A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

I've told you that numerous times. A camera only detects light.

So, then we have a very simple test for efferent, real time vision. Jupiter's day is about 10 hours. and it takes light between 35 and 50 minutes to reach Earth. These are all facts that have been verified in more than one way.

If we see in real time, and the camera only collects light, then what we see of Jupiter would be rotated 15-30 degrees from the camera's image.

That's a large enough of a difference that it would be easy to detect. This is an experiment that could be set up by many amateur astronomers.

This has been mentioned before. What's your excuse for not doing it?

Why don't you do the experiment if it's that easy? I'm not an amateur astronomer.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Radio waves, infrared light, X-rays and gamma rays are not part of the visual spectrum, and although they do other important things, they do not reveal the physical world.

Bingo, what did I say?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why don't you do the experiment if it's that easy? I'm not an amateur astronomer.

Because it's your job. I've done more than I'm obliged to you.

Plenty of amateur astronomers across this great country - some of them might be willing to help you prove efferent vision is incorrect.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why don't you do the experiment if it's that easy? I'm not an amateur astronomer.

Your excuse is that you do not want to do it because you know that is will prove your father wrong. If someone else does it you will claim some flaw, if you do it yourself there will be no-one else to blame for the failure of your fathers ideas.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

- some of them might be willing to help you prove efferent vision is incorrect.

And that is what Peacegirl does not want to do. For all her claims to be seeking the truth, the truth is the last thing she wants to find, as it would curtail the sale of her book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Radio waves, infrared light, X-rays and gamma rays are not part of the visual spectrum, and although they do other important things, they do not reveal the physical world.

Originally Posted by But

There are radio telescopes, gamma ray telescopes, X-ray cameras and infrared cameras. They take pictures which can be very detailed. So are you saying that this instant teleportation doesn't happen with light outside the visible spectrum, which is what these kinds of radiation are?

Why do you keep referring to instant teleportation? Radio telescopes detect signals and these signals take time to receive.

Imaging of any kind done with radio telescopes (or radio antennae on spacecraft) is an active technique: the imaging requires that the antenna first broadcast a signal at the object of interest. The signal reflects from the object, and the antenna waits for the return signal.

The simplest sort of radio "imaging," then, is just radio ranging. Send out a ping, wait for the echo. Use a precise clock to time how long it takes the reflection to return to the antenna, and you know very precisely the range or distance to the target. That's RADAR, which is an acronym for Radio Detection and Ranging.

How radio telescopes get "images" of asteroids | The Planetary Society

There's no such thing as an efferent camera. A camera gathers light, that's it. Anything that has always worked will continue to work (nothing changes),

Originally Posted by But

Wait, you're contradicting yourself. You've been saying for a while now that cameras work the same way the eyes work.

It seems to me they do, but maybe they don't. Maybe they just collect patterns of light regardless of whether the object is present. Since it takes time for the light to reach the lens, a delayed photograph is what appears to be the only answer.

so a photodiode would detect light and can be used to measure the speed of light.

Originally Posted by But

No, I mean the instant light. You know, the light you say is instantly at the film, paper or retina. If we put a photodiode where the film is, does it register the light instantly, yes or no?

Like I said, maybe Lessans was all wrong and it's really okay.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Radio waves, infrared light, X-rays and gamma rays are not part of the visual spectrum, and although they do other important things, they do not reveal the physical world.

The first image is the Milky Way in visible light.



The second image is the Milky Way in 21 cm wavelength radio waves. How is that not an image?



This is the Milky Way at a frequency of 408 MHz or a wavelength of 74 cm.



Radio waves are photons. Gamma rays, X-rays and infrared light are photons too.

(from What is Radio Astronomy? - SKA Telescope)

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans was all wrong.

Finally.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Radio waves, infrared light, X-rays and gamma rays are not part of the visual spectrum, and although they do other important things, they do not reveal the physical world.

Oh, rully?

Hey, dumbass, do you know where the word "radio" comes from? It's a neologism constructed from radiating light.

Fuck, you are stoopid.

[LadyShea]

In efferent vision, eyes are merely windows for the brain to look through, so why would cameras be anything like eyes in Lessans account?

In standard optics, both eyes and cameras are light detectors.

Are the accounts exactly opposite or are they exactly the same?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Okay, so forget acting like a lens. The pinhole allows the light to form an inverted image that is then projected. None of this negates his claim.

But you said that the reason the light is instant with a camera is because of the lens. Then you said it's instant with a pinhole camera because the hole 'acts like a lens'.

But now you're saying it doesn't act like a lens. So are pinhole cameras instant or not? Why does some light magically appear on the back of a camera instantly, and not other light?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not magic. You just can't fathom it.

Noting the lack of any attempt to explain, I'll ignore your mere assertion. It's magic.

I am not disputing any of this so there's no argument.

Weasel! How big is the hole before it's no longer instant? You originally claimed it stops being instant when the hole is big enough that there's no image. But now you understand it's a gradient, this doesn't apply. So answer again, properly this time.

No, that's not it at all. If you bear in mind that all of the properties of light work the same way except for one thing, and that is in the efferent account light becomes a condition of sight; it reveals the actual world; the light is not decoded in the brain as an image, although the pattern stays intact.

So it's all the same, and light doesn't magically, instantly appear at the back of a camera or the retina?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

The first image is the Milky Way in visible light.



The second image is the Milky Way in 21 cm wavelength radio waves. How is that not an image?



This is the Milky Way at a frequency of 408 MHz or a wavelength of 74 cm.



Radio waves are photons. Gamma rays, X-rays and infrared light are photons too.

(from What is Radio Astronomy? - SKA Telescope)

Fair enough. Let me clarify: They don't reveal the physical world through the visual spectrum. Radio telescopes can give us information in other ways. For example, radio waves can be used to create a picture of an asteroid using Doppler radar, but the asteroid (the object) has to be present in order to measure its location based on the time it takes for radio waves to bounce off of the asteroid and return back to the telescope. We don't get information just from electromagnetic waves alone. In every situation the object is involved. Light alone can provide no image.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Sure, you claim magic. I claim bullshit.

It's not magic. You just can't fathom it.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Noting the lack of any attempt to explain, I'll ignore your mere assertion. It's magic.

I am not disputing any of this so there's no argument.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Weasel! How big is the hole before it's no longer instant? You originally claimed it stops being instant when the hole is big enough that there's no image. But now you understand it's a gradient, this doesn't apply. So answer again, properly this time.

Depending on how far the hole is from the film and how large the hole is will determine what kind of image we get. If it gets to the point where the hole is too large or too small the hole would not work and no image would show up therefore it would take 8 minutes for us to see light if the Sun were turned on at noon.

No, that's not it at all. If you bear in mind that all of the properties of light work the same way except for one thing, and that is in the efferent account light becomes a condition of sight; it reveals the actual world; the light is not decoded in the brain as an image, although the pattern stays intact.

Originally Posted by Dragar

So it's all the same, and light doesn't magically, instantly appear at the back of a camera or the retina?

It's not magic Dragar. If the image (the pattern) doesn't get reflected (I'm know I'm flip-flopping but I'm going back to what he said originally) then we would be using the nonabsorbed photons in a different way. I'm assuming that a camera works similar to a retina, which is why I believe we would get a photograph in real time. I've always said that this was not the way he came about his findings, and I don't know if doing it this way will continue to look contradictory. You don't even care to understand his demonstration as to how the brain works in relation to words. I don't think any of this is positive proof he was inaccurate. He said the image (the frequency/wavelength) is not reflected, which to me would mean that the pattern of light is there when we look at the object (which I've said all along) but the information that allows us to see said object does not travel through space/time. This does not mean light doesn't travel, but the light does not provide the information without the object being present. I know you think this sounds crazy because light is light and light bounces; some of the light energy is absorbed and some is reflected. But if he is right (which you obviously can't even consider) then this would mean light reveals the external world (the landscape that is within our optical range) through the use of the partial spectrum rather than this information being carried through space/time.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If it gets to the point where the hole is too large or too small the hole would not work and no image would show up...

We've just been through this! You just agreed that there is no 'too large' for an image to appear, because it's a gradient. There's always an image, it just gets blurrier and blurrier as you make the hole bigger. But there's no 'too large'.

So answer the question again please, or take back your previous agreement.

Why are you so impossible to talk to? You constantly contradict yourself from one post to the next. You said you agreed, only to completely ignore this. Were you deliberately lying, or just willing to say anything without thought in order to further your father's idiocy?

It's not magic Dragar.

Then let's go through your nonsense line by line and see if it makes any sort of sense?

If the image (the pattern) doesn't get reflected (I'm know I'm flip-flopping but I'm going back to what he said originally) then we would be using the nonabsorbed photons in a different way.

Except you told me the pattern of light is reflected. Remember mirrors? A pattern of light (which is in itself the result of light bouncing off an object, in a pattern) lands on the mirror and is reflected. Mirrors preserve the patterns, walls don't. You agreed with this explanation. Now you see how it contradicts you, and you're backing off. Uh-oh, can't explain mirrors again!

And light clearly bounces off objects (or do you deny that now?). And there's clearly a pattern to how it bounces off. So patterns of light clearly do get reflected.

So pretty much you're just wrong.

He said the image (the frequency/wavelength) is not reflected, which to me would mean that the pattern of light is there when we look at the object (which I've said all along) but the information that allows us to see said object does not travel through space/time.

Earlier - mere days ago - you agreed that the pattern of light does travel through space because that's how you told me mirrors work. Mirrors preserve the pattern when they reflect light, and walls don't. They produce a new pattern (that our eyes interpret as, well, a wall, rather than a reflection in a mirror).

Given that a pattern of light landing on a photographic film would interact with that film in a pattern, it's pretty clear you get a pattern on the film out of that. In other words, an image is a result of the pattern of light. So you've already agreed to the complete opposite of your buffoon of a father!

This does not mean light doesn't travel, but the light does not provide the information without the object being present.

Crazy assertion again. There's no evidence for this, and plenty of evidence to the contrary.

...then this would mean light reveals the external world (the landscape that is within our optical range) through the use of the partial spectrum rather than this information being carried through space/time.

And we're back to gibberish. Your use of 'optical range' is nonsense, your use of 'partial spectrum' is nonsense, your use of 'revealing the external world' is nonsense.

Sorry peacegirl, your explanation is 'magic does it!'.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...the asteroid (the object) has to be present in order to measure its location based on the time it takes for radio waves to bounce off of the asteroid and return back to the telescope.

So what happens if the asteroid crashes into the sun after the light has struck it, but before the it has returned to us? Does it no longer obey the laws of physics and somehow fail to show up in the detector? Or can we produce produce an image from the light anyway, even if the object has since vanished?

Let me guess...magic happens?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

We've just been through this! You just agreed that there is no 'too large' for an image to appear, because it's a gradient. There's always an image, it just gets blurrier and blurrier as you make the hole bigger. But there's no 'too large'.

Oh really? So if the hole is as big as a crater, you will still get an image? Please stop it Dragar!

Originally Posted by Dragar

So answer the question again please, or take back your previous agreement.

Why are you so impossible to talk to? You constantly contradict yourself from one post to the next. You said you agreed, only to completely ignore this. Were you deliberately lying, or just willing to say anything without thought in order to further your father's idiocy?

I resent you saying "my father's idiocy." You don't know whether he was right or not so for you to say that is already showing me that you are completely biased from the get go. That makes it extremely difficult for me, especially when you're considered an "authority" on all things astronomy.

It's not magic Dragar.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Then let's go through your nonsense line by line and see if it makes any sort of sense?

Please stop calling it nonsense, because it makes absolute sense but not in the way you are analyzing it which is starting from the premise that the image (the information) bounces off of the object and travels forever and ever through space/time.

