A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

I want to honor our wonderful dog companions today in memory of my Zoe. Here is a sweet video that I think you will all enjoy!

Funny Dog Pitbull - YouTube

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

According to you Mr. Preacher, I am condemned, a sinner, and not worthy of explaining what I know to be true because the crucifix has already been set. No further comment.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Even you are not beyond redemption. The process begins with confession and repentence.

I am already redeemed.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I wanted to edit the post but it wouldn't let me. It took the edited page to a completely new post, so I took the old post out and put the word duplicate in, so that people don't have to read the same post twice. What is your problem Spacemonkey?

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You did edit the post, therefore you were not prevented from doing so.

I know I edited it, but it created an entirely new post, so now I had two that were virtually the same except for my small edit.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

When you deleted the content of the post and replaced it with the word 'duplicate' you successfully edited the post. So it is simply not true that "it" (whatever you imagine that to have been) wouldn't let you edit the post.

Never mind Angakuk. Think whatever you want.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Still no explanation of what YOU mean when you use the term closed system. What encloses your system to prevent outside light entering and light within from escaping? What are the barriers and parameters?

Also, I didn't use a dictionary definition, as I felt "closed system" was pretty self explanatory...or it was until you used it in a way that makes no sense.

Also also, your "box" or "block" illustration was imaginary, why are you saying it isn't? WTF?

It IS imaginary in that there is no actual box, but it illustrates what I'm trying to get across; that seeing the real object (not just the image) creates a closed system. If you picture this box where the object is on one end and the viewer on the other (this is the parameter), it is not difficult to see that the light being reflected would be at the eye or film (as long as there was enough intensity), putting the viewer within optical range of the object which he sees in real time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

One day science will discover the very real and non-imaginary 92 million mile long cardboard box that encloses the closed system of the Earth and the Sun, and Lessans will be vindicated.

You have no conception of the efferent model. You keep saying it doesn't matter whether we see efferently or afferently because light still has to reach Earth in order to make contact. You are confused.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

ROFL :martyr:

I was being sarcastic.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Present day science believes the lens is aimed at delayed light --- not the actual object --- which produces the photograph.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light produces the photograph. The lens focuses that incoming light onto the film or sensor. In your account where does that light come from and how does it get there?

Oh my god, you haven't heard a thing I have said. You are imitating Spacemonkey. It's no wonder we've gotten nowhere.

I never said lenses are magical. Who is saying that lenses can make light teleport? Is this how far we've come? The only problem is in how I'm explaining it. There is no problem with this model if it's fully understood.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are saying lenses are magical if merely pointing them at something can create an image. How does this occur in your model? Where did the photons come from, and how do they get to film or sensor?

They didn't have to get there. The viewer is already within optical range if he sees the object (real time vision, no delay), which means the light from the object was bright enough and close enough to make contact with the film or the retina as the viewer gazes, or the lens is pointed, in that direction.

You are missing this entire account. You will never understand it as long as you look at traveling photons without the object.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How can anybody "understand" your model that makes zero sense and can't explain the most basic mechanisms behind light and photography without invoking magical properties?

It makes absolute sense if you are looking at it in terms of a closed system. What I mean by that is there ARE parameters to this: the object itself + the viewer (assuming for a moment that efferent vision is true) + light = real time vision or photography.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Photons on camera film or sensor is the only way in which to get a photograph. You must explain how those photons get there and where they come from or you are babbling about magic.

I'm trying to explain it but you're not getting it for whatever reason.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The object, the viewer, and light aren't parameters, nor are they mechanisms, nor do they have any explanatory power. They are merely a list of nouns you have failed to put together meaningfully.

Not true. If you followed the example of the box, I was hoping you would see how this does create a closed system in the efferent account (seeing the object [closed system], not interpreting the light [open system].

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If I said "water + flour + salt + yeast = bread" would you be able to get bread without any further explanations?

No, but that's not a fair analogy.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

One day science will discover the very real and non-imaginary 92 million mile long cardboard box that encloses the closed system of the Earth and the Sun, and Lessans will be vindicated.

