A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by :Bat:-:Shit:-:Crazy:

You hate that he claimed the eyes are not a sense organ. Your motive is so obvious.

Yes, and your motives are so obvious.

[thedoc]

Am I being ignored yet?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did answer it Angakuk. When the object is bright enough, the light would already be at the eye as quickly as it takes light to be at the eye when a candle is lighted in this closed system where we see the object directly.

No you didn't answer it and you still haven't. I asked for a precise distance. You didn't answer in terms of distance at all.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Ok so I guess he was only saying that it was mathematically impossible for them to ever desire to only own one bed. Presumably this bed is for them to sleep in... together.
Sure they can still sleep together if they both so desire, except that Lessans is going to prove "mathematically" that they will never desire to. But he's definitely not saying that it's impossible, except that he is.

There is always the couch.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

No you didn't answer it and you still haven't. I asked for a precise distance. You didn't answer in terms of distance at all.

There IS no precise distance. It's the size and intensity (brightness) of the object in relation to the viewer. It's proportional.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Ok so he's only saying "it will be mathematically
impossible henceforth for a husband and wife to ever desire to own
only one bed for the two of them."
Well, that's just perfectly reasonable....
Also, if they've been proven to never desire own only one bed (meaning they'd be sleeping together), but they can sleep together only if they both desire to, then wouldn't that mean that they'd never be able to... unless they are doing so against their own desires.... which they couldn't do?
At the very least he's saying that it's mathematically impossible that a married couple will always desire to sleep together, for then they'd have absolutely no need of a second bed.... It would be reasonable to assume that even if they only desired to sleep together most of the time a second bed would be mostly pointless.

He's not saying that it's mathematically impossible that a couple will always desire to sleep together because that may be most comfortable for them. All he's saying is that couples would want to give each other the option to sleep elsewhere if that desire ever comes up because that is considering both desires, and couples will want to do everything they can not to show selfishness which is considering only one desire. It doesn't mean they would want to use that option. You're making too much out of this. He was just making the point that sleeping together will not be an unspoken rule of marriage, which it is today.

[Spacemonkey]

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There IS no precise distance. It's the size and intensity (brightness) of the object in relation to the viewer. It's proportional.

You have no idea what you are saying, do you? We register that light has arrived after 2.6sec, when the light has returned from the moon and is inside the telescope on Earth. According to your above answer, that means the telescope has a precise optical range of exactly zero.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's true Spacemonkey...

Do you really not see the problem with the above response?

Imagine you've just got up in the morning, and check the mail only to meet the postman delivering a letter to you from Japan. Wow, you exclaim, how did this letter get here all the way from Japan? Mail from Japan has been shutdown for the past two weeks!

Well, the postman explains, this morning when mail from Japan resumed, a person in Japan went to the post office to drop it off. The letter was taken to Narita airport and placed on a plane which flies to the US, taking around 14hrs, where the letter was dropped off and taken to a mail sorting facility where it was then dispatched to its labelled address, and should arrive here sometime tomorrow or the day after that.

A little confused, you ask: Do you mean this letter I'm now holding in my hand will arrive tomorrow? Oh no, the postman explains. I was telling you about a completely different letter that hasn't arrived yet. Okay, so how did this letter get here, you ask. The postman looks away guiltily and shuffles his feet. What do you mean, he says, I just told you.

Please tell me what is wrong with the postman's explanation. I'm sure you can figure it out. Don't respond with anything about light or vision. Stick to the story.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, the same photon arrived on Earth that left the Sun 81/2 minutes ago. It's not teleporting and it's not in two places at once.

Is that photon also one of the ones at the film when the Sun is first ignited? If not, then it ISN'T the same photon as any that my questions asked you about, is it?


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?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How in the world does this account put the Sun inside people's eyes?

That was in response to YOUR comment here: "...this account changes everything. It puts the Sun in the same physical space as your eyes..." Yes, I know. That was just you saying something stupid that you didn't really mean.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right; that photon has no use to me...

Then that should be the end of your magical lenses nonsense, as you've agreed that a lens can only affect light that is of no use to you and which arrives 8min AFTER you need us to be able to see the Sun.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it's not necessarily the light I need at the film when I'm looking efferently at the object. That light may have already reached Earth...

You said you have always maintained that ALL light travels.

1. Does that include the light you need at the film on Earth when the Sun is first ignited? [Y/N]

2. Did that light travel from the Sun to get there? [Y/N]

3. If so, how long did it take to complete the journey? [insert duration]

4. And when did it leave the Sun? [insert time relative to Sun's ignition]

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This example isn't analogous because of the opposite nature of this account. If there's no time involved (other than the speed that it takes for light to be at the eye when a candle is first lit), then we're not waiting for a particular photon to arrive, like a piece of mail with specific information in it. The photon doesn't bring with it any information that would make this photon any different than the next.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Not what I asked, weasel. I don't care whether you think it is analogous.

