A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If light strikes objects at an angle (point of reflection), then how would the inverse square law hold up over the course of millions of miles?

Originally Posted by davidm

? The inverse square law relates to the intensity of light radiating from a point. The further from the point of origin the less intense the light is due to dispersion. What do mean about it "holding up" over millions of miles?

[/quote]So don't you think the light would disperse to where there would be no image after all those millions of miles?[/QUOTE]


The Hubble images are from light that has traveled for Billions of years, so it is quite dispersed by now, yet given enough time the telescope can collect enough photons to form an image of an object Billions of Light Years away, that probably no longer exists as we see it in the image.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We're back to square one. Did you read where I compare a candle being turned on to the Sun being turned on? I hope you try to understand the analogy.

Would it have been running for 12 hours if the Sun had originally been turned on and then off, since the light has already gotten here? I'm asking you as if I'm your student.

No I'm not causing them to teleport. Lenses of all kinds point to objects which then focus the light. Solar panels receive light which turns into a source of energy for electricity or heating.

Lenses focus received light. Pointing lenses at things does not cause light to jump from the Sun to inside a camera on Earth

The solar panel was set up in the dark and I checked the clock 1 hour after the Sun was turned on.

Your candle analogy doesn't address light photons having a physical reaction with camera film without photons being on the camera film.

Do you think phone sex between two people 3000 miles apart is analogous to physical sexual intercourse on the dinner table? Would lenses help make the physical sex possible?

The light photons and camera film have to have physical sexual intercourse. How does it happen? There's an analogy you should like.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yet you've decided to run with some of my ideas anyway, like putting the .pdf online for purchase at low cost. Hmm, yes I am terrible at this.

You took this the wrong way. I'm sure you're a good marketer. This just happens to be a really difficult endeavor with many stumbling blocks.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And you originally used grassroots, I was just explaining to you how that usually happens.

It's not going to be easy doing it this way because it could be hard getting traction. This could takes years and years without much to show for it. I have to think in terms of my age and how much time I've got left. I want to use it wisely.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You took this the wrong way. I'm sure you're a good marketer. This just happens to be a really difficult endeavor with many stumbling blocks.

It's not going to be easy doing it this way because it could be hard getting traction. This could takes years and years without much to show for it. I have to think in terms of my age and how much time I've got left. I want to use it wisely.

So how would you market if you had unlimited funds?

No I did not take it wrong. That whole post was you lashing out in anger and telling me to stop talking about it. Which fine, it's not like I care if the book gets sold or not.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lenses focus received light. Pointing lenses at things does not cause light to jump from the Sun to inside a camera on Earth

The solar panel was set up in the dark and I checked the clock 1 hour after the Sun was turned on.

Your candle analogy doesn't address light photons having a physical reaction with camera film without photons being on the camera film.

Do you think phone sex between two people 3000 miles apart is analogous to physical sexual intercourse on the dinner table? Would lenses help make the physical sex possible?

The light photons and camera film have to have physical sexual intercourse. How does it happen? There's an analogy you should like.

LadyShea, you're now sounding like David and it's not nice. There is a physical reaction if there is no travel time. I am going to leave it at that because this conversation is going in circles. It's getting us nowhere. I know you think you've won and that Lessans was wrong. I understand your way of thinking which makes real time vision sound impossible. But, once again, if nothing but full spectrum light (assuming the object is out of sight) arrives 81/2 minutes later, how could the afferent model be true? Scientists will have to take this model seriously if they are ever going to find out the absolute truth, otherwise, we will continue to remain in the dark (not literally).

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So how would you market if you had unlimited funds?

No I did not take it wrong. That whole post was you lashing out in anger and telling me to stop talking about it. Which fine, it's not like I care if the book gets sold or not.

Yes you did take it wrong. I was not criticizing you at all. I was just saying that it's hard to market this work when he was an unknown. He wasn't a member of any leading university so he is at a disadvantage even in his death. The book has to be thoroughly investigated which has never been done. People have said what can a dead man that lived in the 20th century offer; we've already made tons of progress since then? Is that crazy or what? If I had unlimited funds I would pay for philosophers and scientists alike (neuroscientists probably) to analyze it, and do the necessary testing. I would also advertise the book to the public. I would develop a website that works. Right now I am waiting to try to get my book encrypted. It is a very slow process because I don't have the funds.

[LadyShea]

If you can't explain how the photons change location by millions of miles you got nothin. Fine with me if you want to leave it at that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If you can't explain how the photons change location by millions of miles you got nothin. Fine with me if you want to leave it at that.

But that is the afferent position, so we have nowhere to go. We're on different sides of the highway, so to speak, and never the twain shall meet.

