A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You were supposed to be explaining the behavior of light in real-time photography, which is required to show efferent vision to be even a coherent possibility. That you cannot do so shows that it is not a coherent possibility at all and that your claims are therefore not valid.

Your responses are constantly contradictory and incoherent, in conflict with the laws of physics and the known nature of light as well as with themselves and the accepted meanings of words, and you also flip-flop between positions which you have alternately both accepted and rejected. These are not the hallmarks of a soundly functioning mind, nevermind the hallmarks of a valid claim.

I already told you that it's difficult to grasp these concepts when the words that are used to describe what is happening have different meanings. The bottom line is Lessans stated that these patterns or images are not reflected which means they do not travel through space and time. You can't wrap your mind around the idea that when an objects are in the field of view regardless of how far away they actually are, the camera is able to take a snapshot of that scene in real time by virtue of the fact that the light is already at the film, or the object would not be seen through the lens. I refuse to talk about photons anymore. It's exhausting and it's getting us nowhere.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already told you that it's difficult to grasp these concepts when the words that are used to describe what is happening have different meanings. The bottom line is Lessans stated that these patterns or images are not reflected which means they do not travel through space and time. You can't wrap your mind around the idea that when an objects are in the field of view regardless of how far away they actually are, the camera is able to take a snapshot of that scene in real time by virtue of the fact that the light is already at the film, or the object would not be seen through the lens. I refuse to talk about photons anymore. It's exhausting and it's getting us nowhere.

If Lessans were right, then there would have to be some possible and coherent account of the behavior of photons in real-time photography. But there isn't, as you have discovered for yourself. His claims are therefore disproved, and efferent vision has been shown to not be even a coherent possibility. Behaving like a petulant child and refusing to discuss the problems with your own claims won't make them go away.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I never said anything about "the image" because "the image" isn't anything related to what I am discussing. There are no "images" mentioned in my post, so "the image" is irrelevant. I am only discussing light, aka electromagnetic energy.

All light that exists travels. If it contacts matter and is not absorbed it is either reflected and travels or transmitted and travels.... never at any time is it not absorbed yet also not reflected and not traveling. Your statements below are at odds with the laws of physics.

All Lessans is saying is that these non-absorbed photons do not travel away from the object. This light reveals the object in order for us to see it. That's what light does, but it doesn't mean this pattern of light travels on without the object in view. This doesn't have anything to do with electromagnetic in the form of white light that does travel.

[thedoc]

It now becomes clear that 'Plausible', 'Space and Time', 'External World', 'Real time', 'Concept', 'Reasoning', 'Concludes', and 'Untenable', are terms that Peacegirl has no idea how to use correctly or the (R) definition of, it seems that she is useing some (P) definition that is so far undisclosed to the rest of the world.

[Spacemonkey]

Next post, only seven minutes later...

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All Lessans is saying is that these non-absorbed photons do not travel away from the object.

They can't disperse without traveling away from the object. And if they are not traveling away from the object, then where are they and what are they doing, say, 0.0001sec after hitting the object?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This doesn't have anything to do with electromagnetic in the form of white light that does travel.

All light travels.

[peacegirl]

[quote=Spacemonkey;1060400]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already told you that it's difficult to grasp these concepts when the words that are used to describe what is happening have different meanings. The bottom line is Lessans stated that these patterns or images are not reflected which means they do not travel through space and time. You can't wrap your mind around the idea that when an objects are in the field of view regardless of how far away they actually are, the camera is able to take a snapshot of that scene in real time by virtue of the fact that the light is already at the film, or the object would not be seen through the lens. I refuse to talk about photons anymore. It's exhausting and it's getting us nowhere.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If Lessans were right, then there would have to be some possible and coherent account of the behavior of photons in real-time photography.

Not really. I believe his account is very coherent. Anyway, more testing could be done if people were interested in getting to the truth.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But there isn't, as you have discovered for yourself. His claims are therefore disproved, and efferent vision has been shown to not be even a coherent possibility. Behaving like a petulant child and refusing to discuss the problems with your own claims won't make them go away.