The Sun is huge in relation to the entire Solar System so you cannot tell me that we could never see the Sun in real time if the requirements of efferent vision were met.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Define "present", present WHERE? How do objects have a field of view? You are still merely be saying "If it can be seen, we can see it and photograph it". That doesn't explain anything at all.

You are still completely avoiding the simple question: in order to create a photographic image, light photons must be present inside the camera, where do those light photons comes from and how to they get inside the camera in the efferent account?

Answer the question, Weasel. "Field of view" and "optical range" do not explain how light gets inside the camera. "Brightness" doesn't explain it, either. You need to provide a physical mechanism.

Because all you are doing is picturing light traveling from point A to point B. You have failed to remove yourself from this concept to even grasp how the opposite concept brings about these changes not in the properties of light but in the function of light. That is why you cannot even imagine that the requirements in the efferent account allow this interaction between light and the sensor or retina without violating the laws of physics. You're going north on the highway and I'm going south. That's why every time you talk about photons it doesn't make sense because we don't get an image from the photons (afferent). You leave out the most important thing; that we see the object. We have to start from this premise and work backwards.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Sorry for your loss. If only sheepdogs could use pronouns...

Thanks for your condolences Spacemonkey! It's been rough.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know I edited it, but it created an entirely new post, so now I had two that were virtually the same except for my small edit.

No, it did not create an entirely new post. Stop lying. You went back and edited the original, deleting words you had thought better of and calling it a duplicate when it was not. If you were telling the truth here then there would be either an unedited original post still there, or a slightly edited second post still there. But there isn't. There is ONLY the original post, now edited to read 'duplicate'. You lied.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have no conception of the efferent model.

You are projecting. YOU have no conception of how your efferent model could work. You just keep saying the light will be at the film/retina, with no idea how it could have gotten there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are confused.

You are dishonest.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They didn't have to get there.

Yes, they did. If you now have a letter in your mailbox that came from Canada, then that means it somehow got from Canada to your mailbox. Likewise, if you now have photons at the film that came from the Sun, then that means they somehow got from the Sun to the film.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The viewer is already within optical range if he sees the object (real time vision, no delay), which means the light from the object was bright enough and close enough to make contact with the film or the retina as the viewer gazes, or the lens is pointed, in that direction.

This is nonsensical. It doesn't matter how bright the Sun is. Any light from the Sun and which is now at the retina/film, had to get from the Sun to the film. It is a 92 million mile change of location that you are failing to explain. You might as well say the letter from Canada can be in your mailbox without leaving Canada so long as it is big enough to be read.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm trying to explain it but you're not getting it for whatever reason.

Another lie. You are NOT trying to explain it. You are completely refusing to even address the problem.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not true. If you followed the example of the box, I was hoping you would see how this does create a closed system in the efferent account (seeing the object [closed system], not interpreting the light [open system].

The box example doesn't help you at all, as the light would still have to travel from one end of the box to the other. Anything else is unexplained nonsensical magic.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The Sun is huge in relation to the entire Solar System so you cannot tell me that we could never see the Sun in real time if the requirements of efferent vision were met.

Of course I can. The size of the Sun is irrelevant. You still have a 92 million mile change in the location of photons that you are completely failing to explain. You are not being honest with us or yourself.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because all you are doing is picturing light traveling from point A to point B.

So then give us an alternative for how the light gets from point A (the Sun) to point B (the film on Earth). Any light that changes location by 92 million miles instantly without traveling is teleporting by definition.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have failed to remove yourself from this concept to even grasp how the opposite concept brings about these changes not in the properties of light but in the function of light. That is why you cannot even imagine that the requirements in the efferent account allow this interaction between light and the sensor or retina without violating the laws of physics.

Light from the Sun cannot interact with the sensor or retina without being at the sensor/retina and in contact with it. That means the light has to somehow get from the Sun to the sensor/retina, which is a 92 million mile change of location that you need to explain. If it happens instantly then it has teleported, and if it doesn't happen instantly then there will be a time delay. You know this, and that is why you cannot be honest in addressing the problem.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're going north on the highway and I'm going south.

