A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

So tell me, how can the largest telescope ever gather enough light from a past event (e.g., Columbus discovering America) to ever get an image when that light has dispersed beyond the point of resolution?

I get the same problem when I explain to people that wings are just a condition for flight, and do not cause it. Somehow no-one can answer this question: How can wings generate enough lift to make a bird fly if the air has become too thin to support it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Organized light is the opposite of diffused, I believe. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it.

dif·fuse (d-fyz)
v. dif·fused, dif·fus·ing, dif·fus·es
v.tr.
1. To pour out and cause to spread freely.
2. To spread about or scatter; disseminate.
3. To make less brilliant; soften.
v.intr.
1. To become widely dispersed; spread out.
2. Physics To undergo diffusion.

You said I have an emotional investment, implying you have no such investment. But you do have an investment to prove that science is always right, even when their experiments are extremely flawed.

You have used the fact that I was his daughter against me since day one. I can't fight this losing battle.

I haven't either, so we're even. I've admitted that I have complete faith in my father, but not without reason.

You have an emotionally held belief system you have dedicated your life to promoting and defending, and I do not.

But that in itself doesn't make him wrong LadyShea. Here's your syllogism.

Anyone who has an emotional investment in someone must be wrong.
Peacegirl has an emotional investment in Lessans.
Therefore, peacegirl must be wrong.

Do you see how stupid this sounds?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Isn't this what you have done; tried to protect and defend your worldview?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No. My worldview is not under attack or in danger.

Neither is mine. The only difference is that you have tons of backup because science (the most respected field) says your worldview is right.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How are you so different LadyShea that gives you the right to be so full of yourself?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

My understanding of organized vs. disorganized light is correct and yours is incorrect.

I don't think that makes me "full of myself", being confident that I am correct about something, but your definition of being full of oneself may differ.

Right, and you claimed that Lessans' observations regarding greater satisfaction was a mere assertion. This should give you serious pause because you don't know what you're talking about.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is such BS. You are grasping at anything that can give you validation, but it isn't working for good reason.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is BS? You accused me of defending my "beliefs" "at all costs" and of giving my "allegience" to science... as if science was something I would sacrifice my life for or dedicate my life to as you have with Lessans book. If I cared that much, if "at all costs" was remotely applicable to my thinking, I would have dedicated my life to science by becoming a scientist.

You have nothing to sacrifice your life for LadyShea because everything you're espousing is already on the books. I do have something to sacrifice my life for (not literally), but that doesn't mean I or Lessans had to become scientists. Are you saying that only scientists have the right to make discoveries? Now you're really making no sense. You treat science as if it's a god. Science is a wonderful field, and for the most part science gets it right, but science is made up of people, and people are fallible.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because you understand what science is trying to explain, does not mean you have to become a scientist.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course not, which has nothing to do with anything I said.

You are invested in science to the degree that anyone who dares to challenge it is considered a crackpot, not realizing that some of the things you have accepted hook, line, and sinker (because this is what science teaches) may actually be incorrect.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is the nuttiest thing I've heard yet.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL then you haven't been listening to yourself.

Playground tactics.

[Vivisectus]

Actually, simple observations of lasers prove that sight is afferent, and that it is light that we detect, and interpret as sight. Laser light itself is invisible: beams of laser-light could be fired from a point to your right to a point to your left right in front of your face... and you will not see it. This is because none of the light is reaching your eyes: it is going in a nice tight beam across the room.

Now if you fill the room with some steam, suddenly the light shows up: the light hits the particles of water, and is reflected all over the place. Suddenly we can see it.

How can this be if sight is efferent? We should be able to "look out" and see the beams, because there is plenty of light in the room, and they are a lovely bright red colour.

The only reasonable explanation is that sight works by detecting light. The "object" - in this case the laser - cannot be seen when it is "within visual range" unless light reaches the eyes.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that he wasn't a scientist in the formal sense (you know, having the right credentials) does not make this knowledge unscientific.

