“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"

[bilby]

The light from the star is collected by the telescope because the lens is able to magnify the image.

Then how do we explain reflecting telescopes? Those are more commonly used in astronomy, specifically because it's easier to make a really large objective mirror than it is to make a really large objective lens.

If there wasn't even a small amount of light because the star was too far away, a telescope would have nothing to magnify.

According to Lessans, the luminosity and size of tbe star should render it visible anyway.

 

[bilby]

I can't argue with facts.

Then I suggest you sue your posting history for slander.

 

[peacegirl]

Why does light have to travel?

How does the telescope affect light if it doesn't?

It at the very least has to travel through the telescope.

It works the same way as the eye. It focuses on the object.

1. The objective lens (in refractors) or primary mirror (in reflectors) collects lots of light from a distant object and brings that light, or image, to a point or focus.
2. An eyepiece lens takes the bright light from the focus of the objective lens or primary mirror and "spreads it out" (magnifies it) to take up a large portion of the retina. This is the same principle that a magnifying glass (lens) uses; it takes a small image on the paper and spreads it out over the retina of your eye so that it looks big.

Why does light have to travel?

How does the telescope affect light if it doesn't?

It at the very least has to travel through the telescope.

No, it works the same way as the eye. The object could not be magnified if there was no object in which to magnify. Again, this does not mean that light doesn't travel. It just means that the object does not reflect the light that then travels to the lens over long distances. Telescopes work the same way as the eyes (using different types of lenses), as do cameras, binoculars, magnifying glasses, and microscopes.

 

[peacegirl]

The light from the star is collected by the telescope because the lens is able to magnify the image.

Then how do we explain reflecting telescopes? Those are more commonly used in astronomy, specifically because it's easier to make a really large objective mirror than it is to make a really large objective lens.

I'm not sure what you believe changes with reflecting telescopes that would disqualify his claim.

Objective mirrors in telescopes work as follows:

• The objective lens (or primary mirror in reflectors) collects light from a distant object and brings it to a point or focus.
• The image is bent, or focused, on a small surface called the focal plane.
• The eyepiece is a magnifying glass that provides further magnification to view the focused image.

If there wasn't even a small amount of light because the star was too far away, a telescope would have nothing to magnify.

According to Lessans, the luminosity and size of tbe star should render it visible anyway.

For us to see an object with our naked eye, it has to meet the requirements of luminosity and size. If it doesn't meet this requirement, we will be unable to see it. Magnification aids the naked eye, so the object can be seen. Gathering light is what telescopes do, but this does not change the fact that the primary mirror, which gathers light and brings it to a point of focus, does this without the light bouncing off of matter and traveling through space/time to reach the telescope lens.

 

[Jarhyn]

A fly brain is not a human brain

Wow. Just... Wow. Neural networks are, by their nature, functional information processing systems. You're in "were you there" territory at this point.

Get a grip. Drop the "magic of the gaps" and come join reality.

No one here is removing neural networks but you cannot compare a fly brain to a human brain. Get a grip, Jarhyn.

They're brains. Made of neurons. We know how they function and what they do to integrate information. You're seriously going to die on this hill?

 

[peacegirl]

I can't argue with facts.

Then I suggest you sue your posting history for slander.

Why? I don't deny that telescopes work in a specific way. The facts speak for themselves. Telescopes work, but the claim that light travels in delayed time to reach the lens is not a fact.

 

[peacegirl]

A fly brain is not a human brain

Wow. Just... Wow. Neural networks are, by their nature, functional information processing systems. You're in "were you there" territory at this point.

Get a grip. Drop the "magic of the gaps" and come join reality.

No one here is removing neural networks but you cannot compare a fly brain to a human brain. Get a grip, Jarhyn.

They're brains. Made of neurons. We know how they function and what they do to integrate information. You're seriously going to die on this hill?

You have not been here. You just barged in and have no idea what this claim is about. Take a chill pill.

 

[pood]

We are able to see the moon, the sun, the distant stars, etc., not because the one is 3 seconds away, the other 8 minutes away, and the last many light years away, but simply because these objects are large enough to be seen at their great distance when enough light is present.

