A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If the mirror image consists of photons, you have to explain how they got there. If it doesn't consist of photons, then there can't be a photochemical reaction with camera film and the mirror image

I just told you that the object, according to the eyes, isn't that far away because the object, no matter how far away in actuality, is still within the field of view of the lens (whether it's the eye's lens, a camera's lens, or a telescope's lens). Therefore, as you extend the efferent model, you will understand why there is a physical interaction between the light and the film/retina. It is not possible within the afferent model. The question remains: Who is right? I believe Lessans is, and further testing will confirm that science had it wrong. I don't know how long it will take, but one day this mistake will be corrected.

[LadyShea]

What is the mirror image made of? Is it made of matter? Is it made of photons? Is it made of clay?

You are just moving the magic around, you need a physical description and mechanism of the mirror image.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just told you that the object, according to the eyes, isn't that far away because the object, now matter how large is within the field of view. Therefore, as you extend this understand you will see that the physical interaction is possible within this model. It is not possible within the afferent model. The question is: Who is right? I believe Lessans is, and further testing will validate his claims one day.

Do you not understand the physical laws regarding location? Distance is distance, two separate locations

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is the mirror image made of? Is it made of matter? Is it made of photons? Is it made of clay?

You are just moving to magic around, you need a physical description and mechanism of the mirror image.

A mirror image is light LadyShea. Why would you think this is magic?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Do you not understand the physical laws regarding location? Distance is distance, two separate locations

That is true, but you're missing half of the equation over and over again: how the eyes work. If the eyes are not a sense organ, everything we believed was true is turned on its head.

[Vivisectus]

The reason why we can see something thousands of miles away in real time is due to the fact that light does not have to travel to Earth to have a physical reaction with the film.

Aha! So now we have action-at-a-distance! But that is a different story. Now you are saying that the photon simply affects the retina or film without being in contact with it? Generally this is considered impossible. How does it work?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A mirror image is light LadyShea. Why would you think this is magic?

So the mirror image is light, we are back to the eyes seeing by receiving light as an image. And light is photons, This is a very good description of afferent vision but not of efferent vision.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A mirror image is light LadyShea. Why would you think this is magic?

If the mirror image is light, it is made of photons. So you just had photons teleport again to create the mirror image at that location.

What you are positing is magic because it disregards and violates the known laws of physics.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is true, but you're missing half of the equation over and over again: how the eyes work. If the eyes are not a sense organ, everything we believed was true is turned on its head.

You still have too much magic in your model for it to possibly be true. You have light doing things it can't possibly do. Do you or do you not need to change all of physics for your model to be true?


ETA: I have been reading too much Dr. Suess I think

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Aha! So now we have action-at-a-distance! But that is a different story. Now you are saying that the photon simply affects the retina or film without being in contact with it? Generally this is considered impossible. How does it work?

I have given you the reasons, and you still are repeating the same thing over and over, which makes me realize that you're stuck in the record of what you've been taught. I can't win if you don't change the record, therefore I'm not going to try.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You still have too much magic in your model for it to possibly be true. You have light doing things it can't possibly do. Do you or do you not need to change all of physics for your model to be true?

There is no physics regarding light that needs to be corrected to make this model work. But...there IS changing the belief that afferent vision is correct. Strangely enough, this one shift in knowledge CHANGES EVERYTHING! I know this is hard to accept, but I am not budging because I believe Lessans was right, and until he is proven wrong, I will stand by him come hell or high water. You did not know him. I did. And he was not the kind of person that would ever espouse a theory just to make everything seem to fit the premise.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have given you the reasons, and you still are repeating the same thing over and over, which makes me realize that you're stuck in the record of what you've been taught. I can't win if you don't change the record, therefore I'm not going to try.

No, you have done no such thing. You merely claim THAT it works that way. You do not say anything about HOW. I very much doubt you would even know how to begin to put together even a very bad explanation of how this actually occurs.

