#13376  
Old 10-26-2011, 02:33 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

She can't seem to make up her mind whether the lens physically makes the object grow bigger to the point where it is "large enough to be seen" (utterly nonsensical) or whether the lens magically cancels distance so the object itself is focused by the lens and resides inside the eye! (Even MORE nonsenscial!)

Hey, peacegirl, are objects inside our eyes when we look at them? If I look at the sun, is the sun inside my eyes? I asked you this pages back; you never anwered. Holy shit, the sun is in my eyes! I'm burning up! :fire:
Reply With Quote
  #13377  
Old 10-26-2011, 02:43 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 Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
That's not true. I'm saying that the light that is seen has reached the field of view of the telescope with the help of magnification.
Field of view is not limited by distance. And the Hubble pictures show that an image can be formed from distant light arriving from objects too far away to be seen.
It is also true that some or all of the objects in the Hubble pictures may not now exist, but they did exist many billions of years ago when the light was emitted which has now been recorded by Hubble. It is also certain that if any of those objects still exist they do not look the same now as they did then, as is recorded in the pictures. The pictures depict those objects as they appeared billions of years ago, and that is what is so exciting about studying those images. If it were up to Peacegirl and Lessans the entire history of the universe would be inaccessable because we would only be able to se it as it is now and we could never learn anything about the past.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (10-26-2011), Spacemonkey (10-26-2011)
  #13378  
Old 10-26-2011, 02:50 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Peacegirl and Lessans have claimed that light does not carry an image or information. Astronomers have known for years that light does carry information and they have been studying light and learning many things about the universe from the light that is received from those distant objects. Peacegirl wants to limit the discussion to Earth bound questions because the time delay in vision is very small and difficult to detect and easy to confuse with instant vision. She does not want to talk about astronomy because the time delay of light and vision are easier to detect and disprove Lessans ideas.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (10-26-2011)
  #13379  
Old 10-26-2011, 02:52 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 thedoc View Post
Peacegirl and Lessans have claimed that light does not carry an image or information. Astronomers have known for years that light does carry information and they have been studying light and learning many things about the universe from the light that is received from those distant objects. Peacegirl wants to limit the discussion to Earth bound questions because the time delay in vision is very small and difficult to detect and easy to confuse with instant vision. She does not want to talk about astronomy because the time delay of light and vision are easier to detect and disprove Lessans ideas.
Moons of Jupiter is all that is needed to refute Lessans. She even admitted this. She herself used the word "refute."

Her insane position now boils down to: Lessans is right because he's right, even though he has been refuted.

There is no one home here to reason with.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (10-26-2011)
  #13380  
Old 10-26-2011, 03:18 PM
ceptimus's Avatar
ceptimus ceptimus is offline
puzzler
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UK
Posts: XVMMDCCXC
Images: 28
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Regarding the efferent lenses. Remember that pinhole cameras work too! So holes would also require the efferent capability.

The reason we have a lens, or lenses in a camera, rather than just a pinhole, is to let more light in without the image becoming blurred. If (when using a regular camera with a lens) we want a greater depth of field in the photo, then we narrow down the aperture, making the camera more like a pinhole one!

In principle a pinhole camera has an infinite depth of field - all objects from those just in front of the hole, all the way out to infinity, are equally well focussed.

The main problems with pinhole cameras are: a) they don't let through enough light to work well with the sensors we have available. b) if the hole is made bigger to let in more light, then the image is blurred. c) there are diffraction effects at the hole which cause the image to be less sharp than basic optical theory would predict.
__________________
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Crumb (10-26-2011), Dragar (10-26-2011), LadyShea (10-26-2011), Spacemonkey (10-26-2011)
  #13381  
Old 10-26-2011, 03:44 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
There is nothing you said that I am disagreement with, so why are you trying to use this as a way to discredit what Lessans is saying?
Because you keep stamping your feet and saying 'Well nobody can explain why we can't see objects that are too far away, so Lessans is right!'.

That's why we keep telling you that there's nothing in this to support Lessans, or a problem for standard vision-via-light.
__________________
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
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (10-26-2011), Spacemonkey (10-26-2011)
  #13382  
Old 10-26-2011, 03:44 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 peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
peacegirl and I did discuss Dave from Canada. Apparently he somethingerothered and then went away.
He was a friend of mine, but we lost touch after college.

