A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Creationists talk about problems with the theory of evolution, saying it's just a theory, it may be wrong. At least they specify some areas they think are definitely wrong (and can therefore be tested) such as misidentification of hominid fossils or misinterpretation of a certain geological feature.

All you have is "I don't understand it. I won't look at the evidence. I don't have any specific criticism to offer. It may be wrong though." Even if it's totally and completely wrong, that wouldn't make Lessans right anymore than serious problems in the theory of evolution would make Biblical creationism correct.

Gravity is only a theory as well. It may be wrong. Would that make this essay* more likely to be correct?

Originally Posted by Ellery Schemp

Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow. It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.

Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.

*The essay is a parody, but uses the "just a theory" argument similarly to creationists, and you peacegirl

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've explained it, but you can't stand it because your entire world falls apart. David, did you realize that your repetition means nothing? It explains nothing, and it does nothing to prove Lessans wrong? Why are you so afraid of the truth, if it turns out to be the truth. I have to repeat that this is definitely a problem with you, not Lessans.

Originally Posted by davidm

You've explained nothing. You're incapable of explaining it. NO ONE can explain it, because it involves a logical contradiction. It is not logically possible that one can instantaneously see something that takes 8.5 minutes to be seen.

That's because you are thinking in terms of afferent vision David. Lessans' entire premise is that there are no signals from the lightwaves themselves going into the brain to be converted into images. If you can't follow Lessans' reasoning, you will keep saying that it's a contradiction.

Originally Posted by davidm

You yourself have ADMITTED you have NO EXPLANATION for this. To you, quoting your own words, it is as mysterious as "how the grass grows." So why do you believe it? I explained THAT many pages ago. Your relation to reality is as follows:

If Lessans said it, I believe it, and that settles it.

Wrong. I gave the excerpts that offered the reasons why Lessans believed science has it wrong.

Originally Posted by davidm

The rest of the quoted part represents another example of your projecting onto others your own shortcomings. Unlike you, it does not matter to me a whit what the physical world actually is like. If it turned out that most of our scientific theories were wrong and had to be replaced, it would not mean that my "entire world falls apart." Quite to the contrary, I am absolutely fascinated by scientific discoveries and I hope that I will live long enough to see real revolutions in science take place, like, for instance, a theory that accommodates both quantum mechanics and general relativity.

That's cool. I hope one day you get excited about this discovery. Trust me, I'm not holding my breath.

Originally Posted by davidm

It is YOU whose world falls apart because Lessans has been proven to be wrong, which is why you cannot accept the undeniable proofs, repeatedly given to you in this thread and at other forums, of how wrong he was. It is YOU whose world falls apart, because you have an obvious personal stake in this idiocy, and evidently have wasted a considerable portion of your life promoting this drivel to no effect. Nor will it have an effect no matter how long you flog this crap, because, as The Lone Ranger just pointed out, the method of seeing that he describes in the essay that you admit you won't read (talk about fearing facts!) is a well-established and wholly confirmed FACT.

To no effect? Where is this knowledge to no effect David when it hasn't even been applied? Are you that desperate to be right that all of your reasoning goes out the door?? I think so. Once again, how in the world can you even know whether this knowledge is credible or not if it hasn't been applied? This is not about a personal stake, by the way. If I truly felt that all the empirical tests (tests that were accurately done) proved afferent vision to be 100% correct, then I would concede. But right now the conclusions may be based on faulty premises, which would create an invalid proof, although seemingly sound for all intents and purposes. Do you see the problem here? The proof appears airtight, but is it??? You have to keep an open mind and have patience David, which I know you don't like. That's why you call it crap.

You, as a scientist (???) can't even consider the possibility that science may have gotten it wrong? I don't understand why you are you being so defensive! The bottom line is this: There is no truth until the fat lady sings. Let me repeat: I am not here for myself; I am here for the truth just like you are David. What else can I offer except to be patient until the truth is uncovered? Can you do the same? I doubt it. My question to you is: Why couldn't you wait until further evidence comes in before coming to a conclusion that could be false unless there is some other motive? Could it be your reputation at stake, which is why you are so confrontative? This thread clearly demonstrates your lack of absolute proof and the reason why you don't like me. You don't like being challenged because you are looked up to as the person who knows what is right and what is wrong. The only way you can defend yourself is by attacking, thus skirting the issue. Anyone who has any reasoning ability will see that this attack does not prove Lessans wrong in any way, shape, or form, as you would like people to believe.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by mickthinks

