A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not going to keep answering the same thing over and over again.

LOL

Do you think you're fooling anyone?

Here, so far, is your answer to the questions: "Why do we see the moons of Jupiter in delayed time, and why does NASA use delayed-time seeing to calculate how to send spacecraft to Mars and other celestial locations, if real-time seeing is true?

You answer:

"Something else must be going on there!"

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Intermission: I thought it may be of interest.

Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist - Telegraph

More evidence of your vast ignorance, and your lack of education. Also evidence of the ineptitude of the news media, which I pointed out in another thread.

What Dawkins said here is exactly the same fucking thing he said in his book The God Delusion. That's because he is a scientist and scientists deal in defeasible proofs. But the moronic news media treated this as some sort of revelation because the journos never actually read what he had written.

And what has this got to do with your stupid bullshit?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your logic follows from certain premises which are believed to be true. Premise: Objects reflect light which then carries the image (you know what I mean) through space and time causing delayed sight.

What crap. That's not my premise. I don't believe that to be true at all. That's just your father's idiotic strawman once again.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

*yawn*

Apparently you have nothing left but faith claims, denialism, and avoidance.

I think it's safe to say that after thousands of pages, I am not avoiding anything. I just can't explain this model to your satisfaction. In no way does this mean there isn't one. By definition, the efferent model changes our relationship to the external world, and why this claim is causing a backlash.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why are they dumb questions? Those photons must be somewhere after hitting the object. Your account can't provide an answer. Any answer you give on your account leads straight to absurdities and contradictions. If you can't and won't answer my questions, then everyone is fully justified in rejecting real-time vision as the ignorant and incoherent half-baked non-sense.

I am tired of discussing light bouncing off of objects and traveling, because that is not the efferent account. You're making it appear half baked because you're forcing me to agree with you when I don't.

If the sound from
a plane even though we can’t see it on a clear day will tell us it is in
the sky, why can’t we see the plane if an image is being reflected
towards the eye on the waves of light? The answer is very simple.
An image is not being reflected. We cannot see the plane simply
because the distance reduced its size to where it was impossible to
see it with the naked eye, but we could see it with a telescope.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe it's safe to say that after thousands of pages, I am not avoiding anything.

Wow. If you are serious then you are clearly delusional. You've spent thousands of pages doing nothing but avoiding the exact same problems and questions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am tired of discussing light bouncing off of objects and traveling, because that is not the efferent account. You're making it appear half baked because you're forcing me to agree with you when I don't.

But it is your account (or at least your present-yet-ever-changing version of it). You said the photons that just hit the object then begin traveling away from that object's surface. That was YOUR answer. Your problem isn't that you disagree with me - you can't even agree with yourself.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the sound from
a plane even though we can’t see it on a clear day will tell us it is in
the sky, why can’t we see the plane if an image is being reflected
towards the eye on the waves of light? The answer is very simple.
An image is not being reflected. We cannot see the plane simply
because the distance reduced its size to where it was impossible to
see it with the naked eye, but we could see it with a telescope.

Who said anything about an image being reflected. I sure didn't. Photons are not images.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What crap. That's not my premise. I don't believe that to be true at all. That's just your father's idiotic strawman once again.

The non-absorbed light travels and strikes our retina, according to the afferent account. Don't play semantics with me at this late date Spacemonkey?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Lessans

why can’t we see the plane if an image is being reflected
towards the eye on the waves of light? The answer is very simple.
An image is not being reflected.

None of us believes an "image" is being reflected. That is Lessans strawman account of optics because he was clueless.

The standard model states that light is being reflected. Light reflection can be empirically observed and measured. (N) reflection is factual.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Wow. If you are serious then you are clearly delusional. You've spent thousands of pages doing nothing but avoiding the exact same problems and questions.

Not at all. I have been trying to show you that light exposes the material world through its properties, not the other way around, and there is a viable model that can explain it. But something has to give because you can't have light bouncing and traveling in the efferent account, which you are trying to get me to agree with. I'm being interrogated by YOU.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

None of us believes an "image" is being reflected. That is Lessans strawman account of optics because he was clueless.

The standard model states that light is being reflected. Light reflection can be empirically observed and measured. (N) reflection is factual.

I can't believe we're back to square one. You know what I'm talking about, so why are you acting like you have no clue?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The non-absorbed light travels and strikes our retina, according to the afferent account. Don't play semantics with me at this late date Spacemonkey?

And that's a premise you have agreed with (at times - though you have alternated between agreement and disagreement). If that is not what happens to the non-absorbed light, then what does happen to it when it is (P)reflected? Where is that non-absorbed light just after it hits the object?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't believe we're back to square one. You know what I'm talking about, so why are you acting like you have no clue?

