A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The answer given was not adequate and nobody countered it with a better explanation.

Laugh Out Loud. Not "adequate" for Her Royal Ignoramus.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't want to continue because either I'm failing in explaining it, or you just don't see why the light is a mirror image when the object is in range. Either way, it's not worth it because even if there is a plausible model, until more empirical testing is done that offers substantial evidence, no one is going to believe it. At least I gave you a different way of looking at light, whether you agree or not.

1. There is no plausible model. And everything you wrote was utter gibberish.

2. It doesn't matter anyway, because we see light in delayed time. You have a non-existent "model" for a non-existent phenomenon.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't want to continue because either I'm failing in explaining it, or you just don't see why the light is a mirror image when the object is in range.

You're not just failing to explain yourself. You are deliberately and quite blatantly refusing to even address questions that a plausible model would have to answer.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Either way, it's not worth it because even if there is a plausible model, until more empirical testing is done that offers substantial evidence, no one is going to believe it. At least I gave you a different way of looking at light, whether you agree or not.

So are you leaving, fake leaving, or just seeking to temporarily change the topic?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You never gave any reason whatsoever for thinking it to be inadequate. Therefore no better explanation is required.

I told David that his explanation that we don't see an image because light is traveling too fast, doesn't add up.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told David that his explanation that we don't see an image because light is traveling too fast, doesn't add up.

Honestly, you little fool, I'd like to know: Are you more dumb than dishonest, or more dishonest than dumb? I know you are both, but I'd really like to know which you are are more of, just out of curiosity.

Where, you dishonest little dumb bell, did I ever say:

"we don't see an image because light is traveling too fast."

Show me where I said that.

Just how fucking crazy are you? That is YOUR IDIOTIC CLAIM -- that light travels too fast for us to "see" the image. And this idiotic claim BY YOU was refuted by ME.

Are you back to arguing with yourself again?

Someone please quote this in case she currently has me on "pretend ignore" again.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That's not true. The problem is that you or can't see why a mirror image can be at the retina even though light travels 186,000 miles a second. This is only possible because of the way the eyes work in the efferent model. There's nothing more I can say.

So are you leaving, fake leaving, or just seeking to temporarily change the topic?

I am wasting time explaining this model without further evidence to support it. It's getting me nowhere.

[Vivisectus]

Any evidence. You have none now. You need some to convince.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course, since people are happy with science's account, they are upset with me because I am now considered the person who is upsetting the status quo.

Of course we're happy with the current scientific model, because it works, and works very, very well. You'd agree with us if you were actually willing to understand it.

If anyone is upset with you, it's because Lessans' model is incorrect and you refuse to acknowledge the evidence that conclusively proves Lessans' ideas are incorrect.

[davidm]

LOL, people are "unhappy" with you because you are a dissembling little liar.

Hey, liar, show me where I said that "we don't see an image because light is traveling too fast." That is YOUR CLAIM, remember?

Wow, you are fucking crazy.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told David that his explanation that we don't see an image because light is traveling too fast, doesn't add up.

That wasn't his explanation, and it certainly wasn't mine. No-one ever told you that. You just made it up. The explanation you've actually been given is wholly adequate, and you've never given us any reason to think otherwise.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not true.

Don't lie. You know it's true. I am asking you questions and you are quite deliberately and blatantly refusing to answer them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The problem is that you or can't see why a mirror image can be at the retina even though light travels 186,000 miles a second. This is only possible because of the way the eyes work in the efferent model. There's nothing more I can say.

I'm asking you how those photons got there, and you won't tell me.

"Because of the way the eyes work" is not an answer, because (i) you can't explain it for eyes either; and (ii) real-time photography requires that this be explainable without reference to the eyes or vision.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am wasting time explaining this model without further evidence to support it. It's getting me nowhere.

Even with no evidence at all, an internally consistent and coherent model for real-time vision and photography would be a significant achievement. But you don't have one.

So... are you leaving, fake leaving, or just seeking to temporarily change the topic?

[The Lone Ranger]

When I was very young -- 7, I think -- my teacher explained to me that light is made up of little tiny particles called "photons" that travel very, very fast.

But not infinitely fast. So, she explained to me, if the Sun were to suddenly grow brighter, for example, it would take several minutes for us to see that change.



"But," I reasoned, being 7 years old, "since darkness is not made of photons, but is the absence of photons, if the Sun stopped shining, we'd notice that instantly."

Assuming that she actually believes what she's claiming, and that she actually believes that her claims make sense, it seems to me that the only possible explanation for peacegirl's beliefs is that her understanding of light and its properties is equivalent to that of a 7-year-old. She seems to honestly believe that when the composition of light emitted by or reflected from an object millions or billions of miles away changes, we'll see that change immediately.

[thedoc]

[QUOTE=peacegirl;1042646
I don't want to continue because either I'm failing to explain it clearly, or you just don't see why the light is a mirror image when the object is in range.

Either way, it's not worth it because even if there is a plausible model, until more empirical testing is done that offers substantial evidence, no one is going to believe it.

