A revolution in thought

[But]

Originally Posted by davidm

It’s really incredible. You have to wonder, did Lessans ever stop between shots on the billiard table, think about the stuff he was writing, and ask himself: “Seymour, just what the fuck are you talking about?”

For instance, when he wrote: “We can’t see bacteria either with the naked eye, but we can through a microscope,” did he ever ask himself, “Seymour, WHY can we see bacteria through a motherfucking microscope?”

Here is why.

IOW, the very process that Lessans denies is possible for seeing, is precisely why microscopes and telescopes work in the first place!

Duh, it's because the microscope is there in order for light to be present, so that we can then see the bacteria instantly and efferently.

[LadyShea]

If [Relativity] contradicts efferent vision, and efferent vision turns out to be true, then it has to be modified, but that's not my concern. My only concern is doing reliable tests that are directed toward proving or negating this claim.

That relativity contradicts efferent vision is a very good reason (good meaning well supported by large amounts of reliable evidence) to assume efferent vision is not true.

Here's a nice essay on the implications of Relativity to society
Einstein's Theory Of Relativity: Implications Beyond Science? | Science in Society

Here's one on the extent to which Relativity has been put to the test (and passed)
NOVA | Putting Relativity to the Test

Originally Posted by PBS article

In his 1905 paper on SR, Einstein, almost as an aside, also introduced the concept of the equivalence of mass and energy, or E = mc2. This concept led to atomic bombs and atomic energy, as well as to many of the technologies we rely on today, including cell phones and computers. SR has been experimentally verified so many times in so many ways that it is now a completely accepted part of physics and of everyday life.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[
This book is well reasoned and well supported if the definition of epistemology (the study, nature, and scope of knowledge) includes astute observation and sound reasoning in their criteria of what constitutes good science.

Observation and reasoning are a part of 'good science' but they do not constitute the whole of the process, indeed by themselves they are insuficient to arrive at a valid conclusion. Both the observations and the reasoning need to be well documented and repeatable by others, but Lessans are neither, he has no documentation, so nothing he has done is verifiable and therefore useless as science. Most of Lessans 'reasoning' is as convoluted and unsound as the reference to perspective as a proof of the relationship of time to vision.

[LadyShea]

Epistemology does not dictate or address what constitutes "good science".

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you working so hard to make me look foolish?

A better question is why are you working so hard to make yourself look foolish? And doing a damn fine job of it too.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I think I have it figured out, Peacegirls brain is made of 'Teflon' so nothing sticks to it, but Lessans book is printed on it, so that is all she knows, or can know. Well I'm glad I sorted that out, can we talk about something interesting now, and not this silly fantasy.

No, we can't. If you want to talk about something interesting, post in a thread where something interesting is being discussed. This is the thread for talking about the Lessans/Peacegirl silly fantasy.

[But]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Epistemology does not dictate or address what constitutes "good science".

Well, it kind of does.

[LadyShea]

Kinda depending on how you interpret it. I consider "good science" to be determined by good methodology.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

This is the thread for talking about the Lessans/Peacegirl silly fantasy.

Well then have it your way, carry on talking about the silly fantasy.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

Well, it kind of does.

I believe epistemology addresses what constitutes knowledge and it's acquisition, which is the goal of good science, but good science goes beyond epistemology.

[Vivisectus]

The book states quite clearly that this:

We can’t see
bacteria either with the naked eye, but we can through a microscope.
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.

is proof. How is this proof of anything? In fact, how come perspective works if direct sight is true? Under the established idea, we know exactly why and how perspective works, but why would it work in the direct model?

The microscope, if anything, proves that what we see is light. For starters, all it does (and all it is designed to do!) is bend light so a small area strikes a much larger area of the retina.

Secondly, and this is especially compelling, if we just look through a microscope without extra lighting, we hardly see anything at all. The area we are looking at is very small, and only very little light comes off it in normal lighting conditions. We need to use a mirror or a built-in light to flood the small area with light, or else not enough of it comes through the microscope to make it bright!

Again - all this makes sense in the non-direct, non-efferent sight model but has no explanation if you think sight is direct.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Duh, it's because the microscope is there in order for light to be present, so that we can then see the bacteria instantly and efferently.

That's true.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's true.

You realize he strung a lot of nonsense words together, right? That's true?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That relativity contradicts efferent vision is a very good reason (good meaning well supported by large amounts of reliable evidence) to assume efferent vision is not true.

