A revolution in thought

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Everyone, please refrain from asking anymore questions on light and sight at this time

Sorry, but we are forced to continue asking these questions, as it leads to our greater satisfaction. Just as your continual obfuscation and ignorance apparently leads to yours.

or I will be forced to ignore them.

And this will be substantively different from the last 195 pages how, exactly?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was trying to find out how far the Earth is from the edge of our galaxy. If a supernova was within our galaxy (two I believe were), Lone Ranger said it would burn us up if we were seeing the actual images in real time, but would it?

over hundreds of light-years....note: 1 light year = 5.9 trillion miles in distance... The Milky Way
is over 100,000 light years across. Pluto is over a billion miles away from the sun, which isnt the
end of our solar system. That gives you the idea on how far away the edge of our galaxy is.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I said no such thing and you know it. Where I'm from, we call that lying.

What I pointed out is that Supernova 1987a took place in another galaxy. Thus it couldn't possibly have been less than several thousand light-years distant. Yet we photographed it within minutes of it becoming visible to the naked eye. Which neatly disproved what you were then claiming: namely that the eyes somehow see in "real time," but that cameras and telescopes cannot detect something until the light reaches them.

Maybe I misunderstood, but to be called a liar because of an honest mistake, (not a willful intent) where I come from, is a willful intention to purposely discredit the speaker.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

In response, you suggested that the directly measured distance of the supernova was mistaken. This despite the fact that even if the measurements were off by orders of magnitude (look it up), the supernova would still have been thousands of light-years distant.

When it was pointed out to you that the distance to the supernova was directly measured, using only basic trigonometry and the most well-established of universal constants, the speed of light, you actually suggested that physicists were perhaps wrong about the speed of light. This despite your claim that you wouldn't contradict physics, because you don't know enough about it.*

I only said that because David brought it up early on, that if Lessans is right, then Jupiter's moons experiment is wrong, which was used to calculate the speed of light.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

The only way to reconcile what you were then claiming -- that the human eye sees in "real time," but telescopes and cameras do not -- with the fact that we photographed the supernova within minutes of it becoming visible would be if the supernova were not just inside our galaxy, but inside our Solar System. And if that were the case (as if we could have somehow missed the presence of a star much larger and brighter than the Sun that was closer to us than the planet Neptune), the supernova explosion would have destroyed the Earth.

That sounds understandable, but I'm just wondering if the supernova took place within our galaxy, maybe that supernova was smaller in size. Anyway, if the Sun is less then one light year from earth, and the edge of our galaxy is approximately 30,000 light-years away, it doesn't seem to me (and I'm no astronomer, so don't go on the attack) that a star couldn't go supernova without it instantly burning up the earth. Are you sure about this?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

*I don't know why on Earth you'd make such a silly claim as that you wouldn't challenge physics, because you don't know enough about it. (Overlooking the fact that real-time vision in any form is flatly ruled out by our most well-established physical principles.) After all, you'd displayed exactly zero knowledge of the physiology of sight and of neural function, yet you blithely insist that everything we know in these fields is wrong.

I am not blithly saying anything. I take what I'm saying seriously. I respect science and all the knowledge that has been accumulated for centuries, but I cannot ignore a possible error just because it disputes what science has taken for granted to be absolutely true, or just because I know Lessans will be highly criticized for it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

Sorry, but we are forced to continue asking these questions, as it leads to our greater satisfaction. Just as your continual obfuscation and ignorance apparently leads to yours.

And this will be substantively different from the last 195 pages how, exactly?

You're absolutely right. Everyone is moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, every single solitary moment of their life. But I have the right-of-way (which you could not possibly understand unless you had read the book), not to answer anymore questions on this topic (for the time being; I can't say forever) because it gives me greater satisfaction, at this moment, for one reason or another. I certainly think I've given you enough food for thought to last for a long long time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What are you talking about? On a dark night, you see my green laser light flashing in a pattern we previously determined meant "Hi". If the green flashing light isn't transmitting the message then what is?

The light is transmitting the message by the codes that the two participants made up, but that's not the kind of information I'm talking about. I gave the example about a shooting star that burns up in space. If it was in our visual field, we would see these meteoroids burning up in real time because these meteoroids are the light-source and nothing from that light source is sending signals to our brain via its light emissions.

