#12426  
Old 10-15-2011, 09:09 PM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCLXXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
An explanation as to how something works can sound perfectly correct, but have fundamental flaws.
You are absolutely correct. An explanation as to how something works can sound perfectly correct, but have fundamental flaws. However, in order to reject an existing explanation two things need to happen. First, it needs to be shown that such fundamental flaws exist. Second, an alternative explanation needs to provide a better description of the phenomenon and it needs to provide greater predictive power.

Lessans fails on both counts. First, he fails to demonstrate the existence of any fundamental flaws in the current theory of sight. Second, his alternative explanation fails to provide a better description of how sight functions and it offers no predictive power. Note that it doesn't just fail to provide greater predictive power, it provides none at all.

You keep saying that more tests need to be done. What would such tests be testing for? What predictions does Lessans' theory make that can be tested for?
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (10-16-2011)
  #12427  
Old 10-15-2011, 10:00 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
1. What is it that causally interacts with the film to determine the color of the (allegedly real-time) photgraphic image?

Light.

2. Where is whatever it is that so interacts with the film?

At the lens. I'm really not sure if that's the answer you are looking for, because I'm not sure if I understood you correctly.

3. What properties of this determine the color of the resulting image?

The wavelengths.
Thank you. Now let's follow through on the implications of this. At time T1 the ball is blue, and film in the camera is forming a real-time blue image on the basis of the wavelength of the blue light present at the lens/camera, correct?

Next question: How did that blue light get there?

Light travels. So at time T-1 (a moment before T1) that light was presumably still blue and had not quite reached the lens/camera, and yet the ball at T-1 was red. So where did that blue light come from?
The blue comes from the absorption and reflection of the object that is being photographed, but when that object changes color, the absorption and reflection pattern changes as well.
That's a rather pathetic non-answer, Peacegirl. It's like you're not even trying to follow the example or understand it.

You've agreed that at T1, the very moment of the object's color change from red to blue, the film in the camera will be interacting with blue light present at the camera and will result in a real-time blue photographic image.

Of course that blue light comes from the object which reflects or emits that light, and of course the patterns of reflected light will change as the object changes color. But what you appear to be deliberately avoiding is the time element involved, by which any change in the pattern of light being reflected or emitted by the object will take time to reach the camera (where you agree it must be in order to interact with the film).

So I will make my questions more specific, so that you mght follow through the impossible implications of real-time photography (and therefore the impossibility of efferent vision) for yourself. My next questions concern the different states both at T1 (the time of the color change), and at T-1 (one moment before T1), when the object has not yet changed color and is still red.

1. Did the blue light present at the camera at T1 take time to arrive?

2. Did the blue light present at the camera at T1 travel from the object to the camera?

3. If your answer is yes to (1) and (2), then where was that light at T-1?

4. What color was that light at T-1?

5. What color was that light when it was first reflected or emitted by the object?

Please don't wait for this to be reposted another 5 times before trying to answer.
Reply With Quote
  #12428  
Old 10-15-2011, 10:03 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
An explanation as to how something works can sound perfectly correct, but have fundamental flaws.
You are absolutely correct. An explanation as to how something works can sound perfectly correct, but have fundamental flaws. However, in order to reject an existing explanation two things need to happen. First, it needs to be shown that such fundamental flaws exist.
True.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Second, an alternative explanation needs to provide a better description of the phenomenon and it needs to provide greater predictive power.
What do you mean by "predictive power"? What does the present model of sight predict?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Lessans fails on both counts. First, he fails to demonstrate the existence of any fundamental flaws in the current theory of sight.
That's because you don't understand that the way we become conditioned precludes any other explanation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Second, his alternative explanation fails to provide a better description of how sight functions and it offers no predictive power. Note that it doesn't just fail to provide greater predictive power, it provides none at all.
You keep talking about predictive power. What do you mean by this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
You keep saying that more tests need to be done. What would such tests be testing for? What predictions does Lessans' theory make that can be tested for?
There are different types of experiments that could be done but under very strict conditions. I already mentioned one experiment that could easily be done, and it fell on deaf ears probably because no one thinks it would prove anything.
Reply With Quote
  #12429  
Old 10-15-2011, 10:17 PM
ceptimus's Avatar
ceptimus ceptimus is offline
puzzler
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UK
Posts: XVMMDCCLXXXIX
Images: 28
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You keep talking about predictive power. What do you mean by this?
A theory with predictive power is one that allows us to make testable predictions.