If the image (the pattern) doesn't get reflected (I'm know I'm flip-flopping but I'm going back to what he said originally) then we would be using the nonabsorbed photons in a different way.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Except you told me the pattern of light is reflected. Remember mirrors?

Dragar, you're getting confused. A mirror reflects the image but it doesn't travel forever and ever. The object that is seen in the mirror is there; and yes, the light strikes the mirror, but this has nothing to do with the fact that the object that is being reflected off the mirror is present. Do you think that a mirror would reflect an object that wasn't there, which is the belief? Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Originally Posted by Dragar

A pattern of light (which is in itself the result of light bouncing off an object, in a pattern) lands on the mirror and is reflected. Mirrors preserve the patterns, walls don't. You agreed with this explanation. Now you see how it contradicts you, and you're backing off. Uh-oh, can't explain mirrors again!

Nooooo, mirrors do everything that scientists say they do. We're talking about seeing yourself in the mirror without you, THE OBJECT, being within optical range. It's a horrible example.

Originally Posted by Dragar

And light clearly bounces off objects (or do you deny that now?). And there's clearly a pattern to how it bounces off. So patterns of light clearly do get reflected.

So pretty much you're just wrong.

No, pretty much Lessans was not wrong. He never said light didn't travel, but he did say that the image (the pattern) is revealed, it does not travel through space/time. I tried to accommodate you by saying that the information does travel, but that's not what my father said and I'm going to stick to what he said even if it doesn't make any sense to you.

He said the image (the frequency/wavelength) is not reflected, which to me would mean that the pattern of light is there when we look at the object (which I've said all along) but the information that allows us to see said object does not travel through space/time.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Earlier - mere days ago - you agreed that the pattern of light does travel through space because that's how you told me mirrors work. Mirrors preserve the pattern when they reflect light, and walls don't. They produce a new pattern (that our eyes interpret as, well, a wall, rather than a reflection in a mirror).

I know I said that. Again, I was trying to make you happy but the truth is Lessans never said that.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Given that a pattern of light landing on a photographic film would interact with that film in a pattern, it's pretty clear you get a pattern on the film out of that. In other words, an image is a result of the pattern of light. So you've already agreed to the complete opposite of your buffoon of a father!

He was not a buffoon.

This does not mean light doesn't travel, but the light does not provide the information without the object being present.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Crazy assertion again. There's no evidence for this, and plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Let the thread go, okay? I don't appreciate you calling this man a buffoon, which makes you sound desperate and resentful.

...then this would mean light reveals the external world (the landscape that is within our optical range) through the use of the partial spectrum rather than this information being carried through space/time.

Originally Posted by Dragar

And we're back to gibberish. Your use of 'optical range' is nonsense, your use of 'partial spectrum' is nonsense, your use of 'revealing the external world' is nonsense.

No, it's not nonsense unless you don't care to understand the reason he came to these conclusions which obviously you don't.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Sorry peacegirl, your explanation is 'magic does it!'.

So let's end this on a friendly note. I have no desire to continue this conversation not because I think he was wrong but because there's no point. You will continue to slam him and name call and I will continue to defend him because I believe he was right. I have this much faith (yes faith) in him that I believe he knew what he was talking about because his explanation makes absolute sense. This has nothing to do with the fact that he was my father, which everyone has used against me. I admit that I may not have answered all of the questions as perfectly as I would have liked to see, but this still does not prove him wrong and until that day comes, my hope is that more empirical tests will be done to determine, once and for all, whether his observations were valid and sound.

[LadyShea]

You can't explain his observations without invoking impossibilities, his explanation said zero about non absorbed photons and all of that, none of which makes sense or conforms to reality. You are unable to devise a test that suits your own criteria, and all actual empirical tests indicate Lessans was wrong.

