A Revolution in Thought: Part Two - Page 172

Vivisectus · #**4276** 01-09-2012, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course not, but efferent vision doesn't change the known properties of light, and it doesn't negate the known physical laws that require the film to come in contact with light photons to chemically react and form an image.

Then tell me how camera film, on Earth, can come into physical contact with light photons from the newly ignited sun that have not yet reached Earth.

There is a physical distance of millions of miles.
The sun was just turned on at noon. It is noon and 30 seconds right now.
There are no photons here on Earth yet to contact the film.

You've stated we could photograph the Sun at this point
I am saying that is not possible because the properties of light and film would not allow a photograph to be taken because the chemical reaction cannot take place without contact.
You state we do not need to change any physical properties of light or film or the requirements for their interaction.

Now, tell me. How can the photons and film come into physical contact?

When the brain is looking, through the eyes, at the external world (which is everything that is in your visual range, not just one object), a mirror image of your entire field of view (or screen) shows up instantly on the film/retina. This mirror image that shows up at the film/retina is analogous to the water showing the mirror image of the mountain. Your lack of understanding the efferent version of sight is causing you to revert back to the afferent model which requires travel time. That's why what I'm saying still doesn't make sense to you.

http://www.1000pictures.com/view.htm...jpg+x1024+y768

Mirror images are the new focusing, aren't they? It is a concept you do not understand, and so you just imagine that that is where the magic happens that allows an image to magically appear instantly.

The little light sensors in a camera just detect light. If the light that hits the little sensor is of wavelength A, then it creates a dot that has colour A. Lots of those little dots together form an image. That is all they do: we design them that way.

Who is arguing with this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Given that this is the case, how can an image magically appear if there is no light for the sensor or film to react WITH? Mirror-images do not explain that in the slightest.

The water in this case is the light sensor. Nothing magically appears. Because light is striking the water, we are able to see the mirror image of the mountain. It works in the same exact way with our eyes. Any light that is in our visual field is instantly (due to efferent vision) at the retina (which is the light sensor) allowing us to see the world in real time.

So now light DOES have to strike the sensor, and we CANNOT see the sun when it is turned on, because there is no light yet to strike our eyes!

naturalist.atheist · #**4277** 01-09-2012, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is a clue that we never see images of objects coming from light alone.

Except for every form of stored image projection know to mankind. Image, light but no object.

peacegirl · #**4278** 01-09-2012, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course not, but efferent vision doesn't change the known properties of light, and it doesn't negate the known physical laws that require the film to come in contact with light photons to chemically react and form an image.

Then tell me how camera film, on Earth, can come into physical contact with light photons from the newly ignited sun that have not yet reached Earth.

There is a physical distance of millions of miles.
The sun was just turned on at noon. It is noon and 30 seconds right now.
There are no photons here on Earth yet to contact the film.

You've stated we could photograph the Sun at this point
I am saying that is not possible because the properties of light and film would not allow a photograph to be taken because the chemical reaction cannot take place without contact.
You state we do not need to change any physical properties of light or film or the requirements for their interaction.

Now, tell me. How can the photons and film come into physical contact?

When the brain is looking, through the eyes, at the external world (which is everything that is in your visual range, not just one object), a mirror image of your entire field of view (or screen) shows up instantly on the film/retina. This mirror image that shows up at the film/retina is analogous to the water showing the mirror image of the mountain. Your lack of understanding the efferent version of sight is causing you to revert back to the afferent model which requires travel time. That's why what I'm saying still doesn't make sense to you.

1000 Pictures - Free Desktop Wallpaper

Mirror images are the new focusing, aren't they? It is a concept you do not understand, and so you just imagine that that is where the magic happens that allows an image to magically appear instantly.

The little light sensors in a camera just detect light. If the light that hits the little sensor is of wavelength A, then it creates a dot that has colour A. Lots of those little dots together form an image. That is all they do: we design them that way.

Who is arguing with this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Given that this is the case, how can an image magically appear if there is no light for the sensor or film to react WITH? Mirror-images do not explain that in the slightest.

The water in this case is the light sensor. Nothing magically appears. Because light is striking the water, we are able to see the mirror image of the mountain. It works in the same exact way with our eyes. Any light that is in our visual field is instantly (due to efferent vision) at the retina (which is the light sensor) allowing us to see the world in real time.

