A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When the variables of the test are controlled such that there can be no statistically significant errors, or bias.

peacegirl, as much as that can be done for any experiment that is standard operating procedure. The experiments that clearly show Lessans is wrong are conducted to those standards. Frankly almost 250 years of optical and electromagnetic evidence gathered to those standards is far more than enough. Lessans is wrong.

But you are just too insane to know it.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He will one day be vindicated because he was not wrong, nor does his equating disagreement with lack of understanding make him a non-scientist or arrogant.

Okay peacegirl. Nobody here thinks that but you. You are entitled to your opinion but you lack the mental health to convince others. You also lack the mental health to see a lost cause. So you are free to provide more evidence of your mental illness for as long as you like but you will get nowhere but possibly committed.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not lying; I didn't understand what you were getting at.

I believe you peacegirl. Your insanity allows you to think that you are playing with a full deck. So you don't even bother to reread your posts to notice that you are flip flopping all over the place. A sane person would know that when you post on a forum the history of all your posts is there to be compared to itself for consistency by anyone. When it comes to the basic line you are very consistent, but when it comes to the details you are all over the place. To the point where people think you are a liar. But a person with a memory problem and a mental illness could also do the same thing.

So I don't think you are a lair, I think that you are suffering from major brain dysfunction. If it gets any worse you may need to be admitted for your own safety. No telling how delusional you may get.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When the variables of the test are controlled such that there can be no statistically significant errors, or bias.

And how will you be able to tell the difference between there really being no statistically significant errors or bias affecting the results, and there being no statistically significant errors or bias affecting the results that you can identify or detect (which is where you are now)?

[Spacemonkey]

How can the light-sensitive film in a camera react to light which isn't even there at the camera?

[peacegirl]

All I can say is that a supernova will not be seen if the explosion is too far away and out of range. If it is close enough to us, we will eventually be able to see it through a telescope because it is bright enough, but we would be seeing this mass of gaseous remains in real time. I know this isn't proof, but it's what I believe is happening if efferent vision is true.

When a star explodes it expands. That what I meant by mass potential.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's close enough. We are seeing what is occurring as it happens only because efferent vision does not require light to travel to us in order to see the event or object.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If efferent visions is true, then we would see the supernova many, many, many years (hundreds, thousands, or millions of years) before the neutrinos from that same supernova arrive here on Earth because the neutrinos do have to travel from that location to Earth, and the light does not.

Detecting subatomic particles that are given off from a Supernova obviously would take many years to get to Earth, granted. What you are saying then is that the exact replica of this explosion has traveled along with the neutrinos for millions of years until we can detect them on a telescope, even when the event is long gone. We may be detecting the light from a Supernova at the same time we detect a neutrino if they both are traveling at the same finite speed, but that is not the same thing as seeing a replica of these explosive gases that caused the original explosion millions of years later.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is not the case in repeatedly observed reality, however. The neutrinos arrive at roughly the same time as we are able to see the supernova through a telescope. Sometimes, they arrive several hours BEFORE we can see the supernova through a telescope, so the neutrinos announce a supernova and we know where to look for it visually.

I think there is confusion with seeing photons that travel at the speed of light, and seeing an exact image of a distant event by means of these photons.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is a clear, irrefutable, repeatedly observed failure of the predictions Lessans model about sight and light and time make.

Not at all. How do we know what happened millions of light years ago? What we're seeing now may be light that came from the distant past, but we are not going to get an exact replica of an event that is no longer present. We will never see Columbus discovering America, which should be out there somewhere, but no telescope has ever picked up a past event, nor has anyone on Earth seen a past event, or person, that is no longer here.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is why Lessans says light is a condition of sight not as cause; in other words we need light to see but we are not receiving the image of the object from the light itself. When talking about seeing light as an image, it gets confusing so I want to stick with objects.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Seeing is seeing. In a true, factual model of vision, the example of what is being seen-whether it is an object or light itself or a reflection- shouldn't matter, the mechanism should explain all examples put forth consistently. Nobody is confused by the varying types of examples of seeing except you. Lessans model fails all tests so far, including this one, and the Moons of Jupiter observation.

To say that Lessans model fails all tests so far is untrue unless the proof given by scientists as to what is occurring is foolproof.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are only holding onto this efferent vision nonsense by faith, peacegirl.

No I'm not.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's a strawman if I ever saw one. That's not what I'm even asking. I am asking why the brain can form an image from light when an object is in range, but can't form an image from light that is slightly out of range, or farther from us? According to you, out of range objects would be blurred due to the speed of light, which doesn't add up.

