the science that she's so unshakeably convinced is wrong. For she's a True Believer, and facts are meaningless. Her beliefs are a matter of faith. And like any True Believer, since she's convinced that her ideas are completely and "undeniably" true, she has no interest whatsoever in trying to comprehend the wrong-headed notions of anyone who fails to see her claims for the "self-evident truths" that they are.

All that matters to her is: "Lessans said it. I believe it. That settles it."

She's no more capable of reassessing her beliefs when it comes to Lessans and his claims than is a rock.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

An electric image means that light carries electrical energy that is sent to the brain for processing.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light is electromagnetic energy.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What I need to know is if the wavelengths that you are speaking of can be detected, or is there a possibility that there are wavelengths coming from the Sun.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

All light, always has a wavelength. So of course there are wavelengths coming from the sun. Some wavelengths are visible to the human eye, others are not.

You said you understood that wavelengths are a property of light, not something separate....what happened?

I know they are a property of light. I never said wavelengths are something separate from light.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Understanding how light works, and the different wavelengths, has allowed us to create technology like thermal imaging cameras

This image was taken at night in near total darkness.

Suspect at 2:49 AM in total darkness


As well as night vision devices

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Objects in near total darkness are not "in view", nor are they "bright enough" to be seen, nor can they project a "mirror image" on the lens.

Thermal imaging is another great technology that allows us to use infrared light to form an image through heat detection. The question remains: Is it possible for the special lens to create an image using this system if the object is out of view of the special lens? I don't see why an image couldn't be created using that same electromagnetic energy that just bounced off the object and is striking the special lens. In other words, if wavelengths are the property of light (which they are), and it is those infrared wavelengths that are detected using temperature patterns, we should be able to form an image (without the actual object in view) from the electromagnetic energy alone using this thermal technology, shouldn't we?

Thermal Imaging
Here's how thermal imaging works:
A special lens focuses the infrared light emitted by all of the objects in view.
The focused light is scanned by a phased array of infrared-detector elements. The detector elements create a very detailed temperature pattern called a thermogram. It only takes about one-thirtieth of a second for the detector array to obtain the temperature information to make the thermogram. This information is obtained from several thousand points in the field of view of the detector array.
The thermogram created by the detector elements is translated into electric impulses.
The impulses are sent to a signal-processing unit, a circuit board with a dedicated chip that translates the information from the elements into data for the display.
The signal-processing unit sends the information to the display, where it appears as various colors depending on the intensity of the infrared emission. The combination of all the impulses from all of the elements creates the image.

HowStuffWorks "Thermal Imaging"

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Back in the late 1800s, so the story goes, a prominent Flat-Earth proponent named John Hampden publicly challenged anyone to prove to his satisfaction that the Earth is, indeed round. He proposed a reward of £500 (roughly equivalent to £35,000 in today's currency) to whoever could do so. Since the challenge was obviously rigged, few people were inclined to take the bet. But the famous naturalist Alfred Russell Wallace took Hampden up on his bet.

Wallace happened to be a qualified surveyor, so he had some expertise in the matter. He had sight lines established some four meters above the Old Bedford River, and several miles apart. The idea was that if the Earth were flat, then when you looked through a horizontally-oriented viewscope, you'd see the other one (which was the exact same distance above the water's surface) as being at the same level. But if the Earth was round, then someone looking through one scope would see the other scope as being noticably lower.

Unsurprisingly, Wallace's experiment clearly indicated that the Earth is, indeed, round. And the judge of the contest declared that Wallace had won the bet. But Hampden refused to accept the results. He declared that the results were due to something called "Zetetic Astronomy."

Zetetic Theory, as best I can tell, is never clearly defined, but it's the standard Flat-Earther's answer to every demonstration that the Earth is round. Supposedly, light passing through the Earth's atmosphere is bent in exactly such a manner as to create the illusion that the Earth is round, even though it's flat. Why does the Earth always cast a circular shadow on the Moon during a lunar eclipse, though this would not be possible if the Earth was flat? "Zetetic Astronomy." Why do ships appear to sink below the horizon as they sail away from us, instead of shrinking to a dot? "Zetetic Astronomy." Why do we see different stars as we sail north or south, as if the Earth was curved? "Zetetic Astronomy!"


