A revolution in thought

[But]

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.

No, it wouldn't be outside of our field of view. Get used to what the expression "field of view" actually means. Read the link above.

How much smaller would it have to be? Numbers please.

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 no "efferent model". You can't even formulate coherent ideas or answer the simplest questions without contradicting yourself.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How does your comment nullify the efferent model?

peacegirl, can the efferent model be nullified, or shown to be false? In other words, is it falsifiable? Can you give us an example of a test of the so-called "efferent model" that could be conducted, and a result that would result in the nullification of the "efferent model"? If not, why not?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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?

Regulus has an apparent magnitude of 1.35 and the faintest object visible to the naked eye has a magnitude of about 3.5 Just for reference the Sun from Earth has a magnitude of -26.74. So Regulus would need to be a lot smaller to not be visible, you are wrong in saying that if Regulus were smaller it would not be visible. Apparent magnitude is what is important with stars, so Regulus could be a lot smaller but brighter and still be visible, the amount of light produced is more important than size.

FYI, field of view usually is similar to line of sight, so Regulus would continue to be in our line of sight, or our field of view, even if it were smaller. It would be helpful if you would learn to post in English.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

peacegirl, can the efferent model be nullified, or shown to be false? In other words, is it falsifiable? Can you give us an example of a test of the so-called "efferent model" that could be conducted, and a result that would result in the nullification of the "efferent model"? If not, why not?

Can Peacegirl propose an experiment that would confirm Lessans version of efferent vision?

[But]

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.

1. You're completely wrong again

2. It's a lot more complicated. Look at those tables.

Photometry (optics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You could try to find out what you mean by "brightness". Luminance? Radiant intensity? Radiance? Flux?

You're not going to get anywhere as long as you keep talking in terms of kindergarten shit.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

1. You're completely wrong again

2. It's a lot more complicated. Look at those tables.

Photometry (optics) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You could try to find out what you mean by "brightness". Luminance? Radiant intensity? Radiance? Flux?

You're not going to get anywhere as long as you keep talking in terms of kindergarten shit.

I'm guessing that Peacegirl doesn't know anything above a kindergarten level, her degree was in elementary education so she didn't have an opportunity to learn anything more sophisticated. And her father probably only supplied her with cookbooks and sex manuals to read, as that was her proper role, according to him, as a servant to her man.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I'm guessing that Peacegirl doesn't know anything above a kindergarten level, her degree was in elementary education so she didn't have an opportunity to learn anything more sophisticated. And her father probably only supplied her with cookbooks and sex manuals to read, as that was her proper role, according to him, as a servant to her man.

Either you have no understanding of the book, or you're lying through your teeth.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

No, it wouldn't be outside of our field of view. Get used to what the expression "field of view" actually means. Read the link above.

How much smaller would it have to be? Numbers please.

I don't need to offer numbers. In this account, we can either see an object, or we can't. If we cannot, the object is outside of our visual field.

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?

Originally Posted by But

There is no "efferent model". You can't even formulate coherent ideas or answer the simplest questions without contradicting yourself.

Then you didn't read the chapter that I posted. You are basing your questions on the belief that light itself has contained within it the information that is then transmitted to the eyes and brain. That is the present day theory. You cannot start out with the very premise that is being contested.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

peacegirl, can the efferent model be nullified, or shown to be false? In other words, is it falsifiable? Can you give us an example of a test of the so-called "efferent model" that could be conducted, and a result that would result in the nullification of the "efferent model"? If not, why not?

One of the examples he gave was that a vicious dog, having no cues to identify other than sight, would not be able to recognize his master and would attack. If he recognized his master and began wagging his tail, that would be indicative that the eyes are afferent. That's just one way that this account could be falsified. There are others.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Regulus has an apparent magnitude of 1.35 and the faintest object visible to the naked eye has a magnitude of about 3.5 Just for reference the Sun from Earth has a magnitude of -26.74. So Regulus would need to be a lot smaller to not be visible, you are wrong in saying that if Regulus were smaller it would not be visible. Apparent magnitude is what is important with stars, so Regulus could be a lot smaller but brighter and still be visible, the amount of light produced is more important than size.

FYI, field of view usually is similar to line of sight, so Regulus would continue to be in our line of sight, or our field of view, even if it were smaller. It would be helpful if you would learn to post in English.

Brightness or luminosity is a requirement, which has been repeatedly mentioned, but so is size. No matter how bright an object is, if it's too far away, we would not get an image. All you're doing is basing your ideas on the very thing that is being argued. Good work doc.

