A revolution in thought

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sight works the same way as afferent vision except for the fact that the photons would be at the film instantly, without a delay, because the light (in a closed system) would already be at the film if the lens was pointed in the direction of the object; in this case the light bulb. That does not mean light doesn't travel at a finite speed.

If the light does not have to travel in order to be at the /retina, why does it even bother to travel at all? Stupid light!

Originally Posted by thedoc

It would be convenient if the multi-verse theory were correct, then each individual could have their own separate universe to live in. But according to the theory, there can be no communication between different Universes. That could be good or bad? And Peacegirl could have a Universe where Lessans ideas applied and she could be happy and at piece, but very lonely. As I said, individual Universes have good points and bad ones.

This thread might just provide the proof required to support the Multiverse theory. It is pretty clear that Peacegirl exists in a different universe and that no communication is possible between her universe and this one.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

I don't know, it looks pitch black to me.

It does to me to. We see it because of the contrast as it blocks out the Sun.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

She doesn't seem very eager to test it. What I meant was more like an electronic measurement, I'm pretty sure I can do this with the stuff I have lying around.

Of course she's going to try weaseling out of it again.

How can that work when we're dealing with the speed of light? Unless an object can be farther than the distance from the earth to the moon which is 2 seconds, we're not going to get an accurate read out. Will you please stop accusing me of weaseling?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It does to me to. We see it because of the contrast as it blocks out the Sun.

But it doesn't meet the conditions of efferent vision(TM)! It's big enough, but not bright enough to be seen! How does that work? I think you have to edit the text again!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can that work when we're dealing with the speed of light? Unless an object can be farther than the distance from the earth to the moon which is 2 seconds, we're not going to get an accurate read out. Will you please stop accusing me of weaseling?

You have no idea what technology can do, do you? On the table in front of me is a (very cheap) digital oscilloscope that can measure a signal a billion times a second. In real laboratories, there is much more advanced equipment. It's no problem, using such equipment, to determine when the camera first sees the image.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

But it doesn't meet the conditions of efferent vision(TM)! It's big enough, but not bright enough to be seen! How does that work? I think you have to edit the text again!

We're seeing it because there is enough light in which to see it. If there was no light at all, we wouldn't see the outline of the moon. It would be completely dark. This isn't a good example.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can that work when we're dealing with the speed of light? Unless an object can be farther than the distance from the earth to the moon which is 2 seconds, we're not going to get an accurate read out. Will you please stop accusing me of weaseling?

Originally Posted by But

You have no idea what technology can do, do you? On the table in front of me is a (very cheap) digital oscilloscope that can measure a signal a billion times a second. In real laboratories, there is much more advanced equipment. It's no problem, using such equipment, to determine when the camera first sees the image.

I don't think it would work but they could try. This experiment, if not done accurately, could easily conclude that efferent vision is impossible.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think it would work but they could try. This experiment, if not done accurately, could easily conclude that efferent vision is impossible.

Explain why.

Of course, you are just preemptively moving the goalposts, because you already know what the result is going to be.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think it would work but they could try. This experiment, if not done accurately, could easily conclude that efferent vision is impossible.

All the necessary equipment has been tested and proven, the procedures have been worked out and established as accurate. "Poisoning the Well" is a cheep trick used by someone who knows they have lost. Yes, the experiment could conclude that efferent vision is impossible, because efferent vision is impossible. Lessans was wrong.

[LadyShea]

If efferent vision is accurate and true, it should be able to address and explain any and all examples from reality.

[GdB]

Hey peacegirl, I am still waiting on reactions on my postings here and here.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think it would work but they could try. This experiment, if not done accurately, could easily conclude that efferent vision is impossible.

This experiment, if done accurately, will definitely conclude that efferent vision is impossible.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

You have no idea what technology can do, do you? On the table in front of me is a (very cheap) digital oscilloscope that can measure a signal a billion times a second. In real laboratories, there is much more advanced equipment. It's no problem, using such equipment, to determine when the camera first sees the image.

Is there a YouTube video of this experiment that you could link to? But if you do, be ready for Peacegirl to make up some excuse to move the goal posts.

Do you remember TLR's bionic eyes?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by thedoc

The timing of a Solar eclipse can and has been tested. Astronomers can predict the exact time when the Moon will cover the Sun, and Astronomers know that they will see the event 8.5 minutes after the predicted time. This has been observed to be true, the image that is seen, either in a telescope or by naked eye, is seen approximately 8.5 minutes after the event is known to have happened. This proves that what a person sees, happens after the light has had time to travel the distance from the object to the eye or camera, since both happen at the same time. 8.5 minutes is plenty of time for a person to notice the difference. On Earth the travel time of light from an object to a person's eye, is measured in nanoseconds, and cannot be detected by most people, so vision of objects on Earth seem to be instantaneous, which probably accounts for Lessans confusion about sight.

I need to make a correction on this post, the exact time of the Moon covering the Sun and the time that the event will be observed is dependent on the distance from the Moon to the earth, not the distance to the Sun. So the difference in timing will be 1.3 seconds, not 8.5 minutes, but still a noticeable difference, and it has been observed by astronomers. The remainder of the post stands as is.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by GdB

Hey peacegirl, I am still waiting on reactions on my postings here and here.

Don't hold your breath.

[Dragar]

No luck explaining mirrors yet, huh peacegirl?

[But]

Look, they have a magnifying glass!

And guess what, the photodiode doesn't see instantly.

Speed of Light with an IR LED

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Explain why.

Of course, you are just preemptively moving the goalposts, because you already know what the result is going to be.

I'm not moving the goalposts. If the camera could detect the light source that fast then maybe they could figure it out, but the technology would have to work perfectly.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

Look, they have a magnifying glass!

And guess what, the photodiode doesn't see instantly.

Speed of Light with an IR LED

Did they say the experiment was done with Infrared light? I can just see Peacegirl going "Nanny Nanny Poo Poo" on this one because it isn't visible light, and instant vision only works with visible light. Nice try, but can you find one that uses visible light, I don't want to give Peacegirl another out.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not moving the goalposts. If the camera could detect the light source that fast then maybe they could figure it out, but the technology would have to work perfectly.

If you knew anything about the technology, there would be no question that Lessans was wrong, but you don't understand anything that your father didn't write in the book, and you don't really understand that. The technology works within it's limits, which is as close to perfect as it needs to be, and more than close enough to prove Lessans wrong. Efferent vision is impossible and wrong. Peacegirl, your willful ignorance is showing.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by GdB

Hey peacegirl, I am still waiting on reactions on my postings here and here.

Peacegirl,
Your non-reaction on my postings shows that you know you are wrong. It is time to correct your views. Answer my questions, or admit that your father's ideas were wrong.

Then we can leave this subject and get back to free will and determinism.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

Peacegirl,
Your non-reaction on my postings shows that you know you are wrong. It is time to correct your views. Answer my questions, or admit that your father's ideas were wrong.

Then we can leave this subject and get back to free will and determinism.

That has nothing to do with it. I don't have time to answer until later today or tomorrow. I'm answering my other thread because I can do it quickly when I have a break.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

OK, great answer.

But now look carefully at the picture again:



Do you see that at some places the image of the sun is very clear, but then there are areas where the image is pretty vague? And then there are areas where several images overlap, so there is no clear image anymore at all. Are these areas visible immediately, or after 8 minutes? How is it with the big area down-left of the middle: is this an area lit by the sun (visible only after 8 minutes), or is it a mix of many more or less blurred images of the sun (visible immediately)? And how when you look close to border of the leafy canopy: where does the light take 8 minutes to appear, and where does it still appear immediately?

Now look again at my own picture from this posting:



Do you see the little crescents at the border of the shadow of the towel? This means the fluff of the towel works as pinhole camera. So you say that when the sun is turned on, we will see round spots there immediately, and only after 8 minutes, the rest of the light is visible? If you really think that, please explain the mechanism: why do we see the light at the transition of towel and air immediately, but not where the light gets to us undisturbed?

The only thing I can tell you is that any lens that works will project an image. Depending on the type of lens, parts of the image may be blurred. If a piece of apparatus no longer acts as a lens because it can no longer collect light, there would be no image and it would take 8 minutes in this hypothetical example of the Sun being turned on at noon, for light from the Sun to arrive on Earth. I will try to get to your other question later.

[But]

Originally Posted by But

Speed of Light with an IR LED

Why do they get a light-speed delay? They focus the light with a magnifying glass.

[erimir]

What happens if blaming others is the thing which provides the greatest satisfaction?

Surely you can't blame me for blaming, can you? That would be quite blameworthy.

In fact, you shouldn't blame me, nor should I blame myself, for being uninterested in accepting the "truth" of your father's bullshit. If the direction of greatest satisfaction is not in the direction of Lessans's teachings, then what is the problem? There is none.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only thing I can tell you is that any lens that works will project an image. Depending on the type of lens, parts of the image may be blurred.

So far so good.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If a piece of apparatus no longer acts as a lens because it can no longer collect light, there would be no image and it would take 8 minutes in this hypothetical example of the Sun being turned on at noon, for light from the Sun to arrive on Earth.

And now your shoveling the problem under the carpet. There is no precise limit for 'functions a lens/creates an image' on one side and 'no lens/just being lit'. There is a gliding scale from:

• a sharp image
• a blurred image/overlapping images
• just light

Also you are contradicting yourself: you say again that the lens needs 'light to collect'. This light needs 8 minutes to get at the lens (you do not deny that the speed of light is not infinite). How then can the image appear instantaneously?

And by the way, a pinhole camera does not work like a lens. The way it creates an image is totally different from that of a lens. And can you eventually explain how efferent vision arises by just pinching a small hole in a piece of carton? And why does this not work when I make a hole of the size of basket ball?

Same with a lens: assume a glass craftsman has a piece of thick and flat glass. It does not work like a lens, he can just see the environment through it, as through a window. Then he starts polishing the glass. After a while he looks through it, and sees the environment distorted: straight lines are bend, some things look bigger than without the glass, others smaller. After continuing to polish he starts to see the environment smaller, unclear, and upside down. He continues and after he is ready, and he looks through it, he sees the environment clear, smaller and upside down (you know a magnifying glass makes remote objects smaller, do you?). Straight lines look like strait lines.



Now tel me, in what phase does efferent vision start? Under what condition starts the 'efferent functioning' of the glass? And what happens in the transition phases between the being a flat piece of glass and being a lens?

Say, I make several pieces of glass: the first is the flat piece of glass, the second, a bit polished, the third ..., etc, until the tenth, that is the perfect lens. I put them all next to each other in one holder with a screen behind them. Then I wait till the suns lights up: behind the first I see nothing yet, put the last shows an image of the sun immediately (when the light reaches the lens?), because of efferent vision. What happens with the other pieces of glass? Is one showing already a blurred image immediately, or only after 8 minutes, or maybe in 4 minutes? Or do we see a weak sharp image of the sun immediately, which then suddenly after 8 minutes becomes blurred?

So, no, I am not content with your answer.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Why do they get a light-speed delay? They focus the light with a magnifying glass.

Please explain to me how this refutes efferent vision.