A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[davidm]

"The emitted photons would just get brighter."

Nice! How do photons get brighter, peacegirl? Do share! All photons are exactly alike and their properties do not change.

Just what do you think "brightness" means, peacegirl?

You are a never-ending source of amusement, just like Lessans: a chip off the old blockhead, as I've said.

We have seen supernova in the sky that changes from, nothing visible in the sky, to great big light visible in the sky. Those photons arrived concurrently with the light, and not hundreds of years later, as Lessans' model would have it. So Lessans is wrong.

[davidm]

Also, peacegirl, you have changed your story again. Now you're saying we CAN see supernovae five hundred light years distant? Recall that you said such objects would be too far away to be seen.

Here are two questions for you:

1. How big do you think the observable universe is, peacegirl?

2. What do you think the phrase "observable universe" means? I linked you to a discussion of this, oh, months and months ago! Did you, heaven forfend, fail to read it?

Once you know what the phrase "observable universe" means, you will know yet another disproof of Lessans' claims!

Of course, you won't know anything at all!

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your analogy is the same as saying we don't see rising water during a river flood because there is more water coming into the river, but because the existing water that is already there is getting bigger.

I doubt her comprehension of what she wrote is that cogent.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Actually the book does not really cover how he came to his conclusions, as far as I can tell. The only things that come anywhere near a reason to believe there must be something else going on is a) common contemporary notions about baby sight, on which tests have been done that the scientific community considers sufficient to now consider a misconception, and b) dog sight, for which the same applies.

I realize you do not agree, but I am afraid you are a tiny minority, and one who has no expertise in the field whatsoever. Anyone who DOES have expertise agrees that babies can indeed see faces and can even mimic them, right from the get-go, and that facial recognition seems to be hard-wired into the brain. They also agree that dogs can recognize faces too, and that they are in fact amazingly good at it for a non-simian species. The balance of evidence lies squarely outside of Lessans position.

I think it just fitted into his system, which is why he went looking for anything that supported an idea he already had. You said it matched his ideas about reincarnation, and that this is why the idea could not simply be abandoned? I certainly see no reason in the book you shared online to hang on to it. It has precious little to do with the rest of his system, and frankly it makes both you and him look very ignorant.

Unless I am wrong and he presented any evidence why it is necessarily his version of sight that must be correct? Other than dog- and baby sight, that is? It would be helpful to understand why you consistently deny all evidence against the efferent sight idea, why it is so important not to change it. I see no reason in the book that you shared to hang on to it: simply go from "beauty" as a projected word on to a screen of undeniable essence (or something like it... I forget the exact phrase used) to "beauty" as values projected unto what we actually see, and you do away with any and all problems - in the book as you shared it.

What exactly is the connection between sight and your fathers ideas about reincarnation that make this idea so vital?

If I may offer my thoughts on this, it seems that Peacegirl sees Lessans as infailable and so everything in the book must be accepted as is. The book becomes the dogma and all the ideas presented must be accepted as articles of faith, accepted without question. The very act of questioning anything in the book is an afront and an insult to Lessans and Peacegirl and demonstrates a lack of faith. It could be that Peacegirl sees this whole ordeal as a test of her faith, and if she perseveres it will prove that her belief is true and strong, a sort of an 'internet hair shirt'. We are, in fact, helping her to prove the strength of her faith in Lessans.

[davidm]

Hey, peacegirl, under Lessans' model, how is it possible that there is an observable universe? For an observable universe means that there is an unobservable universe -- impossible under Lessans' model.

For if Lessans were correct, ALL the universe would be observable, in real time! It's true that distant photons wouldn't have had time to reach us, as the linked article explains, under his model, but that wouldn't matter! We'd still see the source objects of the photons before the photons arrived at our eyes, just like we would see the sun turned on at noon even though the sun's photons would not arrive for eight and half minutes!

Instead, we don't see the source objects before their photons have time to meet our eyes. That is precisely why there is an observable universe, and an unobservable universe.

How, pray, does Lessans' model account for the unobservable universe, peacegirl? Assplain it to us! Our heads are about to assplode waiting on your every brilliant word!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you understand why? The emitted photons would just get brighter as we watched the explosion.

