A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It takes time for light to travel, but, once again, we're not talking about the physics of the speed of light. We're talking about our eyes, and the brain's ability to see in the present. This completely eliminates time when seeing something efferently. This is really harder than I ever thought it would be, but I won't give up if you don't give up. That's all I'm asking for. I'm not asking you to make sense out of what doesn't make sense to you. I'm asking you to keep an open mind because that's the only way you will begin to understand the difference between what Lessans claims to be true which is the opposite of what science has established as factual.

I'm not talking about light either. I'm talking about seeing a star explode. So let's repeat:

We see a star explode.

You say that we see it happen instantly, in 'real time'.

Therefore anything released from that explosion that does not travel infinitely fast should arrive at Earth long after we see the star explode.

Neutrinos are little particles we can detect, that are released from the star. They do not travel infinitely fast. So they should arrive at Earth long after we see the star explode.

Now, what do you think actually happens?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

If this were the only thread I posted on you might have a point, but it's not. You are just another nutjob in a long line of nutjobs drawn to this forum like a moth to a flame.

Actually, this forum is not the epitome of all knowledge. I actually am looking forward to finding new people who will give Lessans more than a quick glance over as has been done in all of these thousands of posts.

[peacegirl]

In spite of all of the antagonism in here, I wish everyone a healthy and happy New Year. Just to let you know, this is not my writing. God forbid LadyShea catches me in a plagiarism.

As we progress through to the end of 2011, I want to thank you for your educational e-mails over the past year. I am totally screwed up now and have little chance of recovery.

I can no longer open a bathroom door without using a paper towel, nor let the waitress put lemon slices in my ice water without worrying about the bacteria on the lemon peel.

I can't sit down on a hotel bedspread because I can only imagine what has happened on it since it was last washed.

I have trouble shaking hands with someone who has been driving because the number one pastime while driving alone is picking ones nose.

Eating a little snack sends me on a guilt trip because I can only imagine how many gallons of trans fats I have consumed over the years.

I can't touch any woman's handbag for fear she has placed it on the floor of a public toilet.

I MUST SEND MY SPECIAL THANKS for the email about rat poo in the glue on envelopes because I now have to use a wet sponge with every envelope that needs sealing.

ALSO, now I have to scrub the top of every can I open for the same reason.

I can't have a drink in a bar because I fear I'll wake up in a bathtub full of ice with my kidneys gone.

I can't eat at KFC because their chickens are actually horrible mutant freaks with no eyes, feet or feathers.

I can't use cancer-causing deodorants even though I smell like a water buffalo on a hot day.

THANKS TO YOU I have learned that my prayers only get answered if I forward an e-mail to seven of my friends and make a wish within five minutes.

BECAUSE OF YOUR CONCERN, I no longer drink Coca Cola because it can remove toilet stains.

I no longer buy gas without taking someone along to watch the car, so a serial killer doesn't crawl in my back seat when I'm filling up.

I no longer use Cling Wrap in the microwave because it causes seven different types of cancer.

AND THANKS FOR LETTING ME KNOW I can't boil a cup of water in the microwave anymore because it will blow up in my face, disfiguring me for life.

I no longer go to the cinema because I could be pricked with a needle infected with AIDS when I sit down.

I no longer go to shopping centers because someone will drug me with a perfume sample and rob me.

And I no longer answer the phone because someone will ask me to dial a number for which I will get a huge phone bill with calls to Jamaica, Uganda, Singapore and Uzbekistan ..

THANKS TO YOU I can't use anyone's toilet but mine because a big black snake could be lurking under the seat and cause me instant death when it bites my butt.

AND THANKS TO YOUR GREAT ADVICE I can't ever pick up a 10 cent coin dropped in the car park because it was probably placed there by a sex molester waiting to grab me as I bend over.

I can't do any gardening because I'm afraid I'll get bitten by the Violin Spider and my hand will fall off.

