A revolution in thought - Page 550

peacegirl · #**13726** 10-30-2011, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

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?

Quote:

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?

I understand that there are less pixels as the object gets farther away, but as the light bounces off of the object and travels toward the camera, the pixels should begin to show up on the film. Am I speaking in another language? :chin:

peacegirl · #**13727** 10-30-2011, 06:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

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.

He did the very best he could. He wrote 7 books to make it easier to understand. Yes, it could have been explained in more detail but that doesn't mean he was wrong. He had three discoveries to concentrate on. He offered enough clues to be able to test his [theory]. I know you think the testing has been done, but it was done with afferent vision in mind and therefore the results could easily be viewed as a confirmation of the hypothesis.

peacegirl · #**13728** 10-30-2011, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

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

Quote:

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.

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.

I have never witnessed this. Could you give me another example that is closer to home?

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Not if the lens caused this difference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

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.

How this occurs I really don't know. I am not an astronomer. There are many theories that could explain this phenomenon. I'm not sure what they are. That being said, I still maintain that there is a way of reconciling this apparent discrepancy and still keep the position of real time seeing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

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

Light does travel. The delay makes sense if you're talking about light that has a detour and light that does not. Remember, if the light is not within the field of view of the telescope, it could not be seen, so it's still possible that one image could be seen before the other and we would still be seeing in real time. That's the only explanation I can think of at this time.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

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.

I don't think this contradicts real time seeing although at first glance it appears that way.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

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.

That video is hysterical. :laugh:

Dragar · #**13729** 10-30-2011, 07:15 PM

And yet you seem to have the same problems in comprehension as Dougal!

peacegirl, do you at least understand that a we move an object further away, the image it forms on a CCD or our retinas will become smaller? Are we at least okay on this basic principle?

Edited to add:

Quote:

I have never witnessed this. Could you give me another example that is closer to home?

Sure. How about we take a picture of the Sun using a distant satellite. Why are changes in the surface of the sun ahead of how we see it on Earth?

Or how about experiment in a lab, where we shine a laser beam out and suddenly change its colour, or shape slightly. Why do we only see it change after the event? (And we know when we changed the colour or shape, because we have clocks on Earth to refer to).

Quote:

There are many theories that could explain this phenomenon. I'm not sure what they are. That being said, I still maintain that there is a way of reconciling this apparent discrepancy and still keep the position of real time seeing.

Great. We'll add it to the huge list of 'things that appear to disprove Lessans, but peacegirl is sure there must be a reason why they really don't, even if she doesn't know what it is yet'.

Moons of Jupiter, annual abberation, gravitational lensing, and so on...

davidm · #**13730** 10-30-2011, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know if this is worth my time.

The arrogant ignoramus doesn't know if it's worth her time to be talking to people many orders of magnitude smarter and more educated than she is. Isn't she precious.

Quote:

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.

Bullshit, you little fool, even if God existed and knew in advance what we are going to do, it does not logically follow that we had to do the thing that God knew. This is classic modal fallacy.

WRONG: If God knows in advance that I will do x, then I NECESSARILY (MUST) do x (modal fallacy).

RIGHT: Necessarily, (if God knows that I will do x, then I will (Not MUST!) do x.

Omniscient foreknowledge, if it existed, merely means that what I do, and what God foreknows, must MATCH, and not that I MUST DO some particular thing.

God, you are so fucking dumb. Do you know anything at all?

Oh, and peacegirl? You just said that gravitational lensing means we see different images because of different times it takes light to reach us. Thanks for recognizing that real-time seeing is false. :lol:

davidm · #**13731** 10-30-2011, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No no no, he made an observation, not an assertion.

Identify the observation.

You haven 't done so in nearly 600 pages. :lol:

davidm · #**13732** 10-30-2011, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

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]

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

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.

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

That is another of your delusions, that people get "defensive" and feel "threatened" by Lessans. People naturally respond angrily to you because you are a willfully uneducated, ill-informed, dishonest little creep. Such traits can provoke strong reactions.

Spacemonkey · #**13733** 10-30-2011, 07:58 PM

Quote:

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?

