A revolution in thought - Page 598

thedoc · #**14926** 03-05-2012, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

Soon enough he will be vindicated and you'll all be running with your tail between your legs in shame that you called him all these undeserving names.

Ah so it will all happen during our lifetime now? Awesome! When? Do I have time to invest in a translucent robe factory?

Start with a plant to produce good spaghetti sauce for monday's dinner.

Vivisectus · #**14927** 03-05-2012, 04:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

Soon enough he will be vindicated and you'll all be running with your tail between your legs in shame that you called him all these undeserving names.

Ah so it will all happen during our lifetime now? Awesome! When? Do I have time to invest in a translucent robe factory?

Start with a plant to produce good spaghetti sauce for monday's dinner.

You take that one, and Shea can handle the sexy jackets. Haha I said Shea can handle sexy jackets. David will be in charge of skimpy clothing for all teens. Spacemonkey can invest in Irish Pharma, as we are about to see a huge increase in teenage pneumonia in this country if all goes according to plan.

The Lone Ranger · #**14928** 03-05-2012, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

As I pointed out earlier, this whole discussion is moot. There is no reason to discuss your hypothetical (and completely self-contradictory) mechanisms for efferent seeing, because we do not see efferently, and we do not see in real time. This is not a fucking premise, it is an empirical fact.

Not to mention that no amount of evidence that can be presented will matter to her in the slightest. There is, therefore, no possibility of an honest or productive discussion with her. [This does not mean that others cannot benefit from the discussion, however.]

As she has demonstrated over and over and over again, her one and only standard of acceptability when it comes to evidence is whether or not she thinks it agrees with Lessans' claims.

peacegirl · #**14929** 03-05-2012, 07:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then what do you believe? I thought that the afferent version of sight states that objects reflect non-absorbed light which (N) travel through space and time such that if there was no interference with that light, we would eventually see the image (of the original object or event that is now long gone) as it strikes our retina and is interpreted by our brain.

Yes, that's right (so long as the object is not too far away). None of this involves or requires an image being carried by light or traveling through space and time.

Then why do scientists claim that the object or event can be long gone but the light will still be bringing us the image if the conditions are advantageous?

Because, as has been explained to you about 100,000 goddamned times, scientists say no such fucking thing. This was the uneducated buffoon's mischaracterization of what scientists say!

Can any fact, no matter how elementary, penetrate the vast carapace of your ossified skull? :doh:

The fucking light leaves the object. The object, like a distant galaxy for example, moves on, or changes form, or even disappears, but the light that left it is still traveling. The light is now separate from the goddamn galaxy.

If unimpeded, the photons will travel for billions of light years -- light does not fucking fade away, either.

And -- lo and behold! -- billions of years later, some of those photons will intersect with, oh, say, the Hubble Telescope! The telescope, because of its optic structure, will capture enough photons to reconstruct a light/dark/color pattern of the SOURCE of the photons, which is by now long gone from where it was when the photons were released; the galaxy may not even exist at all anymore. But the PATTERN of light/dark/color caught by the telescope, and registering in our eyes, is what we call the IMAGE. The fucking IMAGE did not travel on the light; the photons traveled and registered on our eyes as patterns of light/dark/hue which we CALL an image.

Got it now?? Oh, what am I saying, of course not! :doh:

How much does anyone want to bet that ten pages down the road, she will say:

All you're doing is repeating the same old theory. Show me the proof. Nothing is conclusive even though it appears that way. And if you think I'm going to continue communicating with you with your disgusting attitude, you're in a dreamworld.

LadyShea · #**14930** 03-05-2012, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All you're doing is repeating the same old theory. Show me the proof.

Proof

Video of Hubble Deep Fields

peacegirl · #**14931** 03-05-2012, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

I said that even if the photons are being replaced - how? as the light is being absorbed and (P) reflected, that does not mean anything. the fact that the eyes must be focused on the actual material substance, changes the actual distance between the eye and the object. I already explained, focussing is something that lenses do to light in optics That's why it doesn't matter how far away the object actually is, as long as it meets the requirements of size and brightness, that is just saying "things can be seen thwne they are large and close enough to be seen, which is the same as saying "we can see what we can see" which then allows a mirror image to be present on the film/retina.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That makes no sense - a mirror image is a term used in optics

I have added my comments in bold. That is a meaningless word-salad.

