#12176  
Old 10-12-2011, 06:14 PM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
That last paragraph is particularly bizarre.

We know we can use the light to make images. But in in Lessan's world, what we see should not match what is recorded on, say, a CCD, since the latter is information carried by light (which took time to reach us), while the former is what we see (and hence took no time to reach us).

What a weird way of trying to view the world.
A light source can project images onto a CCD. There's no conflict here.
Ahhhh, yes there is. That would mean that light alone is sufficient to form an image. And all that nonsense about sight being "efferent" because light was not sufficient to form an image would be nonsense.

Which it is. As well as just about all of Lessans book.
All I mean by "project" is to show "a mirror image," which I've stated numerous times.
An image and a reverse image are both images. It is only a matter of optics to create an image in a camera that is not reversed.

In fact the image formed in the eye is reversed and the brain corrects it. There is the famous experiment (which I am sure you are completely unaware) where a person wore eye glasses that inverted what they saw. At first everything was upside down, and after some number of days they started seeing everything correctly while still wearing the glasses.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (10-12-2011)
  #12177  
Old 10-12-2011, 06:42 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 Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Peacegirl
I didn't get to watch it yet. The main point here is that a camera (whether digital or film) has to be taking a picture of a present object or light source.
Lets be clear about what actually happens: The sensor on a camera is made up of hundreds of little individual light sensors. Each of the sensors generates a single dot of a certain color depending on the color and intensity of the light that strikes it. All the dots together form an image. This is how we built Cameras - as passive detectors of light. Not of objects or light sources.
Yes, they detect light, but they also have a lens which is focused on the object. Even if it's a pinhole camera, the hole acts like a lens which allows a mirror image to be seen. Seriously, try focusing a lens on light in the direct line of an object that you're trying to photograph (but out of the camera's field of view), and see if the collected light turns into an image.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
"Object" or "Light source" have nothing to do with it at this stage - you just want to involve it.
Wrong. I have no reason for wanting to fool everyone.

Quote:
How it converts the image electronically is secondary. That's like comparing the chemicals in film that turn an image into a picture, to this new technology. It doesn't change the reality of how light functions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Indeed it does not. Your dishonest attempt at suggesting the sensor requires some sort of direct relationship with an external object is nonsensical.
A digital camera is a more advanced version of an old fashioned camera. It works no differently.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Seeing that Cameras are simple, passive light-detectors and that according to you the eyes are not, there needs to be a difference between the two, as shown in the red-blue light emitter though-experiment and the fact that Photons are not dependent on their emitter for either their wavelength or continued existence.
There are times that we can see the visible spectrum. Sometimes we see more of one color, such as red, because of how light is scattered.

Visible light waves are the only electromagnetic waves we can see. We see these waves as the colors of the rainbow. Each color has a different wavelength. Red has the longest wavelength and violet has the shortest wavelength. When all the waves are seen together, they make white light.

When white light shines through a prism, the white light is broken apart into the colors of the visible light spectrum. Water vapor in the atmosphere can also break apart wavelengths creating a rainbow.

Visible Light Waves


Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
This is clear evidence that Lessans was wrong about sight. You have never been able to refute this, and yet you refuse to change your mind, showing that this is not a scientific idea but a religious one.
Not true Vivisectus. This has nothing to do with religion. Here is another interesting article on how we see different colors coming from the same beam of light.

Blue Sky - Red Sunset
Reply With Quote
  #12178  
Old 10-12-2011, 06:51 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 LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I am just trying to understand why we can hear due to the ability of sound waves reaching our ears, but we can't see in the same way.
We see due to light waves reaching our eyes and the brain interpreting the light. What do you think we've been saying?

Our ears have limitations just as our eyes do, soundwaves (which are nothing more than vibrations of various frequencies) reach our ears and the brain interprets the vibration.
But they don't work the same way, which Lessans has been trying to tell you, because we can't see an object due to light of various frequencies and wavelengths alone, yet we can hear solely due to vibrations of various frequencies.
Reply With Quote
  #12179  
Old 10-12-2011, 06:55 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 LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I am just trying to understand why we can hear due to the ability of sound waves reaching our ears, but we can't see in the same way.
We see due to light waves reaching our eyes and the brain interpreting the light. What do you think we've been saying?

