A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by erimir

What happens if blaming others is the thing which provides the greatest satisfaction?

Surely you can't blame me for blaming, can you? That would be quite blameworthy.

In fact, you shouldn't blame me, nor should I blame myself, for being uninterested in accepting the "truth" of your father's bullshit. If the direction of greatest satisfaction is not in the direction of Lessans's teachings, then what is the problem? There is none.

I am not blaming you, and you should not blame yourself even if you're not interested in learning why these laws are undeniable. That's the irony. No one is telling you how to think or what you should agree with. You never read the book erimir. All you're doing is mimicking others. You have no questions. You are just part of the anti-Lessans campaign.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

So far so good.

And now your shoveling the problem under the carpet. There is no precise limit for 'functions a lens/creates an image' on one side and 'no lens/just being lit'. There is a gliding scale from:

• a sharp image
• a blurred image/overlapping images
• just light

Also you are contradicting yourself: you say again that the lens needs 'light to collect'. This light needs 8 minutes to get at the lens (you do not deny that the speed of light is not infinite). How then can the image appear instantaneously?

We're not dealing with traveling light in this account because we're already in optical range the instant we see the object. When we see efferently, it puts the wavelength/frequency at the eye or film instantly because it's a closed system. We're not waiting for the light to arrive to interpret the image. You have to think the opposite of afferent vision, which does depend on traveling light getting there. BTW, this has nothing to do with teleportation.

Originally Posted by GdB

And by the way, a pinhole camera does not work like a lens. The way it creates an image is totally different from that of a lens. And can you eventually explain how efferent vision arises by just pinching a small hole in a piece of carton? And why does this not work when I make a hole of the size of basket ball?

I'm assuming it's because the light is not converging on a focal point when the hole gets too big.

Originally Posted by GdB

Same with a lens: assume a glass craftsman has a piece of thick and flat glass. It does not work like a lens, he can just see the environment through it, as through a window. Then he starts polishing the glass. After a while he looks through it, and sees the environment distorted: straight lines are bend, some things look bigger than without the glass, others smaller. After continuing to polish he starts to see the environment smaller, unclear, and upside down. He continues and after he is ready, and he looks through it, he sees the environment clear, smaller and upside down (you know a magnifying glass makes remote objects smaller, do you?). Straight lines look like strait lines.



Now tel me, in what phase does efferent vision start? Under what condition starts the 'efferent functioning' of the glass? And what happens in the transition phases between the being a flat piece of glass and being a lens?

Say, I make several pieces of glass: the first is the flat piece of glass, the second, a bit polished, the third ..., etc, until the tenth, that is the perfect lens. I put them all next to each other in one holder with a screen behind them. Then I wait till the suns lights up: behind the first I see nothing yet, put the last shows an image of the sun immediately (when the light reaches the lens?), because of efferent vision. What happens with the other pieces of glass? Is one showing already a blurred image immediately, or only after 8 minutes, or maybe in 4 minutes? Or do we see a weak sharp image of the sun immediately, which then suddenly after 8 minutes becomes blurred?

So, no, I am not content with your answer.

I don't know the answer to all these questions regarding when a lens works like a lens, and when it doesn't. You need to understand that if there is an image to be seen, it will be seen instantly but only if the object is within optical range. These lenses would work just like the eyes work. If the lens of the eye is not working well, we won't get a clear image or we'll get a distortion of the image. The same goes for a camera lens.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please explain to me how this refutes efferent vision.

The light source is not seen instantly, even though the light is focused with a magnifying glass.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We're not dealing with traveling light in this account because we're already in optical range the instant we see the object. When we see efferently, it puts the wavelength/frequency at the eye or film instantly because it's a closed system. We're not waiting for the light to arrive to interpret the image.

That is just a statement of you without any empirical support.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When we see efferently, it puts the wavelength/frequency at the eye or film instantly because it's a closed system. We're not waiting for the light to arrive to interpret the image. You have to think the opposite of afferent vision, which does depend on traveling light getting there. BTW, this has nothing to do with teleportation.

I assume you mean entanglement.

But you did not answer my question: how do you explain the gliding scale:

a sharp image                       instantaneous
a blurred image/overlapping images  ???
just light                          after the light has reached the object

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm assuming it's because the light is not converging on a focal point when the hole gets too big.

