A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

So peacegirls synonyms: picture/image = nonabsorbed photons = light

Lessans sentence can be restated also

there is no picture light traveling from an object on the waves of light to impinge on our optic nerve.

Really? Want to try again peacegirl?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are out the door Spacemonkey.

Nope. I came back in through the window.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know if your attitude will ever bring you back to Earth (no pun intended). Sorry, but this conversation is not working and I don't want to waste more time. I have to let you go. Your accusations are more fertilizer for my strong desire to let the truth be known. Keep feeding it, but I don't want to argue with you anymore because you are a broken record. You have taken no time whatsoever to understand this model; all you are doing is defending your own! Nageli said that the core of Mendel's presentation was flawed. And guess what? He is now the father of genetics and Nageli is a footnote. Just think about this without arguing some minor point which is just a diversionary tactic, as you know all too well.

This looks suspiciously like a big steaming pile of weaseling bullshit. Why did you reply to my post without bothering to address any of its content? Do you think that is what an honest person would do?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is believed light bounces off of an object and travels through space/time.

It is not believed, it is known to be the case and can be observed and measured, as reflection and traveling are immutable properties of light...which you have repeatedly said you are not disputing.

So which is it, does efferent vision require that light has different properties than it has, or not?

[LadyShea]

Continuing with the synonyms: "image/picture" is a synonym for "nonabsorbed photons" and "nonabsrobed photons" is a synonym for "light"

Originally Posted by peacegirl

there is no light that could ever bring a past light image to our eyes since it doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[Light] does nothing to bring light images (nonabsorbed light) through space/time

[LadyShea]

The object could be 10 million miles away but if it meets the conditions of brightness and size, we would be able to see it in real time whether it was through a telescope, the naked eye, or a camera.

Even if we accept that to be true (that we could see it), we could not take a photograph without photons being physically located inside the camera. So, where do those photons come from and how do they get inside the camera in your model?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Nope. I came back in through the window.

This looks suspiciously like a big steaming pile of weaseling bullshit. Why did you reply to my post without bothering to address any of its content? Do you think that is what an honest person would do?

I have addressed your accusations, but you keep saying there is no mechanism. Of course there is. I am an honest person Spacemonkey. You are playing some kind of sick game here. It doesn't matter what you think anymore. Just like Nageli, you will be one of those people who thought the core of Lessans' discovery was flawed. That's okay. You have no power to stop this knowledge from coming to light. In fact, you are pushing me to greater heights. I know what this man has, and your antagonism is only pushing me to be more determined than ever. In fact, I have decided to put the entire book as a pdf online again, and it won't cost much to buy it. But it will cost something because I need money (even if it's a pittance) to move forward in getting this knowledge out to the public.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Even if we accept that to be true (that we could see it), we could not take a photograph without photons being physically located inside the camera. So, where do those photons come from and how do they get inside the camera in your model?

LadyShea, I cannot answer the same thing again and again. You are a puppet, imitating Spacemonkey to a tea. It's actually funny. How many times did I say that efferent vision causes light to be at the eye because it is in reverse. Do you even understand what I'm talking about? Obviously you don't, but your pride won't let you hear what I'm saying because you think you are smarter than Lessans. This presents a major problem because pride in one's intelligence will ruin it for you. If someone else tells you he was right, then you would listen more carefully, and take more time to understand this model. As of now, you have done no such thing.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have addressed your accusations, but you keep saying there is no mechanism. Of course there is.

Really? What is it? What is your mechanism for getting light from the Sun to the camera film?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am an honest person Spacemonkey.

Then why did you reply to a post I have bumped for you over two dozen times, only to completely ignore its entire content?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, I cannot answer the same thing again and again.

You can't answer it at all. You've never once answered the question here being asked.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times did I say that efferent vision causes light to be at the eye because it is in reverse. Do you even understand what I'm talking about?

You obviously don't. 'Efferent vision' isn't an answer. It's just the name of a model which still has no answer to the question being asked. The words 'efferent vision' do not tell us where the photons at the camera film came from or how they got there. And you are again talking about the eyes in response to a question about cameras. Why would you do that?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are a puppet, imitating Spacemonkey to a tea.

Another one for the collection.

[Cynthia of Syracuse]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because light is impinging (he said nothing, other than light), but no image or picture is impinging on the optic nerve. And you know what I mean by this. Don't start playing semantic games with me at this late date.

IIRC, Lessans' original claim was that nothing impinged on the eye. The "other than light" was yet another of the many undocumented alterations of the text made by his loving daughter after some of the fine folks at IIDB spent a couple of years rubbing her nose (ears, chin, nape of the neck, and down to the elbows) in the unidirectional nature of the optic nerve.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is not believed, it is known to be the case and can be observed and measured, as reflection and traveling are immutable properties of light...which you have repeatedly said you are not disputing.

So which is it, does efferent vision require that light has different properties than it has, or not?

After all this time, what is it you're not getting? There is no conclusive evidence that the object is not necessary for sight or photography. I cannot believe how little you have gotten from this thread. I am in agreement that light can be measured and that it is reflected from objects. But I am in disagreement that the nonabsorbed photons, which allow us to get an image, bring the image to us through space/time ad infinitum. How many more times will I have to repeat this? Unbelievable!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Cynthia of Syracuse

IIRC, Lessans' original claim was that nothing impinged on the eye. The "other than light" was yet another of the many undocumented alterations of the text made by his loving daughter after some of the fine folks at IIDB spent a couple of years rubbing her nose (ears, chin, nape of the neck, and down to the elbows) in the unidirectional nature of the optic nerve.

Yes, he did have "other than light' in one of his books (View from the Mountain Top). You, as the self-appointed devil's advocate, continue to cherry pick anything you can to make him look bad, but ironically you have never read the book or took a sincere interest in his teachings. You will never understand this work as a result. All you are doing is keeping the interest going because people are stimulated by controversy and dispute. And who said anything about the unidirectional nature of the optic nerve? Huh?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You can't answer it at all. You've never once answered the question here being asked.

Of course it has been answered. You just expect it to be answered with regard to traveling photons, which is irrelevant. It is no wonder you are confused. You haven't once perceived why, in this account, distance and time are not factors. That is why the finite speed of light has nothing to do with real time vision or photography. You won't be satisfied until I answer you according to your model, which defeats the purpose. You are trying to get me to fit a square into a circle. Can't do it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times did I say that efferent vision causes light to be at the eye because it is in reverse. Do you even understand what I'm talking about?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You obviously don't. 'Efferent vision' isn't an answer.

Of course it is.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It's just the name of a model which still has no answer to the question being asked. The words 'efferent vision' do not tell us where the photons at the camera film came from or how they got there. And you are again talking about the eyes in response to a question about cameras. Why would you do that?

Oh my goodness, we are talking about the brain and eyes and from this knowledge we can extend it to cameras because cameras do the same thing. They point to the object which focuses the light. They do not point to the light which focuses the light.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course it has been answered.

Liar. The question is where did the photons at the film come from and how did they get there. You've never once answered this question.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You haven't once perceived why, in this account, distance and time are not factors.

Neither have you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course it is.

Don't be stupid. Look:

Where did the photons at the film come from? Efferent vision.

How did they get to the camera film? Efferent vision.

See? These are not answers. You are just naming your model. And it is still a model that has no answers to what is being asked.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my goodness, we are talking about the brain and eyes and from this knowledge we can extend it to cameras because cameras do the same thing. They point to the object which focuses the light. They do not point to the light which focuses the light.

That still does not explain where the light at the film comes from or how it gets to the film. The brain and eyes, pointing, and focusing don't explain this at all.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is not believed, it is known to be the case and can be observed and measured, as reflection and traveling are immutable properties of light...which you have repeatedly said you are not disputing.

So which is it, does efferent vision require that light has different properties than it has, or not?

So, light doesn't bounce off an object and travel through spacetime, eh? Then how does a mirror work? If light did not bounce off the mirror and travel to your eye, then every time you looked into a mirror, you would see nothing at all!

Are you really admitting before the whole world that you don't even understand how a mirror works?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

After all this time, what is it you're not getting? There is no conclusive evidence that the object is not necessary for sight or photography.

As I've stated several times peacegirl (and which you have ignored), in the standard model the object being photographed is the source of the light inside the camera on the film or sensor. So, no, the object is not being ignored by photographic science and no optics doesn't say that the object is unnecessary when photographing that object, and yes, you still need to account for the light inside a camera in your "model"...where did it come from and how did it get there?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Cynthia of Syracuse

IIRC, Lessans' original claim was that nothing impinged on the eye. The "other than light" was yet another of the many undocumented alterations of the text made by his loving daughter after some of the fine folks at IIDB spent a couple of years rubbing her nose (ears, chin, nape of the neck, and down to the elbows) in the unidirectional nature of the optic nerve.

This is absolutely correct. She inserted "other than light" later into the text, and then shamelessly lied about it, claiming that those words had always been there, when in fact we know they had not, since we have seen earlier versions of the text BEFORE she snuck in those three words. This is the point I've repeatedly been making: the idiocy she is now defending is NOT Lessans's idiocy; its her OWN idiocy. Her idiocy is DIFFERENT from Lessans idiocy. It should also be noted that one point during her risible tour of duty at IIDB, she was on the verge of conceding that Lessans' notions of light and sight were wrong; maybe she had a few marbles left in her noggin back then. Unfortunately, those highly entertaining discussions are no longer archived online; even the successor to iidb, whatever the fuck it was named, has gone the way of all flesh.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

So, light doesn't bounce off an object and travel through spacetime, eh? Then how does a mirror work? If light did not bounce off the mirror and travel to your eye, then every time you looked into a mirror, you would see nothing at all!

Are you really admitting before the whole world that you don't even understand how a mirror works?

Mirrors work by reflecting light David. This doesn't negate this model in any way, shape, or form. In the case of mirrors, the objects are seen indirectly due to the reflection of light off the surface of the mirror, but the real substance is present. The requirements haven't changed one iota. You are grasping at anything you can as a last resort, but it doesn't change a thing.

[LadyShea]

I am in agreement that light can be measured and that it is reflected from objects.

The why do you make statements that reflected, traveling light is a "belief"?

But I am in disagreement that the nonabsorbed photons, which allow us to get an image, bring the image to us through space/time ad infinitum. How many more times will I have to repeat this? Unbelievable!

There is no disagreement, because I do not think "nonabsorbed photons (aka light) bring the image to us". Nobody thinks that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

This is absolutely correct. She inserted "other than light" later into the text, and then shamelessly lied about it, claiming that those words had always been there, when in fact we know they had not, since we have seen earlier versions of the text BEFORE she snuck in those three words.

I have been falsely accused more times than I can count. This is just one more time. Even if I showed you the page where he wrote "other than light", you would find something else to accuse me of, so I'm damned if I do and damned if I don't.

Originally Posted by davidm

This is the point I've repeatedly been making: the idiocy she is now defending is NOT Lessans's idiocy; its her OWN idiocy. Her idiocy is DIFFERENT from Lessans idiocy. It should also be noted that one point during her risible tour of duty at IIDB, she was on the verge of conceding that Lessans' notions of light and sight were wrong; maybe she had a few marbles left in her noggin back then. Unfortunately, those highly entertaining discussions are no longer archived online; even the successor to iidb, whatever the fuck it was named, has gone the way of all flesh.

You're completely loony. I never said that Lessans' notions of light and sight were wrong. I was in the early stages of trying to answer questions related to light, which may have not been fully thought through (remember, his understanding of how the eyes work did not come from this source), but I never said his claim was wrong.

[peacegirl]

I am in agreement that light can be measured and that it is reflected from objects.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The why do you make statements that reflected, traveling light is a "belief"?

Only because this is the source of the confusion. Light travels, true, but we don't interpret images from traveling light.

Once again, there is no argument that light is reflected but there is confusion as to the function of light, which has always been of the belief that light travels long distances, strikes the eye or film, and produces a delayed image. Not! Remember, I am not talking about traveling light and the fact that it takes time to reach us; I am talking about the function of light in relation to matter.

But I am in disagreement that the nonabsorbed photons, which allow us to get an image, bring the image to us through space/time ad infinitum. How many more times will I have to repeat this? Unbelievable!

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is no disagreement, because I do not think "nonabsorbed photons (aka light) bring the image to us". Nobody thinks that.

Then what do they think? What brings the image if not light, according to the afferent model?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Mirrors work by reflecting light David. This doesn't negate this model in any way, shape, or form. In the case of mirrors, the objects are seen indirectly due to the reflection of light off the surface of the mirror, but the real substance is present.

What does that even mean? "…but the real substance is present.." WTF? WHAT real substance are you blathering about? You have repeatedly stated that we don't see light, we see OBJECTS. So what is the OBJECT that we see in the mirror? Are you saying that when you look in the mirror, there is a physical duplicate of you looking back? (God forbid that there should be more than one of you! ) If not, what ARE you saying? What does "the real substance is present" MEAN? You don't know, do you? You know perfectly well that you have no idea what you are raving about, but are too dishonest to admit what is obvious to everyone else.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no argument that light is reflected, but there is confusion as to what light's function is, which has always been of the belief that light travels long distances, strikes the eye or film, and produces a delayed image. Not! Remember, I am not talking about traveling light and the fact that it takes time to reach us; I am talking about the function of light in relation to matter.

You made the statement that this is merely a belief. Why?

Then what do they think? What brings the image if not light, according to the afferent model?

Nothing brings an image according to the standard model. The image is created in the brain.

[peacegirl]

I am in agreement that light can be measured and that it is reflected from objects.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The why do you make statements that reflected, traveling light is a "belief"?

There is no argument that light is reflected, but there is confusion as to what light's function is, which has always been of the belief that light travels long distances, strikes the eye or film, and produces a delayed image. Not! Remember, I am not talking about traveling light and the fact that it takes time to reach us; I am talking about the function of light in relation to matter.

But I am in disagreement that the nonabsorbed photons, which allow us to get an image, bring the image to us through space/time ad infinitum. How many more times will I have to repeat this? Unbelievable!

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is no disagreement, because I do not think "nonabsorbed photons (aka light) bring the image to us". Nobody thinks that.

Then what do they think? So if no one thinks nonabsorbed photons bring the image to the eye or sensor, then what do they they think brings the image? :huh: