A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no other way of expressing it, just like my father had no other way of explaining what he meant by the term efferent.

Your father had no other way to say it because he didn't understand what he was talking about.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's funny to me because the questions you are asking show me you are not thinking in terms of this model at all, which is why you will continue to tell me that this model can't work. That puts me in a tough position because you will never be satisfied since you are thinking in terms of travel time. Although light travels the image is only seen due to the object. Do you not understand that? Do you see why this creates an entirely different phenomenon? Until you do, we are stuck between a rock and a hard place.

Doesn't matter. This phenomenon works whether it's a lens of a camera or the lens of an eye.

You are wrong here. You don't have a clue LadyShea.

And we couldn't see without photons physically being at the eye. There's no difference, so why are you trying to make this distinction between cameras and eyes?

Give me a break.

Peacegirl, you need to explain how the photons can get to the eye or the camera without traveling there, and explain how efferent vision can negate the distance from the object to the eye or camera.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Your father had no other way to say it because he didn't understand what he was talking about.

That's it, you are back on ignore. How stupid can a person be? I happened to read your last post. You already blew it in less than 24 hours. Maybe in another month or two, if I'm here, I will reconsider giving you another chance.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Absolutely not! You are the one weaseling; you are trying to evade the entire reason for this discussion by calling light, light. Bull. Light brings with it certain frequencies and wavelengths, which then creates an image. I am saying that without the object present (in some form whether it's behind us or in front of us), there will be no frequency or wavelength that would create an image on film. So it is extremely necessary for the purposes of this discussion to distinguish between light that contains the full spectrum, or light that contains a partial spectrum. I can't believe how little you have understood.

So you are saying that somehow the object is connected to the light the eye or camera receives to form an image and without the object there is no image? and that once the object is removed any light still traveling from the object reverts to plane white light? Can you explain how this can happen?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's it, you are back on ignore.

But you can't ignore the truth, someday you will accept that and give up on your fathers ideas.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

According to Ms. Brilliant (ha) who, because she doesn't get it, claims it has to be wrong, is not seeing the proof accurately. You cannot compete with Lessans LadyShea, and one day you will know that you were mistaken. Neither can David or Spacemonkey see this correctly because they are entrenched with their worldview based on what "science" has established as fact. It is hard for people who are thought to be the cream of the crop to have to go down a peg. But that is what this is about; this is about saving face. This claim shakes scientists up because they are considered the last word. So now we can see why there is such upheaval; whether they want to admit it or not they are pissed BECAUSE THEY BELIEVE HE DIDN'T USE THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD. HOW DARE HIM!! The irony is that this claim doesn't even change the Deep Field of Hubble. So what is all the hoopla about? It's really sad because people are going to lose a truth that has been hidden for many centuries and is still believed today.

LOL, great big from the

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Ms. Brilliant (ha)

Custom user title material here, LadyShea, if you're in the mood for a change.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The irony is that this claim doesn't even change the Deep Field of Hubble.

LOL, of course it does! And LadyShea in particular has explained this to you in detail, and in a very simple and straightforward way. Any honest person, after these easy-to-grasp explanations of an irrefutable fact, would graciously concede that Lessans' claims are banana pants. But you are not an an honest person.

The same holds true for the special theory of relativity, the Fizeau wheel, the moons of Jupiter, how NASA calculates trajectories to Mars and other planets, bouncing lasers off the moon, GPS devices and on and on. All conclusively disprove Daddy's claims.

Finally, as also been explained to you, the fact that we see in delayed time is all that prevents the entire night sky from being white and the temperature on earth from being as hot as the surface of the sun, rendering life impossible. We see black stretches in the sky because most of the light in the expanding universe has not had time to reach our eyes. Light beyond the Hubble volume (the observable universe) will never reach our eyes.

All this has been repeatedly explained to you, both here and at iidb and other places, yet here you still be, presenting your platter of pigshit as if it were a garland of roses. You have wasted your life, sorry to say, but it appears you are also a classic victim of the sunk cost fallacy and thus beyond hope.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How stupid can a person be?

Good question. I think you should ask it while standing in front of a mirror (in which, of course, you are seeing the object and not the reflected light!)

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

LOL, of course it does! And LadyShea in particular has explained this to you in detail, and in a very simple and straightforward way. Any honest person, after these easy-to-grasp explanations of an irrefutable fact, would graciously concede that Lessans' claims are banana pants. But you are not an an honest person.