I think we're on two diffrent wavelengths (no pun intended).

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are making shit up and obfuscating to make this most simple of experiments fit your preconceived and not very well thought out idea.

As to who is doing the obfuscating, and who is trying to maintain the integrity of science's position in spite of a valid disputation, is an open question.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

That time flows differently in different places isn't just theoretical, it's an established, well-tested fact. Einstein demonstrated in his theory of General Relativity that this must be the case, and subsequent testing has demonstrated it. It's not like this information is difficult to find.

Not only is it an established fact, we have to take it into account in order for many of our modern devices to function. An object in orbit around the Earth experiences less gravity than does an object on the Earth's surface. Therefore, time runs slightly faster for the object in orbit. We actually have to take this fact into account in calculation positions with a GPS system. The GPS satellites that provide us with the data that we use for calculating global position are experiencing a slightly faster passage of time than we are here on Earth.

If we don't take that into account when doing our calculations, then the position reported by a GPS satellite drifts away from the true position at a rate of 10 - 11 kilometers per day. All due to the fact that time passes differently on the satellite and on the Earth's surface.

Lone Ranger, how we got from efferent vision to gravity's effect on time, is beyond me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

And yet, there's a perfectly functioning theory on just precisely how this all works. There is no necessity for the object to be present now, because the object was in our line of sight, when the light emanated from it.

It all goes back to how the brain and eyes work; not how light works.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Now I’ll sum up why your father is wrong, Peacegirl, in a very succinct way. Then I’ll demonstrate how you will respond.

1. Logically, there are only three possible ways that light can travel. Either it propagates at infinite velocity, or it propagates at a finite but fixed velocity, or it propagates at variable velocities. Logically, those three choices exhaust all the options. This is true, regardless of how the eye works.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by davidm

2. Source light and reflected light are the same light, regardless of how the eye works.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by davidm

It turns out that light does not travel infinitely fast. Its velocity is both fixed and variable. That is to say, it travels at fixed velocity c in a vacuum, but at slightly slower rates of speed in mediums like water.

Moreover — and this is crucial — it does not ever travel faster than c.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by davidm

What is more, due to relativity theory, we know that non-photons, which (unlike photons) have rest mass, cannot be accelerated to light speed. This is because, as acceleration is increased, the mass of non-photons increases; and as the velocity of the accelerated object approaches c, the mass increases exponentially toward infinity.

This means that no object can be propelled to light speed, for doing so would require an infinite amount of energy. To propel a pencil or a teardrop for an atom to c, would require infinite energy.

But, since light itself cannot exceed light speed, the conclusion is inescapable: There is an upper-bound speed limit to the transfer of information. It is c: the speed of light in a vacuum.

Agreed.

Originally Posted by davidm

Seeing the sun turned on is information transfer by definition. This is true regardless of how the eyes work. Change of state from 0 (off) to 1 (on) just is information.

We could not see the sun before it was turned on, obviously. And it's also obvious that it takes energy to change from one state to another. But what I don't understand is this: Even if we were seeing the Sun after the information was transferred from a state of 0 (off) to 1 (on), how does it change the fact that once the sun was visible to the naked eye (if the eyes were efferent), we would be seeing the sun in delayed time. Information about the sun is not coming from the transfer of information in this case. The information is being obtained by the brain's ability to see the light-source in real time, and put that information in its memory bank, just as it would do if the brain interpreted that light through the transfer of information. Seeing the image in real time (due to efferent vision) has nothing to do with the transfer of information in the way you just described.

Originally Posted by davidm

Therefore, since the speed limit of information transfer in the universe is c, real time seeing is IMPOSSIBLE. Q.E.D.

I think we're at odds because, according to you, the transfer of information is the only way we receive information. It is finite and can only go as fast as c. Therefore, we can't see anything before that transfer of information (which goes at a certain velocity) occurs. I really think we're talking about two different things because I believe the transfer of information works exactly as you say when you're talking about fiber optics, or other technologies that require the transfer of information from one source to another. But this really does not relate to our eyes and how they work. I think you are taking this definition and applying it incorrectly.

