#14726  
Old 03-02-2012, 08:14 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXIV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

The strategy of the :weasel: all along (if something so dunderheaded may be charitably characterized as a strategy) has been to disconnect the speed of light from the act of seeing. This allows her (like Lessans) to concede that light speed is finite but that we see in real time. And it also allows her to divert the discussion to her manic, incoherent and wholly unsuccessful efforts to posit a mechanism for seeing in this way.

But the point is, all of this is superfluous, and I simply suggest that anyone who continues to engage with the :weasel: point out that it has been demonstrated empirically that we do not see in real time. Hence any discussion of HOW we see in real time, is completely moot. It would be like discussing how the earth is flat when we already know empirically it is not flat.

I suggest that anyone who engages with her further simply ignore her nonsensical attempts to explain the mechanism of supposed real-time seeing, by simply pointing out that the examples of the moons of Jupiter, of how NASA calculates the path of spacecraft to distant worlds, and fast-flickering lanterns right here on earth, all demonstrate that the act of seeing, and the speed of light, CANNOT be separated, as she dishonestly tries to do, and all these examples prove that we see in delayed time precisely due to the finite speed of light. Note that she has NEVER been able to deal with these examples, always ignoring them. If you want to hold her weasely feet to the fire, just drop all other discourse and demand that she come to terms with these three examples that disprove Lessans. That is my suggestion.
Reply With Quote
  #14727  
Old 03-02-2012, 08:15 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You tell me you understand the difference between afferent and efferent, but your questions tell me a different story. No matter how you try to get me to see that there is travel time between photon A and photon B (which there is), you're missing the point because the eye is only meeting the photons at the image point where the photons and object meet.
:weasel: :weasel: :weasel: :weasel: :weasel:

The questions you just ignored had nothing to do with travel time between photons (which I haven't been discussing at all), and do not involve eyes either. Stop weaselling and just answer the questions.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (03-02-2012)
  #14728  
Old 03-02-2012, 08:19 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
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 View Post
But you're missing half of this equation.
You're completely ignoring the problem.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
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 View Post
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.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #14729  
Old 03-02-2012, 08:19 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
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.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #14730  
Old 03-02-2012, 08:20 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
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.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #14731  
Old 03-02-2012, 08:29 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXIV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

I should add, apropos of my last post, that she has never even come close to dealing successfully with ANY objection, but she pointedly ignores the empirical proofs of real-time seeing. It is those proofs, IMO, that should be presented to her over and over, and nothing else is necessary.
Reply With Quote
  #14732  
Old 03-02-2012, 08:30 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

I dunno davidm some of this stuff is pretty awesome

:catlady:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (03-02-2012), Stephen Maturin (03-02-2012)
  #14733  
Old 03-02-2012, 08:51 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXIV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
I dunno davidm some of this stuff is pretty awesome

:catlady:
What she's repeating, of course, is the mind-numbingly stupid claim of Lessans, to wit: Suppose God turns on the sun at noon. Then people on earth will see the sun immediately, because the "image point" where the photons are (the surface of the sun) is what the brain, looking out through the eye, will see. But because the photons travel at a finite rate of speed, people on earth would not be able to see their neighbors for eight and a half minutes, because the photons will take that long to arrive at the "image point" of the neighbors, to enable them to be seen.

Now, of course, this is breathtakingly stupid, and it leads her to twist herself into pretzels when trying to describe how cameras work. She can't do it, because if light worked the way that Lessans said, the pictures that the camera takes would differ from what the eyes see, since it would take eight and a half minutes for the light to arrive at the film, and because the camera has no "brain" to look out through, to enable it to see in real time like the "brain looking out through the eyes" of people. So of course she can never explain the inconvenient fact that what we see, and what the camera photographs, match.

But my point is simply as follows: none of this discussion is even necessary. Granted it's amusing to watch her contradict herself over and over, and twist herself into knots trying to explain the unexplainable, and who can forget when she wrote some gobbledeygook, misattributed it to another poster, and proceeded to attempt to refute herself? Priceless! :lol:

But it's all superfluous. The point is that we don't see in real time. This fact, confirmed by the moons of Jupiter, NASA's calculations of how to send craft to distant worlds, and fast-flickering lanterns right here on earth, are three of countless (along with the special theory of relativity) refutations of real-time seeing. Since we know we don't see in real-time, her idiotic attempts to posit a mechanism for real-time seeing are, to reiterate, superfluous, but so is discussing the topic with her. I suggest sticking to the empirical data that prove real-time seeing, data that she won't touch with a ten-foot pole because she knows the data sink her claims.
Reply With Quote
  #14734  
Old 03-02-2012, 09:09 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
But the model is tenable.
No it isn't (and I've shown you why).