Lessans said Dave became very involved in his (Lessans) work. You have failed to describe this involvement, even when asked point blank. So was he very involved, or not? What did this involvement entail and why did he become uninvolved?
Reply With Quote
  #13383  
Old 10-26-2011, 04:04 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 peacegirl View Post
Hello? What have I been saying all along. Lessans stated that the object has to be large enough (which means that a small object can be magnified to make it large enough), or bright enough.
I am talking about apparent size, and the ability for a camera to resolve an image. Which is why your experiment won't work without the correct camera set up and lenses. A camera cannot create an image unless it has the correct lenses, detectors, and the necessary exposure time.

Resolution has been explained to you.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
In order to create an image, either with our eyes or a camera, we have to make it so that the apparent size is large enough to resolve. We can make the apparent size bigger, allowing us to resolve an image, with lenses (which are not efferent. We know what lenses do, we build them. You can experiment with lenses yourself).
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I'm not disputing what telescopes do. They are an amazing technology that works.
Not just telescope, all lenses work the same way. The size and shape and configuration of lenses determine what can be resolved or seen


Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
But this is in keeping with what Lessans states. Once again, the apparent size of the bacteria is made larger by a microscope.
The lenses make the apparent size large enough for the detector to resolve. Do you see the difference between what I am saying and what you are saying?

Do you see how all of this applies to your posited experiment of creating an image when the object is "out of view"?
Quote:
But we don't need magnification to see an airplane because it's large enough to be seen as long as it's within our visual range.
And what do you think "visual range" refers to? This is what I am talking about with lenses! When the airplane is "out of visual range" what that means is that it's apparent size is too small to be resolved by the lens we are using (whether our eyes or a camera). You can extend the visual range using lenses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
If it's not, the camera is unable to focus just the light (which it should if afferent vision is correct) being reflected from the airplane so that an image can be resolved on film.
If you extend the visual range using a telephoto lens, for example, then the image can be resolved.

What part are you not understanding here?


Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I have taken it upon myself to learn how stuff works. There is no mystery here, everything I have said is well explained and can be predicted by optics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There is nothing you said that I am disagreement with, so why are you trying to use this as a way to discredit what Lessans is saying?
Because you do disagree by insisting that regular old cameras- with no special conditions or equipment- should be able to do something they cannot do, and aren't predicted to do under our understanding of light and sight.

The Hubble took 1 million minutes of exposure time, in 20-40 minute increments over multiple days to gather enough light to create the deep field images.

You would have to use lenses to enlarge the apparent size, rather than additional exposure time to gather the light, because creating exposure conditions that wouldn't overwhelm the distant objects reflected light (called overexposure in photography) would be very difficult on Earth (because of all the other light sources)
Reply With Quote
  #13384  
Old 10-26-2011, 04:14 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 View Post
Hello? What have I been saying all along. Lessans stated that the object has to be large enough (which means that a small object can be magnified to make it large enough), or bright enough.
I am talking about apparent size, and the ability for a camera to resolve an image. Which is why your experiment won't work without the correct camera set up and lenses. A camera cannot create an image unless it has the correct lenses, detectors, and the necessary exposure time.

Resolution has been explained to you.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
In order to create an image, either with our eyes or a camera, we have to make it so that the apparent size is large enough to resolve. We can make the apparent size bigger, allowing us to resolve an image, with lenses (which are not efferent. We know what lenses do, we build them. You can experiment with lenses yourself).
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I'm not disputing what telescopes do. They are an amazing technology that works.
Not just telescope, all lenses work the same way. The size and shape and configuration of lenses determine what can be resolved or seen


Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
But this is in keeping with what Lessans states. Once again, the apparent size of the bacteria is made larger by a microscope.
The lenses make the apparent size large enough for the detector to resolve. Do you see the difference between what I am saying and what you are saying?

Do you see how all of this applies to your posited experiment of creating an image when the object is "out of view"?
Quote:
But we don't need magnification to see an airplane because it's large enough to be seen as long as it's within our visual range.
And what do you think "visual range" refers to? This is what I am talking about with lenses! When the airplane is "out of visual range" what that means is that it's apparent size is too small to be resolved by the lens we are using (whether our eyes or a camera). You can extend the visual range using lenses.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
If it's not, the camera is unable to focus just the light (which it should if afferent vision is correct) being reflected from the airplane so that an image can be resolved on film.
If you extend the visual range using a telephoto lens, for example, then the image can be resolved.