So now light DOES have to strike the sensor, and we CANNOT see the sun when it is turned on, because there is no light yet to strike our eyes!

Vivisectus, I don't know when you came back to this thread but it appears you missed my whole demonstration. You'll have to catch up somehow. I'm sure I'll have to repeat the efferent model (and it is a model so I'm going to use this term) many more times for anyone to get it, so you'll have plenty of opportunity.

LadyShea · #**4279** 01-09-2012, 02:33 PM

A mirror image does not explain how the photons at the sun can also be at the camera film. If a mirror image is a duplication then the actual physical photons would also have to duplicated to be at the film interacting. The known properties of light and known properties of film and known requirements for them to chemically react do not allow this. How can the photons that are physically at the sun ALSO physically be at the film without traveling there, appearing there, being two places at once, or teleporting there.

Let's look at it from the perspective of a single photon. That photon is emitted from the sun and is now traveling at 183 thousand miles per second and the camera film it must touch to form a photograph is 93 million miles away. How does that happen? Exactly. Explain the mechanism without changing the properties of light and without changing the properties of camera film, and without changing the requirements of the physical interaction between film and photon, and without invoking or mentioning the brain.

peacegirl · #**4280** 01-09-2012, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

A mirror image does not explain how the photons at the sun can also be at the camera film. If a mirror image is a duplication then the actual physical photons would also have to duplicated to be at the film interacting. The known properties of light and known properties of film and known requirements for them to chemically react do not allow this. How can the photons that are physically at the sun ALSO physically be at the film without traveling there, appearing there, being two places at once, or teleporting there.

Let's look at it from the perspective of a single photon. That photon is emitted from the sun and is now traveling at 183 thousand miles per second and the camera film it must touch to form a photograph is 93 million miles away. How does that happen? Exactly. Explain the mechanism without changing the properties of light and without changing the properties of camera film, and without changing the requirements of the physical interaction between film and photon, and without invoking or mentioning the brain.

LadyShea, you're losing my reasoning, that's why you aren't understanding why there can be an interaction between the light that comes from the Sun and our eyes. You are fighting me on this, and I realize you, as well as everyone else, is coming from the position that blue wavelengths travel, but this is not the case. Once you recognize what is actually happening, the magic goes away.

LadyShea · #**4281** 01-09-2012, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, you're losing my reasoning, that's why you aren't understanding why there can be an interaction between the light that comes from the Sun and our eyes.

Your reasoning is not answering the question. Your "reasoning" is not explaining a physical mechanism that makes this possible.

Read this again, and respond to it coherently and relevantly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Let's look at it from the perspective of a single photon. That photon is emitted from the sun and is now traveling at 183 thousand miles per second and the camera film it must touch to form a photograph is 93 million miles away. How does that happen? Exactly. Explain the mechanism without changing the properties of light and without changing the properties of camera film, and without changing the requirements of the physical interaction between film and photon, and without invoking or mentioning the brain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I realize you, as well as everyone else, is coming from the position that blue wavelengths travel, but this is not the case

I mentioned nothing about blue wavelengths in this particular post you were responding to, but since you have stated that efferent vision does not require the properties of light to be changed, then you now also have to explain how light of a blue wavelength does not travel, when both wavelength and traveling are inherent properties of light.

specious_reasons · #**4282** 01-09-2012, 02:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, you're losing my reasoning, that's why you aren't understanding why there can be an interaction between the light that comes from the Sun and our eyes. You are fighting me on this, and I realize you, as well as everyone else, is coming from the position that blue wavelengths travel, but this is not the case. Once you recognize what is actually happening, the magic goes away.

How is it that once we drop the insistence on relying on well established, empirically tested, scientific fact, the magic will go away?

peacegirl · #**4283** 01-09-2012, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, you're losing my reasoning, that's why you aren't understanding why there can be an interaction between the light that comes from the Sun and our eyes. You are fighting me on this, and I realize you, as well as everyone else, is coming from the position that blue wavelengths travel, but this is not the case. Once you recognize what is actually happening, the magic goes away.

How is it that once we drop the insistence on relying on well established, empirically tested, scientific fact, the magic will go away?

It actually doesn't because we can't resolve (perfect word) the issue of the object having to be in range. This is not a cursory observation.

