A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This problem could easily be resolved if an experiment was to be carefully constructed.

The Inverse Square Law - what it means to Photographers

It's useful to know a little about the inverse square law especially when using flash or studio lights. Basically all the inverse square law says is that an object that is twice the distance from a point source of light will receive a quarter of the illumination. So what it means to us photographers is that if you move your subject from 3 meters away to six meters away, you will need four times the amount of light for the same exposure. This can most easily be achieved by opening the lens aperture two f-stops (see aperture for an explanation) or using a flashgun that is four times as powerful.

What do we mean by a point source of light? Well in Physics there might be a very strict definition but for our purposes any flashgun or lamp can be considered a point source. The other variable to be aware of is that the law works for 'unfocused' light sources. Light from a laser or other highly focused source will not drop off quite so rapidly.

The Inverse Square Law - what it means to Photographers[/QUOTE]

Right, now do you understand how the inverse square law applies to your experiment construction?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's just the point. At a certain distance no picture can be taken because the object is not present.

How far away does something have to be to be considered "not present"? Beyond the point where it disappears due the curvature of the Earth (which means no straight line to the camera)?

The object is present if it's in an unobstructed direct line from the camera. However it is not photographable unless the distance and light and environmental conditions are accounted for and the correct equipment and set up used for the specific distance and light and environmental conditions. If the correct equipment and set up are used, we can get a photograph.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

An object can be magnified if it's already in the camera's, telephoto lenses', or detector's field of view, but an image of an object cannot be made larger if there's no object.

What do you mean there's no object? What are you attempting to photograph then if there's no object?

[peacegirl]

That's all you need to know LadyShea. I was responding to Stephen Maturin's attack on Lessans as someone who made up imaginary figures. I did not bring his name up as if he is some kind of authority on the book that you now need to consult.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Please see below. I don't want to consult Dave

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I still am interested in who these Canadian scientists are/were and why there has been no follow up with them since they seemed to agree with Lessans

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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?

He was as involved as he could be at that time, but he had other responsibilities and eventually went off to college. What could he have done anyway when Lessans himself spent thousands of dollars in advertising and couldn't get very far because he was an unknown and not a member of academia?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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?

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!!

I really don't care if you think this is bullshit or not. Almost everything I say you think is bullshit, so why should I be surprised? Lessans wasn't in the business of following up on every lead that would confirm what he already knew was true. It was a coincidence that this guy happened to go to the expo and saw this display, so when he came back he was even more intrigued. Lessans did call Will Durant when he was working on his first discovery because he was still living at the time. Who are you to say how Lessans should have responded in this situation? You were not there and you have no idea why Lessans did not respond the way you would have expected. Anyway, who are you to determine how someone should have responded? What does this prove LadyShea? You're supposed to be one of the more scientifically inclined, but all you're doing is making wild assertions.

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.

I'll never forget how excited he was when he told us what he saw at the expo. Seeing this sign increased his curiosity, but Lessans had no desire to go on a wild goose chase trying to find out who these people were. He had to stay focused on his writing. He knew that this knowledge was real so it didn't surprise him that sooner or later someone else would discover the same thing. BTW, the wording at the expo was not exactly like Lessans except to say the eyes were not a sense organ. So you're false conclusions that this was made up are being flatly denied.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Added note: You are responding as if Lessans is somehow responsible for how the universe works. He was just an extremely astute observer who tried to shed light (no pun intended) on what is actually occurring, and I'm trying to pass on that knowledge.

Absolutely not, Lessans is not responsable for anything, except some rather silly fiction and a very deluded daughter. His observations were nonexistant nonsense and he hadn't a clue as to what was going on, so there is no knowledge to pass on, only fantasy.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh really? Then explain to me how afferent vision works?

Asked and answered.

Would you kindly return the favor and explain in similar detail how efferent vision supposedly works?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was amazed that someone else mentioned that the eyes were not sense organs, but no I had no desire to go on a wild goose chase trying to find out someone who might be on the same track, or maybe had some other explanation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl's edit

I'll never forget when he told us what was at the expo. Seeing this sign increased his curiosity, but Lessans had no desire to go on a wild goose chase trying to find out someone who might be on the same track. If they were, the more power to them because he knew that this knowledge was real and sooner or later someone else would discovery it.

Then I call bullshit. It never happened. There was nobody at a Canadian expo saying that eyes are not a sense organ. If there were, it wouldn't be a "wild goose chase" it would be tracking down real scientists who could confirm Lessans views.

I have looked up the phrase "the eyes are not a sense organ" and only you quoting Lessans comes up. Certainly if there were scientists organized enough to have an expo pavilion, they would have a website or paper or something up about it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You came into this thread late; you have read very little of the actual text; and yet you seem to know more about me than all the people in this thread combined.