What part are you not understanding here?


Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I have taken it upon myself to learn how stuff works. There is no mystery here, everything I have said is well explained and can be predicted by optics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There is nothing you said that I am disagreement with, so why are you trying to use this as a way to discredit what Lessans is saying?
Because you do disagree by insisting that regular old cameras- with no special conditions or equipment- should be able to do something they cannot do, and aren't predicted to do under our understanding of light and sight.

The Hubble took 1 million minutes of exposure time, in 20-40 minute increments over multiple days to gather enough light to create the deep field images.

You would have to use lenses to enlarge the apparent size, rather than additional exposure time to gather the light, because creating exposure conditions that wouldn't overwhelm the distant objects reflected light (called overexposure in photography) would be very difficult on Earth (because of all the other light sources)
Seriously, you're speaking gibberish which I'm being accused of. You aren't making sense LadyShea, but you are trying to make everything fit so there is no cognitive/dissonance. I get it, trust me. It's hard to live with confusion so we try to resolve it by making it fit into our worldview. So do the experiment at night so there aren't other light sources. It's not that difficult, but you are making it difficult because you can't believe that science is in error, therefore all of your frustration (and everyone else's) is taken out on Lessans. Do you think that's fair?
Reply With Quote
  #13385  
Old 10-26-2011, 04:17 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 peacegirl
So do the experiment at night so there aren't other light sources. It's not that difficult LadyShea, but you are making it difficult because you can't believe that science is in error, therefore all of everyone's anger is focused on Lessans. Do you think that's fair?
You don't see the difficulty because you have zero understanding of optics, the science of photography, how lenses work, how light works (did you ever look up the inverse square law?), what visual range, field of view etc. refer to in reality, or what resolve/resolution actually means.

I have no anger towards Lessans. He's not the one here on :ff: dissembling, weaseling, sticking his fingers in his ears, ignoring detailed explanations and answers, or crying persecution every 5 seconds
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (10-26-2011)
  #13386  
Old 10-26-2011, 04:21 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 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
peacegirl and I did discuss Dave from Canada. Apparently he somethingerothered and then went away.
He was a friend of mine, but we lost touch after college.

Lessans said Dave became very involved in his (Lessans) work. You have failed to describe this involvement, even when asked point blank. So was he very involved, or not? What did this involvement entail and why did he become uninvolved?
He was in his teens at the time. That doesn't discredit what he observed at the expo. When he came back he paid more attention to the book because he thought there might be something to it. He liked the idea of no blame, but he didn't understand that this was not a free for all to do anything one wants to do. He didn't understand that this knowledge increases responsibility. Then we lost contact.
Reply With Quote
  #13387  
Old 10-26-2011, 04:24 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
So do the experiment at night so there aren't other light sources. It's not that difficult LadyShea, but you are making it difficult because you can't believe that science is in error, therefore all of everyone's anger is focused on Lessans. Do you think that's fair?
You don't see the difficulty because you have zero understanding of optics, the science of photography, how lenses work, how light works (did you ever look up the inverse square law?), what visual range, field of view etc. refer to in reality, or what resolve/resolution actually means.

I have no anger towards Lessans. He's not the one here on :ff: dissembling, weaseling, sticking his fingers in his ears, ignoring detailed explanations and answers, or crying persecution every 5 seconds
This whole thread is becoming more and more hysterical to me and I'm sure to others. How this knowledge is resolved is so far from over that unless you are very attentive and objective, you will laugh at Lessans just as people were laughed at in history, but came out as true heroes.
Reply With Quote
  #13388  
Old 10-26-2011, 04:31 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

Seriously, why do you think special equipment -like telescopes and telephoto lenses and night vision technology and super sensitive detectors- is designed and built if anyone with a 100.00 dollar digital camera from Walmart can take a picture of anything at any distance?

Last edited by LadyShea; 10-26-2011 at 04:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #13389  
Old 10-26-2011, 04:35 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 peacegirl View Post
This whole thread is becoming more and more hysterical to me and I'm sure to others. How this knowledge is resolved is so far from over that unless you are very attentive and objective, you will laugh at Lessans just as people were laughed at in history, but came out as true heroes.
I think Lessans was sincere but mistaken. You on the other hand are willfully ignorant and obstinate as well as histrionic, and you are his spokesperson. How do you predict this will turn him into a hero?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (10-26-2011)
  #13390  
Old 10-26-2011, 05:18 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
It's hard to live with confusion so we try to resolve it by making it fit into our worldview.
And when your "worldview" is radically out of sync with the rest of humanity you are usually called a crackpot or mentally ill.

