A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

*crickets*

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Yes it is, and yes we would. You would still be here no matter how conclusive the evidence against you is (and the evidence doesn't get any more conclusive than it already is), because your position is faith-based rather than reality-based.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Really?

Yes, really.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Your only efforts to show how real-time vision could be possible have turned out to be contradictory and impossible. There is no reason at all why science should pay any attention to a contradcitory and incoherent account supported by zero evidence.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

How can the unabsorbed light from that hitting the object be in constant motion if it doesn't teleport and doesn't bounce off to travel away from the object? And why haven't you provided the premise you were talking about? It is no premise of mine that light must change color in midstream. On the contrary, I quite clearly explained how that conclusion is entailed by your previous answers.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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?

All it will take is someone famous to endorse this discovery. It would spread like wildfire. Most major paradigm shifts come from a grassroots effort. Pressure would be put upon scientists to analyze this work thoroughly, which has not been done. If necessary, empirical testing could get underway to prove that Lessans knew whereof he spoke all along. This discovery is too important for it to fall by the wayside by naysayers, whether they are scientifically oriented, or not.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Why are they dumb questions? Those photons must be somewhere after hitting the object. Your account can't provide an answer. Any answer you give on your account leads straight to absurdities and contradictions. If you can't and won't answer my questions, then everyone is fully justified in rejecting real-time vision as the ignorant and incoherent half-baked nonsense that it is.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All it will take is someone famous to endorse this discovery. It would spread like wildfire. Most major paradigm shifts come from a grassroots effort. Pressure would be put upon scientists to analyze this work thoroughly, which has not been done. If necessary, empirical testing could get underway to prove that Lessans knew whereof he spoke all along. This discovery is too important for it to fall by the wayside by naysayers, whether they are scientifically oriented, or not.

More pathetic ignorance. Science doesn't spread because "someone says so." Hey, if you think that, why don't you take it to Oprah? She's pretty dumb, she'll swallow anything whole. Then if Oprah sez it's true then teh science will have a big paradigm shift!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes it is, and yes we would. You would still be here no matter how conclusive the evidence against you is (and evidence doesn't get any more conclusive than it already is), because your position is faith-based rather than reality-based.

Yes, really.

Your only efforts to show how real-time vision could be possible have turned out to be contradcitory and impossible. There is no reason at all why science should pay any attention to a contradcitory and incoherent account supported by zero evidence.

How can the unabsorbed light from that hitting the object be in constant motion if it doesn't teleport and doesn't bounce off to travel away from the object? And why haven't you provided the premise you were talking about? It is no premise of mine that light must change color in midstream. On the contrary, I quite clearly explained how that conclusion is entailed by your previous answers.

The unabsorbed light is in motion but it is not bouncing or being (N) reflected. That's the source of the problem. You believe that the light is bouncing off and traveling. It is not. The photons are being replaced by new photons as light continues to be emitted, but that still does not mean that the blue photons are bouncing. That's why I liked your version of (P) light versus (N) light. It also occurred to me that if the blue light was bouncing off of an object, then how does it happen that this wavelength light strikes a red object. Does that mean that there are all different wavelengths of light bouncing off of different objects and being absorbed in a chaotic manner? That goes against Occam's razor.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Without my input, there is no thread.

I would hesitate to call it 'input' but I suppose that is a matter of intrepretation, and there is no reason to expect that the thread would come to a grinding halt if you left. On DP you left on page 3 and it went on to page 4, so you are not the essential part of this thread only the most annoying. In spite of your egocentric opinion of yourself there is much here that is between the other posters and not addressed to you. Even those you claim to have on pretend ignore are being acknowledged by other posters.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

More pathetic ignorance. Science doesn't spread because "someone says so." Hey, if you think that, why don't you take it to Oprah? She's pretty dumb, she'll swallow anything whole. Then if Oprah sez it's true then teh science will have a big paradigm shift!

No, but it certainly would create an interest. You are out of the picture because you've shut down any vestige of open-mindedness. I know people will be skeptical, but it must be contained in order to for this knowledge to be understood. You are cutting off your nose to spite your face David, but you are just too blind to see it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The unabsorbed light is in motion but it is not bouncing or being (N) reflected. That's the source of the problem. You believe that the light is bouncing off and traveling. It is not. The photons are being replaced by new photons as light continues to be emitted, but that still does not mean that the blue photons are bouncing. That's why I liked your version of (P) light versus (N) light.

Still contradictory. If the photons which just hit the object are at the next moment in motion, then where are they in motion? They will be in motion from where to where exactly? If they proceed to move from the surface of the ball away from it, then by definition they have just bounced off it. If they proceed to move from some other point than the surface of the ball they've just hit then they have thereby teleported from the surface of the ball to this other beginning point for their subsequent motion.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It also occurred to me that if the blue light was bouncing off of an object, then how does it happen that this wavelength light that is bouncing off of one object just happens to bounce off of another object that is red. Does that mean that there are different wavelengths of light bouncing off and being absorbed in a chaotic manner? That goes against Occam's razor.

What the buck are you even talking about? Where have I told you that blue light bounces off a red object? What have I said that suggests light is "bouncing off and being absorbed in a chaotic manner"? Do you know what you are talking about?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All it will take is someone famous to endorse this discovery. It would spread like wildfire. Most major paradigm shifts come from a grassroots effort. Pressure would be put upon scientists to analyze this work thoroughly, which has not been done. If necessary, empirical testing could get underway to prove that Lessans knew whereof he spoke all along. This discovery is too important for it to fall by the wayside by naysayers, whether they are scientifically oriented, or not.

LOL, no. Sorry, but paradigm shifts in science do not and never have come about by way of celebrity endorsement. But thank you for that further gem of Lessianic 'wisdom'.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All it will take is someone famous to endorse this discovery. It would spread like wildfire. Most major paradigm shifts come from a grassroots effort. Pressure would be put upon scientists to analyze this work thoroughly, which has not been done. If necessary, empirical testing could get underway to prove that Lessans knew whereof he spoke all along. This discovery is too important for it to fall by the wayside by naysayers, whether they are scientifically oriented, or not.

Yes and once the scientific community analyzed it that famous person would loose all credability and be laughed off the stage of public attention. If he were a scientist his career would be over unless he came to his senses (all 5 of them) and recanted his previous endorsement. Empherical testing would definately prove what Lessans thought he knew, and much of that testing would be just to re-examine existing tests for errors. This non-discovery, being non-supported WOO will fall by the wayside and into the dustbin of history, unless it is retained as a bad example.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The unabsorbed light is in motion but it is not bouncing or being (N) reflected. That's the source of the problem. You believe that the light is bouncing off and traveling. It is not. The photons are being replaced by new photons as light continues to be emitted, but that still does not mean that the blue photons are bouncing. That's why I liked your version of (P) light versus (N) light.

It also occurred to me that if the blue light was bouncing off of an object, then how does it happen that this wavelength light strikes a red object. Does that mean that there are all different wavelengths of light bouncing off of different objects and being absorbed in a chaotic manner? That goes against Occam's razor.

What happens to the photons that are replaced by new photons, where do they go, or do they just disapear.

Does the last part make sense to anyone? If it does I am very sorry for you.

[LadyShea]

[LadyShea]

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, but it certainly would create an interest. You are out of the picture because you've shut down any vestige of open-mindedness. I know people will be skeptical, but it must be contained in order to for this knowledge to be understood. You are cutting off your nose to spite your face David, but you are just too blind to see it.

Oh, by all means, take it Oprah, then, peacegirl.

Hey, did you figure out yet that being able to measure the speed of light AT ALL depends upon the fact that we see in delayed time? No? Still working on that one, eh?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are cutting off your nose to spite your face David, but you are just too blind to see it.

Hmmm, Cutting off your own nose, but are too blind to see it? Well most people can't see their own nose anyhow expecially if they are blind, unless they are useing a mirror, except for the blind man.

