A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

the object is out of the field of view but in a direct line with it?

Contradiction, - if it is out of the field of view it is not in a straight line with it.

[naturalist.atheist]

peacegirl, after people realize that you are just not capable of learning anything new and that you persist in your fantasies the only thing left for them to do when interacting with you is either mock you or try to figure out where the holes in your brain are. After several thousand pages the attraction of mocking wears off and this only leaves those trying to plumb the depths of your illness. But I assure you, both have long ago stopped taking anything you say seriously. You must realize this.

If we are not taking you seriously then what in the world do you think is going on here?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

peacegirl. The physics that explain how and when a camera is able to resolve an image has been explained to you many times. Go back and read and quit saying we have skirted the issue. It has not been skirted, you are either ignoring it, or can't comprehend it.

I'm pretty sure she reads everything, which is why nobody is ever being ignored despite her statements otherwise. She can't comprehend what is explained to her no matter how many times she reads it. No matter how many times people try to patiently lead her through it. No matter how carefully you point out how her version of reality contradicts what she herself knows about reality. Her brain just can't do it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Just how small would the space need to be for the image of the object to be instantly at the lens without exceding the speed of light?

You're mixing up the speed of light with what I am proposing.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[

By definition it does not mean it's also in the field of view. That's why I am disputing the whole idea of light bringing information to the eye.

Ah, I get it now, you are useing one of Lessans dictionarys that have alternate definitions that do not corrospond to a standard English dictionary. Peacegirl, could you copy and post these definitions that you are useing relavent to the discussion at hand, it might help others to understand what you are trying to say.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Contradiction, - if it is out of the field of view it is not in a straight line with it.

The points on the object that are outside of the field of view of the camera are reflecting the light toward the film or the retina. Is that more to your liking?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Your first quote on this post is a simple contradiction, which shows that you do not understand what you are saying, and you do not understand optics.

If this were the first instance of this I might stop where you did in your conclusions, but it is way, way, way beyond that. She can't understand optics. Her brain can't detect simple contradictions. She has little comprehension of much of what even she is saying. She can't even be consistent within her own view of reality.

She is not just delusional, several key cognitive functions in her brain are failing.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The points on the object that are outside of the field of view of the camera are reflecting the light toward the film or the retina. Are you happy now?

I can only imagine that she reads our comments as a word salad.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

You need lots of help. Where are your children? They should be intervening with you right now.

I have sugested before, and there is no way of knowing for sure, that Peacegirl's access to a computer might be part of her therapy, in that she is able to freely express these ideas and at some point get them out of her system and come to her senses. Just a thought. It is possable that a mental health professional is monitoring the posts and evaluating them for progress towards a grasp of reality.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I have sugested before, and there is no way of knowing for sure, that Peacegirl's access to a computer might be part of her therapy, in that she is able to freely express these ideas and at some point get them out of her system and come to her senses. Just a thought. It is possable that a mental health professional is monitoring the posts and evaluating them for progress towards a grasp of reality.

Perhaps, but I doubt it. She would have made some reference to treatment long ago if she were receiving it.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're mixing up the speed of light with what I am proposing.

Of course we are peacegirl. We understand your reality, but you do not understand ours. So you are not capable of expressing your reality in terms of ours. This places you at a great disadvantage. It keeps you from achieving your goals, yet no matter how hard you try you just can't grasp our reality. It must be very frustrating.

Why do you keep trying when it is so obvious that no matter what you try, it doesn't work?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The points on the object that are outside of the field of view of the camera are reflecting the light toward the film or the retina. Are you happy now?

No they are not, if they are outside the field of view, they cannot reflect light towards the film or retina. to say other wise is a contradiction.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

If this were the first instance of this I might stop where you did in your conclusions, but it is way, way, way beyond that. She can't understand optics. Her brain can't detect simple contradictions. She has little comprehension of much of what even she is saying. She can't even be consistent within her own view of reality.

She is not just delusional, several key cognitive functions in her brain are failing.

Agreed, I hope you understand that, like many others, my posts are for others who may be reading the thread and think that Peacegirl's statements are somehow valid. I know it's unlikely, but look at Rickoshay75's responses, there are some who do not have the ability to discern fact from fiction and need a bit of help.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Perhaps, but I doubt it. She would have made some reference to treatment long ago if she were receiving it.

True, but it would depend on her level of delusion and denial, she may not ever realize that she is under treatment, she might just be staying at this very nice spa. that her family set up for her.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

No they are not, if they are outside the field of view, they cannot reflect light towards the film or retina. to say other wise is a contradiction.

Oh really? Then explain to me how afferent vision works?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're mixing up the speed of light with what I am proposing.

You are the one who said that the image of the object is at the lens instantly but does not violate the speed of light, I am just asking how it happens? How close is the lens to the object?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

peacegirl, after people realize that you are just not capable of learning anything new and that you persist in your fantasies the only thing left for them to do when interacting with you is either mock you or try to figure out where the holes in your brain are. After several thousand pages the attraction of mocking wears off and this only leaves those trying to plumb the depths of your illness. But I assure you, both have long ago stopped taking anything you say seriously. You must realize this.