[Vivisectus]

Don't forget to tell chuck about the levers. Vital that is we test dog sight, no levers are involved.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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?

Hmm you seem to have missed this, PG

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Don't forget to tell chuck about the levers. Vital that is we test dog sight, no levers are involved.

You're really not helping the situation Vivisectus! No levers, no training, no positive or negative reinforcement. Just a clean experiment by removing all sense experience, other than sight, to see what a vicious dog would do when seeing his master enter their property.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No matter how bright an object is, if it's too far away, we would not get an image.

No matter how far away an object is or how bright it is, if we spend enough time pointing a telescope at it, we will get an image.

You keep making statements that are flat out wrong. We know they're wrong. Go read a book.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're really not helping the situation Vivisectus! No levers, no training, no positive or negative reinforcement. Just a clean experiment by removing all sense experience, other than sight, to see what a vicious dog would do when seeing his master enter their property.

No, we covered this. We did this exact experiment, in fact. You said "ah it was probably just her masters gait she recognized or something". Remember? The dogs behind glass where they could not hear or smell anyone, and they don't bark but wag their tails in stead?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Hmm you seem to have missed this, PG

It is true that we would not be able to decipher apparent size from the real size from just looking at an object unless we had other facts. The moon could look the same size as the Sun and only our ability to measure distance would we be able to calculate the actual (not apparent) size of these celestial bodies. We would not be able to see a nickel because it would be out of our visual field, and no amount of luminosity would help in that situation.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, we covered this. We did this exact experiment, in fact. You said "ah it was probably just her masters gait she recognized or something". Remember? The dogs behind glass where they could not hear or smell anyone, and they don't bark but wag their tails in stead?

The experiment was never done the way Lessans described. There was no exact experiment. Dogs can recognize patterns. So can rats if they are trained. That is not the same thing as identifying facial features which require the ability to take a photograph of particular features and associate them with their master's name.

Watch What This Rat Does When He Hears His Owner Sneeze. Amazing! | VIRALVO

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

No matter how far away an object is or how bright it is, if we spend enough time pointing a telescope at it, we will get an image.

You keep making statements that are flat out wrong. We know they're wrong. Go read a book.

If an object cannot be seen by the naked eye but can be seen by a telescope, then magnification would help. If an object was beyond the field of view of the most powerful telescope, nothing would show up. Until an object comes into view because it is close enough or large enough to be within our visual range (whether by a telescope or the naked eye), all of the light in the world would show no image at all.

[Vivisectus]

[quote=peacegirl;1255289]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Hmm you seem to have missed this, PG

It is true that we would not be able to decipher apparent size from the real size from just looking at an object unless we had other facts. The moon could look the same size as the Sun and only our ability to measure distance would we be able to calculate the actual (not apparent) size of these celestial bodies.

None of which is to the point. At all.

We would not be able to see a nickel because it would be out of our visual field, and no amount of luminosity would help in that situation.

And yet we CAN see that star which is the same apparent size as the apparent size of a nickel at that distance. So it is not the apparent size that matters at all!

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will ask this again: How can we point a telescope at an object that is out of our visual field? If you are three blocks away, I can't see you until you are close enough to me, which is one block away (hypothetically). Until an object comes into view because it is close enough or large enough to be seen whether by a telescope or the naked eye, all of the light in the world would show no image at all.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Don't forget to tell chuck about the levers. Vital that is we test dog sight, no levers are involved.

Especially imaginary levers. Those are the absolute worst!

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Until an object comes into view because it is close enough or large enough to be within our visual range (whether by a telescope or the naked eye), all of the light in the world would show no image at all.

And yet you're flat out wrong. Go crack open a science book. Plenty of man-made detectors are sensitive to very photons arriving over long time periods. Plenty of evolved detectors (e.g. the human retina!) can detect single photons, though I don't know any that do longterm time integration.

How can we possibly take this sort of willful ignorance with anything other than contempt? You're utterly wrong on this point, and you refuse to go look up in a book how basic optics works.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't need to offer numbers. In this account, we can either see an object, or we can't. If we cannot, the object is outside of our visual field.

You still don't understand what "field of view" or "visual field" means, do you? And if your "account" can't give numbers, it's absolutely useless.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And yet we CAN see that star which is the same apparent size as the apparent size of a nickel at that distance. So it is not the apparent size that matters at all!

But does the dog wag its tail when it sees the star and/or nickel? This is the key point, as it usually is in physics.

[Vivisectus]

That depends if the non-absorbed photon is at the Dogs retina at the same time it is at the object, which it is in the Efferent account if the object is within our field of view.