A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's irrelevant to the issue and nobody thinks images travel.

But that's not true if you think nonabsorbed photons that bounced off another object change only when they strike a different object. It's absurd when you think about it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light travels, and you have stated that light will be at camera film in a nanosecond. That is what violates the laws of physics.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is known that some light strikes the eye as the eye gets in its path of travel. You've agreed that this happens. Light has information as part of its properties, information you've agreed exists.

Light has properties, absolutely, but the belief is that the light is responsible for what we see is fallacious. I have never denied that light is a necessary condition, but it is not a cause. Do you even know the difference in these two terms? You have failed to analyze this model carefully; you are just responding in a knew jerk fashion according to what you have been taught.

The whole concocted story is not right.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yet you agree that light travels, and you agree that light has information, such as wavelength, intensity, direction and angle of travel etc. So the only part you can possibly think is concocted is that the photoreceptors can use that information to send signals to the brain...which is something the body is fully capable of as you also agree the other senses do this.

Absolutely incorrect. If the image or information (the nonabsorbed photons) does not get reflected (which I have retracted), then we will see the object in real time. Light does not have any impact on this reality because there IS no image in the light when it travels away from the object beyond the point the object can be seen.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So what aspect is so far fetched?

What is so far fetched? The whole scientific theory that has graduated into undeniable fact is far fetched, yet it has been accepted unquestionably because no one came along that could disprove it. There is no way light travels with an image that can be transduced such that we would actually see Columbus discovering America, Socrates drinking the hemlock, the Spanish Inquisition (or any other past event that you care to throw in), if that light just so happens to cross our path at the right time.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your questions are deceptive because they appear logical which is why we are right back to where we started.

There's nothing deceptive about it. My questions are logical. And your inability to answer them without contradicting yourself or immediately retracting your answers shows efferent vision to be completely impossible.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This does not PROVE my father was wrong in his observations.

Sure it does.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you understand why your questions will never get us to the truth?

Sure. Because you will never honestly answer them.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What do you want my answer to be?

Honest.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This has to do with how words condition us which could not be done if our eyes do not receive light that is converted to an image that appears real.

That is as stupid and wrong as everything else you've said. Words can condition us regardless of how we see.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no way light travels with an image...

Traveling images again? Seriously?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by davidm

This is not correct, though. From the photon's point of view (of course it does not have a point of view, but this fact should not bar us from considering the situation in principle), no time at all would pass while traveling from sun to earth, and no distance would be covered, either.

Hm, that's certainly one way of interpreting it.

But really proper time isn't defined for null-world lines (world-lines light follows).

Physically this is at least consistent: the proper time is supposed to be the time experienced by a clock between two events in space-time, but you can't really have massless clocks. Of course it's not easy to see why you can't have massless clocks... perhaps there's an information theory argument I don't know.

Another thing to ponder is that it's rather like how tachyons (which are not forbidden!) have imaginary proper times! Obviously that's ridiculous to interpret; it's much more correct to say the definition of proper time simply doesn't hold for non-spacelike intervals. I think the same applies to light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Honest.

That is as stupid and wrong as everything else you've said. Words can condition us regardless of how we see.

Spacemonkey, let up okay? You have no idea how knowledgeable this man was, and you can't compete. That doesn't mean you're stupid, which is what he was trying to explain. These words have hurt people because they stratisfy us into layers of value. That's why people compete so desperately to be smarter or more beautiful than the next person because they believe this gives them greater value as individuals. This all comes from the belief that this intelligence, this beauty, cannot be denied because it is part of the real world, which it isn't. You haven't taken the time to analyze this knowledge at all, you were too anxious to discredit it. I hope you one day take the time to actually study it. You will be pleasantly surprised as to its authenticity.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, let up okay? You have no idea how knowledgeable this man was...

Actually, I do. You don't because you still think he was knowledgeable.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These words have hurt people because they stratisfy us into layers of value. That's why people compete so desperately to be smarter or more beautiful than the next person because they believe this gives them greater value as individuals. This all comes from the belief that this intelligence, this beauty, cannot be denied because it is part of the real world, which it isn't.

Again, words can condition us regardless of how we see.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You haven't taken the time to analyze this knowledge at all, you were too anxious to discredit it. I hope you one day take the time to actually study it. You will be pleasantly surprised as to its authenticity.

But I have taken the time to study it. That's how I know it to be worthless nonsense.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's just the point LadyShea, the wavelength gives us the information, but this information is not reflected over long distances; only full spectrum light is traveling at 186,000 miles a second and reaching Earth. There is no way to prove that the light striking an object is partial spectrum light that has traveled over space/time, even though it appears logical.

