A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

First of all a beam on the moon is a far cry from light surrounding the moon. How could we see a beam that far away that only emits a small amount of light?

So -- let's get this straight, just so everyone will know what you are claiming. NASA and the Russians have been bouncing lasers off the moon since 1962, with ever greater precision, allowing them to uncover certain facts about the moon. You're saying that they have been lying about doing this, because too little light is emitted and reflected for them to see that light? So they've just been making shit up? Is that your newest nutjob claim?

The answer to your question, though, is that the linked papers explain exactly how the the experiment is set up, how it's timed with atomic clocks accurate to picoseconds, and how the light is seen. Did you read the papers? You didn't, did you?

So, again. Is it now your claim that NASA and the Russians have been LYING about an experiment first carried out in 1962, since according to you the experiment could not possibly work? Is that your claim?

You're wrong David. We see the light 2.5 seconds later because the light is traveling toward us and until it gets here we can't see it.

No shit, Sherlock! That' exactly what we've been fucking explaining to you all this time.

And, what you have just admitted, contradicts Lessans' model, which claims we should see the light in 1.25 seconds after it is fired at the moon, not that 2.5 seconds that it actually takes to see the light. By the way, you seem to have abandoned your claim that we can't accurately time such small intervals; but of course we can, since we are using atomic clocks.

You are getting the object, which can only be seen when enough light is present, and the light, that travels at a certain rate of speed, confused.

The only one confused (and crazy) is you.

A laser would not allow the moon to be seen on film; it's not bright enough.

That's a lie. Now I ask again: Are you saying that NASA and the Russians have been lying about an experiment that they have conducted since 1962?

I am not interested in deconfusing your mind because you are a vindictive guy who is so terribly threatened by this knowledge that you're taking it out on the messenger. That's infantile behavior.

You are not interested in discussing this topic, just as you are not interested in discussing the moons of Jupiter, the Fizeau wheel, the special theory of relativity, and how NASA calculates sending spacecraft to Mars and other locations, because you know full well by now that they thoroughly disprove Lessans. Your dishonesty is duly noted by everyone, and you are fooling no one, not even yourself.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And how would they communicate their desires to each other?

Lessans stated that if one wanted to have sex, instead of just announcing this, which would impose an obligation, and instead of touching their partner, they should instead wear sexy clothes to indicate their interest non-verbally and non physically and hope that the translucent robes cause their spouse to become interested as well.

How does one communicate a desire to cuddle without saying so directly, and without initiating cuddles physically?

This really doesn't change anything, you can verbally ask your partner to have sex, but according to Lessans and Peacegirl, that is making demands which imposes blame if refused. You can physically touch your spouse, but again that is making demands on the other person and suggesting blame. Or, according to Lessans you can wear sexy clothes to indicate your interest in sex, but that is no different than asking or touching if both parties know what it means. If one person is wearing jeans and a flanel shirt and the other comes in in sexy clothing, the other person is saying to the one that "I want to have sex" the message is the same no matter how it is done.

Once, several years ago my wife and I were attending a Christmas party, it was getting late, and I reminded my wife that we needed to get home so I could "tend the fire". We were heating the house with a wood burning stove and I knew that the fire needed tending. The hostess heard me say that and thought it was a euphemism for sex, till I explained that we really had a wood fire that needed tended, sort of funny at the time. If it had been a euphemism, it would have been no different to my wife than comeing right out and saying I wanted to go home and have sex, and the same applies to the sexy clothing if both partners know the code.

[davidm]

*BUMP*

Originally Posted by davidm

Peacegirl?

Lasers, atomic clocks and the moon

Another willfully ignorant peacegirl lie bites the dust.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

When the magic day comes, scientists will have to admit that all the results they've obtained these last hundred years or so have been an illusion:

• Space probes haven't really visited, photographed and landed on distant planets - how could they have when their trajectories were calculated using the faulty pre-Lessans methods?

• Light can help to calculate a trajectory. I never said otherwise.
  
