A revolution in thought

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by davidm

But hold on! Lessans also said that if God turned on the sun at noon, although people on earth would see it instantaneously, they would not see their neighbors standing next to them for some eight and a half minutes, until the light arrived from the sun! OMFG! That works out to light having a velocity of speed c, just like Einstein and everybody else said!

OMFG! Is there still an undamaged corner of your brain, peacegirl, in which you will notice the BIG FAT CONTRADICTION in the very heart of your father's claim? He said that light both traveled infinitely fast and did not travel infinitely fast at the same time! Holy shit! How, then, can we recaculate the speed of light, peacegirl, to please your royal highness? Lessans said it both was, and was not, infinitely fast at the same time!

David, you are nearly as bad as peacegirl. There is no contradiction.

According to Lessans we see an object instantly so long as it is big enough and bright enough to be seen. Bright enough to be seen means that there is light (either emitted or reflected) at the object. So, the moment that God turns on the sun there is light present at the sun and we can see the sun instantly. Eight and a half minutes later the light from the sun illuminates objects around us (i.e. our neighbors) and they become instantly visible. I know that this is wrong, but where is the contradiction?

As for the camera, this is a little more complicated and not something that Lessans ever addresses directly, but I will take a stab at explaining it in Lessanese. Suppose that your neighbor is holding a camera at the moment that God turns on the sun. The camera ought to be able to take a picture of the sun at that very moment, but not take a picture of anything else. After eight and a half minutes have passed the camera would be able to take a picture of those objects that are now illuminated by the light of the sun. Obviously there is a small problem here. If, for the camera to function, there has to be light at the camera, how could it take a picture of the sun before the light from the sun has reached the camera? The solution to this problem is fairly simple. The lens of the camera, by virtue of being focused on the sun, bridges the distance between the camera and the sun and makes use of the light present at the sun to expose the film and form an image of the sun. This, I believe, is where "instant lighwaves" come in. When the lens of the camera (or the eye) is focused on the sun these instant lightwaves are capured by the lens and directed onto the film or retina, instantly. I might note that this also answers spacemonkey's question about the red/blue ball.

I hope that this has answered all of your questions and that you will now cease and desist from claiming logical contradictions where none exist.

(Note: I would have let peacegirl make this explanation for herself, but I believe that she is busy right now trying to provide a definition for "instant lightwaves" and "instant reflections".)

[Vivisectus]

So what is a sensor? They just detect light - it is all they do, and we know this, because we bloody well built them that way. If there is no light except for at the object, how come the sensor detects light?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Instant lightwave.

Instant reflection.

What do these words mean?

Angakuk, there is a lightwave which allows the camera to take a photograph or allow the eye to see, but the lightwave is captured instantly due to the lens. In other words, light travels at a finite rate of speed but what is seen on the film is instant because of how the lens works.

Instant reflection only means our ability to see the object directly. The image is not bouncing off of the object and traveling toward the retina or film. There is no arrival time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Oh for crying out loud, why would anyone want to do THAT? Don't you want to live in an evil-free world where "the speed of light would have to be recalculated"? A few hundred pages of gobbledygook is a small price to pay for all those lulz.

What I said earlier was my mistake. It's not that the speed of light has to be recalculated; it's what we are actually seeing that has to be recalculated (I'm using the term recalculated loosely). And to put you at ease, there's no price we have to pay to enter the New World, but there's a price to pay if we don't...more killings, more accidents, more war, more hatred, more medical errors, more illness, more corruption, and more poverty.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Angakuk, there is a lightwave which allows the camera to take a photograph or allow the eye to see, but the lightwave is captured instantly due to the lens. In other words, light travels at a finite rate of speed but what is seen on the film is instant because of how the lens works.

Instant reflection only means our ability to see the object directly. The image is not bouncing off of the object and traveling toward the retina or film. There is no arrival time.

Right - it all works because lenses are magic! Awesome. Was Lessans right because of magic too?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, he did not believe in delayed-time photo...

Originally Posted by davidm

OK. Let's go over it one more time, peacegirl. Maybe this time you won't dishonestly dodge the point.

1. You father said that if God turned on the sun at noon, people on earth would see the sun instantaneously.

2. He ALSO said that although people on earth would see the sun instantaneously, they would not be able to see their neighbors standing next to them for eight and a half minutes, because the light will not have arrived.

Now -- putting aside for a moment how utterly moronic this assertion of his is on the face of it (obviously, if you can see the sun, it means the light has arrived, so you would see your neighbors also!) let's move on.

I'm not letting you get away with calling this moronic. Light continues to travel through space and time, but the lens captures a moment in time using the object's properties of absorption to see said object. You are the one that's not understanding the concept and blaming it on Lessans.

Originally Posted by davidm

3. YOU SAID that the light would have to be at the lens, for the camera to work. Do you want me to go find where you said this?

The light is present at the film or the retina but not due to travel time. The lens focuses the light but the object must be there which means that the lightwave is instantly at the film.

Originally Posted by davidm

4. In the scenario Lessans postulated, suppose your neighbor is holding a camera. By Lessans' own claims, the light will not be at the camera for eight and a half minutes, because it will not be at the neighbor for eight and a half minutes, after God turns on the sun!

