A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The examples from space are the best evidence we have for how light works and that we see in delayed time, specifically because the distance makes the time delay readily apparent to any and all observers...in many cases with only basic, inexpensive equipment (the moons of Jupiter observation), and we don't have artificial light, weather, dust and pollution in the air, and atmospheric conditions to contend with in space. The examples from space flatly contradict Lessans.

The experiment I wanted to do would involve no dust, no pollution, no artificial light, and no atmospheric conditions that would skew the results. I still don't see how, if light brings the image to someone, why an image is not seen when the object is out of view. Talking about how the object is too small because there are not enough pixels (even if the object is large enough to see, but out of the field of view) and therefore can't be resolved doesn't make sense to me in terms of afferent vision. If that is true then how can a camera be just a light detector?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

For more Earthly experiments, you have refused to even go outside with some different lenses to demonstrate to yourself how lenses work! For a couple dollars at the store you can prove, to yourself, that lenses do nothing but bend light. They aren't magic mirrors that focus out and get an instant wavelength reflection or whatever babble you made up to trying to explain how cameras work.

I know that lenses bend light, but how can they bend light coming from an object that isn't there? That's what the afferent model tells us.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You can't explain the space examples because they are incompatible with real time seeing, end of story. You can't explain how cameras work because their design and construction are incompatible with looking out or focusing out, as well as real time light detection.

Actually the only way we can see this world is through our lenses. There is no separating a lens from what we see in the visible world.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Hey peacegirl, what is this an image of? And is it a clue, a remnant, or what?

It looks like a galaxy. I know that this contradicts Lessans because the light is coming from billions of lightyears away, according to scientists.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The experiment I wanted to do would involve no dust, no pollution, no artificial light, and no atmospheric conditions that would skew the results.

You can control the air quality, the weather, and lights from cities, cars, etc.? Really? Are you a deity?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know that lenses bend light, but how can they bend light coming from an object that isn't there? That's what the afferent model tells us.

No, the afferent model doesn't tell us that.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I still don't see how, if light brings the image to someone

Light doesn't bring the image. How many times must we repeat this to you?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Talking about how the object is too small because there are not enough pixels (even if the object is large enough to see, but out of the field of view) and therefore can't be resolved doesn't make sense to me in terms of afferent vision. If that is true then how can a camera be just a light detector?

Your refusing to understand even the basics of optics is not our problem. How the apparent size vs. pixels work was explained in detail. Here it is yet again. What part are you failing to comprehend?

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.

Do you understand that sensors come in different sizes? Do you think if our eyes were the size of dinner plates we would see the same way we do now?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So, if his claims are scientific, then where is the data?

I said that the word "scientific" meant "undeniable". He tried to clarify that in the introduction.

[LadyShea]

You have tried to tell us, however, that his discoveries are scientifically verifiable.

His idiosyncratic definition is not meaningful to anyone but you

[LadyShea]

You have tried to tell us, however, that his discoveries are scientifically verifiable.

His idiosyncratic definition is not meaningful to anyone but you

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The experiment I wanted to do would involve no dust, no pollution, no artificial light, and no atmospheric conditions that would skew the results.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You can control the air quality, the weather, and lights from cities, cars, etc.? Really? Are you a deity?

There are many places that have large expanses of land where there is no pollution or other interference. All that is needed are optimal weather conditions. The area would have to be far away from the city, and during daylight hours.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know that lenses bend light, but how can they bend light coming from an object that isn't there? That's what the afferent model tells us.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, the afferent model doesn't tell us that.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I still don't see how, if light brings the image to someone

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light doesn't bring the image. How many times must we repeat this to you?

It brings the information which can then be decoded. I thought you knew what I meant.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Talking about how the object is too small because there are not enough pixels (even if the object is large enough to see, but out of the field of view) and therefore can't be resolved doesn't make sense to me in terms of afferent vision. If that is true then how can a camera be just a light detector?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your refusing to understand even the basics of optics is not our problem. How the apparent size vs. pixels work was explained in detail. Here it is yet again. What part are you failing to comprehend?