If you don't send this e-mail to at least 144,000 people in the next 70 minutes, a large dove with diarrhea will land on your head at 5:00 p.m. tomorrow afternoon, and the fleas from 120 camels will infest your back, causing you to grow a hairy hump. I know this will occur because it actually happened to a friend of my next door neighbor's ex mother-in-law's second husband's cousin's best friend's beautician . .

Oh, and by the way.....

A German scientist from Argentina, after a lengthy study, has discovered that people with insufficient brain activity read their e-mails with their hand on the mouse.

Don't bother taking it off now, it's too late.

P. S. I now keep my toothbrush in the living room, because I was told by e-mail that water splashes over 6 ft. out of the toilet.

NOW YOU HAVE YOURSELF A VERY GOOD DAY…AND A HAPPY NEW YEAR



--

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

I'm not talking about light either. I'm talking about seeing a star explode. So let's repeat:

We see a star explode.

You say that we see it happen instantly, in 'real time'.

Therefore anything released from that explosion that does not travel infinitely fast should arrive at Earth long after we see the star explode.

Neutrinos are little particles we can detect, that are released from the star. They do not travel infinitely fast. So they should arrive at Earth long after we see the star explode.

Now, what do you think actually happens?

Who said anything travels infinitely fast? This again shows me the confusion in here. Nothing, according to scientists, travels faster than the speed of light, but efferent vision HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SPEED OF LIGHT. IF THERE'S A GOD, PLEASE HELP ME TO EXPLAIN THIS BECAUSE I'M ABOUT TO GIVE UP!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you believe the eyes are afferent, the more power to you, but I will stick with my belief that it's not. Let's agree to disagree, okay?

Nope.

This has nothing to do with belief. It has to do with knowledge. That sight is not efferent, and that we do in fact see in delayed time, is observed and repeatedly confirmed reality.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by davidm

Yes, that appears to be exactly what Lessans believed, and what she believes. He wrote something to the effect that the light arrives at the other side of the earth while you are sleeping and that the same light is waiting to say good morning to you when you wake up.

Here is the snippet before peacegirl changed molecules to photons

Originally Posted by Lessans

Once the light is here it remains here because the molecules of light emitted by the constant energy of the sun surround us. When the earth rotates on its axis so the section on which we live is in darkness, this only means the molecules of light are on the other side. When our rotation allows the sun to smile on us again this does not mean that it takes another eight minutes for this light to reach us because these molecules are already present. If the sun were to explode while we were looking at it we would see it the instant it happened, not 8 minutes later. We are able to see the moon, the sun, the distant stars, etc., not because the one is 3 seconds away, the other 8 minutes away, and the last many light years away, but simply because these objects are large enough to be seen at their great distance when enough light is present. This fallacy has come into existence because the eyes were considered a sense organ, like the ears. Since it takes longer for the sound from an airplane to reach our ears when it is a thousand feet away than when five thousand, it was assumed that the same thing occurred with the object sending a picture of itself on the wings of light. If it was possible to transmit a television picture from the earth to a planet as far away as the star Rigel, it is true that the people living there would be seeing the ships of Columbus coming into America for the first time because the picture would be in the process of being transmitted through space at a certain rate of speed Graveyard Of The Gods

.

Note the "these molecules (photons)" which indicates he did not understand that there were always new or different photons arriving constantly, but that somehow the light arrives only once. So, rather than a constant stream of cars going by on a freeway, the cars arrive and park here.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[
By the things you say!! You want to win this competition for your own selfish purposes! If you really wanted to understand his work, you would have been more interested in his writing. You're only interested in your faulty logic, because then you will be proclaimed the winner and given accolades for your brilliant refutation!

The Queen of Projection strikes again!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You're dodging the simple, straightforward question

If a star explodes (supernova) right now, which we'll call T1 , according to Lessans we would be able to see the supernova right now at T1

Supernovas produce neutrinos, which travel out in all directions at close to the speed of light.

So, the neutrinos will arrive here on Earth and be detected after the travel time which we'll call X.

Again, supernova at T1, neutrino arrival at T1+X

So we should see the supernova instantly, at T1 and detect the neutrinos at some time after we saw the supernova, T1+X necessarily if Lessans was correct, right?