The same holds true for the special theory of relativity, the Fizeau wheel, the moons of Jupiter, how NASA calculates trajectories to Mars and other planets, bouncing lasers off the moon, GPS devices and on and on. All conclusively disprove Daddy's claims.

None of this changes how the eyes and brain work David. GPS systems, fiber optics, carry digital information using light or light energy. The Fizeau wheel measures the speed of light which I am not disputing, so how is it disproving my father's claim? Moons of Jupiter is another story.

Originally Posted by davidm

Finally, as also been explained to you, the fact that we see in delayed time is all that prevents the entire night sky from being white and the temperature on earth from being as hot as the surface of the sun, rendering life impossible.

Wrong. There is still large expanses of space between objects. The Sun (if you recall) takes up 75% of the entire Solar System so, although it's millions of miles away (which involves space in between), it could be within optical range of the naked eye without burning up the Earth.

Originally Posted by davidm

We see black stretches in the sky because most of the light in the expanding universe has not had time to reach our eyes. Light beyond the Hubble volume (the observable universe) will never reach our eyes.

Maybe the light won't reach us, but this isn't even what I'm contesting.

Originally Posted by davidm

All this has been repeatedly explained to you, both here and at iidb and other places, yet here you still be, presenting your platter of pigshit as if it were a garland of roses. You have wasted your life, sorry to say, but it appears you are also a classic victim of the sunk cost fallacy and thus beyond hope.

It IS a garland of roses. My life has not been wasted David. In fact, it has been a purposeful life and continues to be. Is yours? The sunk cost fallacy doesn't apply. I wouldn't have a hard time giving up things that no longer hold any value to me, even if I had put a lot of time and effort into them.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Good question. I think you should ask it while standing in front of a mirror (in which, of course, you are seeing the object and not the reflected light!)

You really know how to twist my words around. I am seeing the reflected light in the mirror, but I (the object reflecting that light) am present.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That is what happens when you click the wrong button, i.e. 'quote' instead of 'edit'. This results in two posts, as you can see by the fact that there are now two posts there. It is not what happened with post #36642, as you can see by the fact that there are not two posts there. So you lied by using the word 'duplicate' in post #36642, just as you have since lied attempting to cover it up by claiming that two posts were created. That never happened.

It happened exactly this way. I deleted the original post because I pushed the quote button thinking it was the edit button (it was in the same place that the edit button usually is), so it created another post. You just don't want to apologize. It's okay. I didn't expect it anyway.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You agree that the ears are a sense organ, correct, peacegirl? So what is the thing from the external world that impinges on our eardrums in hearing? What is the "object" from which the hearing experience derives (to use Lessans words)

The objects are varied LadyShea. Here is an example: As the baby hears her mother cooing at her, her brain begins to record the sound with a pleasant experience. What is causing you a problem?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It happened exactly this way. I deleted the original post because I pushed the quote button thinking it was the edit button (it was in the same place that the edit button usually is), so it created another post. You just don't want to apologize. It's okay. I didn't expect it anyway.

You are lying again. If a second post had been created then there would now be two posts. There are not two posts. Ergo, no second post was created. Plus YOU TOLD US what you'd done after doing it. So why do you keep lying about it? Why do you keep lying about things we can check on to see that you are not being honest?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Did the light at the film inside the camera travel?

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

You still haven't even touched this refutation of Lessans, which I have been continuously reposting for you for three weeks now.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Let's try this another way, Peacegirl. Let's start by assuming that the photons at the film/retina came from the Sun.

Assumption #1: The photons at the film/retina came from the Sun.

Now lets define traveling and teleporting. Traveling is getting from A to B by passing through all intervening points. Teleporting is getting from A to B without passing through all intervening points. Clearly these are jointly exhaustive - if you get from A to B you must do so either by passing through the intervening points or by not passing through them. So...

Conclusion #1: If the photons came from the Sun then they either traveled there or teleported there.

Now you insist that they neither traveled there nor teleported, so we can conclude via modus tollens (If A then B, not B, therefore not A) that these photons cannot have come from the Sun.

Assumption #2: The photons at the film/retina did not travel or teleport there.

Conclusion #2: The photons at the film/retina did not come from the Sun.