No, the fact that Lessans didn't use the scientific method makes Lessans' ideas unscientific.

[Vivisectus]

Anyone who has an emotional investment in an idea is more likely to interpret reality in such a way as best suits that idea, sometimes even to such an extent that they say irrational things or expect people to believe extraordinary things for which they have no evidence.

Peacegirl says irrational things and expects people to believe extraordinary things for which she has no evidence.

Peacegirl has an emotional investment in Lessans.

Therefore, Peacegirls emotional investment in Lessans is a reasonable explanation for her irrational ideas and for the fact that she expects people to believe extraordinary things for which she has no evidence.

There! fixed it for ya.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see the difference between a factual claim and a claim of fact. Aren't they both synonymous?

No, I think I used a confusing term. In "factual claim" the word factual describes the claim....meaning that the claim itself is proven factual.

Claim of fact doesn't describe the word claim, so could be used without that claim having yet been proven factual.

If I am making a claim of fact, I am merely claiming that something is a fact...I may be wrong

If I make a factual claim, then the claim is already proven or known to be a fact.

So tell me, how can the largest telescope ever gather enough light from a past event to ever get an image when that light has dispersed beyond the point of resolution?

The light detector is what determines the point of resolution.

Some equipment, like the Hubble, can store the information from the gathered light, and continue exposure to gather more and more light from the exact same place, over long periods of time. It took 1 million minutes of light gathering, aimed at a specific pinpoint in space, for enough light to be gathered to create the Deep Field images.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh really? Show me how right you are when you don't have your cronies to back you up. Can you show me without this backup? I really doubt it.

Edited version: Oh really? Show me how right you are when you don't have your cronies to back you up. You are so self-righteous because you don't know what is true, only what you have been taught is true. You don't have an independent thought in your head.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I did show you when I said this, which you conveniently ignored. No cronies "backing me up"

Everytime people thank you at the end of the post, they are backing you up. You don't think this gives you emotional support? Also, you have science to back you up. Even if you don't understand everything, if science says it's right, that means it's right.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light is photons. Organized light is organized photons. There are invisible lasers (infrared), which are organized light, and there is visible light that is not organized...like sunlight.

I am not talking about infrared light. Haven't we been talking about the visible spectrum this whole time, so why move the goalposts now? I never thought of sunlight as being visible (unless it's extremely hot out and we can see heat waves).

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Are the above statements not true? If you feel they are not true, please explain why you think that and what evidence you have that they are not true.

I already did.

optics - What makes some laser beams visible and other laser beams invisible? - Physics Stack Exchange

[LadyShea]

You are invested in science to the degree that anyone who dares to challenge it is considered a crackpot, not realizing that some of the things you have accepted hook, line, and sinker (because this is what science teaches) may actually be incorrect.

Nope, if any challengers have excellent evidence, then they are not crackpots. As I've told you.

Bring on the evidence and I will happily admit when science has gotten it wrong

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I am making a claim of fact, I am merely claiming that something is a fact...I may be wrong

If I make a factual claim, then the claim is already proven or known to be a fact.

Now I see the difference. Thanks.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans and you have made claims of fact...you claim efferent vision is fact. Science makes claims of fact as well, that vision is the result of light being used to create images in the brain via afferent processes.

When anyone makes claims of fact, I follow the evidence. You have none, science has a lot.

So tell me, how can the largest telescope ever gather enough light from a past event to ever get an image when that light has dispersed beyond the point of resolution?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The light detector is what determines the point of resolution.

Some equipment, like the Hubble, can store the information from the gathered light, and continue exposure to gather more and more light from the exact same place, over long periods of time. It took 1 million minutes of light gathering, aimed at a specific pinpoint in space, for enough light to be gathered to create the Deep Field images.

Right now I'm talking about diffused light. How can that light ever be collected to form an image when the light is going in opposite directions away from the source?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nope, if any challengers have excellent evidence, then they are not crackpots. As I've told you.

