A revolution in thought - Page 621

peacegirl · #**15501** 03-13-2012, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Because you are in constant judgment of me and Lessans with no basis for the them. And you call this honesty?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have reasons for my opinions about both you and Lessans and I have told you exactly what those reasons are. Yes, I call that honesty.

No, that is not honesty. That is dishonesty because your opinion is not based in reality.

Quote:

This is not about evidence; this is about character defamation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are using words you don't understand. Defamation is a legal term.

Defamation - the act of defaming; false or unjustified injury of the good reputation of another, as by slander or libel

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What I am doing is stating my negative opinions of your public words and actions as well as Lessans words that you published. I have made no false allegations with malicious intent.

It doesn't matter if it was intended to be malicious or not, you are making false statements about Lessans and me. I don't understand where you come off thinking that this is appropriate.

LadyShea · #**15502** 03-13-2012, 05:52 PM

I've made no false allegations against either of you. I have expressed my opinion of your actions and words

thedoc · #**15503** 03-13-2012, 05:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All you have to do is become a citizen, and you will no longer be bound by any laws, rules, or conventions. You will be completely free. Of course, you have to sign an agreement that you'll never blame anyone for anything again, in return for the guarantee. If you don't want to be part of this new world, you don't have to.

But Lessans claimed that once 'free will' was done away with and no-one was blaming anyone for anything, everything would be an undeniable law of nature that would control everyones actions. In fact at one point Lessans stated that there would be no more marrage as a legal contract, implying that signed documents would be a thing of the past, so signing an agreement would be moot, a useless gesture, no longer required. Or did Lessans contradict himself again?

davidm · #**15504** 03-13-2012, 05:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't matter if it was intended to be malicious or not, you are making false statements about Lessans and me. I don't understand where you come off thinking that this is appropriate.

Everything that everyone here has said about Lessans and you is absolutely correct.

LadyShea · #**15505** 03-13-2012, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't understand where you come off thinking that this is appropriate.

Lessans thought suing the President of the US for not reading his book was appropriate. You think it's appropriate to dismiss multiple scientific studies as unreliable when you haven't even read them.

You have very strange ideas about appropriateness.

Vivisectus · #**15506** 03-13-2012, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Why can't you get in your head that these are not rules to be followed. No one has to follow anything Vivisectus, so you don't know what you're talking about. In fact, if you desire to steal, kill, injure, maim, judge, or anything you want, under the changed conditions, the more power to you. All you have to do is become a citizen, and you will no longer be bound by laws or rules. You will be completely free.

Oh I see - you are thinking of the wrong kind of authority.

Your father desperately wanted to be an authority - like they say "this person is an authority on physics", someone who "wrote the book" on a subject. I never intended to say he wanted to boss people around and be an authority in the sense of a policeman.

He didn't want that kind of authority either. He didn't care about any of that, but it just so happens that he knew a lot about human nature and the workings of the mind.

Pity he didn't know how to write books that would convince those human minds!

And no, seriously. If he had not cared about any of that, he would not have written the things he did. It is like he cannot finish a sentence without telling himself how great and awesome his work is.

peacegirl · #**15507** 03-13-2012, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Why can't you get in your head that these are not rules to be followed. No one has to follow anything Vivisectus, so you don't know what you're talking about. In fact, if you desire to steal, kill, injure, maim, judge, or anything you want, under the changed conditions, the more power to you. All you have to do is become a citizen, and you will no longer be bound by laws or rules. You will be completely free.

Oh I see - you are thinking of the wrong kind of authority.

Your father desperately wanted to be an authority - like they say "this person is an authority on physics", someone who "wrote the book" on a subject. I never intended to say he wanted to boss people around and be an authority in the sense of a policeman.

He didn't want that kind of authority either. He didn't care about any of that, but it just so happens that he knew a lot about human nature and the workings of the mind.

Pity he didn't know how to write books that would convince those human minds!

And no, seriously. If he had not cared about any of that, he would not have written the things he did. It is like he cannot finish a sentence without telling himself how great and awesome his work is.

