A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But there's much more skepticism if an astute observation disrupts established theories and is coming from someone outside of the field. It's almost like an affront to the professionals who are in the field.

Neither you nor Lessans have offered any observations.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

They can't both be correct. We're seeing the galaxy in real time. Real time! So why do we see two the galaxy at two different times?

What does how long the light takes to reach the telescope have to do with it? That's not seeing in real time, that's seeing in delayed time!

It doesn't if you're talking about a light source.

Strong Lensing
The most extreme bending of light is when the lens is very massive and the source is close enough to it: in this case light can take different paths to the observer and more than one image of the source will appear.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Edit: peacegirl, in case you have misunderstood: two images of the galaxy fall on our retinas, or on the back of our telescope, simultaneously. They are images of the same galaxy, but one image has a time delay with respect to the other - if we were viewing a clock instead of a galaxy, one image of the clock would show a different to time to the other, though both images are taken simultaneously.

We would have a time delay if the light source was traveling toward the lens and there was an arc in space. I know this has to do with special relativity and I don't think there is a contradiction.

The most extreme bending of light is when the lens is very massive and the source is close enough to it: in this case light can take different paths to the observer and more than one image of the source will appear.

In many cases the lens is not strong enough to form multiple images or arcs. However, the source can still be distorted: both stretched (shear) and magnified (convergence). If all sources were well known in size and shape, one could just use the shear and convergence to deduce the properties of the lens. However, usually one does not know the intrinsic properties of the sources, but has information about the average properties. The statistics of the sources can then be used to get information about the lens. For instance, galaxies in general aren't perfectly spherical, but if one has a collection of galaxies one doesn't expect them all to be lined up. Thus, if this set of galaxies is lensed, on average, or statistically, there will be some overall shear and/or convergence imposed on the distribution, which will give information about the intervening lens(es).

Gravitational lensing

I don't think this interferes with efferent vision. Our discussion has, once again, been diverted to distant events rather than Earth events. For purposes of simplicity, I want to stick with what we can determine here on Earth before attempting to determine what's going on in outer space.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Neither you nor Lessans have offered any observations.

Then why are we having this discussion at all? I'm not invested in proving that his observations about the eyes and brain are correct if you are claiming that he made no observations.

[Spacemonkey]

I'm not Dragar.

[Dragar]

It doesn't if you're talking about a light source.
...

We would have a time delay if the light source was traveling toward the lens

What on Earth are you talking about? I'm talking about anything, both light sources or passive reflectors of light, and the motion of the source toward the lens is not the effect I am talking about.

peacegirl, you have, for 500 pages, claimed we see in real time. And then, you say the following:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We're seeing the same galaxy but we're seeing it at different times, depending on how long it takes for the light to reach the telescope.

This it not real time, peacegirl. If what we see depends on how long the light took to reach us, then at least in one case is what we see not real time.

I don't think this interferes with efferent vision. Our discussion has, once again, been diverted to distant events rather than Earth events.

Of course it has; because that's where the clearest contradictions appear between Lessan's claims and actual reality, because of the large distances. You might want to stick to stuff happening on Earth, but that's only because your theory entirely fails for the simplest, most obvious tests of light - those relating to astronomy. At small scales, the predictions of Lessans are obscured by the small distances, and if you were capabable of understanding some basic science, you'd be just as unhappy with Earth based tests as astronomical ones.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then why are we having this discussion at all? I'm not invested in proving that his observations about the eyes and brain are correct if you are claiming that he made no observations.

In much the same way as you confuse Spacemonkey and myself, you are confusing observations with assertions.

An observation is that an apple falls to the floor. An assertion is that a force, relating to the mass of the Earth, is responsible. Lessan made none of the former, and many of the latter.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Okay, imagine the camera as having thousands of individual detectors each corresponding to an individual pixel of its resolution. The resulting image is a collection of dots, each of which has to be one specific color. Stick a red ball right in front of the camera, and every detector will see red, and the photo will be all red. Progressively move the ball away from the camera, and the outer detectors cease to see red, with only a progressively smaller group of central detectors seeing red, such that we get a smaller and smaller red circle in the center of the photo. Eventually the red circle gets smaller than the size of the single central detector, such that all the other detectors are not detecting red, and this one central detector is receiving more non-red light (from the areas around the ball) than red light (from the ball itself). At that point the ball will represent a smaller part of the image than the smallest detector, and the ball will cease to show up on the image. That central detector will have a decision to make as to whether or not to create a red dot in the image, and as it is receiving more non-red than red light, it will not indicate red. So even though the camera is still receiving (a small amount) of red light from the ball, the resulting image will not show the ball at all.

