A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It seems that way.

Yes, I know it seems that way to you, because you are a chip off the old blockhead.

Tell me, peacegirl, are the repeated observations of the moons of Jupiter that rule out real-time seeing just made-up stuff by guys in academia? A test that you yourself could do, a fact that has repeatedly been explained to you? And, since they tests DO rule out real-time seeing, now what?

I'm sure if Einstein endorsed this work, you'd have a different tune entirely.

What laughable ignorance and arrogance. Einstein's theory is in direct conflict with what Lessans' wrote. But moreover, his theory was based on actual knowledge, observation and mathematics, not stuff he pulled out of his ass while killing time in a pool hall after dropping out of seventh grade.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not a matter of faith. It's a matter of more empirical testing. That's what I meant by time will tell.

It's a matter of faith for you that more testing is required.

[LadyShea]

I am making light drawing lens holes with apertures out of Cheerios and LifeSavers tomorrow. Then we'll see which fat lady eats pudding while telling time!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The camera does not gather reflected light because the light is not being reflected toward the camera.

Then how did the light at the camera get there?

Yes, we know that the light is already there when the photo is taken, but how did it get there before that, if it wasn't previously reflected towards the camera by the object? (The afferent model doesn't claim this reflection (of the light now at the camera) happened at the very same moment the picture was taken.)

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It seems that way. I'm sure if Einstein endorsed this work, you'd have a different tune entirely.

Actually, we'd just have a very different opinion of Einstein.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Here are your previous answers:

Please indicate which of these you would like to change.

Again, my questions have nothing to do with the order of the arriving light.

I asked you in the very post you were here replying to, what you think lenses actually do beyond receiving incoming light. You still haven't answered.

Yes, you are. You keep trying to blame your inconsistencies and contradictions on other people's assumptions about the afferent model instead of on your own assumptions made during your failed attempts to explain the efferent model.

You need to either revise your earlier answers to my questions (quoted above), or answer my further questions about how the light at the camera could have been blue before it arrived and before the object itself was blue.

Bump.

[LadyShea]

Einstein didn't go around "endorsing" work, anyway. He prolly collaborated, repeated, and verified, but scientists aren't politicians.

If Lessans work was repeatable or verifiable, and actually explainable without having to change the laws of physics, "endorsements" wouldn't be required.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because that wavelength is coming from the object; the only difference is that our brains are looking through the retina to see the object in real time instead of the image of the object being interpreted in the brain. If we see in real time there is no distance between seeing the object and the light striking the retina. It all happens at once.

So it's just like vision-via-light, except wavelengths travel from the object when focused by a retina or a hole, so that our brains see in real time using an instant reflection. Without any distance between the object and our retina because the lens (or hole) makes it so there's no real distance?

Do I understand yet?

[LadyShea]

You forgot apertures Dragar, gawd you scientists in your world!

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Oh, I just thought of an amazing counter example (as if we needed another) to this!

An effect in astronomy is a gravitational lens, whereby a large mass (such as a galaxy cluster, which is a cluster of galaxies) distorts light coming from behind it in a similar way to how an actual lens works.

Now, often the effect is purely to see a lensed image of, say, a galaxy from behind the giant mass. However, when there are multiple paths light can take from the distant galaxy to our telescopes, then we see all of these paths. In other words, we see the same object in multiple places on the sky! (A perfectly aligned lens/object setup produces a ring of light called an Einsten ring, but these are rare).

Even more fun, the time the light takes to travel along these paths differs (somewhere in the region of days or weeks, depending on the mass). So in other words, when we look at multiply imaged galaxies via a gravitational lens, we see multiple images from different times of the same object.

So tell me peacegirl, if we see in real time, which image is it that we see is in real time?

Bump!

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Angakuk, there is a lightwave which allows the camera to take a photograph or allow the eye to see, but the lightwave is captured instantly due to the lens. In other words, light travels at a finite rate of speed but what is seen on the film is instant because of how the lens works.

Instant reflection only means our ability to see the object directly. The image is not bouncing off of the object and traveling toward the retina or film. There is no arrival time.

Although others have already asked this, I am going to ask it too. How does the lens work? What exactly is it that the lens, or the hole in the pinhole camera, is doing that allows it to eradicate time and space?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...I am asking people to tell me they are interested in what Lessans had to say...