Obviously not. Which part of this incredibly simple explanation are you still not following?

Spacemonkey · #**13734** 10-30-2011, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Do you even understand the question yet?

I understand, and I know you want me to say red. :sadcheer:

Wrong. I have no preference either way. You face fatal objections with either answer. They are just different objections.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is everywhere. You're still thinking in terms of light being reflected (bouncing) off of an object and traveling towards the camera. That's not what is happening.

You're right, but the picture that is taken is capturing the wavelengths that are at the object instantly. I wish I could create a diagram. In other words, light is constantly traveling but the object being revealed due to light is not traveling from the object to the lens. It's captured.

That would be implausible if the light was actually traveling to the lens, but it's not.

If I said that it was a mistake.

That is a total inconsistency, but that's not what I meant. What I continue to maintain is that there is no travel and no arriving.

All these comments are in direct contradiction with the answers you just agreed to. Either the light at the camera when the photo is taken previously travelled to get there or it didn't. You can't have it both ways.

If it didn't travel to get there, then you have light mysteriously materializing on the film or lens. If it did travel to get there, then you have to say that this light was either blue or not-blue before it arrived. And you have rejected both options.

Here are your previous answers. Either revise them to be consistent with your above claims, or own up to your own complete inconsistency and admit the impossibility of real-time photography:

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

1. What is it that interacts with the film in a camera to determine the color of the resulting image?
Light

2. Where is whatever it is which does this (when it interacts)?
At the film.

3. Which properties of whatever it is that does this will determine the color of the resulting image?
The wavelengths.

4. Did the light present at the camera initially travel from the object to get there?
Yes.

5. Can light travel to the camera without arriving at the camera?
Of course not.

6. Can light travel faster than light?
No.

7. Is wavelength a property of light?
Yes.

8. Can light travel without any wavelength?
No.

9. Do objects reflect light or does light reflect objects?
Objects absorb light. The term 'reflect' as a transitive verb means throwing or bending back from a surface. It may mean giving back or showing an image of. This word is creating a problem.

10. What does a reflection consist of?
Light.

11. What does light consist of?
Photons.

12. Do you agree with our account of what it means for the ball to be blue (i.e. that it is presently absorbing all non-blue light striking it, and reflecting from its surface only the light of blue-wavelength)?
Yes.

Bump.

LadyShea · #**13735** 10-30-2011, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said that it's an object normally seen by the naked eye when it's in view of the camera. The only difference is that now it is out of the field of view of the camera. No one has answered this question adequately. They just keep saying I don't understand optics. Great cop out.

It has been answered adequately, and you don't understand optics. Dragar's post explained it perfectly. Your response was mistaken, as I already pointed out.

Then the explanation isn't clear to me as to why this observation isn't valid.

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?

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

How many times have we said light doesn't carry or bring an image? You've said over and over you understand that and are using it as a shorthand. But you don't understand.

Light just does what it does, it is emitted, it is absorbed, it is reflected and diffused. Some of it hits the sensor (film, CCD, retina). The light that hits the sensor has a certain wavelength (color), intensity, and comes from a certain direction. The sensor simply records the light as little dots of color. The closer the object the more intensely the light it is reflected is when it hits the sensor, so the little dots can form an image of that object.

Intensity decreases with distance because of the inverse square law, so may not be intense enough by the time it reaches the sensor to register as a dot.

If you shot a target with a shotgun at close range, you get a small hole (focused/intense), the further away you get, the pellets spread (lose intensity over distance) so you end up with larger and larger holes, then a series of small holes and far enough away only one or two pellets may hit the target at all. This isn't a perfect analogy because shotgun pellets are subject to the loss of velocity due to friction, but might give you some idea.

LadyShea · #**13736** 10-30-2011, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

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?

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.

Okay, fair enough. Thanks for explaining

I was thinking along the lines of there is only one "object" or "image" or however we are referring to it.

LadyShea · #**13737** 10-30-2011, 09:13 PM

Quote:

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)

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He did not make an assertion, so stop saying that.

