A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light absolutely works that way.

So does efferent vision require a change to the properties of light and the principles of optics?

How many times do I have to say no? The principles of optics work exactly the same way except that we see the object instantly using optical principles instead of waiting to resolve the light. By that time, there would be nothing to resolve, not even a dot, because all that we would be receiving is full spectrum light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, light is arriving but it's not partial spectrum light.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light travels and arrives, because it is light. What wavelengths comprise the light is irrelevant to the properties of traveling and arriving.

What wavelengths comprise the light is what gives us sight LadyShea. What the hell!

You are very confused here.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Seems to me the person responding with a non-sequitur, like your response about partial spectrum, is the confused one.

Non-sequitur? Everything I've explained follows everything else. The confused one remains in your court.

If you replace the word images with nonabsorbed photons, it means the same thing.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then we are back to the synonyms that demonstrate Lessans incorrectness, as images=non absorbed photons= "light"

Once again, your hubris is not pretty. You refuse to ask questions; you just tell me he's wrong. Light is light, but what the light consists of is central to this discussion, yet you're trying to handwave it away since you can't answer to it. That's such an easy cop out and prevents you from even trying to understand what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If we replace your use of the word images, with the synonym light, your sentence now reads "That's exactly why he said light is not reflected"... since light is absolutely reflected if it meets matter and is not absorbed or transmitted, that makes the sentence completely incorrect.

Wrong. Light is reflected but the image (the wavelength that allows us to see what we're seeing) does not get reflected. If we turn on a blue light in a room, we see blue because the photons reveal this blueness. If suddenly the light changed to red, we would not see blue, because the red wavelength is already at the eye. The same holds true for all external substance. We see what is happening in the here and now, not in delayed time.

Until you get off your high horse by telling me that Lessans is wrong when you don't know that, we can't have a fair discussion.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

When you stop being a mealy mouthed weasel and talking nonsense maybe we can have a fair discussion. That won't happen though, because Lessans was obviously wrong, that's the reason you're being dishonest

That high horse attitude of yours is exactly why you're failing to understand the concept. Rushing to judgment and calling this important finding a bunch of crap does not mesh with good science. You also did the same thing with his other discovery calling his very astute observations mere assertions. Your better than thou attitude is ruining it for you.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Spacemonkey, I'm tired of being in the hot seat when you make no attempt to understand this model. One plus one does not equal three. I hope you take some time to ruminate on all that I've explained, for your quick responses show me you haven't given this model much thought. That's probably why you keep repeating and repeating the afferent model and getting nowhere.

You're lying and weaseling again, dingbat. I'm making every possible attempt to understand your model, by asking questions regarding the parts that make no sense. No-one says 1=1=3, you haven't explained anything for me to ruminate over, and I'm not repeating the afferent model. Idiot.


Imagine you've just got up in the morning, and check the mail only to meet the postman delivering a letter to you from Japan. Wow, you exclaim, how did this letter get here all the way from Japan? Mail from Japan has been shutdown for the past two weeks!

Well, the postman explains, this morning when mail from Japan resumed, a person in Japan went to the post office to drop it off. The letter was taken to Narita airport and placed on a plane which flies to the US, taking around 14hrs, where the letter was dropped off and taken to a mail sorting facility where it was then dispatched to its labelled address, and should arrive here sometime tomorrow or the day after that.

A little confused, you ask: Do you mean this letter I'm now holding in my hand will arrive tomorrow? Oh no, the postman explains. I was telling you about a completely different letter that hasn't arrived yet. Okay, so how did this letter get here, you ask. The postman looks away guiltily and shuffles his feet. What do you mean, he says, I just told you.

Please tell me what is wrong with the postman's explanation. I'm sure you can figure it out. Don't respond with anything about light or vision. Stick to the story.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You have ignored the above question.

You have ignored ALL of the above.

That was in response to YOUR comment here: "...this account changes everything. It puts the Sun in the same physical space as your eyes..." Yes, I know. That was just you saying something stupid that you didn't really mean.

Then that should be the end of your magical lenses nonsense, as you've agreed that a lens can only affect light that is of no use to you and which arrives 8min AFTER you need us to be able to see the Sun.

Well, that was the only light I was asking you about. Look at the questions in the above paragraph. Can you count the question marks? How many did you answer? Maybe spacing them out will help you:

You said you have always maintained that ALL light travels.

