A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am not talking about merely seeing the Sun, I am talking about the location of the light photons that must be located on camera film to photograph the Sun, as well as the location of the light photons you have said are located "at the retina" when we see the Sun. Lessans only talked about seeing things, he never mentioned where light photons were located.

Until you explain how the light photons got to the camera film instantly, you are talking magic and have no possibility, let alone plausibility, in your model.

You're just as lost as Spacemonkey. You have refused to understand this model of sight which makes it appear implausible to you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When you walk in front of a mirror, although light travels we are getting an instant mirror image of ourselves.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No you don't. It seems instant, but is not instant. It is a tiny fraction of a second.

That's fine. It does not increase with distance or time.

[quote=peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is simple math. If your "mirror image" is made of light, it too must follow the laws of physics, meaning it takes 8.5 minutes to travel the distance between the Sun and the camera film on Earth.

It is relative to distance because that is what is required by physics.

No, a big fat no. We are not talking about physics because nothing changes in physics. We are talking about what happens when we see in an efferent fashion. It changes delayed time to real time in exactly this way.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If nothing changes in physics, then you cannot have light instantly located at the camera film, because that is not compatible with physics.
So you need a change to physics and optics for efferent vision to work.

100% not true.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Just admit it, and people will stop asking you questions about physics, because they will know that you think physics is wrong.

Admit what LadyShea, that you aren't capable of understanding this model of sight? I will not admit anything because I'm not wrong.

[davidm]

BTW, it occurs to me that she actually likes that nutter's idea that NASA is using holograms and camouflage to cover up life on the moon. After all, confronted with the truly undeniable evidence that bouncing a laser off the moon completely refutes Lessans, she simply denies that the experiment is even possible, even though NASA and others (including the Russians) have been conducting it since 1962. This means she thinks all these people are involved in a grand conspiracy to lie about the experiment. She is a true nutter, a goofball par excellence and a disgusting, slimy

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

BTW, it occurs to me that she actually likes that nutter's idea that NASA is using holograms and camouflage to cover up life on the moon. After all, confronted with the truly undeniable evidence that bouncing a laser off the moon completely refutes Lessans

...which it doesn't

Originally Posted by davidm

, she simply denies that the experiment is even possible, even though NASA and others (including the Russians) have been conducting it since 1962. This means she thinks all these people are involved in a grand conspiracy to lie about the experiment. She is a true nutter, a goofball par excellence and a disgusting, slimy

This is not about a conspiracy. This is about the inferences drawn based on a false premise. You really need to stop being so defensive David and actually listen for a change.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Rebuttal

This argument is a favorite of misguided relativists, Nobel prize winners among them. I agree that processes run slower under gravity. I just disagree with the interpretation. Relativists claim that clocks run slower because time dilates. This is like saying that unemployment is up because the unemployment rate is up. Sometimes I find myself wondering whether the field of relativity physics has been taken over by charlatans masquerading as scientists. Time does not dilate for the simple reason that time, by definition, cannot change.

Wow, that is really fucking stupid.

You should contact this guy, peacegirl, he's as nuts as you and your father. Maybe you can join forces to jointly market your crackpottery.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry, but this contradicts what science says. It says light continues forever even if the light source is gone.

What did he say that is contradictory to science?

And, light continues to travel unless and/or until it encounters matter that absorbs it, at which point it ceases being light. Much of the sunlight striking the Earth would be absorbed.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Right, but people are crucifying me for saying light peters out. This is another can of worms that I have no desire to open.

Histrionics.
Telling you that you said something stupid and wrong is not crucifying you.

"Petering out" is used to describe the loss of velocity and motion in material objects as they are subject to friction. The energy causing the motion is transferred to the other matter the object is in contact with (the air, water, the ground, etc.).

Light is energy that travels. Light is not subject to friction. When/if light encounters matter it can be transmitted (sometimes slowed/bent when transmitted), reflected, or absorbed and transformed to some other kind of energy. So, it can travel indefinitely if it doesn't intersect with matter.

