A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So tell me, how can the largest telescope ever gather enough light from a past event (e.g., Columbus discovering America) to ever get an image when that light has dispersed beyond the point of resolution?

You have a unique ability to demand the impossible as proof that Lessans is wrong. No telescope can gather enough light that has been dispersed beyond the point of resolution, simply by definition. However larger and larger telescopes, and longer exposure times, can extend the distance to the point of 'dispertion beyond the point of resolution'. You continually demand contradictory examples as proof when such examples are not possible, by definition. I cannot believe that you do not understand the stupidity of the requirements you are setting for disproof.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

My demonstration was that some organized light is invisible and some disorganized light is visible, refuting your claims that organization determines visibility. Note also that you claimed flashlights are organized light, which they are not according to the very article you cited. I also stated that light is photons, refuting your claim that organized light is not the same as photons. All light is the same as photons because light is photons.

I didn't need emotional support by way of thanks to show you I was right. And thanks, should they come, are done after the fact so have nothing to do with what I post. Some of my posts are thanked and some aren't. I stand behind all of them.

You were talking about organized light being visible, while disorganized light is not visible, and the organization determining visibility, and organized light being different from photons.

Nowhere in this discussion about organized light did you mention that wavelength was a factor in visibility, you said only organization.

Infrared lasers produce organized light which is photons, but is not visible. What I said was factual and what you said was not.

I didn't move the goalposts, you did. We are talking about organized light causing visibility, you never said wavelength was a factor. Now it suddenly is...because you had no idea at all what you were talking about when you said the following (notice the lack of mentions of wavelength):

Of course it is visible. You can see the sunlight every day. We can photograph it.

Photo: Fantazzle: Sunrise Sunrise

Visible heat waves are due to differing refraction indices between air of different temperatures.

Another link you probably don't understand. How about we stick to your existing incorrect claims for a minute?

I think of sunlight as something we experience. Sunlight creates daylight and makes us warm, but I don't think of sunlight as something that we see. Yes, we can see the Sun which produces sunlight, and we can see the reflection of that on the water, but that is not seeing Sunlight directly. Sometimes we can see the Sun's rays in certain atmospheric conditions, if that's what you mean. I love that picture by the way.

[Vivisectus]

So does the camera experience the sunlight, or the daylight?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sunlight creates daylight and makes us warm, but I don't think of sunlight as something that we see. Yes, we can see the Sun which produces sunlight, and we can see the reflection of that on the water, but that is not seeing Sunlight directly.

When you see the Sun or it's reflection you are seeing Sunlight directly, the image of the Sun, either directly or in reflection, is seeing Sunlight directly. You should really educate your self in optics and vision before making stupid statments.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think of sunlight as something we experience. Sunlight creates daylight and makes us warm, but I don't think of sunlight as something that we see. Yes, we can see the Sun which produces sunlight, and we can see the reflection of that on the water, but that is not seeing Sunlight directly. Sometimes we can see the Sun's rays in certain atmospheric conditions, if that's what you mean. I love that picture by the way.

Funny, but I think of flight as something that a bird experiences. Moving air creates lift and also, breezes happen, but I don't think of flight as something that is the result of lift. Yes, we can see that moving wings make air move and that when this happens, birds leave the ground, but that is not the aerodymamic qualities of wings their movement causing flight. Sometimes we can see aerodynamics in action in wind-tunnels, if that is what you were referring to. Birds can be pretty!

[LadyShea]

We can see sunlight at certain times, but we don't always see the Sun's rays.
I think of sunlight as the result of the Sun's energy, which creates daylight and makes me warm, but I don't think of sunlight as an end in itself.

None of that matters to the point that sunlight is visible.

[LadyShea]

Also, you ignored the whole rest of my post and

Sunlight creates daylight

Sunlight is daylight, they are synonyms. Can you see daylight?

When you see the sun, you are seeing sunlight. There is nothing else that can be seen except it's light
1

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Zero is not "so many times". I've been asking you for days simply to indicate whether or not you still stick by your previous answers, and you've ignored me every time, just as you have here.

In Lessans' newly ignited Sun example, the Sun is big enough and bright enough to be see instantly at 12:00 when it is ignited. There is no warm up time. This is a complete red herring. I've shown you how you face the exact same problem both with and without this 2 second warm-up. In BOTH cases you are still unable to explain where the photons at the retina came from and how they got there.

Let's work through both possibilities once more:-

(1) No warm-up period at all. The Sun is ignited at 12:00 and is instantly big enough and bright enough to be seen. So it is seen at 12:00. So there must be photons at the retina at 12:00, right? So where did they come from? The Sun? Then when where they located at the Sun? You can't answer this question, can you? Because there is no possible answer that will make any kind of sense.

(2) This time there is a 2 second warm-up period. So the Sun is ignited at 12:00 but is only big enough and bright enough to be seen at 12:02. So now there is a 2 second delay between the Sun being ignited and our actually seeing it. So there will be photons at the retina at 12:02, right? Where did they come from? The Sun? Then when were they located at the Sun? At 12:00? Then how did they get from the Sun to the retina which is 90 million miles away in two minutes? You can't answer this question either, can you? Did they travel through the intervening distance, thereby traveling at 4 times the speed of light? Or did they not travel through the intervening distance, thereby having teleported instead?

Go ahead and try to answer the bold questions for each scenario. Can you see how you still face the same problem both with and without a warm-up time? Can you see how this warm-up time is NOT the problem you are facing? The real problem here is that warm-up or no warm-up, you can't explain where the photons at the retina came from or how they got there.

Your reasoning isn't correct Spacemonkey. When the brain looks at the object, using the eyes as a window (sorry you don't like that analogy but I do), there is no traveling of those non-absorbed photons. Yes, light travels but the non-absorbed photons do not. This light is only there because the object is there, which creates the mirror image (for lack of a better phrase). That is why he says light is a condition of sight, not a cause of sight, which means that the pattern is not in the light apart from the object.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your reasoning isn't correct Spacemonkey. When the brain looks at the object, using the eyes as a window (sorry you don't like that analogy but I do), there is no traveling of those non-absorbed photons. Yes, light travels but the non-absorbed photons do not. This light is only there because the object is there, which creates the mirror image (for lack of a better phrase). That is why he says light is a condition of sight, not a cause of sight, which means that the pattern is not in the light apart from the object.

Peacegirl, nothing you've said in this response has ANYTHING TO DO with the post you were replying to. Not a thing. No connection whatsoever. You're blabbering about non-absorbed photons again when there are NO NON-ABSORBED PHOTONS AT ALL in the example I was discussing. You haven't made even a token effort to actually engage with the content of my post. Read the post again. Work out what the actual issue was that I was discussing. And then try to say something coherent and relevant in response.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

In Lessans' newly ignited Sun example, the Sun is big enough and bright enough to be see instantly at 12:00 when it is ignited. There is no warm up time. This is a complete red herring. I've shown you how you face the exact same problem both with and without this 2 second warm-up. In BOTH cases you are still unable to explain where the photons at the retina came from and how they got there.

Let's work through both possibilities once more:-

(1) No warm-up period at all. The Sun is ignited at 12:00 and is instantly big enough and bright enough to be seen. So it is seen at 12:00. So there must be photons at the retina at 12:00, right? So where did they come from? The Sun? Then when where they located at the Sun? You can't answer this question, can you? Because there is no possible answer that will make any kind of sense.

(2) This time there is a 2 second warm-up period. So the Sun is ignited at 12:00 but is only big enough and bright enough to be seen at 12:02. So now there is a 2 second delay between the Sun being ignited and our actually seeing it. So there will be photons at the retina at 12:02, right? Where did they come from? The Sun? Then when were they located at the Sun? At 12:00? Then how did they get from the Sun to the retina which is 90 million miles away in two minutes? You can't answer this question either, can you? Did they travel through the intervening distance, thereby traveling at 4 times the speed of light? Or did they not travel through the intervening distance, thereby having teleported instead?

