Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #6676  
Old 01-27-2012, 07:52 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
A bright light flashes and you tell me there's no light at the object?
There is no "object" for the light to be "surrounding" when the image is created, and there is only a shadow on the wall after the person casting it has left the area, the shadow can be still be seen and photographed after the person has walked away.

Quote:
What do you mean no lenses? Doesn't the camera have a lens?
There is no camera. There is a light, a person, and a wall. You stand in front of the wall, the light flashes, you walk away from the wall and your shadow remains as it was against the wall.

You can photograph the shadow if you wish, it is frozen on the wall as if painted on there. But it is not an image created with a camera or lens.

Quote:
What are you getting at?
I am getting at images created from only light and photosensitive materials, no lenses needed to create the image on the wall. You claimed the lens was a necessary factor in getting an image on film, I am showing that you can create images without lenses at any children's museum
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (01-27-2012), Spacemonkey (01-27-2012)
  #6677  
Old 01-27-2012, 07:53 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Whenever you say light will stay somewhere that means it will be stationary. That is what "stay" means. So you need to re-answer these questions without positing stationary light:
Still waiting on answers to these questions. So don't lie and tell me you've answered all my questions already.

When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is travelling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Does it bounce off the surface to travel away from it? [Y/N?]

Is it absorbed by the blue object? [Y/N?]

Does it cease to exist? [Y/N?]

Does it stay there, at the surface of the blue object? [Y/N?]

Does it teleport itself instantly to any nearby films or retinas? [Y/N?]

If none of the above, then what? [Insert answer here]
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #6678  
Old 01-27-2012, 07:56 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
See? More dishonest weaselling with no actual answer to my question at all.
Yes, and what did you expect? This very day she stated that the failure of real-time seeing when it comes to observing the moons of Jupiter and calculating how to send spacecraft to Mars is explained by real-time seeing!
Reply With Quote
  #6679  
Old 01-27-2012, 08:06 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Actual photons are interacting with the film, believe it or not LadyShea. As I have said over and over that efferent vision is responsible for this, and until you understand the mechanism that allows this, you will be confounded. If you're having a problem with understanding why we get a picture even though the light hasn't reached Earth, you need a refresher course. This does not, IN ANY WAY, negate the truth of efferent vision. :(
But you don't understand the mechanism regarding the actual photons interacting with the film. I've asked you simple questions about their past history and you've alternately told me that they were previously (i) at the film, (ii) at the object, (iii) travelling, and (iv) non-existent. You have no model at all, and are just making this up as you go. You don't have the faintest idea of how any of this is meant to work.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (01-27-2012)
  #6680  
Old 01-27-2012, 08:09 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
How many have you sold in total? We know you sold at least one on Amazon. We read the review, which seems to have mysteriously disappeared since then, possibly because he considered it a complete waste of time and money. Has anyone given you any more positive or constructive feedback? Has anyone been convinced yet?
The Amazon review was from an IIDB poster who read the online version. It was not from any actual sale.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (01-27-2012)
  #6681  
Old 01-27-2012, 08:45 PM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDCCCLXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
What are you getting at?
I am getting at images created from only light and photosensitive materials, no lenses needed to create the image on the wall. You claimed the lens was a necessary factor in getting an image on film, I am showing that you can create images without lenses at any children's museum
While we're at it, what about holograms? You get images that look like the real thing from every angle, and there's no lens involved at all in making them! In fact, if you buy a laser pointer to make the picture, you take out the lens first to make it work.



Holography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (01-27-2012)
  #6682  
Old 01-27-2012, 09:11 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
He will also be clarifying many of the concepts by saying "quote" when he begins his elaboration and "unquote" when he's finished elaborating on a particular point.
That is of course the very best way to "quote" clarify "unquote" a concept.
It's got nothing to do with quoting people.
Why would he say the words quote and unquote for clarification purposes? I've never heard of such a strange thing
Lessans knew that his clarification would mean a lot once he's gone. I think you are trying in every possible way to discredit him because you think he's wrong, plain and simple. :sadcheer:

WTF are you talking about?

It's very odd to say the words "quote" and "unquote" to announce clarification or elaboration when speaking or reading or aloud . Most people would say "To clarify...." or "To elaborate..." or "To reiterate...." or use their inflection for emphasis or just communicate clearly in the first place.

I have never heard of someone saying the words "quote" and "unquote" except for actual quotations. It's strange
So now you're discrediting him for this ridiculous reason? He elaborated through the whole book. I guess it was easier for him to say "quote/unquote" rather than say "To elaborate, or To reiterate". I can't believe how you are nitpicking this poor man to death.

