A revolution in thought - Page 1847

davidm · #**46151** 03-31-2016, 04:43 PM

Muggles the Morose Mutt at his keyboard.

SCIENCE IN THE NEWS
Sad Dog Fails to Wag Tail at Star and/or Nickel, Upending Physics
A Computer Keyboard With a Mouse and Imaginary Levers Involved in Test Confirming Efferent Vision

FREETHOUGHT-FORUM (Internet News Service) — A computer keyboard with a mouse, a set of imaginary levers, and one very sad dog were involved this week in a key test of light and sight.

The dog, Muggles the Morose Mutt, was induced to attempt to recognize a star and/or a nickel by light and sight alone. If the dog recognized either, it would be bribed via doggy treat to whack its paw on an imaginary lever and then bang randomly on the keyboard until it produced a 600-page tome full of random nonsense strings of letters entitled, “The Decline and Fall of all Evil, by Muggles the Morose Mutt.”

In addition, it was anticipated that if Muggles recognized either the star or the nickel, or preferably both, by light and sight alone, it would happily wag its tail, smile broadly, and burst into a rousing rendition of “Light My Fire” by The Doors. 

Sadly, none of this happened. When shown a star and a nickel, the cockamamie canine merely stared morosely at the keyboard, occasionally pawing at the delete key as if to signal that it wished to will itself out existence because Seymour Lessans was involved in this nonsense. Never once did it turn its frown upside down.

Scientists said the test proved we saw in real time, that light is a condition but not a cause of sight, and that peacegirl needs some serious help seriously soon. 

peacegirl · #**46152** 03-31-2016, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Until an object comes into view because it is close enough or large enough to be within our visual range (whether by a telescope or the naked eye), all of the light in the world would show no image at all. :sadcheer:

And yet you're flat out wrong. Go crack open a science book. Plenty of man-made detectors are sensitive to very photons arriving over long time periods. Plenty of evolved detectors (e.g. the human retina!) can detect single photons, though I don't know any that do longterm time integration.

How can we possibly take this sort of willful ignorance with anything other than contempt? You're utterly wrong on this point, and you refuse to go look up in a book how basic optics works.

No one is disputing that man-made detectors are sensitive to photons arriving over long time periods.

peacegirl · #**46153** 03-31-2016, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's exactly as I said. If the star is easily seen, it is within our field of view, or the telescope. If it traveled farther away, we would not see it. Do you get this, or is it too hard to take because it contravenes your intuitions and your desire to find things that aren't there. :sadcheer:

You're misusing words.
Field of view - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

You said that a person cannot be seen anymore when they move more than three blocks away.

I did not say that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by But"

You also said that if an object is "outside visual range", it doesn't matter how much light we shine on it.

I said no matter how much light is present. How can you shine light on an object you can't see. Please stop misquoting me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Regulus is a star that can easily be seen with the naked eye, and it's the same apparent size as a nickel at a distance of three thousand five hundred kilometers or two thousand two hundred miles.

Don't you understand that what you are saying makes no sense at all?

Just kidding, of course you don't.

Right, because this star is huge in comparison to a nickel. Don't you understand what you are saying makes no sense at all? :eek:

A nickel at 3500 kilometers or 2200 miles away should qualify as out of "visual range", shouldn't it? You said if it's out of "visual range", it doesn't matter "how much light is present".

In the book, the Moon and the Sun are given as an example. They have almost the same apparent size or angular diameter. That's what your Dad meant but of course he had no idea what those things are called or how the mathetamics works.

Regulus appears as big as a nickel 3500 kilometers or 2200 miles away. If you can't see the nickel, you shouldn't be able to see the star, no matter how much light is present, right?

Why not? Regulus is large enough that it can be seen. If it was smaller, it wouldn't be seen because it would be out of our field of view.

No, it wouldn't be outside of our field of view. Get used to what the expression "field of view" actually means. Read the link above.

How much smaller would it have to be? Numbers please.

I don't need to offer numbers. In this account, we can either see an object, or we can't. If we cannot, the object is outside of our visual field.

You still don't understand what "field of view" or "visual field" means, do you? And if your "account" can't give numbers, it's absolutely useless.

I don't think it's useless. If you are walking away from me until I can no longer see you, that is what I mean by out of my field of view. Maybe this isn't technical enough for you, but you get what I'm saying.

peacegirl · #**46154** 03-31-2016, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's exactly as I said. If the star is easily seen, it is within our field of view, or the telescope. If it traveled farther away, we would not see it. Do you get this, or is it too hard to take because it contravenes your intuitions and your desire to find things that aren't there. :sadcheer:

You're misusing words.
Field of view - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

You said that a person cannot be seen anymore when they move more than three blocks away.

