A revolution in thought - Page 593

thedoc · #**14801** 03-03-2012, 06:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As you yourself have noted many times, Lessans New World doesn't have a chance without scientific verification.

Here is where I need to disagree, IF (and that's a really big IF) these were imutable and undeniable laws of human nature they would not need our agreement or understanding to work. They would be in effect and the world would move in that direction. That we must understand them and accept them for these laws to work means that they are just conventions of society that are agreed to for the common good and can be abandon at any time, nothing even close to what Lessans is proposing.

peacegirl · #**14802** 03-03-2012, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That is brand new,cutting edge science being done there in Berkley, of course they haven't proven anything yet. Exciting stuff in its infancy and I look forward to seeing it progress. That's new discovery, that's revolutionary.

I am not discrediting any experimentation, but this is not proof that normal vision occurs through this decoding process. There obviously is an association between what we see and the visual cortex, but how the brain works is far from conclusive.

peacegirl · #**14803** 03-03-2012, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yep I am biased. I am totally biased for evidence and experiment and useful, repeatable methodology and biased against unsupported claims and assertions, especially those claims of special knowledge unknowable by or unobservable to others.

LadyShea, you are biased in favor of neuroscience because empirical experimentation is the only methodology that you would consider as being valid; according to you astute observation and sound reasoning are not to be taken seriously at all, under any circumstance. If it was up to you, this new world would never have a chance. Thank goodness, it isn't up to you.

It is up to people like me though, isn't it? Scientists are much like me, biased in much the same way in that they consider evidence and experiment the best way to find knowledge. As you yourself have noted many times, Lessans New World doesn't have a chance without scientific verification.

Science doesn't settle for assertions either. Science doesn't take unsupported claims seriously at all.

Well guess what? It may take the woo's of the world (you know, the less scientific types like Deepak Chopra, Wayne Dyer, Marianne Williamson, Eckhart Tolle, etc.) to get this knowledge off the ground. Wouldn't that be an interesting turn of events.

thedoc · #**14804** 03-03-2012, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well guess what? It may take the woo's of the world to get this knowledge off the ground. Wouldn't that be an interesting turn of events.

Do you have even the slightest idea why they are called 'Woo's'?

peacegirl · #**14805** 03-03-2012, 06:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're still missing the point that if the object is seen or photographed, the light is already present at the film/retina.

You're still missing the point (or probably not, since you are a serial liar) that what you claim here is empirically false. Therefore your entire inane, incoherent and brain-damaged apologetic for your crackpot father's daydreams is superfluous and a waste of time.

As of this moment, there is no empirical proof that Lessans is wrong. It is all theoretical.

Laugh Out Loud at this dishonest little asshole.

Viewing the moons of Jupiter through a telescope, and verifying that they are seen in delayed time, is the very fucking definition of empirical, you little idiot. Calculating how to send spacecraft to Mars based on delayed-time seeing is the very definition of empirical. The flash-flickering lanterns experiment is the very definition of empirical.

Understand, stupid? :derp:

No, of course not, in addition to having a canyon between your ears, you are without an honest atom in your body. :lol:

Actually Peacegirl even copied her own post wrong, it was supposed to read,
'there is no empherical evidence, that I will acknowledge, that proves Lessans to be wrong.'
It's all a matter of selective preception, or willfull ignorance.

Of course, we have tons of empirical proof -- yes, proof, not just evidence; there ARE proofs in science; it is proven that the earth is not flat, it is proven that Mars is the fourth planet from the sun, and it is proven that we see in delayed time as measured by the speed of light. Given the proofs that we see in delayed time as measured by the speed of light, which are all emphatically empirical, all she can say is, it is all theoretical! :lol:

She really is a dishonest shit, and deserves to be shunned.

I know there are proofs in science, but seeing an image from the past is not one of them, even though light travels at a finite speed. I am not debating the flash flickering lanterns experiment either, so why are you bringing this up as if this necessarily correlates with DELAYED SIGHT? And why does an object, in every single instance that can be empirically observed, have to be in range in order to see it David?

I wonder whether your predominant trait is stupidity or dishonesty, or whether perhaps you possess them in equal (and abundant!) measure.

Not debating fast-flickering lanterns, are we? Fast-flickering lanterns, you weasel, necessarily correlates with delayed sight, because if we saw in real time the fucking experiment would not work, as any first-grader could easily understand. So is that you're dumb, or is it that you're dishonest?