Absolutely wrong! The only reason the light won't be at your neighbor for 8 and a half minutes is because light travels at a finite speed, so if the light is not present at the object, we can't see anyone because it's dark. If there's no light surrounding the object, we can't see them. Knock knock, anybody there?

Originally Posted by davidm

THEREFORE, it logically follows that Lessans was saying that we see in real-time but take photos in delayed time.

It doesn't logically follow David. We take pictures and see in real time. There is no difference because the lens of both the camera and the eye work in the same way.

Originally Posted by davidm

So your options are these: Disagree with Lessans, and maintain that we both see and take pictures in real time (even though it has been proven we don't; the moons of Jupiter alone prove this) OR, agree with Lessans that we see in real time but take pictures in delayed time, in which case both you and Lessans are wrong, for if you were right, the pictures that we take, and what we see with our eyes, would fail to agree. But they do, and so Lessans is wrong.

Option one is the answer because there is no disagreement or contradiction since the light has to be around the object, which then shows up on the film or retina instantly. The light does not have to travel to reach the film or retina. Remember, the picture does not involve the speed of light at all.

Originally Posted by davidm

No matter which option you choose, you're still wrong, just for different reasons! It's a wonder to behold!

That's not true. There is a valid option if it's worded correctly.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In other words, light travels at a finite rate of speed but what is seen on the film is instant because of how the lens works.

How is it that you think lenses work? How does your version fit with how they have been built and demonstrated to work?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Instant reflection only means our ability to see the object directly. The image is not bouncing off of the object and traveling toward the retina or film. There is no arrival time.

Nobody has ever said the "image" bounces off the object

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Angakuk, there is a lightwave which allows the camera to take a photograph or allow the eye to see, but the lightwave is captured instantly due to the lens. In other words, light travels at a finite rate of speed but what is seen on the film is instant because of how the lens works.

But a pinhole camera doesn't have a lens. Are you saying that a lightwave is captured instantly because of how the hole works too?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Angakuk, there is a lightwave which allows the camera to take a photograph or allow the eye to see, but the lightwave is captured instantly due to the lens. In other words, light travels at a finite rate of speed but what is seen on the film is instant because of how the lens works.

Instant reflection only means our ability to see the object directly. The image is not bouncing off of the object and traveling toward the retina or film. There is no arrival time.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Right - it all works because lenses are magic! Awesome. Was Lessans right because of magic too?

It's not magic Vivisectus. It has a scientific basic, but you just don't see it yet.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not magic Vivisectus. It has a scientific basic, but you just don't see it yet.

So far you have not shared this scientific basis. You merely invoke the lens as the magical ingredient and leave it at that.

Also, what about Dragars question? Do pinhole cameras record something different that regular ones?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not magic Vivisectus. It has a scientific basic, but you just don't see it yet.

We do not see it because you have not explained it, but then that would not be possable as there is no scientific basis.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

They work exactly the way they are supposed to work. The problem is that we think there is a discrepancy with what we've been taught and we're trying to make it fit.

Nobody has ever said the "image" bounces off the object

I tend to disagree here. You may change the wording but the concept is the same. You can use the word bouncing, reflection, traveling, etc., but all of these do not account for what is ACTUALLY occurring. Do you see how difficult this is for me? I feel like I'm David against Goliath, and I won't win unless you see there is possibly something to this without a blanket rejection.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

But a pinhole camera doesn't have a lens. Are you saying that a lightwave is captured instantly because of how the hole works too?

I've already answered this. Ask LadyShea because she has been following this thread from day one. The pinhole acts like a lens, so it works the same way as an actual lens.

[peacegirl]

I want to say something at this juncture. No one seems interested in the actual discovery that is the most urgent. This new world hangs in the balance. I refuse to waste my time with people who are looking at me as a nutcase. I am at a crossroads. There seems to e no one here who really wants to continue except to prove me wrong. If that's the case, then this thread cannot continue because I will not have the will to make it continue. I really need support right now. I am not asking people to agree with me, but I am asking people to tell me they are interested in what Lessans had to say, in spite of all the resistance. Otherwise, this thread is over even though it seems as if I will keep coming back no matter what. That's not true. So if no one can give me their vote of support, I'm done.

[peacegirl]

There has been a lapse in enough time to get a grip on the attitude in here. Not even one person has come forward to say they are interested in this discovery, and I believe I have given people enough food for thought to get them interested if they ever will be. That tells me something. I refuse to continue unless someone (is that asking too much?)... just one person comes forward to let me know they are interested in what Lessans has to say. That would make it worthwhile for me to continue. If not, the gig is up.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I refuse to continue unless someone (is that asking too much?)... just one person comes forward to let me know they are interested in what Lessans has to say.

Mitt Romney's goal is to connect with one voter by the time this is all over.

Originally Posted by Mitt Romney

"There's got to be at least one, single individual out there who really, really wants me to be president, right? Right?"

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They [lenses] work exactly the way they are supposed to work.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The pinhole acts like a lens, so it works the same way as an actual lens.

