A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You really are the world's most blatant hypocrite. Have you even tried to understand the basic reasoning here:

You will not win just because you keep reposting. I have no desire to discuss photons with you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Sure. Let's assume all that. Now where did that light come from, and how did it get to be at the film?

Prove it?? You can't even explain how it might be possible!

YOU just did! Right here, by claiming that there is light at the film that didn't travel to get there.

Nope, not in the efferent account. We are talking about two opposite things which you are failing to understand even a little bit.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

peacegirl, if photons are so irrelevant to your silly ideas about how vision works, why do you have no explanations for mirrors, or lenses, or red-shifts, that doesn't involve light?

I think the problem is you know that lots of things (all things!) about vision are explained by optics, and you are desperately trying to keep photons around in your theory even while trying to sell us your daft ideas about vision being instant.

And because you can't get rid of that pesky light, Spacemonkey has you trapped in your own inconsistent account that you refuse to even respond to.

(These were all Astute Observations, by the way.)

Spacemonkey does not have me trapped Dragar; neither do you. Vision is instant only when light becomes a condition of sight which only means that without light we could not see. I am not eliminating light as an important element to sight, but I am maintaining that photons, without the substance it reveals, will never reflect the event over long distances. These are not daft ideas. You want me to be a crackpot, but I'm not. If I am inconsistent, it is only because I haven't thought through every possible question posed to me. Afterall, Lessans did not come to these conclusions through this route. He was given other clues that did not relate to physics, per se.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You will not win just because you keep reposting. I have no desire to discuss photons with you.

Obviously. To do that you'd have to start being honest and stop being such a hypocrite. You have no business claiming I'm not trying to understand your (non-existent) reasoning when you're point blank refusing to even read mine.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nope, not in the efferent account. We are talking about two opposite things which you are failing to understand even a little bit.

Nope not what in the efferent account?

Why can't you be specific about what you are disagreeing with when responding to a post?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey does not have me trapped Dragar...

Of course I do. This is why you cannot answer my posts. You keep claiming light can be somewhere before it gets there. Even you know by now how stupid that is.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually I'm not if you begin with the premise that the object must be in view. You are stuck on the idea that what we see is coming from light ONLY.

That is where you are confused. We would see the object because the conditions of this account of vision does not require travel time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are offering the afferent position which is what is being disputed. Do you not get this? You cannot offer as proof what is being contested. This is why I say that you continually go right back to your basic premise (which is not proof) of what is actually happening and will dismiss anything that disputes this theory. The proposed account of efferent vision does not in any way violate the laws of physics, yet you can't see it because you believe the image is in the light, which YOU BELIEVE is all that is necessary to prove your case. We all know nonabsorbed photons ARE AT THE RETINA OR FILM, but there is much confusion as to how this occurs. I don't know if I will ever be able to convince people that this observation does not discredit Lessans' observation of real time seeing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not true if you are looking at this as a closed system. You are only thinking in terms of photons traveling long distances to a destination that contains the information that allows us to see. This is so theoretical it boggles my mind that you think the model I am offering is impossible.

You responded to the same post 3 times, and ignored several of my posts after this one addressing your responses. Even your imaginary lurkers are going to recognize world class weaseling!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not true if you are looking at this as a closed system.

What is not true in a closed system? Which of my claims below do you think is "not true"?

1. It would 8 1/2 minutes for light photons from the newly ignited Sun to reach Earth (this is exactly what Lessans said, I am using his own hypothetical)

2. In order to record a photographic image, light photons are required to be located on the surface of camera film or digital sensor.

In the case of film the physical mechanism (which you are lacking) for image creation is a photochemical reaction and for a digital sensor the physical mechanism is a photoelectric reaction (minute details of both processes are readily available)

What about your own statement "Time and distance do matter in terms of light traveling eight and a half minutes to reach the film". Is that true or not true?

You are only thinking in terms of photons traveling long distances to a destination that contains the information that allows us to see. This is so theoretical it boggles my mind that you think the model I am offering is impossible.

What is theoretical? Photography? Not a damn thing theoretical about it. We know exactly how it all works to the smallest detail of the physical process.

The best you can come up with to explain photography in your account is that we have clues that cameras work like eyes and brains somehow and that lenses and the "field of view" are important but the mechanism by which they actually work is a mystery.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Light that gets from the Sun to the retina or film 90 million miles away without any travel time is teleporting light.

I don't agree. All that is necessary is for light to be surrounding the object and if it's bright enough and large enough (which it is), it will put the camera or eyes within the field of view. Light does not have to travel 81/2 minutes (in this hypothetical example) for us to see the object (in this case the Sun).