No, 'out of range' means that the object is not visable, the speed of light has nothing to do with a blurred image, that is just nonsense. you are the only one bringing a blurred image into the thread.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How can the light-sensitive film in a camera react to light which isn't even there at the camera?

Because when you're taking a snapshot of an event (or object), the space between said event and the film is negligible, just as the space between the retina and the object is negligible. When there is no time involved, that doesn't mean the light is not present. It just didn't travel to get to the film. This is what you can't seem to grasp because you are thinking in terms of the finite speed of light, and distance, but this is a true phenomenon and hopefully you will eventually get it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because when you're taking a snapshot of an event (or object), the space between said event and the film is negligible, just as the space between the retina and the object is negligible. When there is no time involved, that doesn't mean the light is not present. It just didn't travel to get to the film. This is what you can't seem to grasp because you are thinking in terms of the finite speed of light, and distance, but this is a true phenomenon and hopefully you will eventually get it.

That doesn't answer the question at all. You said light doesn't have to be at the camera for it to take a photograph. That means the light sensitive film must be able to chemically interact with light at a distance, even when that light is millions of miles away. This is what you are saying has to be possible for efferent vision to be possible. And it just isn't possible.

That the distance is negligible is what you need to explain, not just assume. And you already agreed that any light at the film previously travelled to get there. Now you're flip-flopping on that yet again!

Just more evidence that you are very seriously mentally ill.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So do it then. Show this thread to your children, local doctor, or a mental health professional. Then tell us what they say.

Bump. You are going to do this, right Peacegirl?

[Spacemonkey]

Can the light-sensitive film in a camera chemically interact with light which isn't actually there at the camera?

[Yes or No?]

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not at all. How do we know what happened millions of light years ago? What we're seeing now may be light that came from the distant past, but we are not going to get an exact replica of an event that is no longer present. We will never see Columbus discovering America, which should be out there somewhere, but no telescope has ever picked up a past event, nor has anyone on Earth seen a past event, or person, that is no longer here.

L.O.L. obviously we are not seeing events from the past that have occured on Earth because we are on the Earth and the light from those events is traveling away from us. There would need to be a huge mirror at the correct distance to reflect those images back to us. We are seeing images from the past, that is what astronomers see all the time, the images of the planets, and stars, and other galaxies are all images of those objects as they appeared in the past. The 'Big Dipper' constelation is 75 light years away, so now we are seeing it as it was 75 years ago, and since those stars are moving slowly the shape has been changing. Right now they appear in the position they were in when my sister-in-law was born. If you make it to be 75 years, old the light you see from the 'Big Dipper' will be that which was emited on the day you were born.

BTW, we see the Sun as it appeared 8.5 minutes ago, what we see is not how the Sun lookes right now, of course that depends on where on the Earth you are, It's after Sunset here so I can't see the Sun at all, just as afferent vision predicts.

[Spacemonkey]

Peacegirl, here are your responses to whether or not the light at the camera (when the photograph is taken) previously travelled to get there. (And this is just from the present thread. You went through the exact same flip-flopping inconsistency in the last thread too.)

Did the light present at the camera at the moment the photograph is taken previously travel from the object to get there?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just answered that. No, it didn't travel.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It traveled to get there...

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never changed my answers...

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It just didn't travel to get to the film.

But of course you're totally consistent, right? Consistently contradicting yourself. But of course this is all my fault, right? I ask you Peacegirl, in all honesty, is the above really the sign of a healthy and functioning sane mind?

[naturalist.atheist]

It looks like memory failure along with cognitive failure. peacegirl is just falling apart.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because when you're taking a snapshot of an event (or object), the space between said event and the film is negligible, just as the space between the retina and the object is negligible. When there is no time involved, that doesn't mean the light is not present...

That light doesn't have to be present at the camera for a photograph to be taken is exactly what you have just been saying:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said that light travels at a finite speed, but when a camera takes a picture or the eyes are looking at something, all that's necessary is for light to be at the object.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

THERE IS NO TRAVEL TIME DUE TO THE FACT THAT ALL WE NEED FOR A PHOTOGRAPH TO BE TAKEN IS LIGHT AT THE OBJECT.

That means, according to you, it is possible for a camera to take a (real-time) photograph of something even when the light is not present at the camera.

But then why do cameras use light-sensitive film and lenses for bending light, if they can take photographs even when there is no light at the camera to be sensed or bent? (I even observed at the time that this suggestion was too stupid even for you to have really meant it, but you still haven't retracted the claim or corrected it.)

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Detecting subatomic particles that are given off from a Supernova obviously would take many years to get to Earth, granted.

So given that we see the supernova more or less when those particles arrive, we are obviously not seeing the event in real-time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What you are saying then is that the exact replica of this explosion has traveled along with the neutrinos for millions of years until we can detect them on a telescope, even when the event is long gone.