So now the million-dollar question: Where the fuck did these photons come from? We can note also that the exact same reasoning as above will still apply for any location other than the Sun - as long as the photons are getting from A to B, they have to either travel there or teleport there - so we can know that...

Conclusion #3: The photons at the film/retina did not get there from anywhere else.

That leaves two remaining possibilities: (i) These photons were always there, i.e. sitting stationary at the film/retina surface; or (ii) They did not previously exist, and instead came into existence at the film/retina. But of course neither of these are plausible either, as photons cannot be stationary, and they do not pop into existence in our eyes or on film. But unless you accept one of these options we are forced to conclude that...

Conclusion #4: Assumption #2 was bollocks.

Basically, what we have proven is that you have only four options for the photons at the film/retina:

(i) Traveling photons.
(ii) Teleporting photons.
(iii) Stationary photons.
(iv) Newly existing photons.

So which is it going to be? (Remember, weaseling and fake-conceding are not honest responses.)

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said that light doesn't travel. I said that photons do not travel with the image of the object (nonabsorbed photons) over long distances where there is a delay because, without the actual object, these nonabsorbed photons would not exist to bring any image to the sensor or eye.

No, peacegirl. You have still not provided an explanation, and you are missing the point being made here. Try again, and listen closely to the question:

In your account, what does a mirror do and how does it work? You can't explain it with light. Because reflecting light, in your account, does nothing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are lying again. If a second post had been created then there would now be two posts. There are not two posts. Ergo, no second post was created. Plus YOU TOLD US what you'd done after doing it. So why do you keep lying about it? Why do you keep lying about things we can check on to see that you are not being honest?

I can't believe you're still harping on this. Is it that you don't want to admit that you made a mistake? I don't remember what post it was because I took out the original and it was quite awhile ago. If I had kept the original, then I would show you there were two posts created.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

No, peacegirl. You have still not provided an explanation, and you are missing the point being made here. Try again, and listen closely to the question:

In your account, what does a mirror do and how does it work? You can't explain it with light. Because reflecting light, in your account, does nothing.

Somehow you got this whole thing wrong. I never said reflected light does nothing. I said the nonabsorbed photons do not travel ad infinitum across space/time because the light disperses, so what we get is white light. What allows us to see the object are the nonabsorbed photons. As the lens is aimed at the object, we focus the light which is instantly at the sensor (because no time is involved in this scenario, even though light is constantly traveling), so how can you tell me that I said light does nothing? Without light we wouldn't be able to see anything in the external world.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't believe you're still harping on this. Is it that you don't want to admit that you made a mistake? I don't remember what post it was because I took out the original and it was quite awhile ago. If I had kept the original, then I would show you there were two posts created.

Stop lying! You CANNOT delete entire posts. You can ONLY remove their content. So if a second post had been created then there would STILL BE two posts (one would have content while one would read only 'duplicate'). There are not two posts. There was never any second post. You are MAKING THIS UP. It isn't true. You are lying every time you say a second post was created.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Spacemonkey, you are confused because you still don't understand that when we're looking at the actual object (efferent vision), it changes what the requirements are. You are still going right back to the afferent account. You are thinking in terms of distance and time, as if the photons are the cause of producing an image. They are not. They are a condition ONLY.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Stop lying! You CANNOT delete entire posts. You can ONLY remove their content. So if a second post had been created then there would STILL BE two posts (one would have content while one would read only 'duplicate'). There are not two posts. There was never any second post. You are MAKING THIS UP. It isn't true. You are lying every time you say a second post was created.

Spacemonkey, why are you having a kanipshin? Why can't you just admit that you are wrong? It would do you good. I said all along that it still says "dupe", but since I erased the original, I can't identify which post was the newly created one.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, you are confused because you still don't understand that when the object is what we're looking at efferently, it changes what the requirements are. You are still going right back to the afferent account. You are thinking in terms of distance and time, as if the photons are the cause of producing an image. They are not. They are a condition ONLY.

That doesn't answer the question. You just weaseled again. Weaseling is not honest. It is also a lie to say I am going back to the afferent account. I am not. This was a simple Yes or No question about the light that YOU posited in YOUR model. Again:

Did the light at the film inside the camera travel? [Yes or No]

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, why are you having a kanipshin? Why can't you just admit that you are wrong?

You haven't shown me to be wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said all along that it still says "dupe", but since I erased the original, I can't identify which post was the newly created one.

Wait... was this your edited second post?