LadyShea · #**4284** 01-09-2012, 03:10 PM

peacegirl. We are only following your statements to see if they are compatible with known science, as you insist efferent vision does not negate these known laws and principles. You can't invoke mysterious and completely redefined mechanisms like focusing and lenses and mirror imaging as if they are explanations unto themselves. You must explain HOW it works and HOW it is compatible.

So. How can a physically existing thing called a photon, that has a wavelength and travels at a finite speed per the properties of light, not travel with it's wavelength and instantly be 93 millions miles from its current location to interact with camera film through physical contact?

Vivisectus · #**4285** 01-09-2012, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course not, but efferent vision doesn't change the known properties of light, and it doesn't negate the known physical laws that require the film to come in contact with light photons to chemically react and form an image.

Then tell me how camera film, on Earth, can come into physical contact with light photons from the newly ignited sun that have not yet reached Earth.

There is a physical distance of millions of miles.
The sun was just turned on at noon. It is noon and 30 seconds right now.
There are no photons here on Earth yet to contact the film.

You've stated we could photograph the Sun at this point
I am saying that is not possible because the properties of light and film would not allow a photograph to be taken because the chemical reaction cannot take place without contact.
You state we do not need to change any physical properties of light or film or the requirements for their interaction.

Now, tell me. How can the photons and film come into physical contact?

When the brain is looking, through the eyes, at the external world (which is everything that is in your visual range, not just one object), a mirror image of your entire field of view (or screen) shows up instantly on the film/retina. This mirror image that shows up at the film/retina is analogous to the water showing the mirror image of the mountain. Your lack of understanding the efferent version of sight is causing you to revert back to the afferent model which requires travel time. That's why what I'm saying still doesn't make sense to you.

1000 Pictures - Free Desktop Wallpaper

Mirror images are the new focusing, aren't they? It is a concept you do not understand, and so you just imagine that that is where the magic happens that allows an image to magically appear instantly.

The little light sensors in a camera just detect light. If the light that hits the little sensor is of wavelength A, then it creates a dot that has colour A. Lots of those little dots together form an image. That is all they do: we design them that way.

Who is arguing with this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Given that this is the case, how can an image magically appear if there is no light for the sensor or film to react WITH? Mirror-images do not explain that in the slightest.

The water in this case is the light sensor. Nothing magically appears. Because light is striking the water, we are able to see the mirror image of the mountain. It works in the same exact way with our eyes. Any light that is in our visual field is instantly (due to efferent vision) at the retina (which is the light sensor) allowing us to see the world in real time.

So now light DOES have to strike the sensor, and we CANNOT see the sun when it is turned on, because there is no light yet to strike our eyes!

Vivisectus, I don't know when you came back to this thread but it appears you missed my whole demonstration. You'll have to catch up somehow. I'm sure I'll have to repeat the efferent model (and it is a model so I'm going to use this term) many more times for anyone to get it, so you'll have plenty of opportunity.

Oh no saw it all right. It just makes no sense. You don't get it either, you just string words together to try and hide this fact.

Like in the example from above:

Quote:

Any light that is in our visual field is instantly (due to efferent vision) at the retina

Which means that photons magically teleport to the retina when looked at... due to efferent vision!

So photons either travel infinitely fast or teleport due to being looked at efferently!

Awesome. We better inform Mr. Hawkin.

peacegirl · #**4286** 01-09-2012, 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

A mirror image does not explain how the photons at the sun can also be at the camera film. If a mirror image is a duplication then the actual physical photons would also have to duplicated to be at the film interacting. The known properties of light and known properties of film and known requirements for them to chemically react do not allow this. How can the photons that are physically at the sun ALSO physically be at the film without traveling there, appearing there, being two places at once, or teleporting there.

Let's look at it from the perspective of a single photon. That photon is emitted from the sun and is now traveling at 183 thousand miles per second and the camera film it must touch to form a photograph is 93 million miles away. How does that happen? Exactly. Explain the mechanism without changing the properties of light and without changing the properties of camera film, and without changing the requirements of the physical interaction between film and photon, and without invoking or mentioning the brain.

You're completely lost LadyShea, and until you are ready to hear the explanation it will fall on deaf ears.

