A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Isn't it true that the eye, camera or telescope are considered light detectors and that, according to scientists, all that is needed to produce an image is to collect enough light and the image will be seen, regardless of whether the event or object no longer exist? Where is this a strawman? Isn't this what science believes?

This is changing the goalposts as it is unrelated to what you originally said.

The nonsense strawman part is "non-absorbed photons (the image or pattern)".

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is known, for a fact, is that light that travels until or unless it is absorbed. Light that is reflected or refracted or transmitted still travels because it is still light and retains the immutable properties of light. This can be empirically observed and measured. It is also known that light has a wavelength or frequency. All light has this, also an immutable property of light...so this statement below is nonsensical.

since white light (the full spectrum which has a different wavelength/frequency)

No, white light doesn't have a "different" wavelength. White light is photons of all frequencies traveling together.

Like a crowd of people wearing different colored shirts walking in the same direction.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no way to observe a light wave directly to see if it's a partial spectrum or a the full spectrum

Yes, there is...optical equipment like spectrometers do this.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only way we can see what wavelength/frequency the light has is by what it reveals as we look outside our windows.

Nope, there is all kinds of detection and measuring equipment. Your son is a radiologist, right? He uses such equipment every day.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not changing his wording. Scientific implies undeniable. If it's just the method that is in question, should this discredit his work? His method was careful observation after years and years of study. Just because you don't see the proof through data (which he couldn't have shown since he didn't plan on making a discovery) is absurd. What should I call this discovery if it brings about peace and brotherhood? A non-scientific discovery? Help me here.

I'm not particularly interested in helping you. Right above your request for help, you are flat out stating that you are still willing to be dishonest, and then making an incorrect statement you've already had corrected.

That, and everything I told you had been explained to you before. Your willingness to repeat and retread the same arguments is amazing. I could help you come up with a perfect synonym for "undeniable" to replace the incorrect use of "scientific" and you wouldn't use it. Why?

- Because you are dishonest and you want Lessans' ideas to have the respect of scientific discovery without any of the work required to make it so.
- Because you are dysfunctional and you think that because Lessans said it's scientific, it really is - even if it doesn't meet any definition of science.

No, no help from me.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I'm not particularly interested in helping you. Right above your request for help, you are flat out stating that you are still willing to be dishonest, and then making an incorrect statement you've already had corrected.

That, and everything I told you had been explained to you before. Your willingness to repeat and retread the same arguments is amazing. I could help you come up with a perfect synonym for "undeniable" to replace the incorrect use of "scientific" and you wouldn't use it. Why?

- Because you are dishonest and you want Lessans' ideas to have the respect of scientific discovery without any of the work required to make it so.
- Because you are dysfunctional and you think that because Lessans said it's scientific, it really is - even if it doesn't meet any definition of science.

No, no help from me.

Agreed, Peacegirls arrogance and hostility has removed her from any hope of compassonate help from any quarter, The only thing that will come to her now is help out of pity for her afliction.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This refraction causes a physical change in the atmosphere that causes this shimmering effect.

What physical change in the atmosphere is caused by refraction?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Scientific experiments are limited by the variables that they know of, which can give them a false understanding of what is actually going on. There are so many unknown factors that come into play, that it's no wonder they are wrong a lot of the time. They just don't have enough information, therefore their conclusions are not conclusive at all.

Therefore they are not undeniable and scientific cannot be a valid synonym for undeniable.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no way to observe a light wave directly to see if it's a partial spectrum or a the full spectrum. The only way we can see what wavelength/frequency the light has is by what it reveals as we look outside our windows.

Get yourself a prism.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Peacegirl, your words are meaningless word salad.

Here are some meaningful words that you should take to heart.

"All that glisters is not gold;
Often have you heard that told:
Many a man his life hath sold
But my outside to behold:
Gilded tombs do worms enfold.
Had you been as wise as bold,
Young in limbs, in judgement old
Your answer had not been inscroll'd
Fare you well, your suit is cold."


Lessans book glisters with many claims that do not bear up under scrutiny. Inside his "Golden Age" is but basemetal wth no value or substance.

It's true that all that glitters is not gold, but in this case the gold of the Golden Age is real and it's hurdling toward us. So hearken to these glad tidings and don't get discouraged.

[peacegirl]

[quote=LadyShea;1138537]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said light doesn't refract or disperse.

You've said it doesn't travel away from the object. Refraction and dispersion both happen to traveling light, only.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This refraction causes a physical change in the atmosphere

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, it doesn't. The atmosphere is not changed at all. The traveling light changes direction slightly.