1. Does that include the light you need at the film on Earth when the Sun is first ignited? [Y/N]

2. Did that light travel from the Sun to get there? [Y/N]

3. If so, how long did it take to complete the journey? [insert duration]

4. And when did it leave the Sun? [insert time relative to Sun's ignition]

You know you haven't. Have you answered them to your satisfaction? If so, why are you satisfied with simply ignoring most of what was asked?

Bump for Dingbat.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're lying and weaseling again, dingbat. I'm making every possible attempt to understand your model, by asking questions regarding the parts that make no sense. No-one says 1=1=3, you haven't explained anything for me to ruminate over, and I'm not repeating the afferent model. Idiot.


Imagine you've just got up in the morning, and check the mail only to meet the postman delivering a letter to you from Japan. Wow, you exclaim, how did this letter get here all the way from Japan? Mail from Japan has been shutdown for the past two weeks!

Well, the postman explains, this morning when mail from Japan resumed, a person in Japan went to the post office to drop it off. The letter was taken to Narita airport and placed on a plane which flies to the US, taking around 14hrs, where the letter was dropped off and taken to a mail sorting facility where it was then dispatched to its labelled address, and should arrive here sometime tomorrow or the day after that.

A little confused, you ask: Do you mean this letter I'm now holding in my hand will arrive tomorrow? Oh no, the postman explains. I was telling you about a completely different letter that hasn't arrived yet. Okay, so how did this letter get here, you ask. The postman looks away guiltily and shuffles his feet. What do you mean, he says, I just told you.

Please tell me what is wrong with the postman's explanation. I'm sure you can figure it out. Don't respond with anything about light or vision. Stick to the story.

Who is saying the photon didn't arrive Spacemonkey? What are you even talking about? All photons arrive in sequential order but they consist of full spectrum light by the time they reach Earth. Be careful how you address me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump for Dingbat.

You ruined the rest of the day. Oh well.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Laser light is light that is concentrated so we could see this flash of light...

Not only are you wrong, you're making this up. Nowhere in your crazy account does it talk about what can't be revealed and what can be, and when you make things up like this it's hardly a wonder you contradict yourself over and over.

[davidm]

Folks, I already ran this by her with Nixon in China. lands in even as his plane is on the runway in Washington. She, of course, understand perfectly well what nonsense that would be; and she understands perfectly well the analogy to her own nonsense. She KNOWS that what she is saying is nonsense; but she doesn't care. It's her stupid story and she's sticking to it, so why is everyone getting bent out of shape when she lies and lies like the liar she is? We know she's a liar, she knows she's a liar and she knows we know she's a liar. Is there really anything left to say?

[davidm]

You're insane,

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Not only are you wrong, you're making this up. Nowhere in your crazy account does it talk about what can't be revealed and what can be, and when you make things up like this it's hardly a wonder you contradict yourself over and over.

So you're saying a laser light is the same as Sunlight?

The flash of laser light being reflected is due to the intensity of that beam off of a reflective surface and the distance from the observer. What I'm saying is simply this; daylight does not reveal itself but this same light can reveal laser light (which is concentrated light energy) or other types of images when these photons interact with things in the atmosphere.

To get a laser you need to get some excited atoms! Excited atoms emit photons. This in turn stimulates other atoms to emit photons.

To make a powerful laser you can trap the atoms between two mirrors. This bounces the photons back and forth, increasing the stimulation of other atoms.

Unlike the light we see from the sun, light from a laser is made up of just one colour. All the waves in light from a laser travel in the same direction, making a concentrated beam.

How lasers work (in theory) - YouTube

How Lasers Work (in practice) - Smarter Every Day 33 - YouTube

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So you're saying a laser light is the same as Sunlight?

The flash of laser light being reflected is due to the intensity of that beam off of a reflective surface and the distance from the observer. What I'm saying is simply this; daylight does not reveal itself but this same light can reveal laser light (which is concentrated light energy) or other types of images when these photons interact with things in the atmosphere.

To get a laser you need to get some excited atoms! Excited atoms emit photons. This in turn stimulates other atoms to emit photons.

To make a powerful laser you can trap the atoms between two mirrors. This bounces the photons back and forth, increasing the stimulation of other atoms.

Unlike the light we see from the sun, light from a laser is made up of just one colour. All the waves in light from a laser travel in the same direction, making a concentrated beam.

How lasers work (in theory) - YouTube

How Lasers Work (in practice) - Smarter Every Day 33 - YouTube

Look at the shameless, arrogant little twit, rolling her eyes at an astrophysicist and then doing a fucking copypasta of laser, of which she does not understand a single word.

