A revolution in thought

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Christina, if you want the book (which contains Chapter Ten: Our Posterity and is the newer version), I can sell it to you at a discount for $24.95. That's pretty good for a 600 page book. Online it will cost you $39.00. I don't mean to talk about money, but I really do want you to understand this book if you are sincerely interested.

If you agree that the eyes work in the way that every single scientist has explained to you for the past 10 years and acknowledge that your dad didn't have the benefit of current scientific knowledge, made a mistake and move on to the next chapter then I'll buy the book.

[LadyShea]

So kids never have to do any chores unless they want to and if mom doesn't want rats and roaches taking over the house she should do clean it herself? What about school and homework - do they have to do that or do they get to decide at 6 that they don't need more than a 1st grade education?

From what I gather, kids will want to help around the house and keep things tidy as soon as they are old enough to understand the principles (before that they are punished), and they will direct their own education.

There is something today similar to Lessans education philosophy, check out the unschooling movement.

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is something today similar to Lessans education philosophy, check out the unschooling movement.

Thanks. I'm certainly no expert (or even knowledgeable) about childhood education but many of my hippie friends went to what were called "free schools" and it seems about the same. Some of them were lucky if they could count out the correct change and had never read a non-fiction book in their lives because they never got around to being interested in reading, math, science or anything other than playing. Maybe it's like home-schooling and it all depends on how engaged the parents or teachers are.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Distance becomes a factor when you state that the light at the retina came from the distant Sun, because you then have to explain how it got from the Sun to the retina. And if the light came from the Sun then it does have to get from the Sun to the retina. It doesn't necessarily have to travel, but if it doesn't then you need to provide an alternative. So far all you're doing is weaseling and evading by refusing to address the parts of your account that are impossible and make no sense.

You said the light from the newly ignited Sun would be at the retina at 12:02 and was located at the Sun at 12:00. Was this correct or incorrect?

If correct, then you need to explain this 2min delay and light traveling at 4 times the speed of light.

If incorrect, then you need to explain when the light will be at the retina, where it came from, and how it got from there to the retina.

If you can't do this, then efferent vision is obviously not plausible. You can't say light will be somewhere if you can't explain where it came from or how it got there. Will you ever address this problem, or will you just continue to weasel?

Bump.

[peacegirl]

[quote=peacegirl;1136457]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You keep saying this, and this is the impossible part. Without an explanation- that doesn't violate physics- for how light gets to be located at the retina, it will remain impossible. Not just implausible....flat out can't happen.

Light can't just be somewhere because you need it to be there.

Now you're getting silly.

Again, you are thinking in terms of afferent vision, which would make this model totally implausible. But if Lessans is right, everything makes sense. Light does not have to reach Earth in order to see the object, but you are not looking at it from the efferent position so, of course, it makes no sense to you.

We are not talking about whether light has to reach Earth to merely see the Sun, we are talking about your claim that light is located at the retina when we see the Sun.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course that's the claim. Are you confused about this?

That's not my claim LadyShea. You can't seem to understand why an object that is within optical range would put the non-absorbed photons at the eye without having to travel to Earth. This does not violate physics.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are moving the goalposts. Seeing something is Lessans claim. Light being located at the retina is your claim.

This is not my claim. He said nothing "other than light" strikes the eye. That means light strikes the eye.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times have I stated that distance is not a factor in this account. Size and brightness are.

No, Lessans said "close enough" is a condition as well, because he said light "diminishes" over distance, which is why we can't see stars that are too far away. How does light diminishing over distance prevent us seeing the stars anyway? I thought we saw the "matter" of stars, not their light?

So he understood distance as a factor. Why have you dropped one of his conditions completely?

Originally Posted by Lessans

The sun at 12 noon would look exactly like a
large star; the only difference being that in 8 minutes we would have
light with which to see each other, but the stars are so far away that
their light diminishes before it gets to us.

Please explain, thoroughly, what he meant by the bolded sentence below. I don't understand it at all, because it is at odds with the known properties of light

Originally Posted by Lessans

Upon hearing this explanation, someone asked, “If we don’t need light around us to see the stars, would we need light around us to see the sun turned on at 12 noon?” Once the light is here it remains here because the photons of light emitted by the constant energy of the sun surround us.

What light is he talking about that "remains here"?

