A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god, isn't that what the present theory says and why you believe it?

No, that is not what the present (afferent) theory says, that is the fiction made up by Lessans. And since we do not believe it there is no 'why'.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Spacemonkey, there is a third option.

Cough it up then. What is this third option. If there are photons at the film and interacting with it, which did not come into existence there, then how did they get there? One option is that they got there by traveling through the intervening space. Another option is that they somehow got there without traveling through the intervening space. What is your third option for how they got there?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't seem to care one whit about the eyes and how they work.

I'm not asking you about eyes and how they work. I'm asking you about real-time photography, which you need to be able to explain without appealing to eyes and vision.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If we see the way Lessans' claims, the requirement for real time seeing is being met because the actual substance of which the light is interacting is within visual range and therefore a mirror image is always present at the film/retina.

We don't see the way Lessans claimed, because the requirements for real-time seeing are contradictory. For example, what does the mirror image at the film/retina consist of (photons or something else?) and how did it get there?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

And light consists of photons. So you have photons at the film when the photograph is taken. How did they get there? Did they exist, say, 10 seconds ago? Where were those photons then? How did they get from wherever they were 10 seconds ago to the film where they are now?

[Spacemonkey]

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.

No, that would be you, little miss projector.

[davidm]

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.

Ignorant, self-important little narcissist. Of course, then you'll never leave the forum, because NO ONE here will ever think you are right; in fact we all know that you are wrong, and Lessans was wrong. Your father was an uneducated crackpot.

But look at the injustice you are doing him, hanging out at an Internet message board where everyone thinks you are nuts! You need to take these vital discoveries to the highest level of government, as soon as possible! Don't waste time here. Contact President Obama! Hurry!

And sue him when he brushes you off.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

We all know him very well from his work. He was a self-aggrandizing uneducated buffoon with delusions of grandeur, an inferiority complex and a huge chip on his shoulder. Just like you. You're a chip off the old blockhead.

None of these unfortunate personal traits make what he wrote wrong, however. What he wrote was all wrong because it fails to comport with reality, and reality doesn't give a shit about him or you or any of us. It is what it is, and it isn't what Lessans said it was. So much the worse for him.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by vivisectus

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

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god, isn't that what the present theory says and why you believe it?

Isn't what "what the present theory says"?

Optics does not say that photons can interact with film if they are separated by space. Did you mean something else?

[thedoc]

I believe it was Davidm (among Others?) who stated a long time ago that Peacegirl was here for the attention more than to promote a book. But the attention she is seeking is not the healthy kind where a civil dialogue is the norm. If you note who she is resopnding to, it is those who are useing profanity, calling her names, and being hostile in general. Her own responses range from sympathetic condescending to ranting hostility with frequent threats to leave thrown in.
She claims to have me on ignore or 'pretend ignore' where she just doesn't respond to my posts. Yet I have rarely (If ever) used profanity in my posts to her, my namecalling is, in my opinion, more discriptive than provocative, and I have tried not to be hostile to her, (In these 2 threads only), though I sometimes respond out of frustration at her responses. Still inspite of threats to ignore she responds to almost everyone else but seems to ignore me. I would surmise from this that she is not seeking a healthy dialogue but may be a bit of a masochist and craves the abuse and the hostility. There are others who may suggest that this behaviour is part of her mental illness, and they may be correct. Just thought I'd make a note of this.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Spacemonkey, there is a third option.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Cough it up then. What is this third option. If there are photons at the film and interacting with it, which did not come into existence there, then how did they get there? One option is that they got there by traveling through the intervening space. Another option is that they somehow got there without traveling through the intervening space. What is your third option for how they got there?

I already did give you the third option.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't seem to care one whit about the eyes and how they work.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm not asking you about eyes and how they work. I'm asking you about real-time photography, which you need to be able to explain without appealing to eyes and vision.

Lenses work the same way, and I've explained it many times. You cannot take a photograph without the actual substance being in the field of view. That changes the phenomenon because it has been assumed that all that is needed to take a photograph is the detection of light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If we see the way Lessans' claims, the requirement for real time seeing is being met because the actual substance of which the light is interacting is within visual range and therefore a mirror image is always present at the film/retina.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

We don't see the way Lessans claimed, because the requirements for real-time seeing are contradictory. For example, what does the mirror image at the film/retina consist of (photons or something else?) and how did it get there?