So what if it's a term used in optics. Optics isn't all wrong. I never said it was.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It is a term that only has meaning within the framework of optics, which is inherently afferent.

Optics is correct, and for the most part it does not conflict with efferent vision.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Please support that claim with an observation, or any other reason to believe it, or retract. Unless you support it it remains irrational.

Quote:

It is very clear that when a person (a piece of substance) is out of visual range, yet in a straight line with the eye, we will not get an image.

Excellent! So what is this range?

Quote:

We should get an image though.

Optics explains why we get an image, and why. Efferent vision does not. Why should or shouldn't we get an image?

Quote:

There will be no resolution, or focusing of light that will provide this image.

That is not what "resolution" means. Or focussing. You are babbling here.

Quote:

All we will get is white light. When we walk a few steps forward and are now within visual range, that same (P) reflected light is present at the retina, which allows the person to be seen.

Quote:

That's why I said that even if photons are constantly in procession, there can never be red before blue, in efferent vision, because the distance from the object does not require the photons to travel to Earth in order for the object to be seen.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I will just let you review that sentence and see if you think it is rational at all. I will ignore it if you so choose and we will blame it on a moment of madness. if not, we will have to examine the implications, especially those for your ideas.

It's not irrational at all, if you understand the 180 degree difference between afferent and efferent vision.

Are you sure you want that statement to stand? There are many experiments and observations that contradict that statement. We rely on electromagnetic emission for a LOT of things, so we have done a lot of work in it. All of them show that what you just said is quite conclusively wrong.

Show me where we see one thing and get a different photograph when we take a snapshot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Lenses cannot be "focussed on an object". Lenses focus light. They do not magically teleport photons.

You are once again arguing against yourself without noticing.

This has nothing to do with teleporting anything Vivisectus, just because the lens is focused on the object. It still focuses the light that is entering the eye.

Yup. Light that has to travel.

Quote:

You can focus light all you want, but without the object present which is (P) reflecting that light, you will not get a photograph of the object, nor will you see it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

My claims are backed with observations, observations which I can share. Yours here is not. Please provide proof that said object is not there 1 second per light second ago, in stead of there now.

I am not sure what you mean.

Quote:

Then give me the link.

You required me to read that badly written pile of self-glorification twice and you cannot be bothered to look back 2 pages? Fine! Give me 10 min

Quote:

Yes, but even so, the distance is short, so there will never be a different color than what the object itself is reflecting. That's why we get a mirror image on our retina.

yes there will, just not for a very long time.

Quote:

What word are you talking about? Mirror image?

Quote:

Of course light is necessary. We can't see the material world without it.

Why? How does that work?

Quote:

The only difference is that the light is not bringing the information to our brain from our eyes; it is allowing the information to be seen by our brain, through our eyes.

Why? How does it work? And why do we need lenses for specific light to hit specific parts of the retina? Who wont any old light do, since it is not the light from the object that we require, as that light would have to travel?

Quote:

Of course, we can see information that light is revealing if the object is present,

Nonsensical babble.

Quote:

which occurs when we use a pinhole camera,

what?

Quote:

but light by itself would not show an image if the material substance reflecting that light was not present, or within the field of view of the pinhole.

What on earth would make a hole in the wall have a "field of view" ? You are talking nonsense again.

Only to show that there is always an object present and that object is always a mirror image. It is never one color before another if the object changes.

Quote:

If you follow me, you'll understand why the efferent version of sight makes it possible to see an object in real time because all that is required is for light to be bright enough as it (P) reflects off the object, and large enough to be seen --- even if the photons have not traveled to Earth, which takes time.

No-one ever will, because you cannot explain how.

Quote:

Therefore, the time factor causes as much delay as it would if we were looking in a huge mirror from across a field because the requirements of efferent vision are being met.

Ah so now there IS a delay?

I said even if there was a delay, it would work the same way.

Quote:

That means we would still be getting an exact mirror image whether we're looking at an object that is thousands of miles away, or looking at an object that is only a few feet away.

...delayed by the speed of light.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ok good! When is the revolution starting, which is going to happen because of the wonderful knowledge which no-one but you believes in, and which the book said was supposed to have been over by now?