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
My position isn't changing.
Yes it is (and I've shown you where).

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I am trying to understand where you are having an issue, so I can show you where the problem is in your thinking.
Have you considered the possibility that the problem may be in your thinking (or even that of Lessans)?
The only problem that I see is your misunderstanding of distance and time in relation to the efferent model why we are able to see in real time, not in delayed time.
Reply With Quote
  #14735  
Old 03-02-2012, 09:10 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
I dunno davidm some of this stuff is pretty awesome

:catlady:
Taken literally it makes no sense at all. As used in optics, the term 'image point' does not mean the point where the photons and the object meet. And X and Y can only meet by being in the same physical location. The only place where photons and the object meet is at the surface of the object. So if the eye meets these photons there, the eye must be in contact with, and at the very same location as the surface of the object. That is not the case. What she might mean in any non-literal metaphorical sense is not known by anyone - least of all herself.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (03-03-2012), LadyShea (03-02-2012)
  #14736  
Old 03-02-2012, 09:12 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
No, the only problem is your lack of ability to recognize the plausibility of the efferent model. :sadcheer:
There is no such plausibility to recognize, as demonstrated in the posts and questions you keep avoiding and weaselling out of.

:weasel:
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #14737  
Old 03-02-2012, 09:16 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The only problem that I see is your misunderstanding of distance and time in relation to the efferent model why we are able to see in real time, not in delayed time.
The misunderstanding is yours. That's why you keep just asserting that the distance doesn't matter, while ignoring my explanations of why it does.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #14738  
Old 03-02-2012, 09:25 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
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?
I've answered this already.

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]

I've answered this already.

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]
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
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?
I've answered this already. All of your logic is based on the idea that the distance between the object and when the photons reach the eye, as they travel through space and time, would create two different photographs. Your conclusions, based on your presuppositions of how light works, will continue to support your premise and you will never get at the truth this way.
Reply With Quote
  #14739  
Old 03-02-2012, 09:29 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I've answered this already.

I've answered this already.
You've answered differently at different times. I'm asking you if your present answers are those I just stated. Why won't you tell me?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
All of your logic is based on the idea that the distance between the object and when the photons reaching the eye, as they travel through space and time, would create two different photographs. Your questions, based on your presuppositions of how light works, will continue to support your premise and will never get at the truth the way you're going about it.
My questions are not based upon presuppositions, weasel. They are based only upon YOUR answers.

Stop weaselling, weasel.

:weasel:
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #14740  
Old 03-02-2012, 09:30 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The only problem that I see is your misunderstanding of distance and time in relation to the efferent model why we are able to see in real time, not in delayed time.
The misunderstanding is yours. That's why you keep just asserting that the distance doesn't matter, while ignoring my explanations of why it does.
Distance is not a factor, nor is time, in the efferent model. That's why we are in total disagreement.
Reply With Quote
  #14741  
Old 03-02-2012, 09:30 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
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?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #14742  
Old 03-02-2012, 09:31 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I've answered this already.

I've answered this already.
You've answered differently at different times. I'm asking you if your present answers are those I just stated. Why won't you tell me?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
All of your logic is based on the idea that the distance between the object and when the photons reaching the eye, as they travel through space and time, would create two different photographs. Your questions, based on your presuppositions of how light works, will continue to support your premise and will never get at the truth the way you're going about it.
My questions are not based upon presuppositions, weasel. They are based only upon YOUR answers.

Stop weaselling, weasel.

:weasel:
Your temper is getting the best of you. Come back when you've cooled off and address me respectfully or I will not engage with you.
Reply With Quote
  #14743  
Old 03-02-2012, 09:34 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The only problem that I see is your misunderstanding of distance and time in relation to the efferent model why we are able to see in real time, not in delayed time.
The misunderstanding is yours. That's why you keep just asserting that the distance doesn't matter, while ignoring my explanations of why it does.
Distance is not a factor, nor is time, in the efferent model. That's why we are in total disagreement.
They are factors in your model. That's what I've been explaining to you. You just keep weaselling and ignoring the explanation. If there is a real distance between the object and the camera, and if no light is instantly teleporting but instead has to travel at a finite speed to anywhere it gets to, then time and distance are factors - whether you want them to be or not.

