A Revolution in Thought: Part Two - Page 142

Dragar · #**3526** 01-02-2012, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Neutrinos were detected in 1956. That's not 'just being detected'! :lol:

I'm talking about the idea that neutrinos travel faster than the speed of light.

Nobody else is! They likely don't, and whether they do or not doesn't matter.

Do you even understand what we're talking about?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

It's also irrelevent what the speed is. The fact is that we should expect a gap of at least years, if Lessans is right, and usually more depending on the distance to the exploding sun. We also know they move roughly at the speed of light anyway, although that fact is irrelevent to this test we've done.

And I will bet that if we were looking at an event taking place on a planet [such as an explosion] and were observing that event from three different locations [based on distance], we would see that event in real time regardless of our location. In other words, we would be seeing the same event occurring [as long as that event was within range of a telescope] regardless of how far away or how close we were to that planet.

You might bet that, but it's not true. GPS satellites work on that very principle. If people used Lessans ideas, they wouldn't work! Once again, Lessans is wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

And in contrast to your question answer me this Dragar: Why do we never detect an image on Earth if an object (not an image), is not in range for it to be resolved?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

You're being silly. We don't 'detect' images, we make them. And if an object is 'not in range to be resolved', that means the image we make is too small to be useful (i.e. it's smaller than one pixel on whatever we are using to capture the light). I've answered this at least three times before, but you always ignore it. When you understand the word you are using, it turns out your question is either nonsensical or answers itself by pure definition, depending on how charitably we interpret your waffle.

No I'm not being silly so please stop patronizing me. If an object is not in range for it to be resolved, it should be able to be resolved within seconds due to the speed of light, especially if certain conditions are met such that the object is not microscopically undetectable and there is no interference where light could be diffused or refracted. What we find is that as the object gets closer, which makes it larger and places it within visual range, we are able to see it with a telescope or the naked eye. This is in keeping with Lessans' observations.

You're being very silly. Those words you're using, you don't really understand do you? You don't actually know what 'resolved' means, you just bring it out in the hope it will mean something. Poor thing, you really don't have a clue how a scientific understanding of optics works. Try following some of those links LadyShea provided and actually make an effort maybe?

Regardless, it doesn't matter if Lessans got one or two things right. Our scientific understanding of vision gets it all right, and so far nothing wrong. Lessans gets a lot wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

So, to summarise:

Lessans says that exploding suns are seen instantly. And yet the 'shrapnel' from the explosion arrives at the same time we see the explosion. Therefore Lessans is wrong.

I'd like to see evidence of this. Do you have any? I want to repeat that shrapnel travels through space, which means time is involved. But seeing something directly does not.

So why do we receive the sharpnel at the same time we see the explosion, hm? As you said, the shrapnel shouldn't reach us until long after we see it, as it takes time while seeing something doesn't. Lessans is wrong. This is yet another contradiction of his predictions.

Here's the papers:

http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v58/i14/p1490_1

http://prl.aps.org/abstract/PRL/v58/i14/p1494_1

as if you could understand it.

peacegirl · #**3527** 01-02-2012, 05:32 PM

[quote=Spacemonkey;1022094]

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You first said that the light at the camera didn't travel to get there, and now you're saying it did. So don't lie by trying to say that you didn't change your position.

Because you're comparing apples to oranges. I said that light travels at a finite speed, but when a camera takes a picture or the eyes are looking at something, all that's necessary is for light to be at the object. The reason for this is that we're seeing efferently, not afferently, which does not involve time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're lying again. First you said the light at the camera didn't travel to get there, then you said it did. That is you changing your answer to the same question. And now you're changing your position again. First you said it was the properties of the light at the camera which determines the nature of the photograph. Now you're saying light only has to be at the object and not at the camera. So how can distant light interact with the film? You can't seriously mean something that stupid, so why do you keep saying things you don't mean?

I'm not lying; I didn't understand what you were getting at. You are comparing apples to oranges, because you are still basing your thought system on the afferent model of sight which is causing the appearance of flawed logic. But it's not in actuality. You were asking me questions about the speed of light and what wavelength would be seen first before another wavelength in succession was seen. That sounds logical. I was agreeing with you that we would see blue before red. But this is not what is happening in efferent vision. We only need light to be at the object, not at the camera. Therefore this entire theory of yours [that we see images based on the speed of light] flies out the window.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

This would be much easier for you if you could just be honest and consistent.

Quote:

I never changed my answers; you're just basing your questions about light on the afferent model, which will make my answers look inconsistent but they're not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're lying again, though as much to yourself as anyone else, I expect. You do change your answers. I've quoted you changing your answers. You've changed them again in this very post. And my questions are not based upon the afferent model. That is a blatant lie you keep trotting out as an excuse for not answering inconvenient questions, and for avoiding responsibility for your own inconsistency. I am not the one making you look inconsistent. You are doing that. If I ask a loaded question that presupposes something which is not true on the efferent model, then you have only to point it out. That you continue to make this charge without ever being able to support it is just another sign of your dishonesty and/or mental illness.