Actually there is a very easy way to prove this, every time someone uses a camera and telescope to photograph a distant object, there is proof that partial spectrum light has arrived from the distant object to the camera. If it were full spectrum the only image would be a blank white shape, but photos of distant objects are in color, which is partial spectrum.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What do you want my answer to be? I am not talking about light and sight anymore on any new forum. I am exhausted from this, and it serves no purpose. In reality, the difference between seeing in real time or not passes through the eye of a needle. The only reason he brought this up is because what we think we see in so far as good looks and bad looks, smart and stupid, good and bad, holds no meaning whatsoever yet people have been damaged by these words because they appear real. This has to do with how words condition us which could not be done if our eyes do not receive light that is converted to an image that appears real. You have no understanding of the basis for his claim at all.

Conditioning is a well known effect that happens in the brain, not in the external world with words being projected onto external objects and people. Here again just a little bit of education on Lessans part would have saved pages and pages of terrible writing and totally fictitious ideas.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that's not true if you think nonabsorbed photons that bounced off another object change only when they strike a different object. It's absurd when you think about it.

No-one thinks that, no-one believes that a photon can change. Photons keep the wave length that they start with till they are absorbed. If they are reflected from an object, they retain their original properties without change. Some times a photon is absorbed and the energy converted to another photon that is emitted from the object, but these are different photons, not the same photons that have changed. Again, just a little bit of education could have saved Lessans a lot of confusion about light and vision.

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Actually there is a very easy way to prove this, every time someone uses a camera and telescope to photograph a distant object, there is proof that partial spectrum light has arrived from the distant object to the camera. If it were full spectrum the only image would be a blank white shape, but photos of distant objects are in color, which is partial spectrum.

Unfortunately, PG thinks that the camera is taking a picture of the object, not the light, in real time. Even though the photograph needs to receive photons from the object in order for a reaction to occur and produce an image and she has no explanation for how it gets there.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Unfortunately, PG thinks that the camera is taking a picture of the object, not the light, in real time. Even though the photograph needs to receive photons from the object in order for a reaction to occur and produce an image and she has no explanation for how it gets there.

Yes, you're correct, but the posts are mostly for the benefit of the "thousands and thousands" of lurkers that Peacegirl claims are reading this thread and not making their presence known.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People who are tuning in.

The Thursday morning exhibition of delusion.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Spacemonkey, the interrogation is over. There needs to be a pause in this thread. I cannot continue in the way it's going because it is deceptive and I can't be a part of it. because I can't answer your questions because to answer your questions honestly would be to admit that I am wrong, and that I can never do.

Peacegirl is done with the "interrogation."

Her dishonest answers to the "interrogation" will resume in 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 ….

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Hm, that's certainly one way of interpreting it.

But really proper time isn't defined for null-world lines (world-lines light follows).

Physically this is at least consistent: the proper time is supposed to be the time experienced by a clock between two events in space-time, but you can't really have massless clocks. Of course it's not easy to see why you can't have massless clocks... perhaps there's an information theory argument I don't know.

Another thing to ponder is that it's rather like how tachyons (which are not forbidden!) have imaginary proper times! Obviously that's ridiculous to interpret; it's much more correct to say the definition of proper time simply doesn't hold for non-spacelike intervals. I think the same applies to light.

Correct me if I'm wrong on this -- I could well be! -- but isn't the above really saying the same thing I said earlier? If in the light frame there cannot be a massless clock (which is really any physical process, of course, not just the ticking of a clock but the beating of a heart, etc. ; anything exhibiting measurable duration) and there is no proper time in the light frame, isn't that just the same thing as saying in the light "point of view" there is no duration? Maybe the question is academic because obviously light cannot have a point of view, and anything with a point of view cannot travel at light speed. This seems to hark back to Kant:

Originally Posted by Kant

Now what are space and time? Are they actual entities [wirkliche Wesen]? Are they only determinations or also relations of things, but still such as would belong to them even if they were not intuited? Or are they such that they belong only to the form of intuition, and therefore to the subjective constitution of our mind, without which these predicates could not be ascribed to any things at all?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, let up okay? You have no idea how knowledgeable this man was, and you can't compete. That doesn't mean you're stupid, which is what he was trying to explain.

You see there, Spacemonkey? You've given it the ol' college try, but you just can't compete with the seventh-grade dropout who believed that if God turned on the sun at noon we would see it instantly, but not our neighbors on earth for some eight minutes!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's just the point LadyShea, the wavelength gives us the information, but this information is not reflected over long distances; only full spectrum light is traveling at 186,000 miles a second and reaching Earth.

Flat out incorrect. All light travels at light speed.

There is no way to prove that the light striking an object is partial spectrum light that has traveled over space/time.

Of course there is...there are multiple devices to analyze and measure the wavelength and intensity of light. Spectrophotometers, Optical Spectrum Analyzers, Wavelength meters

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Traveling images again? Seriously?

Absolutely!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

The Thursday morning exhibition of delusion.

There has to be some people tuning in. This can't be all bots. I can just picture it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Unfortunately, PG thinks that the camera is taking a picture of the object, not the light, in real time. Even though the photograph needs to receive photons from the object in order for a reaction to occur and produce an image and she has no explanation for how it gets there.