Originally Posted by davidm

This means that, when the sun is turned on, this information — that it has been turned on — will not become available to viewers on earth until 8.5 minutes have passed, meaning that they will see the sun as it was 8.5 minutes in the past, when the light arrives. This is true — it’s logically the case — regardless of how the eyes work.

I disagree. I know you're writing this not just for me, but for everyone here, because you know I'm going to disagree. Seeing the sun instantly is because of how the eyes work, not because of how light works. Remember, we're talking about the light-source that the image is emanating from, or the object that is reflecting the light, not the path the light takes as it travels through space and time. Seeing the result of the laser pen 50 yards away is a transfer of information and it can only be seen in delayed time. But we could still see the laser pen in real time, if the conditions allowed.

Originally Posted by davidm

Also, it logically follows from all this that the source light and the reflected light of your neighbor will be seen at the same time, and not at different times, as Lessans claimed. His claim is logically impossible, and this is true regardless of how the eyes work.

I know you'll be upset, but I still don't see why efferent vision doesn't work when this involves the brain, not light's transference of information.

Originally Posted by davidm

We can now construct this as a formal argument with premises and a conclusion.

P1 — the speed of light is fixed and cannot exceed c

Okay.

Originally Posted by davidm

P2 — No object can be accelerated to c.

Okay.

Originally Posted by davidm

Preliminary conclusion — Instantaneous Information Acquisition is physically impossible, because c is an upper-bound speed limit.

Not okay.

Originally Posted by davidm

P3 — Regardless of how the eyes work, the state change of the sun from 0 (off) to 1 (on) is information transfer by definition.

Not okay.

Originally Posted by davidm

Conclusion — Lessans claim of Instantaneous Information Acquisition is false, regardless of how the eye works.

Not okay.

Originally Posted by davidm

Here’s how peacegirl will read the above:

P1 — the speed of light is fixed and cannot exceed c
P2 — No object can be accelerated to c.
Preliminary conclusion — Instantaneous Information Acquisition is physically impossible, because c is an upper-bound speed limit.
P3 — Regardless of how the eyes work, the state change of the sun from 0 (off) to 1 (on) is information transfer by definition.
Conclusion — LESSANS IS ALWAYS RIGHT!

That's not the reason David, and you know it. Another cheap shot as usual.

[Vivisectus]

There is evidence if you could only take the time to understand his observations. But I really think it's a lost cause. His observations are sound. You can tell me they aren't, and refuse to read further, and that's fine with me, but that in no way indicates his proof is not there. You will then say this book is my religion. Whatever!

Again - not agreeing must mean not understanding. That is arrogant nonsense unless you can support it, which neither you nor your father feel is necessary. You just call things astute or sound observations, and consider your say-so reason the believe enough.

I mentioned several objections to the observations that you were unable to deal with.

The fact that he was a very deep thinker was not my evidence of the soundness of this book.

It is far from a fact, and you have indeed used it as a argument and said that if there was a mistake he would have spotted it - so there must not be one.

I know what you were doing, but it was not a fair analogy. There was support for the original statement that one of the justifications people unconsciously use --- if they are desiring to gain at someone else's expense (e.g. steal from someone, for example) --- is that they know that if they are caught, they will be blamed and punished, which gives them the advance justification they need in order to follow through with their desires. This is very much supported and the fact that you used such a lame analogy makes me think that you are doing what everyone else is doing; either pulling statements out of context, or looking for flaws and therefore not reading it with the intent of true understanding.

It is one of the legs of your fathers tripod - if it is not a condition, then we have not dealth with the problem of evil, because there is still a way that we can harm others and your fathers system falls down.

It is not supported at all as far as I am aware - can you point out where and how it is? Because you were unable to about 100 pages ago and resorted to saying "I don't know why or how it works, it just does".

So what you're saying is I was supposed to learn something, not you. Actually, I have learned a lot and am still learning, but nothing that anyone has offered has proven Lessans wrong on any count. That's the truth, even if no one at this point believes that efferent vision is possible.

All you have done is deny things - just like now, despite having been buried in simple empirical observations that make efferent, real-time vision impossible, you still claim there is nothing whatsoever wrong with the idea.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It all goes back to how the brain and eyes work; not how light works.

A camera doesn't have brains, neither does that planaria I posted a picture of earlier.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you retarded David? Just wondering because you keep repeating the same thing over and over and expect a different answer.

