A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by davidm

Er, peacegirl, can you recall my story about darts fired from a machine landing on a wall, and the machine is taken away before the darts hit the wall?

Remember it? Oh, fuck, what am I thinking? You can't even remember that about two days ago, you stated that photons had the ability to get brighter!

Even if peacegirl had a functioning memory it wouldn't do her any good. She still would not be able to reason.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

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.[/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.[/quote]

Show me the proof.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are right in that this is exactly the source of the problem. You are failing to understand that non-absorbed light does not stop the Sun's photons from traveling. It is the non-absorbed light that is revealed due to the absorption of the visual spectrum. It's like subtraction. You start out with a number and subtract, and you get another number. This does not mean that the other number does anything except to reveal the object. It does not travel although white light is constantly replacing the old photons. Of course, you don't get it.

Laugh Out Loud! What is the above imbecilic word salad even supposed to mean? Did you grab some text at random off the Web and run it through a random text generator?

HE WAS NOT SAYING THAT LIGHT IS AT REST. THAT'S IN YOUR IMAGINATION DAVID.

Oh no? Then WTF did he mean when he wrote that the photons that arrive on the other side of the earth while we are asleep, ARE THE SAME PHOTONS that "smile on us" when we wake up in the morning?

Can't even remember what Lessans wrote, can you, peaceigirl?

Oh, btw, peacegirl, do photons smile? Usually light is said to glare:

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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?

What's more striking is the fact that you keep coming back to this thread. You're hooked.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If the photons are not traveling and not at rest, then where are they and what are they doing?

They are probably married with a long 'Honey-do' list, These photons don't go on forever, it just seems that way.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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."

It is not strange at all. "Field of view" is the range that our eyes are capable of seeing. If light is traveling we should get an image, but we don't. To say that it's too small, by definition, doesn't add up. No one has given a satisfactory answer. Why is it that the same object (the same substance) can only be seen when it is in visual range? Because light does not bring us the image.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What's more striking is the fact that you keep coming back to this thread. You're hooked.

Excuse me, but Spacemonkey isn't the one who has promised to stop posting here about 500 times. That would be YOU, remember?

Oh, wait, you have no memory!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one has given a satisfactory answer.

People have given you hundreds of different answers, all of which are the correct answers, notwithstanding that you cannot understand them, or refuse to do so. How many times has LadyShea posted images from the Hubble Telescope? Those images are of objects that long ago changed their location and changed their form, and a good many of them no longer exist at all. And yet here you are, after being given this proof (one of many) jabbering the same old nonsense like an imbecile.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are failing to get the concept Spacemonkey because you are using light as your starting point, when I am using the eyes. You don't get it, it's as simple as that.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light exists and has properties whether vision is efferent or not. This set of questions applies to your understanding of light only and it doesn't matter what you believe about eyes.

Light has properties but so do the eyes. This knowledge came from understanding how the eyes work. It doesn't change the property of light. You and Spacemonkey keep focusing on light traveling to the eyes, when, in reality, the eyes see the object because it is large enough to be seen. If the eyes see the object because it meets the requirements of efferent vision, then there is no time involved. That is why the photons (although traveling) become a mirror image of what is seen in real time. That is also why one could see an object that is millions of miles away (such as the sun) and see it in real time even before the photons have reached Earth. You are all so entrenched with the idea of light traveling, that you cannot grasp what I'm even talking about.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Also, if the object is a person and he dies, there will be no image of him traveling around the universe.

Sorry but this is incorrect, even if a person or object no longer exists any light reflected from them or it will continue to travel untill it is absorbed. And any time till it is absorbed it can be collected and focused to form an image, but the farther it travels the more disperse it is and will require a larger lens or mirror to collect and focus enough light to form an image. So the light that can be used to form an image will travel through the universe, mostly in a straight line, for a very long time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

People have given you hundreds of different answers, all of which are the correct answers, notwithstanding that you cannot understand them, or refuse to do so. How many times has LadyShea posted images from the Hubble Telescope? Those images are of objects that long ago changed their location and changed their form, and a good many of them no longer exist at all. And yet here you are, after being given this proof (one of many) jabbering the same old nonsense like an imbecile.

