A revolution in thought - Page 1119

Vivisectus · #**27951** 06-26-2013, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yeah, I am unsure why, but Conservapedianuts have decided that relativity is a problem along the lines of evolution. It's really crazy, and others have noted it and wondered WTF too.

Conservapedia! Why I do believe PG has found a natural ally. People who agree with her that we cannot possibly see starlight that is millions of years old, as they were created the same week the earth got created!

I cannot believe it never occurred to me to refer PG to them! I would not be surprised if Conservapedia would be happy to list Lessans among their list of Scientists who think there are Problems with the Theory! And hey: you guys also agree about the theory of evolution.

Vivisectus · #**27952** 06-26-2013, 07:13 AM

Here is a good one, from Conservapedia: the stars were indeed created a few thousand years ago, but they were created with an appropriate amount of light already travelling towards the earth so that it looks like we are seeing light that left distant stars millions of years ago.

Take notes, PG! These guys are not content to say "something else could be going on", but they actually add what they feel is happening.

Although for me, that explanation is disturbing. I mean, if there is an all-powerful creature that created this illusion to suggest the stars are so very old, would I piss it off by failing to fall for that illusion? It obviously went to a lot of trouble to make it seem, for all intents and purposes, that what we are seeing is light that left those stars millions of years ago. Would it not be rude to then refuse to fall for it?

Angakuk · #**27953** 06-26-2013, 07:32 AM

You will burn in Olber's hell if you don't.

peacegirl · #**27954** 06-26-2013, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

In the case of the laser and the red spot on the wall, what is the object that we are seeing when we see the red spot on the wall?

You are mixing up light (like David does), which takes time to strike the wall because the laser has just been turned on, and seeing the actual object due to light's presence. These are two different things. If the Sun was just turned on, we wouldn't see the light on the wall either because it hasn't yet arrived. This doesn't contradict efferent vision in the least.

Hilarious response! Come on peacegirl, answer Ang.

"In the case of the laser and the red spot on the wall, what is the object that we are seeing when we see the red spot on the wall?"

I did answer him. Traveling light is not what is under discussion. It obviously takes time for light to travel from A to B. But when we look at a distant object, we are not waiting for light to arrive in order to see said object. We see said object because it's there to be seen due to meeting the requirements of efferent vision. In this account there is no travel time. The image that is on film is the same exact image that we see in real time. That is because the image is not reflected in the light. The light is revealing the object and it's already at the film or retina. I wonder how many more times am I going to have to repeat this!

Okay, so forget traveling light. In the case of the laser and the red spot on the wall, what is the object that we are seeing when we see the red spot on the wall?

We are seeing the light coming from the laser. The object is the laser that is emitting the light.

When we see the red spot on the wall we are not seeing the laser. The laser is the device that is projecting the light onto the wall. The laser itself is not even in our field of view. All we see is the wall and the red spot. What are we seeing when we see the red spot?

The laser is turned on, isn't it? Turn it off and see what happens.

The red spot on the wall disappears. So tell me, what are we seeing when we see the red spot on the wall? In short, what is the red spot?

Light.

Let's recap.

You have previously agreed that when we see something we see the light that is either reflected or emitted by the object and not the object itself.

You have also agreed that in order to see that light it must be in contact with the retina.

You have now agreed that the red spot that was created by pointing a laser at the wall is light.

So, one last question for you. When we see the red spot where is the light we are seeing located? Is it on the wall or is it on the retina?

It works the same way Angakuk as seeing an object since the light is interacting with the wall, which allows the image to show up. The light is obviously at the wall. We are able to see it because it's within optical range, which means that the photons are at the retina. If the red light and wall were too far away, we wouldn't see the light because it would be out of optical range and therefore the photons that allow us to see the image would not be at the retina and therefore could not be resolved.

Dragar · #**27955** 06-26-2013, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light is obviously at the wall. We are able to see it because it's within optical range, which means that the photons are at the retina.

Doubleplus good! :awesome:

LadyShea · #**27956** 06-26-2013, 12:49 PM

Quote:

The light is obviously at the wall. We are able to see it because it's within optical range, which means that the photons are at the retina.

Bi-location! Which is not unpossible.

Bilocation & Wave Function : Physics • Rational Skepticism Forum
"Quantum Microphone" Puts Visible Object in Two Places at Once: Scientific American
http://www.livescience.com/27719-qua...coherence.html

Maybe peacegirl should be nominated for the Nobel

peacegirl · #**27957** 06-26-2013, 12:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Here is a good one, from Conservapedia: the stars were indeed created a few thousand years ago, but they were created with an appropriate amount of light already travelling towards the earth so that it looks like we are seeing light that left distant stars millions of years ago.