How do you explain what actually happens in reality (which is we see the supernova at the same time the neutrinos arrive) within Lessans "instantaneous sight" context?

Originally Posted by Dragar

I'm not talking about light either. I'm talking about seeing a star explode. So let's repeat:

We see a star explode.

You say that we see it happen instantly, in 'real time'.

Therefore anything released from that explosion that does not travel infinitely fast should arrive at Earth long after we see the star explode.

Neutrinos are little particles we can detect, that are released from the star. They do not travel infinitely fast. So they should arrive at Earth long after we see the star explode.

Now, what do you think actually happens?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who said anything travels infinitely fast? This again shows me the confusion in here. Nothing, according to scientists, travels faster than the speed of light, but efferent vision HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SPEED OF LIGHT. IF THERE'S A GOD, PLEASE HELP ME TO EXPLAIN THIS BECAUSE I'M ABOUT TO GIVE UP!

Answer the question then.

When a star goes supernova, when should we be able to see it according to Lessans ideas about instantaneous efferent vision?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I clarified what I meant. Lessans never said light doesn't travel but he also said that we would see the sun instantly if it exploded. How do you explain that? Efferent vision!!!!!!! You don't have a grasp of what this means because of the questions you keep asking regarding light changing colors in midstream.

Whatever! You're all making me dizzy by going round and round the mulberry bush with no sign of productivity. Just attack, defense, attack, defense, attack, defense; on and on ad infinitum.

TRANSLATON: "I CAN'T ANSWER THE GODDAMNED QUESTIONS BECAUSE IF I DO I WILL BE LED INEVITABLY TO THE CONCLUSION THAT LESSANS WAS WRONG, AND I SIMPLY WILL NOT TOLERATE THAT!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who said anything travels infinitely fast? This again shows me the confusion in here. Nothing, according to scientists, travels faster than the speed of light, but efferent vision HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SPEED OF LIGHT. IF THERE'S A GOD, PLEASE HELP ME TO EXPLAIN THIS BECAUSE I'M ABOUT TO GIVE UP!

There is nothing for you to explain, you little idiot, IT'S WRONG. It's not only wrong, it's incoherent.

This is why, in the other thread, when you actually took a shot at "explaining" this babble, you ended up going: "mumble-mumble-mumble ... Voila! We see!

[LadyShea]

Happy New Year to you. May it be prosperous and productive and healthy for you and yours.

And for fuck's sake to avoid plagiarism all you have to do is copy and paste the url link, or put the authors name and the publication you found it in after it.

What is so difficult? I know you know how to copy and paste, and I know you know how to type.

Granted, this particle bit is from an unknown author sent as a chain email and posted around blogs and Facebook, but you could just cite that "I got this via email" or "I read this on this blog"

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In spite of all of the antagonism in here, I wish everyone a healthy and happy New Year. Just to let you know, this is not my writing. God forbid LadyShea catches me in a plagiarism.

As we progress through to the end of 2011, I want to thank you for your educational e-mails over the past year. I am totally screwed up now and have little chance of recovery.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually, this forum is not the epitome of all knowledge. I actually am looking forward to finding new people who will give Lessans more than a quick glance over as has been done in all of these thousands of posts.

i don't think you will find the kinds of people you are looking for on this forum. They expect a level of conciseness, accuracy and evidence far greater than you or Lessans could ever provide. You have to realize where you are. Anybody here can check anything you claim usually in a few keystrokes so you better check your facts before they do. Lessans is a person of the last century, he didn't have the resources available to him that the posters on this forum have today. Whereas Lessans had available to him a few outdated books people on the internet have many libraries of books all of which are electronically searchable. They will spot nonsense and call it out almost instantly.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Here is the snippet before peacegirl changed molecules to photons

.

Note the "these molecules (photons)" which indicates he did not understand that there were always new or different photons arriving constantly, but that somehow the light arrives only once. So, rather than a constant stream of cars going by on a freeway, the cars arrive and park here.

