A revolution in thought

[Kael]

As a fun illustration of the principle that all light is essentially the same, here's a demo you can do at home. All you need is a remote control, such as the one for your TV, and a camera with a display, such as a phone, webcam, or similar. I definitely want peacegirl to try this, but everyone else should too, it's pretty cool.

Remote controls for most domestic devices operate in the infrared part of the EM spectrum, just below the frequencies we can see. The light we can see are the wavelengths between 380 nanometers and 750 nanometers, with a frequency between 400 terahertz and almost 800 terahertz. Infrared is just below that, with wavelengths between 750 nanometers and 1 millimeter, and frequencies between 300 gigahertz and 400 terahertz. Note that the longer the wavelength the lower the frequency. Many digital cameras can still detect this part of the spectrum, though I do not know whether that's just a quirk of manufacturing or possibly deliberate. The display, however, generally only puts out light in the visible spectrum, and signals outside that range either get ignored or bumped into the displayable range, which essentially enables you to 'see' the infrared signal your remote emits.

Point your remote at your camera and push a few buttons. You should see the emitter on your remote light up on the camera display. On all the remotes I've tried so far, the light appears to be a pale lavender. Some cameras I've tried this with display a steady light, while on others you can see it flicker and pulse.

As you can plainly see, even your TV 'sees' light, and responds to specific patterns of frequency and intensity.

There is no unknown mechanism here, we've known and understood the principles of light and vision well enough to exploit them for our own gain and comfort for quite some time now. Light is emitted, it travels, it strikes a receptor, a signal is sent and interpreted, "voila, we see."

ETA: I was going to upload some pictures as an example, but am having some technical difficulties with my phone's SD card. I will try something else later, maybe post it in another thread so it doesn't get buried here.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

A supernova explosion.

This requires more empirical testing because you're starting out with a premise that is questionable. I am not engaging in this faraway proof that you think you have. Let some scientist come forward to prove it either way. I'm up for it, but to stay here arguing with you will not help us. It just won't, and I'm tired of going round and round. I'm almost done with the book, and I'm going to get it published. I won't be here that much longer. If you're not interested in reading the book in its entirety as Lessans urged people to do, I have nothing more to say. You have ignored his request as if it doesn't mean a thing. Therefore, your misunderstanding of the book is your fault, not mine. I want to emphasize this because you think I need you and David and Spacemonkey to stamp this book with their approval. Well, I am sorry to inform everyone that I don't, although all of you helped me make the book better because of your obstinance. I should give you all recognition in the credits section of the book.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This requires more empirical testing because you're starting out with a premise that is questionable

What could be more empirical than an actual image you can view yourself created using specific methodology that was recorded and can be repeated at will and get the same results every time? There is more than one image, you know? The original Deep Field then the Ultra Deep Field and they were made 8 years apart, the original in 1995 and the Ultra in 2003.

What premise is questionable?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Let some scientist come forward to prove either way who is right.

What's wrong with the Hubble scientists who worked on these images?

[Dragar]

Hello peacegirl. I'm a published, qualified, working scientist.

[LadyShea]

That is a fact I pointed out many times Dragar. Could you remind us of your field as well please?

The Lone Ranger (though he chose the education route) is also a qualified scientists and if I am not mistaken others that have posted in this thread.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Kael

As a fun illustration of the principle that all light is essentially the same, here's a demo you can do at home. All you need is a remote control, such as the one for your TV, and a camera with a display, such as a phone, webcam, or similar. I definitely want peacegirl to try this, but everyone else should too, it's pretty cool.

Remote controls for most domestic devices operate in the infrared part of the EM spectrum, just below the frequencies we can see. The light we can see are the wavelengths between 380 nanometers and 750 nanometers, with a frequency between 400 terahertz and almost 800 terahertz. Infrared is just below that, with wavelengths between 750 nanometers and 1 millimeter, and frequencies between 300 gigahertz and 400 terahertz. Note that the longer the wavelength the lower the frequency. Many digital cameras can still detect this part of the spectrum, though I do not know whether that's just a quirk of manufacturing or possibly deliberate. The display, however, generally only puts out light in the visible spectrum, and signals outside that range either get ignored or bumped into the displayable range, which essentially enables you to 'see' the infrared signal your remote emits.

