A revolution in thought

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A bionic eye replaces the retina so that sight can take place.

What if the bionic eye detected infrared, or radio? Would sight be instant, or would it be delayed in one eye and instant in the other?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When did I ever say the pattern of light was not responsible for sight? I have continuously said that without the wavelength/frequency being at the eye, we couldn't see the object.

So let's go back to this, because on thinking about it this doesn't really answer the question about mirrors.

If the light has to be at the eye in order to see something, you've suddenly run into the problem that light takes time to get places. So for this reason you've made up this thing about light being at the retina instantly whenever we look at an object.

But even ignoring all the problems with light now being in two places at once and travelling instantly, this still doesn't explain mirrors! If I can see an object in a mirror, why does the light from the object magically become present at my retina in that case, but not when I replace the mirror with a wall? You can't explain mirrors because the light bouncing off a mirror or a wall has nothing to do with your explanation of vision. The light doesn't even need to do that, remember? When we see something the light is just 'there', on our retinas, according to you.

But, you tricksy thing, you distracted me! Well, you're not getting away with it that easily. You still can't explain mirrors.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have not changed my story but at this point I think it's getting too confusing due to the fact that light travels which seems to be proof positive that we see in delayed time. I still believe that we see in real time whether it's through telescopes, cameras, or the eyes.

Originally Posted by But

Okay. What is observed at points F and G is the same event, it's the moon entering or exiting Jupiter's shadow. An observer at point G sees the corresponding event earlier than one at point F. If we saw in real time there would be no difference. Do you understand that?

I don't agree that this is the only conclusion one can come to.

Originally Posted by But

Yes, and it's not true.

Hmmm, just saying it's not true doesn't make it so.

if we could see someone talking on the moon via a telescope and hear his voice on radio we would see his lips move instantly but not hear the corresponding sound for approximately 3 seconds later due to the fact that the sound of his voice is traveling 186,000 miles a second, but our gaze is not,

Originally Posted by But

This is definitely false.

Based on your position, it IS false but whether your position is based on an accurate premise is questionable.

Originally Posted by But

This is the Sun in microwave radiation (17 GHz).



Nobeyama Radioheliograph Latest Image

The Sun moves by about 2 degrees in 8 minutes, which is about four times its own angle in the sky. That's the difference that a radio telescope and an observer with a light telescope would observe. It's very noticeable. And of course, no one has ever observed anything like it.

Who is arguing with this? Maybe that's why they see a different position in the sky because it's actually a different position. I'm not sure how this negates this claim. It's really upsetting to me that the refutations given are interpreted as the final nail in the coffin that puts this claim to rest. I don't think so by a long shot.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have not gotten what Lessans was saying. You don't have a clue. Because of his claim that world peace is possible, you would rather attack the messenger than understand the principles and why they work.

The ability of a person to take advantage of a good thing cannot occur given these changed environmental conditions. A person would not be able to justify those actions therefore his conscience wouldn't allow him to go forward with said action.

You're trotting out that old saw, that if I don't agree, I didn't understand or read. I read the book, I understand what your father was trying to say, I disagree that he was correct.

The change in environment that Lessans described would not have any power to change peoples behavior. Extra profits would be plenty of justification for a person to make as much money as possible and leave, less investment would result in higher profits and that would be all the justification a person would need.

If you're honest about it, making money is your justification for hawking your fathers book.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who is arguing with this? Maybe that's why they see a different position in the sky because it's actually a different position.

Actually But pointed out in an earlier post he was wrong about the noticeably different position. It would be noticeable at all.

But incredibly your response to this objection is simply inane. Your utterly fail to comprehend what is said to you. People don't see a different position - that's the whole point! Do you even understand But's post here? Do you see why making the optical spectrum behave physically different to the radio one is going to lead to massive observational contradictions yet?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

You're trotting out that old saw, that if I don't agree, I didn't understand or read. I read the book, I understand what your father was trying to say, I disagree that he was correct.

The change in environment that Lessans described would not have any power to change peoples behavior. Extra profits would be plenty of justification for a person to make as much money as possible and leave, less investment would result in higher profits and that would be all the justification a person would need.

If you're honest about it, making money is your justification for hawking your fathers book.

You are completely ignorant of what my father was demonstrating. You are not in the position to verify his premises. You are so sure he was wrong about his claim regarding the eyes that you think you have more understanding than you actually do. You obviously have nothing better to do than to follow me around. Why don't you spend more time with your grandchildren? It will be time well spent.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Actually But pointed out in an earlier post he was wrong about the noticeably different position. It would be noticeable at all.