That's why I'm not going to discuss this book anymore with you. You can't seem to get past the fact that he was not arrogant. You should be able to accept what I'm telling you, but for some reason you won't let go of your fabrications.

thedoc · #**15508** 03-13-2012, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

but it just so happens that he knew a lot about human nature and the workings of the mind.

This again, If he knew so much about human nature and the human mind why did he write a book that is critisized and rebuffed at every turn. If he had known anything at all about human nature and the way the mind worked he would have written in such a way that people would instantly understand and accept his ideas. As it was he say everything and everyone as the simple model of billard balls on a table where everything could be controlled and directed with just the right 'English'. But that would let much of the world out of his 'Golden Age.

davidm · #**15509** 03-13-2012, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Why can't you get in your head that these are not rules to be followed. No one has to follow anything Vivisectus, so you don't know what you're talking about. In fact, if you desire to steal, kill, injure, maim, judge, or anything you want, under the changed conditions, the more power to you. All you have to do is become a citizen, and you will no longer be bound by laws or rules. You will be completely free.

Oh I see - you are thinking of the wrong kind of authority.

Your father desperately wanted to be an authority - like they say "this person is an authority on physics", someone who "wrote the book" on a subject. I never intended to say he wanted to boss people around and be an authority in the sense of a policeman.

He didn't want that kind of authority either. He didn't care about any of that, but it just so happens that he knew a lot about human nature and the workings of the mind.

Pity he didn't know how to write books that would convince those human minds!

And no, seriously. If he had not cared about any of that, he would not have written the things he did. It is like he cannot finish a sentence without telling himself how great and awesome his work is.

That's why I'm not going to discuss this book anymore with you. You can't seem to get past the fact that he was not arrogant. You should be able to accept what I'm telling you, but for some reason you won't let go of your fabrications.

LOL, your arrogance and ignorance never ceases to amuse.

"You should be able to accept what I'm telling you." Exactly! Whatever Lessans says is right, even though it's all wrong. So you have to ACCEPT that is right. This is even stupider than standard religious belief. At least there is a chance, however slight, that some tales about an after-life could be correct; we won't know till we die. By contrast, there is NO CHANCE AT ALL that ANYTHING the buffoon wrote is true; it's not only provably false empirically, it's not even logically consistent.

Hilarious!

LadyShea · #**15510** 03-13-2012, 06:30 PM

Quote:

You can't seem to get past the fact that he was not arrogant. You should be able to accept what I'm telling you, but for some reason you won't let go of your fabrications.

The book is full of self congratulations and imaginary people gushingly praising Lessans, peacegirl! Not to mention all that "undeniable" crap. If you wanted him to be thought of as humble, you should have edited all that out, or not inserted it yourself in the first place.

LadyShea · #**15511** 03-13-2012, 06:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The "visible range" is determined by the sensor. Some sensors have a longer range, others shorter. This is why telescopes and telephoto lenses and binoculars were invented. This is why some animals can see further and/or in more detail than others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is actually hysterical because the very thing you're saying disputes efferent vision, is the very thing that supports it.

How and when and why an image can be resolved is a big part of optics, I was just describing the mechanisms.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If all we needed was light, we wouldn't need a telescope, but, of course, you don't get that.

And if our brains looked out and saw the real world instantly we wouldn't need telescopes, because we wouldn't need to collect, bend, and focus more light on our retina to extend our visual range.

Seriously, efferent vision says we can see what we can see when we can see it, with no explanation or mechanism. Optics explains why, how, and when we can see stuff.

Efferent vision doesn't offer any mechanism, it doesn't offer any way to determine how far is too far, how small is too small, how dim is too dim. All of this is explained and described and predicted by standard optics, however.

So, can you explain how "too far", "too dim" and "too small" are determined in your model, other than saying "If we can't see it we can't see it?"

Bump

LadyShea · #**15512** 03-13-2012, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

That makes sense to me. Neutrinos are a warning that a Supernova is about to happen. Why does that mean we couldn't be seeing it in real time with powerful telescopes?

If we saw the supernova in "real time" meaning instantly, as it happened, we wouldn't detect the neutrinos from that event until long after we were able to see it. This is because the neutrinos must travel the distance, which takes time, while we could see it without any time delay.