So, for example, the theory of gravity predicts that if I drop an unpowered heavier than air object, and there is no significant wind blowing, then that object should fall to the ground.

I can test the theory by dropping all kinds of unpowered heavier than air objects on a calm day.

If one of my tests results in something that doesn't fall, then I have to try to think up a better theory, or explain what was special about the object or conditions that prevented it from falling.

A theory with no predictive power is one that makes no predictions, or is impossible to test. So if my theory is that an invisible tiger used to live on the moon 3000 years ago, but it left no traces at all of it ever being there, then that is a pretty useless theory, even if it happens to be true.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (10-16-2011)
  #12430  
Old 10-15-2011, 10:18 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
That's because you don't understand that the way we become conditioned precludes any other explanation.
You haven't provided any other explanation yet for such conditioning to preclude.
Reply With Quote
  #12431  
Old 10-15-2011, 10:51 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
peacegirl, you have misunderstood Vivisectus point.

He is asking, why when we see a red object, are the photons we are receiving always red? An object may change colour in the time between the photons being emitted, and reaching us. In this case, we should see the object as it actually is - and the frequency of the photons should have no bearing on what colour we see the object to be.
Why not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
However, this is never the case. We always see an object to be the same colour as the photons we receive from it, even if an object has changed colour in the time between the photons being emitted and arriving at us.
That's what should be happening. We should be seeing the object to be the same color as the light. If we can see the object through a telescope, then that frequency is what is what is allowing us to see that color.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
For example, a supernovae is when a star explodes a great distance away. The colour of light it emits changes dramatically when this happens. According to you, we should see the star's colour change instantly, with the light of a new colour only reaching us many years later. However, this is not what we see. The light reaching us is of a new colour at the same time we see the star change colour. This is not what Lessans predicts - ruling out instant vision of distant objects - and it suggests we see (if nothing else) at the same speed as light.
We detect the light emitted by a supernova to get clues, but detecting light from a supernova is not the same thing as seeing the actual explosion.

Currently, supernovae are only seen in galaxies other than the Milky Way. We know that supernovae have occurred in our Galaxy in the past, since both Tycho Brahe and his protege, Johannes Kepler, discovered bright supernovae occurring in the Milky Way in 1572 and 1604, respectively. And, the Chinese, and others, have records of a "guest star" occurring in 1054 in the present constellation Taurus. Today, we see remnants of all three supernovae, which appear as expanding clouds of gas, where each was originally discovered. However, no supernova has been seen in our Galaxy since Kepler's.

When astronomers observe supernovae, they do so today using telescopes working at various wavelengths. With optical telescopes, with which most of us are familiar, astronomers measure the amount of light being emitted by a supernova, as seen from Earth, usually through a number of light filters. From these measurements, they can determine how the luminosity, or brightness, and color of a supernova evolves, or, varies with time. Supernovae generally brighten to a maximum brightness, then decline slowly in brightness over many weeks or months.

What are Supernovae?


Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
They are verifiable, but not according to your rules which are based on your preconceived ideas of how light works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Lessans was not refuting the speed of light, or the basics of how light works. He was disputing one thing only; that we see a delayed version of reality.
Please compare and contrast. Are you disputing the rules of how light works, or not? Make up your mind.
I'm not refuting the rules of light. I'm refuting how we use light in reference to sight.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
peacegirl, why do we detect light from distant planets coming from the same position in the sky that we see them?