No it didn't. Again, this just confirms to me that you didn't read the book since that statement was clarified.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The book stated that it would come to pass within 25 years. My version included your addendum which explained that this did not happen because of meany scientists. Do you want me to hook up my portable drive to dig up the actual quotes?

I know what he wrote, and I also know what he said on the audio, and YOU'RE FLAT OUT WRONG. I am not in the mood to talk to you anymore because of your sarcasm. You accused him of self-glorification, and now you're accusing me of the same thing. What crap!

peacegirl · #**14932** 03-05-2012, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then what do you believe? I thought that the afferent version of sight states that objects reflect non-absorbed light which (N) travel through space and time such that if there was no interference with that light, we would eventually see the image (of the original object or event that is now long gone) as it strikes our retina and is interpreted by our brain.

Yes, that's right (so long as the object is not too far away). None of this involves or requires an image being carried by light or traveling through space and time.

Then why do scientists claim that the object or event can be long gone but the light will still be bringing us the image if the conditions are advantageous?

Because, as has been explained to you about 100,000 goddamned times, scientists say no such fucking thing. This was the uneducated buffoon's mischaracterization of what scientists say!

Can any fact, no matter how elementary, penetrate the vast carapace of your ossified skull? :doh:

The fucking light leaves the object. The object, like a distant galaxy for example, moves on, or changes form, or even disappears, but the light that left it is still traveling. The light is now separate from the goddamn galaxy.

If unimpeded, the photons will travel for billions of light years -- light does not fucking fade away, either.

And -- lo and behold! -- billions of years later, some of those photons will intersect with, oh, say, the Hubble Telescope! The telescope, because of its optic structure, will capture enough photons to reconstruct a light/dark/color pattern of the SOURCE of the photons, which is by now long gone from where it was when the photons were released; the galaxy may not even exist at all anymore. But the PATTERN of light/dark/color caught by the telescope, and registering in our eyes, is what we call the IMAGE. The fucking IMAGE did not travel on the light; the photons traveled and registered on our eyes as patterns of light/dark/hue which we CALL an image.

Got it now?? Oh, what am I saying, of course not! :doh:

How much does anyone want to bet that ten pages down the road, she will say:

Then why do we get a photograph of a person when he is in range, but not when he is out of range but in a straight line, if what you say is true? You can't use the excuse that light is going to fast because no photograph would be able to be recorded whether a person was in range or out of range.

peacegirl · #**14933** 03-05-2012, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

links as requested. Again.

Relativity: Measuring the speed of light | Skulls in the Stars

I am not debating the speed of light, as I've said a thousand times.

The Lone Ranger · #**14934** 03-05-2012, 07:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not debating the speed of light, as I've said a thousand times.

Depends on what day it is.

Your official excuse story changes from time to time.

In fact, you have indeed insisted that our measurements of the speed of light must be wrong from time to time.

peacegirl · #**14935** 03-05-2012, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Pressure would be put upon scientists to analyze this work thoroughly, which has not been done. If necessary, empirical testing could get underway to prove that Lessans knew whereof he spoke all along.

These scientists would, presumably, be the same scientists whose experimental results you consistently reject on the grounds of bias. Surely this is going to end well for Lessans' "theory".

This bias is, and continues to be, a problem. But it is not insurmountable. It is just going to take budging these scientists to give Lessans the benefit of the doubt, and to make absolutely sure the empirical tests are reliable and replicable to guarantee that any unforeseen bias is weeded out.

Who is going to "make absolutely sure the empirical tests are reliable and replicable to guarantee that any unforeseen bias is weeded out"? Any such oversight can only be conducted by someone with expertise in the relevant field. That is to say, a scientist. However, according to you and Lessans' those same scientists are so completely wedded to their existing theories as to be unable to function without a bias in favor of those same theories. I see a serious "catch 22" in your plan.

This is definitely an uphill battle, but it doesn't mean it's impossible. I compare what happened to Gregor Mendel to my father. The core of Mendel's discovery was rejected by Nageli, the leading authority in genetics at that time. There was no one above him, so there was no one else for Mendel to present his findings to. Many years later Gregor's discovery was confirmed valid, even though he received posthumous recognition. When this discovery is brought to light is really not up to me Angakuk. We make our plans, and God laughs. That's why I'm leaving the plan up to God. I'm sure the atheists are going to love that. :wink:

peacegirl · #**14936** 03-05-2012, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is very clear that when a person (a piece of substance) is out of visual range, yet in a straight line with the eye, we will not get an image.