That's what I meant. Thanks for clarifying.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Isn't it true that the eye, camera or telescope are considered light detectors and that, according to scientists, all that is needed to produce an image is to collect enough light and the image will be seen, regardless of whether the event or object no longer exist? Where is this a strawman? Isn't this what science believes?

It is true that if enough light is captured for the sensor to create an image, with "enough" determined by the sensor's capabilities, an image will be created. You may or may not notice that this is a tautology.

And science doesn't just believe this, it has demonstrated it to be a fact over and over again with every image ever created.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What premise? There is no premise here, Peacegirl. This is simply me asking you whether certain things are possibly an option or definitely not an option for your own account of vision. There are no assumptions. You can answer either Yes or No. So stop weaseling and answer.

I'm not going through this again because it ends up in a ditch every time. You plug in the same assumptions, and you get the same results, just like a software program will do. Let me put it this way: Your analysis is not going to favor this model or conclude that it's even plausible. It doesn't take into consideration the fact that what we see does not involve time (which you can't get beyond) because it doesn't seem logical. How this occurs, or the mechanism involved based on your analysis, makes no sense. Your analysis is going to fail every time because you are trying to reconcile traveling light with an image that does not travel. I know your answer, so you don't have to repeat it. It will never make sense to you because, based on your reasoning, it's impossible to see in real time when light has to travel from point A to point B. But does this model actually violate the laws of physics, or could the problem stem from a flaw in your reasoning? Based on your analysis, it is impossible for an image to be seen that isn't coming from light itself because light travels (end of story), therefore you will reject this model outright. But you are being premature in your conclusion.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You've said it doesn't travel away from the object. Refraction and dispersion both happen to traveling light, only.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what I meant. Thanks for clarifying.

What do you mean that's what you meant? Why didn't you say what you meant, instead of stating some crazy shit about the atmosphere physically changing?

What about the actual point I made? You've said light doesn't travel away from the object. Refraction and dispersion both happen to traveling light, only. So are they still a part of your model? If so, how?

Also, why have you dropped your line of reasoning about organized light?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not going through this again because it ends up in a ditch every time. You plug in the same assumptions, and you get the same results, just like a software program will do.

I'm not plugging in any assumptions. There are no assumptions here at all. I'm simply asking whether or not certain things are possible options or not for your own account. You can answer either Yes or No - no assumptions are involved.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Let me put it this way: Your analysis is not going to favor this model or conclude that it's even plausible.

Your failure to even address the problems proves that it's not plausible.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't take into consideration the fact that what we see does not involve time (which you can't get beyond) because it doesn't seem logical.

It does involve time. You've already conceded this. The photons at the retina came from somewhere else, and didn't travel infinitely fast or teleport, so they had to have a travel time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How this occurs, or the mechanism involved based on your analysis, falls short.

Your analysis fails because it doesn't even bother to posit a mechanism.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is going to fail every time because you are trying to reconcile traveling light with an image that does not travel.

Once again, I haven't been saying anything at all about images.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know your answer, so don't go there again. It will never make sense to you because, based on your reasoning. But does this model violate the laws of physics, or is this a flaw in your reasoning that is causing the problem? Based on your analysis, it is impossible for an image to be seen that isn't coming from light itself, therefore you will reject this model outright. But you are being premature in your conclusion.

Your account fails on your reasoning, because it is still flatly contradictory and fails to explain where the photons at the retina came from or how they got there.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, you now have three inconsistent principles regarding Lessans newly ignited Sun example:

(1) There are photons at the retina instantly at the moment the Sun is ignited.
(2) These photons came from the Sun.
(3) These photons had a travel time.

These three statements cannot all be true. So which one will you give up?

Bump.

[LadyShea]

You have stated that when we see something, photons are located at the retina. Spacemonkey is asking about the mechanism by which photons became located at the retina. Your whole last non-response is a big weasel.

You have said that light photons are located at the retina when someone sees the Sun.
Are photons located at the retina of a blind person who is facing the Sun but can't see it? If yes how did they get there. If no, why not?
Are photons located on the leaves a tree in that same sunlight? If yes how did they get there. If no, why not?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your entire premise is off Spacemonkey...

What premise?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You plug in the same assumptions, and you get the same results...

What assumptions?


You do realize that the above are perfect examples of Peacegirl weasel responses, right?

If they were legitimate non-weasel responses, you'd be able to tell me what premise and assumptions you were objecting to, and you'd be able to quote my words showing where I made them.

Can't answer a question? Afraid of looking like a complete moron? No problem! Just blame it on unspecified premises or assumptions.

[LadyShea]

Bump

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What.The.Fuck. Reflected light at an angle opposite to light that is going at opposite angles? What does that even mean? It's complete gibberish

Light is radiating in straight lines in every direction from the source. This is a fairly good representation


Stick a detector anywhere around the source and you can collect some of that light.