Take notes, PG! These guys are not content to say "something else could be going on", but they actually add what they feel is happening.

Although for me, that explanation is disturbing. I mean, if there is an all-powerful creature that created this illusion to suggest the stars are so very old, would I piss it off by failing to fall for that illusion? It obviously went to a lot of trouble to make it seem, for all intents and purposes, that what we are seeing is light that left those stars millions of years ago. Would it not be rude to then refuse to fall for it?

Why do you keep talking about conspiracies? Sometimes what we imagine to be true (because we see it with our very eyes) can be deceptive. We can imagine all kinds of things that aren't happening based on a false premise that eventually takes on a life of its own. We can believe it so strongly because it's been embedded in our psychs for so long, and it's now considered fact, that it's no wonder that when somebody comes along and disputes it, he is laughed at and not taken seriously. Obviously, empirical evidence is key, but to reject someone outright just because his ideas don't jive with present day thinking, is just as destructive.

Spacemonkey · #**27958** 06-26-2013, 12:57 PM

Bump.

peacegirl · #**27959** 06-26-2013, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light is obviously at the wall. We are able to see it because it's within optical range, which means that the photons are at the retina.

Doubleplus good! :awesome:

There is nothing screwy about this. The red light has enough brightness for it to be in optical range at the distance the viewer is seeing it. Try to see the light when the wall is too far away. Can we ever see the image? We should if it's being reflected and traveling right toward our eyes.

LadyShea · #**27960** 06-26-2013, 01:01 PM

Seriously what you are describing is pretty much the standard model, with only a few changes

Quote:

It works the same way Angakuk as seeing an object since the light is interacting with the wall, which reflects light. The light is obviously at the wall, then reflects off to our eyes. We are able to see it because it's within optical range, which means that the reflected photons have reached the retina. If the red light and wall were too far away, we wouldn't see the light because it would be out of optical range and therefore the photons that allow us to see the image would not be at the retina and therefore could not be resolved.

Dragar · #**27961** 06-26-2013, 01:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light is obviously at the wall. We are able to see it because it's within optical range, which means that the photons are at the retina.

Doubleplus good! :awesome:

There is nothing screwy about this.

"The light is obviously at the wall. The photons are at the retina." :awesome:

LadyShea · #**27962** 06-26-2013, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Here is a good one, from Conservapedia: the stars were indeed created a few thousand years ago, but they were created with an appropriate amount of light already travelling towards the earth so that it looks like we are seeing light that left distant stars millions of years ago.

Take notes, PG! These guys are not content to say "something else could be going on", but they actually add what they feel is happening.

Although for me, that explanation is disturbing. I mean, if there is an all-powerful creature that created this illusion to suggest the stars are so very old, would I piss it off by failing to fall for that illusion? It obviously went to a lot of trouble to make it seem, for all intents and purposes, that what we are seeing is light that left those stars millions of years ago. Would it not be rude to then refuse to fall for it?

Why do you keep talking about conspiracies? Sometimes what we imagine to be true (because we see it with our very eyes) can be deceptive. We can imagine all kinds of things that aren't happening based on a false premise that eventually takes on a life of its own. We can believe it so strongly because it's been embedded in our psychs for so long, and it's now considered fact, that it's no wonder that when somebody comes along and disputes it, he is laughed at and not taken seriously. Obviously, empirical evidence is key, but to reject someone outright just because his ideas don't jive with present day thinking, is just as destructive.

Conservapedia guys think God created the Earth a few thousand years ago but made it look millions of years old to trick us. Vivisectus isn't the one with the conspiracy theory

peacegirl · #**27963** 06-26-2013, 01:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

How can you possibly have missed the point? We can get people to "see" things through direct stimulation of the visual cortex. You don't need to involve the eyes at all. Nor does there have to be an actual object present within the patient's visual field.

Of course, you're trying to distract again, and you're blatantly shifting the goalposts.

Remember how you said that a bionic eye would be sufficient to disprove Lessans? Remember how you immediately denied that you had ever said such a thing when it was pointed out that bionic eyes already exist? Remember how you immediately shifted the goalposts when the lie was exposed?

Now you're blatantly attempting to shift the goalposts yet again, and hoping that no one notices. The problem is that you're about as subtle at it as is a rampaging bull elephant.

I really have no defense. If you think this is the nail in the coffin, then let it be.

Translation: despite her lack of a rational explanation for any of this, she am going to continue to believe this. This is fair enough: loads of people have irrational beliefs.