Hey, Dingbat, if you knew about lasers, why didn't you describe them in your OWN words? Oh, right, when you tried to do so, you fucked it all up!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Folks, I already ran this by her with Nixon in China. lands in even as his plane is on the runway in Washington. She, of course, understand perfectly well what nonsense that would be; and she understands perfectly well the analogy to her own nonsense. She KNOWS that what she is saying is nonsense; but she doesn't care. It's her stupid story and she's sticking to it, so why is everyone getting bent out of shape when she lies and lies like the liar she is? We know she's a liar, she knows she's a liar and she knows we know she's a liar. Is there really anything left to say?

Who is saying that the light has arrived before the light has arrived? That's not what I'm saying. I am saying that the light doesn't have to arrive from the Sun for us to see an object that is not on Earth if it meets the requirements of efferent vision of brightness and size. That's why we would see a flash on the moon from a laser beam in real time if it had a large enough reflective surface. But it didn't, so it couldn't be seen otherwise it would have met the requirements and it would have been picked up by the telescope. Again, this isn't magic as you proclaim.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times do I have to say no?

So can light be somewhere if it hasn't arrived there?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Look at the shameless, arrogant little twit, rolling her eyes at an astrophysicist and then doing a fucking copypasta of laser, of which she does not understand a single word.

Hey, Dingbat, if you knew about lasers, why didn't you describe them in your OWN words? Oh, right, when you tried to do so, you fucked it all up!

This has nothing to do with anything, and you know it. You just want to add ad hominen on top of ad hominen. This is where the discussion morphs into something never intended.

[LadyShea]

The principles of optics work exactly the same way except that we see the object instantly using optical principles instead of waiting to resolve the light. By that time, there would be nothing to resolve, not even a dot, because all that we would be receiving is full spectrum light.

LOL, by what time? What example are you using?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So can light be somewhere if it hasn't arrived there?

Light HAS arrived at the lens because we're in optical range instantly since distance in this account is irrelevant (it's the size of the object in relation to the viewer that counts). You keep talking about the arrival of light. Yes, light has to arrive to interact with matter that's on Earth. But we're talking about a distant object that is not on Earth. Why do you think I said the photosensitive paper with a lens would reveal an image, but the paper without a lens would not (except for pinhole camera that acts like a lens). The lens is gathering the light which is providing the image at 12:00, or as fast as it takes us to see a lighted candle. The image would show up instantly on the retina or sensor. A plant or a solar panel would only interact with the light at 12:08.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What wavelengths comprise the light is what gives us sight LadyShea. What the hell!

Not talking about sight, though. We've only been asking you about the location of light photons.

Non-sequitur? Everything I've explained follows everything else. The confused one remains in your court.

Does partial spectrum light travel in your model, today? You've said it doesn't, then you "reneged" that claim...are you back to it, now?

Once again, your hubris is not pretty. You refuse to ask questions; you just tell me he's wrong. Light is light, but what the light consists of is central to this discussion, yet you're trying to handwave it away since you can't answer to it. That's such an easy cop out and prevents you from even trying to understand what I'm talking about.

You don't answer any pertinent questions, so what's the point?

The properties traveling and having locations applies to all light, regardless of wavelength, so that is irrelevant to the line of discussion regarding traveling and being located someplace.

Additionally, images=nonabsorbed photons=light, so you are making zero sense when you try to use images to mean something other than light.

Wrong. Light is reflected but the image (the wavelength that allows us to see what we're seeing) does not get reflected.

Nobody has ever said anything is reflected other than light, so how is this response pertinent to any point anyone has made? It's not. It is irrelevant. A non-sequitur. A strawman.

That high horse attitude of yours is exactly why you're failing to understand the concept.

Your dishonesty is exactly why you are failing to respond relevantly or coherently, and why you refuse to answer questions.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who is saying that the light has arrived before the light has arrived? That's not what I'm saying. I am saying that the light doesn't have to arrive from the Sun for us to see an object that is not on Earth if it meets the requirements of efferent vision of brightness and size.

And according to the laws of physics light has to arrive at the camera film in order to be located on camera film on Earth. Your model says otherwise, so your model is wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, by what time? What example are you using?