No. There is no travelling replica, and no-one is saying that. There is only the travelling light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We may be detecting the light from a Supernova at the same time we detect a neutrino if they both are traveling at the same finite speed, but that is not the same thing as seeing a replica of these explosive gases that caused the original explosion millions of years later.

No-one is saying that we see a 'replica'. We see the supernova. We just don't see it in real-time. We see it when the light arrives, which being around about the same time that the neutrinos arrive, is well after the event occurred.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think there is confusion with seeing photons that travel at the speed of light, and seeing an exact image of a distant event by means of these photons.

Yes, you are confused about that. We are not seeing the photons (photons are invisible massless subatomic particles). We are seeing the supernova because of those photons. And we are seeing it well after it actually happened.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No I'm not.

Yes, you are. You're just too mentally ill to recognize it.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No NA, it's you that can't determine what is true or not because all you do is listen to what other people object to without having a clue as to what the subject matter is about. Face it!!

NA is a working scientist. He also is not in the habit of listening to other people here on these boards.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Detecting subatomic particles that are given off from a Supernova obviously would take many years to get to Earth, granted. What you are saying then is that the exact replica of this explosion has traveled along with the neutrinos for millions of years until we can detect them on a telescope, even when the event is long gone. We may be detecting the light from a Supernova at the same time we detect a neutrino if they both are traveling at the same finite speed, but that is not the same thing as seeing a replica of these explosive gases that caused the original explosion millions of years later.

L.O.L. 'Exact Replica' is just another nonsense phrase that Peacegirl has made-up to confuse the issue. The light that arrives at about the same time as the neutrinos shows us the exact image of the Supernova as it appeared many years ago depending on the distance from the Earth to the star that blew up. Yes it is the exact same thing as seeing the image of the 'explosive gasses that caused the original explosion' millions of years ago. The light that arrives from the star, just after the neutrinos, is the only way astronomers can see an image of the Supernova.

[thedoc]

Can anyone provide evidence from the records of nova or supernova sightings from the past, that would show corospondence between an old visable sighting and a recient detection of neutrinos that would relate to the distance and location of the particular star?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Can anyone provide evidence from the records of nova or supernova sightings from the past, that would show corospondence between an old visable sighting and a recient detection of neutrinos that would relate to the distance and location of the particular star?

I can't remember the specifics, but I do recall sometime around a decade ago the first instance of supernova detection prior to photon detection. In that same experiment they were able to roughly locate the position in the sky for the super nova. Unfortunately I can't recall the specifics and I could be wrong.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I can't remember the specifics, but I do recall sometime around a decade ago the first instance of supernova detection prior to photon detection. In that same experiment they were able to roughly locate the position in the sky for the super nova. Unfortunately I can't recall the specifics and I could be wrong.

Ahem...

[naturalist.atheist]

Yup, that was the experiment. Sorry, I was off by around a decade.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

It looks like memory failure along with cognitive failure. peacegirl is just falling apart.

I think Lessans got hit one too many times in the head with a cue ball and passed it along to Peacegirl, or was it a cue stick, in a brawl, after explaining how he wanted to bang everyones daughter the first time he met them?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I think Lessans got hit one too many times in the head with a cue ball and passed it along to Peacegirl, or was it a cue stick, in a brawl, after explaining how he wanted to bang everyones daughter the first time he met them?

You laugh, but there is a phenomena where a sexually abused daughter can have a very close relationship with an abusive father. Especially a potentially dangerous abusive father. It's a survival strategy. Unfortunately they rarely reach adulthood in a healthy state. I'm not saying that is what happened here but the kinds of crap that Lessans wrote does not rule it out. And the victim may suppress the abuse in favor of remembering what they think are the good parts. And if Lessans, asshole that he appears to be, indoctrinated his daughter with his nonsense at an early age, then what we are seeing here could very well be a combination of early abuse and cognitive failure (possibly inherited). peacegirl would be one sick puppy. It would explain why a woman of all people would be promoting Lessans. And it would explain why she left the misogynistic parts of the book intact.

In some funny way peacegirls obsessive behavior may be a cry for help. I hope she gets some.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I can't remember the specifics, but I do recall sometime around a decade ago the first instance of supernova detection prior to photon detection. In that same experiment they were able to roughly locate the position in the sky for the super nova. Unfortunately I can't recall the specifics and I could be wrong.

That may have been SN 1987A and the neutrinos arrived aprox. 3 hours before the visable light. The star is 168,000 light years away.

SN 1987A - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A little light reading on the subject.

And I think it was a bit too far away as I don't believe there are any records of supernovas from that long ago.