That's exactly what is happening; it just doesn't take 81/2 minutes. I know you don't see how, but that's something you'll have to wrestle with on your own, if you think there could be something to what he's saying. If not, it will easy to let it go.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Absolutely!

Except, as has been demonstrated to you 10,000 times, science does not say that images travel.

I've sometimes vaguely wondered while all this light and sight nonsense that Lessans wrote was so crucial to his account of understanding why, in the new world, Mom would undertake a special study of cooking to produce the best damned Monday night spaghetti and meatballs ever, why Dad would fuck Mom on the dinner table (provided no little ones were present!) and why to wake a child is to blame it for sleeping, etc. And it appears he thought that we are misled into making judgement from images that are "carried on wings of light," as he put it. I don't see how one follows from the other, but that appears to be his form of "thinking," to use the word loosely. Imagine what an idiot he would feel himself to be, to discover that science does not say that images are carried on wings of light!

I take that back, though. Like his daughter, that chip off the old blockhead, Lessans was incapable of admitting error.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, let up okay? You have no idea how knowledgeable this man was, and you can't compete. That doesn't mean you're stupid, which is what he was trying to explain. These words have hurt people because they stratisfy us into layers of value. That's why people compete so desperately to be smarter or more beautiful than the next person because they believe this gives them greater value as individuals.

That is not a problem for everyone, and where it exists it is a societal and personal issue, not at all related to how we see.

This all comes from the belief that this intelligence, this beauty, cannot be denied because it is part of the real world, which it isn't.

Nope, we all know that beauty is a subjective term and intelligence is a relative term and both are merely words that describe intangible concepts, not objective reality.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There has to be some people tuning in. This can't be all bots. I can just picture it.

Sure they can (not that you even know what a bot is, though you believe in "Internet Checkers." )

Tell us, peacegirl, in the three and a half years that you've been peddling your codswallop here, have you ever heard via pm or other means from a single lurker offering support?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Actually, I do. You don't because you still think he was knowledgeable.

You have no idea.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These words have hurt people because they stratisfy us into layers of value. That's why people compete so desperately to be smarter or more beautiful than the next person because they believe this gives them greater value as individuals. This all comes from the belief that this intelligence, this beauty, cannot be denied because it is part of the real world, which it isn't.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Again, words can condition us regardless of how we see.

Not in the way he was describing. No matter how often a child is told how wonderful a certain musical genre is, if that child doesn't like it, he cannot be conditioned to like it, although he might listen to it if that's the in thing to do. No matter how often a child is told how delicious a certain food is, if he doesn't like it, he cannot become conditioned to like it although he could acquire a taste for it, which is not the same thing. No matter how often a child is told how wonderful a perfume smells, if he doesn't like it, he cannot become conditioned to like it, although his taste may change as he gets older. If a child hears over and over how beautiful this person is, and how ugly that person is, he will actually become conditioned to seeing this particular subset of features (and all those that come close to this artificial standard) as beautiful and the other subset of features as ugly, all because of words that are projected onto the screen of undeniable substance. This could not occur if the eyes were a sense organ. You never really took the time to study this chapter in depth.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You haven't taken the time to analyze this knowledge at all, you were too anxious to discredit it. I hope you one day take the time to actually study it. You will be pleasantly surprised as to its authenticity.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But I have taken the time to study it. That's how I know it to be worthless nonsense.

Is that why you don't even understand the two-sided equation, or why compatibilism is ridiculous unless you are trying to fake reconcile two positions that cannot be reconciled? You are too quick to toot your own horn.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that's not true if you think nonabsorbed photons that bounced off another object change only when they strike a different object. It's absurd when you think about it.

But I don't think that. I don't even know what that is supposed to mean.

I know that light travels, and when it encounters an object it is either absorbed, reflected, or transmitted through. There is nothing absurd about that at all. It's not even mildly confusing let alone confounding.

Light has properties, absolutely, but the belief is that the light is responsible for what we see is fallacious.

Yet you've been unable to point out anything in standard optics that doesn't work as stated

I have never denied that light is a necessary condition, but it is not a cause.

Then describe, exactly how light would get to camera film instantly in the scenario of the Sun being newly ignited at noon. You cannot offer an explanation because none exists that doesn't contradict physics.

If light is a condition in your model, then your model must work within the known principles of optics and physics and with the known properties of light.

Absolutely incorrect. If the image or information (the nonabsorbed photons) does not get reflected (which I have retracted), then we will see the object in real time.

But light does get reflected. This is a known property of light. Light travels at a known speed, so time is inherently involved. Real time seeing is a nonsense concept

Light does not have any impact on this reality because there IS no image in the light when it travels away from the object beyond the point the object can be seen.

For the nth time, of course there is no image in the light. Nobody ever said there are images in light. Not once.

So, you are fighting against a ridiculous position that nobody adheres to, that is a strawman. It is fallacious reasoning and makes you look quite idiotic.

What is so far fetched? The whole scientific theory that has graduated into undeniable fact is far fetched

No, your insane strawman is farfetched, but it is not even remotely similar to the actual scientific model of optics.