It can't collect all of it nor does it need to. What the hell are you babbling about?

What are you talking about partial images?

Of course this incoherent shit you made up doesn't make any sense. Because YOU MADE IT UP! It is a strawman.

What you are talking about has zero to do with observed reality or my explanations of how light works.

Is this a partial image? It's a spiral galaxy from the Hubble Ultra Deep Space Image...so it is a small part of the larger image. Is that what you mean by partial or what exactly?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He isn't asking about seeing images, he isn't talking about seeing at all. He is asking about the photons you have located at the retina. Where did they come from and how did they get there?

Are there photons located at the retina of a blind person?

Of course they are, but there is a problem with the eye. What's your point and how does this change anything I've said?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are still thinking of photons as copies of the object that are reflected and then travel through space/time

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What are you talking about? Nobody thinks that. That is your stupid misconception of the standard model. This is a strawman

So what does it mean that photons travel, strike a light receptor, and bring the image of an object to the brain that is no longer in existence? Explain this your own words.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But in this particular instance, the assumption that the non-absorbed photons (the image or pattern) bounce and travel forever is a logical (theoretical) conclusion, not a factual one.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is no such assumption and no such theory at all. This is your stupid misconception of the standard model. This is a strawman.

Where is this my stupid strawman? Doesn't light bring something to the eye, according to the theory? Yes or no?

Isn't it true that the eye, camera or telescope are considered light detectors and that, according to scientists, all that is needed to produce an image is to collect enough light and the image will be seen, regardless of whether the event or object no longer exist? Where is this a strawman? Isn't this what science believes?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is changing the goalposts as it is unrelated to what you originally said.

The nonsense strawman part is "non-absorbed photons (the image or pattern)".

What is it that allows us to see an image if not for the light (the non-absorbed photons) that are interacting with the retina? Why are you shooting yourself in the foot?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is known, for a fact, is that light that travels until or unless it is absorbed. Light that is reflected or refracted or transmitted still travels because it is still light and retains the immutable properties of light. This can be empirically observed and measured. It is also known that light has a wavelength or frequency. All light has this, also an immutable property of light...so this statement below is nonsensical.

since white light (the full spectrum which has a different wavelength/frequency)

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, white light doesn't have a "different" wavelength. White light is photons of all frequencies traveling together.

Like a crowd of people wearing different colored shirts walking in the same direction.

Who the hell is arguing with this?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no way to observe a light wave directly to see if it's a partial spectrum or a the full spectrum

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, there is...optical equipment like spectrometers do this.

Great! So there should be no problem in understanding what we see based on this knowledge.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only way we can see what wavelength/frequency the light has is by what it reveals as we look outside our windows.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nope, there is all kinds of detection and measuring equipment. Your son is a radiologist, right? He uses such equipment every day.

I wasn't talking about infrared light. Why are you trying to confuse everyone?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Remember the egg fiasco? No one ate egg yokes for years until they said that eggs aren't the culprit. Now they are saying that egg yokes have important health benefits. Go figure. Now these reports that come out every so often are taken with a grain of salt, which they should be.

So it's OK to eat egg yokes now? Have you had bacon and eggs lately?
A long time ago people didn't eat tomatos because they thought they were toxic, and the greens are, but the fruit is't. Trichinosis used to be a problem which lead to many cultures restricting the eating of ham and pork, but science has discovered the cause and the cure, so now everyone can eat the meat of the pig, if they just cook it completely.
Actually I don't remember the "Egg Fiasco" or did you just make that up?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Exactly what I said. If reflected light is at an angle that is opposite of light that is going at opposite angles, how can this light ever be collected? It's an impossibility. A detector may be able to collect some of the light (theoretically), but how could it ever collect all of it to form the original image? A partial image does not an image make. The whole thing doesn't even make sense except for the fundies who want to believe it.

If this is how Peacegirl thinks, it explains a lot.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's true that all that glitters is not gold, but in this case the gold of the Golden Age is real and it's hurdling toward us. So hearken to these glad tidings and don't get discouraged.

I'll need to remember to duck, which reminds me have you ever seen 'Duck Soup', I understand it's really funny.

[Vivisectus]

Neither is a rainbow or a sunset an object at all. Mirages don't exist either but they are seen because of what light does under certain circumstances.

...which shows that sight is afferent: there is no object there, and yet we see something.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is just that light can get refracted differently in hot and in cold air: as a result, the light reflecting from objects behind it gets refracted differently, something we experience as a shimmer.

But there is nothing there - it is not an object at all.