LadyShea · #**4287** 01-09-2012, 03:33 PM

We see what we can see instantly because we can see it. We can photograph what we can see instantly because we can photograph what we can see.

The above represents the meat of every single argument you've made regarding efferent vision peacegirl. You may change the words, you may add mirror images and lenses and focusing but the explanation remains the same..."Voila We See!"

davidm · #**4288** 01-09-2012, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're completely lost LadyShea, and until you are ready to hear the explanation it will fall on deaf ears.

You are completely lost, LadyShea, so sayeth The Airhead, it must be true! Frown and tell off! :unfrown:

peacegirl · #**4289** 01-09-2012, 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course not, but efferent vision doesn't change the known properties of light, and it doesn't negate the known physical laws that require the film to come in contact with light photons to chemically react and form an image.

Then tell me how camera film, on Earth, can come into physical contact with light photons from the newly ignited sun that have not yet reached Earth.

There is a physical distance of millions of miles.
The sun was just turned on at noon. It is noon and 30 seconds right now.
There are no photons here on Earth yet to contact the film.

You've stated we could photograph the Sun at this point
I am saying that is not possible because the properties of light and film would not allow a photograph to be taken because the chemical reaction cannot take place without contact.
You state we do not need to change any physical properties of light or film or the requirements for their interaction.

Now, tell me. How can the photons and film come into physical contact?

When the brain is looking, through the eyes, at the external world (which is everything that is in your visual range, not just one object), a mirror image of your entire field of view (or screen) shows up instantly on the film/retina. This mirror image that shows up at the film/retina is analogous to the water showing the mirror image of the mountain. Your lack of understanding the efferent version of sight is causing you to revert back to the afferent model which requires travel time. That's why what I'm saying still doesn't make sense to you.

1000 Pictures - Free Desktop Wallpaper

Mirror images are the new focusing, aren't they? It is a concept you do not understand, and so you just imagine that that is where the magic happens that allows an image to magically appear instantly.

The little light sensors in a camera just detect light. If the light that hits the little sensor is of wavelength A, then it creates a dot that has colour A. Lots of those little dots together form an image. That is all they do: we design them that way.

Who is arguing with this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Given that this is the case, how can an image magically appear if there is no light for the sensor or film to react WITH? Mirror-images do not explain that in the slightest.

The water in this case is the light sensor. Nothing magically appears. Because light is striking the water, we are able to see the mirror image of the mountain. It works in the same exact way with our eyes. Any light that is in our visual field is instantly (due to efferent vision) at the retina (which is the light sensor) allowing us to see the world in real time.

So now light DOES have to strike the sensor, and we CANNOT see the sun when it is turned on, because there is no light yet to strike our eyes!

Vivisectus, I don't know when you came back to this thread but it appears you missed my whole demonstration. You'll have to catch up somehow. I'm sure I'll have to repeat the efferent model (and it is a model so I'm going to use this term) many more times for anyone to get it, so you'll have plenty of opportunity.

Oh no saw it all right. It just makes no sense. You don't get it either, you just string words together to try and hide this fact.

Like in the example from above:

Quote:

Any light that is in our visual field is instantly (due to efferent vision) at the retina

Which means that photons magically teleport to the retina when looked at... due to efferent vision!

So photons either travel infinitely fast or teleport due to being looked at efferently!

Awesome. We better inform Mr. Hawkin.

Who the hell cares about Mr. Hawkin. He IS NOT GOD VIVISECUS SO DON'T USE THIS RIDICULOUS NOTION AS PROOF OF ANYTHING. YOU ARE VERY SNEAKY WITH YOUR RESPONSES.

peacegirl · #**4290** 01-09-2012, 03:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're completely lost LadyShea, and until you are ready to hear the explanation it will fall on deaf ears.

You are completely lost, LadyShea, so sayeth The Airhead, it must be true! Frown and tell off! :unfrown:

I have to say that any response from David is a reaction of terrible fear. He is so threatened by the truth that he can't think straight, hence the reactions that are appearing here. I can't stop him, but I can tell you that he is wrong and he fearful which is why he can't stop attacking me.

davidm · #**4291** 01-09-2012, 03:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who the hell cares about Mr. Hawkin. He IS NOT GOD VIVISECUS SO DON'T USE THIS RIDICULOUS NOTION AS PROOF OF ANYTHING. YOU ARE VERY SNEAKY WITH YOUR RESPONSES.