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.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Do you understand that sensors come in different sizes? Do you think if our eyes were the size of dinner plates we would see the same way we do now?

Doesn't it seem coincidental that the pixels are always too small for a camera to pick up once the object is out of view? What if we have the best light detectors possible. Do you think this experiment could work? Do you think there would ever be a time that light alone would show up on the film or sensor even if the object wasn't there? I still don't comprehend completely.

[Crumb]

Doesn't it seem coincidental that the pixels are always too small for a camera to pick up once the object is out of view?

No. That's what "out of view" means.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, it's true that we had to do it once it was done

No, it isn't. That's the whole point, "X had to happen" and "X did happen" are not equivalent statements, even after the fact.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What you said about his demographic being the pool hall is beyond ridiculous.

Prove it, give us a list of those he observed.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What you said about his demographic being the pool hall is beyond ridiculous. The truth as you see it is complete fantasy; the very thing you keep accusing Lessans of.

Actually the Pool hall is a very good place to observe a demographic that would have lead Lessans to his conclusions on relationships. With all those guys either braging about their conquests, or complaining about the relationship they were in, it would easily have lead Lessans to the kind of fantasy world he created in the book. The boasting, and exageration of those men about their conquests, and complaining about what those men didn't like about women, make perfect sense when compaired to the relationships described in the 'Golden Age'. Sales is another demographic that would have provided ample fodder for Lessans imaginings. Men out away from women will say all sorts of things to boost their image of themselves, and Lessans, not knowing any better, would have believed every word.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have his explanation regarding the brain and how it is capable of being conditioned where this is incapable of occurring with the other senses. This is what I meant by "he came to this finding indirectly."

Consequently, these differences that exist in the external
world which are not identifiable through taste, touch, smell, or sounds
are identifiable only because they are related to words, names or slides
that we project for recognition. If we would lose certain names or
words we would have amnesia because when we see these ordinarily
familiar differences we are unable to project the words or names
necessary for recognition.

The brain (mind) can be conditioned by any of the 5 senses and it is not related to words, that bit is complete nonsense. The words are applied after the person learns to recognize and remember objects, sounds, tastes, sights, and feelings received through the 5 senses.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We're seeing light as it is interacting with matter.

That's a really vague way to say nothing, but you got the most important part right 'we're seeing light', another way of saying the eyes receive light and that is how we see.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said that the word "scientific" meant "undeniable". He tried to clarify that in the introduction.

"Undeniable" is almost exactly the opposite of what the word "scientific" means!

[Stephen Maturin]

That's been pointed out numerous times. Lessans either didn't know or didn't care that "scientific" and "undeniable" aren't even remotely synonymous. Since that fact didn't matter to Lessans, it ipso facto doesn't matter to peacegirl.

[thedoc]

"Last word". For today.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But why is the question? Yes, it's true that we had to do it once it was done, but that doesn't mean we had to do it before it was done. Do you see the difference?

It is not true that we had to do it once it was done.

It is true that we had to have done it once it was done.

Your tenses are confused, not to mention your understanding of causality.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have his explanation regarding the brain and how it is capable of being conditioned where this is incapable of occurring with the other senses. This is what I meant by "he came to this finding indirectly."

It is true that we have his explanation. What we don't have is any evidence that would lead us to think that his explanation is correct.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You really have to quiet down thedoc. You are much too talkative with nothing backing you up. All you are doing is mimcicking. You have not analyzed the book. Please step back so other people can talk. Thanks.

He does not need to step back as he is not interferring with anyone else talking. One of the delightful characteristics of this mode of communication is that everyone can talk at the same time and no individual can drown out anyone else's voice. Each of us has the option of choosing which posts we will read and whose voice we will attend to.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not a matter of faith when something is proven scientifically. I believe Lessans did prove something that can be empirically tested (which relies on science), and that's why I don't call Lessans' observations faith.

