Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #5051  
Old 01-17-2012, 08:56 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I told you that the empirical observations were set up in such a way that the results confirmed the premise of what was believed to be true. So they are biased as far as I'm concerned.

Simce you have refused to review any of these observations or tests and were not present when they were conducted, what is your basis for stating that they were biased, other than that they contradicted Lessans and disproved his ideas.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (01-17-2012)
  #5052  
Old 01-17-2012, 09:01 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
Meanwhile, in the real world, the speed of light doesn't change depending on how close the object is to us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Of course it does. You just said it did with your very own words.
Where did he say the speed of light changes depending on how close the object is to us?
??
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Dragar (01-17-2012)
  #5053  
Old 01-17-2012, 09:03 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
I really do wonder exactly what all you think the standard model posits, peacegirl

Quote:
That would mean the light would be moving so fast the image wouldn't be captured
What exactly is it you think is happening in the standard model of sight that "images" are "captured"?
I was referring to the moment a snapshot is taken, the image is captured. Everyone believes that because the image is delayed due to the finite speed of light, we would not be getting a real time photograph. This would mean that it wouldn't matter if the object was present or not; we would get the latest image striking our eyes. This is a fallacy, yet everyone thinks my reasoning is irrational.
Reply With Quote
  #5054  
Old 01-17-2012, 09:05 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
I was referring to the moment a snapshot is taken, the image is captured.
Nope. The image is not actually "captured" as light goes speeding past at hundreds of thousands of miles per second. That's a figure of speech, but not what we posit is actually happening.
Reply With Quote
  #5055  
Old 01-17-2012, 09:07 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
Meanwhile, in the real world, the speed of light doesn't change depending on how close the object is to us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Of course it does. You just said it did with your very own words.
Where did he say the speed of light changes depending on how close the object is to us?
I never said it did change LadyShea. What I said is that if the traveling photons are not giving us the image, then it must be the object that is giving us the image. And until more testing is done on the brain to determine what is really going on, scientists will continue to maintain that the brain interprets signals coming from the light which would be consistent with afferent vision, and Lessans will maintain that they're mistaken.
Reply With Quote
  #5056  
Old 01-17-2012, 09:09 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
I was referring to the moment a snapshot is taken, the image is captured.
Nope. The image is not actually "captured" as light goes speeding past at hundreds of thousands of miles per second. That's a figure of speech, but not what we posit is actually happening.
So what is captured? The light has to be captured or there would be no picture.
Reply With Quote
  #5057  
Old 01-17-2012, 09:11 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I told you that the empirical observations were set up in such a way that the results confirmed the premise of what was believed to be true. So they are biased as far as I'm concerned.

Simce you have refused to review any of these observations or tests and were not present when they were conducted, what is your basis for stating that they were biased, other than that they contradicted Lessans and disproved his ideas.
Because afferent vision is considered a fact. It's not contested, therefore anything that comes out of these experiments will automatically confirm what is believed to be true. There is no way anyone would even question the results of these observations. It all fits into a neat little package.
Reply With Quote
  #5058  
Old 01-17-2012, 09:13 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Everyone believes that because the image is delayed due to the finite speed of light, we would not be getting a real time photograph. This would mean that it wouldn't matter if the object was present or not
It matters if the object is present when we're talking about terrestrial distances because light does travel too fast to remove the object before the reflected light reaches the camera's sensor.

Could you jump in front of, or out of the way of, a car that was traveling 183 thousand miles per second?

The Hubble's sensor works the same way, though, which is why we can get an image with it of galaxies trillions and trillions of miles away, out of visual range.
Reply With Quote
  #5059  
Old 01-17-2012, 09:15 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
Meanwhile, in the real world, the speed of light doesn't change depending on how close the object is to us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Of course it does. You just said it did with your very own words.
Where did he say the speed of light changes depending on how close the object is to us?
I never said it did change LadyShea.
Read the brief exchange again. It's like less than 40 words.

You said that Dragar stated that the speed of light changes. I asked you where did Dragar say that?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Dragar (01-17-2012), Spacemonkey (01-18-2012)
  #5060  
Old 01-17-2012, 09:21 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXVI
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

On and on it goes, everyone continuing to cater to this dishonest, insufferable airhead. After nearly 1,000 pages of her babble she reveals that she does not even understand the science she arrogantly presumes to overthrow through the agency of a seventh-grade dropout who was an egotistical blockhead.

Why do people still bother with her?
Reply With Quote
  #5061  
Old 01-17-2012, 09:23 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXVI
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Where did Dragar say, with his own words, that the speed of light changes, you compulsive, serial liar?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (01-18-2012)
  #5062  
Old 01-17-2012, 09:24 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Everyone believes that because the image is delayed due to the finite speed of light, we would not be getting a real time photograph. This would mean that it wouldn't matter if the object was present or not
It matters if the object is present when we're talking about terrestrial distances because light does travel too fast to remove the object before the reflected light reaches the camera's sensor.

Could you jump in front of, or out of the way of, a car that was traveling 183 thousand miles per second?

The Hubble's sensor works the same way, though, which is why we can get an image with it of galaxies trillions and trillions of miles away, out of visual range.
Before we talk about trillions and trillions of miles away, I want to understand why I can't get a picture of an object a half a mile away and out of range, yet I can get a picture of an object that is within my visual range. Do you see that saying that light is traveling too fast doesn't add up? You are all doing what you are accusing me of doing; trying to make your model make sense out of something that doesn't.

Last edited by peacegirl; 01-18-2012 at 01:19 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #5063  
Old 01-17-2012, 09:26 PM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
Posts: VCII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I want to understand why I can't get a picture of an object slightly of range, yet I can get a picture from an object that is in visual range.

Because 'out of range' means (as you told us earlier) 'can't be seen'. Why are you still asking why we can't see things that we can't see? Surely even you can see that's an idiotic thing to be asking?
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (01-17-2012)
  #5064  
Old 01-17-2012, 09:31 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I want to understand why I can't get a picture of an object a half a mile away and out of range, yet I can get a picture from an object that is in visual range. Do you see that saying that light is traveling too fast doesn't add up? You are all doing what you are accusing me of doing; trying to make your model make sense out of something that doesn't.
I answered you here

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Remember, objects are closer to us and we can get an image bouncing off the object, so how can objects farther from us not give us an image?
The size of the source, the brightness (energy output) of the source, the size of the sensor, the density and types of receptors on the sensor, the fact that the intensity of light (roughly defined as the number of photons per unit of measurement) diminishes over distances (inverse square law) because it is moving in a straight line in all possible directions, not just in a straight line from the object to the sensor. All of these known factors explain why and when and under what conditions we can or cannot see things....this is optics.

If our eyes were the size of hubcaps with triple the density of rods and cones we would be able to see smaller, dimmer, more distant objects than we can now. If we had different types of photoreceptors we could maybe see using near-infrared or ultraviolet light.

Last edited by LadyShea; 01-17-2012 at 09:43 PM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (01-18-2012)
  #5065  
Old 01-17-2012, 09:33 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I told you that the empirical observations were set up in such a way that the results confirmed the premise of what was believed to be true. So they are biased as far as I'm concerned.

Simce you have refused to review any of these observations or tests and were not present when they were conducted, what is your basis for stating that they were biased, other than that they contradicted Lessans and disproved his ideas.
Because afferent vision is considered a fact. It's not contested, therefore anything that comes out of these experiments will automatically confirm what is believed to be true. There is no way anyone would even question the results of these observations. It all fits into a neat little package.
Those damn biased probes! Little computerized bastards LIED about skimming right past the moons of Jupiter so they could keep their preconceived notions!

Just goes to show probes get that bad name for a REASON!

:roflcopt:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (01-17-2012)
  #5066  
Old 01-17-2012, 09:34 PM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
Posts: VCII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

To restate what LadyShea says: We can (ignoring the diffraction limit) get an image from any object, no matter how far away it is, providing it is reflecting some light.

In other word peacegirl, there is no such case as an object being out of range. There is only having a camera/telescope that isn't good enough.
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (01-18-2012), Spacemonkey (01-18-2012)
  #5067  
Old 01-17-2012, 09:38 PM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
Posts: VCII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I told you that the empirical observations were set up in such a way that the results confirmed the premise of what was believed to be true. So they are biased as far as I'm concerned.

Simce you have refused to review any of these observations or tests and were not present when they were conducted, what is your basis for stating that they were biased, other than that they contradicted Lessans and disproved his ideas.
Because afferent vision is considered a fact. It's not contested, therefore anything that comes out of these experiments will automatically confirm what is believed to be true. There is no way anyone would even question the results of these observations. It all fits into a neat little package.
Those damn biased probes! Little computerized bastards LIED about skimming right past the moons of Jupiter so they could keep their preconceived notions!

Just goes to show probes get that bad name for a REASON!

:roflcopt:

Actually, this is worth some comment too. peacegirl is frustrated by the fact that the standard model has such strong support, and has passed every test we've thrown at it, that nobody spends any time checking its validity any more.


The probem is that the 'neat little package' that the world fits into using standard vision is actually called success of a theory.

Contrast this with peacegirl's rapidly growing monstrosity of a theory, requiring additional parts to explain huge swathes of observations that contradict it (those magical mysterious reasons I keep referring to, if you're reading this peacegirl), along with additional bits of pieces to try and save the physics she keeps accidentally contradicting along the way. There's no 'neat little package' here, and that's a disaster for peacegirl's theory.
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (01-17-2012), Spacemonkey (01-18-2012)
  #5068  
Old 01-17-2012, 09:41 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Everyone believes that because the image is delayed due to the finite speed of light, we would not be getting a real time photograph. This would mean that it wouldn't matter if the object was present or not
It matters if the object is present when we're talking about terrestrial distances because light does travel too fast to remove the object before the reflected light reaches the camera's sensor.

Could you jump in front of, or out of the way of, a car that was traveling 183 thousand miles per second?

The Hubble's sensor works the same way, though, which is why we can get an image with it of galaxies trillions and trillions of miles away, out of visual range.
Before we talk about trillions and trillions of miles away, I want to understand why I can't get a picture of an object a half a mile away and out of range, yet I can get a picture from an object that is in visual range. Do you see that saying that light is traveling too fast doesn't add up? You are all doing what you are accusing me of doing; trying to make your model make sense out of something that doesn't.
Been there, done that. It is called optics. If it is too small, we do not catch enough photons to differentiate from background photons once we reach a certain range.

To put it into moron-friendly terms: Imagine a big jar of marbles in a huge, smooth plane with next to no friction. The bottom of the jar disappears, and the marbles go off in random directions.

Put a cup close by, and it will catch lots of marbles. Put if further away, and it will catch fewer of them as the marbles get thinner and thinner on the ground. At a certain range, there is a good chance you will catch none.

Now - why cant it happen in efferent vision? As nothing travels in it, why and how exactly does distance matter at all? Just saying "Because it is out of range" makes no sense - why does that matter? There is a direct relationship with the object - what causes the difference? And why do small objects go out of range sooner? Can you actually explain the mechanism or are you going to use your normal nonsense, which is to say "because it is bright enough and large enough to be seen" which merely means "because it is visible?"

Its going to be the latter isn't it?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Dragar (01-17-2012), LadyShea (01-17-2012)
  #5069  
Old 01-17-2012, 09:41 PM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
Posts: VCII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
Meanwhile, in the real world, the speed of light doesn't change depending on how close the object is to us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Of course it does. You just said it did with your very own words.
Where did he say the speed of light changes depending on how close the object is to us?
I never said it did change LadyShea.
Read the brief exchange again. It's like less than 40 words.

You said that Dragar stated that the speed of light changes. I asked you where did Dragar say that?
Not to mention she did say it does - she said 'of course it does' when I said the speed of light didn't change.
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (01-17-2012)
  #5070  
Old 01-17-2012, 09:45 PM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
Posts: VCII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Edit: Nevermind, this wasn't as good a video as I hoped...
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (01-17-2012)
  #5071  
Old 01-17-2012, 09:57 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXVI
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
In other word peacegirl, there is no such case as an object being out of range.
Actually, though, there is. And I mentioned this hundreds of pages ago, and it constitutes yet another disproof of Lessans' claims. Peacegirl ignored it, of course, liar that she is!

The universe that we see is the observable universe. It is not the whole of the universe. The universe is probably spatially infinite. Because of its expansion, there are regions -- infinite regions -- of the universe from which the light will never reach us. This is yet another disproof of real-time seeing, of course! If real-time seeing were true, we could see the whole infinite univere at once! Well, actually, we couldn't, since the whole night sky would be white and the temperature on earth would be about that of the sun and we'd all be dead! Another thing that was brought up hundreds of pages ago, and routinely ignored by the harridan. :yup:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Dragar (01-17-2012), LadyShea (01-17-2012)
  #5072  
Old 01-17-2012, 10:01 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

...but is she a henna-haired harridan?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Pan Narrans (01-18-2012)
  #5073  
Old 01-17-2012, 10:06 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
I was referring to the moment a snapshot is taken, the image is captured.
Nope. The image is not actually "captured" as light goes speeding past at hundreds of thousands of miles per second. That's a figure of speech, but not what we posit is actually happening.
So what is captured? The light has to be captured or there would be no picture.
The light is detected and the pattern of detected light forms an image, that is not an "image" being captured
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (01-18-2012)
  #5074  
Old 01-17-2012, 10:07 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
Meanwhile, in the real world, the speed of light doesn't change depending on how close the object is to us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Of course it does. You just said it did with your very own words.
Where did he say the speed of light changes depending on how close the object is to us?
I never said it did change LadyShea.
Read the brief exchange again. It's like less than 40 words.

You said that Dragar stated that the speed of light changes. I asked you where did Dragar say that?
It was a misunderstanding. The speed of light, according to the afferent vision model, doesn't require the object to be anywhere. I feel like a broken record.
Reply With Quote
  #5075  
Old 01-17-2012, 10:12 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
I was referring to the moment a snapshot is taken, the image is captured.
Nope. The image is not actually "captured" as light goes speeding past at hundreds of thousands of miles per second. That's a figure of speech, but not what we posit is actually happening.
So what is captured? The light has to be captured or there would be no picture.
The light is detected, that is not an "image" being captured
It's saying the same thing. "Light is detected" or the "image is captured". The question is whether the object needs to be in range.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:54 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.15512 seconds with 14 queries