  Mars Exploration Rover Mission: Technology
  
  
  

  Originally Posted by Ceptimus

  Likewise the global positioning system that we thought we were using for navigation was really just a form of mass-hypnosis foisted upon us by the evil scientists - how we ever managed to arrive anywhere, heaven only knows.

  You're doing what David does, implicating this model for things that don't even apply. GPS systems work because it doesn't have anything to do with real time vision. It has to do with location using light to measure.
  
  http://airandspace.si.edu/gps/work.html
  
  

  Originally Posted by Ceptimus

  And it goes further (both literally in distance terms, and figuratively in terms of time). All our astronomical observations showing that more distant galaxies and quasars appear younger than nearby ones are either mistaken - or maybe god created the universe by starting at the earth and working outwards really slowly - so that the more distant objects really are billions of years younger than the nearby ones.

I still don't see why these younger and older gallaxies can't be the real thing using the same instruments and sallelites to detect them.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light can help to calculate a trajectory. I never said otherwise.

Yes, but what you deliberately and dishonestly ignore -- because I cannot believe anyone could be as stupid as you affect -- is the reason WHY light is used to calculate a trajectory to Mars and other bodies.

It's because we don't see Mars in real time, as Daddy Dumbass claimed. We always have to take into account that fact that the position of Mars as seen in the sky is its APPARENT position, and not its REAL position. We have to use the delay in seeing Mars, as mandated by the limit of light speed, to figure out where Mars REALLY is, as opposed to where it appears to be in the sky. This, of course, means Lessnas was wrong. For if he were right, and the apparent and actual position of Mars in the sky were the same (which is his claim) then all our spacecraft, calculated according to delayed seeing, would miss Mars. Instead, all of them hit Mars.

There's no way you are so stupid as to not understand this. So you're a liar.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Oh, well if a random poster said something different at the physics forum, who am I to disagree!

Anything that supports what you already think is a perfect source of information, and anything that disagrees is part of the global conspiracy. What a way to function.

We have now surveyed some basic properties of electromagnetic radiation. However, light in itself does not carry much information about the Universe. The reason that light is so important for our understanding of the Universe is because light interacts with matter, and that interaction can tell us a great deal about the nature of the matter.

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/l...ht-matter.html

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

That's right! If only you had read Lessans book all those years ago, you wouldn't have needed to waste your time in some college or university learning what all those misguided scientists think they know. You could have been the right-hand-man to the High Priestess of Lessanism, what an honor that would have been in the 'Golden Age'? And no-one could blame you for being proud and arrogant, it's not like you would be doing it of your own free will.

You have such resentment for Lessans; that's why you'll never understand this book even if you read it 100 times. I realize that you're doing this not of your own free will.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I just finished listening to Daniel Dennett on Point of Inquiry.

I think it would be interesting to the people who care about the free will debate - if you don't want to listen, the talk is based on his book, Intuition Pumps and other Tools for Thinking and other writings you can probably find online.

I found the talk interesting for 2 reasons.

1. Dennett seems to be taking his stance against free will because he thinks that people will use the "no free will" excuse to behave immorally. I'm 99.44% certain that Dennett is an atheist, so I wonder if he recognizes the irony of this argument.

2. Daniel Dennett has been accused of "moving the goalposts" on free will, and after listening to his definition of free will, I have to agree with his critics. Essentially, Dennett describes free will as having moral agency. Well, if you define it like that, well, yeah, I agree we have free will, more or less.

How funny this is. Lessans shows conclusively that the knowledge and application of determinism does the exact opposite of what Dennett and others mistakenly believe. But, of course, because Lessans says it, it must be wrong.

The fact that we can choose (moral agency) between one thing and another (the standard definition of free will) is the very thing that Lessans disputes in the first few pages of his book. But, of course, you pay no attention because Lessans said it, therefore it must be wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

...after it has been seen, with the eyes working like a camera, which also does not happen because the eyes work like movie projectors...

Lenses focus light - and if we need to wait for light to arrive, then sight is not instant. Even the book acknowledges that the eyes still have to work like cameras. However, cameras only detect light... they do not detect images.

When it comes to objects, we do not have to wait for light to arrive because the image is not in the light. Danggggg, why can't you get this? The object is already in the field of view, which means the photons are already at the film.

