A revolution in thought - Page 1126

peacegirl · #**28126** 06-28-2013, 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, you goose. If it wasn't the case that we just detect light, we would not see a shimmer - there would be no reason to see one.

Of course there is a reason to see one. It is a definite phenomenon that occurs, which thedoc explained very well. Why wouldn't we see it? This has nothing to do with the direction the eyes see, as if this somehow this negates efferent vision. It doesn't. And stop calling me goose or you'll get another whack. :whup:

Spacemonkey · #**28127** 06-28-2013, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

In Lessans' newly ignited Sun example, the Sun is big enough and bright enough to be see instantly at 12:00 when it is ignited. There is no warm up time. This is a complete red herring. I've shown you how you face the exact same problem both with and without this 2 second warm-up. In BOTH cases you are still unable to explain where the photons at the retina came from and how they got there.

Let's work through both possibilities once more:-

(1) No warm-up period at all. The Sun is ignited at 12:00 and is instantly big enough and bright enough to be seen. So it is seen at 12:00. So there must be photons at the retina at 12:00, right? So where did they come from? The Sun? Then when where they located at the Sun? You can't answer this question, can you? Because there is no possible answer that will make any kind of sense.

(2) This time there is a 2 second warm-up period. So the Sun is ignited at 12:00 but is only big enough and bright enough to be seen at 12:02. So now there is a 2 second delay between the Sun being ignited and our actually seeing it. So there will be photons at the retina at 12:02, right? Where did they come from? The Sun? Then when were they located at the Sun? At 12:00? Then how did they get from the Sun to the retina which is 90 million miles away in two minutes? You can't answer this question either, can you? Did they travel through the intervening distance, thereby traveling at 4 times the speed of light? Or did they not travel through the intervening distance, thereby having teleported instead?

Go ahead and try to answer the bold questions for each scenario. Can you see how you still face the same problem both with and without a warm-up time? Can you see how this warm-up time is NOT the problem you are facing? The real problem here is that warm-up or no warm-up, you can't explain where the photons at the retina came from or how they got there.

That's because you are thinking in terms of travel time. How can this be when I'm telling you there is no travel time which would mean they have to get from A to B. That's why you keep thinking in terms of millions of miles when this doesn't involve millions of miles. I don't know how to explain it any other way, so you're going to be left with unknown X. If you think there is no answer to X, then just reject this model. I don't know why you're harping on this if you truly believe that it's implausible.

Peacegirl, you're still not even trying to address the content of my post. Travel time or no travel time, you still need to explain where the photons at the retina came from and how they got there. You can't just state that they will be there at the retina and leave it at that. If there are photons at the retina, then they have to have either come into existence there, always been there, or arrived there from somewhere else - by traveling, or by teleporting, or by some other specifiable mechanism.

This issue has to be addressed for efferent vision to be considered plausible.

Yet the content of my above post was explaining how your responses about warm-up time for the Sun are completely irrelevant to the problem, in that the same problem remains with or without any warm-up time. Do you understand this yet?

Returning to the main issue though, the problem I'm asking you to address is not non-absorbed light. It is not travel time. It is not patterns in light. It is not millions of miles. And it is not red before blue photons. It is simply the problem of where the light at the retina came from and how it got there. Do you think you could try addressing that problem for once?

Bump.

Spacemonkey · #**28128** 06-28-2013, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The real problem here is that ... you can't explain where the photons at the retina came from or how they got there.

That's because you are thinking in terms of travel time. How can this be when I'm telling you there is no travel time which would mean they have to get from A to B.

Think of it this way:

If the photons at the retina (B) came from somewhere else (A) and there was no travel time (in getting from A to B), then they either teleported or traveled infinitely fast, right?

So if they didn't either teleport or travel infinitely fast (in getting from A to B), then either there was a travel time or they never got from A to B, right?

But the only way they could be at B without ever having gotten there from A (i.e. somewhere else) is if the photons were either always at B or if they came into existence there, right?

So here are the only conceivable options:

i) The photons at the retina came into existence there.
ii) The photons at the retina were always there.
iii) The photons teleported from somewhere else.
iv) The photons traveled infinitely fast.
v) The photons had a travel time.

