A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'd like to take a moment to remind you of how mind-numbingly retarded this suggestion is. Brains can't look. They don't have eyes. Only people - i.e. systems including a brain and eyes - can look. People can look using their eyes, and they can look through a window. But brains cannot look out through the eyes like a person looking out through two little windows. And if all this phrase of yours is supposed to mean is that the brain and eyes work together to see things, then the afferent account completely agrees. Such looking isn't an alternative to afferent vision, but is instead exactly what the afferent account explains.

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If efferent vision is plausible, then why is it that you can't answer a single damn question I ask you about it?

Because you're stuck thinking that objects reflect images. I know that there is a discrepancy in your idea of image because light doesn't carry images, it is the image. Still, there is so much confusion here, I really don't want to discuss photons anymore. This will never clear things up. That's why there needs to be other ways to test this. Discussing traveling photons and where they started off, and where their location is which obviously involves time, is not going to adequately solve this problem or show that efferent vision violates any laws of physics.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light from a laser is not the same thing as a photon.

Einstein won a Nobel prize for showing the opposite, you know?

But go on, tell us more about how light isn't photons.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because you're stuck thinking that objects reflect images.

Nope. I've never said that, and it's certainly not what I think. I haven't been asking you anything about images at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know that there is a discrepancy in your idea of image because light doesn't carry images, it is the image.

Nope. Light is not the image, and my questions don't concern images at all. Stop weaseling.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Discussing traveling photons and where they started off, and where their location is which obviously involves time, is not going to adequately solve this problem or show that efferent vision violates any laws of physics.

Where the photons started and how they got to where you need them to be is the problem you need to solve.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Isn't this what science is saying; that if we were sitting on another planet, and the light from Earth reached us, and we were in the direct line of this light, that we would be able to see a past event such as Columbus discovering America, or any other past event?

Science isn't saying that, at all. That was Lessans strawman, and flat out lie that he said encyclopedias stated that,

Theoretically, if the right equipment were invented, I think that would be possible to create an image (as the Hubble does with stars and galaxies). However, no optical devices we have developed can gather enough light from the small amount of dispersed light that would be reflected off an "event" on Earth like that.

And it is not at all possible with our eyes.

How is this possible if light is dispersed after leaving the object?

It's not possible right now at all. We have not invented any equipment capable of that.

And if there was a straight line to us, why shouldn't we see it eventually?

Due to dispersion, the "straight line" to our eyes may only include a few photons, not light intense enough to resolve on our puny retinas. The straight lines diverge from each other over distance, remember? Like the spokes on a bike wheel, they are close together at the source, and become further apart as they travel in straight lines away from the source.

Wouldn't the image be in the light;

No, as you've been told hundreds of times.

so why is it that when a wall is too far away, but the light is in a direct path toward us, that we don't eventually see the red light? Complete contradiction.

Because our eyes are very small, and cannot collect light over long periods of time, and light disperses over distance and the light that reaches our retina is not intense enough to resolve.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is true LadyShea, but there are different configurations of light that make some visible and some not. Laser light is visible because it's organized light. We can see headlights too, because it's organized light. It's light used in a certain way. Flashlights are organized so we are able to see the light that is emitted differently than what a photon provides. Photons provide light, but they aren't organized in the same way.

Factually incorrect. I'm willing to bet your eyesight that there are lasers you cannot see, yet produce tremendous amounts of light. Once again, your explanation is at odds with reality.

[LadyShea]

She read something on the Internet and is adding terms she found there. Now it's about organized light.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is true LadyShea, but there are different configurations of light that make some visible and some not. Laser light is visible because it's organized light. We can see headlights too, because it's organized light. It's light used in a certain way. Flashlights are organized so we are able to see the light that is emitted differently than what a photon provides. Photons provide light, but they aren't organized in the same way.

I've mentioned it before, but it's things like this that make it hard not to suspect that peacegirl is really some sort of performance-art comedian.

Whether it's intentional on her part or not, she occasionally comes up with some of the funniest stuff you're likely to find anywhere.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because you're stuck thinking that objects reflect images.

Ugh. And then she turns around and says something that makes you want to vomit.

[LadyShea]

This is from 1988, optics explains how lasers differ from other light sources.

Your "model" is searching for a hole to fill in the standard model. The problem is you can't identify any actual holes, so you just try to shoehorn efferent vision in there anyway.

Compared with a laser beam, light coming from electric bulbs, fluorescent lamps, and the sun is a mess.