Instead of telling me the requirements for real-time seeing are contradictory (which they aren't), and therefore you conclude that we don't see the way Lessans' claimed, why can't you ask more questions to see if maybe you are premature in your judgment? You come off too cock sure of yourself when you tell me Lessans has to be wrong before you really know.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I believe it was Davidm (among Others?) who stated a long time ago that Peacegirl was here for the attention more than to promote a book. But the attention she is seeking is not the healthy kind where a civil dialogue is the norm. If you note who she is resopnding to, it is those who are useing profanity, calling her names, and being hostile in general. Her own responses range from sympathetic condescending to ranting hostility with frequent threats to leave thrown in.
She claims to have me on ignore or 'pretend ignore' where she just doesn't respond to my posts. Yet I have rarely (If ever) used profanity in my posts to her, my namecalling is, in my opinion, more discriptive than provocative, and I have tried not to be hostile to her, (In these 2 threads only), though I sometimes respond out of frustration at her responses. Still inspite of threats to ignore she responds to almost everyone else but seems to ignore me. I would surmise from this that she is not seeking a healthy dialogue but may be a bit of a masochist and craves the abuse and the hostility. There are others who may suggest that this behaviour is part of her mental illness, and they may be correct. Just thought I'd make a note of this.

Good post. I believe she is addicted to asserting her faith in her father's claims against strident opposition. It has nothing to do with rational discussion or the sharing or promotion of ideas.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already did give you the third option.

No you didn't, weasel. You did not give me any third option for how the light got to the film.

How did the photons comprising the mirror image at the film get to the film, if they didn't travel there and didn't teleport there?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lenses work the same way, and I've explained it many times. You cannot take a photograph without the actual substance being in the field of view. That changes the phenomenon because it has been assumed that all that is needed to take a photograph is the detection of light.

How did the photons comprising the mirror image at the film get to the film, if they didn't travel there and didn't teleport there?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Instead of telling me the requirements for real-time seeing are contradictory, and therefore don't see the way Lessans' claimed, why can't you ask more questions.

Are you fucking kidding me????????????????????????????

Ask more questions? I've done nothing but ask questions, and you've done nothing but weasel and openly refuse to answer them! Like this one:

How did the photons comprising the mirror image at the film get to the film, if they didn't travel there and didn't teleport there?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You come off too sure of yourself when you tell me Lessans has to be wrong before you know for sure.

But we do know for sure. Lessans was wrong. Your pathetic attempts to show that real-time vision is even possible have been contradictory and incoherent.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No you don't. If you did then you'd be capable of telling us how it does so. But you can't.

That's just a word. It is not an explanation. According to "EFFERENT VISION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" how do the photons at the film get there if they do not either travel there or teleport there?

But I'm not following the afferent version of sight. I'm doing EXACTLY as you asked by starting with the assumption that vision is real-time and working backwards to see how that could be possible. You refuse to address my questions about this, showing that you do not know how much of physics will be compatible with it, and that you have no interest in finding out.

Sorry, but your model doesn't get to change or deny the ACTUAL distance between the object and the eye or camera. If there is no such distance in your model, then your account is not modelling what it is meant to explain. In REALITY there is a real physical distance between objects and the camera/retina.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Ask more questions you say...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, I'm not. You just told me that photons travel. So if there are traveling photons under BOTH models, then you can't claim that I am discussing one model rather than the other when I ask about traveling photons. When I ask about traveling photons, I am asking about them under YOUR model. (If there are no traveling photons under real-time vision, then either photons do not exist or they exist but are always stationary. Which is it?)

What does the instant mirror image at the film consist of?

Do you see how you are weaseling out of answering another question about YOUR claims?

What does the instant mirror image at the film consist of?

You haven't answered the fucking question. Weasel.

What does the instant mirror image at the film consist of?

Lies. And you just weaselled again. Note the parts I just put in bold. I am not presupposing anything here about traveling photons. The questions specifically ask whether or not the photons concerned will be or were traveling. You just weaselled.

If you accept that there are photons hitting the ball, and that the absorptive properties of the object are relevant to what is seen or photographed, then I get to ask about these photons. If you accept that there are photons at the film and interacting with it when the photograph is taken to produce the photographic image, then I get to ask about these photons as well. So stop your dishonest weaselling and address the damn questions. Here they are again:


Are there traveling photons striking the object on your account, which do not get absorbed by the object? If so, where are they immediately after they hit the object? Are they traveling away from the surface of the object or not?

Are there photons at the film and interacting with it when the photograph is taken? Are they photons which were previously traveling towards the camera or not? If not, did they exist at all prior to the photograph being taken? If they did previously exist, then where were they immediately before the photograph was taken?

(Note how none of these questions presuppose anything about afferent vision or traveling photons.)

...so that you can ignore them like you ignored these ones?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Isn't what "what the present theory says"?

Optics does not say that photons can interact with film if they are separated by space. Did you mean something else?