So if we saw, in real time. a supernova of a star 100 light years away from Earth, the neutrinos would take about 100 years to arrive to be detected.

However this doesn't happen. The neutrinos are detected around the same time we can see the supernova, which is strong evidence that we see the supernova only after the light has traveled that distance, not in real time as it happens.

This has been gone over many times before. What part do you not understand?

I never said light did not travel, and if a neutrino came before these photons, it would be letting us know that soon light will be detected, but to use this example as proof that we see an exact image of a past event due to light that is bringing that pattern of light to us, is far from conclusive.

Lessans' claim is that we can see stars and other heavenly bodies in real time, without having to await the photons to reach Earth. That was his point of the hypothetical about seeing the sun turned on at noon, even though the light wouldn't reach us for another 8.5 minutes. Which is why I said this:

Quote:

If we saw the supernova in "real time" meaning instantly, as it happened, we wouldn't detect the neutrinos from that event until long after we were able to see it. This is because the neutrinos must travel the distance, which takes time, while we could see it without any time delay.

So, if we do have to await the arriving photons to see a supernova that happened 100 years ago (because it is a hundred light years away), that is seeing a past event, correct?

This disproves Lessans claim.

No it doesn't, because detection of neutrinos is different than efferent sight. They don't go hand in hand. That's why Lessans said that seeing the Sun turned on does not mean that photons have to have reached Earth. We just wouldn't be able to see each other until those photons arrived. By the same token, we can see in real time, and detect neutrinos when they get close enough to Earth.

You are confused by the example I guess, let me break it down to the simplest of terms.

Star is 100 light years away
Star goes supernova at star time T1
Neutrinos will take around 100 years to get to Earth to be detected, because they travel at close to light speed, so T1+100 years

According to Lessans claims, we would see the supernova at T1 with our instant efferent vision, but we would not detect neutrinos from that supernova for another hundred years.

What happens in reality is that we detect the neutrinos and see the supernova within the same general time frame (often within hours of each other), not a hundred or more years apart. This demonstrates that we can't see stars instantly, we can only see them when the photons have reached Earth.

Bump

LadyShea · #**15513** 03-13-2012, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But in efferent vision, you cannot just detect light without the object, because it would show up as white light, no image. And no one has answered my question, which is why does an image not show up on film if a person steps out of visual range slightly, but is in a straight line with the lens of a camera, but when he steps within range, his image is resolved on film.

It is explained right here

Quote:

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.

You know what's hilarious, this seems to be what you are referring to as "becoming white light".

It's not that the red photons aren't traveling, it's that they've dispersed to the point where they are not intense enough to resolve an image, because the other light (white light in your model) is equally intense. Remember the definition of white light? All wavelengths being present in equal intensity? When a red object is close by, the red light is more intense than the other wavelengths, so we see the red object. When that intensity decreases too much due to dispersion over distance, we no longer see the object

So, your model is just confusingly and unnecessarily positing crazy non-traveling light to explain the physical mechanism already explained by standard optics.

Not at all. I'm saying it seems quite strange that the only time resolution occurs is when an actual piece of matter is in range. You keep explaining how detectors work, which is all well and good, but they don't work at all if there if the object is not present.

Now we're back to images that can seen and photographed without any "actual piece of matter being in range", like stars, rainbows, television and computer monitor images, even photographs...the paper is an object, but the image is not. The image is nothing but colored dots of different intensities.

The object is important in standard optics because it reflects light, and the qualities of that reflection (intensity, color, angles) is what determines the image resolved by the sensor.

You just implied that the object is not important once the light is reflected.

It's not important once the light is reflected

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've said this all along. It does not make sense logically that there would be no image detected when someone steps slightly out of range if the pattern of light is in a direct in line with the sensor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I just explained why that is. Are you unable of comprehending simple sentences in English?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, you didn't. You made an assertion that resolution has nothing to do with the object once it is reflected.

It was explained. Here are the two important sentences.

1. From Spacemonkey

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.

2. From me

they've (the photons with a red wavelength) dispersed to the point where they are not intense enough to resolve an image, because the other light (white light in your model) is equally intense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thank you for explaining how sensors work and why red shows up, but you still have not answered the simple question as to why objects (substance) must be in view for the reflected light to be detected.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Because that's what "in view" means. In view means the sensor can resolve an image. Nothing more or less.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not according to Lessans' perspective which is what we are disputing, so to just say that this is what "in view" means, only means according to YOU.