How large is the Sun compared to Earth?

Compared to Earth, the Sun is enormous! It contains 99.86% of all of the mass of the entire Solar System. The Sun is 864,400 miles (1,391,000 kilometers) across. This is about 109 times the diameter of Earth. The Sun weighs about 333,000 times as much as Earth. It is so large that about 1,300,000 planet Earths can fit inside of it. Earth is about the size of an average sunspot!

http://coolcosmos.ipac.caltech.edu/a...ared-to-Earth-

How Bright Is the Sun?

Brightness is subjective because it depends on the perspective of the observer. That being said, the sun's luminosity (which is a measure of electromagnetic energy released per unit of time) is 3.846x10^26 (10 to the 26th power) watts. Compare that to your 60 watt light bulb!

http://www.ask.com/question/how-bright-is-the-sun

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually I'm not if you begin with the premise that the object must be in view.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In Lessans scenario the Sun is "in view" meaning people on Earth can see it, but there are no photons on Earth yet, again according to Lessans himself.

No photons located in the same place as the camera = no photographs, because of how cameras actually work. Cameras don't work any other way.

I am "stuck" on the fact that a camera cannot record a photographic image without photons being located on the film or sensor and for photons to be somewhere, they have to travel there, as even Lessans said.

If you imagine the object and the viewer as a block (or a closed system), and light is coming from one end of that block such that it reaches the other end (because distance and time are not as important as size and brightness), the viewer would be within optical range even though light has not reached Earth yet.

We would see the object because the conditions of this account of vision does not require travel time.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

"The object" in this scenario is the Sun and the time is noon and the Sun was just turned on. I said even if we could see it as Lessans stated, we could not photograph it.

Of course we could because the concept isn't changed just because we're using a camera instead of the eyes.

[peacegirl]

added to previous post:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're not confused. You're just dishonest. Cameras cannot take pictures without light in contact with the film, and light cannot be somewhere before it gets there. You know these points to be true, yet you go on claiming otherwise knowing full well you are spouting nonsense. You father would not be impressed. I doubt he ever would have wanted you to lie for him like this.

Number one, I'm not dishonest Spacemonkey. Number two, you didn't know my father, so stop acting like you know what his thoughts would be.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

They aren't the only thing necessary for photography...the photosensitive material that interacts with the photons is equally necessary for image creation. But, they are necessary. And light does have a set of properties that you are still denying and follows a set of laws your account is still violating.

I'm not denying photosensitive material, and I'm not denying that light has a set of properties. I'm just saying these properties don't conflict with efferent vision or photography because there is an interaction between light and the film in this closed system.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You've given no-one any reason to think that science has gotten it wrong, and you've shown only that YOU are unable to accept that your father has gotten it wrong.

Please don't tell me that this is not scientific therefore this excerpt doesn't apply, and please don't tell me that you've already done the investigation.

Weird science versus revolutionary science

While it's true that at least 99% of revolutionary announcements from the fringes of science are just as bogus as they seem, we cannot dismiss every one of them without investigation. If we do, then we'll certainly take our place among the ranks of scoffers who accidentally helped delay numbers of major scientific discoveries throughout history. Beware, for many discoveries such as powered flight and drifting continents today only appear sane and acceptable because we have such powerful hindsight. These same advancements were seen as obviously a bunch of disgusting lunatic garbage during the years they were first discovered.

In science, pursuing revolutionary advancements can be like searching for diamonds hidden in sewage. It's a shame that the realms of questionable ideas contain "diamonds" of great value. This makes the judging crazy theories far more difficult. If crazy discoveries were always bogus, then we'd have good reason to reject them without investigation. However, since the diamonds exist, we must distrust our first impressions. Sometimes the "obvious" craziness turns out to be a genuine cutting-edge discovery. As with the little child questioning the emperor's clothing, sometimes the entire scientific community is misguided and incompetent. Sometimes only the lone voice of the maverick scientist is telling the truth.

Ridiculed science mavericks vindicated

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All that is necessary is for light to be surrounding the object and if it's bright enough and large enough (which it is), it will put the camera or eyes within the field of view.

That's simply, demonstrably, absolutely untrue for photography. In photography it is absolutely necessary for light to be physically located in the camera to be in physical contact with the film or sensor.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In Lessans scenario the Sun is "in view" meaning people on Earth can see it, but there are no photons on Earth yet, again according to Lessans himself.

No photons located in the same place as the camera = no photographs, because of how cameras actually work. Cameras don't work any other way.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you imagine the object and the viewer as a block (or a closed system), and light is coming from one end of that block such that it reaches the other end (because distance and time are not as important as size and brightness), the viewer would be within optical range even though light has not reached Earth yet.

