A Revolution in Thought: Part Two - Page 259

Spacemonkey · #**6451** 01-25-2012, 09:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

One solution is to have the same photons floating there stationary at the film the whole time, but constantly changing their wavelengths to match the real-time qualities of the object. The other is to have the light previously at the film be a different set of photons from those there now such that the photons at the film are constantly being refreshed and replaced by new photons.

Which of these two options are you choosing? (The second option avoids stationary light, but requires different answers to my questions from what you've previously given.)

It's number two, because light is constantly in motion...

If the object is always absorbing certain wavelengths, then the (P) wavelengths are also being refreshed.

True, it's different light at the film...

Right, so we're back to the following questions once more:

1. Did the specific photons (at the camera when the photograph is taken) exist immediately before the photograph was taken? [Yes or No]

2. If so, then according to efferent vision where were those specific photons at the moment in time immediately preceding the taking of the photograph? [State a location]

Remember that you can't answer "At the film" to Question 2, because if the photons at the film are constantly refreshing, then the photons at the film a moment ago will not be the same photons there now and which the question is asking you about.

Spacemonkey · #**6452** 01-25-2012, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Your present answers to my questions do posit stationary light. You told me you understood that this is the case, and yet chose not to change those answers. At the moment you have light hitting the ball and staying there stationary at the ball's surface, and you have light at the film which has been sitting there stationary at the surface of the film.

That's not what I meant.

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:

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]

LadyShea · #**6453** 01-25-2012, 09:59 PM

Quote:

They are interacting as a mirror image.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Standard Mirror images can't be interacted with physically (can't shake hands with a mirror image), so you are positing something else. What is it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's true. How can we interact with a mirror image when that light is at the film/retina. You're thinking in terms of an actual mirror, where I'm trying to explain that when I use this term I mean that there is no travel time between what we see through a lens and what shows up on our retina or the film of a camera. In other words, the mirror image is the (P) reflection on the film/retina when the lens is focused on the object. That is where the interaction takes place in the efferent vision model.

Then your mirror image analogy is useless for supporting your own claim that AT NOON we could take a photograph of the sun that was turned on AT NOON.

According to Lessans, the photons will not arrive on Earth until 12:08

If your mirror image doesn't allow for two people to shake hands, it can't allow for a picture of the sun, just turned at noon, to be taken at noon. You must wait for the photons to arrive at 12:08 or you must explain a mechanism allowing a single photon to be both at the Sun and being absorbed by camera film on Earth at the same time

Camera film has to have the photons in the same physical location.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is due to efferent vision and the fact that the external world reveals itself to us, it does not travel to us.

Begging the question. You are saying "We see with efferent vision because of efferent vision".

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've explained efferent vision plenty of times. I even gave you the entire chapter. If you don't understand the 180 degree difference between afferent and efferent, it's no wonder you're failing this course. :doh:

Weasel.

You are clearly being asked to provide an explanation for observed phenomena from the efferent vision model not just repeat Lessans assertions that it exists (he failed to explain how it works).

You can't do it. You fail.

Quote:

The way this occurs is due to the fact that all that is necessary for this interaction to take place is for light to be around the object and the object to be in range where the lens of the film/retina can focus on the object whereby a mirror image is formed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Assertion. Again, all this says is "We can see because we can see it due to things allowing us to see. VOILA WE SEE!"

There is no explanation of the mechanism, there is no description of the physical interaction such as where and how it takes place.

I'm sorry LadyShea. Some people are just not going to understand what I'm talking about because their minds are already filled with certain concepts and they can't separate them in order to look outside of the conventional box for even a second to see what may be out there.

Weasel.

We would understand what you were talking about if you used words and sentences that had meaning of some kind.

I am asking clear concise questions about mechanisms and you are answering with "We can see because we can see it due to things allowing us to see. VOILA WE SEE"

davidm · #**6454** 01-25-2012, 10:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry LadyShea. Some people are just not going to understand what I'm talking about because their minds are already filled with certain concepts and they can't separate them in order to look outside of the conventional box for even a second to see what may be out there.

No, NOBODY understands what you are talking about, yourself included. It is meaningless bafflegab; it is incoherent bilge water and codswallop. You have not posited an explanatory physical mechanism to explain any of this, which is hardly surprising, because what you are trying to explain is impossible. Vague jibber-jabber about "mirror images" just make you like like a bigger fool than you are, if that were possible.

All of which is beside the point anyway. Even if you finally came up with a coherent explanation of real-time seeing, it would be purely hypothetical, about an imaginary non-existent real world. That is because, as has been repeatedly proved to you, we don't see in real time. So positing a mechanism for doing so is completely irrelevant. Lessans was wrong.