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?

No, you're still not getting it. You have to work backwards to understand this. IF THE OBJECT IS SEEN, that means that the light is already at the eye or we wouldn't be able to see the object.

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

Not at all: I understand your point of view perfectly. I am just pointing out that you contradict yourself by saying there are photons at the retina when no light has reached the earth yet.

No I am not, because efferent vision allows for this. The afferent account does not, and that's the position you're coming from whether you realize it or not.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And right now you are just displaying your famous talent for circular reasoning again by saying that if we take a picture in real time, we do not have to wait.

Of course we don't have to wait. Film and retinas work the same way because they use the same light. If an object is seen from a camera, the non-absorbed photons are already at the lens because the object is in the camera's field of view.

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 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.

I never said it doesn't require light. Why are you putting words in my mouth?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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?

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If you do not have answers to any of this, then your belief that it is correct is irrational: it is an item of faith.

Just remember that this is not about distance and light. It's about the object. If the object (not the light) is within one's optical range, and enough light is surrounding the object, the conditions will be met such that we will see the object. That means the light is already at the film/retina or we wouldn't be able to see the object. It would be out of visual range and there would be no resolution.

[peacegirl]

[quote=Spacemonkey;1136096][quote=Spacemonkey;1135996]

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.

You're talking about time the minute you talk about traveling photons. As long as you come from this perspective you'll never grasp this concept because time implies distance which implies space/time travel. We're right back to the afferent position.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The field of view varies, however. The field of view of the naked eye is less than the field of view for the eye aided by binoculars which is less than the field of view for the eye aided by a telescope. Agreed?

Yes.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So, according to you the non absorbed light photons somehow extend instantly from the object and stop at the end of the field of view. How big is that field of view in concrete terms?

I didn't say that. The field of view is any object that can be seen regardless of whether a telescope or a camera is used. Distance is unimportant in this model because the eye sees whatever object is present. If it's a celestial body, that body has to be huge for it to be seen by a telescope or the naked eye. By the same token, a piece of dirt has to be large enough to be seen by the naked eye for the non-absorbed photons to be at the retina. If not, we have to enlarge it by means of a microscope. It will then meet the conditions of efferent sight.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Let's say the field of view for a specific object X is 5 miles for an eye aided by a telescope. How did the light get 5 miles away from the object to be at the retina in the efferent account? Or are there light photons at the retina at all?

5 miles, 10 miles or 1000 miles makes no difference in this account. All that is required is that the object is large enough to be seen. If it is, we will see that object because it meets the conditions of efferent sight, which means that the non-absorbed photons are already at the retina/film. Remember, there's no travel time in this account that is necessary. You keep talking about distance as if this is the overriding factor, but it's not. It's size and brightness. Do you see the difference?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No I am not, because efferent vision allows for this

How does efferent vision change the physical properties of light, which means it changes the laws of physics? What can our eyes possibly do to make light behave in impossible ways, such as being located where it cannot be located because it hasn't traveled to that location?

If you make claims about light, you are making claims about physics. That's why I have asked you if you really, truly, want to stick with your argument that light is physically located at the retina of the eye when we see something. Lessans made no such argument...he clearly didn't think light needed to be located at the retina to see things. That is 100% your claim.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes.

I didn't say that. The field of view is any object that can be seen regardless of whether a telescope or a camera is used.
Distance is unimportant in this model because the eye sees whatever object is present.

The field of view represents physical distances. Specifically the distance from which something can be seen. That distance is further for binoculars than for unaided eyes.

You are making claims about physics again. If you state that distance doesn't matter, you are saying the laws of physics do not apply to eyes. Is that your claim?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

5 miles, 10 miles or 1000 miles makes no difference in this account. All that is required is that the object is large enough to be seen.

You are the one who has been talking about field of view and light photons dissipating beyond it....which is a discussion of distance.

So now you are back to saying "we can see what can be seen because we see it". That is vacuous. It has no meaning. It is tautological. Is that really the way you want to go?