:weasel:
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (03-02-2012)
  #14744  
Old 03-02-2012, 09:36 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Your temper is getting the best of you. Come back when you've cooled off and address me respectfully or I will not engage with you.
I'm not angry. I'm just calling you a weasel whenever you weasel. Why don't you come back when you're prepared to actually answer my questions instead of disrespectfully weaselling out of them? If you want to be shown respect, then start showing some yourself.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #14745  
Old 03-02-2012, 09:54 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The only problem that I see is your misunderstanding of distance and time in relation to the efferent model why we are able to see in real time, not in delayed time.
The misunderstanding is yours. That's why you keep just asserting that the distance doesn't matter, while ignoring my explanations of why it does.
Distance is not a factor, nor is time, in the efferent model. That's why we are in total disagreement.
They are factors in your model. That's what I've been explaining to you. You just keep weaselling and ignoring the explanation. If there is a real distance between the object and the camera, and if no light is instantly teleporting but instead has to travel at a finite speed to anywhere it gets to, then time and distance are factors - whether you want them to be or not.

:weasel:
I understand that you believe the photons have to be presenting a different image than the object due to the time it takes to go from point A (the object) to point B (the film/retina), but you're wrong if efferent vision is right since in efferent vision there is no time differential. I know you are trying to convince me that this is impossible, but I disagree. I know you are not convinced because you don't see how completely opposite these two versions of sight are, which is the source of the problem. They present a completely different picture of what is going on in reality, and only when efferent vision is empirically tested and proved to be valid, will you take a second look at the plausibility of this model.
Reply With Quote
  #14746  
Old 03-02-2012, 10:00 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXIV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I've answered this already.

I've answered this already.
You've answered differently at different times. I'm asking you if your present answers are those I just stated. Why won't you tell me?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
All of your logic is based on the idea that the distance between the object and when the photons reaching the eye, as they travel through space and time, would create two different photographs. Your questions, based on your presuppositions of how light works, will continue to support your premise and will never get at the truth the way you're going about it.
My questions are not based upon presuppositions, weasel. They are based only upon YOUR answers.

Stop weaselling, weasel.

:weasel:
Your temper is getting the best of you. Come back when you've cooled off and address me respectfully or I will not engage with you.
Everyone here knows that you are a dishonest dispshit, yet you will continue to engage with everyone because of your obsession in vindicating your nincompoop father as a prophet, and because of your greed to make money off his/your book, which will never happen because the book is worthless except as comic fodder.
Reply With Quote
  #14747  
Old 03-02-2012, 10:01 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I understand that you believe that the photons have to be presenting a different image than the object because of time and distance, but you're wrong if efferent vision is right. I know you will not be convinced of this because it makes no difference in the outcome whether vision is afferent or efferent, which is the source of the problem. These two versions of sight are diametrically opposed, and present a completely different picture of what is going on in reality.
No, Peacegirl. Time and distance would be relevant even if your present account of efferent vision were correct. This is not an afferent assumption. It follows from YOUR answers exactly as I have explained. Will you ever stop weaselling and just answer my questions?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #14748  
Old 03-02-2012, 10:01 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Your temper is getting the best of you. Come back when you've cooled off and address me respectfully or I will not engage with you.
I'm not angry. I'm just calling you a weasel whenever you weasel. Why don't you come back when you're prepared to actually answer my questions instead of disrespectfully weaselling out of them? If you want to be shown respect, then start showing some yourself.
I don't call you names Spacemonkey. You are constantly belittling me. You are doing this to puff yourself up in order to make me look ignorant in comparison.
Reply With Quote
  #14749  
Old 03-02-2012, 10:05 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I understand that you believe the photons have to be presenting a different image than the object due to the time it takes to go from point A (the object) to point B (the film/retina), but you're wrong if efferent vision is right since in efferent vision there is no time differential. I know you are trying to convince me that this is impossible, but I disagree.
Then address my posts and answer my questions to show me why I'm wrong to think that it is impossible. Justify your disagreement. Show me that it's more than bare denial.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (03-02-2012)
  #14750  
Old 03-02-2012, 10:05 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Come back when you can address me respectfully or I will not engage with you.

Respect is earned, not granted for no reason, and especially not give those who show no respect to others.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (03-02-2012)
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 6 (0 members and 6 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:58 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.23025 seconds with 14 queries