A revolution in thought - Page 1481

peacegirl · #**37001** 06-23-2014, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said that light doesn't travel.

Did the light at the film inside the camera travel?

Bump.

Spacemonkey, you are confused because you still don't understand that when the object is what we're looking at efferently, it changes what the requirements are. You are still going right back to the afferent account. You are thinking in terms of distance and time, as if the photons are the cause of producing an image. They are not. They are a condition ONLY.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That doesn't answer the question. You just weaseled again. Weaseling is not honest. It is also a lie to say I am going back to the afferent account. I am not.

Sorry, but you are going back to the afferent account when you think in terms of distance and time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

This was a simple Yes or No question about the light that YOU posited in YOUR model. Again:

Did the light at the film inside the camera travel? [Yes or No]

Yes the light travels; it does not teleport, but DISTANCE is not a factor in this account, therefore TIME is not a factor. Every time you think about photons traveling to Earth, you are on the other side of the highway, so to speak.

peacegirl · #**37002** 06-23-2014, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You still haven't even touched this refutation of Lessans, which I have been continuously reposting for you for three weeks now.

Quote:

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.)

I refuse to answer this post because it doesn't apply. It would apply if the eyes were afferent. You are trying to back me into a corner by telling me I have to fit a square peg into a round one, which will not prove him wrong or prove that the model I am presenting is impossible.

davidm · #**37003** 06-23-2014, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, why are you having a kanipshin? Why can't you just admit that you are wrong? It would do you good. I said all along that it still says "dupe", but since I erased the original, I can't identify which post was the newly created one.

Your gall may well be without precedent, except for that of Dick Cheney and the neocons spinning Iraq.

Spacemonkey is not wrong, YOU are wrong. But you're not just wrong. You're a LIAR.

You lie about simply EVERYTHING. This, I think, is a defensive maneuver on your part to deal with the cognitive dissonance that comes from knowing that your father was wrong, but being congenitally unable to admit it. Also, brain damage.

One of the things so amusing (and nauseating) about you is that you even lie like a rug about what your father wrote.

A couple of years ago I pointed out that your father wrote that in the "new world" it would be mathematically impossible for married couples to desire to sleep together. When I pointed this out, you threw a great big :hissyfit:

and denied that he wrote this. When I posted his words verbatim, you continued to lie, and continued to claim that he did not say that! It was simply amazing to watch. Later you tried to spin his demented assertion into the claim that in the "new world" (LOL) married couples would decide for themselves whether to sleep together; which would be fine and dandy, except that's not what your father wrote. He wrote -- and I quoted it! -- that it would be mathematically impossible for such couples to even desire to do so! And still, after your father's own words were quoted to you, you kept on denying that he wrote, what he wrote!

:lol:

Another example: either here, or at Project Reason, I pointed out that Lessans claimed that if astronomers on Rigel could point a powerful enough telescope at the earth, they would see Columbus landing in the Americas in real time, without having to wait for the five hundred or so years for the light to arrive at their telescopes to show this event. You DENIED that he wrote this (though heaven knows why; the idiot claim is perfectly consistent with his demented ideas about light and sight), and even after I posted verbatim what he wrote, you continued to deny that he wrote, what he wrote!

And you wonder why people hold you in contempt.

Spacemonkey · #**37004** 06-23-2014, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sorry, but you are going back to the afferent account when you think in terms of distance and time.

No, I'm not. Time and distance still exist in the efferent model, so I get to ask about them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Did the light at the film inside the camera travel? [Yes or No]

Yes the light travels...

Right, so the light at the film traveled there. Where did it travel from?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...it does not teleport, but DISTANCE is not a factor in this account, therefore TIME is not a factor.

Distance and time are always a factor for traveling light. Traveling is defined as covering a certain distance in a certain time. And you just told me the light at the film traveled there. That makes time and distance a factor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Every time you think about photons traveling to Earth, you are on the other side of the highway, so to speak.

Then you are there with me, for you just told me that the photons at the film on Earth traveled to get there.

Spacemonkey · #**37005** 06-23-2014, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I refuse to answer this post because it doesn't apply.

Try READING it first. Then you'll see that it does apply. It starts with a claim YOU made and then works backwards (as you keep telling us to do, while refusing to do it yourself) to consider all possible options.

peacegirl · #**37006** 06-23-2014, 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Stop lying! You CANNOT delete entire posts. You can ONLY remove their content. So if a second post had been created then there would STILL BE two posts (one would have content while one would read only 'duplicate'). There are not two posts. There was never any second post. You are MAKING THIS UP. It isn't true. You are lying every time you say a second post was created.

Spacemonkey, why are you having a kanipshin? Why can't you just admit that you are wrong?

You haven't shown me to be wrong.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said all along that it still says "dupe", but since I erased the original, I can't identify which post was the newly created one.

Wait... was this your edited second post?

I think it is. So now what? Can you admit you were wrong?

Spacemonkey · #**37007** 06-23-2014, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think it is. So now what? Can you admit you were wrong?

Certainly. I was wrong.

peacegirl · #**37008** 06-23-2014, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I refuse to answer this post because it doesn't apply.

Try READING it first. Then you'll see that it does apply. It starts with a claim YOU made and then works backwards (as you keep telling us to do, while refusing to do it yourself) to consider all possible options.

I have read it many times. We went over this early on in the discussion. If you think in terms of the function of light which is to reveal the external world, it won't be difficult for you to see how this is possible. But if all you do is think in terms of light traveling and bringing the "image" for the brain to interpret, it will confuse you. The closed system is the easiest way I can explain it. The object and the viewer create a situation where the viewer is instantly in optical range if he can see the object because the light in the box has reached the eye or film. There is no waiting time. If he cannot see the object, it means the object does not meet the requirements of size and brightness and there would be no light or not enough light for the object to be seen. Therefore, no nonabsorbed photons would be at the sensor or retina. This is all in keeping with optics. The only difference is that time is not a factor.

Spacemonkey · #**37009** 06-23-2014, 11:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I refuse to answer this post because it doesn't apply.

Try READING it first. Then you'll see that it does apply. It starts with a claim YOU made and then works backwards (as you keep telling us to do, while refusing to do it yourself) to consider all possible options.

I have read it many times...

Then reply to it by showing me which part of it does not apply.

davidm · #**37010** 06-23-2014, 11:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You still haven't even touched this refutation of Lessans, which I have been continuously reposting for you for three weeks now.

Quote:

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.)

I refuse to answer this post because it doesn't apply.

No, it DOES apply. Spacemoneky has given you every logically possible option for the state of photons under ANY CONCEIVABLE model. The reason you won't answer is because you CAN'T. The only honest answer is that you are WRONG. But you can't answer honestly, at long last, because you have no honesty in you, and no decency, either.

thedoc · #**37011** 06-23-2014, 11:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think it is. So now what? Can you admit you were wrong?

Certainly. I was wrong.

But only about the existence of the post, which Peacegirl has continued to deny the existence of, till you found it for her. Will Peacegirl now admit that she was lying about the existence of the post?

peacegirl · #**37012** 06-23-2014, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think it is. So now what? Can you admit you were wrong?

Certainly. I was wrong.

Okay. Why didn't you trust me from the beginning? I had to go through all this? For what?

Spacemonkey · #**37013** 06-23-2014, 11:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You still haven't even touched this refutation of Lessans, which I have been continuously reposting for you for three weeks now.

Quote:

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.)

I refuse to answer this post because it doesn't apply.

No, it DOES apply. Spacemoneky has given you every logically possible option for the state of photons under ANY CONCEIVABLE model. The reason you won't answer is because you CAN'T. The only honest answer is that you are WRONG. But you can't answer honestly, at long last, because you have no honesty in you, and no decency, either.