Your assumption is wrong: a pinhole has no focal point. You do not even understand what the difference between a lens and a pinhole is concerning producing an image!

And again you avoid the gliding scale question:

a pinhole                 instantaneous
a pencil wide hole        ???
a basket ball wide hole   after the light has reached the screen

Answer the questions asked. If you can't you should see the nonsense of the concept of efferent vision.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know the answer to all these questions regarding when a lens works like a lens, and when it doesn't. You need to understand that if there is an image to be seen, it will be seen instantly but only if the object is within optical range. These lenses would work just like the eyes work. If the lens of the eye is not working well, we won't get a clear image or we'll get a distortion of the image. The same goes for a camera lens.

Of course you don't know the answers, because the theory is simply wrong. Standard optics can perfectly answer what happens, and instantaneous vision is not a part of that explanation.

Again, you avoid the gliding scale question:

flat glass        light appears after 8 minutes
polish phase 1    image/light??? appear after ???
...               image/light??? appear after ???
polish phase 9    image/light??? appear after ???
perfect lens      image appears immediately

Do you really think that the very subjective, and proven wrong, observation of your father about children learning to see can stand against the overwhelming evidence and explanations of optics about how images are formed?

So now answer the 'gliding scale' questions.

And do not forget this one is still open too.

[But]

Originally Posted by GdB

Your assumption is wrong: a pinhole has no focal point. You do not even understand what the difference between a lens and a pinhole is concerning producing an image!

[LadyShea]

light is not converging on a focal point when the hole gets too big.

Light that is not travelling because it is instantaneously "at the" wherever cannot converge, as convergence requires that whatever is converging is traveling to the convergence point from different directions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

So show me how this difference affects efferent vision. I'm trying to understand.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light that is not travelling because it is instantaneously "at the" wherever cannot converge, as convergence requires that whatever is converging is traveling to the convergence point from different directions.

LadyShea, I'm sorry to say that you have no conception of this claim at all. You are basing all of your thoughts on the afferent account, but you don't see it. That's not my issue.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

The light source is not seen instantly, even though the light is focused with a magnifying glass.

How do you know that when light travels so fast? How do you know what is seen and what is not GdB when you cannot observe this difference, in this nanosecond amount of time?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

Bold by me.

So you say that the light is converged by the convex lens and appears there instantaneously:

• How did the light get at the lens when it did not travel there? As you know, light needs time to get somewhere...
• When the light is a the lens, does the light touch the holder of the lens, and can I therefore see the holder?
• If not, how is it possible that the light reaches the lens, but not its holder?
• If the light reaches the holder of the lens at the same moment as it reaches the lens, why does the light around the holder takes 8 minutes to reach the paper?

Further, photosensitive paper reacts because of the energy of the light. But you say the image of the sun is there immediate. But that is transport of energy, which we know, can never be faster than the speed of light. So you are again contradicting established physics.

GdB, you are as confused as Spacemonkey. You have to understand something that you're not. You have to look at this as opposite of what is believed to be true. When you do this, you will see that there is no violation of physics whatsoever. I can't keep discussing this because it's exhausting. Let further tests prove him right or wrong. That's the best way to go.

[Dragar]

So about those mirrors. How do they work, peacegirl?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

The light source is not seen instantly, even though the light is focused with a magnifying glass.

Prove this to me. I don't see this end result. I see that they are figuring out the difference between the traveling light in their experiment, which they can then figure out the speed of light, but I don't see where they say anything about seeing the light source.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

So about those mirrors. How do they work, peacegirl?

OMG Dragar, I already said that light bounces off of mirrors (no one is disputing this) but that does not mean, if Lessans is right, that we interpret this light and turn them into images in the brain. That is what is at issue here.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, I'm sorry to say that you have no conception of this claim at all. You are basing all of your thoughts on the afferent account, but you don't see it. That's not my issue.

The word convergence describes the reality of traveling things coming together, in optics that means traveling light.

If that is not describing efferent vision, you need to use a different word or describe the mechanism in a different way. This is not my issue, it is yours

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So show me how this difference affects efferent vision. I'm trying to understand.

