A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Wait what? How did david "invest" in this belief? Does he rely on the relativity of time to buy food or pay rent? Is the relativity of time his job, or life's work that he has put a lot of hours into? What does this sentence even mean?

I'm referring to his worldview which is almost as important as rent or food depending how strongly one is attached to it. He doesn't like anybody or anything messing with it.

Space-time is essentially the history of the entire universe, containing every "event" that ever happens. Each point on the world-line is generally thought to be a real physical event at a unique point in space-time. Special relativity allows us to define a distance from the origin for all the points on a world-line, allowing the world-line to be a set of points that have physically distinguishable properties. Therefore, we can identify each of the events on a world-line as distinct points in space-time.

Spacetime Continuum - Einstein's Relativity, Space, Time, Quantum Gravity, and Quantum Physics

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Dragar

It depends very carefully on the geometry of the problem. You can still arrange for a region of silence from a source emitting waves. I guess bending is a fine enough term for it, but refracts is better as it includes a whole slew of subtleties.

"...though it does have some wavelike properties that means it refracts around the edge of an object."

Bend, refract whatever. It is a wave and under different conditions it's speed changes so for the wave equation to satisfy the boundary conditions, it moves in a different direction and people commonly say it bends. Just like the pencil in the glass of water.

Pencil In The Water Illusion | Mighty Optical Illusions

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm referring to his worldview which is almost as important as rent or food depending how strongly one is attached to it. He doesn't like anybody or anything messing with it.

Space-time is essentially the history of the entire universe, containing every "event" that ever happens. Each point on the world-line is generally thought to be a real physical event at a unique point in space-time. Special relativity allows us to define a distance from the origin for all the points on a world-line, allowing the world-line to be a set of points that have physically distinguishable properties. Therefore, we can identify each of the events on a world-line as distinct points in space-time.

Spacetime Continuum - Einstein's Relativity, Space, Time, Quantum Gravity, and Quantum Physics

If I had no worldview you would still be wrong because nobody sees efferrently. It is that simple.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Care to explain to me the difference between cis-retinal and trans-retinal, and what we got wrong?

I'm not saying any of this is wrong. I just don't believe this transduction from cis-retinal to trans-retinal are giving us normal sight. Just like the blind guy explained in the video who didn't have an optic nerve; the impulses that are being interpreted are similar to someone outlining an object on one's back. They will get a pattern but to call this sight is far-fetched.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not saying any of this is wrong. I just don't believe this transduction from cis-retinal to trans-retinal are giving us normal sight. Just like the blind guy explained in the video who didn't have an optic nerve; the impulses that are being interpreted are similar to someone outlining an object on one's back. They will get a pattern but to call this sight is far-fetched.

Initially it's like drawing on your back but then the brain learns to see.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, thousands of scientists from all over the world, over centuries, in different disciplines, often directly competing with each other or actively attempting to refute each other, all repeatedly made the same honest mistake...but Lessans can't possibly have made an honest mistake about physics, anatomy, biology, astronomy or optics.

You still don't get it. The difference between afferent and efferent is slight, but it makes a huge difference as far as space/time is concerned and what we're actually seeing. I can't expect you to accept this new knowledge based on this thread. It will take others to confirm it before you let down your guard.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Dragar

It depends very carefully on the geometry of the problem. You can still arrange for a region of silence from a source emitting waves. I guess bending is a fine enough term for it, but refracts is better as it includes a whole slew of subtleties.
"...though it does have some wavelike properties that means it refracts around the edge of an object."

And if I am not mistaken this is a result of sound waves cancelling each other as opposed to the sound waves not getting there, though the effect is the same. However I'm sure there are techniques to block or mask the sound from teaching an area. I have also heard of architecture or geometry that can create a spot where other sounds are clearly audible. Acoustics can have some interesting effects sometimes unintentional.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Initially it's like drawing on your back but then the brain learns to see.

Yes, the brain learns to see the pattern but to then say that these impulses will allow us to eventually see as a normal person, is making a huge leap.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Bend, refract whatever. It is a wave and under different conditions it's speed changes so for the wave equation to satisfy the boundary conditions, it moves in a different direction and people commonly say it bends. Just like the pencil in the glass of water.

Pencil In The Water Illusion | Mighty Optical Illusions

As I said to thedoc, I suppose bend is a good enough word though it misses a lot of the important subtleties.

Edit: Actually, now I think about it, even this isn't quite right. Just like sound, light does refract around objects; but the wavelength of light is much smaller compared to that of sound, so we hardly notice.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not saying any of this is wrong. I just don't believe this transduction from cis-retinal to trans-retinal are giving us normal sight. Just like the blind guy explained in the video who didn't have an optic nerve; the impulses that are being interpreted are similar to someone outlining an object on one's back. They will get a pattern but to call this sight is far-fetched.

That's not an answer. It's an evasion.

[LadyShea]

I can't expect you to accept this new knowledge based on this thread. It will take others to confirm it before you let down your guard.

Who do you feel is qualified to confirm it? You believe all scientists everywhere are so incompetent that they keep making the same "honest" mistake over and over again; no matter who they are, where they live, what field they are in, what experiments or applications they are working on, or how many times they get the same correct results.

[The Lone Ranger]

Incidentally, conversion of cis-retinal to trans-retinal is not transduction, it's photoisomerization.

You're only making yourself look ignorant.

