A revolution in thought

[Iacchus]

Unless of course Lessans was really on to something ... not that it is something I think we will ever see in this lifetime. It sounds more like something we'd experience in the hereafter. And of course, everybody understands what that's all about.

AM I RIGHT?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by SharonDee

Look, do you want to get to 200 or don't you?

If you want to just shoot the shit, go to that million posts thread thingy. ________

I just want to get to the party I don't care what the count is.

The guys on the million post thingy aren't having parties just posts.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by SharonDee

, not reading nonsense posts just for the sake of growing the thread.

And yes, it is all about me.
________

Are you seriously suggesting that peacegirls posts aren't nonsense that are just accomplishing nothing more than growing the thread? She wants a long thread to use to promote her meal-ticket, as if she thinks it will help, but there will be a lot of suckers who will be impressed.

If you want more interesting reading, post something, I have tried.

[SharonDee]

Yes, her posts are nonsense to us. I doubt she thinks so. The responses to her nonsense are fun and have the added bonus (to me) of keeping her going.

Anyway, I don't want to see this devolve into people doing stuff like making one-word posts or putting out image-only crap to artificially push the count up. Her continuing responses are what have grown this thread; I want to see just how long she'll keep it up.

But you are, like she is, quite welcome to thumb your nose at what I want and keep on doing what you do.

[Doctor X]

NBLs are interesting

--J.D.

[Kael]

Maybe if you're 14.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, Lessans did not say that. We wouldn't be able to see the Sun and the Moon at the same time. Obviously, we would see the Moon 8.5 minutes later.

Originally Posted by Lessans (courtesy of davidm)

The
explanation as to why the sun looks to be the size of the moon —
although much larger — is because it is much much farther away,
which is the reason it would look like a star to someone living on a
planet the distance of Rigel. This proves conclusively that the
distance between someone looking, and the object seen, has no
relation to time because the images are not traveling toward the optic
nerve on waves of light, therefore it takes no time to see the moon, the sun and the distant stars.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just a guess, but maybe there was a detection of neutrinos first and light 3 hours later because it took 3 hours for the explosion to be large enough to be seen by telescope. Any explosion in space (if it is far enough away) has to be immense for it to be seen. That could account for the 3 hour delay before the light became visible.

Oh goody, something else you know absolutely nothing about, yet feel compelled to talk about in a manner that only displays your ignorance of the subject matter. The neutrinos from this particular supernova had been traveling for 168,000 years by the time they reached Earth. So you're seriously suggesting that it took 168,000 years for the exploding star to become bright-enough to be visible? As an aside, you do know how an explosion, works, don't you? The burst of light from a supernova is very brief, because as the explosion expands, it cools. In other words, it doesn't get brighter as it expands; it gets dimmer.

Remember, the neutrino burst and the burst of visible light are caused by the same thing -- namely, the star's collapse and subsequent explosion.

But just for fun, let's say that your silly notion is correct, and that when a star goes supernova, it carefully times its neutrino burst and its visible-light burst so that they reach Earth more or less simultaneously. That would have to mean that a supernova 1,000 light-years away waits for 1,000 years after releasing its neutrinos to release the light of the explosion. A supernova that's 20,000 light-years away waits for 20,000 years after the neutrino release to release the light of the explosion. A supernova that's 168,000 light-years away waits for 168,000 years (in utter defiance of the laws of physics) to release the light of its explosion. And so on.

The really weird part of this absurd notion is that it's carefully choreographed for observers here on Earth. After all, residents of planets orbiting other stars wouldn't see the neutrino burst and light burst as essentially simultaneous, according to your "theory." So evidently, the Earth and its inhabitants are really, really special, given that the laws of the Universe quite literally revolve around this one planet, according to your "theory."

I'm not trying to make things up just to defend Lessans.

And yet, you just did.

Therefore, I'm not going to say something that will incriminate me or Lessans just because of my ignorance on this particular subject.

And yet, you just did.

Also, efferent vision would change the perception of how far a star really is. It might not be as many light years away as was previously thought.

Hardly. News flash: we have several independent methods for measuring stellar distances, and they agree quite nicely. Pick up a fifth-grade science textbook sometime.

Besides (not to beat a thoroughly-deceased equine or anything), even if the stars are much closer than all of our independent measurement techniques tell us, your "theory" still requires us to accept the ludicrous notion that stars somehow carefully choreograph their neutrino and visible-light emissions when they go supernova, so that viewers here on Earth (but nowhere else in the Universe) will see them as essentially simultaneous events.