Why wouldn't it work? I never said light doesn't travel or that we don't see it when it strikes an object.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Do you have any clue how fast light travels? You don't, do you? It travels so fast that if it could be made to curve around the earth after being emitted from a source, it would circumnavigate the earth roughly seven times in one fucking second. As has been repeatedly explained to your dishonest ass, this is why its seems as if there is no delayed time seeing for objects on earth: because the light travels so fast it seems instantaneous. Yet we CAN demonstrate its finitude with fast-flickering lanters, AND at the same time we demonstrate that we see light and see it in delayed time, because the experiment would simply fail to produce the results that it produces if Lessans were right and we saw in real time!

:derp:

Oh, and peacegirl? Why do we see the moons of Jupiter in delayed time, and why does NASA use delayed-time seeing calculations to send spacecraft to Mars and other bodies? :derp:

Then why are you skirting the issue when I ask the question: Why are we able to see a person when they enter our visual range? According to you, the light reflected off of this person would be traveling so fast it would pass right over us. And why do we not see a person -- who is made up of substance --- when he steps out of our visual range, where the reflected light, according to optics, would be easier to resolve? You conveniently avoid my questions yet you expect me to answer yours? :chin:

davidm · #**14806** 03-03-2012, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why wouldn't it work? I never said light doesn't travel or that we don't see it when it strikes an object.

This has already been explained to you in detail hundreds of pages ago. Go fucking look it up. Anyone else can grasp the answer easily, without having to study it hardly at all.

Quote:

Then why are you skirting the issue when I ask you why are we able to see a person when they enter our visual range? According to you, the light reflected off of this person would be traveling so fast it would pass right over us. And why do we not see a person -- who is made up of substance --- when he steps out of our visual range? You conveniently avoid my questions yet you expect me to answer yours? :chin:

And people have gone over this with you hundreds of times also. Again, is it stupidity, or dishonesty, or both?

According to me, the light reflected off of this person would be traveling so fast it would pass right over us. Is that what I said, imbecile? And yet I explained this to you also, but it goes in and out your ears through that big empty space between them, right?

As kindergartner can easily be shown, it does not matter how fast light travels. All that matters is that some photons intersect with your eyes. If the photons intersect with your eyes, you will see the photons, regardless of how fast they are traveling, and that is what happens. This is really hard for you to grasp? :derp:

As for your "visual range" idiocy, people have repeatedly explained this to you as well, and here you are, a blank slate, unable to recall or deal honestly with a single thing that your intellectual and moral superiors have patiently tried to teach you. See "Hubble Telescope," for one.

Oh, and fuck off.

peacegirl · #**14807** 03-03-2012, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why wouldn't it work? I never said light doesn't travel or that we don't see it when it strikes an object.

This has already been explained to you in detail hundreds of pages ago. Go fucking look it up. Anyone else can grasp the answer easily, without having to study it hardly at all.

Quote:

Then why are you skirting the issue when I ask you why are we able to see a person when they enter our visual range? According to you, the light reflected off of this person would be traveling so fast it would pass right over us. And why do we not see a person -- who is made up of substance --- when he steps out of our visual range? You conveniently avoid my questions yet you expect me to answer yours? :chin:

And people have gone over this with you hundreds of times also. Again, is it stupidity, or dishonesty, or both?

According to me, the light reflected off of this person would be traveling so fast it would pass right over us. Is that what I said, imbecile? And yet I explained this to you also, but it goes in and out your ears through that big empty space between them, right?

As kindergartner can easily be shown, it does not matter how fast light travels. All that matters is that some photons intersect with your eyes. If the photons intersect with your eyes, you will see the photons, regardless of how fast they are traveling, and that is what happens. This is really hard for you to grasp? :derp:

THEN WHY DON'T WE SEE THE PERSON WHEN HE IS SLIGHTLY OUT OF RANGE, IF THE LIGHT IS ALL THAT IS NECESSARY FOR SIGHT?

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

As for your "visual range" idiocy, people have repeatedly explained this to you as well, and here you are, a blank slate, unable to recall or deal honestly with a single thing that your intellectual and moral superiors have patiently tried to teach you. See "Hubble Telescope," for one.

Oh, and fuck off.

