A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

argh dupes

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am just trying to understand why we can hear due to the ability of sound waves reaching our ears, but we can't see in the same way.

We see due to light waves reaching our eyes and the brain interpreting the light. What do you think we've been saying?

Our ears have limitations just as our eyes do, soundwaves (which are nothing more than vibrations of various frequencies) reach our ears and the brain interprets the vibration.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We see due to light waves reaching our eyes and the brain interpreting the light. What do you think we've been saying?

Our ears have limitations just as our eyes do, sound has frequencies and the brain interprets them.

I am sorry Lady Shea, but that is the wrong answer.

The correct answer is that we are not bats.

At least not all of us are bats.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

I didn't get to watch it yet. The main point here is that a camera (whether digital or film) has to be taking a picture of a present object or light source.

Lets be clear about what actually happens: The sensor on a camera is made up of hundreds of little individual light sensors. Each of the sensors generates a single dot of a certain color depending on the color and intensity of the light that strikes it. All the dots together form an image. This is how we built Cameras - as passive detectors of light. Not of objects or light sources.

"Object" or "Light source" have nothing to do with it at this stage - you just want to involve it.

How it converts the image electronically is secondary. That's like comparing the chemicals in film that turn an image into a picture, to this new technology. It doesn't change the reality of how light functions.

Indeed it does not. Your dishonest attempt at suggesting the sensor requires some sort of direct relationship with an external object is nonsensical.

Seeing that Cameras are simple, passive light-detectors and that according to you the eyes are not, there needs to be a difference between the two, as shown in the red-blue light emitter though-experiment and the fact that Photons are not dependent on their emitter for either their wavelength or continued existence.

This is clear evidence that Lessans was wrong about sight. You have never been able to refute this, and yet you refuse to change your mind, showing that this is not a scientific idea but a religious one.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am just trying to understand why we can hear due to the ability of sound waves reaching our ears, but we can't see in the same way.

We do see the same way. Only faster because light is faster. And you are not trying to understand, you are looking desperately for any way to retain your belief, even though the evidence against it being true is conclusive.

[LadyShea]

Each of the sensors generates a single dot of a certain color depending on the color and intensity of the light that strikes it.

This is why out of focus pictures look pixelated if you enlarge them. This is why you can't get a picture of something too far way without special lenses or very long exposure times. This is why some pictures are too dark and others too bright...The intensity of the light reaching the sensors is a huge factor and intensity is related to distance (inverse square law), and the reflective properties of whatever the light is interacting with.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nope, it needs to gather enough data from the light to create an image is all, and how much light it can gather off any object or from any source is affected by the detectors properties and capabilities, as well as the environmental conditions.

It doesn't gather anything if the word "gather" is another word for "collect," which is time related.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

But we do. You've given no reasons to think we don't, and we've given so many reasons to explain the evidence that this is exactly how we see, and that your alternative model is completely wrong in so many ways.

Because the accumulated evidence is misleading.

We don't see images of airplanes.

Originally Posted by Dragar

What would that be like?

I'm not sure at all what you're envisioning, but currently you sound like you are asking ceptimus "how can vision-via-photons possibly be correct, since vision-via-photons is not correct?" - not at all helpful to the discussion, and I'm lost as to why you'd say it.

I'm envisioning seeing the past due to light alone, but it's not possible because the image is not being reflected in the light. The light is allowing us to see the image due to light's properties of absorption and reflection. If we see objects from light alone, then the object would not have to be in view. I understand that scientists believe the light travels so fast that we would hardly be able to see that the image is delayed. I don't believe that is happening and the experiment I offered would give some kind of proof [evidence] to that effect. Of course, no one seems interested in a homegrown experiment because they don't believe that this could prove anything.

Originally Posted by Dragar

(I'd also really like a reply to how we can take images of the sun using a CCD at the moment we see it, long before the photons have reached us.)

Dragar, the photons are present as morning arrives. We then have the conditions (the photons) that allow us to see the light source (the sun) in real time.