[LadyShea]

You can encrypt .pdf files for free. Did you even look it up first? Man you are a mark for people wanting to sell you shit you don't need.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that is the afferent position

Not when it comes to light's properties and photo-reactions on film or a sensor...afferent (which relates to biological system only) has nothing to do with it at all. That's straight physics.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Hubble picks up light Spacemonkey. That's all it does. It does not pick up images. You are saying, in so many words, that images are reflected even if you aren't using those exact words, so once again you are playing semantic games with me in order to be right at all costs.

No-one claims that images are reflected or picked up. This is not some minor semantic correction. It is you completely misrepresenting what I am saying and what afferent vision involves. Hubble forms images of material objects that are out of visual range from nothing but arriving light. It is in principle no different than what your own camera does when it photographs your own living room, which also forms an image of material objects from nothing but arriving light. Hubble does exactly what you claim cannot be done. You make your own position untestable and unfalsifiable (and therefore unscientific) when you try to claim that any examples contradicting your claim are somehow images of light rather than images of material objects.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because you all sound the same. It's very easy to mistake one for the other because you all sound alike.

All you have to do is READ the name written on each post. No-one else continually messes this up, so why do you?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why I changed it to "there is no information in the light". Same thing.

No, they are not the same thing. And claiming no information is in the light is both wrong and irrelevant to the problem you are being asked to address. For even if there were no information in the arriving light at all, you still need light to be at the film or retina before it has had enough time to get there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nope, we get light. If the Sun were that far away, we would get a similar image as any star that far away; and if our galaxy were that far away we'd get similar images as the Hubble Deep Field (which also gives us information about the faraway galaxy), all due to light.

This directly contradicts your claim that light alone is not sufficient to produce an image on account of not containing the necessary information.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your current objection that light has to cross millions of miles to bring information (the raw material that can be decoded) to the eye is fallacious, therefore your current objection doesn't hold.

That is NOT my current objection. My current objection has nothing to do with information, and concerns ONLY how light can possibly get to the retina or film where you need it to be before it has had time to travel there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I haven't lost. You are in major denial.

You are projecting your own predicament onto those you are conversing with. The denial is entirely your own. You have lost by refusing to address fatal objections to your claims.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The word "information" is equivalent to the word "image", which I've been trying to explain for the last 100 posts.

No, Peacegirl. Those two words are not equivalent. If you have been using them that way then you have been using them wrongly.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's the same thing with the Sun being turned on. I see the Sun just like I would see a candle first turned on. The brightness of the Sun would fill up the Earth room.

Now you're back to claiming the 'brightness' of light can get somewhere before the light itself does. You dropped this last time after we pointed out how crazy it is. It's like saying the deliciousness of spaghetti & meatballs can get to your tongue before the spaghetti & meatballs do.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, because it took time for the light to reach the photocells, but this is not the same thing as a camera with a lens. The clock has been running for 1 hour 81/2 minutes.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What threw me is that you said the Sun was turned on and then turned off. So what is the answer? If it took 81/2 minutes for the light to get here, the clock would start at 12:50:30. Am I right?

You really have inherited your father's extraordinary mathematical abilities.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lenses of all kinds point to objects which then focus the light.

Lenses can't do anything at all to light that hasn't yet had time to get to the lens.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have to think in terms of my age and how much time I've got left. I want to use it wisely.

LOL: Do you really think that wasting your time on this forum, is using your time wisely?

[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.)

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You can encrypt .pdf files for free. Did you even look it up first? Man you are a mark for people wanting to sell you shit you don't need.

No I'm not LadyShea. My .pdf didn't have the ability to download, but when he put it on the protected page on my website, there was an icon that allowed downloading and no way to find page numbers where a person left off. Hiring him was a waste of money. It's free to encrypt.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You really have inherited your father's extraordinary mathematical abilities.

Lenses can't do anything at all to light that hasn't yet had time to get to the lens.

I have used every analogy I could think of, and you still have no idea what I'm even talking about. There's nothing I can say that will ever convince you that he was onto something. And there's nothing that will convince you that free will and determinism are not compatible; there's no shred of compatibility no matter what definition of free will you use. That's why talking to you is fruitless. Only when these discoveries are recognized by science will you concede that you were wrong this whole time on both counts.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, Peacegirl. Those two words are not equivalent. If you have been using them that way then you have been using them wrongly.

Now you're back to claiming the 'brightness' of light can get somewhere before the light itself does. You dropped this last time after we pointed out how crazy it is. It's like saying the deliciousness of spaghetti & meatballs can get to your tongue before the spaghetti & meatballs do.