It is also quite obvious how it applies. In post #37001 she has just said that the light at the film traveled there. Applying the above post to this comment, we can see that she is rejecting assumption #2 so as to keep assumption #1. The problem then is that all light-speed travel requires time, which on her account means the photons must have left the surface of the Sun (to begin traveling to the film on Earth) at some point before the Sun was ignited to begin emitting photons. And this is of course yet another flat contradiction.

Spacemonkey · #**37014** 06-23-2014, 11:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think it is. So now what? Can you admit you were wrong?

Certainly. I was wrong.

Okay. Why didn't you trust me from the beginning? I had to go through all this? For what?

I didn't believe you because you never showed us any second post. All you ever had to do was show us the post.

Dragar · #**37015** 06-23-2014, 11:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Somehow you got this whole thing wrong. I never said reflected light does nothing. I said the nonabsorbed photons do not travel ad infinitum across space/time because the light disperses, so what we get is white light.

This is utter nonsense. White light has nothing to do with dispersion. Why are you babbling about things you don't understand? Go read some basics on how light behaves before telling us about it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What allows us to see the object are the nonabsorbed photons. As the lens is aimed at the object, we focus the light which is instantly at the sensor (because no time is involved in this scenario, even though light is constantly traveling), so how can you tell me that I said light does nothing? Without light we wouldn't be able to see anything in the external world. :sadcheer:

More nonsense. Read my post before you respond next time, because you obviously didn't read it. I said that in your account reflecting light to travel to our eyes does nothing. That's not, in your daft account, how we see. So why does a mirror do anything?

davidm · #**37016** 06-23-2014, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think it is. So now what? Can you admit you were wrong?

Certainly. I was wrong.

Okay. Why didn't you trust me from the beginning? I had to go through all this? For what?

I didn't believe you because you never showed us any second post. All you ever had to do was show us the post.

The issue is more fundamental than that. The reason that no one trusts you is because you are a liar. You lie about almost EVERYTHING. Therefore, even on those rare occasions when you might be telling the truth, people assume you are lying, based on your track record and reputation. That's one lesson you might learn from this episode, but won't.

Another lesson you might learn is that when Spacemonkey discovered he had been wrong, he readily admitted it. That is beyond your capacity.

thedoc · #**37017** 06-23-2014, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Okay. Why didn't you trust me from the beginning? I had to go through all this? For what?

How can you possibly expect anyone to trust you, since you have been lying, evading, and avoiding the truth for 3 years on this forum alone, not counting the 10 years before that. Your track record of dishonesty, leaves only one course of action, you must admit to all the lies thus far, and start telling the truth about everything, or no-one will believe anything you say, which is the situation as it now stands. I don't believe anyone puts any stock in anything you post, your credibility is '0', along with your father's.

Dragar · #**37018** 06-23-2014, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is all in keeping with optics. The only difference is that time is not a factor.

So not in keeping at all, then!

peacegirl · #**37019** 06-24-2014, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Somehow you got this whole thing wrong. I never said reflected light does nothing. I said the nonabsorbed photons do not travel ad infinitum across space/time because the light disperses, so what we get is white light.

This is utter nonsense. White light has nothing to do with dispersion. Why are you babbling about things you don't understand? Go read some basics on how light behaves before telling us about it.

Sorry, I meant the angle of reflection.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What allows us to see the object are the nonabsorbed photons. As the lens is aimed at the object, we focus the light which is instantly at the sensor (because no time is involved in this scenario, even though light is constantly traveling), so how can you tell me that I said light does nothing? Without light we wouldn't be able to see anything in the external world. :sadcheer:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

More nonsense. Read my post before you respond next time, because you obviously didn't read it.

Please don't tell me what I did or didn't read.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

I said that in your account reflecting light to travel to our eyes does nothing. That's not, in your daft account, how we see. So why does a mirror do anything?

Reflecting light travels. I've never denied that. But the image is seen only when we're gazing at the object. The light does not have to travel to Earth for the light to be at the eye or film, as this model changes all aspects related to time and distance. If you only would think about this more carefully, you may begin to see the real possibility that this model is in keeping with optics except for the element of time.

