A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, the light has already arrived, but the light present represents the object as it was at the time the light was first emitted by, or reflected from, the object. Remember the red/blue ball example? The ball is presently blue. But the arriving light is still red. According to you, both the eyes and the camera use that red light to "see" a blue ball.

No, that's incorrect. If in route the blue ball suddenly turns to red, we would see red and the camera would take a picture of a red ball. The reason there is confusion is because there's no distinction between the light source (the ball itself), and a photon that is being emitted from a light source. They are two separate things.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That makes the detection of red light by the retina completely redundant and pointless, and makes the interaction of red light with the film in the camera to form a blue image completely magical.

But that isn't what's happening. We see a red light because the light source has changed to red. We won't see a blue image, nor will the camera take a picture of a blue ball.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not that I refuse to comprehend.

Originally Posted by spacemonkey

Yes, it really is. You refuse to comprehend.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, it would cause the relativity of time to come into question. I don't see where it would cause the temperature of the Earth to be that hot if the stars are not even in our solar system, nor would the stars be so close together that the night sky would be white. I don't see where E=MC squared would be wrong either.

It's been explained to you. You still don't understand how light works and what light even is. If you studied it, you would understand these extensions and consequences of real time seeing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Once again, that's not true if the object or light source is reflecting or emitting the light that has already arrived. That would mean seeing the object out there would be the same as the light being detected and forming an image on a camera's lens.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Wrong. That the light has already arrived doe not mean that the properties of that light still represent the object as it is in real time. The light has taken time to arrive, so the object will differ from how that light represents it to be, and the image formed by that arrived light will therefore be dated.

You're just repeating the premise that is being disputed.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, I really don't have that right. It's not my work and to just discard a huge section of his book would be unethical, in my eyes. If people can't overlook their bias and would reject all of his book on account of this, what can I say? It's not just that part that people don't like. They don't like the idea that man's will is not free either. In fact, some people resent his discovery on death. They would burn up all of his books so there would be no trace of his writings left, if they had the opportunity. Thank goodness they won't have that opportunity.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So it would be unethical to SAVE THE WORLD FROM ALL EVIL if it means not respecting Lessans' right to have all his 'discoveries' published? His rights as an author are more important than SAVING THE ENTIRE WORLD? Which would Lessans have considered more important?

If I knew that removing his second discovery --- or tweaking it in a way that wouldn't cause such a negative reaction --- would help the cause of world peace, I would leave that section out, at least until his first discovery was confirmed valid and his knowledge was respected. But there are no guarantees. As I said, people don't like anything he's written (not just his discovery on the eyes) and they would rip this book to shreds (all of it) if they could, so I don't think doing this would make a dam bit of difference.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

No, you don't care what anyone thinks, peacegirl, because all of us show that Lessans is not just wrong but nuts, like you are. "Talking normal" for you is saying impossible stuff like, "If god turns on the sun at noon, people on earth will see it instantly but not see their neighbors for eight and a half minutes." Psychotic talk is normal talk for you.

Oh, and btw, contrary to your latest lie, Lessans DID state that no couples would sleep with each other after sex, NOT that they would simply maintain an optional second bed, if they didn't want to sleep together.

He did say that but it was clarified. Can't you read?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

you are about to see how it will be mathematically impossible henceforth for a husband and wife to ever desire one bed for the two of them.That’s right! Sleeping together, except as part of the sexual act, is about to take leave. This is no different than other mathematical problems. ~Lessans page 365

Which words were twisted, peacegirl? Maturin quoted accurately according to my copy of the book. Were you lying or were you mistaken when you just accused him?