Of course, since people are happy with science's account, they are upset with me because I am now considered the person who is upsetting the status quo.[/QUOTE]

You are failing to explain because what you are trying to explain is inexplicable nonsense.

When more testing is done the emperical evidence will still not support your ideas and people will not believe it.

People are unhappy with you because you are being willfully ignorant. Most scientists are not married to the statis quo.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by thedoc

People are unhappy with you because you are being willfully ignorant. Most scientists are not married to the statis quo.

Indeed. That's a point that can't be stressed enough.

As Einstein pointed out, there is nothing in science more exciting than the unknown. Scientists, by their very nature, are a curious bunch who love nothing more than learning something new. And the surest way to make a name for yourself in science is to prove that something we thought was true isn't. That's precisely why we remember people like Newton, Einstein, Heisenberg, Darwin, etc. with such reverence -- because they showed us that what we had thought we knew was wrong, and so gave us lots of new things to investigate.


Nobody is rejecting peacegirl's claims out of close-mindedness. We're rejecting them because they're easily- (and thoroughly) disproved, self-contradictory, wholly unsupported codswallop.

[LadyShea]

Click the links. What about this answer, posted numerous times, is inadequate?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have asked this question so many times Spacemonkey gathered the responses onto one post. How about you read these links?

[LadyShea]

If clicking links is beyond your ability, here's the answer yet again. What is inadequate?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

imagine the camera as having thousands of individual detectors each corresponding to an individual pixel of its resolution. The resulting image is a collection of dots, each of which has to be one specific color. Stick a red ball right in front of the camera, and every detector will see red, and the photo will be all red. Progressively move the ball away from the camera, and the outer detectors cease to see red, with only a progressively smaller group of central detectors seeing red, such that we get a smaller and smaller red circle in the center of the photo. Eventually the red circle gets smaller than the size of the single central detector, such that all the other detectors are not detecting red, and this one central detector is receiving more non-red light (from the areas around the ball) than red light (from the ball itself). At that point the ball will represent a smaller part of the image than the smallest detector, and the ball will cease to show up on the image. That central detector will have a decision to make as to whether or not to create a red dot in the image, and as it is receiving more non-red than red light, it will not indicate red. So even though the camera is still receiving (a small amount) of red light from the ball, the resulting image will not show the ball at all.

[LadyShea]

bump

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is a contradiction. If the brain looking out is what allows for instant mirror images at the retina, then cameras cannot take instant pictures because they have no brains to look out

If it is focusing lenses that allows for instant mirror images at the retina and camera film, then the brain looking out is not even a factor.

Your repeatedly using stuff about the brain to answer questions about cameras and film is nonsensical and contradicts your insistence that the most important factor in efferent vision is how the brain works.

Why does it matter how the brain works if camera film and glass or plastic lenses can do the exact same thing?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Of course we're happy with the current scientific model, because it works, and works very, very well. You'd agree with us if you were actually willing to understand it.

If anyone is upset with you, it's because Lessans' model is incorrect and you refuse to acknowledge the evidence that conclusively proves Lessans' ideas are incorrect.

That's just not true specious_reasons. Light works in the way science says it works in that it travels at a finite speed, but we're talking about N light (which is the full visible spectrum). This is not contradictory with how the eyes work, which allows us to see in real time when light strikes a material substance. One does not exclude the other.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That wasn't his explanation, and it certainly wasn't mine. No-one ever told you that. You just made it up. The explanation you've actually been given is wholly adequate, and you've never given us any reason to think otherwise.

I did not make that up. So if that wasn't the answer, then give me the answer as to why we cannot get an image of a person (a real human being with substance) when he steps out of visual range but he is in a straight line with the observer. According to the current belief, the person should be reflecting said light toward the film/retina, and we should get an image. Tell me why we don't. The inverse square law isn't the reason because the person isn't that far from the observer to be the cause.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

When I was very young -- 7, I think -- my teacher explained to me that light is made up of little tiny particles called "photons" that travel very, very fast.

But not infinitely fast. So, she explained to me, if the Sun were to suddenly grow brighter, for example, it would take several minutes for us to see that change.



"But," I reasoned, being 7 years old, "since darkness is not made of photons, but is the absence of photons, if the Sun stopped shining, we'd notice that instantly."

Assuming that she actually believes what she's claiming, and that she actually believes that her claims make sense, it seems to me that the only possible explanation for peacegirl's beliefs is that her understanding of light and its properties is equivalent to that of a 7-year-old. She seems to honestly believe that when the composition of light emitted by or reflected from an object millions or billions of miles away changes, we'll see that change immediately.

That's exactly right, as long as the object is large enough and bright enough to be seen. If it's too far away, we won't get an image. That doesn't mean we won't get N light. When it comes to the physical world outside of us, the misconception is that when light strikes an object it bounces and goes on forever. N light goes on forever, but not the (P) light that is reflecting the object. You cannot understand how this works if you don't understand efferent vision. Science's present account is no more circumstantial than Lessans' account when it comes to whether we see afferently or efferently. If Lessans was right, this would turn the scientific world upside down, and this creates an attitude that he and I are stark mad. You believe science's account is a slam dunk because everything seems airtight, but Lessans' account makes sense if you look closely enough, which you won't do because you believe it's incoherent. You are discounting his observation as implausible before carefully checking it out. You don't even have to respond with the same old refrain, "You're just a flat-earther" because it's just a repeat of what I already know you're going to say.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are discounting his observation as implausible before carefully checking it out.

Since neither you nor Lessans have revealed what those 'observations' were there is no way for anyone to 'check them out', try telling us who and what he observed and these 'observations' can be verified and repeated if what was observed was, in fact, a universal law of nature.

bump please.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Which is a completely nonsensical statement.

How do the brain and the eyes bring photons to the lens?

Do they create these photons in situ? Do they reach out into space, snatch up photons, and deposit them onto the lens in question?


"When we're looking at an object the photons that are captured are at the lens due to how the brain and eyes work" is a perfect example of a non-answer to the question of how the photons from which the image is constructed got to where they are.

It is not a non-answer. It is absolutely true that the way the eyes work is what allows us to see in real time. The logic used in the current account is faulty because the basic premise is faulty in that patterns of light that objects reflect go on forever. This is all based on the idea that the eyes are a sense organ, therefore, according to this reasoning, it must be light that is going into our brain and being interpreted because that what sense organs do. But, according to Lessans' observations, that's not how it works and until further testing takes place, this is never going to be resolved. To throw his claim out just because it goes against current scientific thought, is the antithesis of what science stands for.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I mean, honestly. That should be the example used in any textbook on logic or rhetoric for "How to pretend that you've answered a question when, in fact, you've completely avoided it."

This is not logic at all. This is an astute observation. He didn't create the idea first, and make it fit his theory.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The answer given was not adequate and nobody countered it with a better

I did not make that up. So if that wasn't the answer, then give me the answer as to why we cannot get an image of a person (a real human being with substance) when he steps out of visual range but he is in a straight line with the observer. According to the current belief, the person should be reflecting said light toward the film/retina, and we should get an image. Tell me why we don't. The inverse square law isn't the reason because the person isn't that far from the observer to be the cause.

I just posted it, plus all the many links to it, a few posts up. Here it is again, in red and broken down in case a paragraph is too much to read. "Too far" depends on the sensor/detector. What may be too far for human eyes, isn't too far for an Eagle's eyes, or what is too far for a telephoto lens isn't too far for a super telephoto lens, etc.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If clicking links is beyond your ability, here's the answer yet again. What is inadequate?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Enough is enough. Peacegirl, please go and do your homework. Either demonstrate how Efferent Vision could possibly be plausible, given the empirical evidence we have gathered, or admit that you simply do not know how it could possibly work.

Important questions to answer are:

- How do you account for the observations of the moons of jupiter, and the fact that we can accurately predict its physical position using calculations that take a time delay into account?

I told you that once this claim is proved true, scientists will have to adjust their theory as to what they are seeing, and what is actually going on. This is not up to me to do. All I am required to do is try to describe this model of sight in the hope that people will take it seriously and do more testing.

- How come lab tests show dogs can recognize human faces on photographs?

These are not reliable tests, that's why. Show me how many have been done and what the controls were.

- How come lab tests show that infants can see, they just cannot change the focus distance of their eyes? (please study carefully what lenses do and what focussing is before you go into this one)

The theory is that they can't change the focus because the ciliary muscle is not developed. Lessans disputes this. Who is right is not yet determined, even though science thinks it already has the answers and there is no need to rock the boat.

- How come neutrinos and the image of a supernova always show up in the same timeframe, while we know that they travel at just below the speed of light?

I'm just guessing but maybe we are seeing actual particles that have been traveling along with the neutrinos, and we are actually seeing remnants of the actual event. Maybe the neutrinos are coming in advance of these other particles.

-How do the photons interact with film at a distance in the scenario where the sun has just been turned on? This is commonly thought to be impossible and a breach of the laws of physics. How do the eyes manage it anyway? Please actually demonstrate.

That's what I've been trying to explain. If we see the actual Sun as it is turned on, we are seeing this because the brain, looking through the eyes, can see it due to the conditions that allow it to occur. The Sun is large enough to be seen, and bright enough, and that light that is emitted becomes the condition, not the cause. This doesn't contradict any thing else regarding how light works, if you carefully think about it.

If you cannot do this, you should just admit that you do not know, but believe it anyhow. If you do not admit this, you show by your actions that you are merely being irrational by defending something that is irrational, and that there is no more reason to discuss this book with you, as you simply will not listen to any criticism of it, no matter how well founded.

The criticism is not well founded; that's why I'm not listening to it. I am not stubborn, I am not a believer, I am not a fundamentalist, and this is not faith based. It is your presupposition about me that I am these things that is wrong.

[LadyShea]

This is all based on the idea that the eyes are a sense organ, therefore, according to this reasoning, it must be light that is going into our brain and being interpreted because that what sense organs do.

Here's the more accurate rewrite

This is all based on the empirical observations that the eyes are a sense organ, therefore, according to this experimentation and physical examination and testing, it must be light is being detected by our retina, our brain interprets it into an image because that what is observed to happen