Yeah, that is the passage I was thinking of. I recalled marveling in disbelief as I read those words. Is it possible that in reality Lessans was a master lampoonist and his entire book is meant as a fictional first-person account of a madman? That the whole books is a satire on crackpots everywhere?

A more perfect exemplification of sheer shatterpot bufoonery can scarcely be conceived, than is found in that passage. In addition to thinking that light consisted of "molecules," hilarious in its own right, he was totally clueless about the fact that light is constantly in motion. It has no rest mass, it has no rest. It travels at constant velocity c in a vacuum, slightly slower in air and water, and when photons arrive at earth they are either absorbed or reflected. More photons meanwhile are on the way. How many? Oh, I don't know. Probably one could calculate. The sun likely gives off quintillions of photons every second, radiating outward in every direction, and every second a substantial portion of them arrive at earth, replacing the ones that were previously deflected or absorbed. If the goddamned photons piled up on the earth like a traffic pileup, within seconds everything on earth would be burned to a crisp.

LOL @ Lessans. How pathetic.

[LadyShea]

IIRC she tried to bend and fit the "constant energy" phrase into meaning constant stream of arriving photons...but it sure doesn't read that he understood these to be the same thing.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

IIRC she tried to bend and fit the "constant energy" phrase into meaning constant stream of arriving photons...but it sure doesn't read that he understood these to be the same thing.

What he meant was as clear as a bell right here: this does not mean that it takes another eight minutes for this light to reach us because these molecules are already present.

By "constant energy" he probably was thinking that the "molecules" of light that are already here (and waiting to smile on you in the morning when you wake up!) are constantly giving off energy. The passage above shows he did not understand that photons are always in motion. His lack of the most elementary education is breathtaking; even by seventh grade one would know these basic facts of which he was ignorant.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

Who said anything travels infinitely fast? This again shows me the confusion in here. Nothing, according to scientists, travels faster than the speed of light, but efferent vision HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SPEED OF LIGHT. IF THERE'S A GOD, PLEASE HELP ME TO EXPLAIN THIS BECAUSE I'M ABOUT TO GIVE UP!

The question is - do we detect the nutrinios arriving at roughly the same time as we can see it, or do the nutrinos come long, long after the supernova first became visible?

The answer ofcourse is that we can detect the nutrinos a little bit after the supernova becomes visible. We know that nutrinos travel at a speed close to that of light, so they had to take centuries to get here.

And yet we detect them at the same time as we see the supernova.

Once again, proof that we do not see instantly: there is a time delay.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Right, but you said the light comes from the sun. How then do you explain pictures that are taken at night.

If we're in our solar system, the light is coming from the Sun which means that the Earth's rotation determines night and day. If it's not coming from our Solar system, then the light is coming from another light source. If we're taking a picture of something at night, we are creating an artificial light by means of a flash in a digital camera that mimics daylight.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who said anything travels infinitely fast? This again shows me the confusion in here. Nothing, according to scientists, travels faster than the speed of light, but efferent vision HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SPEED OF LIGHT. IF THERE'S A GOD, PLEASE HELP ME TO EXPLAIN THIS BECAUSE I'M ABOUT TO GIVE UP!

I didn't say anything travels infinitely fast. I'm not even talking about the speed of light. I'm talking about neutrinos, which are little particles that move very fast and are released in huge numbers when a star explodes. I said they don't travel infinitely fast, something we agree with. Then you seem to have got your caps lock stuck in a little tirade. You realise neutrinos are not anything to do with light, or vision, right?

Fancy answering the question now? What do you think happens in reality? Do, as Lessans predicts, the neutrinos arrive long after we see the star explodes? Or do they arrive at the same time we see the explosion?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

If she has a history of insanity and treatment then you might be right, but we could be dealing with plain old dementia and it could be that all who know peacegirl personally are well aware of it. This would not surprise them at all. They may even be glad that we provide someone else to be bothered so she won't bother them.

Perhaps dementia runs in her family. It would explain Lessans.

You've gone completely off your rocker NA. Your psychobabble has convinced you that you're sane. Why haven't you taken your meds that the doctor prescribed?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

POP QUIZ TIME!

1. When a photograph is being taken, did the light now at the camera previously travel to get there?

2. Did that light previously come from the sun (or some other light source), and arrive at the camera after striking the surface of the object now being photographed?

3. Did that light previously travel the intervening space between the object and the camera at some finite speed?

4. Did that light have a travel time?

5. Was that light ever previously in transit (between the object and the camera)?

6. If something is now at one point, was previously somewhere else, and travelled the distance in between at a finite speed, is it possible for that thing to have no travel time? Or to never have been in transit (between those two points)?

Show me how much complete sense you can make working on the assumption that Lessans' was right! No cheating!

These questions show me that you have no idea what efferent vision is about. And you actually think you've outwitted Lessans based on your "perfect" logic? Good grief!! I refuse to continue with this exercise in futility.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You've gone completely off your rocker NA. Your psychobabble has convinced you that you're sane. Why haven't you taken your meds that the doctor prescribed?

I could be wrong, perhaps you should show this thread to your family and friends. If you are employed show it to your boss.

Lets see how that works out for you. You could be getting that help you so badly need.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who said anything travels infinitely fast? This again shows me the confusion in here. Nothing, according to scientists, travels faster than the speed of light, but efferent vision HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SPEED OF LIGHT. IF THERE'S A GOD, PLEASE HELP ME TO EXPLAIN THIS BECAUSE I'M ABOUT TO GIVE UP!

Yup there is confusion here peacegirl. It is all you. Hardly surprising given your mental state.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your logic is way off. What you just posted that makes no sense to me, yet you think you have figured it all out. If you believe the eyes are afferent, the more power to you, but I will stick with my belief that it's not. Let's agree to disagree, okay?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No.

Yes.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This has nothing to do with courage. And please don't patronize me. I have followed through with the implications, and I believe he was right.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You haven't followed through the implications. If you had then you wouldn't still be contradicting yourself. One clear implication is that if some particular light is now at the camera, was previously at the object, and travelled the distance in between at some finite speed, then there was a travel time involved, and that light was previously in transit between those two points.

When I said light is at the camera, I meant that photons are in a constant stream and it takes 8.3 minutes to get here. But this has nothing to do with the ability of a camera to take a picture of an object in real time. This has everything to do with efferent vision, and you will never understand the implications if you keep coming from a position of afferent vision which is a completely different model of sight.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light is not in transit Spacemonkey when it comes to objects that are resolved by our retina, or by the film in a camera. You are the confused one, sorry.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are the one contradicting yourself, so the confusion remains yours. If the light at the camera at the time of the photograph travelled there from somewhere else as you have agreed then it was previously in transit. Only a mentally ill person could fail to follow such an obvious implication.

And only a mentally ill person keeps coming from the same position and thinks he's right.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So answer the question: If the object changes color after the light in question leaves its surface, but before that light reaches the camera (i.e. before the photograph is taken), can the frequency of that travelling light change while it is in transit (between the object and the camera) so that it continues to match the real-time color of the object?

Let it go Spacemonkey. I'm not answering your drivel anymore. Sorry to say this, but I'm fed up.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These questions show me that you have no idea what efferent vision is about. And you actually think you've outwitted Lessans based on your "perfect" logic? Good grief!! I refuse to continue with this exercise in futility.

TRANSLATION: I'M FUCKING CORNERED AGAIN! IF I ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS I WILL INEVITABLY BE LED TO THE INESCAPABLE CONCLUSION NOT ONLY THAT LESSANS WAS WRONG, AT VARIANCE WITH OBSERVED REALITY, BUT INCOHERENT TO BOOT! I REFUSE TO ACCEPT THAT!

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These questions show me that you have no idea what efferent vision is about. And you actually think you've outwitted Lessans based on your "perfect" logic? Good grief!! I refuse to continue with this exercise in futility.

You type the words but your obsession will not allow you to stop. You will keep going around the merry go round as if you didn't have a clue in the world you had already gone around a thousand times and still went nowhere.

Get help peacegirl.