No, optics says that we focus the light, and nothing else. Lessans says we interact with light also, but we need the object in view. Of course, if the light has not traveled to Earth, we would not be able to see anything close by because there would be no light in which to see it. You may need to do more investigation on your own in order to understand why light does not have to travel to Earth for photons to interact with the eyes, even though the light has not traveled the intervening space which would allow us to see each other. The reason he brought this example up in the first place is to show that there is no time involved in efferent vision, therefore all we have is the present.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Instead of telling me the requirements for real-time seeing are contradictory (which they aren't), and therefore you conclude that we don't see the way Lessans' claimed, why can't you ask more questions to see if maybe you are premature in your judgment?

Holy shit. There's a question RIGHT THERE in the very part of my post you were here replying to, which you just IGNORED instead of answering... in order to tell me I should be asking more questions! Dafuq, Peacegirl? Are there truly no bounds to your ineptness?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, optics says that we focus the light, and nothing else.

Huh? How is that even related?

Optics and chemistry says that the light, whether reflected or emitted, must actually come into contact with the film, by physically touching it, to create a photographic image.

What are you talking about? Why are you weaseling again instead of answering the simple, reasonable question Vivisectus asked you? You like questions right? So answer

how is it possible for Photons to interact with film from miles away without crossing the intervening space?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not answer your dumb questions anymore ...

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...why can't you ask more questions...?

What on earth is going on inside that head of yours?

[LadyShea]

You're not asking the right questions. The following are acceptable

"This is so wonderful, please tell me more!"

"How did Mr. Lessans get to be such a perfect and infallible genius? Where would you like the statue of him to reside?"

"Oh my I am confused because I was educated stupid, can you please explain about the non-magical totally physical-law-abiding mirror images again please?"

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You're not asking the right questions. The following are acceptable

"This is so wonderful, please tell me more!"

"How did Mr. Lessans get to be such a perfect and infallible genius? Where would you like the statue of him to reside?"

"Oh my I am confused because I was educated stupid, can you please explain about the non-magical totally physical-law-abiding mirror images again please?"

Exactly. She says she wants me to ask questions to work out if I'm being premature in concluding that Lessans was wrong. But what she means is that she wants me to ask questions which do not challenge her ideas in any way. Yet only questions which challenge her and Lessans' claims are relevant to working out whether or not those claims are correct (or even possible), and she doesn't want people to ask those kinds of questions. She wants me rather to assume that I have been premature, so that she can continue pretending that her position might actually be plausible when it obviously is not.

[davidm]

Hey, asshat? You want more questions? Here is one (among hundreds) you have not answered:

How did the photons comprising the mirror image at the film get to the film, if they didn't travel there and didn't teleport there?


Well?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What on earth is going on inside that head of yours?

The answer to that question would explain a lot. Of course it may not be something 'on Earth'.

[peacegirl]

[quote=Spacemonkey;1042367]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No you don't. If you did then you'd be capable of telling us how it does so. But you can't.

That's just a word. It is not an explanation. According to "EFFERENT VISION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" how do the photons at the film get there if they do not either travel there or teleport there?

But I'm not following the afferent version of sight. I'm doing EXACTLY as you asked by starting with the assumption that vision is real-time and working backwards to see how that could be possible. You refuse to address my questions about this, showing that you do not know how much of physics will be compatible with it, and that you have no interest in finding out.

Sorry, but your model doesn't get to change or deny the ACTUAL distance between the object and the eye or camera. If there is no such distance in your model, then your account is not modelling what it is meant to explain. In REALITY there is a real physical distance between objects and the camera/retina.

I am not going to keep going in circles. You can reject this account if you believe it isn't possible. But your logic is imperfect. FYI, I never denied the ACTUAL distance between the object and the eye or camera, but this doesn't negate the fact that the lens is capturing a mirror image of the external world, even as light travels at a finite speed.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not going to keep going in circles. You can reject this account if you believe it isn't possible. But your logic is imperfect. FYI, I never denied the ACTUAL distance between the object and the eye or camera, but this doesn't negate the fact that the lens is capturing a mirror image of the external world, even as light travels at a finite speed.

what a little fool.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not going to keep going in circles. You can reject this account if you believe it isn't possible. But your logic is imperfect. FYI, I never denied the ACTUAL distance between the object and the eye or camera, but this doesn't negate the fact that the lens is capturing a mirror image of the external world, even as light travels at a finite speed.

How did the photons comprising that mirror image at the film get to the film, if they didn't travel there and didn't teleport there?

Why are you telling me to ask more questions when you refuse to answer any questions that I ask?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

what a little fool.

Ahh, you noticed.