Your entire response is a non-answer. And for your information, this is my thread, so why don't you fuck off? :whup:

thedoc · #**14808** 03-03-2012, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Do you have any clue how fast light travels? You don't, do you? It travels so fast that if it could be made to curve around the earth after being emitted from a source, it would circumnavigate the earth roughly seven times in one fucking second. As has been repeatedly explained to your dishonest ass, this is why its seems as if there is no delayed time seeing for objects on earth: because the light travels so fast it seems instantaneous. Yet we CAN demonstrate its finitude with fast-flickering lanters, AND at the same time we demonstrate that we see light and see it in delayed time, because the experiment would simply fail to produce the results that it produces if Lessans were right and we saw in real time!

Then why are you skirting the issue when I ask the question: Why are we able to see a person when they enter our visual range? According to you, the light reflected off of this person would be traveling so fast it would pass right over us. And why do we not see a person -- who is made up of substance --- when he steps out of our visual range, where the reflected light, according to optics, would be easier to resolve? You conveniently avoid my questions yet you expect me to answer yours? :chin:

No-one could possibly be able to use a computer and still be this thick, it just is not possible. This has to be intentional misdirection and obstruction, trying to divert the thread into more nonsensical drivel. (Damn, was that another example of redundancy?)

davidm · #**14809** 03-03-2012, 06:48 PM

This is not YOUR THREAD, asshole, you own nothing here. So fuck off.

As to the rest, all of this has already been repeatedly explained to you. Do you know how the "search engine" functions, or is that also beyond your capacity, like mastering quote tags? If you want your idiocy dispelled (visual rang , LOL! How many times did Lady Shea alone, and Vivisectus, explain this to you?) then just reread the goddamned thread!

Peacegirl either does not understand, or as I suspect, deliberately chooses to ignore, the fact that ALL demonstrations of finite light speed entail delayed time seeing, for it is the very DELAY in seeing that allows us to measure the speed of light! Surely she is not so brain-dead as to not grasp this elementary point? So I agree with Doc: She is just dishonest, and it is this dishonesty that makes her so contemptible.

thedoc · #**14810** 03-03-2012, 06:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And for your information, this is my thread, so why don't you fuck off?

Hmm, more hostility, and you do not own the thread you only started it and that does not confer any rights of ownership, moderation or control once started. Now you are just another user, and probably contributing the least of all.

And based on the content of your posts, Davidm has a right to be hostile. You, on the other hand, do not. Other users here have been unsually patient and considerate, given the nature of your posts. Davidm and a few others have been justifiably hostile, and I will admit to having been occasionally unkind.

(quote Henry)

davidm · #**14811** 03-03-2012, 07:13 PM

The bottom line is this: peacegirl pretends not to understand that ALL measurements of the speed of light DEPEND ON DELAYED TIME SEEING. That is HOW the speed is measured! Anyone can easily grasp this, especially after all the detailed explanations. So she is just lying her ass off.

thedoc · #**14812** 03-03-2012, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

The bottom line is this: peacegirl pretends not to understand that ALL measurements of the speed of light DEPEND ON DELAYED TIME SEEING. That is HOW the speed is measured! Anyone can easily grasp this, especially after all the detailed explanations. So she is just lying her ass off.

Did you ever watch 'The Enemy Below' with Robert Mitchum and Curt Jurgens? I think it's a really good war movie of these 2 captains matching wits in the south Atlantic. The main difference is that they were honest to themselves and each other unlike Peacegirl who is useing her wits to lie and decieve. As you say quite contemptible.

davidm · #**14813** 03-03-2012, 07:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

The bottom line is this: peacegirl pretends not to understand that ALL measurements of the speed of light DEPEND ON DELAYED TIME SEEING. That is HOW the speed is measured! Anyone can easily grasp this, especially after all the detailed explanations. So she is just lying her ass off.

Did you ever watch 'The Enemy Below' with Robert Mitchum and Curt Jurgens? I think it's a really good war movie of these 2 captains matching wits in the south Atlantic. The main difference is that they were honest to themselves and each other unlike Peacegirl who is useing her wits to lie and decieve. As you say quite contemptible.

OTOH, her wits are pretty minimal, so her lies are transparent.

Spacemonkey · #**14814** 03-03-2012, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are your present answers those I just stated or not?

6th bump.

