A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A bright light flashes and you tell me there's no light at the object?

There is no "object" for the light to be "surrounding" when the image is created, and there is only a shadow on the wall after the person casting it has left the area, the shadow can be still be seen and photographed after the person has walked away.

What do you mean no lenses? Doesn't the camera have a lens?

There is no camera. There is a light, a person, and a wall. You stand in front of the wall, the light flashes, you walk away from the wall and your shadow remains as it was against the wall.

You can photograph the shadow if you wish, it is frozen on the wall as if painted on there. But it is not an image created with a camera or lens.

What are you getting at?

I am getting at images created from only light and photosensitive materials, no lenses needed to create the image on the wall. You claimed the lens was a necessary factor in getting an image on film, I am showing that you can create images without lenses at any children's museum

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Whenever you say light will stay somewhere that means it will be stationary. That is what "stay" means. So you need to re-answer these questions without positing stationary light:

Still waiting on answers to these questions. So don't lie and tell me you've answered all my questions already.

When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is travelling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?

Does it bounce off the surface to travel away from it? [Y/N?]

Is it absorbed by the blue object? [Y/N?]

Does it cease to exist? [Y/N?]

Does it stay there, at the surface of the blue object? [Y/N?]

Does it teleport itself instantly to any nearby films or retinas? [Y/N?]

If none of the above, then what? [Insert answer here]

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

See? More dishonest weaselling with no actual answer to my question at all.

Yes, and what did you expect? This very day she stated that the failure of real-time seeing when it comes to observing the moons of Jupiter and calculating how to send spacecraft to Mars is explained by real-time seeing!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actual photons are interacting with the film, believe it or not LadyShea. As I have said over and over that efferent vision is responsible for this, and until you understand the mechanism that allows this, you will be confounded. If you're having a problem with understanding why we get a picture even though the light hasn't reached Earth, you need a refresher course. This does not, IN ANY WAY, negate the truth of efferent vision.

But you don't understand the mechanism regarding the actual photons interacting with the film. I've asked you simple questions about their past history and you've alternately told me that they were previously (i) at the film, (ii) at the object, (iii) travelling, and (iv) non-existent. You have no model at all, and are just making this up as you go. You don't have the faintest idea of how any of this is meant to work.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

How many have you sold in total? We know you sold at least one on Amazon. We read the review, which seems to have mysteriously disappeared since then, possibly because he considered it a complete waste of time and money. Has anyone given you any more positive or constructive feedback? Has anyone been convinced yet?

The Amazon review was from an IIDB poster who read the online version. It was not from any actual sale.

[But]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am getting at images created from only light and photosensitive materials, no lenses needed to create the image on the wall. You claimed the lens was a necessary factor in getting an image on film, I am showing that you can create images without lenses at any children's museum

While we're at it, what about holograms? You get images that look like the real thing from every angle, and there's no lens involved at all in making them! In fact, if you buy a laser pointer to make the picture, you take out the lens first to make it work.



Holography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

WTF are you talking about?

It's very odd to say the words "quote" and "unquote" to announce clarification or elaboration when speaking or reading or aloud . Most people would say "To clarify...." or "To elaborate..." or "To reiterate...." or use their inflection for emphasis or just communicate clearly in the first place.

I have never heard of someone saying the words "quote" and "unquote" except for actual quotations. It's strange

So now you're discrediting him for this ridiculous reason? He elaborated through the whole book. I guess it was easier for him to say "quote/unquote" rather than say "To elaborate, or To reiterate". I can't believe how you are nitpicking this poor man to death.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

While we're at it, what about holograms? You get images that look like the real thing from every angle, and there's no lens involved at all in making them! In fact, if you buy a laser pointer to make the picture, you take out the lens first to make it work.



Holography - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Thanks for the graphic but I think everyone is getting confused here. Light does many neat things and shows up in all kinds of ways that are interesting to observe, but this has nothing to do with an organism needing a lens in order to see, or a camera needing a lens in order to capture a photograph on film.

LENS ELEMENTS & IMAGE QUALITY

All but the simplest cameras contain lenses which are actually comprised of several "lens elements." Each of these elements directs the path of light rays to recreate the image as accurately as possible on the digital sensor. The goal is to minimize aberrations, while still utilizing the fewest and least expensive elements.

Understanding Camera Lenses

Vertebrates have camera type eyes that are capable of forming clear images.

Sensory Systems

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I won't answer you until you stop cracking jokes at Lessans' expense.

In other words you don't have an answer, and you don't really understand efferent vision, or you still havent figured out more fiction to fix it up. I've already pointed out the contradiction in your statement and you can see that anything you say is going to contradict something else you have said. This nonsense about jokes and sarcasim is just your weaseling out of giving an answer. You have said that we need to look directly at an object to see it, so anything we are not looking directly at should just be a white fog of nothingness, In fact you hinted at that a few pages back. There is nothing between the objects we are looking at, just blank screen. Besides I don't need to make jokes about Lessans. If you had an answer you would offer it instead of stalling because you don't know.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The Amazon review was from an IIDB poster who read the online version. It was not from any actual sale.

Spacemonkey was right. This guy did not read the book. He couldn't have since most of his review was a misrepresentation. He went behind my back because of the whole moons of Jupiter debacle. He then mentioned something about punishing people who don't obey, which is absolutely insane! But I'm not worried since the review will eventually disappear as I start marketing the book and people begin to give positive reviews.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

In other words you don't have an answer, and you don't really understand efferent vision, or you still havent figured out more fiction to fix it up. I've already pointed out the contradiction in your statement and you can see that anything you say is going to contradict something else you have said. This nonsense about jokes and sarcasim is just your weaseling out of giving an answer. You have said that we need to look directly at an object to see it, so anything we are not looking directly at should just be a white fog of nothingness, In fact you hinted at that a few pages back. There is nothing between the objects we are looking at, just blank screen. Besides I don't need to make jokes about Lessans. If you had an answer you would offer it instead of stalling because you don't know.

Believe what you want.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So now you're discrediting him for this ridiculous reason? He elaborated through the whole book. I guess it was easier for him to say "quote/unquote" rather than say "To elaborate, or To reiterate". I can't believe how you are nitpicking this poor man to death.

You stated he did this odd thing, feeling it was important enough to mention...which is a weird detail to comment on in the first place.

I commented on it's oddness and asked why he did such a strange thing. That's it. That's all that happened.

Why can't you just answer even a simple question like this?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Believe what you want.

I believe what is true, do you have any truth to offer?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Then I am sure you can point out what is wrong about those statements! So far you have been unable to do so. All you can manage is what you do here: make an empty, unsupported claim. I can back every one of these statements up with logic and data.

But that's the problem. It appears that there could be no other alternate model, but there is and it also is backed up by observation if you care to look.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But I'm not worried since the review will eventually disappear as I start marketing the book and people begin to give positive reviews.

There will be no positive reviews except from morons, and since most morons can't write, there will be no positive reviews.

What I'm going to do is develop a cuckoo-clock scale from your future rantings, ranging from one cuckoo to Defcon Five cuckoo, when you are at your most insane:

I'll give your quoted post here:

[LadyShea]

Bump

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That does absolutely violate physics because that means photons are in two places at the same time. It's not a concept I need to grasp, it's a physical process you need to explain without violating the laws of physics.

Remember, in this scenario, there are no photons on Earth, at all. According to physics Photons must touch camera film to be absorbed this means they must be located in the same physical coordinates of space. How are the photons getting there in efferent vision?

[peacegirl]

Added to previous post:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

On a side-note, how are the book sales? Have you seen any significant interest so far, gotten any feedback from other people? How many have been sold so far?

I have not distributed the book, nor have I done any marketing, so no one knows about this book except for the people on these philosophy forums.

[Crumb]

Someone is offering a used copy on Amazon, so someone must have purchased it...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bump

LadyShea, as you understand how efferent vision creates a mirror image on the retina, you will also see why the physical coordinates are touching the film. But it's going to take time to understand this. I'm not saying this sarcastically. I can see how difficult this is.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Crumb

Someone is offering a used copy on Amazon, so someone must have purchased it...

Could be. It could have been an older copy. It's actually for sale even though I'm fixing the typos and a couple sentences that I made to sound better. People could still buy this version with the misspelled word "Satin" (ugh!!) I've redone the book quite a few times. When I finish my website, I may decide to sell his original books. I have quite a few and I'm sure people who are interested in him would love to have these books, especially when science recognizes this as a genuine discovery.

[davidm]

I suggest that someone ask why NASA corrects for light speed delay when sending spacecraft to Mars, proving that we do not see in real time.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right, not if they use your reasoning that efferent vision contradicts causality. That is absurd!

The fact remains that an object instantly having an effect on another object without anything travelling between them to cause that effect is pretty much the definition of a contradiction of causality.

Feel free to refute this, but merely claiming it is not good enough. You need to show how you can have direct and instant sight and not contradict causality.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Added to previous post:

I have not distributed the book, nor have I done any marketing, so no one knows about this book except for the people on these philosophy forums.

So how many? Fifty? Less? More?

And did anyone give any feedback?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

There will be no positive reviews except from morons, and since most morons can't write, there will be no positive reviews.

Your logic is flawless!!!!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So how many? Fifty? Less? More?

And did anyone give any feedback?

I think those book companies who work with Amazon get the book from the publisher and then if you search for it they tell you they have it at a good price. But no one really knows about this book unless they've heard about it from you guys. This book is in the midst of millions of other published books and a lot of them have heavy advertising. I believe people will buy the book once they hear what it's about.