Speaking only for myself, I am not interested in what Lessans had to say because it does not appear to be the case that he had anything to say that is of interest to me. On the otherhand, I find you endlessly interesting and fascinating, in a train wreck sort of way.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you see why I get upset? This is not what I call taking him seriously. It's making fun of him. You certainly wouldn't be doing this if he had someone of high esteem endorsing him.

Au contraire, we would just add the person of high esteem to the list of those who deserve to be mocked.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Einstein knew what he was talking about. He was not arrogant when he used words such as "mathematical" and "scientific". Lessans knew what he was talking about. He was not arrogant. He used the words "mathematical" and "scientific" because they apply. The only difference is that Einstein's discoveries have been recognized and Lessans' discoveries have not.

Well, that and the fact that Einstein actually did science and actually used math. Other than that, why I suppose that there is little difference. Oh, except for the small difference that Einstein was mostly right and Lessans is almost entirely wrong. Other than that, no difference.

[Angakuk]

Duplicate post. Please accept my abject apology.

[davidm]

Jesus christ, I thought I had already thanked that.

[davidm]

I must have been "efferently seeing double." How does that work? Something-something-something, and then, voila! We see double!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think I'm doing a fairly good job considering I never explained efferent vision in terms of light.

You're trying really hard to make something that sounds like an explanation, but really it's meaningless.

"Because of how lenses work" doesn't actually tell us anything anything...how do they work in your opinion? How you talk about them and how they are observed to actually work do not match.

What is a lightwave in the way you are using it? Does it have a finite shape or size? How does it "allow the camera to take a photograph"/ What exactly happens in that process?

Also, I continue to find it astounding that you have never bothered, in all these years, to sit down and work out the mechanism for efferent sight in order to address these repeated and expected objections.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then we'll see which fat lady eats pudding while telling time!

The squeaky efferent Cheerio gets the fat pudding lady!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Yes, I know it seems that way to you, because you are a chip off the old blockhead.

Tell me, peacegirl, are the repeated observations of the moons of Jupiter that rule out real-time seeing just made-up stuff by guys in academia? A test that you yourself could do, a fact that has repeatedly been explained to you? And, since they tests DO rule out real-time seeing, now what?

What laughable ignorance and arrogance. Einstein's theory is in direct conflict with what Lessans' wrote. But moreover, his theory was based on actual knowledge, observation and mathematics, not stuff he pulled out of his ass while killing time in a pool hall after dropping out of seventh grade.

You're just really peeved because you want the universe to work a certain way, and you're blaming Lessans because he observed something different. It's all his fault, right? There's no other explanation for your constant put downs every time you post. I only wish his knowledge was confirmed true in my lifetime (which I doubt). I'm sure I would get a lot of apologies.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...you're blaming Lessans because he observed something different...

But he didn't. He didn't observe anything different at all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You need to explain exactly how it is YOU think lenses work or are supposed to work, because what you are saying, and how lenses are designed and constructed and known to actually work, are not matching.

The pinhole in a pinhole camera acts as the lens. The pinhole forces every point emitting light in the scene to form a small point on the film, so the image is crisp. The reason a normal camera uses a lens rather than a pinhole is because the lens creates a much larger hole through which light can make it onto the film, meaning the film can be exposed faster.

HowStuffWorks "How does a pinhole camera work?"

Lenses are designed to focus the light. They are believed to be just light collectors with no reference to the object. It is assumed that the object reflects the light as it travels through space and time. That's where there is a difference of opinion as to what is actually occurring.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The pinhole in a pinhole camera acts as the lens. The pinhole forces every point emitting light in the scene to form a small point on the film, so the image is crisp. The reason a normal camera uses a lens rather than a pinhole is because the lens creates a much larger hole through which light can make it onto the film, meaning the film can be exposed faster.

HowStuffWorks "How does a pinhole camera work?"

Lenses are designed to focus the light. They are believed to be just light collectors with no reference to the object. It is assumed that the object reflects the light as it travels through space and time. That's where there is a difference of opinion as to what is actually occurring.

The question, which you just completely failed to answer, was: How do you think lenses work?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

I was musing on light which of course travels in waves. Also on the progress and eventual end of this thread, whenever that may be. It made me remember one of Shakespeare's sonnets.

Like as the waves make towards the pebbled shore,
So do our minutes hasten to their end;
Each changing place with that which goes before,
In sequent toil all forwards do contend.
Nativity, once in the main of light,
Crawls to maturity, wherewith being crown'd,
Crooked elipses 'gainst his glory fight,
And Time that gave doth now his gift confound.
Time doth transfix the flourish set on youth
And delves the parallels in beauty's brow,
Feeds on the rarities of nature's truth,
And nothing stands but for his scythe to mow:
And yet to times in hope my verse shall stand,
Praising thy worth, despite his cruel hand.