Is there any actual evidence in support of Zetetic Theory? Why, no. Does it explain anything that cannot be explained by standard theories of light and its properties? Certainly not. Is it a parsimonious or predictive theory? Absolutely not. Does it conflict with pretty-much everything that we understand about the nature of light? You betcha! Would we have to throw out pretty-much all of physics in order to accept the "theory" of Zetetic Astronomy? Of course. Do proponents of Zetetic Theory claim that the only reason it isn't accepted by the "Mainstream Scientific Community" is because they're too "prejudiced" against it to see how truly magnificent an explanation it is for the world around us? Of course.


According to Samuel Rowbotham, who came up with Zetetic Theory and the modern version of the Flat Earth "theory," the Earth is flat and immobile. The North Pole is at the center, and Antarctica is simply a wall of rock and ice at the edges that holds everything in. The Sun orbits the Earth at a distance of only a few hundred miles.

Why do the other planets look like spheres? Zetetic Astronomy. How is it that the incidence of the Sun's light indicates it to be 93,000,000 miles away, instead of just a few hundred? Zetetic Astronomy. Etc., etc., etc.


And yes, there are people who claim to believe all of this, even today.


Hampden, by the way, refused to accept Wallace's demonstration of a round Earth. He spent years publicly denouncing Wallace as a "fraud" and "cheat." Eventually, he was jailed for libel and for making death threats against Wallace.

Samuel Rowbotham's Zetetic Theory is just like Lessans' "theories." Neither has a shred of evidence to support them. Both are flatly contradicted by literally mountains of evidence, and are, in fact, easily disproved. Both would require us to throw virtually all of modern science out the window in order to accept them. In both cases, followers insist that anyone who doesn't accept their claims uncritically is "close-minded" and/or too stupid to see the "self-evident" truth of their claims. In both cases, followers are absolutely unwilling to accept any disproof of their absurd claims, no matter how ironclad. [Supposedly, when shown photographs of the clearly-round Earth taken by the Apollo astronauts, the president of the Flat Earth Society remarked, "I can see how this would fool the average person into thinking that the Earth is round."]

The only real difference between Rowbotham and Lessans is that Rowbotham was somewhat more successful. Lessans has managed to create only one disciple, apparently.

But like any good True Believer, peacegirl is utterly unreachable. She has all but declared that she will accept no disproof of Lessans' claims, no matter how ironclad.

No evidence and no experiment, no matter how thoroughly-vetted, no matter how often it's replicated, no matter how incontrovertible its results, could possibly convince peacegirl that Lessan was wrong. Neither will the fact that Lessans' claims, if taken at face value, lead to absurdities.

No, as far as she's concerned, Lessans was infallible in his thinking. Any perceived conflicts between Lessans' claims and observed reality are due to people not understanding Lessans' notions of efferent vision and how it works. It doesn't matter that there's no coherent explanation in Lessans' works as to what "efferent vision" actually means, or how it could possibly work. It doesn't matter that every piece of evidence we have demonstrates that "efferent" vision could not possibly work. It doesn't matter that the world would be very different if we could somehow see in "real time."

And the last thing that peacegirl has any interest in is actually learning about the science that she's so unshakeably convinced is wrong. For she's a True Believer, and facts are meaningless. Her beliefs are a matter of faith. And like any True Believer, since she's convinced that her ideas are completely and "undeniably" true, she has no interest whatsoever in trying to comprehend the wrong-headed notions of anyone who fails to see her claims for the "self-evident truths" that they are.

All that matters to her is: "Lessans said it. I believe it. That settles it."

She's no more capable of reassessing her beliefs when it comes to Lessans and his claims than is a rock.