I'm not using actual distance from an object because that would tell us how far away that object is using the inverse square law. We would not get an image of the Sun (which is made up of matter) if we waited 81/2 minutes; we would get full spectrum light that is coming from the Sun. You really have to think about this in reverse. If the object (in this case the Sun) is bright enough and large enough to be seen (not the image from the light but the actual object), we will be within optical range when our gaze turns in that direction. In other words, there will be enough photons at the eye for us to see the object in real time. The light continues to travel to Earth, but it doesn't have to reach Earth for photons to be collected at the lens in this account of vision. I know this isn't easy especially when you have never heard of this account until recently, but I'm asking you to hold off calling me a weasel and a liar just because it doesn't immediately make sense to you. If you keep trying to understand it, you will eventually get it. At least that is my hope.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light HAS arrived at the lens because we're in optical range instantly since distance in this account is irrelevant (it's the size of the object in relation to the viewer that counts). You keep talking about the arrival of light. Yes, light has to arrive to interact with matter that's on Earth. But we're talking about a distant object that is not on Earth. Why do you think I said the photosensitive paper with a lens would reveal an image, but the paper without a lens would not (except for pinhole camera that acts like a lens). The lens is gathering the light which is providing the image at 12:00, or as fast as it takes us to see a lighted candle. The image would show up instantly on the retina or sensor. A plant or a solar panel would only interact with the light at 12:08.

Light that has arrived must have been traveling. Lenses gather light that has traveled to the lens. If it was traveling it had to cover a distance at a finite speed so cannot be instantaneous.

Brightness and size are not physical mechanisms for negating actual space and distance

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And according to the laws of physics light has to arrive at the camera film in order to be located on camera film on Earth. Your model says otherwise, so your model is wrong.

This has nothing to do with time. If the object is bright enough the light is already at the eye. Think again of a candle; if we can see the candle in the dark mustn't the light already be at the eye? How could we see it otherwise? It doesn't mean light hasn't traveled, but the image does not. If the candle changes color, we will see the change instantly because the light revealing the change is at the eye instantly. Distance and time have no bearing on this account. Remove the candle and there will be no image anywhere to be found. Remove the moon and we would get no image because the light does not have this information within it apart from what it is revealing. THAT'S WHAT HE MEANT WHEN HE SAID THE IMAGE DOES NOT GET REFLECTED. You keep saying this is wrong when I know it's not wrong; it's just your inability to grasp the relations. The same goes for his other discovery. The knowledge regarding determinism is not a philosophical discussion. It is a universal law which makes it immutable. It is not subject to contingencies of any kind. Do you even know what a universal law is?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No big shot. It has arrived so this model is not wrong. It just doesn't have to arrive on Earth when we are looking outward, not receiving images inward. I can't keep being told this is wrong when I know it's not wrong

I didn't say anything about receiving images. The light cannot arrive at camera film if it hasn't arrived on Earth. You are absolutely wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light that has arrived must have been traveling. Lenses gather light that has traveled to the lens. If it was traveling it had to cover a distance at a finite speed so cannot be instantaneous.

Brightness and size are not physical mechanisms for negating actual space and distance

There actually are physical mechanisms in place. It is the proportion of the object to the viewer. That's why we were unable to see a laser reflected from a small reflective surface. But if the object is large, like the Sun, then the intensity of light is in proportion to the viewer which puts the viewer within optical range if the viewer or lens is pointed in this direction. The only difference is we're not waiting for this light to arrive. We're using this light that has traveled across this space in a nanosecond or less (like the candle) to see the real world in real time. Oh my gosh, how many more times will I have to repeat this? I don't think I can do it anymore. I think I'm going to call it quits. I'm surprised no one is interested in his other discovery probably because people think it's just another theory. That's why David kept referring to Norman Schwartz, as if this proves Lessans wrong. This is not a modal fallacy. This is an invariable law that has no exceptions. Yes, we move in the direction of greater satisfaction so whatever we choose is in this direction, but this does not reveal a deeper truth. Tautologies don't automatically mean that what you're trying to prove is null and void.

[LadyShea]

We cannot see the "actual object" that is the Sun, all we can see is the light from it. If we could see the "actual objects" like you are describing them we would be able to see black holes and invisible flames and the water vapor that produces rainbows and atmosphere that causes the aurora borealis

These are all examples of seeing only light, because there is no visible "object".

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No big shot.

It has arrived so this model is not wrong. It just doesn't have to arrive on Earth….

You really don't have a clue LadyShea.

does not have a clue!

The knowledge regarding determinism is not a philosophical discussion. It is a psychological law that is immutable. Do you even know what a universal law of nature is?