I'm not a petulant child but you are focusing on what doesn't exist in the efferent model. There is no violation of physics just because light hasn't reached Earth, for as long as the object can be seen due to it being in our field of view, we are getting a real time photograph or sighting of the object, whether you believe it or not. But to continue discussing the same thing over and over again is not only unproductive, it's meaningless.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not really. I believe his account is very coherent. Anyway, more testing could be done if people were interested in getting to the truth.

I'm not a petulant child but you are focusing on what doesn't exist in the efferent model. There is no violation of physics just because light hasn't reached Earth, for as long as the object can be seen due to it being in our field of view, we are getting a real time photograph or sighting of the object, whether you believe it or not. But to continue discussing the same thing over and over again is not only unproductive, it's meaningless.

If Lessans were right, then there would have to be some possible and coherent account of the behavior of photons in real-time photography. And you don't have one. Until you do, efferent vision is refuted. I realize you are not a petulant child. You are merely a mentally incompetent adult who is behaving like one. If light hasn't reached the camera, then there is no light at the camera and no photograph is possible. All you are doing is repeating your faith-based claims that a real-time photograph is possible, without explaining how it is possible or addressing the problems that prove otherwise. Ignoring these insuperable problems in your own account won't make them go away.

[LadyShea]

All Lessans is saying is that these non-absorbed photons do not travel away from the object.

Then Lessans is at odd with the laws of physics

All light that exists travels. If it contacts matter and is not absorbed it is either reflected and travels or transmitted and travels.... never at any time is it not absorbed yet also not reflected and not traveling.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Actually, you're not understanding the meanings of the words you are using. You said that the nonabsorbed photons don't bounce off the object but that they do get dispersed. Yet to get dispersed they have to be traveling, and to be traveling they have to have bounced off the object.

It is your reasoning, such as it is, which shows your claims to be untenable. Whenever you try to explain yourself you make claims which are incoherent and/or impossible.

Because this obviously is a difficult model to grasp. If I'm looking at an object in real time because the photons are present at the film/retina (which allow me to see or photograph said object), this does not preclude the idea of light traveling and replacing these non-absorbed photons that we know get dispersed (inverse square law), but this does not negate the idea that the non-absorbed light is there to reveal the object when, and only when, the object is within our field of view. This automatically places the light at the film/retina. I will not talk about individual photons anymore. It is driving me batty.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then Lessans is at odd with the laws of physics

I am not LadyShea. I just said that the non-absorbed photons get replaced but they do not travel through space and time to bring the image to our eyes or film without the presence of the actual object.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

All light that exists travels. If it contacts matter and is not absorbed it is either reflected and travels or transmitted and travels.... never at any time is it not absorbed yet also not reflected and not traveling.

That is true. The only thing Lessans is disputing is that the image (or non-absorbed light) is being interpreted in the brain (it doesn't matter if the object is present or not), which goes right back to the afferent account. I don't believe the afferent account is right, sorry.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because this obviously is a difficult model to grasp. If I'm looking at an object in real time because the photons are present at the film/retina (which allow me to see or photograph said object), this does not preclude the idea of light traveling and replacing these non-absorbed photons that we know get dispersed (inverse square law), but this does not negate the idea that the non-absorbed light is there to reveal the object when, and only when, the object is within our field of view. This automatically places the light at the film/retina. I will not talk about individual photons anymore. It is driving me batty.

It's only difficult to grasp because it is inconsistent and incoherent. You clearly have yet to 'grasp' it yourself. What light is traveling, and from where to where does it travel? Where are the non-absorbed photons when they get replaced, and how did they get there? How can those photons disperse without having bounced off the object and traveled away? And you haven't said anything at all to indicate how red photons get to be at the film at the very instant that the object first turns red.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not LadyShea.

No-one has claimed that you are LadyShea, but I'd like to point out that LadyShea is not Spacemonkey either.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then Lessans is at odd with the laws of physics

All light that exists travels. If it contacts matter and is not absorbed it is either reflected and travels or transmitted and travels.... never at any time is it not absorbed yet also not reflected and not traveling.

"These non-abosrbed photons do not travel away from the object," so sayeth peacegirl says so sayeth Lessans. Of course, Lessans never said ANYTHING about an actual scientific model of his bogus nonsense; peacegirl is just making shit up.

