A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The fact remains that an object instantly having an effect on another object without anything travelling between them to cause that effect is pretty much the definition of a contradiction of causality.

Feel free to refute this, but merely claiming it is not good enough. You need to show how you can have direct and instant sight and not contradict causality.

That will have to be done through an understanding of the difference between seeing efferently and afferently, and why a mirror image involves no travel time between photon A and photon B. I just hope you can at least visualize what I'm saying, even if you don't know at this point if it's true.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Crumb

Someone is offering a used copy on Amazon, so someone must have purchased it...

Maybe that is K. Green trying to get some of his money back

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That will have to be done through an understanding of the difference between seeing efferently and afferently, and why a mirror image involves no travel time between photon A and photon B. I just hope you can at least visualize what I'm saying, even if you don't know at this point if it's true.

Point a: whatever you are talking about, it is not a mirror image. They do not work that way.

Point b: that means that it IS a contradiction of causality, which means the book contradicts itself.

[LadyShea]

Is your "mirror image" a physically existing thing comprised of matter? If so where is it located in space? If it is only imaginary, it cannot account for photons being in two physical locations at the same time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is no "object" for the light to be "surrounding" when the image is created, and there is only a shadow on the wall after the person casting it has left the area, the shadow can be still be seen and photographed after the person has walked away.

There is no camera. There is a light, a person, and a wall. You stand in front of the wall, the light flashes, you walk away from the wall and your shadow remains as it was against the wall.

You can photograph the shadow if you wish, it is frozen on the wall as if painted on there. But it is not an image created with a camera or lens.

I am getting at images created from only light and photosensitive materials, no lenses needed to create the image on the wall. You claimed the lens was a necessary factor in getting an image on film, I am showing that you can create images without lenses at any children's museum

That, to me, would be similar to a mirror image on water. There is no lens involved, but I don't think you can get a still photograph without some form of lens.

Picture This – Mountain Mirror Image – Sawatch Range, Colorado

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Is your "mirror image" a physically existing thing comprised of matter? If so where is it located in space? If it is only imaginary, it cannot account for photons being in two physical locations at the same time.

LadyShea, picture that you're looking at an large object in space, and picture the (P) reflected light at your retina. That's the physical location. Your retina or the film interacts with the (P) light as you focus on the object. If the camera is focused on an object but the objects surrounding it are not in focus, that is the mirror image that will be at the film. Some of the photograph will be in focus and some of it will be blurred.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Point a: whatever you are talking about, it is not a mirror image. They do not work that way.

Point b: that means that it IS a contradiction of causality, which means the book contradicts itself.

What we get is an upside down mirror image on the light sensitive cones and rods, or on the light sensitive film or pixels. When I say mirror image I mean there is no space where photons travel when we're looking at the world in real time. This is in no way a contradiction of causality.

[davidm]

Here's a nice comment about peacegirl just in at the Baut board:

I got trapped for an hour or so browsing some old threads she had started on other forums. Going back 10 years, she obviously had absolutely no idea at all about how light or cameras work (now she is merely very confused). Someone at that time tried to use the idea of bouncing a laser off the moon and the fact it took 1.5 seconds to get there but we couldn't see the reflected light fr another 1.5 seconds. At the time she just said something about not knowing what a laser was. I wonder if its worth trying that argument again?

Otherwise, I thought LadyShea(?) was on the right track trying to get her to admit that photons actually had to travel to the camera before an image could be formed. But the way she was dodging that was like she didn't want to think about it too hard in case it challenged her beliefs. A bit like people being in denial about loss of a physical or mental function - they will go to great lengths to create stories to explain away the fact they can't do things. Or can do something in the case of blindsight. (Hmmm... I wonder what she would make of blindsight? "There, that proves I am right" probably.)

I assured him we tried the laser bouncing off the moon thing; he does not realize that Peacegirl is nuts.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That, to me, would be similar to a mirror image on water. There is no lens involved, but I don't think you can get a still photograph without some form of lens.

Picture This – Mountain Mirror Image – Sawatch Range, Colorado

I just gave you a counterexample. A hologram is a still photograph (on steroids), you get stunning pictures, and there is no lens involved at all.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What we get is an upside down mirror image on the light sensitive cones and rods, or on the light sensitive film or pixels. When I say mirror image I mean there is no space where photons travel when we're looking at the world in real time. This is in no way a contradiction of causality.

I am afraid that without photons travelling, nothing is causing the image, which is a contradiction of causality. This is a simple fact: it is practically the definition of a contradiction of causality.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Is your "mirror image" a physically existing thing comprised of matter? If so where is it located in space? If it is only imaginary, it cannot account for photons being in two physical locations at the same time.

