A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm just not convinced that all of the factors that have to be in place for this conclusion to be the only explanation, are airtight.

Only because you refuse to consider the evidence realistically, you are grasping at straws to support your failed claims.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Goal: Distract everyone from the repeatedly-demonstrated fact that astronomical observations thoroughly disprove Lessans' claims.

Tactic: Introduction of yet another utterly ridiculous and thoroughly-disproved idea as a "possible explantion" for "discrepancies," while disingenuously pretending to be searching for understanding.

Status: Distraction achieved.

Additional tactics: Make demands for evidence that does not exist, and claim that the lack of evidence proves lessans was correct.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No. If there is no change in size due to the actual moon moving towards us or away from us, then please find photos (I'm looking also) where one can see (or an instrument can detect) an increase in size due to light as it travels and strikes the telescope. But seems to thinks the photo he posted shows this by its measurements. If that's the case, then maybe that's enough proof for you. I'm just not convinced that all of the factors that have to be in place for this conclusion to be the only explanation, are airtight.

I think you are completely confused. This is simple geometry, to determine how large objects appear, all you need is right triangles. Do you think there is some sort of mystery involved?

Astronomy 102 Specials: The Observer's Triangle



The tangent function in right triangles - Trigonometry - Math Open Reference

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Vivisectus. Things that are closer seem bigger when seen through a telescope, but in the case of Jupiter's Io, the actual object was not moving closer. That is why I'm wondering if the light caused the image of Io to look larger as it got closer. That would reaffirm afferent vision.

you are contradicting your self, in one breath you say that Io is not moving closer and then in the next you speculate that the moon moving closer is the reason for it appearing larger.

A telescope only make objects appear to be closer, the distance does not actually change.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If there is no change in size due to the actual moon moving towards us or away from us, then please find photos (I'm looking also) where one can see (or an instrument can detect) an increase in size due to light as it travels and strikes the telescope.

Why would anyone post photos of this? First of all there is no change in size of an object moving toward us or away from us, so there are no photos to illustrate this. I don't believe that you are looking for any photos, that's just another lie from a proven liar.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

I think you are completely confused.

Yes, Peacegirl is confused, she accepts her father's book as true fact, and disputes anything that contradicts it. She is completely caught up in her father's fantasy and doesn't recognize reality at all.

[thedoc]

Peacegirl, Janis Rafael, Go and reacquaint yourself with your grandchildren, I'm sure they miss the grandmother you used to be, not the caricature you have become. Do some real good in this world and teach them about being real human beings who can see reality, and not some obscure fantasy that doesn't exist, and never will.

[Vivisectus]

[quote=peacegirl;1251194]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Well, of course it does. And yes, it does reaffirm afferent vision. In fact, if sight was efferent, there would be no reason something would seem smaller when it is farther away.

You're incorrect Vivisectus. We would see a smaller or larger object depending on how far away it was.

So you have stated before. But in optics, we can explain why. Your account has no explanation.

If an object was out of our field of view there would be no resolution and therefore we wouldn't get an image. If the object moved into our field of view, we would see it according to its position relative to us, but we would be seeing the actual object; we wouldn't be interpreting the light. The only difference is that in the efferent account we would be seeing it in real time, not in delayed time, as believed.

You know I love it when you get all incoherent, but not tonight, josephine.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Why would anyone post photos of this? First of all there is no change in size of an object moving toward us or away from us, so there are no photos to illustrate this. I don't believe that you are looking for any photos, that's just another lie from a proven liar.

Why wouldn't they post photos of this? Anyway, I gave you so many chances and you're escalating. Time to put you on ignore for real until further notice.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

I think you are completely confused. This is simple geometry, to determine how large objects appear, all you need is right triangles. Do you think there is some sort of mystery involved?

Astronomy 102 Specials: The Observer's Triangle



The tangent function in right triangles - Trigonometry - Math Open Reference

This goes back to whether light is actually bringing the information (which would reflect the same image regardless of distance), or whether there is another explanation that could account for this 17 minute delay. Everyone has accepted this is the only explanation possible. The problem is that Lessans' observation can be tested and verified as well. He's not out of the game yet.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This goes back to whether light is actually bringing the information (which would reflect the same image regardless of distance), or whether there is another explanation that could account for this 17 minute delay.