Have I explained that in simple enough terms for you?

peacegirl, do you now understand what "apparent size is too small to photograph" means in terms of optics? Do you understand why using a special lens to make the apparent size larger is required and why your experiment is nonsensical?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But there's much more skepticism if an astute observation disrupts established theories and is coming from someone outside of the field. It's almost like an affront to the professionals who are in the field.

Skepticism can be met with evidence. The best evidence wins in science. You can blame this all on professionals being affronted at being questioned, but as we have told you many times, if you brought the best evidence to the table none of that would matter at all.

Assertions aren't enough (see the difference between observation and assertion a few posts up)

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is a lot of confusion with the term "predetermination". We can't always predict the cause of a certain effect, but that does not mean there isn't one. Once I choose something there was something that compelled me to choose that thing (I'm not talking about force). No one in the world can predict with complete accuracy how something will be manifested in the physical world, therefore something may look random but but that does not mean it is random. When the dice are thrown, the outcome is already known.
[/I]

Yes, once the dice are thrown the outcome becomes known. That doesn't indicate that that particular dice throw HAD to have led to that particular outcome. Does isn't must.

I did roll a six, that doesn't mean I had to roll a six.

That's where Lessans went wrong and where he committed the modal fallacy.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm not Dragar.

I'm sorry. I just woke up.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

peacegirl, do you now understand what "apparent size is too small to photograph" means in terms of optics? Do you understand why using a special lens to make the apparent size larger is required and why your experiment is nonsensical?

No. Not if light is supposed to be bringing the image closer as the wavelength travels toward the camera.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then why are we having this discussion at all? I'm not invested in proving that his observations about the eyes and brain are correct if you are claiming that he made no observations.

Originally Posted by Dragar

In much the same way as you confuse Spacemonkey and myself, you are confusing observations with assertions.

You cannot compare the two. I wasn't carefully observing was speaking which caused an error, but Lessans' observations were done extremely carefully over a long period of time.

Originally Posted by Dragar

An observation is that an apple falls to the floor. An assertion is that a force, relating to the mass of the Earth, is responsible. Lessan made none of the former, and many of the latter.

No no no, he made an observation, not an assertion. His conclusions based on his observations were accurate. He observed what he saw in real life, and came to an inevitable conclusion based on those accurate observations.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I read it and it makes me more resolved than ever because from your definition an observation is not an assertion, and Lessans made no assertions, just observations that led him to his conclusions.

Yes, once the dice are thrown the outcome becomes known. That doesn't indicate that that particular dice throw HAD to have led to that particular outcome. Does isn't must.

I did roll a six, that doesn't mean I had to roll a six.

That's where Lessans went wrong and where he committed the modal fallacy.

There is no modal fallacy here. Even when we don't know the pathway of a dice throw, God knows which means that there is something that we don't know because we're not God (meaning we're not capable of figuring out what we're not supposed to know). We have to have humility that we don't know everything, and may never know. How can we, when there are so many determinants in every move we make? Your rolling a six means that you had to roll a six at that moment in time, or you would not have rolled it. This conversation is so convoluted that I believe we're going off into a land of no return. I don't know if this is worth my time.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Okay, imagine the camera as having thousands of individual detectors each corresponding to an individual pixel of its resolution. The resulting image is a collection of dots, each of which has to be one specific color. Stick a red ball right in front of the camera, and every detector will see red, and the photo will be all red. Progressively move the ball away from the camera, and the outer detectors cease to see red, with only a progressively smaller group of central detectors seeing red, such that we get a smaller and smaller red circle in the center of the photo. Eventually the red circle gets smaller than the size of the single central detector, such that all the other detectors are not detecting red, and this one central detector is receiving more non-red light (from the areas around the ball) than red light (from the ball itself). At that point the ball will represent a smaller part of the image than the smallest detector, and the ball will cease to show up on the image. That central detector will have a decision to make as to whether or not to create a red dot in the image, and as it is receiving more non-red than red light, it will not indicate red. So even though the camera is still receiving (a small amount) of red light from the ball, the resulting image will not show the ball at all.

Have I explained that in simple enough terms for you?