I am sure her "mirror image" is in some sentence that Lessans wrote in his book. Other than that, it has no connection to reality, just like peacegirl.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, picture that you're looking at an large object in space, and picture the (P) reflected light at your retina. That's the physical location. Your retina or the film interacts with the (P) light as you focus on the object.

What you are offering is teleportation to the retina or camera film. That is not plausible nor do you offer any explanation as to how this magic happens.

Unless the mirror image is made of matter and actually exists as or in a physical location in space, it cannot be physically interacted with by photons, and therefore cannot explain how we can photograph the sun at noon if it was just turned on at noon and therefore there are no photons on Earth.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am getting at images created from only light and photosensitive materials, no lenses needed to create the image on the wall. You claimed the lens was a necessary factor in getting an image on film, I am showing that you can create images without lenses at any children's museum

A very long time ago I mistakenly took a photography class given by the art school. It was a good course, but just not for me. The very first assignments were to create images without a camera with just light, print paper and our imaginations.

An image is what people see as an image and does not have to correspond to a photograph in the usual sense. Also if you get your digital photos printed at a high quality printer, all those printers use color photo paper and print with light. The image is just pixels. No object.

But none of this matters. Peacegirl is out of her mind. You might as well try to get a horse to sing as try to get her to understand any of this.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

A very long time ago I mistakenly took a photography class given by the art school. It was a good course, but just not for me. The very first assignments were to create images without a camera with just light, print paper and our imaginations.

An image is what people see as an image and does not have to correspond to a photograph in the usual sense. Also if you get your digital photos printed at a high quality printer, all those printers use color photo paper and print with light. The image is just pixels. No object.

But none of this matters. Peacegirl is out of her mind. You might as well try to get a horse to sing as try to get her to understand any of this.

Mr. Ed Sings - YouTube

&feature=related

[thedoc]

This is even better,

The Empty Feed Bag Blues - YouTube

&feature=related

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

I just gave you a counterexample. A hologram is a still photograph (on steroids), you get stunning pictures, and there is no lens involved at all.

You're missing the point. In order to see a hologram you need the lens of your eye. In order to take a picture of a hologram, you need the lens of a camera. Everything that is seen requires a lens, unless it's a lower organism that uses light in a different way.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So now you're discrediting him for this ridiculous reason? He elaborated through the whole book. I guess it was easier for him to say "quote/unquote" rather than say "To elaborate, or To reiterate". I can't believe how you are nitpicking this poor man to death.

peacegirl, you're supposed to be the editor of this so-called book and this is something the editor would fix. If they wanted to create passages with emphasis they would make selections of fonts, faces, sizes, weights to aid the reader in identifying those sections that are presented with emphasis. An editor would know that you only use quotes when you are quoting someone else other than the author or separating dialog from narrative. Unless Lessans was pretending to be Lessans in the book (which is entirely possible given how batshit crazy the Lessans appear to be) then quotes are not appropriate.

So did you only make it to the eighth grade?

[Spacemonkey]

You're still dishonestly ignoring all of my questions. I wonder why that is. I suspect it is because you are mentally ill.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What you are offering is teleportation to the retina or camera film. That is not plausible nor do you offer any explanation as to how this magic happens.

Unless the mirror image is made of matter and actually exists as or in a physical location in space, it cannot be physically interacted with by photons, and therefore cannot explain how we can photograph the sun at noon if it was just turned on at noon and therefore there are no photons on Earth.

A mirror image is not matter. The only thing that is interacting with the film/retina is light. I am really getting tired of this discussion. People can take it or leave it. It's fine with me. I wonder if anyone wants to discuss the other discovery, or are we done?

[Vivisectus]

I for one would love to hear about how we are going to be reincarnated because of pronouns.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

peacegirl, you're supposed to be the editor of this so-called book and this is something the editor would fix. If they wanted to create passages with emphasis they would make selections of fonts, faces, sizes, weights to aid the reader in identifying those sections that are presented with emphasis. An editor would know that you only use quotes when you are quoting someone else other than the author or separating dialog from narrative. Unless Lessans was pretending to be Lessans in the book (which is entirely possible given how batshit crazy the Lessans appear to be) then quotes are not appropriate.

So did you only make it to the eighth grade?

We're discussing an audio book NA.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey was right. This guy did not read the book.

I didn't say that he didn't read it. I said that he didn't buy it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that's the problem. It appears that there could be no other alternate model, but there is and it also is backed up by observation if you care to look.

You don't have a model yet.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I for one would love to hear about how we are going to be reincarnated because of pronouns.

No way am I going to open this can of worms. This third discovery is based on presentism, so there would be tons of anger being spewed, and I'm not up for it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You don't have a model yet.

What I offered is all I have, so if it's not up to speed, I'm sorry.