If we are not taking you seriously then what in the world do you think is going on here?

If that's the case then there's no reason for me to continue. It is hard for me to believe that you are speaking for everyone in here. Who gave you the job of speaking on everyone's behalf?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Here is our discussion about Dave

LOL, thats it. we know his name.

That's all you need to know LadyShea. I was responding to Stephen Maturin's attack on Lessans as someone who made up imaginary figures. I did not bring his name up as if he is some kind of authority on the book that you now need to consult.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then explain to me how afferent vision works?

Light from a 'light source' travels to an object, is reflected, and some of it travels to the lens, (eye or camera), and in the eye is focused on the retina, where signals are sent to the brain that are intrepreted as an image.

For more detail see TLR's post on vision, also many others have posted details on afferent vision.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

It is also true that some or all of the objects in the Hubble pictures may not now exist, but they did exist many billions of years ago when the light was emitted which has now been recorded by Hubble. It is also certain that if any of those objects still exist they do not look the same now as they did then, as is recorded in the pictures. The pictures depict those objects as they appeared billions of years ago, and that is what is so exciting about studying those images. If it were up to Peacegirl and Lessans the entire history of the universe would be inaccessable because we would only be able to se it as it is now and we could never learn anything about the past.

Added note: You are responding as if Lessans is somehow responsible for how the universe works. He was just an extremely astute observer who tried to shed light (no pun intended) on what is actually occurring, and I'm trying to pass on that knowledge. Please don't shoot the messenger.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You don't see the difficulty because you have zero understanding of optics, the science of photography, how lenses work, how light works (did you ever look up the inverse square law?), what visual range, field of view etc. refer to in reality, or what resolve/resolution actually means.

This problem could easily be resolved if an experiment was to be carefully constructed.

The Inverse Square Law - what it means to Photographers

It's useful to know a little about the inverse square law especially when using flash or studio lights. Basically all the inverse square law says is that an object that is twice the distance from a point source of light will receive a quarter of the illumination. So what it means to us photographers is that if you move your subject from 3 meters away to six meters away, you will need four times the amount of light for the same exposure. This can most easily be achieved by opening the lens aperture two f-stops (see aperture for an explanation) or using a flashgun that is four times as powerful.

What do we mean by a point source of light? Well in Physics there might be a very strict definition but for our purposes any flashgun or lamp can be considered a point source. The other variable to be aware of is that the law works for 'unfocused' light sources. Light from a laser or other highly focused source will not drop off quite so rapidly.[/quote]

The Inverse Square Law - what it means to Photographers

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Seriously, why do you think special equipment -like telescopes and telephoto lenses and night vision technology and super sensitive detectors- is designed and built if anyone with a 100.00 dollar digital camera from Walmart can take a picture of anything at any distance?

That's just the point. At a certain distance no picture can be taken because the object is not present. An object can be magnified if it's already in the camera's, telephoto lenses', or detector's field of view, but an image of an object cannot be made larger if there's no object. It would be like creating an enlarged picture of a person without the person.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I'm sure it is peacegirl. But the others are laughing at you, not with you. You are the freak, the imbecile, the crazy cook and they laugh and laugh.

I'm sure this is not helping your mental condition one little bit. Get help.

Far more mentally insane people have found themselves in this position than sane people before their time. The difference is that the sane people can demonstrate their claims on reality, the insane people can't.

And so far peacegirl you haven't demonstrated anything on reality. That would make you crazy. Get help.

And the loudest person usually has the least to say. You came into this thread late; you have read very little of the actual text; and yet you seem to know more about me than all the people in this thread combined. Doesn't that strike you as rather strange?

[LadyShea]

That's all you need to know LadyShea. I was responding to Stephen Maturin's attack on Lessans as someone who made up imaginary figures. I did not bring his name up as if he is some kind of authority on the book that you now need to consult.

Please see below. I don't want to consult Dave

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I still am interested in who these Canadian scientists are/were and why there has been no follow up with them since they seemed to agree with Lessans

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Regarding the efferent lenses. Remember that pinhole cameras work too! So holes would also require the efferent capability.

The reason we have a lens, or lenses in a camera, rather than just a pinhole, is to let more light in without the image becoming blurred. If (when using a regular camera with a lens) we want a greater depth of field in the photo, then we narrow down the aperture, making the camera more like a pinhole one!

In principle a pinhole camera has an infinite depth of field - all objects from those just in front of the hole, all the way out to infinity, are equally well focussed.

I agreed with you until you said, "all the way out to infinity." Have you noticed that there has to be an actual object that is present for the image of said object to be on the other side of the pinhole?

Originally Posted by Ceptimus

The main problems with pinhole cameras are: a) they don't let through enough light to work well with the sensors we have available. b) if the hole is made bigger to let in more light, then the image is blurred. c) there are diffraction effects at the hole which cause the image to be less sharp than basic optical theory would predict.

Thank you for explaining this in easy to understand terms. I really do appreciate what you have to say because you are perceptive and nice at the same time. That's a rare combination in this thread. That doesn't mean you have to agree with me on everything. I just happen like your bedside manner and I wish other people would adopt it. As the saying goes, "You catch more flies with honey than vinegar."