Spacemonkey · #**37020** 06-24-2014, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Somehow you got this whole thing wrong. I never said reflected light does nothing. I said the nonabsorbed photons do not travel ad infinitum across space/time because the light disperses, so what we get is white light.

Sorry, I meant the angle of reflection.

That makes even less sense!

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't tell me what I did or didn't read.

You've done that to us several times.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sick and tired of being treated disrespectfully.

So are we.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Reflecting light travels. I've never denied that. But the image is seen only when we're gazing at the object.

You're not gazing at the object when gazing into a mirror.

peacegirl · #**37021** 06-24-2014, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I refuse to answer this post because it doesn't apply.

Try READING it first. Then you'll see that it does apply. It starts with a claim YOU made and then works backwards (as you keep telling us to do, while refusing to do it yourself) to consider all possible options.

I have read it many times...

Then reply to it by showing me which part of it does not apply.

The only thing that applies is that light travels but this does not explain why light does not have to reach Earth for the nonabsorbed photons to be at the retina in this opposite account of vision. I think we need a break.

davidm · #**37022** 06-24-2014, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Somehow you got this whole thing wrong. I never said reflected light does nothing. I said the nonabsorbed photons do not travel ad infinitum across space/time because the light disperses, so what we get is white light.

This is utter nonsense. White light has nothing to do with dispersion. Why are you babbling about things you don't understand? Go read some basics on how light behaves before telling us about it.

Sorry, I meant the angle of reflection.

Oh, well, OK, then! :derp:

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Reflecting light travels. I've never denied that. But the image is seen only when we're gazing at the object.

WHAT IS THE OBJECT IN THE MIRROR? A PHYSICAL DUPLICATE OF YOU?

peacegirl · #**37023** 06-24-2014, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Somehow you got this whole thing wrong. I never said reflected light does nothing. I said the nonabsorbed photons do not travel ad infinitum across space/time because the light disperses, so what we get is white light.

Sorry, I meant the angle of reflection.

That makes even less sense!

No it doesn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't tell me what I did or didn't read.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You've done that to us several times.

The only reason I answered that way is because I could feel the disrespect coming from Dragar when he used the term "daft".

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sick and tired of being treated disrespectfully.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So are we.

You must like this bickering. I don't. :fuming:

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Reflecting light travels. I've never denied that. But the image is seen only when we're gazing at the object.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're not gazing at the object when gazing into a mirror.

I'm not going over this again.

peacegirl · #**37024** 06-24-2014, 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Somehow you got this whole thing wrong. I never said reflected light does nothing. I said the nonabsorbed photons do not travel ad infinitum across space/time because the light disperses, so what we get is white light.

This is utter nonsense. White light has nothing to do with dispersion. Why are you babbling about things you don't understand? Go read some basics on how light behaves before telling us about it.

Sorry, I meant the angle of reflection.

Oh, well, OK, then! :derp:

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Reflecting light travels. I've never denied that. But the image is seen only when we're gazing at the object.

WHAT IS THE OBJECT IN THE MIRROR? A PHYSICAL DUPLICATE OF YOU?

It's the nonabsorbed photons that have been reflected so I can see myself. They are at my eye, just like they would be if the Sun was turned on at noon, which you fail to understand. You constantly use put downs to prop yourself up, but I can see through you. People who are secure in their beliefs don't do what you're doing.

Spacemonkey · #**37025** 06-24-2014, 01:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I refuse to answer this post because it doesn't apply.

Try READING it first. Then you'll see that it does apply. It starts with a claim YOU made and then works backwards (as you keep telling us to do, while refusing to do it yourself) to consider all possible options.

I have read it many times...

Then reply to it by showing me which part of it does not apply.

The only thing that applies is that light travels but this does not explain why light does not have to reach Earth for the nonabsorbed photons to be at the retina in this opposite account of vision. I think we need a break.

NOTHING explains how the photons can be at the retina on Earth before the photons have traveled there. That's the problem! Also, the above weasel response is unacceptable. You need to reply TO THE POST I BUMPED showing which part of it you think does not apply. Why are you not doing this?