If we see them in real time, then photons shouldn't come from where we see the planet. But they do.
Why shouldn't light be coming from the same position in the sky that we see distant planets? Detecting light is a clue, just like detecting a small stream of water is a clue that will lead you to a larger body of water.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
Plus, the moons of Jupiter corresponds to an actual observation. Not a thought experiment, peacegirl. You can't just ignore it.
Until more experiments are done to confirm or negate Lessans' claim, I will have to refrain from making any further comments regarding this observation.
Reply With Quote
  #12432  
Old 10-15-2011, 10:58 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
That's because you don't understand that the way we become conditioned precludes any other explanation.
You haven't provided any other explanation yet for such conditioning to preclude.
Interpreting signals in the brain (afferent vision) is the other explanation that would preclude this type of conditioning, and we know that this type of conditioning exists.
Reply With Quote
  #12433  
Old 10-15-2011, 11:01 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I'm not refuting the rules of light.
Refuting? No. But you are rejecting them.
Reply With Quote
  #12434  
Old 10-15-2011, 11:04 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
That's because you don't understand that the way we become conditioned precludes any other explanation.
You haven't provided any other explanation yet for such conditioning to preclude.
Interpreting signals in the brain (afferent vision) is the other explanation that would preclude this type of conditioning, and we know that this type of conditioning exists.
That kind of conditioning is entirely consistent with afferent vision, as has been pointed out to you several times. Lessans' observations about the projection of values do not require efferent vision.

Why are you avoiding my questions? It makes you look very dishonest.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (10-16-2011), LadyShea (10-16-2011)
  #12435  
Old 10-15-2011, 11:05 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You keep talking about predictive power. What do you mean by this?
A theory with predictive power is one that allows us to make testable predictions.

So, for example, the theory of gravity predicts that if I drop an unpowered heavier than air object, and there is no significant wind blowing, then that object should fall to the ground.

I can test the theory by dropping all kinds of unpowered heavier than air objects on a calm day.

If one of my tests results in something that doesn't fall, then I have to try to think up a better theory, or explain what was special about the object or conditions that prevented it from falling.

A theory with no predictive power is one that makes no predictions, or is impossible to test. So if my theory is that an invisible tiger used to live on the moon 3000 years ago, but it left no traces at all of it ever being there, then that is a pretty useless theory, even if it happens to be true.
Thank you for explaining what Angakuk meant, but the irony is that all of Lessans' claims do have predictive power. I can predict that if I take a picture of someone that is not in the field of view of my camera, even though the light reflecting off of them is in a direct line to me, I will not get a photograph of them no matter how much light is present, and how blue the sky is. Secondly, the predictive power of his first discovery is enormous. It can be predicted that when the conditions of the environment change such that we no longer blame anyone for anything, responsibility will go up to such an extent that no more war will be possible. Obviously, certain other changes have to take place for this prediction to come true.
Reply With Quote
  #12436  
Old 10-15-2011, 11:05 PM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
Posts: VCI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
peacegirl, you have misunderstood Vivisectus point.

He is asking, why when we see a red object, are the photons we are receiving always red? An object may change colour in the time between the photons being emitted, and reaching us. In this case, we should see the object as it actually is - and the frequency of the photons should have no bearing on what colour we see the object to be.
Why not?
Because we see instantly (according to you!). So the photons arriving at us right now can be any colour at all, but we should see the instantaneous colour of the distant object. This is your version of reality, I shouldn't have to explain it to you!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
However, this is never the case. We always see an object to be the same colour as the photons we receive from it, even if an object has changed colour in the time between the photons being emitted and arriving at us.
That's what should be happening. We should be seeing the object to be the same color as the light. If we can see the object through a telescope, then that frequency is what is what is allowing us to see that color.
But the light takes a long time to get to us. The colour of light will be the colour of the object when it emitted the light, a long time ago. Are you now saying we don't see color in real time? Or does the light change colour to match the object en route, if the emitting object should change colour?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
For example, a supernovae is when a star explodes a great distance away. The colour of light it emits changes dramatically when this happens. According to you, we should see the star's colour change instantly, with the light of a new colour only reaching us many years later. However, this is not what we see. The light reaching us is of a new colour at the same time we see the star change colour. This is not what Lessans predicts - ruling out instant vision of distant objects - and it suggests we see (if nothing else) at the same speed as light.
We detect the light emitted by a supernova to get clues, but detecting light from a supernova is not the same thing as seeing the actual explosion.
It doesn't matter; we can take a picture (i.e. get an image) of a supernova. Yes, using a camera. Yes, using a lens and a CCD. That is the same as seeing (according to you!).
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
peacegirl, why do we detect light from distant planets coming from the same position in the sky that we see them?