Do you understand anything about light? When light gets brighter it means that there are more photons ariving, the individual photons do not change. Photons do not change in frequency (color) or strength (brightness) as they travel. Are you trying to say that somehow the photons, that are already here from a supernova 500 light years away, can somehow multiply and become more of them in order to be brighter? You have already claimed that they can change color (frequency) do you even understand what this would mean, the photons would somehow need to be connected to the original object.

[davidm]

LOL. "Do you understand why?" coming out of peacegirl's mouth is just about the funniest single thing in this entire discussion!

[LadyShea]

RE: observable universe

In order to see efferently an "object" must be
1. Close enough
2. Bright enough
3. Big enough

Of course "enough" is never defined other than "if we can see it is enough, if we can't it is not enough"

So we are back to Lessans used a lot of words to say "If we see it then we can see it because we can see it. Also real time". There's really no other argument presented

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

LOL. "Do you understand why?" coming out of peacegirl's mouth is just about the funniest single thing in this entire discussion!

Yes, 'funny-sad'.

[davidm]

Yes, of course she'll repeat these mindless slogans, except in won't wash. In the case of the observable universe, MORE of it comes into view over time. This means the other heretofore "unobservable" part is by definition big enough and bright enough to be seen! Unfortunately for Lessans, it's only "big enough and bright enough to be seen" when its light finally reaches our eyes -- directly contradicting his model.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Do you understand anything about light?

Why would she understand anything about light? She has only had more than a thousand pages of people explaining it to her in the minutest detail. The Lone Ranger even wrote her a whole essay on light and sight, which she did not read. After all of this education we've given her, why would you expect someone like peacegirl to have absorbed any of it, still less to express thanks for the free gift of knowledge that we have given her?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Yes, of course she'll repeat these mindless slogans, except in won't wash. In the case of the observable universe, MORE of it comes into view over time. This means the other heretofore "unobservable" part is by definition big enough and bright enough to be seen! Unfortunately for Lessans, it's only "big enough and bright enough to be seen" when its light finally reaches our eyes -- directly contradicting his model.

There has been very little that has been presented on this thread (except some [not all] by Peacegirl) that does not contradict Lessans.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Why would she understand anything about light? She has only had more than a thousand pages of people explaining it to her in the minutest detail. The Lone Ranger even wrote her a whole essay on light and sight, which she did not read. After all of this education we've given her, why would you expect someone like peacegirl to have absorbed any of it, still less to express thanks for the free gift of knowledge that we have given her?

Well I, for one, do sincerely appreciate everyones efforts to educate Peacegirl because I have learned many things. So I will take this oportunity to say 'Thankyou' to everyone.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by davidm

Why would she understand anything about light? She has only had more than a thousand pages of people explaining it to her in the minutest detail. The Lone Ranger even wrote her a whole essay on light and sight, which she did not read. After all of this education we've given her, why would you expect someone like peacegirl to have absorbed any of it, still less to express thanks for the free gift of knowledge that we have given her?

Ofcourse, by now it should be abundantly clear, peacegirl has degenerated to little more than an obsession.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Ofcourse, by now it should be abundantly clear, peacegirl has degenerated to little more than an obsession.

That could apply to everyone on this thread.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Ofcourse, by now it should be abundantly clear, peacegirl has degenerated to little more than an obsession.

You lied when you said you were not going to post anymore. You are now on ignore for good.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

RE: observable universe

In order to see efferently an "object" must be
1. Close enough
2. Bright enough
3. Big enough

Of course "enough" is never defined other than "if we can see it is enough, if we can't it is not enough"

So we are back to Lessans used a lot of words to say "If we see it then we can see it because we can see it. Also real time". There's really no other argument presented

Obviously, if we see then we can see because we can see it. You are saying the same thing in so many words. If we couldn't see it, then obviously there would be nothing to discuss. That is why this discussion on the eyes is meaningless. The only way to solve this problem is for scientists to take Lessans' claims seriously and to do more empirical testing. There's really nothing more to say until further testing. I'm glad it's on record.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You lied when you said you were not going to post anymore. You are now on ignore for good.

Who are you putting on Pretend Ignore this time, Asshat? Me or N.A.? You quoted HIM, but I was the one who said I wasn't posting anymore!

And, speaking of people who say they won't post anymore, how many times have you lied, and said you were leaving?

Finally, putting me on Pretend Ignore won't do you any good, as others will simply point out the same devastating refutations to the nonsense of you and your Buffoon of a father, as I have done.

And, of course, you're not really putting anyone on Ignore. By your own admission, you crave negative attention.

