A revolution in thought

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He [Lessans] was the most astute observer that anyone could be.

Facts not in evidence.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's the only thing I can come up with after seeing David's devotion to you know who.

Oh, peacegirl!



Plain and simple: Einstein's ideas fit with observed reality, Lessans' don't. You can make a million posts on message boards until you die, and nothing will change the fact that your father got it wrong. So sorry.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Here are your previous answers:

Please indicate which of these you would like to change.

Again, my questions have nothing to do with the order of the arriving light.

I asked you in the very post you were here replying to, what you think lenses actually do beyond receiving incoming light. You still haven't answered.

Yes, you are. You keep trying to blame your inconsistencies and contradictions on other people's assumptions about the afferent model instead of on your own assumptions made during your failed attempts to explain the efferent model.

You need to either revise your earlier answers to my questions (quoted above), or answer my further questions about how the light at the camera could have been blue before it arrived and before the object itself was blue.

2nd bump.

[LadyShea]

N.A. note the odd use of modal verbs yet again. peacegirl and Lessans do this repeatedly. "can" becomes "does", "does" becomes "must", "might" becomes "should"

I said "I believe answers will come from X"
peacegirl heard "I believe answers can only come from X"

Any known mental illness where this is common?

Anyway peacegirl, I simply stated that I think QM holds the answers to some of the big questions, I did not say I think only QM can hold the answers.

And what does "appointed fields" mean?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you have an issue, please talk to the people who record their explanations in "how stuff works". As far as I have seen from their writing, a pinhole acts like a lens. I am not trying to trick everyone. Do you see how dangerous this is in terms of knowing the truth? It's so easy to conclude Lessans was wrong because of things left out:

HowStuffWorks "How does a pinhole camera work?"

I don't have an issue with holes acting as lenses because I know what that actually means.

I want to hear YOU explain how holes act as lenses, when you've stated that lenses focus out on objects.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no such thing as indeterminism. That's all I have to say on the subject of QM.

This is nothing but a statement of faith, yet you claim to be offering scientifically valid information.

Really, skeptics and critical thinkers are not your audience. Go peddle to the woos, seriously

[Dragar]

peacegirl, real time seeing is in complete contradiction to relativity.

Causal effects (such as, reacting to something at a distance instantly) cannot propagate faster than the speed of light without serious consequences. Those consequences are the basics of causality.

For you to believe both Einstein's theory and your 'real time seeing' means that there is no longer such a thing as cause and effect, and opens up a whole bunch of paradoxes. It's perhaps no surprise to hear at this point you're okay with that, or don't understand (or care!) about this.

[LadyShea]

She doesn't understand it Dragar, her repeated statement is "I can't see how real time seeing contradicts relativity". She also can't seem to follow the simple implications of "If Lessans was right, then relativity is wrong and x, y, z technologies wouldn't work"

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Oh, I just thought of an amazing counter example (as if we needed another) to this!

An effect in astronomy is a gravitational lens, whereby a large mass (such as a galaxy cluster, which is a cluster of galaxies) distorts light coming from behind it in a similar way to how an actual lens works.

Now, often the effect is purely to see a lensed image of, say, a galaxy from behind the giant mass. However, when there are multiple paths light can take from the distant galaxy to our telescopes, then we see all of these paths. In other words, we see the same object in multiple places on the sky! (A perfectly aligned lens/object setup produces a ring of light called an Einsten ring, but these are rare).

Even more fun, the time the light takes to travel along these paths differs (somewhere in the region of days or weeks, depending on the mass). So in other words, when we look at multiply imaged galaxies via a gravitational lens, we see multiple images from different times of the same object.

So tell me peacegirl, if we see in real time, which image is it that we see is in real time?

Since we're stuck on Einstein...bump!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can they fit with observed reality, when the discoveries are meant to change observed reality. You don't know what you're talking about as usual.

Parse your own statement again, using the correct meaning of "observed reality", and then tell me I am the one that doesn't know what I am talking about.

hint: Watching an apple fall from a branch to the ground is an observed reality. It can be described. It can be explained. It can be observed again. It can be replicated in most cases. It cannot be changed.

