A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sending quick commands involves sound which takes time to reach its destination. This is not the same as sight.

Oh ... my .. gob!



Urm, did you think radio stations work becuase really loud-mouthed people YELL into microphones and they can be heard all over the world?

Erm, if you DID think that (apparently so!) here is the clue phone ringing: There is no atmosphere in outer space, so no matter how loudly one shouts, no one on Mars can hear you shouting!



Fucking christ, this thread is incredible!

[davidm]

Page 180! 20 to go! The Countdown begins!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

To be honest, he hasn't had the time to study the book in depth since going to college.

I wonder why!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Goliath

Position title: Mars Rover Communication Specialist.

Qualifications: A major set of lungs, and the ability to have screams heard at a distance of millions of miles, including through a vacuum.

[davidm]

Hey, peacegirl: radio.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know I will be condemned for saying this, but thedoc is so far removed from knowing the truth, that I had to put him on ignore.
.

Could you provide me with adequate proof of this, I'd like to add it to my internet resume.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

If light doesn't convey information, the entire science of astronomy is a great big scam. So is a great deal of physics. And chemistry. Not to mention the computer industry.

How can you say that Lone Ranger? It doesn't change astronomy or chemistry or computers just because Lessans claims we have efferent vision.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

After all, chemists use the unique properties of light that has been reflected from, transmitted through, or emitted by a substance to identify the substance. This is one of the most commonly-used methods of identifying an unknown substance, and just-about every hospital uses the technique to look for anomalous substances in patients' blood.

I really liked that post you gave regarding red blood cells. I'd like to read it again. But why are you saying that this knowledge regarding how the brain and eyes work has anything to do with the light that is being reflected from, transmitted through, or emitted by? It doesn't. It has nothing to do with any of that.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Astronomers use the same techniques to identify the chemical makeup of stars. In fact, the element Helium (the name is derived from that of a Greek Sun god) was discovered on the Sun before it was discovered here on Earth. How? Because astronomers noted the signature of an unknown element in the Sun's light and named it "Helium." Helium wasn't shown to exist here on Earth until years later.

Physics tells us why the light emitted, reflected, or absorbed by a substance conveys information about the chemical makeup of the substance.

Because the light reflected by or emitted from an object is Doppler-shifted if the light source and the object reflecting/emitting the light are moving relative to each other, the light reflected from/emitted by an object also conveys information on how fast the object is moving. Doppler radar works on this principle, as do the radar guns used by police officers to measure the speeds of automobiles.

I think this is so interesting, you're making me want to learn more. But Lessans' claim does not challenge any of these proven technologies.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

This works every bit as well for light in the visible part of the spectrum too, of course. For example, when we're observing sunlight, we can tell which part of the Sun the light we're observing came from because light that's coming to us from the edge of the Sun that's rotating towards us is blue-shifted and light that's coming from the edge of the Sun that is rotating away from us is red-shifted.

Of course, modern computer networks typically use fiber optic cables to rapidly transmit information -- via light.

Light, and the technologies that have been created as a result of understanding its properties, is absolutely amazing.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As far as compensating for the time delay so Rover wouldn't fall off a cliff, where's the proof that this would have happened?

You mean, umm ... other than the observed fact that it takes several minutes (corresponding exactly to the amount of time it takes for light to traverse the distance) for the Rover to receive and respond to commands from Earth?

Or the observed fact that it takes hours for the Voyager probes (which are several light-hours away from Earth) to receive and respond to commands from Earth?

Or for that matter, the observed delay of about 1.3 seconds between the transmission of signals from the Earth until they were received by the Apollo astronauts in lunar orbit? (The Moon is 1.28 light-seconds from Earth.)

Or, heck, the observed communication delays with all of the space probes that we've launched into the Solar System -- delays which always correspond exactly with the delays imposed by the known speed of light?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can you say that Lone Ranger? It doesn't change astronomy or chemistry or computers just because Lessans claims we have efferent vision.

He can say it because, as has been repeatedly pointed out to Your Royal Highness, if we could seen instantaneously, everything that we know about physics would be wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

I wonder why!

More to the point, what depth?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can you say that Lone Ranger? It doesn't change astronomy or chemistry or computers just because Lessans claims we have efferent vision.

I really liked that post you gave regarding red blood cells. I'd like to read it again. But why are you saying that this knowledge regarding how the brain and eyes work has anything to do with the light that is being reflected from, transmitted through, or emitted by? It doesn't. It has nothing to do with any of that.

I think this is so interesting, you're making me want to learn more. But Lessans' claim does not challenge any of this.

I'm not disagreeing with any ofthis. Light and the technologies that have been created as a result of understanding how light works is absolutely amazing.

Err, peacegirl, we know you are impervious to knowledge, but is it asking so fucking much to learn how to use brain-dead simple quote tags?

The stuff about helium is NOT from you, obviously, but because of your incompetence it is being reproduced as your words.

ETA: Oh, look, she managed to fix it! Hope springs eternal!

[LadyShea]

I'm not arguing with you at all. Light and the technologies that have been created as a result of understanding how light works is absolutely amazing.

Yet Lessans seems to have been saying that light cannot or does not carry information.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can you say that Lone Ranger? It doesn't change astronomy or chemistry or computers just because Lessans claims we have efferent vision.