In your case peacegirl I don't think you are a crackpot.

Quote:
So do the experiment at night so there aren't other light sources. It's not that difficult, but you are making it difficult because you can't believe that science is in error, therefore all of your frustration (and everyone else's) is taken out on Lessans. Do you think that's fair?
And if many many people have done this experiment and you and Lessans are the only people on the planet that get your results and you can't show or explain to anyone how to get your results then again you will be called a crackpot or mentally ill.

But at this point it will probably be mental illness.
Reply With Quote
  #13391  
Old 10-26-2011, 05:30 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
This whole thread is becoming more and more hysterical to me and I'm sure to others.
I'm sure it is peacegirl. But the others are laughing at you, not with you. You are the freak, the imbecile, the crazy cook and they laugh and laugh.

I'm sure this is not helping your mental condition one little bit. Get help.

Quote:
How this knowledge is resolved is so far from over that unless you are very attentive and objective, you will laugh at Lessans just as people were laughed at in history, but came out as true heroes.
Far more mentally insane people have found themselves in this position than sane people before their time. The difference is that the sane people can demonstrate their claims on reality, the insane people can't.

And so far peacegirl you haven't demonstrated anything on reality. That would make you crazy. Get help.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (10-26-2011)
  #13392  
Old 10-26-2011, 06:01 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
So do the experiment at night so there aren't other light sources. It's not that difficult LadyShea, but you are making it difficult because you can't believe that science is in error, therefore all of everyone's anger is focused on Lessans. Do you think that's fair?
You don't see the difficulty because you have zero understanding of optics, the science of photography, how lenses work, how light works (did you ever look up the inverse square law?), what visual range, field of view etc. refer to in reality, or what resolve/resolution actually means.

I have no anger towards Lessans. He's not the one here on :ff: dissembling, weaseling, sticking his fingers in his ears, ignoring detailed explanations and answers, or crying persecution every 5 seconds
This whole thread is becoming more and more hysterical to me and I'm sure to others. How this knowledge is resolved is so far from over that unless you are very attentive and objective, you will laugh at Lessans just as people were laughed at in history, but came out as true heroes.
The people who made claims, later verified, in history were not in a position to test their claims. The majority of these sorts of people were simply wrong; we only tend to hear about the ones who turned out correct.

History is replete with people who had outlandish claims, never tested, and turned out to be entirely wrong.

So not only are you far more likely to be wrong than right purely on the basis of history, you are in a position that these historical figures were not: your claims have already been tested, while the claims of these historical figures were not. And your claims have been found to be wrong. There is no matter of interpretation about it. For you to be right, particularly in the way you demand light to behave differently to how we have observed it to behave, contradicts experiments ranging for the last 400 years:
  • basic experiments such observations of the moons of Jupiter,
  • annual abberation of light;
  • the visibility of a blue object illuminated by red light, along with
  • the behaviour of cameras, telescopes and optical instruments in general,
  • theory of optics
  • special relativity
  • general relativity
  • quantum electrodynamics
  • modern technology based upon the last three, including:
  • GPS satellites
  • transistors
  • optical cables
  • space travel
  • huge swathes of a variety of tests regarding the behaviour of light
  • ...

and so on.

Meanwhile, you insist you are correct based on purely Lessans say so.

Do you really expect anyone to ever believe you, peacgirl? You cannot even express sensible reasons why you believe it, or even express a coherent picture of what you believe and how much physics you must throw away. It staggers me to think you think anyone else should, or could, believe 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
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (10-26-2011), Crumb (10-27-2011), LadyShea (10-26-2011), Spacemonkey (10-26-2011)
  #13393  
Old 10-26-2011, 06:03 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 peacegirl
Seriously, you're speaking gibberish which I'm being accused of.
I am not speaking gibberish. Look up optics. Look up the science of photography. Look up lenses. Look up resolution. Look up the inverse square law. Look up angle of view.