[thedoc]

Just out of curiosity, if Lessans theory of sight were correct, in reference to a super nova, aproximately how long after the neutrino burst does the average explosion of light take place? If it were as much as 10 hours, then since the neutrinos travel at almost C the Star would need to be within 10 light hours. (If someone wants to explain that to peacegirl, go ahead.) At that distance I believe the Earth would have had some serious issues with radiation and some other effects of the explosion? Or do the supernovas just scale down to the size of a large fireworks the closer they are?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

[[
Besides (not to beat a thoroughly-deceased equine or anything),

Too late, But blinded Equus is very interesting reading, though somewhat disturbing.

[The Lone Ranger]

In a typical supernova, there's apparently rather less than 10 hours' time between the neutrino burst and the visible-light burst.


A supernova only 10 light-hours away would be inside the Solar System. The planet Neptune is about 4 light-hours away. The minor planet Sedna is 12 light hours away.

A supernova only 50 light years away would produce enough radiation to kill every living thing on Earth, it's estimated. If a supernova could somehow be set off only 10 light hours away, the Earth would be reduced to a cinder.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

If a supernova could somehow be set off only 10 light hours away, the Earth would be reduced to a cinder.

I was originally thinking that would be a possibility, but I didn't want to say it without knowing, and look more silly than I already do. And that probably wouldn't do the rest of the solar system much good, including the sun.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't believe he was wrong. I know the kind of person he was and he would never have refined and refined this knowledge for 30 years if he was doubtful in any way.

I am not saying that he was not convinced - I merely asking if it is possible, for you, to imagine that your father made a mistake and never spotted it.

If you cannot - and it looks like this may be the case - then it is futile to discuss anything with you about it, as there is no way you would be convinced. Then you are not looking for the truth, you are merely looking for confirmation that you are right.

That is why I want to ask you - is it possible for you to imagine that your father may have made a mistake in the book?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, Lessans did not say that. We wouldn't be able to see the Sun and the Moon at the same time. Obviously, we would see the Moon 8.5 minutes later.

Originally Posted by Lessans (courtesy of davidm)

The
explanation as to why the sun looks to be the size of the moon —
although much larger — is because it is much much farther away,
which is the reason it would look like a star to someone living on a
planet the distance of Rigel. This proves conclusively that the
distance between someone looking, and the object seen, has no
relation to time because the images are not traveling toward the optic
nerve on waves of light, therefore it takes no time to see the moon, the sun and the distant stars.

But that's only if the moon is reflecting light. Why can't you all read what he said? The whole chapter continues to emphasize that LIGHT IS A CONDITION OF SIGHT, SO IF THERE IS NO LIGHT BEING REFLECTED, IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE IT. Obviously, when the moon is reflecting the light of the sun, then and only then could we can see it in real time. This just goes to show how everyone can't wait to bring this man down even if they purposely misconstrue every other word he has written.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just a guess, but maybe there was a detection of neutrinos first and light 3 hours later because it took 3 hours for the explosion to be large enough to be seen by telescope. Any explosion in space (if it is far enough away) has to be immense for it to be seen. That could account for the 3 hour delay before the light became visible.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Oh goody, something else you know absolutely nothing about, yet feel compelled to talk about in a manner that only displays your ignorance of the subject matter. The neutrinos from this particular supernova had been traveling for 168,000 years by the time they reached Earth. So you're seriously suggesting that it took 168,000 years for the exploding star to become bright-enough to be visible? As an aside, you do know how an explosion, works, don't you? The burst of light from a supernova is very brief, because as the explosion expands, it cools. In other words, it doesn't get brighter as it expands; it gets dimmer.

Remember, the neutrino burst and the burst of visible light are caused by the same thing -- namely, the star's collapse and subsequent explosion.

Maybe the collapse of the star takes longer to occur than the subsequent explosion. Just a thought.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

But just for fun, let's say that your silly notion is correct, and that when a star goes supernova, it carefully times its neutrino burst and its visible-light burst so that they reach Earth more or less simultaneously. That would have to mean that a supernova 1,000 light-years away waits for 1,000 years after releasing its neutrinos to release the light of the explosion. A supernova that's 20,000 light-years away waits for 20,000 years after the neutrino release to release the light of the explosion. A supernova that's 168,000 light-years away waits for 168,000 years (in utter defiance of the laws of physics) to release the light of its explosion. And so on.

The really weird part of this absurd notion is that it's carefully choreographed for observers here on Earth. After all, residents of planets orbiting other stars wouldn't see the neutrino burst and light burst as essentially simultaneous, according to your "theory." So evidently, the Earth and its inhabitants are really, really special, given that the laws of the Universe quite literally revolve around this one planet, according to your "theory."

I'm not trying to make things up just to defend Lessans.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And yet, you just did.

But that wasn't my intention. I'm trying to figure out if there is another explanation, not to be right at all costs.

Therefore, I'm not going to say something that will incriminate me or Lessans just because of my ignorance on this particular subject.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And yet, you just did.

Just because I am not well versed in astronomy does not mean that Lessans' explanation regarding the brain is wrong. His conclusions came from a different set of observations. If the empirical evidence supports his claim regarding the brain, there would be a conflict. The burden of proof would then fall on astronomers to prove their case (because it still a theory, not a proven fact), not Lessans.

Also, efferent vision would change the perception of how far a star really is. It might not be as many light years away as was previously thought.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Hardly. News flash: we have several independent methods for measuring stellar distances, and they agree quite nicely. Pick up a fifth-grade science textbook sometime.

How can you tell me to "open a fifth-grade science textbook sometime" (which I'm sure was meant as a put down), when we're debating efferent vision, which is not in any fifth-grade textbook. The independent methods for measuring stellar distances are based on the belief that we are not seeing the star in real time; we are seeing the star in delayed time, which changes all of the calculations.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Besides (not to beat a thoroughly-deceased equine or anything), even if the stars are much closer than all of our independent measurement techniques tell us, your "theory" still requires us to accept the ludicrous notion that stars somehow carefully choreograph their neutrino and visible-light emissions when they go supernova, so that viewers here on Earth (but nowhere else in the Universe) will see them as essentially simultaneous events.

I can see your anger building as well. If you think this proves afferent vision, that's fine. The interesting thing is that the experiments that are closer to home (that would prove efferent vision true or false) would be much more reliable in my estimation. As far as this example, there could be another explanation when you're dealing with such long distances even though it seems there is no other explanation and this is a slam dunk. I do not want there to be another public stoning, so I'm going to let go of the discussion regarding the eyes. More experiments need to be done. Are you telling me that all of the experiments have already been done? Sure.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am not saying that he was not convinced - I merely asking if it is possible, for you, to imagine that your father made a mistake and never spotted it.

If you cannot - and it looks like this may be the case - then it is futile to discuss anything with you about it, as there is no way you would be convinced. Then you are not looking for the truth, you are merely looking for confirmation that you are right.

That is why I want to ask you - is it possible for you to imagine that your father may have made a mistake in the book?

Don't you see what you're doing Vivisectus? You're trying to find flaws that aren't there, but you see them because you are not studying the book carefully. You can't believe that the three pillars that this knowledge is based on is foolproof. The example you gave as an anology (fireman being a condition of fires) is not accurate. How can something be undeniable (because it is mathematical; which you don't see yet) and flawed? If you ever want to understand these principles, you've got to stop jumping to premature conclusions. You've got to see how this knowledge is extended, and why it works, before concluding that it cannot accomplish what it claims it can. Furthermore, if you think Lessans lost the battle when it comes to efferent vision, you will never be able to open your mind enough to even want to understand his first discovery. That's what is happening here. People will not give him the benefit of the doubt, because they are so sure he is wrong.

[Vivisectus]

Obviously, when the moon is reflecting the light of the sun, then and only then could we can see in real time, not if there is no light.

Exactly- so even if efferent vision was possible, there was a mistake in the book. What your father should have said was that they would see the sun instantly, but the moon 8.5 minutes later as it would have to wait for light from the sun to reflect off it, as apparently light needs to be around the object to be able to see it.

This just goes to show how everyone can't wait to bring this man down even if they purposely misconstrue every other word he has written.

I don't think mean-spiritedness is the reason people are not convinced. The objections are quite well supported and thought out, and in order to convince they must be dealt with.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't you see what you're doing Vivisectus? You're trying to find flaws that aren't there, but you see them because you are not studying the book carefully. You can't believe that the three pillars that this knowledge is based on is foolproof. The example you gave as an anology (fireman being a condition of fires) is not accurate. How can something be undeniable (because it is mathematical; which you don't see yet) and flawed? If you ever want to understand these principles, you've got to stop jumping to premature conclusions. You've got to see how this knowledge is extended, and why it works, before concluding that it cannot accomplish what it claims it can.

Ah - so the answer is no?

I don't see it as undeniable - we are simply told this is so by your father, and expected to believe.

If my analogy is not accurate, then please point out why. You have your fathers habit of just saying things and expecting people to just take your word for it, even if they are sweeping philosophical statements.

[Doctor X]

She has been reduced to the



stage.

--J.D.