But incredibly your response to this objection is simply inane. Your utterly fail to comprehend what is said to you. People don't see a different position - that's the whole point! Do you even understand But's post here? Do you see why making the optical spectrum behave physically different to the radio one is going to lead to massive observational contradictions yet?

I do understand that a radio telescope and optical telescope work on the same premise. They can't show two different positions. This conversation is getting ridiculous. I am wondering why you are even engaging me in conversation if you think my father was so off track. What is your motivation? Why are you even wasting time here? Just to get me to admit he was wrong? Is that it?

[Kyuss Apollo]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This conversation is getting ridiculous.

show spoiler

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do understand that a radio telescope and optical telescope work on the same premise. They can't show two different positions.

Then why the heck did you say: "Who is arguing with this? Maybe that's why they see a different position in the sky because it's actually a different position."

This doesn't make any sense. Is this another case where you meant to say something different? How are we supposed to talk to you at all if you can't say what you mean?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

So let's go back to this, because on thinking about it this doesn't really answer the question about mirrors.

If the light has to be at the eye in order to see something, you've suddenly run into the problem that light takes time to get places. So for this reason you've made up this thing about light being at the retina instantly whenever we look at an object.

But even ignoring all the problems with light now being in two places at once and travelling instantly, this still doesn't explain mirrors! If I can see an object in a mirror, why does the light from the object magically become present at my retina in that case, but not when I replace the mirror with a wall? You can't explain mirrors because the light bouncing off a mirror or a wall has nothing to do with your explanation of vision. The light doesn't even need to do that, remember? When we see something the light is just 'there', on our retinas, according to you.

But, you tricksy thing, you distracted me! Well, you're not getting away with it that easily. You still can't explain mirrors.

I am not saying that light doesn't travel. I know it does and I know it bounces off of surfaces, but you're not understanding why we get a mirror image of an object or scene even if the light travels from the object to the mirror and is reflected back. Yes, this takes time but the time is imperceptible because it's not traveling across great distances as in the example Lessans gave. Why do you think he gave this example? To distinguish between traveling light which takes 8 minutes to reach Earth, and light that does not have to travel to Earth for it to be used by us to see, if the eyes are efferent. The light is not just "there" on our retinas, like magic. Is the light just "there" like magic when you light a candle? This analogy makes sense if you understand why distance and time are not factors in this account.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know it does and I know it bounces off of surfaces, but you're not understanding why we get a mirror image of an object or scene even if the light travels from the object to the mirror and is reflected back.

So tell me! Why do we see an image on a mirror, but not on a wall? You say light travels, but we should see it instantly - before the light has even reached the mirror. So the mirror has nothing to do with whether we see a reflection in it or not.

So given, according to you, we see an object before light has had a chance to reach the mirror or the wall, why do we see a reflection in a mirror and not a wall?

Note: you can't use light to explain mirrors, because light hasn't even reached the mirror yet if we see instantly.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You obviously have nothing better to do than to follow me around.

Why don't you spend more time with your grandchildren? It will be time well spent.

I respond to statements that are not true by stating the truth. I will continue to counter yours and Lessans false claims with the truth.

For the last 9 years I have spent more time with 2 of my grandchildren than their parents, I practically raised them. Have you spent anyway near as much time with any of your grandchildren? I'm sure your grandchildren would be better for time spent with you without your delusions that you inherited from your father.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not saying that light doesn't travel. I know it does and I know it bounces off of surfaces, but you're not understanding why we get a mirror image of an object or scene even if the light travels from the object to the mirror and is reflected back. Yes, this takes time but the time is imperceptible because it's not traveling across great distances as in the example Lessans gave. Why do you think he gave this example? To distinguish between traveling light which takes 8 minutes to reach Earth, and light that does not have to travel to Earth for it to be used by us to see, if the eyes are efferent. The light is not just "there" on our retinas, like magic. Is the light just "there" like magic when you light a candle? This analogy makes sense if you understand why distance and time are not factors in this account.

There is no such thing as light that does not travel, light that does not travel does not exist, the theory is false. The eye cannot use light that has not arrived, light must travel to arrive at the eye and be used by the eye for vision.

No, light does not arrive like magic, the analogy does not make sense because distance and time are always a factor in any account. You can't just dismiss them as if they don't exist. Lessans was wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am wondering why you are even engaging me in conversation if you think my father was so off track. What is your motivation? Why are you even wasting time here? Just to get me to admit he was wrong? Is that it?