But on top of this, she is going to pretend that her belief is completely rational, that it is scientific, and that she believes it for completely rational reasons which other people would share if only they were not so unwilling to even consider it. In fact, she will maintain that it is THEY who reject this idea on irrational grounds, such as bias, closed-mindedness, or just plain old malice, and she is going to stick by this despite the fact that she is utterly unable to deal with their objections to her ideas.

It is a wonderful example of Peacegirlian circle-think: the very lack of her ability to refute the objections to her ideas becomes, in her mind, evidence of everyone elses irrationality.

As usual, for things to add up in Lessansworld, you require the ability to have your cake and eat it.

Absolutely wrong. I have answered many objections, but more importantly, if you took the time to understand his explanation as to why he came to the conclusions he did, you wouldn't immediately try in every way you can to make it appear that I'm the one with the problem. You have twisted everything he said to defend your own position, and you've done a good job at it, but it still doesn't change the fact that his observations were spot on.

LadyShea · #**27964** 06-26-2013, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Try to see the light when the wall is too far away. Can we ever see the image? We should if it's being reflected and traveling right toward our eyes.

Not if it's too far away to see, duh. Remember optics? Dispersion and apparent size and resolution have been explained to you....you even glommed onto them and incorporated some of the words into your explanations.

The standard model does not say we should see things we cannot see.

peacegirl · #**27965** 06-26-2013, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Seriously what you are describing is pretty much the standard model, with only a few changes

Quote:

It works the same way Angakuk as seeing an object since the light is interacting with the wall, which reflects light. The light is obviously at the wall, then reflects off to our eyes. We are able to see it because it's within optical range, which means that the reflected photons have reached the retina. If the red light and wall were too far away, we wouldn't see the light because it would be out of optical range and therefore the photons that allow us to see the image would not be at the retina and therefore could not be resolved.

That's true. The only difference is that we see in real time but the optical system is exactly the same.

peacegirl · #**27966** 06-26-2013, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Try to see the light when the wall is too far away. Can we ever see the image? We should if it's being reflected and traveling right toward our eyes.

Not if it's too far away to see, duh. Remember optics? Dispersion and apparent size and resolution have been explained to you....you even glommed onto them and incorporated some of the words into your explanations.

The standard model does not say we should see things we cannot see.

Exactly, but isn't this what science is saying; that we should see the image eventually, when it finally strikes our eyes? I thought if light travels in a straight line, we should be able to see the image even after hundreds of thousands of years. This is so contradictory, it's as bad as any fundie who is standing by his beliefs because his assumptions are taken for granted.

LadyShea · #**27967** 06-26-2013, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Exactly, but isn't this what science is saying; that we should see the image eventually, when it finally strikes our eyes? I thought if light travels in a straight line, we should be able to see the image even after hundreds of thousands of years.

No. This is the strawman. This is the complete misunderstanding of the standard model we have been explaining to you for two years.

Nowhere does optics state we should see things with our eyes that are too distant to see with our eyes.

peacegirl · #**27968** 06-26-2013, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light is obviously at the wall. We are able to see it because it's within optical range, which means that the photons are at the retina.

Doubleplus good! :awesome:

There is nothing screwy about this.

"The light is obviously at the wall. The photons are at the retina." :awesome:

Light from a laser is not the same thing as a photon. A photon is not visible; it is a vehicle that allows us to see physical matter or organized light. We are able to see the Sun due to the photons it emits, but the photons themselves are not visible. We can see organized light that comes from a laser, but we cannot see the photons that allow us to see that light. The more I try to explain what I'm trying to say, the more you're making fun of me, since I am not explaining it in professional terms. That's why this discussion has become a stockpile of jokes and why this is not doing Lessans any justice. It's time for me to leave.

Laser light wavelengths can be thought of as "organized".

HowStuffWorks "How Lasers Work"

LadyShea · #**27969** 06-26-2013, 01:27 PM

Quote:

This is so contradictory, it's as bad as any fundie who is standing by his beliefs because his assumptions are taken for granted.

Your strawman misunderstanding and misrepresentation of optics is contradictory, the actual model we accept due to evidence is not contradictory at all.

LadyShea · #**27970** 06-26-2013, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Light from a laser is not the same thing as a photon

Light is photons. All light.

http://www.universetoday.com/74027/what-are-photons/
http://www.universetoday.com/25334/why-do-stars-shine/

peacegirl · #**27971** 06-26-2013, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Exactly, but isn't this what science is saying; that we should see the image eventually, when it finally strikes our eyes? I thought if light travels in a straight line, we should be able to see the image even after hundreds of thousands of years.

No. This is the strawman. This is the complete misunderstanding of the standard model we have been explaining to you for two years.