Then why did you disagree with your very own reasoning that if the conditions were right we would be able to see a dead person's image from light alone, even though he is long gone?

[davidm]

[quote=peacegirl;1055248]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light has properties but so do the eyes.

Eyes have properties! Who knew!



Yes, eyes have properties, none of them efferent.

There are no efferent nerves in the optical system at all.

How do you explain that, peacegirl?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Show me the proof.

Hippolyte Louis Fizeau: Speed of Light Measurement

A French physicist, Fizeau, shone a light between the teeth of a rapidly rotating toothed wheel. A mirror more than 5 miles away reflected the beam back through the same gap between the teeth of the wheel. There were over a hundred teeth in the wheel. The wheel rotated at hundreds of times a second; therefore a fraction of a second was easy to measure. By varying the speed of the wheel, it was possible to determine at what speed the wheel was spinning too fast for the light to pass through the gap between the teeth, to the remote mirror, and then back through the same gap. He knew how far the light traveled and the time it took. By dividing that distance by the time, he got the speed of light. Fizeau measured the speed of light to be 313,300 Km/s.

This experiment directly and pretty much irrefutably proves that real-time seeing is false, as it relies entirely on vision. If real-time seeing is true, the experiment would not have calculated the (nearly) correct speed of light.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then why did you disagree that if the conditions were right we would see a dead person's image even though he is long gone, according to your reasoning?

I did not disagree with that, you ignorant, dishonest little fool. What I disagreed with is that light "carries an image." The image is not in the light. Light is just light. The image is in the mind, which processes the incoming light detected by the eyes. I explained this to you with the dart-throwing machine example, which of course you did not read or cannot remember.

Indeed we see the images, today, of entire dead galaxies, long gone, via the Hubble Telescope -- as, again, has been explained to you over and over. But your little bubble-gum brain immediately excretes all the knowledge that has been given you, and does a reset to null.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light has properties but so do the eyes. This knowledge came from understanding how the eyes work.

Yes the eyes have properties, they receive light that has traveled to them and focus it onto the retnia where it is converted into signals that go to the brain where the brain intreprets those signals as images. This process is well understood and tested. Lessans didn't have a clue as to how the eyes or the brain worked, hence the nonsense he made up to explain what he didn't understand.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Hippolyte Louis Fizeau: Speed of Light Measurement

This experiment directly and pretty much irrefutably proves that real-time seeing is false, as it relies entirely on vision. If real-time seeing is true, the experiment would not have calculated the (nearly) correct speed of light.

Do you honestly believe she will even grasp this example, or, if by some chance she does, admit the obvious: that it disproves real-time sight?

Just look back a few pages. When I repeated this experiment as another cite against real time-seeing, she gave a one-word answer:

Wrong!

That was it. Her entire answer. No explanation of WHY it's wrong, because of course it's not wrong!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Hippolyte Louis Fizeau: Speed of Light Measurement

This experiment directly and pretty much irrefutably proves that real-time seeing is false, as it relies entirely on vision. If real-time seeing is true, the experiment would not have calculated the (nearly) correct speed of light.

That isn't even the objective specious_reasons. The objective is to see an image in the light itself that has bounced off an object. This proves nothing.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That isn't even the objective specious_reasons. The objective is to see an image in the light itself that has bounced off an object. This proves nothing.

The light bulb is an object and it is the image. Efferent vision is disproved.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light has properties but so do the eyes. This knowledge came from understanding how the eyes work. It doesn't change the property of light.

This set of questions applies to your understanding of light only. Answer them or you are a weasel.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not strange at all.

Which is exactly what I said, see there, I said "Your statement is not strange"

Originally Posted by peacegirl

"Field of view" is the range that our eyes are capable of seeing.

Which renders your statement a tautology, which was our point. You are spouting tautologies as if they are meaningful explanations of anything.

"We see what we see because the object is in the range our eyes of capable of seeing" uses different words to say "We see what we see because we can see it" .

[Vivisectus]

It is not strange at all. "Field of view" is the range that our eyes are capable of seeing.

Then please explain why, in efferent vision, distance is a factor? Also, "field of view" means the area that you can see. What you are talking about is "Visible range".