Define assertion then, and demonstrate how he did not make assertions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

What on Earth do you mean "pixels in an object"?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ladyshea

She thought indeterminism was a synonym for Free Will

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Causal determinism in quantum physics is related to this determinism WHICH IS NOT PHILOSOPHICAL.

Maybe I was wrong. Can you explain how causal determinism in quantum physics is related the determinism that is the opposite of free will, and how the free will/determinism question is not philosophical?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You act like your God's gift to knowledge, and although you are smart, you really aren't all knowing LadyShea.

I make many mistakes*, and welcome well explained corrections to further my knowledge. Please see my request for such a well explained correction just above.

I am not a scientist either. In fact, I don't have any kind of degree at all. I like talking to people who know a lot about things I am interested in so I can learn more.

Spacemonkey · #**13738** 10-30-2011, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He did not make an assertion, so stop saying that.

Of course he did. He asserted that the eye is not a sense organ, and that vision is efferent and instantaneous. Yet he provided no evidence or observations in support of these assertions.

He also asserted that in a blame-free environment conscience alone would be sufficient to prevent anyone from making a 'first blow'. Yet he provided no evidence or observations in support of this assertion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...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.

If you think my explanation anywhere involved "pixels in an object" then I suggest you go back and read it again before making accusations of weaseling.

peacegirl · #**13739** 10-30-2011, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

And yet you seem to have the same problems in comprehension as Dougal!

Who is Dougal?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

peacegirl, do you at least understand that a we move an object further away, the image it forms on a CCD or our retinas will become smaller? Are we at least okay on this basic principle?

But it doesn't make sense, for if afferent vision is true, the object that is reflecting the image as it travels toward the eye should be resolved as it gets closer and closer. Isn't that how we see galaxies? We see them due to light traveling billions of lightyears toward the telescope until the photograph is resolved. Where's the difference?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Edited to add:

Quote:

I have never witnessed this. Could you give me another example that is closer to home?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Sure. How about we take a picture of the Sun using a distant satellite. Why are changes in the surface of the sun ahead of how we see it on Earth?

It makes total sense because a satellite picture is in much more detail than what could be seen on Earth. I don't think it's showing these changes ahead of what is seen on Earth.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Or how about experiment in a lab, where we shine a laser beam out and suddenly change its colour, or shape slightly. Why do we only see it change after the event? (And we know when we changed the colour or shape, because we have clocks on Earth to refer to).

I'd like to see that experiment.

Quote:

There are many theories that could explain this phenomenon. I'm not sure what they are. That being said, I still maintain that there is a way of reconciling this apparent discrepancy and still keep the position of real time seeing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Great. We'll add it to the huge list of 'things that appear to disprove Lessans, but peacegirl is sure there must be a reason why they really don't, even if she doesn't know what it is yet'.

Moons of Jupiter, annual abberation, gravitational lensing, and so on...

I still say that if the image of an object is reflected carrying that image (so to speak), then that wavelength should be able to be resolved and interpreted by the brain as long as there is nothing to deflect or absorb that light. The object's size wouldn't matter; only the light as it strikes the retina.

I know my answers are not going to be adequate. I can only offer his observations and why he believed we could never see a physical event, such as Columbus discovering America, if that event was no longer present. As far as lightwaves being emitted from a light source and traveling at a finite rate of speed until the light reaches the telescope, that makes sense. The light is coming from long ago and is giving us clues to a past event, but we're not seeing the actual galaxies as they existed [in my humble opinion]. I don't believe any of this rules out real time seeing.

peacegirl · #**13740** 10-30-2011, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He did not make an assertion, so stop saying that.

Quote:

Of course he did. He asserted that the eye is not a sense organ, and that vision is efferent and instantaneous. Yet he provided no evidence or observations in support of these assertions.

I believe he did explain why we see efferently, and it didn't come from the study of light. As I keep repeating, it came from his understanding of how the brain works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

He also asserted that in a blame-free environment conscience alone would be sufficient to prevent anyone from making a 'first blow'. Yet he provided no evidence or observations in support of this assertion.