If it is, we will see that object because it meets the conditions of efferent sight, which means that the non-absorbed photons are already at the retina/film.

How did they get to the retina/film? Once again, this is a claim about physics and the properties of light. Efferent vision requires that the laws of physics and the properties of light be different than what they are known, for a fact, to be. That is the definition of implausible. You want to stick with magic?

Remember, there's no travel time in this account that is necessary. You keep talking about distance as if this is the overriding factor, but it's not. It's size and brightness. Do you see the difference?

Because distance exists in physical reality and cannot be negated or dismissed. If it isn't accounted for, your model is impossible....not merely implausible.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

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.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And how would they communicate their desires to each other?

Lessans stated that if one wanted to have sex, instead of just announcing this, which would impose an obligation, and instead of touching their partner, they should instead wear sexy clothes to indicate their interest non-verbally and non physically and hope that the translucent robes cause their spouse to become interested as well.

No, maybe you misunderstood. People can say whatever they want. They just can't lay hands on a person because this is an imposition if that person doesn't want to be fondled at that moment. They need to create an atmosphere that will entice the other person. If they aren't in the mood they will tell their partner not now. If they find themselves in the mood later, they can wrap their arms around their partner knowing that the invitation was already made. These minor things aren't as important as understanding the reason for them. If you follow the principles, just remember that there are always two desires involved and both desires need to be respected. This allows for an equality that doesn't place an obligation on anyone. Obligation to do what you're not in the mood for can kill desire.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How does one communicate a desire to cuddle without saying so directly, and without initiating cuddles physically?

You can ask him for anything you want as long as you don't blame him for not wanting it. In other words, if he doesn't feel like cuddling at that moment, he has the right-of-way, and you need to respect his feelings by being the one that yields since your desire involves him whereas his desire doesn't involve you. If you make him feel guilty by saying that your desire is more important than his, this is selfishness and not something you want to display. This is where people are getting confused. If you really felt the need to be cuddled at that moment, even though he wasn't that much in the mood, he would want to satisfy you because he wants to show his love as much as possible, which is what prevents you from ever thinking about another partner. But you, knowing that he likes stretching out, would not want to impose your desire on him unless you knew he enjoyed it too. And he would enjoy it for a time knowing that he's fulfilling your needs. But you wouldn't make him cuddle with you indefinitely knowing that this isn't the most comfortable position for him. To show your consideration for him, you would tell him that you enjoyed the cuddle time, and it's okay for him to go and stretch out. This, in turn, would let him know that you care about his desires just as much as yours, and it's this display of love that would prevent him from ever wanting to leave you for another because the resentments that grow and ruin the sexual relationship would never have a chance to develop. This is just one example of how relationships can gradually begin to go sour, but if these things are prevented from arising, we have a greater chance of keeping a happy marriage. Is there anyone who wouldn't want to know how to make their marriages stronger, or to push the one you love away from you?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We see the light 2.5 seconds later because the light is traveling toward us and until it gets here we can't see it. You are getting the object, which can only be seen when enough light is present, and the light, that travels at a certain rate of speed, confused.

Let me see if I have this right. We see objects in real time but we see light in delayed time. Is that your position?

Now, let me ask a question. If you shine a light (say one of those laser pointer thingamajigs) at a wall across the room and a little red dot appears on that wall, is that little red dot light or an object?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The conditions that need to be met for efferent vision to work requires the object being present (in our field of view) regardless of how far away that object is. If it's large enough and bright enough, we will see it whether it's a huge star or a tiny ant.

This is, once again, nothing more than the vacuous statement "We see what can be seen because we can see it"

[Vivisectus]

When it comes to objects, we do not have to wait for light to arrive because the image is not in the light. Danggggg, why can't you get this? The object is already in the field of view, which means the photons are already at the film.

Right - so light acts completely differently than normal when either cameras or eyes are involved, and are suddenly able to traverse enormous distances instantly?

Basically what you are saying now is that cameras and eyes are magic.

No, you're still not getting it. You have to work backwards to understand this. IF THE OBJECT IS SEEN, that means that the light is already at the eye or we wouldn't be able to see the object.

