A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

peavegirl, what happens if my observation is different from Lessans?

Nothing.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nothing.

I take it that this also goes for anyone else except for you or Lessans?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Why should distance matter. If the light which allows us to see an object is instantly at the film/retina without regard to how far away the object is from the film/retina why would someone closer to the object have different visual experience than someone who is further away?

Because the visual cortex is able to interpret what the eyes are seeing. Once again, this does not mean that light does not travel at a high rate of speed; just that light does not cause sight; it is a condition of sight.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's true, the blue wavelength light is allowing us to see the object due to the object absorbing the non-blue wavelength light, but as soon as that blue wavelength light fades out (due to dispersion), we get white light. The blue wavelength light doesn't bounce so it doesn't travel.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Dispersion is a function of light that is traveling. If the blue wavelength light does not travel, why and how does it get dispersed?

You keep claiming that this blue wavelength light does not travel yet you persist in describing its behavior by using terms that only apply to light that is traveling. This is very strange.

It's really not strange if you see this in the perspective of the efferent model. The blue light is present when we look at the object. That's when we see it, but that doesn't mean that this light is not being replaced by new photons that are constantly in motion. As light bounces off the object, some light gets absorbed and some doesn't which allows us to distinguish substance in the external world. Due to the fact that light is in constant motion doesn't change the fact that the blue wavelength light can only be present at the film/retina if the object is present. Moreover, we will see that object in direct proportion to the inverse square law of optics, so the farther away the object is from the film/retina due to the dispersion of light, the smaller the object will appear until it can no longer be seen or photographed at all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I take it that this also goes for anyone else except for you or Lessans?

After today I'm not going to respond to anyone who doesn't have a direct and pertinent question regarding the principles in this book. Using my energy to answer people who are here for one reason only, which is to make fun of me, is a waste of my valuable time.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

After today I'm not going to respond to anyone who doesn't have a direct and pertinent question regarding the principles in this book. Using my energy to answer people who are here for one reason only, which is to make fun of me, is a waste of my valuable time.

I'll take that as a yes, peavegirl.

BTW, nobody here thinks the principles of Lessans book are pertinent to anything but mental illness or deception. A sane person would know this by now.

People are here for the car wreck that is your insanity.

Get help peavegirl.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You sir, are a racist.

I agree, some of my best friends are 'white photons'.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I'll take that as a yes, peavegirl.

BTW, nobody here thinks the principles of Lessans book are pertinent to anything but mental illness or deception. A sane person would know this by now.

People are here for the car wreck that is your insanity.

Get help peavegirl.

I'm here for the hunting.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because the visual cortex is able to interpret what the eyes are seeing.

It's really not strange if you see this in the perspective of the efferent model. The blue light is present when we look at the object. That's when we see it, but that doesn't mean that this light is not being replaced by new photons that are constantly in motion. As light bounces off the object, some light gets absorbed and some doesn't which allows us to distinguish substance in the external world. Due to the fact that light is in constant motion doesn't change the fact that the blue wavelength light can only be present at the film/retina if the object is present. Moreover, we will see that object in direct proportion to the inverse square law of optics, so the farther away the object is from the film/retina due to the dispersion of light, the smaller the object will appear until it can no longer be seen or photographed at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

After today I'm not going to respond to anyone who doesn't have a direct and pertinent question regarding the principles in this book. Using my energy to answer people who are here for one reason only, which is to make fun of me, is a waste of my valuable time.

After today I may have to stop asking pertinent questions if you are just going to keep answering them with calorie and content free word salad.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because the visual cortex is able to interpret what the eyes are seeing.

But from the efferent model of vision it is the brain that looks out through the eyes and the visual cortex is part of the brain, so the visual cortex is looking out through the eyes. The visual cortex is seeing, not the eyes.

That the visual cortex is intrepreting what the eyes see is according to the afferent model of vision. Either you are mixed up or you are admitting that the afferent model is the correct one.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

is a waste of my valuable time.

Who is paying you? which is the only thing that could make your time of any value at all.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

After today I may have to stop asking pertinent questions if you are just going to keep answering them with calorie and content free word salad.

It actually becomes palatable with the right dressing. A delicate mix of incredulity and nonsense, with a garnish of garish humor.

In fact I believe a healthy dose of fiber would help to relieve Peacegirl of certain material that is troubeling her.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I'll take that as a yes, peavegirl.

BTW, nobody here thinks the principles of Lessans book are pertinent to anything but mental illness or deception. A sane person would know this by now.

People are here for the car wreck that is your insanity.

Get help peavegirl.

If that's why people are here it's very unfortunate, because this knowledge is genuine. What more can I say NA? It's not up to me what people take from this knowledge. All I can do is present it to the best of my ability, which is what I'm doing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

After today I may have to stop asking pertinent questions if you are just going to keep answering them with calorie and content free word salad.

It may be calorie free, but it's not content free. You have the best of both worlds.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What more can I say NA? It's not up to me what people take from this knowledge. All I can do is present it to the best of my ability, which is what I'm doing.

I may be the only one here that agrees with you. You are presenting Lessans to the best of your ability. Almost ten years and many tens of thousands of posts later, on many forums, and you have nothing to show for it. A sane person would understand that the problem is all theirs and would be able to step back from it all and take a critical look at what they were doing. They would ask, 'Could it be the content, could it be the presentation, could it all be wrong?'

But you are not sane peavegirl.

Get help.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I may be the only one here that agrees with you. You are presenting Lessans to the best of your ability. Almost ten years and many tens of thousands of posts later, on many forums, and you have nothing to show for it.

That's a misconception. Each forum had something to offer, but this book was never thoroughly analyzed on any of them. They either were strictly moderated and the thread was shut down, or people were so mean that even when I was invited to have my own sub-forum, I wouldn't do it because of the name calling. I even think it was more vitriolic than this thread, if that's possible.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

A sane person would understand that the problem is all theirs and would be able to step back from it all and take a critical look at what they were doing. They would ask, 'Could it be the content, could it be the presentation, could it all be wrong?'

I have stepped back and taken a look and what I see is that the method I'm using is wrong. I finally have to admit that, although going online was not a complete waste of time. It's taken me a long time to realize this because I didn't recognize immediately that no matter what forum I'm on, it's not, and never will be, the right venue for presenting a discovery of this magnitude.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's a misconception. Each forum had something to offer, but this book was never thoroughly analyzed on any of them. They either were strictly moderated and the thread was shut down, or people were so mean that even when I was invited to have my own sub-forum, I wouldn't do it because of the name calling. I even think it was more vitriolic than this thread, if that's possible.

I have stepped back and taken a look and what I see is that the method I'm using is wrong. I finally have to admit that, although going online was not a complete waste of time. It's taken me a long time to realize this because I didn't recognize immediately that no matter what forum I'm on, it's not, and never will be, the right venue for presenting a discovery of this magnitude.

An internet forum is not the right venue for presenting a discovery of any magnitude. It's just a place where all kinds of people from all walks of life may come and go and comment in passing or stop a while and do what they will. At best you might sell some books, but from what I gather that's been a complete failure for you as well.

But you need to do more than step back and evaluate your use of forums. You need to have your sanity evaluated. You need to get help peavegirl. Otherwise you will waste the rest of your life on this nonsense. I know it is your life to waste but it is a waste still the same. You could be spending your time writing fourth grade material, which you seem particularly attuned to and help some kid be safe. That would be a far greater contribution than trying to get people interested in Lessans folly.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

An internet forum is not the right venue for presenting a discovery of any magnitude. It's just a place where all kinds of people from all walks of life may come and go and comment in passing or stop a while and do what they will. At best you might sell some books, but from what I gather that's been a complete failure for you as well.

You may have been here awhile but you obviously haven't been listening. I have not marketed this book. Very few people know about it.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

But you need to do more than step back and evaluate your use of forums. You need to have your sanity evaluated. You need to get help peavegirl. Otherwise you will waste the rest of your life on this nonsense. I know it is your life to waste but it is a waste still the same. You could be spending your time writing fourth grade material, which you seem particularly attuned to and help some kid be safe. That would be a far greater contribution than trying to get people interested in Lessans folly.

Don't you see that my entire See-More Safety program is an outgrowth of this knowledge? I would never work on one project and leave the other behind; especially since this discovery is where my safety program originated. It's true that helping children to stay safe is a worthy goal in anyone's eyes, and it would be an easier contribution to make because nobody would be fighting me tooth and nail, but this goal is just as important of a contribution even if I don't see the final result in my lifetime.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't you see that my entire See-More Safety program is an outgrowth of this knowledge? I would never work on one project and leave the other behind; especially since this discovery is where my safety program originated. It's true that helping children to stay safe is a worthy goal in anyone's eyes, and it would be an easier contribution to make because nobody would be fighting me tooth and nail, but this goal is just as important of a contribution even if I don't see the final result in my lifetime.

I think that your desire to help people is innate and has nothing to do with Lessans. And by your own admission, Lessans has been an impediment. Do yourself a big favor and forget about Lessans and just help people instead of fighting a battle you will never win.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I think that your desire to help people is innate and has nothing to do with Lessans. And by your own admission, Lessans has been an impediment. Do yourself a big favor and forget about Lessans and just help people instead of fighting a battle you will never win.

You have no idea what you're talking about NA. It's really sad that after all I've explained to you, you come back like a bot with the same shtick. I'm really on the verge of putting you on ignore, which I'm sure you could care less. That makes it easier for me. I'm just warning you so you'll know why I'm not answering you anymore. To remind you, after today if you have no pertinent questions related to the book, I'm skipping over your posts, and if they get on my nerves long enough, I'm sending you to ignore island with all the others who didn't take my warnings seriously.

[But]

Have you thought up something about the moons of Jupiter yet?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Have you thought up something about the moons of Jupiter yet?

I am not required to figure out what could be causing the apparent time difference. All I am required to do is prove that the eyes are efferent. If it takes more empirical evidence to prove that Lessans was not wrong, then so be it.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I am required to do is prove that the eyes are efferent.

Something you have not even come close to accomplishing.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sending you to ignore island with all the others who didn't take my warnings seriously.

Will you stop that, it's getting crowed over here, and the fishing isn't very good.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Something you have not even come close to accomplishing.

The most I can do is present Lessans' findings. If nothing more, I hope I planted a seed. I can't do anything other than explain this alternate model of sight in the hope that people will take it seriously and to question whether science may have made a fundamental error. I've said all along that more empirical testing will be necessary for proof to be established.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not required to figure out what could be causing the apparent time difference. All I am required to do is prove that the eyes are efferent. If it takes more empirical evidence to prove that Lessans was not wrong, then so be it.

Any empirical observation that cannot be explained within your alternate model, stands as a disproof of your model. Accurate models, like optics, explain all empirical observations without inconsistency.