You don't want to know because you don't want to be shown up.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I just want to know what is wrong with the postman's explanation.

I told you already. The letter had never arrived yet the postman was acting as if it had. Spacemonkey, this analogy doesn't work.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And it is perfectly analogous anyway, as you need to explain how the photon at the film or retina got there, just as the postman needs to explain how the letter got there. Weaseling about information is irrelevant, as the letter can be an empty envelope if you prefer, so the scenario remains perfectly analogous. Try again.

So completely incomparable it's frustrating for me. The empty letter is analogous to full spectrum light. It's not that the letter is there before it has a chance to arrive, as in this example. You are forgetting that there are two sides to this highway, and you're expecting the one side of the highway to work the same way as the other side. Light traveling and arriving is absolutely a physical fact, but seeing objects in real time is due to how the eyes work, which you are failing to understand. It is YOU that needs to go deeper into this understanding instead of charging Lessans with a fallacy.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Here is what he originally wrote:

And here is what you changed it to:

Not to desire one bed for the two of them, is NOT the same as, Not to desire to OWN only one bed for the two of them! In addition to the other changes you made, you added the word OWN which was not in the original!

Any idiot can see your change to the Sacred Text renders the meaning to be completely different!

Moreover, once again, you said that I had LIED about the text; but my characterization of it, BEFORE you altered it, is absolutely accurate.

You are a LIAR.

Your characterization is meant to be a character assassination. You don't like that you're wrong about Lessans' ability and skill to make these discoveries. You would do anything to discredit him even make up stuff if you have to. And by the way, it was LadyShea who changed that sentence for me, so go take it up with her.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Do you really not see the problem with the above response?

Imagine you've just got up in the morning, and check the mail only to meet the postman delivering a letter to you from Japan. Wow, you exclaim, how did this letter get here all the way from Japan? Mail from Japan has been shutdown for the past two weeks!

Well, the postman explains, this morning when mail from Japan resumed, a person in Japan went to the post office to drop it off. The letter was taken to Narita airport and placed on a plane which flies to the US, taking around 14hrs, where the letter was dropped off and taken to a mail sorting facility where it was then dispatched to its labelled address, and should arrive here sometime tomorrow or the day after that.

A little confused, you ask: Do you mean this letter I'm now holding in my hand will arrive tomorrow? Oh no, the postman explains. I was telling you about a completely different letter that hasn't arrived yet. Okay, so how did this letter get here, you ask. The postman looks away guiltily and shuffles his feet. What do you mean, he says, I just told you.

Please tell me what is wrong with the postman's explanation. I'm sure you can figure it out. Don't respond with anything about light or vision. Stick to the story.

You're still not getting it. You'll have to go deeper and think harder to understand this model of sight, which is your responsibility. I can't do more to help you than what I'm already doing. If you can't grab onto this account, you will continue to think it's a contradiction but it doesn't make it so.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Do you think people are as stupid as you are? Put those two paragraphs before anyone and ask them if they are different. They are radically different, not just on the bed thing, but in all material aspects.

You are such a ridiculous, dishonest creep! Today you said four times, OUT OF HERE, yet here you still are! That was a lie, and everything else you say is a lie.

I was imitating the show Shark Tanks where they say: I'm out. Forget it, you wouldn't understand anyway. And I already did say why it's hard for me to leave even when my intention to leave was sincere. The frustration I feel is difficult to deal with when I read some of these posts. I feel the need to vindicate myself when I'm being falsely accused. If people stop accusing me of lying, then I will leave and I will shut the door behind me for good.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't want to know because you don't want to be shown up.

I told you already. The letter had never arrived yet the postman was acting as if it had. Spacemonkey, this analogy doesn't work.

A letter had arrived... meet the postman delivering a letter to you from Japan. Wow, you exclaim, how did this letter get here all the way from Japan?

[LadyShea]

Light traveling and arriving is absolutely a physical fact,

A fact you are being asked about since you insist photons will be located on camera film on Earth at 12:00 noon, the exact moment the Sun was newly ignited, which is before they have had time to travel and arrive at that location.

but seeing objects in real time is due to how the eyes work,

You are not being asked about seeing with eyes, you are being asked about light photons being located on camera film before they have had time to travel and arrive at that location.

which you are failing to understand.

Everyone understands, but seeing with eyes is not what you are being asked about.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your characterization is meant to be a character assassination. You don't like that you're wrong about Lessans' ability and skill to make these discoveries. You would do anything to discredit him even make up stuff if you have to. And by the way, it was LadyShea who changed that sentence for me, so go take it up with her.

