A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, that's not the angle I want to discuss right now. I said that from day one that the mechanism as to how the brain is able to use the eyes, as a window, is unknown at this point, but that does not make this model incorrect. I want to show that efferent vision is plausible because the photons are interacting with the film/retina.

Of course you're still overlooking the even more fundamental problem that even if there weren't a solid barrier between the brain and the eyes, the brain still couldn't see because brains don't have eyes.

What you are trying to explain doesn't just lack a mechanism. It is a conceptual confusion, as brains don't look. Only people do. Lacking a mechanism for this is as much of an issue as lacking a mechanism to get further north than the north pole.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you're making a huge assumption that there is a wall between the brain and the eyes because it appears that way

Yeah, TLR. Just because it appears to flatly contradict Lessans - like the moons of Jupiter, or gravitational lensing, or stellar abberation, or basic physics - doesn't mean it necessarily does.

There's a magical, unknown explanation for all these things!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you call what I'm saying meaningless drivel, then don't participate.

Everybody in this thread knows that what you write is meaningless drivel. Does this mean you want everyone to stop participating? If you only had yourself to talk to you, you would completely fall apart! Your mental illness and narcissism demands an audience. Why we give it to you, even to mock and ridicule your absurdities, is itself an interesting question.

[Goliath]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Bump.

Periscopes, dumbass.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why can't anyone tell me where they believe the image point is in the photograph. What's so difficult? I answer everyone else's questions, even if they're ridiculous. So with all your questions, you can answer me for a change.

You would first have to define what you mean by "image point".

Why are you ignoring all of my posts? Why won't you answer my questions?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No TLC, it's not magic. Just as Lessans did not need to be a physicist to know what he was talking about, he didn't need to be a biologist and dissect the brain to know what he was talking about. This is not how he came to his conclusions. Logically, it appears impossible for the brain to look out at the real world, through the eyes, when there is opaque material in between, but that's because we don't understand the brain completely. When these claims are confirmed valid, it will be time enough to study the brain, using this new information, to determine what those mechanisms may be.

The brain can look out through opaque material because we don't understand the brain! But a seventh-grade dropout pool hustler who didn't even know about this opaque material, he understood the brain!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Your use of the words 'image point'. Tell us, how does this magical 'image point' cause photons to interact instantly with something at a huge distance away? How does this not invalidate relativity and optics?

It does not invalidate optics at all. Optics supports efferent vision in every single instance. I don't know if it invalidates relativity or not. It all depends if relativity is related to seeing in delayed time. So should I give up on this knowledge just because you take umbrage that I would dare utter that relativity could be wrong? There are no sacred cows in science.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Optics supports efferent vision in every single instance.

Wow, you are nuts. I hope you have people around to keep you away from sharp objects.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It does not invalidate optics at all. Optics supports efferent vision in every single instance. I don't know if it invalidates relativity or not. It all depends if relativity is related to seeing in delayed time. So should I give up on this knowledge just because you take umbrage that I would dare utter that relativity could be wrong? There are no sacred cows in science.

Optics does not support your ideas about vision. For example, as pointed out in the other thread, there should be no steller abberation if Lessans is correct. But we see it! Oops, optics rules out Lessans again. You'll tell me now that there's some reason for this, but you don't know what it is, right?

As for relativity, that isn't related to seeing at all. As has been explained to you repeatedly, it does forbid any sort of causal effect to be instant across any distance however - completely contradicting your claims that light instantly interacts across a huge distance.

If you want to contradict relativity fine. We're hardly going to believe an incoherent, falsified theory over relativity, however.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, intersections and image points are what create the mirror image. I don't think LadyShea answered this post, so I need someone to tell me where they believe the image point is in this photo. I will then try to help you see where the image points are on the retina.

1000 Pictures - Free Desktop Wallpaper

I did respond here: Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The physical locations in spacetime where light and matter interact (via reflection) to form this picture are 1. at the surface of the water (reflecting surface in the diagram below), where the light strikes and is then reflected, and then there is a second slightly delayed physical interaction at 2. the camera film/eye as per the second diagram, where the light physically interacts via absorption with the retina or film.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is merely the point where all light from the top of the object would intersect upon reflecting off the mirror. In the picture of the mountain, but there's a reflection off the water because it's light sensitive just like the retina and film.