Go ahead and try to answer the bold questions for each scenario. Can you see how you still face the same problem both with and without a warm-up time? Can you see how this warm-up time is NOT the problem you are facing? The real problem here is that warm-up or no warm-up, you can't explain where the photons at the retina came from or how they got there.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Actually, simple observations of lasers prove that sight is afferent, and that it is light that we detect, and interpret as sight. Laser light itself is invisible: beams of laser-light could be fired from a point to your right to a point to your left right in front of your face... and you will not see it. This is because none of the light is reaching your eyes: it is going in a nice tight beam across the room.

Now if you fill the room with some steam, suddenly the light shows up: the light hits the particles of water, and is reflected all over the place. Suddenly we can see it.

How can this be if sight is efferent? We should be able to "look out" and see the beams, because there is plenty of light in the room, and they are a lovely bright red colour.

The only reasonable explanation is that sight works by detecting light. The "object" - in this case the laser - cannot be seen when it is "within visual range" unless light reaches the eyes.

The "object" cannot be seen because the conditions are not there until the light interacts with something in the environment. We can't see light rays either unless there is something in the environment that interacts with that light. That's why we can see rainbows. Where does this negate efferent vision? He has always maintained that light is a necessary condition but there has to be an interaction between light and something else, in order to see it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, nothing you've said in this response has ANYTHING TO DO with the post you were replying to. Not a thing. No connection whatsoever. You're blabbering about non-absorbed photons again when there are NO NON-ABSORBED PHOTONS AT ALL in the example I was discussing. You haven't made even a token effort to actually engage with the content of my post. Read the post again. Work out what the actual issue was that I was discussing. And then try to say something coherent and relevant in response.

That's because you are thinking in terms of travel time. How can this be when I'm telling you there is no travel time which would mean they have to get from A to B. That's why you keep thinking in terms of millions of miles when this doesn't involve millions of miles. I don't know how to explain it any other way, so you're going to be left with unknown X. If you think there is no answer to X, then just reject this model. I don't know why you're harping on this if you truly believe that it's implausible.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

No, the fact that Lessans didn't use the scientific method makes Lessans' ideas unscientific.

He was astute observer of reality. He had a keen eye for seeing things that exist, not that don't exist. He didn't imagine stuff. You don't know what you're talking about.

[peacegirl]

Anyone who has an emotional investment in an idea is more likely to interpret reality in such a way as best suits that idea, sometimes even to such an extent that they say irrational things or expect people to believe extraordinary things for which they have no evidence.

Anyone who has an emotional investment in an idea does not mean automatically that the knowledge being presented is wrong or irrational, especially when evidence does exist if people take the time to dig a little deeper.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Peacegirl says irrational things and expects people to believe extraordinary things for which she has no evidence.

Peacegirl has an emotional investment in Lessans.

Therefore, Peacegirls emotional investment in Lessans is a reasonable explanation for her irrational ideas and for the fact that she expects people to believe extraordinary things for which she has no evidence.

No, an emotional investment does not exclude the possibility that an observation is correct. That is very narrow-minded. There is no expectation to believe extraordinary things (I'm not sure what you mean by extraordinary because these observations are based in reality), only to try and see if these observations hold any weight. I am not trying to force people to change their worldview. I'm just asking them to open their minds to the possibility that his observations may have substance to them.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There! fixed it for ya.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nope, if any challengers have excellent evidence, then they are not crackpots. As I've told you.

Bring on the evidence and I will happily admit when science has gotten it wrong

Look how many people were considered crackpots in the beginning, and turned out to be true discoverers. I know that you don't place Lessans in the same category as these discoverers because you don't see the evidence, but that could be a problem with you, not him. These observations were extremely difficult to see, which is why it took this long for someone to see them. Don't be so high on your horse LadyShea, that if you don't see the proof of his observations, they must not be true.

Today's science texts are dishonest to the extent that they hide these huge mistakes made by the scientific community. They rarely discuss the acts of intellectual suppression which were directed at the following researchers by their colleagues.

Ridiculed science mavericks vindicated

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So will this book start to make sense before or after the evidence for the earth's flatness come in?

Would you please stop comparing this to the flat earthers? How can you compare these two unless you want to make it appear that they are related in order to turn people off and make his discovery a laughing matter?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Anyone who has an emotional investment in an idea does not mean automatically that the knowledge being presented is wrong or irrational, especially when evidence does exist if people take the time to dig a little deeper.

You're right, and that's not what was said at all.

He said YOU are "more likely to interpret reality in such a way as best suits that idea" and that YOU "say irrational things or expect people to believe extraordinary things for which they have no evidence". Those are both true of YOU.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, an emotional investment does not exclude the possibility that an observation is correct.

You're right again. And again, that's not what was said. He said your emotional investment is a reasonable explanation for YOUR saying irrational things and expectation that people will believe extraordinary things for which you have no evidence.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no expectation to believe extraordinary things (I'm not sure what you mean by extraordinary because these observations are based in reality),

YOU expect people to believe that vision negates physical distance, and causes light to change its properties, and changes the laws of physics.

[quote=peacegirl]only to try and see if these observations hold any weight./quote]
They don't. You have had to posit impossible things and extraordinary things to try to make your model seem to hold weight.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not trying to force people to change their worldview. I'm just asking them to open their minds to the possibility that his observations may have substance to them.

The ideas have been examined thoroughly, and problems demonstrated and you have been unable to support or defend them adequately. There is no substance.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Would you please stop comparing this to the flat earthers? How can you compare these two unless you want to make it appear that they are related in order to turn people off and make his discovery a laughing matter?

They are comparable.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Look how many people were considered crackpots in the beginning, and turned out to be true discoverers. I know that you don't place Lessans in the same category as these discoverers because you don't see the evidence, but that could be a problem with you, not him. These observations were extremely difficult to see, which is why it took this long for someone to see them. Don't be so high on your horse LadyShea, that if you don't see the proof of his observations, they must not be true.

Today's science texts are dishonest to the extent that they hide these huge mistakes made by the scientific community. They rarely discuss the acts of intellectual suppression which were directed at the following researchers by their colleagues.

Ridiculed science mavericks vindicated

Look how many MORE actual crackpots have used this same argument and were wrong. The first sentence of your own link: While it's true that at least 99% of revolutionary announcements from the fringes of science are just as bogus as they seem...

All of the vindicated discoverers had actual evidence or continued to do experiments until they had the evidence. Can you find a single person on there who relied on observation alone? Lessans went from indirect observation and jumped straight to conclusions. No evidence gathering done at all. So get off your high horse about how he is comparable to those who did actual science.

Once again, bring on the evidence and I will happily admit when science gets it wrong.

From the same website you linked to Weird Science: other sites: Skepticism I suggest you follow some of his skepticism links which the author described:

Originally Posted by William (Bill) Beatty

Many skeptics actually practice reason and critical thinking, rather than simply giving them lip service and then ignoring them. Some examples are below.

Also you may want to read about Karla McLaren, a one time True Believer turned skeptic

Karla McLaren has been a member of the metaphysical/New Age culture for thirty-two years. She has authored nine titles in the genre, including Emotional Genius, Energetic Boundaries, and Your Aura & Your Chakras: The Owner’s Manual. She is now deconstructing her career, and is returning to (real) college to get her (real) Master’s in Sociology and Behavioral Sciences. She is currently co-writing a book on bridging the skeptical and New Age cultures.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not talking about infrared light. Haven't we been talking about the visible spectrum this whole time, so why move the goalposts now? I never thought of sunlight as being visible (unless it's extremely hot out and we can see heat waves).