It does not take long for an astute observer to figure out what is going on, and certainly not 30 years.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light, but that doesn't rule out real time seeing.

I agree that doesn't rule out real time seeing. But regardless, light is forming an image.

So light can form images!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

"You catch more flies with honey than vinegar."

Or, 'you catch more support with truth than lies.'

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Right, now do you understand how the inverse square law applies to your experiment construction?

Probably not, please review the past 540 pages.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans did call Will Durant when he was working on his first discovery.

Yeah, to berate him and tell him he was wrong IIRC.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are way off LadyShea in your conclusions about how one should act. This is all hot air, and yet you're supposed to be one of the more scientifically inclined? You don't even see where you're not using your own methodology to come to the right conclusions.

As a non scientist, if I was trying to prove an idea was scientifically valid, I would absolutely find scientists who were working on the same idea, especially if everyone I had ever come across thought I was crazy and full of shit.

Even now, if I have a question, I contact experts. I told you I emailed and got a response from a Nobel prize winning neuropsychiatrist, and I wasn't trying to save the whole world from war and poverty either.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I agreed with you until you said, "all the way out to infinity." Have you noticed that there has to be an actual object that is present for the image of said object to be on the other side of the pinhole?

Have you noticed that actually, all you need is the light that would be produced as if there were an object? You don't need an object at all to form an image; just light.

That's what a rainbow is. Or many other optical illusions. Or 3D vision sets at the cinema! The light produced is made as if there were an object producing it, so we still see an object - even though one isn't there.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's just the point. At a certain distance no picture can be taken because the object is not present.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How far away does something have to be to be considered "not present"? Beyond the point where it disappears due the curvature of the Earth (which means no straight line to the camera)?

Not present means not existing. Columbus discovering America is not a present occurrence. A picture could be taken of an object indirectly with the use of mirrors or other reflective photography.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The object is present if it's in an unobstructed direct line from the camera. However it is not photographable unless the distance and light and environmental conditions are accounted for and the correct equipment and set up used for the specific distance and light and environmental conditions. If the correct equipment and set up are used, we can get a photograph.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

An object can be magnified if it's already in the camera's, telephoto lenses', or detector's field of view, but an image of an object cannot be made larger if there's no object.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What do you mean there's no object? What are you attempting to photograph then if there's no object?

You tell me. You're the one that keeps saying we can get a picture from light alone because all a lens is is a collector of light.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If that's the case then there's no reason for me to continue. It is hard for me to believe that you are speaking for everyone in here. Who gave you the job of speaking on everyone's behalf?

Nobody gave me the job of speaking for them. But when you see something for what it is, and you point it out to everyone with a working brain it becomes obvious and it's not so much they are following me but they see what I see. And I see a cognitively impaired delusional person and it is now obvious to everyone else except you. Get help peacegirl.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I agreed with you until you said, "all the way out to infinity." Have you noticed that there has to be an actual object that is present for the image of said object to be on the other side of the pinhole?

Originally Posted by Dragar

Have you noticed that actually, all you need is the light that would be produced as if there were an object? You don't need an object at all to form an image; just light. That's what a rainbow is. Or many other optical illusions. Or 3D vision sets at the cinema! The light produced is made as if there were an object producing it, so we still see an object - even though one isn't there.

You are talking about the properties of light which interact with the atmosphere to cause these images. But we are seeing these images in real time, not in delayed time. All of the neat illusions we see are caused by manipulating our vision in some way, but this has nothing to do with the direction in which we see.

How Does 3D Vision Work?

Unlike the eyes of the space aliens featured in some 3D features, our eyes are not positioned together, but lie approximately 3 inches apart. This separation causes each eye to see the world slightly differently. The brain fuses these two views together and uses them to calculate distance, creating our sense of depth.

3D glasses work similarly, feeding different images into your eyes (thus the two different-colored lenses: one red, one blue). In a theater, the movie screen actually displays two images, and the glasses cause one of the images to enter one eye and the second image to enter the other.

It may surprise you to learn that the ability to visually perceive three-dimensional space - called "binocular depth perception" - can be achieved without external aid. In fact, this ability is a way to measure parts of our vision: if you can successfully combine separate images from two eyes into one three-dimensional image in your brain, your binocular vision is working well. Both eyes are working as a team.

Yet not all people have binocular depth perception. According to the Optometrists Network, up to 12% of the population has some type of binocular vision disability: the two most commonly known types are amblyopia and strabismus.

How Does 3D Vision Work?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And the loudest person usually has the least to say. You came into this thread late; you have read very little of the actual text; and yet you seem to know more about me than all the people in this thread combined. Doesn't that strike you as rather strange?