Oh, you mean Your Royal Highness ANSWERED this question? You explained HOW it is possible that the reflected light of the moon is seen instantaneously, but the reflected light of your neighbor is seen eight and a half minutes later???

WHERE DID YOUR ROYAL HIGHNESS ANSWER THIS QUESTION? LINK ME TO THE ANSWER, PLEASE.

In fact you HAVE no answer, because there IS no answer. The state of affairs that you describe is logically impossible.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Does that mean the entire [theory] should be thrown out? Of course not, unless you're an idiot.

You have no theory, you have no facts, you have nothing at all.

Hey, peacegirl, WHY WOULD WE SEE THE REFLECTED LIGHT OF THE MOON INSTANTANEOUSLY, BUT NOT THE REFLECTED LIGHT OF OUR NEIGHBOR UNTIL EIGHT AND A HALF MINUTES AFTER THE SUN IS TURNED ON?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Agreed.

Agreed.

Agreed.

Agreed.

We could not see the sun before it was turned on, obviously. And it's also obvious that it takes energy to change from one state to another. But what I don't understand is this: Even if we were seeing the Sun after the information was transferred from a state of 0 (off) to 1 (on), how does it change the fact that once the sun was visible to the naked eye (if the eyes were efferent), we would be seeing the sun in delayed time. Information about the sun is not coming from the transfer of information in this case. The information is being obtained by the brain's ability to see the light-source in real time, and put that information in its memory bank, just as it would do if the brain interpreted that light through the transfer of information. Seeing the image in real time (due to efferent vision) has nothing to do with the transfer of information in the way you just described.

I think we're at odds because, according to you, the transfer of information is the only way we receive information. It is finite and can only go as fast as c. Therefore, we can't see anything before that transfer of information (which goes at a certain velocity) occurs. I really think we're talking about two different things because I believe the transfer of information works exactly as you say when you're talking about fiber optics, or other technologies that require the transfer of information from one source to another. But this really does not relate to our eyes and how they work. I think you are taking this definition and applying it incorrectly.

I disagree. I know you're writing this not just for me, but for everyone here, because you know I'm going to disagree. Seeing the sun instantly is because of how the eyes work, not because of how light works. Remember, we're talking about the light-source that the image is emanating from, or the object that is reflecting the light, not the path the light takes as it travels through space and time. Seeing the result of the laser pen 50 yards away is a transfer of information and it can only be seen in delayed time. But we could still see the laser pen in real time, if the conditions allowed.

I know you'll be upset, but I still don't see why efferent vision doesn't work when this involves the brain, not light's transference of information.

Okay.

Okay.

Not okay.

Not okay.

Not okay.

That's not the reason David, and you know it. Another cheap shot as usual.

This is how you rebut an argument? Simply assert "not OK?" And that's the end of it?



The verdict is in: You can't refute a word I said.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lone Ranger, how we got from efferent vision to gravity's effect on time, is beyond me.

Of course it is beyond you, because you don't actually know anything about science, philosophy, or anything else.

Gravity's effect on time is a generalization of the special theory of relativity, which deals with the behavior of light in inertial frames. And the special theory and general theory of relativity make real-time seeing IMPOSSIBLE.

But, of course, as you have stated, you don't need to know a fucking thing about the theory of relativity, because:

LESSANS SAID IT, I BELIEVE IT, AND THAT SETTLES IT.

[The Lone Ranger]

You have stated -- repeatedly -- that the light that's either emitted by or reflected from an object must be present for us to see it.

You have also stated -- repeatedly -- that we see things in "real time," as they happen.


These two statements are directly contradictory. They cannot both be true.


To illustrate, take the previous example of a supernova that occurs 1,000 light-years away. If your first claim is true, then we won't be able to see it until 1,000 years after it occurs, because the light from the supernova won't be present for another 1,000 years. That's what it means to say that an object is 1,000 light-years away.

If your second claim is true, then it is not necessary for the light emitted by or reflected from an object to be present in order for us to see it, and your first claim is falsified. It also means that information is somehow traversing a distance of 1,000 light-years instantly -- in defiance of pretty-much everything we know of physics.

Maybe I misunderstood, but to be called a liar because of an honest mistake, (not a willful intent) where I come from, is a willful intention to purposely discredit the speaker.