Here's a nice essay on the implications of Relativity to society
Einstein's Theory Of Relativity: Implications Beyond Science? | Science in Society

Here's one on the extent to which Relativity has been put to the test (and passed)
NOVA | Putting Relativity to the Test

I really don't see where any of this has to do with efferent vision. We can see efferently (I won't even use the term real time, which is misleading) and this would not negate special relativity.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The book states quite clearly that this:

We can’t see
bacteria either with the naked eye, but we can through a microscope.
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.

is proof. How is this proof of anything? In fact, how come perspective works if direct sight is true? Under the established idea, we know exactly why and how perspective works, but why would it work in the direct model?

The microscope, if anything, proves that what we see is light. For starters, all it does (and all it is designed to do!) is bend light so a small area strikes a much larger area of the retina.

Secondly, and this is especially compelling, if we just look through a microscope without extra lighting, we hardly see anything at all. The area we are looking at is very small, and only very little light comes off it in normal lighting conditions. We need to use a mirror or a built-in light to flood the small area with light, or else not enough of it comes through the microscope to make it bright!

Again - all this makes sense in the non-direct, non-efferent sight model but has no explanation if you think sight is direct.

This lends support to efferent vision actually. If there is not enough light to see a tiny object (which requires a microscope) or a large object (which requires a telescope), we need to manipulate the light (e.g., flood a small area with light to make it bright enough) to create the lighting conditions that would allow the object to be seen. The fact that light strikes a larger portion of the retina in no way indicates that sight is afferent or that the light is being converted to a signal that is then interpreted by the brain as an image.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This lends support to efferent vision actually. If there is not enough light to see a tiny object (which requires a microscope) or a large object (which requires a telescope), we need to manipulate the light (e.g., flood a small area with light to make it bright enough) to create the lighting conditions that would allow the object to be seen. The fact that light strikes a larger portion of the retina in no way indicates that sight is afferent or that the light is being converted to a signal that is then interpreted by the brain as an image.

Actually, it rather does indicate that. Unless light striking the retina causes the image, there is no reason to believe that the way light strikes the retina influences how we see the object we are looking at. If there is some direct relationship between the eye and what we see, then the mere area that light relfecting off an object covers on the retina should be neither here nor there.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

A better question is why are you working so hard to make yourself look foolish? And doing a damn fine job of it too.

This is the kind of ridiculous answer that will force me out of this thread. Seriously Angakuk, what kind of answer is that when you know I am the underdog in here?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Actually, it rather does indicate that. Unless light striking the retina causes the image, there is no reason to believe that the way light strikes the retina influences how we see the object we are looking at. If there is some direct relationship between the eye and what we see, then the mere area that light relfecting off an object covers on the retina should be neither here nor there.

Not true. If light is a condition of sight, and it doesn't offer enough, it's a very simple conclusion that the more light we have, the easier it will be to see. It's amazing how people will try to make something more difficult than it really is to prove THEIR point WHETHER THEIR POINT IS VALID OR NOT.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not true. If light is a condition of sight, and it doesn't offer enough, it's a very simple conclusion that the more light we have, the easier it will be to see. It's amazing how people will try to make something more difficult than it really is to prove THEIR point WHETHER THEIR POINT IS VALID OR NOT.

But that doesn't explain why we see something as bigger when the light reflecting off it covers a larger area of the retina. It shouldn't matter, since light only makes sight possible if your idea is correct, but in fact it determines how we see it an object.

If we had some direct relationship with the object through sight, then perspective (and the various tricks that perspective sometimes plays on the eyes) would not work. There would be no reason for things to appear to us the way they appear to us now. It has nothing to do with the amount of light - merely by how large an area it covers on the retina. If sight is direct, then how come this has such a profound effect?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

No, we can't. If you want to talk about something interesting, post in a thread where something interesting is being discussed. This is the thread for talking about the Lessans/Peacegirl silly fantasy.

And you are to be trusted when you were the one who argued that we can't move in the direction of greater satisfaction just because we have two choices that we can't decide upon -- as if this was absolute proof that he was wrong?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But that doesn't explain why we see something as bigger when the light reflecting off it covers a larger area of the retina. It shouldn't matter, since light only makes sight possible if your idea is correct, but in fact it determines how we see it an object.

If we had some direct relationship with the object through sight, then perspective (and the various tricks that perspective sometimes plays on the eyes) would not work.