BUT HE CLARIFIED THIS IN THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE. IF THEY DON'T MIND SLEEPING IN THE SAME BED BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE SAME DESIRE, THEY WILL HAVE THAT OPTION. IT'S THE OPTION OF SLEEPING ALONE THAT A SEPARATE BED OFFERS, WHICH RESPECTS BOTH PEOPLE. RIGHT NOW IT'S A CONDITION OF MARRIAGE THAT PEOPLE SHOULD WANT TO SLEEP TOGETHER (WHICH MAY CAUSE ONE PERSON TO SACRIFICE HIS DESIRE TO SLEEP ALONE), AND IF THEY DON'T, SOMETHING MUST BE WRONG WITH THEIR MARRIAGE OR THE PERSON WHO DOESN'T WANT THIS. THIS WHOLE EXCERPT IS ALL ABOUT RESPECTING BOTH DESIRES, NOT JUST ONE.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, that's incorrect. If in route the blue ball suddenly turns to red, we would see red and the camera would take a picture of a red ball. The reason there is confusion is because there's no distinction between the light source (the ball itself), and a photon that is being emitted from a light source. They are two separate things.

But that isn't what's happening. We see a red light because the light source has changed to red. We won't see a blue image, nor will the camera take a picture of a blue ball.

Then it is magical in both cases. We know for a fact that it is the specific wavelengths of the light AT THE RETINA which chemically interacts with the receptors to send information to the brain, and AT THE CAMERA which chemically interacts with the film to generate the image. In both cases this light AT THE RETINA/CAMERA is RED, and yet you think it somehow results in a mental/photographic image of a BLUE ball. That is pure magic and makes no sense whatsoever. How can RED light create a BLUE image on photographic film?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're just repeating the premise that is being disputed.

No, I'm pointing out the obvious fact that light cannot change it's wavelength while enroute towards the viewer or camera to match real-time changes at the light source. The arriving light will not switch from red to blue while in transit just to match changes occurring at the object. Physics just doesn't work that way, Janis.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I knew that removing his second discovery --- or tweaking it in a way that wouldn't cause such a negative reaction --- would help the cause of world peace, I would leave that section out, at least until his first discovery was confirmed valid and his knowledge was respected. But there are no guarantees. As I said, people don't like anything he's written (not just his discovery on the eyes) and they would rip this book to shreds (all of it) if they could, so I don't think doing this would make a dam bit of difference.

But you DO know that this nonsense about efferent vision is proving sufficient to reduce Lessans to a laughing stock for anyone familiar with basic science. And yet you won't remove it because your faith in Lessans' work is more important to you than spreading his first 'discovery'.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He did say that but it was clarified. Can't you read?

Look at the two bold-faced passages, idiot, and let's see who can read.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then it is magical in both cases. We know for a fact that it is the specific wavelengths of the light AT THE RETINA which chemically interacts with the receptors to send information to the brain, and AT THE CAMERA which chemically interacts with the film to generate the image. In both cases this light AT THE RETINA/CAMERA is RED, and yet you think it somehow results in a mental/photographic image of a BLUE ball. That is pure magic and makes no sense whatsoever. How can RED light create a BLUE image on photographic film?

No Spacemonkey, only if the light source has changed. In other words, it someone programs a light souce such as a flashlight to suddenly changed colors, we would see the last color programmed. Does that help you at all?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Look at the two bold-faced passages, idiot, and let's see who can read.

Shut up with your calling me an idiot, or we're done. I have offered you every avenue to be civil, but you are so threatened that you can't say one sentence without attacking me, and it's getting old David.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're just repeating the premise that is being disputed.

Originally Posted by Spacmonkey

No, I'm pointing out the obvious fact that light cannot change it's wavelength while enroute towards the viewer or camera to match real-time changes at the light source. The arriving light will not switch from red to blue while in transit just to match changes occurring at the object. Physics just doesn't work that way, Janis.

Changes can happen if they are programmed that way. What are you talking about Spacemonkey, and why are you using my real name? Is this supposed to make you feel more empowered? Seriously, what's the reason for this?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I knew that removing his second discovery --- or tweaking it in a way that wouldn't cause such a negative reaction --- would help the cause of world peace, I would leave that section out, at least until his first discovery was confirmed valid and his knowledge was respected. But there are no guarantees. As I said, people don't like anything he's written (not just his discovery on the eyes) and they would rip this book to shreds (all of it) if they could, so I don't think doing this would make a dam bit of difference.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But you DO know that this nonsense about efferent vision is proving sufficient to reduce Lessans to a laughing stock for anyone familiar with basic science. And yet you won't remove it because your faith in Lessans' work is more important to you than spreading his first 'discovery'.

