A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Any port in a storm.

I'm responding to the most ridiculous things people have said about me. I have a right to do that. They're not going to get away with this garbage. I am not discussing the book anymore.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have made many attempts, and just because you don't comprehend what I'm saying, you shift the blame to me by calling me mentally ill. Do you think that's fair play?

You made ONE attempt to answer these questions, and contradicted yourself due to not comprehending what they were asking. If you think that was sufficient then yes, you are mentally ill.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

None of this is what I am asking about. And of course I don't get it. I don't get where these photons at the retina came from or how they got to be at the retina. The reason I don't get this is that you keep refusing to tell me or answer any of my questions about it.

Did the photons which are at the retina (at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited) come from the Sun? [Yes or No]

Were they ever located at the Sun? [Yes or No]

If so, when were they located at the Sun? [State a time relative to the moment of ignition of the Sun]

If not, where did they come from? [State a physical object or location]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If the photons at the retina at 12:00 were already emitted by the Sun, then when were they so emitted?

If before 12:00 then you have the Sun emitting photons before it is ignited, which is a contradiction in terms.

If at 12:00 then you have them in two places at once - both at the retina and at the surface of the Sun where they are being emitted.

This is not merely some minor technical problem with your account. It shows the whole idea to be plainly impossible. And for years now you have not made any attempt at all to resolve it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not discussing the book anymore.

So you've just come back to insult us some more then?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So you've just come back to insult us some more then?

No, I've come back to answer to the insults that have been spewed at me. Wow, how you twist things around is truly phenomenol. Don't turn this into a victim mentality to further attack me and make me look like something that is unrecognizable to me.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I've come back to answer to the insults that have been spewed at me. Wow, how you twist things around is truly phenomenol. Don't turn this into a victim mentality to further attack me and make me look like something that is unrecognizable to me.

You'll have no more luck convincing us that you're sane than that Lessans was correct. You demonstrate your mental dysfunction every time you post, by either evading reasonable questions or contradicting yourself on the very rare instances when you actually try to answer them.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You'll have no more luck convincing us that you're sane than that Lessans was correct. You demonstrate your mental dysfunction every time you post, by either evading reasonable questions or contradicting yourself on the very rare instances when you actually try to answer them.

It doesn't matter what you think Spacemonkey. You're no longer relevant. BTW, I have not contradicted myself whatsoever. We can see the sun as long as it is bright enough to be seen, which does not require photons to travel 186,000 miles per second to Earth. And I will not be sucked into this conversation again due to your namecalling. Game over.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm responding to the most ridiculous things people have said about me. I have a right to do that. They're not going to get away with this garbage. I am not discussing the book anymore.

They have the right to say things about you, and you have a right to respond. They will "get away with it" and it will drag out as long as you keep coming back to fuel the speculation.

If you left and didn't respond, eventually this thread would die....as it did on the other forums. If you left and didn't read it anymore, you wouldn't have anything to get upset about.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't matter what you think Spacemonkey. You're no longer relevant. BTW, I have not contradicted myself whatsoever. We can see the sun as long as it is bright enough to be seen, which does not require photons to travel 86,000 miles per second to Earth. And I will not be sucked into this conversation again due to your namecalling. Game over.

The question never was when would we see the Sun, Lessans was very clear that we would see the Sun at noon the instant it was turned on. The question is when would light photons be physically present on the surface of camera film or be physically present on our retina if the Sun was newly turned on at noon and we could see it. If they are present on camera film at noon, where did they come from and how did they get there.

Lessans didn't seem to think light photons needed to physically touch our eyes for us to see, and he made no mention of photography.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

BTW, I have not contradicted myself whatsoever.

Yes, you have. The one time you actually tried to answer my questions you said the photons at the retina when the Sun is ignited (at 12:00) were also at the surface of the Sun at 12:00, and that you were not putting photons at two locations at the same time. That is a contradiction.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And I will not be sucked into this conversation again...

Yes you will.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

They have the right to say things about you, and you have a right to respond. They will "get away with it" and it will drag out as long as you keep coming back to fuel the speculation.

If you left and didn't respond, eventually this thread would die....as it did on the other forums. If you left and didn't read it anymore, you wouldn't have anything to get upset about.

I probably would, but I am not going to let people lie about me even when I'm not here. Is that fair? No, it isn't. These are total lies LadyShea. People are not going to get away with this, as long as I'm able to fight back.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, you have. The one time you actually tried to answer my questions you said the photons at the retina when the Sun is ignited (at 12:00) were also at the surface of the Sun at 12:00, and that you were not putting photons at two locations at the same time. That is a contradiction.

Yes you will.

Keep believing, it may work!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The question never was when would we see the Sun, Lessans was very clear that we would see the Sun at noon the instant it was turned on. The question is when would light photons be physically present on the surface of camera film or be physically present on our retina if the Sun was newly turned on at noon and we could see it. If they are present on camera film at noon, where did they come from and how did they get there.

Lessans didn't seem to think light photons needed to physically touch our eyes for us to see, and he made no mention of photography.

Bullshit. I have said over and over that efferent vision allows light to be at the retina. There is no gap in distance, which you are unable to wrap your mind around. Sorry about that, but that doesn't make these claims inaccurate.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Keep believing, it may work!

Keep lying and evading, it's all you can do!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Bullshit. I have said over and over that efferent vision allows light to be at the retina. There is no gap in distance, which you are unable to wrap your mind around. Sorry about that, but that doesn't make these claims inaccurate.

There is a gap in distance. It physically exists (can be measured) and therefore must be accounted for in your model. You can't simply dismiss it and then maintain there is no violation of various physical laws. Negating the distance, or saying it is not there is invoking magic.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have said over and over that efferent vision allows light to be at the retina.

But you've never once explained where that light came from or how it got there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no gap in distance, which you are unable to wrap your mind around.

There is an actual gap of millions of miles between the Sun and the retina on Earth, so if the photons at the retina came from the Sun then you need to explain how they got from there to the retina without traveling this intervening distance and without teleporting. And if those photons didn't come from the Sun then you need to explain where they did come from.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is a gap in distance. It physically exists (can be measured) and is therefore must be accounted for in your model. You can't simply dismiss it and then maintain there is no violation of various physical laws. Negating the distance, or saying it is not there is invoking magic.

No LadyShea. There is no gap if the object is bright enough to be seen which places the object in the optic range. You are not getting it at all.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh shut up NA. I wish people were banned. You would be the first to go. It is you who doesn't let up. Talk about consistency. You win the prize of being the most obnoxious poster on this thread.

Damn! I was going for that, now I've got to play catch up.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People are not going to get away with this, as long as I'm able to fight back.

Actually people are going to 'get away with it', the posts are all still here and anyone with a working brain can read them and see how silly Lessans ideas are and check for themselves how sound all the criticism is. Much of what has been posted countering Lessans has been referenced to outside sources that can be verified by anyone who cares to check. Lessans claims and your support have nothing to back them up but Lessans book, and that is so full on errors that anyone who cares to look can see, for example Spacemonkey, LadyShea, TLR, Koan, just to name a few. It's sad that you couldn't or wouldn't answer questions or address criticism, and when people called you on that failure, you resorted to attacking the person rather than the topic. You ignore the content and attack the person and now are upset when others 'reply in kind'.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not discussing the book anymore.

You haven't been "Discussing" the book at all, you only post sections of it and tell people to read it till they understand (agree with) it. The discussion has been only from the other side, that have been pointing out the errors in the book, which you then refuse to acknowledge or address.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No LadyShea. There is no gap if the object is bright enough to be seen which places the object in the optic range. You are not getting it at all.

Everyone 'gets' and understands 'what' you are saying, the problem is that what you are saying is physically impossible without changing the known laws of physics. We can measure the 'gap' between the light source and the retina, yet you say there is no 'gap'. That needs to be explained, not just asserted that it is so. How does the brain/eye negate the distance in efferent vision?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Actually people are going to 'get away with it', the posts are all still here and anyone with a working brain can read them and see how silly Lessans ideas are and check for themselves how sound all the criticism is. Much of what has been posted countering Lessans has been referenced to outside sources that can be verified by anyone who cares to check. Lessans claims and your support have nothing to back them up but Lessans book, and that is so full on errors that anyone who cares to look can see, for example Spacemonkey, LadyShea, TLR, Koan, just to name a few. It's sad that you couldn't or wouldn't answer questions or address criticism, and when people called you on that failure, you resorted to attacking the person rather than the topic. You ignore the content and attack the person and now are upset when others 'reply in kind'.

No doc, I have not attacked people until they attacked me. Don't rewrite history. I have made every attempt to answer questions all along, but the attacks on my character have been nonstop. You have been one of the ring leaders.

I have never contradicted myself. It is not a contradiction to say that man is compelled to do what he does (because his will is not free), although nothing can make him do anything against his will. It is not a contradiction to say that in the efferent account we can see objects as long as they are bright enough and large enough to be seen. This means that anything we are able to see places our eyes within the object's optical range.

This thread will be a reminder of what I went through to try to bring this discovery to light. It will be interesting for people to read in the future, if it's still online.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Everyone 'gets' and understands 'what' you are saying, the problem is that what you are saying is physically impossible without changing the known laws of physics. We can measure the 'gap' between the light source and the retina, yet you say there is no 'gap'. That needs to be explained, not just asserted that it is so. How does the brain/eye negate the distance in efferent vision?

Again, there is no gap in the efferent account. There is a gap in the afferent account. You don't seem to understand the difference in these two models, which means that you keep trying to fit a square peg into a round hole.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

You haven't been "Discussing" the book at all, you only post sections of it and tell people to read it till they understand (agree with) it. The discussion has been only from the other side, that have been pointing out the errors in the book, which you then refuse to acknowledge or address.

The problem with this forum is that free speech means anything goes. It is not conducive for me to discuss such an important piece of knowledge in this kind of atmosphere. I really don't know how I lasted this long. Must have been God's grace.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not a contradiction to say that in the efferent account we can see objects as long as they are bright enough and large enough to be seen. This means that anything we are able to see places our eyes within the object's optical range.

Objects don't have an optical range

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Again, there is no gap in the efferent account. There is a gap in the afferent account.

There is a measurable distance that exists in physical reality. Human visual systems can't change that.