If we see them in real time, then photons shouldn't come from where we see the planet. But they do.
Why shouldn't light be coming from the same position in the sky that we see distant planets? Detecting light is a clue, just like detecting a small stream of water is a clue that will lead you to a larger body of water.
Because we are supposed to see in real time. But we know light travels at a finite speed, so when we look at its direction, we will see it coming from where the distant planet was. Like a hosepipe being waved around peacegirl, if you follow a straight line back from the direction the water arrives at you (not following the water) it leads back where the hosepipe was, not where it is now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
Plus, the moons of Jupiter corresponds to an actual observation. Not a thought experiment, peacegirl. You can't just ignore it.
Until more experiments are done to confirm or negate Lessans' claim, I will have to refrain from making any further comments regarding this observation.
We've done more experiments. Do you believe ESO (the European version of NASA)? Because I gave you a website from ESO with plenty more observations. Shall we see if we can dig up NASA observations too? Or some observations from a different year by ESO?
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Reply With Quote
  #12437  
Old 10-15-2011, 11:07 PM
ceptimus's Avatar
ceptimus ceptimus is offline
puzzler
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UK
Posts: XVMMDCCLXXXIX
Images: 28
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Until more experiments are done to confirm or negate Lessans' claim, I will have to refrain from making any further comments regarding this observation.
This is classical flat-earther thinking.

Until more experiments are done to confirm that the Earth is spherical, I will continue to believe in my flat Earth, thank you very much.

How many different confirming experiments do you want? 100? 10,000? A googolplex?
__________________
Reply With Quote
  #12438  
Old 10-15-2011, 11:07 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
That's because you don't understand that the way we become conditioned precludes any other explanation.
You haven't provided any other explanation yet for such conditioning to preclude.
Interpreting signals in the brain (afferent vision) is the other explanation that would preclude this type of conditioning, and we know that this type of conditioning exists.
That kind of conditioning is entirely consistent with afferent vision, as has been pointed out to you several times. Lessans' observations about the projection of values do not require efferent vision.
You are absolutely wrong. The brain cannot project onto reality words that have no bearing in reality unless we see efferently.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Why are you avoiding my questions? It makes you look very dishonest.
I have answered your questions. Which ones haven't I answered?
Reply With Quote
  #12439  
Old 10-15-2011, 11:07 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
1. What is it that causally interacts with the film to determine the color of the (allegedly real-time) photgraphic image?

Light.

2. Where is whatever it is that so interacts with the film?

At the lens. I'm really not sure if that's the answer you are looking for, because I'm not sure if I understood you correctly.

3. What properties of this determine the color of the resulting image?

The wavelengths.
Thank you. Now let's follow through on the implications of this. At time T1 the ball is blue, and film in the camera is forming a real-time blue image on the basis of the wavelength of the blue light present at the lens/camera, correct?

Next question: How did that blue light get there?

Light travels. So at time T-1 (a moment before T1) that light was presumably still blue and had not quite reached the lens/camera, and yet the ball at T-1 was red. So where did that blue light come from?
The blue comes from the absorption and reflection of the object that is being photographed, but when that object changes color, the absorption and reflection pattern changes as well.
That's a rather pathetic non-answer, Peacegirl. It's like you're not even trying to follow the example or understand it.

You've agreed that at T1, the very moment of the object's color change from red to blue, the film in the camera will be interacting with blue light present at the camera and will result in a real-time blue photographic image.

Of course that blue light comes from the object which reflects or emits that light, and of course the patterns of reflected light will change as the object changes color. But what you appear to be deliberately avoiding is the time element involved, by which any change in the pattern of light being reflected or emitted by the object will take time to reach the camera (where you agree it must be in order to interact with the film).

So I will make my questions more specific, so that you mght follow through the impossible implications of real-time photography (and therefore the impossibility of efferent vision) for yourself. My next questions concern the different states both at T1 (the time of the color change), and at T-1 (one moment before T1), when the object has not yet changed color and is still red.

1. Did the blue light present at the camera at T1 take time to arrive?

2. Did the blue light present at the camera at T1 travel from the object to the camera?

3. If your answer is yes to (1) and (2), then where was that light at T-1?

4. What color was that light at T-1?

5. What color was that light when it was first reflected or emitted by the object?

Please don't wait for this to be reposted another 5 times before trying to answer.
1st Bump.