Yes he did Spacemonkey. I have no idea what you remember, but you're doing what everyone here is doing. You're taking this one comment out of context without understanding the entire proof. And I believe there is proof. It's not a mere assertion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...and the whole pixel thing doesn't make sense because there should be enough pixels in a sensor that is slightly out of the field of view if the image is carried in the light.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If you think my explanation anywhere involved "pixels in an object" then I suggest you go back and read it again before making accusations of weaseling.

I meant a sensor in a mega pixel CCD.

thedoc · #**13741** 10-31-2011, 03:54 AM

Does anyone here seriously think you have a 'snowballs chance in hell' of getting through to Peacegirl. She has amply demonstrated her inability to grasp anything contrary to Lessans, her refusal to consider anything that would counter his claims, and that she is unwilling to learn anything that would contradict his book. In short her mind is totally locked down and her sickness precludes any other knowledge than 'Lessans is right'.

BTW other than amusement and posting the truth against Lessans fiction, I do not see much point to this thread. Peacegirl has become obnoxiously boring, but everyone else continues to post interesting examples that support afferent vision.

I think that if the discussion could move on to 'free will', 'determinism' and some of the other philosophical subjects it could revive some of the interest and attract a few more contributers. The issue of vision has been beaten to death, and Peacegirl is the dead horse that continues to be beaten, her obsessive compulsion isn't helping that at all.

Angakuk · #**13742** 10-31-2011, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How this occurs I really don't know. I am not an astronomer. There are many theories that could explain this phenomenon. I'm not sure what they are. That being said, I still maintain that there is a way of reconciling this apparent discrepancy and still keep the position of real time seeing.

You don't know what the correct explanation is, but you are sure that some explanation must exist that allows for real time seeing. How is this anything other than a statement of faith? Don't get me wrong, I, rather obviously, have no objection to making statements of faith. I do have an objection to making statements of faith and trying to pretend that they are something other than statements of faith.

Dragar · #**13743** 10-31-2011, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

And yet you seem to have the same problems in comprehension as Dougal!

Who is Dougal?

An Irish priest who has severe difficulty comprehending the difference between apparent and actual size. Rather like yourself, but more Irish.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

peacegirl, do you at least understand that a we move an object further away, the image it forms on a CCD or our retinas will become smaller? Are we at least okay on this basic principle?

But it doesn't make sense, for if afferent vision is true, the object that is reflecting the image as it travels toward the eye should be resolved as it gets closer and closer. Isn't that how we see galaxies? We see them due to light traveling billions of lightyears toward the telescope until the photograph is resolved. Where's the difference?

That's not what resolved means. I don't even know why you chose to respond to what I said in this way. I asked a super simple question about apparent and actual sizes, and you responded with this!

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It makes total sense because a satellite picture is in much more detail than what could be seen on Earth. I don't think it's showing these changes ahead of what is seen on Earth.

I didn't say more detail. I said ahead of what is seen on Earth. There's no way I'm going rooting through satellite footage and comparing to Earth observations, but there's plenty of solar observations you could go try to test your theory with. You won't, of course.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Or how about experiment in a lab, where we shine a laser beam out and suddenly change its colour, or shape slightly. Why do we only see it change after the event? (And we know when we changed the colour or shape, because we have clocks on Earth to refer to).

I'd like to see that experiment.

Why? So you could say "Well, I'm sure there's a theory we could use to explain it, and I don't know what they are, but I'm sure Lessans is right."

These sorts of things are done all day, every day, peacegirl. That experiment I described? That's how GPS works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I still say that if the image of an object is reflected carrying that image (so to speak), then that wavelength should be able to be resolved and interpreted by the brain as long as there is nothing to deflect or absorb that light. The object's size wouldn't matter; only the light as it strikes the retina.

And we can only say again that the object's size does not matter, the image size does. And if the image size is smaller than a since cell on the retina, the brain can't possibly interpret that as an image - it just has a single retina saying 'light hit here!' which is not an image, it's a dot.