Point your remote at your camera and push a few buttons. You should see the emitter on your remote light up on the camera display. On all the remotes I've tried so far, the light appears to be a pale lavender. Some cameras I've tried this with display a steady light, while on others you can see it flicker and pulse.

As you can plainly see, even your TV 'sees' light, and responds to specific patterns of frequency and intensity.

There is no unknown mechanism here, we've known and understood the principles of light and vision well enough to exploit them for our own gain and comfort for quite some time now. Light is emitted, it travels, it strikes a receptor, a signal is sent and interpreted, "voila, we see."

ETA: I was going to upload some pictures as an example, but am having some technical difficulties with my phone's SD card. I will try something else later, maybe post it in another thread so it doesn't get buried here.

How is the lavender seen Kael? Tell me? Does it just appear, or is there something the light is interacting with to produce this color? I thought from your own account that light interacts with substance for there to be an image. Where does what you're saying disprove what Lessans is claiming?

[naturalist.atheist]

LadyShea, the information you've provided to peacegirl is so mainstream and so well documented that the only persons disputing it are crackpots. You don't need working scientists to back up the obvious. peacegirl is a mentally ill zealot, and short of treatment there is nothing you can do to change her mind.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Hello peacegirl. I'm a published, qualified, working scientist.

I'm very happy for you Dragar, I really am. And I don't mean to be disrespectful, but just because you are published doesn't mean you have the entire truth in hand. So why did you even bring your qualifications up if not to make me intimidated?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That is a fact I pointed out many times Dragar. Could you remind us of your field as well please?

The Lone Ranger (though he chose the education route) is also a qualified scientists and if I am not mistaken others that have posted in this thread.

My qualifications/publications are in physics, astrophysics and astronomy.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm very happy for you Dragar, I really am. And I don't mean to be disrespectful, but just because you are published doesn't mean you have the entire truth in hand. So why did you even bring your qualifications up if not to make me intimidated?

You seemed to think scientists would come 'prove' your model. I was pointing out that you've met plenty of scientists in this thread already, and they've all done quite the opposite. So who exactly are you thinking of?

[LadyShea]

So why did you even bring your qualifications up if not to make me intimidated?

He brought it up because you said "Let some scientist come forward to prove either way who is right" when discussing the Hubble images. Dragar is a scientist in the pertinent fields for discussing the Hubble images, as are the people who actually worked on the Hubble Deep Field Images. This empirical proof is against Lessans.

Obviously you want some scientist come forward to prove that Lessans was right. Well, what if Lessans was wrong?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How is the lavender seen Kael? Tell me? Does it just appear, or is there something the light is interacting with to produce this color? I thought from your own account that light interacts with substance for there to be an image. Where does what you're saying disprove what Lessans is claiming?

The light emitted from the remote is interacting with the camera's sensors. You cannot see the light with your eyes, however the camera can detect and display it.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Kael

Many digital cameras can still detect this part of the spectrum, though I do not know whether that's just a quirk of manufacturing or possibly deliberate.

Since many digital devices can be remote controlled, I would think it was deliberate. On some phones, there are apps that allow the phone to communicate with devices as if it was a remote control, so sending and receiving IR must be built in.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Since many digital devices can be remote controlled, I would think it was deliberate. On some phones, there are apps that allow the phone to communicate with devices as if it was a remote control, so sending and receiving IR must be built in.

The comment appears to be a question about camera imagers. From an engineering perspective, why build a sensor for visible light photographs that detects IR? The sensors are made of silicon and exploite the photoelectric effect to detect light. Any frequency that can knock free an electron that is then captured in a charge well will generate a signal. For silicon this extends from IR to UV which happens to include the visible spectrum. All visual photographic cameras include IR filters so image colors come out right. But the filters are not 100%.

[LadyShea]

SO the visible IR on the display is just a quirk?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

SO the visible IR on the display is just a quirk?

Technically yes. But all products represent compromise. Some cameras, like the Sigma SLR series have a removable IR filter so when removed the photographer can take eerie IR images of everyday scenes.