I don't think Lessans knew what he was talking about when he wrote that. You have learned from debate that what he said made no sense, so you have reduced it to a kind of euphemism for yourself. Lessans was being very literal though.

And if you didn't want to go back to square one, why did you post his idiocy?

Originally Posted by Lessans

We cannot see the plane simply
because the distance reduced its size to where it was impossible to
see it with the naked eye, but we could see it with a telescope.

Yes, the standard model states that the apparent size diminishes with distance. This is standard optics Lessans used here, not any new model.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not at all. I have been trying to show you that light exposes the material world through its properties, not the other way around, and there is a viable model that can explain it. But something has to give because you can't have light bouncing and traveling in the efferent account, which you are trying to get me to agree with. I'm being interrogated by YOU.

If there is a viable model of real-time vision then you have yet to find it. If light doesn't travel and bounce off things in your account, then what on earth does it do? Asking you to answer perfectly reasonable questions is not an interrogation. It just feels that way to you because you have no answers and keep weaselling instead.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't believe we're back to square one. You know what I'm talking about, so why are you acting like you have no clue?

'Back' to square one...? You never left.

[Spacemonkey]

FIRST SET

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]


SECOND SET

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]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think it's safe to say that after thousands of pages, I am not avoiding anything.

Oh really? Hilarious.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think it's safe to say that after thousands of pages, I am not avoiding anything.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not answer your dumb questions anymore regarding where the photons are when they leave the object.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by thedoc

What happens to the photons that are replaced by new photons, where do they go, or do they just disapear.

Does the last part make sense to anyone? If it does I am very sorry for you.

Could someone bump this please. Just in case.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think it's safe to say that after thousands of pages, I am not avoiding anything. I just can't explain this model to your satisfaction. In no way does this mean there isn't one. By definition, the efferent model changes our relationship to the external world, and why this claim is causing a backlash.

The efferent model of vision will, in fact, will have no effect on our relationship to the external world because it is utter bunk. The only backlash is a result of peacegirls complete refusal to consider the truth of reality and the validity of scientific discovery over many centuries.

The amazing thing is that she can continue to avoid the real issue and ignore the truth after almost a thousand pages of undeniable evidence that totally refutes Lessans silly ideas.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Pressure would be put upon scientists to analyze this work thoroughly, which has not been done. If necessary, empirical testing could get underway to prove that Lessans knew whereof he spoke all along.

These scientists would, presumably, be the same scientists whose experimental results you consistently reject on the grounds of bias. Surely this is going to end well for Lessans' "theory".

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Do you know what you are talking about?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are there any words you know how to use?

I take it that these are meant to be rhetorical questions.

[Angakuk]

FYI for the thedoc. There is no 'h' in empirical.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

LOL

Do you think you're fooling anyone?

Here, so far, is your answer to the questions: "Why do we see the moons of Jupiter in delayed time, and why does NASA use delayed-time seeing to calculate how to send spacecraft to Mars and other celestial locations, if real-time seeing is true?

You answer:

"Something else must be going on there!"

Something else must be going on if real time seeing is correct. I also said that the light-time correction that was made must have corrected itself by putting the difference back into the equation, if Romer used this differential in his original calculation.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And that's a premise you have agreed with (at times - though you have alternated between agreement and disagreement). If that is not what happens to the non-absorbed light, then what does happen to it when it is (P)reflected? Where is that non-absorbed light just after it hits the object?

How many times do I have to tell you that this light travels, but it fades out the farther away it gets from its source. This means that at the point in which there is no resolution of the image on the film/retina, the light that was absorbed is no longer absorbed at that distance, therefore the blue light is once again joined with the other colors of the visual spectrum (white light), which does travel through space and time at 186,000 miles a second.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

'Back' to square one...? You never left.

There you go again misinterpreting what this expression means. Back to square one doesn't mean I had to leave. It means what I thought people understood have understood nothing, therefore we have to go back to the first day of class and start all over again.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

There is no contradiction if you understand that the light that is (P) reflected is not traveling long distances to reach the distant film, as you keep alluding to. The distance is equivalent to the distance that it takes for the light to reflect off of a mirror. Why do I get a mirror image? Because there's virtually no distance, so I am seeing a copy of myself when I look in the mirror. The same applies here, even though the actual distance is much farther away. This is only possible because of how the eyes work, which is why we see in real time, not in delayed time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

These scientists would, presumably, be the same scientists whose experimental results you consistently reject on the grounds of bias. Surely this is going to end well for Lessans' "theory".

This bias is, and continues to be, a problem. But it is not insurmountable. It is just going to take budging these scientists to give Lessans the benefit of the doubt, and to make absolutely sure the empirical tests are reliable and replicable to guarantee that any unforeseen bias is weeded out.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

FYI for the thedoc. There is no 'h' in empirical.

You are so confused, that was the 'efferent' spelling.