Sorry if I lost you there, pg. I believe we were talking about your participation in this thread. I've emphasised the salient pronouns in the conversation to help you to follow it:

pg: This is what makes this whole thread so very unfortunate, and why I won't do it again.
mick: You mean, not of your own free will?
pg: If I choose not to do this again, it is because when comparing to do this or not to do this, it gives me greater satisfaction not to do this.
mick: Then surely, if that's true and your father's ideas were right, you would have stopped doing it?
pg: Stop doing what?

I think the very fact that you are still doing something you say you won't do again is solid evidence that you haven't understood your father's ideas about determinism.

Mickthinks, no, you don't understand yet. Every single second of every single day we live, we are weighing options. So sometimes the heat gets too hot in here, and I will say I'm leaving. So I might get off the computer at that moment. But then after time has passed, I get upset thinking that people will forget this thread, forget Lessans, and remember this thread as a crackpot thread. When I weigh the options of not coming back vs. coming back (in order to challenge the lies in here), I choose to come back, in the direction of greater satisfaction. This proves Lessans is right, not the opposite Mickthinks. You better think again, because you're the one that's mixed up.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Creationists talk about problems with the theory of evolution, saying it's just a theory, it may be wrong. At least they specify some areas they think are definitely wrong (and can therefore be tested) such as misidentification of hominid fossils or misinterpretation of a certain geological feature.

I am not saying you are wrong, but why would you so completely disrespect their objections? I don't know if Darwinism is right, or they have an issue that needs to be taken into consideration. I really don't know, but why are Darwinists so angry? Why???? It bothers me because if they are right, they know they will get objections. So why the drama??? All they have to do is to keep showing where the creationists are wrong? This doesn't mean I agree with creationists, which I'm sure you would use to discredit me? Do you see the problem here, or is your mind so convinced that Lessans is wrong, that you will easily fit him into your framework of truth.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

All you have is "I don't understand it. I won't look at the evidence because it's been proven. I don't have any specific criticism to offer except that it is wrong. " Even if it's totally and completely wrong, according to the thoughts on this subject at the present time, that wouldn't make Lessans wrong anymore than the theory of evolution is wrong by assocation. I hope you all are good investigators, because if you're not, it will be a done deal and you will feel you were right all along. It will be a travesty of science in the worst possible way because there is so much riding on this knowledge.

Gravity is only a theory as well. It may be wrong. Would that make this essay* more likely to be correct?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Finally, the mere name “Universal Theory of Gravity” or “Theory of Universal Gravity” (the secularists like to use confusing language) has a distinctly socialist ring to it. The core idea of “to each according to his weight, from each according to his mass” is communist. There is no reason that gravity should apply to the just and the unjust equally, and the saved should have relief from such “universalism.” If we have Universal Gravity now, then Universal health care will be sure to follow. It is this kind of Universalism that saps a nation's moral fiber.

I don't know what the secularists are doing. This discovery is not socialistic, so why are you comparing the two? That's my next question. This is all about justice, not injustice, so obviously their justification to distribute unjustly is UNJUST. I am so frustrated now, I need a break.

LadyShea, with all due respect, your reasoning is skewed. You are assuming that what Lessans was getting at justified some kind of weird universal health care. I actually have no @#*$* idea what you are talking about. Please forgive me for my expletives, but how can you compare me to them? Do you not think you are acting in a way that is exactly what you hate in others?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Overall, the Theory of Universal Gravity is just not an attractive theory. It is based on borderline evidence, has many serious gaps in what it claims to explain, is clearly wrong in important respects, and has social and moral deficiencies. If taught in the public schools, by mis-directed “educators,” it has to be balanced with alternative, more attractive theories with genuine gravamen and spiritual gravitas.

