A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

True - most of those objects do not even exist anymore. The ones that do occupy a far, far different position right now.

Another on is out dear old sun, 8 minutes before it sets. By the time you see it, the earth would have alsready have moved it beyond the view of direct vision.

The image of the Sun would have moved, that is true, but our eyes would have seen it wherever it's position was, unless the Earth turned away from the Sun at night, in which case we couldn't see it until it rose again over the horizon at sunrise.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No. Wavelengths are not properties of the Sun.

Wavelength is a property of LIGHT.

But the light that allows us to see comes from the Sun which is in our Solar System.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why do keep agreeing with this and claiming to understand it, only to then make completely crazy claims which contradict it?

Wavelengths are properties of light, but light is a property of the Sun. Without the Sun, we have no light, and therefore the concept of "wavelength" has no meaning.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

but this is unrelated to detecting light in the image of a past event.

WRONG, this is detecting light that is an image of a past event, in fact, as far as we know, this is the most past that we can see an event, the first event that ever happened, and we see the event thru the light from that event.

[The Lone Ranger]

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

, but light is a property of the Sun.

NO, the Sun has many properties and those are what allow the Sun to produce light, light is a product of the Sun, the Sun emits light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

1. Wavelengths are not a property of the sun
2. Wavelengths do not produce light
3. The atmosphere doesn't "cause the colors of the visible spectrum"

You keep getting things wrong, which indicates you do not understand

Wavelengths are a property of light, and light is produced by the Sun.

The atmosphere interacts with light in a way that allows us to see the dominant colors in the visible spectrum.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What the hell are you talking about LadyShea?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am talking about what light is and how it works, which you seem bound and determined to not understand.

I am trying very hard to understand how light works so that I can better explain why the efferent model fits like a perfect key in a keyhole.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then what pray tell are THE IMAGES WE SEE IF NOT A PROPERTY OF OF THE SUN ITSELF?

What images are you talking about? What images are a "property of the sun"? Do you even know what a property is?

It's a basic form of something that cannot be removed without removing the essence of what that something is.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

DO WE SEE IN THE DARK?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Humans? No. Our eyes evolved to see light.

Our eyes have also evolved to see objects that light reflects so we can move about in the world.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I swear that I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Please break it down so that a little guy like me can understand.

We have offered you links to information and videos, essays, explanations, and pointed you to pertinent literature. You either cannot comprehend it, or won't try to do so.

Please don't make it seem like those links provide information that would force me to concede. I haven't seen anything yet that would cause checkmate.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please don't make it seem like those links provide information that would force me to concede. I haven't seen anything yet that would cause checkmate.

Of course you haven't. And you never will.

As you yourself have all but admitted, evidence against Lessans' claims, no matter how well-established, does not matter to you.


Meanwhile:

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

NO, the Sun has many properties and those are what allow the Sun to produce light, light is a product of the Sun, the Sun emits light.

Everything you said is true, but the main point is that without the Sun, there is no light because light originates from the Sun.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Of course you haven't. And you never will.

As you yourself have all but admitted, evidence against Lessans' claims, no matter how well-established, does not matter to you.


Meanwhile:

Why are you focusing on this one example before focusing on examples where the variables can be controlled. No one has explained why a special lens cannot pick up the pattern of light at night that would allow us to see events that we couldn't otherwise see (I'm not talking about white spots of electromagnetic radiation that can be picked up) if the images are out of range, but in direct line, with the thermal sensor. Or why haven't you even attempted to answer my question as to why we wouldn't see objects in daylight if they were out of the camera's field of view but in direct line with the lens. All you keep saying is that I won't accept any evidence against him. I won't as long as I don't see any evidence against him. And so far I don't.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Except that we know that light does have a wavelength that is the color of the object that reflected it, this is known and has been proved by repeted experiments and everyday experience.

Oh really? Is that why we only see white light in the atmosphere unless we're looking directly at substance in the material world?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you focusing on this one example before focusing on examples where the variables can be controlled.