If this is true, how is it that a telescope allows us to see stars that are not visible to the naked eye?

How do binoculars or magnifying glasses work? They all work by manipulating the lens.

Binoculars work by

1. Capturing light through an objective lens.
2. Reflecting and rotating the light using prisms.
3. Magnifying the image using an eyepiece lens.
4. Providing a clearer view of distant objects

The first step to understanding how a magnifying glass works is to understand how your eyes work in general. When you see an object, it is because light waves are bouncing off that object and shooting directly into your eye.

It appears you grabbed all this off the web without a cite (rules violation) without even noticing that the above directly contradicts your claim that light does not bounce off an object and shoot into our eyes. Nice self-own.

 

[pood]

A fly brain is not a human brain

Wow. Just... Wow. Neural networks are, by their nature, functional information processing systems. You're in "were you there" territory at this point.

Get a grip. Drop the "magic of the gaps" and come join reality.

No one here is removing neural networks but you cannot compare a fly brain to a human brain. Get a grip, Jarhyn.

They're brains. Made of neurons. We know how they function and what they do to integrate information. You're seriously going to die on this hill?

You have not been here.

Yes, Jarhyn has. And like the rest of us they know perfectly well that your author is wrong.

 

[pood]

The light from the star is collected by the telescope because the lens is able to magnify the image.

Then how do we explain reflecting telescopes? Those are more commonly used in astronomy, specifically because it's easier to make a really large objective mirror than it is to make a really large objective lens.

If there wasn't even a small amount of light because the star was too far away, a telescope would have nothing to magnify.

According to Lessans, the luminosity and size of tbe star should render it visible anyway.

As we explained to peacegirl back at FF, if all light was at the eye instantly, the entire night sky would be white and we would burn up. The solution to Olber’s Paradox requires delayed-time seeing, as well as an expanding universe.

No matter how many tines we explain things like this, the clue phone never rings or if it does, it goes unanswered.

 

[peacegirl]

We are able to see the moon, the sun, the distant stars, etc., not because the one is 3 seconds away, the other 8 minutes away, and the last many light years away, but simply because these objects are large enough to be seen at their great distance when enough light is present.

If this is true, how is it that a telescope allows us to see stars that are not visible to the naked eye?

How do binoculars or magnifying glasses work? They all work by manipulating the lens.

Binoculars work by

1. Capturing light through an objective lens.
2. Reflecting and rotating the light using prisms.
3. Magnifying the image using an eyepiece lens.
4. Providing a clearer view of distant objects

The first step to understanding how a magnifying glass works is to understand how your eyes work in general. When you see an object, it is because light waves are bouncing off that object and shooting directly into your eye.

Wrong, and you know why.
It appears you grabbed all this off the web without a cite (rules violation)

I didn't see a cite or I would have posted it. It was AI.

without even noticing that the above directly contradicts your claim that light does not bounce off an object and shoot into our eyes. Nice self-own.

It doesn't bounce, and a telescope doesn't change this.

 

[pood]

We are able to see the moon, the sun, the distant stars, etc., not because the one is 3 seconds away, the other 8 minutes away, and the last many light years away, but simply because these objects are large enough to be seen at their great distance when enough light is present.

If this is true, how is it that a telescope allows us to see stars that are not visible to the naked eye?

How do binoculars or magnifying glasses work? They all work by manipulating the lens.

Binoculars work by

1. Capturing light through an objective lens.
2. Reflecting and rotating the light using prisms.
3. Magnifying the image using an eyepiece lens.
4. Providing a clearer view of distant objects

The first step to understanding how a magnifying glass works is to understand how your eyes work in general. When you see an object, it is because light waves are bouncing off that object and shooting directly into your eye.

Wrong, and you know why.
It appears you grabbed all this off the web without a cite (rules violation)

I didn't see a cite or I would have posted it. It was AI.

without even noticing that the above directly contradicts your claim that light does not bounce off an object and shoot into our eyes. Nice self-own.