You cannot reject all of these without contradiction, so if efferent vision is to be plausible then you need to select one of these options. So which options can you confidently rule out? And which option do you think is most plausible?

Bump.

peacegirl · #**28129** 06-28-2013, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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

Would you please stop comparing this to the flat earthers? How can you compare these two unless you want to make it appear that they are related in order to turn people off and make his discovery a laughing matter?

You see, they require us to wait for the evidence to come in too, but insist that we treat their idea as plausible in the meantime too.

As such i think it makes for a pretty good comparison: they do the same thing you do.

But this is a different claim, and, like I've said before, they both have to stand on their own merit. You cannot just say that because they are alike in certain respects (e.g., insisting the idea is plausible) that the outcome will be identical. Also, his observations are enough to look at sight in a different way if you care to take his observations seriously. This is not some strange assertion that he just conjured up, without having any concrete reasons for why he came to this conclusion.

Angakuk · #**28130** 06-28-2013, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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

Would you please stop comparing this to the flat earthers? How can you compare these two unless you want to make it appear that they are related in order to turn people off and make his discovery a laughing matter?

They are comparable.

They look similar because they are disputing an established fact, but that's where their similarities end. Just like you tried to compare him to a crackpot against the crackpot scale, anyone who is outside of the mainstream would be considered a crackpot, but that doesn't necessarily make him one. This comment is so true, and it's important that people search out the diamond in the sewage before they carelessly assume it's all sewage.

In science, pursuing revolutionary advancements can be like searching for diamonds hidden in sewage. It's a shame that the realms of questionable ideas contain "diamonds" of great value. This makes the judging crazy theories far more difficult. If crazy discoveries were always bogus, then we'd have good reason to reject them without investigation. However, since the diamonds exist, we must distrust our first impressions. Sometimes the "obvious" craziness turns out to be a genuine cutting-edge discovery. As with the little child questioning the emperor's clothing, sometimes the entire scientific community is misguided and incompetent. Sometimes only the lone voice of the maverick scientist is telling the truth.

Ridiculed science mavericks vindicated

The passage you are quoting is talking about people who are doing science. Since Lessans was not doing science, the quote is irrelevant to any discussion of Lessans and his work.

peacegirl · #**28131** 06-28-2013, 10:18 PM

[quote=Spacemonkey;1138358]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

In Lessans' newly ignited Sun example, the Sun is big enough and bright enough to be see instantly at 12:00 when it is ignited. There is no warm up time. This is a complete red herring. I've shown you how you face the exact same problem both with and without this 2 second warm-up. In BOTH cases you are still unable to explain where the photons at the retina came from and how they got there.

Let's work through both possibilities once more:-

(1) No warm-up period at all. The Sun is ignited at 12:00 and is instantly big enough and bright enough to be seen. So it is seen at 12:00. So there must be photons at the retina at 12:00, right? So where did they come from? The Sun? Then when where they located at the Sun? You can't answer this question, can you? Because there is no possible answer that will make any kind of sense.

(2) This time there is a 2 second warm-up period. So the Sun is ignited at 12:00 but is only big enough and bright enough to be seen at 12:02. So now there is a 2 second delay between the Sun being ignited and our actually seeing it. So there will be photons at the retina at 12:02, right? Where did they come from? The Sun? Then when were they located at the Sun? At 12:00? Then how did they get from the Sun to the retina which is 90 million miles away in two minutes? You can't answer this question either, can you? Did they travel through the intervening distance, thereby traveling at 4 times the speed of light? Or did they not travel through the intervening distance, thereby having teleported instead?

Go ahead and try to answer the bold questions for each scenario. Can you see how you still face the same problem both with and without a warm-up time? Can you see how this warm-up time is NOT the problem you are facing? The real problem here is that warm-up or no warm-up, you can't explain where the photons at the retina came from or how they got there.

That's because you are thinking in terms of travel time. How can this be when I'm telling you there is no travel time which would mean they have to get from A to B. That's why you keep thinking in terms of millions of miles when this doesn't involve millions of miles. I don't know how to explain it any other way, so you're going to be left with unknown X. If you think there is no answer to X, then just reject this model. I don't know why you're harping on this if you truly believe that it's implausible.