This ignorant little weasel has the audacity to accuse her betters of being "sneaky."

No, that's right, peacegirl, you Daddy is God. :awesome:

The God of Stupidity, alas!

LadyShea · #**4292** 01-09-2012, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

A mirror image does not explain how the photons at the sun can also be at the camera film. If a mirror image is a duplication then the actual physical photons would also have to duplicated to be at the film interacting. The known properties of light and known properties of film and known requirements for them to chemically react do not allow this. How can the photons that are physically at the sun ALSO physically be at the film without traveling there, appearing there, being two places at once, or teleporting there.

Let's look at it from the perspective of a single photon. That photon is emitted from the sun and is now traveling at 183 thousand miles per second and the camera film it must touch to form a photograph is 93 million miles away. How does that happen? Exactly. Explain the mechanism without changing the properties of light and without changing the properties of camera film, and without changing the requirements of the physical interaction between film and photon, and without invoking or mentioning the brain.

You're completely lost LadyShea, and until you are ready to hear the explanation it will fall on deaf ears.

I'm not lost. I am giving you the opportunity to explain efferent vision and how it is compatible with known and proven physics principles. This is something that will have to be done for any scientist to even consider listening to you without laughing their asses off. If you want to be taken seriously, you have to demonstrate you have seriously plausible material on offer here rather than magic.

So, for example:

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep talking about that "travelling blue light". This is the crux of our problem. There is no travelling blue light. .

You agreed that light always travels. This is a property of light. So why is the light of a blue wavelength no longer traveling if it has not been absorbed?

thedoc · #**4293** 01-09-2012, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's just the point, the original photons do not travel to the film/retina. They are there instantly at the film/retina, which is exactly why we are able to use this mirror image that is interacting with the film/retina to see the present or to take a photograph in real time.

So white light arrives at the object, some of it is absorbed, and the light that corrosponds to the color of the object is then instantly at the film or the retina so that we can either take a picture or see it? What happens to any light that is reflected in other directions, not absorbed or interacting with film or retina?

bump

thedoc · #**4294** 01-09-2012, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's just the point, the original photons do not travel to the film/retina. They are there instantly at the film/retina, which is exactly why we are able to use this mirror image that is interacting with the film/retina to see the present or to take a photograph in real time.

So white light arrives at the object, some of it is absorbed, and the light that corrosponds to the color of the object is then instantly at the film or the retina so that we can either take a picture or see it? What happens to any light that is reflected in other directions, not absorbed or interacting with film or retina?

Also what happens to this light if the object ceases to exist?

bump

peacegirl · #**4295** 01-09-2012, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, you're losing my reasoning, that's why you aren't understanding why there can be an interaction between the light that comes from the Sun and our eyes.

Your reasoning is not answering the question. Your "reasoning" is not explaining a physical mechanism that makes this possible.

Read this again, and respond to it coherently and relevantly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Let's look at it from the perspective of a single photon. That photon is emitted from the sun and is now traveling at 183 thousand miles per second and the camera film it must touch to form a photograph is 93 million miles away. How does that happen? Exactly. Explain the mechanism without changing the properties of light and without changing the properties of camera film, and without changing the requirements of the physical interaction between film and photon, and without invoking or mentioning the brain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I realize you, as well as everyone else, is coming from the position that blue wavelengths travel, but this is not the case

I mentioned nothing about blue wavelengths in this particular post you were responding to, but since you have stated that efferent vision does not require the properties of light to be changed, then you now also have to explain how light of a blue wavelength does not travel, when both wavelength and traveling are inherent properties of light.

Answer: The efferent model of vision (which, by the way, you know diddly-squat about).

thedoc · #**4296** 01-09-2012, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When the object is no longer present, white light takes its place. White light didn't change its property; it just revealed the external world through the ability of matter to absorb light. When the substance that is seen is no longer in range, the full spectrum of light shows up again because it was never gone.

That makes literally no sense whatsoever. If there is blue light coming from an object because it has absorbed the rest of the spectrum, then that means the rest of the spectrum has gone. That's what absorbed means.

I get that part.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What happens to a single photon of that travelling blue light when the object disappears? Does it retain its blue wavelength and suddenly have a bunch of other newly existing photons of all different colors suddenly surrounding it?