I did not say that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by But"

You also said that if an object is "outside visual range", it doesn't matter how much light we shine on it.

I said no matter how much light is present. How can you shine light on an object you can't see. Please stop misquoting me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Regulus is a star that can easily be seen with the naked eye, and it's the same apparent size as a nickel at a distance of three thousand five hundred kilometers or two thousand two hundred miles.

Don't you understand that what you are saying makes no sense at all?

Just kidding, of course you don't.

Right, because this star is huge in comparison to a nickel. Don't you understand what you are saying makes no sense at all? :eek:

A nickel at 3500 kilometers or 2200 miles away should qualify as out of "visual range", shouldn't it? You said if it's out of "visual range", it doesn't matter "how much light is present".

In the book, the Moon and the Sun are given as an example. They have almost the same apparent size or angular diameter. That's what your Dad meant but of course he had no idea what those things are called or how the mathetamics works.

Regulus appears as big as a nickel 3500 kilometers or 2200 miles away. If you can't see the nickel, you shouldn't be able to see the star, no matter how much light is present, right?

Why not? Regulus is large enough that it can be seen. If it was smaller, it wouldn't be seen because it would be out of our field of view. If it was closer, it would appear as large as a quarter or maybe a half dollar. How does your comment nullify the efferent model?

There is a nickel. It is 2200 miles away. It's apparent size is now the same as Regulus, thousands of lightyears away.

Thus, the apparent size is not an issue when visibility is concerned: we can see Regulus. So the apperent size of the nickel isn't either: we can see things with that small an apparent size!

Does that help, PG?

Hmm you seem to have missed this, PG

Quote:

It is true that we would not be able to decipher apparent size from the real size from just looking at an object unless we had other facts. The moon could look the same size as the Sun and only our ability to measure distance would we be able to calculate the actual (not apparent) size of these celestial bodies.

None of which is to the point. At all.

Quote:

We would not be able to see a nickel because it would be out of our visual field, and no amount of luminosity would help in that situation.

And yet we CAN see that star which is the same apparent size as the apparent size of a nickel at that distance. So it is not the apparent size that matters at all!

Who said it did matter? I was just making a point that the size and distance of an object go hand in hand.

Angakuk · #**46155** 03-31-2016, 05:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No matter how bright an object is, if it's too far away, we would not get an image.

No matter how far away an object is or how bright it is, if we spend enough time pointing a telescope at it, we will get an image.

You keep making statements that are flat out wrong. We know they're wrong. Go read a book.

She has read a book, many of them actually. The problem is that they were all written her father.

But · #**46156** 03-31-2016, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

You still don't understand what "field of view" or "visual field" means, do you? And if your "account" can't give numbers, it's absolutely useless.

I don't think it's useless. If you are walking away from me until I can no longer see you, that is what I mean by out of my field of view. Maybe this isn't technical enough for you, but you get what I'm saying.

So I walk away until you can no longer see me. Mind you, I'm still in your field of view or visual field. According to you, it won't make a difference if I then put a spotlight next to me and illuminate myself, right?

Dragar · #**46157** 03-31-2016, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Until an object comes into view because it is close enough or large enough to be within our visual range (whether by a telescope or the naked eye), all of the light in the world would show no image at all. :sadcheer:

And yet you're flat out wrong. Go crack open a science book. Plenty of man-made detectors are sensitive to very photons arriving over long time periods. Plenty of evolved detectors (e.g. the human retina!) can detect single photons, though I don't know any that do longterm time integration.

How can we possibly take this sort of willful ignorance with anything other than contempt? You're utterly wrong on this point, and you refuse to go look up in a book how basic optics works.

No one is disputing that man-made detectors are sensitive to photons arriving over long time periods.

peacegirl, are you incapable of following a basic thread of conversation? Or is this some attempt at deliberate deception?

peacegirl · #**46158** 03-31-2016, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

You still don't understand what "field of view" or "visual field" means, do you? And if your "account" can't give numbers, it's absolutely useless.

I don't think it's useless. If you are walking away from me until I can no longer see you, that is what I mean by out of my field of view. Maybe this isn't technical enough for you, but you get what I'm saying.

So I walk away until you can no longer see me. Mind you, I'm still in your field of view or visual field. According to you, it won't make a difference if I then put a spotlight next to me and illuminate myself, right?