It consists of various wavelengths going in all directions, such as the light of a flashlight, which eventually spreads too thinly to give much illumination.

A laser beam spreads only slightly over thousands of miles and can remain concentrated enough to hit the moon.

It can be packed with enough energy to burn holes in diamonds, or energized with only a fraction of a watt for reading bar graphs on grocery packages.

The word ''laser'' is an acronym for light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation. More simply, it is a way of making pure, organized light.

A conventional laser electrically charges a pure substance to release light energy.

As the energy reflects back and forth between mirrors, more light energy is released and, at a certain point, one of the mirrors releases a beam of light energy.

The wavelength, or color, of the beam depends on the charged substance, which is called a lasing medium and can be a solid, liquid or gas. Common lasing mediums are carbon dioxide, argon, helium and various crystals.

Laser light not only is of the same wavelength, its light waves are coherent -- or travel in unison with each other. As a result, energy in laser light can be concentrated.

No matter how much the light of a 100-watt bulb is concentrated by reflectors or lenses, it can carry no more heat or energy than is produced at the surface of the bulb. A 100-watt laser, on the other hand, can focus its energy into a thin beam that can cut through steel.

Lasers Concentrate Energy, Shed Well-organized Light - Orlando Sentinel

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sometimes what we imagine to be true (because we see it with our very eyes) can be deceptive. We can imagine all kinds of things that aren't happening based on a false premise that eventually takes on a life of its own. We can believe it so strongly because it's been embedded in our psychs for so long, and it's now considered fact, that it's no wonder that when somebody comes along and disputes it, he is laughed at and not taken seriously. Obviously, empirical evidence is key, but to reject someone outright just because his ideas don't jive with present day thinking, is just as destructive.

I find it extremely interesting that Peacegirl continues to paint such an accurate self-protrait. However the exersize fails in that she does not realize that she is describing herself so well. Peacegirls indoctrination as a child must have been extreme. The problem is not that her ideas don't jive with other peoples thinking, it's that her ideas don't fit reality.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Science isn't saying that, at all. That was Lessans strawman, and flat out lie that he said encyclopedias stated that,

Bullshit. Don't attack him for something you don't know. I know that he did not make stuff up. This is not a strawman, this is an extension of what science believes. Just because I can't find the source does not find him guilty.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Theoretically, if the right equipment were invented, I think that would be possible to create an image (as the Hubble does with stars and galaxies). However, no optical devices we have developed can gather enough light from the small amount of dispersed light that would be reflected off an "event" on Earth like that.

What does it take for you to get this? Gathered light from light years in that past to produce an exact image that is not there does not exist, therefore no image will show up.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And it is not at all possible with our eyes.

It doesn't matter whether it's the strongest telescope in existence.

How is this possible if light is dispersed after leaving the object?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's not possible right now at all. We have not invented any equipment capable of that.

Right, but the equipment can gather light from the distant past, but not enough light to ever see a past event, EVERRRRR. Don't you think by now we would get a glimmer of this somewhere? We have never received light that has been gathers to give us an image of an event (take your pick) that doesn't exist in the present.

And if there was a straight line to us, why shouldn't we see it eventually?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Due to dispersion, the "straight line" to our eyes may only include a few photons, not light intense enough to resolve on our puny retinas. The straight lines diverge from each other over distance, remember? Like the spokes on a bike wheel, they are close together at the source, and become further apart as they travel in straight lines away from the source.

I do appreciate your analogy because I know you're trying to help me make sense of what you believe is true. The problem is the analogy doesn't work when it comes to vision.

Wouldn't the image be in the light;

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, as you've been told hundreds of times.

Stop playing ignorant. You know what I mean. If you can't explain something in the language that is available, you qualify it, which is what I have done when I use the word pattern, carrying the image, image in the light.

so why is it that when a wall is too far away, but the light is in a direct path toward us, that we don't eventually see the red light? Complete contradiction.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Because our eyes are very small, and cannot collect light over long periods of time, and light disperses over distance and the light that reaches our retina is not intense enough to resolve.

Long periods of time have nothing to do with it. You're playing word games LadyShea to justify your position. You are no different than a fundie. We're talking about telescopes now. Telescopes have more surface space, so they can magnify an image far beyond what the naked eye can do. That does not change the fact that what is collected is in the present, not the past.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I've mentioned it before, but it's things like this that make it hard not to suspect that peacegirl is really some sort of performance-art comedian.

Whether it's intentional on her part or not, she occasionally comes up with some of the funniest stuff you're likely to find anywhere.

