A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said light travels...[blah blah weasel weasel]...

I didn't ask you if light travels, did I? I asked you:-

What happens to the nonabsorbed light if it isn't reflected?

Where was the light at the film just before the photograph was taken?

And I also pointed out that if the nonabsorbed light is not reflected, then it cannot be subject to dispersion or the inverse square law as you claim. For these to apply, the nonabsorbed light must be traveling away from the object, and it cannot be doing that unless it has been reflected.

You keep complaining that I don't "get it". How am I supposed to ever understand when you never answer what I ask?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are flip-flopping over whether or not the nonabsorbed light gets reflected. But regardless of whether or not you are flip-flopping, why have you not answered the above questions?

This is weaseling. You are not explaining why you would say that you agree that the nonabsorbed light gets reflected (and complain about how many times you have to say this) only to vehemently deny that this is the case a couple of pages later. You can't seriously expect anyone to believe that it's not really a contradiction when you say one thing and then say the exact opposite a few posts later.

Why do you lie like this? You didn't answer the above quoted question at all. Surely you can see that? So why lie about it? Here are the questions again:

The nonabsorbed light cannot be subject to dispersion or the inverse square law if it doesn't travel away from the object, and it can't travel away from the object unless it has been reflected. Do you accept these facts? [Answer goes here]

And if it doesn't get reflected (i.e. doesn't bounce off the object and travel away from it) then what does happen to this nonabsorbed light? It was traveling towards the object, then it hits the object but is not absorbed. Where is this nonabsorbed light 0.0001sec after hitting the object? [Answer goes here]

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I didn't ask you if light travels, did I? I asked you:-

What happens to the nonabsorbed light if it isn't reflected?

Where was the light at the film just before the photograph was taken?

And I also pointed out that if the nonabsorbed light is not reflected, then it cannot be subject to dispersion or the inverse square law as you claim. For these to apply, the nonabsorbed light must be traveling away from the object, and it cannot be doing that unless it has been reflected.

Bump.

[LadyShea]

She has abandoned this in order to call me ignorant a lot

[davidm]

BULLETIN BULLETIN BULLETIN

You are talking to a batshit crazy lady!

</bulletin>

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The eyes cannot make photons teleport. They cannot make light instantly change location without traveling.

Neither are you. If you grasped it then you'd be able to explain it.

I explained it as best I can. You can't logically make sense of this model by how you set up your premise (i.e., that light brings to the eyes the image, or the eyes detect the image due to light without the necessity of the object or substance being present. However you want to say it, it all means the same thing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This changes the phenomenon completely and it doesn't violate the laws of physics.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes it does. Teleporting light that can instantaneously change locations without traveling the intervening distance completely violates the laws of physics.

No, this is not teleportation because there is no transfer of matter from one point to another without traversing the physical space between them. The phenomenon does not require any travel time at all. It just requires the object to be bright enough and large enough to be seen. If this occurs, the eyes will be able to see it in real time whether it's a million miles away, or two feet away.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I really don't want to start this conversation again because it's going to go nowhere.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Too bad. You have started this conversation again.

That's because I try to be polite and answer earnest questions. But the conversation has just ended.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I explained it as best I can. You can't logically make sense of this model by how you set up your premise (i.e., that light brings to the eyes the image, or the eyes detect the image due to light without the necessity of the object or substance being present. However you want to say it, it all means the same thing.

You didn't explain it at all. You still can't tell me where the photons are at the times I am asking about. And I haven't set up any premises, not about light bringing images to the eyes or anything else. I've only asked you about the things you've been saying.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, this is not teleportation because there is no transfer of matter from one point to another without traversing the physical space between them.

It is teleportation because it is the transfer of photons from one point to another without traversing the physical space between them. It doesn't cease to be teleportation just because we are talking about light/energy rather than matter. It still violates the laws of physics.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's because I try to be polite and answer earnest questions.

I do hope that was some kind of joke. You've done nothing but be rude and insulting, while constantly refusing to answer earnest questions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I explained it as best I can. You can't logically make sense of this model by how you set up your premise (i.e., that light brings to the eyes the image, or the eyes detect the image due to light without the necessity of the object or substance being present. However you want to say it, it all means the same thing.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You didn't explain it at all. You still can't tell me where the photons are at the times I am asking about. And I haven't set up any premises, not about light bringing images to the eyes or anything else. I've only asked you about the things you've been saying.

The photons are traveling Spacemonkey, but the image that is instantly at the retina, if efferent vision is true, allows us to see the world in real time, since we are then using light to see reality; light is not bringing the world to us.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, this is not teleportation because there is no transfer of matter from one point to another without traversing the physical space between them.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It is teleportation because it is the transfer of photons from one point to another without traversing the physical space between them. It doesn't cease to be teleportation just because we are talking about light/energy rather than matter. It still violates the laws of physics.

It's not about light/energy or matter. It's about the function of the eyes. You don't seem to see the difference between light being used to bring images by means of their frequency and wavelength, and light being used as a condition of sight, which changes everything because then light is not responsible for sight; it is just a medium that allows us to see the world at large. You ARE setting up a certain premise and following it logically, and every time it will look like Lessans is wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's because I try to be polite and answer earnest questions.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I do hope that was some kind of joke. You've done nothing but be rude and insulting, while constantly refusing to answer earnest questions.

I can't answer the questions you keep repeating because they don't apply. And if you think I'm insulting, scroll back and see how many times you asked me if I've been institutionalized. Just for once look at yourself in the mirror.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The photons are traveling Spacemonkey, but the image that is instantly at the retina, if efferent vision is true, allows us to see the world in real time, since we are then using light to see reality; light is not bringing the world to us.

The non-absorbed light cannot be both instantly at the film and traveling between the object and the camera. It cannot be in two places at once. So which is it? Why can't you maintain a consistent position on this question for more than a single post at a time?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not about light/energy or matter. It's about the function of the eyes.

No it isn't. I've been asking you about photography, where there are no eyes at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You ARE setting up a certain premise and following it logically, and every time it will look like Lessans is wrong.

No I'm not. I'm only asking you about your own inconsistent claims. Such as when you say that the nonabsorbed light doesn't get reflected or travel away from the object, and yet is somehow still subject to dispersion and the inverse square law. Or when you say that the nonabsorbed light is instantly at the distant film while also traveling between the object and the film. Or when you say that light is never stationary, but that the photons at the film were also still at the film a moment beforehand. These are all contradictory claims.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't answer the questions you keep repeating because they don't apply.

But they do apply, as I've repeatedly proven to you. For instance, when you say that the photons existed and had locations at the times I have asked you about, the question of what those locations are obviously does apply.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And if you think I'm insulting, scroll back and see how many times you asked me if I've been institutionalized. Just for once look at yourself in the mirror.

That is not an insult, but rather a perfectly legitimate question given the signs of mental illness you persistently display. And you've already admitted to your own demeaning attitude.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The non-absorbed light cannot be both instantly at the film and traveling between the object and the camera. It cannot be in two places at once. So which is it? Why can't you maintain a consistent position on this question for more than a single post at a time?

No it isn't. I've been asking you about photography, where there are no eyes at all.

No I'm not. I'm only asking you about your own inconsistent claims. Such as when you say that the nonabsorbed light doesn't get reflected or travel away from the object, and yet is somehow still subject to dispersion and the inverse square law. Or when you say that the nonabsorbed light is instantly at the distant film while also traveling between the object and the film. Or when you say that light is never stationary, but that the photons at the film were also still at the film a moment beforehand. These are all contradictory claims.

But they do apply, as I've repeatedly proven to you. For instance, when you say that the photons existed and had locations at the times I have asked you about, the question of what those locations are obviously does apply.

That is not an insult, but rather a perfectly legitimate question given the signs of mental illness you persistently display. And you've already admitted to your own demeaning attitude.

You know what? I have no interest in talking to you anymore. Bye.

[LadyShea]

Peacegirl has content on her site now if anyone is interested New Discovery - Decline and Fall of All Evil

[Vivisectus]

Bless her. At least this won't cost her a lot, and she can enjoy the feeling that she is carrying on the important work without being taken to the cleaners by some scabby self-publishing scam.

[davidm]

Hmm, I do not see any place for comments there.

[Vivisectus]

... nor any link to where one could actually obtain the book. Thank god the faith of the world is safely in the hands of this family of geniuses.

[davidm]

Funny she has an image of the sun -- seen as it was eight and a half minutes ago, of course.

[Stephen Maturin]

Good to see you, V! I was concerned that maybe you traded in all your regular clothing for translucent fuck garments and moved to one of the many thousands of Lessantonian Golden Age communes that are springing up all over the world.

[Vivisectus]

Thanks, Stephen! It is good to be back.

Incidentally, you were 100% correct: I have been lounging around suggestively, my pale and bloated paunch sheathed in shimmering translucent robes and sexy jackets, and with my special sex-hat at a rakish angle for extra emphasis. This of course is entirely different than simply saying "I is horny!" and is completely not simply a different way of expressing a desire to see some proper rumpy-pumpy materialize in the near future.

The problem arose when we realized that neither of us had the right to ask the other person to be in the same bed for this to actually happen. You see, we buy our furniture at Ikea so the whole kitchen-table thing is way too much hassle for us. I mean it is all well and good to be free and not bound by any sort of outmoded sexual mores, but it is a 2 hour drive there and back all the same. Mind you, the inevitable argument that is generated by the frustration of putting the damn thing together does mean it will be WEEKS before we have to get another one. But that aside.

The problem was that if I asked her to go to my bed, that would put some kind of obligation on her, which is a form of advance blaming. The same applied to her. Nor could I simply initiate the sexual act in any way - she would not be able to reject me without once again sending us down the never-ending spiral of blame and hurt. Pretty soon we were reduced to stalking each other through the house, trying to find some way to casually and in a totally non-committal way initiate the ancient ritual of parking the pink plymouth in the garage of love. Thank god for Xboxes, I say, or the kids might be permanently scarred by now. At one stage I was reduced to pretending I was using an invisible hula-hoop while Mrs Sectus pretended to be distractedly searching for spare change on the floor, working backwards.

[Vivisectus]

The real trouble started when we had to work out what were favours and what were legitimate requests. If I asked my son to carry out the garbage, would that not be advance blaming him for not wanting to do it? After all he had not offered to do anything. The mounting piles of garbage did not seem to bother him much, so perhaps it was me who needed to go and do it. What about the dishes? Was it not unreasonable to ask someone to do them, when it would be just as easy for me to wash a single plate for myself if I wanted a clean plate to eat off? Who was I to judge what was right for all the other fully grown inmates of my household? They all seemed perfectly content to lie on the couch and watch TV all day, and in all fairness I could not possibly object: that would be blaming them somehow. I know they all signed the same covenant I did, but sometimes I could not help but feel that they were not taking the whole thing as seriously as I was. This was of course a clear sign it was my fault: they were only reacting to me advance blaming them by thinking that maybe it would be a good idea if they would help out in the house once in a while.

Watching TV was rapidly becoming very difficult. In order to change the channel, we had to figure out if anyone was interested in the TV show without asking. You see, if we implied that we were not interested, we would put an obligation on the other person to do something they might not want to do. This would not have been so bad if the cat had not trodden on the remote, accidentally switching to the shopping channel.

It was a good thing that my 13-year old daughter had recently fallen in love with the genitals of her life-long partner, Bubba. Being illiterate, he could not really be expected to get into the spirit of the thing, so he was able to solve most of these problems by resolutely changing the channel to the WWF all day wrestling channel. This just goes to show that such harmful, judgemental standards such as “IQ”, “Education” and “criminal record” really confuse people and make them so hurtfully judgemental. I am sure he will be back any day now to assume his responsibilities as a father, as he could not possibly desire, of his free will, to cause a harm for which none of us will blame him in he slightest. I hope he does not forget to bring our TV and car back then he does.

[Stephen Maturin]

[davidm]

seconded

[davidm]

It's always good to see Utopian schemes tried out in the real world. Nice work, Mr. Sectus. And I'm reminded, with the Curiosity probe due to land on Mars on Monday I believe, how unfortunate it is that peacegirl failed to get the word of Lessans' work to NASA before launch. Had she done so, NASA of course would have immediately recalibratred the trajectory to take into account the non-factual fact that we see Mars in real time. Of course this would have meant that Curiosity would have sailed past Mars, missing it by thousands of miles, and all that money and potential for scientific discovery would have gone down the drain. But what a small price that would have been to pay, in order to ensure Whirled Peas in Our Time.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I know they all signed the same covenant I did, but sometimes I could not help but feel that they were not taking the whole thing as seriously as I was.

To me, that was the lulziest part of the gargantuan intellectual and linguistic train wreck that is The Sacred Text. Lessans (pbuh) insisted that his "discoveries" would inevitably usher in a Golden Age of Whirled Peas ( thanks to davidm), yet tacitly acknowledged that the "discoveries" had no transformative power at all.

Lessans wrote that the God's sacred yet 100% nonreligious commandment "Thou Shalt Not Blame" simply doesn't apply after a blameworthy act is committed; it only applied before. Keep your actions on the straight and narrow and I won't blame you. Fuck with me, however, and I'll fuck you up and be perfectly justified in doing so.

But somehow, some way, signing contracts promising never to blame anyone for anything will magically fix all that. You're justified in blaming blameworthy acts, but won't do it because your signature is now on that contract.



Imagine the scene. 120,000 Lessantonians assembled in the stands and on the field of the cavernous Michigan Stadium in Ann Arbor, MI. All have signed no-blame contracts and have gathered together to usher in the Golden Age formally. The crowd is abuzz with anticipation as they await the appearance of Mister See-More Cameltoe and his faithful acolyte, Fistula.

The stadium lights go dark and the crowd roars as the band launches into a high-energy rendition of Otis Redding's I Can't Turn You Loose. A spotlight illuminates Fistula as she makes her way to the mic . . .




*crowd explodes into shouting and thunderous applause, See-More takes the stage clad in translucent fuck robe, dancing to the strains of I Can't Turn You Loose, whipping the already-frenzied crowd to ever-greater heights of excitement*




*crowd roars, widespread joy-fainting*




*crowd reduced to a state of hooting, gibbering incontinence by the blinding and undeniable brilliance of it all*







*See-More places his binoculars to his eyes and scans the back row*










*riot ensues, dozens killed, thousands injured*

[davidm]

[naturalist.atheist]

peacegirl, with her efferent vision, has seven minutes to call her bookie in Vegas and make a fortune.

Curiosity's Seven Minutes of Terror - YouTube

[Vivisectus]

My favourite part of where Lessans explains that even asking for the time is a bad thing sometimes. Asking for someone to swing by the shops for you is bad. Not taking a 5 minute detour for someone who is temporarily your transport and also your wife is perfectly OK, and in fact it is selfish for your wife to make such a request.

Poor Mrs Lessans must have been co condescended silly on a day-today basis.