You are hearing gibbersih because you refuse to educate yourself about anything that is not Lessans idiotic horse sense...if it's not "We see what we can see when we can see it" or "The proof of the pudding is in the eating" then you either can't or won't comprehend it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You aren't making sense LadyShea
I am pretty sure I am making sense to everyone except you.

If this is not the case I ask those of you who agree that I make no sense in the discussion below to let me know, because I LIKE gaining knowledge and learning to communicate better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
, but you are trying to make everything fit so there is no cognitive/dissonance.
There is no "trying to make everything fit", it already fits with what we know about light and optics...we know our information is correct because it makes predictions we can then use to design and construct optical equipment of all kinds, and that equipment all works as designed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
trust me.
Why should I trust you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
It's hard to live with confusion so we try to resolve it by making it fit into our worldview.
You are definitely speaking for yourself here. Nobody else is confused.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Hello? What have I been saying all along. Lessans stated that the object has to be large enough (which means that a small object can be magnified to make it large enough), or bright enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I am talking about apparent size, and the ability for a camera to resolve an image. Which is why your experiment won't work without the correct camera set up and lenses. A camera cannot create an image unless it has the correct lenses, detectors, and the necessary exposure time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
In order to create an image, either with our eyes or a camera, we have to make it so that the apparent size is large enough to resolve. We can make the apparent size bigger, allowing us to resolve an image, with lenses (which are not efferent. We know what lenses do, we build them. You can experiment with lenses yourself).
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I'm not disputing what telescopes do. They are an amazing technology that works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Not just telescopes, all lenses work the same way. The size and shape and configuration of lenses determine what can be resolved or seen
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
But this is in keeping with what Lessans states. Once again, the apparent size of the bacteria is made larger by a microscope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
The lenses make the apparent size large enough for the detector to resolve. Do you see the difference between what I am saying and what you are saying?

Do you see how all of this applies to your posited experiment of creating an image when the object is "out of view"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
But we don't need magnification to see an airplane because it's large enough to be seen as long as it's within our visual range.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
And what do you think "visual range" refers to? This is what I am talking about with lenses! When the airplane is "out of visual range" what that means is that it's apparent size is too small to be resolved by the lens we are using (whether our eyes or a camera). You can extend the visual range using lenses.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
If it's not, the camera is unable to focus just the light (which it should if afferent vision is correct) being reflected from the airplane so that an image can be resolved on film.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
If you extend the visual range using a telephoto lens, for example, then the image can be resolved.

What part are you not understanding here?

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I have taken it upon myself to learn how stuff works. There is no mystery here, everything I have said is well explained and can be predicted by optics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There is nothing you said that I am disagreement with, so why are you trying to use this as a way to discredit what Lessans is saying?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Because you do disagree by insisting that regular old cameras- with no special conditions or equipment- should be able to do something they cannot do, and aren't predicted to do under our understanding of light and sight.
The Hubble took 1 million minutes of exposure time, in 20-40 minute increments over multiple days to gather enough light to create the deep field images.

You would have to use lenses to enlarge the apparent size, rather than additional exposure time to gather the light, because creating exposure conditions that wouldn't overwhelm the distant objects reflected light (called overexposure in photography) would be very difficult on Earth (because of all the other light sources)
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (10-26-2011), Dragar (10-26-2011), Spacemonkey (10-26-2011)
  #13394  
Old 10-26-2011, 06:12 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 peacegirl View Post
He was in his teens at the time. That doesn't discredit what he observed at the expo. When he came back he paid more attention to the book because he thought there might be something to it. He liked the idea of no blame, but he didn't understand that this was not a free for all to do anything one wants to do. He didn't understand that this knowledge increases responsibility. Then we lost contact.
So Lessans big "very involved" expo goer, so important that he was included in the book, was a confused kid?
Reply With Quote
  #13395  
Old 10-26-2011, 06:49 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 thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
That's not true. I'm saying that the light that is seen has reached the field of view of the telescope with the help of magnification.
Field of view is not limited by distance. And the Hubble pictures show that an image can be formed from distant light arriving from objects too far away to be seen.
It is also true that some or all of the objects in the Hubble pictures may not now exist, but they did exist many billions of years ago when the light was emitted which has now been recorded by Hubble. It is also certain that if any of those objects still exist they do not look the same now as they did then, as is recorded in the pictures. The pictures depict those objects as they appeared billions of years ago, and that is what is so exciting about studying those images. If it were up to Peacegirl and Lessans the entire history of the universe would be inaccessable because we would only be able to se it as it is now and we could never learn anything about the past.
A relic is something that we can learn from if it comes from a source that existed long ago.
Reply With Quote
  #13396  
Old 10-26-2011, 06:52 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 View Post
He was in his teens at the time. That doesn't discredit what he observed at the expo. When he came back he paid more attention to the book because he thought there might be something to it. He liked the idea of no blame, but he didn't understand that this was not a free for all to do anything one wants to do. He didn't understand that this knowledge increases responsibility. Then we lost contact.
So Lessans big "very involved" expo goer, so important that he was included in the book, was a confused kid?
He was not confused about what the people were announcing at the expo LadyShea. It was right around the time that he was friends with the family. You are too quick to judge the character of an innocent bystander who was bringing up an incident that was coincidental. It surprised him to such a degree that it got him very interested in the book. I would hate it if you were on the jury to determine my fate.
Reply With Quote
  #13397  
Old 10-26-2011, 07:21 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