LOL, passing the buck to me!

I helped you with words to get the specific meaning you wanted across, the interpretation of Lessans is your responsibility, though.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was imitating the show Shark Tanks where they say: I'm out. Forget it, you wouldn't understand anyway. And I already did say why it's hard for me to leave even when my intention to leave was sincere. The frustration I feel is difficult to deal with when I read some of these posts. I feel the need to vindicate myself when I'm being falsely accused. If people stop accusing me of lying, then I will leave and I will shut the door behind me for good.

It's not our responsibility to do anything. If you are in a situation that you want to walk away from, and have the ability to do so (meaning you aren't being forced to be there), you need to figure out how to walk away.

You have a problem with letting go of things, maybe?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That's exactly right, and you have never considered it at all being that you are coming from the afferent position, which is not wrong , when it comes to the finite speed of light which no one is denying. This position has ONLY TO DO WITH WHAT WE SEE. You refuse to give Lessans any credit (because that would make you look bad in the eyes of everyone), so I'm sure you will come up with some excuse as to why this isn't possible. You and David should start your own thread to prove Lessans wrong because that is your ultimate goal so you can keep the status quo. That's human nature, but it's not helping progress. In the meantime people are dying unnecessarily.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's exactly right, and you have never considered it at all being that you are coming from the afferent position

You only just started talking about "proportional" last week, it's your new buzzword...so why do you expect people to have "considered" it as if you were explaining this for some time?

This position has ONLY TO DO WITH WHAT WE SEE.

Nope, it also has to do with lights properties and how and when it physically interacts with matter...like with camera film and sensors...according to you. You don't get to go out on the that limb of specific physics claims, then retreat back to the safety of ambiguous claims about "seeing" without being called dishonest.

[LadyShea]

You and David should start your own thread to prove Lessans wrong because that is your ultimate goal so you can keep the status quo. That's human nature, but it's not helping progress. In the meantime people are dying unnecessarily.

It occurs to me that you believe in a really weak and ineffectual God, if you and Lessans are his/her/its best tools for spreading a message.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You have no idea what you are saying, do you? We register that light has arrived after 2.6sec, when the light has returned from the moon and is inside the telescope on Earth. According to your above answer, that means the telescope has a precise optical range of exactly zero.

What are you talking about? Telescopes cannot detect small artifacts on the moon, so how could they see a flash of light on the moon when it is too far and too SMALL to resolve? You aren't going to win because you aren't right Spacemonkey.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're still not getting it. You'll have to go deeper and think harder to understand this model of sight, which is your responsibility. I can't do more to help you than what I'm already doing. If you can't grab onto this account, you will continue to think it's a contradiction but it doesn't make it so.

Read your own words. You are being asked about the photons at the camera film at noon, when the Sun is newly ignited. In statement 1 you say they traveled there, but did not explain how they got to the film faster than it would take them to travel. Then in statement 2 you are talking about totally different photons, rather than the photons at the camera film at noon.

1. Yes, the photons at the film traveled there from the Sun.
2. But these photons doing the traveling are not the same photons as the ones already at the film.

That is EXACTLY analogous to the letter from Japan scenario. You are the postman. Why is the postman talking about a different letter than the one he just delivered? Why are you talking about different photons than the ones at the camera film at noon when the Sun was first ignited?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It occurs to me that you believe in a really weak and ineffectual God, if you and Lessans are his/her/its best tools for spreading a message.

Interesting that you say that. God chooses the weak to confound the wise. And so it shall pass!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Read your own words. You are being asked about the photons at the camera film at noon, when the Sun is newly ignited. In statement 1 you say they traveled there, but did not explain how they got to the film faster than it would take them to travel. Then in statement 2 you are talking about totally different photons, rather than the photons at the camera film at noon.

1. Yes, the photons at the film traveled there from the Sun.
2. But these photons doing the traveling are not the same photons as the ones already at the film.

That is EXACTLY analogous to the letter from Japan scenario. You are the postman. Why is the postman talking about a different letter than the one he just delivered? Why are you talking about different photons than the ones at the camera film at noon when the Sun was first ignited?

No it isn't. You are just copying what Spacemonkey said. Photons representing the outside of the letter are exactly the same. That is what you get when light travels 81/2 minutes. The nonabsorbed photons do not arrive because they are not being reflected since these photons do not travel at all. There is NO TIME INVOLVED OTHER THAN THE TIME IT TAKES FOR THE LIGHT FROM A CANDLE TO ARRIVE. I am not talking about light from other galaxies which do not prove anything in regard to what he is claiming regarding sight. You are more confused than ever.