I don't reduce this to faith. I believe there is and will be evidence to support him. In the meantime, I would appreciate your discussion to not stray off of the subject matter. That would help a lot in the effort to determine what is true and what isn't.

[peacegirl]

If people cannot be civil in here, then this thread is done. I am exhausted from holding up my armor to defend myself and Lessans. My armor is beginning to break. If people cannot give this man a chance at all, then they can continue with their beliefs as if they are truths, and be happy. I truly wish them the best, but this is not the venue for me.

[LadyShea]

[quote]

Originally Posted by Spacmonkey

No, I'm pointing out the obvious fact that light cannot change it's wavelength while enroute towards the viewer or camera to match real-time changes at the light source. The arriving light will not switch from red to blue while in transit just to match changes occurring at the object. Physics just doesn't work that way, Janis.

He's saying that the light that has already left the source when the source was red will remain red. Light that has already been emitted is now separate from the source. If the source changes to blue, new light leaving it will be blue, but the red light that's already traveling stays red.

If a camera detects that red light, it will create an image of a red source. If 10 minutes later the blue light starts to arrive, then it will create an image of a blue source 10 minutes later.

Remember the water hose example? If I put red dye in the water at the source for 5 minutes then switched to blue, and you were a mile away watching water come out of the hose, would you see the blue water coming out the end immediately when I switched it, or would you have to wait for the red water to finish traveling through and out the hose first?

[peacegirl]

[quote=LadyShea;987854]

He's saying that the light that has already left the source when the source was red will remain red. Light that has already been emitted is now separate from the source. If the source changes to blue, new light leaving it will be blue, but the red light that's already traveling stays red.

If a camera detects that red light, it will create an image of a red source. If 10 minutes later the blue light starts to arrive, then it will create an image of a blue source 10 minutes later.

Remember the water hose example? If I put red dye in the water at the source for 5 minutes then switched to blue, and you were a mile away watching water come out of the hose, would you see the blue water coming out the end immediately when I switched it, or would you have to wait for the red water to finish traveling through and out the hose first?

I just said that if the change in color is coming from a light source, we would see the color change.

[LadyShea]

When would you be able to see the color change? When would a camera be able to record the color change? That's the question we are exploring.

Originally Posted by spacemonkey

The ball is presently blue. But the arriving light is still red. According to you, both the eyes and the camera use that red light to "see" a blue ball.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

BUT HE CLARIFIED THIS FLATLY CONTRADICTED HIMSELF IN THE FOLLOWING SENTENCE.

It wasn't actually in the "following sentence" but in the following paragraph. But hey, whatever. That's about as close to accuracy as this particular traveling Fiji Mermaid exhibit ever gets.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then it is magical in both cases. We know for a fact that it is the specific wavelengths of the light AT THE RETINA which chemically interacts with the receptors to send information to the brain, and AT THE CAMERA which chemically interacts with the film to generate the image. In both cases this light AT THE RETINA/CAMERA is RED, and yet you think it somehow results in a mental/photographic image of a BLUE ball. That is pure magic and makes no sense whatsoever. How can RED light create a BLUE image on photographic film?

There was a misunderstanding. I never said if the light is red on film or on the retina that we would see a blue ball. A camera would show red in the picture because the light that is reflecting the color of the light source (which is red) would show a red ball on the film. Remember, the object or light source has to be in view of the camera which means that the light is already present. It's not delayed. Similarly, the same photons striking the retina would allow the person to see the same light source (which is red) as the brain looks through the eyes in real time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

It wasn't actually in the "following sentence" but in the following paragraph. But hey, whatever. That's about as close to accuracy as this particular traveling Fiji Mermaid exhibit ever gets.

He did not contradict himself. Sleeping together as part of the sexual act is a condition that is taken for granted in today's marriages. It would be frowned upon, even by psychologists, for someone to sleep in another bed after sex. It is expected that people are glued together in the marital bed. But he clarified it by saying that if both people want to stay in bed together, that's the horse of another color.