But here is the thing: peacegirl has ALSO said that the photons are not static. And they are not absorbed. So they are not static, they are not absorbed, and they do not travel.

WHAT DO THEY DO?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

for as long as the object can be seen due to it being in our field of view, we are getting a real time photograph or sighting of the object,

If the object can be photographed or seen means that the light (Photons) have reached the film/retina. The Brain/eye has not been shown to reach out to the Sun to interact with the photons there. Just because we can see an object, does not mean that we are seeing it instantly, that is nonsense.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because this obviously is a difficult model to grasp.

It is driving me batty.

This model is difficult because it does not exist.

Too late.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Next post, only seven minutes later...

I wasn't referring to this. I was referring to your questions regarding where the blue photons are before they strike the film; the posts that you are always bumping and telling me I'm weaseling by not answering them.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I wasn't referring to this.

Ah, so just another instance of you not saying what you really mean.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was referring to your questions regarding where the blue photons are before they strike the film; the posts that you are always bumping and telling me I'm weaseling by not answering them.

You are weaseling by not answering them.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It's only difficult to grasp because it is inconsistent and incoherent. You clearly have yet to 'grasp' it yourself. What light is traveling, and from where to where does it travel? Where are the non-absorbed photons when they get replaced, and how did they get there? How can those photons disperse without having bounced off the object and traveled away? And you haven't said anything at all to indicate how red photons get to be at the film at the very instant that the object first turns red.

I told you already that the non-absorbed photons don't travel. It doesn't work that way. The word "bounce" sounds like these photons are being reflected which is where the confusion lies. This is a faulty observation.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No-one has claimed that you are LadyShea, but I'd like to point out that LadyShea is not Spacemonkey either.

You misunderstood. I was just answering her by saying "I'm not" and adding her name at the end for emphasis. Maybe you were joking.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Ah, so just another instance of you not saying what you really mean.

I thought you would pick up on that. If I didn't talk about light at all, we wouldn't have anything to discuss.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was referring to your questions regarding where the blue photons are before they strike the film; the posts that you are always bumping and telling me I'm weaseling by not answering them.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are weaseling by not answering them.

No, not true. Where these photons are do not make sense in terms of the efferent model because the photons that allow us to see the object are not traveling, although white light continues to be absorbed which allows the object to be revealed. I really don't see why this is so hard to understand. Nothing is being violated.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you already that the non-absorbed photons don't travel. It doesn't work that way. The word "bounce" sounds like these photons are being reflected which is where the confusion lies. This is a faulty observation.

You have alternately both agreed that they travel and emphatically denied that they do so. This is one of the points you keep flip-flopping on. A photon is traveling along then hits an object but is not absorbed. Then what? If it doesn't stay there, doesn't cease to exist, and doesn't teleport somewhere else, then what does it do? How can it do anything else other than begin traveling away from the object it just hit?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You misunderstood. I was just answering her by saying "I'm not" and adding her name at the end for emphasis. Maybe you were joking.

I'm afraid you've misunderstood. I was jokingly using a deliberate misreading of your words to point out how in the same post you have mistakenly attributed LadyShea's words to me.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I thought you would pick up on that. If I didn't talk about light at all, we wouldn't have anything to discuss.

So what you really meant (but didn't actually say) was just that you don't want to answer my questions - even though you have no excuse for avoiding them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, not true. Where these photons are do not make sense in terms of the efferent model because the photons that allow us to see the object are not traveling, although white light continues to be absorbed which allows the object to be revealed. I really don't see why this is so hard to understand. Nothing is being violated.

It violates physics to speak in any way of photons that do not travel. And you can't say that speaking of the location of photons makes no sense in your model, because you've already agreed that these photons must have a specifiable location. If you can't give an answer for their location that makes sense, then your account does not make sense.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You misunderstood. I was just answering her by saying "I'm not" and adding her name at the end for emphasis. Maybe you were joking.

Ahh, 'Punctuation', is another word, process, function of the English language, that Peacegirl does not understand. Much like quote functions.

Correction! Peacegirl is useing (P) Punctuation, which is inexplicable to rational human beings.