Our ears have limitations just as our eyes do, soundwaves (which are nothing more than vibrations of various frequencies) reach our ears and the brain interprets the vibration.
But they don't work the same way, which Lessans has been trying to tell you, because we can't see an object due to light of various frequencies and wavelengths alone, yet we can hear solely due to vibrations of various frequencies.
Other than Lessans say so, why do you think this? We can see an object due to light alone. I don't really understand why you think we can't.

Our eyes and ears don't work in quite the same way (light behaves differently to sound waves) but they both work in a similar fashion.
__________________
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
  #12180  
Old 10-12-2011, 06:56 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=naturalist.atheist;991090]
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
That last paragraph is particularly bizarre.

We know we can use the light to make images. But in in Lessan's world, what we see should not match what is recorded on, say, a CCD, since the latter is information carried by light (which took time to reach us), while the former is what we see (and hence took no time to reach us).

What a weird way of trying to view the world.
A light source can project images onto a CCD. There's no conflict here.
Ahhhh, yes there is. That would mean that light alone is sufficient to form an image. And all that nonsense about sight being "efferent" because light was not sufficient to form an image would be nonsense.

Which it is. As well as just about all of Lessans book.
All I mean by "project" is to show "a mirror image," which I've stated numerous times.
Quote:
Originally Posted by natural.atheist
An image and a reverse image are both images. It is only a matter of optics to create an image in a camera that is not reversed.

In fact the image formed in the eye is reversed and the brain corrects it. There is the famous experiment (which I am sure you are completely unaware) where a person wore eye glasses that inverted what they saw. At first everything was upside down, and after some number of days they started seeing everything correctly while still wearing the glasses.
The brain is capable of compensating for certain distortions that it knows is not in keeping with reality. Amazing!
Reply With Quote
  #12181  
Old 10-12-2011, 07:07 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Lets be clear about what actually happens: The sensor on a camera is made up of hundreds of little individual light sensors. Each of the sensors generates a single dot of a certain color depending on the color and intensity of the light that strikes it. All the dots together form an image. This is how we built Cameras - as passive detectors of light. Not of objects or light sources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Yes, they detect light, but they also have a lens which is focused on the object. Even if it's a pinhole camera, the hole acts like a lens which allows a mirror image to be seen.
No, the lens focuses the incoming light into the camera. It does not focus out on the object.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
A digital camera is a more advanced version of an old fashioned camera. It works no differently.
They both work by collecting incoming light.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There are times that we can see the visible spectrum. Sometimes we see more of one color, such as red, because of how light is scattered.
No, we see color due to how the different wavelengths of the light are absorbed and/or reflected by the matter they interact with, as explained in your copypaste

Each color has a different wavelength. Red has the longest wavelength and violet has the shortest wavelength. When all the waves are seen together, they make white light.
Reply With Quote
  #12182  
Old 10-12-2011, 07:08 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 Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I am just trying to understand why we can hear due to the ability of sound waves reaching our ears, but we can't see in the same way.
We see due to light waves reaching our eyes and the brain interpreting the light. What do you think we've been saying?

Our ears have limitations just as our eyes do, soundwaves (which are nothing more than vibrations of various frequencies) reach our ears and the brain interprets the vibration.
But they don't work the same way, which Lessans has been trying to tell you, because we can't see an object due to light of various frequencies and wavelengths alone, yet we can hear solely due to vibrations of various frequencies.
Other than Lessans say so, why do you think this? We can see an object due to light alone. I don't really understand why you think we can't.

Our eyes and ears don't work in quite the same way (light behaves differently to sound waves) but they both work in a similar fashion.
Because anything other than light itself (which can be seen independently through changes in the atmosphere) cannot be seen due to light alone. If it could, then we could compare it to sound. I know this is not an explanation, but more of a description of what is going on.
Reply With Quote
  #12183  
Old 10-12-2011, 07:13 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I am just trying to understand why we can hear due to the ability of sound waves reaching our ears, but we can't see in the same way.
We see due to light waves reaching our eyes and the brain interpreting the light. What do you think we've been saying?