[LadyShea]

100% not true.

It is true. There is nothing in physics that allows for light being located somewhere unless it traveled there at the speed of light, or was produced there. Therefore, if light is located on camera film, it either traveled there at the speed of light, or was produced by the camera film.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by jesusgirl

Right, but people are crucifying me for saying light peters out. This is another can of worms that I have no desire to open.

Last Supper!

Of course you don't want to open this "can of worms," because light does not "peter out." You claimed that it did, and as usual, you are WRONG.

In fact, to say light "peters out" contradicts the buffoon Lessans, who maintained that light which falls on the other side of the earth while we are sleeping, is the same light that "smiles on us" (lol) when we wake up in the morning! Far from "petering out," fat head seemed to think light behaved like gas molecules (probably why he thought that light was made of molecules) that sort of floated around in the atmosphere. This is also wrong, but it is the opposite of "petering out."

More and more in her advanced mental decay, peacegirl is deviating from the Sacred Buffoon Text. Her claim that the light has to be at the retina directly contradicts Lessans, who said it only had to be at the sun to be seen, but peacegirl is no longer able to keep track of her own claims or those of Lessans, if she ever was.

[davidm]

Light does not "peter out," nor does it "hang around" and smile at us (lol) in the morning. Light ALWAYS travels at c in a vacuum, and is measured to travel at the speed regardless of one's relative state of motion. The reason distant things are dimmer and harder to see is not because some of the light from them has grown exhausted and stopped moving, as peacegirl seem to "think" (LOL) but rather because the intensity of the light has diminished; i.e. the photons have spread out in accordance with the inverse square law, so far fewer photons from a light source reach distant objects, than they do nearer objects. That's all there is to it.

Countdown until peacegirl again misuses the inverse square law and resumes talking about light "petering out": 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 …

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry, but this contradicts what science says. It says light continues forever even if the light source is gone.

That is the very reason that I said we would continue to see the sun; because light continues on when the source is gone. How is it that you think that is contradictory? I mean really

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Right, but people are crucifying me for saying light peters out. This is another can of worms that I have no desire to open.

Wait.... did you just say "right".... you're agreeing? You realize that you're agreeing with something that flat out contradicts efferent vision right? You've spent a lot of time denying the time recorded in those experiments was accurate, remember? You kept claiming that 1.25 seconds was too short of a time to accurately measure or similar nonsense.
Also, pointing out that you're wrong about something isn't "crucifying you." If you admitted you were wrong about it I wouldn't bring it up. However, I don't think you've ever once admitted being wrong about anything. Of course I haven't read every single post in this thread so if I'm proven wrong about that I'll admit it

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not what scientists tell us, right? They tell us that light travels apart from its source so if the light source goes out, we would still receive light for 81/2 minutes and therefore see the person next to us, but we would not see the Sun. It would be in reverse. What is strange about this is that they also say light travels forever once it is emitted even if the source is no longer present. That's why they say we see galaxies from long ago. This is not that important to this discussion. Right now I just want to establish the plausibility of this model of sight. It was a good question!

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What are you saying here PG? Actually I believe that "science" would say that we would not realize the sun was turned off for 8.5 minutes. We would continue to see it for that time. I'm sure there might be some interesting effects near the end taking into account the diffusion of light through the atmosphere but that's a little off topic.

Ceptimus was wondering if we would see each other for 81/2 minutes longer, even though the Sun was turned off.

I'm sorry, but this contradicts what science says. It says light continues forever even if the light source is gone.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What did he say that is contradictory to science?

He didn't say anything contradictory.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And, light continues to travel unless and/or until it encounters matter that absorbs it, at which point it ceases being light. Much of the sunlight striking the Earth would be absorbed.

Got it

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Right, but people are crucifying me for saying light peters out. This is another can of worms that I have no desire to open.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Histrionics.
Telling you that you said something stupid and wrong is not crucifying you.

I think I am using the word appropriately.

cru·ci·fy verb \ˈkrü-sə-ˌfī\
: to kill (someone) by nailing or tying his or her hands and feet to a cross

: to criticize (someone or something) very harshly

Originally Posted by LadyShea

"Petering out" is used to describe the loss of velocity and motion in material objects as they are subject to friction. The energy causing the motion is transferred to the other matter the object is in contact with (the air, water, the ground, etc.).

Okay

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light is energy that travels. Light is not subject to friction. When/if light encounters matter it can be transmitted (sometimes slowed/bent when transmitted), reflected, or absorbed and transformed to some other kind of energy. So, it can travel indefinitely if it doesn't intersect with matter.

Okey doke.

[Artemis Entreri]

Are you that dense. I only stated that the light on earth would only last for 8.5 minutes. Meaning that light would continue to strike Earth for that time and if we looked up towards the sun we would still see it because we would still see the light that had left it.
All the light that didn't strike earth (or other planets, ect.) would continue on forever, unless it encountered matter.

If you didn't think I said something contrary to science then why did you say that I was contradicting science?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is true. There is nothing in physics that allows for light being located somewhere unless it traveled there at the speed of light, or was produced there. Therefore, if light is located on camera film, it either traveled there at the speed of light, or was produced by the camera film.

You are blocked. Nothing I say will penetrate. I could go over this another 1000 times, and you would still not get it.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are blocked. Nothing I say will penetrate. I could go over this another 1000 times, and you would still not get it.

What am I supposed to "get"? I get that you have an idea, and that you have been unable to make that idea compatible with reality.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Last Supper!

Of course you don't want to open this "can of worms," because light does not "peter out." You claimed that it did, and as usual, you are WRONG.

In fact, to say light "peters out" contradicts the buffoon Lessans, who maintained that light which falls on the other side of the earth while we are sleeping, is the same light that "smiles on us" (lol) when we wake up in the morning! Far from "petering out," fat head seemed to think light behaved like gas molecules (probably why he thought that light was made of molecules) that sort of floated around in the atmosphere. This is also wrong, but it is the opposite of "petering out."

Why are you lying David? Are you that desperate that you now have to misconstrue every single thing he wrote?

p. 118 If I couldn’t see you standing right next to me
because we were living in total darkness since the sun had not yet been
turned on but God was scheduled to flip the switch at 12 noon, we
would be able to see the sun instantly — at that very moment —
although we would not be able to see each other for 8 minutes
afterwards. The sun at 12 noon would look exactly like a large star,
the only difference being that in 8 minutes we would have light with
which to see each other, but the stars are so far away that their light
diminishes before it gets to us.

Upon hearing this explanation
someone asked, “If we don’t need light around us to see the stars
would we need light around us to see the sun turned on at 12 noon?”
Once the light is here it remains here because the photons of light
emitted by the constant energy of the sun surround us. When the
earth rotates on its axis so the section on which we live is in darkness,
this only means the photons of light are on the other side. When our
rotation allows the sun to smile on us again this does not mean that
it takes another eight minutes for this light to reach us because these
photons are already present. If the sun were to explode while we were
looking at it we would see it the instant it happened, not 8 minutes
later.

Originally Posted by davidm

More and more in her advanced mental decay, peacegirl is deviating from the Sacred Buffoon Text. Her claim that the light has to be at the retina directly contradicts Lessans, who said it only had to be at the sun to be seen, but peacegirl is no longer able to keep track of her own claims or those of Lessans, if she ever was.

It's true that light only has to be at the object in THIS ACCOUNT. He explained that if the light coming from the object is luminous enough, these photons will already be at the film or retina due to the mirror image which I've stated 50 + times already. You ignore what you want to ignore and you see what you want to see. Confirmation bias is alive and well.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not what scientists tell us, right? They tell us that light travels apart from its source so if the light source goes out, we would still receive light for 81/2 minutes and therefore see the person next to us, but we would not see the Sun. It would be in reverse. What is strange about this is that they also say light travels forever once it is emitted even if the source is no longer present. That's why they say we see galaxies from long ago. This is not that important to this discussion. Right now I just want to establish the plausibility of this model of sight. It was a good question!