[The Lone Ranger]

You do realize, do you not, that we can directly measure the distances to relatively nearby stars, using simple, 6th-grade-level principles of geometry? It doesn't matter in the slightest how we see the stars.

What am I saying? Of course you don't; that's Junior High-level science.

I can see your anger building as well.

Bull.

If you think this proves afferent vision, that's fine. The interesting thing is that the experiments that are closer to home (that would prove efferent vision true or false) would be much more reliable in my estimation.

No, what you mean is: "I will ignore each and every experiment and physical principle that establishes beyond any shadow of a doubt that vision is afferent, while insisting that it is, in fact, efferent -- in defiance of every piece of evidence in existence."

At least be honest about it.

[davidm]

I think it's important to note that peacegirl does not -- and indeed, at this point I suspect cannot -- ineract with Reality the way that rational people do. Here are her rules:

Rule 1: Lessans said it, I believe it, and that settles it.

Rule 2: If Lessans had been wrong, he would have said so. Because he never said he was wrong, it logically follows that he was never wrong. This means that Lessans was infallible.

Rule 3: If evidence, data, math, science and logic contradict Lessans -- indeed, if Lessans contradicts Lessans -- see Rule 1.

That's all peacegirl needs to get through the day!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that's only if the moon is reflecting light. Why can't you all read what he said? The whole chapter continues to emphasize that LIGHT IS A CONDITION OF SIGHT, SO IF THERE IS NO LIGHT BEING REFLECTED, IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE IT. Obviously, when the moon is reflecting the light of the sun, then and only then could we can see it in real time. This just goes to show how everyone can't wait to bring this man down even if they purposely misconstrue every other word he has written.

He says it takes NO TIME to see the moon, just like the sun. Are you now suggesting that he is saying it takes the light of the sun 8.5 minutes to reach the moon, after which the reflected light arrives INSTANTANEOUSLY to earth observers?

HOW is this possible?

Not to mention the most basic contradiction: You have admitted that the source light and the reflected light ARE THE SAME LIGHT.

Since that is the case, it is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE that one should see the source light instantaeneously, but not the reflected light for eight and a half minutes! They are the same light, as you have admitted.

To see the sun, just MEANS that one will see everything else as well, at the same time.

You thickness, your incapacity to understand basic knowledge that even kindergartners grasp, is utterly mind-blowing.

Meanwhile, you continue to admit you have NO MECHANISM to explain the most basic point: When Lessans says that light is a "condition" of seeing,

HOW

is it a condition of seeing?

What is the MECHANISM by which this miracle occurs?

Your answer:

"I don't know."



And you actually expect people to uncritically accept your incoherent drivel!

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LIGHT IS A CONDITION OF SIGHT, SO IF THERE IS NO LIGHT BEING REFLECTED, IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO SEE IT.

This doesn't mean anything. You keep saying we can see something if it is big enough and bright enough, but this is the same as saying "you can see an object when you can see it." It is a textbook example of an empty, tautological statement. Like drunken Antony, you are describing a crocodile by telling us it is shaped like itself.

You and Lessans both claim that light carries no information, and that we somehow see objects directly. To get around the rather obvious and unavoidable (even for you) fact that we can't see in the dark, you and he claim that light is a "condition," and that we can't see without it. What you have never bothered to come up with is a reason that light would be "a condition of sight" if it didn't carry information about the object. Why do we need light to see if we don't need light to see?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You do realize, do you not, that we can directly measure the distances to relatively nearby stars, using simple, 6th-grade-level principles of geometry? It doesn't matter in the slightest how we see the stars.

What am I saying? Of course you don't; that's Junior High-level science.

Bull.

No, what you mean is: "I will ignore each and every experiment and physical principle that establishes beyond any shadow of a doubt that vision is afferent, while insisting that it is, in fact, efferent -- in defiance of every piece of evidence in existence."

At least be honest about it.

I'm saying without even reading your post Lone Ranger, to please let it go because you do not have absolute proof of anything, yet everyone is telling me that I'm trying to fit Lessans' observations into a neat little package which doesn't add up. Helloooooo!!!!!!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You do realize, do you not, that we can directly measure the distances to relatively nearby stars, using simple, 6th-grade-level principles of geometry? It doesn't matter in the slightest how we see the stars.

Now you've done it, 'You do realize' that now she's going to say there must be someone out there holding the dumb end of the tape measure, which proves that stars are much closer than scientists think.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

because you do not have absolute proof of anything,

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm saying without even reading your post Lone Ranger,

Well that should prove the validity of her statements, she doesn't even need to read the post to disagree, Much like Lessans didn't need to study science to invent a contradictory theory, and that should prove that he is correct.