Our ears have limitations just as our eyes do, soundwaves (which are nothing more than vibrations of various frequencies) reach our ears and the brain interprets the vibration.
But they don't work the same way, which Lessans has been trying to tell you, because we can't see an object due to light of various frequencies and wavelengths alone, yet we can hear solely due to vibrations of various frequencies.
Other than Lessans say so, why do you think this? We can see an object due to light alone. I don't really understand why you think we can't.

Our eyes and ears don't work in quite the same way (light behaves differently to sound waves) but they both work in a similar fashion.
Because anything other than light itself (which can be seen independently through changes in the atmosphere) cannot be seen due to light alone. If it could, then we could compare it to sound. I know this is not an explanation, but more of a description of what is going on.
Yes, but why do you think this?
__________________
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
  #12184  
Old 10-12-2011, 07:13 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
He wrote that. Don't make me have to go searching through his books to find it. :(
No, he didn't. Lessans never claimed that light has to be present at the eyes for vision to be possible. That is YOUR claim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The logical implications are very clear. If efferent vision is true, then cameras work similarly. Although they don't have a brain, they work very much the same as the lens of the eye and the retina. You have to look at it from this perspective, which you're not doing. It would mean the camera's lens focuses on the object from which the mirror image is instantly seen due to light. Yes, the red photon was ahead of the blue, but that is not what is being captured by the lens.
So the lens isn't capturing the light travelling from the object to the camera? Then what is it doing? And you still aren't answering the questions I asked! Why is that, Peacegirl? Why can't you tell me what properties of what (and where) are interacting with the film in a camera to determine the color of the resulting photographic image?

What is it that causally interacts with the film to determine the colot of the (allegedly real-time) photgraphic image?

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

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


For me, it is the specific wavelengths of the light present at the camera. You agreed, then disagreed, and now refuse to answer the question.
I'm still waiting on answers to these very simple questions, Peacegirl. I don't think you're being honest with either us or yourself when you claim to be trying to understand the evidence against Lessans.
Reply With Quote
  #12185  
Old 10-12-2011, 07:16 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I am just trying to understand why we can hear due to the ability of sound waves reaching our ears, but we can't see in the same way.
We see due to light waves reaching our eyes and the brain interpreting the light. What do you think we've been saying?

Our ears have limitations just as our eyes do, soundwaves (which are nothing more than vibrations of various frequencies) reach our ears and the brain interprets the vibration.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
But they don't work the same way, which Lessans has been trying to tell you
Since light and sound do not behave the same way, why would light and sound detectors be expected to work the same way? That's a really strange argument.

Soundwaves require a medium to travel through and lightwaves don't. Ears detect soundwaves and eyes detect lightwaves, so their structures and functionality are specific to what they are detecting.
Quote:
because we can't see an object due to light of various frequencies and wavelengths alone
What makes you think that is the case other than Lessans said so?

Lightwaves and our eyes and brain interact in a way that produces vision.

If our eyes didn't have the structure they do, which makes them function as light detectors, we wouldn't be able to see.

Quote:
yet we can hear solely due to vibrations of various frequencies.
Soundwaves and our ears and brain interact in a way that produces hearing.

If our ears didn't have the structure they do, which makes them function as soundwave detectors, we wouldn't be able to hear.
Reply With Quote
  #12186  
Old 10-12-2011, 07:29 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 Vivisectus
Lets be clear about what actually happens: The sensor on a camera is made up of hundreds of little individual light sensors. Each of the sensors generates a single dot of a certain color depending on the color and intensity of the light that strikes it. All the dots together form an image. This is how we built Cameras - as passive detectors of light. Not of objects or light sources.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Yes, they detect light, but they also have a lens which is focused on the object. Even if it's a pinhole camera, the hole acts like a lens which allows a mirror image to be seen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
No, the lens focuses the incoming light into the camera. It does not focus out on the object.
Yes it does LadyShea. The image is then seen due to light. The lens focuses the incoming light automatically because it is already focused on the object it is intending to photograph.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
A digital camera is a more advanced version of an old fashioned camera. It works no differently.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
They both work by collecting incoming light.
I can see I've made no progress after all these pages. :chin:

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There are times that we can see the visible spectrum. Sometimes we see more of one color, such as red, because of how light is scattered.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
No, we see color due to how the different wavelengths of the light are absorbed and/or reflected by the matter they interact with, as explained in your copypaste