How does the sentence below not demonstrate a complete misunderstanding of the standard model of sight and is therefore a strawman?

Originally Posted by Lessans

it was assumed that the same thing occurred with the object sending a picture of itself on the waves of light

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Observed reality can be deceitful. The only way to know what's going on is indirectly.

I hope you are happy in your marriage. That's all that matters.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Very happy, getting ready to celebrate 22 years next month.

Let's celebrate LadyShea's anniversary. This is real, and this is all that matters. LadyShea, I'm so happy for you. I'm wishing you the best and if I could be at your celebration to toast you and your hubby, I would. I mean that sincerely.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course that's the claim. Are you confused about this?

That is not moving the goalposts at all. You are making stuff up to make it appear as if these observations go to hell. This gives you free rein to tell me that these observations are just mine, which gives you the opportunity to dismiss them. How sneaky you are LadyShea (and I'm not sure why, nor do I care to the degree that I have to psychoanalyze you), but unfortunately your refutation does not prove him wrong. I hope you can accept this, but if you can't, it tells me there's something else going on.

I am confused because Lessans never said that light must be located at the retina to see things. He thought we could see the Sun at 12 noon when it was ignited despite no light photons having reached our eyes....he clearly stated it. In other examples he was vague and confusing about the role of light, and never defined what light being "present" meant, but never once did he say anything about light needing to be in physical contact with the retina.

You made that up. You didn't get it from Lessans.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Both are accurate. We see something because that something is within optical range. It's within optical range because it's large enough and bright enough to be seen which puts the light at the retina. Boy do I sound like a broken record. We aren't waiting for light to arrive. Nothing is in the light that would allow us to interpret an image, IF THE OBJECT ISN'T PRESENT.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How is light "put at the retina"?

Put at the retina. What are you implying? All you're doing is making fun of what you don't understand. I'm not playing into this. Sorry.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

That's an interesting question! Other interesting questions include, "Does 'at the retina' mean 'in actual physical contact with the retina'?" and, "Is the light at the retina the same light that's illuminating the object?" I'd ask her the questions myself, but the odds of receiving an answer that doesn't involve space magic or Lessantonian gibberish are vanishingly small.

You just blew it Maturin. Ask me straight, or don't ask. I am not into playing games with you or anyone else. I guess it's your training that makes you so cynical.

[Spacemonkey]

[LadyShea]

I'll admit that I have not been familiar with many things introduced in this thread. Like when you were told that if we could see every star that existed, in real time, if distance and travel time were not involved in seeing stars, the sky would be all white. But unlike you, peacegirl, I do try to learn.

Here is a simple image that demonstrates Olber's Paradox. No matter which direction you look, there are billions of stars in the direct line of sight. If we saw them all at the same time, if time and distance were not a factor, there would be no empty space between them

[Ymir's blood]

I have been trying to make an effort for awhile to avoid gendered insults. Like Adam said, I tend to see that list as being ungendered. The various dick ones, perhaps not so much. It would be sort of interesting to examine the differences in the connotations of genetalia based insults, male vs female.

[ChristinaM]

If I just keep 2 tabs open I can do this.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Put at the retina. What are you implying? All you're doing is making fun of what you don't understand. I'm not playing into this. Sorry.

You said "it's large enough and bright enough to be seen which puts the light at the retina". How is light "put at the retina"? By what mechanism?

You need light to be there for your model to work with cameras, so you simply "put" light there...but the responsibility is on you to explain how light gets to the retina. Otherwise you are asserting that light is there, by magic apparently.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Distance becomes a factor when you state that the light at the retina came from the distant Sun, because you then have to explain how it got from the Sun to the retina. And if the light came from the Sun then it does have to get from the Sun to the retina. It doesn't necessarily have to travel, but if it doesn't then you need to provide an alternative. So far all you're doing is weaseling and evading by refusing to address the parts of your account that are impossible and make no sense.

You said the light from the newly ignited Sun would be at the retina at 12:02 and was located at the Sun at 12:00. Was this correct or incorrect?

If correct, then you need to explain this 2min delay and light traveling at 4 times the speed of light.

If incorrect, then you need to explain when the light will be at the retina, where it came from, and how it got from there to the retina.

If you can't do this, then efferent vision is obviously not plausible. You can't say light will be somewhere if you can't explain where it came from or how it got there. Will you ever address this problem, or will you just continue to weasel?