It doesn't bounce, and a telescope doesn't change this.

Did you notice that what you posted says light waves “bounce” off the object and shoot into our eyes? This contradicts your claims. So you posted something in support of your position, which actually does not support it —. a classic self-own.

And yes, AI DOES require a cite!

 

[pood]

Remember this, peacegirl? How do you explain this? If we saw in real time, there would be NO DIFFERENCE when we observe the eclipse of IO — but there is!

 

[pood]

Peacegirl, since you suddenly like AI so much, why don’t you type in the following question, and see what AI says?

if we saw light without a delay, would the night sky be white?

 

[pood]

Well, gosh, when I typed it in, what AI told me was: “Yes, if we could see light without any delay, the night sky would appear almost entirely white.”

Hey, peacegirl, is it night where you are? What does the sky look like?

 

[peacegirl]

The light from the star is collected by the telescope because the lens is able to magnify the image.

Then how do we explain reflecting telescopes? Those are more commonly used in astronomy, specifically because it's easier to make a really large objective mirror than it is to make a really large objective lens.

I'm not sure where this negates the claim. It just restates the theory.

A reflecting telescope (also called a reflector) is a telescope that uses a single or a combination of curved mirrors that reflect light and form an image. The reflecting telescope was invented in the 17th century by Isaac Newton as an alternative to the refracting telescope which, at that time, was a design that suffered from severe chromatic aberration. Although reflecting telescopes produce other types of optical aberrations, it is a design that allows for very large diameter objectives. Almost all of the major telescopes used in astronomy research are reflectors. Many variant forms are in use and some employ extra optical elements to improve image quality or place the image in a mechanically advantageous position. Since reflecting telescopes use mirrors, the design is sometimes referred to as a catoptric telescope.

Reflecting telescope - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

If there wasn't even a small amount of light because the star was too far away, a telescope would have nothing to magnify.

According to Lessans, the luminosity and size of tbe star should render it visible anyway.

As we explained to peacegirl back at FF, if all light was at the eye instantly, the entire night sky would be white and we would burn up. The solution to Olber’s Paradox requires delayed-time seeing, as well as an expanding universe.

I didn't say light would be at the eye instantly if the stars were too far away for their light to reach us. The light could only be at the eye if the star was in a powerful telescope's field of view. To say that we would burn up if we saw stars, not just their light, doesn't make sense because they are so distant that their light is barely visible or not visible at all. Light from stars is finite, which is another reason we cannot see more distant stars because they are too far away and their light diminishes. If their light traveled, we would see the image of distant stars that cannot be seen even with a telescope. The night sky is stable; we see the same constellations every day. I'm not sure how this apparent paradox proves that seeing the actual star would cause us to burn up.

No matter how many tines we explain things like this, the clue phone never rings or if it does, it goes unanswered.

You don't answer the clue phone. You are ignoring his clues entirely. I'm still stuck on bees can identify faces, according to you.

 

[DBT]

What is the evidence for light at the eye/instant vision?

DBT, I have explained this many times but you seem to have misunderstood what he means by conditioning. You keep referring back to cultures and social interactions, which is true but it's not the same as being conditioned in terms of how the brain photographs word/object relations, whether true or false, and projects that photograph onto substance. If you want, I will post that excerpt for you again. This does not change the speed of light. It only allows us to see the object because the light is revealing it as we turn our gaze toward it. But there is a requirement: the object must be luminous enough, large enough, or close enough for it to be within our field of view.

You haven’t explained how light from a distant star, or any object, can be at the eye without travel time.

The torch in a dark room shows that in the absence of light, it is dark, you can't see a thing, where upon switching the light on, the room is illuminated. It's the same with stars, moons, etc, which either emit light or reflect it.....and it is this light that enables us to see.

 

[peacegirl]

We are able to see the moon, the sun, the distant stars, etc., not because the one is 3 seconds away, the other 8 minutes away, and the last many light years away, but simply because these objects are large enough to be seen at their great distance when enough light is present.

If this is true, how is it that a telescope allows us to see stars that are not visible to the naked eye?

