A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

You know the speed of light. Would you like to work out how much time we will have to notice this effect over distances of a few hundred meters?

That makes no sense. If we can see an object that is closer to us, then we should be able to see an image that is farther away from us. In fact, if what you're saying is true we shouldn't be able to see any object that is closer to us because light would be traveling too fast to see it.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That makes no sense. If we can see an object that is closer to us, then we should be able to see an image that is farther away from us. In fact, if what you're saying is true we shouldn't be able to see any object that is closer to us because light would be traveling too fast to see it.

What can one do at this point, but laugh at her endless, mindless inanities?

After nearly 600 pages of this garbage, does anyone even have the stamina any longer to correct such hilarious misconceptions?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

What can one do at this point, but laugh at her endless, mindless inanities?

After nearly 600 pages of this garbage, does anyone even have the stamina any longer to correct such hilarious misconceptions?

David, all you are left with is anger. I'm so sorry that I have disrupted your worldview. I really am. It hurts me. But what am I supposed to do? Forget Lessans' very authentic discoveries because I don't want to hurt your feelings? I am in a difficult position, and I don't mean to hurt you at all. Or Einstein. Could it not be that Lessans is actually the dark horse in this race to truth? I don't know. I am just saying that if he is right, you can't just ignore it because you don't want it to be true.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

David, all you are left with is anger. I'm so sorry that I have disrupted your worldview. I really am. It hurts me. But what am I supposed to do? Forget Lessans' very authentic discoveries because I don't want to hurt your feelings? I am in a difficult position, and I don't mean to hurt you at all. Or Einstein.

It bears repeating -- not that it will ever penetrate your skull -- that unlike you, people of science and rationality do not appeal to authority. You appeal to the supposed authority of Lessans. We do not appeal to the supposed authority of Einstein. We simply look at the world and find that it comports with what Einstein said, whereas Lessans' claims fail to comport with reality. So, the issue here is not Lessans vs. Einstein, or Lessans vs. the people in this thread. It is Lessans vs. Reality. I pointed this out to you about 500 pages ago, but as usual you read or retain nothing.

To answer your question, light from on object close to us will be seen if the photons intersect with our eyes. Moreover, as you probably still don't realize, light, whether from a source or from a reflected object, will continue to arrive in a constant stream of photons, guaranteeing that we continue to see the object. See how easy that is?

You have not disrupted anyone's world view. I know how desperately you want to believe that. As I've explained, people respond harshly to you because they dislike liars and the wilfully ignorant.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

It bears repeating -- not that it will ever penetrate your skull -- that unlike you, people of science and rationality do not appeal to authority. You appeal to the supposed authority of Lessans.

David, I don't know what's in your head but there is no authority here. I appeal to truth just as you do. We just have different points of view. Why do you have to attack me unless you are threatened by the validity of your position?

Originally Posted by davidm

We do not appeal to the supposed authority of Einstein. We simply look at the world and find that it comports with what Einstein said, whereas Lessans' claims fail to comport with reality. So, the issue here is not Lessans vs. Einstein, or Lessans vs. the people in this thread. It is Lessans vs. Reality. I pointed this out to you about 500 pages ago, but as usual you read or retain nothing.

That's exactly my stance on this entire discussion. Let the best man win. No offense to Einstein. Einstein gave a lot to our world, and Lessans would have never argued with him because they came from the same desire to know the truth. But no one is God, okay, not even Einstein. Only God is God.

Originally Posted by davidm

To answer your question, light from on object close to us will be seen if the photons intersect with our eyes. Moreover, as you probably still don't realize, light, whether from a source or from a reflected object, will continue to arrive in a constant stream of photons, guaranteeing that we continue to see the object. See how easy that is?

Sorry, it's not that easy. I wish it was. I could then bow out and say you won. But I can't.

Originally Posted by davidm

You have not disrupted anyone's world view. I know how desperately you want to believe that. As I've explained, people respond harshly to you because they dislike liars and the wilfully ignorant.

That's just a negative reaction because you don't like what you're hearing. I get it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And nothing ever will be as far as you're concerned. You've made it abundantly clear that any and all counterevidence -- no matter how ironclad -- will be ignored. Your beliefs are purely a matter of faith.

And that's okay, as far as it goes. But it's dishonest to claim that there's anything remotely scientific about those beliefs.

Ironclad?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

No, it isn't. That's the whole point, "X had to happen" and "X did happen" are not equivalent statements, even after the fact.

Who said they were equivalent. What does this have to do with anything?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Prove it, give us a list of those he observed.

Seriously doc, I know you mean well, but I can't even begin to answer you in any intelligible way if you believe that his samples came from the pool hall. I don't even want to talk to you. It hurts me too much.

[ceptimus]

Another way to look at it is to consider how many people could get in a group photograph using a particular camera.