...if your presumption is that sight works the way you think it does. But we are investigating if sight works that way. Or rather, it is blindingly obvious to anyone except you that it does not.

By the way, your "working backwards" is a methodology you share with some ultra-christian researchers that simply assume the bible is 100% correct, and then work backwards.

No I am not, because efferent vision allows for this. The afferent account does not, and that's the position you're coming from whether you realize it or not.

Efferent vision requires us to allow impossibilities and complete contradictions to mask as explanations, rather.

Of course we don't have to wait. Film and retinas work the same way because they use the same light. If an object is seen from a camera, the non-absorbed photons are already at the lens because the object is in the camera's field of view.

For sight to work the way you think it does, then *somehow* the impossible needs to be possible, indeed.

I never said it doesn't require light. Why are you putting words in my mouth?

There are no photons on earth yet in this scenario: they wont arrive for another 12 minutes. So there is no light. Do try to keep up: this is your idea, not mine, you know.

Just remember that this is not about distance and light. It's about the object. If the object (not the light) is within one's optical range, and enough light is surrounding the object, the conditions will be met such that we will see the object. That means the light is already at the film/retina or we wouldn't be able to see the object. It would be out of visual range and there would be no resolution.

If the object (not the light) is within one's optical range, and enough light is surrounding the object, the conditions will be met such that we will see the object.

That is what you keep claiming, indeed. But you are also claiming that those very same photons magically appear at the retina or film somehow.

You then exhibit the wonderful Lessanese trick of using a claim as evidence for itself:

That means the light is already at the film/retina or we wouldn't be able to see the object.

...IF efferent sight is correct. But the point is that light cannot travel instantly, and that this is impossible, which makes efferent sight impossible.

It would be out of visual range and there would be no resolution.

Resolution is a part of real optics: it means nothing in the framework of your odd idea, since there is only a direct interaction between an object and the brain. You do not even know what resolution is supposed to have to do with your version of sight.

And let us not forget: even the book realizes that in order for efferent sight to work, afferent sight needs to happen first: the eyes need to work as cameras!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What do you mean by "on a screen"? How does making a pattern on your back relate at all to what bionic eyes do?

Some bionic eyes use similar technology to cochlear implants to send impulses to the brain, and in fact the design was based on cochlear implants. Do you think hearing via cochlear implants is not 'real hearing" as well?

The person has to interpret the light and dark patterns. This is not seeing directly. It's still a huge advancement in helping people see something that resembles the real thing.

HowStuffWorks "How does a "bionic eye" allow blind people to see?"

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, maybe you misunderstood. People can say whatever they want. They just can't lay hands on a person because this is an imposition if that person doesn't want to be fondled at that moment.

I misunderstood the following passage? How? It's pretty clear what Lessans was saying.

Originally Posted by Lessans

If the wife is in the mood she knows it is impossible to desire telling him that she wants to make love, for this imposes an obligation which decreases desire — while revealing her lack of love.

Would it also be impossible to desire telling him that she wants to cuddle? How does she extend an invitation for non-sexual intimacy...like a hug or holding hands? Lessans examples are very heavy on sex and light on other forms of companionship or intimacy.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that they are interpreting the patterns on a screen, just like when someone makes a pattern on your back with his finger. That is not real vision, I'm sorry. Until it's proven that they can actually see the object, not interpret the pattern which is a representation of the real thing, we're back at square one.

I get it now! Normal sight = efferent sight. Bionic eyes work afferently. Your contention that the sight that results from bionic eyes is not normal sight remains unrefuted just so long as they keep making bionic eyes that work afferently. It doesn't matter how good the resolution gets. As long as the brain is required to construct the image through a process of phototransduction this is not efferent sight and is therefore not normal sight and your position is secure.

It is rather amazing though that they have been able to construct functional bionic eyes by imitating the way they think that real eyes work, even though they are completely mistaken about the way real eyes work, if it is true that eyes are not a sense organ.