What does "in view" mean from Lessans perspective and therefore to you then, if it's so different as to be in dispute?

Does "in view" mean anything more than "can be seen" according to you and Lessans?

In optics in view means the same thing, it can be seen. Optics simply explains the mechanism; the why and how and when something is or is not in view.

This is something your model cannot do, explain the mechanism.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All things being equal, if a person is not within visible range, the strongest sensor would still not pick up or detect an image if that individual is literally a few steps back that put that person out of range.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The "visible range" is determined by the sensor. Some sensors have a longer range, others shorter. This is why telescopes and telephoto lenses and binoculars were invented. This is why some animals can see further and/or in more detail than others.

At some distance the Earth itself gets in the way, but there are instruments that can extend the visible range all the way to the horizon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are dealing in theory, not fact.

Is it a theory that binoculars extend the visual range? Is it a theory that telescopes extend the visual range? Is it a theory that some animals have a longer visual range than others? What exactly are you referring to as theory rather than factual?

Bump

davidm · #**15514** 03-13-2012, 07:04 PM

You are indefatigable, LadyShea, as befitting someone who spent four years arguing with your own damned husband on the Internet.

If anyone can outlast peacegirl it's you.

Vivisectus · #**15515** 03-13-2012, 07:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Why can't you get in your head that these are not rules to be followed. No one has to follow anything Vivisectus, so you don't know what you're talking about. In fact, if you desire to steal, kill, injure, maim, judge, or anything you want, under the changed conditions, the more power to you. All you have to do is become a citizen, and you will no longer be bound by laws or rules. You will be completely free.

Oh I see - you are thinking of the wrong kind of authority.

Your father desperately wanted to be an authority - like they say "this person is an authority on physics", someone who "wrote the book" on a subject. I never intended to say he wanted to boss people around and be an authority in the sense of a policeman.

He didn't want that kind of authority either. He didn't care about any of that, but it just so happens that he knew a lot about human nature and the workings of the mind.

Pity he didn't know how to write books that would convince those human minds!

And no, seriously. If he had not cared about any of that, he would not have written the things he did. It is like he cannot finish a sentence without telling himself how great and awesome his work is.

That's why I'm not going to discuss this book anymore with you. You can't seem to get past the fact that he was not arrogant. You should be able to accept what I'm telling you, but for some reason you won't let go of your fabrications.

You say that every other week, luv. Just like you threaten to leave on a regular basis.

His writing certainly is arrogant. Ask anyone who has read it, and they will all tell you the same thing. And it is also painfully why he felt the need to be so arrogant: he was obviously terribly insecure about his lack of education. He goes on and on about it.

I know you look at everything through these heavily tinted "my daddy was a genius" glasses, but if you look at the book objectively, it looks arrogant.

LadyShea · #**15516** 03-13-2012, 08:01 PM

No, no, my husband and I had that argument to each other's faces. For years, yes. Luckily it wasn't the only discussion we had during that time

davidm · #**15517** 03-13-2012, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, no, my husband and I had that argument to each other's faces. For years, yes. Luckily it wasn't the only discussion we had during that time

Oh, I thought you said you had it on the Internet. I was envisioning you and him arguing for four years, and then meeting IRL and marrying.

However that may be, you are teh match for teh peacegirl!

LadyShea · #**15518** 03-13-2012, 08:29 PM

Nah, we've been married 21 years, back then the "internet" for us was like Prodigy

We have had discussions via chat though lol

peacegirl · #**15519** 03-13-2012, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't understand where you come off thinking that this is appropriate.

Lessans thought suing the President of the US for not reading his book was appropriate. You think it's appropriate to dismiss multiple scientific studies as unreliable when you haven't even read them.

You have very strange ideas about appropriateness.

Would you please stop bringing that up. I told you why he did that, but you, like Vivisectus, can't let your false judgments of him go. I have yet to observe a dog recognize his master from a picture by a wag of his tail or any other sign that would be telling.

peacegirl · #**15520** 03-13-2012, 09:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

That makes sense to me. Neutrinos are a warning that a Supernova is about to happen. Why does that mean we couldn't be seeing it in real time with powerful telescopes?