It doesn't have to be an object to see it. This refraction causes a physical change in the atmosphere that causes this shimmering effect.

No, there is no physical change. You just made that up.

This happens in all kinds of situations where light interacts with the atmosphere in some unusual way. We see what's out there whether it's an object or plain old light acting in different ways.

Mirages are not there: they are just the effect of light being refracted in a certain way. We see them because we interpret that light as an image, even though these things are not really there.

Light itself is actually invisible, as we have already established with our little thought-experiment with the laser: shoot a beam from left to right in front of you, and you cannot see it. Shoot it at a wall and a red dot shows up.

If we could "efferently see" light we would never be able to see anything else: there is light everywhere. We would be able to see a laserbeam without it hitting anything.

We see this shimmering because the light that has refracted is at the eye, allowing us to see this phenomenon. We don't just see objects. We see light too if it is interacting in an unusual way, which makes it visible. There really isn't a lot of difference between afferent sight and efferent except for this thing called time.

Your use of the word "refracted" makes no sense in this context. In order to refract, that light has to travel to the eye, which takes time.

The fact that objects behind it are affected is because light refracts. I never said it didn't. All I said is that we cannot see objects if they aren't there in some form. And I also said that we can see light that is interacting with the atmosphere in ways that make it visible.

Refraction is a term that only makes sense in optics: the afferent account if you will. It makes no sense in the framework of your idea at all. As for saying "light is interacting with the atmosphere in ways that make it visible" is another non-explanation: how does this work? What is it that makes the light visible? How is it relevant to sight in your idea, since it takes no time, which means it cannot have anything to do with light travelling (and thus refraction).

You are once again reasoning backwards: it is like saying the earth is flat, and then just saying "The earth looks round because of the way light interacts with the atmosphere, making it appear round".

[Vivisectus]

So what does it mean that photons travel, strike a light receptor, and bring the image of an object to the brain that is no longer in existence? Explain this your own words.

Sometimes I forget just how little of the words you use you actually understand.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So what does it mean that photons travel, strike a light receptor, and bring the image of an object to the brain that is no longer in existence? Explain this your own words.

No-one says the light brings an image, light strikes the retina and the retina signals the brain which receptor recieved which color of light and how much. From these signals the brain can intrepret the image of the object. The light may have been reflected from an object that is far away, and after the light leaves the surface of the object it travels independent of the object, and the object can disapear and we can still see the image of the object.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I'm not particularly interested in helping you. Right above your request for help, you are flat out stating that you are still willing to be dishonest, and then making an incorrect statement you've already had corrected.

I am asking you to tell me what to call a discovery that can change our world for the better. You're making an issue over the term "scientific". So what should I call it, a discovery instead of a scientific discovery? What will satisfy you?

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

That, and everything I told you had been explained to you before. Your willingness to repeat and retread the same arguments is amazing. I could help you come up with a perfect synonym for "undeniable" to replace the incorrect use of "scientific" and you wouldn't use it. Why?

Because I've already finished the book and I'm not doing it again. But I'm curious what you would replace this word with, as if it makes a difference when the outcome remains the same.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

- Because you are dishonest and you want Lessans' ideas to have the respect of scientific discovery without any of the work required to make it so.

He did more work than any respectable scientist, so what you're saying is a big fat lie.

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

- Because you are dysfunctional and you think that because Lessans said it's scientific, it really is - even if it doesn't meet any definition of science.

No, no help from me.

I don't want or need your help. Now that I know where your anger is coming from, I have no interest in discussing this any further. This is not about the word at all. It's about your resentment toward Lessans for getting any credit because he wasn't a "scientist" in the formal sense. Why do you think he clarified the terms in the introduction? You could care less because you don't believe he has a discovery. If it was confirmed by science that this is a genuine discovery, you wouldn't be acting this way. Interestingly, the fact that you gave credit to Daniel Dennett because he is well-known (but did not make a discovery) is very telling. Please don't post to me anymore. It's a toss up who is more vindictive, you or Vivisectus.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

No-one says the light brings an image, light strikes the retina and the retina signals the brain which receptor recieved which color of light and how much. From these signals the brain can intrepret the image of the object. The light may have been reflected from an object that is far away, and after the light leaves the surface of the object it travels independent of the object, and the object can disapear and we can still see the image of the object.

So what you're saying is that if the Sun was turned off tomorrow, we would still have light because light travels independently of the Source? How long would this light last, 8 minutes, a year, a thousand years, forever?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So what you're saying is that if the Sun was turned off tomorrow, we would still have light because light travels independently of the Source? How long would this light last, 8 minutes, a year, a thousand years, forever?

Light doesn't come with a use-by date.