(Any bets on how many will be required before Peacegirl attempts an answer?)
Reply With Quote
  #12440  
Old 10-15-2011, 11:08 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

point one: We have done the experiments. You just don't like the results. You could replicate quite a few of them yourself if you liked. All it takes is a 100$ telescope, some patience, and basic math. Get the set-up, and we will be happy to tell you where to look, and how to make it add up. If you can come up with a better explanation we are all ears.

Point two: You have been given ample evidence that supports afferent sight. There is a lot of it. Remind me again: what evidence is there for efferent sight?

Point three - you are still ignoring spacemonkeys red/blue thought experiment. Someone in search of the truth should not have to hide away from an honest inquiry.

Peacegirl, you are trying to hide in clouds of waffle the same way a squid hides in clouds of ink. Just like a squid, it masks a retreat. Deal with the questions or admit that you cannot. Anything else is dishonest.

Spacemonkey asked a legitimate question, and you have refused to deal with it. Either deal with it or admit that you are not interested in a rational debate.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
davidm (10-16-2011), LadyShea (10-16-2011), Spacemonkey (10-15-2011)
  #12441  
Old 10-15-2011, 11:08 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Until more experiments are done to confirm or negate Lessans' claim, I will have to refrain from making any further comments regarding this observation.
This is classical flat-earther thinking.

Until more experiments are done to confirm that the Earth is spherical, I will continue to believe in my flat Earth, thank you very much.

How many different confirming experiments do you want? 100? 10,000? A googolplex?
I don't need that many actually. Just more than we have now, and with very strict controls.
Reply With Quote
  #12442  
Old 10-15-2011, 11:10 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

I recommend we suspend all debate here until acceptable answers are given. There is way too much ability to avoid and dodge as it is. What is your answer to spacemonkeys questions?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (10-15-2011)
  #12443  
Old 10-15-2011, 11:12 PM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
Posts: VCI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Until more experiments are done to confirm or negate Lessans' claim, I will have to refrain from making any further comments regarding this observation.
This is classical flat-earther thinking.

Until more experiments are done to confirm that the Earth is spherical, I will continue to believe in my flat Earth, thank you very much.

How many different confirming experiments do you want? 100? 10,000? A googolplex?
I don't need that many actually. Just more than we have now, and with very strict controls.
I don't think you even know what a control is. And no, don't Google it to copy/paste.
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Reply With Quote
  #12444  
Old 10-15-2011, 11:14 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Apart from this, I think we should expect Peacegirl to answer Spacemonkeys questions.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Dragar (10-15-2011), Spacemonkey (10-15-2011)
  #12445  
Old 10-15-2011, 11:18 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
1. What is it that causally interacts with the film to determine the color of the (allegedly real-time) photgraphic image?

Light.

2. Where is whatever it is that so interacts with the film?

At the lens. I'm really not sure if that's the answer you are looking for, because I'm not sure if I understood you correctly.

3. What properties of this determine the color of the resulting image?

The wavelengths.
Thank you. Now let's follow through on the implications of this. At time T1 the ball is blue, and film in the camera is forming a real-time blue image on the basis of the wavelength of the blue light present at the lens/camera, correct?

Next question: How did that blue light get there?

Light travels. So at time T-1 (a moment before T1) that light was presumably still blue and had not quite reached the lens/camera, and yet the ball at T-1 was red. So where did that blue light come from?
The blue comes from the absorption and reflection of the object that is being photographed, but when that object changes color, the absorption and reflection pattern changes as well.
That's a rather pathetic non-answer, Peacegirl. It's like you're not even trying to follow the example or understand it.

You've agreed that at T1, the very moment of the object's color change from red to blue, the film in the camera will be interacting with blue light present at the camera and will result in a real-time blue photographic image.
I thought photons were white unless something in the atmosphere produces colors within the visible spectrum.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Of course that blue light comes from the object which reflects or emits that light, and of course the patterns of reflected light will change as the object changes color. But what you appear to be deliberately avoiding is the time element involved, by which any change in the pattern of light being reflected or emitted by the object will take time to reach the camera (where you agree it must be in order to interact with the film).
That's the problem. You're not grasping why the color you will see, if you are looking directly at an object, will be blue instead of red. There is a definite disconnect here. Somewhere along the line you are not understanding why efferent vision excludes the possibility that we are seeing a delayed image.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
So I will make my questions more specific, so that you mght follow through the impossible implications of real-time photography (and therefore the impossibility of efferent vision) for yourself. My next questions concern the different states both at T1 (the time of the color change), and at T-1 (one moment before T1), when the object has not yet changed color and is still red.