This entire issue comes down to whether the light is allowing us to see the object, or whether it is bringing the image to us through space and time, and being interpreted in the brain. The only way to prove that this is not what is going on is to test to see how the brain works, not how light works. This discussion is not going to be the definitive proof of anything Spacmonkey. Your rendition is completely theoretical, and it is based on a logical premise that makes it appear flawless, but if the premise is wrong, this whole theory falls apart.

Weasel, weasel, weasel! :weasel:

Is that an answer to what I asked, Peacegirl? Is it? No, it is not. You are still weaselling.

The evidence against you is not theoretical - it is empirical and it is conclusive. And both the afferent and your real-time account of vision agree that light allows you to see things, and both disagree that light brings images to us through space and time. You can't even explicate the point of contention. The discussion has already provided definitive proof that your account is incoherent and therefore impossible. You can't answer my questions without contradiction and constant flip-flopping between alternate and equally contradictory positions. Nor is my account based upon any 'logical premise' which you are in any position to identify or reject. Tell me exactly what premise you are talking about and I'll show you how it is a conclusion rather than a premise, and something that follows from your own answers rather than any afferent assumptions.

Stop weaselling and answer my questions.

:weasel:

Spacemonkey · #**14815** 03-03-2012, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The truth is that even though the blue wavelength light (or image) is believed to be bouncing off of the object, it is not. Why did I accept Spacemonkey's distinction between (P) reflection and (N) reflection if not to show that (P) reflection is not bouncing. It is revealing.

There's another flip-flop! So then WHERE ARE the blue photons from the light hitting the object just after they hit it? You agreed that they were bouncing off and traveling away from the object because you didn't want them to be teleporting. You said:

"The blue light is traveling from the ball until the light fades due to the inverse square law. These blue photons, therefore, are not teleporting from one point to another."

If the blue wavelength light (which is not synonymous with 'image') is not bouncing off the object, and yet does not cease to exist, is not absorbed, does not stay at the surface of the object, and does not teleport instantly to any distant location, then WHERE IS IT immediately after hitting the object when it gets '(P)reflected'?

There are no remaining alternatives.

Spacemonkey · #**14816** 03-03-2012, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then why are you skirting the issue when I ask the question: Why are we able to see a person when they enter our visual range? According to you, the light reflected off of this person would be traveling so fast it would pass right over us. And why do we not see a person -- who is made up of substance --- when he steps out of our visual range, where the reflected light, according to optics, would be easier to resolve? You conveniently avoid my questions yet you expect me to answer yours? :chin:

Do you not remember asking this question a thousand times already? Do you not remember having it answered for you a thousand times already? Why do you not learn? From only a month ago:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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? You won't answer me because you can't, therefore you keep going back to outer space, as if this proves Lessans wrong. It's a total joke.

The problem isn't that this hasn't been answered for you, but that you keep ignoring the answers you've been given until the topic changes and you forget about the answer, only to then mentally reset to the same deluded belief that it can't be answered. This is strong evidence of a broken mind. Do you know how many times you've ignored my answer to this very question? I do:

Previous thread:
Post #13696
Post #13733
Post #13833
Post #13921
Post #13957
Post #14005
Post #14029

This thread:
Post #5111
Post #6179

Only a mentally ill person or a dishonest liar could deliberately ignore an answer this many times only to keep claiming no-one has answered it. The only things you've ignored more than my answers are my questions.

(Plus no-one has EVER told you that "the light reflected off of this person would be traveling so fast it would pass right over us". You just made that up. Again.)

Spacemonkey · #**14817** 03-03-2012, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Absolutely wrong. The distance is nil when one is focused on the object. The corresponding light that is captured by the lens is not the light that has traveled to arrive at the film because of how the eyes work, not how light works. Until you understand how completely different efferent vision is from afferent, you will never grasp why this is not teleportation, and yet we are getting the photons as a mirror image on film or retina.

No, the distance is not nil. There is a very real and actual non-zero distance between the object and the camera. They are not in the same place. They are not in contact. Focus cannot change this real actual distance between them. And the bold sentence directly contradicts your previous answer where in response to a question about the light at the film YOU said: "I answered you. They were traveling to the film right before the photograph was taken." Didn't you just claim to have never changed your position? Not quite true that, was it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you're missing half of this equation.

You're completely ignoring the problem.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you why. Light does not travel with the image, so red would not come before blue in the efferent model. As the eyes focus on the object, the corresponding light must be blue. Distance has nothing to do with it.

The problem I presented does not involve any image traveling with the light. Nor does it involve any eyes. Yet the distance has everything to do with it. Try again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said that I might have attributed my words to you, but that was an easy mistake to make. I didn't answer to my name, I just put the wrong name next to the wrong quote. So what? Even if they were my words that I typed, and then accidentally put your name next to it, this could easily occur when I'm answering so many questions and so many posts. Why are you belaboring this to such an extent? Do you think that this error makes me incapable of understanding what it is I'm explaining? There has to be a reason why you are doing this.

The point isn't just that you misattributed your own words to me. It's that you then proceeded to argue against those words which you yourself had just typed during that very same reply. (I will drop this as soon as you acknowledge what you did.)

Bump.

2nd bump.

3rd bump.

4th bump.

Spacemonkey · #**14818** 03-03-2012, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Stop weaselling, and address the problem:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, you've said that countless times. Unfortunately it is still wrong, even on your own efferent model. You've said that when the photograph is taken, there is sunlight hitting the ball, blue photons from that light are bouncing off and beginning to travel towards the camera, and other different blue photons are already at the camera film which were previously traveling towards it.

You've said that no light ever instantly teleports anywhere. That is why the light at the film is a different set of photons from those that have just bounced off the surface of the ball when the photograph is taken. That also means the photons already at the film were previously traveling to get there and took time to arrive.

Is there any part of this which you disagree with?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Given this, I can construct the same problem using either set of photons. First, take those blue photons already at the film. They did not teleport there but instead travelled there at a finite speed across the non-zero distance between the ball and the camera. That means they left the surface of the ball before the photograph was taken. If the ball was then red rather than blue (changing from red to blue while this light was traveling) then either the red ball reflected (i.e. bounced-off) these photons as blue photons (which is impossible, for a red ball would have absorbed them and bounced-off only red photons), or these particular photons (which are blue when they get to the film) were initially red and changed color during their journey.

What is your solution to this problem?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The same problem can be stated for the other different set of blue photons which have only just bounced off the ball's surface to begin traveling when the photograph is taken. Because they are traveling at a finite speed across the non-zero distance between the ball and the camera, they will only arrive at the film at a later time. Suppose a second photograph is taken at this later time when they arrive at the film. Suppose also that the ball has changed color during this time and is now red. Do we get a blue photo of the now-red ball? Or do these blue photons interact with the film to produce a red image? Or have these initially blue photons changed color while traveling to become red photons matching the real-time color of the ball?

What is your solution to this problem?

Bump.

2nd bump.

3rd bump.

4th bump.

5th bump.

Spacemonkey · #**14819** 03-03-2012, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm also going to return to my earlier two sets of questions...

Quote:

FIRST SET

When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is travelling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Does it bounce off the surface to travel away from it? [Y/N?]

Is it absorbed by the blue object? [Y/N?]

Does it cease to exist? [Y/N?]

Does it stay there, at the surface of the blue object? [Y/N?]

Does it teleport itself instantly to any nearby films or retinas? [Y/N?]

If none of the above, then what? [Insert answer here]

Your present answer to this appears to be that these blue-wavelength photons hitting the blue object do indeed bounce off the surface and travel away from it. Is that correct?

Quote:

SECOND SET

1. Did the specific photons (at the camera when the photograph is taken) exist immediately before the photograph was taken? [Yes or No]

2. If so, then according to efferent vision where were those specific photons at the moment in time immediately preceding the taking of the photograph? [State a location]

Your present answers here would seem to be that these photons did indeed exist before the photograph was taken and were then traveling between the ball and the camera. Is that correct?

Bump.

2nd bump.

3rd bump.

Are your present answers those I just stated or not?

4th bump.

5th bump.

Are your present answers those I just stated or not?

:weasel:

6th bump.

7th bump.

peacegirl · #**14820** 03-03-2012, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are your present answers those I just stated or not?

6th bump.

This entire issue comes down to whether the light is allowing us to see the object, or whether it is bringing the image to us through space and time, and being interpreted in the brain. The only way to prove that this is not what is going on is to test to see how the brain works, not how light works. This discussion is not going to be the definitive proof of anything Spacmonkey. Your rendition is completely theoretical, and it is based on a logical premise that makes it appear flawless, but if the premise is wrong, this whole theory falls apart.