Ughhh backatcha. That is so self-serving I could vomit.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why do you keep talking about conspiracies? Sometimes what we imagine to be true (because we see it with our very eyes) can be deceptive. We can imagine all kinds of things that aren't happening based on a false premise that eventually takes on a life of its own. We can believe it so strongly because it's been embedded in our psychs for so long, and it's now considered fact, that it's no wonder that when somebody comes along and disputes it, he is laughed at and not taken seriously. Obviously, empirical evidence is key, but to reject someone outright just because his ideas don't jive with present day thinking, is just as destructive.

The problem is not just that the idea is silly: sure, that is a factor, but it is not the main one. What makes this idea so strange is that in order for it to be true, not only must a lot of empirical evidence somehow be skewed: it must be skewed in a way that makes it seem that it does not work that way, when observed from earth.

Something is apparently pushing our space-probes off course. It does so just right so that an object going at any random speed hits the target despite being aimed somewhere the object is not!

At the same time, something is re-locating the light coming from distant stars so that it arrives at the same spot as the image of those stars... exactly here on earth. This means that the same thing cannot happen in any other place in the universe, unless a photon can be in an infinite amount of locations at the same time... not just bi-location, but universal location!

Something else is speeding up and slowing down the moons of jupiter. This is again a different force, able to generate the vast amounts of energy needed to propel a vast piece of rock and slow it down again, in just the right way so that it matches what we would expect to see if sight was afferent, and we had correctly calculated the speed of light!

There is no way that a single phenomenon can be responsible for all three of these observations: the first one alters the course of a probe. The second one seriously interferes with the speed of light, and indeed requires it to be in an infinite amount of places at the same time. The third is apparently able to accelerate and decelerate small planetoids...

It is very much like saying that the stars must have been created with an appropriate amount of light already in place, travelling towards us.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Right, but the equipment can gather light from the distant past, but not enough light to ever see a past event, EVERRRRR. Don't you think by now we would get a glimmer of this somewhere? We have never received light that has been gathers to give us an image of an event (take your pick) that doesn't exist in the present.

Actually, we have ...

Many of the objects in this image no longer exist, and haven't existed for billions of years.

[Vivisectus]

Hahaha let me guess... those are not REAL events. And neither are supernovas.

[thedoc]

It's really quite a simple relationship, really, anyone can understand it, and I believe that all here do, except one. Light from a distant object reaches our eye and we can see an image of that object, the distance can be expressed in light years or any other unit you might like. For example the Moon is aproximately 1.25 light seconds from the earth, and we see the Moon as it was 1.25 seconds ago. The Sun is 8.5 light minutes away so we see it as it was 8.5 minutes ago. Other celestial objects are desctibed as being light years away and an object 10 light years away is seen as it was 10 years ago. The Big Dipper constelation is about 75 light years away and is moving slowly so that if you get to be 75 years old you can see it exactly as it would have looked on the day you were born. Other more distant objects are thousands of light years away and some are millions and billions of light years away so we see them as they were millions or billions of years ago. Many of these objects are no longer in existance so we see what was there billions of years ago. It's all simple really, just find out how far away an object is in light years and that is how old the image is that we are seeing of that object.

[The Lone Ranger]

That's another way in which the entire Universe is conspiring to trick us, if Lessans is right about how we see. It's not just that mysterious forces are somehow alternately pushing and pulling satellites, planets, and space probes to create the illusion of delayed sight (and somehow failing to leave any trace in the process! according to the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, that massive expenditure of energy has to go somewhere! why can't we detect it?), but the Earth really is special.


How so? When we look out into space, objects appear to get younger. It's a perfect correlation. The further away an object is, the younger it appears to be. Now, this is easily understandable by the standard model: the delay in when we see imposed by the limited speed of light means that we see things as they were when the light they emit or reflect left them, not as they are now. So the more distant the object, the longer it took for its light to reach us, and so the younger it appears.

But if Lessans is right, then our Solar System is the oldest thing in the Universe. What's more, there's a direct correlation between a galaxy's age and its distance from us -- the further away it is, the younger it is.

Remarkable.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is from 1988, optics explains how lasers differ from other light sources.

Your "model" is searching for a hole to fill in the standard model. The problem is you can't identify any actual holes, so you just try to shoehorn efferent vision in there anyway.

That's not what I'm doing.

Compared with a laser beam, light coming from electric bulbs, fluorescent lamps, and the sun is a mess.