Peacegirl, you're still not even trying to address the content of my post. Travel time or no travel time, you still need to explain where the photons at the retina came from and how they got there. You can't just state that they will be there at the retina and leave it at that. If there are photons at the retina, then they have to have either come into existence there, always been there, or arrived there from somewhere else - by traveling, or by teleporting, or by some other specifiable mechanism.

This issue has to be addressed for efferent vision to be considered plausible.

Yet the content of my above post was explaining how your responses about warm-up time for the Sun are completely irrelevant to the problem, in that the same problem remains with or without any warm-up time. Do you understand this yet?

Returning to the main issue though, the problem I'm asking you to address is not non-absorbed light. It is not travel time. It is not patterns in light. It is not millions of miles. And it is not red before blue photons. It is simply the problem of where the light at the retina came from and how it got there. Do you think you could try addressing that problem for once?

Look, maybe this problem is due to the concept of what a photon is. All I know is that the conditions that have to be met for this model of sight to be plausible, is not that difficult to see, but if you keep thinking in terms of separate photons that have the wavelength/frequency of the object as it bounces and travels, you're never going to be able to reconcile this concept into a workable model. And I don't know how to explain it any other way. :sadcheer:

Spacemonkey · #**28132** 06-28-2013, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Look, maybe this problem is due to the concept of what a photon is. All I know is that the conditions that have to be met for this model of sight to be plausible, is not that difficult to see, but if you keep thinking in terms of separate photons that have the wavelength/frequency of the object as it bounces and travels, you're never going to be able to reconcile this concept into a workable model. And I don't know how to explain it any other way. :sadcheer:

Stop weaseling.

The problem has nothing to do with what a photon is, and I didn't say anything about separate photons having the wavelength/frequency of the object as they bounce and travel. The problem I am asking you to address is the simple one of explaining where the photons at the retina came from and how they got there.

Why can't you read what I write and respond with comments that actually bear some relation to the content of my post?

peacegirl · #**28133** 06-28-2013, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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

Would you please stop comparing this to the flat earthers? How can you compare these two unless you want to make it appear that they are related in order to turn people off and make his discovery a laughing matter?

They are comparable.

They look similar because they are disputing an established fact, but that's where their similarities end. Just like you tried to compare him to a crackpot against the crackpot scale, anyone who is outside of the mainstream would be considered a crackpot, but that doesn't necessarily make him one. This comment is so true, and it's important that people search out the diamond in the sewage before they carelessly assume it's all sewage.

In science, pursuing revolutionary advancements can be like searching for diamonds hidden in sewage. It's a shame that the realms of questionable ideas contain "diamonds" of great value. This makes the judging crazy theories far more difficult. If crazy discoveries were always bogus, then we'd have good reason to reject them without investigation. However, since the diamonds exist, we must distrust our first impressions. Sometimes the "obvious" craziness turns out to be a genuine cutting-edge discovery. As with the little child questioning the emperor's clothing, sometimes the entire scientific community is misguided and incompetent. Sometimes only the lone voice of the maverick scientist is telling the truth.

Ridiculed science mavericks vindicated

The passage you are quoting is talking about people who are doing science. Since Lessans was not doing science, the quote is irrelevant to any discussion of Lessans and his work.

Sorry Angakuk, but you cannot discredit this man on those grounds. Just because he didn't do experiments, or start off with a hypothesis, is not enough to reject him. If his observations are correct, do you think it's fair to throw his findings out because he didn't come to his findings through the scientific method? Doesn't that sound absurd that the scientific method is the only way that any truth can be found? It's almost like people are pissed because they want to believe that there is only one way --- their way --- and for anyone to make a claim based on serious study and careful observation means nothing. That is so wrong.

peacegirl · #**28134** 06-28-2013, 10:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Look, maybe this problem is due to the concept of what a photon is. All I know is that the conditions that have to be met for this model of sight to be plausible, is not that difficult to see, but if you keep thinking in terms of separate photons that have the wavelength/frequency of the object as it bounces and travels, you're never going to be able to reconcile this concept into a workable model. And I don't know how to explain it any other way. :sadcheer:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Stop weaseling.

I'm not weaseling. If my explanation isn't good enough, then someone else may come along in the future and explain it better.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The problem has nothing to do with what a photon is, and I didn't say anything about separate photons having the wavelength/frequency of the object as they bounce and travel. The problem I am asking you to address is the simple one of explaining where the photons at the retina came from and how they got there.