If we saw the supernova in "real time" meaning instantly, as it happened, we wouldn't detect the neutrinos from that event until long after we were able to see it. This is because the neutrinos must travel the distance, which takes time, while we could see it without any time delay.

So if we saw, in real time. a supernova of a star 100 light years away from Earth, the neutrinos would take about 100 years to arrive to be detected.

However this doesn't happen. The neutrinos are detected around the same time we can see the supernova, which is strong evidence that we see the supernova only after the light has traveled that distance, not in real time as it happens.

This has been gone over many times before. What part do you not understand?

I never said light did not travel, and if a neutrino came before these photons, it would be letting us know that soon light will be detected, but to use this example as proof that we see an exact image of a past event due to light that is bringing that pattern of light to us, is far from conclusive.

Lessans' claim is that we can see stars and other heavenly bodies in real time, without having to await the photons to reach Earth. That was his point of the hypothetical about seeing the sun turned on at noon, even though the light wouldn't reach us for another 8.5 minutes. Which is why I said this:

Quote:

If we saw the supernova in "real time" meaning instantly, as it happened, we wouldn't detect the neutrinos from that event until long after we were able to see it. This is because the neutrinos must travel the distance, which takes time, while we could see it without any time delay.

So, if we do have to await the arriving photons to see a supernova that happened 100 years ago (because it is a hundred light years away), that is seeing a past event, correct?

This disproves Lessans claim.

No it doesn't, because detection of neutrinos is different than efferent sight. They don't go hand in hand. That's why Lessans said that seeing the Sun turned on does not mean that photons have to have reached Earth. We just wouldn't be able to see each other until those photons arrived. By the same token, we can see in real time, and detect neutrinos when they get close enough to Earth.

You are confused by the example I guess, let me break it down to the simplest of terms.

Star is 100 light years away
Star goes supernova at star time T1
Neutrinos will take around 100 years to get to Earth to be detected, because they travel at close to light speed, so T1+100 years

According to Lessans claims, we would see the supernova at T1 with our instant efferent vision, but we would not detect neutrinos from that supernova for another hundred years.

What happens in reality is that we detect the neutrinos and see the supernova within the same general time frame (often within hours of each other), not a hundred or more years apart. This demonstrates that we can't see stars instantly, we can only see them when the photons have reached Earth.

I have always maintained that we could detect white light, but we wouldn't see images of a past event.

Spacemonkey · #**15521** 03-13-2012, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Gait is movement. I don't know whether a dog could recognize his master from this alone, or not. Dogs always follow up with their sense of smell to confirm who they think the person might be. I know that dogs can distinguish between humans and dogs when they're out walking. But this has nothing to do with a dog recognizing his master by sight alone, especially from a picture.

Dogs recognizing their masters from pictures has NOTHING to do with the mechanism of vision, as you inadvertently conceded in your earlier post.

You're right. It has to do with cognition and language ability, which is what Lessans was trying to explain. If the eyes were a sense organ, dogs should be able to recognize their master from a picture, just as they recognize their masters from smell and sound, but this is a cognitive skill that dogs don't have, which is why their sense of smell and hearing is better than humans.

You've just tried to agree with me by repeating the very claim that you yourself just refuted. If it has to do with cognition and language ability, then it is FALSE that the eyes being a sense organ should be sufficient for dogs to recognize their owners from a picture. Dogs might instead have afferent vision but lack the relevant cognitive/language ability instead.

But learning language is an efferent process.

You've said that efferent vision can explain why dogs (allegedly) do not recognize their masters in photographs (even though the evidence says they do). But according to you, we all see efferently and yet we do not all lack this capacity for purely visual facial recognition. Your response has been that this capacity requires language. But that means it is language rather than the mechanism of vision which explains why dogs allegedly lack this capacity. It means canine facial recognition has nothing to do with afferent vs. efferent vision. We can simply maintain that dogs have afferent vision but lack this capacity for visual facial recognition because they don't have language. The only way to block this is to claim that such a move is unavailable because learning language requires efferent rather than afferent vision...

