A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

That explains a lot. Ah, - care about what?

Care about her mental health. She doesn't know how to deal with genuine concern for her mental well being.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I believe there is some question about this. It is true that as time passes we see light that has traveled longer to get here and the visible universe as a sphere in light years gets bigger each year. But the theory is that due to the expanding universe the galaxies fartherest away are actually aproaching 'c' relative to us, and as each object excedes 'c' relative to us the light from that object will no longer be able to reach us. The object will be moving away faster than the light coming back towards us. It seems counterintuitive but the objects are not moving through space any faster than any other object, but space itself is expanding and carrying the objects along with it. So the objects that are the fartherest away are gradually dissapearing from our view.

Right, from the wiki page I linked earlier:

Some parts of the universe may simply be too far away for the light emitted from there at any moment since the Big Bang to have had enough time to reach Earth at present, so these portions of the universe would currently lie outside the observable universe. In the future the light from distant galaxies will have had more time to travel, so some regions not currently observable will become observable in the future. However, due to Hubble's law regions sufficiently distant from us are expanding away from us much faster than the speed of light (special relativity prevents nearby objects in the same local region from moving faster than the speed of light with respect to each other, but there is no such constraint for distant objects when the space between them is expanding; see uses of the proper distance for a discussion), and the expansion rate appears to be accelerating due to dark energy.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by But

Yes, it all seems convincing, but more importantly, is it true? Fact is, if it's not true, it's not true!

In peacegirls broken mind there is only one truth. Her delusions.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Right, from the wiki page I linked earlier:

There is a lot of speculation about 'dark energy' but I haven't seen anything very convincing yet. The mainstream explination is that space is expanding because it is streaching due to some force. I really don't like that explination, I prefer to think that more new 'space' is comeing into existance and pushing existing space out and away from us. If the 'Big Bang' was not a one-time event there could be places where creation was continuing with new space and matter comeing into existance all the time. This idea would neatly explain the 'large scale structure' of the universe (the center of the 'voids could be the location of these nodes of creation) and the expansion of the universe without resorting to exotic energys or 'dark gravity' which some have proposed. But these are just my ideas and I don't have any supporting evidence, just what I've seen on science programs.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Until the last few years, brown dwarfs inhabited the "undiscovered country" between stars and planets. Their mass was too small for them to be stars and too large for planets. They were expected to be dim, a thousand times less luminous than the Sun, and relatively cool, with surface temperatures less than 2500 degrees Celsius.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/xray_sour...ndwarf_fg.html

I am not sure what you think that quote means or how you think it supports any of your claims. In any case, I would like to point out that in that same article it states that "Although brown dwarfs are similar in size to Jupiter, they are much more dense and produce their own light whereas Jupiter shines with reflected light from the Sun.

It would appear, given that you have cited that site as an authority, that you trust the information on that page. Do you also trust its statement that "Jupiter shines with reflected light from the Sun"? If so, doesn't that contradict your claim that light which is not absorbed is not reflected? If you think that they are wrong in saying that "Jupiter shines with reflected light from the Sun" how then can you be sure that they are right about any of the other things that are said on that page?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Which is another way of saying "We see because we can see it". That's not an explanation

It's an observation, not an explanation.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In optics the inverse square law only applies to reflected or emitted photons traveling to a detector such as our eyes or a camera.

This doesn't change in efferent vision. Please don't start talking about marbles and how it violates the laws of physics.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is no application of the law in real time vision where non-absorbed photons don't bounce off and travel but aren't stationary and don't seem to have any location whatsoever.

What do you mean they don't seem to have a location? The non-absorbed light merges with the other colors of the spectrum. Just because an object absorbs light doesn't mean that the non-absorbed light travels with the pattern even after it disperses.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Or when you say "We see an object when it is bright enough to be seen" without explaining why the number of photons hitting an object instantaneously affects a retina millions of miles away.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not hard to grasp if you understand how the efferent model works.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So when do you plan to tell us how it works? You just admitted you don't know the mechanism, and you still have no working model that explains anything.

That's why it's useless to continue talking about this until more empirical testing is done. Until then, it's really okay to believe that the eyes are afferent.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Neither you nor your father seem to have spotted the problem with this: hence the frequent circular reasoning and the tautologies. The both of you seem to be unable to get beyond a certain level of literalness.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no idea what you mean when you say he couldn't get past a certain level of literalness. And there are no tautologies Vivisectus.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

"We see what we see because we can see it" is a tautology.

But that's not what I am saying. We see what we see because the object is within our field of view. There is nothing strange about that statement.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I am not sure what you think that quote means or how you think it supports any of your claims. In any case, I would like to point out that in that same article it states that "Although brown dwarfs are similar in size to Jupiter, they are much more dense and produce their own light whereas Jupiter shines with reflected light from the Sun.

It would appear, given that you have cited that site as an authority, that you trust the information on that page. Do you also trust its statement that "Jupiter shines with reflected light from the Sun"? If so, doesn't that contradict your claim that light which is not absorbed is not reflected?