[ceptimus]

Film cameras have a 'speed' setting which is the time the shutter remains open for the picture to be taken.

Typically this varies from 1/1000 of a second up to about 1/8 of a second for normal daytime photography, but if you're taking photos at night, you may need to leave the shutter open for minutes or hours to capture the image you want.



From here.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

If we see "efferently" then it shouldn't change colors at all. Unless we are not looking at the "actual object".

Why not? The brain is looking out, through the eyes, as a window, at the "actual object", but anything that changes the window itself would distort vision. If there was a crack in the window (i.e., a problem with the internal structure of the eye itself) it would also distort vision. This does not rule out efferent vision whatsoever.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Ahhhh, yes there is. That would mean that light alone is sufficient to form an image. And all that nonsense about sight being "efferent" because light was not sufficient to form an image would be nonsense.

Which it is. As well as just about all of Lessans book.

All I mean by "project" is to show "a mirror image," which I've stated numerous times.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You haven't seen it because you aren't looking at any information.

Did you or did you not read TLR's essay completely? Did you or did you not look up the terms optics, angle of view, subtended angles and tried to understand how these would affect your experiment? Did you or did you not read about how CCD's and other digital light recording devices work?

I am definitely trying to understand, from this material, if there is anything that could alter the outcome of the validity of his claim.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The saying, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating" is absolutely true.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's a vapid idiom and such folksy, horse sense, aw-shucks phrases have no place in serious discussions about scientific discoveries.

Regardless of your opinion as to whether these phrases should, or should not, be used, it still has a meaning, and the meaning is what counts.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, this is not a projection. You never called me names before.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I haven't been this frustrated with you before. You seem to be regressing into complete fanatical contrariness rather than progressing into at least understanding the science, even if you disagree with it.

I think you're just pissed off because I'm not conceding after all of these pages of discussion. You probably thought I would have realized Lessans was wrong, but I don't.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What am I suppose to think other than you're beginning to imitate what everyone else is saying.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Maybe you can think "Gee, I seem to have really pissed LadyShea off" rather than assume I am hiveminding.

I assumed this [my assumption could have been wrong, I admit] because you never used these derogatory words before. And it's very hard to get away from group think entirely.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think you're just pissed off because I'm not conceding after all of these pages of discussion. You probably thought I would have realized Lessans was wrong, but I don't.

Nobody expects you to concede anything. You're crazy. You're wholly irrational. The moons of Jupiter example alone completely destroys Lessans' fantasy. You also know this, but you are so nuts that you will argue to the end of time that Lessans was right even though you know he was wrong. As I said, you're crazy.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dragar, the photons are present as morning arrives. We then have the conditions (the photons) that allow us to see the light source (the sun) in real time.

No, peace girl. How can the photons be present when morning arrives? They take eight minutes to get here, but we see the sun come over the horizon in real time. Therefore the moment we see the sun, the photons are eight minutes from arriving.

Please answer, how can the photons have arrived at the same time we see the sun, if we see the sun the instant it comes over the horizon, but the photons take eight minutes to arrive?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Film cameras have a 'speed' setting which is the time the shutter remains open for the picture to be taken.

Typically this varies from 1/1000 of a second up to about 1/8 of a second for normal daytime photography, but if you're taking photos at night, you may need to leave the shutter open for minutes or hours to capture the image you want.



From here.

Speed is what is assumed. That is the misconception. There is no speed because we see the object instantly, so we have to go from that point to determine what is really going on Ceptimus.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

No, peace girl. How can the photons be present when morning arrives? They take eight minutes to get here, but we see the sun come over the horizon in real time. Therefore the moment we see the sun, the photons are eight minutes from arriving.

The light is just on the other side Dragar. It's here already, but the earth is rotating in such a way that it doesn't have the light in order to see anything until that light arrives as daybreak comes.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Please answer, how can the photons have arrived at the same time we see the sun, if we see the sun the instant it comes over the horizon, but the photons take eight minutes to arrive?