[thedoc]

It seems a bit contradictory that she wants scientists to examine and confirm these ideas in the book, but then condems them as mistaken and biased for the past. Why would she want these incompetents to examine anything, just doesn't make sense.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I really don't want to talk to you because the way you're coming off is extremely arrogant. You aren't trying to understand, you're telling me he's wrong. And this is supposed to be some kind of serious refutation? All of your refutations have fallen flat such as we don't need lenses to take a photograph, or your spectrophotometry example, or even your hologram example as if this is supposed to prove him wrong. Every single thing you've written has done nothing but show me how little you understand. And then you have the gall to offer me someone who you call a woo, which is a slap in the face as far as I'm concerned. So, no, I don't want to talk to you unless you change your attitude. If anyone is interested in Chapter Two, I will present it my way and people can conclude what they want.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You're arrogant

We don't need lenses to take a photograph as per the several lensless imaging links I gave you

And I quoted from that link, the computer acts like a lens.

As they proceed through the cell, the coherent x-rays are scattered and differentially absorbed by the cell's internal structures. There's no lens either in front or behind the sample as the light passes through the cell and reaches the detector, so there's nothing to limit resolution or efficiency.
But the result looks nothing like an image. Instead it's a pattern of dark and light speckles, the traces of the scattered x-rays. A computer -- which acts as the "lens" in lensless imaging -- uses these patterns to create an image.

Lensless imaging of whole biological cells with soft X-rays

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Spectrophotometry measures reflected light off objects or substances, though you've stated objects don't reflect light

No, it measures the non-absorbed wavelengths. There is no reflection meaning light bouncing off of the object. A spectrophometer only works when there is an object present, just like in efferent vision. You can't measure a wavelength that has been reflected from an object when there's no object. Doesn't happen.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The Mirage toy displays a 3d image, made from mirrors, that cannot be physically interacted with. You have stated that your version of "mirror images" can be physically interacted with, so I was asking you to explain how this is possible.

I said that photons are interacting with the film in real time because the non-absorbed photons are present the instant the lens focuses the light.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You initially mentioned approaching Deepak Chopra, I would like to see that happen. Although he is now a woo peddler, he was a trained MD, so does have a background in evidence based science. I am very curious as to how he might view Lessans ideas.

I wish I could get through to him. I will have the mp3s soon, but I don't want to send it to him without talking to him first so he'll know what it's about and will be looking for it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have had most of a year to present whatever you wanted however you wanted. It's not my fault, nor my attitude's fault, that you have not done so.

To what extent group think has on a topic such as this is open to interpretation, but I believe the general tone of a thread has a lot to do with the ability to understand what is being said.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

It seems a bit contradictory that she wants scientists to examine and confirm these ideas in the book, but then condems them as mistaken and biased for the past. Why would she want these incompetents to examine anything, just doesn't make sense.

So that makes you competent, right doc? It's always us against them. Makes people feel more important.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And I quoted from that link, the computer acts like a lens.

No, peacegirl, the lens acts like the computer!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Incidentally, conversion of cis-retinal to trans-retinal is not transduction, it's photoisomerization.

You're only making yourself look ignorant.

I meant that it's the process towards transduction. Look, I'm on your side for a change, so smile.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

No, peacegirl, the lens acts like the computer!

I guess you're being sarcastic now.

A computer -- which acts as the "lens" in lensless imaging

[LadyShea]

The computer acting as a lens is not using an actual lens taking the photograph. That's why the sentence had "lens" in quotes.

What exactly is it you think the lens does?

Also note A computer -- which acts as the "lens" in lensless imaging -- uses these patterns to create an image. That's just what we've been saying the brain and cameras do!

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by thedoc

And if I am not mistaken this is a result of sound waves cancelling each other as opposed to the sound waves not getting there, though the effect is the same. However I'm sure there are techniques to block or mask the sound from teaching an area. I have also heard of architecture or geometry that can create a spot where other sounds are clearly audible. Acoustics can have some interesting effects sometimes unintentional.

Sometimes (though really they're the same thing, not just in their effect!).

But refraction has a limit, and it really is the case that you won't always have sound waves refract around something.

And as I realised above, this only happens for sound and not light because the wavelength for light is quite large. For very low wavelength noises (high pitched), you'll actually struggle for any refraction to take place at all around a large object. You can have a 'shadow' for a sound source, just as for a light source.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I guess you're being sarcastic now.

A computer -- which acts as the "lens" in lensless imaging

No, peacegirl, the lens acts like the computer in non-lensless imaging.

Why do you say we need a lens, and don't say we need a computer?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The computer acting as a lens is not using an actual lens taking the photograph.
What exactly is it you think the lens does?

I know that the computer acting as a lens is not using an actual lens in the photograph, but something has to focus the light. Pinhole cameras don't have an actual lens either but the pinhole acts as a lens so that a photograph can be taken. It fills in for the lens.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know that the computer acting as a lens is not using an actual lens in the photograph, but something has to focus the light. Pinhole cameras don't have an actual lens either but the pinhole acts as a lens so that a photograph can be taken. It fills in for the lens.

Neither the empty space in a pinhole camera, nor the computer in this example, focus the light. Try again?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, the brain learns to see the pattern but to then say that these impulses will allow us to eventually see as a normal person, is making a huge leap.

It currently is not as good as most people's regular sight, but not everyone is born with good sight nor keeps that good sight for their entire lives so for them it is better vision. One of your many cognitive problems is that you don't know the difference of kind vs a difference of degree.

[LadyShea]

No, the light didn't need to be focused by a lens or lens-like, they used a laser like coherent beam to begin with.

lensless x-ray diffraction microscopy, a concept pioneered by David Sayre beginning in the 1980s. To produce a high-resolution diffraction pattern from noncrystalline structures like the membranes and organelles of a cell, the light has to be coherent, that is, laser-like, having all the same frequency and phase. Beamline 9.0.1 was built to supply this kind of light.

As they proceed through the cell, the coherent x-rays are scattered and differentially absorbed by the cell's internal structures. There's no lens either in front or behind the sample as the light passes through the cell and reaches the detector, so there's nothing to limit resolution or efficiency.