Either you were lying or you have the worst reading-comprehension skills of anyone I've encountered online. Which is it?

I only said that because David brought it up early on, that if Lessans is right, then Jupiter's moons experiment is wrong, which was used to calculate the speed of light.

There are many different ways to measure the speed of light. Not only can we measure it directly, we can calculate it. How? Remember that e=mc2. (The "c" refers to the speed of light.) All we have to do is carefully measure the energy released when a known amount of mass is converted into energy, and we can then use that to calculate the speed of light.

Guess what? All of these various methods give the same result.

Anyway, if the Sun is less then one light year from earth, and the edge of our galaxy is approximately 30,000 light-years away, it doesn't seem to me (and I'm no astronomer, so don't go on the attack) that a star couldn't go supernova without it instantly burning up the earth. Are you sure about this?

Well, you're right about at least one thing. You know nothing about astronomy. And again, you display abysmal reading-comprehension skills.

Any supernova that's more than about 50 light-years away should pose no danger to life on Earth. 50 light-years is a tiny distance on galactic scales; only a tiny, tiny fraction of our galaxy's stars are within 50 light-years of the Earth.


To clarify, at the time you're referring to, you were claiming that the human eye would see a supernova as it happened, whereas a camera would have to wait for the light to arrive.

But we photographed Supernova 1987a within minutes of it becoming visible to the naked eye. In response, you suggested that it was much closer than we thought. But the only way to reconcile the observed fact that it was photographed within minutes of becoming visible with what you were then claiming would be for the supernova to have taken place inside our Solar System. And in that case, it most-definitely would have destroyed the Earth.

I respect science and all the knowledge that has been accumulated for centuries, but I cannot ignore a possible error just because it disputes what science has taken for granted to be absolutely true, or just because I know Lessans will be highly criticized for it.

Oh please. There's one thing that you've been absolutely, positively, 100% consistent about, and this is that you have exactly zero regard for all data and theories which contradict Lessans' claims.

Just for starters, you'd throw out all of neural anatomy and physiology, optics, information theory, and relativity theory, because they all conflict with your beliefs.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

The verdict is in: You can't refute a word I said.

Now isn't that almost unbelievable, except that in 196 pages she hasn't refuted anything that has been said against Lessans. She hasn't proved any thing that she or Lessans has said, only asserted that it is true because he said so. I certainly hope you are not surprised or dissapointed that she didn't refute this one, I know how desparetly you wanted her to.

When I first encountered her I thought she was sincere and believed in the ideas of her father, and that if it were demonstrated that the ideas in the book might be wrong she would actually consider the information. As things developed I decided that she was just hawking the book for profit. At one point it seemed that she was incapable of understanding and comprehending what was being said against Lessans and felt sorry for her as you would for a mentally challenged person. After re-reading parts of the book I started seeing how Lessans would post a question to himself from a fictional person and then dodge the question with an answer that seemed to imply one thing but actually says something else. This can be seen in the way he dodged the question about the moon at the end of page 120 in the PDF, sorry David but he didn't actually say that we would see the moon instantly. After reading the book again and seeing how Lessans cleverly phrased and answered questions, I realized that he was just a good con-man and had put together a group of outrageous ideas hoping that readers would not be able to make sense of it and therefore refute it. However he outdid himself and went too far with his claims and ideas and presented them in a way that was offensive to anyone with sufficient education. Peacegirl is just carrying on the scam and perpetuating the family tradition of the con-artist. I noticed that she never said what school her son went to, but I did question what kind of school held exams in hotel rooms, sorry but that just doesn't sound like a legitimate school to me, more like a mail-order degree, but I could be wrong about that. My daughter got her diploma via. mail-order but there were no hotel rooms involved.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

sorry David but he didn't actually say that we would see the moon instantly.

Yes, he did. I even gave the exact quote from Lessans earlier.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

Sorry, but we are forced to continue asking these questions, as it leads to our greater satisfaction. Just as your continual obfuscation and ignorance apparently leads to yours.

And this will be substantively different from the last 195 pages how, exactly?