If light is traveling we should get an image, but we don't. To say that it's too small, by definition, doesn't add up. No one has given a satisfactory answer. Why is it that the same object (the same substance) can only be seen when it is in visual range? Because light does not bring us the image.

*sigh* If I explain it again, will you pay attention this time and try to remember it? I will explain it very very simply so there is no chance of confusion, but you have to promise to actually try to remember it this time, because it can be quite annoying if someone keeps asking for an explanation when one has been given ad nauseam.

This is an example of a proper explanation: I will explain to you why distance if a factor in optics. You have not explained why distance is a factor in your muddle-headed fancy.

Here goes: A source of photons that is close by occupies a larger amount of the area in which we detect photons at all. If it is further away, then the area that it does NOT cover gets bigger and bigger, and the area that it does cover gets smaller and smaller.

To demonstrate this, image the retina as a square, and the pupil as a dot that is an inch or so away from the square. The visible area is an area that you can draw by drawing a line from each corner of our imagined retina through the pupil. The result will look roughly like this:



Now as you can see, the visible field (a term that is usually used to describe an area, NOT a distance) is constantly expanding. Right up close to the camera, you only need a small object to block everything else out, for instance. Further away, you need something much, much larger to achieve the same effect.

Now it is easy to see why an object that is further away seems smaller and smaller: it covers a smaller area of the field of view, even though it is the same size.

Next we should remember that the retina is, in effect, an array of small photo-receptors that the entire field of view gets projected on. Now if we look at the head of a needle, then we can see it at a meter's distance if enough light is reflecting off it: it occupies enough of the field of view for the retina to be able to resolve it. But put it 20 meters away, and we can no longer make it out, as the area has become too small: it covers less than a single receptor, and light from the area immediately around the object is falling on it as well.

Now if it is very dark and the object is very bright, you can still make it out sometimes: this is because while the area is very small, there is still a LOT of light coming off it and not a lot of light from its immediate surroundings. As a result, we still see it, but tend to experience it as bigger than it actually is.

One more demonstration, just to make sure I am getting the point across at last. Let us imagine the cone in the picture. Let us imagine that at the far end, we have a grid of 100X100 squares. Halfway to the eye, we also have a similar grid, and finally we have a final one at the eye itself. In order for the eye to see it, something must fill at least 1 square.

Can you see how at the far end, an object needs to be far bigger to fill a whole square? And how an object that fills 10 squares at the eye can fill maybe 1 at mid-level, thus being only JUST visible, and finally at the end it fills no square at all, thus becoming invisible?

Let me ask you a few questions to make it even more clear: how come, in your system, the moon is big enough and bright enough to be seen, and yet we cannot see details on the moon? And yet all that rock up there is moon, and it is big enough and bright enough to be seen! Optics has just given you the answer. Efferent vision, as usual, has none.

Are we finally clear on this, or do you want me to make it even simpler?

[LadyShea]

Bump

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Photons cannot "get brighter", their properties do not change. That would violate the laws of physics.

So what exactly do you mean?

During a supernova, tremendous energy, in the form of new photons in increased numbers, and therefore more intense light, is released. When we see the intensity increase, in the form of visual size and brightness increase are we seeing it in real time according to Lessans? Well, those new photons have to travel the distance the same as previously emitted ones. So the proof still stands.

If Lessans were correct
You see a supernova in real time
You must await the photons emitted during the supernova to reach Earth to detect them.

This does not happen, we detect the photons as the same time the supernova becomes visible.

[LadyShea]

The not strange statements just keep coming!

I just read that to hear something, there must be soundwaves produced within our audible range!!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Are we finally clear on this, or do you want me to make it even simpler?

I'm sure you must realize, Vivisectus, that peacegirl does not want to learn, what you (and the rest of us) are teaching. She does not WANT to learn about how reality actually is, so she won't learn it. She is exactly like a young-earth creationist who does not want to learn about reality.

Like them, she wants to live in a fantasy land, arguably one even more inane that that of the young earthers.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light has properties but so do the eyes. This knowledge came from understanding how the eyes work.

Oh my, I think I must have a bit of a lie-down. That's the best one yet! You can't pay for comedy of this caliber.