But that's exactly what you believe when you talk about red photons coming before blue. What is it then if it's not that particular wavelength/frequency that just bounced off the object and is traveling through space/time?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why can't you read what I write and respond with comments that actually bear some relation to the content of my post?

I'm sorry you're frustrated, but so am I.

specious_reasons · #**28135** 06-28-2013, 10:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because he didn't do experiments, or start off with a hypothesis, is not enough to reject him.

Because he didn't follow the scientific method, you can't claim his ideas are scientific. The Lone Ranger is right - you and Lessans want all the credibility that comes with calling it science without actually doing science.

It's dishonest, and everyone - everyone - sees through it. This is one of the reasons why you continue to have so much trouble convincing people to pay attention to any of Lessans' ideas.

Spacemonkey · #**28136** 06-28-2013, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not weaseling.

Yes, you are. You're deliberately bringing things up that are NOT what I'm asking you about. You are deliberately NOT addressing what I am asking you about. That is weaseling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The problem I am asking you to address is the simple one of explaining where the photons at the retina came from and how they got there.

But that's exactly what you believe when you talk about red photons coming before blue.

But I'm NOT talking about red photons coming before blue, am I? From my last post:-

"Returning to the main issue though, the problem I'm asking you to address is not non-absorbed light. It is not travel time. It is not patterns in light. It is not millions of miles. And it is not red before blue photons. It is simply the problem of where the light at the retina came from and how it got there. Do you think you could try addressing that problem for once?"

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why can't you read what I write and respond with comments that actually bear some relation to the content of my post?

I'm sorry you're frustrated, but so am I.

Stop weaselling, and start addressing what I'm actually trying to talk to you about.

Spacemonkey · #**28137** 06-28-2013, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The real problem here is that ... you can't explain where the photons at the retina came from or how they got there.

That's because you are thinking in terms of travel time. How can this be when I'm telling you there is no travel time which would mean they have to get from A to B.

Think of it this way:

If the photons at the retina (B) came from somewhere else (A) and there was no travel time (in getting from A to B), then they either teleported or traveled infinitely fast, right? _________________

So if they didn't either teleport or travel infinitely fast (in getting from A to B), then either there was a travel time or they never got from A to B, right? _________________

But the only way they could be at B without ever having gotten there from A (i.e. somewhere else) is if the photons were either always at B or if they came into existence there, right? _________________

So here are the only conceivable options:

i) The photons at the retina came into existence there. [Definitely not an option / Possibly an option]
ii) The photons at the retina were always there. [Definitely not an option / Possibly an option]
iii) The photons teleported from somewhere else. [Definitely not an option / Possibly an option]
iv) The photons traveled infinitely fast. [Definitely not an option / Possibly an option]
v) The photons had a travel time. [Definitely not an option / Possibly an option]

You cannot reject all of these without contradiction, so if efferent vision is to be plausible then you need to select one of these options. So which options can you confidently rule out? And which option do you think is most plausible?

Bump.

Given your persistent non-responsive responses, I've added some bits above to indicate how you need to respond to this post. For each of the first bits with a question mark, I need you to answer where the lines are to indicate whether or not you agreed with the preceding sentence. Write only "Yes, that's right" or "No, I disagree because..." Then for each of the options listed (i) through (v) I need you to indicate which of them you think might be an option for your account of efferent vision, and which you can definitely reject as not being a possible option - keeping in mind that it is flatly contradictory for you to reject all of them.

thedoc · #**28138** 06-28-2013, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If suddenly it gets cooler, there will be no delayed image traveling to the eyes.

And when it's warmer, there is a delayed image traveling to the eyes?

thedoc · #**28139** 06-28-2013, 11:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

you cannot discredit this man on those grounds. Just because he didn't do experiments, or start off with a hypothesis, is not enough to reject him. If his observations are correct, do you think it's fair to throw his findings out because he didn't come to his findings through the scientific method? Doesn't that sound absurd that the scientific method is the only way that any truth can be found? It's almost like people are pissed because they want to believe that there is only one way --- their way --- and for anyone to make a claim based on serious study and careful observation means nothing. That is so wrong.