Let's say we have a camera where, if the people are ten feet from the lens, then ten of them can squeeze into the photograph.

Now even if the people just stand in one line, so they don't make use of the extra 'height' available in the photo as they move further away, then you can see that if they move back one hundred feet from the camera, then we can get a hundred people in the photo.

And if we take the camera up a mountain, and the people line up twenty miles away, then, on a clear day, we can get over a hundred thousand people into the photo.

But wait! Our camera is only a fourteen megapixel model, so it only has 4,500 pixels horizontally. That means that there will be over twenty people standing in each pixel (that contains people) of the resulting image. We're hardly likely to be able to make out their faces!

In fact, of course we wouldn't be able to see them at all. Maybe, just maybe, if they all wore bright fluorescent clothing that strongly contrasted in colour with the ground they were standing on, then the photograph could show a horizontal row of pixels that differed from the surrounding ones - but the people would be covering less than one quarter of a vertical pixel, so the effect would only be slight.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

David, I don't know what's in your head but there is no authority here. I appeal to truth just as you do. We just have different points of view. Why do you have to attack me unless you are threatened by the validity of your position?

No, you do not appeal to truth. Lessans' claims can be tested against reality. They are tested, and they fail.

That's exactly my stance on this entire discussion. Let the best man win.

Science is not a matter of personalities. I know this is impossible for you to understand, since Lessans is God for you and infallible.

No offense to Einstein. Einstein gave a lot to our world, and Lessans would have never argued with him because they came from the same desire to know the truth.

If he never would have argued with him then he, Lessans, would not have made statements that flatly contradict reality.

But no one is God, okay, not even Einstein. Only God is God.

You think your father was God, like a two-year-old thinks its father is God. You are a case of arrested development.

Sorry, it's not that easy. I wish it was. I could then bow out and say you won. But I can't.

It's exactly that easy.

And yes, only you, and you alone, deal in the personal. That's why you make retarded statements about winning and losing.

Originally Posted by davidm

That's just a negative reaction because you don't like what you're hearing. I get it.

It's a negative reaction for the exact reason you've been told. I and others react negatively to serial liars and willfull ignoramuses. It's why The Lone Ranger, a perfect gentleman, characterized you as "loathesome."

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Ironclad?

Yes, you have been presented with multiple ironclad disproofs of Lessans' claims.

I have come to believe you are just a troll. You should be ignored.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Seriously doc, I know you mean well, but I can't even begin to answer you in any intelligible way if you believe that his samples came from the pool hall. I don't even want to talk to you. It hurts me too much.

Prove it, give us a list of those he observed.

[thedoc]

We should probably get this guy to come and talk to Peacegirl, He'd be very comfortable as he seems to have some practice. Wouldn't do and good for Peacegirl but he could take over for us, we could just text him what to say.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPw1FCcndUg

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

It bears repeating -- not that it will ever penetrate your skull -- that unlike you, people of science and rationality do not appeal to authority. You appeal to the supposed authority of Lessans. We do not appeal to the supposed authority of Einstein. We simply look at the world and find that it comports with what Einstein said, whereas Lessans' claims fail to comport with reality. So, the issue here is not Lessans vs. Einstein, or Lessans vs. the people in this thread. It is Lessans vs. Reality. I pointed this out to you about 500 pages ago, but as usual you read or retain nothing.

To answer your question, light from on object close to us will be seen if the photons intersect with our eyes.

STOP RIGHT THERE. I NEVER SAID THAT LIGHT DOESN'T INTERSECT TO ALLOW US TO SEE. WHY ARE YOU LYING DAVID?

Originally Posted by davidm

Moreover, as you probably still don't realize, light, whether from a source or from a reflected object, will continue to arrive in a constant stream of photons, guaranteeing that we continue to see the object. See how easy that is?

NOOOOOOO, IT'S NOT THE WAY YOU BELIEVE IT WORKS. YOU ARE VERY STUBBORN AND THAT'S WHY YOU CAN'T EVEN ACCEPT A DIFFERENT POINT OF VIEW OF WHAT'S HAPPENING.

Originally Posted by davidm

You have not disrupted anyone's world view. I know how desperately you want to believe that. As I've explained, people respond harshly to you because they dislike liars and the wilfully ignorant.

You just said nothing at all. I'm a blank.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

The brain (mind) can be conditioned by any of the 5 senses and it is not related to words, that bit is complete nonsense. The words are applied after the person learns to recognize and remember objects, sounds, tastes, sights, and feelings received through the 5 senses.

And thedoc is now appointed as the great observer.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

"Undeniable" is almost exactly the opposite of what the word "scientific" means!

Oh really Lone? Give me a break okay? I need it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

That's been pointed out numerous times. Lessans either didn't know or didn't care that "scientific" and "undeniable" aren't even remotely synonymous. Since that fact didn't matter to Lessans, it ipso facto doesn't matter to peacegirl.

