A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Ladyshea, don't you see what you're doing??? You're, once again, placing the cart before the horse. You don't even get what I'm saying, do you?

I am refuting your claims with evidence.

1. The photocehmecial reaction involved in film photography requires the film be in physical contact with photons.

Your counter-claim is that focusing lenses somehow bypass or negate this requirement, allowing photons to interact with camera film at a distance. Your claim is false.

2. The Hubble Deep Field images are examples of photographic images made from light alone.

Your entire counter to this evidence is "No, something else is going on but I have no idea what it is". Again, you can't explain the empirical evidence using your model.

Using your vapid horse and cart....you are the one putting the cart before the horse. Your cart is "efferent vision", you are presupposing it's veracity regardless of the empirical evidence. The horse is the evidence, the horse is th Hubble Deep Field images. The horse is the exact process by which camera film works...the cart is the model that should follow that.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my, from what you just posted, are you implying that you DO know me, and therefore are entitled to make this type of diagnosis??? You're completely out the door NA. It is you that needs help.

Peacegirl, I don't know you. I know that you're brain isn't working properly.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

But I'm the one engaging her the least.

It is very odd.

No, it's not odd at all. You are spending all of your time saying the same thing over and over. You might actually have an obsessive/compulsive disorder (who am I to say for sure?), but it seems like you are trying to come off like a diagnostician so that no one will recognize your personality disorder (again, just a guess). How much bullshit can someone get away with before people start raising their eyebrows???

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep asking this question and I keep answering that this has no relationship to whether or not we're viewing the object (in this case the plant).

I keep asking it because I want to know how you think light works when vision is not a factor. You refuse to answer without mentioning vision. Why is that?

The response you gave that I snipped is completely irrelevant to my simple question. What happens to the light with a green wavelength when it encounters a leaf and there is no lens focused on it?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it's not odd at all. You are spending all of your time saying the same thing over and over. You might actually have an obsessive/compulsive disorder (who am I to say for sure?), but it seems like you are trying to come off like a diagnostician so that no one will recognize your personality disorder (again, just a guess). How much bullshit can someone get away with before people start noticing???

I suppose there are some similarities here. You think you can save the world by repeating the same thing over and over again for almost a decade even though you have convinced no one.

And I hope that you will get help by repeating over and over again that you need it.

The funny thing about it is that I've only been doing this since October and there are others that think you need help.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I keep asking it because I want to know how you think light works when vision is not a factor. You refuse to answer without mentioning vision. Why is that?

The response you gave that I snipped is completely irrelevant to my simple question. What happens to the light with a green wavelength when it encounters a leaf and there is no lens focused on it?

I answered this LadyShea. Nothing happens to it. It is a non-absorbed wavelength that allows the leaf to be seen when a photograph is taken or someone is looking at it. The light that allows this to occur is in constant motion, so there is nothing that is contradictory to how light works. The only difference is that this non-absorbed wavelength is not being reflected. If it is not being reflected, how can there be duplicate photons, or teleporting, or one photon coming before the other (such as blue before red?), which Spacemonkey was trying to pin on Lessans' claim as a mistake?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Show me where any organism could see this hologram without a lens to focus on it.

As has already been explained to you, there are plenty of organisms that can form images with mirrors, not lenses. Many telescopes work that way, too.

[LadyShea]

Wow, look what can be accomplished in optics without lenses, and without violating any laws of physics

MIT Unveils 'Lensless Camera' - Hardware - Handhelds/PDAs - Informationweek

Described as a "lenseless camera" the BiDi Screen extends LCD devices while enabling the screen to both capture images and display them. The prototype was displayed over the weekend at a unit meeting of the Special Interest Group on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (Siggraph) in Japan.

Lensless Camera Captures Three-Dimensional Images

instead of a lens, the camera system uses a series of beam splitters and folding mirrors to capture a sequence of "snapshots" as an object is slowly rotated in front of the aperture.

Lensless imaging of whole biological cells with soft X-rays

"We have demonstrated that lensless imaging techniques can achieve very high resolution while overcoming the limitations of x-ray optics

New lensless imaging technique opens door to nanoscale world

State-of-the-art light sources such as BESSY and SPEAR3 at SLAC achieve lensless imaging by filtering light so that the only remaining X-rays are "coherent"—that is, all the X-ray light waves are in phase with each other (each wave is peaking at the same time) and moving in the same direction like a marching band in step. Because it uses no lenses, the technique has the potential to take direct images with 10 times better spatial resolution than can be achieved with current X-ray lenses and bring even finer details into view. Another advantage to the technique is it entails much simpler alignment and sample handling than do established X-ray microscopy methods.

Handheld lensless microscope identifies malaria parasites - Laser Focus World

The field-portable lensless optical microscope, which can image large sample areas with sub-micron resolution, is based on an imaging technique termed ‘partially-coherent digital in-line holography.’ The method light-emitting diodes (LEDs) and off-the-shelf digital image sensors with no need for lenses or other bulky optical components; the sensor is held in close proximity to the specimen. The process can even be used to image with a cell phone. UCLA uses a digital image processing technique called pixel super-resolution to convert multiple low-resolution microscope images to a single high-resolution one.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I suppose there are some similarities here. You think you can save the world by repeating the same thing over and over again for almost a decade even though you have convinced no one.