Because you dishonestly claim to be interested in evaluating Lessans' claims, while ignoring easily-conducted experiments (Jupiter's moons, the example I gave with a red piece of paper) which conclusively disprove Lessans' claims with respect to how and what we see.

All you keep saying is that I won't accept any evidence against him.

Because, as you've very clearly demonstrated, you won't.

I won't as long as I don't see any evidence against him. And so far I don't.

That's because you're deliberately squeezing your eyes tightly shut whenever anyone brings up something which disproves Lessans' claims. You're no more interested in honest evaluation of the evidence than you are a Eucalyptus tree.

No one has explained why a special lens cannot pick up the pattern of light at night that would allow us to see events that we couldn't otherwise see (I'm not talking about white spots of electromagnetic radiation that can be picked up) if the images are out of range, but in direct line, with the thermal sensor. Or why haven't you even attempted to answer my question as to why we wouldn't see objects in daylight if they were out of the camera's field of view but in direct line with the lens.

Because, as has already been explained to you, your "questions" are nonsensical and display a complete lack of understanding of optics. People have tried to explain this to you, only to be ignored.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're 300 pages back. I already explained that information transfer is unrelated to efferent sight, therefore we would not be able to see something before it happened, or get an answer before the question was asked.

You never explained anything. Claiming that x is y is not the same thing as explaining how x is y. All of your so called explanations amount to nothing more than simple and unsupported assertions. None of them have any of the usual characteristics of an explanation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've said this umpteen times. If you can show me that a picture can be taken of an object that is out of view of the lens but in direct line with it, then I will be the first one to admit Lessans was wrong. I'm not here to just accept anything Lessans says, but I'm not convinced that science is right. Why should I be ridiculed for this? If the lightwaves hold the key to sight (the wavelength that bounces off the object and holds that image of the object within it as it travels through space and time), then I will gladly concede.

Hubble Telescope Deep Field Images.

It is much to late for you to be the first one to admit that Lessans was wrong, but you are welcome to get in line.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually, this knowledge made me realize that I'm okay even with all my so-called flaws.

Additional evidence, if any were needed, that Lessans so called knowledge is deeply flawed.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I happily explore things people tell me and see what the implications are, how it could be testable, and compare it the tests we have already done and know the outcome of. Depending on how likely they seem after that I make a judgement call: do I find it is likely true? Also, is it useful? In the case of Lessans, the asnwer is no on both counts.

Lessans sight is extremely unlikely to be true, roughly in the same cathegory of the moor loopy Scientilogy beliefs. Sure, there is a remote possibility that an evil warlord called Zemu brought spaceships that looked like Boeing 747's to earth millions of years ago to commit galactic genocide, but there without any evidence we have to dismiss it as a fairytale.

First of all, his name is Xenu. Second of all, where do you get off mocking one of the central tenets of one of the world's great religions? You will pay for this insult Vivisectus, you will pay dearly.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh really? Is that why we only see white light in the atmosphere unless we're looking directly at substance in the material world?

What we see as 'White Light' is a combination of all the colors of light in roughly equal proportions that appears white. In fact there is no such thing as 'White Light' there is no wavelength of light that by itself would appear white, any single wavelength of light by itself would be a color of the spectrum. Objects only appear to be a color because they absorb some frequencies of light and reflect others. The frequency of light is the same as it's wavelength relative to the speed of light, and that is what makes color.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No LadyShea, there are objects and there's light. I want to talk about objects

The light from Galaxies can be collected and produce an image. Just like the light from rainbows can produce an image, just like the light from the Aurora can produce an image, just like the emitted light on your TV and computer monitors can produce images.

The only reason you want to move the goalposts to "objects" is because you don't like the facts.

keep the controls tight so that we know what we're studying.

The Hubble was well designed, engineered, and constructed and its optics systems are reliable. We know what we're studying when we examine the Deep Field images. That's tightly enough controlled for any rational person to draw conclusions from.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not say we cannot separate light from sight. I said that light does not take the wavelength of the object it is reflecting along with it on its journey through space and time.

Objects don't have light wavelengths*. Objects absorb, reflect, refract, or emit light and light has varying wavelengths. A wavelength is a property of light, not a separate something it "takes" along for a ride.