Of course. That's true by definition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We should get an image though.

According to what account? Not afferent vision, which explains via dispersion and resolution exactly why we cannot see an object of a certain size beyond a certain range with only our eyes.

You're still missing the point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, but even so, the distance is short, so there will never be a different color than what the object itself is reflecting. That's why we get a mirror image on our retina.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It doesn't matter how short the distance is (and it is not always short). As long as it is non-zero it will be possible for the light now at the film/retina to be different from that presently not being absorbed at the surface of the object. If the light now at the film previously traveled the non-zero distance (no matter how short) between the object and the film, then it was non-absorbed at the surface of the object at some time before the photograph was taken - meaning the object might then have been non-absorbing different light from what it is non-absorbing when the photograph is taken.

There's something missing in this entire equation. Instead of starting with your position of how light works (which is what Lessans was disputing), and logically following that reasoning, which will always turn out in your favor, you need to work backwards. You've got to take the position that the eyes are efferent, for testing purposes...

Spacemonkey HAS been accepting for testing purposes efferent vision, you shameless little liar, and showing repeatedly, by asking questions that you can't answer without falling straight into contradiction, that the claim is utter bollocks.

And he has been very charitable to you in doing this, a charity that you do not deserve. As I pointed out earlier, this whole discussion is moot. There is no reason to discuss your hypothetical (and completely self-contradictory) mechanisms for efferent seeing, because we do not see efferently, and we do not see in real time. This is not a fucking premise, it is an empirical fact.

Too bad for Daddy! :wave:

Not too bad for daddy. He's somewhere else having a good time. It's too bad for humanity if you're the cream of the crop. :wave:

Spacemonkey · #**14937** 03-05-2012, 08:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then why do we get a photograph of a person when he is in range, but not when he is out of range but in a straight line, if what you say is true? You can't use the excuse that light is going to fast because no photograph would be able to be recorded whether a person was in range or out of range.

Really? Again with this idiotic and 1000-times answered question?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Do you not remember asking this question a thousand times already? Do you not remember having it answered for you a thousand times already? Why do you not learn? From only a month ago:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If only light counted, why do we not get an image from an airplane that has no interruptions, or from an object that is slightly out of the visual field, but in direct line with it? You won't answer me because you can't, therefore you keep going back to outer space, as if this proves Lessans wrong. It's a total joke.

The problem isn't that this hasn't been answered for you, but that you keep ignoring the answers you've been given until the topic changes and you forget about the answer, only to then mentally reset to the same deluded belief that it can't be answered. This is strong evidence of a broken mind. Do you know how many times you've ignored my answer to this very question? I do:

Previous thread:
Post #13696
Post #13733
Post #13833
Post #13921
Post #13957
Post #14005
Post #14029

This thread:
Post #5111
Post #6179

Only a mentally ill person or a dishonest liar could deliberately ignore an answer this many times only to keep claiming no-one has answered it. The only things you've ignored more than my answers are my questions.

(Plus no-one has EVER told you that "the light reflected off of this person would be traveling so fast it would pass right over us". You just made that up. Again.)

LadyShea · #**14938** 03-05-2012, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then why do we get a photograph of a person when he is in range, but not when he is out of range but in a straight line, if what you say is true? You can't use the excuse that light is going to fast because no photograph would be able to be recorded whether a person was in range or out of range.

Nobody has ever, not once, said that light traveling too fast is what limits the view-ability from a distance. Not.One.Person. You are talking about a gibberish strawman version of what you think science says.

Also, you have asked this question so many times Spacemonkey gathered the responses onto one post. How about you read these links?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If only light counted, why do we not get an image from an airplane that has no interruptions, or from an object that is slightly out of the visual field, but in direct line with it? You won't answer me because you can't, therefore you keep going back to outer space, as if this proves Lessans wrong. It's a total joke.

The problem isn't that this hasn't been answered for you, but that you keep ignoring the answers you've been given until the topic changes and you forget about the answer, only to then mentally reset to the same deluded belief that it can't be answered. This is strong evidence of a broken mind. Do you know how many times you've ignored my answer to this very question? I do:

Previous thread:
Post #13696
Post #13733
Post #13833
Post #13921
Post #13957
Post #14005
Post #14029

This thread:
Post #5111
Post #6179

Only a mentally ill person or a dishonest liar could deliberately ignore an answer this many times only to keep claiming no-one has answered it. The only things you've ignored more than my answers are my questions.