Stephen, the definition that he wanted people to know so they DID NOT GET CONFUSED, WAS ESTABLISHED VERY CLEARLY. Please don't make a red herring out of this. We're wasting too much time on nonsense.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

It is not true that we had to do it once it was done.

It is true that we had to have done it once it was done.

What does that mean Angakuk? It's a play on words, that's all you are doing. What you say makes no logical sense if you're following the premise (which must be accurate if Lessans is right, and it is).

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Your tenses are confused, not to mention your understanding of causality.

No, your logic is confused.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have his explanation regarding the brain and how it is capable of being conditioned where this is incapable of occurring with the other senses. This is what I meant by "he came to this finding indirectly."

Originally Posted by Angakuk

It is true that we have his explanation. What we don't have is any evidence that would lead us to think that his explanation is correct.

There is evidence. It's just that no one has been looking in that direction because they believe man's will is free.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If we can see an object that is closer to us, then we should be able to see an image that is farther away from us. In fact, if what you're saying is true we shouldn't be able to see any object that is closer to us because light would be traveling too fast to see it.

NO. You are still failing to grasp the most basic tenets of optics.

The light is only part of it. The size and sensitivity (density of receptors) of the sensor and the properties of the lens is the other necessary piece of the vision puzzle . Ever heard the term Hawk Eye?

Bird vision - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The avian eye resembles that of a reptile, with ciliary muscles that can change the shape of the lens rapidly and to a greater extent than in the mammals.

Birds, like fish, amphibians and reptiles, have four types of colour receptors in the eye. Most mammals have two types of receptors, although primates have three. This gives birds the ability to perceive not just the visible range but also the ultraviolet part of the spectrum, and other adaptations allow for the detection of polarised light or magnetic fields. Birds have proportionally more light receptors in the retina than mammals, and more nerve connections between the photoreceptors and the brain.

Birds of prey have a very high density of receptors and other adaptations that maximise visual acuity. The placement of their eyes gives them good binocular vision enabling accurate judgement of distances. Nocturnal species have tubular eyes, low numbers of colour detectors, but a high density of rod cells which function well in poor light

This is why specialized equipment is developed, like various types of lenses and super sensitive digital sensors and different types of film....to allow us to control the optical factors and get a photograph or see something that is too small for our eyes, or another piece of equipment, to resolve

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

The brain (mind) can be conditioned by any of the 5 senses and it is not related to words, that bit is complete nonsense. The words are applied after the person learns to recognize and remember objects, sounds, tastes, sights, and feelings received through the 5 senses.

All you do is mimic what you have learned. I thank you for your input because it lets me point out where you're wrong, which proves that Lessans is right.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The eye sees the object due to light, but the blue wavelength is not traveling to us. We are seeing the object due to the wavelength that is not being absorbed.

That is the same as saying that the eyes see the object because of light. The question you were asked is how do the eyes see the object because of light?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Could it not be that Lessans is actually the dark horse in this race to truth? I don't know. I am just saying that if he is right, you can't just ignore it because you don't want it to be true.

Could it not be that Lessans is actually a crackpot? I am just saying that if he is wrong, you can't just ignore that because you want him to be right.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is evidence. It's just that no one has been looking in that direction because they believe man's will is free.

As I and several others said at the beginning of this thread, I don't think most of us believe in free will (depending on the exact definition one is using). I personally believe each of us are constrained by our unique neural make up and cannot decide against ourselves.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All you do is mimic what you have learned. I thank you for your input because it lets me point out where you're wrong, which proves that Lessans is right.

Bad logic, peacegirl. Even if you are joking it is still bad logic. Even if thedoc was wrong (in this case he isn't) that would not prove that Lessans was right. They could both be wrong, just in different ways.

[LadyShea]

Attention everyone trying to explain pixels...she doesn't understand density and size and resolution. I realized that at some point (when I posted the Pointillistic images to illustrate the concept) but either thought she finally got it or forgot or something. Anyway it hit me again yesterday.

Our camera is only a fourteen megapixel model, so it only has 4,500 pixels horizontally. That means that there will be over twenty people standing in each pixel (that contains people) of the resulting image. We're hardly likely to be able to make out their faces!

The above is meaningless to her

Does anyone have a good graphic to demonstrate? Even different sized graph paper grids would probably illustrate nicely.

[peacegirl]

You know what, this could go on forever and Lessans' most important discovery -- the discovery that will end all evil --- is being forgotten. I can't keep doing this. I will have to say goodbye or start another thread on determinism. I am not going to be led by the whims of others. There's too much at stake here. People are dying everyday, and it doesn't have to be that way. So just be aware that I am starting a new thread, and if nobody comes to it, then I will know the people here are not truly interested in world peace; just in being right at all costs.