If I no longer see you, you are no longer in my visual field, so no matter how much you illuminate yourself, it won't make a difference.

peacegirl · #**46159** 03-31-2016, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Until an object comes into view because it is close enough or large enough to be within our visual range (whether by a telescope or the naked eye), all of the light in the world would show no image at all. :sadcheer:

And yet you're flat out wrong. Go crack open a science book. Plenty of man-made detectors are sensitive to very photons arriving over long time periods. Plenty of evolved detectors (e.g. the human retina!) can detect single photons, though I don't know any that do longterm time integration.

How can we possibly take this sort of willful ignorance with anything other than contempt? You're utterly wrong on this point, and you refuse to go look up in a book how basic optics works.

No one is disputing that man-made detectors are sensitive to photons arriving over long time periods.

peacegirl, are you incapable of following a basic thread of conversation? Or is this some attempt at deliberate deception?

Where am I not following?

But · #**46160** 03-31-2016, 06:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

You still don't understand what "field of view" or "visual field" means, do you? And if your "account" can't give numbers, it's absolutely useless.

I don't think it's useless. If you are walking away from me until I can no longer see you, that is what I mean by out of my field of view. Maybe this isn't technical enough for you, but you get what I'm saying.

So I walk away until you can no longer see me. Mind you, I'm still in your field of view or visual field. According to you, it won't make a difference if I then put a spotlight next to me and illuminate myself, right?

If you illuminate yourself, I won't see you if you're not in my field of view regardless of how much light is present. That is the difference between the two accounts.

That's not what happens in reality. You're wrong.

thedoc · #**46161** 03-31-2016, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

You're not going to get anywhere as long as you keep talking in terms of kindergarten shit.

I'm guessing that Peacegirl doesn't know anything above a kindergarten level, her degree was in elementary education so she didn't have an opportunity to learn anything more sophisticated. And her father probably only supplied her with cookbooks and sex manuals to read, as that was her proper role, according to him, as a servant to her man.

Either you have no understanding of the book, or you're lying through your teeth.

Am I lying about your college education?

thedoc · #**46162** 03-31-2016, 06:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

One of the examples he gave was that a vicious dog, having no cues to identify other than sight, would not be able to recognize his master and would attack. If he recognized his master and began wagging his tail, that would be indicative that the eyes are afferent. That's just one way that this account could be falsified. There are others.

Whether a dog can recognize it's master from sight alone proved neither afferent vision or efferent vision. This is another case where Lessans offered an idea as proof that actually had nothing to do with how we see. Recognition is a function of the brain that is internal to the brain and does not depend on whether vision is afferent or efferent. A dog recognizing it's master from sight alone or from a photograph is not a test that would falsify either afferent or efferent vision. It is completely unrelated to the mode of vision.

thedoc · #**46163** 03-31-2016, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Brightness or luminosity is a requirement, which has been repeatedly mentioned, but so is size. No matter how bright an object is, if it's too far away, we would not get an image. All you're doing is basing your ideas on the very thing that is being argued. Good work doc.

Most of the stars that can be observed are a point of light there is no image of the star that can be seen in a telescope. Brightness is the only thing that matters when observing a star, they almost all only appear as a point of light.

Your arguments have been demonstrated to be wrong for many years, and the ideas that you and Lessans are contesting have been demonstrated to be true for as many years. Do you expect me to consider ideas that have been demonstrated to be wrong. Do you expect me to agree with you and look as stupid as you do.

thedoc · #**46164** 03-31-2016, 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The experiment was never done the way Lessans described. There was no exact experiment. Dogs can recognize patterns.

That is correct Lessans never did an experiment, he only made unsupported claims. Lessans did describe a hypothetical test, but never followed through to see if he was correct, he only asserted that he was correct. Others have done testing on dogs to determine the level of visual acuity and have determined that some dogs can recognize their master, or another familiar person, from a photograph. Lessans was wrong.

thedoc · #**46165** 03-31-2016, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No matter how bright an object is, if it's too far away, we would not get an image.

No matter how far away an object is or how bright it is, if we spend enough time pointing a telescope at it, we will get an image.

You keep making statements that are flat out wrong. We know they're wrong. Go read a book.

I will ask this again: How can we point a telescope at an object that is out of our visual field? If you are three blocks away, I can't see you until you are close enough to me, which is one block away (hypothetically). Until an object comes into view because it is close enough or large enough to be seen whether by a telescope or the naked eye, all of the light in the world would show no image at all.

The Hubble deep field disproves this.

Hubble Deep Field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

thedoc · #**46166** 03-31-2016, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And yet we CAN see that star which is the same apparent size as the apparent size of a nickel at that distance. So it is not the apparent size that matters at all!