To the best of my recollection no one here has characterized Lessans' observations, or his claims regarding those observations, as statements of faith. It is your defense of Lessans' claims that has been described in terms of faith statements. You wrote, "I believe Lessans did prove something that can be empirically tested", but there is no evidence that any such tests have been conducted or that his claims are likely to be substantiated by such tests. Your stated conviction that his claims can and will be verified by such tests is a quintessential expression of faith.

It appears that faith is a concept (one among many) that escapes your comprehension.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It looks like a galaxy. I know that this contradicts Lessans because the light is coming from billions of lightyears away, according to scientists.

Oh, I see. So now we need to throw out how far away galaxies are. Cool.

So, things that contradict Lessans are the moons of Jupiter, annual abberation, unable to see a red objected illuminated by blue light, gravitational lensing, images of galaxies...

And yet it never occurs to you Lessans might be wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Crumb

No. That's what "out of view" means.

But it doesn't answer the question as to why there is always an object in view. Afferent vision is seeing an image in the light itself when the object is gone, so at some point we should be able to see an object from light alone, which never occurs.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Afferent vision is seeing an image in the light itself when the object is gone, so at some point we should be able to see an object from light alone, which never occurs.

And we do see the image of an object in the light itself, even if the object disapears, there is a tiny fraction of a second that the light is still traveling to the eye or camera and we could see an image. the problem is that the distances are close relative to the speed of light and that makes the time delay very difficult to detect. However in astronomy the distances are greater and the time delay is much easier to detect, which is why astronomy is a much easier way to disprove Lessans claims.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, can you answer these questions please:

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 absorptive properties of the object.

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

This is the confusing part. Yes, light is always traveling but it's the way that the lens (or something acting as a lens) works (and how it captures the image) that you're missing, which is the other half of the equation.

5. How did the light already present at the camera get to be there, i.e. where did it come from?

It got there instantly due to light already being present, and the lens focusing that light.

6. Can light travel to the camera without arriving at the camera?

No, but the arriving light is not what is being captured by the camera. There is a difference between arriving photons from the Sun (which is in a constant stream), and what the camera captures due to the absorptive properties of matter that allow us to see the material world.

7. Can light travel faster than light?

No, but this is not about traveling faster than the speed of light. I thought you knew this already.

8. Is wavelength a property of light?

Yes.

9. Can light travel without any wavelength?

No.

10. Can wavelengths travel independently of light?

No.

11. Do objects reflect light or does light reflect objects?

Light reflects objects. In other words, light allows us to see objects that exist in the external world due to the ability of matter to absorb certain wavelengths.

12. What does a reflection consist of?

A reflection is what we are able to see; not what comes to us.

13. What does light consist of?

Photons.

14. 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)?

It's not reflecting which means leaving the surface and traveling somewhere. The individual wavelength (the wavelength of blue) is not traveling anywhere. It is displaying as we look at the object.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it doesn't answer the question as to why there is always an object in view. Afferent vision is seeing an image in the light itself when the object is gone, so at some point we should be able to see an object from light alone, which never occurs.

You know the speed of light. Would you like to work out how much time we will have to notice this effect over distances of a few hundred meters?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

"Wavelength of the object", again, after it was explained to you that the object doesn't give any wavelength to the light, nor does the light somehow "pick up" wavelengths from objects to carry along with it.

Objects don't give anything. They just absorb light which displays the object through the light that is left.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The object is seen by the eye due to the wavelength that it displays

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How does the eye see it? How is the "wavelength" it displays determined and where does the "wavelength it displays" come from?

The eye sees the object due to light, but the blue wavelength is not traveling to us. We are seeing the object due to the wavelength that is not being absorbed.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The object shows up on a digital camera by its ability to pick up that same wavelength (through pixels) but

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Describe this ability. How does it "pick up a wavelength through pixels"? What are the pixels and camera doing that enables this ability?

It's no different than any camera, except it's a different technology that does the same thing. The wavelength that is not absorbed from the object is instantly there. The pixels then display the image, just as the film displays the image.