Nothing you said explains how photons are located on the surface of camera film at noon if there are no photons located there at noon because they have not yet arrived there from the newly ignited Sun. I am only discussing taking a picture of the Sun, not about seeing the Sun

"Optical range" does not account for or explain the physical location of light photons.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No, I don't.

Non-absorbed (reflected) photons are not involved at all in Lessnas "Sun turned on at noon" scenario. We are only talking about photons newly emitted from the newly ignited Sun in this case. They cannot be at the film until they arrive at the film after traveling 93 million miles from the Sun. They are the same photons Lessans said would allow us to see our neighbor standing next to us. They are required for photography.

There is no confusion. Light must travel to a location or be created at that location in order to be "at" that location, according to physics.

You won't be able to convince anyone unless you can actually explain Lessans account without invoking impossibilities. Every time you say photons are located "at the film" but didn't travel there, you are stating an impossibility according to the laws of physics.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not denying photosensitive material, and I'm not denying that light has a set of properties. I'm just saying these properties don't conflict with efferent vision or photography because there is an interaction between light and the film in this closed system.

You are denying those properties and causing a major conflict when you say light photons can be on film in a camera on Earth at noon, while simultaneously not being on Earth as they have not reached the Earth from the newly ignited Sun and won't for 8.5 minutes.

That is a conflict. Can you resolve it?

[LadyShea]

If you imagine the object and the viewer as a block (or a closed system), and light is coming from one end of that block such that it reaches the other end

Also, by the way, where did this "closed system" stuff come from? I used that phrase to describe the spectrography equipment, and explain why the reflected light in the apparatus couldn't escape to travel indefinitely...did you glom onto it thinking I meant something else?

How does your closed system actually work? What does that even mean in the efferent account? You say light "reaches" from one end of the "block" to the other. How big is the block and what defines its size and shape? If light does exist in the whole "closed system" how does it come to fill that space/distance, what is the mechanism? If it's light, it is necessarily traveling, since that is one of its immutable properties. So does it travel the distance from one end to the other?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are denying those properties and causing a major conflict when you say light photons can be on film in a camera on Earth at noon, while simultaneously not being on Earth as they have not reached the Earth from the newly ignited Sun and won't for 8.5 minutes.

That is a conflict. Can you resolve it?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey does not have me trapped Dragar; neither do you.

Then answer Spacemonkey. And explain how mirrors work, or lenses, or optical illusions, without using light (which has nothing to do with vision apart from being 'required' to be at the object - according to you!).

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course we could because the concept isn't changed just because we're using a camera instead of the eyes.

Of course the concept is changed because we know exactly how cameras work and they don't allow for image creation without the physical presence of light photons on the sensor or film.

Even if you are correct in your repeated assertion that the unknown mysteries of the brain allow room for efferent vision (fallacious reasoning by the way, known as the Argument from Ignorance or Appeal to Ignorance, or "X of the Gaps"), there are no unknown mysteries in photography.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Nope not what in the efferent account?

Why can't you be specific about what you are disagreeing with when responding to a post?

I'm trying to be specific but you are very accusatory which puts me on the defensive. He never denied that light travels but due to efferent vision the entire theory as to what is going on is turned upside down, literally. The nonabsorbed photons allow a person to see the actual object only when our eyes are focused on it which is contrary to what science tells us is a necessary condition. They say all we need is light because, according to them, the object is reflecting the image over long distances and we are interpreting that image in the brain when it finally gets to us. Efferent vision states that if we are within the field of view of the object (I am working the problem backwards which is the only way to understand it), the nonabsorbed photons that reveal said object will be at our eyes or film instantly as our gaze turns in that direction. Optics tells us that when the nonabsorbed photons are no longer at the eye, there will be no image. That's exactly what happens in this account. The only difference is that the nonabsorbed photons at the retina or film mean that we are necessarily in optical range of whatever it is we are looking at by virtue of the fact that we are seeing the actual object, event, or scene. We don't have to wait for these nonabsorbed photons to travel to us because there is no time delay involved in this account. I have said this countless times in many different ways, but you will not even try to understand what I'm saying.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course the concept is changed because we know exactly how cameras work and they don't allow for image creation without the physical presence of light photons on the sensor or film.

Even if you are correct in your repeated assertion that the unknown mysteries of the brain allow room for efferent vision (fallacious reasoning by the way, known as the Argument from Ignorance or Appeal to Ignorance, or "X of the Gaps"), there are no unknown mysteries in photography.