I just pointed it out. We don't need light to be traveling from the object to the film or retina, for us to see. This is due to efferent vision, which would be impossible under the afferent model. That's why you're getting confused.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

With this latest reversal we're now back at Q1 on my list:

1. What is it that interacts with the film in a camera to determine the color of the resulting image?

Light, but that light allows (or is a condition of) our ability to see an object in real time. It is not the reverse. Until you understand the difference, I'm done talking about your test questions which prove nothing.

peacegirl · #**3528** 01-02-2012, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All of the sunlight that shines on the earth, moon, and all of the other planets and moons in the solar system, comes from the sun.

Another tautology. Of course sunlight comes from the sun. That's what sunlight is. But it is not the only light present in our solar system.

I never said it was. This has nothing to do with whether we see in real time so why are you bringing this up as if it's an important factor?

peacegirl · #**3529** 01-02-2012, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes. You're pointing out that these presuppositions are hard to support. That's your problem, not mine. What you are not showing is that these things don't need to be true for Lessans' arguments to work. Nor are you showing that he anywhere supported them. They can't be trick questions, because they are not even questions. They are his presuppositions.

Maybe I misunderstand the meaning of presupposition but these things have to be true (as long as you're not going to tell me God doesn't exist so conscience cannot be infallible under any condition) for his argument to work. I believe that he has shown quite accurately that conscience works exactly as he describes.

If the things I listed have to be true for his argument to be true, then why should anyone believe them? I know what you believe. The problem is that your belief is irrational. You can't show us anywhere in his book where he specifically supports or argues for these presuppositions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

There you go again trying to attack my character instead of addressing the points I raise. Go ahead and look in his book. You won't find him offering a single scrap of evidence or argument in support of any of the points I have listed as presuppositions. If you think otherwise then you are welcome to quote a short paragraph where you think he does so. But you won't find one because he doesn't do it.

What about you? Telling me I'm mentally ill and a liar? Is that a nice thing to say when I'm bending over backwards to help you understand this discovery? It certainly doesn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy.

Sorry but I will need to cut and paste the rest of this chapter. People who are truly interested in his words (as you say you are) will devour anything I post regardless of whether it's directly from the text or whether it's paraphrased. I think it will help people understand how he came about making these inferences, at the very least. I have a feeling that you will never be satisfied because he didn't write down his results in a laboratory setting.

You are mentally ill and you are dishonest. This is obvious to everyone here but you. You're not bending over backwards to help anyone. You're doing everything you can to avoid facing reality. There is no need for you to copypaste the entire chapter at all. That is just your mental illness talking. If you were serious about helping us, then you would read through the chapter yourself, and then post those specific paragraphs where you think he is offering support for those things I have listed as presuppositions. But you won't do that. You'd rather make up excuses that you can hide behind.

The only chance for this thread to survive is if I post the rest of this chapter, otherwise we're going around in circles. I believe his explanation as to how conscience works is accurate because of his accurate premises which conscience is forced to obey. For those who don't want to read it, feel free not to, but I'll know whether you read it or not by the questions that follow.

peacegirl · #**3530** 01-02-2012, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

On that note, is it possible for light to travel from A to B (at a finite speed) without ever being in transit or having any travel time?

Of course not Spacemonkey. For you to make this kind of statement if foolhardy. The reason efferent vision is so hard to conceive of is because you are trying to figure it out from the afferent model, as I've said before. You're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole, and it won't work.

I didn't make a statement. I asked a question. One based not upon the afferent model, but upon your responses. So please stop lying. The square peg is efferent vision, and the round hole is provided by your answers to my questions. Afferent vision doesn't even enter into it. I asked the above question because after agreeing that the light at the camera travelled there from the object being photographed (at a finite speed) YOU said this:

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Once again, you're losing the whole idea behind efferent vision. The frequency can only be the same as the actual object because there is no travel time when you are looking at the object directly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light is not in transit Spacemonkey when it comes to objects that are resolved by our retina, or by the film in a camera. You are the confused one, sorry.

You said these things as an excuse for not answering this question:

If the object changes color after the light in question leaves its surface, but before that light reaches the camera (i.e. before the photograph is taken), can the frequency of that travelling light change while it is in transit (between the object and the camera) so that it continues to match the real-time color of the object?

Now that you've retracted those absurd claims you still need to answer this question. You've said that the frequency of the light at the camera (when the photograph is taken) determines the color of the photograph produced on the film. I want to know if that light, which previously travelled to get there, always had those same frequency properties or if those properties would have changed at some point during transit (so as to match any changes in the object occurring during that transit time).

Bump.

Noooo Spacemonkey. I never said that the frequency of the light at the camera (when the photograph is taken) determines the color of the photograph produced on the film. You are trying to separate the frequency at the camera from the frequency at the object. But in efferent vision, the frequency at the camera is the same frequency at the object. THERE IS NO TRAVEL TIME DUE TO THE FACT THAT ALL WE NEED FOR A PHOTOGRAPH TO BE TAKEN IS LIGHT AT THE OBJECT. I see the problem, but you have to have the patience to carefully examine this knowledge before rushing to judgment and telling me it's flawed.

peacegirl · #**3531** 01-02-2012, 05:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There was no failure clause just because there was no way for him to know positively when this discovery would get recognized. And how can you equate something that he could not predict with certainty ...with his claims that the book does what it is suppose to do once it is recognized and applied in a global context?