You need to explain exactly how it is YOU think lenses work or are supposed to work, because what you are saying, and how lenses are designed and constructed and known to actually work, are not matching.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I want to say something at this juncture. No one seems interested in the actual discovery that is the most urgent. This new world hangs in the balance.

You're quite slow aren't you?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I refuse to waste my time with people who are looking at me as a nutcase.

Then I would avoid talking to all people about Lessans ideas regarding light and sight if I were you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There seems to be no one here who really wants to continue except to prove me wrong.

How about viewing it as we have been giving you ample opportunity to prove yourself and Lessans right? Which we have. has not shut you up with censorship, thread locking, or banning.

You have failed to prove your beliefs are anything other than nonsense, but that's all on you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If that's the case, then this thread cannot continue because I will not have the will to make it continue. I really need support right now. I am not asking people to agree with me, but I am asking people to tell me they are interested in what Lessans had to say, in spite of all the resistance.

You have had months and months and thousands of posts which you could have used to garner the kind of interest you seem to require, and whatever you mean by "support". If it has failed it has failed. Accept it and move on, or stay or whatever, but quit with the emotiporn.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Otherwise, this thread is over even though it seems as if I will keep coming back no matter what. That's not true. So if no one can give me their vote of support, I'm done.

How many times do we have to say it? You are responsible for your participation. Stay, or go. Stick it out at or be done and move on.

Do not put your shit on us. It's not our responsibility.

[ceptimus]

I was musing on light which of course travels in waves. Also on the progress and eventual end of this thread, whenever that may be. It made me remember one of Shakespeare's sonnets.

Like as the waves make towards the pebbled shore,
So do our minutes hasten to their end;
Each changing place with that which goes before,
In sequent toil all forwards do contend.
Nativity, once in the main of light,
Crawls to maturity, wherewith being crown'd,
Crooked elipses 'gainst his glory fight,
And Time that gave doth now his gift confound.
Time doth transfix the flourish set on youth
And delves the parallels in beauty's brow,
Feeds on the rarities of nature's truth,
And nothing stands but for his scythe to mow:
And yet to times in hope my verse shall stand,
Praising thy worth, despite his cruel hand.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There has been a lapse in enough time to get a grip on the attitude in here. Not even one person has come forward to say they are interested in this discovery, and I believe I have given people enough food for thought to get them interested if they ever will be. That tells me something. I refuse to continue unless someone (is that asking too much?)... just one person comes forward to let me know they are interested in what Lessans has to say. That would make it worthwhile for me to continue. If not, the gig is up.

500 pages demonstrates interest, just not the kind of interest you require or are hoping for.

Nobody here at seems to think Lessans was on to anything. If they were really interested, but afraid of the Groupthink Police, they surely would have sent you a PM

This is a handful of people out of 6 billion in the world...make a decision and stick to it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There has been a lapse in enough time to get a grip on the attitude in here. Not even one person has come forward to say they are interested in this discovery, and I believe I have given people enough food for thought to get them interested if they ever will be. That tells me something. I refuse to continue unless someone (is that asking too much?)... just one person comes forward to let me know they are interested in what Lessans has to say. That would make it worthwhile for me to continue. If not, the gig is up.

Are you serious, do you think the people who post on this thread are hanging on 24/7 just to see what comes up. You waited 20 min. thinking everyone was going to jump up and say "please continue." You can't be that stupid there may not have been anyone looking at the thread during those 20 min. There is only one member and 2 guests looking at it now. If you are ready to explain the ideas in the book, other than vision, in your own words without posting sections of the book and telling people they need to go back and read the book again and explain it to you, I'm ready to listen to what you have to say. Don't tell me I didn't read the book, just because I disagree with you, because that is insulting and a lie on your part. You have no way of knowing who has read it and who has not, and disagreement is not a valid test. When you are willing to listen to and understand other peoples ideas there may be room for dialogue, but if you come off like some master who is disseminating true knowledge to uninformed diciples, you are going to get shut down pretty quickly. You are not talking to a bunch of fools who don't know anything, these people are educated as is evidenced by their posts. If you try to talk down to people it's going to get shoved right back up your's. Grow up, and you may be able to have a conversation with members here, but when you act like a spoiled, bratty child you're going to get called on it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Mitt Romney's goal is to connect with one voter by the time this is all over.

This doesn't take someone to want to be president. That takes more effort than what I'm asking. All this takes is for someone to want to be objective instead of rejecting at the starting gate what doesn't fit a certain belief system.

[LadyShea]

This ain't the starting gate...this is 542 pages and over 10k posts!

You have had ample opportunity to provide any form of valid evidence. You have not done so.

[thedoc]

Peacegirl, you have had more than enough time and space to explain and clarify anything that was not clear. Right now you have a credability problem, many simply will not believe that you are going to be sincere or truthful after all the willful ignorance and lies that you have posted. Unless you change your attitude and demonstrate your honesty and sincerity its just going to be more of the same. It's your time to step up and do what you should have done in the begining.

[LadyShea]

It's time for you to create your own blog or website, and approach the woomeisters like Deepak Chopra or whomever