Vivisectus · #**6455** 01-25-2012, 11:13 PM

Remind me to find an excuse to use "codswallop" more often in conversations.

thedoc · #**6456** 01-26-2012, 12:08 AM

Hey Peacegirl, what about this, these 8 men are not drilling right now, in fact that may have been more than 30 years ago that they did this skit. They are not there, how do you explain that we can see them on the computer screen, there is no object to reflect light, and some of them may be dead now. How can we see them if they are not there, and we can see them and they aren't there. The place where this happened may still be there but looks different now, how can that be.

Monty Python Precision Drilling - YouTube

thedoc · #**6457** 01-26-2012, 12:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Remind me to find an excuse to use "codswallop" more often in conversations.

WOW! I didn't know you wanted to spent so much time talking about Peacegirl and her book.

peacegirl · #**6458** 01-26-2012, 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

One solution is to have the same photons floating there stationary at the film the whole time, but constantly changing their wavelengths to match the real-time qualities of the object. The other is to have the light previously at the film be a different set of photons from those there now such that the photons at the film are constantly being refreshed and replaced by new photons.

Which of these two options are you choosing? (The second option avoids stationary light, but requires different answers to my questions from what you've previously given.)

It's number two, because light is constantly in motion...

If the object is always absorbing certain wavelengths, then the (P) wavelengths are also being refreshed.

True, it's different light at the film...

Right, so we're back to the following questions once more:

1. Did the specific photons (at the camera when the photograph is taken) exist immediately before the photograph was taken? [Yes or No]

No.

2. If so, then according to efferent vision where were those specific photons at the moment in time immediately preceding the taking of the photograph? [State a location]

Remember that you can't answer "At the film" to Question 2, because if the photons at the film are constantly refreshing, then the photons at the film a moment ago will not be the same photons there now and which the question is asking you about.

At the object.

peacegirl · #**6459** 01-26-2012, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, from what you just wrote I believe there is no point in our communicating. You have grabbed onto a definition that supports your position, and you've got the audience to applaud you. I AM NOT DELUSIONAL!! I DON'T FIT INTO ANY ONE OF THOSE POINTS. HOW EASY IT IS TO MISCONSTRUE SOMEONE'S INTENT AND GET EVERYONE TO RALLY ON YOUR BEHALF. I AM NOT PUTTING UP WITH THIS MISREPRESENTATION OF WHO I AM!!!! SORRY! :whup:

And you certainly don't have to put up with it any more, you can leave anytime you like, and this thread will stand as a testament to the truth of Lessans book.

It will be a testament to my determination to bring this discovery to light, as well as the detractors who will be clearly identified in neon lights. :yup:

Wherever you turn, reality just plays jokes on you doesn't it? Did you really not realize that chances are that these messages will not even be there to be read in a few years time?

Oh really? What will happen to them?

peacegirl · #**6460** 01-26-2012, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

The assertion that the ideas in the book are false it not premature, there is ample evidence to disprove Lessans claims.

Agreed. peacegirl, it is not premature to conclude that Lessans ideas about sight and time are false. They have been falsified in hundreds of ways.

Optics has never failed to explain or predict the properties and behaviors of light consistently across all examples, from viewing microscopic life to getting an image of galaxies billions of light years away. It's really a beautiful model in that way. It is consistent, always, 100%.

You are positing "Maybe it's a coincidence", "Maybe there is a consistent hidden, unknown factor in NASA's calculations that allows them to successfully land spacecraft on Mars even though their conscious calculations are completely wrong" and "There is some hidden, unknown property of camera film, which we invented and manufacture, that allows it to physically absorb photons at a distance".

Basically it all amounts to "I don't know how these things work, and I can't explain anything in a way that is consistent with both my belief and observed reality, but I am sure I am right anyway".

That. Is. A. Faith. Statement.

Then let it go LadyShea. I have tried until I'm blue in the face why we are able to see in real time across millions of miles.

And failed to do so, because we do NOT see in real time across millions of miles.

Quote:

It is true that I can't explain the time/light correction that they say is always made, and how much of a difference it would make; or could there be a miscalculation in another area that corrected itself through this calculation.

Of course you can't explain it. But the explanation is simple. The example of the moons of Jupiter, and how NASA corrects for light speed delay to send probes to Mars and other celestial bodies, and the dozens of other concrete examples you have been given, are explained by the fact that we don't see in real time. That IS the explanation for the listed phenomena.