People are rejecting that Lessans called his work science, when he didn't use the scientific method, and that is the only way to discover scientific knowledge. Lessans work and claimed discoveries are an interesting fantasy and nothing more, they are not science, not mathematics, and not logical. Fiction.

thedoc · #**28140** 06-28-2013, 11:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Look, maybe this problem is due to the concept of what a photon is. All I know is that the conditions that have to be met for this model of sight to be plausible, is not that difficult to see, but if you keep thinking in terms of separate photons that have the wavelength/frequency of the object as it bounces and travels, you're never going to be able to reconcile this concept into a workable model. And I don't know how to explain it any other way.

Seperate photons that have a frequency corrosponding to the color of the object and travel seperately from that object, are what have been observed and verified by the scientific method. If your model of efferent vision cannot be reconciled to this observation, then it is unworkable and fiction.

Stephen Maturin · #**28141** 06-28-2013, 11:29 PM

The great part about efferent vision ( :laugh:

) is its flexibility. We see light, not objects, except when we see objects. In addition, distance is not a factor in efferent vision, except when it is. The human visual system has no afferent neurons, except when it does. Perhaps most important, it simply doesn't matter whether we see efferently or not, except when it does. That sort of malleability isn't easy to come by nowadays.

Dragar · #**28142** 06-28-2013, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

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

I never said the opposite.

Liar!

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

And you said that because you said something even more stupid moments before, and were trying to weasel out of it:

"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."

The light is at the wall! The photons are at the retina!

LadyShea · #**28143** 06-28-2013, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

How do you know where this light is coming from? The source?

The light was coming from the direction of the coordinates that the Hubble was pointed at, which to the naked eye appeared to be empty. It took 1 million minutes to gather enough light to form an image.

What do you mean by "the source?" Is that a question?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegir

You are so *#$* arrogant, I am getting to the point where I despise talking to you. You reek of overconfidence.

LOL, hissy fit ITT. I demonstrated you shoehorning and you're all butthurt now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Doubleplus good! :awesome:

There is nothing screwy about this.

"The light is obviously at the wall. The photons are at the retina." :awesome:

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.

I don't see where there is any conflict.

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

I never said the opposite.

You said, "Light from a laser is not the same thing as a photon."

You skipped this one:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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?

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.

thedoc · #**28144** 06-29-2013, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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?

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.

Oh well, here goes. If we saw everything in the universe as it is now we would be seeing all the galaxies and stars as they are aproximately 14.5 billion years after the Big Bang. what we actually see is our own solar system as it is 14.5 billion years after the Big Bang and the farther out we look the younger the objects are that we are seeing. An object 1 billion light years away would appear as it was 13.5 billion years after the Big Bang. An object (Galaxy, or quasar) 10 billion light years away would be seen as it was 4.5 billion years after the Big Bang.

LadyShea · #**28145** 06-29-2013, 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

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.

I give up. There is no meeting of the minds because you are ignoring the entire claim that distance is not a factor in this account. If distance is not a factor, can you at least admit that maybe what a person sees has nothing to do with the time it takes for photons to arrive? :doh:

You can't just twitch your nose and magic away distance. Distance must be a factor in any model because it physically exists in reality.

No LadyShea, that's where you have absolutely no understanding of efferent vision and why distance is not a factor. But of course you think you are right, because you are LadyShea. :glare:

I don't understand it because you've never explained it without contradicting Lessans, or yourself, or the laws of physics. You've simply asserted that distance is not a factor, as if that is enough. Distance exists in physical reality, you can't wish it away or magic it away, you must account for it.

If you can't account for it, what you are positing is impossible...not just implausible.

LadyShea · #**28146** 06-29-2013, 01:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bump

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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?

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?

Exactly what I said. If reflected light is at an angle that is opposite of light that is going at opposite angles, how can this light ever be collected?

What.The.Fuck. Reflected light at an angle opposite to light that is going at opposite angles? What does that even mean? It's complete gibberish

Light is radiating in straight lines in every direction from the source. This is a fairly good representation

Stick a detector anywhere around the source and you can collect some of that light.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A detector may be able to collect some of the light (theoretically), but how could it ever collect all of it to form the original image?

It can't collect all of it nor does it need to. What the hell are you babbling about?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A partial image does not an image make.