I've said this umpteen times. If you can show me that a picture can be taken of an object that is out of view of the lens but in direct line with it, then I will be the first one to admit Lessans was wrong. I'm not here to just accept anything Lessans says, but I'm not convinced that science is right. Why should I be ridiculed for this? If the lightwaves hold the key to sight (the wavelength that bounces off the object and holds that image of the object within it as it travels through space and time), then I will gladly concede.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know they are a property of light. I never said wavelengths are something separate from light.

Part of you at least pretends to understand this. But then another part of you keeps saying things completely incompatible with it, demonstrating a complete lack of comprehension of what you claim to have understood and agreed with.

Exhibit A:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...is there a possibility that there are wavelengths coming from the Sun[?]

Exhibit B:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...the wavelength that bounces off the object and holds that image of the object within it...

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not here to just accept anything Lessans says, but I'm not convinced that science is right. Why should I be ridiculed for this?

Because after 8yrs of having light and vision explained to you on multiple forums, you still can't get even the basic concepts right, coming up with complete gibberish like:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the lightwaves hold the key to sight (the wavelength that bounces off the object and holds that image of the object within it as it travels through space and time), then I will gladly concede.

No-one has ever told you wavelengths bounce off objects and hold images within them. After 8yrs this is your understanding of regular afferent vision? Wavelengths do not bounce off objects. Wavelengths are not things, they are properties of light. Light of specific wavelengths is what bounces off objects. And wavelengths cannot hold anything. They are not things. The resulting image is simply a function of the pattern of distribution of light of different wavelengths.

After all this time you are still thinking of afferent vision as positing light as carrying along 'wavelengths' like little briefcases containing images inside. You haven't learnt anything from what anyone has explained to you over the best part of a decade.

[Spacemonkey]

Peacegirl, you claim that at the time of an object's color change (from red to blue), a camera's film will be reacting to the blue wavelength of the light present at the camera, and that this light has previously travelled from the object to get there.

So was the wavelength of that light red or blue just before that light arrived (i.e. just before the object changed color)?

[LadyShea]

Peacegirl
if the frequencies and wavelengths of light, without the object in view, give us a picture of that object, then Lessans was wrong.

LadyShea
Neither the objects or images were "in view" yet we got a picture of them

Peacegirl
Yes we did (get a picture of objects without the objects being in view)

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes we did. I think it's useless to continue discussing this subject. I've given people all I can give, and if they don't see the rational basis for this observation, or they don't believe it's even possible to see in real time, then at least I know I tried my best.

Cop out.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you can show me that a picture can be taken of an object that is out of view of the lens but in direct line with it, then I will be the first one to admit Lessans was wrong.

How many times do I have to post the Hubble Deep Field or Hubble Ultra Deep Field before you will admit Lessans was wrong?

[LadyShea]

Explain these two statements in a way that indicates you know what you are talking about

What I need to know is if the wavelengths that you are speaking of can be detected, or is there a possibility that there are wavelengths coming from the Sun.

I know they are a property of light. I never said wavelengths are something separate from light.

If you understood wavelengths are a property of light, and assuming you understand that light is "coming from the sun", what exactly were you asking?

[LadyShea]

Thermal imaging does not agree with what Lessans said were the requirements of efferent vision. So, are you back to cameras working by collecting and focusing incoming light as they were designed, and are thereofre not the same as the eyes?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where is focusing a lens on an object magical Vivisectus? There is nothing magical here at all. You're just trying to bring anything you can into the discussion to make it look as if there is no scientific basis to this observation.

It's not so much that it's magical, its just bassackwards. If you had ever played with lenses and focused an image or two then you would understand. You focus an image that is projected by an optical element like a lens or a concave mirror onto a surface. You don't "focus a lens on an object". That phrase is just ignorant. But you and Lessans don't know any better because you are ignorant.

Lessans is dead so he has an excuse. But you peacegirl have a brain that just can't get it. People here apparently are hoping the horse will sing.