I refuse to get into the proof of Darwinism. I just hope you have an open enough mind to not have your own personal agenda LadyShea, because I do see a very honest effort to determine what is true and what isn't, and that is a very honorable goal. Just don't leave Lessans out, because it would be so unfortunate LadyShea, and delay what we all want in the name of truth and justice.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

*The essay is a parody, but uses the "just a theory" argument similarly to creationists, and you peacegirl

No it isn't, but because you don't get it [yet], you blame it on Lessans for your lack of understanding. But it is your very lack of understanding that is the problem here, not Lessans' claims. Just hold onto this thought momentarily, or else this thread is finished.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, with all due respect, your reasoning is skewed. You are assuming that what Lessans was getting at justified some kind of weird universal health care. I actually have no @#*$* idea what you are talking about. Please forgive me for my expletives, but how can you compare me to them? Do you not think you are acting in a way that is exactly what you hate in others?

Jesus ... fucking ... christ.

*car wreck, rubber-necking* ...

Erm, derm, it's called a parody. You see, ...

Oh, never mind!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Jesus ... fucking ... christ.

*car wreck, rubber-necking* ...

Erm, derm, it's called a parody. You see, ...

Oh, never mind!

Wowwww!!! Maybe you've been honest for the very first time because you are at a loss for words. That's a good thing.

[LadyShea]

You changed my words but not the attribution. Please change the "LadyShea" to 'peacegirl'

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All you have is "I don't understand it. I won't look at the evidence because it's been proven. I don't have any specific criticism to offer except that it is wrong. " Even if it's totally and completely wrong, according to the thoughts on this subject at the present time, that wouldn't make Lessans wrong anymore than the theory of evolution is wrong by assocation. I hope you all are good investigators, because if you're not, it will be a done deal and you will feel you were right all along. It will be a travesty of science in the worst possible way because there is so much riding on this knowledge.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know what the secularists are doing. This discovery is not socialistic, so why are you comparing the two? That's my next question. This is all about justice, not injustice, so obviously their justification to distribute unjustly is UNJUST. I am so frustrated now, I need a break.

LadyShea, with all due respect, your reasoning is skewed. You are assuming that what Lessans was getting at justified some kind of weird universal health care. I actually have no @#*$* idea what you are talking about. Please forgive me for my expletives, but how can you compare me to them? Do you not think you are acting in a way that is exactly what you hate in others?

That was a quote from the linked essay, which I clearly attributed to the author of the essay, right in the quote tag and which I noted was a parody that sounded an awful lot like you and Creationists.

Those are not my words and you apparently can't read.

No it isn't what? No it isn't a parody? No it isn't similar to your arguments? Yes, it is, on both counts

but because you don't get it [yet], you blame it on Lessans for your lack of understanding. But it is your very lack of understanding that is the problem here, not Lessans' claims. Just hold onto this thought momentarily, or else this thread is finished.

I absolutely get it, I reject it because I get it.

[LadyShea]

hey peacegirl

quote=name

You can add the = then type the persons name on the opening quote tag

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What I meant by that is that if the sun were suddenly turned on by God, a camera would not be able to take a picture of the sun until the light got here 8.5 minutes later because the camera is not taking a picture of the actual image or object. The lightwaves are allowing the camera to convert the image into a picture.

Supernovae are bright-enough that some are easily-visible to the naked eye, even though they're many light-years distant. So, by your ... logic ... a large-enough, bright-enough supernova should be visible in real time to a human observer, but since it will take a minimum of several decades for any of the light it's emitting to reach us, it would be un-photographable even though it would be clearly visible to the naked eye. Gosh!

But this example regarding the sun was hypothetical. Any pictures taken of a celestial body in outer space are taken from telescopes which means that the light is already available.

Nonsense. You can see and photograph some celestial objects that are hundreds or even thousands of light-years distant with perfectly ordinary cameras. No telescope necessary. I've done it many times, and so can anyone. Heck, the Andromeda Galaxy is some two million light-years distant, yet it can be seen with the naked eye and photographed with an ordinary camera.

It is considered a fact, so for you to say photoreceptors transduce photons into electrochemical impulses is a fact, begs the question: Is the proof so strong that there can be absolutely no other way of looking at it?

Why yes, it is. We know in great detail the physical and chemical processes by which photoreceptors transduce light, because we can observe and measure the process. To say that we don't know that photoreceptors transduce light is every bit as ignorant as saying that we don't know whether or not the heart pumps blood.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Obviously, I'm not saying it's un-photographable. In fact, I'm saying that if a camera can take a picture, then IT'S PHOTOGRAPHABLE. Therefore, if it's photographable with a camera, there is light present Lone Ranger. The only time a camera wouldn't work is if there was no light present. So you can't use the fact that a camera can take a picture instantly and get a clear picture as a contradiction to efferent vision.