Dave claims to have seen a pavilion at an "Expo in Canada" with a sign reading “Come inside and let us prove scientifically that the eyes are not a sense organ.” Then came back to the US to become "very much involved". That involvement was nothing much, in reality, was it peacegirl?

Also, I call complete and total bullshit on there ever being a pavilion at an expo in Canada with such a sign. No way anyone else used Lessans exact phrasing "eyes are not a sense organ" and his weird choice of "scientifically", and if they did why didn't he follow up to see if these mysterious people were on the same track he was?
Quote:
In Canada, the proof has already been
made a part of a scientific exposition.”
Who are these Canadian scientists and where is this proof? Really Lessans didn't seek them out? You haven't sought them out yourself peacegirl...scientists who are already inclined to agree with you? That would be a ludicrous choice for you to make!!


Quote:
Someone, whose interest had never been sufficiently aroused to
pursue my discoveries because they sounded ridiculous, was visiting an
exposition in Canada where he saw a sign on one pavilion that read,
“Come inside and let us prove scientifically that the eyes are not a
sense organ.” He was absolutely amazed because he knew when I said
that man does not have five sense organs that I was also referring to
the eyes. When seeing this sign he couldn’t believe it, however, after
convincing himself in Canada that man only has four senses and a
pair of eyes, he became very much involved in my work upon his
return.

Last edited by LadyShea; 10-27-2011 at 02:00 AM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Stephen Maturin (10-27-2011), The Lone Ranger (10-27-2011)
  #13398  
Old 10-26-2011, 07:47 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 peacegirl
Seriously, you're speaking gibberish which I'm being accused of.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I am not speaking gibberish. Look up optics. Look up the science of photography. Look up lenses. Look up resolution. Look up the inverse square law. Look up angle of view.

You are hearing gibbersih because you refuse to educate yourself about anything that is not Lessans idiotic horse sense...if it's not "We see what we can see when we can see it" or "The proof of the pudding is in the eating" then you either can't or won't comprehend it.
Show me where he said this: "We see what we can see when we can see it." You are using underhanded tactics here. And I comprehend what was written in this thread regarding optics, lenses, angle of view, etc. What is it that you don't understand?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You aren't making sense LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I am pretty sure I am making sense to everyone except you.
Isn't that par for the course?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
If this is not the case I ask those of you who agree that I make no sense in the discussion below to let me know, because I LIKE gaining knowledge and learning to communicate better.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
, but you are trying to make everything fit so there is no cognitive/dissonance.
There is no "trying to make everything fit", it already fits with what we know about light and optics...we know our information is correct because it makes predictions we can then use to design and construct optical equipment of all kinds, and that equipment all works as designed.
Why do you keep bringing up these technologies that don't negate his claim?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
trust me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Why should I trust you?
Is there a motive as to why you take a sentence that was written within a certain context and remove it to change the meaning?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
It's hard to live with confusion so we try to resolve it by making it fit into our worldview.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
You are definitely speaking for yourself here. Nobody else is confused.
Anytime something doesn't fit in one's worldview, it's very easy to get angry. I'm not saying that's you, but there are people that fit this description.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Hello? What have I been saying all along. Lessans stated that the object has to be large enough (which means that a small object can be magnified to make it large enough), or bright enough.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I am talking about apparent size, and the ability for a camera to resolve an image. Which is why your experiment won't work without the correct camera set up and lenses. A camera cannot create an image unless it has the correct lenses, detectors, and the necessary exposure time.
You can have the correct lenses, detectors, and the necessary exposure time and still not get an image.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
In order to create an image, either with our eyes or a camera, we have to make it so that the apparent size is large enough to resolve. We can make the apparent size bigger, allowing us to resolve an image, with lenses (which are not efferent. We know what lenses do, we build them. You can experiment with lenses yourself).
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I'm not disputing what telescopes do. They are an amazing technology that works.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Not just telescopes, all lenses work the same way. The size and shape and configuration of lenses determine what can be resolved or seen
I understand that. What we can see is dependent on the lens. Animals have a different capacity than humans, so they may have a larger optical range. I'm still not sure where you think this discredits the fact that only objects that are in the optical range can be resolved. If afferent vision is true, we should still be able to get a picture of an object if light is traveling from that object toward the lens without the need for magnification. I'm not talking about bacteria or something so small that it can't be seen even if it's within the visual range.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
But this is in keeping with what Lessans states. Once again, the apparent size of the bacteria is made larger by a microscope.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
The lenses make the apparent size large enough for the detector to resolve. Do you see the difference between what I am saying and what you are saying?

Do you see how all of this applies to your posited experiment of creating an image when the object is "out of view"?
I realize that the lens is making the actual size look larger which causes the object to fit the requirement of "large enough to be seen." Bacteria must be seen with a microscope but an airplane does not need a telescope. It is large enough to be seen so why is it not seen when outside of our visual range? The entire definition of afferent vision is seeing images from light. Why are you not seeing this?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
But we don't need magnification to see an airplane because it's large enough to be seen as long as it's within our visual range.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
And what do you think "visual range" refers to? This is what I am talking about with lenses! When the airplane is "out of visual range" what that means is that it's apparent size is too small to be resolved by the lens we are using (whether our eyes or a camera). You can extend the visual range using lenses.
Huh? A plane that you can hear but can't see, and then comes into view within a matter of seconds is not too small to be seen. It's out of visual range, that's all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
If it's not, the camera is unable to focus just the light (which it should if afferent vision is correct) being reflected from the airplane so that an image can be resolved on film.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
If you extend the visual range using a telephoto lens, for example, then the image can be resolved.
Then you are meeting the requirements of efferent vision. In other words, why should you have to extend the size of an object as long the photons are arriving at your eye. Can't you admit that this doesn't add up?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
What part are you not understanding here?
Your explanation that the lens is just a light detector.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I have taken it upon myself to learn how stuff works. There is no mystery here, everything I have said is well explained and can be predicted by optics.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There is nothing you said that I am disagreement with, so why are you trying to use this as a way to discredit what Lessans is saying?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Because you do disagree by insisting that regular old cameras- with no special conditions or equipment- should be able to do something they cannot do, and aren't predicted to do under our understanding of light and sight.
But you're not being consistent. They should be able to do what we observe they cannot do which calls into question the accuracy of afferent vision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
The Hubble took 1 million minutes of exposure time, in 20-40 minute increments over multiple days to gather enough light to create the deep field images.
I am not disputing this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
You would have to use lenses to enlarge the apparent size, rather than additional exposure time to gather the light, because creating exposure conditions that wouldn't overwhelm the distant objects reflected light (called overexposure in photography) would be very difficult on Earth (because of all the other light sources)
As I already said, the conditions that would cause overexposure would be eliminated. Furthermore, we're only talking about a few feet from the perimeter of the optical range. Therefore this would not be a factor to be concerned about, as far as I can tell.

Last edited by peacegirl; 10-26-2011 at 08:00 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #13399  
Old 10-26-2011, 08:25 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
I can only reconcile this by saying that the lens acts efferently.
Then what travels outwards from the lens?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
If the object seen is within the field of view of the camera when a picture is taken, the distance as far as the lens is concerned is within that small space of visibility.
Field of view is not limited by distance. You are still misusing the term.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
And even if light travels at a finite speed and we can only see the first photon before the last which would indicate that red would come before blue, the light is traveling so fast that when it strikes the camera it would be the color of blue, not red.
So long as the light is traveling at a finite speed it will remain possible for the object to change color while the light is in transit, so this doesn't help. Afferent vision/photography agrees that the time delay will usually be very small. But very small is not the same as non-existent, so this doesn't help you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You have to remember that the distance from the object to the lens, according to the camera, is just as close as the lens is to a flickering candle in a dark room. Does that help?
Not at all. And you didn't answer my questions:

You've agreed that the color of the photograph is determined by the wavelength of the light at the camera, which has previously travelled from the object to get there. So if the object is blue at the time that light is arriving at the camera, and was not blue at any moment before that, then...

