A revolution in thought

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Reflection means that the image is embedded in the light, correct?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

D'oh! You are correct, of course. I should have known the term would be even more nonsensical.

actually they could be interchanged, but I'm just wondering why you didn't use his wording to begin with if you had read the book.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They get dispersed or they diminish as they get farther and farther from their source. I've said this so many times, I don't know why you're not hearing me.

If they get dispersed then that means they have bounced off the object and are traveling away from it, which is exactly what you previously claimed to be contesting. It's not that I'm not hearing you, but rather that you quite literally have no idea what you've been saying.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Reflection means that the image is embedded in the light, correct? Lessans saw that the reflection of light over space/time does not have the image embedded at all.

No, that is not correct. No-one is saying that anything is embedded in the light. Lessans was arguing against something that no-one has ever believed.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sorry, but that is what is an assumption. You don't just get to announce this as if it's fact.

It's not an assumption, and it is a fact. It is an empirically observed fact.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you are sincerely interested in the reasons for why he came to these conclusions, why are you trying to make fun of him? It isn't going to endear you to me, nor will I want to explain anything to you. If that's what your goal is you're doing a good job.

It's not HIS conclusions we're disputing here, but YOURS. Lessans never claimed any of these absurd things about light and photons that you've been saying on his behalf.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say that. I only said that the object that is reflecting this light must be present in order to photons to show up on the retina. Are you that closed off that you can't even understand what I'm saying?

You DID say that. You said exactly that. You said: "An object can be revealed through non-absorbed photons without those photons being reflected through space/time, even while the full spectrum of light is reflected." So again I ask you, how can the FULL spectrum be reflected when PART of that spectrum has been absorbed?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nobody would question it who even remotely understands the laws of thermodynamics and the basics of light physics. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Light travels unless it comes into contact with matter that absorbs it.

Light diminishes the farther it gets from its source whether it is deflected, refracted, or just loses steam.

Why does light intensity between a light source (like torch) and a target decrease as distance is increased? - Yahoo! Answers

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If they get dispersed then that means they have bounced off the object and are traveling away from it, which is exactly what you previously claimed to be contesting. It's not that I'm not hearing you, but rather that you quite literally have no idea what you've been saying.

No, that is not correct. No-one is saying that anything is embedded in the light. Lessans was arguing against something that no-one has ever believed.

It's not an assumption, and it is a fact. It is an empirically observed fact.

It's not HIS conclusions we're disputing here, but YOURS. Lessans never claimed any of these absurd things about light and photons that you've been saying on his behalf.

You DID say that. You said exactly that. You said: "An object can be revealed through non-absorbed photons without those photons being reflected through space/time, even while the full spectrum of light is reflected." So again I ask you, how can the FULL spectrum be reflected when PART of that spectrum has been absorbed?

The confusion here is due to your belief that the partial spectrum goes on and on ad infinitum just because some of that energy has been absorbed, but the absorption doesn't reflect a partial spectrum forever and ever and ever. When you think about it, it's totally irrational. The non-absorbed photons last as long as the object is in view. When it gets beyond the light's ability to reveal said object because it is too distant, the light does not have the capacity to reveal said object, and the full spectrum of light resumes.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're still quite deliberately ignoring the problem. I didn't say anything about reflecting a pattern, and time becomes a factor as soon as you say the photons at one place came from some other place - because that means they had to be located at that other place at some previous time.

The problem again: On your account the photons at the retina could not have been located at the Sun because there is no time at which they could have been located there. The photons cannot be located at the Sun at the very same time that these very same photons are also at the retina, and they cannot have been at the Sun before this time because the Sun was not ignited before then. Your claim that there will be photons instantaneously at the retina at the very moment the Sun is first ignited is inconsistent with your claim that they came from the Sun. The problem has nothing at all to do with reflected or traveling images. It only concerns your impossible claims about where light can be at different points in time. If the light is instantly at the retina as soon as the newly ignited Sun ignites, then this light cannot possibly have come from the Sun.

Yes you are, no you can't, and yes it does. You have nothing but faith, and you are constantly asking us to share it by believing things you cannot support. All you are doing is begging us to share your irrational faith in your father's ability. If you want people to believe his 'observations' were correct then you will need to find someway to support them with either evidence or arguments. If you can't, then you lose.

You never asked me that question before. But I did explain to you that only tautologies can be known to be true just by considering them, and that your father's claims about conscience are not tautologies - so if you want them accepted you will need to support them. His claim that conscience has some innate potential perfection that it would achieve in the absence of blame is a presupposition because his arguments require this to be true, and yet he did not argue for or support this claim in any way. Unlike you, I will not just accept that his claims or 'observations' are correct because he said so. You need to be able to support them if you expect anyone to believe them.

Say it all you like, it still isn't true. Tautologies such as those you listed can indeed be self-evident and seen to be true just by considering them carefully. But nothing of interest can be proved from them. His presuppositions concerning conscience however, are not of this sort. They are not tautologies, and so they are not self-evident. If you expect people to accept them then you'll need to start supporting them. Lessans never bothered to, and that is why no-one finds his claims convincing.

I didn't threaten you. What are you talking about?

Your reason for sending it never had anything to do with me reading it, so why do you keep using this bogus excuse?

Again I'll ask you to show me where you think I said this. Why do you keep making shit up?

Yes, I think the book is worthless. I've never hidden that or claimed anything different. Yet this has no bearing at all on the reason you had for sending me the book, which was not being sent for my benefit but to help you get it read by those in a position to validate it. If you have any integrity at all, you'll either send the book as per our agreement, or if you really can't financially afford to keep your word, just stop making up bogus excuses and say so.

I am so frustrated with you Spacemonkey. I am going to have to try to find that post because there's no reason for me to send you the book with your attitude. You will only try to confirm with the university (probably the one you went to) that this book is worthless. You're totally and completely biased and I'm not going to spend my money in this direction just to prove that I'm not a liar.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The confusion is because you believe that the partial spectrum goes on forever just because some of that energy has been absorbed, but the absorption doesn't reflect a partial spectrum forever and ever and ever. When you think about it, it's totally irrational. The non-absorbed photons last as long as the object is in view. When it gets beyond the light's ability to reveal said object, the light no longer has the capacity to reveal the object, thus the full spectrum of light resumes.

We've already addressed this claim a million times before, but before we get into it again, can we at least confirm two things:

(i) You are not here disputing that the non-absorbed photons bounce off and travel away from the object, right?

(ii) You are not claiming that the full spectrum of light is reflected from the surface of the object, right?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light diminishes the farther it gets from its source whether it is deflected, refracted, or just loses steam.

Why does light intensity between a light source (like torch) and a target decrease as distance is increased? - Yahoo! Answers

That's light intensity, peacegirl, and a pretty basic result of simple geometry. You've had this explained to you before. As usual, you've not listened. All this is, is the light spreading out over an area.

You don't understand what you are reading, probably because you have never attempted to even understand basic physics. Here's a hint: Yahoo Answers is not a replacement for a science education.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am so frustrated by you Spacemonkey. I am going to try to find that post...

About fucking time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...because there's no reason for me to send you the book with your attitude. You will only try to confirm with the university that this book is worthless because you're totally and completely biased.

My attitude here is irrelevant to your sending or not sending the book, and I won't have anything to do with confirming or disconfirming anyone's evaluation of the book. I will simply donate it to the philosophy department library as I promised. Some of us know how to keep our word.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

actually they could be interchanged, but I'm just wondering why you didn't use his wording to begin with if you had read the book.

Everything is a conspiracy to you isn't it? Although I agree with you that it seems very unlikely that someone would put themselves to that sort of excruciating eye-bleed... several times! It is like claiming I spent several mutli-hour sessions poking myself in the eye with a stick!

And yet, I did indeed read your screed, several times even.

[ChristinaM]

Peacegirl, I don't have the science or philosophy background that these people do but I do have a lot of experience at evaluating all sorts of projects that are stuck in a mess and figuring out how to get them back on track. You and this little project of yours are about as stuck as anything that I've ever seen and I've seen some horrifying messes. I know that you don't care and never take advice but it's too early to go grocery shopping so I'm going to give you some anyway.

- You've spent a decade trying to gain acceptance for your father's ideas from scientists and philosophers. Not only have you not convinced even one person, you've made a laughingstock of yourself and most people only follow your threads for amusement. Obviously you're trying to market this to the wrong audience and (as Lady Shea has already said) if you want to go this route then it's time to hit the new age forums where they're more open to things with no empirical evidence. What you've been doing for the last decade has not achieved anything other than to give you a social life of sorts and the new agers are usually pretty sappy-nice to everyone. If you still imagine that there are philosophers out there that will be of assistance then take it to that group that has been mentioned over and over for an evaluation but they're just going to tell you the same things. Stop stalling.

- We all know that you know at some level that the "undeniable scientific and mathematical truth" of this stuff is neither undeniable, scientific or mathematical so just stop using those words.

- IMO there is no way to save Lessan's work from this kind of ridicule because at the very least it's outdated in terms of scientific knowledge and often bigoted when it comes to women. If you're not willing to give up and you refuse to change his words you might want to just stick his book on your website and consider writing your own summary of the book with the core ideas but acknowledging that he was a man of his times and social attitudes toward women have changed tremendously since then. Do not use the words "mathematical". "undeniable" or "science" anywhere in your summary. Get someone to help you with search engine optimization for your website so that there is a chance in hell that someone will find it. SEO is no big deal but you could probably turn it into one on your own so just let someone else do it.

- If you won't take the time to do that then get a damn red pen and go through that thing and remove every whining reference to the way that the scientific and political communities treated him (announcing that everyone thinks that you're crazy and uneducated isn't the best way to set yourself up with credibility), get rid of every bit of self-aggrandizing claptrap, normalize it for gender with better examples, remove the entire section on the eyes and find a way to get there via softer disciplines like sociology. Leave in the sex robes though - that stuff is funny and humor can't hurt.

- What I really, really think that you should do is click on that little X at the top right hand corner of your screen and go take a nice long walk in the sunshine and remember how to enjoy real life again. Make it your goal to make one new friend and never, ever mention this stuff to them so that you're forced to get it out of your head for just a little while. Get a puppy or a kitten or something to love that is real and right now and makes you happy. That, or just keep doing the same thing for another decade because you're some sort of strange masochist but at least admit that it isn't about the book, just about getting endless negative attention.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light diminishes the farther it gets from its source whether it is deflected, refracted, or just loses steam.

Why does light intensity between a light source (like torch) and a target decrease as distance is increased? - Yahoo! Answers

As Dragar noted, that is about intensity, which has been explained and even illustrated for you. Remember the inverse square law? It has nothing to do with losing steam. Reflection off matter it encounters may change it's direction is all, but it will never stop traveling until or unless it is absorbed by matter it encounters

[Vivisectus]

The confusion here is due to your belief that the partial spectrum goes on and on ad infinitum just because some of that energy has been absorbed, but the absorption doesn't reflect a partial spectrum forever and ever and ever. When you think about it, it's totally irrational. The non-absorbed photons last as long as the object is in view. When it gets beyond the light's ability to reveal said object because it is too distant, the light does not have the capacity to reveal said object, and the full spectrum of light resumes.

The confusion here is due to your belief that the partial spectrum goes on and on ad infinitum just because some of that energy has been absorbed,

This does not even make sense to you, does it? You think someone thinks that the absorbtion of energy makes light travel?

but the absorption doesn't reflect a partial spectrum forever and ever and ever.

Why yes, it seems you do!

The non-absorbed photons last as long as the object is in view.

Photons appear and disappear instantly, because of distant objects!

When it gets beyond the light's ability to reveal said object because it is too distant, the light does not have the capacity to reveal said object

True Lessanese logic: light cannot reveal something, because it cannot reveal something!

and the full spectrum of light resumes

...and then, by magic, the light becomes normal light again!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light diminishes the farther it gets from its source whether it is deflected, refracted, or just loses steam.

Why does light intensity between a light source (like torch) and a target decrease as distance is increased? - Yahoo! Answers

Light will not "run out of Steam" it will keep traveling at the same speed with the same energy till it is absorbed by an object and converted into another form of energy, usually heat. Peacegirl, Every time you post something like this about light, you just illustrate how little you know about the physics of electromagnetic energy.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The confusion here is due to your belief that the partial spectrum goes on and on ad infinitum just because some of that energy has been absorbed, but the absorption doesn't reflect a partial spectrum forever and ever and ever. When you think about it, it's totally irrational. The non-absorbed photons last as long as the object is in view. When it gets beyond the light's ability to reveal said object because it is too distant, the light does not have the capacity to reveal said object, and the full spectrum of light resumes.

It has been observed and tested and proven that if full spectrum light strikes an object some of the light will be absorbed and the rest will be reflected and travel away. If an object that appears 'red' is struck by full spectrum light, it will absorb the other parts of the spectrum and reflect the red part of the spectrum. These photons that are the red part of the spectrum will then travel indefinately till they strike another object. Interestingly if that red light strikes a blue object, that object will absorb the red light and there will be nothing to reflect, but paint and light are not perfect, and there will be some illumination unless the conditions are very carefully controled. It has also been demonstrated that once the light is reflected that light is independent of the object and the object does not need to be there.
Peacegirl, the people on this forum are hearing (or reading) every thing you post, but the problem is not that they do not understand you, the problem is that you are wrong and they are trying to correct your mistaken ideas. many of the things you say are just wrong and can be demonstrated to be wrong if you would just look and see.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, he meant the exact opposite. The sarcasm isn't appreciated.

Not so! I did indeed think it was awesome, still do think it is awesome, and am generally extremely happy that we are back on this subject, which is always sure to be a veritable cornucopia of the most delightful nonsense.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

We've already addressed this claim a million times before, but before we get into it again, can we at least confirm two things:

(i) You are not here disputing that the non-absorbed photons bounce off and travel away from the object, right?

He said that images are not reflected, which means they don't travel through space/time lightyears after the object is no longer present. The non-absorbed light does not have the capacity to travel over space/time which would allow us to detect an image strictly from the light. I really don't know why you're having such a hard time understanding his explanation.

p. 117 Once again certain facts have been confused and all the reasoning
except for light traveling at a high rate of speed are completely
fallacious. Scientists made the assumption that since the eyes are a
sense organ it followed that light must reflect an electric image of
everything it touches which then travels through space and is received
by the brain through the eyes. What they tried to make us believe is
that if it takes 8 minutes for the light from the sun to reach us it
would take hundreds of years for the reflection of Columbus to reach
Rigel, even with a powerful telescope. But why would they need a
telescope?

They reasoned that since it takes longer for the sound from an
airplane to reach us when 15,000 feet away than when 5000; and
since it takes longer for light to reach us the farther it is away when
starting its journey, light and sound must function alike in other
respects — which is false — although it is true that the farther away
we are from the source of sound the fainter it becomes, as light
becomes dimmer when its source is farther away. If the sound from
a plane even though we can’t see it on a clear day will tell us it is in the
sky, why can’t we see the plane if an image is being reflected towards
the eye on the waves of light?

The answer is very simple. An image
is not being reflected. We cannot see the plane simply because the
distance reduced its size to where it was impossible to see it with the
naked eye, but we could see it with a telescope. We can’t see bacteria
either with the naked eye, but we can through a microscope. The
actual reason we are able to see the moon is because there is enough
light present and it is large enough to be seen. The explanation as to
why the sun looks to be the size of the moon — although much larger
— is because it is much much farther away, which is the reason it
would look like a star to someone living on a planet the distance of
Rigel. This proves conclusively that the distance between someone
looking, and the object seen, has no relation to time because the
images are not traveling toward the optic nerve on waves of light,
therefore it takes no time to see the moon, the sun, and the distant
stars.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

(ii) You are not claiming that the full spectrum of light is reflected from the surface of the object, right?

No, I am not saying that. Obviously, if it was the full spectrum we couldn't see the object which the non-absorbed photons reveal as part of the spectrum gets absorbed.

[Vivisectus]

What the hell are you talking about Vivisectus? The brain takes a photograph of the person and the name that distinguishes him from others. When the person sees that image, he is then able to recognize him because the relation has been stored in his brain which he is able to recall and project. A new haircut and aging (for the most part) doesn't cause the photograph that was originally taken to be so different as to no be able to recognize this person.

This, also, is awesome. Let me show you how awesome.

The brain takes a photograph of the person and the name that distinguishes him from others.

So it is the name that distinguishes one person from another? Does this mean we cannot distinguish people we have not been introduced to? Do all people we do no know a name for look like vaguely human-shaped objects to us, we just project the word "Human" on to them? This is worrying!

This is at least two awesome.

When the person sees that image, he is then able to recognize him because the relation has been stored in his brain which he is able to recall and project.

But I can see you were just warming up! Now we see someone. This information reaches the brain, which compares it to the photographs of names and people that it has stored. Then, when the brain has found the photograph of the person we have already seen, it recognizes it, and projects an image on to something we have already seen... only this is supposed to be the real seeing, which the theory says replaces the other kind!

So now we have afferent sight, which we use to see and recongize people with, which is then replaced by efferent sight which comes after, but is really the way we see, but requires us to see things before we can see them!

At least 4 awesome.

[peacegirl]

I just happened to read this which is in keeping with our conversation, sort of.

Smelly Socks and Shoulder Pads

According to Dr. Karen Halligan, director of veterinary services for the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, Los Angeles, hundreds of pets require surgery every year to remove articles of clothing and similar items from their stomachs and intestines.

There was the toy Poodle that swallowed a tube sock. Dr. Halligan made the dog vomit and removed a foot-long sock from the tiny dog. Dirty socks are among the most commonly ingested items of clothing. Your pet really loves your socks because they smell like you.

There was also the Great Dane who required multiple surgeries after eating shoulder pads.

http://healthypets.mercola.com/sites...paign=20130614

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I am not saying that. Obviously, if it was the full spectrum we couldn't see the object which the non-absorbed photons reveal as part of the spectrum gets absorbed.

Well obviously.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This, also, is awesome. Let me show you how awesome.

So it is the name that distinguishes one person from another? Does this mean we cannot distinguish people we have not been introduced to? Do all people we do no know a name for look like vaguely human-shaped objects to us, we just project the word "Human" on to them? This is worrying!

Of course we know whether we're looking at a human being, but it will be difficult to distinguish individuals without identifying them through their individual characteristics which requires language.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This is at least two awesome.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But I can see you were just warming up! Now we see someone. This information reaches the brain, which compares it to the photographs of names and people that it has stored. Then, when the brain has found the photograph of the person we have already seen, it recognizes it, and projects an image on to something we have already seen... only this is supposed to be the real seeing, which the theory says replaces the other kind!

It's not like the brain has to go searching for the information. It immediately recognizes the person because the relation between the name and the individual has already been created.

p. 125 In other words, as she learns these names and words her
brain takes a picture of the objects symbolized and when she sees
these differences again she projects the word or name, but the brain
will not take any picture until a relation is formed. Consequently,
these differences that exist in the external world which are not identifiable
through taste, touch, smell, or sounds are identifiable only because they are
related to words, names or slides that we project for recognition.
If we would lose certain names or words we would have amnesia
because when we see these ordinarily familiar differences we are unable
to project the words or names necessary for recognition.

By the same reasoning, the word Chinese develops not only a
negative of differences but of similarities, consequently, when someone
is not acquainted with the differences that exist among this race he
only sees that they resemble each other. But if we would live among
this group and separate them by their individual names, we would
soon see their differences and not their similarities.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So now we have afferent sight, which we use to see and recongize people with, which is then replaced by efferent sight which comes after, but is really the way we see, but requires us to see things before we can see them!

You do have a way with words, but they're all twisted and meant to confuse and not what I'm saying at all. I call that the opposite of

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Well obviously.

So then why did he even ask that question? He must think I'm an ignoramus or something.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Light will not "run out of Steam" it will keep traveling at the same speed with the same energy till it is absorbed by an object and converted into another form of energy, usually heat. Peacegirl, Every time you post something like this about light, you just illustrate how little you know about the physics of electromagnetic energy.

If an object is too far away the light will not bring the image of said object to the retina/film. The light would have diminished to the point where the object can no longer be seen, and there's nothing in the light itself (beyond the optical range where the object can be seen in real time) that would produce an image of a past object or event.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

As Dragar noted, that is about intensity, which has been explained and even illustrated for you. Remember the inverse square law? It has nothing to do with losing steam. Reflection off matter it encounters may change it's direction is all, but it will never stop traveling until or unless it is absorbed by matter it encounters

This only confirms what Lessans is saying. Non-absorbed light due to the inverse square law cannot reveal the object if the light travels beyond the point where there are no more photons at the film/retina due to distance.

In technical terms, an inverse-square law is defined as “any physical law stating that some physical quantity or strength is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the source of that physical quantity.” With a definition like that, you’re probably wondering what on earth this could possibly have to do with photography (and no one could blame you). Inverse-square laws apply to many, many things in the world. Today however, we’re only going to be looking at one of them: light.

Rules for Perfect Lighting: Understanding The Inverse-Square Law