A revolution in thought - Page 476

LadyShea · #**11876** 10-07-2011, 11:13 PM

And yes, all of those are photographs of the sun. I was asking you what the "exact image" of the sun is? You had said you didn't think emitted light would give us an "exact image". It also goes back to your "actual star" claims.

What does the "actual" sun look like? What is the "exact image" of the sun that we can't get from it's emitted light?

Stephen Maturin · #**11877** 10-07-2011, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Have you conveniently forgotten that I would never change the original concept. There's a difference between changing a word to better describe a concept, or giving an example that clarifies a concept.

Of course there's a difference, but the difference is completely irrelevant to what you wrote in #10954. Regardless of whether the "original concept" remains intact,1 changing a word or adding a new example is still "alter[ing]," "adding" to or "subtracting" from someone else's work. So, contrary to what you wrote in #10954, you're now saying that it's not unethical "to alter someone else's work" or to "add[] or subtract[] what [Lessans] has painstakingly worked on for 30 years."

1Given your consistent inability (and in some instances your outright refusal) to explain the material in Lessans' book clearly, one might legitimately wonder whether you know what the "original concepts" actually were. For all anyone knows, Lessans may have carefully considered the phrase "molecules of light" for weeks before deciding to include it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crumb

Quote:

but I need people to stop posting.

Just leave and it will be over.

That's like telling an anorexic that all they have to do is eat more. :sadcheer:

Oh, my. That post speaks volumes.

Stephen Maturin · #**11878** 10-07-2011, 11:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is the "exact image" of the sun that we can't get from it's emitted light?

It stems from the germinal corona of potential images, and has many heads.

LadyShea · #**11879** 10-07-2011, 11:44 PM

Those dwarfs would be happy to have a job being tossed!

davidm · #**11880** 10-07-2011, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is the "exact image" of the sun that we can't get from it's emitted light?

It stems from the germinal corona of potential images, and has many heads.

Keep this up, Maturin, and she will again start blaming you for her decision to take the book offline, and not me. :glare:

Dragar · #**11881** 10-07-2011, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can see the dilemma, and the only answer I can give is that there is a missing piece. It seems to me that anytime light is drawn into a lens, the image or object has to be present...

Had to be present. Once upon a time. Not present tense. Past. Light takes a finite time to get places.

This doesn't need to be very complicated.

Two guys stand on hills a great distance apart. Earlier they synchronised their watches.

One person turns on their torch at midnight. They turn it off several seconds later.

Some time after midnight, the other guy on the distant hill sees the torch light. Several seconds after the torch is turned off, the light they see vanishes from the first guy's hill. Note that they still see the light even after the torch has been switched off, and do not see the torch for some time even though the torch has been switched on.

The obvious interpretation is that light takes time to travel from place to place.

This is how the world works, because we've done this experiment.

So what's so difficult about doing the experiment again, even if it's just to confirm what has already been done? What's the harm?

Oh my goodness.

There's no harm at all. And you're quite correct to say we should do this experiment again.

So we have. Again and again and again. I do not exaggerate when I say this exact experiment has been done hundreds (perhaps thousands?) of times, with thousands (tens of thousands?) of related experiments, and millions (billions?) of indirect tests. And it always the same result: light takes time to travel from place to place.

We tested it directly with the development of radar, with measurements of the distance to the moon, with the time delay in our communications with astronauts. We tested it with interferometers, with the development of GPS systems. We've done it so many times now, to deny it would be like denying the world is round. Much of modern technology relies on this fact. If you tell us it is wrong, why does all the modern technology - the technology designed around this fact - work? Why did our experiments tell us differently to what you say? There is no good explanation.

So yes, we have done this experiment again. Light takes time to get from place to place. Do you see now why nobody takes what you say seriously? Because you are telling us something that is wrong. We know it is wrong not because of some clever feat of logic, but because we went outside and looked at how the world really works. I'm sorry, but you are wrong: light takes time to travel from place to place.

LadyShea · #**11882** 10-07-2011, 11:58 PM

Did you get your Java working, pg? There's all kinds of cool apps, like the one BUT posted and like this subtended angle one and here's where you can play with light intensity and distance

Angakuk · #**11883** 10-08-2011, 04:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As far as saying "if" efferent vision is true, I want people to have some leeway. To say that I know it's true will get me in trouble and I'll be called a "fundamentalist."

You will still be compared to fundamentalists because that is how you act, your circumlocution notwithstanding.