Each color has a different wavelength. Red has the longest wavelength and violet has the shortest wavelength. When all the waves are seen together, they make white light.
That's very true, but my point is that we can see light and its color variations due to how it breaks up into its constituent spectral colors (as it interacts with matter). By the same token you're not going to get a photograph of an object or lightsource without these bits of matter interacting with that same light.
Reply With Quote
  #12187  
Old 10-12-2011, 07:36 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
No, the lens focuses the incoming light into the camera. It does not focus out on the object.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Yes it does LadyShea. The image is then seen due to light. The lens focuses the incoming light automatically because it is already focused on the object it is intending to photograph.
No, you have an incorrect understanding of how lenses work, and what focus means.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I can see I've made no progress after all these pages. :chin:
You have made no progress in understanding exactly how cameras work

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
By the same token you're not going to get a photograph of an object or lightsource without these bits of matter interacting with that same light.
What does that even mean?
Reply With Quote
  #12188  
Old 10-12-2011, 08:24 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Peacegirl, you could try here, they may be more receptive,

Free forum : BreakAwayForum
Reply With Quote
  #12189  
Old 10-12-2011, 08:36 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
But they don't work the same way, which Lessans has been trying to tell you, because we can't see an object due to light of various frequencies and wavelengths alone, yet we can hear solely due to vibrations of various frequencies.
You are right they don't work the same way, light always travels in a straight line, but can be deflected or the direction changed by some instrument, but on it's own goes straight. Sound is carried by a medium (such as air), and will go whever the air is, even around corners, but that does not mean that the eyes and the ears do not both receive the stimulus from the outside. The ears receive vibrations of the air, and the eyes receive the light including the frequency (for color) and other information, lighter and darker (intensity) and direction. These differences do not mean that the eyes do not receive light, send the information to the brain where it is intrepreted as an image. Anything else is just wrong.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Dragar (10-12-2011), LadyShea (10-12-2011)
  #12190  
Old 10-12-2011, 08:47 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
[
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
No, the lens focuses the incoming light into the camera. It does not focus out on the object.
Yes it does LadyShea. The image is then seen due to light. The lens focuses the incoming light automatically because it is already focused on the object it is intending to photograph.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
They both work by collecting incoming light.
I can see I've made no progress after all these pages. :chin:
The lens, focuses light onto the film, light dectector, or retnia, the lens does not focus on the object just the light from the object.

Peacegirl, you have made no progress because your position and ideas are WRONG. You can't change reality to suit your fathers fantasy.
Reply With Quote
  #12191  
Old 10-12-2011, 08:59 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
Please forget about photons arriving 8 minutes later. This entire example was given by Lessans to show that light is not the cause of sight. It carries nothing about the object or image. It is a conduit only.
What then, in your opinion, is it a conduit 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 (10-12-2011)
  #12192  
Old 10-12-2011, 09:01 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
When white light shines through a prism, the white light is broken apart into the colors of the visible light spectrum. Water vapor in the atmosphere can also break apart wavelengths creating a rainbow.
Do you understand why this happens? Did you know there is a mathematical formula that explains it and that this is part of optics? Do you know how tertiary and quaternary rainbows form and why they are so rare only 3 photographs exist of the phenomena? Have you looked up optics yet and seen how much information you need to learn?
Reply With Quote
  #12193  
Old 10-12-2011, 09:15 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXIV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Hey, peacegirl, what about the moons of Jupiter? :lol:

It'd be interesting to go back through this thread and summarize all the ways in which Lessans' claims have been demonstrated to be wrong. There must be dozens of examples, if not actually more than a hundred. And each one by itself conclusively proves that his claims were false.
Reply With Quote
  #12194  
Old 10-12-2011, 09:22 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXIV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
... which Lessans has been trying to tell you ...
:lol:

Thank you, Mr. Buffoon, for trying to tell us stuff. :giggle:

Hey, peacegirl, what about the moons of Jupiter?
Reply With Quote
  #12195  
Old 10-12-2011, 09:24 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXIV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I can see I've made no progress after all these pages. :chin:
Wow, you are an obnoxious little half-wit. :yup:

Hey, peacegirl, what about the moons of Jupiter? :popcorn:
Reply With Quote
  #12196  
Old 10-12-2011, 09:48 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
Dragar, the photons are present as morning arrives. We then have the conditions (the photons) that allow us to see the light source (the sun) in real time.
No, peace girl. How can the photons be present when morning arrives? They take eight minutes to get here, but we see the sun come over the horizon in real time. Therefore the moment we see the sun, the photons are eight minutes from arriving.