[LadyShea]

Please keep in mind she refuses to concede that information is transferred/gained/acquired during the act of seeing....because those words imply travel time.

According to her since there is nothing, not even information, traveling then there is no contradiction with relativity because the speed of light "does not apply"

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Yes he did. He published a number of papers with the incorrect field equations for general relativity before he found the right ones.

His first calculation of the deflection of light by the Sun was off by a factor of 2 (leading to agreement with the Newtonian calculation - oops!).

He made plenty of mistakes. Fortunately, there were plenty of other people around to help him realise when and where he had gone wrong. Einstein was clever, but he did none of his work alone.

What do you think Lessans thought he couldn't make a mistake? Of course he made mistakes. He burned his first set of books. And you think these discoveries came out of his hat? He read philosophy and literature for years and years.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Eleven: The New Meaning of Education p. 548

My efforts to write the book, Decline and Fall of All Evil, are of
no greater importance than your efforts to play pool or do something
else because we are all following our nature which dictates that we
move in the direction of what is better for ourselves at any given
moment in time. I cannot take credit for removing the evil when my
will is not free, only for writing this book; there is a big difference.
Durant’s Story of Civilization, his Mansions of Philosophy, and all
the other books he wrote played just as important a role in this
discovery. My understanding of what it meant that man’s will is not
free was the end result of the knowledge given by everyone who ever
lived. Through the process of reading and studying I was privileged
to acquire information that led me to this answer.

All knowledge is
a gigantic accumulation of what everybody does in his motion towards
greater satisfaction. Just because I happen to be at the end of the line
when everybody pushes me or sets the stage that induces me to find
answers that were never before possible does not allow me to take the
credit, nor is an individual to blame when everybody pushes him
towards murder and war.

I am only obeying a law that forces me to
move in this direction because it gives me greater satisfaction. God
deserves the credit, not me. Before long tears will be flowing in
abundance, but happy tears, and the whole world will thank God for
this wonderful new world. I am just a child of God, like everyone else.
None of us are given a free choice.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But no one has come up with an answer as to why we can't see objects from light without the object in view, therefore I don't think I'm wrong.

But you have been provided an answer. By several people.

The reflected or emitted light from the object or whatever is being seen must be resolved by our retina. Something that is "out of view" is either too small (actual or apparent size) to be resolved or in the wrong direction.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Parse your own statement again, using the correct meaning of "observed reality", and then tell me I am the one that doesn't know what I am talking about.

hint: Watching an apple fall from a branch to the ground is an observed reality. It can be described. It can be explained. It can be observed again. It can be replicated in most cases. It cannot be changed.

I wasn't referring to the senses. I was referring to his first discovery. You're right, we can observe and describe and explain reality. We can also use what we know about reality to make it better. In other words, when these principles are applied on a global scale, we will have the ability to change our observed reality to one of peace and brotherhood.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Here are your previous answers:

Please indicate which of these you would like to change.

Again, my questions have nothing to do with the order of the arriving light.

I asked you in the very post you were here replying to, what you think lenses actually do beyond receiving incoming light. You still haven't answered.

Yes, you are. You keep trying to blame your inconsistencies and contradictions on other people's assumptions about the afferent model instead of on your own assumptions made during your failed attempts to explain the efferent model.

You need to either revise your earlier answers to my questions (quoted above), or answer my further questions about how the light at the camera could have been blue before it arrived and before the object itself was blue.

3rd bump.

[LadyShea]

But that doesn't add up LadyShea. If something too small is traveling toward the retina, it is not too small when it reaches the eye. As long as the object is not microscopic, we should be able to resolve it. You're trying every which way to make this observation go away, but it's not going away because we should be able to see from light alone, and we don't.

Do you not remember reading this post peacegirl?

Originally Posted by Dragar

Second of all, if we cannot see an object because it has moved too far away, this is well understood (in the 'standard' scientific explanation). Usually this happens because:

a) There is too little light to form an image. There is only so much light being reflected out into the world, and so as we move further away, we get less and less of it (dropping off as the square of the distance). This can be (and is) resolved by using a bigger camera or a longer exposure time (or both).

b) The image size becomes comparable than the resolution of the detector on the focal plane. For instance, we have no hope of seeing something that produces an image on our retinas the size of only a few rods or cones. In a camera, the size of the pixels of a CCD determine the resolution. This can be resolved by using an appropriate lens to focus the light into a more appropriately sized image for our detector. Eventually we cannot even use this trick any more, due to the diffraction limit. Again, well understand and tested and used on a daily basis - and another thing that shouldn't work if we 'see' in the strange way you talk about.