It is interesting that in your mind the loudest person is the one observing and commenting on your mental state.

Why am the loudest person? Is it because even you know you are crazy.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not present means not existing. Columbus discovering America is not a present occurrence. A picture could be taken of an object indirectly with the use of mirrors or other reflective photography.

Do you really want to get into another discussion about how time and distance are related and defining "present" in that context?

If someone about 519 light years away has/had the technology and equipment capable of seeing across that distance, they could see Columbus discovering America.

We have taken photos of galaxies that no longer exist, or if they do still exist they no longer appear as they do in our photographs. See the entire Hubble gallery for details.

What do you mean by "there's no object" in reference to your own posited Earthly experiment? That's what we were discussing.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl edit yet again

BTW, the wording at the expo was not exactly like Lessans except to say the eyes were not a sense organ. So you're false conclusions that this was made up are being flatly denied.

1. "The eyes are not a sense organ" is exactly Lessans wording, and as far as I can find ONLY Lessans wording.

2. Why did Lessans use quotes in that passage if it was not an exact quote of the sign?

Originally Posted by Lessans

...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.”

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh really? Then explain to me how afferent vision works?

What in hell's bells do you think we've been explaining to Your Royal Highness for the last 550 pages?

Hey, peacegirl, read this.

Oh, no, that's right. You refuse to read it.

And then you have the unmitigated gall to ask the question quoted above.

As The Lone Ranger said, you are loathsome.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If that's the case then there's no reason for me to continue. It is hard for me to believe that you are speaking for everyone in here. Who gave you the job of speaking on everyone's behalf?

He is speaking on everyone's behalf. Did you notice anyone defending your drivel?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are talking about the properties of light which interact with the atmosphere to cause these images. But we are seeing these images in real time, not in delayed time. All of the neat illusions we see are caused by manipulating our vision in some way, but this has nothing to do with the direction in which we see.

peacegirl, you just trotted this out for no reason at all. It has nothing to do with anything I wrote. Please read!

You said we can't see an image of an object if the object doesn't exist ('is not present'). But something like a rainbow is an example of an image that we see where an object does not exist. Yes, it's caused by the atmosphere. And frankly I don't care if we see it in real time or delayed time; you never addressed that fact that you can produce an image without an actual object being present. All you need is the pattern of light to be as if there were a real object producing it.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're mixing up the speed of light with what I am proposing.

"focus" is something that peacegirl does not understand. So we interject the magic of lenses that focus between the object and the sensor, and *poof*! Hurray! The distance between object and sensor goes away!

This is what she and her father call science. The rest of us call it gibberish.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not present means not existing. Columbus discovering America is not a present occurrence. A picture could be taken of an object indirectly with the use of mirrors or other reflective photography.

You tell me. You're the one that keeps saying we can get a picture from light alone because all a lens is is a collector of light.

But we do so all the time. When we photograph Jupiter, we take a picture of something that existed several minutes before, depending where in its orbit it is at the moment relative to earth. In reality it has moved quite a lot since then.

We tested the idea that it is not where we see it by firing probes right close to it. If we had been wrong, we would have missed rather badly.

We didn't. Hence, once again, it is proven that sight is afferent.

[Dragar]

Oh, I just thought of an amazing counter example (as if we needed another) to this!

An effect in astronomy is a gravitational lens, whereby a large mass (such as a galaxy cluster, which is a cluster of galaxies) distorts light coming from behind it in a similar way to how an actual lens works.

Now, often the effect is purely to see a lensed image of, say, a galaxy from behind the giant mass. However, when there are multiple paths light can take from the distant galaxy to our telescopes, then we see all of these paths. In other words, we see the same object in multiple places on the sky! (A perfectly aligned lens/object setup produces a ring of light called an Einsten ring, but these are rare).

Even more fun, the time the light takes to travel along these paths differs (somewhere in the region of days or weeks, depending on the mass). So in other words, when we look at multiply imaged galaxies via a gravitational lens, we see multiple images from different times of the same object.

So tell me peacegirl, if we see in real time, which image is it that we see is in real time?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I wasn't trying to save the whole world from war and poverty either.

Why not? Don't you think those are worthy goals? Why do you hate the whole world and all the poor people in it?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As the saying goes, "You catch more flies with honey than vinegar."

Who wants more flies?

Originally Posted by davidm

What in hell's bells do you think we've been explaining to Your Royal Highness for the last 550 pages?

Hey, peacegirl, read this.

Oh, no, that's right. You refuse to read it.

And then you have the unmitigated gall to ask the question quoted above.

As The Lone Ranger said, you are loathsome.

I think that what peacegirl really means is "explain to me how afferent vision works using words and concepts that I can understand". TLR's essay rather obviously fails to meet peacegirl's stringent requirements.