Your attempt at explanation involved focusing light, and as I said before, the hole doesn't do anything, it doesn't bend light, it doesn't focus light. Therefore your "explanation" doesn't even get off the ground.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How do you know that when light travels so fast? How do you know what is seen and what is not GdB when you cannot observe this difference, in this nanosecond amount of time?

Did you read the description of the experiment? It can be seen exactly on the oscilloscope when the light is seen by the diode. If it was instantaneous there shouldn't be a delay between the two light paths. Measuring nanoseconds is no problem at all, even using cheap amateur equipment. My oscilloscope can do it and it didn't even cost 400 euros.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

GdB, you are as confused as Spacemonkey. You have to understand something that you're not. You have to look at this as opposite of what is believed to be true. When you do this, you will see that there is no violation of physics whatsoever. I can't keep discussing this because it's exhausting. Let further tests prove him right or wrong. That's the best way to go.

Your avoidance of answering the questions means you have no explanation at all. You hide your lack of understanding, your lack of having a concept that really could explain something, behind the suggestion that I do not understand efferent vision, and behind your exhaustion.

Further tests are not necessary, because the explanations of lenses, pinhole cameras, and the optical functioning of the eyes is scientifically complete. And until now you were not even able to give a test setup.

Time to get honest, peacegirl. I assure you, giving up is not so exhausting as defending an idea that is without any empirical content.

I gave you a 'thanks' because your not answering my questions clearly shows the bankruptcy of your father's idea of efferent vision.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So show me how this difference affects efferent vision.

Not at all, because it does not exist. It just shows you have no idea what you are talking about. How can you know that something like efferent vision exists, if you do not even understand how a pinhole camera works?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm trying to understand.

No, you are not. You are just trying to defend an absurd idea. Explain how a pinhole causes the light to arrive at the screen of the camera immediately, but not with a basketball big hole. You can't.

If you think you can, then show us.

And explain the gliding scales.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

Not at all, because it does not exist. It just shows you have no idea what you are talking about. How can you know that something like efferent vision exists, if you do not even understand how a pinhole camera works?

No, you are not. You are just trying to defend an absurd idea. Explain how a pinhole causes the light to arrive at the screen of the camera immediately, but not with a basketball big hole. You can't.

I never said the pinhole causes anything. You're just as confused as everyone else GdB.

Originally Posted by GdB

If you think you can, then show us.

And explain the gliding scales.

That's not the way Lessans demonstrated his finding. You need to understand why Lessans claimed what he did, but in order to do that you need to read the chapter, and I'm not putting it online. I worked hard to make this an ebook so you wouldn't have to pay more than $4.99. If you refuse to do that, then we cannot communicate because you will be getting pieces of what this book is about, which won't reflect the truth.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

Your avoidance of answering the questions means you have no explanation at all. You hide your lack of understanding, your lack of having a concept that really could explain something, behind the suggestion that I do not understand efferent vision, and behind your exhaustion.

Further tests are not necessary, because the explanations of lenses, pinhole cameras, and the optical functioning of the eyes is scientifically complete. And until now you were not even able to give a test setup.

Time to get honest, peacegirl. I assure you, giving up is not so exhausting as defending an idea that is without any empirical content.

I gave you a 'thanks' because your not answering my questions clearly shows the bankruptcy of your father's idea of efferent vision.

Whatever you say GdB. What a great excuse to try to negate anything that Lessans found to be true (that was based on VERY astute observation). Just let this thread go. I'm not keeping you here.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Your attempt at explanation involved focusing light, and as I said before, the hole doesn't do anything, it doesn't bend light, it doesn't focus light. Therefore your "explanation" doesn't even get off the ground.

Did you read the description of the experiment? It can be seen exactly on the oscilloscope when the light is seen by the diode. If it was instantaneous there shouldn't be a delay between the two light paths. Measuring nanoseconds is no problem at all, even using cheap amateur equipment. My oscilloscope can do it and it didn't even cost 400 euros.

Who the *#$*$ is arguing with these experiments that determine the speed of light? This is not even close to what Lessans was claiming. You're on a parallel road trying to discredit him when you're not even on the right road.

[peacegirl]

[quote=LadyShea;1232693]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, I'm sorry to say that you have no conception of this claim at all. You are basing all of your thoughts on the afferent account, but you don't see it. That's not my issue.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The word convergence describes the reality of traveling things coming together, in optics that means traveling light.

No, it means light converging. You add "traveling" to try to make your case, but you can't do it this way. We all know light travels, but we also know that wavelength/frequency is the key here.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If that is not describing efferent vision, you need to use a different word or describe the mechanism in a different way. This is not my issue, it is yours

Nope, this is your issue LadyShea. I am not defying anything that physics has determined to be true. You are trying to make it seem as if I am creating an undiscovered property of light to make Lessans look foolish.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who the *#$*$ is arguing with these experiments that determine the speed of light? This is not even close to what Lessans was claiming. You're on a parallel road trying to discredit him when you're not even on the right road.

If the light is instantly at a piece of paper behind a lens, why shouldn't it be instantly at a photodiode behind a lens?

Don't weasel.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said the pinhole causes anything. You're just as confused as everyone else GdB.

Then explain why on the screen behind the pinhole the image appears immediately, but not behind a basket ball wide hole. To say it is because of efferent vision is begging the question.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not the way Lessans demonstrated his finding. You need to understand why Lessans claimed what he did, but in order to do that you need to read the chapter, and I'm not putting it online.

You do not get it, do you? You have an opinion that is against established science. Whatever Lessans' grounds, the idea does not hold for the most simple phenomena, like pinhole cameras. Your stating that a pinhole camera has efferent vision too comes from thin air. If you cannot explain it, your father's ideas do not hold, and it is not necessary to know what reasons he had for the idea of efferent vision; except for finding out about his psychology.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I worked hard to make this an ebook so you wouldn't have to pay more than $4.99. If you refuse to do that, then we cannot communicate because you will be getting pieces of what this book is about, which won't reflect the truth.

I worked hard to show you that your ideas do not work.

If you cannot explain why efferent vision suddenly appears when I make a hole in a piece of carton, this idea is dead.
If you cannot explain why efferent vision suddenly appears when lenses get better and better (the gliding scales!), this idea is dead.
If you cannot explain how efferent vision does not contradict relativity, your idea is dead.
If you cannot explain how a lens can project an image by bundling the light, without the light getting at the lens, your idea is dead.

You are not confused: you have ill will. You know that the idea does not hold, but you do not want to lose your face.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

Then explain why on the screen behind the pinhole the image appears immediately, but not behind a basket ball wide hole. To say it is because of efferent vision is begging the question.

You do not get it, do you? You have an opinion that is against established science. Whatever Lessans' grounds, the idea does not hold for the most simple phenomena, like pinhole cameras. Your stating that a pinhole camera has efferent vision too comes from thin air. If you cannot explain it, your father's ideas do not hold, and it is not necessary to know what reasons he had for the idea of efferent vision; except for finding out about his psychology.

I worked hard to show you that your ideas do not work.

If you cannot explain why efferent vision suddenly appears when I make a hole in a piece of carton, this idea is dead.
If you cannot explain why efferent vision suddenly appears when lenses get better and better (the gliding scales!), this idea is dead.
If you cannot explain how efferent vision does not contradict relativity, your idea is dead.
If you cannot explain how a lens can project an image by bundling the light, without the light getting at the lens, your idea is dead.

You are not confused: you have ill will. You know that the idea does not hold, but you do not want to lose your face.

False! Everything that works in the afferent account works in the efferent account. EVERYTHING!!!!! The only difference is that one believes sight is delayed, and the other says that sight is instant. You cannot disprove him by your examples. Sorry GdB, but you lose.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by GdB

I worked hard to show you that your ideas do not work.

If you cannot explain why efferent vision suddenly appears when I make a hole in a piece of carton, this idea is dead.
If you cannot explain why efferent vision suddenly appears when lenses get better and better (the gliding scales!), this idea is dead.
If you cannot explain how efferent vision does not contradict relativity, your idea is dead.
If you cannot explain how a lens can project an image by bundling the light, without the light getting at the lens, your idea is dead.

I kinda hate you GdB, because your arguments are better structured than mine.

Originally Posted by GdB

You are not confused: you have ill will. You know that the idea does not hold, but you do not want to lose your face.

I don't think the problem is losing face, it is losing faith, faith in Lessans and his ideas that will revolutionize the world. You might as well be telling a Muslim that Allah contradicts relativity.