What a creative writer Shakespeare was. And how true are his words. Time waits for no one.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're just really peeved because you want the universe to work a certain way, and you're blaming Lessans because he observed something different. It's all his fault, right? There's no other explanation for your constant put downs every time you post. I only wish his knowledge was confirmed true in my lifetime (which I doubt). I'm sure I would get a lot of apologies.

Yes, peacegirl, we're all just really peeved because we want the universe to work a certain way. I'd ask you to stop a moment and think about how stupid that sounds, but you can't think anymore, your brain is rotted away with this nonsense.

Even as you post something so stupid (what is the stupidest thing you've ever posted? That would be interesting to explore) there is a thread in the science forum about the recent finding that neutrinos may have traveled faster than light. It's almost certainly untrue, but has caused great excitement and conversation, here and in many other places. Most of us would love to see it confirmed, because we'd love to see grand new physics, new science, in our lifetime. The complete disproof right there of what you just stupidly said.

No, I am peeved, and others get peeved, because you are a dissembling, dishonest little liar. Lessans' claims have been repeatedly shown to be buncombe, but that doesn't stop you from repeating the same old lies over and over again, like suggesting that Einstein might endorse you father's work whereas in fact Einstein's work conclusively ruled out Lessans' claims.

The reason you can't comprehend this, is because for YOU, and you alone, this is all personal.

How come you keep dodging the moons of Jupiter, peacegirl? And are you going to address the recent post on gravitational lensing? Which image is the real one, pray?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The pinhole in a pinhole camera acts as the lens. The pinhole forces every point emitting light in the scene to form a small point on the film, so the image is crisp. The reason a normal camera uses a lens rather than a pinhole is because the lens creates a much larger hole through which light can make it onto the film, meaning the film can be exposed faster.

HowStuffWorks "How does a pinhole camera work?"

Lenses are designed to focus the light. They are believed to be just light collectors with no reference to the object. It is assumed that the object reflects the light as it travels through space and time. That's where there is a difference of opinion as to what is actually occurring.

It's not a difference of opinion, it's differences in describing reality. They are not "believed" to work how they work, they are designed and built and repeatedly observed to work that way.

Do you agree with the text you quoted? Do you understand what this sentence, from your quoted text, actually MEANS

every point emitting light in the scene to form a small point on the film

I understand what is meant by "the pinhole acts as a lens", because it works with how we know lenses work (focusing incoming light). Your idea of lenses focusing out on an object cannot work with a simple hole.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

And are you going to address the recent post on gravitational lensing? Which image is the real one, pray?

Well gravitational lensing is an observation that takes place 'out there' in the universe, so it probably doesn't apply. Peacegirl will demand a demonstration here on earth, so we need to locate a nice handy 'Black Hole' and a 'Point light source' for the experiment. The Light source shouldn't be too dificult, but do you know of some university that would lend us their 'Black Hole' for the experiment, I'm sure any university that teaches astronomy would have one as a teaching model. Try to get one of the bigger ones, or maybe NASA has one avalable for loan or rent.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're just really peeved because you want the universe to work a certain way,

Without a religious worldview to protect/promote, what possible motivation would one have for "wanting" the universe to work a certain way?

That's gotta be projection as it is completely backward for most of us in this thread and certainly for davidm. Science minded people want to discover, observe, and describe how the universe works...they ask the questions and search for the answers.

Dogma embracing believer types think they have the answers, and try to make what is observed in reality fit those answers. Like you are doing with efferent vision. That's why you sound like a fundie Creationist.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

and you're blaming Lessans because he observed something different. It's all his fault, right?

There's no blame or fault, lol. This is histrionics.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There's no other explanation for your constant put downs every time you post. I only wish his knowledge was confirmed true in my lifetime (which I doubt). I'm sure I would get a lot of apologies.

More arrogance and projection. davidm thinks you're a dissembling fanatic, so that's why he puts you down. It's very straightforward and he's been perfectly honest about it. He is not the one who fears for his fragile psyche because it is so tied to his worldview...that would be you. Look at your last sentence, you basically just projected and gave us exactly the fear you are projecting! You fear Lessans was wrong so badly you are having little fantasies about "I'll show them then they'll be sorry"