You still don't understand a single thing about optics. I guess you'd rather appear ignorant and ineducable than admit you are wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But you have been provided an answer. By several people.

The reflected or emitted light from the object or whatever is being seen must be resolved by our retina. Something that is "out of view" is either too small (actual or apparent size) to be resolved or in the wrong direction.

But that doesn't even make sense. If something too small is traveling toward the retina, it is not too small when it reaches the eye. As long as the object is not microscopic, we should be able to resolve it. You're trying every which way to make this observation go away, but it's not going away because we should be able to see from light alone, and we don't. We must have the object within the field of view. I understand optics enough to know what I'm saying. You're just trying to handwave it away because you can't answer it.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I wasn't referring to the senses. I was referring to his first discovery. You're right, we can observe and describe and explain reality. We can also use what we know about reality to make it better. In other words, when these principles are applied on a global scale, we will have the ability to change our observed reality to one of peace and brotherhood.

Why would you refer to the Free Will thing- without clarifying- in the middle of a discussion about light/sight and Relativity?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Do you not remember reading this post peacegirl?

But I'm not talking about something that is too small to form an image. I'm talking about a large object such as an airplane that is just outside of the field of view, or a person standing just beyond the scope of the lens but in a straight with it. You can't use this as an example.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why would you refer to the Free Will thing- without clarifying- in the middle of a discussion about light/sight and Relativity?

I mentioned the free will thing (as you put it) a few times today. I've asked everyone to change subjects because this topic is not going anywhere. I know you aren't interested in the subject of determinism (because you think it's philosophy, not science), even though it's the key to world peace.

[LadyShea]

But that doesn't add up LadyShea. If something too small is traveling toward the retina, it is not too small when it reaches the eye. As long as the object is not microscopic, we should be able to resolve it. You're trying every which way to make this observation go away, but it's not going away because we should be able to see from light alone, and we don't.

Optics, for the love of Pete look it up. You seriously are making yourself look impaired.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But I'm not talking about something that is too small to form an image. I'm talking about a large object such as an airplane that is just outside of the field of view, or a person standing just beyond the scope of the lens but in a straight with it. You can't use this as an example.

The explanation you were addressing said nothing at all about the size of the object.

And there is no such thing as "just beyond the scope of the lens".

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But I'm not talking about something that is too small to form an image. I'm talking about a large object such as an airplane that is just outside of the field of view, or a person standing just beyond the scope of the lens but in a straight with it. You can't use this as an example.

Are you retarded? Do you or do you not understand "apparent" size and that things appear smaller the further away they are?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It wasn't right in the middle. I actually mentioned something about indeterminism which made me bring this up. Plus, I've asked everyone to let's change subjects because this becoming very repetitive. I was trying to make a transition into his first discovery. I know you aren't interested in it even though it's the key to world peace.

The topic was indeterminacy in Quantum Physics...not philosophical determinism! You are out of your mind.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I mentioned the free will thing (as you put it) a few times today. I've asked everyone to change subjects because this topic is not going anywhere. I know you aren't interested in the subject of determinism (because you think it's philosophy, not science), even though it's the key to world peace.

If you can present and explain his first discovery in your own words, then I'll discuss it with you. But but there's really no point. His first 'discovery' depends upon unsupported empirical assumptions about conscience which you cannot evidentially support any more than his ridiculous ideas about vision. You'll just find yourself in exactly the same position, insisting that his assumptions were based on very accurate 'observations' which you are nevertheless unable to present or describe, and believe to have existed based on nothing more than your own unshakeable faith in Lessans' abilities.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The topic was indeterminacy in Quantum Physics...not philosophical determinism! You are out of your mind.

No argument on the last, but this actually seems like a reasonable link for her to make. Both QM and philosophy are concerned wth causal (in)determinism.