Spacemonkey · #**14939** 03-05-2012, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There's something missing in this entire equation. Instead of starting with your position of how light works (which is what Lessans was disputing), and logically following that reasoning, which will always turn out in your favor, you need to work backwards. You've got to take the position that the eyes are efferent, for testing purposes, and that the object must be in range in order to see it in real time. From there it follows that if the image is not in the light separate from the object, how in the world can light travel away from the object as if the light is a separate entity apart from the object that it is revealing to us? In other words, if it is true (and we can pretend it's a theory at this point, although I know it's not) that we see the object in real time which makes light a condition of sight, not a cause, how could we see the red wavelength light before blue, if the object has already turned blue based on this new understanding? You still don't get the difference between the two versions of efferent and afferent sight. That is the crux of the problem we're having. Your reasoning will always turn out logically, but not mathematically correct if you follow the premise that all we need is light to give us information. This whole discussion will go nowhere as a result until it is proven, through empirical testing, that the eyes are not a sense organ and that Lessans was right all along. Soon enough he will be vindicated and you'll all be running with your tail between your legs in shame that you called him all these undeserving names.

peacegirl · #**14940** 03-05-2012, 08:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Pressure would be put upon scientists to analyze this work thoroughly, which has not been done. If necessary, empirical testing could get underway to prove that Lessans knew whereof he spoke all along.

These scientists would, presumably, be the same scientists whose experimental results you consistently reject on the grounds of bias. Surely this is going to end well for Lessans' "theory".

This bias is, and continues to be, a problem. But it is not insurmountable. It is just going to take budging these scientists to give Lessans the benefit of the doubt, and to make absolutely sure the empirical tests are reliable and replicable to guarantee that any unforeseen bias is weeded out.

Who is going to "make absolutely sure the empirical tests are reliable and replicable to guarantee that any unforeseen bias is weeded out"? Any such oversight can only be conducted by someone with expertise in the relevant field. That is to say, a scientist. However, according to you and Lessans' those same scientists are so completely wedded to their existing theories as to be unable to function without a bias in favor of those same theories. I see a serious "catch 22" in your plan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Pray tell, O great thinker Peaceigirl, how does light "fade out"? What does that mean?
Does it get tired and stop moving? Does it pant for breath? Does it get darker and darker until it no longer exists? Or what? :lol:

Inverse Square Law for Light

That link says nothing about light fading out. It is describing the dispersion of light over distance. The individual photons remain as robust as when they were first emitted or reflected. There is no fading out.

The light fades out,...

No, it does not, you little fool.

Long ago LadyShea even posted diagrams showing exactly what happens with light and why distant objects look smaller and eventually can't be seen. In one ear and out the other of your empty head, eh, peacegirl?

The question remains, is the light bringing the pattern or image to the eyes to be interpreted, or, as Lessans posits, is the light a condition of sight which allows us to see in real time because we're not interpreting an image from the light itself. This is far from over David.

LadyShea · #**14941** 03-05-2012, 08:14 PM

peacegirl · #**14942** 03-05-2012, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

how in the world can light travel away from the object as if the light is a separate entity apart from the object that it is revealing to us

Because we know, for a fact, that light is a separate entity apart from even it's source, let alone any matter (or objects) it encounters.

Do you really, truly, still not understand what light is? What it does? What its properties are? Electromagnetism/light physics is all empirically observed and measurable fact (see Optics).

You can't change light physics in order to make your model of vision work, your model of vision needs to include and be compatible with the known facts about light physics.

Unless something is hard fact, there are no sacred cows LadyShea. The very premise Spacemonkey begins with is the very thing that is being disputed, so of course the conclusion will look perfectly airtight. This is the problem that is causing me to be in a no win situation. Unfortunately, logic does nothing to advance the truth because we're dealing with presuppositions that must also be true, not just supported, in order for correct inferences to be made.

Spacemonkey · #**14943** 03-05-2012, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Unless something is hard fact, there are no sacred cows LadyShea. The very premise Spacemonkey begins with is the very thing that is being disputed, so of course the conclusion will look perfectly airtight. This is the problem that is causing me to be in a no win situation. Unfortunately, logic does nothing to advance the truth because we're dealing with presuppositions that must also be true, not just supported, in order for correct inferences to be made.