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If Lessans is right then blind people can't learn language.

Not true at all...

...but that is precisely what you here deny. Therefore canine facial recognition still has nothing at all to do with the mechanism of vision. Even if dogs lacked this capacity (which they don't) there is still no reason to think that they are not seeing afferently.

Oh, and... How did the photons comprising that mirror image at the film get to the film, if they didn't travel there and didn't teleport there?

Spacemonkey · #**15522** 03-13-2012, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Exactly. There is no difference, yet somehow her ignoring my questions instead of dodging them is supposed to constitute some kind of punishment for speaking the harsh truth about her father's abilities.

It has nothing to do with punishment, but I will not tolerate you calling him names like idiot. You'll regret it one day when he turns out to be right.

He won't turn out to be right. He has already turned out to be wrong. Real-time vision is impossible, as amply demonstrated by your inability to posit any coherent and consistent model capable of answering my questions about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light didn't have to get there.

Unless those photons were always at the film, or came into existence at the film, then they did have to get there.

Did these photons at the film previously exist? If not, then you have them magically coming into existence at the film.

If so, then was their previous location ever different (i.e. other than at the film)? If not, then you have stationary photons again which have always been in the same location.

If so, then you have photons which were once at point A and are now at point B. That means they had to get there somehow.

How did the photons comprising that mirror image at the film get to the film, if they didn't travel there and didn't teleport there?

So you have photons at the film when the photograph is taken. How did they get there? [Answer goes here]

Did they exist, say, 10 seconds ago? [Yes or No]

[If Yes, then...] Where were those photons then? [State a location]

How did they get from wherever they were 10 seconds ago to the film where they are now? [Answer goes here]

What does happen to the non-absorbed photons hitting the object if they don't bounce off and travel away? ((P)reflection isn't an answer - you need to explain what happens to the (P)reflected photons by specifying their location and behavior after they hit the object.)

Bump for the weasel who is desperately trying to change the topic (from light to dogs).

Bumping

More bumps.

Pay attention everybody. Watch Peacegirl weasel. She won't answer these questions. She lacks the basic honesty and intellectual integrity to even try. She may make up excuses for not answering them, or she may ignore the posts completely. But the one thing we all know she won't do is to actually answer them. Peacegirl, you want to know what grounds people have for judging you and Lessans? It's this right here. What you are doing right now by reading this and still choosing only to weasel, ignore, and evade.

peacegirl · #**15523** 03-13-2012, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But in efferent vision, you cannot just detect light without the object, because it would show up as white light, no image. And no one has answered my question, which is why does an image not show up on film if a person steps out of visual range slightly, but is in a straight line with the lens of a camera, but when he steps within range, his image is resolved on film.

It is explained right here

Quote:

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.

You know what's hilarious, this seems to be what you are referring to as "becoming white light".

It's not that the red photons aren't traveling, it's that they've dispersed to the point where they are not intense enough to resolve an image, because the other light (white light in your model) is equally intense. Remember the definition of white light? All wavelengths being present in equal intensity? When a red object is close by, the red light is more intense than the other wavelengths, so we see the red object. When that intensity decreases too much due to dispersion over distance, we no longer see the object

So, your model is just confusingly and unnecessarily positing crazy non-traveling light to explain the physical mechanism already explained by standard optics.

Standard optics is correct except for one thing. The object must in range. Why in the world wouldn't a large object be seen it's slightly out of range but in line with the film. Aren't objects reflecting light and striking the film/retina traveling? Therefore, doesn't it seem strange that a person (that is made up of substance) can step forward into visual range and the image will shows up on film, or are you too blind to see this?

Quote:

Not at all. I'm saying it seems quite strange that the only time resolution occurs is when an actual piece of matter is in range. You keep explaining how detectors work, which is all well and good, but they don't work at all if there if the object is not present.

Now we're back to images that can seen and photographed without any "actual piece of matter being in range", like stars, rainbows, television and computer monitor images, even photographs...the paper is an object, but the image is not. The image is nothing but colored dots of different intensities.