It consists of various wavelengths going in all directions, such as the light of a flashlight, which eventually spreads too thinly to give much illumination.

A laser beam spreads only slightly over thousands of miles and can remain concentrated enough to hit the moon.

It can be packed with enough energy to burn holes in diamonds, or energized with only a fraction of a watt for reading bar graphs on grocery packages.

The word ''laser'' is an acronym for light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation. More simply, it is a way of making pure, organized light.

A conventional laser electrically charges a pure substance to release light energy.

As the energy reflects back and forth between mirrors, more light energy is released and, at a certain point, one of the mirrors releases a beam of light energy.

The wavelength, or color, of the beam depends on the charged substance, which is called a lasing medium and can be a solid, liquid or gas. Common lasing mediums are carbon dioxide, argon, helium and various crystals.

Laser light not only is of the same wavelength, its light waves are coherent -- or travel in unison with each other. As a result, energy in laser light can be concentrated.

No matter how much the light of a 100-watt bulb is concentrated by reflectors or lenses, it can carry no more heat or energy than is produced at the surface of the bulb. A 100-watt laser, on the other hand, can focus its energy into a thin beam that can cut through steel.

Lasers Concentrate Energy, Shed Well-organized Light - Orlando Sentinel

I don't see where I'm shoehorning efferent vision into holes. I don't have to; it goes in quite easily.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

That's another way in which the entire Universe is conspiring to trick us, if Lessans is right about how we see. It's not just that mysterious forces are somehow alternately pushing and pulling satellites, planets, and space probes to create the illusion of delayed sight (and somehow failing to leave any trace in the process! according to the 1st and 2nd laws of thermodynamics, that massive expenditure of energy has to go somewhere! why can't we detect it?), but the Earth really is special.

Mysterious forces? Now you sound like Vivisectus. There are no mysterious forces that are playing tricks on us. Have you ever thought that there may be an explanation that does not require any force to push and pull planets, satellites, and space probes to create the illusion of delayed sight? Couldn't there be an explanation that no one has considered, which is where Lessans comes in? Because of the assumption that this is how it works, no one has looked any further or questioned the accuracy of this position because no one had a reason to. Again, it doesn't matter to me whether we see in delayed time or real time except for the fact that by knowing the truth, an injustice can be corrected.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

How so? When we look out into space, objects appear to get younger. It's a perfect correlation. The further away an object is, the younger it appears to be. Now, this is easily understandable by the standard model: the delay in when we see imposed by the limited speed of light means that we see things as they were when the light they emit or reflect left them, not as they are now. So the more distant the object, the longer it took for its light to reach us, and so the younger it appears.

I thought there were certain properties that give us clues as to the age of a star that don't have anything to do with the delay in light. Why can't the stars we see be their real age, not as they were, but as they are now?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

But if Lessans is right, then our Solar System is the oldest thing in the Universe. What's more, there's a direct correlation between a galaxy's age and its distance from us -- the further away it is, the younger it is.

Remarkable.

I don't get the part about our Solar System being the oldest thing in the Universe. I don't see a problem with the correlation between a galaxy's age and its distance from us. I think you're making more out of this than is necessary since stars can still appear younger without us having to see said star at an earlier time.

[Spacemonkey]

If efferent vision is plausible, then why is it that you can't answer a single damn question I ask you about it?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It works the same way Angakuk as seeing an object since the light is interacting with the wall, which allows the image to show up. The light is obviously at the wall. We are able to see it because it's within optical range, which means that the photons are at the retina. If the red light and wall were too far away, we wouldn't see the light because it would be out of optical range and therefore the photons that allow us to see the image would not be at the retina and therefore could not be resolved.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light from a laser is not the same thing as a photon.

All light consists of photons, even laser light. If you choose to argue differently then you are indeed choosing to contradict known physical laws and your claim is not consistent with optics, despite your many assertions to the contrary.

What you are saying is that the same light is both at the wall and at the retina at the very same time. This is simply not possible. You were doing pretty good up to this point and then you jumped the shark, again. This simply proves the truth of that old saying that I just invented.

You can lead a peacegirl to the truth, but you can't make her see it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If efferent vision is plausible, then why is it that you can't answer a single damn question I ask you about it?

Are you kidding me? All I've done for the last year is answer you.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sometimes what I imagine to be true (because I see it with my very eyes) can be deceptive. I can imagine all kinds of things that aren't happening based on a false premise that eventually takes on a life of its own. I can believe it so strongly because it's been embedded in my psyche for so long, and it's now considered fact.