Is this you being specific again?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We have to start from this premise and work backwards.

And that is what we have done, and what you keep refusing to do. Working backwards has shown you that photons must be at the film or retina. The next step in working backwards is to investigate where they could have come from and how they could have gotten there.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Let's try this another way, Peacegirl. Let's start by assuming that the photons at the film/retina came from the Sun.

Assumption #1: The photons at the film/retina came from the Sun.

Now lets define traveling and teleporting. Traveling is getting from A to B by passing through all intervening points. Teleporting is getting from A to B without passing through all intervening points. Clearly these are jointly exhaustive - if you get from A to B you must do so either by passing through the intervening points or by not passing through them. So...

Conclusion #1: If the photons came from the Sun then they either traveled there or teleported there.

Now you insist that they neither traveled there nor teleported, so we can conclude via modus tollens (If A then B, not B, therefore not A) that these photons cannot have come from the Sun.

Assumption #2: The photons at the film/retina did not travel or teleport there.

Conclusion #2: The photons at the film/retina did not come from the Sun.

So now the million-dollar question: Where the fuck did these photons come from? We can note also that the exact same reasoning as above will still apply for any location other than the Sun - as long as the photons are getting from A to B, they have to either travel there or teleport there - so we can know that...

Conclusion #3: The photons at the film/retina did not get there from anywhere else.

That leaves two remaining possibilities: (i) These photons were always there, i.e. sitting stationary at the film/retina surface; or (ii) They did not previously exist, and instead came into existence at the film/retina. But of course neither of these are plausible either, as photons cannot be stationary, and they do not pop into existence in our eyes or on film. But unless you accept one of these options we are forced to conclude that...

Conclusion #4: Assumption #2 was bollocks.

Basically, what we have proven is that you have only four options for the photons at the film/retina:

(i) Traveling photons.
(ii) Teleporting photons.
(iii) Stationary photons.
(iv) Newly existing photons.

So which is it going to be? (Remember, weaseling and fake-conceding are not honest responses.)

Will we see any honesty today, or are you still evading this post?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The Sun is huge in relation to the entire Solar System so you cannot tell me that we could never see the Sun in real time if the requirements of efferent vision were met.

Size and brightness don't enclose anything.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The Sun is huge in relation to the entire Solar System so you cannot tell me that we could never see the Sun in real time if the requirements of efferent vision were met.

Actually you have been told this numerous times, don't you get it yet?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, it did not create an entirely new post. Stop lying. You went back and edited the original, deleting words you had thought better of and calling it a duplicate when it was not. If you were telling the truth here then there would be either an unedited original post still there, or a slightly edited second post still there. But there isn't. There is ONLY the original post, now edited to read 'duplicate'. You lied.

Amazing how you are anal about this ridiculous accusation. I told the truth Spacemonkey. Somehow you want to equate my answer with a lie because you have a false standard to determine this. I'm not a liar (I admit I have weaseled), but you will not win in this battle of wits as I believe strongly that Lessans was right and YOU are wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Size and brightness don't enclose anything.

Why are you lying LadyShea? I'm throwing around the term "lying" to make you feel uncomfortable just like you have made me. I was never a liar. Size and brightness DO MEAN SOMETHING if you are thinking in terms of efferent vision because the OBJECT is the focus of our attention, NOT THE LIGHT. You don't seem to get this at all.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Amazing how you are anal about this ridiculous accusation. I told the truth Spacemonkey. Somehow you want to equate a lie with the entire lie of light and sight. It's not gonna happen. This is a joke.

Stop your lying and we won't have to call you out on it. You straight up lied about the duplicate post. There was never any duplicate. You just edited out words you regretted having typed, and called it a duplicate when it was not. It's not even the first time you've been called out on this dishonest practice.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Stop your lying and we won't have to call you out on it. You straight up lied about the duplicate post. There was never any duplicate. You just edited out words you regretted having typed, and called it a duplicate when it was not. It's not even the first time you've been called out on this dishonest practice.