When you observe 'heat waves' you are not seeing the heat itself, you are not seeing the air that is 'warm', you are seeing the light that is passing through that warm air that is rising through cooler air. As light passes through air it is slightly refracted, and air of different densities will refract light at slightly different angles, warm air is less dense than cool air. So when warm air rises through cool air the light passing through that air will 'shimmer' and the image we see will seem to wiggle about. If we were seeing the object directly with no distance or travel of light to account for we would not see this shimmer of the image of the object, because we would not be seeing it through the air in between. The fact that we see the shimmer of the image of the object, proves that we are seeing the object by detecting the light that has passed through this warm and cool air that is causing image of the object to seem to wiggle about. We 'see' by detecting the light that has traveled the distance from the object to our eyes, and since light takes a finite time to travel the image we see is of the object as it was in the past.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's because you are thinking in terms of travel time. How can this be when I'm telling you there is no travel time which would mean they have to get from A to B. That's why you keep thinking in terms of millions of miles when this doesn't involve millions of miles. I don't know how to explain it any other way, so you're going to be left with unknown X. If you think there is no answer to X, then just reject this model. I don't know why you're harping on this if you truly believe that it's implausible.

Peacegirl, you're still not even trying to address the content of my post. Travel time or no travel time, you still need to explain where the photons at the retina came from and how they got there. You can't just state that they will be there at the retina and leave it at that. If there are photons at the retina, then they have to have either come into existence there, always been there, or arrived there from somewhere else - by traveling, or by teleporting, or by some other specifiable mechanism.

This issue has to be addressed for efferent vision to be considered plausible.

Yet the content of my above post was explaining how your responses about warm-up time for the Sun are completely irrelevant to the problem, in that the same problem remains with or without any warm-up time. Do you understand this yet?

Returning to the main issue though, the problem I'm asking you to address is not non-absorbed light. It is not travel time. It is not patterns in light. It is not millions of miles. And it is not red before blue photons. It is simply the problem of where the light at the retina came from and how it got there. Do you think you could try addressing that problem for once?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's because you are thinking in terms of travel time. How can this be when I'm telling you there is no travel time which would mean they have to get from A to B.

Think of it this way:

If the photons at the retina (B) came from somewhere else (A) and there was no travel time (in getting from A to B), then they either teleported or traveled infinitely fast, right?

So if they didn't either teleport or travel infinitely fast (in getting from A to B), then either there was a travel time or they never got from A to B, right?

But the only way they could be at B without ever having gotten there from A (i.e. somewhere else) is if the photons were either always at B or if they came into existence there, right?

So here are the only conceivable options:

i) The photons at the retina came into existence there.
ii) The photons at the retina were always there.
iii) The photons teleported from somewhere else.
iv) The photons traveled infinitely fast.
v) The photons had a travel time.

You cannot reject all of these without contradiction, so if efferent vision is to be plausible then you need to select one of these options. So which options can you confidently rule out? And which option do you think is most plausible?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The "object" cannot be seen because the conditions are not there until the light interacts with something in the environment. We can't see light rays either unless there is something in the environment that interacts with that light. That's why we can see rainbows. Where does this negate efferent vision? He has always maintained that light is a necessary condition but there has to be an interaction between light and something else, in order to see it.

What happened to lasers being visible due to being organized light? Did you just drop that only 2 days after asserting it?

[LadyShea]

Bump

Originally Posted by LadyShea

My demonstration was that some organized light is invisible and some disorganized light is visible, refuting your claims that organization determines visibility. Note also that you claimed flashlights are organized light, which they are not according to the very article you cited. I also stated that light is photons, refuting your claim that organized light is not the same as photons. All light is the same as photons because light is photons.

I didn't need emotional support by way of thanks to show you I was right. And thanks, should they come, are done after the fact so have nothing to do with what I post. Some of my posts are thanked and some aren't. I stand behind all of them.

You were talking about organized light being visible, while disorganized light is not visible, and the organization determining visibility, and organized light being different from photons.

Nowhere in this discussion about organized light did you mention that wavelength was a factor in visibility, you said only organization.

Infrared lasers produce organized light which is photons, but is not visible. What I said was factual and what you said was not.

I didn't move the goalposts, you did. We are talking about organized light causing visibility, you never said wavelength was a factor. Now it suddenly is...because you had no idea at all what you were talking about when you said the following (notice the lack of mentions of wavelength):