Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #7451  
Old 02-01-2012, 11:32 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
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.

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?

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. 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.

Tell us, peacegirl, what does resolved actually mean and why does something need to be in our 'visual field' before it can be 'resolved'?

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

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Field of view or visual range makes a lot of sense...
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?
__________________
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

Last edited by Dragar; 02-01-2012 at 11:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (02-02-2012), But (02-02-2012), LadyShea (02-01-2012), Spacemonkey (02-02-2012), Stephen Maturin (02-02-2012)
  #7452  
Old 02-01-2012, 11:34 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I don't want to discuss Space until there is proof on Earth.
You nasty little liar, you have already been given the proof, repeatedly, of delayed-time seeing right here on earth. Moreover, even if such proof did not exist, the fact that we can prove it at celestial distances means it also holds for earth distances since we know the laws of physics are the same everywhere.

:lol:

Pathetic little liar.
Reply With Quote
  #7453  
Old 02-01-2012, 11:41 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
Stop talking #*$* about Lessans. I thought it was Dragar speaking.

Oh, pretend profanity, much like pretend ignore, but short. - '6' -
Reply With Quote
  #7454  
Old 02-01-2012, 11:45 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

You can cuss here, peacegirl. Why are you self bleeping, what's the purpose?
Reply With Quote
  #7455  
Old 02-01-2012, 11:49 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're totally wrong LadyShea, and I really don't care what you think. You've become the big wheel in this thread, and every example you've thrown at me proves nothing. Not one.

The whole idea that light carrying the image as it interacts with matter (you should know what I mean by now) implies that we would be able to see distant events that happened on Earth if we were far enough away, and as the light reached our telescopes. That is the biggest error science has ever made.

That one is sort of Ho-Hum, maybe a - '2' - or a - '3' -?
Reply With Quote
  #7456  
Old 02-01-2012, 11:53 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
Please do not tell me I'm wrong, because then I'll begin to think you're worse than a fundie.
Even though you said 'please' I'm still going to tell you 'you are wrong', because you are, and you are acting like a fundie.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (02-02-2012)
  #7457  
Old 02-02-2012, 01:03 AM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCLXXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
It has occurred to me on more than one occasion that I could easily -- easily -- put together a website that "looks legit" to the scientifically illiterate and sell all sorts of bogus claims.

I could probably get filthy rich doing so. But I wouldn't be able to live with myself.

Not everyone has such qualms.
I am so offended by your comment, I don't know what to say.
Why are you offended? Do you have some reason for thinking that his observation applies to you?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
He said you can easily see satellites going overhead with the naked eye. and explained how satellites are way further away than any airplane yet can still be seen

What are you talking about GPS for?
It is kind of like a keyword search conducted by a really crappy search engine. She reads a keyword like "satellite" and up pops "GPS" because the two words have been associated in some previous conversations .


Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Nothing can be proved to a delusional person.
That is just an assertion. Where is your proof?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
You've simply hijacked the afferent explanation and applied it within your own non-model where, by no longer involving the travelling light, 'resolution' no longer means what it did before and becomes just another magical process.
I am pretty sure that she was referring to (p)resolution in that post.
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (02-02-2012)
  #7458  
Old 02-02-2012, 01:04 AM
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

So, give me a number. How far away would, say, a 747 have to be to be out of my "visual range," even though there's a direct, unobstructed sightline between me and it?
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
-- Socrates
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (02-02-2012)
  #7459  
Old 02-02-2012, 01:20 AM
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 The Lone Ranger View Post
So, give me a number. How far away would, say, a 747 have to be to be out of my "visual range," even though there's a direct, unobstructed sightline between me and it?

Well I can see my 747 it's sitting right here on my desk. Perhaps Peacegril's fell down behind her desk where she can still hear it when she accadently kicks it but can't see it. Peacegirl, just look for the word 'Swingline' on the top.
Reply With Quote
  #7460  
Old 02-02-2012, 01:22 AM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCLXXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The fact that the light (P) passes through the lens (which you're trying to imply that this automatically makes Lessans wrong) somehow means that it can't be instant.
The fact that light passes through the lens necessarily means that the effect cannot be instantaneous. "Passes through" implies that the thing which is making the passage (in this case photons/light) is moving. Movement takes place over time. In this case, since we are talking about the passage of light, then the time it takes to make that passage cannot be greater than the speed of light. The movement of light, while it is very, very fast, is not instantaneous.

If, by (P) passes, you mean to say that the light gets from one side of the lens to other side instantaneously, then you cannot claim that it is passing through the lens. If the effect is instanteous, then the light must be bypassing the lens. Is that what you mean be (P) passes, that it bypasses the lens? Because, if that is what you mean, then the presence or absence of a lens is irrelevant, since a lens that is being bypassed is not doing anything.
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (02-02-2012)
  #7461  
Old 02-02-2012, 01:24 AM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCLXXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
So, give me a number. How far away would, say, a 747 have to be to be out of my "visual range," even though there's a direct, unobstructed sightline between me and it?

Well I can see my 747 it's sitting right here on my desk. Perhaps Peacegril's fell down behind her desk where she can still hear it when she accadently kicks it but can't see it. Peacegirl, just look for the word 'Swingline' on the top.
Mine is a 747xx. So there!
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
  #7462  
Old 02-02-2012, 01:44 AM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDCCCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The fact that the light (P) passes through the lens (which you're trying to imply that this automatically makes Lessans wrong) somehow means that it can't be instant.
The fact that light passes through the lens necessarily means that the effect cannot be instantaneous. "Passes through" implies that the thing which is making the passage (in this case photons/light) is moving. Movement takes place over time. In this case, since we are talking about the passage of light, then the time it takes to make that passage cannot be greater than the speed of light. The movement of light, while it is very, very fast, is not instantaneous.

If, by (P) passes, you mean to say that the light gets from one side of the lens to other side instantaneously, then you cannot claim that it is passing through the lens. If the effect is instanteous, then the light must be bypassing the lens. Is that what you mean be (P) passes, that it bypasses the lens? Because, if that is what you mean, then the presence or absence of a lens is irrelevant, since a lens that is being bypassed is not doing anything.
She is visualizing something without having any idea whether this works, which it doesn't. What she wants is to get us to see that mental picture.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Dragar (02-02-2012), LadyShea (02-02-2012)
  #7463  
Old 02-02-2012, 01:57 AM
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:
She is visualizing something without having any idea whether this works, which it doesn't. What she wants is to get us to see that mental picture.
My husband does that. He can have a model in his head that he can turn and twist and look at from all angles, but cannot explain to others very well. He always has to draw it for me or make a little model. His stuff usually works though.
Reply With Quote
  #7464  
Old 02-02-2012, 02:47 AM
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 Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
So, give me a number. How far away would, say, a 747 have to be to be out of my "visual range," even though there's a direct, unobstructed sightline between me and it?

Well I can see my 747 it's sitting right here on my desk. Perhaps Peacegril's fell down behind her desk where she can still hear it when she accadently kicks it but can't see it. Peacegirl, just look for the word 'Swingline' on the top.
Mine is a 747xx. So there!

No fair! you looked on the bottom. BTW so is mine.
Reply With Quote
  #7465  
Old 02-02-2012, 02:55 AM
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 LadyShea View Post
Quote:
She is visualizing something without having any idea whether this works, which it doesn't. What she wants is to get us to see that mental picture.
My husband does that. He can have a model in his head that he can turn and twist and look at from all angles, but cannot explain to others very well. He always has to draw it for me or make a little model. His stuff usually works though.
I've done the same thing but having been a draftsman and been qualified to teach it, I can usually visualize things before and after I draw it. Once I built a coal bin, drew a sketch of it first, and after it was built my wife looked at me and said, "You knew what it would look like from the begining" and she was right I had a mental image of it and it turned out just as I had pictured it.
Reply With Quote
  #7466  
Old 02-02-2012, 04:37 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Nothing can be proved to a delusional person.
That is just an assertion. Where is your proof?
HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU? It was an accurate observation. I have remarkable reasoning abilities and am well ahead of my time. There is evidence, but it will require further testing by future scientists who will one day vindicate my claim. Don't weasel, Angakuk. Answer me! I've had about all I can take of your closed-mindedness. I'm leaving this forum forever, and not coming back until tomorrow. :fuming:
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (02-02-2012), But (02-02-2012), LadyShea (02-02-2012), Pan Narrans (02-02-2012)
  #7467  
Old 02-02-2012, 05:02 AM
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 Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Nothing can be proved to a delusional person.
That is just an assertion. Where is your proof?
HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU? It was an accurate observation. I have remarkable reasoning abilities and am well ahead of my time. There is evidence, but it will require further testing by future scientists who will one day vindicate my claim. Don't weasel, Angakuk. Answer me! I've had about all I can take of your closed-mindedness. I'm leaving this forum forever, and not coming back until tomorrow. :fuming:
WOW! thats got to be - '10' - out of - '10' -.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (02-02-2012)
  #7468  
Old 02-02-2012, 05:16 AM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCLXXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Nothing can be proved to a delusional person.
That is just an assertion. Where is your proof?
HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU? It was an accurate observation. I have remarkable reasoning abilities and am well ahead of my time. There is evidence, but it will require further testing by future scientists who will one day vindicate my claim. Don't weasel, Angakuk. Answer me! I've had about all I can take of your closed-mindedness. I'm leaving this forum forever, and not coming back until tomorrow. :fuming:
Well its about time. I was beginning to think that you would never leave.
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (02-02-2012)
  #7469  
Old 02-02-2012, 05:42 AM
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 Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Nothing can be proved to a delusional person.
That is just an assertion. Where is your proof?
HOW MANY TIMES DO I HAVE TO TELL YOU? It was an accurate observation. I have remarkable reasoning abilities and am well ahead of my time. There is evidence, but it will require further testing by future scientists who will one day vindicate my claim. Don't weasel, Angakuk. Answer me! I've had about all I can take of your closed-mindedness. I'm leaving this forum forever, and not coming back until tomorrow. :fuming:
Well its about time. I was beginning to think that you would never leave.

See ya tomorrow.

Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (02-02-2012)
  #7470  
Old 02-02-2012, 10:46 AM
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:
They reasoned that since it takes longer for the sound from an
airplane to reach us when 15,000 feet away than when 5000; and
since it takes longer for light to reach us the farther it is away when
starting its journey, light and sound must function alike in other
respects — which is false — although it is true that the farther away
we are from the source of sound the fainter it becomes, as light
becomes dimmer when its source is farther away. If the sound from
a plane even though we can’t see it on a clear day will tell us it is in
the sky, why can’t we see the plane if an image is being reflected
towards the eye on the waves of light?
I am also not sure what the hell he is trying to say here. He seems to imply that there are cases when you can hear an airplane, but are somehow unable to see it even though there is nothing blocking your line of sight to it.

Which is not the case unless you are simply looking in the wrong direction. More hilarious bumbling from the master here!

I think perhaps what he was trying to say is: how come we sometimes see a plane in one place, and hear the sound in another? The answer would simply be: because light is a LOT faster than sound.

Either way it is pretty idiotic, and a clear example of how just a LITTLE bit of actual study, or even just checking if claims are correct by simple every-day observations would have prevented hugely embarrassing mistakes like these.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Dragar (02-02-2012), LadyShea (02-02-2012), Spacemonkey (02-02-2012)
  #7471  
Old 02-02-2012, 12:08 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 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
Reply With Quote
  #7472  
Old 02-02-2012, 12:17 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 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.
Reply With Quote
  #7473  
Old 02-02-2012, 12:19 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 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. :(
Reply With Quote
  #7474  
Old 02-02-2012, 12:27 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:
laser is interacting instantly with microscopic matter.
That is categorically impossible. A laser is nothing but a bundle of light that is emitted in a straight line in stead of in a widening arc. Therefore it cannot interact instantly - it is limited by the speed of light.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (02-02-2012)
  #7475  
Old 02-02-2012, 12:45 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
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'.
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 08:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.26864 seconds with 15 queries