But we're still seeing monitors, stars, and rainbows in real time. In other words, if efferent vision is true we see these images because they are there to be seen, but the only way to know if this is true is through real substance.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The object is important in standard optics because it reflects light, and the qualities of that reflection (intensity, color, angles) is what determines the image resolved by the sensor.

Quote:

You just implied that the object is not important once the light is reflected.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's not important once the light is reflected

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've said this all along. It does not make sense logically that there would be no image detected when someone steps slightly out of range if the pattern of light is in a direct in line with the sensor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I just explained why that is. Are you unable of comprehending simple sentences in English?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, you didn't. You made an assertion that resolution has nothing to do with the object once it is reflected.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It was explained. Here are the two important sentences.

1. From Spacemonkey

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.

2. From me

they've (the photons with a red wavelength) dispersed to the point where they are not intense enough to resolve an image, because the other light (white light in your model) is equally intense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thank you for explaining how sensors work and why red shows up, but you still have not answered the simple question as to why objects (substance) must be in view for the reflected light to be detected.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Because that's what "in view" means. In view means the sensor can resolve an image. Nothing more or less.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not according to Lessans' perspective which is what we are disputing, so to just say that this is what "in view" means, only means according to YOU.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What does "in view" mean from Lessans perspective and therefore to you then, if it's so different as to be in dispute?

Does "in view" mean anything more than "can be seen" according to you and Lessans?

In optics in view means the same thing, it can be seen. Optics simply explains the mechanism; the why and how and when something is or is not in view.

This is something your model cannot do, explain the mechanism.

I'm trying to explain the observation and to show that nothing in this model violates physics. But this is not going to be solved in here. We're just going to go in circles.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All things being equal, if a person is not within visible range, the strongest sensor would still not pick up or detect an image if that individual is literally a few steps back that put that person out of range.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The "visible range" is determined by the sensor. Some sensors have a longer range, others shorter. This is why telescopes and telephoto lenses and binoculars were invented. This is why some animals can see further and/or in more detail than others.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

At some distance the Earth itself gets in the way, but there are instruments that can extend the visible range all the way to the horizon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are dealing in theory, not fact.

I misunderstood you. Yes, the range can be extended with instruments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Is it a theory that binoculars extend the visual range? Is it a theory that telescopes extend the visual range? Is it a theory that some animals have a longer visual range than others? What exactly are you referring to as theory rather than factual?

It's a theory, not factual, that light is all that is necessary to get an image on the film/retina.

Spacemonkey · #**15524** 03-13-2012, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Do you really not see any inconsistency in claiming that our experiments don't count because they were (allegedly) not suffciently controlled, and also that your anecdotes should count despite being completely uncontrolled?

Absolutely. Sometimes wrong conclusions come out of well-intended experiments.

Can wrong conclusions ever some out of well-intended anecdotal and uncontrolled observations? The inconsistency you claim not to be able to see, is that on the one hand you claim that adequate controls are required, while on the other hand you claim they are not necessary at all. Do you see it now?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why do you suppose it is that you have such completely different standards of evidence for that which you think supports Lessans vs. that which you think does not?

I don't.

But you do. For evidence against Lessans, you insist that it must have adequate controls. But for (alleged) evidence in his favor you insist that completely uncontrolled anecdotal observations should count. Those are different standards of evidence.

And... How did the photons comprising that mirror image at the film get to the film, if they didn't travel there and didn't teleport there?

Bump.

davidm · #**15525** 03-13-2012, 10:12 PM

LOL, look at the dishonest asshat lecturing others about their supposed lack of honesty, just as earlier she referred to us as "morons," while repeatedly refusing to answer Spacemonkey's questions, and while repeatedly refusing to answer the question that has been put to her dozens of times. Here it is again, asshat:

If real-time seeing is true, why does NASA use delayed time-seeing as factored by the speed of light to send their spacecraft to Mars and all other celestial bodies? Why??

:lol:

I suggest that everyone who continues to interact with her append, at the top or bottom of each of his or her posts, the question about Mars, the question about the moons of Jupiter, and the question that Spacemonkey has asked about a hundred times concerning how the fucking photons got to the film. In this way in every post she reads, her dishonesty will be borne home to her (and make no mistake -- she knows how dishonest she is.)