I don't believe that anyone here just wants you to admit that Lessans was wrong, but for you to understand that your father was wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

What if the bionic eye detected infrared, or radio? Would sight be instant, or would it be delayed in one eye and instant in the other?

Why are you turning this into a joke?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know it does and I know it bounces off of surfaces, but you're not understanding why we get a mirror image of an object or scene even if the light travels from the object to the mirror and is reflected back.

Originally Posted by Dragar

So tell me! Why do we see an image on a mirror, but not on a wall? You say light travels, but we should see it instantly - before the light has even reached the mirror. So the mirror has nothing to do with whether we see a reflection in it or not.

I did not say that.

Originally Posted by Dragar

So given, according to you, we see an object before light has had a chance to reach the mirror or the wall, why do we see a reflection in a mirror and not a wall?

I didn't say we see an object before light has had a chance to reach the mirror.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Note: you can't use light to explain mirrors, because light hasn't even reached the mirror yet if we see instantly.

You are getting confused because of your false conception of the mechanism that allows light to be at the retina in this account without light having to travel to Earth. I have always maintained that light has to be at the retina for the object to be seen, but you're failing to understand how this can be accomplished, hence you call it magic.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you turning this into a joke?

This is not an unreasonable question, you have separated infrared and visible light. One being instant and the other taking time to arrive. Now justify your claim, or admit that you are wrong, and Lessans was wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not say that.

Yes you did, you have repeatedly stated that the image is at the eye instantly, which would be before the light has arrived at the mirror.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have always maintained that light has to be at the retina for the object to be seen, but you're failing to understand how this can be accomplished, hence you call it magic.

People here are failing to understand how light can be at the eye before it has had time to get there, because you have never explained it, and Lessans has not explained it, you and he have only asserted that is is so.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say we see an object before light has had a chance to reach the mirror.

So if the Sun has been turned off, and then we turn the Sun on, I can't see it in a mirror for 8 minutes?

Make up your mind. Either I can see it instantly (in which case the light can't have reached the mirror) or I see it 8 minutes later (in which case I'm seeing with a delay).

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say we see an object before light has had a chance to reach the mirror.

Are you saying that we see the object as a reflection in the mirror after the light has had time to travel to the mirror? So we don't see the object as it is now, but as it was in the past. This contradicts what you have been saying for 4 years or more, and it contradicts what Lessans wrote in the holy book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

So if the Sun has been turned off, and then we turn the Sun on, I can't see it in a mirror for 8 minutes?

Make up your mind. Either I can see it instantly (in which case the light can't have reached the mirror) or I see it 8 minutes later (in which case I'm seeing with a delay).

This was clearly stated. Light travels (infrared light or visible light), so it would take 8 minutes to reach Earth but due to efferent vision, if the Sun were just turned on, we would not have to wait for the light to reach Earth to see it.

To paraphrase this another way; if you could sit upon the star
Rigel with a telescope powerful enough to see me writing this very
moment, you would see me at the exact same time that a person
sitting right next to me would — which brings us to another very
interesting point. If I couldn’t see you standing right next to me
because we were living in total darkness since the sun had not yet been
turned on but God was scheduled to flip the switch at 12 noon, we
would be able to see the sun instantly — at that very moment —
although we would not be able to see each other for 8 minutes
afterwards.

[LadyShea]

Could we see the Sun in a mirror instantly or after 8 minutes?
Could we photograph the Sun using a microwave camera instantly or after 8 minutes?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Could we see the Sun in a mirror instantly or after 8 minutes?
Could we photograph the Sun using a microwave camera instantly or after 8 minutes?

Yes, we could if it met the conditions. But you are failing to understand that real time vision does not mean light is not at the camera, telescope, or eyes. It would be, but in the case of infrared photography, the object wouldn't be seen (it couldn't unless there was a way to convert the information to a visual image) since the infrared light is not within the visual spectrum.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, we could if it met the conditions. But you are failing to understand that real time vision does not mean light is not at the camera, telescope, or eyes. It would be, but in the case of infrared photography, the object wouldn't be seen (it couldn't unless there was a way to convert the information to a visual image) since the infrared light is not within the visual spectrum.

Astronomers do this all the time, a photo is taken in infrared and reprinted in a visual image, this is done so that features that appear in the infrared can be correlated to the visible image. Both images show the object at the same time, so if there is a delay in the infrared, there is a delay in the visible, the infrared image corresponds exactly to the visible image, there is no instant vision in either, there is always a delay. Lessans was wrong.