You keep talking about that "travelling blue light". This is the crux of our problem. There is no travelling blue light. Until you get this (which will require more effort on your part to envision what I'm saying), you will fail to understand this concept.

Are you saying that the only light that travels is the white light from the Sun and once it arrives on Earth it no longer travels but the brain can see objects on the Earth due to this light?

davidm · #**4297** 01-09-2012, 03:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, you're losing my reasoning, that's why you aren't understanding why there can be an interaction between the light that comes from the Sun and our eyes.

Your reasoning is not answering the question. Your "reasoning" is not explaining a physical mechanism that makes this possible.

Read this again, and respond to it coherently and relevantly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Let's look at it from the perspective of a single photon. That photon is emitted from the sun and is now traveling at 183 thousand miles per second and the camera film it must touch to form a photograph is 93 million miles away. How does that happen? Exactly. Explain the mechanism without changing the properties of light and without changing the properties of camera film, and without changing the requirements of the physical interaction between film and photon, and without invoking or mentioning the brain.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I realize you, as well as everyone else, is coming from the position that blue wavelengths travel, but this is not the case

I mentioned nothing about blue wavelengths in this particular post you were responding to, but since you have stated that efferent vision does not require the properties of light to be changed, then you now also have to explain how light of a blue wavelength does not travel, when both wavelength and traveling are inherent properties of light.

Answer: The efferent model of vision (which, by the way, you know diddly-squat about).

Wow, LadyShea, how d'ya like them apples, eh? The EXPLANATION of the "efferent model of visison" IS "the efferent model of vision. (which, by the way, you know diddly-squat about)" In other words, we see because we see!

Voila! We see!

:awesome:

Now I hope that settles everyone's hash and ya'll will apologize to Perfesser Peacegirl for having wasted so much of her precious time here! :awesome:

LadyShea · #**4298** 01-09-2012, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Answer: The efferent model of vision

This is not an answer. So you cannot explain anything, you can only assert.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

(which, by the way, you know diddly-squat about)

How can I know anything about it when you have yet to explain how it works or offered any kind of working model that doesn't require magically duplicated mirror images and negation of multiple laws and principles of physics?

Do you understand what explain actually means? Hint: the statement that "It is an instant mirror image" is not an explanation of the mechanisms.

davidm · #**4299** 01-09-2012, 04:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're completely lost LadyShea, and until you are ready to hear the explanation it will fall on deaf ears.

You are completely lost, LadyShea, so sayeth The Airhead, it must be true! Frown and tell off! :unfrown:

I have to say that any response from David is a reaction of terrible fear. He is so threatened by the truth that he can't think straight, hence the reactions that are appearing here. I can't stop him, but I can tell you that he is wrong and he fearful which is why he can't stop attacking me.

Yes, peacegirl, I am terribly afraid that the laws of physics don't conform with what my father claimed. My father wrote a book describing the physical world in certain ways, and I have spent the better part of my adult life haunting Internet message boards to preach the gospel of my father's physics, and ....

Oh, wait ... :chin:

Peacegirl, what makes you think anyone here besides yourself has a personal stake in what reality is like, except for you, who has wasted your entire life preaching the gospel of your stupid father?

Just now I'm reading a book called the Quantum Universe. In it, the author states, and proves, that Newton's famous Second Law, one of the most famous laws of physics ever devised, "is going to the wastebasket." He reiterates: "Newton's laws are heading for the bin." Do you think this makes me upset, peacegirl? On the contrary, I am riveted.

The problem, you see, isn't that anyone here wants to defend accepted accounts of physics. None of us, except for you, have a personal stake in some particular world view. The problem is that you are a willfully ignorant liar, and that is what people find repellant about you, and why you receive angry responses. We don't like people like you.

thedoc · #**4300** 01-09-2012, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Awesome. We better inform Mr. Hawkin.

You'd better hurry, I'm not sure how much longer medical science can maintain the miracle of his survival. Many years ago My brother-in-law died of ALS but he didn't have the aggressive treatment of Mr. Hawkins, and only lasted a few years. I would be curious to know how much that treatment is costing, and who's paying. Also if Mr. Hawkins ever became completely uncommunicative, would they keep it up? Perhaps if they could understand why he has survived so long it could help others.