Bring on the evidence and I will happily admit when science has gotten it wrong

You'll have to wait because the explanation that he gave isn't good enough for you. And his observations are so accurate it behooves you to study his reasoning again.

[Vivisectus]

So will this book start to make sense before or after the evidence for the earth's flatness come in?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Everytime people thank you at the end of the post, they are backing you up. You don't think this gives you emotional support? Also, you have science to back you up. Even if you don't understand everything, if science says it's right, that means it's right.

My demonstration was that some organized light is invisible and some disorganized light is visible, refuting your claims that organization determines visibility. Note also that you claimed flashlights are organized light, which they are not according to the very article you cited. I also stated that light is photons, refuting your claim that organized light is not the same as photons. All light is the same as photons because light is photons.

I didn't need emotional support by way of thanks to show you I was right. And thanks, should they come, are done after the fact so have nothing to do with what I post. Some of my posts are thanked and some aren't. I stand behind all of them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not talking about infrared light.

You were talking about organized light being visible, while disorganized light is not visible, and the organization determining visibility, and organized light being different from photons.

Nowhere in this discussion about organized light did you mention that wavelength was a factor in visibility, you said only organization.

Infrared lasers produce organized light which is photons, but is not visible. What I said was factual and what you said was not.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Haven't we been talking about the visible spectrum this whole time, so why move the goalposts now?

I didn't move the goalposts, you did. We are talking about organized light causing visibility, you never said wavelength was a factor. Now it suddenly is...because you had no idea at all what you were talking about when you said the following (notice the lack of mentions of wavelength):

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.

Organized light is different than photons, even though it's all light. That's why we can see light coming from a laser, or we can see words on a computer screen, but we can't see photons.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never thought of sunlight as being visible (unless it's extremely hot out and we can see heat waves).

Of course it is visible. You can see the sunlight every day. We can photograph it.

Photo: Fantazzle: Sunrise Sunrise

Visible heat waves are due to differing refraction indices between air of different temperatures.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

optics - What makes some laser beams visible and other laser beams invisible? - Physics Stack Exchange

Another link you probably don't understand. How about we stick to your existing incorrect claims for a minute?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Right now I'm talking about diffused light. How can that light ever be collected to form an image when the light is going in opposite directions away from the source?

Diffused light is radiated in all directions from the source, like from a star or a light bulb. A detector can then collect some of it. What do you mean "opposite directions" and why would that cause a problem in detecting the light?

[LadyShea]

Your latest link optics - What makes some laser beams visible and other laser beams invisible? - Physics Stack Exchange

Which statement of yours were you supporting with that link, and which statements in the link support them?

What I've read seems to refute your statements about organized light causing visibility, not support them.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Organized light is the opposite of diffused, I believe. If I'm wrong, I'll admit it.

dif·fuse (d-fyz)
v. dif·fused, dif·fus·ing, dif·fus·es
v.tr.
1. To pour out and cause to spread freely.
2. To spread about or scatter; disseminate.
3. To make less brilliant; soften.
v.intr.
1. To become widely dispersed; spread out.
2. Physics To undergo diffusion.

So? How does that support the statements you made?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You said I have an emotional investment, implying you have no such investment. .

I said you have an emotionally held belief system that you've dedicated your life to promoting and defending.
You've spent countless hours and all of your money, over many years, editing and compiling and promoting the book, which you believe to be the answer to evil in the world. So, my statement is correct, is it not?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you do have an investment to prove that science is always right, even when their experiments are extremely flawed

No, I don't.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You haven't spent all of your savings and most of your time over many years promoting and defending Lessans ideas via editing and compiling and marketing the book and discussing on websites?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that in itself doesn't make him wrong LadyShea.

I didn't say it makes him wrong. I was simply refuting your accusation against me and supporting my charge of projection

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Here's your syllogism.

Anyone who has an emotional investment in someone must be wrong.
Peacegirl has an emotional investment in Lessans.
Therefore, peacegirl must be wrong.

Do you see how stupid this sounds?

It is stupid, which is why I never made such an argument at all. You are losing it big time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Neither is mine. The only difference is that you have tons of backup because science (the most respected field) says your worldview is right.

Lessans ideas aren't under attack in danger due to science not listening to and investigating them? That's weird that you and he have stated as much so many times, since there is no danger at all.

Also, hint: my "worldview" isn't based on afferent vision or free will being correct. Yours is based on Lessans having been right.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Right, and you claimed that Lessans' observations regarding greater satisfaction was a mere assertion. This should give you serious pause because you don't know what you're talking about.

It was an assertion as his greater satisfaction principle cannot be proven or disproven.

You've been unable to demonstrate that greater satisfaction can be proven or disproven, or is empirically observable, so my charge of assertion stands.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have nothing to sacrifice your life for LadyShea because everything you're espousing is already on the books. I do have something to sacrifice my life for (not literally), but that doesn't mean I or Lessans had to become scientists. Are you saying that only scientists have the right to make discoveries? Now you're really making no sense. You treat science as if it's a god. Science is a wonderful field, and for the most part science gets it right, but science is made up of people, and people are fallible.

LOL, WTF?! You are off the deep end. This response is so non-sequitur it sounds like the ravings of a lunatic.

You have dedicated your life to a belief, I have not. If my emotional investment in science was as great as your emotional investment in Lessans book, I would have dedicated my life to science as you have to Lessans book.

So your accusations that I would defend science "at all costs" and that I have given "allegiance" to science and that I "treat it like a God" and that I think science is infallible are just histrionic projection. None of those things apply to me at all, yet every one applies to you.

[Vivisectus]

Science is a wonderful field, and for the most part science gets it right, but science is made up of people, and people are fallible.

"...unlike my father, who was infallible."

Holy Lessans, hallowed be thy name. Thy kingdom come, thine observations are astute, now and in the hour when the empirical evidence will finally come in.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You'll have to wait because the explanation that he gave isn't good enough for you. And his observations are so accurate it behooves you to study his reasoning again.

I won't hold my breath waiting for the evidence.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thanks for repeating the standard theory, but we all know what the standard theory is, so why repeat it?

There is at least one person posting here who has demonstrated that she does not understand the standard theory. Would anyone like to take a stab at guessing who that is?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No shit! What am I supposed to use for back up when discussing science if not science? Tea leaves? Tarot Cards? Thoughts projected into my head from aliens?

You could use whatever you happen to pull out of your ass. It works for peacegirl.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that he wasn't a scientist in the formal sense (you know, having the right credentials) does not make this knowledge unscientific.

Of course it doesn't. However, the fact that he didn't do any science does make what he wrote unscientific.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I won't hold my breath waiting for the evidence.

Go ahead, hold your breath. I'm betting that blue is a good color for you.

[Vivisectus]

But what if evidence shows up to support the book that involves animals pushing levers!!!

[LadyShea]

Bumping some posts that got ignored

Originally Posted by Dragar

If you started with that assumption, you would find that galaxies steadily became younger the further away from us they are, with the Earth at the center of the universe, at its oldest point.

Yet another absurdity Lessans' silly claims result in.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Hubble Deep Field Images disprove these claims. What does it take for you to get that? I've shown them to you dozens of times. They are available as a video online. You can see them for yourself.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Originally Posted by Dragar

Light is the same as photons. Meanwhile you said the opposite. That's your conflict. Are you trolling now?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

No, the fact that Lessans didn't use the scientific method makes Lessans' ideas unscientific.

Damn! I wish I'd said that. No, wait I was going to, but you beat me to it.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But what if evidence shows up to support the book that involves animals pushing levers!!!

FLAWED!!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, you said the light from the newly ignited Sun would be at the retina at 12:02 and was located at the Sun at 12:00. Was this correct or incorrect?

What does it say about the plausibility of efferent vision that you're so completely incapable and/or unwilling to answer simple questions about it?

Bump.