But for some reason you think big objects should always give big images.

peacegirl, you understand that a model cow on my desk will produce the same sized image to a real sized cow a certain distance away, right? That the object size alone does not determine the size of the image?

I never thought I'd actually have this conversation with anyone in real life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know my answers are not going to be adequate. I can only offer his observations and why he believed we could never see a physical event, such as Columbus discovering America, if that event was no longer present.

That's the opposite of what we said when we discussed gravitational lensing. There you admitted that if light took a long time to get here via one route, we'd see an image of an a galaxy that was older than if light travelled a longer route to get here.

Here you are now saying that can never happen.

You don't seem capable of even holding a coherent conversation on this topic, peacegirl. I don't know if its you or Lessans, but you contradict yourself every other post. And when you finally are backed into a corner, you just appeal to faith in Lessans.

Tell me peacegirl, what would it be like if Lessans was wrong, and if you were entirely deluded about his correctness? Do you think people would be less receptive to Lessans somehow? That less counterexamples you couldn't explain would exist? That your worldview would be less coherent?

With enough twisting and turning, you can probably make anything - even Lessans daft statements like this - self consistent. You can always, as you have done, ignore the things we see when we look at the world, and just assume there's a good explanation. But if you were wrong, peacegirl, how would you ever find out, doing things like this? The answer is, you wouldn't. You'd be trapped, stuck with a completely wrong worldview, wasting your life over a charade. You will never, ever have any chance of learning you are wrong, because you can't even consider the possiblity Lessans was wrong, and no matter how many contradictions appear, you will always just do your best to ignore them. No matter how many conspiracy theories you need to create, you'll create them.

peacegirl · #**13744** 10-31-2011, 01:04 PM

Quote:

I don't know if this is worth my time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

The arrogant ignoramus doesn't know if it's worth her time to be talking to people many orders of magnitude smarter and more educated than she is. Isn't she precious.

Quote:

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Bullshit, you little fool, even if God existed and knew in advance what we are going to do, it does not logically follow that we had to do the thing that God knew. This is classic modal fallacy.

This is not about God knowing in advance what we are going to do. I told you this already. That's the standard definition of determinism. The proposed definition that Lessans is offering (which is more accurate) has nothing to do with predicting every single outcome. You need to listen better David.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

WRONG: If God knows in advance that I will do x, then I NECESSARILY (MUST) do x (modal fallacy).

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

RIGHT: Necessarily, (if God knows that I will do x, then I will (Not MUST!) do x.

You must do that not because you have to do that until you do it. That's why people try to prove that this is a fallacy (which it is) by showing that if I do x I don't have to do y, and they're right!

You don't have to do anything because you MUST do it in the sense that it must follow down a predetermined path that has been set in advance. That is NOT what he is talking about, nevertheless, what you do once it's done (regardless of the reason) had to be that way because the options that were available, at that moment, gave less satisfaction under the conditions, and it's impossible to choose something that is less satisfying (to you, not others) when something more satisfying is available. Until you get that, you will have no understanding of this knowledge.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Omniscient foreknowledge, if it existed, merely means that what I do, and what God foreknows, must MATCH, and not that I MUST DO some particular thing.

You're right about that. Lessans never said that something has to be a certain way; that a certain decision is in stone. The only thing he is saying is that once you yourself choose something (no one, not even God, can know what choice is going to be made) it could not have been otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

God, you are so fucking dumb. Do you know anything at all?

Oh, and peacegirl? You just said that gravitational lensing means we see different images because of different times it takes light to reach us. Thanks for recognizing that real-time seeing is false. :lol:

If we're talking about light itself (not objects) --- and in order to see there has to be light within the field of view of the telescope --- and the light that is traveling at a finite speed has not gotten there yet because the path it is taking is longer than the other pathyway, it makes sense that one image would be seen before the other, and still not negate real time seeing.

LadyShea · #**13745** 10-31-2011, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light is coming from long ago and is giving us clues to a past event, but we're not seeing the actual galaxies as they existed [in my humble opinion]. I don't believe any of this rules out real time seeing.

Then quit ignoring the photo below (that I have posted 5 times) and tell me what this image is. Is it a clue? A relic? A remnant?