Kael, I have not been ignoring anyone these last 195 pages, and I'm sure you know that. Just because I don't agree with the majority doesn't make me ignorant. I think it's a matter of opinion as to who is exemplifying this characteristic.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Kael, I have not been ignoring anyone these last 195 pages, and I'm sure you know that. Just because I don't agree with the majority doesn't make me ignorant. I think it's a matter of opinion as to who is exemplifying this characteristic.

You are ignorant not because you disagree with us, but because all of your claims about light and sight have been demonstrated to be false.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Yes, he did. I even gave the exact quote from Lessans earlier.

I know what the quote was; but he also said that light is a condition of sight, so that was a prerequisite from the very beginning. He didn't have to say it each and every time.

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.

And I asked people to please not keep posting on this subject. Does anyone EVER listen?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

A supernova that's 1,000 light-years away will not endanger the Earth. I really, really wish you'd acquire some basic reading-comprehension skills.

Regardless, you just got through saying that the "light that is being reflected or emitted from said object" must necessarily be present in order for us to see it. But if the supernova is 1,000 light-years distant, the light won't reach us until 1,000 years after the supernova took place -- by definition.


So which is it?

I think you misunderstood. The iron fusion that causes the star to blow up is what we see (because it is a very bright and very large explosion), not the light that is emitted from that explosion, that then has to travel a thousand light-years to reach us.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

If the light from the supernova must be present in order for us to see it, we won't see the supernova until 1,000 years after it happens. Thus we cannot see it in real time.

If we do see the supernova in "real time" -- as it happens -- then it is not necessary for the light from the supernova to be present in order for us to see it. This is necessarily so, because that light won't reach us for another 1,000 years.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Since they are directly contradictory, both your claims cannot possibly be true.

I hope I cleared things up.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, that's not what I meant. I'm saying that there has to be a light source, that's all. We are able to see the actual laser pen in real time, although we can also see the point of light when it strikes an opaque surface. That would indicate that the beam traveled from the pen to another destination; or from point A to point B.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Laser pointer pens (color: red, green, violet)

High-powered green laser pointer
A laser pointer or laser pen is a small portable and visible laser designed to highlight something of interest by projecting a small bright spot of colored light onto it. Doctors say that laser pointers with power less than 5 milliwatts (5 mW) are generally safe to use, but devices with power of 100 mW or more sold on the Internet have recently caused permanent eye damage.[1] The small width of the beam and low power of typical laser pointers make the beam itself invisible in a reasonably clean atmosphere, showing a point of light when striking an opaque surface.

Some higher-powered laser pointers project a visible beam via scattering from dust particles or water/fog droplets along the beam path. Higher power and higher frequency lasers (green or blue color) may have a visible beam even in clean air because of Rayleigh scattering from air molecules, especially when viewed in moderately-to-dimly lit conditions. The intensity of such scattering increases when these beams are viewed from angles near the beam axis. Such pointers, particularly in the green-light output range, are used as astronomical-object pointers for teaching purposes, in the same general manner as flashlights.

The recent low-cost availability of infrared (IR) diode laser modules of up to 1000 mW (1 watt) output has created a generation of IR-pumped frequency-doubled (DPSS) "laser pointers" in green, blue, and violet, of extremely high visible power (100–300 mW). Because the IR in the beams of these lasers is difficult to filter and contributes heat which is difficult to dissipate in a pocket laser pointer package, it is often left as a beam component in cheaper high-power "pointers." This causes a degree of extra potential hazard in these devices.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The light from the laser is perfectly visible directly, if it's shone into your eyes. That's why it's illegal to aim laser pointers at aircraft. You could distract or potentially even temporarily blind a pilot.

It's very dangerous and I hope they stop selling these laser pointers because of the potential for tragedy.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know what the quote was; but he also said that light is a condition of sight, so that was a prerequisite from the very beginning. He didn't have to say it each and every time.

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.

And I asked people to please not keep posting on this subject. Does anyone EVER listen?

Why will we see both the sun and the reflected light of the moon instantaneously when the sun is turned on, but not the reflected light of the person standing next to us until eight and a half minutes have passed? What makes the reflected light of the moon instantaneous and the reflected light of your neighbor lagged eight and a half minutes, when it is the same light? What could POSSIBLY be the explanation for this completely illogical state of affairs?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think you misunderstood. The iron fusion that causes the star to blow up is what we see (because it is a very bright and very large explosion), not the light that is emitted from that explosion, that then has to travel a thousand light-years to reach us.