I have no reason not to trust the information. I didn't say (P) light is not reflected, but it doesn't travel as (P) light beyond the inverse square law. It joins white light.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If you think that they are wrong in saying that "Jupiter shines with reflected light from the Sun" how then can you be sure that they are right about any of the other things that are said on that page?

I never said they were wrong about anything.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Until the last few years, brown dwarfs inhabited the "undiscovered country" between stars and planets. Their mass was too small for them to be stars and too large for planets. They were expected to be dim, a thousand times less luminous than the Sun, and relatively cool, with surface temperatures less than 2500 degrees Celsius.

http://chandra.harvard.edu/xray_sour...ndwarf_fg.html

Sorry, missed this. Do tell, peacegirl, what point are you trying to make, or support, with this passage? It's an utter mystery me to me!

Also, I broke off the convo the other night when we were discussing reflected light, because I had to go watch some grass grow. Did she REALLY continue to maintain that there is no reflected light?

Once again, photons do not get brighter or dimmer. Photons are always the same, they are all alike, and they do not change their properties. I wonder what peacegirl thinks "brightness" or "brighter" means. Of course she has already been told, but we all know how unsuccessful a strategy actually teachng peacegirl is.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say (P) light is not reflected, but it doesn't travel as (P) light beyond the inverse square law. It joins white light.

First, I made no mention of (P) light in my post.

Second, there is no mention made of (P) light on the site you linked to.

Third, there is no such thing as (P) light. There is only light of various frequencies.

Fourth, "I believe that any material substance that absorbs light does not reflect the remaining non-absorbed light where it then travels through space and time." Those are your exact words from 2 days ago. Jupiter is a material object consisting of a material substance, right? Does Jupiter reflect light from the Sun or doesn't it?

[davidm]

You expect her to recall what she wrote two days ago?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by davidm

Also, I broke off the convo the other night when we were discussing reflected light, because I had to go watch some grass grow.

What color is the grass at night?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by davidm

You expect her to recall what she wrote two days ago?

No, that is why I provided her with a reminder.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

What color is the grass at night?

Dark green, of course.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Dark green, of course.

Sorry I can't comment on that, I live on 2.3 acres of woodland, if I find grass I either ignore it or pull it out like a weed, I do not have a lawn mower, don't need one.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

No, that is why I provided her with a reminder.

A waste of time, she will just deny it, and forget it later.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

First, I made no mention of (P) light in my post.

Second, there is no mention made of (P) light on the site you linked to.

Third, there is no such thing as (P) light. There is only light of various frequencies.

Fourth, "I believe that any material substance that absorbs light does not reflect the remaining non-absorbed light where it then travels through space and time." Those are your exact words from 2 days ago. Jupiter is a material object consisting of a material substance, right? Does Jupiter reflect light from the Sun or doesn't it?

Let me venture a speculation as to what peacegirl means by this remarkably obtuse statement.

They key lies here: "...where it then travels through space and time."

Remember Lessans' goofball statement that the photons that "smile on us" when we wake up in the morning are the same photons that while we sleep arrive at the other side of the earth? The Great Man and his prophetess, peacegirl, actually believe this: When sunlight arrives at some location like the moon, some of it is absorbed, but the rest of it stops and stays there, and it is this light we use to see the "object itself."

I'm sure I don't need to work out for anyone all the things wrong with this statement. One would need to work it out for peacegirl, of course, but she is impervious to facts, reason or knowledge.

Lessans apparently missed the lesson in school, which I am sure is taught even before seventh grade, that light is never at rest, but always travels at velocity c in a vacuum and slightly less in mediums like air and water, but it never stops and hangs around, like overnight guests you wish you were rid of.

[thedoc]

Just post what you believe to be true, and learn from what others post.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Lessans apparently missed the lesson in school, which I am sure is taught even before seventh grade, that light is never at rest, but always travels at velocity c in a vacuum and slightly less in mediums like air and water, but it never stops and hangs around, like overnight guests you wish you were rid of.

I would speculate that Lessans missed or slept through most of the 7 years he was in school. It dosen't seem that much of anything but the very limited ability to read stuck with him. He probably absorbed a lot of geometry, but not through formal education, hustling pool takes an intuitive understanding of angles on a flat plane, Euclidean Geometry, but don't tell him I said so.

[Vivisectus]

Which is another way of saying "We see because we can see it". That's not an explanation[/quote]

It's an observation, not an explanation.[/QUOTE]

No, you use it as an explanation as you regularly use it when you are trying to explain why it is your model that is correct. All it does is demonstrate how prone you and your father are to logical dead-ends, and how readily the both of you confuse yourself because neither of you understand the difference between logic and language.

This doesn't change in efferent vision. Please don't start talking about marbles and how it violates the laws of physics.

Complete nonsense again. Efferent vision has nothing to do with reflected light, and therefore this simply does not apply.

What do you mean they don't seem to have a location? The non-absorbed light merges with the other colors of the spectrum. Just because an object absorbs light doesn't mean that the non-absorbed light travels with the pattern even after it disperses.

This is plain nonsense - you are babbling incoherently again.

That's why it's useless to continue talking about this until more empirical testing is done. Until then, it's really okay to believe that the eyes are afferent.

But you simply reject any and all empirical tests that disprove this idea, and so many have been done: lasers pointed at the moon, the moons of jupiter, supernova's, etc etc etc.

So what you are really saying is "I am going to believe this nomatter what, and I do not want to talk about all this uncomfortable evidence to the contrary".

But that's not what I am saying. We see what we see because the object is within our field of view. There is nothing strange about that statement.

There is, rather, because "field of view" means "close enough to be seen" which simply means "it can be seen" as you do not explain why and how distance is a factor in your (absence of) model. If in stead it means "In front of us with no obstructions" then it does not make any sense as it simply means that photons bouncing off the object are not being obstructed in their path.

If in stead you mean "How come we cannot see something that has been very quickly yanked away" then the answer is: we can. Just not for very long over any distance shorter than 300.000 KM, roughly a light second. For a comparison, on a flat plain the horizon is generally about 3 miles away from us. If we stand on the tallest mountain there is and imagine this mountain to be on a flat plain, we can perhaps see 200 miles.

This has all been explained to you endlessly - displaying the convenient blindness to obvious gaps in your own theory that both you and your father are so inclined to.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Sorry, missed this. Do tell, peacegirl, what point are you trying to make, or support, with this passage? It's an utter mystery me to me!

Also, I broke off the convo the other night when we were discussing reflected light, because I had to go watch some grass grow. Did she REALLY continue to maintain that there is no reflected light?

I never said light itself doesn't get reflected. I said the pattern of light that bounces off of an object doesn't travel.

Originally Posted by davidm

Once again, photons do not get brighter or dimmer. Photons are always the same, they are all alike, and they do not change their properties. I wonder what peacegirl thinks "brightness" or "brighter" means. Of course she has already been told, but we all know how unsuccessful a strategy actually teachng peacegirl is.

I never said photons change their property. Why are you making stuff up? As far as brightness, it's not that difficult David. Either something is bright enough to be seen with the naked eye, or a telescope, or its not. This depends on different factors, but it doesn't change the accuracy of Lessans' statement.

http://www.umich.edu/~lowbrows/guide/eye.html

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

I guess pompous, egomaniacal self-regard runs in the family. A chip off the old blockhead, and all that. Do you think a single person in this thread has the slightest bit of respect for you, or cares at all whether you put him or her on Pretend Ignore or not?

I could care less what they think. They are not on pretend ignore David. I'm through with NA and thedoc. Yes, I do have a standard as to the kind of posting I will accept.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Lord, you are so fucking stupid.

How many times does this "image traveling around the universe" nonsense you conjure up have to be explained to you? For fuck's sake, you must literally have a wad of bubble gum for a brain. Honestly!

So now you are telling me that we would not see a past event or object, even through the event or object was no longer present? Please make up your mind.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

I mean, honestly, after all this time, she can't understand anything at all. She keeps repeating exactly the same mistakes, over and over, no matter how many times she has been corrected.

For the last time, peacegirl, the scientific model does NOT say there are "images traveling around." I realize Lessans wrote that according to science, images "travel on wings of light," but science does NOT say that, and your father was a buffoon.

If there were no eyes or minds anywhere, then there would be NO IMAGES anywhere, traveling on wings of light or in any other respect. Images do NOT "travel on wings of light." There is light -- just light! -- traveling. The IMAGE is what the brain interprets when photons, and their wavelengths, impinge on the optical system. Can you even tie your shoes?

You gotta do better than that. How many times do I have to repeat that I know what light is, but the only way to explain it is by saying that the image is traveling on the "waves of light" or "the pattern of light". They all mean the same thing. This pattern does impinge on the optical system, but only when we're looking at the object in real time. The light is a condition. You still don't get it because you're blocked.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times do I have to repeat that I know what light is, but the only way to explain it is by saying that the image is traveling on the "waves of light" or "the pattern of light".

You don't have the faintest idea of what light is. If you did, you'd know how to express yourself properly without talking total nonsense such as the above.

Didn't you say you'd be insane to keep posting here, that you had no intention of restarting the discussion, and that you'd be leaving very soon? Wasn't it you you said these things, Peacegirl?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea[/quote

"We see what we see because we can see it" is a tautology.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that's not what I am saying. We see what we see because the object is within our field of view. There is nothing strange about that statement.

lol, it's exactly what you're saying unless "field of view" has some other meaning than "located where it can be seen". Does it? How are you defining "field of view"?

Your statement is not strange, but it is still a tautology...."We see what we see because the object is located where it can be seen."