How do binoculars or magnifying glasses work? They all work by manipulating the lens.

Binoculars work by

1. Capturing light through an objective lens.
2. Reflecting and rotating the light using prisms.
3. Magnifying the image using an eyepiece lens.
4. Providing a clearer view of distant objects

The first step to understanding how a magnifying glass works is to understand how your eyes work in general. When you see an object, it is because light waves are bouncing off that object and shooting directly into your eye.

Wrong, and you know why.
It appears you grabbed all this off the web without a cite (rules violation)

I didn't see a cite or I would have posted it. It was AI.

without even noticing that the above directly contradicts your claim that light does not bounce off an object and shoot into our eyes. Nice self-own.

It doesn't bounce, and a telescope doesn't change this.

Did you notice that what you posted says light waves “bounce” off the object and shoot into our eyes? This contradicts your claims. So you posted something in support of your position, which actually does not support it —. a classic self-own.

Nothing will support it because it's not recognized. AI collects data, so it's no surprise that it would say "bounces off of." Do you think it would say we see in real time? I posted this to define how a magnifying glass works. It explains capturing the light through an objective lens. What does an "objective lens" mean?

And yes, AI DOES require a cite!

I'll look for the source next time.

 

[peacegirl]

What is the evidence for light at the eye/instant vision?

DBT, I have explained this many times but you seem to have misunderstood what he means by conditioning. You keep referring back to cultures and social interactions, which is true but it's not the same as being conditioned in terms of how the brain photographs word/object relations, whether true or false, and projects that photograph onto substance. If you want, I will post that excerpt for you again. This does not change the speed of light. It only allows us to see the object because the light is revealing it as we turn our gaze toward it. But there is a requirement: the object must be luminous enough, large enough, or close enough for it to be within our field of view.

You haven’t explained how light from a distant star, or any object, can be at the eye without travel time.

It cannot be at the eye unless it is bright enough and large enough to be seen. I've said this a thousand times. If the star cannot be seen with the naked eye or a telescope, the light has diminished to where no telescope can magnify it.

The torch in a dark room shows that in the absence of light, it is dark, you can't see a thing, where upon switching the light on, the room is illuminated. It's the same with stars, moons, etc, which either emit light or reflect it.....and it is this light that enables us to see.

I am not disputing this. The ONLY thing being disputed is that light gets reflected off of objects. It does not bounce, taking the information with it. Rather, it reveals the external world as we gaze in a particular direction. People are getting bent out of shape for no reason. This makes much more sense if you think about it.

 

[Jarhyn]

If the star cannot be seen with the naked eye or a telescope, the light has diminished to where no telescope can magnify it.

The problem is your failure of scale, and in understanding the physics of light.

A particle of light is not like a balloon deflating as distance increases to an object, slowly letting out energy until it's entirely depleted, and being sampled from some growing field, which is how you seem to be treating it.

Rather, it's like a shotgun blast, but the pellets never lose speed or momentum (ok, they do a little through red shift due to expansion, but not much at most reasonable scales).

The reason distant things are difficult to see is that in the arc width of the emission surface, there are only so many photos and there is a lot of dust in that mostly empty space that will catch much of it. It will be received by whatever receives it in a compressed emissions spectrum (pesky redshift...).

From the qualities of this light we can make inference about what is there: the emission spectra may match a compressed hydrogen spectra, so we know there is hydrogen; the spectra is so compressed so we know how far.

We don't need many photons, or frequent photons, to infer these facts. All we need is the occasional one or two! All we need is a few lucky survivors that miss all the obstacles.

We can see all the way to the quark-gluon plasma epoch of spacetime, albeit that epoch of a region very far away from us, with mere photons (we don't strictly know how big our gravity cone is...). The only places we cannot see in the universe are not due to light attenuation but due to space and matter at that time and place being *opaque* to all light, as a literal wall.

We can even infer how long the light has been traveling from the shift, and we use this (ok, a similar) principle commonly with laser ring gyroscopes, which are what keep a plane from losing track of its orientation. We literally can time how long the laser takes to travel the ring.