Weasel, weasel, weasel! :weasel:

Is that an answer to what I asked, Peacegirl? Is it? No, it is not. You are still weaselling.

The evidence against you is not theoretical - it is empirical and it is conclusive.

No it is not. If it was, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And both the afferent and your real-time account of vision agree that light allows you to see things, and both disagree that light brings images to us through space and time.

Really?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You can't even explicate the point of contention. The discussion has already provided definitive proof that your account is incoherent and therefore impossible.

My effort to create a plausible model might be, but that still doesn't mean efferent vision is therefore impossible.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You can't answer my questions without contradiction and constant flip-flopping between alternate and equally contradictory positions. Nor is my account based upon any 'logical premise' which you are in any position to identify or reject. Tell me exactly what premise you are talking about and I'll show you how it is a conclusion rather than a premise, and something that follows from your own answers rather than any afferent assumptions.

For some reason you can't seem to grasp that when an object absorbs certain light, the remaining light, although in constant movement, does not change color in midstream. The object would have have a different make-up for that to happen.

peacegirl · #**14821** 03-03-2012, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm also going to return to my earlier two sets of questions...

Quote:

FIRST SET

When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is travelling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Does it bounce off the surface to travel away from it? [Y/N?]

Is it absorbed by the blue object? [Y/N?]

Does it cease to exist? [Y/N?]

Does it stay there, at the surface of the blue object? [Y/N?]

Does it teleport itself instantly to any nearby films or retinas? [Y/N?]

If none of the above, then what? [Insert answer here]

Your present answer to this appears to be that these blue-wavelength photons hitting the blue object do indeed bounce off the surface and travel away from it. Is that correct?

Quote:

SECOND SET

1. Did the specific photons (at the camera when the photograph is taken) exist immediately before the photograph was taken? [Yes or No]

2. If so, then according to efferent vision where were those specific photons at the moment in time immediately preceding the taking of the photograph? [State a location]

Your present answers here would seem to be that these photons did indeed exist before the photograph was taken and were then traveling between the ball and the camera. Is that correct?

Bump.

2nd bump.

3rd bump.

Are your present answers those I just stated or not?

4th bump.

5th bump.

Are your present answers those I just stated or not?

:weasel:

6th bump.

7th bump.

I'm not answer your dumb questions anymore regarding where the photons are when they leave the object.

LadyShea · #**14822** 03-03-2012, 08:24 PM

Unless the woos suddenly start producing verifiable data rather than unsupported claims and assertions, science will continue to disregard their blatherings. So how would they (Deepak Chopra and them) get anything off the ground that, according to you, requires scientific verification?

peacegirl · #**14823** 03-03-2012, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

This is not YOUR THREAD, asshole, you own nothing here. So fuck off.

Without my input, there is no thread.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

As to the rest, all of this has already been repeatedly explained to you. Do you know how the "search engine" functions, or is that also beyond your capacity, like mastering quote tags? If you want your idiocy dispelled (visual rang , LOL! How many times did Lady Shea alone, and Vivisectus, explain this to you?) then just reread the goddamned thread!

This thread does not show my idiocy; it shows how difficult it is to be treated with respect just because certain people don't like the claims. Thank goodness not everyone is as closed-minded as you are.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Peacegirl either does not understand, or as I suspect, deliberately chooses to ignore, the fact that ALL demonstrations of finite light speed entail delayed time seeing, for it is the very DELAY in seeing that allows us to measure the speed of light! Surely she is not so brain-dead as to not grasp this elementary point? So I agree with Doc: She is just dishonest, and it is this dishonesty that makes her so contemptible.

Yes, we see a delay in light, but that's not the same thing as seeing an image of a past event in the delay. And if you keep up your characteristic name calling, you'll be on ignore by day's end.

davidm · #**14824** 03-03-2012, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not answer your dumb questions anymore regarding where the photons are when they leave the object.

LOL. You mean to say you CAN'T answer them.

thedoc · #**14825** 03-03-2012, 08:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The evidence against you is not theoretical - it is empirical and it is conclusive.

No it is not. If it was, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

L.O.L. this conversation on this forum is not the determining factor of whether these concepts are true or not. Science has provided all the evidence and data to prove afferent vision. This conversation is only relevant to a few knowledgable posters and one deluded WOO pedler who lies at every turn.