I've already explained to you why this is such a difficult undertaking. People are very skeptical which has become a stumbling block, but this has nothing to do with the validity of this knowledge.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

And I hope that you will get help by repeating over and over again that you need it.

Repeating it over and over only makes you appear obsessed. Could it be that you have a secret crush on me? Stranger things have happened.

Originally Posted by natural.atheist

The funny thing about it is that I've only been doing this since October and there are others that think you need help.

There you go again trying to puff up your idiotic analysis of me because of what others think? Do you have a mind of your own NA? You really are one of the most unreflecting individuals I have ever come across.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I answered this LadyShea. Nothing happens to it.

What do you mean nothing happens to it? It is light. It can't be destroyed. It can't remain stationary. Something must happen to it, or it must do something. What does it do after it encounters the leaf?

It is a non-absorbed wavelength.

(snipped irrelevant stuff about vision)

The light that allows this to occur is in constant motion, so there is nothing that is contradictory to how light works. The only difference is that this non-absorbed wavelength is not being reflected.

If it's not reflected and not absorbed, and can't be destroyed nor can it remain stationary, what happens then? Where does this photon with a green wavelength go? What does it do?

Again, no lenses or vision are to be considered in answering this question. Something must happen to or be done by this light photon with a green wavelength. What is it?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I answered this LadyShea. Nothing happens to it. It is a non-absorbed wavelength that allows the leaf to be seen when a photograph is taken or someone is looking at it. The light that allows this to occur is in constant motion, so there is nothing that is contradictory to how light works. The only difference is that this non-absorbed wavelength is not being reflected. If it is not being reflected, how can there be duplicate photons, or teleporting, or one photon coming before the other (such as blue before red?), which Spacemonkey was trying to pin on Lessans' claim as a mistake?

If it's not being reflected or absorbed and is in constant motion, then what? Does it go straight through? How would you use that light to see?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Wow, look what can be accomplished in optics without lenses, and without violating any laws of physics

MIT Unveils 'Lensless Camera' - Hardware - Handhelds/PDAs - Informationweek

Lensless Camera Captures Three-Dimensional Images

Lensless imaging of whole biological cells with soft X-rays

New lensless imaging technique opens door to nanoscale world

Handheld lensless microscope identifies malaria parasites - Laser Focus World

I don't see the problem with any of this. Telescopes without lenses would be like any photoreceptor or surface that is sensitive to light. The question remains: How can we see this phenomenon, or how can a photograph be taken of this phenomenon without a lens?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

If it's not being reflected or absorbed and is in constant motion, then what? Does it go straight through? How would you use that light to see?

If an object has properties of absorption (which most objects have), then certain wavelengths automatically get absorbed depending on the make-up of the object. This is where there is great confusion: The (N) light that is constantly being replaced has nothing to do with what we see, if Lessans is right about efferent vision. That is why this constantly moving light allows the object to reveal itself when we're looking directly at it, not when it's traveling at the finite speed of light with the information in the light itself. Can you at least see how this could have been an honest mistake on the part of scientists?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've already explained to you why this is such a difficult undertaking. People are very skeptical which has become a stumbling block, but this has nothing to do with the validity of this knowledge.

Peacegirl, perhaps way back in March the reaction of people to what you had to say was skepticism, but it quickly goes to outright rejection of you and Lessans. You are making negative progress. The more you post the greater people reject what you have to say. Not only are people forming a strong opinion that both you and Lessans are crackpots, but your mental problems are becoming abundantly clear. You can say anything you like about me, and most likely you will not be the first person to have said it about me, but it will not change the fact that you need help.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see the problem with any of this. Telescopes without lenses would be like any photoreceptor or surface that is sensitive to light. The question remains: How can we see this phenomenon, or how can a photograph be taken of this phenomenon without a lens?

These devices use light to take photographs without a lens. Exactly that. Some of them can do more, but they can take a photograph without a lens. Read that carefully. How can a photograph be taken without a lens? With one of these cameras. They take a photograph without a lens. It's not the case that they use a lens (of all things!) to take that photograph. Instead, they don't use a lens. To take a photograph, of course. That's because they don't have lenses. They don't have lenses, but they take photographs. That means they take a photograph with no lens.

If that argument is a bit too technical or logical for you, try a text-to-speech program and put it in slow mode.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If an object has properties of absorption (which most objects have), then certain wavelengths automatically get absorbed depending on the make-up of the object.

And what happens to photons with wavelengths that are not absorbed by the plant leaf? Where to they go, what do they do...in other words a photons with a green wavelength comes into contact with a plant leaf then it....what?


Snipped irrelevant stuff about seeing. Only a photon with green wavelength, and a plant leaf are present in this scenario.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If an object has properties of absorption (which most objects have), then certain wavelengths automatically get absorbed depending on the make-up of the object.

No, you're wrong. They don't get absorbed automatically, it's just that the probability is higher that they are absorbed rather than reflected or that they pass straight through.

This is where there is great confusion:

(P) confusion.

