A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Now you are confusing brightness with resolution, But never said we could read the date on the coin at a great distance, however with enough light on the coin we can see the point of light. The brighter the light the farther away we can see the point of light.

That doesn't even make sense. What point of light are you talking about?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not blaming anyone. I'm asking a damn question. So, according to you (Mr. know it all), I can't even ask questions now?

That's interesting. Do you think that if you ask a reasonable question you actually deserve an answer? Hmm?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not blaming anyone. I'm asking a damn question. So, according to you (Mr. know it all), I can't even ask questions now?

You are doing your damnedest to disprove the statement that "there is no such thing as a dumb question". I didn't say you couldn't ask a question, I would just ask that you give the question some thought before asking it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not blaming anyone. I'm asking a damn question. So, according to you (Mr. know it all), I can't even ask questions now?

This has been answered several times in this thread, it's not our fault that you have failed to recognize or comprehend the answer.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That doesn't even make sense. What point of light are you talking about?

The point of light that is reflected from the nickle, that is a great distance away, and too small to reflect anything but a point of light. It would make sense if you were able to follow an argument, instead of having your brain scrambled by your fathers book. Or you are being deliberately obtuse about any explanation and answers to your objections, in other words, willfully ignorant. You intentionally deny understanding just to frustrate those who are trying to help you understand, in the hopes that they will give up and let your falsehoods stand unchallenged. Lying, especially when exposed, doesn't help to sell books.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

The point of light that is reflected from the nickle, that is a great distance away, and too small to reflect anything but a point of light.

And what happens when the nickel is too far away to reflect a point of light, no matter how much light is present? What you're saying still doesn't make sense.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And what happens when the nickel is too far away to reflect a point of light, no matter how much light is present?

How far away is that?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

How far away is that?

Far enough to be out of your visual range. You can shine light all you want, but if the nickel is too far away from your ability to see it, there is no amount of light that is going to give you a point of light. Geeezzzeeeee, what is it you're not getting?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Far enough to be out of your visual range. You can shine light all you want, but if the nickel is too far away from your ability to see it, there is no amount of light that is going to give you a point of light. what is it you're not getting?

What is the distance, (in whatever unit you choose), that we will no longer be able to see the point of light from the nickle? If you are incapable of understanding the question, I'll try to restate it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

And if you shine a really bright light on it, you see it, no matter how big the distance is.

Unfortunately there will be a point where you are shinning enough light on the nickle, that the energy from the light that is absorbed, will vaporize the nickle. Before that it will become incandescent and melt. Think of burning something with a magnifying glass, you are just focusing the light and heat from the Sun onto a small spot. Light has it's own energy and usually includes heat energy.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Far enough to be out of your visual range. You can shine light all you want, but if the nickel is too far away from your ability to see it, there is no amount of light that is going to give you a point of light. Geeezzzeeeee, what is it you're not getting?

No, I get it. You're making stuff up and you are contradicting the laws of physics because you have no idea what you are talking about, as usual.

Again, there is no "too far away to be seen". There is no such thing.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Far enough to be out of your visual range. You can shine light all you want, but if the nickel is too far away from your ability to see it, there is no amount of light that is going to give you a point of light. Geeezzzeeeee, what is it you're not getting?

By the same token, if something is too far away for us to understand because it is outside of understandable range, then we can't understand it!

PG you are getting a little bit confused by your own strange definitions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

What is the distance, (in whatever unit you choose), that we will no longer be able to see the point of light from the nickle? If you are incapable of understanding the question, I'll try to restate it.

Let's try this again. Sight involves the size (one unit) and brightness (another unit) of the object in relation to the observer. Brightness has no effect if the object is too small (or too distant) to be within the observer's optical range. That means light alone can do nothing to give the observer resolution.

[Spacemonkey]

Let's try this again.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

This post in every way nullifies the efferent non-model of sight.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

By the same token, if something is too far away for us to understand because it is outside of understandable range, then we can't understand it!

PG you are getting a little bit confused by your own strange definitions.

That is true. We all have different capacities. Some people can't understand what others can. But that does not mean my definition is circular like you're making it out to be.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

No, I get it. You're making stuff up and you are contradicting the laws of physics because you have no idea what you are talking about, as usual.

