|
|
05-21-2012, 01:52 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
his first discovery is the only thing left that I am interested in discussing.
|
Then present your ideas, no-one is stopping you. If you are waiting for someone to ask a question or make a comment, how can they if you have not presented anything. And don't just copy-paste the book and expect every one to jump on, YOU explain it in your own words as best you can and be ready to expand and correct if necessary.
|
05-21-2012, 02:13 PM
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
his first discovery is the only thing left that I am interested in discussing.
|
Then present your ideas, no-one is stopping you. If you are waiting for someone to ask a question or make a comment, how can they if you have not presented anything. And don't just copy-paste the book and expect every one to jump on, YOU explain it in your own words as best you can and be ready to expand and correct if necessary.
|
Sure, peacegirl just needs to express herself in a consistent, logical and rational way. As if the last 20,000 posts never happened. And the horse will sing.
|
05-21-2012, 02:17 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Light that strikes an object splits up due to absorption, which allows the remaining non-absorbed light to reveal the object when we are within visual range of that object. This light is not static because it is constantly being replaced by new light, but it does not bounce off the object and travel. I don't know how else to explain it.
|
I know I have suggested this before, but I am going to try again. Go into a darkened room. Take a mirror and flashlight with you. Position the mirror so that it is facing a blank wall a foot or so distant from the mirror. Shine the flashlight at the mirror. Observe the spot of light that appears on the wall opposite the mirror. Then come back here and tell us that the light which was not absorbed by the mirror did not bounce off the surface of the mirror, travel across the room and strike the wall.
|
Have you tried this yet, peacegirl? If you have, what were the results?
|
I am actually not interested in hearing any more results that would prove Lessans wrong, not because I'm in denial, but because the test to prove him wrong, is inaccurate. When you talk about mirrors, do you actually think this proves Lessans wrong when I have said all along that mirrors are only a projection of what already exists? You really should be laughing at yourself Angakuk for spreading your wings in pride when you have nothing to be proud about.
|
05-21-2012, 02:26 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I have said all along that mirrors are only a projection of what already exists?
|
What "already exists" that the mirror projects in the scenario Angakuk offered?
Quote:
Go into a darkened room. Take a mirror and flashlight with you. Position the mirror so that it is facing a blank wall a foot or so distant from the mirror. Shine the flashlight at the mirror. Observe the spot of light that appears on the wall opposite the mirror.
|
What is the spot of light in your opinion?
|
05-21-2012, 02:46 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I have said all along that mirrors are only a projection of what already exists?
|
What "already exists" that the mirror projects in the scenario Angakuk offered?
Quote:
Go into a darkened room. Take a mirror and flashlight with you. Position the mirror so that it is facing a blank wall a foot or so distant from the mirror. Shine the flashlight at the mirror. Observe the spot of light that appears on the wall opposite the mirror.
|
What is the spot of light in your opinion?
|
I have no idea what you mean by the spot of light. It doesn't even make sense to me but maybe I missed something. The entire mapping of what is out there in the external world is reflected on our retina, or film. To try to answer you logically will only get me in trouble, as we have seen, and make me look like a crackpot, which you all want (because it will eliminate the need to look at what's really going on). Interestingly enough, the light that shines through pots are cracked. I don't mind being a cracked pot. Just remember that.
|
05-21-2012, 02:51 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
I don't think you understand the scale of size and distance that exists in the Universe peacegirl, otherwise you might abandon the shoebox analogy.
If you enlarged a single hydrogen atom so that the proton/nucleus was the size of a basketball the electron would be about 20 miles away...that means the atom would be 20 miles in diameter and mostly space.
Distance is distance and relative to size, no matter how small or large you scale it
Last edited by LadyShea; 05-21-2012 at 04:47 PM.
|
05-21-2012, 02:56 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I have said all along that mirrors are only a projection of what already exists?
|
What "already exists" that the mirror projects in the scenario Angakuk offered?
Quote:
Go into a darkened room. Take a mirror and flashlight with you. Position the mirror so that it is facing a blank wall a foot or so distant from the mirror. Shine the flashlight at the mirror. Observe the spot of light that appears on the wall opposite the mirror.
|
What is the spot of light in your opinion?
|
I have no idea what you mean by the spot of light. It doesn't even make sense to me but maybe I missed something.
|
What part of the scenario is confusing to you?
If you shine a light at a mirror in a dark room, a spot of light will appear on the wall opposite the mirror as per the laws of reflection.
This spot is nothing but reflected light according to optics.
