|
|
03-30-2016, 02:57 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
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
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Last edited by thedoc; 03-30-2016 at 07:51 PM.
|
03-30-2016, 03:04 PM
|
|
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
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.
|
03-30-2016, 03:27 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Last edited by peacegirl; 03-30-2016 at 06:39 PM.
|
03-30-2016, 03:33 PM
|
|
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
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.
|
03-30-2016, 03:46 PM
|
|
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
[quote=peacegirl;1255119]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
|
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?
|
03-30-2016, 04:05 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
[quote=peacegirl;1255119]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
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.
|
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.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
|
03-30-2016, 04:24 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by But
Quote:
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?
|
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.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
|
03-30-2016, 06:29 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by But
Quote:
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.
|
I did not say that.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
|
03-30-2016, 06:38 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by But
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by But
Quote:
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?
|
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.
|
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.
|
03-30-2016, 07:01 PM
|
|
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
So we can see the moon because we can see the moon! Truly, a breakthrough. Has anyone told NASA?
|
03-30-2016, 07:03 PM
|
|
liar in wolf's clothing
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
How can you shine light on an object you can't see.
|
By pointing a light at it?
|
03-30-2016, 07:07 PM
|
|
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Quote:
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.
|
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.
Quote:
Quote:
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?
|
And this one comes a close second.
|
03-30-2016, 07:13 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
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.
|
03-30-2016, 07:15 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
duplicate
|
03-30-2016, 07:30 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
duplicate
|
So your posts are twice as stupid as everyone thinks they are?
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
|
03-30-2016, 07:40 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by But
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.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
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, 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.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
|
03-30-2016, 07:47 PM
|
|
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
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.
|
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!
|
03-30-2016, 07:53 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
|
03-30-2016, 07:54 PM
|
|
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
How can you shine light on an object you can't see.
|
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?
|
03-30-2016, 07:58 PM
|
|
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
You said that a person cannot be seen anymore when they move more than three blocks away.
|
I did not say that.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
|
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?
Last edited by But; 03-30-2016 at 09:26 PM.
Reason: typo
|
03-30-2016, 08:22 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
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.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
|
03-30-2016, 08:36 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
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.
|
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.
|
03-30-2016, 08:42 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by But
Quote:
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
You said that a person cannot be seen anymore when they move more than three blocks away.
|
I did not say that.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
|
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?
|
03-30-2016, 09:03 PM
|
|
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
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.
|
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.
|
However, the same does not go for explanations by the simple.
|
03-30-2016, 09:11 PM
|
|
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by But
Quote:
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
You said that a person cannot be seen anymore when they move more than three blocks away.
|
I did not say that.
Quote:
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.
Quote:
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?
|
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?
|
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?
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 15 (0 members and 15 guests)
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:37 AM.
|
|
|
|