Why should you or he be taken seriously?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You can't explain his observations without invoking impossibilities, his explanation said zero about non absorbed photons and all of that, none of which makes sense or conforms to reality. You are unable to devise a test that suits your own criteria, and all actual empirical tests indicate Lessans was wrong.

Why should you or he be taken seriously?

Because the tests haven't been done. No one has done the empirical tests to determine validity based on his claims.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because the tests haven't been done. No one has done the empirical tests to determine validity based on his claims.

One observation alone kills the whole idea. The eclipses of Jupiter's moons wouldn't be observed the way they are if we saw in real time.

Also, you haven't suggested a single experiment of your own.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh really? So if the hole is as big as a crater, you will still get an image? Please stop it Dragar!

Technically true - it would be a very blurred image, yes. So blurred you'd never even recognise what it's supposed to be an image of.

If you disagree: how blurred does an image need to be before it's no longer an image?

I resent you saying "my father's idiocy."

I resent your idiocy. Your father is still wrong, and there's hundreds of years of evidence to show. That's not bias. I'm not the one with an emotional investment in this.

Please stop calling it nonsense, because it makes absolute sense but not in the way you are analyzing it which is starting from the premise that the image (the information) bounces off of the object and travels forever and ever through space/time.

We know how light works, and you said nothing was different in your account. The pattern of light (not an image; that's nonsense) is generated by how light bounces off an object. That light does indeed travel until it bumps into something else. So I will continue calling your word salad of an explanation what it is: nonsense.

Dragar, you're getting confused. A mirror reflects the image but it doesn't travel forever and ever.

So you know something about physics now?

The object that is seen in the mirror is there...

No, at the instant I see the object I know that it once was there when the light now at our eyes was once at the object. Who knows if there's an object now? I'll have to wait for the light there now to arrive at my eyes before I see that.

Do you think that a mirror would reflect an object that wasn't there, which is the belief? Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

If you very quickly removed an object I'm seeing in a mirror, I would indeed see the object while it was no longer there. Then, after a delay, I would see the object being removed. That delay is barely noticeable for small distances because the speed of light is so fast. But it can be measured, as But has told you, very easily with modern equipment.

For longer distances, such as the distance between here and the moons of Jupiter, it's quite obvious and allows us to do things like measure the speed of light based on the delay.

And it works! Meanwhile, your ridiculous ideas don't. Sorry peacegirl, you're wrong again.

Nooooo, mirrors do everything that scientists say they do. We're talking about seeing yourself in the mirror without you, THE OBJECT, being within optical range. It's a horrible example.

Your use of the word 'optical range' is nonsense. You just mean 'can be seen'. So of course I can't see myself if I can't see myself. You're just being daft again.

No, pretty much Lessans was not wrong. He never said light didn't travel, but he did say that the image (the pattern) is revealed, it does not travel through space/time. I tried to accommodate you by saying that the information does travel, but that's not what my father said and I'm going to stick to what he said even if it doesn't make any sense to you.

Yeah, stick to the nonsense. That's not bias talking!

I know I said that. Again, I was trying to make you happy...

So you just lie to try to persuade us, and then when it's obvious you're wrong, you change your tune?

You are making this shit up!

He was not a buffoon.

Sure he was. He didn't even understand how we see. Children learn that at school.

Let the thread go, okay? I don't appreciate you calling this man a buffoon, which makes you sound desperate and resentful.

I don't appreciate you making shit up and telling lies to spread your idiocy.

I have this much faith (yes faith) in him that I believe he knew what he was talking about because his explanation makes absolute sense.

Exactly; faith. You accuse me of bias, but you're the one clinging onto ideas because of faith and affection for your dad. His explanation makes no sense - you can't even get a coherent account of his explanation down in print.

I admit that I may not have answered all of the questions as perfectly as I would have liked to see, but this still does not prove him wrong and until that day comes, my hope is that more empirical tests will be done to determine, once and for all, whether his observations were valid and sound.