Nooooo, you're wrong. If what you were saying were true, then why is it when we move a candle slightly out of optical range, do we not see it if the light is traveling directly towards us? You cannot say the light is moving too fast because it would then be too fast to see the candle when it's much closer to our eyes. The candle (the object) has to be within our field of view; we're not interpreting the image of the candle from light. We are seeing the candle directly because it's there to be seen.

If you had paid attention you would have at least understood the analogy. How fast does it take for us to see a candle when it is first lit? We can see the candle instantly because it is a closed system so the light is already at our eyes. Remember, if we can see the object (the candle), we're already in optical range. By the same token, if you can dare to imagine (I know this is hard for you) that the Sun and our eyes are just a bigger room, and we turn on the Sun, we would see it instantly the same way we see a candle instantly. If we can see the object (the Sun), we would already be in optical range because the light is already at our eyes. Both are the same phenomena because we're not talking about distance or time in this account, which you refuse to accept.

[The Lone Ranger]

Plenty of cameras don't have lenses, by the way.

They manage to work just fine, nonetheless.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No-one claims that images are reflected or picked up. This is not some minor semantic correction. It is you completely misrepresenting what I am saying and what afferent vision involves. Hubble forms images of material objects that are out of visual range from nothing but arriving light. It is in principle no different than what your own camera does when it photographs your own living room, which also forms an image of material objects from nothing but arriving light. Hubble does exactly what you claim cannot be done. You make your own position untestable and unfalsifiable (and therefore unscientific) when you try to claim that any examples contradicting your claim are somehow images of light rather than images of material objects.

I'm sorry to say but we cannot see anything resembling matter in the Hubble deep field. We see images of light which give us some information about the galaxy from which the light originated, but the photons themselves are full spectrum light; the kind of light we see when it turns morning here on Earth. This account is not unfalsifiable. There are other ways to prove that we see in real time besides this.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Plenty of cameras don't have lenses, by the way.

They manage to work just fine, nonetheless.

Hi Lone Ranger, how are you? It's been awhile since you've posted. Yes, it's true that cameras don't have lenses but whatever is used to detect light would work in the same way. It doesn't change the principle. Pinhole cameras don't have lenses but the object is still in view, which creates a photograph (or mirror image) on the back of the camera.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nooooo, you're wrong.

If you had paid attention...

LOL. Your audacity never ceases to amaze.

... you would have at least understood the analogy. How fast does it take for us to see a candle when it is first lit? We can see the candle instantly ...

Wrong! We do not see the candle instantly! This is where your idiotic "analogy" falls completely to pieces.

After all this time, you still do not know how fast light travels, do you? It travels so fast that if a beam of light could orbit the earth, it would go entirely around the earth more than seven times in a single second. That's pretty goddamned fast! So when we light a candle, it only seems as if we see it instantly, because the light travels to our eyes so quickly at such a close range. But, we don't. We are seeing the candle as it was some minuscule time in the past.

...because it is a closed system so the light is already at our eyes.

And, this is wrong for the reasons stated above. The candle light is NOT "already at our eyes." It takes time to reach our eyes. One could even give the exact increment of time by simply doing the math. A candle two feet away is lit. How long does it take the light to reach our eyes?

Remember, if we can see the object (the candle), we're already in optical range.

And there is your childlike "reasoning" again. "We can see the candle if we can see the candle" is your mantra. Boy, that's deep! I mean, boy, that's derp!

If we can see the candle, it's because the light from the candle has arrived at our eyes, meaning we are seeing the candle sometime as it was in the past. Period. End of story.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Decline and Fall of All
Evil
The Most Important Discovery
of Our Times
Seymour Lessans
Compiled and edited by Janis Rafael

Chapter 4 of the 2011 PDF page 117, 118, 119.

"In fact, if an infant was placed in a soundproof room
that would eliminate the possibility of sense experience which is a
117
prerequisite of sight, even though the eyelids were permanently
removed, he could never have the desire to see. If a newborn infant
was not permitted to have any sense experiences, the brain would
never desire to focus the eyes to look through them at the external
world no matter how much light was present. Consequently, even
though the lids were removed, and even though many colorful objects
were placed in front of the baby, he could never see because the brain
is not looking. Furthermore, and quite revealing, if this infant was
kept alive for fifty years or longer on a steady flow of intravenous
glucose, if possible, without allowing any stimuli to strike the other
four organs of sense, this baby, child, young and middle aged person
would never be able to focus the eyes to see any objects existing in that
room no matter how much light was present or how colorful they
might be because the conditions necessary for sight have been
removed, and there is absolutely nothing in the external world that
travels from an object and impinges on the optic nerve to cause it.

Lessans appears to have an unlimited capacity for treating hypotheticals as if they demonstrated and proven facts.