Nonsense. You can see and photograph some celestial objects that are hundreds or even thousands of light-years distant with perfectly ordinary cameras. No telescope necessary. I've done it many times, and so can anyone. Heck, the Andromeda Galaxy is some two million light-years distant, yet it can be seen with the naked eye and photographed with an ordinary camera.

Hey, that is exactly why it can be seen with the naked eye and photographed with an ordinary camera. The light from that distance away (however far it is believed to be) has already reached Earth. The camera is not taking a picture of the distant past, nor are we seeing with the naked eye the distant past. There is no delay, and the fact that a camera can take a picture only confirms that the light from this Galaxy has reached us.

It is considered a fact, so for you to say photoreceptors transduce photons into electrochemical impulses is a fact, begs the question: Is the proof so strong that there can be absolutely no other way of looking at it?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Why yes, it is. We know in great detail the physical and chemical processes by which photoreceptors transduce light, because we can observe and measure the process. To say that we don't know that photoreceptors transduce light is every bit as ignorant as saying that we don't know whether or not the heart pumps blood.

Why are there different theories then Lone Ranger? A heart pumping blood is not the same thing. Transduction involves converting one type of energy (e.g. light) into another type of energy (e.g. action potential). All you're doing is restating the very premise that is being disputed. The part in bold is a theory, yet it is accepted as fact.

The Anatomy of Visual Sensation

The eye extracts information about the world from light waves, transducing light energy into neural signals by way of the retina, the light sensitive layer of cells at the back of the eye. The light-sensitive cells in the retina are known as photoreceptors, consisting of specialized neurons that absorb light energy and respond by creating neural impulses- much as photographic film converts light into physical images. The retina does this with two kinds of photoreceptors: rods that are especially sensitive to dim light but not colors, and three kinds of cones, which are specialized to respond to blue, green, and red light, respectively. The cones are concentrated at the center of the retina, in a small region known as the fovea, which gives us our sharpest vision. Both rods and cones send their impulses to bipolar cells which process information from many photoreceptors before sending this information to ganglion cells. Bundled together, the axons of the ganglion cells make up the optic nerve, which carries visual information from the eye to the brain.

Processing Visual Sensation in the Brain

At the back of the brain, in the occipital lobe, lies the visual cortex, where signals from the eyes are transformed into visual sensations of color, form, boundary, movement and the three-dimensional world of depth. These sensations are combined with memories, motives, emotions, and sensations of body position and touch. We look with our eyes, but see with our brains. Indeed, color does not exist in the outside world; it exists only in the mind of the viewer. Rather, color is a psychological property of our sensory experience, created by specialized areas of our brains processing information about the wavelengths of light striking the receptor cells in the back of the eye. Visible light consists of a narrow band in the spectrum of electromagnetic radiation. Other forms of electromagnetic radiation such as x-rays and radio waves are invisible to the eye. Within this spectrum of visible electromagnetic radiation, longer waves are perceived as red light, medium-length waves give rise to the sensation of yellow and green, and shorter waves are perceived as blue light. Color blindness in people ranges from a complete inability to see colors to color weakness: an inability to distinguish pale colors, such as pink or tan. Most color weakness or blindness involves a genetically based difficulty in distinguishing red from green, (the most common) or yellows and blues (which is fairly rare). The brain senses brightness on the basis of the intensity of light striking the visual receptors.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Hey, that is exactly why it can be seen with the naked eye and photographed with an ordinary camera. The light from that distance away (however far it is believed to be) has already reached Earth. The camera is not taking a picture of the distant past, nor are we seeing with the naked eye the distant past. There is no delay, and the fact that a camera can take a picture only confirms that the light from this Galaxy has reached us.