[But]

Peacegirl, if you want to know how light works, you can play around a bit with this applet:
http://falstad.com/emwave2/

Why does light have to be focused on the retina?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There was a misunderstanding. I never said if the light is red on film or on the retina that we would see a blue ball. A camera would show red in the picture because the light that is reflecting the color of the light source (which is red) would show a red ball on the film. Remember, the object or light source has to be in view of the camera which means that the light is already present. It's not delayed. Similarly, the same photons striking the retina would allow the person to see the same light source (which is red) as the brain looks through the eyes in real time.

You are missing the point.

What if there was light source 60 light minutes away, that was turned on as red, then after 30 minutes the source changed to blue (at the source, which is 60 light minutes away).

When would you be able to see and photograph the source as appearing blue?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There was a misunderstanding. I never said if the light is red on film or on the retina that we would see a blue ball. A camera would show red in the picture because the light that is reflecting the color of the light source (which is red) would show a red ball on the film. Remember, the object or light source has to be in view of the camera which means that the light is already present. It's not delayed. Similarly, the same photons striking the retina would allow the person to see the same light source (which is red) as the brain looks through the eyes in real time.

I find it very hard to believe that your continued misunderstanding is not deliberate. If the camera forms a real-time image (as it would have to in order to match real-time efferent vision), then it must detect the RED light at the camera and use that RED light to form a BLUE image. If it instead forms a RED image from the RED light (when the object is presently BLUE) then it is forming a dated image of what the ball PREVIOUSLY looked like. The image will therefore be a different one from what the eyes efferently see. Yes, the light is already present, but that present light has itself taken time to arrive, and represents the object as being the color that it WAS when that light left its surface rather than how it IS at the time that light arrives.

Last time around you tried to claim that color is dated, but everything else is efferent and real-time. But that doesn't work because the exact same point can be made with the pattern of light distribution determining shape. We can even have the ball removed rather than change to blue, in which case the camera would (according to you) use the arriving RED light to form a RED image of the ABSENCE of any ball.

Simple logic and common sense prove that cameras cannot form real time images when they form their images from the properties of arriving light which has taken time to arrive. So either they should form different images from what we see with our eyes (and they DON'T) or efferent vision is simply WRONG.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He's saying that the light that has already left the source when the source was red will remain red. Light that has already been emitted is now separate from the source. If the source changes to blue, new light leaving it will be blue, but the red light that's already traveling stays red.

This goes back to a question I asked her untold numbers of pages ago, a question she predictably ignored. Let's try again. Hey, maybe we're the insane ones, trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different result.

HEY, PEACEGIRL, SUPPOSE I TURN ON A FLASHLIGHT AND SHINE IT FOR A PERIOD OF TIME. THEN I TURN OFF THE FLASHLIGHT. DO THE PHOTONS THAT THE FLASHLIGHT RELEASED, DURING THE TIME THAT IT WAS ON, CONTINUE TO EXIST AFTER THE FLASHLIGHT HAS BEEN TURNED OFF, OR DO THEY DISAPPEAR WHEN THE FLASHLIGHT IS TURNED OFF? TAKE YOUR TIME AND THINK REAL, REAL HARD BEFORE YOU ANSWER!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He did not contradict himself.

Your stupidity and dishonesty is of majestic proportions.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What are you talking about Spacemonkey, and why are you using my real name? Is this supposed to make you feel more empowered? Seriously, what's the reason for this?

My apologies. I had no idea you would be uncomfortable with your name being used here, as you've never objected to that before. But I will use your username if you prefer.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't reduce this to faith. I believe there is and will be evidence to support him.

That itself is a faith claim. You have no evidence but because you have unshakeable (and unsupported) FAITH in Lessans' work, you have FAITH that evidence can and will be found. Your faith is more important to you than either honesty or understanding.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I find it very hard to believe that your continued misunderstanding is not deliberate.

Of course it is deliberate. She is not very bright and partly nuts, but she understands what has been told to her. She's dishonest, that's all. She hasn't got an honest bone in her body.