Here again peacegirl is unable to spot the logical inconsistency. It just does not dawn on her that for Lessans "astute observations" to be completely correct his predictions have to be completely correct. That to miss the prediction is a failure of his "astute observations". At a minimum she would have to show that Lessans theory was correct but that he made a mistake in his calculations and then correct the mistake to come up with a new answer. And that answer better be in the future. She would also have to show his work, something she does not appear to have, and which I doubt Lessans ever did in the first place. Like everything else in his book he mostly pulled it out his ass.

She understands nothing of this. If she reads this most of it will appear as gibberish to her.

Oh my god; I think I'm dealing with someone who is truly projecting his retardation onto me. Don't you understand that predicting someone's actions are not what his definition of "no free will" is even about. You are so determined to make Lessans look like a crank that you don't see the failure in your own reasoning. You don't have a clue what this knowledge is about. I need a new version of this book. Decline and Fall of All Evil for Dummies.

naturalist.atheist · #**3532** 01-02-2012, 06:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There was no failure clause just because there was no way for him to know positively when this discovery would get recognized. And how can you equate something that he could not predict with certainty ...with his claims that the book does what it is suppose to do once it is recognized and applied in a global context?

Here again peacegirl is unable to spot the logical inconsistency. It just does not dawn on her that for Lessans "astute observations" to be completely correct his predictions have to be completely correct. That to miss the prediction is a failure of his "astute observations". At a minimum she would have to show that Lessans theory was correct but that he made a mistake in his calculations and then correct the mistake to come up with a new answer. And that answer better be in the future. She would also have to show his work, something she does not appear to have, and which I doubt Lessans ever did in the first place. Like everything else in his book he mostly pulled it out his ass.

She understands nothing of this. If she reads this most of it will appear as gibberish to her.

Oh my god; I think I'm dealing with someone who is truly projecting his retardation onto me. Don't you understand that predicting someone's actions are not what his definition of "no free will" is even about. You are so determined to make Lessans look like a crank that you don't see the failure in your own reasoning. You don't have a clue what this knowledge is about. I need a new version of this book. Decline and Fall of All Evil for Dummies.

As you can see peacegirl is oblivious to the contradiction. And is continuing to do what has been pointed out before, to deflect her failure onto others.

Peacegirl, I don't think you are retarded. A retarded person would have figured out people's objections by now and that they had nothing for it. Your not slow, you are blind to basic reasoning. It just doesn't register.

naturalist.atheist · #**3533** 01-02-2012, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes. You're pointing out that these presuppositions are hard to support. That's your problem, not mine. What you are not showing is that these things don't need to be true for Lessans' arguments to work. Nor are you showing that he anywhere supported them. They can't be trick questions, because they are not even questions. They are his presuppositions.

Maybe I misunderstand the meaning of presupposition but these things have to be true (as long as you're not going to tell me God doesn't exist so conscience cannot be infallible under any condition) for his argument to work. I believe that he has shown quite accurately that conscience works exactly as he describes.

If the things I listed have to be true for his argument to be true, then why should anyone believe them? I know what you believe. The problem is that your belief is irrational. You can't show us anywhere in his book where he specifically supports or argues for these presuppositions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

There you go again trying to attack my character instead of addressing the points I raise. Go ahead and look in his book. You won't find him offering a single scrap of evidence or argument in support of any of the points I have listed as presuppositions. If you think otherwise then you are welcome to quote a short paragraph where you think he does so. But you won't find one because he doesn't do it.

What about you? Telling me I'm mentally ill and a liar? Is that a nice thing to say when I'm bending over backwards to help you understand this discovery? It certainly doesn't make me feel all warm and fuzzy.

Sorry but I will need to cut and paste the rest of this chapter. People who are truly interested in his words (as you say you are) will devour anything I post regardless of whether it's directly from the text or whether it's paraphrased. I think it will help people understand how he came about making these inferences, at the very least. I have a feeling that you will never be satisfied because he didn't write down his results in a laboratory setting.

You are mentally ill and you are dishonest. This is obvious to everyone here but you. You're not bending over backwards to help anyone. You're doing everything you can to avoid facing reality. There is no need for you to copypaste the entire chapter at all. That is just your mental illness talking. If you were serious about helping us, then you would read through the chapter yourself, and then post those specific paragraphs where you think he is offering support for those things I have listed as presuppositions. But you won't do that. You'd rather make up excuses that you can hide behind.

The only chance for this thread to survive is if I post the rest of this chapter, otherwise we're going around in circles. I believe his explanation as to how conscience works is accurate because of his accurate premises which conscience is forced to obey. For those who don't want to read it, feel free not to, but I'll know whether you read it or not by the questions that follow.

get help peacegirl. The people here have the whole book or can get if they want it. Paste the next chapter if you wish but all it will accomplish is to confirm yet again just how crazy you are.

peacegirl · #**3534** 01-02-2012, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There was no failure clause just because there was no way for him to know positively when this discovery would get recognized. And how can you equate something that he could not predict with certainty ...with his claims that the book does what it is suppose to do once it is recognized and applied in a global context?

Here again peacegirl is unable to spot the logical inconsistency. It just does not dawn on her that for Lessans "astute observations" to be completely correct his predictions have to be completely correct. That to miss the prediction is a failure of his "astute observations". At a minimum she would have to show that Lessans theory was correct but that he made a mistake in his calculations and then correct the mistake to come up with a new answer. And that answer better be in the future. She would also have to show his work, something she does not appear to have, and which I doubt Lessans ever did in the first place. Like everything else in his book he mostly pulled it out his ass.

She understands nothing of this. If she reads this most of it will appear as gibberish to her.

Oh my god; I think I'm dealing with someone who is truly projecting his retardation onto me. Don't you understand that predicting someone's actions are not what his definition of "no free will" is even about. You are so determined to make Lessans look like a crank that you don't see the failure in your own reasoning. You don't have a clue what this knowledge is about. I need a new version of this book. Decline and Fall of All Evil for Dummies.

As you can see peacegirl is oblivious to the contradiction. And is continuing to do what has been pointed out before, to deflect her failure onto others.

Peacegirl, I don't think you are retarded. A retarded person would have figured out people's objections by now and that they had nothing for it. Your not slow, you are blind to basic reasoning. It just doesn't register.

No NA, it's you that can't determine what is true or not because all you do is listen to what other people object to without having a clue as to what the subject matter is about. Face it!!

peacegirl · #**3535** 01-02-2012, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Until there is more testing done (that is reliable and replicable), I will continue to believe he was right. That sounds very reasonable and rational to me.

But it isn't. It's the exact opposite of reasonable and rational. Rejecting all of the present disconfirming evidence based only upon your faith in Lessans' allegedly astute powers of observation/revelation is not rational. It is not reasonable.

That's just it; there is no disconfirming evidence; not if you understand his premises and why his inferences are correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know how you can say that. He is so clear in his description of how conscience works. He doesn't just say conscience gets stronger in a no blame environment. He explains the reasons why.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

His offered reasons are based upon further principles for which he did not give reasons at all, and which no-one but you and he find at all plausible. So no-one has any reason to believe his account of conscience.

Why do you keep bringing up the fact that no one but me and Lessans find these principles plausible when this book has not been thoroughly studied by anyone (especially in these philosophy forums) because it was never distributed? And please don't tell me that you have thoroughly studied this work which requires one to read it from beginning to end, in the right order, at least twice. That's what it will take to fully understand why his observations were valid and sound.

Spacemonkey · #**3536** 01-02-2012, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're lying again. First you said the light at the camera didn't travel to get there, then you said it did. That is you changing your answer to the same question. And now you're changing your position again. First you said it was the properties of the light at the camera which determines the nature of the photograph. Now you're saying light only has to be at the object and not at the camera. So how can distant light interact with the film? You can't seriously mean something that stupid, so why do you keep saying things you don't mean?

I'm not lying; I didn't understand what you were getting at. You are comparing apples to oranges, because you are still basing your thought system on the afferent model of sight which is causing the appearance of flawed logic. But it's not in actuality. You were asking me questions about the speed of light and what wavelength would be seen first before another wavelength in succession was seen. That sounds logical. I was agreeing with you that we would see blue before red. But this is not what is happening in efferent vision. We only need light to be at the object, not at the camera. Therefore this entire theory of yours [that we see images based on the speed of light] flies out the window.

Wow. You really are quite utterly insane. Totally out to lunch. Not an ounce of comprehension left. Whether or not you understood the (incredibly simple) question or not, you did change your answer to it. But that's fine. There's nothing wrong with doing so. But you are straight up lying to claim that you didn't. And for the millionth time, my questions are not based upon the afferent model, They are based only upon your answers and claims. So any appearance of inconsistency is coming from you and you alone. I was not asking you here about the speed of light or which wavelength would be seen. That is also incorrect. I have been asking you about the history of the light at the camera whose frequency you had claimed is responsible for the color of the resulting photograph. And you have again just repeated the absolutely batshit insane suggestion that a camera can take photographs - using light sensitive film - without any light present at the camera. How is that possible? How can the film chemically interact with light that is at a distance and not in contact with it? I already asked you this in the post you were replying to, but you didn't answer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're lying again, though as much to yourself as anyone else, I expect. You do change your answers. I've quoted you changing your answers. You've changed them again in this very post. And my questions are not based upon the afferent model. That is a blatant lie you keep trotting out as an excuse for not answering inconvenient questions, and for avoiding responsibility for your own inconsistency. I am not the one making you look inconsistent. You are doing that. If I ask a loaded question that presupposes something which is not true on the efferent model, then you have only to point it out. That you continue to make this charge without ever being able to support it is just another sign of your dishonesty and/or mental illness.

I just pointed it out. We don't need light to be traveling from the object to the film or retina, for us to see. This is due to efferent vision, which would be impossible under the afferent model. That's why you're getting confused.

That was not an assumption of mine, or of the afferent model. That was what you had agreed to, and what you had told me happens under the efferent model. YOU said that the nature of the photograph is determined by the properties of the light at the camera, and that that light had previously travelled to get there. So again, the inconsistency is coming purely from you and not from anyone else's assumptions or position.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

With this latest reversal we're now back at Q1 on my list:

1. What is it that interacts with the film in a camera to determine the color of the resulting image?

Light, but that light allows (or is a condition of) our ability to see an object in real time. It is not the reverse. Until you understand the difference, I'm done talking about your test questions which prove nothing.