Your 100 weasels mean nothing Spacemonkey.

[The Lone Ranger]

So, to sum up: When you said that if someone invented a functioning bionic eye, that would disprove Lessans' claims regarding vision, you were lying. Good to have that cleared up.

Carry on.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your 100 weasels mean nothing Spacemonkey.

Your evasions are very meaningful, however, because you can't respond to the questions. Anybody reading this thread will see this evasion and know you can't answer. Do you plan to address the questions, or just keep weaseling?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

That's an interesting question! Other interesting questions include, "Does 'at the retina' mean 'in actual physical contact with the retina'?"

Of course it means that, and the only way that can happen is the very opposite of what they think happens.

Originally Posted by Stephen_Maturin

and, "Is the light at the retina the same light that's illuminating the object?" I'd ask her the questions myself, but the odds of receiving an answer that doesn't involve space magic or Lessantonian gibberish are vanishingly small.

What the hell are you talking about Maturin? You're really in a world of your own which has been created to dismiss anything I have to say. That's why I take nothing you say seriously, because you have an agenda.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

So now observations are not reliable and one has to consider them and infer what one thinks they mean. So Lessans 'astute observations' were worthless and he just made shit up out of his ass?

You've lost it thedoc. You have never said a thing that made any sense or had any relation to anything I have ever said on this thread. That's why I have to ignore you. You are the village idiot as far as I'm concerned.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by sadie

Oh my! This thread is still continuing? Doc, let me know when the next party rolls around, ok? You know how to reach me on Project Reason. Peacegirl was tossed off there for a misdemeanor of some kind...can't remember why. Maybe because she was deleting her posts so the thread made even less sense than when she was posting. (although a few insisted the deletions were an improvement over her argument)

Sadie, how are you? I really liked our conversation, as short as it was. I could not stay there even after I was given permission to come back. The people there are way too opinionated, and as a result, there was no way I could make any headway. But I'm glad you're here. As long as I'm responding to posts, I hope you get something from this thread. At project reason, you really made me giggle (which gave me a break from the onslaught of attacks) because you have a great sense of humor. I hope you never lose that.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course it means that, and the only way that can happen is the very opposite of what they think happens.

So how can it happen without changing the known properties of light or the laws of physics?

It is not possible for light to simply be somehwere, it has to be there by a mechanism. What is the physical mechanism by which light is "put" at the retina?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not into playing games with you or anyone else. That's what you're doing to try to make it appear what it isn't. That is so unfair.

Butthurt, Peacegirl is exersizing her long list of techniques for avoiding answering questions for which she has no answer. It's so unfair that people insist that she support her claims and explain exactly how those claims are supposed to work. We are expected to just accept what she and Lessans claim without questions and especially without thinking.

One wonders how she got through college? Surely there were required courses that covered the subjects that Lessans knew nothing about but would have taught the information that would have refuted all of his claims. How she would have mannaged to take the course, learn the material and pass the course, and then totally forget everything, is beyond comprehension. It just gives more credence to the idea that she is lying about what she believes about physics, optics, and vision.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You've lost it thedoc. You have never said a thing that made any sense or had any relation to anything I have ever said on this thread. That's why I have to ignore you. You are the village idiot as far as I'm concerned.

I am honored indeed. I am glad to fill that very important socio-economic niche of a comunity.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In all fairness, you can't draw up an analogy like this because the two are not alike. You can try just like you did with firemen are not responsible for fires as blame isn't responsible for crime, but your analysis is flawed. Where in the world did he say we don't need wings to fly (light to see?) The truth is light is a condition; you cannot compare the aerodynamic qualities of wings which do generate lift, and light, which does not cause sight because there is nothing in the light to cause it. Good try, but YOU FLUNKED!

You are just saying that because you want me to be wrong, because you just cannot stand that someone like me might have stumbled across a Great Discovery! You are like scientists in that respect: they are just too invested in theor world-view to even consider this brilliant idea, which is superior to their silly observing of reality because I discovered it by indirect means.

And unlike you, I can actually prove that your analysis is incorrect: I never said we do not need wings! If you had paused to read my argument in stead of rattling out your ill-informed knee-jerk reaction, you could see that I clearly state that wings are a condition for flight!

I am afraid that it is going to be another do-over year in kindergarten for you and your fellow aerodynamics-believers.