|
|
07-18-2014, 05:02 PM
|
|
Spiffiest wanger
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Last time, because you don't understand the difference between traveling photons that reach Earth, and the efferent position which does not require photons to reach Earth. You are so behind the eight ball, it's upsetting to me as you won't even accept the possibility that it's your problem that you don't get it, not mine.
|
There's no "it" to "get." To say that photons can be at the eye instantly while taking eight minutes to reach the earth, where the eye is located, is the ranting and raving of a lunatic. Even your father wasn't that crazy -- unlike you, he did NOT say that the light was at the eye, only at the sun. That's wrong too, but your position is even worse. You are just desperately making shit up because you know what you write is garbage. I notice, too, that like the weasel you are, you are ignoring your latest idiotic contradiction -- simultaneously claiming "uncalculable" numbers of photons hit the earth each second while also maintaining that none do, because the photons from the sun are too dispersed on the inverse square law.
You are out of your mind.
|
07-18-2014, 06:12 PM
|
|
Phallic Philanthropist
|
|
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mobile
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Last time, because you don't understand the difference between traveling photons that reach Earth, and the efferent position which does not require photons to reach Earth. You are so behind the eight ball, it's upsetting to me as you won't even accept the possibility that it's your problem that you don't get it, not mine.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Artemis, light has to be striking the eye. This is not magic.
|
Light has to be striking the eye, but it isn't required to reach the eye.
__________________
Why am I naked and sticky?... Did I miss something fun?
|
07-18-2014, 06:47 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There are no inconsistencies Spacemonkey...
|
Sure there are. Here's one:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Did they get to the film by traveling? NO...
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I never said they didn't travel Spacemonkey.
|
That's an inconsistency.
|
No, it's not an inconsistency except in your imagination. I told you that light does not have to get to the film. It's already at the film as you point the lens at the object (matter).
|
07-18-2014, 06:49 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.
Are they traveling photons? YES
Did they come from the Sun? YES
Did they get to the film by traveling? NO, the light was at the film the instant the lens focused on the object.
Did they travel at the speed of light? YES, photons travel at the speed of light.
|
.
|
Um, how does that make any sense? How did these traveling photons which travel at the speed of light get from the Sun to the film on Earth without traveling???
How did they get from the Sun to the camera film?
When were these photons at the Sun?
|
Bump.
Please explain how these traveling photons got somewhere without traveling.
|
Oh my gosh, how many times am I going to have to repeat this? Why do you say photons got somewhere without traveling? They did travel; they just didn't travel to Earth so we can't see anything on Earth. This is getting to be a very boring thread.
|
07-18-2014, 06:53 PM
|
|
Spiffiest wanger
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There are no inconsistencies Spacemonkey...
|
Sure there are. Here's one:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Did they get to the film by traveling? NO...
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I never said they didn't travel Spacemonkey.
|
That's an inconsistency.
|
No, it's not an inconsistency except in your imagination. I told you that light does not have to get to the film. It's already at the film as you point the lens at the object (matter).
|
It's already at the film, you say, even though it takes eight minutes to get to earth, where the film is located.
You are indeed a bore. Go away, peacegirl. Try out this forum. You haven't tried it yet.
|
07-18-2014, 07:46 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I've already been through this. Light can be resolved on a telescope, but not an image that comes from matter. In other words, if the Sun was just turned on, light would be resolved on our eyes 81/2 minutes later, but it would be full spectrum light; nothing that could be used to decode an image.
|
So it kinda seems like what you're saying here is; for 8.5 minutes after the sun is turned on we will see the sun as an object and after 8.5 minutes, when light strikes the eye we will just see light. Right now (assuming you're in a place on earth were the sun is shining) if you look up at the sun you can't see an object, you'll only see an intense light source. You must use filters to look at the sun and see anything substantial.
However, this continues to contradict what you've said about light being at the eye in order to see.
This is the big hole I was referring to earlier; By what mechanism is the light instantly at the eye?
If I look up into the sky on a sunny day the light from the sun might seem like it is "instantly on my eye." But this is only from the perspective of my eye, from the light's perspective it is ending a 8.5 minute long journey from the sun to my eye. It would have to make that same journey whether the sun was just turned on.
To say that the eye could see the sun turned on instantly at noon is to say that the eye can see without light striking the eye. Which really does sound like what Lessans was saying. It seems like he thought that the only conditions for light were; light at the object, the object is big enough to be seen, and the observer is looking in the object's direction... the same things you keep saying, but then you add in "the light is instantly at the eye."
|
It is instantly at the eye because of the mirror image it forms on the eye, which does not take 81/2 minutes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri
The first part violates what we know about the eyes; that they function by means of photoreceptors which absorb light.
Your additional condition "the light is instantly on the eye" violates the laws of physics by having light move from an object to the eye instantly. It doesn't matter if this instant movement is across 93 million miles or 93 feet, it is still a violation of the properties of light. in fact it doesn't even make light travel faster than the speed of light... in case you haven't noticed the light would have to be in two places at once!
|
Artemis, this ability to see in real time has nothing to do with traveling faster than the speed of light.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri
In order for vision to truly be instant then the light from the object would have to be at the eye at the same instant in time.
|
I think the statement about seeing the Sun instantly has confused people. Let's suppose we didn't see the Sun the instant it was turned on. Let's suppose it took a nanosecond for light to reach the other side of the box where I'm standing. You have to envision this closed system which is the the Sun, the viewer, and the light, or you won't understand what I'm talking about. Now that the light has traveled to the other side of this so-called box (my visual landscape), when I look OUT in the direction of the Sun, the light will be at my eye instantly because the light has already traveled to the other side of the enclosure which has nothing to do with the actual distance from the object to the viewer. Furthermore, all that is necessary is for light to be at the object. This doesn't mean light doesn't have to be at the eye for us to see. The mechanism as to how this occurs isn't easy to grasp since people have not fully understood efferent vision. They are still thinking in terms of light traveling over long distances. In the meantime, this same light is still traveling to Earth but it will be full spectrum light 81/2 minutes later. When it strikes an object, the nonabsorbed photons will, once again, be at the eye which appears instantaneous because light is traveling so fast.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri
Now if you really want to try to find some validation for that idea you will have to crawl down the quantum mechanics bunny hole but I really think it might melt your brain.
|
I don't think I have to go into that rabbit hole to prove that the change in vision alters what we see and also the function of light which is to reveal the world through its properties. I don't think there is anything more I can say that will convince you that this model is more than plausible.
Last edited by peacegirl; 07-18-2014 at 08:06 PM.
|
07-18-2014, 08:02 PM
|
|
Jin, Gi, Rei, Ko, Chi, Shin, Tei
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I don't think there is anything more I can say that will convince you that this model is more than plausible.
|
How about ... I dunno ... some evidence?
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.” -- Socrates
|
07-18-2014, 08:08 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There are no inconsistencies Spacemonkey...
|
Sure there are. Here's one:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Did they get to the film by traveling? NO...
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I never said they didn't travel Spacemonkey.
|
That's an inconsistency.
|
No, it's not an inconsistency except in your imagination. I told you that light does not have to get to the film. It's already at the film as you point the lens at the object (matter).
|
It's already at the film, you say, even though it takes eight minutes to get to earth, where the film is located.
You are indeed a bore. Go away, peacegirl. Try out this forum. You haven't tried it yet.
|
Is it moderated?
|
07-18-2014, 09:08 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Last time, because you don't understand the difference between traveling photons that reach Earth, and the efferent position which does not require photons to reach Earth. You are so behind the eight ball, it's upsetting to me as you won't even accept the possibility that it's your problem that you don't get it, not mine.
|
There's no "it" to "get." To say that photons can be at the eye instantly while taking eight minutes to reach the earth, where the eye is located, is the ranting and raving of a lunatic. Even your father wasn't that crazy -- unlike you, he did NOT say that the light was at the eye, only at the sun.
|
You just don't understand this model, so instead of thinking it through more carefully, you are taking your lack of understanding out on me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
That's wrong too, but your position is even worse. You are just desperately making shit up because you know what you write is garbage. I notice, too, that like the weasel you are, you are ignoring your latest idiotic contradiction -- simultaneously claiming "uncalculable" numbers of photons hit the earth each second while also maintaining that none do, because the photons from the sun are too dispersed on the inverse square law.
You are out of your mind.
|
David, photons do hit earth each second. So what? I never said they didn't, so what are you even talking about? We were only using the hypothetical example of the Sun being turned on at noon. Once the light gets here, it is always here but the photons ARE full spectrum light. You are the last person that would understand this model.
Last edited by peacegirl; 07-19-2014 at 02:05 AM.
|
07-18-2014, 09:12 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I don't think there is anything more I can say that will convince you that this model is more than plausible.
|
How about ... I dunno ... some evidence?
|
I'm just trying to get you to understand the plausibility of this model. Forget the evidence right now, I can't even get past first base. Obviously, it has to be proved that the brain is not decoding images from light; that it is looking through the eyes, as a window. Then science can actually make progress in regard to this mistaken belief.
|
07-18-2014, 10:21 PM
|
|
Jin, Gi, Rei, Ko, Chi, Shin, Tei
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Forget the evidence right now
|
We can't "forget" what has never been presented.
In any event, that's not how science -- or basic logic -- works. First you must provide some evidence if you want your extraordinary claims to be taken seriously. And the more extraordinary the claim, the stronger the evidence must be.
You're expecting people to accept your claims on pure faith.
It is absolutely, positively not the job of the listener to provide evidence for a claim. It is the job of the person making the claim. And no claimant has any business expecting listeners to take his or her claims seriously if they cannot/will not provide evidence for those claims.
The lesson of history is that the vast majority of extraordinary claims turn out to be false. Therefore, no one has either the obligation or the time to seriously consider every extraordinary and unsupported claim. Especially when the claim, if true, would violate well-established principles and theories.
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.” -- Socrates
Last edited by The Lone Ranger; 07-18-2014 at 10:31 PM.
|
07-18-2014, 10:54 PM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There are no inconsistencies Spacemonkey...
|
Sure there are. Here's one:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Did they get to the film by traveling? NO...
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I never said they didn't travel Spacemonkey.
|
That's an inconsistency.
|
No, it's not an inconsistency except in your imagination. I told you that light does not have to get to the film. It's already at the film as you point the lens at the object (matter).
|
Of course it's an inconsistency. If light from the Sun is now at the film on Earth, then that light somehow got to the film on Earth. The question was whether or not it achieved this by traveling. You said that it didn't, and then contradicted yourself by denying that you ever said so.
Here are the questions again, which you have yet to answer without immediately retracting what you have said:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.
Are they traveling photons?
Did they come from the Sun?
Did they get to the film by traveling?
Did they travel at the speed of light?
Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?
Can they arrive at the camera film less than 8min after leaving their source?
Will you answer these questions, or just weasel and ignore them?
Will you weasel by going off on an irrelevant tangent about information or reflection?
|
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
07-18-2014, 10:58 PM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Please explain how these traveling photons got somewhere without traveling.
|
Oh my gosh, how many times am I going to have to repeat this? Why do you say photons got somewhere without traveling? They did travel; they just didn't travel to Earth...
|
We are talking about photons from the Sun which are now at the film (on Earth). Where did they travel to, if not their present location?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
07-18-2014, 11:15 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
|
Is it moderated?
|
Is it moderated? All forums are moderated to some degree, some more than others, what rock have you been hiding under for the last 60+ years? You really need to get out into the real world a bit more, perhaps your children and grandchildren could help?
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
|
07-18-2014, 11:36 PM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Please explain how these traveling photons got somewhere without traveling.
|
Oh my gosh, how many times am I going to have to repeat this? Why do you say photons got somewhere without traveling? They did travel...
|
Okay, lets work on that. (Working backwards, remember?) Keep in mind that we are talking about photons from the Sun which are now at the camera film on Earth...
Where did they travel from?
Where did they travel to?
How long did it take?