Sure looks like an "actual galaxy" to me. And since the light had to travel for 25+ million years to get here to create this image, it stands to reason this is the "actual galaxy as it existed".

The final image is 16,000 x 12,000 pixels.

peacegirl · #**13746** 10-31-2011, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How this occurs I really don't know. I am not an astronomer. There are many theories that could explain this phenomenon. I'm not sure what they are. That being said, I still maintain that there is a way of reconciling this apparent discrepancy and still keep the position of real time seeing.

You don't know what the correct explanation is, but you are sure that some explanation must exist that allows for real time seeing. How is this anything other than a statement of faith? Don't get me wrong, I, rather obviously, have no objection to making statements of faith. I do have an objection to making statements of faith and trying to pretend that they are something other than statements of faith.

I don't think this is just a matter of faith although, like you, I believe having faith is a good thing to have in our troubled world.

LadyShea · #**13747** 10-31-2011, 01:27 PM

Quote:

If we're talking about light itself (not objects) --- and in order to see there has to be light within the field of view of the telescope --- and the light that is traveling at a finite speed has not gotten there yet because the path it is taking is longer than the other pathyway, it makes sense that one image would be seen before the other, and still not negate real time seeing.

Galaxies are objects. You are moving the goalposts (by redefining "object" and making a distinctions that don't exist in Lessans work nor in reality) to maintain your argument in the face of a clear refutation.

Lessans said we would see the Sun instantly, the only thing visible from the sun is it's light. If the sun did not emit light in the spectrum visible to humans, you would not see anything. So when you see the Sun, you see light itself.

Do you truly think you could see a big ball of superhot plasma if the sun (or any star) didn't emit visible light? Do you think you are seeing that ball of plasma when looking at a star, with light being only a "condition" of seeing it?

It does negate real time seeing. You can't admit that, so you make up new conditions for acceptable examples, once again that is called moving the goalposts. A classic weasel.

peacegirl · #**13748** 10-31-2011, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light is coming from long ago and is giving us clues to a past event, but we're not seeing the actual galaxies as they existed [in my humble opinion]. I don't believe any of this rules out real time seeing.

Then quit ignoring the photo below (that I have posted 5 times) and tell me what this image is. Is it a clue? A relic? A remnant?

Sure looks like an "actual galaxy" to me. And since the light had to travel for 25+ million years to get here to create this image, it stands to reason this is the "actual galaxy as it existed".

The final image is 16,000 x 12,000 pixels.

This is an interesting website because it explains dark matter, and it could be the matter that is interacting with the light to give it it's composition and appearance. Just a thought so don't go ballistic.

http://www.hep.shef.ac.uk/research/dm/intro.php

thedoc · #**13749** 10-31-2011, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

and the light that is traveling at a finite speed has not gotten there yet because the path it is taking is longer than the other pathyway, it makes sense that one image would be seen before the other, and still not negate real time seeing.

No-one said the light has not gotten here yet, there is a constant stream of light from the object to us. What was stated is that the one image would be of the same galaxy just slightly older than the other image. The light for both images is arriving all the time but we are seeing two images at the same time, that are of slightly different ages of the same galaxy. You seem to be misunderstanding, or deliberately trying to obstruct the dialogue by suggesting that the light from these distant objects is just now arriving and had not been here before. Almost as if you believe that God has just turned them on for us to see when we look. There are objects in the Universe that do appear to turn on and off but galaxies are not one of them.

peacegirl · #**13750** 10-31-2011, 02:01 PM

Here's food for thought:

Question and examine everything. Conclusions
that sound logically persuasive may not be true, even if
you can't immediately prove those conclusions are not true,
even if you can't immediately prove what IS true instead,
even if you may never be able to prove to others' satisfaction
what IS true instead.

Don't discount commonsense, intuition that something is not
quite right, personal experience, and other practical experience.

Any of these routes to knowledge can be in error, but
if we rely only on authority, statistics, and
persuasive sounding logic, we will have given away much
of our power to detect error where that may occur.