Of course the light from them has reached us. You think this proves your point but that's only because of how abysmally poor your comprehension skills are. Light from the Andromeda galaxy, for example, has certainly reached us. We would not see it otherwise. However, that light, due to the immense distance involved, began its journey millions of years ago. Light doesn't just sit around once it gets here, and the only reason we continue to see it is because it continues to emit light, or at least it was two million years ago. Astronomers say we are seeing into the past when we look at distant objects because the information contained in the light that we see and decode with our brains right now is the information of the object's state when the light left there, not when it arrives. We are seeing the Andromeda galaxy as it was those two million years ago, when the light that has finally had time to reach us today was first emitted by its stars.

Were we to somehow "see objects directly," as you continually claim, we should expect to see other galaxies, even very distant ones, rather similar to our own, since the universe should be the same age everywhere. Instead, the further away the galaxy is, the younger it appears to be. This is yet another of the immense mountain of facts that do not fit Lessans' rather confused ideas about how we see.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You changed my words but not the attribution. Please change the "LadyShea" to 'peacegirl'

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All you have is "I don't understand it. I won't look at the evidence because it's been proven. I don't have any specific criticism to offer except that it is wrong. " Even if it's totally and completely wrong, according to the thoughts on this subject at the present time, that wouldn't make Lessans wrong anymore than the theory of evolution is wrong by assocation. I hope you all are good investigators, because if you're not, it will be a done deal and you will feel you were right all along. It will be a travesty of science in the worst possible way because there is so much riding on this knowledge.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know what the secularists are doing. This discovery is not socialistic, so why are you comparing the two? That's my next question. This is all about justice, not injustice, so obviously their justification to distribute unjustly is UNJUST.

LadyShea, with all due respect, your reasoning is skewed. You are assuming that what Lessans was getting at justified some kind of weird universal health care. I actually have no @#*$* idea what you are talking about. Please forgive me for my expletives, but how can you compare me to them? Do you not think you are acting in a way that is exactly what you hate in others?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That was a quote from the linked essay, which I clearly attributed to the author of the essay, right in the quote tag and which I noted was a parody that sounded an awful lot like you and Creationists.

Those are not my words and you apparently can't read.

Sorry about that.

I will read it again, but even if it sounds alike doesn't mean IT IS ALIKE. You did this before when you compared Lessans to the religious zealot. That was a cheap shot and so is this.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No it isn't what? No it isn't a parody? No it isn't similar to your arguments?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, it is, on both counts

So what you're saying is that anyone who disputes a scientific fact is considered a creationist. That's false reasoning and you know it. How can you compare the two in all fairness?

but because you don't get it [yet], you blame it on Lessans for your lack of understanding. But it is your very lack of understanding that is the problem here, not Lessans' claims. Just hold onto this thought momentarily, or else this thread is finished.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I absolutely get it, I reject it because I get it.

No you dont get it. You are holding onto your ideas for dear life just as much as I am holding onto mine. Just because the scientific establishment is on your side does not give you a free pass to reject Lessans' theory of sight without a second thought. This would make you no different than a creationist because of your belief that science can do no wrong.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously, I'm not saying it's un-photographable. In fact, I'm saying that if a camera can take a picture, then IT'S PHOTOGRAPHABLE. Therefore, if it's photographable with a camera, there is light present Lone Ranger. The only time a camera wouldn't work is if there was no light present.

You have stated -- many times -- that the eyes see in real time, that we don't have to wait for the light emitted by a sufficiently-large and sufficiently-bright object (e.g. the Sun) to reach us before we can see it.

You have also stated that cameras don't work the same way that the eyes do, and that a camera cannot take a picture of an object until the light from that object reaches us. Shall I give you the quotes again?

Now then, try to follow the logic. It's not difficult.

A supernova shines by its own light -- that is, it's not visible through reflected light. Therefore, as you have explicitly stated, a camera should not be able to photograph the supernova until its light arrives, while the human eye should be able to see the supernova the instant it occurs.

By your own logic, this inescapably leads to the conclusion that a supernova should be clearly visible to a human yet un-photographable for a minimum of several decades.

Remember; a supernova is a brief event. It begins to fade within days or even hours. Since it's literally the explosion of a star, it can no more persist or repeat than can an exploding bomb.

Why are there different theories then Lone Ranger? A heart pumping blood is not the same thing. Transduction involves converting one type of energy (e.g. light) into another type of energy (e.g. action potential). All you're doing is restating the very premise that is being disputed. The part in bold is a theory, yet it is accepted as fact.