Originally Posted by peacefgirl

Absolutely not. You're weaseling.

The explanation above, that any 8 year old could comprehend, is weaseling in your opinion?

That's the biggest cop-out I have ever heard of. Are you actually purposefully lying now?

[LadyShea]

Quote tags problem yet again, I didn't say these things, Dragar did, which is ironic given the statements made

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Confusing who is writing is far from confusing observations with assertions. Hahaha. You have made all kinds of assertions about why Lessans should have done this and should have done that. You're just as guilty as anyone when it comes to this. These observations are real and have nothing to do with assertions. Sorry LadyShea, Try again.

No no no, he made an observation, not an assertion. His conclusions based on his observations were accurate. He observed what he saw in real life, and came to an inevitable conclusion based on those accurate observations.

But yes, as a reader of Lessans work, and one of the people he was supposedly trying to convince of the correctness of his views, I feel comfortable in saying what he should have done to communicate with me (or people like me) in a way that didn't make him look like a crackpot from the first sentence of his book.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no modal fallacy meaning that we're not all knowing. Even when we don't know the pathway of a dice throw, God knows which means that there is something that we don't know. We have to have humility that we don't know all of the variables involved. How can we when there are so many influences to consider? Your rolling a six means that you had to roll a six at that moment in time, or you would not have rolled it. This conversation is so convoluted that I believe we're going off into a land of no return. I don't know if this is worth my time.

You're now invoking Godidit in a supposed discussion of scientific facts?

You don't understand the difference between does and must?

Once again I have to ask if you are on drugs.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

What on Earth are you talking about? I'm talking about anything, both light sources or passive reflectors of light, and the motion of the source toward the lens is not the effect I am talking about.

I'm not discussing the property of light. I'm discussing vision and objects that we see in real time. Light is seen because there is some interaction with the environment that allows us to see that light. In general, we don't see light. We see what light reveals, which is totally different than what you are discussing.

Originally Posted by Dragar

peacegirl, you have, for 500 pages, claimed we see in real time. And then, you say the following:

This it not real time, peacegirl.

It is real time if I happen to go a different route to the same destination and you go a different way and come a little later. They're both right.

Originally Posted by Dragar

If what we see depends on how long the light took to reach us, then at least in one case is what we see not real time.

Not if the lens caused this difference. You say it was an alternative of time and space itself based on Einstein's conclusions. Maybe yes, maybe no, but this still has nothing to do with seeing in the present, even if there is a delay which shows a different clock time.

I don't think this interferes with efferent vision. Our discussion has, once again, been diverted to distant events rather than Earth events.

Originally Posted by Dragar

Of course it has; because that's where the clearest contradictions appear between Lessan's claims and actual reality, because of the large distances.

That's the biggest excuse I've ever seen. You can't come to conclusions based on evidence that can't easily be replicated and say it's hard fact.

Originally Posted by Dragar

You might want to stick to stuff happening on Earth, but that's only because your theory entirely fails for the simplest, most obvious tests of light - those relating to astronomy. At small scales, the predictions of Lessans are obscured by the small distances, and if you were capabable of understanding some basic science, you'd be just as unhappy with Earth based tests as astronomical ones.

That is absolutely absurd Dragar. Please try to understand such a so-called simple experiment that should easily show that the image bouncing off an object is seen on film when it's just out of sight of the field of view but in a direct line with it. Every single explanation that was given didn't add up. Am I supposed to give in just because there is a contradiction and I should side with the present theory? Sometimes the most easily observed phenomena are the most revealing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You're now invoking Godidit in a supposed discussion of scientific facts?

You don't understand the difference between does and must?

Once again I have to ask if you are on drugs.

I can tell that when you get defensive, you start with your ad hominem attacks. I'm not going to play this game LadyShea.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I take a different route to my home that takes a little longer, and my sister takes another route and gets there faster, the time it takes to get there are both right.

Except there would not be any sister in an analogy of the gravitational lensing observation.

Can just YOU take two different routes home and get to your destination simultaneously?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is real time if I happen to go a different route to the same destination and you go a different way and come a little later. They're both right.

How can they both be real time representations of the galaxy when they are different? There is only one galaxy out there, peacegirl. If we see in realtime, both these images should be the same.

In fact, that's another perfect example. Why do two different people, placed at seperate distances from an object, see the same event at a distant location happen at different times? It's easy for me to explain - the light took longer to reach one observer than to reach another. For you, it's impossible! They're supposed to see in real time, but they don't.