Now then, what about the observable universe problem for The Buffoon's "theories"?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously, if we see then we can see because we can see it.

No shit, Sherlock!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey, peacegirl, under Lessans' model, how is it possible that there is an observable universe? For an observable universe means that there is an unobservable universe -- impossible under Lessans' model.

For if Lessans were correct, ALL the universe would be observable, in real time!

Not true. It means just what it says: Observable. This doesn't mean that ALL of the universe is contained in the part that is observable. Now you're making stuff up.

Originally Posted by davdm

It's true that distant photons wouldn't have had time to reach us, as the linked article explains, under his model, but that wouldn't matter! We'd still see the source objects of the photons before the photons arrived at our eyes, just like we would see the sun turned on at noon even though the sun's photons would not arrive for eight and half minutes!

Wrong. It doesn't fly David. Try again.

Originally Posted by davidm

Instead, we don't see the source objects before their photons have time to meet our eyes. That is precisely why there is an observable universe, and an unobservable universe.

We don't because the source light has arrived so what we see will match, but this doesn't prove what you want it to prove.

Originally Posted by davidm

How, pray, does Lessans' model account for the unobservable universe, peacegirl? Assplain it to us! Our heads are about to assplode waiting on your every brilliant word!

You're beginning to slip David (I know you think you're being funny, so I'll let it go this time), but I will not keep letting you get away with it. Don't test me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Who are you putting on Pretend Ignore this time, Asshat? Me or N.A.? You quoted HIM, but I was the one who said I wasn't posting anymore!

And, speaking of people who say they won't post anymore, how many times have you lied, and said you were leaving?

Finally, putting me on Pretend Ignore won't do you any good, as others will simply point out the same devastating refutations to the nonsense of you and your Buffoon of a father, as I have done.

And, of course, you're not really putting anyone on Ignore. By your own admission, you crave negative attention.

Now then, what about the observable universe problem for The Buffoon's "theories"?

NA also said he wasn't posting anymore awhile back. He is now on ignore. You are next. Keep it up David and you'll only hurt yourself when I no longer talk to you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

"The emitted photons would just get brighter."

Nice! How do photons get brighter, peacegirl? Do share! All photons are exactly alike and their properties do not change.

Just what do you think "brightness" means, peacegirl?

You are a never-ending source of amusement, just like Lessans: a chip off the old blockhead, as I've said.

We have seen supernova in the sky that changes from, nothing visible in the sky, to great big light visible in the sky. Those photons arrived concurrently with the light, and not hundreds of years later, as Lessans' model would have it. So Lessans is wrong.

Until the last few years, brown dwarfs inhabited the "undiscovered country" between stars and planets. Their mass was too small for them to be stars and too large for planets. They were expected to be dim, a thousand times less luminous than the Sun, and relatively cool, with surface temperatures less than 2500 degrees Celsius.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/xray_sour...ndwarf_fg.html

[Vivisectus]

Obviously, if we see then we can see because we can see it.

The problem is that you use this as an explanation. It isn't one, and judging from your response you are not aware of this.

Like when you say "When we see something, it is because it is close enough to be seen". That just means "When we see something, it is because we can see it" if you do not explain why, in your model, distance is a factor.

Or when you say "We see an object when it is bright enough to be seen" without explaining why the number of photons hitting an object instantaneously affects a retina millions of miles away.

Neither you nor your father seem to have spotted the problem with this: hence the frequent circular reasoning and the tautologies. The both of you seem to be unable to get beyond a certain level of literalness.

[Vivisectus]

Obviously, if we see then we can see because we can see it.

The problem is that you use this as an explanation. It isn't one, and judging from your response you are not aware of this.

Like when you say "When we see something, it is because it is close enough to be seen". That just means "When we see something, it is because we can see it" if you do not explain why, in your model, distance is a factor.

Or when you say "We see an object when it is bright enough to be seen" without explaining why the number of photons hitting an object instantaneously affects a retina millions of miles away.

Neither you nor your father seem to have spotted the problem with this: hence the frequent circular reasoning and the tautologies. The both of you seem to be unable to get beyond a certain level of literalness.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Keep it up David and you'll only hurt yourself when I no longer talk to you.

Just how is 'not talking to Davidm' going to hurt him? I know a few men who would be overjoyed if certain women didn't talk to them. You aren't amswering his questions or comments as it is, so how is not talking to him going to change anything?