What a pathetic statement.

I'm beginning to think thedoc is right. You're not a true beliver in a wacky cult of one. You're a con artist, like your father, and you're trying to bilk some rubes out of their money. Nobody could say stuff as stupid as this and actually believe it.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think you misunderstood. The iron fusion that causes the star to blow up is what we see (because it is a very bright and very large explosion), not the light that is emitted from that explosion, that then has to travel a thousand light-years to reach us.

Okay, something else you have no understanding of, but feel compelled to prattle on about. You're just making yourself look foolish.

Iron fusion does not cause a supernova explosion. That the iron that builds up in the star's core doesn't undergo fusion reactions is why the star explodes.

Regardless, you're contradicting yourself. You've repeatedly claimed that the light from the event must be present for us to see something. The light from the explosion of a star that's 1,000 light-years away won't be present on Earth for 1,000 years after the explosion.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Exactly.

You've just contradicted yourself -- again.

Either the light emitted by the supernova explosion must be present in order for us to see the exposion -- in which case we cannot see it in real time -- or we see in real time and it is not necessary for the light emitted by the supernova explosion to be present in order for us to see it.

You can't have it both ways.

I hope I cleared things up.

No. You a.) contradicted yourself and b.) demonstrated (yet again) your propensity to pontificate on something you know nothing about.


Incidentally, is the quote function really that difficult to use? You attibuted to LadyShea something that I wrote. While I certainly don't find the confusion unflattering, she might.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, that is exactly what I am saying

I am not ignoring what efferent vision is, I am drawing a necessary conclusion from what efferent vision is, actually. If vision is efferent then we can communicate with light faster than the speed of light. That's what efferent vision dictates. That's the bypass

You say that light has to transfer information which travels no faster than the speed of light. But light is not transporting the image to the eyes in the case of efferent vision, so there is a problem with this theory. Seeing an object instantly (if efferent vision is correct) does mean we are getting information faster than we would if that same light were carrying that information from point A (the light source) to point B (the brain). But I don't think that's what is meant when it says there is nothing that can travel faster than the speed of light, which is related to mass.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think you misunderstood. The iron fusion that causes the star to blow up is what we see (because it is a very bright and very large explosion), not the light that is emitted from that explosion, that then has to travel a thousand light-years to reach us.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Okay, something else you have no understanding of, but feel compelled to prattle on about. You're just making yourself look foolish.

This entire thread went into a direction I wasn't prepared for, so what do you expect? A rocket scientist?

Iron fusion does not cause a supernova explosion. The the iron that builds up in the star's core doesn't undergo fusion reactions is why the star explodes.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Regardless, you're contradicting yourself. You've repeatedly claimed that the light from the event must be present for us to see something. The light from the explosion of a star that's 1,000 light-years away won't be present on Earth for 1,000 years after the explosion.

It doesn't have to be here on Earth for us to see an explosion that is that huge, because the light created from that explosion causes a brightness that would allow it to be seen. Where is the contradiction?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

If the light from the supernova must be present in order for us to see it, we won't see the supernova until 1,000 years after it happens. Thus we cannot see it in real time.

If we do see the supernova in "real time" -- as it happens -- then it is not necessary for the light from the supernova to be present in order for us to see it. This is necessarily so, because that light won't reach us for another 1,000 years.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Exactly.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You've just contradicted yourself -- again.

Either the light emitted by the supernova explosion must be present in order for us to see the exposion -- in which we case we cannot see it in real time -- or we see in real time and it is not necessary for the light emitted by the supernova explosion to be present in order for us to see it.

You can't have it both ways.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I hope I cleared things up.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

No. You a.) contradicted yourself and b.) demonstrated (yet again) your propensity to pontificate on something you know nothing about.

I'm not pontificating Lone Ranger. I have said all along, I'm trying to see how efferent vision can fit into a scientific model without disrupting all of physics.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Incidentally, is the quote function [i]really that difficult to use? You attibuted to LadyShea something that I wrote. While I certainly don't find the confusion unflattering, she might.

It's easy to make a mistake as to who is talking when different people are quoted. That is a good reason to use the quote function, I admit. Sorry bout that. Could you let me know what the post # is? I probably have little time left to correct it.