And what premise is that? You have no idea what premise I am beginning with. When I asked you for it you could only provide either premises I don't even agree with, or premises that you agree with too! Had you forgotten this already? It was only yesterday.

The Lone Ranger · #**14944** 03-05-2012, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is definitely an uphill battle, but it doesn't mean it's impossible. I compare what happened to Gregor Mendel to my father. The core of Mendel's discovery was rejected by Nageli, the leading authority in genetics at that time. There was no one above him, so there was no one else for Mendel to present his findings to. Many years later Gregor's discovery was confirmed valid, even though he received posthumous recognition.

I pointed out to you months ago and in some detail that this is a serious distortion of truth at best, and could easily be construed as a deliberate, outright lie.

That you're repeating the claim does not speak well of your honesty, or of your learning ability.

LadyShea · #**14945** 03-05-2012, 08:28 PM

That light is a separately physically existing thing, independent of its source and any matter it encounters is a hard fact...it's not a sacred cow, it's not a presupposition. Light can be empirically observed, manipulated, measured, and isolated.

Spacemonkey · #**14946** 03-05-2012, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There's something missing in this entire equation. Instead of starting with your position of how light works (which is what Lessans was disputing), and logically following that reasoning, which will always turn out in your favor, you need to work backwards.

I have been working backwards from your conclusion that vision is real-time in order to work out how that could be true. When I do so it leads to absurdities and contradictions. I have proceeded to ask you questions about how things must work if this conclusion is true - questions which do not presuppose any afferent assumptions at all. Your response?

"I'm not answer your dumb questions anymore..."

I am not starting with my position of how light works. I have been starting with your conclusion and trying to work backwards. Look again at my two sets of questions. They do not include any afferent assumptions. Every possible option for the position of light at each time has been left open for you. Yet you cannot provide any possible response which does not lead immediately into absurdities and contradictions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You've got to take the position that the eyes are efferent, for testing purposes, and that the object must be in range in order to see it in real time. From there it follows that if the image is not in the light separate from the object, how in the world can light travel away from the object as if the light is a separate entity apart from the object that it is revealing to us?

The light is a separate entity from the object - the object is made of matter while the light is electromagnetic radiation - and no-one is saying that the image is 'in' the light.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...how could we see the red wavelength light before blue, if the object has already turned blue based on this new understanding?

Exactly as per my explanations. If you accept that light never teleports, and has to travel to wherever it gets to across non-zero distances at a finite speed, then the light now at the film when the object is blue could well be red light that left the object at an earlier time when the object was red. If the object has only just now turned blue, then it will take some time for any of that blue light now leaving its surface to get to any retina or film. No light already at any such retinas or films would be blue, because before this time the object was absorbing all blue light and allowing only red light to leave its surface.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Soon enough he will be vindicated and you'll all be running with your tail between your legs in shame that you called him all these undeserving names.

Faith claim.

Spacemonkey · #**14947** 03-05-2012, 09:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

FIRST SET

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]

SECOND SET

1. Did the specific photons (at the camera when the photograph is taken) exist immediately before the photograph was taken? [Yes or No]

2. If so, then according to efferent vision where were those specific photons at the moment in time immediately preceding the taking of the photograph? [State a location]

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think it's safe to say that after thousands of pages, I am not avoiding anything.

Oh really? Hilarious.

Bump.

Go on Peacegirl. Ignore these questions. Show us all how well you can weasel. Display your complete lack of intellectual integrity for all to see.

:weasel:

Bump.

davidm · #**14948** 03-05-2012, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then what do you believe? I thought that the afferent version of sight states that objects reflect non-absorbed light which (N) travel through space and time such that if there was no interference with that light, we would eventually see the image (of the original object or event that is now long gone) as it strikes our retina and is interpreted by our brain.

Yes, that's right (so long as the object is not too far away). None of this involves or requires an image being carried by light or traveling through space and time.

Then why do scientists claim that the object or event can be long gone but the light will still be bringing us the image if the conditions are advantageous?

Because, as has been explained to you about 100,000 goddamned times, scientists say no such fucking thing. This was the uneducated buffoon's mischaracterization of what scientists say!