Great. Light interacts with the film. Next question:

2. Where is whatever it is which does this (when it interacts)?

peacegirl · #**3537** 01-02-2012, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe the Supernova is not large enough to be seen with a telescope until it reaches it's mass potential before it starts to compress. By that time the neutrinos (these sub-atomic particles) have had time to reach Earth so the Supernova and the neutrinos are detected at close intervals. Just a theory. :popcorn:

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Mass potential...what?

Here's the scenario, peacegirl. We can see a supernova through a telescope. We are, in fact, looking at it right now from Earth.

I am asking you to tell me when, exactly, that seeing is taking place in relation to the star that is in supernova right now in it's own time zone.

According to efferent vision, the spatial distance is negated...in other words we are seeing the supernova here on Earth simultaneously to it happening there at the star's location.

Is that not a correct statement based on Lessans claims, esp his example about an observer near Rigel as well as his example of the Sun exploding?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are on the wrong track and I'm not going to follow this faulty train of thought. You tell me that Lessans' observations are not proven? Do you see something unfair about this when science's explanation is far from proven? :sadcheer:

I have no desire to talk about Stars when the answers regarding sight are right in our own backyard.

When do we see it, peacegirl, according to Lessans? I think I have correctly interpreted the examples he offers in the book, of which two were related to space/stars. If you have a different explanation of those examples, and can therefore demonstrate my wrong track, I am all ears.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're just avoiding them. You keep telling me that optics explains all this, but where? How does it explain the fact that we never see an image if the object is not in the camera's or telescope's field of view, or in our visual range? :eek:

Quit dodging.

I gave you a list of optics terms to research a few pages back including subtended angles and the inverse square law. Do it or don't, but quit acting like you have any clue what you are talking about.

Subtended angle
Definition: The angle formed by an object at a given external point

Subtended angles does not negate efferent vision. The object is still in view regardless of the angle of the light due to the distance of the observer. Good try LadyShea. :doh:

Theory of Inverse Square Law

Light intensity decreases by the square of the distance from the source. With a small light source and a polarizing filter, the Light Sensor can accurately demonstrate this relationship.

How does Inverse Square Law negate efferent vision?

Spacemonkey · #**3538** 01-02-2012, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All of the sunlight that shines on the earth, moon, and all of the other planets and moons in the solar system, comes from the sun.

Another tautology. Of course sunlight comes from the sun. That's what sunlight is. But it is not the only light present in our solar system.

I never said it was. This has nothing to do with whether we see in real time so why are you bringing this up as if it's an important factor?

I don't think it's important at all. Yet for some reason you thought it was important to point out that all of the light which comes from the sun is light which comes from the sun. I was just pointing out that this is another empty tautology.

naturalist.atheist · #**3539** 01-02-2012, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There was no failure clause just because there was no way for him to know positively when this discovery would get recognized. And how can you equate something that he could not predict with certainty ...with his claims that the book does what it is suppose to do once it is recognized and applied in a global context?

Here again peacegirl is unable to spot the logical inconsistency. It just does not dawn on her that for Lessans "astute observations" to be completely correct his predictions have to be completely correct. That to miss the prediction is a failure of his "astute observations". At a minimum she would have to show that Lessans theory was correct but that he made a mistake in his calculations and then correct the mistake to come up with a new answer. And that answer better be in the future. She would also have to show his work, something she does not appear to have, and which I doubt Lessans ever did in the first place. Like everything else in his book he mostly pulled it out his ass.

She understands nothing of this. If she reads this most of it will appear as gibberish to her.

Oh my god; I think I'm dealing with someone who is truly projecting his retardation onto me. Don't you understand that predicting someone's actions are not what his definition of "no free will" is even about. You are so determined to make Lessans look like a crank that you don't see the failure in your own reasoning. You don't have a clue what this knowledge is about. I need a new version of this book. Decline and Fall of All Evil for Dummies.

As you can see peacegirl is oblivious to the contradiction. And is continuing to do what has been pointed out before, to deflect her failure onto others.

Peacegirl, I don't think you are retarded. A retarded person would have figured out people's objections by now and that they had nothing for it. Your not slow, you are blind to basic reasoning. It just doesn't register.

No NA, it's you that can't determine what is true or not because all you do is listen to what other people object to without having a clue as to what the subject matter is about. Face it!!

peacegirl it doesn't appear you know what words mean. A contradiction is simply a recognition that an account conflicts with itself, it's got nothing to do with other people's objections. It's a matter of self consistency. You and Lessans become very incoherent quit often and are completely blind to it, which is what a person with cognitive dysfunction would do. You need help.

Spacemonkey · #**3540** 01-02-2012, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If the things I listed have to be true for his argument to be true, then why should anyone believe them? I know what you believe. The problem is that your belief is irrational. You can't show us anywhere in his book where he specifically supports or argues for these presuppositions.

You are mentally ill and you are dishonest. This is obvious to everyone here but you. You're not bending over backwards to help anyone. You're doing everything you can to avoid facing reality. There is no need for you to copypaste the entire chapter at all. That is just your mental illness talking. If you were serious about helping us, then you would read through the chapter yourself, and then post those specific paragraphs where you think he is offering support for those things I have listed as presuppositions. But you won't do that. You'd rather make up excuses that you can hide behind.

