When white light hits the filter, yellow is reflected and blue is transmitted. When the filter is placed on a mirror, the phenomenon disappears. When the angle is changed, the colors change. Some colored light travels through the filter and some casts a shadow. The effect is different when the filter is placed on pieces of colored paper. Those familiar with the Observations of the Candle Experiment, will appreciate the new Observations of the Filter Experiment. The plastic color shifting disks have multiple layers of coatings of differing indexes of refraction. Truly Amazing!
Do some experimenting, peacegirl, so you can make empirical observations, then try to explain them with efferent vision
I have no desire after your last post. Who are you to tell me this is woo??? Yes it boils down to you against Lessans, and you don't have a shot in hell.
I didn't say it was woo, I said your best bet is to talk to the woos, because they are less apt to hone in on the light/sight/time discussion and might discuss germinal substances or unnecessary necessities.
Light does bounce off of objects, but objects do not reflect light.
Yes, they do. We can observe and measure the reflected light. You can do this at home with a prism.
Measuring the non-absorbed light does not mean that light is reflected LadyShea.
If it's not reflected and it's not absorbed, where does it go?
You failed the course not because Lessans was wrong but because you can't get beyond your entrenched ideas.
LOL, the only entrenched idea I expressed in this post was that light that is not absorbed and not reflected has to go somewhere or do something....I asked you what it did or where it went.
Also, as I told you in the last thread, the light/sight/time thing will ALWAYS be the focus amongst rational people. It doesn't matter where you go to discuss or promote it, if the people there are skeptical or in any way science minded, efferent vision will be the topic of discussion.
Your best bet is to promote to the woos. You had a few big names in crystal waving on your radar already, so start with them.
It's a lost cause. Lessans intended audience, the non-woos would never go for it because of a long list of reasons. And the woos won't go for it because Lessans is far too cranky for a woo. And he probably disparaged woos.
Not when mr woo himself, Iacchus, has shown any interest at all.
If the next ten years for peacegirl is anything like the last ten years, all she would have accomplished is to waste twenty years of her life.
I'm done with this topic for now. I will ask again: Is anyone interested in his first discovery? If not, it's okay, I will move on gladly.
His other "discoveries" are based on poor and fallacious reasoning, and make no predictions that can be feasibly empirically tested.
You are completely off base LadyShea, and your arrogance is waving its ugly head. Don't say anything if you don't know what you're talking about is my best advice to you.
When white light hits the filter, yellow is reflected and blue is transmitted. When the filter is placed on a mirror, the phenomenon disappears. When the angle is changed, the colors change. Some colored light travels through the filter and some casts a shadow. The effect is different when the filter is placed on pieces of colored paper. Those familiar with the Observations of the Candle Experiment, will appreciate the new Observations of the Filter Experiment. The plastic color shifting disks have multiple layers of coatings of differing indexes of refraction. Truly Amazing!
Do some experimenting, peacegirl, so you can make empirical observations, then try to explain them with efferent vision
I have no desire after your last post. Who are you to tell me this is woo??? Yes it boils down to you against Lessans, and you don't have a shot in hell.
I didn't say it was woo, I said your best bet is to talk to the woos, because they are less apt to hone in on the light/sight/time discussion and might discuss germinal substances or unnecessary necessities.
Don't play Miss Innocent with me. I know exactly what you said and what you meant. Unfortunately, you're not as intelligent as you think you are, and that is what will cause me to go to the "woos" as you disrespectfully call anyone who doesn't agree with you or your cronies.
It didn't have a definite wavelength (energy) before, and it doesn't have one now.
Every photon has a definite frequency, that is one of the characteristics of a photon, there is no such thing as a photon without a specific frequency.
No, it doesn't have a specific frequency. All you have is probabilities that the energy (frequency, momentum) is in a particular range.
Untill you actually measure it. But you are probably right, but we can't know for sure.
That it has a definite value, even if it isn't measurable, is ruled out by this:
Interesting,
from the article,
" However, none of the tests of the theorem performed to date has fulfilled all of the requisite conditions implicit in the theorem. Accordingly, none of the results are totally conclusive."
From the first part of this thread. We went pages and pages where you couldn't even support the very first premise
Would you like to return to this discussion peacegirl?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Peacegirl, you need to define "satisfaction", and explain how "moving in the direction of greater satisfaction" can be observed.