P.S. There is a hack that some amateur asyrophotographers have employed
They open up their DSLR and peel off the IR filter attached to the sensor. Something one doesn't do unless they are willing to scrap the camera. They then have a device with improved quantum efficiency.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What could be more empirical than an actual image you can view yourself created using specific methodology that was recorded and can be repeated at will and get the same results every time? There is more than one image, you know? The original Deep Field then the Ultra Deep Field and they were made 8 years apart, the original in 1995 and the Ultra in 2003.

What premise is questionable?

Delayed vision.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Let some scientist come forward to prove either way who is right.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What's wrong with the Hubble scientists who worked on these images?

I'm not talking about those scientists. I'm sure they recorded their findings accurately. I'm questioning the interpretation of those findings. You believe wholeheartedly that this proves that we see in delayed time, along with the moons of Jupiter experiment and others. We know one thing for sure: it's either one or the other. Hopefully in the future there will be some interested scientists who will desire testing Lessans' claim in an unbiased way.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The light emitted from the remote is interacting with the camera's sensors. You cannot see the light with your eyes, however the camera can detect and display it.

Again, I don't see where this disproves efferent vision. But thanks for the interesting factoid.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He brought it up because you said "Let some scientist come forward to prove either way who is right" when discussing the Hubble images. Dragar is a scientist in the pertinent fields for discussing the Hubble images, as are the people who actually worked on the Hubble Deep Field Images. This empirical proof is against Lessans.

Obviously you want some scientist come forward to prove that Lessans was right. Well, what if Lessans was wrong?

If he was wrong, then so be it. I don't think he was wrong, for the reasons he gave. His conclusions came about indirectly, so there has to be another way to determine whether the eyes function the way Lessans claimed. Only time will tell.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You believe wholeheartedly that this proves that we see in delayed time, along with the moons of Jupiter experiment and others. We know one thing for sure: it's either one or the other. Hopefully in the future there will be some interested scientists who will desire testing Lessans' claim in an unbiased way.

Actually, we know beyond all reasonable doubt that we see in delayed time. so we know for sure the scientific model for vision is accurate, and Lessans' ideas are wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Hello peacegirl. I'm a published, qualified, working scientist.

Added to previous post: I respect that you are a published, qualified, working scientist, but this does not necessarily mean that you're right in this case. Nageli was a published, qualified working scientist too. In fact, he was considered the father of genetics, but he turned out to be wrong. Is it possible that you could be wrong too? Just a thought.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Delayed vision.

Delayed vision is not a premise, you prevaricating harridan, as you well know. It is an established fact from hundreds of years of empirical testing, careful observation and theory formation. Lessans is wrong.

But do try to sell his little book, by all means.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I respect that you are a published, qualified, working scientist, but this does not necessarily mean that you're right in this case. Nageli was a published, qualified working scientist too. In fact, he was considered the father of genetics, but he turned out to be wrong. Is it possible that you could be wrong too? Just a thought.

peacegirl, I know this will not register with you but you are trying to have it both ways. You want to claim that science supports Lessans but when it doesn't you say the science is wrong. This sort of reasoning failure is consistent with schizophrenia.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Delayed vision.

Well, as far as the Hubble Deep Field images are concerned, the images do in fact exist and were in fact created using recorded methodology. If the premise under which they were created was questionable, how do you explain their existence under the specific parameters used?

Seems to me any reasonable person would say that hard evidence, like actual images you can look at, answers any questions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not talking about those scientists. I'm sure they recorded their findings accurately. I'm questioning the interpretation of those findings. You believe wholeheartedly that this proves that we see in delayed time, along with the moons of Jupiter experiment and others.

I believe wholeheartedly that the images exist, and that they were created by pointing a light detector at space coordinates that appeared totally empty, so nothing at all was in the "field of view", and that only after gathering light for a million minutes was an image captured of things that could not be seen "in real time" by any means. Those are facts.

How do interpret these facts differently?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If he was wrong, then so be it. I don't think he was wrong, for the reasons he gave. His conclusions came about indirectly, so there has to be another way to determine whether the eyes function the way Lessans claimed. Only time will tell.

So when you made that statement, "some scientist" only referred to "some scientist that may come along some day to say Lessans was right" and not any scientist who says he was wrong.

LOL, Dragar you don't count as "some scientist" at all!