Because you've repeatedly claimed that light does not contain or transmit information. A great deal of astronomy, physics, chemistry, and computer science -- among other fields -- depend on the fact that it does.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think this is so interesting, you're making me want to learn more. But Lessans' claim does not challenge any of these proven technologies.

Of COURSE it does!

Hey, peacegirl, as has been repeatedly pointed out to you, if instantaneous seeing were possible, then the theory of relativity would be wrong. Leave it to your idiot father to extol Einstein in his work, without even realizing that Einstein's findings made everything Lessans said impossible.

[The Lone Ranger]

Both theories of Relativity (both Special Relativity and General Relativity) rule out instantaneous sight, for different reasons.

When I get a little time, I think it might be worthwhile to describe just how much of modern science we'd have to throw out the window if Lessans' claims are correct. It's rather a long list.


Just to start: Both General and Special Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Stellar Astronomy, Cosmology, Optics, much of Chemistry, most of what we know about the Anatomy of the Eye (especially of the retina and the optic nerve), everything we know about neural physiology. And so on.

That's just off the top of my head ...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

See this planaria right here?

Flatworm by Specious Reasons, on Flickr

It has some pretty simple "eyes" - not more than spots on its skin which detect light. A planaria has at most a bundle of nerves which can hardly be called a brain. Yet a planaria can react to the presence or absence of light, and it can respond to the intensity of light. The bolded part is information. Information which increases the planaria's survivability, if light did not contain information, we wouldn't have eyes, wouldn't even have developed with eyes. It's nonsensical to state that light does not contain information.

Wanted to add that I'm reinforcing what theDoc is saying, not contradicting him

First of all there is no multiple redundancy. Second of all, efferent vision does not mean light is not giving us information because it is light that is allowing us to retrieve all kinds of information. Obviously, it's reflecting from objects and being emitted from light sources that we would not be able to see otherwise. Even if it is a condition of sight, not a cause of sight, we are still receiving information since it is our cones and rods that allow us to see objects due to light's presence. A planaria could be getting information from the light because of its brightness, the shadows being reflected, or when the light gets dim, etc. Its instincts tell it when to look for food, when to hide, or when to rest. Yes, that is information coming directly from the light itself, but this has nothing to do with seeing objects or images in real time, nor does it disprove Lessans claim.

[LadyShea]

peacegirl, please clarify something for me because now I am really confused. Did Lessans (and do you) believe light can and does carry information that some devices (aside from a camera and the eyes) can detect and convert to an image, sound, or data set?

For examples, do you accept that lightwaves are carrying your voice on a phone call or the image in a fax transmission over a fiber optic network, or that a radio receiver is converting the information received from the radiowaves to sound via the speakers?

Reposted as it's on the bottom of the last page

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

First of all there is no multiple redundancy. Efferent vision does not mean light is not giving us information...

You have repeatedly said that light does not give us information.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Both theories of Relativity (both Special Relativity and General Relativity) rule out instantaneous sight, for different reasons.

When I get a little time, I think it might be worthwhile to describe just how much of modern science we'd have to throw out the window if Lessans' claims are correct. It's rather a long list.


Just to start: Both General and Special Relativity, Quantum Mechanics, Stellar Astronomy, Cosmology, Optics, much of Chemistry, most of what we know about the Anatomy of the Eye (especially of the retina and the optic nerve), everything we know about neural physiology. And so on.

That's just off the top of my head ...

Why do you hate ophthalmologists?

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are asking us to accept Lessans as a genius with abilities superior to working scientists the world over based on your word alone. I am asking you to admit that you will adhere to Lessans ideas in the face of any and all contradictory evidence. If that's a trap, it's one you set for yourself.

I am trying to understand where the examples given prove efferent vision impossible, that's all.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Second of all, efferent vision does not mean light is not giving us information because it is light that is allowing us to retrieve all kinds of information. Obviously, it's reflecting from objects and being emitted from light sources that we would not be able to see otherwise. Even if it is a condition of sight, not a cause of sight, we are still receiving information since it is our cones and rods that allow us to see objects due to light's presence.

So, you agree that light can contain information?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am trying to understand where the examples given prove efferent vision impossible, that's all.

If you'd answer the recent questions that might go a long way towards solving the problem.

Lessans appears, to all of us who have read it, to have been saying that light cannot and does not carry/convey information. You seem to have supported that by stating that cameras are also efferent like eyes.

Do you believe that light can and does carry and convey information that some devices, like phones, fax machines, and radios, can detect and convert to various formats of output like sound or images?

[thedoc]

Hmmm, if Peacegirl has me on ignore there must be a reason. I know she was ignoring Davidm because he was somewhat abusive and used a few obcenities, probably due to frustration with this thread. But I have not been abusive or used obcenities that I remember, so it must be that I am very close to the truth that she can't face or admit without being wrong. I really just want an answer from peacegirl, and I do appreciate your help LadyShea, if we see objects thru a telescope imediately or with a delay because light needs to arrive at the telescope. It would seem to me that the telescope is a physical object between the eye and the object that would block direct viewing that does not depend on light. Just an answer from peacegirl to a relatively simple question. Thats all I want really.

LadyShea, or someone, could you quote this so that Peacegirl sees it?

[davidm]

Almost to page 181. And you know what that brings us closer to.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You do know, do you not, that that don't actually give the Mars Rovers verbal commands?

Yes, I realize that. You must think I'm retarded. I just found really neat pictures of Mars taken by Rover.

HowStuffWorks "Mars Landing Pictures"