The only chance for this thread to survive is if I post the rest of this chapter, otherwise we're going around in circles. I believe his explanation as to how conscience works is accurate because of his accurate premises which conscience is forced to obey. For those who don't want to read it, feel free not to, but I'll know whether you read it or not by the questions that follow.

If you were sane then you would just do as I suggested, and post the relevant paragraphs where he allegedly supports his presuppositions about conscience. If you were sane you would be able to recognize that he does not support them, and that you have accepted them on faith alone. The unanswered questions which will follow upon any further unrequested copypasting will be mine.

peacegirl · #**3541** 01-02-2012, 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Molecules are the building blocks of matter. He was using it in this context.

Light isn't matter. It is energy.

I read that light could be considered matter as it is composed of photon particles, however, due to its peculiar behavior, it is "considered" to be energy which are called electromagnetic waves.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're discounting this discovery because of his use of this one word?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Of course not. I'm discounting his non-discovery because efferent vision is refuted by mountains of evidence for which you can offer no alternative explanation, and it is not even a coherent possibility as evidenced by your own inconsistent answers to very simple questions.

Here I was simply pointing out that you don't have to be a physicist to know that light does not consist of molecules.

And I was pointing out that I don't think the fact that he used the word "molecules" (even as a non-physicist) which you're trying to discredit him on, indicates that his discovery is invalid.

naturalist.atheist · #**3542** 01-02-2012, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe the Supernova is not large enough to be seen with a telescope until it reaches it's mass potential before it starts to compress. By that time the neutrinos (these sub-atomic particles) have had time to reach Earth so the Supernova and the neutrinos are detected at close intervals. Just a theory. :popcorn:

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Mass potential...what?

Here's the scenario, peacegirl. We can see a supernova through a telescope. We are, in fact, looking at it right now from Earth.

I am asking you to tell me when, exactly, that s bqgqeeing is taking place in relation to the star that is in supernova right now in it's own time zone.

According to efferent vision, the spatial distance is negated...in other words we are seeing the supernova here on Earth simultaneously to it happening there at the star's location.

Is that not a correct statement based on Lessans claims, esp his example about an observer near Rigel as well as his example of the Sun exploding?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are on the wrong track and I'm not going to follow this faulty train of thought. You tell me that Lessans' observations are not proven? Do you see something unfair about this when science's explanation is far from proven? :sadcheer:

I have no desire to talk about Stars when the answers regarding sight are right in our own backyard.

When do we see it, peacegirl, according to Lessans? I think I have correctly interpreted the examples he offers in the book, of which two were related to space/stars. If you have a different explanation of those examples, and can therefore demonstrate my wrong track, I am all ears.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're just avoiding them. You keep telling me that optics explains all this, but where? How does it explain the fact that we never see an image if the object is not in the camera's or telescope's field of view, or in our visual range? :eek:

Quit dodging.

I gave you a list of optics terms to research a few pages back including subtended angles and the inverse square law. Do it or don't, but quit acting like you have any clue what you are talking about.

Subtended angle
Definition: The angle formed by an object at a given external point

Subtended angles does not negate efferent vision. The object is still in view regardless of the angle of the light due to the distance of the observer. Good try LadyShea. :doh:

Theory of Inverse Square Law

Light intensity decreases by the square of the distance from the source. With a small light source and a polarizing filter, the Light Sensor can accurately demonstrate this relationship.

How does Inverse Square Law negate efferent vision?

LadyShea I am amazed at how long it is taking you to see just how pointless it is to try to get peacegirl to understand how vision and light works. It's not she disagrees with it, she can't understand it and probably never will. Unless her problem is some common deficiency that can be medicated she is just too far gone.

davidm · #**3543** 01-02-2012, 08:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And I was pointing out that I don't think the fact that he used the word "molecules" (even as a non-physicist) which you're trying to discredit him on, indicates that his discovery is invalid.

I think it's stuff like this that makes people want to step back into the thread and engage with this twat. It's the sheer egregious chutzpah of her malignant dishonesty that begs to be corrected.

Listen, twat: This has already been explained to you. His use of the word "molecules" for light was just a side issue; we point and laugh at him for his ignorance of basic physics and chemistry. NOBODY is discrediting him because he used the word "molecules" for light. He is discredited because his model of light and sight:

1. Violates the well-attested special and general theories of relativity.

2. Violates the fact that the eye is an afferent structure with no efferent nerves at all.

3. Violates empirical data stretching back hundreds of ears that show we see light and see it in delayed time; all of these examples, including (but not limited to) the moons of Jupiter demonstrate conclusively that we see light and see it in delayed time.

Just to mention three examples, twat.

There have literally been dozens of others, all of which have been explained to you in painful detail.

Spacemonkey · #**3544** 01-02-2012, 08:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Noooo Spacemonkey. I never said that the frequency of the light at the camera (when the photograph is taken) determines the color of the photograph produced on the film.

Yes you did. Liar. Right here:

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

1. What is it that interacts with the film in a camera to determine the color of the resulting image?

Light

2. Where is whatever it is which does this (when it interacts)?

At the film.

3. Which properties of whatever it is that does this will determine the color of the resulting image?

The wavelengths...

Pants on fire.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are trying to separate the frequency at the camera from the frequency at the object. But in efferent vision, the frequency at the camera is the same frequency at the object.

And I'm asking you questions designed to establish how this is possible and why they could never be different. You are not answering those questions. You are instead lying to me about not having said what you've said, and not having changed your answers when you have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

THERE IS NO TRAVEL TIME DUE TO THE FACT THAT ALL WE NEED FOR A PHOTOGRAPH TO BE TAKEN IS LIGHT AT THE OBJECT.

Light sensitive film cannot chemically react with light that isn't there at the camera. This is a fact. And any light actually present at the camera travelled to get there, and therefore has a travel time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I see the problem, but you have to have the patience to carefully examine this knowledge before rushing to judgment and telling me it's flawed.

You don't see the problem. You don't comprehend what you are replying to or even what you are saying. And I don't need to investigate further to know that what you are presently saying is insanely wrong.

Spacemonkey · #**3545** 01-02-2012, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's just it; there is no disconfirming evidence; not if you understand his premises and why his inferences are correct.

The point you were replying to here concerned his account of vision. And there are mountains of disconfirming evidence on that. All of the things to keep trying to sweep away by suggesting that there might be some 'unknown factors' which would make possible some alternate explanation which you presently can't provide. Rejecting all of this present disconfirming evidence based only upon your faith in Lessans' allegedly astute powers of observation/revelation remains the opposite of reasonable and rational.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why do you keep bringing up the fact that no one but me and Lessans find these principles plausible when this book has not been thoroughly studied by anyone (especially in these philosophy forums) because it was never distributed? And please don't tell me that you have thoroughly studied this work which requires one to read it from beginning to end, in the right order, at least twice. That's what it will take to fully understand why his observations were valid and sound.

People at pretty much every forum have read enough to identify these same presuppositions about conscience which Lessans' nowhere supports. And no-one but you has ever found them plausible. Therefore no-one has any reason to believe his account of conscience. (And I can't read his book in its entirety when you refuse to share his super secret final chapter. But I've read enough to understand him better than you, as evidenced by your incorrect belief that he supported the presuppositions I listed for you. You still think he said something he didn't. I know you're wrong because I read it.)

peacegirl · #**3546** 01-02-2012, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If this book does not conflict with reality, then please explain why we detect the neutrinos just after we see the supernova. So on sight at least, we know he was wrong - unless you want to say that neutrinos travel at different speeds, all faster than light, but varied in such a way that they reach earth just as if they were just a bit slower than light, and it was in fact light that we detect.

I don't know why; all I know is that Lessans' observations were spot on. I believe there's a lot more chance for error when you're discussing Stars and neutrinos (which have just recently become identified), therefore, to reject Lessans outright (just because he disgrees with your position) is doing the exact thing that you criticize in me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I reject Lessans because he does not support his claims, so I see no reason to believe them. I also know of observations (one of them is the neutrino's) that flatly contradict him: we know the neutrinos were emitted many centuries ago. We also know that we are right about how far away Jupiter is: we have even observed it up close with probes. If all these things check out, then instant, direct vision simply cannot be true.

Yes, it does appear that way, but I still maintain that Lessans was right based on his observations, which he himself said could be empirically tested.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Hun, look at that sentence. Just for one darn minute look at it. His "Observations" were not shared - only his conclusions.

I understand that, but unfortunately because you can't see his observations firsthand, you claim they must be wrong, especially when you believe so much evidence is against him. I'm saying that what appears to be "strong evidence", may not be as strong as previously believed. That is also why he said that this knowledge could be empirically tested because he knew there was going to be backlash. So far none of the "evidence" that you believe is foolproof is as foolproof as you think it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

In fact
, any time when we are asked to take his word on something without having adequate proof, we are told it was an "astute observation". An observation that was not recorded, that we cannot check or repeat... so what are you basing your assent on, other than the fact that you would like to think he was right?

I think he was right based on his understanding of how the brain works when it comes to how we learn words. He explained this very clearly in the book.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

By the way, how do you know his observations were spot on? You do not accept empirical observations as enough to refute him. Logical ones you also do not accept. This more or less means that there is nothing that could possibly make you doubt him. Does that seem like a reasonable, rational position to you?

Until there is more testing done (that is reliable and replicable), I will continue to believe he was right. That sounds very reasonable and rational to me.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

In the area of light, these have been done. They prove him wrong. Even you have admitted that you simply do not know an alternate explanation. I fail to see what evidence would actually convince you: whenever some empirical evidence comes up, you find some excuse to dismiss it.

How many times do I have to repeat that I don't need to know the exact mechanism that is occurring in the brain for his observations [as far as what the brain is capable of doing] to be correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Have you done any testing to see if babies are in fact created by fairies who fly up your bum, and that sperm and ovum are merely a condition for the creation of babies? No? Then do you feel my continued belied in the Bum-Fairies theory of baby-creation to be reasonable? Because that is what you are asking of me!

Now you're getting silly? What Lessans proposes is not out of the realm of possibility as in the example you just gave? And don't tell me that fairies flying up your bum is a reasonable scientific explanation? :eek:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

As for the rest, all that hinges on the claim that conscience works a certain way, a claim we are not given any reason to believe.

I think you would begin to understand why this is not pie in the sky nonsense if instead of this back and forth bickering, the time was better spent by reading the book. Then you might have a different tune.