Originally Posted by Artemis

What are you saying here PG? Actually I believe that "science" would say that we would not realize the sun was turned off for 8.5 minutes. We would continue to see it for that time. I'm sure there might be some interesting effects near the end taking into account the diffusion of light through the atmosphere but that's a little off topic.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Ceptimus was wondering if we would see each other for 81/2 minutes longer, even though the Sun was turned off.

Yes, and Artemis responded with the above. Then you said the following:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry, but this contradicts what science says. It says light continues forever even if the light source is gone.

So I asked

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What did he say that is contradictory to science?

And now you are responding with:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He didn't say anything contradictory.

If Artemis did not say something contradictory, why did you say "this contradicts what science says."?

*Note the corrected quote tags

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What am I supposed to "get"? I get that you have an idea, and that you have been unable to make that idea compatible with reality.

It's not compatible with reality because it's not penetrating.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, and Artemis responded with the above. Then you said the following:

So I asked

And now you are responding with:

If Artemis did not say something contradictory, why did you say "this contradicts what science says."?

*Note the corrected quote tags

I'm not sure what I was referring at that moment. Reading it back I see that I wasn't clear. Actually, science would say that we would see the image of the Sun for 81/2 minutes longer even if it was turned off. Ceptimus was trying to understand what would happen according to the efferent model. He was correct when he said we would still get light to see each other for 81/2 minutes even though the Sun (the ball of fire) could no longer be seen.

[peacegirl]

added to previous post:

Originally Posted by davidm

BTW, it occurs to me that she actually likes that nutter's idea that NASA is using holograms and camouflage to cover up life on the moon. After all, confronted with the truly undeniable evidence that bouncing a laser off the moon completely refutes Lessans, she simply denies that the experiment is even possible, even though NASA and others (including the Russians) have been conducting it since 1962. This means she thinks all these people are involved in a grand conspiracy to lie about the experiment. She is a true nutter, a goofball par excellence and a disgusting, slimy

Why are you lying again? The only reason we couldn't see the laser is because the flash would be too small from that distance even with a powerful telescope. At 2.6 seconds the flash is close enough to be detected.

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

ceptimus was trying to understand what would happen according to the efferent model. He was correct when he said we would still get light to see each other for 81/2 minutes even though the Sun (the ball of fire) could no longer be seen.

Thank you. So if the sun was in a blue sky prior to noon, what would we see in its place just after noon when we could no longer see the ball of fire?

Would there just be blue sky all over, or maybe there would be a small black patch (black like the night sky) in the place where we could previously see the sun?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not what I said. That is what you said. If what we are seeing is a mirror image it would take virtually no time to get there and it certainly wouldn't be relative to distance.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why are you lying? You said light photons would be located at the eye and on camera film at 12:00 noon if the Sun was newly ignited at 12:00 noon. It takes light photons 8.5 minutes to travel from the Sun to the eyes and camera film on Earth. So if light photons are located on camera film at 12:00 noon, then it is located there before light has had time to travel to that location.

You are missing this account completely. Forget the time it takes for light to get somewhere because in this account time is not a factor, so when you talk about 8.5 minutes to travel you are right back at the afferent account. Let's go back to the candle example for comparison. If a candle was lit at 12:00 noon and we were in the room, what time would we see it?

No LadyShea. If the eyes are efferent, we would see the Sun instantly because we are getting a mirror image.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am not talking about merely seeing the Sun, I am talking about the location of the light photons that must be located on camera film to photograph the Sun, as well as the location of the light photons you have said are located "at the retina" when we see the Sun. Lessans only talked about seeing things, he never mentioned where light photons were located.