So how DO the eyes allow photons to interact with the retina from lightyears away? Magic? Fairies? Space-time folding? Quantum entanglement?

I could say that gravity is caused by cheese, and then go on to explain that this happens because the fermentation of milk causes large bodies to attract each other. Does that mean I have explained how gravity is caused by cheese? Of course not. I have merely repeated my claim in a different form. This is all you ever do.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

No, you have done no such thing. You merely claim THAT it works that way. You do not say anything about HOW. I very much doubt you would even know how to begin to put together even a very bad explanation of how this actually occurs.

So how DO the eyes allow photons to interact with the retina from lightyears away? Magic? Fairies? Space-time folding? Quantum entanglement?

I could say that gravity is caused by cheese, and then go on to explain that this happens because the fermentation of milk causes large bodies to attract each other. Does that mean I have explained how gravity is caused by cheese? Of course not. I have merely repeated my claim in a different form. This is all you ever do.

You are 100% confused. I have explained very clearly how it works, but you refuse to accept it because of your belief that science can do no wrong.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You did not know him. I did. And he was not the kind of person that would ever espouse a theory just to make everything seem to fit the premise.

Assuming this to be true, was he also the kind of person who could make a mistake?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no changing of physics to make this model work.

Your model cannot work without changing the physical laws that govern light, and/or the known, measurable physical properties of light

Your model cannot work without changing the physical laws that govern photochemical reactions such that happen with film photography

Your model cannot work without changing the physical laws regarding the simple notion of things having locations

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your model cannot work without changing the physical laws that govern light, and/or the known, measurable physical properties of light

Your model cannot work without changing the physical laws that govern photochemical reactions such that happen with film photography

Your model cannot work without changing the physical laws regarding the simple notion of things having locations

I will not leave this forum with you thinking you're right, because you're not. Just keep this in mind and continue to find the truth, because Lessans is being condemned without justification.

[LadyShea]

I will not leave this forum with you thinking you're right, because you're not. Just keep this in mind and continue to find the truth, because Lessans is being condemned without justification.

Lessans condemned himself to crackpothood when made wild claims about physics that had no basis in reality

And lol, you're not leaving the forum at all, you never do.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How does the light get to the film in Lessans scenario, combined with your repeated claims about photography, laid out below?


1. The Sun newly ignited at noon
2. Camera film on Earth at noon
3. No photons of light on Earth until 12:08 ACCORDING TO LESSANS HIMSELF
4. No light on Earth means no photons for the camera film to physically touch which is required for absorption and photochemical reaction.
5. Your claim is that we could photograph the newly ignited sun AT NOON

How do photons come to be in contact with camera film on Earth, 93 million miles away, at noon if the photons have neither traveled to Earth, nor teleported to the camera film?

If you can't describe a mechanism that doesn't break the laws of physics (which bar photochemical reactions at a physical distance), then your claims regarding cameras taking photographs in real time are proven false.

Case in point, you cannot and will not explain this without weaseling

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are 100% confused. I have explained very clearly how it works, but you refuse to accept it because of your belief that science can do no wrong.

Again, no. You have merely stated THAT it works a certain way. You claim that the photons interact with the film without crossing the intervening space. When challenged, you say it is somehow caused by lenses, or that the brain just looks out, or, humorously, that it all makes sense once you believe that efferent vision makes sense, showing that you have inherited your fathers talent for completely circular reasoning.. But none of this is an actual explanation.

I would like to know: how is it possible for Photons to interact with film from miles away without crossing the intervening space?

[Vivisectus]

I believe Lessans was right, and until he is proven wrong,

Normally people wait for something to be proven right before believing it. At least in science.

That sentence really sums it up. Even when presented with clear empirical evidence that shows that he was wrong (moons of jupiter, studies done into dog and infant sight), she says that the proof is not 100% conclusive, and then interprets that as justification for her point of view.