Quote:

All I can tell you is that optics supports efferent vision,

In no way, shape or form does optics support efferent vision. All of our optical instruments are made precisely on the empirically verified premise that vision is afferent and we see in delayed time. NONE of our optical devices would work outside this premise.

So sorry!

You're wrong David and even if I leave here, you haven't won. Optics supports efferent vision, but believe what you want. :sadcheer:

thedoc · #**6461** 01-26-2012, 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Wherever you turn, reality just plays jokes on you doesn't it? Did you really not realize that chances are that these messages will not even be there to be read in a few years time?

Oh really? What will happen to them?

We don't see the past, remember, and all of these posts are in the past, which explains why you can't keep track of any thing that was posted before this one. If they are in the past they are gone.

Kael · #**6462** 01-26-2012, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Optics supports efferent vision, but believe what you want. :sadcheer:

How? Optics is the study of the behavior of light. If light must merely be present around a distant object for us to see it, then its behavior is irrelevant. Optics would have nothing whatsoever to do with vision if we saw efferently (the way Lessans describes, not the convoluted mess that you've cobbled together from buzzwords and half-understood concepts every time you're cornered on something).

peacegirl · #**6463** 01-26-2012, 02:21 AM

The wolves have come out in rare form. I cannot continue the discussion under these conditions. I wanted to go back to discuss Lessans' first discovery, but I've lost all desire. I've taken a lot of crap from everyone and it's finally gotten to me. You guys won! I'm sure you're all happy now.

naturalist.atheist · #**6464** 01-26-2012, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The wolves have come out in rare form. I cannot continue the discussion under these conditions. I wanted to go back to discuss Lessans' first discovery, but I've lost all desire. I've taken a lot of crap from everyone and it's finally gotten to me. You guys won! I'm sure you're all happy now.

Where have I seen that before. Oh yeah, at least a dozen times before from peacegirl. You're never gonna leave until you get help.

LadyShea · #**6465** 01-26-2012, 03:05 AM

See you tomorrow!

Spacemonkey · #**6466** 01-26-2012, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

1. Did the specific photons (at the camera when the photograph is taken) exist immediately before the photograph was taken? [Yes or No]

No.

Good. Not that I agree that this is correct, but I do agree that this is what you should be saying. The photons comprising the mirror image at the film at any given time must be newly existing photons which come into existence there. That avoids teleporting or stationary photons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

2. If so, then according to efferent vision where were those specific photons at the moment in time immediately preceding the taking of the photograph? [State a location]

At the object.

Um, can you tell me why you are here giving me the location of something which you've just told me above does not exist?

If you could also answer the questions in post #6452 (without positing stationary photons) that would be good.

Angakuk · #**6467** 01-26-2012, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

According to efferent vision, the full visible spectrum stays intact even when it bounces off of objects. But, of course, until it's proven that efferent vision is true, anything that depends on efferent vision for its validity, will also be suspect.

It is clear that Lessans' efferent vision requires that light behave differently than is stipulated by current theory so you have to postulate some new property of light that will allow efferent vision to work. However, absent empirical evidence for this previously unknown property of light, the property itself is purely speculative. You cannot use a speculative property of light to defend your claims about efferent vision. That is like trying to prove a maybe with a maybe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Regardless of how far away the observer is from the object, that non-absorbed wavelength is still an instant mirror image on the film/retina as long as it's still within visual range. The object just gets smaller and smaller as it gets further and further away, which means that less photons are interacting with the film/retina.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I trust that you do realize that the object does not actually get smaller. It just appears to be smaller.

Of course. That's why I said it depends on the location of the observer. If they're closer to the object than someone else, it will obviously appear bigger in comparison.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Given that the actual object remains the same size, regardless of its distance from the film/retina, is there any reason to suppose that the number of photons emitted or reflected by the object changes? If the number of photons emitted or reflected by the object does not change, and they do not have to travel in order to interact with the film/retina why, according to efferent vision, should there be fewer photons interacting with the film/retina simply because the object is further away?

Yes, there would be less photons interacting with the film/retina. Optics explains this very clearly, and it supports Lessans' claim. Remember, when the lens of the film/camera focuses on the object, it will be an exact mirror image on the film/retina regardless of how small or large the object is in relation to the observer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

In other words, if, as you have frequently claimed, distance is not a factor with regard to efferent vision, just so long as the object is visible, then why should the distance of the obect from the film/retina affect the number of photons interacting with the film/retina? For that matter, why, according to efferent vision, should it be the case that the further away the object is the smaller it appears to be?

This has to do with optics. The further away an object is from the film/retina, the less photons are interacting with it. No surprise here. I'm not sure what you're getting at.

If, as you have frequently claimed, distance is not a factor in efferent vision, then the mirror image you are talking about should be an exact duplicate of the object itself, as it actually exists. That means that the mirror image should be the same size as the actual object. The apparent size of the object would be irrelevant. In fact, if, according to efferent vision, what we are seeing is the actual object then we should see it in its actual dimensions. There should be no such thing as apparent size, only actual size. The difference between actual size and apparent size only exists because distance is a factor and distance is factor because the light from the object has to travel across that distance. According to efferent vision the light does not have to travel and so distance is not a factor. Therefore, there should be no such thing as apparent size, only actual size.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But if you understand efferent vision, then what you get is a true mirror image no matter how far away that object is from the lens. All that's required is that the lens, focusing on the screen of the external world, will get that same image on film instantly because the object and light are one and the same.

If the object and the light are the one and same, then that means that the object itself is present at the film/retina. That means (as I believe davidm pointed out a lifetime ago) that when you look at the sun the sun is physically present in your eye. Ignore, for the moment, the sheer physical impossibility of that being the case. This also means that if two people are looking at the sun at the same time that each of them has the same sun physically present in their eyes. The means that the sun is in at least three different places at the same time. It occupies space in the galaxy, space in your eye and space the second person's eye. That is remarkable, to put it mildly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If light is coming from an object...

You can stop right there. The phrase "light is coming from an object" implies that light is traveling away from away from the object, something you have repeatedly claimed is not necessary for efferent vision.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I DID NOT WRITE THIS BOOK.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Except, of course, the substantial portions that you did write.

No Angakuk, I did not make this discovery, okay? I only added examples where I felt it would clarify the concept, but in no way, shape, or form did I make changes to the original concepts. That would not be good stewardship, and that was my biggest worry as I was compiling his 7 books.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

How is that not an example of you having written some substantial portion of the book?

I wouldn't say that. The majority of the book was written by Lessans. Why do I sense hostility in you Angakuk?

I never said that you wrote the majority of the book, only that you are responsible for substantial portions of the book. Why do you persist in trying to deny this?

As for why you are sensing hostility, I couldn't possibly say.

Look back at your responses. I don't think this is coming from my sensitivity. You seem to be getting angrier, for what reason I don't know. I hope you listen to what I'm saying (which no one seems to care about) because you have stuck with me this long. At the very least you could give me the same respect you always have.

I asked you several quite specific questions about the behavior of light and I offered some well reasoned critiques of your claims and the only thing you want to talk about is your mistaken belief that I am angry and being hostile. Why is that?

For the record, I am not the least bit angry and any hostility that you think you are sensing is purely the result of your imagination. If you think this is not true then please quote the specific instances where I have been hostile and expressed even the least bit of anger. Do that and then get cracking on answering my questions and rebutting my critiques.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Angakuk, if you think I wrote most of the book, I am going to be selling an MP3 audio of him reading his book. It is Lessans talking and elaborating on his principles, not me. It is his own words, not mine. So will you finally concede that you are wrong? I did NOT discover these concepts. I did NOT add large portions to the book either. I added examples, which you seem to be ignoring to get people to reject this discovery. And you wonder why I sense your hostility????

I will say it again, I never suggested that you wrote most of the book. I merely pointed out that you are responsible for substantial portions of the book. Substantial does mean "most" and it does not mean "majority". I do indeed wonder why you sense hostility when hostility does not even enter into it.

Vivisectus · #**6468** 01-26-2012, 10:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, from what you just wrote I believe there is no point in our communicating. You have grabbed onto a definition that supports your position, and you've got the audience to applaud you. I AM NOT DELUSIONAL!! I DON'T FIT INTO ANY ONE OF THOSE POINTS. HOW EASY IT IS TO MISCONSTRUE SOMEONE'S INTENT AND GET EVERYONE TO RALLY ON YOUR BEHALF. I AM NOT PUTTING UP WITH THIS MISREPRESENTATION OF WHO I AM!!!! SORRY! :whup:

And you certainly don't have to put up with it any more, you can leave anytime you like, and this thread will stand as a testament to the truth of Lessans book.

It will be a testament to my determination to bring this discovery to light, as well as the detractors who will be clearly identified in neon lights. :yup:

Wherever you turn, reality just plays jokes on you doesn't it? Did you really not realize that chances are that these messages will not even be there to be read in a few years time?

Oh really? What will happen to them?

Well, it depends. If Liv and VM keep paying to keep the server running, they will stay. Unless they choose to get rid of them, which is their prerogative.

