A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You still didn't answer me. Why are you back? Are you worried that without your interference, the world may fall apart and people will start believing wrong things? What is your rationale for being here if you are so positive he is a screwball? Don't you have better things to do than listen in on a two year discussion that just resets itself? If he's wrong, the test of time will dismiss his claims, so you really don't have to worry yourself into a frenzy.

I've been away for some six months, but I've dropped back in for the lulz.

The real question has always been, why are YOU here?

Anyway, see above. The cesium atomic clocks used to measure laser pulses off the moon are accurate down to picoseconds, far beyond the ability of a human to measure. So Lessans was wrong.

[davidm]

Peacegirl?

Lasers, atomic clocks and the moon

Lunar laser ranging has been made possible by combining advances in laser technology, data processing and precision timing via atomic clocks, according to the International Laser Ranging Service, a service of the International Association of Geodesy.

Lunar laser ranging uses short-pulse lasers and state-of-the-art optical receivers and timing electronics to measure how long it takes light beamed from ground stations to travel to retroreflector arrays on the moon and back again.

It takes just two and a half seconds for light to make this roundtrip trek, requiring use of an atomic clock.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep using what is known by science as a reason to dismiss Lessans' claims,

I thought Lessans doesn't contradict known physics? Because that is what he's using: known physics. Does Lessans contradict known physics now?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

I've been away for some six months, but I've dropped back in for the lulz.

The real question has always been, why are YOU here?

Anyway, see above. The cesium atomic clocks used to measure laser pulses off the moon are accurate down to picoseconds, far beyond the ability of a human to measure. So Lessans was wrong.

You still don't seem to grasp that efferent vision has nothing to do with the speed of light. It is true that we won't be able to see light that hasn't arrived (it would be dark). I'm talking about matter that we can see due to light's presence.

Light is not matter. Light is energy. This is not a point of debate.

Is Light Matter?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

]

Light is not matter. Light is energy. This is not a point of debate.

Is Light Matter?

You're being silly; light isn't energy. Light is momentum.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Yes, the word that identifies the object is projected.

But if this is the case, then his claims regarding the timing of sight are inconsistent with his own statements. A camera just detects light, and as such a camera needs to wait a few minutes after the sun is tirned on until it can take a picture of what is out there.

A camera focuses the light, that is true, but in order for there to be something to take a picture of, that object has to be in the field of view. You're saying the same thing but trying to make it sound different.

Lessans never implied that we can see without photons at the eye. I know it's hard for you to understand how photons can be at the eye when light hasn't gotten to Earth where the retina is located, but that's because you don't understand efferent vision.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Wow - so the light has not gotten to the earth, but photons have, and have done so faster that the speed of light?

What the hell? Photons are packets of light.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

...which have not arrived at earth yet, and therefor cannot be at the retina.

You refuse to understand what I'm saying, or you are incapable of understanding what I'm saying. I'm not sure which one. If we are taking a picture of the object in real time, there is no waiting for light to arrive.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That IS rather hard to understand, as photons is what light seems to consist on. In boring old modern physics, anyway. Is this one of those cases where astute observation trumps boring old research again?

No, you're just not understanding that when we look out efferently, time is not involved. We are already in optical range because we can see the object (the mirror image so to speak), not because the light has or hasn't reached us yet.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The above quote shows it is you who does not adequately understand this idea.

Oh and thanks for this little gem:

"The conditions for sight are met, because we can see the object (which I think has something to do with a mirror image), and this does not require light.

It means exactly nothing!

- What do mirrors, or the images in mirrors, have to do with anything?
- How does any of that work?
- How do you know it is true?

These are the things that would feature in an explanation.

What do you think I've been trying to do?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You still don't seem to grasp that efferent vision has nothing to do with the speed of light. It is true that we won't be able to see light that hasn't arrived (it would be dark). I'm talking about matter that we can see due to light's presence.

Light is not matter. Light is energy. This is not a point of debate.

Is Light Matter?

You don't seem to grasp the fact -- actually, I think you do grasp the fact, which is why you are so contemptible; you're a serial liar -- that Lessans' idiotic "model" makes a prediction. If we fire a laser at the moon, we should see the beam on the moon about 1.25 seconds after we fire it, because the photons arrive at the moon in that time, which is all that is required to see the light.

Instead, as measured by atomic clocks that are accurate to picoseconds, we see the light on the moon about 2.5 seconds after it leaves the earth. This proves conclusively that we do not see in real time, because the reflected light has to make the journey back to earth before we see it. And that means we are seeing the moon as it was 1.25 seconds in the past, and that Lessans was wrong. So sorry!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep using what is known by science as a reason to dismiss Lessans' claims, but that begs the question: Is what is considered fact an actual fact?