It doesn't matter; your father is as proved wrong as anything ever were. All the empirical tests where a difference would occur show he was wrong. He has not one shred of evidence supporting him, and you cannot even come up with an experiment that would yield any - probably because you are afraid the experiment has already been done and deep down you know what the answer would be! Nobody outside this thread even cares what he said; he'll be forgotten, as will you, as will his ideas.

We'll be successful, just like we have been, by ignoring him.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh really? So if the hole is as big as a crater, you will still get an image? Please stop it Dragar!

Originally Posted by Dragar

Technically true - it would be a very blurred image, yes. So blurred you'd never even recognise what it's supposed to be an image of.

If you disagree: how blurred does an image need to be before it's no longer an image?

I don't think we would get any image of the Sun (not even a blurry image) on the back of a pinhole camera if the pinhole was the size of a crater. It wouldn't work.

I resent you saying "my father's idiocy."

Originally Posted by Dragar

I resent your idiocy. Your father is still wrong, and there's hundreds of years of evidence to show. That's not bias. I'm not the one with an emotional investment in this.

I admit I am his daughter and therefore I can't help but be emotional, but that does not mean he was wrong about this or about determinism.

Please stop calling it nonsense, because it makes absolute sense but not in the way you are analyzing it which is starting from the premise that the image (the information) bounces off of the object and travels forever and ever through space/time.

Originally Posted by Dragar

We know how light works, and you said nothing was different in your account. The pattern of light (not an image; that's nonsense) is generated by how light bounces off an object. That light does indeed travel until it bumps into something else. So I will continue calling your word salad of an explanation what it is: nonsense.

You never did understand his reasoning, so it's not even close to a fair discussion.

Dragar, you're getting confused. A mirror reflects the image but it doesn't travel forever and ever.

Originally Posted by Dragar

So you know something about physics now?

I know as much as I need to know based on his observations. They have not been tested.

The object that is seen in the mirror is there...

Originally Posted by Dragar

No, at the instant I see the object I know that it once was there when the light now at our eyes was once at the object. Who knows if there's an object now? I'll have to wait for the light there now to arrive at my eyes before I see that.

That's not how it works. That's not even how radio telescopes work to form a picture of asteroids. They need the real object for the radio waves to bounce off of. Everything that has been detected is made up of matter, not just light.

Do you think that a mirror would reflect an object that wasn't there, which is the belief? Why is this so difficult for you to understand?

Originally Posted by Dragar

If you very quickly removed an object I'm seeing in a mirror, I would indeed see the object while it was no longer there. Then, after a delay, I would see the object being removed. That delay is barely noticeable for small distances because the speed of light is so fast. But it can be measured, as But has told you, very easily with modern equipment.

I don't buy it because it won't even work with radio waves. Let a radio wave detect an object from light itself. You have to have the object present somewhere, or you can't detect it.

Originally Posted by Dragar

For longer distances, such as the distance between here and the moons of Jupiter, it's quite obvious and allows us to do things like measure the speed of light based on the delay.

If you're measuring the rate of light and how long it takes to reach us, that's a fine measurement but it doesn't mean that you are seeing Jupiter's moons in delayed time.

Originally Posted by Dragar

And it works! Meanwhile, your ridiculous ideas don't. Sorry peacegirl, you're wrong again.

Whatever!

Nooooo, mirrors do everything that scientists say they do. We're talking about seeing yourself in the mirror without you, THE OBJECT, being within optical range. It's a horrible example.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Your use of the word 'optical range' is nonsense. You just mean 'can be seen'. So of course I can't see myself if I can't see myself. You're just being daft again.

I'm not dafting at all. I'm just saying that your account that it's the light that has to be in range for us to see is not accurate. You won't be able to see yourself from light if YOU are not there. Your belief that if I remove myself, the light would still bring me the image of me is exactly what Lessans disputed. You can't prove it easily because light travels too fast to determine whether that is true, although scientists keep insisting that it's a fact.

No, pretty much Lessans was not wrong. He never said light didn't travel, but he did say that the image (the pattern) is revealed, it does not travel through space/time. I tried to accommodate you by saying that the information does travel, but that's not what my father said and I'm going to stick to what he said even if it doesn't make any sense to you.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Yeah, stick to the nonsense. That's not bias talking!