This board seems to have some staying power and has been here for years and will hopefully be here for years to come, but most of them have a much shorter lifespan. If the owners get bored with the board, so to speak, it all just disappears.

Vivisectus · #**6469** 01-26-2012, 11:15 AM

Ok - so the photons are now back to being only at the object, but can still be seen.

That means that objects can have an effect on other objects without crossing the intervening space, and without sending some particle to act as a signal.

That in turn means that this idea does not include causality. But how can you have determinism without causality? Thought could just happen as well in that case, which means our choices could just be random.

peacegirl · #**6470** 01-26-2012, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Your present answers to my questions do posit stationary light. You told me you understood that this is the case, and yet chose not to change those answers. At the moment you have light hitting the ball and staying there stationary at the ball's surface, and you have light at the film which has been sitting there stationary at the surface of the film.

That's not what I meant.

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:

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]

Spacemonkey, I don't think you understand yet what I'm trying to get across. 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. There is no teleporting of photons.

peacegirl · #**6471** 01-26-2012, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ok - so the photons are now back to being only at the object, but can still be seen.

That means that objects can have an effect on other objects without crossing the intervening space, and without sending some particle to act as a signal.

That in turn means that this idea does not include causality. But how can you have determinism without causality? Thought could just happen as well in that case, which means our choices could just be random.

This has absolutely nothing to do with causality. You're still not understanding the efferent model. There is nothing random about the efferent model. Now you're mixing his two discoveries together which is going to get you more confused.

LadyShea · #**6472** 01-26-2012, 01:03 PM

But causality is inherent in all physics, including optics.

Photons interacting with camera film, or a plant leaf, is an example of a cause and effect.

peacegirl · #**6473** 01-26-2012, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, from what you just wrote I believe there is no point in our communicating. You have grabbed onto a definition that supports your position, and you've got the audience to applaud you. I AM NOT DELUSIONAL!! I DON'T FIT INTO ANY ONE OF THOSE POINTS. HOW EASY IT IS TO MISCONSTRUE SOMEONE'S INTENT AND GET EVERYONE TO RALLY ON YOUR BEHALF. I AM NOT PUTTING UP WITH THIS MISREPRESENTATION OF WHO I AM!!!! SORRY! :whup:

And you certainly don't have to put up with it any more, you can leave anytime you like, and this thread will stand as a testament to the truth of Lessans book.

It will be a testament to my determination to bring this discovery to light, as well as the detractors who will be clearly identified in neon lights. :yup:

Wherever you turn, reality just plays jokes on you doesn't it? Did you really not realize that chances are that these messages will not even be there to be read in a few years time?

Oh really? What will happen to them?

Well, it depends. If Liv and VM keep paying to keep the server running, they will stay. Unless they choose to get rid of them, which is their prerogative.

This board seems to have some staying power and has been here for years and will hopefully be here for years to come, but most of them have a much shorter lifespan. If the owners get bored with the board, so to speak, it all just disappears.

I understand that the administrators who run the board have the right to do whatever they want because they are paying for the server. That's why I'm going to do my own blog on my own website. There's another more pressing reason. I'm tired of the crude and sarcastic remarks that are being made at my expense which effects my desire to even discuss the book. This is not fair to the people who really do want to understand.

peacegirl · #**6474** 01-26-2012, 01:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But causality is inherent in all physics, including optics.

Photons interacting with camera film, or a plant leaf, is an example of a cause and effect.

LadyShea, that's not what I was even talking about. Of course photons have to interact with film. I've said that over and over again that this knowledge does not violate the law of physics, but Vivisectus was implying that this model of sight couldn't work because it does violate physics. That is only because the efferent model of sight is being misunderstood, and I'm not sure that I can close the gap of misunderstanding in this thread.

peacegirl · #**6475** 01-26-2012, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

They are interacting as a mirror image. This is due to efferent vision and the fact that the external world reveals itself to us, it does not travel to us. The way this occurs is due to the fact that all that is necessary for this interaction to take place is for light to be around the object and the object to be in range where the lens of the film/retina can focus on the object whereby a mirror image is formed.

But then you deny causality, on which the determinism in the book relies. Something cannot interact with another thing at a distance without sending some sort of signal, and these signals cannot travel faster than light.

Once again you resort to meaningless word-salad because you are unable to admit that you haven't got a clue. At least by now you could have at least learned something about REAL physics.

You have understood absolutely nothing as to why we get a mirror image and why a mirror image does not involve time, so you have no room to even refute this model since you haven't grasped it one iota.