What are you talking about partial images?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The whole thing doesn't even make sense except for the fundies who want to believe it.

Of course this incoherent shit you made up doesn't make any sense. Because YOU MADE IT UP! It is a strawman.

What you are talking about has zero to do with observed reality or my explanations of how light works.

Is this a partial image? It's a spiral galaxy from the Hubble Ultra Deep Space Image...so it is a small part of the larger image. Is that what you mean by partial or what exactly?

LadyShea · #**28147** 06-29-2013, 03:22 AM

Angakuk · #**28148** 06-29-2013, 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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

Would you please stop comparing this to the flat earthers? How can you compare these two unless you want to make it appear that they are related in order to turn people off and make his discovery a laughing matter?

They are comparable.

They look similar because they are disputing an established fact, but that's where their similarities end. Just like you tried to compare him to a crackpot against the crackpot scale, anyone who is outside of the mainstream would be considered a crackpot, but that doesn't necessarily make him one. This comment is so true, and it's important that people search out the diamond in the sewage before they carelessly assume it's all sewage.

In science, pursuing revolutionary advancements can be like searching for diamonds hidden in sewage. It's a shame that the realms of questionable ideas contain "diamonds" of great value. This makes the judging crazy theories far more difficult. If crazy discoveries were always bogus, then we'd have good reason to reject them without investigation. However, since the diamonds exist, we must distrust our first impressions. Sometimes the "obvious" craziness turns out to be a genuine cutting-edge discovery. As with the little child questioning the emperor's clothing, sometimes the entire scientific community is misguided and incompetent. Sometimes only the lone voice of the maverick scientist is telling the truth.

Ridiculed science mavericks vindicated

The passage you are quoting is talking about people who are doing science. Since Lessans was not doing science, the quote is irrelevant to any discussion of Lessans and his work.

Sorry Angakuk, but you cannot discredit this man on those grounds. Just because he didn't do experiments, or start off with a hypothesis, is not enough to reject him. If his observations are correct, do you think it's fair to throw his findings out because he didn't come to his findings through the scientific method? Doesn't that sound absurd that the scientific method is the only way that any truth can be found? It's almost like people are pissed because they want to believe that there is only one way --- their way --- and for anyone to make a claim based on serious study and careful observation means nothing. That is so wrong.

Did I say anything about rejecting Lessans or discrediting his findings? No, I did not. I merely offered the astute observation that references regarding how people who were doing science got treated have no relevance with regard to how Lessans got treated, because he was not doing science.

Vivisectus · #**28149** 06-29-2013, 10:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, you goose. If it wasn't the case that we just detect light, we would not see a shimmer - there would be no reason to see one.

Of course there is a reason to see one. It is a definite phenomenon that occurs, which thedoc explained very well. Why wouldn't we see it? This has nothing to do with the direction the eyes see, as if this somehow this negates efferent vision. It doesn't. And stop calling me goose or you'll get another whack. :whup:

I will stop calling you a goose the moment you stop acting like one. So far it is looking unlikely that you ever will.

The shimmer is detectable only because it refracts light. If light is just a condition for sight, and does not create the images we see, then we should not see that shimmer: we should just see what is there. That shimmer does not exist, and we generally do not see air: so what is it, exactly, that we are seeing if sight is efferent? Wobbles in the landscape?

It is yet more evidence that sight is afferent: there is no way to explain it from an efferent point of view, except by calling it a "phenomenon" and pretending that this explains anything.

peacegirl · #**28150** 06-29-2013, 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because he didn't do experiments, or start off with a hypothesis, is not enough to reject him.

Because he didn't follow the scientific method, you can't claim his ideas are scientific. The Lone Ranger is right - you and Lessans want all the credibility that comes with calling it science without actually doing science.

It's dishonest, and everyone - everyone - sees through it. This is one of the reasons why you continue to have so much trouble convincing people to pay attention to any of Lessans' ideas.

Then don't pay attention. I can't force you. But you are wrong in your analysis of what comprises a scientific discovery. You are criticizing a man who made a fantastic discovery that you refuse to consider because he didn't do it your way. So don't use the word scientific. Who cares? The main thing is that this knowledge is not thrown into a scrap heap as just another false claim.