I am biased, just like you are. I'm biased in the direction of what I believe is true. You are biased in the direction of what you believe is true.

I know I said that. Again, I was trying to make you happy...

Originally Posted by Dragar

So you just lie to try to persuade us, and then when it's obvious you're wrong, you change your tune?

You are making this shit up!

I wasn't lying. I was trying to figure out how it would fit into the afferent account. But it just doesn't.

He was not a buffoon.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Sure he was. He didn't even understand how we see. Children learn that at school.

If you keep disrespecting him that way, I won't converse with you anymore. He does not deserve to be called names when he is not here to defend himself.

Let the thread go, okay? I don't appreciate you calling this man a buffoon, which makes you sound desperate and resentful.

Originally Posted by Dragar

I don't appreciate you making shit up and telling lies to spread your idiocy.

I'm not making shit up, but if that's how you feel then let's stop. I have to move onto other things anyway. I can't spend all my days discussing this one topic.

I have this much faith (yes faith) in him that I believe he knew what he was talking about because his explanation makes absolute sense.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Exactly; faith. You accuse me of bias, but you're the one clinging onto ideas because of faith and affection for your dad. His explanation makes no sense - you can't even get a coherent account of his explanation down in print.

I feel he explained his version of sight clear enough to be understood. People can take it further if they want, and if they don't want the version that exists will remain. Like he said, it didn't matter to him whether we see in delayed time or real time. It is what lies behind this knowledge that makes a difference.

I admit that I may not have answered all of the questions as perfectly as I would have liked to see, but this still does not prove him wrong and until that day comes, my hope is that more empirical tests will be done to determine, once and for all, whether his observations were valid and sound.

Originally Posted by Dragar

It doesn't matter; your father is as proved wrong as anything ever were. All the empirical tests where a difference would occur show he was wrong. He has not one shred of evidence supporting him, and you cannot even come up with an experiment that would yield any - probably because you are afraid the experiment has already been done and deep down you know what the answer would be! Nobody outside this thread even cares what he said; he'll be forgotten, as will you, as will his ideas.

We'll be successful, just like we have been, by ignoring him.

This is funny to me. You have no conception of his demonstration. You can't recount what he even wrote yet you are positive he was wrong. I get it, I really do. Who the hell is this man, and who the hell am I to come online and announce that the eyes are not a sense organ? If I didn't know him personally, I would think the same way you do.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you're measuring the rate of light and how long it takes to reach us, that's a fine measurement but it doesn't mean that you are seeing Jupiter's moons in delayed time.

Then explain why we observe what we observe if we see in real time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Then explain why we observe what we observe if we see in real time.

We observe the same thing in both accounts. The only difference is that the frequency/wavelength (the information or pattern in the efferent account allows us to see the real object). Measuring the speed of light through the Fizeau wheel experiment, or the beam splitter experiment stay intact, GPS systems stay intact, fiber optics stay intact; everything that we have learned from light and all of the technology based on our knowledge of light stays intact except for this one change which only affects the way we see ourselves.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by But

[This] image is the Milky Way in 21 cm wavelength radio waves. How is that not an image?



This is the Milky Way at a frequency of 408 MHz or a wavelength of 74 cm.

These images were not made by bouncing photons off the Milky Way Galaxy. The radio telescopes made them by focusing long-wavelength light in essentially the same way that an optical telescope focuses shorter-wavelength (visible) light onto a sensor, where the image is recorded.

By the way, there are plenty of animals that can see into the infrared and ultraviolet parts of the spectrum that are "invisible" to us humans.

So, do you seriously expect us to believe that when a bee is observing the "nectar guides" on a flower (which are only visible if you can see ultraviolet light), that it sees them in delayed time, while the patterns that it observes in "visible" light are seen instantly?

Or perhaps you think a bee's eyes work differently from ours?