Again, there is no "too far away to be seen". There is no such thing.

Of course there is. All you have to do is walk three blocks away from where I am standing, and as you get further and further away, you become smaller and smaller until you are out of my optical range and there is no resolution on my retina whereby I can see you, not even a speck of you.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is true. We all have different capacities. Some people can't understand what others can. But that does not mean my definition is circular like you're making it out to be.

It is the way you keep defining it. Plus, we still do not know what exactly is being resolved and how! We know what "resolution" means in terms of normal vision. I have no idea what it means according to you - what exactly needs to happen for it to work?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is the way you keep defining it. Plus, we still do not know what exactly is being resolved and how! We know what "resolution" means in terms of normal vision. I have no idea what it means according to you - what exactly needs to happen for it to work?

The way I am defining it is accurate because it's based on observation (reality). What do you mean "what exactly needs to happen?" Nothing needs to happen other than what DOES happen when we see an object, or don't see it, which has everything to do with size of the object in relation to the observer. How bright the light is has no effect on objects that are too small to see (whether they are too far away or incapable of being seen with the naked eye because of their small size relative to the observer).

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The way I am defining it is accurate because it's based on observation (reality). What do you mean "what exactly needs to happen?" Nothing needs to happen other than what DOES happen when we see an object, or don't see it, which has everything to do with size of the object in relation to the observer. How bright the light is has no effect on objects that are too small to see (whether they are too far away or incapable of being seen with the naked eye because of their small size relative to the observer).

Can we see stars?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Can we see stars?

Yes, because they are large enough to be seen either with a naked eye or with a telescope. Lessans was right. His observations were spot on even though you hate that he disputes what science believes is fact. It makes me very sad.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Let's try this again. Sight involves the size (one unit) and brightness (another unit) of the object in relation to the observer. Brightness has no effect if the object is too small (or too distant) to be within the observer's optical range. That means light alone can do nothing to give the observer resolution.

Size is not a unit, brightness is not a unit, size and brightness are factors in vision but not units of distance. You are being intentionally obtuse, and willfully ignorant, so once an idea has been adequately explained there will be no more consideration of your comments, because you are not sincerely asking a question, it's just a dodge to avoid giving a straight answer. When you say you don't understand, you are just lying again, as you have been doing all along.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Size is not a unit, brightness is not a unit, size and brightness are factors in vision but not units of distance. You are being intentionally obtuse, and willfully ignorant, so once an idea has been adequately explained there will be no more consideration of your comments, because you are not sincerely asking a question, it's just a dodge to avoid giving a straight answer. When you say you don't understand, you are just lying again, as you have been doing all along.

There's nothing I can add other than you are the quintessential jerk of all time! Really truly, I mean this. You have no depth to you at all. You just go along with the crowd and use this to puff yourself up. Like I said, I wish we had never met, but God has his own reasons, so I stay grounded in that truth.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Like I said, I wish we had never met, but God has his own reasons, so I stay grounded in that truth.

Yes, and the reason is that I will present the truth, that your mind will open just a bit, you will let go of your willful ignorance, and accept the truth of reality. Once you are grounded in that, you can let go of Lessans nonsense.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I wish we had never met.

Is that another lie?

I attended my grandson's 2nd band concert last evening, it was the combine elementary band from the district 123 members. He played my old Cornet in a trumpet section of 32 kids.

I bought a Trumpet last June, a silver plated American Standard just like the Cornet, and when we get good enough, we'll start playing duets.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, because they are large enough to be seen either with a naked eye or with a telescope. Lessans was right. His observations were spot on even though you hate that he disputes what science believes is fact. It makes me very sad.

You have it exactly backwards. It has nothing to do with the size, all that matters is the amount of light. Let me give you an example:

Betelgeuse is one of the most visible stars in the sky (List of stars with resolved images - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Its angular diameter is 50 milliarcseconds. That's the same size as your nickel (diameter 21.21 mm) at a distance of 87 kilometers or 54 miles. That's a bit more than three blocks.

Or take Regulus, another easily visible star: Its angular diameter is 1.24 milliarcseconds, that's the same as the nickel at a distance of 3500 kilometers or 2200 miles.