Well I'm sorry to say but there are gaps in understanding which allows room for an alternate model. I am not using ignorance as proof of the efferent account. I am only saying that it opens a door for a new way to look at something. I did not say there are unknown gaps in how cameras work, but they cannot deduce what the photograph represents (delayed or instant) because that is out of their realm. The belief that the photograph is always slightly in the past is based on the old belief that light alone is all that is necessary to create a picture. This cannot be proven through photography. You have not taken anything I've said into account at all. I'm wasting my breath.

[peacegirl]

added:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Then answer Spacemonkey. And explain how mirrors work, or lenses, or optical illusions, without using light (which has nothing to do with vision apart from being 'required' to be at the object - according to you!).

Light does a lot of interesting things. I only said that the actual object has to be present in some form. A mirror allows us, by the way the surface reflects the light, to see things that we wouldn't be able to see without it, but the objects that we're seeing are there. And what does optical illusions have to do with anything I've been discussing? Our brain is sometimes tricked into seeing things that are not how they appear. So what? And how does understanding lenses negate this account? I think you are making more out of this than need be, which is why people think this account would not allow certain technologies to exist. That's totally wrong because light works exactly like scientists have claimed it does.

[davidm]

Mr. Unorthodox! Seymour Lessans reads a book that is upside down. “He always read books upside down,” his daughter, peacegirl, said. “He always said that was the way to decode their true meaning.”

Humble, Self-Effacing Genius Still Ignored After All These Years Due to a Conspiracy of Big Meanies on the Internet

FREETHOUGHT-FORUM.COM (Internet News Service) – The groundbreaking work of Seymour Lessans – pool hustler, aluminum-siding salesman, seventh-grade dropout and humble, self-effacing genius – is still being ignored after all these years because of a conspiracy of big meanies on the Internet, the authorities revealed on Saturday.

More than half a century ago, Lessans discovered a mathematical formula, the two-sided equation, which guaranteed world peace. He also described a revolutionary insight into the true nature of light and sight, and discovered that everyone is born again and again as different people because of a shift in the use of personal pronouns.

But his work has been systematically suppressed, ignored and laughed at, principally because of a well-orchestrated conspiracy among the Internet posters Stephen Maturin, LadyShea, Spacemonkey and davidm, along with a handful of accomplices.

“They have ruined it for everyone,” said the RAND corporation message-board analyst E. Mota Kahn, speaking of the diabolical conspirators.

The conspiracy was discovered by the National Security Agency (NSA) while studying a three-year-long thread on the topic at the Freethought-Forum message board. The thread was started by Peacegirl, the daughter of Lessans, who died in 1991.

Innocently hoping only to share Lessans’ astounding discoveries, Peacegirl was met with a barrage of abuse, calumny and criticism, principally led by LadyShea, a very bitter individual, said Norbert D. Seaver, the lead agent in the NSA investigation of the thread.

“This really harshes my buzz,” a grim-faced Seaver said. “I have two sweet little daughters, and I want them to grow up in a world in which they get married for life to the first boy who falls in love with their genitals; a world in which my girls grow up to be great cooks.” Seaver was referring to some of the relationship consequences of Lessans’ discoveries, among them also a sharp decline in aberrant homosexual behavior.

“Now it’s never going to happen because of that bastard Stephen Maturin,” Seaver fumed.

A further discovery that was suppressed by the message-board conspiracy was that photons are both at the eye and not at the eye at the same time, thus repealing Aristotle’s Law of Non-Contradiction.

“I want to live in a world in which things can be, and not be, at some place at the same time,” Seaver complained. “That’s the kind of world I want to live in. Now it’s never going to happen, at least not in my lifetime.”

“If we continue to believe that the eye is a sense organ,” Seaver added, “Then we’ll live in darkness for a thousand more years.”

Kahn, the message board analyst, likened the Internet conspirators to the shadowy online Slender Man, who recently inspired two twelve-year-old girls to stab their best friend.

“Sure, LadyShea, Spacemonkey and the others didn’t inspire a stabbing,” Kahn said. “But they ended the chance to end all wars, thus guaranteeing untold numbers of deaths far into the future. If that doesn’t piss you off, I don’t know what does.”

[LadyShea]

I did not say there are unknown gaps in how cameras work, but they cannot deduce what the photograph represents (delayed or instant) because that is out of their realm.

What does that even mean? We are talking about 1 single aspect of photography...the necessity for light photons to be located on the surface of camera film physically in order for a photographic image to be created.

You have not and cannot seem to offer the mechanism by which they come to be located there in the efferent account which according to you doesn't allow for them to travel there.

That's a problem for you, can you resolve it?