You seem to disagree and said "mirrors are only a projection of what already exists". So in the scenario what is the spot of light? A "projection of what already exists" doesn't provide an answer.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The entire mapping of what is out there in the external world is reflected on our retina, or film.
|
What do you mean by "mapping"?
"Reflected on our retina or film" by what physical mechanism?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
To try to answer you logically will only get me in trouble
|
Yes, because you do not have a possible, let alone plausible, model because models include mechanisms.
Last edited by LadyShea; 05-21-2012 at 03:21 PM.
|
05-21-2012, 03:17 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Interestingly enough, the light that shines through pots are cracked
|
Um, this makes no grammatical sense. What did you mean to say this time?
|
05-21-2012, 03:30 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
his first discovery is the only thing left that I am interested in discussing.
|
Then present your ideas, no-one is stopping you. If you are waiting for someone to ask a question or make a comment, how can they if you have not presented anything. And don't just copy-paste the book and expect every one to jump on, YOU explain it in your own words as best you can and be ready to expand and correct if necessary.
|
Sure, peacegirl just needs to express herself in a consistent, logical and rational way. As if the last 20,000 posts never happened. And the horse will sing.
|
I don't care how she expresses herself, I would just prefer that she stop whining about not being able to post her non-discovery.
|
05-21-2012, 03:32 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Interestingly enough, the light that shines through pots are cracked
|
Um, this makes no grammatical sense. What did you mean to say this time?
|
Grammatical? It doesn't make any sense at all. Is she saying the light is cracked? We already think she is.
|
05-21-2012, 04:04 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I have no idea what you mean by the spot of light.
|
Willful ignorance at it's best.
|
05-21-2012, 04:09 PM
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Interestingly enough, the light that shines through pots are cracked
|
Um, this makes no grammatical sense. What did you mean to say this time?
|
peacegirl is making a clever self reference.
|
05-21-2012, 04:11 PM
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
his first discovery is the only thing left that I am interested in discussing.
|
Then present your ideas, no-one is stopping you. If you are waiting for someone to ask a question or make a comment, how can they if you have not presented anything. And don't just copy-paste the book and expect every one to jump on, YOU explain it in your own words as best you can and be ready to expand and correct if necessary.
|
Sure, peacegirl just needs to express herself in a consistent, logical and rational way. As if the last 20,000 posts never happened. And the horse will sing.
|
I don't care how she expresses herself, I would just prefer that she stop whining about not being able to post her non-discovery.
|
She can either whine or quote Lessons and everything else comes out as gibberish.
|
05-21-2012, 05:53 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
his first discovery is the only thing left that I am interested in discussing.
|
Then present your ideas, no-one is stopping you. If you are waiting for someone to ask a question or make a comment, how can they if you have not presented anything. And don't just copy-paste the book and expect every one to jump on, YOU explain it in your own words as best you can and be ready to expand and correct if necessary.
|
Sure, peacegirl just needs to express herself in a consistent, logical and rational way. As if the last 20,000 posts never happened. And the horse will sing.
|
OK, hit it,
&feature=related
|
05-21-2012, 05:55 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
his first discovery is the only thing left that I am interested in discussing.
|
Then present your ideas, no-one is stopping you. If you are waiting for someone to ask a question or make a comment, how can they if you have not presented anything. And don't just copy-paste the book and expect every one to jump on, YOU explain it in your own words as best you can and be ready to expand and correct if necessary.
|
Sure, peacegirl just needs to express herself in a consistent, logical and rational way. As if the last 20,000 posts never happened. And the horse will sing.
|
I don't care how she expresses herself, I would just prefer that she stop whining about not being able to post her non-discovery.
|
She can either whine or quote Lessons and everything else comes out as gibberish.
|
What do you mean 'everything else', with Peacegirl it's all gibberish, but at least it will be different gibberish.
|
05-21-2012, 06:17 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I don't think you understand the scale of size and distance that exists in the Universe peacegirl, otherwise you might abandon the shoebox analogy.
If you enlarged a single hydrogen atom so that the proton/nucleus was the size of a basketball the electron would be about 20 miles away...that means the atom would be 20 miles in diameter and mostly space.
Distance is distance and relative to size, no matter how small or large you scale it
|
Thanks for the diagram, but the shoebox analogy was just that; an analogy. I was hoping you could see that the enormity of an object's size or distance cannot determined by sight alone, although the actual distance and size can be measured using the speed of light.
|
05-21-2012, 06:28 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Interestingly enough, the light that shines through pots are cracked
|
Um, this makes no grammatical sense. What did you mean to say this time?
|
It is a play on words. Sometimes what people see as having no value (such as a pot that is old and cracked; hence a cracked pot) can spread more light (knowledge) than a pot that has no cracks. People look at Lessans as a crackpot, or cracked pot, but as you can see truth comes from unexpected sources.
Last edited by peacegirl; 05-21-2012 at 06:48 PM.
|
05-21-2012, 06:30 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I don't think you understand the scale of size and distance that exists in the Universe peacegirl, otherwise you might abandon the shoebox analogy.
If you enlarged a single hydrogen atom so that the proton/nucleus was the size of a basketball the electron would be about 20 miles away...that means the atom would be 20 miles in diameter and mostly space.
Distance is distance and relative to size, no matter how small or large you scale it
|
Thanks for the diagram, but the shoebox analogy was just that; an analogy. I was hoping you could see that the enormity of an object's size or distance cannot determined by sight alone, although the actual distance and size can be measured using the speed of light.
|
So are you suggesting (again) that visual distance is different than actual distance?
|
05-21-2012, 06:31 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I was hoping you could see that the enormity of an object's size or distance cannot determined by sight alone
|
Why? Who did you think was failing to "see" that? Nobody has said anything about determining size or distance by sight alone. That's an absurd proposition, one I don't remember being made, and completely irrelevant to the discussion.
Last edited by LadyShea; 05-21-2012 at 07:14 PM.
|
05-21-2012, 06:35 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Interestingly enough, the light that shines through pots are cracked
|
Um, this makes no grammatical sense. What did you mean to say this time?
|
It is a saying. Sometimes what people see as having no value (such as a pot that is old and cracked; hence a cracked pot) can spread more light (knowledge) than a pot that has no cracks. People look at Lessans as a crackpot, or cracked pot, but as you can see truth comes from unexpected sources.
|
People usually put water in a pot, not a lamp, and the water would leak out of a cracked pot, so your example is just as mixed up as you and Lessans. Why don't you start by showing us something of value from Lessans book?
|
05-21-2012, 07:13 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I have said all along that mirrors are only a projection of what already exists?
|
What "already exists" that the mirror projects in the scenario Angakuk offered?
Quote:
Go into a darkened room. Take a mirror and flashlight with you. Position the mirror so that it is facing a blank wall a foot or so distant from the mirror. Shine the flashlight at the mirror. Observe the spot of light that appears on the wall opposite the mirror.
|
What is the spot of light in your opinion?
|
I have no idea what you mean by the spot of light. It doesn't even make sense to me but maybe I missed something.
|
What part of the scenario is confusing to you?
If you shine a light at a mirror in a dark room, a spot of light will appear on the wall opposite the mirror as per the laws of reflection.
This spot is nothing but reflected light according to optics.
|
Where is this in opposition to anything I've said? Think of the wall as the retina. The light that is at the wall is present because the actual spot is present. If the spot is gone, so will the reflection on the wall.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
You seem to disagree and said "mirrors are only a projection of what already exists". So in the scenario what is the spot of light? A "projection of what already exists" doesn't provide an answer.
|
I don't know what the spot of light is. It could be a smudge on the mirror that shows up on the wall as a spot. Whatever it is, it has to be coming from something in the material world because photons merely reflect what exists.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The entire mapping of what is out there in the external world is reflected on our retina, or film.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
What do you mean by "mapping"?
"Reflected on our retina or film" by what physical mechanism?
|
This goes back to the requirements of efferent vision, and whether the eyes or film can actually interact with light under these conditions. Mapping is just another way of saying that whatever is on the screen of the material world (as we look out in real time) will show up as an identical image on the retina or film.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
To try to answer you logically will only get me in trouble
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Yes, because you do not have a possible, let alone plausible, model because models include mechanisms.
|
I can only give you his observations. The mechanism goes back to how the brain and eyes work, which, if true, allow the light to show up on the retina instantly because the requirements for this interaction to take place between the retina and light, or film and light, have been met. You say this is impossible. I say it's not.
|
05-21-2012, 07:25 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I was hoping you could see that the enormity of an object's size or distance cannot determined by sight alone
|
Why? Who did you think was failing to "see" that? Nobody has said anything about determining size or distance by sight alone. That's an absurd proposition, one I don't remember being made, and completely irrelevant to the discussion.
|
I just meant that seeing an object because it meets the requirements of size and brightness, and processing that information in the visual cortex in order to interpret how far away an object really is, are two different things.
|
05-21-2012, 07:29 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I have said all along that mirrors are only a projection of what already exists?
|
What "already exists" that the mirror projects in the scenario Angakuk offered?
Quote:
Go into a darkened room. Take a mirror and flashlight with you. Position the mirror so that it is facing a blank wall a foot or so distant from the mirror. Shine the flashlight at the mirror. Observe the spot of light that appears on the wall opposite the mirror.
|
What is the spot of light in your opinion?
|
I have no idea what you mean by the spot of light. It doesn't even make sense to me but maybe I missed something.
|
What part of the scenario is confusing to you?
If you shine a light at a mirror in a dark room, a spot of light will appear on the wall opposite the mirror as per the laws of reflection.
This spot is nothing but reflected light according to optics.
|
Where is this in opposition to anything I've said? Think of the wall as the retina. The light that is at the wall is present because the actual spot is present. If the spot is gone, so will the reflection on the wall.
|
The spot is the reflected light.
What you are actually saying in the bolded sentences is:
The light that is at the wall is present because the light that is at the wall is present. If the light on the wall is gone so will the reflected light on the wall
Is that what you mean, or are you still confused by the simple experiment you can do with a penlight and a mirror? Why you would rather look completely retarded and crazy rather than do a simple experiment is only attributable to your adherence to Lessans on faith alone...nothing else makes any sense whatsoever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
You seem to disagree and said "mirrors are only a projection of what already exists". So in the scenario what is the spot of light? A "projection of what already exists" doesn't provide an answer.
|
I don't know what the spot of light is.
|
What on Earth are you talking about? It's a spot of reflected light, you can move it around because the angle of reflection changes as you move the mirror or the light source. You can do this yourself right now if you have a dark room and a hand mirror. Millions of children throughout history have played with reflected light spots and are aware of the basic laws of physics easily demonstrated with simple household items.
It doesn't even need to be a dark room, you can do the same thing using the sun coming in a window as your light source and aim the reflection at an inside wall. It's not as dramatic, but it's entirely possible, because these are laws of physics at play here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
It could be a smudge on the mirror that shows up on the wall as a spot. Whatever it is, it has to be coming from something in the material world because photons merely reflect what exists.
|
You are just being purposefully idiotic now. Nobody can be actually this stupid and live.
If you aim the reflection spot at a book or piece of paper that's been written on you can READ by the reflected light for goodness sake. A smudge couldn't somehow produce light bright enough to read by.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The entire mapping of what is out there in the external world is reflected on our retina, or film.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
What do you mean by "mapping"?
"Reflected on our retina or film" by what physical mechanism?
|
This goes back to the requirements of efferent vision, and whether the eyes or film can actually interact with light under these conditions. Mapping is just another way of saying that whatever is on the screen of the material world (as we look out in real time) will show up as an identical image on the retina or film.
|
By what mechanism?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
To try to answer you logically will only get me in trouble
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Yes, because you do not have a possible, let alone plausible, model because models include mechanisms.
|
I can only give you his observations. The mechanism goes back to how the brain and eyes work, which, if true, allow the light to show up on the retina instantly because the requirements for this interaction to take place between the retina and light, or film and light, have been met. You say this is impossible. I say it's not.
|
No such allowance exists in the current laws of physics. It is impossible because it is not possible unless there are different laws of physics than the ones we know of. So, are you going to admit that the laws of physics need to be changed for Lessans to be correct?
Last edited by LadyShea; 05-21-2012 at 08:02 PM.
|
05-21-2012, 07:33 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I was hoping you could see that the enormity of an object's size or distance cannot determined by sight alone
|
Why? Who did you think was failing to "see" that? Nobody has said anything about determining size or distance by sight alone. That's an absurd proposition, one I don't remember being made, and completely irrelevant to the discussion.
|
I just meant that seeing an object because it meets the requirements of size and brightness, and processing that information in the visual cortex in order to interpret how far away an object really is, are two different things.
|
So? What did that have anything to do with the scenarios presented or the points made about physical mechanisms for photons coming to be at specific locations?
|
05-21-2012, 07:57 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I don't know what the spot of light is. It could be a smudge on the mirror that shows up on the wall as a spot. Whatever it is, it has to be coming from something in the material world because photons merely reflect what exists.
|
L.O.L. the (P) 'willful ignorance' just keeps getting better, these need to be collected for posterity. Without collected evidence no-one will believe that anyone could be this stupid on purpose. Lessans has so twisted and tangled her brain, so that no argument in the world is going to untie that knothead. Lessans must have really hated her, maybe he wanted a child with a normal brain. Instead he got 'Abbey Normal'.
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 27 (0 members and 27 guests)
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:14 AM.
|
|
|
|