A revolution in thought - Page 1548

peacegirl · #**38676** 07-24-2014, 10:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People understand how difficult this concept obviously is, and I believe they are giving me credit for trying to explain how this works

Which people?

People who are tuning in. I'm not talking about you or your cronies who think you have it all figured out.

peacegirl · #**38677** 07-24-2014, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If it's a lens that gathers light which is on photosensitive paper, we would get an image of the Sun (the object) before the light arrives 81/2 minutes later.

The ONLY thing a lens ever does is to change the direction of light passing through it. So a lens cannot do anything to produce an image of the Sun until light has had time to reach it from the Sun.

And it has in less than a nanosecond.

How? How does light get from the Sun to the lens on Earth in a nanosecond? If it does so by traveling then it is traveling faster than light. And if it doesn't travel then it isn't light.

I'm sorry but that's not what is happening. My father never said that, nor did he even think that in order for this model to work light had to travel to reach the eye in less than a nanosecond. That's where you're confused, just like you're confused over the two-sided equation.

peacegirl · #**38678** 07-24-2014, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

If there is no information in the light, then how can we decode an image that has no information in it?

There is information in light, which you've agreed to...wavelength, intensity, angle of travel. That is information.

That's just the point LadyShea, the wavelength gives us the information, but this information is not reflected over long distances; only full spectrum light is traveling at 186,000 miles a second and reaching Earth. There is no way to prove that the light striking an object is partial spectrum light that has traveled over space/time, even though it appears logical.

peacegirl · #**38679** 07-24-2014, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Obviously a typo. I meant just over 11 million miles per minute.

Look at your above answers. You have said that the photons now at the film got there by traveling from the Sun at 11 million miles per minute, and began this journey by leaving the Sun only after it is ignited, and yet somehow complete this journey by arriving at the camera film less than 8min later. So I ask you again...

How can photons traveling at just over 11 million miles per minute cover a distance of 93 million miles in less than 8 minutes?

If your answer is that they cannot, then you need to revise your answers to the above questions.

No Spacemonkey, you need to accommodate your answers for a change. This entire account places the light at the eye as a result of two things, the physical object having to be in vierw, and the direction the eye is looking. You don't take this model seriously, not even for a nanosecond (ha). It is YOU who keeps reverting back to traveling photons reaching Earth as the only possible answer...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm not the one reverting back to traveling photons. YOU are. Whenever you answer my questions YOU tell ME that the photons at the film are traveling photons that got there by traveling there from the Sun.

I have always maintained that light travels but not the image (or partial spectrum). You know exactly what I mean so please don't tell me to change my wording. I can't explain it any other way.

peacegirl · #**38680** 07-24-2014, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That's true Spacemonkey, but you just can't grasp the concept. What can I do? :chin:

How is it true? How can the same photons not be the same photons? What am I not getting that would make flat contradictions like this reasonable?

It's not reasonable only because you don't understand what I mean. That's why I said the image is not reflected, even though light is traveling. If that's true, then there is no contradiction.

peacegirl · #**38681** 07-24-2014, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Without a lens or a hole acting as a lens we would get no image.

A hole doesn't act as a lens.

What the heck do lenses and holes (but only holes up to a certain size that you don't know!) do in your account? In ours, a lens bends the path of light. A hole lets light through. What do they do in your magical world?

Why did you just google randomly and copy paste something about pinhole cameras?

According to you, lenses and holes (but not if they're too big!) have a mysterious ability to make light that is a huge distance away suddenly interact with photosensitive paper behind them. How do they possess such an ability? Why does a hole of only a certain size work?

Please explain this magic.

It's not magic Dragar. It's how pinholes work to achieve an image that is not blurred or without resolution. Pinholes work like lenses...

No, they don't.

Explain how a hole has the magical properties you ascribe to it.

I gave you the article all about the similarities between pinhole cameras which don't have a lens, and cameras that do have lenses. Obviously, you didn't read any of it. I would have liked to get your feedback.

peacegirl · #**38682** 07-24-2014, 10:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that you actually think I'm saying that light travels to Earth in a nanosecond is hilarious.

That's what you keep saying, that light will be located on camera film in a nanosecond. The film is on Earth which is 93 million miles from the Sun. These are just facts.

But not if the image or information is not traveling LadyShea. That's the problem with the afferent viewpoint. It is believed that the image or information or raw material is in the light which is then transduced. The whole concocted story is not right.

peacegirl · #**38683** 07-24-2014, 11:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

She's resting and recuperating for another day in which to present incoherent nonsense in a smug, condescending tone. :yup:

It's not just that what she's saying is wrong; it's just complete codswallop. She grabs words at random off the Internet like "inverse square law" and "nanosecond" and "full spectrum" and then she flings them randomly into a big fat :salad:

that no doubt makes no sense even to her. I wonder what she is trying to achieve at this point. Her posts are actually much worse then they were when she began here.

I believe Peacegirl's posts are indicative of a very serious condition, "Vocabularium Obscurus" which seems to be progressing, and without an adequate dose of "Thesaurosiumide Oxide" or "Dictionariumonolact Sulfate" The condition will only get worse.

peacegirl · #**38684** 07-24-2014, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The way to know whether we are seeing the Sun in real time rather than decoding an image of the Sun [could only be proven if the Sun was just turned on because we would be able to see the Sun before the light that was emitted got here 81/2 minutes later.

Isn't it convenient that the only way this claim can be proven is by conducting an impossible experiment. For the Sun to be turned on, it must first be turned off. I am pretty sure that if the Sun were turned off we would all die.

It is the same thing with some of his other claims. Put a baby in a room with no external stimuli other than visual stimuli and remove the baby's eyelids. The baby will never learn how to see. This is an experiment that will never be conducted now that Dr. Mengele is dead (if he really is). Isn't that convenient?

In the new "no free will/no blame" world the conscience will work at 100% efficiency and responsibility will increase rather than decrease and there will be no more crime, war, divorce or homosexuality. Unfortunately we can't test this claim in the world as it exists at present, because we live in a world of blame where people think they have free will. Once again, how convenient for Lessans and peacegirl.

Homosexuality is not a crime...

I didn't say it was. Stop misrepresenting me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the hole was too large the projected image of the light source would be blurred or have no resolution at all. The photosensitive paper would still be interacting with light, but it would have no image that we could make out.

Why do you suppose that is? How does efferent vision explain this phenomenon?

The lens is what gives us the image. It doesn't matter if it's a telescope, a camera, or the eye; they all work similarly. Without a lens or a hole acting as a lens we would get no image. This is how optics works but the only difference is that we're not waiting for the light to arrive. If there is no lens to focus the light being reflected or emitted from the light source (which must be present), we would just get full spectrum light after 81/2 minutes.

How does the lens give us the image? In your own words (not some copy/paste from a website) what exactly does the lens do?

Quote:

The lens focuses the light that an object has [reflected], or emitted. No object = no light to form an image. That's the whole debate in a nutshell.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If that is the case then the light has to come into contact with the lens before the lens can focus it. Since the light is coming from somewhere other than the lens it has to travel from its point of origin to the location of the lens. It can only do so at the speed of light. Therefore, it takes time for the light to reach the lens and cannot be there instantly.

That's what everyone is saying, and that's why I have the word "reflected" in brackets. I have tried to accommodate everyone by agreeing that not only is light reflected but the image or nonaborbed photons are also. This why there is confusion, so I'm going back to saying the image (or info) is not reflected (exactly how he write it in the book) even though light is traveling at 186,000 miles a second. Now if people don't like that, they are going to have to deal with it because I'm not changing back. It's creating a total circus in here.

p. 117 They reasoned that since it takes longer for the sound from an
airplane to reach us when 15,000 feet away than when 5000; and
since it takes longer for light to reach us the farther it is away when
starting its journey, light and sound must function alike in other
respects — which is false — although it is true that the farther away
we are from the source of sound the fainter it becomes, as light
becomes dimmer when its source is farther away. If the sound from
a plane even though we can’t see it on a clear day will tell us it is in the
sky, why can’t we see the plane if an image is being reflected towards
the eye on the waves of light? The answer is very simple. An image
is not being reflected. We cannot see the plane simply because the
distance reduced its size to where it was impossible to see it with the
naked eye, but we could see it with a telescope. We can’t see bacteria
either with the naked eye, but we can through a microscope.

The actual reason we are able to see the moon is because there is enough
light present and it is large enough to be seen. The explanation as to
why the sun looks to be the size of the moon — although much larger
— is because it is much much farther away, which is the reason it
would look like a star to someone living on a planet the distance of
Rigel. This proves conclusively that the distance between someone
looking, and the object seen, has no relation to time because the
images are not traveling toward the optic nerve on waves of light,
therefore it takes no time to see the moon, the sun, and the distant
stars.

Spacemonkey · #**38685** 07-24-2014, 11:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Look at your above answers. You have said that the photons now at the film got there by traveling from the Sun at 11 million miles per minute, and began this journey by leaving the Sun only after it is ignited, and yet somehow complete this journey by arriving at the camera film less than 8min later. So I ask you again...

How can photons traveling at just over 11 million miles per minute cover a distance of 93 million miles in less than 8 minutes?

They can't...

Then you need to change your answers, because the answers you gave said that they can.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't have to change my answers. I am perfectly content with the answers I gave because I don't believe they are contradictory.

You just rejected your own answers above, so you do need to answer them again. Here they are:

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?

Can they arrive at the camera film less than 8min after leaving their source?

Spacemonkey · #**38686** 07-24-2014, 11:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If it's a lens that gathers light which is on photosensitive paper, we would get an image of the Sun (the object) before the light arrives 81/2 minutes later.

The ONLY thing a lens ever does is to change the direction of light passing through it. So a lens cannot do anything to produce an image of the Sun until light has had time to reach it from the Sun.

And it has in less than a nanosecond.

How? How does light get from the Sun to the lens on Earth in a nanosecond? If it does so by traveling then it is traveling faster than light. And if it doesn't travel then it isn't light.

I'm sorry but that's not what is happening. My father never said that...

No, but you did. Why did you say it if it isn't true and isn't what your father said? And given that your statement was wrong, I refer you back to what you were initially replying to when you made this wrong statement: The ONLY thing a lens ever does is to change the direction of light passing through it. So a lens cannot do anything to produce an image of the Sun until light has had time to reach it from the Sun.

Spacemonkey · #**38687** 07-24-2014, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm not the one reverting back to traveling photons. YOU are. Whenever you answer my questions YOU tell ME that the photons at the film are traveling photons that got there by traveling there from the Sun.

I have always maintained that light travels...

Does that include the light you need at the film on Earth when the Sun is first ignited? Did that light travel from the Sun to get there? If so, how long did it take to complete the journey, and when did it leave the Sun? Try not to talk about completely different photons this time.

Spacemonkey · #**38688** 07-24-2014, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That's true Spacemonkey, but you just can't grasp the concept. What can I do? :chin:

How is it true? How can the same photons not be the same photons? What am I not getting that would make flat contradictions like this reasonable?

It's not reasonable only because you don't understand what I mean. That's why I said the image is not reflected, even though light is traveling. If that's true, then there is no contradiction.

If I don't understand what you mean, it's only because you aren't saying what you mean. But I know what your mind is doing even if you don't. You begin by saying that the photons I am asking about traveled from the Sun to get to the film, because that is the only conceivable answer. But then you switch to saying that these photons must be different photons because your answer would have them arriving 8min too late. Then you conveniently ignore the fact that this means you haven't answered the original question, due to these no longer being the photons you were asked about. Your response above is also nonsense, as there is no reflection of any image in the afferent account for your newly ignited Sun either.

Spacemonkey · #**38689** 07-24-2014, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But not if the image or information is not traveling LadyShea. That's the problem with the afferent viewpoint. It is believed that the image or information or raw material is in the light which is then transduced. The whole concocted story is not right.

You seem to be thinking of the information as some kind of secret code hidden away inside the traveling light. It isn't. The information is simply the known and measurable properties of the arriving light, i.e. direction, wavelength, and intensity. Arriving light is known to have these properties, and they are all that is needed to form an image.

Dragar · #**38690** 07-24-2014, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

]I gave you the article all about the similarities between pinhole cameras which don't have a lens, and cameras that do have lenses.

And yet still holes do not change the path of light rays.

So tell me: what magical property does a hole have that allows light vast distances away to suddenly interact with paper behind the hole?

What magical properties does a lens have, for that matter?

peacegirl · #**38691** 07-24-2014, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Look at your above answers. You have said that the photons now at the film got there by traveling from the Sun at 11 million miles per minute, and began this journey by leaving the Sun only after it is ignited, and yet somehow complete this journey by arriving at the camera film less than 8min later. So I ask you again...

How can photons traveling at just over 11 million miles per minute cover a distance of 93 million miles in less than 8 minutes?

They can't...

Then you need to change your answers, because the answers you gave said that they can.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't have to change my answers. I am perfectly content with the answers I gave because I don't believe they are contradictory.

You just rejected your own answers above, so you do need to answer them again. Here they are:

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?

Can they arrive at the camera film less than 8min after leaving their source?

No Spacemonkey, the interrogation is over. There needs to be a pause in this thread. I cannot continue in the way it's going because it is deceptive and I can't be a part of it. You can interpret this any way you want. In fact, you can be the fake victor. I need to move on and if you think this discussion on light proves him wrong and therefore proves his other discoveries wrong is the worst conclusion you could come to.

peacegirl · #**38692** 07-24-2014, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

]I gave you the article all about the similarities between pinhole cameras which don't have a lens, and cameras that do have lenses.

And yet still holes do not change the path of light rays.

So tell me: what magical property does a hole have that allows light vast distances away to suddenly interact with paper behind the hole?

What magical properties does a lens have, for that matter?

You didn't answer me Dragar and it doesn't matter at this point. I gave you an opportunity to give me feedback based on this very interesting article, but you didn't. I am moving on.

Spacemonkey · #**38693** 07-24-2014, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Spacemonkey, the interrogation is over. There needs to be a pause in this thread. I cannot continue in the way it's going because it is deceptive and I can't be a part of it. You can interpret this any way you want. In fact, you can be the fake victor. I need to move on and if you think this discussion on light proves him wrong and therefore proves his other discoveries wrong is the worst conclusion you could come to.

So after another failed attempt at honestly answering my questions, showing only once more that you cannot make any coherent sense of your own account, you are reverting again to weaseling and ignoring perfectly reasonable questions. Are you getting any closer to recognizing how crazy you are?

peacegirl · #**38694** 07-24-2014, 01:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Spacemonkey, the interrogation is over. There needs to be a pause in this thread. I cannot continue in the way it's going because it is deceptive and I can't be a part of it. You can interpret this any way you want. In fact, you can be the fake victor. I need to move on and if you think this discussion on light proves him wrong and therefore proves his other discoveries wrong is the worst conclusion you could come to.

So after another failed attempt at honestly answering my questions, showing only once more that you cannot make any coherent sense of your own account, you are reverting again to weaseling and ignoring perfectly reasonable questions. Are you getting any closer to recognizing how crazy you are?

I guess I can't, and I guess I'm crazy. So now you can move on to someone else who is less crazy.

I am moving on now. I do not want to continue to talk about light and sight. This topic has been exhausted and should have ended a year ago. I have no desire to continue.

Spacemonkey · #**38695** 07-24-2014, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I guess I can't, and I guess I'm crazy. So now you can move on to someone else who is less crazy.

I am moving on now. I do not want to continue to talk about light and sight. This topic has been exhausted and should have ended a year ago. I have no desire to continue.

Yes, you are crazy. When you say you are 'moving on', what exactly do you mean? Are you going to stop posting at FF? Are you going to begin posting somewhere else? Or are you going to stay here and revert to insulting us all for not sharing your faith-based delusions?

peacegirl · #**38696** 07-24-2014, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Spacemonkey, the interrogation is over. There needs to be a pause in this thread. I cannot continue in the way it's going because it is deceptive and I can't be a part of it. You can interpret this any way you want. In fact, you can be the fake victor. I need to move on and if you think this discussion on light proves him wrong and therefore proves his other discoveries wrong is the worst conclusion you could come to.

So after another failed attempt at honestly answering my questions, showing only once more that you cannot make any coherent sense of your own account, you are reverting again to weaseling and ignoring perfectly reasonable questions. Are you getting any closer to recognizing how crazy you are?

Your questions are deceptive because they appear logical which is why we are right back to where we started. This does not PROVE my father was wrong in his observations. Do you understand why your questions will never get us to the truth? Regardless, I am tired of talking about this so you will have to think about this claim on your own. It may take 3000 years for this claim to be acknowledged, but God doesn't look at time the way we do. In his world, it's just an instant.

peacegirl · #**38697** 07-24-2014, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I guess I can't, and I guess I'm crazy. So now you can move on to someone else who is less crazy.

I am moving on now. I do not want to continue to talk about light and sight. This topic has been exhausted and should have ended a year ago. I have no desire to continue.

Yes, you are crazy. When you say you are 'moving on', what exactly do you mean? Are you going to stop posting at FF? Are you going to begin posting somewhere else? Or are you going to stay here and revert to insulting us all for not sharing your faith-based delusions?

What do you want my answer to be? I am not talking about light and sight anymore on any new forum. I am exhausted from this, and it serves no purpose. In reality, the difference between seeing in real time or not passes through the eye of a needle. The only reason he brought this up is because what we think we see in so far as good looks and bad looks, smart and stupid, good and bad, holds no meaning whatsoever yet people have been damaged by these words because they appear real. This has to do with how words condition us which could not be done if our eyes do not receive light that is converted to an image that appears real. You have no understanding of the basis for his claim at all.

LadyShea · #**38698** 07-24-2014, 01:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that you actually think I'm saying that light travels to Earth in a nanosecond is hilarious.

That's what you keep saying, that light will be located on camera film in a nanosecond. The film is on Earth which is 93 million miles from the Sun. These are just facts.

But not if the image or information is not traveling LadyShea.

That's irrelevant to the issue and nobody thinks images travel.

Light travels, and you have stated that light will be at camera film in a nanosecond. That is what violates the laws of physics.

Quote:

That's the problem with the afferent viewpoint. It is believed that the image or information or raw material is in the light which is then transduced.

It is known that some light strikes the eye as the eye gets in its path of travel. You've agreed that this happens. Light has information as part of its properties, information you've agreed exists.

Quote:

The whole concocted story is not right.

Yet you agree that light travels, and you agree that light has information, such as wavelength, intensity, direction and angle of travel etc. So the only part you can possibly think is concocted is that the photoreceptors can use that information to send signals to the brain...which is something the body is fully capable of as you also agree the other senses do this.

So what aspect is so far fetched?

LadyShea · #**38699** 07-24-2014, 01:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People understand how difficult this concept obviously is, and I believe they are giving me credit for trying to explain how this works

Which people?

People who are tuning in. I'm not talking about you or your cronies who think you have it all figured out.

So you are back to believing you have an appreciative, but strangely silent audience in the lurkers, which in reality are bots and spiders :facepalm:

LadyShea · #**38700** 07-24-2014, 02:02 PM

Quote:

If that is true, it means that there is no information reflected. That's what he meant when he said there are no images traveling on the waves of light.

If that's what he meant why didn't he say that? And if that's what he meant why have you never discussed this interpretation in past years?