That is not true. There are all kinds of illusions that we could see based on how light is manipulated. In my view, this has nothing to do with proof that efferent vision is wrong.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There would be no reason for things to appear to us the way they appear to us now. It has nothing to do with the amount of light - merely by how large an area it covers on the retina. If sight is direct, then how come this has such a profound effect?

Because light is still being used to see; it's a necessary condition of sight. If light is manipulated in any way, we are going to see the object based on how the light is being deflected. The deflection of light has a direct impact on what we see since light and sight go hand in hand. This does not in any way negate the fact that we are not interpreting what we see from the light itself.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I really don't see where any of this has to do with efferent vision. We can see efferently (I won't even use the term real time, which is misleading) and this would not negate special relativity.

It has to do with your and Lessans claims about instantaneous "real time" seeing, so you have to use the term. You have also repeatedly stated a problem with time being relative.

Again, if Lessans hadn't made claims about light and time you wouldn't have to be learning about and discussing Relativity. This is not our fault.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You realize he strung a lot of nonsense words together, right? That's true?

His response was probably meant to be sarcastic, but I was agreeing that the purpose of a microscope is to gather light so that the specimen can be observed. It then becomes bright enough (enough light is present) and large enough (through the magnification process) to be seen. This supports efferent vision.

In the optical microscope visible light rays, reflected from or transmitted by the viewed object, pass through a series of lenses and form an enlarged image of the object. How does a microscope work?

How Does a Microscope Work ?

A great deal of optical science is involved in answering the question “ how does a microscope work? ”
A simple microscope has one lens and is essentially a loupe or magnifying glass with a relatively high magnification.

The basic modern microscope found in schools, hospitals, and research centers is a compound microscope which has a series of lenses to collect and focus the light transmitted through the specimen.

Although larger and more complicated, the multiple lenses of the compound microscope increase magnification and resolution while reducing chromatic aberration.

More sophisticated and specialized microscopes, such as an electron microscope, use the same scientific principles as their conventional counterparts even though they operate in a different manner.

Anatomy of an Optical Microscope

Discussing the different components comprising a microscope is necessary to explain how a microscope works?
Simply, a microscope is a framework to contain the lenses and serve as a platform for stable viewing and a platform for other peripheral components that are used to improve the image quality.

The Lenses

The lenses are the essence of the microscope and are at the heart of the question - how does a microscope work?
A compound microscope has two or more lenses. The eyepiece or ocular lens sits atop the body tube. Many microscopes are binocular and have two ocular lenses.

Additionally, a binocular head will have a prism, either in the head or the body tube, to split the image and direct it to both oculars. The oculars have different available magnifications, but usually less than the power of the objective lenses.

The objective lenses are at the bottom of the microscope tube nearest the specimen; they gather and focus the light transmitted from the specimen.

Usually three or four objectives of different strengths will reside in a revolving turret, and magnification may be changed by turning the turret to line up a different lens with the body tube.

Objective magnification strengths usually range from 10X to 100X. Fine and coarse focusing adjustments are accomplished with focusing knobs located on the body of the microscope.

The Stage

The specimen sits directly below the objectives on the microscope’s stage.
Clips on the stage hold the specimen slides in place for stable viewing.

A mechanical stage allows precise movement of the specimen along the X and Y coordinates and graduated markers allow the viewer to note the location of features on the slide.

A hole or aperture in the stage allows light to illuminate the specimen.

The Light

Below the stage, a diaphragm, condenser, and light source control light emission and distribution to the specimen. At the bottom of the optical train is the illumination source.
In a simple microscope, the light source may be ambient light collected and reflected upwards into the aperture by a small mirror.

The type of illumination source will increase in sophistication as a microscope’s complexity increases. Tungsten-halogen, mercury arc, and metal halide lamps, as well as LED illumination provide different types of light to meet certain viewing requirements.

Some microscopes have a condenser directly above the light source. This device is actually a lens that gathers light and focuses it into a cone directed at the specimen. A diaphragm controls the diameter of the light beam before it finally passes into the specimen. Different types of condensers are manufactured for specialized viewing needs.

How Does a Microscope Work? - Optical

To be useful, a microscope must accomplish three things: it must magnify the object you are trying to view, resolve the details of the object, and make these details visible.
Understanding these ideas is the first step to learning how a microscope works. The optical or light microscope uses visible light transmitted through, refracted around, or reflected from a specimen.

Light waves are chaotic; an incandescent light source emits light waves traveling in different paths and of varying wavelengths. Some of the lenses in a microscope bend these light waves into parallel paths, magnify and focus the light at the ocular.

How Does a Microscope Work? - Magnification

The power to enlarge the image of the specimen when viewed through a microscope is known as the magnification and is dependent upon how much the lenses bend the light waves.
Magnification is expressed in numeric multiples of how much enlargement occurs with a lens. If the magnification of a lens is 2X then it roughly doubles the size of the image of the object.

With a compound microscope, the total magnification can be determined by multiplying the magnifications of the objective and ocular lenses. Consequently, an ocular lens of 10X coupled with a 40X objective yields a total magnification of 400X.

However, the higher the magnification the closer the lens must be to the specimen. Since a higher magnification lens bends light more severely, the specimen is brought into focus a shorter distance from the lens and this is known as the focal length.

Generally, a lens providing higher magnification will also provide better resolution. These two factors working together are very important in determining how a microscope works?

How Does a Microscope Work? – Resolution

The resolution of a specimen is highly dependent upon the light waves. The shortest distance between two points that the microscope can define as clearly being separate points is the resolution of the microscope.
Pictured left: microscope image of salt crystals.

Resolution is perhaps more important than magnification in understanding how a microscope works? If the points cannot be clearly focused then they are closer together than the resolution of the microscope and, regardless of the magnification, the image quality will be poor.

The resolution is determined by the frequency of the light waves illuminating the specimen and the quality of the lens. A rule of optical physics is that the shorter the wave length the greater the resolution.

Usually expressed in microns, the best resolution a light microscope can produce is 0.2 microns or 200 nanometers. Discounting the light source, a lens having a resolution of 0.5 microns won’t resolve points as close together as a 0.3 micron lens.

How Does a Microscope Work? - Contrast

Contrast is another important ingredient in how a microscope works.
High magnification and resolution won’t guarantee that you will actually see the image of the specimen. If all of the light passes through a cell no details will be visible. Some light frequencies must be absorbed to different degrees by structures inside the cell and this allows you to see the specimen.

Using a microscope’s condenser or diaphragm, the size and intensity of the light beam can be modified. A narrow beam provides higher contrast. Staining the specimen may be necessary to obtain the contrast you need to view the details of your sample.

How Does a Microscope Work? - Electron

As previously mentioned, optical microscopes are limited in resolution by the frequency of the light waves.
Electron guns emit a flow of electrons of a considerably shorter wave length than visible light and this fact allows an electron microscope to have higher resolution and magnification.

In many ways, an electron microscope functions similarly to an optical scope except that, instead of visible light, a stream of electrons is used to illuminate the specimen. The electron beam is focused with magnetic lenses. Changes to the electron beam inside the specimen are recorded and an image is formed based upon these changes.

Quick Summary

Whether a simple, compound, or electron microscope, the same rules of physics determines the answer to the question "how does a microscope work?"

Electromagnetic waves in some form or fashion are focused onto the specimen to allow its details to be observed. Magnification, resolution, and contrast have to work together to achieve the best possible image.

How does a Microscope work ?

[peacegirl]

[quote=LadyShea;980909][quote=peacegirl;980882]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That relativity contradicts efferent vision is a very good reason (good meaning well supported by large amounts of reliable evidence) to assume efferent vision is not true.

Here's a nice essay on the implications of Relativity to society
Einstein's Theory Of Relativity: Implications Beyond Science? | Science in Society

Here's one on the extent to which Relativity has been put to the test (and passed)
NOVA | Putting Relativity to the Test

I really don't see where any of this has to do with efferent vision. We can see efferently (I won't even use the term real time, which is misleading) and this would not negate special relativity.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It has to do with your and Lessans claims about instantaneous "real time" seeing, so you have to use the term. You have also repeatedly stated a problem with time being relative.

Again, if Lessans hadn't made claims about light and time you wouldn't have to be learning about and discussing Relativity. This is not our fault.

Lessans made a claim regarding the eyes. As a result, he came to certain conclusions regarding our relation to the external world. I don't see where efferent vision would negate any proven technology. The development of atomic bombs and atomic energy, cell phones and computers (as well as to many of the technologies we rely on today), are not dependent on afferent vision for these technologies to work. If they were, then that would be conclusive proof of afferent vision. But they are not.

[specious_reasons]