A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your demonstration is very impressive, and I do appreciate it, but you think that this negates what Lessans says, and you're incorrect. So we still have to start from the beginning to determine who is right, and there are no shortcuts.

I am not negating Lessans, I am refuting YOU by showing you how light works in the real world.

Lessans never said a damn thing about non-traveling light, non reflecting light, mirror images, real time photography or magical lenses. He thought the eyes looked out and the brain saw and never put a single thought into the consequences of that idea wrt to photography and physics.

Your proposed model is all YOURS

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am not negating Lessans, I am refuting YOU by showing you how light works in the real world.

Lessans never said a damn thing about non-traveling light, non reflecting light, mirror images, real time photography or magical lenses. He thought the eyes looked out and the brain saw and never put a single thought into the consequences of that idea wrt to photography and physics.

Your proposed model is all YOURS

I am just extending his knowledge, that's all. He didn't discuss light; he discussed the eyes, but this model of sight does not negate or dismiss the workings of light, therefore, it does not violate the laws of physics and consequently there is no conflict.

[LadyShea]

He didn't discuss light or photography because he didn't extend his own ideas to see how they fit into reality, peacegirl. It never even occurred to him that "real time" seeing was completely at odds with physics.

But, you are stuck with either contradicting yourself and/or violating the laws of physics in every post because he had on blinders and didn't bother to consider what real time vision actually meant.

[LadyShea]

In one post you said both of these things

1.I was trying to distinguish between light that allows us to see the real world, and light that travels.

2.There is nothing at all that breaks the laws of physics

1. violates the laws of physics because it seeks to falsely separate light into two types, or two categories based on differing properties. No such distinction exists in reality, so you are positing new and different laws of physics

To "start at the beginning" you MUST start with light...because light exists and has properties and is subject to physical laws without any lenses being anywhere around and without any brains looking out. You can't change light to fit your model of vision, so you must explain your model of vision so that it is compatible with these known properties and laws of light.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing at all that breaks the laws of physics

Yes, I think it would be more accurate to say that the laws of physics break your model.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He didn't discuss light or photography because he didn't extend his own ideas to see how they fit into reality, peacegirl. It never even occurred to him that "real time" seeing was completely at odds with physics.

But, you are stuck with either contradicting yourself and/or violating the laws of physics in every post because he had on blinders and didn't bother to consider what real time vision actually meant.

He didn't have blinders on, and he didn't violate the laws of physics just because he claimed that the eyes are not a sense organ. You have no idea what you're talking about.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In one post you said both of these things

1.I was trying to distinguish between light that allows us to see the real world, and light that travels.

Light does travel but the P light (or the light that is present at the film/retina) does not bring us the pattern of the image apart from the actual object because, in this model, we are not receiving the pattern and interpreting it from the light. Scroll back and count how many times I've repeated this.

2.There is nothing at all that breaks the laws of physics

That's true.

1. violates the laws of physics because it seeks to falsely separate light into two types, or two categories based on differing properties. No such distinction exists in reality, so you are positing new and different laws of physics

I am not positing two different types of light, or two different properties of light. I'm just showing that beyond the inverse square law, the pattern of non-absorbed light becomes white light.

To "start at the beginning" you MUST start with light...because light exists and has properties and is subject to physical laws without any lenses being anywhere around and without any brains looking out. You can't change light to fit your model of vision, so you must explain your model of vision so that it is compatible with these known properties and laws of light.

No LadyShea, I do not have to start with light. He made a discovery on the eyes, so that's where I will begin. If efferent vision is true, this doesn't mean that the laws of physics are broken or that light works differently except for the idea that when it strikes an object, it bounces and travels throughout space and time. That is the only thing that is being disputed, and it still stands.

[davidm]

peacegirl, you have evolved from being an oddity, to a laughingstock, to the Internet's biggest freak show, to a droning, dithering, dishonest, suffocating bore.

It amazes me why anyone still tries to school your sorry ass. On teh Internetz, being boring is the greatest sin. You have recycled your mindless shit so many times now that one needs to prop up toothpicks between one's eyelids to keep them open. It beats me why LadyShea, Spacemonkey and a few others even bother with your stupid shit any longer.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are they about 30 meters away from the object and traveling away from it? [Yes or No]

Are they about 30 meters away from the camera film and traveling towards it? [Yes or No]

Bump.

[davidm]

peacegirl, get some new material. You are boring the shit out of everyone except the indefatigable Spacemonkey and LadyShea. If you're not careful you'll lose your audience to the new Utopianist charlatan in Aisle 4, hawking "I am Christ."

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was trying to distinguish between light that allows us to see the real world, and light that travels Angakuk. That is the whole point of this discussion.

And that was a mistake, for all light travels, therefore the light that allow us to see the real world is light that travels.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing at all that breaks the laws of physics, and if you don't see it, either I have to try harder to share this model of sight, or you have to try harder to listen to what Lessans explained. I don't know which is the most urgent at this point.

Claiming that the unabsorbed light hitting an object does not bounce off and travel away from it breaks the laws of physics. And claiming that it neither ceases to exist, nor is stationary, nor teleports, nor bounces off breaks the laws of logic.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am just extending his knowledge, that's all. He didn't discuss light; he discussed the eyes, but this model of sight does not negate or dismiss the workings of light, therefore, it does not violate the laws of physics and consequently there is no conflict.

But there is conflict. You are trying to extend his alleged knowledge, but you only end up contradicting both yourself and the laws of physics. If there were no conflict then you would have answers to my questions, and wouldn't have to keep flip-flopping all over the place and avoiding/ignoring my questions. Your attempts to extend his 'knowledge' do not work.

[davidm]

lol, Lessans didn't "explain" any of this, the uneducated buffoon just made some shit up about light that is manifestly false. It is YOU who are making up all kinds of extended "explanations" for his false conception, and all of your "explanations" end straight in the ditch of incoherency or self-contradicition because you are trying to explicate something that is utterly incoherent, a vague idea proposed by a buffoon.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No LadyShea, I do not have to start with light. He made a discovery on the eyes, so that's where I will begin. If efferent vision is true, this doesn't mean that the laws of physics are broken or that light works differently except for the idea that when it strikes an object, it bounces and travels throughout space and time. That is the only thing that is being disputed, and it still stands.

But the unabsorbed light striking an object does bounce off and travel through space and time. If you are disputing that then you are simply wrong, and you have yet to explain what that light might actually do instead. The only other possibilities are that it either ceases to exist, becomes stationary, or teleports somewhere else, yet you reject all of these options. And when pressed on what it does do, you end up saying things that imply the light has bounced off and traveled away. When this is pointed out you just ignore it only to later return to flatly denying that it bounces off and travels away. To anyone else observing this strange behaviour of yours, it is strongly indicative of a broken mind.

[davidm]

After some 1,000 pages of her codswallop is there anyone who doubts that what passes for her mind is irretrievably broken?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by davidm

After some 1,000 pages of her codswallop is there anyone who doubts that what passes for her mind is irretrievably broken?

Only Peacegirl herself.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

To anyone else observing this strange behaviour of yours, it is strongly indicative of a broken mind.

Spacemonkey, it has been established for some time now that the mind in question is severely broken. The only open question was what in the world did you hope to accomplish? Teach the horse to sing?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are they about 30 meters away from the object and traveling away from it? [Yes or No]

Are they about 30 meters away from the camera film and traveling towards it? [Yes or No]

I told you that as light gets absorbed, the remaining non-absorbed light is moving along by the Sun's emissions. But when the lens aims at the object (because it meets the requirements necessary to take a photograph) the mirror image of that object is at the film instantly because there is no distance or travel time under these conditions. The only change is that the object must be large enough or bright enough to be seen by the lens. This is what creates the mirror image. You believe that the only thing necessary for a photograph to turn out is the pattern in the light, but without the object, or substance, present, there will be no image. I just want to say, once again, that there are no physical laws being broken in this account.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that as light gets absorbed, the remaining non-absorbed light is moving along by the Sun's emissions. But when the lens aims at the object (because it meets the requirements necessary to take a photograph) the mirror image of that object is at the film instantly because there is no distance or travel time under these conditions. The only change is that the object must be large enough or bright enough to be seen by the lens. This is what creates the mirror image. You believe that the only thing necessary for a photograph to turn out is the pattern in the light, but without the object, or substance, present, there will be no image. I just want to say, once again, that there are no physical laws being broken in this account.

Why are you replying to my post without bothering to answer the questions it contains? They are simple Yes or No questions. Feel free to elaborate if you wish, but you need to at least answer Yes or No to each. Try again:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

1) So where are the unabsorbed photons 0.0001sec after they have hit the object? [Insert answer here]

Are they about 30 meters away from the object and traveling away from it? [Yes or No]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

2) So where were the photons (which are at the film comprising the mirror image when the photograph is taken) 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken? [Insert answer here]

Are they about 30 meters away from the camera film and traveling towards it? [Yes or No]

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just want to say, once again, that there are no physical laws being broken in this account.

It doesn't matter how many times you say it. It's still wrong. Your account violates physical laws and remains contradictory.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And that was a mistake, for all light travels, therefore the light that allow us to see the real world is light that travels.

Claiming that the unabsorbed light hitting an object does not bounce off and travel away from it breaks the laws of physics. And claiming that it neither ceases to exist, nor is stationary, nor teleports, nor bounces off breaks the laws of logic.

Why does it break the laws of physics if an object absorbs some of the light leaving the remaining light to reveal itself when we're looking directly at it in real time. I'm not saying the photons don't get replaced; they do, but this P light only lasts so long before the photons can no longer form an image on the film/retina and, therefore, do not meet the requirements of efferent vision. At that time, these blue non-absorbed photons join the rest of the visual spectrum (white light) since absorption only occurs at the surface of the object.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It doesn't matter how many times you say it. It's still wrong. Your account violates physical laws and remains contradictory.

When did you become the judge of all truth and knowledge; and where did it say this knowledge has to pass through you in order to be approved? Didn't Lessans state specifically not to use the long tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which you think you qualify to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself undeniable proof of its veracity? Do you even know what that means? Nageli also thought he was right and Mendel was wrong. He rejected the very core of Mendel's discovery, but now he is just a footnote in the annals of history, and Mendel is the father of genetics. Go figure. But you can't be wrong, can you, because your reasoning and your logic are impeccable. So who's to argue with you? You also said Lessans was wrong about determinism, and about conscience. You're so off the mark it's amazing to me that you think you have it down pat, but you don't. Not by a longshot.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're the boss Spacemonkey. You can't be wrong because your God's gift to knowledge. You also said Lessans was wrong about determinism, and about conscience. You're so off the mark it's amazing to me that you think you have it down pat, but you don't. Not by a longshot.

Repeatedly asserting that your account doesn't violate physical laws is pointless. Every attempted explanation you have so far provided violates physical laws and is also self-contradictory. You won't make any progess if all you do is whine like this and avoid questions.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why does it break the laws of physics if an object absorbs some of the light leaving the remaining light to reveal itself when we're looking directly at it in real time. I'm not saying the photons don't get replaced; they do, but this P light only lasts so long before the photons can no longer form an image on the film/retina and, therefore, do not meet the requirements of efferent vision. At that time, these blue non-absorbed photons join the rest of the visual spectrum (white light) since absorption only occurs at the surface of the object.

It breaks the laws of physics to caim that unabsorbed light hitting the object doesn't then begin travelling away from its surface. If it has done this then it is bouncing off. If it doesn't, then it must either cease to exist, become stationary, or teleport. All of these violate the laws of physics.

Stop weaselling. Answer my questions. What would your father think of your behaviour?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are they about 30 meters away from the object and traveling away from it? [Yes or No]

Are they about 30 meters away from the camera film and traveling towards it? [Yes or No]

Bump.