How does basic geometry go back to this, peacegirl?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This goes back to whether light is actually bringing the information (which would reflect the same image regardless of distance), or whether there is another explanation that could account for this 17 minute delay. Everyone has accepted this is the only explanation possible. The problem is that Lessans' observation can be tested and verified as well.

This is not an accurate description of afferent vision, the image does vary in size depending on the distance, so the same image is not reflected regardless of the distance. A longer distance would give a smaller image and a shorter distance would give a larger image according to afferent vision, and this is exactly what is observed.

Roemer's explanation is accepted because it fits all the observed data and no other explanation fits the data. Lessans version of Efferent vision does not fit any of the data and there has been no explanation of how it could work, and the theory of efferent vision has been tested and found wrong, including the ideas that Lessans is proposing. These ideas have been tested over the years and found wanting when tested against the known physics of vision and these ideas are accepted, not because some authority says so, but because they stand up to the testing in the real world.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why wouldn't they post photos of this? Anyway, I gave you so many chances and you're escalating. Time to put you on ignore for real until further notice.

SOP for Peacegirl, stick your head in the sand and ignore the truth.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When will you learn that I am not resetting anything? Are you so committed to your beliefs that you can't even consider an alternate explanation if there is a valid reason? And if you are so sure Lessans was wrong, why are you still here?

1. I have told you why I am still here.
2. You haven't offered any alternate explanation.
3. You didn't answer the question you were here replying to: What is your present excuse for evading my questions?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why wouldn't they post photos of this?

There is no reason to post photos that do not convey any useful information. Why don't you contact NASA with these questions and maybe they will answer you, after they stop laughing.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you so committed to your beliefs that you can't even consider an alternate explanation if there is a valid reason? And if you are so sure Lessans was wrong, why are you still here?

People here have been very reasonable in considering your claims, but your alternate explanations have no valid reasons to believe that they are true, and there is a lot of evidence to show that they are not true.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Five words, Peacegirl. Five words and a little bit of honesty. Is that too much to ask?

You're asking Peacegirl to be honest? You are an infernal optimist.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This goes back to whether light is actually bringing the information (which would reflect the same image regardless of distance), or whether there is another explanation that could account for this 17 minute delay. Everyone has accepted this is the only explanation possible. The problem is that Lessans' observation can be tested and verified as well. He's not out of the game yet.

I still have no idea what you are trying to say.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

I still have no idea what you are trying to say.

Neither does Peacegirl, but she has blind faith in her father.

[Vivisectus]

whoops wromg thrad

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

whoops wrong thrad

Keep trying, You're bound to strike the right key sooner or later.

[peacegirl]

This video predicted certain events to take place by 2011 which have not come to fruition, but it's still very much relevant to the sign of our times. Although it's not directly related to my father's book, it is indirectly related because it predicts a time when peace on earth will prevail.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This video predicted certain events to take place by 2011 which have not come to fruition, but it's still very much relevant to the sign of our times. Although it's not directly related to my father's book, it is indirectly related because it predicts a time when peace on earth will prevail.

Thanks for the random video clips mixed with ambient music and syncretistic New Age babbling.

Now could you please explain what you mean by

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This goes back to whether light is actually bringing the information (which would reflect the same image regardless of distance), or whether there is another explanation that could account for this 17 minute delay. Everyone has accepted this is the only explanation possible. The problem is that Lessans' observation can be tested and verified as well. He's not out of the game yet.

?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This video predicted certain events to take place by 2011 which have not come to fruition, but it's still very much relevant to the sign of our times. Although it's not directly related to my father's book, it is indirectly related because it predicts a time when peace on earth will prevail.

If the predictions of the video that are past, have not come to fruition, it is not likely that the other predictions that are to come will be any more true. It is directly related to Lessans book because neither have any validity.