Nowhere does optics state we should see things with our eyes that are too distant to see with our eyes.

Isn't this what science is saying; that if we were sitting on another planet, and the light from Earth reached us, and we were in the direct line of this light, that we would be able to see a past event such as Columbus discovering America, or any other past event? How is this possible if light is dispersed after leaving the object? And if there was a straight line to us, why shouldn't we see it eventually? Wouldn't the image be in the light; so why is it that when a wall is too far away, but the light is in a direct path toward us, that we don't eventually see the red light? Complete contradiction.

Spacemonkey · #**27972** 06-26-2013, 01:39 PM

If efferent vision is plausible, then why is it that you can't answer a single damn question I ask you about it?

Spacemonkey · #**27973** 06-26-2013, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course I agree that light is at the retina.

So photons are at the retina...

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no reflected light in this account, therefore there is no traveling photon.

...but they aren't traveling photons that traveled to get there...

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that light travels. Those photons travel...

...but now they are traveling photons again!

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no image that is reflected in the light.

Strawman takes another pummeling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...when you're talking about non-absorbed photons (images or patterns)...

We're not talking about non-absorbed photons, for his Sun example involves only light emission, and not reflection. And images or patterns are not photons. These words are not synonyms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The non-absorbed photons will be instantly at the film/retina because the object is within our field of view...

Where did they come from, and how do they get there?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand that no one can see how an object that absorbs photons doesn't reflect the non-absorbed photons. That appears logical, but I don't believe it's correct.

You just agreed only a few pages ago that it was correct. You keep claiming to be disputing this, but whenever pressed you end up agreeing with it again and saying that you were disputing something else.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They didn't get there, they are already there.

Already being there doesn't mean they didn't previously have to get there. When you open your fridge door, lo and behold, the food is already there (and doesn't have to sneak in after you open the door). But that food still had to get there previously by you going shopping and then returning to stock the fridge.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you see the object, the photons are instantly at the retina. Remember, you have to work this backwards...

I'm trying to do just that, but you keep refusing to do so. The photons are at the retina. Great, let's work backwards. Where were they 5 seconds before?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not weaseling away from explaining why light is at the retina.

Wrong word, and wrong question. We're not asking you why. We're asking you HOW the light gets to be at the retina. Where did it come from, and how did it get there?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you think I'm being contradictory, and am trying to weasel my way out of a claim that is implausible in your eyes, I'm very sorry, but that's not what I'm doing.

It's exactly what you're doing, and you've been doing it for years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one has actually answered the question as to why this claim is causing so much anger.

Because it isn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

At this point though I'm tired of discussing the eyes because it's exhausting to repeat the same thing over and over and get nowhere.

Then take a break and come back when you're ready to actually answer questions instead of just weaseling and repeating your claims.

Bump.

peacegirl · #**27974** 06-26-2013, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Light from a laser is not the same thing as a photon

Light is photons. All light.

What are Photons
Why Do Stars Shine?

That is true LadyShea, but there are different configurations of light that make some visible and some not. Laser light is visible because it's organized light. We can see headlights too, because it's organized light. It's light used in a certain way. Flashlights are organized so we are able to see the light that is emitted differently than what a photon provides. Photons provide light, but they aren't organized in the same way.

Spacemonkey · #**27975** 06-26-2013, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why not?

Am I wrong to think that if light is to be located somewhere then you need to be able to explain where it came from?

Am I wrong to think that if light came from some location then you need to be able to explain when it was located there?

Are these faulty assumptions, Peacegirl? Or are they perfectly reasonable questions that your account needs to address?

We are on parallel roads because I am investigating the implications of your claims, while you are running away from them. I'm trying to find out where these photons at the retina came from and how they got there on your account, while you're doing your best to ignore and evade the problem.

You still don't understand that there is no "where it came from"...

We're talking about the light at the retina. What do you mean there is no "where it came from"? I thought you said it came from the Sun? Was that wrong? Are you now saying this light didn't come from anywhere, and instead just came into existence at the retina? Is that what you are saying? Or are you just making up whatever crap you have to in order to evade the problem, without knowing what you are saying?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...because the image is not reflected in the light.

Who said anything about images being reflected in the light? Was that part of the problem I laid out for you? Or was the problem purely about where the light at the retina came from and how it got there?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am really tired of discussing this, and I need a break.

It must be very tiring work, constantly not answering questions. This is just another weaseling tactic. Whenever faced with the impossibility of efferent vision and your own inability to actually address the problems with it, you just start begging for a break. You've had breaks. Many of them. Yet you never come back willing to address the problem I've been asking you about. You weasel when refreshed just as much as when you are tired.

Bump.