It is kind of like the way they have been able to land probes on distant planets based on calculations that take into account the difference between apparent position and actual position, even though no such difference actually exists, if it is true that we see in real time.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The person has to interpret the light and dark patterns. This is not seeing directly. It's still a huge advancement in helping people see something that resembles the real thing.

Yes, seeing is pretty much interpreting light and dark patterns. What do you think written letters and words are, if not patterns? Even in your model the pattern in the shape of a tree must be interpreted to be recognized. With bionic eyes signals are interpreted in the brain, just as they are with cochlear implants (aka bionic ears).

So back to my actual question, what does "on a screen" mean?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So the Sun is an object we can see, but we can't see the light from the Sun until it reaches us? You are the one who is confused.

There is no "object" to see when we see the Sun, there is only its light. This is why we can't see the massive objects known as black holes- despite the fact that they are literally surrounded by visible, huge stars emitting enormous amounts of light and should be well illuminated-they don't emit light themselves, and so cannot be seen no matter how much light is "present".

We've been through this already. The Sun is made up of matter. Matter is what light allows us to see if that matter is within visual range. Black holes don't allow light to be emitted because they are too dense. The surrounding light can't be used either for the same reason. Where am I confused?

[Vivisectus]

And there you have it! Like I predicted, it is simply declared not to be real sight, with Peacegirl as the person who determines if something is real sight or not.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We've been through this already. The Sun is made up of matter. Matter is what light allows us to see if that matter is within visual range. Black holes don't allow light to be emitted because they are too dense. The surrounding light can't be used either for the same reason. Where am I confused?

Black holes are also made of matter. We can see the stars that orbit the black hole, so we know it is in visual range.

I know black holes don't emit light, but since when do you think light emission is necessary to see matter, provided it has enough light surrounding it? Which it does since we can see its orbiting stars. You also said " If the object (not the light) is within one's optical range, and enough light is surrounding the object, the conditions will be met such that we will see the object." So, why can't we see black holes when these conditions are absolutely met?

Additionally, did we have to wait for the emitted light from those orbiting stars to reach us before we could see them? That's what you stated to davidm..."the light is traveling toward us and until it gets here we can't see it"

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

So peacegirl, am I understanding this correctly so far?

- Asking someone to do something that you can do for yourself imposes an unfair obligation. That's not too awful since I generally wouldn't ask anyone to do something for me that I can do for myself but is it OK to ask someone to do something for you that you can do but they can do it much more easily? For example the nearest grocery store is about 30 minutes away so if I forget something I would have to waste gas and clean air to drive there just to pick up some milk. My husband is going to pass right by the store on his way home. Is it an imposition to ask him to get it? He doesn't seem to mind.

Of course not. Please don't take this to the absurd. What this does is makes you remember things beforehand so that you don't have to impose on anyone. Asking favors of others (things you can do for yourself) will be rarely requested which will make the other want to ask if there is anything they can do for you. You, in turn, would never take advantage of their generosity. It's amazing how you remember things when you don't have someone to pick up the slack. By remembering to do certain things for yourself, it lessens his load. He might be exhausted and even going to the store (which he would willingly do because he wants to show his love) may be burdensome. I know that when I'm tired the slightest request from anyone, which appears simple to them, is not simple to me. It's one more thing to do when all I want is to get home and jump in bed.

Originally Posted by Christina

- It's OK to ask your partner to spend more time with you as long as you're considerate enough to think of something that they will enjoy too. That's not awful IMO either because my husband and I don't ask each other to do social or fun things that we know they don't like to do. We can do those things with friends. Enforced boredom isn't exactly the same as togetherness as long as there are other things that you share. Of course there are some things that I need him to do (like cope with my crazy mother occasionally) but he loves me so he does it even though it's not the least bit enjoyable.

Did I get those two right?

You got the last part right. Just try not to make this mechanical in nature. There is flexibility. These are general guidelines that do help to prevent unnecessary friction. It's great that you go out with friends and don't force each other to do things that one of you doesn't like. And it's so nice that your husband copes with your mom. How endearing.

Originally Posted by ChristinaM

I'll probably have more questions as I understand it more fully but I think that this question from LadyShea is a good one to tackle next.

I already answered these in a previous post.