Not if the lens caused this difference.

How can a lens cause a difference? It's just gravity. How can gravity cause our 'real time' seeing to suddenly mean we see things with delay? You say it's because on one path the light takes longer to travel than the other, but the light isn't what lets us see the image peacegirl (according to you!). And as you say, light arrives 'in a constant stream' so a simple delay in the light reaching us can't be the reason why, either. Besides, we produce these two images simultaneously. There isn't a delay in making the images; there's just two different images we make at the same time, of the same object.

So why does that affect what we see? You still haven't even answered which image is delayed, and why.

That's the biggest excuse I've ever seen. You can't come to conclusions based on evidence that can't easily be replicated and say it's hard fact.

It's very easily replicated. We've done so, millions of times. More to the point, we check and test and recheck with different experiments and so on. None of them has ever contradicted vision-via-light, and plenty have contradicted Lessans daft statements about real time seeing.

That is absolutely absurd Dragar. Please try to understand such a so-called simple experiment that should easily show that the image bouncing off an object is seen on film when it's just out of sight of the field of view but in a direct line with it. Every single explanation that was given didn't add up. Am I supposed to give in just because there is a contradiction and I should side with the present theory? Sometimes the most easily observed phenomena are the most revealing.

It's not my fault you can't (or won't!) understand something as simple as the notion that size of an image is not the size of the actual object, and that a perfectly large object can, at a certain distance, produce an image that is too small to be resolved.

As I said, Dougal:

these cows are small.

[LadyShea]

I am insulting you because you have lost all semblance of rationality, peacegirl. I am not defensive, I am definitely being offensive...I am trying to slap you metaphorically to snap you back to reality.

Also, fix your quote tags where you attributed Dragar words to me and addressed me instead of him in your responses.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Once again I have to ask if you are on drugs.

She's obviously not a morning person.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Except there would not be any sister in an analogy of the gravitational lensing observation.

Can just YOU take two different routes home and get to your destination simultaneously?

That's not really quite fair. It's not precisely the same light, it's just light emitted from almost the same point travel down wildly different paths.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But there's much more skepticism if an astute observation disrupts established theories and is coming from someone outside of the field. It's almost like an affront to the professionals who are in the field.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Skepticism can be met with evidence. The best evidence wins in science. You can blame this all on professionals being affronted at being questioned, but as we have told you many times, if you brought the best evidence to the table none of that would matter at all.

Assertions aren't enough (see the difference between observation and assertion a few posts up)

He did not make an assertion, so stop saying that. His observation was spot on, and the whole pixel thing doesn't make sense because there are enough pixels in an object that is slightly out of the field of view. That's called big time weaseling.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Causal determinism in quantum physics is related to this determinism WHICH IS NOT PHILOSOPHICAL. You act like your God's gift to knowledge, and although you are smart, you really aren't all knowing LadyShea.

Yes, once the dice are thrown the outcome becomes known. That doesn't indicate that that particular dice throw HAD to have led to that particular outcome. Does isn't must.

I did roll a six, that doesn't mean I had to roll a six.

That's where Lessans went wrong and where he committed the modal fallacy.

You had to roll a six because of all the factors converging at that moment. Before you decided to roll the die you had a choice, but it was never a free one even if you had decided not to roll the die. This is not a tautology or a modal fallacy. It is an astute observation that leads to a wealth of knowledge, but we'll never get there because you will not allow yourself to believe that this is anything more than circular reasoning. If you agreed, it would ruin your entire picture of who you believe Lessans was, and cause major cognitive/dissonance.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Except there would not be any sister in an analogy of the gravitational lensing observation.

Can just YOU take two different routes home and get to your destination simultaneously?

No, that would be impossible.

Originally Posted by Dragar

That's not really quite fair. It's not precisely the same light, it's just light emitted from almost the same point travel down wildly different paths.

This theory has to do with the bending of space, which I cannot explain, nor do I have to. All that is required of me is to test what Lessans observed to see if his observations had validity.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am insulting you because you have lost all semblance of rationality, peacegirl. I am not defensive, I am definitely being offensive...I am trying to slap you metaphorically to snap you back to reality.

If you think I need a metaphorical slap back to reality, you need a metaphorical spanking.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Also, fix your quote tags where you attributed Dragar words to me and addressed me instead of him in your responses.

Okey doke.