If you follow the efferent account it is obvious that we're getting a mirror image. No travel time/no distance. You are not following why efferent vision is responsible for this change. Optics doesn't change nor does physics. The afferent account is just too entrenched in your psyche to even comprehend what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Until you explain how the light photons got to the camera film instantly, you are talking magic and have no possibility, let alone plausibility, in your model.

It's amazing to me that you still don't understand that when we are looking at the external world (the real substance) through the eyes it becomes a closed system which is why luminosity and size of the object (in this case the Sun) relative to the viewer is what creates a mirror image on the retina, film or sensor.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When you walk in front of a mirror, although light travels we are getting an instant mirror image of ourselves.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No you don't. It seems instant, but is not instant. It is a tiny fraction of a second.

But if we are seeing the actual candle being lit (not interpreting the light), where is the delay? Even though the candle and the viewer cannot be compared in distance to the Sun, it's the same phenomenon. If God turned on the Sun, we would see it that instant as a mirror image because proportion is what matters, not time. I know you are going to revert right back to the afferent account, which means that you didn't understand a word I just said.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is simple math. If your "mirror image" is made of light, it too must follow the laws of physics, meaning it takes 8.5 minutes to travel the distance between the Sun and the camera film on Earth.

It is relative to distance because that is what is required by physics.

No, a big fat no. We are not talking about physics because nothing changes in physics. We are talking about what happens when we see in an efferent fashion. It changes delayed time to real time in exactly this way.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If nothing changes in physics, then you cannot have light instantly located at the camera film, because that is not compatible with physics.

Physics doesn't change. Light still travels (how many more times will I have to repeat myself), but we're not waiting for light to arrive since the light is already there as a mirror image. Now Spacemonkey will say how can the light be at the eye when it hasn't arrived?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So you need a change to physics and optics for efferent vision to work. Just admit it, and people will stop asking you questions about physics, because they will know that you think physics is wrong.

Only where he disputes that we decode images from light. That is the claim and I'm sticking with it. Physics is not wrong. Our perception of what is going on is wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Thank you. So if the sun was in a blue sky prior to noon, what would we see in its place just after noon when we could no longer see the ball of fire?

It depends. If God hypothetically turned the Sun off, we wouldn't see anything but blue sky as light is continuing to travel through the atmosphere so we would still see the sky as blue.

Originally Posted by Ceptimus

Would there just be blue sky all over, or maybe there would be a small black patch (black like the night sky) in the place where we could previously see the sun?

If the Sun exploded, like any other star that goes supernova, we would see the explosion instantly, not 81/2 minutes later. The Sun would turn into a dwarf that could be seen with a telescope. If the moon suddenly was turned off, we would probably see a dark sky in its place (if the moon was turned off at night) but we would see this happen at the time it happens, not 2.6 seconds later.

[davidm]

Ah, too bad. We cannot include smilies inside of word balloons.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Physics doesn't change. Light still travels (how many more times will I have to repeat myself), but we're not waiting for light to arrive since the light is already there as a mirror image. Now Spacemonkey will say how can the light be at the eye when it hasn't arrived?

And you will weasel and refuse to answer, as you know full well you are still putting this mirror-image light at the retina before it has had time to get there from the Sun. How long will you continue this charade of pretending your account works while ignoring this huge fatal flaw?

[Spacemonkey]

Those questions Peacegirl is too stupid and/or dishonest to even try to answer...

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

[LadyShea]

It's true that light only has to be at the object in THIS ACCOUNT.

Then you can't take a photograph, because in the real world light has to be at the film or sensor.

He explained that if the light coming from the object is luminous enough, these photons will already be at the film or retina due to the mirror image which I've stated 50 + times already.

He didn't explain that, it's something you made up, yet can't explain at all.

If you have light at the film, you have to explain how it gets there. You can't do so, so have been weaseling for years on this one question.

Light still travels (how many more times will I have to repeat myself), but we're not waiting for light to arrive since the light is already there as a mirror image.

How did it get to the eye or camera film?