A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

I can only hope that someday someone will reach that spark of rationality that I hope is still present in your mind, and that you will wake up to reality.

Peacegirl,

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wXcdYBh3hgg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UKxa13-eNsY

[Vivisectus]

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.

I cannot wait to see this explained in terms of visual range and field of view.

[peacegirl]

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.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I cannot wait to see this explained in terms of visual range and field of view.

It's exactly as I said. If the star is easily seen, it is within our field of view, or the telescope. If it traveled farther away, we would not see it. Do you get this, or is it too hard to take because it contravenes your intuitions and your desire to find things that aren't there.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's exactly as I said. If the star is easily seen, it is within our field of view, or the telescope. If it traveled farther away, we would not see it. Do you get this, or is it too hard to take because it contravenes your intuitions and your desire to find things that aren't there.

You said that a person cannot be seen anymore when they move more than three blocks away. You also said that if an object is "outside visual range", it doesn't matter how much light we shine on it.

Regulus is a star that can easily be seen with the naked eye, and it's the same apparent size as a nickel at a distance of three thousand five hundred kilometers or two thousand two hundred miles.

Don't you understand that what you are saying makes no sense at all?

Just kidding, of course you don't.

[Vivisectus]

[quote=peacegirl;1255119]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Exactly.

It's exactly as I said. If the star is easily seen, it is within our field of view, or the telescope. If it traveled farther away, we would not see it. Do you get this, or is it too hard to take because it contravenes your intuitions and your desire to find things that aren't there.

Right - so if it is visible, then it is within that distance within which something is visible!

So how do we calculate the field of view? How does it work, efferently speaking?

[thedoc]

[quote=peacegirl;1255119]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Exactly.

I have encountered people like this before who will say one thing one time and then when confronted by an accepted authority will change sides and claim that it was their position all along.

when I was in college taking a basic electricity class, another student and I got into a discussion, in the dorm, about a circuit. I made one statement about the circuit and the other student took a different position. We confronted the professor the next class and I laid out my version of what would happen with the circuit and when the professor confirmed that it was the correct interpretation, the other student quickly spoke up and claimed that it was what he had said. I simply stopped talking, thanked the professor, and walked away, I also didn't have anything to do with the other student after that. I have no desire to associate with people who lie, but I have made an exception for Peacegirl, for her entertainment value.

[thedoc]

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.

I believe that because the Hubble telescope has observed galaxies that are just about 13.7 billion light years away (as long as the Universe has existed, and the length of time light has had to travel to us), demonstrates that there is no "to far away to be seen" within the observable universe, and it also proves that we see by afferent vision. If we could see by Lessans version of efferent vision we should be able to see galaxies beyond the 13.7 billion light year limit, but we can't because the light from those galaxies has not had time to travel here yet, they are not "too far away to be seen" just the universe has not existed long enough for the light to get here.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

You said that a person cannot be seen anymore when they move more than three blocks away.

I did not say that.

Originally Posted by But"

You also said that if an object is "outside visual range", it doesn't matter how much light we shine on it.

I said no matter how much light is present. How can you shine light on an object you can't see. Please stop misquoting me.

Originally Posted by But

Regulus is a star that can easily be seen with the naked eye, and it's the same apparent size as a nickel at a distance of three thousand five hundred kilometers or two thousand two hundred miles.

Don't you understand that what you are saying makes no sense at all?

Just kidding, of course you don't.

Right, because this star is huge in comparison to a nickel. Don't you understand what you are saying makes no sense at all?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

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.

That makes complete sense according to what Lessans wrote:

The actual reason we are able to see the moon is because there is enough
light present and it is large enough to be seen. The explanation as to
why the sun looks to be the size of the moon — although much larger
— is because it is much much farther away, which is the reason it
would look like a star to someone living on a planet the distance of
Rigel.

[Vivisectus]

So we can see the moon because we can see the moon! Truly, a breakthrough. Has anyone told NASA?

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can you shine light on an object you can't see.

By pointing a light at it?

[Vivisectus]

I said no matter how much light is present. How can you shine light on an object you can't see. Please stop misquoting me.

This will join the list of gloriously weird things Peacegirl has said. If something is too far to see, you cannot see it, nomatter how much light you shine on it, because how can you shine a light on something you can't see?

Awesomely

100 internets to But.

Right, because this star is huge in comparison to a nickel. Don't you understand what you are saying makes no sense at all?

And this one comes a close second.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So we can see the moon because we can see the moon! Truly, a breakthrough. Has anyone told NASA?

We can see the nickel (the same goes for the moon) because it is within the observer's field of view. If you can't understand what I'm saying here, there's no hope.

[peacegirl]

duplicate

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

duplicate

So your posts are twice as stupid as everyone thinks they are?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That makes complete sense according to what Lessans wrote:

The actual reason we are able to see the moon is because there is enough
light present and it is large enough to be seen. The explanation as to
why the sun looks to be the size of the moon — although much larger
— is because it is much much farther away, which is the reason it
would look like a star to someone living on a planet the distance of
Rigel.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Right, because this star is huge in comparison to a nickel. Don't you understand what you are saying makes no sense at all?

Peacegirl, This makes sense according to Lessans, but you said it made no sense to you. That only confirms what I have been saying, that you don't understand Lessans book at all.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We can see the nickel (the same goes for the moon) because it is within the observer's field of view. If you can't understand what I'm saying here, there's no hope.

And it is in our field of view when it is in our visual range, which is when it is large enough (and bright enough) to be seen!

What could be simpler?

It can be seen, when it can be seen, which happens whenever it is visible!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I can only hope that someday someone will reach that spark of rationality that I hope is still present in your mind, and that you will wake up to reality.

Peacegirl,

Evanescence - Wake me up Inside [Lyrics] - YouTube

Liz - Bring Me To Life (The Voice Kids 2015: The Blind Auditions) - YouTube

Aliki Chrysochou - Bring Me To Life (Wake me up inside) Britain's Got Talent - YouTube

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

By pointing a light at it?

Aha! You have fallen for Lessan's undeniable mathematical trap, Chuck - how would you know where to shine the light it if you can't see it?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's exactly as I said. If the star is easily seen, it is within our field of view, or the telescope. If it traveled farther away, we would not see it. Do you get this, or is it too hard to take because it contravenes your intuitions and your desire to find things that aren't there.

You're misusing words.
Field of view - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not say that.

I said no matter how much light is present. How can you shine light on an object you can't see. Please stop misquoting me.

Right, because this star is huge in comparison to a nickel. Don't you understand what you are saying makes no sense at all?

A nickel at 3500 kilometers or 2200 miles away should qualify as out of "visual range", shouldn't it? You said if it's out of "visual range", it doesn't matter "how much light is present".

In the book, the Moon and the Sun are given as an example. They have almost the same apparent size or angular diameter. That's what your Dad meant but of course he had no idea what those things are called or how the mathematics works.

Regulus appears as big as a nickel 3500 kilometers or 2200 miles away. If you can't see the nickel, you shouldn't be able to see the star, no matter how much light is present, right?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's exactly as I said. If the star is easily seen, it is within our field of view, or the telescope. If it traveled farther away, we would not see it. Do you get this, or is it too hard to take because it contravenes your intuitions and your desire to find things that aren't there.

There are times when I am very upset with Peacegirl's being intentionally obtuse and her willful ignorance, but then at other times I feel sorry for her in her decent into the fantasy and denial of reality that is her fathers book. I would gladly give up the amusement of her posts in defense of her father's ideas, for the news that she has come to her senses and finally grasped reality.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And it is in our field of view when it is in our visual range, which is when it is large enough (and bright enough) to be seen!

What could be simpler?

It can be seen, when it can be seen, which happens whenever it is visible!

Sometimes the simplest explanations are the right explanations.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

You're misusing words.
Field of view - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A nickel at 3500 kilometers or 2200 miles away should qualify as out of "visual range", shouldn't it? You said if it's out of "visual range", it doesn't matter "how much light is present".

In the book, the Moon and the Sun are given as an example. They have almost the same apparent size or angular diameter. That's what your Dad meant but of course he had no idea what those things are called or how the mathetamics works.

Regulus appears as big as a nickel 3500 kilometers or 2200 miles away. If you can't see the nickel, you shouldn't be able to see the star, no matter how much light is present, right?

Why not? Regulus is large enough that it can be seen. If it was smaller, it wouldn't be seen because it would be out of our field of view. If it was closer, it would appear as large as a quarter or maybe a half dollar. How does your comment nullify the efferent model?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sometimes the simplest explanations are the right explanations.

However, the same does not go for explanations by the simple.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why not? Regulus is large enough that it can be seen. If it was smaller, it wouldn't be seen because it would be out of our field of view. If it was closer, it would appear as large as a quarter or maybe a half dollar. How does your comment nullify the efferent model?

There is a nickel. It is 2200 miles away. It's apparent size is now the same as Regulus, thousands of lightyears away.

Thus, the apparent size is not an issue when visibility is concerned: we can see Regulus. So the apperent size of the nickel isn't either: we can see things with that small an apparent size!

Does that help, PG?