Two nuns are ordered to paint a room in the convent, and the last instruction of the Mother Superior is that they must not get even a drop of paint on their habits.
After conferring about this for a while, the two nuns decide to lock the door of the room, strip off their habits, and paint in the nude.
In the middle of the project, there comes a knock at the door. "Who is it?", calls one of the nuns. "Blind man," replies a voice from the other side of the door.
The two nuns look at each other and shrug, and, deciding that no harm can come from letting a blind man into the room, so they open the door.
"Nice ass, sister," says the man, "where do you want these blinds?"

[thedoc]

BTW, Did Lessans walk with a white cane or a seeing eye dog, and he must have shot pool by ear. Those high pitched whistles probably got annoying after awhile.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The unabsorbed light is in motion but it is not bouncing or being (N) reflected. That's the source of the problem. You believe that the light is bouncing off and traveling. It is not. The photons are being replaced by new photons as light continues to be emitted, but that still does not mean that the blue photons are bouncing. That's why I liked your version of (P) light versus (N) light.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Still contradictory.

No it is not.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If the photons which just hit the object are at the next moment in motion, then where are they in motion? They will be in motion from where to where exactly?

From here to there until the light fades out as it gets farther from the source.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If they proceed to move from the surface of the ball away from it, then by definition they have just bounced off it.

100% incorrect.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If they proceed to move from some other point than the surface of the ball they've just hit then they have thereby teleported from the surface of the ball to this other beginning point for their subsequent motion.

There is no gap in this procession of photons.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It also occurred to me that if the blue light was bouncing off of an object, then how does it happen that this wavelength light that is bouncing off of one object just happens to bounce off of another object that is red. Does that mean that there are different wavelengths of light bouncing off and being absorbed in a chaotic manner? That goes against Occam's razor.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What the buck are you even talking about? Where have I told you that blue light bounces off a red object? What have I said that suggests light is "bouncing off and being absorbed in a chaotic manner"? Do you know what you are talking about?

You're not understanding my question. What happens, in the afferent theory, when the blue light that bounces off of an object travels and strikes another object of the same color, or of a different color?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Oh, by all means, take it Oprah, then, peacegirl.

Oprah is too busy with her network, but there are many thinkers out there who would want to be instrumental in bringing this discovery to light once they understand the principles.

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey, did you figure out yet that being able to measure the speed of light AT ALL depends upon the fact that we see in delayed time? No? Still working on that one, eh?

Yes, we time the light. What does this have to do with seeing an image of a past event in delayed time?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it is not.

Yes it is (and I've shown you why).

Originally Posted by peacegirl

From here to there until the light fades out as it gets farther from the source.

Where is "here" and where is "there"?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

100% incorrect.

What is wrong with you? How is that incorrect? What we MEAN by 'bouncing off the object' is that after hitting the surface of the object, they then travel away from that surface. If that is where the photons that hit the object begin their subsequent motion from, then BY DEFINITION they have bounced off that object.

We switched from speaking of 'reflection' to 'bouncing off' because you couldn't understand what reflection means. Now it turns out you don't even understand what 'bouncing off' means. Are we going to have (P)bounce and (N)bounce now as well? Are there any words you know how to use?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no gap in this procession of photons.

Then they are bouncing off and traveling away from the object, contrary to your claim. The unabsorbed light is bouncing off and being (N)reflected.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're not understanding my question.

No-one understood your question. It was nonsensical.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What happens, in the afferent theory, when the blue light that bounces off of an object travels and strikes another object of the same color, or of a different color?

If the second object is the same color then the light bounces off. If it is a different color then the light gets absorbed. What's the problem? Where does this involve light "bouncing off and being absorbed in a chaotic manner"?

[LadyShea]

Light travels at the speed of light in a straight line. When it encounters matter, it is either absorbed (selectively or totally), reflected (selectively or totally), or passed through (transmitted) either straight through or refracted/bent, depending on the composition of the matter.