Why is the arriving light of blue wavelength?

What color wavelength was that light just before it arrived at the camera?

(Why don't you explore the possibilities for yourself? Can you think of what the problem will be if the light WAS blue just before it arrived? Can you think of what the problem will be if it was NOT blue just before it arrived? Which option, if either, seems more plausible to you? If neither is plausible to you, then what does that tell you about real-time photography?)
Bump.
Reply With Quote
  #13400  
Old 10-26-2011, 08:29 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 peacegirl View Post
Show me where he said this: "We see what we can see when we can see it."
That's what "We can see it if it's bright enough, large enough, and close enough to be seen" boils down to as does "We can see if it is in our filed of view". I reduced it to it basic point, which is we can see what we can see when we can see it.

Quote:
And I comprehend what was written in this thread regarding optics, lenses, angle of view, etc. What is it that you don't understand?
You said I was speaking gibberish. If you comprehend lenses, optics, etc. then what I said wouldn't sound like gibberish to you.

So, since you now claim to be well informed on these topics, explain where I went wrong, and exactly how what I said conflicts with the scientific ideas regarding optics, lenses and angle of view, rather than a blanket accusation of gibberish.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You aren't making sense LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I am pretty sure I am making sense to everyone except you.
Isn't that par for the course?
Since you understand these topics, demonstrate which of and why my statements don't "make sense"

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
, but you are trying to make everything fit so there is no cognitive/dissonance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
There is no "trying to make everything fit", it already fits with what we know about light and optics...we know our information is correct because it makes predictions we can then use to design and construct optical equipment of all kinds, and that equipment all works as designed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Why do you keep bringing up these technologies that don't negate his claim?
I am bringing up technologies that are pertinent to your assertions regarding what you think "afferent" vision should and should not predict

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Anytime something doesn't fit in one's worldview, it's very easy to get angry. I'm not saying that's you, but there are people that fit this description.
Like yourself?


Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You can have the correct lenses, detectors, and the necessary exposure time and still not get an image.
That is not true, that you even say this means you have understood NOTHING about lenses, optics, field of view, apparent size, etc.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I'm still not sure where you think this discredits the fact that only objects that are in the optical range can be resolved.
Are you sniffing glue? We can control the optical range with lenses so that we can resolve an image.

Nobody has said we can resolve an image if we can't resolve an image. Nobody has claimed that is possible nor does science predict that...this is a strawman.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The entire definition of afferent vision is seeing images from light. Why are you not seeing this?
Light is only half of it, the lenses and retina/CCD/Film are the other half. You can't have vision or photography without BOTH

The field of OPTICS, describes and explains how light interacts with lenses and light detectors (including our eyes).

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
And what do you think "visual range" refers to? This is what I am talking about with lenses! When the airplane is "out of visual range" what that means is that it's apparent size is too small to be resolved by the lens we are using (whether our eyes or a camera). You can extend the visual range using lenses.
Quote:
Huh? A plane that you can hear but can't see, and then comes into view within a matter of seconds is not too small to be seen. It's out of visual range, that's all.
It's apparent size is too small to be seen until it reaches a close enough distance (or you are using lenses to extend the range) that it's apparent size is large enough to be seen.

OPTICS!!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Then you are meeting the requirements of efferent vision. In other words, why should you have to extend the size of an object as long the photons are arriving at your eye. Can't you admit that this doesn't add up?
Because the light is only half of it. The lenses determine what can be seen. You agreed with this previously.

IOW OPTICS

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Your explanation that the lens is just a light detector.
Lenses bend incoming light to focus it on the CCD or film or our retina. That's all lenses do


Quote:
They should be able to do what we observe they cannot do which calls into question the accuracy of afferent vision.
No, there is nothing within optics that would predict cameras should be able to do what is not possible to do within the laws of physics.

You comprehend ZILCH
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Lone Ranger (10-27-2011)
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 14 (0 members and 14 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 06:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.26116 seconds with 14 queries