When did they get to wherever they traveled to?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
07-18-2014, 11:41 PM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
|
MrFungus420 posts at TalkRat and was a regular with Peacegirl back at IIDB. I'm sure the two of them would love to be reunited.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
07-18-2014, 11:56 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
|
MrFungus420 posts at TalkRat and was a regular with Peacegirl back at IIDB. I'm sure the two of them would love to be reunited.
|
But only if he fed her Martyr complex.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
|
07-19-2014, 12:11 AM
|
|
Spiffiest wanger
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
|
Is it moderated?
|
Is it moderated? All forums are moderated to some degree, some more than others, what rock have you been hiding under for the last 60+ years? You really need to get out into the real world a bit more, perhaps your children and grandchildren could help?
|
It's only very lightly moderated; they won't lock your thread.
|
07-19-2014, 12:13 AM
|
|
Spiffiest wanger
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
If I were you I'd sign up and start a thread this very evening. You will meet a whole new exciting cast of characters, and who knows? Maybe you'll finally find those scientists who will take this stuff seriously!
|
07-19-2014, 12:52 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.
Are they traveling photons? YES
Did they come from the Sun? YES
Did they get to the film by traveling? NO, the light was at the film the instant the lens focused on the object.
Did they travel at the speed of light? YES, photons travel at the speed of light.
|
.
|
Um, how does that make any sense? How did these traveling photons which travel at the speed of light get from the Sun to the film on Earth without traveling???
How did they get from the Sun to the camera film?
When were these photons at the Sun?
|
Bump.
Please explain how these traveling photons got somewhere without traveling.
|
They ARE traveling Spacemonkey and when we look at the object we ARE in optical range. The only difference is that it doesn't take 81/2 minutes for us to be in optical range. By the time the light would have gotten to Earth the inverse square law would be operating and we would only be receiving white light until that light strikes an object. If you don't believe this model is even plausible, we can end in a truce.
|
07-19-2014, 12:58 AM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
They ARE traveling Spacemonkey...
|
We are talking about the photons from the Sun that are now at the camera film on Earth. Where did they travel from and where did they travel to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
If you don't believe this model is even plausible, we can end in a truce.
|
You refusing to answer my questions is not a truce.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
07-19-2014, 12:58 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
If I were you I'd sign up and start a thread this very evening. You will meet a whole new exciting cast of characters, and who knows? Maybe you'll finally find those scientists who will take this stuff seriously!
|
I really dislike the thought of starting again but I may just to find new people who may bring new life and interest to this discussion. But I will only go in one condition. If you promise that you won't follow me there.
|
07-19-2014, 12:59 AM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
If I were you I'd sign up and start a thread this very evening. You will meet a whole new exciting cast of characters, and who knows? Maybe you'll finally find those scientists who will take this stuff seriously!
|
I really dislike the thought of starting again but I may just to find new people who may bring new life and interest to this discussion. But I will only go in one condition. If you promise that you won't follow me there.
|
I will follow you there and I will ask you the exact same questions you are dishonestly evading now.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
07-19-2014, 01:01 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
They ARE traveling Spacemonkey...
|
We are talking about the photons from the Sun that are now at the camera film on Earth. Where did they travel from and where did they travel to?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
If you don't believe this model is even plausible, we can end in a truce.
|
You refusing to answer my questions is not a truce.
|
Spacemonkey, nothing in this model has changed the properties of light. That's why we cannot continue to discuss light when it's the way the eyes work that causes this change. I have answered your questions to the best of my ability. You may need some time to ruminate on this model before closing the door, but for me to be interrogated by you regarding the location of photons doesn't answer the question as to whether this change from afferent to efferent causes us to see in real time. This argument could go on for another 3 years, and I'm getting bored.
|
07-19-2014, 01:03 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
If I were you I'd sign up and start a thread this very evening. You will meet a whole new exciting cast of characters, and who knows? Maybe you'll finally find those scientists who will take this stuff seriously!
|
I really dislike the thought of starting again but I may just to find new people who may bring new life and interest to this discussion. But I will only go in one condition. If you promise that you won't follow me there.
|
I will follow you there and I will ask you the exact same questions you are dishonestly evading now.
|
So if you, David and thedoc take over the thread like you did in Project Reason, what good will it do? I won't get a word in edgewise.
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:49 PM.
|
|
|
|