If it is reflected, it will travel in a straight line away from the object at the angle of reflection until/unless it meets more matter and again it is either absorbed (selectively or totally), reflected (selectively or totally), or passed through (transmitted) either straight through or refracted/bent, depending on the composition of the matter.

This is optics 101 stuff, which I thought you understood?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oprah is too busy with her network, but there are many thinkers out there who would want to be instrumental in bringing this discovery to light once they understand the principles.

Yes, we time the light. What does this have to do with seeing an image of a past event in delayed time?

Come on, are you REALLY this stupid?

Holy shit.

[thedoc]

I really hate to do this, because I can see where it is going to cause all kinds of problems and confusion, but here it is anyway. I believe that at a quantum level when light strikes an object it is absorbed, (all of it) and the energy raises the level of energy in the atoms of the object. This extra energy results in a higher temperature and also excites the electrons to emit photons that corrospond in frequency to the color of the object. So the light is all absorbed and then new photons are emited that are the color of the object. This would be the definition of reflection at the quantum level and the common understanding is incorrect in that photons that contact the object are not in fact 'bounced off' the object. It is really a matter of the absorption and emmiting of photons that give the apperience of photons bouncing off the object. If anyone with real knowledge of the quantum mechanism of reflection can correct me, please do so.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

*crickets*

I'm not going to keep answering the same thing over and over again.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes it is, and yes we would.

No it is not, and no we wouldn't.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You would still be here no matter how conclusive the evidence against you is (and the evidence doesn't get any more conclusive than it already is), because your position is faith-based rather than reality-based.

It is based in reality based even if you don't see it yet.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Really?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, really.

Please show me where the afferent account disagrees that light brings images to us through space and time?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Your only efforts to show how real-time vision could be possible have turned out to be contradictory and impossible.

It is not contradictory just because you believe that white light cannot continue when objects absorb part of that light.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

There is no reason at all why science should pay any attention to a contradcitory and incoherent account supported by zero evidence.

It is not contradictory or incoherent anymore than the afferent version of sight is. And the evidence is just as plausible as the afferent account. If scientists aren't interested, there's nothing I can do about that. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. That being said, I believe there are people in this world who will want to investigate this further. I am not worried.

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.

Your logic follows from certain premises which are believed to be true. Premise: Objects reflect light which then carries the image (you know what I mean) through space and time causing delayed sight.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How can the unabsorbed light from that hitting the object be in constant motion if it doesn't teleport and doesn't bounce off to travel away from the object?

What does any of this have to do with teleporting? Nothing teleports if the eyes are efferent. This is the only reason we can see distant objects in real time.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And why haven't you provided the premise you were talking about? It is no premise of mine that light must change color in midstream. On the contrary, I quite clearly explained how that conclusion is entailed by your previous answers.

You've lost me.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not going to keep answering the same thing over and over again.

No it is not, and no we wouldn't.

It is based in reality based even if you don't see it yet.

Please show me where the afferent account disagrees that light brings images to us through space and time?

It is not contradictory just because you believe that white light cannot continue when objects absorb part of that light. Your belief is based on false assumption about how light works in the real world.

It is not contradictory or incoherent anymore than the afferent version of sight is. And the evidence is just as plausible as the afferent account. If they aren't interested, there's nothing I can do about that. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. But there will be people who will want to investigate this further. I am not worried.

What does any of this have to do with teleporting? Nothing teleports if the eyes are efferent. This is the only reason we can see distant objects at a distance without a time delay.

You've lost me.

*yawn*

Apparently you have nothing left but faith claims, denialism, and avoidance.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why are they dumb questions? Those photons must be somewhere after hitting the object. Your account can't provide an answer. Any answer you give on your account leads straight to absurdities and contradictions. If you can't and won't answer my questions, then everyone is fully justified in rejecting real-time vision as the ignorant and incoherent half-baked nonsense that it is.

[peacegirl]

Intermission: I thought it may be of interest.

Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist - Telegraph