What is 'Know by Science' and the 'Known Laws of Physics' are the concepts and ideas that are consistantly supported by tests and experiments conducted by science. They are accepted as true because there have been no valid tests or experiments that contradict them. Vision, Physics, and Optics are areas that are well researched and the tests and experiments are well documented for anyone who cares to look. If you refuse to look at them you will not understand what science knows and how science knows it. The 'Known Laws of Physics' are accepted as true because there has not been any ligitimate data that refutes them, and Woo does not refute science.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Thanks peacegirl - that's exactly the kind of answer that I was looking for and flipping a coin sounds like a great solution to me. It's not all that different from a straight coin toss other than that in this case you win if you lose the call since whoever really wins is going to let the loser choose. It's sort of sweet in a confused Rube Goldberg kind of way. But wouldn't the person who lost the toss but got to choose the movie love their partner so much that they wouldn't want to take advantage of the kindness of the real coin toss winner by accepting that offer?

No, because it's not taking advantage. What is taking advantage is asking people to do things for you that you can do for yourself.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

What is 'Know by Science' and the 'Known Laws of Physics' are the concepts and ideas that are consistantly supported by tests and experiments conducted by science. They are accepted as true because there have been no valid tests or experiments that contradict them. Vision, Physics, and Optics are areas that are well researched and the tests and experiments are well documented for anyone who cares to look. If you refuse to look at them you will not understand what science knows and how science knows it. The 'Known Laws of Physics' are accepted as true because there has not been any ligitimate data that refutes them, and Woo does not refute science.

You're entitled to believe what you want.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Define enough light, and light needs to be "present" where exactly? At the moon, or at our retina?

The fact that the moon can be seen (it's bright enough) indicates that our eyes are in optical range (efferent vision), even though light hasn't reached Earth (afferent vision). That's why he said that we would see the Sun before the light reached Earth 8 minutes later, upon which time we would be able to see each other.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

And there you have it, in Lessans 'brave hew world' the couple would stand outside the theatre in an endless regression of conceding the right-of-way on who gets to choose the movie. In the end the theatre closes and they both go home dissapointed and the marrage is on the rocks and in a downward spiral, and the children will be the hurt ones.

You're forgetting that no one is going to tell you what to do. You're acting as if these are commands that are dictated by big brother looking over your shoulder. These are just ways to keep your marriage healthy because it shows consideration for the other person. It's not any different than in today's world except for the understanding as to who has the right-of-way when desires conflict. If you want to get angry when someone refuses to do you a favor, then go ahead and get angry, but it won't help your marriage.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So assuming she doesn't insist or blame or make him feel bad in any way, would he stay in bed an cuddle all night, in order to show he loves her and wants to satisfy her desires...or would he get up and go to his own bed and satisfy his own desires, knowing that his wife would never blame him or say anything or insist he stay in bed with her?

He may desire to stay in bed with her for the very reason that she's not demanding that he do this. Who wants to be told that they have to do something, or else get blamed for not doing it? On the other hand, he may stay with her and cuddle because he wants to make her happy, but after awhile he may then decide to go to sleep in another bed, as this is his preference. And she would never say a word in anger for this is his right-of-way.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If the wife knew he was staying in bed only to display his love for her and his wish to satisfy her desires, would she suggest he go lay in his own bed because she wants him to be happy sleeping stretched out, or would she accept his display of love and not say anything at all about him staying in bed with her?

I don't know what would give her greater satisfaction because I'm not her. It would probably depend on how much she enjoys being cuddled, knowing that her husband loves her that much to try and satisfy this desire of hers, and also knowing that she can't do this by herself. But after cuddling for awhile, she, as a loving wife, would want him to satisfy his desire which is to go to bed and stretch out.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Peacegirl?

Lasers, atomic clocks and the moon

This has nothing to do with efferent vision David. Try again.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This has nothing to do with efferent vision David. Try again.

Bouncing a laser off the moon, and measuring the time delay to see it using cesium atomic clocks, proves conclusively that we see the moon, not in real time, but as it was 1.25 seconds in the past. This simple test, done for decades, disproves Lessans' claims, as everyone here knows, and you know, too.

Everyone will also note how you have changed your response. Before, it was that the laser test was unreliable, because we could not possibly measure the difference between 1.25 seconds and 2.5 seconds. Of course we CAN do that, even with our own watches, but for experiments like this, to obtain ultimate precision, we use cesium atomic clocks, which are accurate down to picoseconds. Having been shown that we do not, as you initially supposed, rely on someone using a stopwatch to measure the laser-bounce experiement, you simply change the subject and simply declare, without explanation, that the example mooted above has nothing to do with your imaginary "efferent vision."