But the statement "Pigs cannot fly" can also never be proven with 100% certainty. All we can say is that we have never seen a pig take to the air by itself and that we know of no way that a pig could propel itself into the air by purely natural means. The theory that human procreation is caused by sperm and egg is also "just a theory". Who says that what we can interpret in a petri-dish is the same as what happens in a human womb? I can simply decide that I do not believe the tests that have been done on it so far were valid.

But does that justify the point of view that pigs are able to fly or that babies are put in the womb by magical baby-fairies? Of course not. We require a compelling reason to believe fairies are involved, or that Pigs have unforeseen aerodynamic qualities. The burden of proof is on Lessans, and he provides none.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Again, no. You have merely stated THAT it works a certain way. You claim that the photons interact with the film without crossing the intervening space. When challenged, you say it is somehow caused by lenses, or that the brain just looks out, or, humorously, that it all makes sense once you believe that efferent vision makes sense, showing that you have inherited your fathers talent for completely circular reasoning.. But none of this is an actual explanation.

I would like to know: how is it possible for Photons to interact with film from miles away without crossing the intervening space?

Oh my god, isn't that what the present theory says and why you believe it? Science expects you to believe it because science says it is so, and they are the authorities? You don't know what Lessans was up against, and still is, but, sadly, I think this thread has lost its luster, so I will be leaving not because I am running away with my tail between my legs, but because the people in this forum have made it impossible for me to even express what could be going on, before they start attacking the messenger.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will not leave this forum with you thinking you're right, because you're not. Just keep this in mind and continue to find the truth, because Lessans is being condemned without justification.

The problem is, LadyShea is right. The scientific model of vision is the correct model for vision. Lessans ideas on vision were wrong before he even wrote them down - the facts were well established before he came up with his "efferent vision." The subsequent years of scientific study have only continued to prove Lessans wrong.

The anatomy of the eye proves that vision is not "efferent." The moons of Jupiter and many, many other observations and experiments show that real-time vision is not true. Lessans is wrong, has been wrong, and will continue to be wrong, long after his work has been forgotten.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god, isn't that what the present theory says, and they expect you to believe it because science says it? You don't know what Lessans was up against, and still is, but I think this thread has lost its luster, so I will be leaving not because I am running away with my tail between my legs, but because the people in this forum have made it impossible for me to even express what could be going on, before they start attacking my very character.

So you do not have an answer, which is our fault because we are all such meanies and so biased, which is JUST what happened to your father and had nothing to do with the fact that he just did not have any proof and that everyday observations contradict what he said? And because of this you are LEAVING?

Looks more like running when it has become impossible to ignore the fact your point of view is irrational and cannot be defended to me. Are you even capable of leaving? I think in close to a year, 4 days is the most you have managed.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So you do not have an answer, which is our fault because we are all such meanies and so biased, which is JUST what happened to your father and had nothing to do with the fact that he just did not have any proof and that everyday observations contradict what he said? And because of this you are LEAVING?

Looks more like running when it has become impossible to ignore the fact your point of view is irrational and cannot be defended to me. Are you even capable of leaving? I think in close to a year, 4 days is the most you have managed.

Vivisectus, you are the last person to be taken seriously. Do you not see the absolute dislike you had for Lessans from day one? Your bias is obvious, and whatever you say means nothing except to people who also intend to attack this man for no reason.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Vivisectus, you are the last person to be taken seriously. Do you not see the absolute dislike you had for Lessans from day one? Your bias is obvious, and whatever you say means nothing except to people who also intend to attack this man for no reason.

Still here?

Bias does not cause a lack of proof. Nor a lack of a mechanism. Nor conflict with simple everyday observations. Nor conflict with tests regarding infant sight and dog sight. Nor a lack of answers to quite basic questions like "How does it work?"

Bias does not cause circular reasoning, nor does it cause unsupported assertions.

For someone who is advocating a blame-free society, you sure spend a lot of time blaming other people for your own shortcomings.