No, that photoreceptors transduce light is not a theory, it's an established fact; it's every bit as well-established and indisputable as is the fact that the heart is a muscular organ that pumps blood. It's an outright lie to claim that this is in any way unresolved or that there are "different theories" [name one!] regarding phototransduction by retinal photoreceptors. Heck, not only do we know that photoreceptors transduce light, we know how they do it right down to the level of the individual molecules involved.

You could easily verify this for yourself with a little effort.

Oh wait, I almost forgot: you've already said -- repeatedly -- that you have no intention of doing so.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Hey, that is exactly why it can be seen with the naked eye and photographed with an ordinary camera. The light from that distance away (however far it is believed to be) has already reached Earth. The camera is not taking a picture of the distant past, nor are we seeing with the naked eye the distant past. There is no delay, and the fact that a camera can take a picture only confirms that the light from this Galaxy has reached us.

Originally Posted by Kael

Of course the light from them has reached us. You think this proves your point but that's only because of how abysmally poor your comprehension skills are. Light from the Andromeda galaxy, for example, has certainly reached us. We would not see it otherwise. However, that light, due to the immense distance involved, began its journey millions of years ago. Light doesn't just sit around once it gets here, and the only reason we continue to see it is because it continues to emit light, or at least it was two million years ago. Astronomers say we are seeing into the past when we look at distant objects because the information contained in the light that we see and decode with our brains right now is the information of the object's state when the light left there, not when it arrives. We are seeing the Andromeda galaxy as it was those two million years ago, when the light that has finally had time to reach us today was first emitted by its stars.

Don't you think I realize this Kael? This is what Lessans was disputing. And that's why Lessans believed that a camera would be taking a picture of the galaxy as it is right now, not millions of years ago. This would also mean that if people were on different planets looking at the same object in space, each one wouldn't be seeing a different picture depending on how close or far they were to said object. They would all be seeing the same object at the same time [if sight is efferent] because the image would not be coming from the light.

Originally Posted by Kael

Were we to somehow "see objects directly," as you continually claim, we should expect to see other galaxies, even very distant ones, rather similar to our own, since the universe should be the same age everywhere.

Why would you conclude that just because we see efferently that this means that the universe is the same age?

Originally Posted by Kael

Instead, the further away the galaxy is, the younger it appears to be. This is yet another of the immense mountain of facts that do not fit Lessans' rather confused ideas about how we see.

I don't see the relationship between the age of a galaxy and Lessans' <theory> of sight unless, as a young galaxy, it is not bright enough, or has not grown to the immense size it needs to be in order to be seen.

Contrary to expectations, the largest, brightest galaxies in the census consist almost exclusively of very old stars, with much of their stellar populations having formed as long ago as 13 billion years.

There appears to be very little recent star formation in these galaxies, nor is there strong evidence for recent ingestion of smaller, younger galaxies.

Survey Of 4,000 Galaxies Finds Downsizing On A Cosmic Scale

[LadyShea]

I am telling you that your method of arguing for Lessans' ideas is similar to Creationism and Moon Landing denialism and all the other crackpottery because you are arguing from belief, and not from evidence.

To be taken seriously, at all, you would need to point out specific flaws in the current theory and how you arrived at that conclusion, you would need to propose the alternate mechanism in a scientifically valid manner (hint: mere observation won't cut it).

Just saying "It might be wrong" could be applied to anything and everything, and is by some people. You accept that the Holocaust happened as historians have described, but the historians might be wrong! Maybe the deniers are correct! Maybe the heliocentric model of the solar system is wrong! Maybe the germ theory of disease is wrong!

Nobody is going to re-examine any system- especially when the current model is both explanatory and predictive and all tests support it- based on the maybes and assertions of some salesman.

You want serious people to take you seriously? Then become an expert on the current theories, models, and supporting evidence for sight and find the flaws that need to be examined.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

does not give you a free pass to reject Lessans' theory of sight without a second thought. This would make you no different than a creationist because of your belief that science can do no wrong.

Who's the bullshitter now, peacegirl...you are once again projecting.

Science can and does make mistakes, and doesn't even claim to be perfect, however it is also self correcting and possible errors are found due to rigorous and repeated testing. I reject Lessans assertions based on their being nonsensical, untested, incomplete, and not even explained very well.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why would you conclude that just because we see efferently that this means that the universe is the same age?