This is why you are a creep. But you are fooling no one. I doubt you are even fooling yourself. By now, after all these years, you know Lessans' claims are crap, just as does everyone else.

[The Lone Ranger]

So ... how 'bout those bionic eyes which are now good enough to allow their users to recognize and distinguish between different faces, and read?

You know -- the very things you said would disprove Lessans' claims regarding vision?


Wait, let me guess: "Something else must be going on," and they're not really seeing; they just think they are, right?

[davidm]

Here, peacegirl, let's put it in the form of a question.

According to you, we see in real time, but light travels at a finite velocity.

We now aim a laser beam at the moon. We are going to time the passage of the light, not with guys holding stopwatches, but with cesium atomic clocks that are accurate in measuring time intervals down to the picosecond.

We know the distance to the moon. We know that photons, traveling finitely as both you and Lessans admit, take just over 1.25 seconds to go from the earth to the moon.

Therefore, if we fire a laser at the moon, we will see the light on it sometime after we fire the laser.

My question to you is, when we will see the light, after we fire it from the earth?

A very simple question. What is your answer?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're entitled to believe what you want.

Thankyou, I believe what can be demonstrated and supported by those who take it upon themselves to find out, and not what some know-nothing pulls out of the air.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're forgetting that no one is going to tell you what to do. You're acting as if these are commands that are dictated by big brother looking over your shoulder. These are just ways to keep your marriage healthy because it shows consideration for the other person. It's not any different than in today's world except for the understanding as to who has the right-of-way when desires conflict. If you want to get angry when someone refuses to do you a favor, then go ahead and get angry, but it won't help your marriage.

What Lessans described as a healthy marrage is nothing that I would want any part of. When my wife and I disagree, we work it out according to our own personal preferences and not some "right of way" code book. FYI, in case you have forgotten the book does describe a "Big Brother" committee who will decide what is right and wrong, hurtful and not. It's in the book.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You still don't seem to grasp that efferent vision has nothing to do with the speed of light.

Then why does your own current explanation of efferent vision have light traveling at 4 times the speed of light?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yay! A direct answer! Thank you.

But do you see the problem now? Firstly, you no longer have us seeing things in real time, but instead at a 2 minute delay. The Sun is ignited at 12:00, but you now say we will see it only two minutes later at 12:02. That is not real time vision.

Secondly, you have the same light at the Sun at 12:00 and then at the retina 93 million miles away two minutes later at 12:02. How did these particular photons get from the one place to the other? If they managed this without traveling through the intervening distance, then by definition they have just teleported there. And if they have gotten from the Sun to the retina by traveling, then you have this light traveling at 4 times the speed of light.

Do you agree that this is a problem? Or are you happy to have vision delayed by 2 minutes and light traveling 4 times faster than light?

How do you intend to fix this? Remember that any solution you offer must explain when light is first at the retina, where that specific light came from, when it was located at wherever it came from, and how it got from the one place to the other.

Bump.

[ChristinaM]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, because it's not taking advantage. What is taking advantage is asking people to do things for you that you can do for yourself.

Thanks. So Vivisectus was correct in his conclusion about that part of it.

Is it taking advantage to ask your husband or wife to spend more time with you because you enjoy his or her company and you feel happier when they do even if they want to do other things alone? On the one hand it seems like it would be taking advantage to ask them to sacrifice their desires but on the other hand spending time together isn't something that the person can do for themselves.

I'm not just trying to make fun of you or trip you up. I'm trying to find a consistent pattern so that I can predict what has the right of way without just calling it a sexist idea.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

I thought Lessans doesn't contradict known physics? Because that is what he's using: known physics. Does Lessans contradict known physics now?

Most of what is known by science (i.e., optics) does not contradict Lessans' claims. I know what everyone thinks. I can't wait for the day that he is vindicated, because that day is coming.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

You're being silly; light isn't energy. Light is momentum.

Well that's not what they said at the physics forum.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

Thanks. So Vivisectus was correct in his conclusion about that part of it.

Is it talking advantage to ask your husband or wife to spend more time with you because you enjoy his or her company and you feel happier when they do even if they want to do other things alone? On the one hand it seems like it would be taking advantage to ask them to sacrifice their desires but on the other hand spending time together isn't something that the person can do for themselves.

I'm not just trying to make fun of you or trip you up. I'm trying to find a consistent pattern so that I can predict what has the right of way without just calling it a sexist idea.

It's not taking advantage to want to spend time with your spouse. If you have a loving relationship there's no reason why he wouldn't want to spend time with you too. But you would need to find an activity that you both enjoy doing together.