But does the dog wag its tail when it sees the star and/or nickel? This is the key point, as it usually is in physics.

My dog wags her tail when I feed her, so that indicates that she recognizes the food by sight and she sees via afferent vision. She also understands everything I say to her.

thedoc · #**46167** 03-31-2016, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

peacegirl, are you incapable of following a basic thread of conversation? Or is this some attempt at deliberate deception?

Yes it is deliberate deception, it's all part of her act of being intentionally obtuse and willfully ignorant so that she doesn't actually have to answer the question. It also upsets people so that they get abusive and hostile, and that feeds her martyr complex.

peacegirl · #**46168** 03-31-2016, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

You still don't understand what "field of view" or "visual field" means, do you? And if your "account" can't give numbers, it's absolutely useless.

I don't think it's useless. If you are walking away from me until I can no longer see you, that is what I mean by out of my field of view. Maybe this isn't technical enough for you, but you get what I'm saying.

So I walk away until you can no longer see me. Mind you, I'm still in your field of view or visual field. According to you, it won't make a difference if I then put a spotlight next to me and illuminate myself, right?

If you illuminate yourself, I won't see you if you're not in my field of view regardless of how much light is present. That is the difference between the two accounts.

That's not what happens in reality. You're wrong.

It actually is what happens in reality. Shine a luminous light on yourself as you move outside of my field of vision. I should be able to see you, but I can't.

thedoc · #**46169** 03-31-2016, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I no longer see you, you are no longer in my visual field, so no matter how much you illuminate yourself, it won't make a difference.

Yes it does make a difference, if an object is too dim to see and you increase the illumination it will again be visible, and if you move it away till it is again too dim to see, you increase the illumination again and it is again visible. And this can continue to the edge of our observable universe.

But · #**46170** 03-31-2016, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

That's not what happens in reality. You're wrong.

It actually is what happens in reality. Shine a luminous light on yourself as you move outside of my field of vision. I should be able to see you, but I can't.

No. You're making this stuff up. And you're still misusing those words.

peacegirl · #**46171** 03-31-2016, 07:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And yet we CAN see that star which is the same apparent size as the apparent size of a nickel at that distance. So it is not the apparent size that matters at all!

But does the dog wag its tail when it sees the star and/or nickel? This is the key point, as it usually is in physics.

My dog wags her tail when I feed her, so that indicates that she recognizes the food by sight

No it doesn't. She knows the routine. She smells the food. You think that's proof of anything? :doh:

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

She also understands everything I say to her.

So what. This has nothing to do with vision.

peacegirl · #**46172** 03-31-2016, 07:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

That's not what happens in reality. You're wrong.

It actually is what happens in reality. Shine a luminous light on yourself as you move outside of my field of vision. I should be able to see you, but I can't.

No. You're making this stuff up. And you're still misusing those words.

I don't know what you're asking, sorry.

peacegirl · #**46173** 03-31-2016, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I no longer see you, you are no longer in my visual field, so no matter how much you illuminate yourself, it won't make a difference.

Yes it does make a difference, if an object is too dim to see and you increase the illumination it will again be visible, and if you move it away till it is again too dim to see, you increase the illumination again and it is again visible. And this can continue to the edge of our observable universe.

If an object is too dim, we won't see it and if we increase the illumination we will see it, but only if it's capable of being seen by its size and distance relative to the observer.

But · #**46174** 03-31-2016, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

That's not what happens in reality. You're wrong.

It actually is what happens in reality. Shine a luminous light on yourself as you move outside of my field of vision. I should be able to see you, but I can't.

No. You're making this stuff up. And you're still misusing those words.

I don't know what you're asking, sorry.

That's not what "field of vision" means.

peacegirl · #**46175** 03-31-2016, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No matter how bright an object is, if it's too far away, we would not get an image.

No matter how far away an object is or how bright it is, if we spend enough time pointing a telescope at it, we will get an image.

You keep making statements that are flat out wrong. We know they're wrong. Go read a book.

I will ask this again: How can we point a telescope at an object that is out of our visual field? If you are three blocks away, I can't see you until you are close enough to me, which is one block away (hypothetically). Until an object comes into view because it is close enough or large enough to be seen whether by a telescope or the naked eye, all of the light in the world would show no image at all.

The Hubble deep field disproves this.

Hubble Deep Field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No it doesn't prove anything. Light travels at a finite speed so it makes sense that light would be picked up by the Hubble telescope. This in no way proves that light is reflected by objects and the information is transmitted through space/time such that thousands of years from now we could theoretically (if we were on another planet) see Columbus first discovering America or any other past event. This is hogwash.