Are you seriously suggesting that different parts of the Universe are different ages? And that, for some reason, we just happen to live in the oldest part of it? And that it gets younger -- in every direction -- as you move away from the Earth?

I don't see the relationship between the age of a galaxy and Lessans' <theory> of sight unless, as a young galaxy, it is not bright enough, or has not grown to the immense size it needs to be in order to be seen.

Younger galaxies are typically larger and brighter than are older galaxies. Yet as we look out into space, the farther away a galaxy is, the younger it looks.

Because, of course, we're not seeing it in real time; we're seeing it as it looked when the light we're seeing left the galaxy in question.


Just FYI, you should probably stop quoting things that you don't understand and that don't in any way support your claims. It's just embarrassing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously, I'm not saying it's un-photographable. In fact, I'm saying that if a camera can take a picture, then IT'S PHOTOGRAPHABLE. Therefore, if it's photographable with a camera, there is light present Lone Ranger. The only time a camera wouldn't work is if there was no light present.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You have stated -- many times -- that the eyes see in real time, that we don't have to wait for the light emitted by a sufficiently-large and sufficiently-bright object (e.g. the Sun) to reach us before we can see it.

You have also stated that cameras don't work the same way that the eyes do, and that a camera cannot take a picture of an object until the light from that object reaches us. Shall I give you the quotes again?

Now then, try to follow the logic. It's not difficult.

A supernova shines by its own light -- that is, it's not visible through reflected light. Therefore, as you have explicitly stated, a camera should not be able to photograph the supernova until its light arrives, while the human eye should be able to see the supernova the instant it occurs.

By your own logic, this inescapably leads to the conclusion that a supernova should be clearly visible to a human yet un-photographable for a minimum of several decades.

Remember; a supernova is a brief event. It begins to fade within days or even hours. Since it's literally the explosion of a star, it can no more persist or repeat than can an exploding bomb.

No Lone, I'm not saying that. It is an inescapable observation that if a camera can take a picture of a supernova (however brief it is), that means there is enough light present for the camera to be able to do this. Therefore, we can also see the image because it is obviously bright enough. If the light hadn't reached us yet, how could a camera take a picture of it?

Why are there different theories then Lone Ranger? A heart pumping blood is not the same thing. Transduction involves converting one type of energy (e.g. light) into another type of energy (e.g. action potential). All you're doing is restating the very premise that is being disputed. The part in bold is a theory, yet it is accepted as fact.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

No, that photoreceptors transduce light is not a theory, it's an established fact; it's every bit as well-established and indisputable as is the fact that the heart is a muscular organ that pumps blood. It's an outright lie to claim that this is in any way unresolved or that there are "different theories" [name one!] regarding phototransduction by retinal photoreceptors. Heck, not only do we know that photoreceptors transduce light, we know how they do it right down to the level of the individual molecules involved.

You could easily verify this for yourself with a little effort.

Oh wait, I almost forgot: you've already said -- repeatedly -- that you have no intention of doing so.

There is nothing in the present model of sight that you find disputable, so your saying it's a fact is nothing more than an acknowledgement that you agree with the theory. I have been reading a lot about the anatomy of sight, and will continue to do so. But remember that all the explanations given in this model are based on the presumption that sight is afferent.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I reject Lessans assertions based on their being nonsensical, untested, incomplete, and not even explained very well.

(emphasis added)

It's not even that. Many of Lessans' claims have been tested -- repeatedly and very thoroughly. It's not as if we haven't thoroughly tested whether or not retinal cells transduce light, for example, or the claim that we can see in real time.

The problem is that the tests unequivocally falsify Lessans' claims, and in no uncertain terms.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Are you seriously suggesting that different parts of the Universe are different ages? And that, for some reason, we just happen to live in the oldest part of it? And that it gets younger -- in every direction -- as you move away from the Earth?

No, I"m not saying that. I'm saying that if light was carrying the information, we would be seeing different time frames coming from the past. We might see Columbus discovering America on the planet Rigel, while on another planet, we might a scene coming from the Victorian era. I'm just using these as examples of what would be occurring if the images were in the light itself.

I don't see the relationship between the age of a galaxy and Lessans' <theory> of sight unless, as a young galaxy, it is not bright enough, or has not grown to the immense size it needs to be in order to be seen.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Younger galaxies are typically larger and brighter than are older galaxies. Yet as we look out into space, the farther away a galaxy is, the younger it looks.

That's not what I just read and posted. They said older galaxies are the brightest. Regardless, if sight is efferent, then we are not seeing old light, so to speak. We are seeing the present. As much as you hate me saying this, this is what is in question; whether we're seeing the past or whether we're seeing the present.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Because, of course, we're not seeing it in real time; we're seeing it as it looked when the light we're seeing left the galaxy in question.

That is what is being debated Lone. The fact that you say we're seeing it as it looked when the light left the galaxy in question is just a repetition of the premise; it's not proof.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Just FYI, you should probably stop quoting things that you don't understand and that don't in any way support your claims. It's just embarrassing.

I think we've said enough for one day then. You'll just get angrier and angrier and start calling me names.

[LadyShea]

Duplicate

[LadyShea]

We might see Columbus discovering America on the planet Rigel

I have no idea where Lessans came up with that example, but you really should stop using it and even edit it from the book as it is absolutely a strawman. Nobody thinks we would see Columbus discovering America from Rigel.

Why you might ask? Because Rigel is somewhere between 700 and 900 light years from Earth and Columbus landed in the Americas less than 600 years ago.

Also Rigel is a star not a planet

while on another planet, we might see cowboys and Indians fighting

They might, provided the planet is ~170 light years away

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Lone, I'm not saying that. It is an inescapable observation that if a camera can take a picture of a supernova (however brief it is), that means there is enough light present for the camera to be able to do this. Therefore, we can also see the image because it is obviously bright enough. If the light hadn't reached us yet, how could a camera take a picture of it?

So now you're saying that we can't see the supernova as it happens? That our eyes have to wait for the light from the supernova to reach us, just as a camera does?

There is nothing in the present model of sight that you find disputable, so your saying it's a fact is nothing more than an acknowledgement that you agree with the theory.

You're being very dishonest here. Nobody ever claimed that there are things that we don't yet know about how we see. The specific issue you had raised was whether or not photoreceptors transduce light.

And that is not in any way theoretical. It's an established fact that they do, and we understand how they do it in great detail. Because we've tested and observed the process.

I have been reading a lot about the anatomy of sight, and will continue to do so.

Absolutely nothing that you have written to date suggests that this is true. In any event, your main concern is with the physiology of sight, not the anatomy. Would it kill you to at least learn the proper terminology? (Though in fairness, the anatomy of the eye would have to be very different for vision to work the way that you claim it does.)

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have no idea where Lessans came up with that example, buit you really should stop using it and even edit it from the book as it is absolutely a strawman because nobody thinks we would see Columbus discovering America from Rigel.

Why you might ask? Because Rigel is somewhere between 700 and 900 light years from Earth and Columbus landed in the Americas less than 600 years ago.

Through careful observation, Lessans determined that Rigel is really ~470 light years away.

Even if it's a mistake, it's by far one of the more tolerable ones. After all, even if the timing is inaccurate, we can easily understand what he's saying in that example. It's an island of clarity in the book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

(emphasis added)

It's not even that. Many of Lessans' claims have been tested -- repeatedly and very thoroughly. It's not as if we haven't thoroughly tested whether or not retinal cells transduce light, for example, or the claim that we can see in real time.

The problem is that the tests unequivocally falsify Lessans' claims, and in no uncertain terms.

One more quick answer. You cannot use the tests that have been done because no one has challenged afferent vision, so the tests would only confirm other theories that could be wrong as well. New independent tests must be done to prove, one way or another, who is right. The fact that you say the tests have been done worries me, because they have not been done to my satisfaction. Even the one test where dogs pushed a lever when they recognized their handler meant nothing as far as I'm concerned because the test was unreliable.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not what I just read and posted. They said older galaxies are the brightest. Regardless, if sight is efferent, then we are not seeing old light, so to speak.

Like I said, you should probably avoid quoting articles that you don't understand. The article you quoted was describing the differences between Population I and Population II stars, not arguing that mature galaxies as a whole are brighter than younger ones. 5 minutes with any decent astronomy textbook would have helped you to avoid such an embarrassing display.