Last edited by peacegirl; 01-27-2012 at 09:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #6683  
Old 01-27-2012, 09:20 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by But View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
What are you getting at?
I am getting at images created from only light and photosensitive materials, no lenses needed to create the image on the wall. You claimed the lens was a necessary factor in getting an image on film, I am showing that you can create images without lenses at any children's museum
While we're at it, what about holograms? You get images that look like the real thing from every angle, and there's no lens involved at all in making them! In fact, if you buy a laser pointer to make the picture, you take out the lens first to make it work.



Holography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Thanks for the graphic but I think everyone is getting confused here. Light does many neat things and shows up in all kinds of ways that are interesting to observe, but this has nothing to do with an organism needing a lens in order to see, or a camera needing a lens in order to capture a photograph on film.

LENS ELEMENTS & IMAGE QUALITY

All but the simplest cameras contain lenses which are actually comprised of several "lens elements." Each of these elements directs the path of light rays to recreate the image as accurately as possible on the digital sensor. The goal is to minimize aberrations, while still utilizing the fewest and least expensive elements.

Understanding Camera Lenses

Vertebrates have camera type eyes that are capable of forming clear images.

Sensory Systems

Reply With Quote
  #6684  
Old 01-27-2012, 09:22 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
. Photons are constantly being emitted, that is a fact, but the only way we get the (P) photons on film/retina is when the lens of the film or retina is focused on the object. It's as simple as that. If we happen to be looking at something that is parallel to the object, those photons that are made up of the visible spectrum. The only time we actually get a mirror image of the object is when we're looking directly at it and there is enough light surrounding the object for us to see it.
When the eye focuses on an object and we see that object, what is in our peripheral vision? What about the objects in the background or off to the side that the eye is not focusing on, an object that is further away and out of focus to the eye? Do we see them if the eye is not focused on them?
We see it exactly as a mirror image, which means the peripheral vision would be blurred. It's an inverse relation to the object's absorptive properties, so it makes perfect sense.
No it doesn't quite make perfect sense to me. You state that we need to be looking directly at an object to see the mirror image of it, but the other objects around we are not looking at directly so blured or not how can we see them? Could you explain this in more detail, because right now it seems like a contradiction to say that we need to look directly at somethingto see it, but we can still see something that we are not looking directly at?
Just trying to understand this?
I won't answer you until you stop cracking jokes at Lessans' expense.

In other words you don't have an answer, and you don't really understand efferent vision, or you still havent figured out more fiction to fix it up. I've already pointed out the contradiction in your statement and you can see that anything you say is going to contradict something else you have said. This nonsense about jokes and sarcasim is just your weaseling out of giving an answer. You have said that we need to look directly at an object to see it, so anything we are not looking directly at should just be a white fog of nothingness, In fact you hinted at that a few pages back. There is nothing between the objects we are looking at, just blank screen. Besides I don't need to make jokes about Lessans. If you had an answer you would offer it instead of stalling because you don't know.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (01-27-2012)
  #6685  
Old 01-27-2012, 09:27 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
How many have you sold in total? We know you sold at least one on Amazon. We read the review, which seems to have mysteriously disappeared since then, possibly because he considered it a complete waste of time and money. Has anyone given you any more positive or constructive feedback? Has anyone been convinced yet?
The Amazon review was from an IIDB poster who read the online version. It was not from any actual sale.
Spacemonkey was right. This guy did not read the book. He couldn't have since most of his review was a misrepresentation. He went behind my back because of the whole moons of Jupiter debacle. He then mentioned something about punishing people who don't obey, which is absolutely insane! But I'm not worried since the review will eventually disappear as I start marketing the book and people begin to give positive reviews.
Reply With Quote
  #6686  
Old 01-27-2012, 09:28 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
. Photons are constantly being emitted, that is a fact, but the only way we get the (P) photons on film/retina is when the lens of the film or retina is focused on the object. It's as simple as that. If we happen to be looking at something that is parallel to the object, those photons that are made up of the visible spectrum. The only time we actually get a mirror image of the object is when we're looking directly at it and there is enough light surrounding the object for us to see it.
When the eye focuses on an object and we see that object, what is in our peripheral vision? What about the objects in the background or off to the side that the eye is not focusing on, an object that is further away and out of focus to the eye? Do we see them if the eye is not focused on them?
We see it exactly as a mirror image, which means the peripheral vision would be blurred. It's an inverse relation to the object's absorptive properties, so it makes perfect sense.
No it doesn't quite make perfect sense to me. You state that we need to be looking directly at an object to see the mirror image of it, but the other objects around we are not looking at directly so blured or not how can we see them? Could you explain this in more detail, because right now it seems like a contradiction to say that we need to look directly at somethingto see it, but we can still see something that we are not looking directly at?
Just trying to understand this?
I won't answer you until you stop cracking jokes at Lessans' expense.