Please forget about photons arriving 8 minutes later. This entire example was given by Lessans to show that light is not the cause of sight. It carries nothing about the object or image. It is a conduit only. I now believe we can see light or packets of photons as is described by scientists, but this in no way describes what is actually happening as far as the object or image is concerned.

[ceptimus]

But in that image above, we wouldn't be able to see it instantly. It was dark.

The circular trails you see in the sky are stars. The camera shutter was left open for about an hour and as the stars apparently moved in the sky (due to Earth's rotation) they left those trails on the film.

During that hour, the photons arriving from the windmill and the tulips (which would have been too dark to see with the naked eye) gradually built up on the film causing a similar image to what could have been captured in daytime in about a hundredth of a second.

[ceptimus]

[Dragar]

Edit: Actually, I may be wrong on the directional argument. Nevermind.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We see due to light waves reaching our eyes and the brain interpreting the light. What do you think we've been saying?

Our ears have limitations just as our eyes do, soundwaves (which are nothing more than vibrations of various frequencies) reach our ears and the brain interprets the vibration.

Something doesn't add up LadyShea, that's why I'm not convinced of what is going on in reality. The reality of what is going on has nothing to do with how detailed we see that reality. You don't seem to understand this.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't gather anything if the word "gather" is another word for "collect," which is time related.

Yes of course they collect light, that's how we designed and built cameras and CCDs and CMOS's.

We have even designed cameras that are sensitive to light outside of the human visible range and can still create an image from that data, like far infrared (or thermography). They can take pictures even if there is no visible light...in total darkness, peacegirl. How do you explain that with your efferent camera idea?

Thermal cameras simply pick up images in the infrared spectrum. As a matter of fact, all digital cameras have the ability to take thermal images, but it requires removing the infrared filter. This is usually a simple process that only takes a few minutes to do. Once it is complete you will be able to take photos in complete or near total darkness. Although they will look different than your regular pictures,

Read more: How to Build a Thermal Image Camera | eHow.com How to Build a Thermal Image Camera | eHow.com

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Something doesn't add up LadyShea, that's why I'm not convinced of what is going on in reality. The reality of what is going on has nothing to do with how detailed we see that reality. You don't seem to understand this.

What is not adding up? What do you personally observe in "reality" that cannot be explained by lightwaves being detected by a light sensor?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If we see objects from light alone, then the object would not have to be in view.

Of course they have to be in view, that's what "in view" means...that the light is behaving as light behaves and the light detector is interacting with the light in a way that allows detection within the detectors functional limitations.

We can't see something that is "out of view" because the light is not intense enough, not in the right wavelength for the detector, is being diffused, deflected, reflected or absorbed, or our detector is aimed the wrong way.

[Dragar]

peacegirl, there is a slight flaw with the Earth/Sun argument due to the Sun not actually moving. However, the point still holds that if sight is instant and light is not, an object's light should not come from where it is seen.

So why we detect light from other planets in the solar system coming from precisely the same location we see them?

If sight is instant, and light is not, then there should be a delay. For instance, the light from Mars takes 12 minutes to reach us. When we capture the light from Mars, we find it came from the same direction as where we saw it - not where Mars was seen to be 12 minutes ago. Why?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think you're just pissed off because I'm not conceding after all of these pages of discussion.

If you demonstrated even a tiny inkling of understanding of the science you have been presented, and still didn't concede, I would actually respect your viewpoint as being well thought out. That is not the case however, as shown by your insistence that cameras, which we know work by collecting light, work some other way than they were designed and built to work.

You are arguing from a place of ignorance of the topics you are vehemently denying, and you are basing your arguments on unsupported belief rather than evidence and logic. That's what fundamentalists do. That's what fanatics do.

And FTR I gave up groupthink when I left middle school.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by Dragar

For instance, the light from Mars takes 12 minutes to reach us. When we capture the light from Mars, we find it came from the same direction as where we saw it - not where Mars was seen to be 12 minutes ago. Why?

:xena: