A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Again, your whole argument seems to hinge on the idea that they eyes are not do not have afferent nerves. On what evidence is this based?
From all data I can find the optical nerve is afferent, sending signals from photo reactive cells in the eye to the brain.
If modern medical knowledge is true then the very basis of your argument is invalid.
Have you produced any evidence to the contrary?

He did not believe the external stimuli in the case of the eyes were similar to the other senses. He said there is no similar afferent nerve ending. Looking at afferent nerve endings is not the only way to prove that there may be something to this. If people would start taking this claim seriously, maybe scientists would do the necessary experiments even if it contradicts what they believe to be true. Isn't that what science is all about? There are signals being sent from the optic nerve, granted, but to conclude that these signals are transduced and decoded into images (inside the brain) that are seen as normal sight is not conclusive.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You did not see two posts, because there has never been two posts. Where is the second post, Peacegirl?

Paranoid? You've lied, and I'm calling you on it. There's nothing paranoid about that.

Delusional? I'm not the one making up nonsense about imaginary second posts.

Stop changing the subject. Either show us where the second post is, or apologize for your shameless lying.

I refuse to be told I am a liar. I know what happened and I will not take anymore time out of my day defending myself to YOU. You have an agenda Spacemonkey. You can think whatever you want but don't expect me to take the bait.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

It's trivially easy to test. Every time we measure the speed of light, we observe a delay of the light reaching our eyes. We've been doing these sorts of tests for hundreds of years, since the moons of Jupiter. All of this has been explained to her about a million times.

The Lone Ranger, a biologist, wrote her a 33-page paper with color graphics explaining light and sight to the atomic level. She refused to read it.

David doesn't seem to understand that he is arguing over something that Lessans never denied; that light travels at a finite speed.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

You could do it with astronauts on the Moon. They'd look for a bright laser shone at them from the night side of Earth: as soon as they saw the laser switched on, they'd switch on their own laser shining back at the Earth. The astronauts and the experimenters on Earth would both require telescopes to assist their vision but they would be using their eyes, not cameras.

If Lessans is right you'd expect to see a total delay of maybe a quarter of a second (the reaction time of the astronauts on seeing the laser added to the reaction time of the experimenters on Earth pressing the stopwatch when they see the Moon laser light up).

If science is right, then you'd expect to see the 'Lessans time' extended by an extra 2.5 seconds (the time light takes to make the round trip to the Moon and back).

Of course, this experiment has been done many times already using scientific instruments rather than eyes. To convince peacegirl, you'd need human eyes separated by enough distance from the light to give a significant time delay - but I expect even if you did this experiment, peacegirl would claim that it it was not valid for some reason and that further testing would be necessary to establish the correctness of Lessans' claims.

You would have to do this with a celestial object farther away than the moon since we're dealing with a very small time delay (2.5 seconds), as you said. But there are other ways to test this without having to resort to outer space. The very idea that this claim could be right would hopefully create an interest on the part of scientists to want to explore this further. Change is difficult, especially when a claim such as the one Lessans is making regarding the eyes, disputes something that has been taken for granted is fact, which makes it even more difficult than offering a new way of looking at something that has not yet been set in stone.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

David doesn't seem to understand that he is arguing over something that Lessans never denied; that light travels at a finite speed.

Gosh, you are both dishonest and dumb in equal measure. Of course I understand that Lessans never denied that light travels at a finite speed! That's why he was such a buffoon, although still not as bad as you, who are defending a position different from that of Lessans, as I have repeatedly pointed out.

The buffoon, Lessans, thought that we would see the photons when they are at the sun, in his scenario of God turning on the sun at noon, but that we would have to wait some eight minutes to see our neighbor here on earth, because that is how long it would take the photons to reach earth. Notice he never said that light had to be at the retina; that is YOUR interpretation. This is what he meant when he claimed (moronically) that the eye is not a sense organ: nothing impinges upon the eye, he said. His idea is spectacularly wrong and plain idiotic, of course, but YOUR interpretation (different from that of Lessans) is even worse. You concede, contradicting Lessans, that the photons do in fact have to be at the eye; but you also accept that photons travel at a finite rate of speed. Thus, according to you, the photons are at the eye instantly, even though they take eight minutes to reach the eye.

No one believes that you believe this. Your claim is a plain logical contradiction. It is not logically possible for light to be at the eye instantly and also take eight minutes to reach the eye. You know this is false, but defend it anyway with a huge amount of word and this is why everyone calls you a lying, dishonest weasel. But a more charitable interpretation of your motives at this point is that after flogging this horseshit for years if not decades, you are irredeemably brain-damaged.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Gosh, you are both dishonest and dumb in equal measure.

You are a liar. You said you wouldn't answer my posts. You couldn't stay away, could you?

Originally Posted by davidm

Of course I understand that Lessans never denied that light travels at a finite speed! That's why he was such a buffoon

Actually, he was brilliant, something you are not.

Originally Posted by davidm

although still not as bad as you, who are defending a position different from that of Lessans, as I have repeatedly pointed out.

It is not different at all; it is you trying to make Lessans' claim look like magic. You are slick but you aren't getting away with it.

Originally Posted by davidm

The buffoon, Lessans, thought that we would see the photons when they are at the sun, in his scenario of God turning on the sun at noon,

You have no conception of what he was talking about, which is why your refutation means nothing. Will the real buffoon please stand up?

Originally Posted by davidm

but that we would have to wait some eight minutes to see our neighbor here on earth, because that is how long it would take the photons to reach earth. Notice he never said that light had to be at the retina; that is YOUR interpretation.

He never said that light does not have to be at the retina David. Stop purposely turning this claim into something it's not just so you don't have to face up to the fact that he may be right after all.

Originally Posted by davidm

This is what he meant when he claimed (moronically) that light is not a sense organ: nothing impinges upon the eye, he said.

He did not say that. You are misquoting him.

p. 114. It is an undeniable fact that light travels at a high rate of speed,
but great confusion arises when this is likened to sound as you will
soon have verified. The reason we say man has taste, touch, smell,
sight, and hearing is because these describe individual differences that
exist, but when we say that these five are senses we are assuming the
eyes function like the other four — which they do not. When you
learn what this single misconception has done to the world of
knowledge, you won’t believe it at first.

So without further delay, I
shall prove something never before understood by man, but before I
open this door marked ‘Man Does Not Have Five Senses’ to show you
all the knowledge hidden behind it, it is absolutely necessary to prove
exactly why the eyes are not a sense organ. Now tell me, did it ever
occur to you that many of the apparent truths we have literally
accepted come to us in the form of words that do not accurately
symbolize what exists, making our problem that much more difficult
since this has denied us the ability to see reality for what it is? In fact,
it can be demonstrated at the birth of a baby that no object is capable
of getting a reaction from the eyes because nothing is impinging on
the optic nerve to cause it, although any number of sounds, tastes,
touches or smells can get an immediate reaction since the nerve
endings are being struck by something external.

“But doesn’t light cause the pupils to dilate and contract
depending on the intensity?”

That is absolutely true, but this does not cause; it is a condition
of sight. We simply need light to see, just as other things are a
condition of hearing. If there was no light we could not see, and if
there was nothing to carry the sound waves to our ears, we could not
hear. The difference is that the sound is being carried to our eardrums
whereas there is no picture traveling from an object on the waves of
light to impinge on our optic nerve. Did you ever wonder why the eyes
of a newborn baby cannot focus the eyes to see what exists around
him, although the other four senses are in full working order?

“I understand from a doctor that the muscles of the eyes have not
yet developed sufficiently to allow this focusing.”

And he believes this because this is what he was taught, but it is
not the truth. In fact, if a newborn infant was placed in a soundproof
room that would eliminate the possibility of sense experience which is
a prerequisite of sight — even though his eyes were wide open — he
could never have the desire to see. Furthermore, and quite revealing,
if this infant was kept alive for fifty years or longer on a steady flow of
intravenous glucose, if possible, without allowing any stimuli to strike
the other four organs of sense, this baby, child, young and middle aged
person would never be able to focus the eyes to see any objects existing
in that room no matter how much light was present or how colorful
they might be because the conditions necessary for sight have been
removed, and there is absolutely nothing in the external world that
travels from an object and impinges on the optic nerve to cause it.

Originally Posted by davidm

His idea is spectacularly wrong and plain idiotic, of course, but YOUR interpretation (different from that of Lessans) is even worse. You concede, contradicting Lessans, that the photons do in fact have to be at the eye; but you also accept that photons travel at a finite rate of speed. Thus, according to you, the photons are at the eye instantly, even though they take eight minutes to reach the eye.

Yes, they do have to be at the eye. This is not an interpretation of what Lessans posited; it is what he posited. The difference is that the photons themselves reveal the object only when the object is present in real time. This is a fair and reasonable argument, but you are so damn stubborn you don't even want to examine it. It's too threatening.

Originally Posted by davidm

No one believes that you believe this. Your claim is a plain logical contradiction. It is not logically possible for light to be at the eye instantly and also take eight minutes to reach the eye.

Yes it can if and only if light itself is not the cause of sight but rather a condition of sight; two very different things. If this is true, the function of light changes along with this account which does not contradict anything related to light's finite speed.

Originally Posted by davidm

You know this is false, but defend it anyway with a huge amount of word and this is why everyone calls you a lying, dishonest weasel. But a more charitable interpretation of your motives at this point is that after flogging this horseshit for years if not decades, you are irredeemably brain-damaged.

Keep it up David. It only shows what a sore loser you are. From day one, you couldn't handle this claim so you created a lot of spoofs to put this poor man down. But you can't do it for long because we all know the truth always comes out in time.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are all in some kind of illusory bubble where you can't hear a word I say.

We hear what you are saying. The problem is that what you are saying makes no sense. It is really that simple.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In this account (which is the complete opposite of the afferent view), the nonabsorbed photons are already at the sensor as long as the object is within view because light is revealing the object; the image is not being reflected. The light has to be at the sensor or nothing would show up. To repeat, the light being reflected from the object, in this [more accurate] model of sight, does not require traveling through Space/time to get inside the camera.

The question remains, how did the light that is at the sensor come to be at the sensor? The standard model has a mechanism that explains this. Light coming from the object (whether by reflection or emission) crosses the distance that separates the object from the sensor. Light traveling from the object to the sensor is the mechanism. What is the mechanism in the efferent account that allows light to be at the sensor? It is a simple enough question.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He did not say that. You are misquoting him.

Originally Posted by peacegirl quoting Lessans

...nothing is impinging on the optic nerve...

Originally Posted by peacegirl quoting Lessans

...there is absolutely nothing in the external world that travels from an object and impinges on the optic nerve...

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are all in some kind of illusory bubble where you can't hear a word I say. I can't continue this way. This has nothing to do with the validity of the model I am positing. It has everything to do with you closing your ears to hear anything other than photons traveling, which isn't related since distance and time are irrelevant. Light does not bring the image whether it's close to us or far away from us, therefore your entire premise is faulty.

You are the one in a bubble and refusing to listen. No-one is saying anything about light bringing an image. All you ever do is keep repeating that the light will be at the retina/film. Our as yet unanswered objection is that there is no possible way for that light to get there in your scenario. Your model does not work.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

We hear what you are saying. The problem is that what you are saying makes no sense. It is really that simple.

It actually does make sense.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In this account (which is the complete opposite of the afferent view), the nonabsorbed photons are already at the sensor as long as the object is within view because light is revealing the object; the image is not being reflected. The light has to be at the sensor or nothing would show up. To repeat, the light being reflected from the object, in this [more accurate] model of sight, does not require traveling through Space/time to get inside the camera.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The question remains, how did the light that is at the sensor come to be at the sensor? The standard model has a mechanism that explains this. Light coming from the object (whether by reflection or emission) crosses the distance that separates the object from the sensor. Light traveling from the object to the sensor is the mechanism. What is the mechanism in the efferent account that allows light to be at the sensor? It is a simple enough question.

I've already explained this, and it doesn't seem to penetrate. In this model light itself is not responsible for bringing the image as it travels through space/time. If the object is within optical range because it is close enough or large enough, and it is bright enough, we will see it which means the light (or nonabsorbed photons) are instantly at the sensor since we would be unable to see the object otherwise. Light does not bring the image to the sensor across millions of miles of space/time, but instead reveals the object in real time when the lens are pointed at the actual object, not the light. Distance and time do not factor in, although light is always traveling. That is why we would see the Sun turned on at noon but we would not yet see each other for another 81/2 minutes.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Clarification: He writes:

The difference is that the sound is being carried to our eardrums
whereas there is no picture traveling from an object on the waves of
light to impinge on our optic nerve.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are still trying to condemn me as a liar. I am not going to defend myself because I did not lie. I can imagine what people feel who are are put in prison when they are innocent. Think what you want. If this happens to me again I will definitely point it out to you.

If you won't or can't defend yourself, why should any one retract the charge? The evidence showed that you lied. There is no second post, and never was. All you have to do is look at the post and look at your own initial explanation to see what happened. We know that you have several times before mistakenly clicked on 'quote' instead of 'edit', thereby creating a duplicate post instead of editing a post. But that always results in TWO posts, one of which can be replaced with the term 'duplicate'. That is not what happened here, for there is no second post.

What happened is that you made a silly comment about extending brightness, thought better of it, and went back and deleted the content, dishonestly typing 'duplicate' in place of that comment. You then TOLD US that this is what you'd done, saying you'd 'taken that post out' because the words you had used were confusing. No mention of duplicates. It was only when we pointed out that using the term 'duplicate' in this manner is dishonest and deceptive that you tried to pass it off as an editing error resulting in duplication. You keep claiming two posts were made, yet all you have to do to see that this isn't true is to go back and LOOK at the relevant post. There was no duplicate.

It's not even the first time you've done this. You've been called out on this misuse of the term 'duplicate' several times before. You are the one making a big deal out of this. All you had to do was apologize when your misuse of 'duplicate' was pointed out, and remember not to do it in the future. But instead you have refused to admit to the lie, inventing more and more nonsense while refusing to even look at the post concerned. You just keep on weaseling instead of being honest about it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, I'm not going to keep repeating myself over and over again. Lessans saw what is absolutely possible. It is hard to wrap your head around this model since you are thinking in terms of light traveling and bringing the nonabsorbed photons through space/time (no strawman intended) to the eye or camera. If the eyes are efferent (which has to be assumed in order to extend the reasoning), the light that allows us to see in real time would also allow light to be at the film. I know this is difficult to grasp when you are thinking in terms of time, distance, and location, but if you think through this carefully (or get help from other scientists as they begin taking this model seriously), you will see that this does not violate any laws of physics. I am really tired of saying this over and over again so let's put this discussion to rest, at least for the time being. I believe eventually physicists will take a second look at this and will realize that this alternate model could very well be correct.

'Allowing' isn't a mechanism. You still have no explanation for how light from the Sun changes location by 93 million miles to be at the film/retina on Earth. Your account is and remains a complete contradiction that no sane person could ever take seriously or consider plausible.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Clarification: He writes:

The difference is that the sound is being carried to our eardrums
whereas there is no picture traveling from an object on the waves of
light to impinge on our optic nerve.

Wow, Lessans was a stupid man. Thanks for the blasts from the past of his turgid, moronic prose, Peacegirl, his book is quite amusing!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are the one in a bubble and refusing to listen. No-one is saying anything about light bringing an image.

Oh yes you are. The nonabsorbed light is at the eye or film. Don't play semantics with me Spacemonkey.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

All you ever do is keep repeating that the light will be at the retina/film. Our as yet unanswered objection is that there is no possible way for that light to get there in your scenario. Your model does not work.

It does work. You just don't seem to understand why light doesn't have to travel to earth first. It doesn't seem like you've even analyzed this position. All you do is go right back to light traveling from point A to point B (which it does), although it doesn't apply in terms of the eyes which changes the function of light, not the properties. I'm not sure what your block is, but this has nothing to do with the falseness of his claim. It will probably take other scientists to confirm that there may be something to this afterall, for you to finally take this seriously because right now you're not.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are so set on distracting people from the discussion that your motives have become suspect. I'm done talking to you until you stop falsely accusing me.

That would make sense if you could show it to be a false accusation, but instead you have completely refused to even try to defend yourself against the charge. The fact is, you lied. The evidence is quite conclusive. You owe us all an apology.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Wow, Lessans was a stupid man. Thanks for the blasts from the past of his turgid, moronic prose, Peacegirl, his book is quite amusing!

Actually it is YOU that is quite amusing; watching all of your ridiculous antics that do nothing to negate the validity of his astute and spot on observations. All your satirizing does is to make YOU look desperate. The fact that you are now stooping so low as to criticize his writing style, which has nothing to do with the content, shows me just how desperate you are since you know you can't win from a fair and balanced debate.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actually it is YOU that is quite amusing watching all of your ridiculous antics which do nothing to negate this observation. All it does is make YOU look threatened by judging his writing style since you're not winning through a fair debate.

Carry on, dumb ass. And please post more of your father's nonsense. It's quite hilarious to see an uneducated, self-imporant buffoon pretend to be important. How's the marketing going, btw?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In this account (which is the complete opposite of the afferent view), the nonabsorbed photons are already at the sensor...

The light has to be at the sensor or nothing would show up...

To repeat, the light being reflected from the object, in this [more accurate] model of sight, does not require traveling through Space/time to get inside the camera...

Fine. Light is at the sensor inside the camera. Now where did that light come from? How did it get inside the camera without traveling there? Did the light come from the Sun? If so, when was it located at the Sun? If not, where else could it have come from?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I do stand behind it...

Then you were lying when you claimed that you were unable to edit the post, and you were lying about the creation of a second post being the reason for your use of the term 'duplicate'. Deliberately removing post content because of a confusing word is not the same as removing a duplicated post.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That would make sense if you could show it to be a false accusation, but instead you have completely refused to even try to defend yourself against the charge. The fact is, you lied. The evidence is quite conclusive. You owe us all an apology.

You cannot let go of the most stupid of conversations. You also have a problem admitting that it is YOU who has falsely accused me of lying, which is nothing new. You need to accept responsibility for making a mistake, otherwise, you are in denial since you can't seem to handle being wrong about anything.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then you were lying when you claimed that you were unable to edit the post, and you were lying about the creation of a second post being the reason for your use of the term 'duplicate'. Deliberately removing post content because of a confusing word is not the same as removing a duplicated post.

UNBELIEVABLE THAT YOU CAN'T LET GO OF THIS AND JUST SAY YOU'RE SORRY!!!!!!!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I refuse to be told I am a liar.

You are a liar.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know what happened...

Your words from 9hrs ago: "I don't know exactly what happened..."

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh yes you are.

No, I'm not. The present issue has NOTHING to do with images or where they come from, and concerns ONLY how light can get to be where you need it in your account. Every time you start going on about images you are WEASELING and EVADING the problem.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It does work.

No, it doesn't. You still have a completely magical and unexplained 93 million mile change in the location of light which you are refusing to address.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You just don't seem to understand why light doesn't have to travel to earth first.

Because you have yet to tell us how it could get there without traveling. Light cannot be somewhere before it gets there. Nothing can. That is pure insanity.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't seem like you've even analyzed this position.

Yet we have. Again, YOU are the one refusing to analyze it - just as you are refusing to address my analysis.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All you do is go right back to light traveling from point A to point B (which it does)...

So now the light DOES travel from the Sun to the camera film on Earth?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not sure what your block is, but this has nothing to do with the falseness of his claim.

Our only block is that everything you say on this topic is flatly contradictory and nonsensical. That has everything to do with the falseness of your claim.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It will probably take other scientists to confirm that there may be something to this afterall, for you to finally take this seriously because right now you're not.

Ironically, YOU are still the one refusing to take this seriously. Doing so requires that you actually face up to and address objections instead of blindly dismissing them and weaseling out of answering questions.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, I really think you have obsessive/compulsive disorder. That explains why you cannot let go of the most stupid of conversations.

If so, then you must have the same disorder.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You also have a problem admitting that it is YOU who has falsely accused me of lying, which is nothing new. You need to accept responsibility for making a mistake, otherwise, you are in denial since you can't seem to handle being wrong about anything.

How is the accusation false? Where is the second post? Where is the mistake you think I made? What am I wrong about? You lied, and have even refused to defend yourself.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

UNBELIEVABLE THAT YOU CAN'T LET GO OF THIS AND JUST SAY YOU'RE SORRY!!!!!!!

Sorry for what? You owe us an apology for lying to us. I can only imagine what you imagine the new courts should be like under Lessanism: Your honor, my client requests that the first degree murder charges against her be dismissed! Upon what grounds? Well... um... she refuses to defend herself, but insists that they are definitely false accusations! That's it? Well, that's good enough for me! Let her go!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Bumping this quite conclusive and completely unaddressed refutation of Lessans.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Let's try this another way, Peacegirl. Let's start by assuming that the photons at the film/retina came from the Sun.

Assumption #1: The photons at the film/retina came from the Sun.

Now lets define traveling and teleporting. Traveling is getting from A to B by passing through all intervening points. Teleporting is getting from A to B without passing through all intervening points. Clearly these are jointly exhaustive - if you get from A to B you must do so either by passing through the intervening points or by not passing through them. So...

Conclusion #1: If the photons came from the Sun then they either traveled there or teleported there.

Now you insist that they neither traveled there nor teleported, so we can conclude via modus tollens (If A then B, not B, therefore not A) that these photons cannot have come from the Sun.

Assumption #2: The photons at the film/retina did not travel or teleport there.

Conclusion #2: The photons at the film/retina did not come from the Sun.

So now the million-dollar question: Where the fuck did these photons come from? We can note also that the exact same reasoning as above will still apply for any location other than the Sun - as long as the photons are getting from A to B, they have to either travel there or teleport there - so we can know that...

Conclusion #3: The photons at the film/retina did not get there from anywhere else.

That leaves two remaining possibilities: (i) These photons were always there, i.e. sitting stationary at the film/retina surface; or (ii) They did not previously exist, and instead came into existence at the film/retina. But of course neither of these are plausible either, as photons cannot be stationary, and they do not pop into existence in our eyes or on film. But unless you accept one of these options we are forced to conclude that...

Conclusion #4: Assumption #2 was bollocks.

Basically, what we have proven is that you have only four options for the photons at the film/retina:

(i) Traveling photons.
(ii) Teleporting photons.
(iii) Stationary photons.
(iv) Newly existing photons.

So which is it going to be? (Remember, weaseling and fake-conceding are not honest responses.)