You've agreed that it cannot be directly observed. That means it must be inferred in any given case on the basis of what is actually directly observed (i.e. what people are actually observed to do).
Satisfaction is the fulfillment of some need or want.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Are there any conceivable instances of human behaviour which, if observed, would show people to not be moving in the direction of greater satisfaction? Or is this principle compatible with all possible behavioural observations?
There are no conceivable instances of human behaviour which would show people to not be moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, otherwise it wouldn't be a law. There are no exceptions. We often choose the lesser of two evils because we don't have any good options available, so it may appear that we're moving in the direction of dissatisfaction, but that is only because the other options are worse by comparison.
Once again, you haven't answered the question. How can greater satisfaction be observed? What behavioral observations demonstrate this "law" in action? "What is actually directly observed (i.e. what people are actually observed to do)?".
When white light hits the filter, yellow is reflected and blue is transmitted. When the filter is placed on a mirror, the phenomenon disappears. When the angle is changed, the colors change. Some colored light travels through the filter and some casts a shadow. The effect is different when the filter is placed on pieces of colored paper. Those familiar with the Observations of the Candle Experiment, will appreciate the new Observations of the Filter Experiment. The plastic color shifting disks have multiple layers of coatings of differing indexes of refraction. Truly Amazing!
Do some experimenting, peacegirl, so you can make empirical observations, then try to explain them with efferent vision
I have no desire after your last post. Who are you to tell me this is woo??? Yes it boils down to you against Lessans, and you don't have a shot in hell.
I didn't say it was woo, I said your best bet is to talk to the woos, because they are less apt to hone in on the light/sight/time discussion and might discuss germinal substances or unnecessary necessities.
Don't play Miss Innocent with me. I know exactly what you said and what you meant. Unfortunately, you're not as intelligent as you think you are, and that is what will cause me to go to the "woos" as you disrespectfully call anyone who doesn't agree with you or your cronies.
Well we know who inherited Lessans arrogance, but then we've known that for a year or more.
When white light hits the filter, yellow is reflected and blue is transmitted. When the filter is placed on a mirror, the phenomenon disappears. When the angle is changed, the colors change. Some colored light travels through the filter and some casts a shadow. The effect is different when the filter is placed on pieces of colored paper. Those familiar with the Observations of the Candle Experiment, will appreciate the new Observations of the Filter Experiment. The plastic color shifting disks have multiple layers of coatings of differing indexes of refraction. Truly Amazing!
Do some experimenting, peacegirl, so you can make empirical observations, then try to explain them with efferent vision
I have no desire after your last post. Who are you to tell me this is woo??? Yes it boils down to you against Lessans, and you don't have a shot in hell.
I didn't say it was woo, I said your best bet is to talk to the woos, because they are less apt to hone in on the light/sight/time discussion and might discuss germinal substances or unnecessary necessities.
Don't play Miss Innocent with me. I know exactly what you said and what you meant. Unfortunately, you're not as intelligent as you think you are, and that is what will cause me to go to the "woos" as you disrespectfully call anyone who doesn't agree with you or your cronies.
No, I have a very specific definition for woos. They are credulous people who eschew scientific methodology.
Come on peacegirl, you're once again throwing a fit and throwing around insults to distract from the fact you can't answer questions about your ideas or support your claims. We know the drill.
Just like the main character in the movie Groundhog's Day, peacegirl will be back. But unlike the main character in that movie, she learns nothing from her endless repetitions.
Light does bounce off of objects, but objects do not reflect light.
Yes, they do. We can observe and measure the reflected light. You can do this at home with a prism.
Measuring the non-absorbed light does not mean that light is reflected LadyShea.
If it's not reflected and it's not absorbed, where does it go?
You failed the course not because Lessans was wrong but because you can't get beyond your entrenched ideas.
LOL, the only entrenched idea I expressed in this post was that light that is not absorbed and not reflected has to go somewhere or do something....I asked you what it did or where it went.
When matter absorbs light, it displays the remaining non-absorbed light, which is being continually replaced by new photons. But this non-absorbed light is not reflected.
You cannot understand this is you don't understand efferent vision. When matter absorbs light, it displays light. It does not reflect light.
You're being absurd and a weasel.
I do not need to understand efferent vision in order for you to explain where light goes that has neither been absorbed nor reflected when nobody is looking at it. Vision has nothing to do with the question, at all.
Light that has encountered matter, but has not been reflected, nor has it been absorbed is now where?
Thanks for the example but, but what does this have to do with what I'm explaining? The little piggy was there; it was just underneath the mirror, which doesn't change the requirements of efferent vision. Any mirror will deflect light. A hologram is just another form of how light interacts, but notice that the object is always present in some form.
Holography is often referred to as "lensless photography," but holography does require lenses. However, a camera's lens focuses light, while the lenses used in holography cause the beam to spread out.
A beam splitter: This is a device that uses mirrors and prisms to split one beam of light into two beams.
Mirrors: These direct the beams of light to the correct locations. Along with the lenses and beam splitter, the mirrors have to be absolutely clean. Dirt and smudges can degrade the final image.
Holographic film: Holographic film can record light at a very high resolution, which is necessary for creating a hologram. It's a layer of light-sensitive compounds on a transparent surface, like photographic film. The difference between holographic and photographic film is that holographic film has to be able to record very small changes in light that take place over microscopic distances. In other words, it needs to have a very fine grain. In some cases, holograms that use a red laser rely on emulsions that respond most strongly to red light.
That mirror it looks like he is standing on is actually a hole, and the actual pig was not in the field of view, or line of sight at all, because he was in the case and therefore obstructed from view. You are viewing not the object, therefore not seeing it directly, but only a representation of the object made purely of reflected light. This devise doesn't have a lens. It's nothing more than two mirrored bowls, one with a hole.
Note the image cannot be interacted with physically, which is why I keep asking you what your "mirror image" actually is, that it can be interacted with physically.
Light does bounce off of objects, but objects do not reflect light.
Yes, they do. We can observe and measure the reflected light. You can do this at home with a prism.
Measuring the non-absorbed light does not mean that light is reflected LadyShea.
If it's not reflected and it's not absorbed, where does it go?
You failed the course not because Lessans was wrong but because you can't get beyond your entrenched ideas.
LOL, the only entrenched idea I expressed in this post was that light that is not absorbed and not reflected has to go somewhere or do something....I asked you what it did or where it went.
You cannot understand this is you don't understand efferent vision. When matter absorbs light, it displays light. It does not reflect light.
When matter absobs light it either gets warmer, generates electricity or both. If it just "displays light" solar water heaters wouldn't work
You cannot understand this is you don't understand efferent vision. When matter absorbs light, it displays light. It does not reflect light.
You're being absurd and a weasel.
I do not need to understand efferent vision in order for you to explain where light goes that has neither been absorbed nor reflected when nobody is looking at it. Vision has nothing to do with the question, at all.
Light that has encountered matter, but has not been reflected, nor has it been absorbed is now where?
LadyShea, you are missing the entire concept. If matter absorbs light but does not reflect light, what that means is that (N) light (or full spectrum light) is constantly being reflected and traveling through space/time, not (P) light. There is no (P) light sitting around or being reflected. (P) light is the non-absorbed light that reveals the object but that light is constantly being renewed as (N) light passes over the object. The object continues to absorb those new photons. I gave this analogy before (although not a perfect one): Picture someone chiseling marble from a statue where we are able to see the form underneath. The statue does not require us to be looking at it for the form of the statue to exist now that the extra layer of marble has been removed, but we have to be looking at it to see it. By the same token, we don't have to be looking at the object for it to be absorbing certain wavelengths, although the only way we can see it is if we're looking directly at it (it's within our visual range), or if the lens of a camera is focusing the (P) light, which would instantly be at the film.
You cannot understand this is you don't understand efferent vision. When matter absorbs light, it displays light. It does not reflect light.
You're being absurd and a weasel.
I do not need to understand efferent vision in order for you to explain where light goes that has neither been absorbed nor reflected when nobody is looking at it. Vision has nothing to do with the question, at all.
Light that has encountered matter, but has not been reflected, nor has it been absorbed is now where?
LadyShea, you are missing the entire concept. If matter absorbs light but does not reflect light, what that means is that (N) light is being reflected and traveling through space/time, not (P) light. There is no (P) light sitting around or being reflected. (P) light is only the mirror image of the absorbed light, but only when we're looking at the object. This is what a camera is focusing when the lens is aimed at the object. If we're not looking at the object, all there is is white light.