Please answer, how can the photons have arrived at the same time we see the sun, if we see the sun the instant it comes over the horizon, but the photons take eight minutes to arrive?
The photons are in a constant stream. They don't suddenly arrive 8 minutes later, therefore we see the sun as it comes over the horizon in real time.

While you don't feel it, Earth is spinning. Once every 24 hours Earth turns — or rotates on its axis — taking all of us with it. When we are on the side of Earth that is facing the Sun, we have daylight. As Earth continues its spin, we are moved to the side facing away from our Sun, and we have nighttime. If we were looking down on Earth from above the north pole, we could see that Earth rotates counterclockwise, and we would watch daylight and darkness sweeping across our globe from east to west.

Twenty-four hours equals one day and night on Earth, the length of time it takes the Earth to rotate once on its axis.

When the Earth spins around on its axis, it creates night and day on Earth. This movement makes it look like the Sun is moving across the sky. The Sun rises in the east and sets in the west, turning day into night.

http://uk.answers.yahoo.com/question...5020506AADZPBx
Reply With Quote
  #12197  
Old 10-12-2011, 09:56 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 Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I am just trying to understand why we can hear due to the ability of sound waves reaching our ears, but we can't see in the same way.
We see due to light waves reaching our eyes and the brain interpreting the light. What do you think we've been saying?

Our ears have limitations just as our eyes do, soundwaves (which are nothing more than vibrations of various frequencies) reach our ears and the brain interprets the vibration.
But they don't work the same way, which Lessans has been trying to tell you, because we can't see an object due to light of various frequencies and wavelengths alone, yet we can hear solely due to vibrations of various frequencies.
Other than Lessans say so, why do you think this? We can see an object due to light alone. I don't really understand why you think we can't.

Our eyes and ears don't work in quite the same way (light behaves differently to sound waves) but they both work in a similar fashion.
Because anything other than light itself (which can be seen independently through changes in the atmosphere) cannot be seen due to light alone. If it could, then we could compare it to sound. I know this is not an explanation, but more of a description of what is going on.
Yes, but why do you think this?
I think this because that's how efferent vision works. If we see in real time (which I believe we do), then that changes the function of light in regard to what we see and how we see it.
Reply With Quote
  #12198  
Old 10-12-2011, 09:58 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXIV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Dragar, the photons are present as morning arrives. We then have the conditions (the photons) that allow us to see the light source (the sun) in real time.
No, peace girl. How can the photons be present when morning arrives? They take eight minutes to get here, but we see the sun come over the horizon in real time. Therefore the moment we see the sun, the photons are eight minutes from arriving.

Please answer, how can the photons have arrived at the same time we see the sun, if we see the sun the instant it comes over the horizon, but the photons take eight minutes to arrive?
The photons are in a constant stream. They don't suddenly arrive 8 minutes later, therefore we see the sun as it comes over the horizon in real time.
Holy shit, you are a blockhead.

Yes, they arrive in constant stream, which is precisley WHY we see the sun as it was eight and a half minutes ago!

:lol:
Reply With Quote
  #12199  
Old 10-12-2011, 10:00 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
The photons are in a constant stream. They don't suddenly arrive 8 minutes later, therefore we see the sun as it comes over the horizon in real time.
The constant stream means the newly emitted photons take 8 minutes to arrive. So yes, new light reaching our area of Earth due to the sun rising "suddenly" arrives 8 minutes later than it left the sun.

According to science, we see the sun rise only when those photons reach us, so we see the sun rise and the photons reach us at the same time.

According to Lessans we see the sun rise 8 minutes before the photons reach us.
Reply With Quote
  #12200  
Old 10-12-2011, 10:02 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXIV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Peacegirl, care to expain how the observations of the moons of Jupiter are consistent with real time seeing? :popcorn:
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 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 12:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.32734 seconds with 14 queries