In other words you don't have an answer, and you don't really understand efferent vision, or you still havent figured out more fiction to fix it up. I've already pointed out the contradiction in your statement and you can see that anything you say is going to contradict something else you have said. This nonsense about jokes and sarcasim is just your weaseling out of giving an answer. You have said that we need to look directly at an object to see it, so anything we are not looking directly at should just be a white fog of nothingness, In fact you hinted at that a few pages back. There is nothing between the objects we are looking at, just blank screen. Besides I don't need to make jokes about Lessans. If you had an answer you would offer it instead of stalling because you don't know.
Believe what you want.
Reply With Quote
  #6687  
Old 01-27-2012, 09:29 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
He will also be clarifying many of the concepts by saying "quote" when he begins his elaboration and "unquote" when he's finished elaborating on a particular point.
That is of course the very best way to "quote" clarify "unquote" a concept.
It's got nothing to do with quoting people.
Why would he say the words quote and unquote for clarification purposes? I've never heard of such a strange thing
Lessans knew that his clarification would mean a lot once he's gone. I think you are trying in every possible way to discredit him because you think he's wrong, plain and simple. :sadcheer:

WTF are you talking about?

It's very odd to say the words "quote" and "unquote" to announce clarification or elaboration when speaking or reading or aloud . Most people would say "To clarify...." or "To elaborate..." or "To reiterate...." or use their inflection for emphasis or just communicate clearly in the first place.

I have never heard of someone saying the words "quote" and "unquote" except for actual quotations. It's strange
So now you're discrediting him for this ridiculous reason? He elaborated through the whole book. I guess it was easier for him to say "quote/unquote" rather than say "To elaborate, or To reiterate". I can't believe how you are nitpicking this poor man to death.
You stated he did this odd thing, feeling it was important enough to mention...which is a weird detail to comment on in the first place.

I commented on it's oddness and asked why he did such a strange thing. That's it. That's all that happened.

Why can't you just answer even a simple question like this?
Reply With Quote
  #6688  
Old 01-27-2012, 09:30 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
. Photons are constantly being emitted, that is a fact, but the only way we get the (P) photons on film/retina is when the lens of the film or retina is focused on the object. It's as simple as that. If we happen to be looking at something that is parallel to the object, those photons that are made up of the visible spectrum. The only time we actually get a mirror image of the object is when we're looking directly at it and there is enough light surrounding the object for us to see it.
When the eye focuses on an object and we see that object, what is in our peripheral vision? What about the objects in the background or off to the side that the eye is not focusing on, an object that is further away and out of focus to the eye? Do we see them if the eye is not focused on them?
We see it exactly as a mirror image, which means the peripheral vision would be blurred. It's an inverse relation to the object's absorptive properties, so it makes perfect sense.
No it doesn't quite make perfect sense to me. You state that we need to be looking directly at an object to see the mirror image of it, but the other objects around we are not looking at directly so blured or not how can we see them? Could you explain this in more detail, because right now it seems like a contradiction to say that we need to look directly at somethingto see it, but we can still see something that we are not looking directly at?
Just trying to understand this?
I won't answer you until you stop cracking jokes at Lessans' expense.

In other words you don't have an answer, and you don't really understand efferent vision, or you still havent figured out more fiction to fix it up. I've already pointed out the contradiction in your statement and you can see that anything you say is going to contradict something else you have said. This nonsense about jokes and sarcasim is just your weaseling out of giving an answer. You have said that we need to look directly at an object to see it, so anything we are not looking directly at should just be a white fog of nothingness, In fact you hinted at that a few pages back. There is nothing between the objects we are looking at, just blank screen. Besides I don't need to make jokes about Lessans. If you had an answer you would offer it instead of stalling because you don't know.
Believe what you want.
I believe what is true, do you have any truth to offer?
Reply With Quote
  #6689  
Old 01-27-2012, 09:38 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
So, to sum up:

- Efferent vision does not explain any phenomena that cannot be explained by real sight.
- Efferent vision has no explanation for many phenomena that can be explained by real sight
- Efferent vision does not have any mechanism - nobody knows how it works, if it works at all
- Efferent vision contradicts causality
- Efferent vision contradicts relativity

And the cherry on the cake: since it contradicts causality, that means it contradicts the core idea of the book, which is a version of determinism (albeit a fallacious one) which cannot be upheld without causality.

It is completely untenable. It has to be changed, or no-one will ever consider the rest of the book. Not now, not ever!
You're just repeating the same refutation that does not hold up in reality Vivisectus, but you're hanging on for dear life. How many times do I have to say, for you to hear me, that Lessans' observations have nothing to do with a violation of physics. Your repeating this again and again does nothing to prove Lessans wrong. It's just an effort to make it appear that Lessans is wrong. :(
Then I am sure you can point out what is wrong about those statements! So far you have been unable to do so. All you can manage is what you do here: make an empty, unsupported claim. I can back every one of these statements up with logic and data.
But that's the problem. It appears that there could be no other alternate model, but there is and it also is backed up by observation if you care to look.
Reply With Quote
  #6690  
Old 01-27-2012, 09:38 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
But I'm not worried since the review will eventually disappear as I start marketing the book and people begin to give positive reviews.
There will be no positive reviews except from morons, and since most morons can't write, there will be no positive reviews.

What I'm going to do is develop a cuckoo-clock scale from your future rantings, ranging from one cuckoo :cuckoo: to Defcon Five cuckoo, when you are at your most insane: :cuckoo: :cuckoo: :cuckoo: :cuckoo: :cuckoo:

I'll give your quoted post here:

:cuckoo: :cuckoo:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (01-27-2012)
  #6691  
Old 01-27-2012, 09:41 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Bump
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Using Lessans own example

1. The Sun is turned on at noon. Photons from the Sun will take 8.5 minutes to reach Earth. There are no photons on Earth at this time
2. You stated you can take a photograph of the Sun at noon with a film camera on Earth. Film cameras require photons to be located on the surface of the film to be absorbed.
3. HOW are the photons physically located at the Sun ALSO physically located on the surface of the camera film on Earth (where there are no photons) to be absorbed?


HOW are the photons physically located at the Sun ALSO physically located on the surface of the camera film on Earth (where there are no photons) to be absorbed?

Actual photons have to actually strike the actual film to be absorbed by the silver halid molecules. HOW DO THE PHOTONS GET THERE in the above example out of Lessans book?


Quit answering about objects and reflections, because all that is in the above example is the newly turned on Sun and the camera film. It is noon. There are no photons on Earth to be absorbed by the camera film until 12:08

How does the camera film absorb a photon, which is required to take a picture, at noon in this scenario?
A camera absorbs photons instantly the same exact way the eye sees objects in real time, which has everything to do with efferent vision. If you can't grasp this concept, it will look like a violation of physics but it's not.
That does absolutely violate physics because that means photons are in two places at the same time. It's not a concept I need to grasp, it's a physical process you need to explain without violating the laws of physics.

Remember, in this scenario, there are no photons on Earth, at all. According to physics Photons must touch camera film to be absorbed this means they must be located in the same physical coordinates of space. How are the photons getting there in efferent vision?
Reply With Quote
  #6692  
Old 01-27-2012, 09:41 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Added to previous post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
On a side-note, how are the book sales? Have you seen any significant interest so far, gotten any feedback from other people? How many have been sold so far?
I have not distributed the book, nor have I done any marketing, so no one knows about this book except for the people on these philosophy forums.
Reply With Quote
  #6693  
Old 01-27-2012, 09:46 PM
Crumb's Avatar
Crumb Crumb is offline
Adequately Crumbulent
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Cascadia
Gender: Male
Posts: LXMMDCIX
Blog Entries: 22
Images: 355
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Someone is offering a used copy on Amazon, so someone must have purchased it... :chin:
__________________
:joecool2: :cascadia: :ROR: :portland: :joecool2:
Reply With Quote
  #6694  
Old 01-27-2012, 09:47 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Bump
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Using Lessans own example

1. The Sun is turned on at noon. Photons from the Sun will take 8.5 minutes to reach Earth. There are no photons on Earth at this time
2. You stated you can take a photograph of the Sun at noon with a film camera on Earth. Film cameras require photons to be located on the surface of the film to be absorbed.
3. HOW are the photons physically located at the Sun ALSO physically located on the surface of the camera film on Earth (where there are no photons) to be absorbed?


HOW are the photons physically located at the Sun ALSO physically located on the surface of the camera film on Earth (where there are no photons) to be absorbed?

Actual photons have to actually strike the actual film to be absorbed by the silver halid molecules. HOW DO THE PHOTONS GET THERE in the above example out of Lessans book?


Quit answering about objects and reflections, because all that is in the above example is the newly turned on Sun and the camera film. It is noon. There are no photons on Earth to be absorbed by the camera film until 12:08

How does the camera film absorb a photon, which is required to take a picture, at noon in this scenario?
A camera absorbs photons instantly the same exact way the eye sees objects in real time, which has everything to do with efferent vision. If you can't grasp this concept, it will look like a violation of physics but it's not.
That does absolutely violate physics because that means photons are in two places at the same time. It's not a concept I need to grasp, it's a physical process you need to explain without violating the laws of physics.

Remember, in this scenario, there are no photons on Earth, at all. According to physics Photons must touch camera film to be absorbed this means they must be located in the same physical coordinates of space. How are the photons getting there in efferent vision?
LadyShea, as you understand how efferent vision creates a mirror image on the retina, you will also see why the physical coordinates are touching the film. But it's going to take time to understand this. I'm not saying this sarcastically. I can see how difficult this is.
Reply With Quote
  #6695  
Old 01-27-2012, 09:50 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumb View Post
Someone is offering a used copy on Amazon, so someone must have purchased it... :chin:
Could be. It could have been an older copy. It's actually for sale even though I'm fixing the typos and a couple sentences that I made to sound better. People could still buy this version with the misspelled word "Satin" (ugh!!) I've redone the book quite a few times. When I finish my website, I may decide to sell his original books. I have quite a few and I'm sure people who are interested in him would love to have these books, especially when science recognizes this as a genuine discovery.
Reply With Quote
  #6696  
Old 01-27-2012, 09:52 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

I suggest that someone ask :cuckoo: why NASA corrects for light speed delay when sending spacecraft to Mars, proving that we do not see in real time. :lol:
Reply With Quote
  #6697  
Old 01-27-2012, 09:53 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
So, to sum up:

- Efferent vision does not explain any phenomena that cannot be explained by real sight.
- Efferent vision has no explanation for many phenomena that can be explained by real sight
- Efferent vision does not have any mechanism - nobody knows how it works, if it works at all
- Efferent vision contradicts causality
- Efferent vision contradicts relativity

And the cherry on the cake: since it contradicts causality, that means it contradicts the core idea of the book, which is a version of determinism (albeit a fallacious one) which cannot be upheld without causality.

It is completely untenable. It has to be changed, or no-one will ever consider the rest of the book. Not now, not ever!
You're right, not if they use your reasoning that efferent vision contradicts causality. That is absurd!
The fact remains that an object instantly having an effect on another object without anything travelling between them to cause that effect is pretty much the definition of a contradiction of causality.

Feel free to refute this, but merely claiming it is not good enough. You need to show how you can have direct and instant sight and not contradict causality.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (01-27-2012)
  #6698  
Old 01-27-2012, 09:54 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Added to previous post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
On a side-note, how are the book sales? Have you seen any significant interest so far, gotten any feedback from other people? How many have been sold so far?
I have not distributed the book, nor have I done any marketing, so no one knows about this book except for the people on these philosophy forums.
So how many? Fifty? Less? More?

And did anyone give any feedback?
Reply With Quote
  #6699  
Old 01-27-2012, 09:56 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
But I'm not worried since the review will eventually disappear as I start marketing the book and people begin to give positive reviews.
There will be no positive reviews except from morons, and since most morons can't write, there will be no positive reviews.
Your logic is flawless!!!! :laugh:
Reply With Quote
  #6700  
Old 01-27-2012, 09:57 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Added to previous post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
On a side-note, how are the book sales? Have you seen any significant interest so far, gotten any feedback from other people? How many have been sold so far?
I have not distributed the book, nor have I done any marketing, so no one knows about this book except for the people on these philosophy forums.
So how many? Fifty? Less? More?

And did anyone give any feedback?
I think those book companies who work with Amazon get the book from the publisher and then if you search for it they tell you they have it at a good price. But no one really knows about this book unless they've heard about it from you guys. This book is in the midst of millions of other published books and a lot of them have heavy advertising. I believe people will buy the book once they hear what it's about.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:43 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.97394 seconds with 14 queries