A revolution in thought

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are acting like you found something that I was hiding. I clearly admitted that Lessans used words that were not in keeping with present day terminology. I also have stated over and over that he was not a physicist. This does not prove anything Ladyshea. Your effort to discredit him has just gone down the tubes.

Lessans was incorrect when he wrote it. The word "photon" was coined in 1926 to describe a particle of light. Before that, other terms were used, but no scientist used the term "molecule" to describe a unit of light.

I'll be surprised if peacegirl can even admit that Lessans was mistaken when he used "molecule" instead of "photon."

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What do you mean which light? It's the light coming from the source. But it is not that light which is giving us an image. You are not listening.

Is it light which interacts with the film to produce the image? If so, WHERE is the light whose properties intereact with the film to produce that image? Does the film interact with light at the object? Light in transit between the object and the camera? Or can the film only interact with the light actually present at the camera striking the film?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The properties that allow us to look through the retina, to see the color of the light source. Don't you get it yet?

And what ARE those properties? In the world the rest of us live in, those properties are the wavelength, intensity, and distribution of the light present at the retina/film of the eye/camera. For us, a BLUE image requires BLUE light to be present and striking the film in order to interact with it and produce a BLUE photographic image. How do things work in the magical world of efferent vision and instantaneous photography? What properties of what determine the nature of the resulting image?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is a condition of sight; it doesn't just change colors unless it is the light source. If you can't understand this, we're at a total and complete dead end, and there is no reason for me to continue.

I know you'd love to drop this and change the subject. You try to do this whenever the cognitive dissonance gets too strong for you. But I want to know how a real-time BLUE image can be produced instantaneously, i.e. before any BLUE light has had time to travel from the newly-BLUE object to the distant camera. Does the light already reaching the camera magically change its wavelength to match the color of the distant changing object? Or does the BLUE light only just beginning to be emitted/reflected from the object's surface act at a distance to affect the film which it has not yet had time to reach?

Do you have any idea how much of the established physics of light are you actually going to have to reject to maintain real-time photography and vision?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Do you have any idea how much of the established physics of light are you actually going to have to reject to maintain real-time photography and vision?

As has been explained to her, and which predictably elicits her usual dishonest response of sticking her fingers in her ears, stamping her foot and going, "Nah! Nah! Nah!" if real-time seeing were possible, the world we live in would be unrecognizable. In fact, it's almost certainly the case that no sentient observers could exist in such a world.

The theory of relativity would be false, and E=Mcsquared would not hold, meaning no atom bombs. If real-time seeing were possible, there would be no problem of our field of view being limited to the observable universe. Because the universe is expanding, some light sources are too far away to EVER be seen, because their light will never reach earth. Other light sources are red-shifted out of the visible spectrum. As a result, in a world of instantaneous viewing in which the speed of light constraints did not hold, Obler's Paradox would result in a sky completely white at night, with a resultant surface temperature at the earth about that of the sun. Life could not exist.

Her response to this, and to all the experimental results that rule out real-time seeing, like the moons of Jupiter measurements, is always the same infantile response:

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Spacemonkey, what forum did you from?

IIDB (now FRDB), where her infamous New Discovery threads remain permanently pinned as a testament to her cognitively impenetrable fundamentalism.

[LadyShea]

Ah yes. She has certainly made the rounds. My "molecules of light" find was from 2003 with a locked thread there too.

We don't lock threads here, and peacegirl apparently will stay and fight until the end of time unless she is forced to stop posting by a thread lock or ban.

[Vivisectus]

Amazing isn't it?

I think Doc X called it ages ago - to the believing mind, the disagreement generated by nonsense equals controversy, and controversy can be a kind of encouragement. it makes it IMPORTANT.

This is why Peacegirl is still here. No-one else cares.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In all seriousness TLR, where have I insulted anyone purposely other than davidm who brought me to the brink of extreme frustration?

You have been insulting the intelligence and integrity of everyone here from the very beginning.


You come in with your preposterous, illogical, and wholly-unsupported claims and insist that people accept them hook, line and sinker -- despite the fact that they're philosophically unsound and completely contradictory to practically everything we know about physics, optics, ocular anatomy, and neurophysiology. The moment anyone fails to uncritically swallow your extraordinary claims and declare Lessans to be the smartest and most insightful person who ever lived -- despite the fact that you can provide neither evidence for these claims nor even a clear and non-contradictory explanation -- you insist that (s)he is delusional, lying, or just too stupid to comprehend Lessans' genius.

You couldn't be more insulting if you tried.



You and Lessans claim that his ideas are "scientific," but neither he nor you appear to have any idea at all what the word "scientific" actually means. Certainly, Lessans didn't use scientific methodology to come to his claims, nor did he reference (or understand) the vast body of scientific and philosophical literature which is directly relevant to his claims -- and that was easily accessible even at the time he was writing. So he had no excuse for his ignorance. And you certainly don't.

Lessans' main notions don't even rise to the level of a legitimate hypothesis, since his principle notions are neither predictive, testable, nor falsifiable. They're anything but legitimate theories. So to call what he did "scientific" when what he was doing was the exact opposite of scientific is dishonest, offensive, and highly insulting to anyone with any sense of or respect for intellectual integrity.


To the extent that he does make any testable claims, those claims have been flatly falsified by the tests. In many cases, centuries ago. But you resolutely refuse to educate yourself on the relevant science even as you ignorantly insist that the relevant testing has not been done and/or that the evidence is "inconclusive." And yet you hypocritically insist that you're only interested in finding out "the truth." Again, this is incredibly dishonest and ignoble behavior on your part, and it is highly offensive to anyone who cares about and respects intellectual integrity, and who thinks that the pursuit of knowledge and understanding is a worthwhile and noble endeavor.

Even as the readily-available, repeatedly-verified evidence overwhelmingly refutes Lessans' claims, you refuse to abandon or even modify those claims. This is exactly the opposite of how science -- or any honest inquiry -- is done. To any scientist, to refuse to modify hypotheses in the face of contrary data and to deliberately argue from an inflexible perspective of carefully-cultivated ignorance is quite possibly the worst-possible "sin" imaginable. Nothing could possibly be more insulting to any self-respecting scientist than to pretend that yours and Lessans' claims are in any way whatsoever "scientific."


"Arrogance" doesn't begin to describe yours and Lessans' attitude. Whether you're consciously aware of it or not -- whether you're genuinely too stupid and/or brainwashed to be capable of comprehending why, or whether it's just some kind of act on your part -- you're insisting that essentially all of modern science is wrong. This would have to be the case in order for Lessans' claims to be correct. If you cannot understand why that is necessarily so by now, there's no hope whatsoever that you're educable on the matter. But it doesn't change the fact that Lessans' position basically boils down to: "I'm right, even though I cannot and will not provide actual evidence for my claims, or even a coherent explanation -- and virtually all of the science that has been painstakingly assembled over the past three centuries is flat-out wrong."

As I said, "arrogance" doesn't begin to describe that attitude. Especially since both Lessans and you have demonstrated beyond any doubt whatsoever that you have no more knowledge or comprehension of the relevant science which you would so blithely throw out the window than does a typical kindergartener.



And yet, you have the truly breath-taking arrogance to insist that anyone who doesn't uncritically swallow Lessans' claims while insisting that Lessans is the greatest guy who ever lived is the one who has a problem. According to you, the problem is not with you and your inability to explain Lessans' ideas in a way that makes any sense whatsoever. And according to you, the problem certainly is not with Lessans' claims, despite the fact that his claims are poorly-explained, self-contradictory, wholly illogical, completely unsupported, and flatly-disproved by literally mountains of widely- and easily-available data.

I'll say it again: "arrogance" doesn't begin to describe that attitude.



In short, you've been insulting everyone here from the very beginning. Even if you were trying to be offensive and insulting, your general attitude couldn't possibly be more offensive and insulting to anyone who actually cares about intellectual honesty and the legitimacy of knowledge.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Lessans was incorrect when he wrote it. The word "photon" was coined in 1926 to describe a particle of light. Before that, other terms were used, but no scientist used the term "molecule" to describe a unit of light.

I'll be surprised if peacegirl can even admit that Lessans was mistaken when he used "molecule" instead of "photon."

He didn't use the right word, I admit that, but according to all of you, he didn't use the word "scientific" or "mathematical" correctly either. As far as his discoveries go, it's completely irrelevant. I could use some made up symbol for one + one = two, but it wouldn't change the validity of the equation.

[davidm]

^
^
^
Wins the thread. Too bad it can't be locked at that.

ETA: That was directed at The Lone Ranger's post, which was directly above what I was typing until the idiot popped in for yet another of her stool droppings.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He didn't use the right word, I admit that, but according to all of you, he didn't use the word "scientific" or "mathematical" correctly either. As far as his discoveries go, it's completely irrelevant. I could use some made up symbol for one + one = two, but it wouldn't change the validity of the equation.

He has no science, no math, no discovery, no validity, nothing but arrant nonsense and transparent bullshit. Read The Lone Ranger's post for the final take on you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Constant energy is not the same thing as constant stream of new photons.

That's what he meant. A constant stream of light energy.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He was clearly speaking of photons as somehow separate from the suns energy, and he also clearly thought they somehow hung around in the air, like they traveled here then stopped.

Like we live in a swimming pool full of photons.

That was not what he was clearly speaking of. You are using this as a scapegoat in order to find a flaw.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what he meant. A constant stream of light energy.

That is what he meant, eh? Then what did he mean when he said the photons were waiting for us on the other side of the world to smile on us when we woke up? What could that stupid statement possibly mean, hmmm?



"Light is a molecule."

He probably actually thought that light were like molecules of gas, floating around hither and yon. That's how dumb he was.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

In the case of the rainbow, since there is no object then what exactly are you viewing "efferently"?

The spectrum of visible light which forms a rainbow.

[Vivisectus]

Actually, TLR is wrong in my opinion. Being of a scientific frame of mind, he dismissed the arrogance that comes with trying to reduce the whole of human interaction to a simple set of rules of the road based on reducing all acts to either ethically right or ethically wrong, when such a binary distinction is both impossible and insulting to the true range and possibility of human expression.

They COULD be more insulting. And they were. By reducing the sum total of potential human experience to the idiotic set of behaviors that are possible under the Lessianic scheme, and nothing more.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what he meant. A constant stream of light energy.

Really? That's what you are going with? So if that's what he meant, this passage could read as follows and be perfectly meaningful and valid?

Originally Posted by What Lessans really meant

Once the light is here it remains here because the constant stream of light energy emitted by the constant stream of light 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 constant stream of light energy is 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 constant stream of light energy to reach us because the constant stream of light energy is already present.

So, he meant the reworded passage then, and you think that makes sense?

What does "already here" and/or "already present" and/or "light's presence" mean in the context of a constant flow of new photons/new light energy? It makes zero sense in that context so just what exactly are you and Lessans trying to say when you use these phrases?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl/Janis 2003

I still maintain that harnassing light to be used in cameras or digital cameras (and other technologies) is not what I am talking about. They are able to decode the information in the light and form a picture. I have no problem with that.

In 2003 you seemed to understand how cameras work, what happened?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You get this.

That was really cool. Thanks for the link. It would be foolhardy of me to even attempt to debate this, so I'm not. All I can do is share Lessans' claim regarding sight and through further testing come closer to the truth.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm just trying to show that there is evidence for efferent vision.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If that is what you are trying to do, you are failing miserably. You have not shown any evidence that supports efferent vision.

So let's let it go already. I know I need a break.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have tried to be respectful to everyone. But they have not been respectful to me.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Oh well, that makes it alright then.

Janis, stop hitting David.

But daddy, he hit me first.

In that case, hit him some more.

It's amazing how people can be nice as individuals, but when they get into group think, they take on the personality of the pack leader. That's why if someone is really mean, another will start being mean, and finally the whole group follows, just like sheep.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Is that correct peacegirl? Did you edit the text to replace molecules of light with photons?

I did because I saw the negative reaction. But if you want to use it against him, be my guest. There are others who won't and will give him the benefit of the doubt.

[LadyShea]

I told you the Hubble Deep Field images disproved Lessans claims, you said you would concede if it was explained to you in a way you couldn't refute.

The Hubble was pointed at what appeared to be empty sky in "real time", yet after 10 days of collecting the light coming from that direction we found that the sky was anything but empty. We had no idea if there were objects out there, and took a gamble that there were and so started collecting the light coming from that direction

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

LOL@ that last sentence.

You could do that, if you could find a way to accelerate your family safely to the kind of speed that is required for a camera to take their picture while they were not there anymore. Or perhaps you could set up a partition that snaps into place fast enough.

But the original experiments are good enough - they have already proven beyond a doubt that the delay is there, and that it varies according to distance. Jupiters moons demonstrate this to anyone who is not desperately trying to cling onto a different idea.

Just because you are once again moving the goalposts by saying that empirical evidence that disproves Lessans does not count if it has to do with objects in space does not change that fact one bit.

There is no moving of the goalposts Vivisectus. Experiments that are homegrown are more reliable since the variables can be more easily controlled and the experiment can be replicated.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But if you want to use it against him, be my guest. There are others who won't and will give him the benefit of the doubt.

Where are these others?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Ah yes. She has certainly made the rounds. My "molecules of light" find was from 2003 with a locked thread there too.

We don't lock threads here, and peacegirl apparently will stay and fight until the end of time unless she is forced to stop posting by a thread lock or ban.

That might actually be a good thing so I can move on in peace.

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Actually, TLR is wrong in my opinion. Being of a scientific frame of mind, he dismissed the arrogance that comes with trying to reduce the whole of human interaction to a simple set of rules of the road based on reducing all acts to either ethically right or ethically wrong, when such a binary distinction is both impossible and insulting to the true range and possibility of human expression.

Yeah, it's probably more like an algorithm with a little stretch. However, once you understand the algorithm (if and when), you could probably come pretty darn close to deducing it in absolute terms ... or, with the aid of the algorithm, say this is what it is or isn't.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by davidm

The theory of relativity would be false, and E=Mcsquared would not hold, meaning no atom bombs...[Obler's Paradox gives] a resultant surface temperature at the earth about that of the sun. Life could not exist.

To be fair, no atom bombs means no suns either. Obler's Paradox wouldn't be an issue, but the sun could only be a few thousand years old.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That might actually be a good thing so I can move on in peace.

You mean so you can move on to a new forum of unsuspecting posters where you can start afresh with your facade of pretending to be rational and open to honest evidence-based discussion?