I have tried to be as direct as possible, although I realize I'm not offering you the kind of detailed explanation that you are looking for.

You have repeatedly admitted that you do not believe that Lessans could have been mistaken with regard to the facts of his claims. Nevertheless, you frequently include the phrase "if efferent vision is true" which implies that efferent vision may not be true, something you do not believe to be possible. Therefore, your use of the phrase "if efferent vision is true" is an act evasion. That is, it is type of circumlocution and its is a fundamentally dishonest tactic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Cameras detect light only, but the light is present as a mirror image of the object or light source.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I thought your claim was that light could not transmit an image. How then can the light be "present as a mirror image of the object"?

If light is a mirror image, it is not transmitting anything. It is there the second the lens of a camera photographs something, or the lens of the eye sees that same view.

That was me, not Vivisectus.

The phrase "light is a mirror image" implies that the light contains the image (or, at the very least, contains information that can be used to reconstruct the image), something that you and Lessans insist that light can not do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And what I'm saying is that if efferent vision is true, there is another explanation than incoming light forming on the lens and being interpreted by the brain. That explanation shows that cameras and eyes should not see different things; they should see the exact same thing which they do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The problem with this is that you have never actually provided such an explanation. Any such explanation would have to include a description of the mechanism that enables a camera, or an eye, to form an image. You have never provided a description of such a mechanism. Until you do so you really ought to quit claiming that such an explanation exists.

I'm sure there is a mechanism that explains efferent vision. I just don't have it quite yet, but that doesn't negate that it exists [in theory].

Again, that was my post that you were responding to, not Vivisectus.

Whether or not your failure to provide a mechanism negates the theory is irrelevant to my critique. That you fail to provide such a mechanism means that you have failed to provide an explanation, something you keep claiming to have done.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am sure that I have made this point before, but let me make it again. The claim that light must be present does not necessarily imply that the light has to be present at the point of observation. If efferent vision is true, it is sufficient that light be present at the point of origin and that the object be; big enough, close enough and bright enough to be seen. That being the case, when the light emitting object changes color that change will be observed instantly, if efferent vision is true. What is missing from this "explanation" is a description of the mechanism which allows such an observation to take place. But that's alright, peacegirl has already admitted that she doesn't know how this happens. She only knows that it does happen.

As I just said, not knowing the exact mechanism as to the pathway in the brain that allows us to see in real time does not mean that this observation is wrong.

Once again, the author of that brilliant bit of prose was me, not Vivisectus.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Whether or not he was correct about the observer on Rigel (he was not) is beside the point. The Rigel example is still an hypothetical for the simple reason that, to the best of our knowledge, there neither is, nor ever was, any such observer on Rigel. See, that right there makes it hypothetical.

Call it hypothetical if you want, but LadyShea was clumping all of these together to make it look like Lessans was full of hot air. There is nothing wrong with a hypothetical if it is clarifying a concept. That's what he was doing with the example of Rigel. The other example is not necessary and is confusing people instead of making his concept clearer, which is why I want to remove it.

Yet again, that was me, not Vivisectus.

Using an hypothetical that is factually incorrect to try and demonstrate or clarify a question of fact does not improve the clarity of the claim. On the contrary, it adds to the lack of clarity by mudding up the waters with wrong information. Calling an example "hypothetical" does not excuse one from the obligation to provide factual support for one's claims.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If it has no bearing, why did you include it? You have stated that it was merely an afterthought on Lessans' part (although how you can know that is unclear) and that it did not appear in all of his books (whatever that means) yet you still chose to include it. I can only assume that you chose to include the example because you thought that it was persuasive. You have now, after umpteen discussions, discovered that it was not persuasive. That, in fact, it tended to undermine rather than buttress his argument. Therefore, you have decided to edit it out of your next revision. By that logic, you ought to edit out every argument, observation, analogy and example that has proven to be less than persuasive. If you do that you could save an awful lot of the publishing cost, because you could then put the whole thing on the cover of a matchbook.

I included it because I thought it would make things clearer.

Yet once again, that was me, not Vivisectus.

If you thought it would make things clearer you must have thought that it was a valid example, even if it was an hypothetical example. Are you now talking about removing it because you no longer think it was a valid example, or are you talking about removing it simply because it has become a bone of contention?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As for the Hubble Deep Field experiment, I still don't see where this has anything to do with Lessans' claim that we can only see the present.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I was not addressing the past/present issue when I provided the link to the Hubble Deep Field site. I was addressing your claim that a camera could not take a picture of an object if that object was not in the camera's field of view. When the astronomers pointed the Hubble telescope in that direction they were, to the best of their knowledge, aiming the telescope at a vacant point in space. Explain to me, if you will, how the Hubble telescope was able to take pictures of objects in space that were not visible to the astronomers who were using the telescope.

I agree that photons were being picked up by the telescope. There is no other explanation if the space was vacant and suddenly light appeared. And it's probably true that these relics (if you will) of an earlier time are indicative of how old the universe is. I am not arguing with that. That being said, I still don't believe that we can get a full image of a past event without the event being present.

Yet again, that was me, not Vivisectus.

The light from those distant objects did not suddenly appear. The photon stream was present before the telescope was aimed in that direction and the photon stream continues to be present even though the telescope is no longer aimed in that direction. So, explain, if you will, how the telescope was able to use those photons to reconstruct an image of objects that were not instantly visible, even with the aid of the telescope. According to your, and Lessans' theory (so far as I can make any sense out of it) it should not have been possible for the telescope to record an image of objects that were not big enough, bright enough or close enough to be instantly visible using that same telescope.

peacegirl · #**11884** 10-08-2011, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And yes, all of those are photographs of the sun. I was asking you what the "exact image" of the sun is? You had said you didn't think emitted light would give us an "exact image". It also goes back to your "actual star" claims.

What does the "actual" sun look like? What is the "exact image" of the sun that we can't get from it's emitted light?

I didn't say that we can't get an "exact image" of the sun if the sun is is in the field of view of the telescope. That's what I've been saying all along. But if photons become separated from the light source and travel independently, they become a remnant just like embers are a remnant of a fire. If that is the case you're not going to get an image of the sun. You're going to get an image of those photons flying through space because they are now a separate [from the sun] emitting light source.

peacegirl · #**11885** 10-08-2011, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can see the dilemma, and the only answer I can give is that there is a missing piece. It seems to me that anytime light is drawn into a lens, the image or object has to be present, and I maintain that until someone proves differently. Even in the Deep Hubble Field, the images had to come into the section of the sky where the light was within the field of view of the lens where it could then be magnified.

Go back and answer my posts please. This is not good enough. I want you to follow through the implications of your own claims. Otherwise you will never see what you keep asking us to show you - how Lessan's claims are not compatible with known physics.

You keep backing off from the issue and then denying that you can see any fatal problem. The problem is right here in the issue you are presently avoiding. What is it the that interacts with the film in a camera to produce the real-time image? If light, then which properties of the light, where is the light doing this interacting, and how do the properties of that light manage to represent real-time properties of the object?

Go back and answer my previous posts. Instead of falling back on your faith that there must be some solution that will work, follow through the implications of your own position and see for yourself why it will not work.

The light that is being emitted or reflected is being projected onto the lens of the retina or a camera to produce the image. It's not that mysterious Spacemonkey.

peacegirl · #**11886** 10-08-2011, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You need to set up the exact experiment, peacegirl. Every aspect of it. Do you remember the inverse square law and how it will affect the experiment? Do you know what the angular size is is so you know what size lens you would need? Does such a lens exist?

This is not hard to set up. I don't need some special lens. All I would have to do is have someone go far enough that he would be out of direct view of a standard digital or film camera. It would have to be a clear day with no obstructions that could cause the light to be dispersed, absorbed, or deflected. If we are getting the image from the photons bouncing off of this person, it should show up on the lens. If it shows nothing, what does that tell us? I would then tell the person to come into view of the camera's field of view. If one of the pictures shows nothing, and one shows the image of the person, there is a discrepancy that should not be present.

You have no understanding of how light works or how cameras work. Yes, you would have to have a special lens to enable to camera to collect enough light reflected off the object to decode into an image.

Inverse square law. And subtended angles. And the laws of perspective.

Now you're weaseling.

peacegirl · #**11887** 10-08-2011, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are misunderstanding me. I am not refusing to believe that those photons had to exist at the time of emission or reflection. I am saying that those photons have to be within the field of view of the telescope's lens for an image to show up.

Well yeah duh, for a detector to detect light the light has to interact with the detector meaning there has to be light there to detect. Do you think we've been saying different?

"Field of view" of course varies with size and shape of the detector.

Of course. The photons broken off from the original event become their own light source. So we're able to detect the photons as a light source unto themselves within the telescope's field of view.

What happened to your insistence that the source object be in present existence and the field of view?

And no, photons are not their own "light source" they are simply traveling light that were emitted from a source.

How can you say photons are not their own light source? They are producing light. It's like a battery pack. Yes, it got its energy from another source, but the battery now contains it's own energy which can be used to turn things on. :popcorn:

peacegirl · #**11888** 10-08-2011, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus

If we had efferent vision, why would anyone need to wear spectacles? :chin:

Ceptimus, we still need to have our refractive errors corrected if the light isn't focusing on the right spot. This has no bearing on whether the eyes are efferent, although many people think it does because I've been asked this question numerous times.

peacegirl · #**11889** 10-08-2011, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You've flip flopped again peacegirl. Now you've let go of your "object or image must be present". The gaps in your knowledge you have been trying to fit Lessans into are getting smaller and smaller, I take it?

That's happens with hardcore apologists sometimes.

If the gaps in my knowledge aren't getting smaller and smaller, the weaseling on your part is getting larger and larger.

peacegirl · #**11890** 10-08-2011, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So you have thousands of dollars to spend on powerful telephoto lenses?

What are you talking about LadyShea? I don't need to spend thousands of dollars on a powerful telescope to do a simple experiment that can show the same thing.

LadyShea · #**11891** 10-08-2011, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But if photons become separated from the light source and travel independently, they become a remnant just like embers are a remnant of a fire. If that is the case you're not going to get an image of the sun. You're going to get an image of those photons flying through space because they are now a separate [from the sun] emitting light source.

So this is "an image of photons flying through space" rather than an image of The Pinwheel Galaxy (which is 27 million light years away)?

davidm · #**11892** 10-08-2011, 02:53 PM

Wow, the ignorant, unlettered shitwit is in fine fettle this morning, isn't she? In full "condescending twat" mode.

Brilliant! The Lone Ranger called you out perfectly.

The catty little insults of the irremediably stupid do not flatter you and lowers your reputation even further, if that is even possible.

LadyShea · #**11893** 10-08-2011, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So you have thousands of dollars to spend on powerful telephoto lenses?

What are you talking about LadyShea? I don't need to spend thousands of dollars on a powerful telescope to do a simple experiment that can show the same thing.

I didn't say telescope, I said a telephoto lens. If you understand how lenses and cameras work, if you understand subtended angles, if you understand angles of view and how focal length can distort perspective*, if you understand how objects reflect light and how light behaves, then you would understand why one is necessary to conduct the experiment you have posited.

The laws of physics include optics and they all determine exactly what a camera can actually record. Geometry and trigonometry are also important aspects.

We can read license plates from photos taken by orbiting satellites for goodness sake, but only because the engineers know all this stuff and the developers could pay for all the specialized equipment needed. Plain old cameras you buy for taking portraits and landscapes are not specialized equipment for doing long range light travel experiments.

Your "what I can personally observe" horse sense can only take you so far. Anyway, have you even done the simple lensing experiment I suggested-scorching a piece of paper by focusing sunlight through a dime store magnifying glass?

*Fun with focal length and perspective

peacegirl · #**11894** 10-08-2011, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is the "exact image" of the sun that we can't get from it's emitted light?

It stems from the germinal corona of potential images, and has many heads.

Keep this up, Maturin, and she will again start blaming you for her decision to take the book offline, and not me. :glare:

Well actually you're going to have to compete because it was the ignorance of both of you. So may the most ignorant of the two of you win.

peacegirl · #**11895** 10-08-2011, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So you have thousands of dollars to spend on powerful telephoto lenses?

What are you talking about LadyShea? I don't need to spend thousands of dollars on a powerful telescope to do a simple experiment that can show the same thing.

I didn't say telescope, I said a telephoto lens. If you understand how lenses and cameras work, if you understand subtended angles, if you understand angles of view and how focal length can distort perspective*, if you understand how objects reflect light and how light behaves, then you would understand why one is necessary to conduct the experiment you have posited.

The laws of physics include optics and they all determine exactly what a camera can actually record. Geometry and trigonometry are also important aspects.

We can read license plates from photos taken by orbiting satellites for goodness sake, but only because the engineers know all this stuff and the developers could pay for all the specialized equipment needed. Plain old cameras you buy for taking portraits and landscapes are not specialized equipment for doing long range light travel experiments.

Your "what I can personally observe" horse sense can only take you so far. Anyway, have you even done the simple lensing experiment I suggested-scorching a piece of paper by focusing sunlight through a dime store magnifying glass?

*Fun with focal length and perspective

What the *#($ has this to do with anything LadyShea? You are, at this name of the game, grasping at straws. I will read what you have to say but this in no way negates Lessans' claim of efferent vision. You are losing and you can't deal with it.

LadyShea · #**11896** 10-08-2011, 03:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You've flip flopped again peacegirl. Now you've let go of your "object or image must be present". The gaps in your knowledge you have been trying to fit Lessans into are getting smaller and smaller, I take it?

That's happens with hardcore apologists sometimes.

If the gaps in my knowledge aren't getting smaller and smaller, the weaseling on your part is getting larger and larger.

Once again I have to point out that I have not lied, backtracked, tried to distract, moved the goalposts, changed my position multiple times, or failed to attempt to support my views. Nor have I refused to look at data or evidence or sound logical challenges

I have offered my sincere opinions, supported my reasoning for holding those opinions, and offered evidence to the best of my ability.

Where have I weaseled?

How have I weaseled?

davidm · #**11897** 10-08-2011, 03:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is the "exact image" of the sun that we can't get from it's emitted light?

It stems from the germinal corona of potential images, and has many heads.

Keep this up, Maturin, and she will again start blaming you for her decision to take the book offline, and not me. :glare:

Well actually you're going to have to compete because it was the ignorance of both of you. So may the most ignorant of the two of you win.

Here that, Maturin? We're in competition again! :glare:

Oh, and peacegirl, speaking of "ignorant," care to explain to your rapt audience how it is possible that if God turned on the sun at noon, people on earth would see it immediately, but not see their neighbors standing next to them for eight and a half minutes? What if the neighbor has a camera? Since you changed your story and now say that cameras take pictures in real time, the light would have to be at the camera, but in that case the light obviously would also be at the person holding the camera, rendering that person visible as well. So why did Stupid Seymour say the person would not be visible for eight and a half minutes? Hm?

:popcorn:

Also, why did Stupid Seymour call light "molecules" even though photons are not molecules, and why did you tamper with his work even though you dishonestly assured everyone that you would never even think of doing such a thing?

:popcorn:

davidm · #**11898** 10-08-2011, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What the *#($ has this to do with anything LadyShea? You are, at this name of the game, grasping at straws. I will read what you have to say but this in no way negates Lessans' claim of efferent vision. You are losing and you can't deal with it.

Projecting again, are we, peacegirl?

You lost nearly 500 pages ago. Tragically, you continue this nonsense, no doubt to avoid realizing that you have wasted your life on utter rubbish.

LadyShea · #**11899** 10-08-2011, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can you say photons are not their own light source? They are producing light. It's like a battery pack. Yes, it got its energy from another source, but the battery now contains it's own energy which can be used to turn things on. :popcorn:

They aren't a source of light, they aren't "producing" light, they are light energy. They are the product of some kind of process like fusion...which is what a star does.

LadyShea · #**11900** 10-08-2011, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So you have thousands of dollars to spend on powerful telephoto lenses?

What are you talking about LadyShea? I don't need to spend thousands of dollars on a powerful telescope to do a simple experiment that can show the same thing.

I didn't say telescope, I said a telephoto lens. If you understand how lenses and cameras work, if you understand subtended angles, if you understand angles of view and how focal length can distort perspective*, if you understand how objects reflect light and how light behaves, then you would understand why one is necessary to conduct the experiment you have posited.

The laws of physics include optics and they all determine exactly what a camera can actually record. Geometry and trigonometry are also important aspects.

We can read license plates from photos taken by orbiting satellites for goodness sake, but only because the engineers know all this stuff and the developers could pay for all the specialized equipment needed. Plain old cameras you buy for taking portraits and landscapes are not specialized equipment for doing long range light travel experiments.

Your "what I can personally observe" horse sense can only take you so far. Anyway, have you even done the simple lensing experiment I suggested-scorching a piece of paper by focusing sunlight through a dime store magnifying glass?

*Fun with focal length and perspective

What the *#($ has this to do with anything LadyShea? You are, at this name of the game, grasping at straws. I will read what you have to say but this in no way negates Lessans' claim of efferent vision. You are losing and you can't deal with it.

I was responding to your claim that you could conduct a light travel/gathering experiment without understanding any of the variables that would be inherent to the experiment or what equipment would be needed.