Quote:

That's because you're not really paying attention to his evidence as to how the brain actually works, or even giving it a second thought. That makes me wonder if the only reason you're here is to attack Lessans for having the gall to suggest that science may not be right in this area.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I am not aware of any evidence in the book at all, to tell you the truth, and I have gone over it a few times. I see a lot of claims, but the key point, his claim about how conscience works, I see no support for.

Quote:

I don't know how you can say that. He is so clear in his description of how conscience works. He doesn't just say conscience gets stronger in a no blame environment. He explains the reasons why.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Sure - he explains what it is he claims. But he does not say at any point why we should believe it is true. He does not show why and how he reached that conclusion. We cannot follow his train of reasoning and see if we agree. He merely informs us that this is what he believes, and leaves it at that.

Even if you're not sure that his claims are correct; as you read the text and understand how these principles work, it becomes easier to see the validity of his observations. This is not just an assertion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If I am wrong, please feel free to point out what I have missed, and where I can find it in the book. So far you have consistently failed to do so.

There is no way he could have shared his direct observations because you can't empirically test "no free will", but he did offer what those observations were as well as trying to explain to the best of his ability, why they are valid. These insights will become much more believable as you begin to see for yourself how these principles work in your own life.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And I cannot help but notice that you have so far been unable to point it out as well. Apparently it is very special evidence that needs reassurance before it can come out of hiding, or something.

Quote:

It's right there in black and white. His inferences are correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Great! Where? All I can find is his assertion that it is so. At no point do I see any support.

You're not giving him a chance. For now you're going to have to trust that his observations are worth hearing, even if you don't yet see the evidence. Can you do that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Finally - the bit about leaders and scientists being necessary is written by you, not him. You added that failure clause after the prediction failed.

Quote:

The above quote was not written by me. It was written by Lessans. So you're wrong again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Really? I thought it read like it was tweaked. Fair enough: I will take your word for it, and assume that there was a failure clause in it from the start, which explains that if the book does not do what it is supposed to do, that is the fault of the readers and not the fault of the book.

There was no failure clause just because there was no way for him to know positively when this discovery would get recognized. And how can you equate something that he could not predict with certainty ...with his claims that the book does what it is suppose to do once it is recognized and applied in a global context?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is the failure clause. He does not acknowledge option 3: the possibility that he is just dead wrong. The options he presents are 1: full acceptance or 2: lack of understanding.

He had no failure clause regarding the possibility that he could be wrong because he knew he wasn't wrong. He was using mathematical principles; not logic. :fuming:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Like you, he equates all disagreement with lack of understanding: if you disagree then it is automatically the fault of the reader. This is not just unscientific, it is anti-scientific. No scientist would ever present anything in such absolutist terms.

This from a supposed humble man

He will one day be vindicated because he was not wrong, nor does his equating disagreement with lack of understanding make him a non-scientist or arrogant.

Spacemonkey · #**3547** 01-02-2012, 09:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Molecules are the building blocks of matter. He was using it in this context.

Light isn't matter. It is energy.

I read that light could be considered matter as it is composed of photon particles, however, due to its peculiar behavior, it is "considered" to be energy which are called electromagnetic waves.

Light is not 'matter' in the sense that the building blocks of all 'matter' are molecules, so your point is moot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Of course not. I'm discounting his non-discovery because efferent vision is refuted by mountains of evidence for which you can offer no alternative explanation, and it is not even a coherent possibility as evidenced by your own inconsistent answers to very simple questions.

Here I was simply pointing out that you don't have to be a physicist to know that light does not consist of molecules.

And I was pointing out that I don't think the fact that he used the word "molecules" (even as a non-physicist) which you're trying to discredit him on, indicates that his discovery is invalid.

No-one is claiming that. You claimed his not being a physicist explains this error. I'm pointing out that it doesn't. This isn't evidence that his non-discovery is invalid. It's just evidence that he was an ignorant boob who didn't know his ass from his elbow.

Spacemonkey · #**3548** 01-02-2012, 09:14 PM

How can the light-sensitive film in a camera react to light which isn't even there at the camera?

peacegirl · #**3549** 01-02-2012, 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Until there is more testing done (that is reliable and replicable), I will continue to believe he was right. That sounds very reasonable and rational to me.

How will you know when enough reliable and replicable testing has been done?

When the variables of the test are controlled such that there can be no statistically significant errors, or bias.

peacegirl · #**3550** 01-02-2012, 09:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What you just said doesn't even make sense because that would mean objects would be reflecting light within our visual range so fast that we would get a blur or nothing at all. But this doesn't happen. So if this doesn't occur in a space closer to us, why would we only get a blur in a space farther away from us based on your theory that it's because light is traveling too fast for us to get a clear image?

This is beautiful, Peacegirl believes that if light is carrying the image of the object that because light moves so fast the image would be a blur as it passes our eye. L.O.L. It is true that each photon does not carry the image of the object, but each photon carries information about that object and the combination of all the information is what the brain uses to build the image. It's as if each photon carries one pixel of data, color and position, and when all the information from all the photons are intrepreted together the brain has an image that is the object we see.

That's a strawman if I ever saw one. That's not what I'm even asking. I am asking why the brain can form an image from light when an object is in range, but can't form an image from light that is slightly out of range, or farther from us? According to you, out of range objects would be blurred due to the speed of light, which doesn't add up. :doh: