Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #7476  
Old 02-02-2012, 01:07 PM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
I gave a link to a whole kit with lenses, prisms, filters, etc. I have been suggesting she play with lenses for months now.
Instead she wants to come here and play with us?
I don't call this playing. I call this torture. :(
But you still come here 'of your own free will'.
That is a good point. Perhaps what we are seeing here is father and daughter sharing the same set of mental illnesses but what you see from Lessans book is how he makes sense of it. If Lessans had the same obsessive compulsions and ego as peacegirl, he would project that as no free will and we do what makes us feel good.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (02-02-2012)
  #7477  
Old 02-02-2012, 01:16 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 naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
I gave a link to a whole kit with lenses, prisms, filters, etc. I have been suggesting she play with lenses for months now.
Instead she wants to come here and play with us?
I don't call this playing. I call this torture. :(
But you still come here 'of your own free will'.
That is a good point. Perhaps what we are seeing here is father and daughter sharing the same set of mental illnesses but what you see from Lessans book is how he makes sense of it. If Lessans had the same obsessive compulsions and ego as peacegirl, he would project that as no free will and we do what makes us feel good.
You're all so confused I don't know if there's any hope. It makes this whole effort meaningless.
Reply With Quote
  #7478  
Old 02-02-2012, 01:26 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
I gave a link to a whole kit with lenses, prisms, filters, etc. I have been suggesting she play with lenses for months now.
What is the point of doing this exercise when this isn't related to the discussion? It feels like another strawman to me.

How do prisms work:

They refract light as the light enters through one side of the prism, at a certain angle, the glass that the prism is made of, decreases the speed of light. And so it bends. Then it hits the other face and emerges out, and that is when the dispersion happens and the white light splits into the spectrum of seven colours

Read more: How does a prism work
Because you keep talking about lenses doing things they don't do. All they do is bend traveling light.

They don't interact with the object at all. They don't magnify the object, the don't focus on the object, they bend the light which changes the pattern detected which changes the final interpreted image.

Have you not even looked at a pencil in a glass of water? Try it. Put a pencil in a empty glass, then put it in a glass half full of water. Do you think the pencil is actually bigger and at a different angle under the surface of the water? The water is bending the light

You've said non-absorbed wavelengths aren't reflected off objects, but you can see, with a prism and mirrors, that this is false.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (02-02-2012), Spacemonkey (02-02-2012)
  #7479  
Old 02-02-2012, 01:30 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:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
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.
Neither the empty space in a pinhole camera, nor the computer in this example, focus the light. Try again?
A pinhole camera forms images on film by using a very small aperture in place of a
photographic lens. Its extremely small aperture and simple geometry give it extraordinary
depth of field. A pinhole lens gives sharper average focus over extreme changes in
object distance, although an ordinary lens gives a sharper image for objects within its
more limited focus range.

http://www.huecandela.com/hue-x/pin-...%20Wellman.pdf
Great, you can use Google, another way you weasel away rather than admit you're wrong.

You said:

"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."

Neither the empty space in a pinhole camera, nor the computer in this example, focus the light. Try again?
I was wrong in that instance. Do you actually think this negates Lessans' claim of efferent vision? It's amazing how people have lost sight of what this is about.
Great. So are you going to stop using a lens as some magical placeholder in your theory of vision now? You don't need a lens to make an image. Stop claiming you do.
Fine. You need the object which requires a connection between data (the object) and light. If there's no connection between data (substance) and light, THERE IS NO IMAGE.
What kind of "connection"? Connected by what? Connected how?
This lenseless technology doesn't change the fact that the laser is interacting instantly with microscopic matter. That is the connection which then gets translated onto a computer read-out. Nothing changes.
I am still unclear what you mean by connected/connection. Of course the light interacts with the matter (not instantly, it's light and travels), however there is no lens to interact with the object...which you kept insisting was required for image formation.

Are you backing off lenses as the magical component of efferent vision now?
Reply With Quote
  #7480  
Old 02-02-2012, 02:31 PM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
I gave a link to a whole kit with lenses, prisms, filters, etc. I have been suggesting she play with lenses for months now.
Instead she wants to come here and play with us?
I don't call this playing. I call this torture. :(
But you still come here 'of your own free will'.
That is a good point. Perhaps what we are seeing here is father and daughter sharing the same set of mental illnesses but what you see from Lessans book is how he makes sense of it. If Lessans had the same obsessive compulsions and ego as peacegirl, he would project that as no free will and we do what makes us feel good.
You're all so confused I don't know if there's any hope. It makes this whole effort meaningless.
It's your effort. It's not as if you've made any progress at all over the last ten years. A sane person would stop and consider why that would be. But you are not sane.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (02-02-2012)
  #7481  
Old 02-02-2012, 02:44 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 naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
I gave a link to a whole kit with lenses, prisms, filters, etc. I have been suggesting she play with lenses for months now.
Instead she wants to come here and play with us?
I don't call this playing. I call this torture. :(
But you still come here 'of your own free will'.
That is a good point. Perhaps what we are seeing here is father and daughter sharing the same set of mental illnesses but what you see from Lessans book is how he makes sense of it. If Lessans had the same obsessive compulsions and ego as peacegirl, he would project that as no free will and we do what makes us feel good.
You're all so confused I don't know if there's any hope. It makes this whole effort meaningless.
It's your effort. It's not as if you've made any progress at all over the last ten years. A sane person would stop and consider why that would be. But you are not sane.
You are the most unreflecting individuals I've ever met. You have determined (without any proof) that I am crazy, and from there your reasoning leads to a false conclusion. You have been wrong all along, and you will be wrong until the bitter end.
Reply With Quote
  #7482  
Old 02-02-2012, 03:05 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 Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
So, let's get back on topic! Remember, we are not arguing standard vision is correct. We are asking if your counterexample has ever actually occured and ruled out standard vision.

You claim that we may fail to see a plane (or rather, no image is formed on our retinas, since they are a little different), even though light reaches our eyes. That's your assertion peacegirl. You offer no evidence for it. Can you give an example of when such a thing has ever happened? No, you can't.
I'm saying that if we see a plane --- it is not the light being reflected that is striking our eyes with the image of the plane in those wavelengths...we are seeing the actual plane due to light's presence.
No, peacegirl. You are saying those things, but that's not what we've been talking about. Read what you've written that started our sojourn into this topic:

"If only light counted, why do we not get an image from an airplane that has no interruptions, or from an object that is slightly out of the visual field, but in direct line with it?"

This part is what we're discussing. Please, focus.

Now, do you have evidence for this claim? Or not? Because I think you have none, and Lessans made it up. He made it up because he thought he was right, and this claim follows if he was right. He then used that fact in support of his rightness.
No Dragar, that's what you're doing, not him. You believe that you have enough evidence to prove afferent vision, but where is it? I don't want to discuss Space until there is proof on Earth. It is so obvious to me (because I'm not in denial) that we don't see an airplane until it comes into our visual field even though we hear it that it's actually humorous that you can't see this. We know that the airplane is close by because we hear it, but it must come into our visual range for it to be resolved. The airplane is not seen due to the reflection of the airplane striking our eyes. We are seeing the actual airplane in real time due to light's presence. Please do not tell me I'm wrong, because then I'll begin to think you're worse than a fundie.
I asked, do you have evidence for this claim? The claim being:

"If only light counted, why do we not get an image from an airplane that has no interruptions, or from an object that is slightly out of the visual field, but in direct line with it?"

Something you have repeated time and time again as an argument against standard vision.

By your complete refusal to answer, I am assuming you do not have any evidence. In the future, when you undoudbtedly make this claim again, we can refer to this post to demonstrate you have zero evidence for. You're just making it up, like Lessans.

I made no mention of space, and specifically said we were not talking about space, nor about proving standard vision.
Obviously we are Dragar. If you automatically say that Lessans is wrong, that makes the standard definition right. You're playing games with me right now.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
I specifically said, "Remember, we are not arguing standard vision is correct." You responded "You believe that you have enough evidence to prove afferent vision," the exact opposite of what I said. Why?
Okay, so why do you keep telling me that Lessans' reasoning is circular which would be based on your defense of afferent vision? It is clearly circular because your premise is accepted as fact which automatically makes your conclusion agree with your premise. :sadcheer:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar"']Even worse, you then said "We know that the airplane is close by because we hear it, but it must come into our visual range for it to be resolved." As Spacemonkey said, that's an explanation for why you might not be able to see a plane in standard vision, not your crazy vision.[/quote]

Don't play this "your crazy vision card" with me Dragar. It makes you look weak.

[quote="Dragar
You have no explanation for why we can't see objects that aren't 'in our visual field' (whatever that even means!). Because you have no mechanism, and no model. Just catchprases and buzzwords you've stolen and used dishonestly.
I do actually. This is an unadulterated observation (unlike yours) and I have explained it. But you will find a way in your "sneaky scientific pseudo explanation" to discredit ANYTHING Lessans has to say. The catchphrases are actually yours and they're total bullshit in order to keep your position.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
Tell us, peacegirl, what does resolved actually mean and why does something need to be in our 'visual field' before it can be 'resolved'?
Because LIGHT alone doesn't cut it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
How am I disputing optics when optics is supportive of efferent vision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
You are disputing it when I said:

"...[the size of an image is determined by size of the object, distance] and any changes to the path light takes along the way (such as in a telescope, or an eye)."

And you responded with:

"This is an assertion and you can't just state this as if it is true without proof."

Thereby taking issue with optics. Why did you just lie about this? Did you even understand what you were objecting to?
I'm not lying at all. The path that light takes is a mirror image to how the (P) reflection occurs. I never ever said that we can see something without light, but this has caused such confusion that it's no wonder I am being thrown under a bus. Only time will settle this issue. I feel like I'm being sacrificed at the alter of truth, and it makes me extremely uncomfortable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Field of view or visual range makes a lot of sense...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
Then what's "visual range" mean, peacegirl? Because we've repeatedly asked for a definition, we've explained the various nuances of why such a range might and might not exist depending on your definition, and you've ignored each one. Once you said it meant 'can be seen'. In which case your sole "counter example" to standard vision is purely "Why can't we see what we can't see?". You then started to deny that was what it meant, but refused to supply a proper meaning. So what does it mean?
It means that the object (how many times do I have to repeat this: the physical entity, not the light), is within visual range. It's amazing to me the cognitive/dissonance here. It's comparable to a child rebelling because all his young life he believed Santa Clause existed, so for someone to tell him he doesn't exist, is too hard to bear and he will deny deny deny in order to make the conflict go away. You are doing the same thing.
Reply With Quote
  #7483  
Old 02-02-2012, 03:25 PM
The Lone Ranger's Avatar
The Lone Ranger The Lone Ranger is offline
Jin, Gi, Rei, Ko, Chi, Shin, Tei
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXDXCIX
Images: 523
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
So, give me a number. How far away would, say, a 747 airliner have to be to be out of my "visual range," even though there's a direct, unobstructed sightline between me and it?
Bump.
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
-- Socrates
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Dragar (02-02-2012)
  #7484  
Old 02-02-2012, 03:30 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 Dragar
Then what's "visual range" mean, peacegirl?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
It means that the object (how many times do I have to repeat this: the physical entity, not the light), is within visual range
You just answered the question "What does visual range mean" with "Visual range means visual range".

And you accuse others of being childlike?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Dragar (02-02-2012), Spacemonkey (02-02-2012)
  #7485  
Old 02-02-2012, 03:30 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

Dupe
Reply With Quote
  #7486  
Old 02-02-2012, 03:41 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 peacegirl View Post
Okay, so why do you keep telling me that Lessans' reasoning is circular which would be based on your defense of afferent vision? It is clearly circular because your premise is accepted as fact which automatically makes your conclusion agree with your premise. :sadcheer:
Er, no. If Lessans counter example to standard vision is wrong, that doesn't make standard vision right. It just means it's not ruled out by his counter example. Must I explain every small chain in reasoning to you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
How am I disputing optics when optics is supportive of efferent vision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
You are disputing it when I said:

"...[the size of an image is determined by size of the object, distance] and any changes to the path light takes along the way (such as in a telescope, or an eye)."

And you responded with:

"This is an assertion and you can't just state this as if it is true without proof."

Thereby taking issue with optics. Why did you just lie about this? Did you even understand what you were objecting to?
I'm not lying at all. The path that light takes is a mirror image to how the (P) reflection occurs. I never ever said that we can see something without light, but this has caused such confusion that it's no wonder I am being thrown under a bus. Only time will settle this issue. I feel like I'm being sacrificed at the alter of truth, and it makes me extremely uncomfortable.
Once again, you've ignored what I said and responded completely differently. Let's try again. I said:

"...[the size of an image is determined by size of the object, distance] and any changes to the path light takes along the way (such as in a telescope, or an eye)."

And you responded with:

"This is an assertion and you can't just state this as if it is true without proof."

If did not have a problem with optics, and the path of light determining the size of an image, why did you kick up a fuss? If you do have a problem, why are you lying about it now?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
You have no explanation for why we can't see objects that aren't 'in our visual field' (whatever that even means!). Because you have no mechanism, and no model. Just catchprases and buzzwords you've stolen and used dishonestly.
I do actually. This is an unadulterated observation (unlike yours) and I have explained it. But you will find a way in your "sneaky scientific pseudo explanation" to discredit ANYTHING Lessans has to say. The catchphrases are actually yours and they're total bullshit in order to keep your position.
I notice that you don't actually provide an explanation. Just as you didn't explain what resolved actually means, or why we can't see something without it being resolved (though we actually sometimes can...). Just more handwaving. Let me guess, we can only see things when the conditions to see them have been met? Is that your 'explanation'? Or is it that we can only see things when 'they are in our visual field'? Gee, I hope you don't tell me further down this post that 'in our visual field' means 'can be seen'. That would be embarrassing for you, because I mocked you about using that definition earlier!

The only thing worse would be if you defined 'visual range' to mean 'visual range'!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
Then what's "visual range" mean, peacegirl?
It means that the object (how many times do I have to repeat this: the physical entity, not the light), is within visual range.
:cool:
__________________
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 (02-02-2012), Spacemonkey (02-02-2012)
  #7487  
Old 02-02-2012, 04:40 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 don't know if there's any hope. It makes this whole effort meaningless.
The fact that you are trying to peddle nonsense would make it meaningless, and that you are trying to peddle it to critical thinkers would make it hopeless.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (02-02-2012)
  #7488  
Old 02-02-2012, 04:43 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
You are the most unreflecting individuals I've ever met.

We could take a pole to find out, but if there is anyone here who is bald, they would reflect quite a bit.
Reply With Quote
  #7489  
Old 02-02-2012, 04:58 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
I gave a link to a whole kit with lenses, prisms, filters, etc. I have been suggesting she play with lenses for months now.
What is the point of doing this exercise when this isn't related to the discussion? It feels like another strawman to me.

How do prisms work:

They refract light as the light enters through one side of the prism, at a certain angle, the glass that the prism is made of, decreases the speed of light. And so it bends. Then it hits the other face and emerges out, and that is when the dispersion happens and the white light splits into the spectrum of seven colours

Read more: How does a prism work
Because you keep talking about lenses doing things they don't do. All they do is bend traveling light.

They don't interact with the object at all. They don't magnify the object, the don't focus on the object, they bend the light which changes the pattern detected which changes the final interpreted image.

Have you not even looked at a pencil in a glass of water? Try it. Put a pencil in a empty glass, then put it in a glass half full of water. Do you think the pencil is actually bigger and at a different angle under the surface of the water? The water is bending the light
Yes, this is what water does, but show me how we can see the glass that contains the water without it being in one's visual range.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
You've said non-absorbed wavelengths aren't reflected off objects, but you can see, with a prism and mirrors, that this is false.
Where did I say that LadyShea? I said the non-absorbed wavelengths were (P) reflected which means that as long as the object is present, the resulting wavelengths will extend as far as the dispersed light will go until the light fades out and the object is no longer visible.
Reply With Quote
  #7490  
Old 02-02-2012, 05:20 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

I don't know what the (P) reflected even means. Can you explain how it differs from the standard model? Here is a summary of the physical laws of reflection The Law of Reflection

Here's a simple diagram. The light hits the surface and bounces off and continues traveling.


Which part differs in (P) reflection?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (02-02-2012)
  #7491  
Old 02-02-2012, 05:24 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
Have you not even looked at a pencil in a glass of water? Try it. Put a pencil in a empty glass, then put it in a glass half full of water. Do you think the pencil is actually bigger and at a different angle under the surface of the water? The water is bending the light
Yes, this is what water does, but show me how we can see the glass that contains the water without it being in one's visual range.
What does that have to do with the water bending the traveling light? We are talking about bending light.

If you'd like to, instead, discuss visual range, then please define it. How far is it (in feet) and what determines it?

Last edited by LadyShea; 02-02-2012 at 07:11 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7492  
Old 02-02-2012, 05:28 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
You've said non-absorbed wavelengths aren't reflected off objects, but you can see, with a prism and mirrors, that this is false.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Where did I say that LadyShea?
Really? Where did you say that? You've said it so many times how could you have forgotten? Here are some recent examples...the most recent was just on TUESDAY, two days ago, for goodness' sake! Are you drunk?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light does bounce off of objects, but objects do not reflect light.
Yes, they do. We can observe and measure the reflected light. You can do this at home with a prism.
Measuring the non-absorbed light does not mean that light is reflected LadyShea.
If it's not reflected and it's not absorbed, where does it go?
You failed the course not because Lessans was wrong but because you can't get beyond your entrenched ideas.
LOL, the only entrenched idea I expressed in this post was that light that is not absorbed and not reflected has to go somewhere or do something....I asked you what it did or where it went.
When matter absorbs light, it displays the remaining non-absorbed light, which is being continually replaced by new photons. But this non-absorbed light is not reflected.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (02-02-2012)
  #7493  
Old 02-02-2012, 05:33 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
What is the point of doing this exercise when this isn't related to the discussion? It feels like another strawman to me.

Yes, this is what water does, but show me how we can see the glass that contains the water without it being in one's visual range.
No-one is claiming that, under normal circumstances, this will happen, it is only special cases where this is possible, such as when the object is far enough away that the time for the light to arrive is noticeable. On Earth it is not practical because the travel time of light is so short, but in space it happens all the time and is quite noticeable. To demand a demonstration of this on Earth is a meaningless strawman and your constant reference to this demonstrates that you are irrational.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (02-02-2012)
  #7494  
Old 02-02-2012, 06:11 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 LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
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.
Neither the empty space in a pinhole camera, nor the computer in this example, focus the light. Try again?
A pinhole camera forms images on film by using a very small aperture in place of a
photographic lens. Its extremely small aperture and simple geometry give it extraordinary
depth of field. A pinhole lens gives sharper average focus over extreme changes in
object distance, although an ordinary lens gives a sharper image for objects within its
more limited focus range.

http://www.huecandela.com/hue-x/pin-...%20Wellman.pdf
Great, you can use Google, another way you weasel away rather than admit you're wrong.

You said:

"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."

Neither the empty space in a pinhole camera, nor the computer in this example, focus the light. Try again?
I was wrong in that instance. Do you actually think this negates Lessans' claim of efferent vision? It's amazing how people have lost sight of what this is about.
Great. So are you going to stop using a lens as some magical placeholder in your theory of vision now? You don't need a lens to make an image. Stop claiming you do.
Fine. You need the object which requires a connection between data (the object) and light. If there's no connection between data (substance) and light, THERE IS NO IMAGE.
What kind of "connection"? Connected by what? Connected how?
This lenseless technology doesn't change the fact that the laser is interacting instantly with microscopic matter. That is the connection which then gets translated onto a computer read-out. Nothing changes.
I am still unclear what you mean by connected/connection. Of course the light interacts with the matter (not instantly, it's light and travels), however there is no lens to interact with the object...which you kept insisting was required for image formation.

Are you backing off lenses as the magical component of efferent vision now?
No, I'm not backing off. I told you that this doesn't change the concept I'm trying to get across which is the material entity, no matter how tiny, comes into the focal plane due to extreme magnification. The pattern of light is not the only thing necessary for an image to seen. You could never get an image of your family when taking a picture through the detection of light only. They would have to be within the focal plane, which means they would have to be present.
Reply With Quote
  #7495  
Old 02-02-2012, 06:15 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

How does magnification work in your model? What causes it?
Reply With Quote
  #7496  
Old 02-02-2012, 06:19 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
What is the point of doing this exercise when this isn't related to the discussion? It feels like another strawman to me.

Yes, this is what water does, but show me how we can see the glass that contains the water without it being in one's visual range.
No-one is claiming that, under normal circumstances, this will happen, it is only special cases where this is possible, such as when the object is far enough away that the time for the light to arrive is noticeable. On Earth it is not practical because the travel time of light is so short, but in space it happens all the time and is quite noticeable. To demand a demonstration of this on Earth is a meaningless strawman and your constant reference to this demonstrates that you are irrational.
Constantly resorting to light traveling so fast in Space does not answer my question as to why matter has to be interacting with light for it to be seen. Light does not do what scientists believe it does. Light is meant to reveal matter; it does not bring matter to our eyes.
Reply With Quote
  #7497  
Old 02-02-2012, 06:25 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 LadyShea View Post
How does magnification work in your model? What causes it?
She already said: magnification makes objects bigger! So when we look at Jupiter through a telescope, the telescope makes Jupiter grow!

Why anyone continues to indulge, even for amusement, this duplicitous blockhead, is beyond me.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (02-02-2012)
  #7498  
Old 02-02-2012, 06:27 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 peacegirl View Post
Constantly resorting to light traveling so fast in Space does not answer my question as to why matter has to be interacting with light for it to be seen. Light does not do what scientists believe it does. Light is meant to reveal matter; it does not bring matter to our eyes.
:lol:

Stupid little fool.

Yes, you keep thinking that according to science, light "brings matter to our eyes." :pat:
Reply With Quote
  #7499  
Old 02-02-2012, 06:30 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:
Constantly resorting to light traveling so fast in Space does not answer my question as to why matter has to be interacting with light for it to be seen. Light does not do what scientists believe it does. Light is meant to reveal matter; it does not bring matter to our eyes.
peacegirl, do you understand that you cannot see light, on Earth, that has not interacted with matter (except in like a lab in a created vacuum)? It's not possible. We don't think it's possible nor have we ever stated it is possible.

We can't see the spaces between objects because you will still be getting light reflected off matter in the background, foreground, or peripheral.

When you open your eyes and look out you are seeing light that has interacted with matter, all the time, everywhere. It has been reflected, absorbed, diffused, refracted, and/or filtered. Nobody has ever said it "brings matter to our eyes". Anyway, our eyes are also matter that light interacts with.

Also note, in the vacuum of space where the Hubble is, light can and does often travel without being intercepted by matter. We can intercept that light, with matter in the form of the HUBBLE and get images from it.

Last edited by LadyShea; 02-02-2012 at 06:51 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #7500  
Old 02-02-2012, 06:55 PM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
I gave a link to a whole kit with lenses, prisms, filters, etc. I have been suggesting she play with lenses for months now.
Instead she wants to come here and play with us?
I don't call this playing. I call this torture. :(
But you still come here 'of your own free will'.
That is a good point. Perhaps what we are seeing here is father and daughter sharing the same set of mental illnesses but what you see from Lessans book is how he makes sense of it. If Lessans had the same obsessive compulsions and ego as peacegirl, he would project that as no free will and we do what makes us feel good.
You're all so confused I don't know if there's any hope. It makes this whole effort meaningless.
It's your effort. It's not as if you've made any progress at all over the last ten years. A sane person would stop and consider why that would be. But you are not sane.
You are the most unreflecting individuals I've ever met. You have determined (without any proof) that I am crazy, and from there your reasoning leads to a false conclusion. You have been wrong all along, and you will be wrong until the bitter end.
Peacegirl, your entire posting history is proof. You do realize that forum posts are admissible as evidence in a court of law. So they're admissable as evidence that you are out of your mind.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 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 11:38 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.37199 seconds with 14 queries