A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, you are. You keep trying to blame your inconsistencies and contradictions on other people's assumptions about the afferent model instead on your own assumptions made during your failed attempts to explain the efferent model.

Bingo, that's it exactly, and why you are so contemptible, peacegirl. Your "model" of seeing is thoroughly incohrent and self-contradictory, and therefore unexplainable. You yourself know this as you desperately flail about and come up with "Voila, we see!" And then, unable to explain your own incoherent and self-contradictory model, you blame your questioners for failing to accept your "efferent" assumptions! But you yourself cannot EXPLAIN how your version of seeing works. And of course, in addition to being inexplicable, your "model," whatever the hell it is, is directly contradicted by the facts of physics and biology.

So, shut the hell up and get lost, peacegirl. Stop blaming others for your own miserable inadequacies. And, above all, you said you were leaving if no one gave you support. No one has given you support. Well?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Einstein knew what he was talking about. He was not arrogant when he used words such as "mathematical" and "scientific". Lessans knew what he was talking about. He was not arrogant. He used the words "mathematical" and "scientific" because they apply. The only difference is that Einstein's discoveries have been recognized and Lessans' discoveries have not.

As has been explained to you a thousand times, you lying ass hat, Einstein's theories make Lessans' claims impossible.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you see why I get upset? This is not what I call taking him seriously. It's making fun of him. You certainly wouldn't be doing this if he had someone of high esteem endorsing him.

Oh yes we would, high esteem means nothing when the person is wrong, now you are just parroting Lessans distain for education and acomplishment. You just don't see the irony, Lessans did not respect those of education and acomplishment, and he is being disrespected for having foolish ideas due to his lack of education and understanding.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Okay natural.atheist, since you are so sure I'm delusional, tell me what his first discovery is about? If you can't do this, then where do you come off saying these things?

There you go again demanding others to explain what you cannot.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only difference is that Einstein's discoveries have been recognized and Lessans' discoveries have not.

And there is a very good reason for that.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Einstein knew what he was talking about. He was not arrogant when he used words such as "mathematical" and "scientific". Lessans knew what he was talking about. He was not arrogant. He used the words "mathematical" and "scientific" because they apply.

Well it's the same old Peacegirl, defensive, combative, and arrogant, declaring Lessans correct with no support at all, just Peacegirl and Lessans are right because they say so.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Well it's the same old Peacegirl, defensive, combative, and arrogant, declaring Lessans correct with no support at all, just Peacegirl and Lessans are right because they say so.

Yep, that's all she's ever done, despite all the proof that he is wrong.

That, and every fifty pages or so, she pulls her diva act, declaring that unless x happens right away, she will leave for good. And then it doesn't happen and she doesn't leave. A liar through and through.

My suggestion would be if she doesn't leave, to leave her. Time she was forced to follow through on what she says for a change. I think everyone should stop responding to her and let her babble to herself.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Reflection is a misnomer because there is nothing being reflected from the surface of the object to the camera. The object reveals itself by absorbing all the non-blue wavelengths and we're able to see the object in real time because of how the brain and eyes operate.

Then what happens to the blue light hitting the object? If the object is absorbing the non-blue light, and the blue light is neither absorbed nor reflected from the object towards the camera, then where does it go?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And my account works due to efferent vision. If our brains did not look through the eyes, as a window, this version of reality would be fantasy. But it's an accurate version.

Your current account of real-time photography is not accurate. It is not even coherent or internally consistent with itself. And it can't work the same as efferent vision, because the film can't "look" through the lens like you think the brain can "look" through the eyes. You have not been able to coherently or consistently explain either real-time photography, efferent vision, or the difference between them.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

My suggestion would be if she doesn't leave, to leave her. I think everyone should stop responding to her and let her babble to herself.

Well there are a few of us who have tried talking past her to each other, but she keeps posting things that need to be countered, and this is now the major effort by many of us. Just to be sure her fantasy is not left unchallenged.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

In other words, it's purely a matter of faith on your part.

So why not be honest and admit that, instead of dishonestly pretending that there's anything at all scientific about your beliefs?

It's not a matter of faith. It's a matter of more empirical testing. That's what I meant by time will tell.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not a matter of faith. It's a matter of more empirical testing. That's what I meant by time will tell.

All the empirical testing has been done for hundreds of years. Your "model" is wrong. Plus, as has repeatedly been pointed out to your Royal Highness, it's biologically wrong; the eye is observed to be an afferent structure.

How do you explain that, peacegirl? Although it is known to be afferent -- Voila! It is efferent?



Now, when are you going to get lost? You said you were leaving if no person supported you. No person has supported you. Was that yet another lie?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In order to get an image, the camera must gather the reflected light of the object, so the object becomes the source for photographic purposes.

The camera does not gather reflected light because the light is not being reflected toward the camera. Yes, the object is the source of the photograph but I don't understand what you mean by "the object becomes the source for photographic purposes." Obviously, without the object there would be no corresponding light on the film.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

David, you are nearly as bad as peacegirl. There is no contradiction.

According to Lessans we see an object instantly so long as it is big enough and bright enough to be seen. Bright enough to be seen means that there is light (either emitted or reflected) at the object. So, the moment that God turns on the sun there is light present at the sun and we can see the sun instantly. Eight and a half minutes later the light from the sun illuminates objects around us (i.e. our neighbors) and they become instantly visible. I know that this is wrong, but where is the contradiction?

As for the camera, this is a little more complicated and not something that Lessans ever addresses directly, but I will take a stab at explaining it in Lessanese. Suppose that your neighbor is holding a camera at the moment that God turns on the sun. The camera ought to be able to take a picture of the sun at that very moment, but not take a picture of anything else. After eight and a half minutes have passed the camera would be able to take a picture of those objects that are now illuminated by the light of the sun. Obviously there is a small problem here. If, for the camera to function, there has to be light at the camera, how could it take a picture of the sun before the light from the sun has reached the camera? The solution to this problem is fairly simple. The lens of the camera, by virtue of being focused on the sun, bridges the distance between the camera and the sun and makes use of the light present at the sun to expose the film and form an image of the sun. This, I believe, is where "instant lighwaves" come in. When the lens of the camera (or the eye) is focused on the sun these instant lightwaves are capured by the lens and directed onto the film or retina, instantly. I might note that this also answers spacemonkey's question about the red/blue ball.

I hope that this has answered all of your questions and that you will now cease and desist from claiming logical contradictions where none exist.

(Note: I would have let peacegirl make this explanation for herself, but I believe that she is busy right now trying to provide a definition for "instant lightwaves" and "instant reflections".)

You did really good Angakuk! I just want to add that because the lens is focused on the object, the lightwaves are instantly at the film because in efferent vision the distance between the Sun and the film is not 93 million miles. That is the actual distance. The apparent distance is the space within the field of view of the lens. In other words, the lightwave is already at the film the instant the lens focuses on the object.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So what is a sensor? They just detect light - it is all they do, and we know this, because we bloody well built them that way. If there is no light except for at the object, how come the sensor detects light?

I never said a sensor can't detect light. Cameras can detect light also. But you're not going to get a picture of the object just by collecting light when the object is out of the field of view. It works the same way; it's just a more modern technology.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You did really good Angakuk!

God, you are such a clueless dipshit.

I just want to add that because the lens is focused on the object, the lightwaves are instantly at the film because in efferent vision the distance between the Sun and the film is not 93 million miles. That is the actual distance. The apparent distance is the space within the field of view of the lens. In other words, the lightwave is already at the film the instant the lens focuses on the object.

"IN efferent vision the distance between the sun and the film is not 93 millions miles."

What IS the distance between them in "efferent vision," space cadet?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you see why I get upset? This is not what I call taking him seriously. It's making fun of him. You certainly wouldn't be doing this if he had someone of high esteem endorsing him.

What makes you think that?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What makes you think that?

She thinks that because, like her silly father, she thinks educated people don't know more than she does and her father did; but that they all get together and support certain theories for no reason at all, just like Lessans. According to this line of "thought" theories in science are just some stuff people vote on, a popularity contest.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Einstein knew what he was talking about. He was not arrogant when he used words such as "mathematical" and "scientific". Lessans knew what he was talking about. He was not arrogant. He used the words "mathematical" and "scientific" because they apply. The only difference is that Einstein's discoveries have been recognized and Lessans' discoveries have not.

I was talking about your arrogance

And Einsteins discoveries have been demonstrated to be correct in myriad ways, and he never once claimed anything he posited was "undeniable" nor did he feel the need to describe things as mathematical or scientific, because it's redundant when what you are offering is actual math and science. This is very scientific science and mathematical math right here! You're absurd sometimes

Lessans ideas can't even be coherently explained by the person who is supposed to be presenting it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

But a pinhole camera doesn't have a lens. Are you saying that a lightwave is captured instantly because of how the hole works too?

Absolutely. The hole in the pinhole camera acts like a lens. If you notice, the object or image is always present. Therefore, even though the hole is not focused on the object, the image is instantly seen as the lightwaves are drawn through the aperture where the image shows up on the back. Here is an interesting tidbit:

In the Renaissance and later centuries, the pinhole was chiefly used for scientific purposes in astronomy and, tailored with a lens, as a drawing aid for artists and amateur painters. In 1475 the Renaissance mathematician and astronomer Paolo Toscanelli placed a bronze ring, which is still in use today, with an aperture in a window in the Cathedral of Florence. On sunny days a solar image is projected through the hole onto the cathedral's floor. At noon, the solar image bisects a "noon-mark" on the floor. The image and noon-mark were used for telling time to the half-second.

http://www.mickybarry.com/PinholePhotography.html

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I was talking about your arrogance

I'm not arrogant.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And Einsteins discoveries have been demonstrated to be correct in myriad ways, and he never once claimed anything he posited was "undeniable" nor did he feel the need to describe things as mathematical or scientific, because it's redundant when what you are offering is actual math and science. This is very scientific science and mathematical math right here! You're absurd sometimes

He was writing for the average layman LadyShea, and he wanted to be very clear that this knowledge was not a philosophy, a theory, or a hypothesis. He was a making a clear distinction between fact and theory. He also made sure that people understood that the words "mathematical", "scientific", and "undeniable" were interchangeable. He was not in your world, so he didn't know that this was not acceptable.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans ideas can't even be coherently explained by the person who is supposed to be presenting it.

I think I'm doing a fairly good job considering I never explained efferent vision in terms of light. I always explained it in terms of the eye and brain.

[LadyShea]

A hole can focus out on an object? Are you reading what you write??

Can any old hole do this? Can I dig a hole in the ground and make it a lens? Is my nostril a lens?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

She thinks that because, like her silly father, she thinks educated people don't know more than she does and her father did; but that they all get together and support certain theories for no reason at all, just like Lessans. According to this line of "thought" theories in science are just some stuff people vote on, a popularity contest.

It seems that way. I'm sure if Einstein endorsed this work, you'd have a different tune entirely.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

A hole can focus out on an object? Are you reading what you write??

A pinhole acts like a lens even though it's not focused directly on the object. It draws in light through the aperture. But the object has to be there. If the object isn't there, what do you think will show up on the back of the pinhole camera? Absolutely nothing. The principles are the same even though it doesn't have real lens.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Can any old hole do this? Can I dig a hole in the ground and make it a lens? Is my nostril a lens?

What is that supposed to mean? I pinhole acts like a lens, a nostril doesn't.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not arrogant.

You really are. Telling other adults what kind of attitude to have and directing them how to react to you ideas and demanding support and interest.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was writing for the average layman LadyShea, and he wanted to be very clear that this knowledge was not a philosophy, a theory, or a hypothesis.

Nor was it scientific or mathematical. It was conclusions he had drawn based on his own thoughts and ideas.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was a making a clear distinction between fact and theory.

Completely arrogant thing to do when he offered nothing on which to base a finding of "fact"

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He also made sure that people understood that the words "mathematical", "scientific", and "undeniable" were interchangeable.

He made a unilateral decision to redefine them to make them interchangeable. Arrogance.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was not in your world, so he didn't know that this was not acceptable.

What do you mean my world? What world do you think I inhabit?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A pinhole acts like a lens even though it's not focused directly on the object.

How can a fucking hole in a cardboard oatmeal container*"act" like anything?

*my first pinhole camera was a Quaker oats cylinder

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It draws in light through the aperture.

How does it "draw in" light? Suction?

And what do you mean "the aperture"? Is that separate from a hole?

Why is one type of hole a lens and another type of hole not a lens?