1. Did the blue light present at the camera at T1 take time to arrive?

2. Did the blue light present at the camera at T1 travel from the object to the camera?

3. If your answer is yes to (1) and (2), then where was that light at T-1?

4. What color was that light at T-1?

5. What color was that light when it was first reflected or emitted by the object?

Please don't wait for this to be reposted another 5 times before trying to answer.
Before I answer this question, I would appreciate if you add an object that the light is reflecting because talking about blue and red lights are confusing me and probably everyone else.
Reply With Quote
  #12446  
Old 10-15-2011, 11:23 PM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
Posts: VCI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Some more eclipse data:

1955AJ.....60..115H Page 115

Observation of Eclipses of Jupiter's Satellites - Todd - 2006 - Astronomische Nachrichten - Wiley Online Library

http://www.jstor.org/stable/106003

Shall we keep going? How many more observations would you like? And these are just random ones (two are even pre-1900s) I've found on the internet; there are books and books of this stuff in journals at libraries. Convinced that we do this regularly and often yet?
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Reply With Quote
  #12447  
Old 10-15-2011, 11:27 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Until more experiments are done to confirm or negate Lessans' claim, I will have to refrain from making any further comments regarding this observation.
This is classical flat-earther thinking.

Until more experiments are done to confirm that the Earth is spherical, I will continue to believe in my flat Earth, thank you very much.

How many different confirming experiments do you want? 100? 10,000? A googolplex?
I don't need that many actually. Just more than we have now, and with very strict controls.
I don't think you even know what a control is. And no, don't Google it to copy/paste.
It is making sure that all the variables that could interfere with the results of an experiment are eliminated so that the evidence that is being tested to support a theory is reliable.
Reply With Quote
  #12448  
Old 10-15-2011, 11:27 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Now I'm getting confused. I thought photons were white light unless something causes them to change color in the atmosphere.
No, white light is the result of a combination of light of various colors. Color with respect to light (i.e. photons) concerns their wavelength.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
That's the problem. You're not grasping why the color you will see, if you are looking directly at an object, will be blue instead of red. There is a definite disconnect here. Somewhere along the line you are not understanding why efferent vision excludes the possibility that we are seeing a delayed image.
The disconnect and lack of understanding is yours. My questions are designed to help you see the problem for yourself.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Before I answer this question, I would appreciate if you add an object that the light is reflecting because talking about blue and red lights are confusing me and probably everyone else.
There is an object: a ball. There are no blue or red lights. The example has a ball and a camera only. The ball is red up until time T1, at which point it changes to become a blue ball. My questions do not concern red or blue light sources, but only the red/blue light present at the camera and/or travelling between the ball and the camera. I can assure you everyone else understands this just fine. (Oh, and light does not reflect objects. Objects reflect light.)

1. Did the blue light present at the camera at T1 take time to arrive?

2. Did the blue light present at the camera at T1 travel from the object to the camera?

3. If your answer is yes to (1) and (2), then where was that light at T-1?

4. What color was that light at T-1?

5. What color was that light when it was first reflected or emitted by the object?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (10-16-2011), Vivisectus (10-15-2011)
  #12449  
Old 10-15-2011, 11:34 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
That kind of conditioning is entirely consistent with afferent vision, as has been pointed out to you several times. Lessans' observations about the projection of values do not require efferent vision.
You are absolutely wrong. The brain cannot project onto reality words that have no bearing in reality unless we see efferently.
Nonsense. Not even Lessans was stupid enough to think that people go around literally shooting words from their brains out of their eyes so that they fly out and hit objects. The reality of the psychological projection of values is entirely compatible with regular afferent vision, and Lessans' efferent vision adds nothing whatsoever to any such explanation.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (10-16-2011), ceptimus (10-15-2011), LadyShea (10-16-2011)
  #12450  
Old 10-15-2011, 11:35 PM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A revolution in thought

The scramble begins. Who will have the first post on page 500?
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:39 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.21164 seconds with 16 queries