No, you are weaseling out of answering a simple fucking question.
Light that has encountered matter, but has not been reflected, nor has it been absorbed is now where?
What do you mean (P)Light? You have your own kind of light now? Light that behaves differently than light?
Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality p. 120
They reasoned that since it takes longer for the sound from an
airplane to reach us when 15,000 feet away than when 5000; and
since it takes longer for light to reach us the farther it is away when
starting its journey, light and sound must function alike in other
respects — which is false — although it is true that the farther away
we are from the source of sound the fainter it becomes, as light
becomes dimmer when its source is farther away. If the sound from
a plane even though we can’t see it on a clear day will tell us it is in
the sky, why can’t we see the plane if an image is being reflected
towards the eye on the waves of light? The answer is very simple. An image is not being reflected.
So this part still interests me. What, in his atrocious way of writing, is Lessans actually attempting to say here?
He starts by saying something sensible: sound takes longer to reach us when an aircraft is 15,000 feet away than when 5000.
Lessans then seems to imply that because light does the same thing, scientists leapt to the conclusion that light and sound are alike in 'other respects', which he then claims to be false. It's certainly tempting to conclude that, but it's hardly the course scientific inquiry took, and these discussions (and the falsification of Lessans' ideas about vision) took place long before any observations were inconsistent with the speed of light being infinite.
Leaving aside all that, Lessans moves into a confused example to try and make his point: we can hear a plane when we can't see it. So why can't we see it when we can't, er...see it?
Even Lessans probably isn't knowingly writing down tautologies and hoping they're meaningful, so I'm immensely curious as to what he is so confused about to justify this incoherent mess.
So let's be charitable, and assume that we are in some position where we might hear a plane, but not see it. That requires sound to be deflected in some fashion, perhaps off a wall, or perhaps the sound is sufficiently loud that it sets the ground vibrating so that we hear it via vibratiosns in the Earth. Then we're left with an interesting discussion on how sound waves reflect off surfaces in ways that light waves don't - a wall that reflects a sound wave very neatly just leaves a mess of scattered photons. So again, all Lessans needed to understand here was that mirrors are a lot more common for sound waves than for optical light.
Of course, that interpretation of his meaning is very charitable. He does, after all, say "towards the eye on the waves of light", which does imply that there's no reflection involved here.
And indeed, if reflected light is moving "towards the eye on the waves of light", we can see the object reflecting the light (assuming the light does end up reaching our eyes). And (since we're not talking about reflected sound here, to keep the analogy tight) if we can't see a plane in the sky, there's no way in hell we can hear one either.
In fact, after a little consideration, the entire example he is talking about - the crux of his argument, if we believe peacegirl's account - is wrong, and never actually happens. In fact, not only is it wrong, and all sorts of stupid, it is founded I think by simple circular reasoning.
"Why can’t we see the plane if an image is being reflected towards the eye on the waves of light?" he asks, presupposing that we can't. If he'd checked, he'd find we actually always can see the plane "if an image is being reflected towards the eye on the waves of light", but Lessans never bothers to leave his armchair and find out. He believes his crazy ideas about vision are correct, so he doesn't have to check for himself - he just assumes he's right, and uses his assumption (that's so easily found to be false) as evidence for him being right in the first place.
__________________ The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Actually, I suppose there is another possibility, and that's that Lessans is confused by the fact that neither vision or hearing is perfect.
Perhaps Lessans is invisaging some case where the plane is heading toward us, and is so loud that we can hear it without there being sufficient light being reflected to see it.
And obvious case might be that there is some light, but not enough for our retina to register. Another case might be that the plane is incredibly loud, but so far away that the image landing on our retina occupies less than a single cell - again, our retina would be incapable of noticing such a thing. Though neither case really matches his description of "an image is being reflected towards the eye on the waves of light", although if he didn't know anything about how eyes worked, if might be something he could confusedly be trying to express. I am also a little hesitant to believe that Lessans didn't know that there were well understood reasons why we can't see things infinite far away with our prescription glasses.
Either way, in both cases this is merely a practical issue, not one of principle. A good enough telescope (or identically, a good pair of ear plugs) would once again render his example of failed.
So in this case, Lessans was foiled by nothing more than lacking a good pair of field glasses. A real tragedy.
__________________ The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two
Linear Mode