What the hell are you talking about Spacemonkey? I'm going to tell it like it is whether you like it or not. Why are you trying so hard to make this my problem, when it is YOU that has the problem? Could it be you are not capable of understanding this model because of what you have been taught about light that won't allow you to keep an open mind? I believe this is the crux of the problem. Face the truth Spacemonkey; that's all I'm asking! I'm sorry that I have to call you up on the lies you have accepted as truth, but you are not taking any responsibility for the fact that you will not allow yourself to understand what I'm trying to share. I believe (maybe I'm wrong) that this would cause too much consonant/dissonance. All you are doing is supporting your worldview which will never get to the truth.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What the hell are you talking about Spacemonkey?

Why do you keep asking this? I've explained it several times and even linked you to the exact post we are talking about. YOU LIED when you edited post #36642 to read 'duplicate' when there was never any duplicate involved. How much clearer can I possibly make this?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm going to tell it like it is whether you like it or not. Why are you trying so hard to make this my problem, when it is YOU that has the problem? Could it be you are not capable of understanding this model because of what you have been taught about light that won't allow you to keep an open mind?

What the fuck does your model have to do with your lie in post #36642? Why are you changing the subject?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Face the truth Spacemonkey; that's all I'm asking!

The truth is that you lied.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you lying LadyShea?

No lies from me

I'm throwing around the term "lying" to make you feel uncomfortable just like you have made me.

If being called a liar makes you uncomfortable, you could try to stop lying.

I was never a liar.

You are a liar though. You say things you know are not true quite often. Just recently here, you claimed to be unable to edit a post that you clearly were able to edit since you edited it to say the word "duplicate" and it has an edit tag right on it Last edited by peacegirl; 06-16-14 at 10:55 AM. Additionally, the post was quoted before you edited it, so we know there is no "duplicate".

You even admitted that you "took out the post" when you said "No I'm not. I took out that post because the word "extend" is confusing and you'll accuse me of changing the properties of light." Taking out a post due to your using a confusing term is not the same a duplicate post, is it? So why did you replace it with the word duplicate, rather than "I took out this post" or "nevermind" or something truthful?

Size and brightness DO MEAN SOMETHING if you are thinking in terms of efferent vision because the OBJECT is the focus of our attention, NOT THE LIGHT.

Light and its location is the primary focus of photography, which is my focus as you well know since I have stated it many times.

However my statement was that size and brightness don't enclose anything, so do not explain your bizarre use of the term "Closed system". Do you plan to drop that phrase now, or can you try to explain it in a way where the word "closed" makes any sort of sense?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Has to do with the light in what way? And how does it extend any distance without traveling or traversing it? How does the "brightness" or "shine" fill or become present in all areas of the space represented by this "box" or "block"?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because all you are doing is picturing light traveling from point A to point B.

Yes of course, because
1) light travels and
2)if there are two points separated by physical distance, a point A and a point B, and light from A is also located at B, then per the properties of light, such as the property of "traveling at all times" then it stands to reason that it travels from A to B.

You have had and continue to have the opportunity to explain light being located at two points separated by physical distance without it traveling, but have been unable to provide any explanation that takes the laws of physics into account.

You have failed to remove yourself from this concept to even grasp how the opposite concept brings about these changes not in the properties of light but in the function of light.

The function of light in photography is to physically interact with the chemicals on camera film or the photosites on a digital sensor These physical interactions require that light photons be located on the film or sensor.

Sensors array and photosites.

That is why you cannot even imagine that the requirements in the efferent account allow this interaction between light and the sensor or retina without violating the laws of physics.

No, I can't imagine that, since you haven't offered any mechanism at all, let alone one that conforms with the laws of physics.

You're going north on the highway and I'm going south.

LOL! Is it a closed system highway or an open system highway?

That's why every time you talk about photons it doesn't make sense because we don't get an image from the photons.

Cameras absolutely create an image from photons. They don't and can't work without photons.

That's why you aren't making any sense, because you seem to think you can remove photons from that scenario and get a photograph. You can't. Photons must be inside the camera...where do they come from and how do they get there, peacegirl?