A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Now you have light photons being physically located three places at once, 1. At the source 2. in the "mirror image" and 3. being absorbed by the eye.

Light photons cannot be somewhere without traveling there. They cannot be absorbed by your eye before reaching Earth. They do not duplicate themselves into a mirror image.

LadyShea, how many times have I said that light travels, so what you're saying right now has no validity whatsoever, not in this account or any account. But when the eyes are looking directly at the object, distance becomes nil, which means that time becomes nil. A mirror image takes less than a nanosecond to get to the photoreceptor. You are still thinking in terms of distance, which is the afferent position. You ARE still on the other side of the highway, and there is no common denominator between the two sides.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, how many times have I said that light travels, so what you're saying right now has no validity whatsoever, not in this account or any account. But when the eyes are looking directly at the object, distance becomes nil, which means that time becomes nil. A mirror image takes less than a nanosecond to get to the photoreceptor. You are still thinking in terms of distance, which is the afferent position. You ARE still on the other side of the highway, and there is no common denominator between the two sides.

None of this addresses the fact that you are putting the same photons in multiple places at one. Dingbat.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, how many times have I said that light travels, so what you're saying right now has no validity whatsoever, not in this account or any account. But when the eyes are looking directly at the object, distance becomes nil, which means that time becomes nil. A mirror image takes less than a nanosecond to get to the photoreceptor. You are still thinking in terms of distance, which is the afferent position. You ARE still on the other side of the highway, and there is no common denominator between the two sides.

Then your side of the highway is in a magical land where there are different laws of physics and light has different properties and distance is negated by looking at things...rather than the real world.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Except that a few weeks ago you agreed that "uncalculable" numbers of photons from the sun fall on the earth every second! "Uncalculable" was your own word. Do you now wish to argue that we can't see the sun even if uncalculable numbers of photons fall on the earth from the sun, every second?

And yet, as I noted earlier, one photon from a source is sufficient to get a response from the retina, and only five to nine photons within 100 ms is necessary for the brain to register an image!

I agree with you, but if we see in real time these photons are going to be detected long before 81/2 minutes. If we're talking about light from a past galaxy, that's a different story altogether. We would be seeing the light (in real time) that has traveled from the distant past, which gives us a lot of information about the galaxy just from the light alone.

Originally Posted by davidm

You don't even care that you routinely contradict yourself, do you? Intellectual slob that you are, you throw out all sorts of nonsense, much if it self-contradictory, and then whine and mewl and demand to be taken seriously!

I'm not mewling and I'm not whining. I'm trying to answer as best as I can given a lot of questions being thrown at me at once. My mistakes don't prove this account wrong. My mistakes only prove that I made a mistake but by no means does this translate to this account being fallacious. Stop jumping the gun David just because you don't like the claim.

[LadyShea]

We would be seeing the light (in real time) that has traveled from the distant past

How are you defining "real time" that it can coexist with "the distant past"?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm trying to answer as best as I can given a lot of questions being thrown at me at once.

No, you're not. That's a blatant lie. You're not making any effort at all to answer questions. You are instead deliberately and quite openly refusing to answer them.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then your side of the highway is in a magical land where there are different laws of physics and light has different properties and distance is negated by looking at things...rather than the real world.

No LadyShea, you are just not getting it, not one bit, but your not getting it doesn't make this claim false. It just means that either I'm not explaining it well (which is absolutely possible), or you're not seeing the plausibility of real time vision based on your present knowledge. And because of this, you call it crap and you want people to think of his other discovery as crap. How horrible is this analysis of yours, especially when this knowledge is life changing, world changing, history changing, and revolutionary all wrapped in one.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I agree with you, but if we see in real time these photons are going to be detected long before 81/2 minutes. If we're talking about light from a past galaxy, that's a different story altogether...

How so? Both involve the arrival of traveling light that has left the surface of a distant star at some time in the past. There's no relevant difference at all.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said the photon that left the Sun did not arrive. It was already absorbed by my eye. Only photons that did not interact with film or the retina made it to Earth at which time they would strike an object and be absorbed or reflected.

No-one asked you about those photons. My questions remain completely unanswered.


Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No LadyShea, you are just not getting it, not one bit, but your not getting it doesn't make this claim false. It just means that either I'm not explaining it well (which is absolutely possible), or you're not seeing the plausibility of real time vision based on your present knowledge. And because of this, you call it crap and you want people to think of his other discovery as crap. How horrible is this analysis of yours, especially when this knowledge is life changing, world changing, history changing, and revolutionary all wrapped in one.

I've explained, in detail, the problems I see with your explanations, and you are unable to address them without invoking impossibilities, contradicting yourself constantly, misusing terms, and fabricating fantastical phenomena, so you evade, lie, and attack instead. I am not the one with a problem.

[Artemis Entreri]

PG thinks that the light is seen in real time as soon as it comes into optical range.
This may be true but first we have to define "optical range."
Optical range is the range at which the light can be "seen" by the eye. Since the photons of light have to come into direct contact the photo receptors in the eye, this means that the optical range of the eye is exactly zero.
So technically yes, when we look at the stars, either with naked eyes or with telescopes, we are seeing light that was emitted in the distance past in "real time" (the instant the light hits our eyes.)
This is true of the stars and sun and planets, we see the light emitted (or reflected from planets) from the past the instant the light from those sources is within optical range, which is physical at the eye.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Artemis

So technically yes, when we look at the stars, either with naked eyes or with telescopes, we are seeing light that was emitted in the distance past in real time (the instant the light hits our eyes

Yes, in our real time...but Lessans used an example indicating he thought time was not relative to the observer. He stated that an observer on Rigel looking through a powerful telescope "at that moment" would see Lessans sitting at his desk writing that sentence. Basically he stated that time on Rigel and time on Earth were the same when it came to vision.

PG also has stated that time is made up and that the past doesn't exist. So how can light from the distant past exist in the present "real time" in her worldview?

[Spacemonkey]

Look how much attention you are getting, Peacegirl! Isn't it wonderful? Why don't you try saying some more stupid stuff and then lead people on by pretending to be willing to address their points, only to then renege and weasel when pressed! Doesn't that sound like fun?

[Artemis Entreri]

Something to point to that verifies that optical range is zero.
In the moon laser experiments the time does not change dependent upon how many photons are received. If PG's theory of "proportional" optical range were correct they would be able to detect the stronger (more photon) pulses of light sooner than weaker ones (fewer photons.)
However, since the optical range is zero, it doesn't matter how strong or bright the returning beam, the time of detection will remain the same.

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, in our real time...but Lessans used an example indicating he thought time was not relative to the observer. He stated that an observer on Rigel looking through a powerful telescope "at that moment" would see Lessans sitting at his desk writing that sentence. Basically he stated that time on Rigel and time on Earth were the same when it came to vision.

PG also has stated that time is made up and that the past doesn't exist. So how can light from the distant past exist in the present "real time" in her worldview?

You're right I should have clarified that relativistic aspect of "real time." It only seems instant to us. If we had no knowledge of how light travels or how eyes work we would think that we saw in "real time" the way PG and Lessans propose.
It's funny that in the start of his book Lessans talks a lot about trying to explain spherical-earth to people who believe in flat-earth. But his theory on sight is more akin to someone proposing to modern man that the earth isn't really round like we have solidly proven and even verified from space, but is actually flat because that's how it appears to someone stuck on the ground.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You ARE still on the other side of the highway, and there is no common denominator between the two sides.

That is very true, there is nothing in the 2 different accounts that is the same. Efferent vision requires different laws of physics, and optics, and properties of light, but you continue to claim that these are the same in the 2 accounts. Now you are admitting that efferent vision does not fit in the known laws of physics and optics and the properties of light that are known in this universe. Which Universe will your fathers "Golden Age" fit into?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by waking up?

If we're talking about light from a past galaxy, that's a different story altogether. We would be seeing the light (in real time) that has traveled from the distant past, which gives us a lot of information about the galaxy just from the light alone.

So now there are 2 different accounts of vision that are valid, efferent and something else that allows us to see objects from light that has traveled from past objects.

For 3 + years on this thread you have asserted that there is NO INFORMATION IN THE LIGHT, now you admit that there is information in the light from distant objects that may no longer be there.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

None of this addresses the fact that you are putting the same photons in multiple places at one. Dingbat.

You are ignorant and you are nasty, a really bad combination. I have no desire to talk to you because your defense is shaky to say the least. If you don't think so, I can understand why you feel this way. But as I said, this issue is not going to be resolved in this thread. I really need a break. You don't want me to take one. Oh well. I will take one anyway.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Dingbat

You are ignorant and you are nasty.

You appreciate my thoughts on this subject and you really respect me.

Originally Posted by Dingbat

I never called you names, but you had to call me names. I have no desire to talk to you. Absolutely none, so don't try to talk to me about Lessans' first discovery. You were wrong here and you will contaminate whatever is discussed there. If you don't think so, then own up to your own confusion and misunderstanding.

As I've already told you, I will continue to call you whatever names I like whenever you are lying to me and refusing to answer my questions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

You're right I should have clarified that relativistic aspect of "real time." It only seems instant to us. If we had no knowledge of how light travels or how eyes work we would think that we saw in "real time" the way PG and Lessans propose.
It's funny that in the start of his book Lessans talks a lot about trying to explain spherical-earth to people who believe in flat-earth. But his theory on sight is more akin to someone proposing to modern man that the earth isn't really round like we have solidly proven and even verified from space, but is actually flat because that's how it appears to someone stuck on the ground.

Oh my god, what are you talking about Artemis? Have you gotten that confused where you think this claim is equivalent to the flat earth controvesry? Please stop right now before you get into territory you know nothing about. Stop putting this discussion into the same category just because you want to make this discussion go away. FYI, I never said that the past doesn't exist, but we can't grab it and see it. We only can remember the past and transcribe what we remember onto paper or recollection. You don't know what you're talking about in regard to this claim, so stop acting like you do, or you will be called out on it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You appreciate my thoughts on this subject and you really respect me.

As I've already told you, I will continue to call you whatever names I like whenever you are lying to me and refusing to answer my questions.

Doesn't matter. Obviously you are more concerned with this discovery than with the discovery that can save lives. I am done talking about light and sight. If you are so sure about your position, this will not give you a problem at all.

[Artemis Entreri]

It is analogous, Lessans proposed a concept of vision that is more in line with someone without knowledge of light, optics, or biology. The efferent model doesn't fit with known biological properties of the eye or the physics of light. It's a step backwards.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

It is analogous, Lessans proposed a concept of vision that is more in line with someone without knowledge of light, optics, or biology. The efferent model doesn't fit with known biological properties of the eye or the physics of light. It's a step backwards.

Not at all Artemis. I am disputing a long standing idea, and that's what it is, an idea. I will not ever give up because these three discoveries will change the world for the better, whether now, or three thousand years from now. This is not up to me. I am just passing on what I know to be true, and God will do the rest.

[Artemis Entreri]

Can you address my comments on the optical range being zero?
Can you explain how optical range can be anything other than zero when light is required to be physical at the eye (or lens, or photograph paper, sensor, ect) in order to interact with the eye (or lens, or photograph paper, sensor, ect)?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

FYI, I never said that the past doesn't exist

Do you want me to gather the quotes, or will you do the honest and honorable thing and retract this falsehood?