Can any fact, no matter how elementary, penetrate the vast carapace of your ossified skull? :doh:

The fucking light leaves the object. The object, like a distant galaxy for example, moves on, or changes form, or even disappears, but the light that left it is still traveling. The light is now separate from the goddamn galaxy.

If unimpeded, the photons will travel for billions of light years -- light does not fucking fade away, either.

And -- lo and behold! -- billions of years later, some of those photons will intersect with, oh, say, the Hubble Telescope! The telescope, because of its optic structure, will capture enough photons to reconstruct a light/dark/color pattern of the SOURCE of the photons, which is by now long gone from where it was when the photons were released; the galaxy may not even exist at all anymore. But the PATTERN of light/dark/color caught by the telescope, and registering in our eyes, is what we call the IMAGE. The fucking IMAGE did not travel on the light; the photons traveled and registered on our eyes as patterns of light/dark/hue which we CALL an image.

Got it now?? Oh, what am I saying, of course not! :doh:

How much does anyone want to bet that ten pages down the road, she will say:

All you're doing is repeating the same old theory. Show me the proof. Nothing is conclusive even though it appears that way. And if you think I'm going to continue communicating with you with your disgusting attitude, you're in a dreamworld.

I don't give a shit if you keep "communicating" with me or not, if you call your serial lies "communication." I regard you as a loathsome, willfully ignorant, dishonest little creep.

And no, you little shit, what I've laid out is NOT a "theory," it is a FACT. You are so stupid, willfully ignorant and uneducated, just like your babbling buffoon of a father, that you can't tell the difference betwen a THEORY and a FACT. You don't even know what a theory is.

Now fuck off. :wave:

davidm · #**14949** 03-05-2012, 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is very clear that when a person (a piece of substance) is out of visual range, yet in a straight line with the eye, we will not get an image.

Of course. That's true by definition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We should get an image though.

According to what account? Not afferent vision, which explains via dispersion and resolution exactly why we cannot see an object of a certain size beyond a certain range with only our eyes.

You're still missing the point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, but even so, the distance is short, so there will never be a different color than what the object itself is reflecting. That's why we get a mirror image on our retina.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It doesn't matter how short the distance is (and it is not always short). As long as it is non-zero it will be possible for the light now at the film/retina to be different from that presently not being absorbed at the surface of the object. If the light now at the film previously traveled the non-zero distance (no matter how short) between the object and the film, then it was non-absorbed at the surface of the object at some time before the photograph was taken - meaning the object might then have been non-absorbing different light from what it is non-absorbing when the photograph is taken.

There's something missing in this entire equation. Instead of starting with your position of how light works (which is what Lessans was disputing), and logically following that reasoning, which will always turn out in your favor, you need to work backwards. You've got to take the position that the eyes are efferent, for testing purposes...

Spacemonkey HAS been accepting for testing purposes efferent vision, you shameless little liar, and showing repeatedly, by asking questions that you can't answer without falling straight into contradiction, that the claim is utter bollocks.

And he has been very charitable to you in doing this, a charity that you do not deserve. As I pointed out earlier, this whole discussion is moot. There is no reason to discuss your hypothetical (and completely self-contradictory) mechanisms for efferent seeing, because we do not see efferently, and we do not see in real time. This is not a fucking premise, it is an empirical fact.

Too bad for Daddy! :wave:

Not too bad for daddy. He's somewhere else having a good time. It's too bad for humanity if you're the cream of the crop. :wave:

Oh, really, is he now? :derp:

Remember another of of your lies? At the start of this thread you said this crap had nothing to do with Goddy or religion. After that it was nothing but God, with your big dumb buffoon of a father his alleged messenger.

I'll tell you where your father is right now: being eaten by worms, unless you had him cremated.

davidm · #**14950** 03-05-2012, 09:33 PM

Hey, peacegirl, if real-time seeing is true, why do we see the moons of Jupiter, and all other celestial bodies, in delayed time, as is easily empirically proven and directly contradicts your dumb father?

If real-time seeing is true, why does NASA plot launches to other planets based on delayed time seeing? If real time seeing were true, all of NASA's launches would miss their targets by wide margins. But, they don't. How do you explain that, peacegirl?

:lol:

Oh, wait, I know!

Something else must be going on there.