The (N) light that is constantly being replaced has nothing to do with what we see, if Lessans is right about efferent vision.

That's true. Also, if Lessans is right about efferent vision, I'm legally obliged to grow tomatoes on my head. (That's not a joke.) Fortunately, he's completely wrong.

That is why this constantly moving light allows the object to reveal itself when we're looking directly at it, not when it's traveling at the finite speed of light with the information in the light itself.

You're saying that light behaves in a completely different way than what is observed in nature.

Can you at least see how this could have been an honest mistake on the part of scientists?

Nope, not really.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I answered this LadyShea. Nothing happens to it. It is a non-absorbed wavelength that allows the leaf to be seen when a photograph is taken or someone is looking at it. The light that allows this to occur is in constant motion, so there is nothing that is contradictory to how light works. The only difference is that this non-absorbed wavelength is not being reflected. If it is not being reflected, how can there be duplicate photons, or teleporting, or one photon coming before the other (such as blue before red?), which Spacemonkey was trying to pin on Lessans' claim as a mistake?

By this reasoning if a tree falls down in the forest, and no-one is there to hear it, then it doesn't make a sound.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see the problem with any of this. Telescopes without lenses would be like any photoreceptor or surface that is sensitive to light. The question remains: How can we see this phenomenon, or how can a photograph be taken of this phenomenon without a lens?

See this here photograph in my post? That I included as an example? It was taken without a lens.

As But so eloquently explained (and I am still in a giggle fit about)

Originally Posted by But

These devices use light to take photographs without a lens. Exactly that. Some of them can do more, but they can take a photograph without a lens. Read that carefully. How can a photograph be taken without a lens? With one of these cameras. They take a photograph without a lens. It's not the case that they use a lens (of all things!) to take that photograph. Instead, they don't use a lens. To take a photograph, of course. That's because they don't have lenses. They don't have lenses, but they take photographs. That means they take a photograph with no lens.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

OK, now I am really starting to get pissed! I have been an active poster here for more than six years. In all that time no one has ever questioned my professional credentials. Along comes this johnny-come-lately and right away people are getting on his case and questioning his credentials. How come he rates and I don't.

And just why would anyone reading this thread question your credentials, It is painfully obvious that you are an Old, Pain-in-the-ASS, Bible thumper, WHY would anyone questin that?

That you are Pissed is hardly important to anyone.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

STOP RIGHT THERE! In Spacemonkey's own words you are presupposing that I'm mentally ill and from this premise you are basing your conclusions. You haven't challenged your premise; you're accepting it at face value and from there you are concluding something is wrong with me, when there is nothing wrong with me AT ALL.

You're very much dysfunctional when it come to thinking about the subjects covered in Lessans' books. You cannot accept that any aspect of it is wrong, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. There is something wrong with you, but whether or not it's an actual mental illness is debatable.

Really, it's a matter of: Is your dysfunction harming yourself or others? That's something we can't really determine through your inline interactions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The photocehmecial reaction involved in film photography requires the film be in physical contact with photons.

It's disproven nonsense, why would anyone ever get it? The Hubble Deep Field images absolutely prove your statement false.

I never said that the Hubble doesn't detect light LadyShea. You're missing the entire claim.

Ladyshea, don't you see what you're doing??? You're, once again, placing the cart before the horse. You don't even get what I'm saying, do you?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am refuting your claims with evidence.

1. The photocehmecial reaction involved in film photography requires the film be in physical contact with photons.

Your counter-claim is that focusing lenses somehow bypass or negate this requirement, allowing photons to interact with camera film at a distance. Your claim is false.

It is not false. The distance is not as important as what is in the field of view.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

2. The Hubble Deep Field images are examples of photographic images made from light alone.

Your entire counter to this evidence is "No, something else is going on but I have no idea what it is". Again, you can't explain the empirical evidence using your model.

Using your vapid horse and cart....you are the one putting the cart before the horse. Your cart is "efferent vision", you are presupposing it's veracity regardless of the empirical evidence. The horse is the evidence, the horse is th Hubble Deep Field images. The horse is the exact process by which camera film works...the cart is the model that should follow that.

This is not a vapid statement. The horse may be the Hubble Deep Field Images, but the cart is still before it, so you can't prove what this image is without studying Earth images.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

You're very much dysfunctional when it come to thinking about the subjects covered in Lessans' books. You cannot accept that any aspect of it is wrong, even in the face of overwhelming evidence. There is something wrong with you, but whether or not it's an actual mental illness is debatable.

Really, it's a matter of: Is your dysfunction harming yourself or others? That's something we can't really determine through your inline interactions.

I don't think peacegirl is in danger of harming herself. She may bring harm to her children by way of her threads. But be that as it may the quality of her life has got to suck.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not a vapid statement. The horse may be the Hubble Deep Field Images, but the cart is still before it, so you can't prove what this image is without studying Earth images.

So what exactly do we study on earth to know what is in the HDF images.

[Vivisectus]

This is not a vapid statement. The horse may be the Hubble Deep Field Images, but the cart is still before it, so you can't prove what this image is without studying Earth images.

Do you even realize how incoherent that sentence is?