Ray Diagrams - Concave Mirrors

So now water is light sensitive just like the retina and film, and that is why if you see a reflection of a mountain one day and come back the next day the reflection will still be there? Amazing, I didn't know that.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[davidm]

peacegirl, why won't you answer Spacemonkey's questions?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

1. Did the specific photons (at the camera when the photograph is taken) exist immediately before the photograph was taken? [Yes or No]

2. If so, then according to efferent vision where were those specific photons at the moment in time immediately preceding the taking of the photograph? [State a location]

3. If something is at the same place at two consecutive times, is it moving during that time period, or is it stationary?

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are no sacred cows in science.

There are however requirements for coherence and evidence, neither of which you are able to meet.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I want to show that efferent vision is plausible because the photons are interacting with the film/retina.

Get to it then. Give us a plausible mechanism that allows one photon at the sun to also to be interacting with camera film on Earth.

One photon, two locations, separated by 93 million physical miles.

Invoking mirror images and image locations won't cut it because those images are not physical realities made of matter, but only visual likenesses and can't account for one photon physically existing in two locations at the same time without traveling, physically duplicating, or teleporting. Just as you can't shake hands with your own reflected image, a photon can't interact with a reflected image.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You would first have to define what you mean by "image point".

Why are you ignoring all of my posts? Why won't you answer my questions?

I thought you understood mirror images. I gave the definition of image point. And I'm not answering anymore of your questions until you answer mine. Where in the picture would the point where the light from the object converges? Can anyone answer this?

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

Each individual ray of light that strikes the mirror (water) will reflect according to the law of reflection. Upon reflecting, the light will converge at a point. At the point where the light from the object converges, a replica, likeness or reproduction of the actual object is created. This replica is known as the image.

Reflection of Light and Image Formation

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are no sacred cows in science.

Well, since Lessans, the book, and you, in no way shape or form, qualify as science, or even resemble science, you could very well qualify as a sacred cow, and given the way you are presenting the book, it is definately sacred, being a cow is up to you. Lessans took care of the 'No' part, as in negating everything he wrote.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I thought you understood mirror images. I gave the definition of image point. And I'm not answering anymore of your questions until you answer mine. Where in the picture would the point where the light from the object converges? Can anyone answer this?

1000 Pictures - Free Desktop Wallpaper

Each individual ray of light that strikes the mirror (water) will reflect according to the law of reflection. Upon reflecting, the light will converge at a point. At the point where the light from the object converges, a replica, likeness or reproduction of the actual object is created. This replica is known as the image.

Reflection of Light and Image Formation

peacegirl, that page is about concave mirrors.

You may not have noticed, but a lake is not concave.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I did respond here: Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Uh hello, twice now

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dragar, are you telling me there's no image point in a mirror image?

This is merely the point where all light from the top of the object would intersect upon reflecting off the mirror. In the picture of the mountain, there's no reflection off a mirror, but there's a reflection off the water because it's light sensitive just like the retina and film.

Ray Diagrams - Concave Mirrors

Did you even look at the article you linked to, I'm sure you didn't uinderstand any of it. A lake is not a concave surface like the mirror in the illustrations, it is usually a flat surface unless diaturbed by wind or something else. The exception would be a body of water taken on a very large scale would be a convex surface, but for practical purposes is flat on a small scale.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Dragar

peacegirl, do you realise that page is about concave mirrors?

You may not have noticed, but a lake is not concave.

And you do realize an image is a 2 dimensional visual representation and not a fully existing reality. You cannot pick up a moon rock from it's reflection just as film cannot absorb a photon from it's reflection.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Get to it then. Give us a plausible mechanism that allows one photon at the sun to also to be interacting with camera film on Earth.

One photon, two locations, separated by 93 million physical miles.

Invoking mirror images and image locations won't cut it because those images are not physical realities made of matter, but only visual likenesses and can't account for one photon physically existing in two locations at the same time without traveling, physically duplicating, or teleporting. Just as you can't shake hands with your own reflected image, a photon can't interact with a reflected image.

A photon is not shaking hands with one's own reflected image. It's shaking hands with itself because the mirror image is one and the same. There are no photons physically existing in two locations. The image and the object are in two locations, but not the photon which converges at the exact image point to allow the reflection to be seen. Therefore, the photon that is on the film/retina coordinates with each photon on the object without any time delay.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A photon is not shaking hands with one's own reflected image. It's shaking hands with itself because the mirror image is one and the same. There are no photons physically existing in two locations. The image and the object are in two locations, but not the photon which converges at the exact image point to allow the reflection to be seen. Therefore, the photon that is on the film/retina coordinates with each photon on the object without any time delay.

Oops, there goes relativity theory and everything else we know about physics!

BTW, peacegirl, care to explain HOW you know that the above is true, especially since it isn't?