*For the practical purposes of this discussion. Electrons and other super tiny things do have wavelengths comparable to their size. See TLR for more details.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

New questions for Peacegirl...

1. What is it that interacts with the film in a camera to determine the color of the resulting image?

2. Where is whatever it is which does this (when it interacts)?

3. Which properties of whatever it is that does this will determine the color of the resulting image?

4. Did the light present at the camera initially travel from the object to get there?

5. Can light travel to the camera without arriving at the camera?

6. Can light travel faster than light?

7. Is wavelength a property of light?

8. Can light travel without any wavelength?

9. Do objects reflect light or does light reflect objects?

10. What does a reflection consist of?

11. What does light consist of?

(Please think carefully about your answers, and ask for clarification if any question is unclear to you.)

Bump.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wavelengths are properties of light, but light is a property of the Sun.

Light is a product of the sun's fusion process.

Without the Sun, we have no light, and therefore the concept of "wavelength" has no meaning.

We can produce light, that has wavelengths, without the sun. You do it every night with light bulbs. You produce light that has wavelengths by striking a match

Wavelengths are a property of ALL light.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Or why haven't you even attempted to answer my question as to why we wouldn't see objects in daylight if they were out of the camera's field of view but in direct line with the lens.

I have offered you the answer, multiple times. OPTICS!

Angle of View
Intensity and the inverse square law
Exposure to other light sources overwhelming the light from the dim distant object

If you understand all of these things, then maybe you can answer your own question

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light has everything to do with what we see, but it's how light works that counts. Everyone is so confused it's no wonder Lessans is considered the crackpot.

We know how light works. Unless you are now saying we do not. But, I thought you said you didn't have to rewrite known physics for Lessans to be right, peacegirl? You are welcome to correct me or change your stance.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The image of the Sun would have moved, that is true, but our eyes would have seen it wherever it's position was, unless the Earth turned away from the Sun at night, in which case we couldn't see it until it rose again over the horizon at sunrise.

Whoa whoa whoa...so now images produced can be different to what the eyes see? Is this your position peacegirl? If a distant object moves, the image would be different to what we see?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

WRONG, this is detecting light that is an image of a past event, in fact, as far as we know, this is the most past that we can see an event, the first event that ever happened, and we see the event thru the light from that event.

Once again, we're talking about two different things. I want to stick to experiments here on Earth where the variables can be manipulated because that way we can get a better understanding of what's really going on.

[davidm]

MOONS OF JUPITER, PEACEGIRL!

You father said that everything is seen in real time, the sun, the moon, the stars, everything.

Prediction of your father: If we aimed a telescope at Io, we would see it instantaenously, no matter where it was in the sky relative to the earth.

Experiment: We aim a telescope at Io and find that we see it at different times according to its position relative to that of the earth.

Inescapable conclusion: We see in delayed time and we see light, proving Lessans incorrect.

Deal with it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Whoa whoa whoa...so now images produced can be different to what the eyes see? Is this your position peacegirl? If a distant object moves, the image would be different to what we see?

No, I'm saying if efferent vision is true (which I believe it is), then we would see the distant object in its actual position. Isn't this the crux of our debate; whether we see the image after light reaches our eyes, or whether we see the image in real time? But could we please not discuss this right now because people are going to accuse me of denying the moons of Jupiter experiment.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I'm saying if efferent vision is true (which I believe it is), then we would see the distant object in its actual position. Isn't this the crux of our debate; whether we see the image after light reaches our eyes, or whether we see the image in real time? But could we please not discuss this right now because people are going to accuse me of denying the moons of Jupiter experiment.

Then why did you say 'the image would have moved..but our eyes would have seen it'?

(Incidentally, you never responded to my question about how if we always see an object in its actual position, why does the light appear to come from its so-called actual position too? If we saw faster than light, we would expect the travelling light to come from a different position on the sky than the actual position of distant moving object. Like how when a plane travels faster than the speed of sound, our ears hear it from a different place to where we see it.)