A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When did you become the judge of all truth and knowledge; and where did it say this knowledge has to pass through you in order to be approved?

We must all be judges of truth and knowledge for ourselves. And your alleged knowledge must at least be consistent and coherent before anyone will approve of it. So far it is not.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Didn't Lessans state specifically not to use the long tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which you think you qualify to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself undeniable proof of its veracity? Do you even know what that means?

Yes, I do. But you don't, because just like your father you know nothing about logic or epistemology. His claims about vision most certainly do not contain within themselves undeniable proof of their veracity. They contain only undeniable proof of his ignorance. And I am not using the long tenure of an accepted belief as a standard at all. I am using evidence and sound logic.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nageli also thought he was right and Mendel was wrong. He rejected the very core of Mendel's discovery, but now he is just a footnote in the annals of history, and Mendel is the father of genetics. Go figure.

Nageli was wrong about Mendel, just like you're wrong about your father.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you can't be wrong, can you, because your reasoning and your logic are impeccable. So who's to argue with you?

Apparently not you. If you see a flaw in my reasoning and logic, then you need to point it out.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You also said Lessans was wrong about determinism, and about conscience.

He was.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No LadyShea, I do not have to start with light. He made a discovery on the eyes, so that's where I will begin. If efferent vision is true, this doesn't mean that the laws of physics are broken or that light works differently except for the idea that when it strikes an object, it bounces and travels throughout space and time. That is the only thing that is being disputed, and it still stands.

If you are disputing even one aspect of the laws of physics with regard to how light works, then you are indeed disputing the laws of physics. If your model requires that even one particular detail of the laws of physics is in error then your model does violate the laws of physics. All of these laws are interconnected and a change in one is going to have implications for others and for the whole structure. While it is possible to tweak the laws here and there, any major alteration will require that the whole framework be redesigned. When that happens the structure is broken and will remain broken until it is redesigned to account for the alteration. The way light works is a major structural element in modern physics. Any significant modification with regard to how light works would constitute a major alteration and require redesigning the whole structure to accomodate those changes. Positing the existence of two different kinds of light (i.e. [P] light and [N] light) with different characteristics counts as a major alteration. Positing the existence of light that does not bounce/reflect off of objects counts as a major alteration. Therefore, your alleged model does require redesigning the whole structure of modern physics. That pretty much qualifies as violating the laws of physics.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that as light gets absorbed, the remaining non-absorbed light is moving along by the Sun's emissions. But when the lens aims at the object (because it meets the requirements necessary to take a photograph) the mirror image of that object is at the film instantly because there is no distance or travel time under these conditions.

I think I have figured out what peacegirl thinks is happening with those non-absorbed photons. When light strikes an object the wavelength of light that is not absorbed sort of slides on by the object in a constant stream of non-absorbed photons. These photons may gently caress the object as they pass by, but by no means do they engage in anything so violently energetic as bouncing. When we look out through our eyes we see the object because it is being revealed by this constant stream of non-absorbed photons gently washing over its surface. The lenses, whether of our eyes or of a camera, create a mirror image that dips into this photon stream and retrieves samples that are then instantly present at the retina/film.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by davidm

peacegirl, you have evolved from being an oddity, to a laughingstock, to the Internet's biggest freak show, to a droning, dithering, dishonest, suffocating bore.

It amazes me why anyone still tries to school your sorry ass. On teh Internetz, being boring is the greatest sin. You have recycled your mindless shit so many times now that one needs to prop up toothpicks between one's eyelids to keep them open. It beats me why LadyShea, Spacemonkey and a few others even bother with your stupid shit any longer.

David, every time you post something like this I feel compelled to respond to one of peacegirl's posts. You are enabling my addiction. Do you see what you just did there?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When did you become the judge of all truth and knowledge; and where did it say this knowledge has to pass through you in order to be approved? Didn't Lessans state specifically not to use the long tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which you think you qualify to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself undeniable proof of its veracity?

When did Lessans become the judge of all truth and knowledge; and where did it say this knowledge has to pass through him in order to be approved?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I think I have figured out what peacegirl thinks is happening with those non-absorbed photons. When light strikes an object the wavelength of light that is not absorbed sort of slides on by the object in a constant stream of non-absorbed photons. These photons may gently caress the object as they pass by, but by no means do they engage in anything so violently energetic as bouncing. When we look out through our eyes we see the object because it is being revealed by this constant stream of non-absorbed photons gently washing over its surface. The lenses, whether of our eyes or of a camera, create a mirror image that dips into this photon stream and retrieves samples that are then instantly present at the retina/film.

I think you're right. I've been thinking for a while that she must picture light flowing around an object like air around an aerofoil. Recall that she was earlier repeatedly describing light as "passing over" objects, only to retract those words when people asked her about it. She doesn't seem to understand that bouncing off is bouncing off, regardless of the angles involved. Or that the laws of optics dictate the angles of reflection, such that light striking at a low angle of incidence (i.e. nearly square on) cannot just pass by with a gentle caress. It would be nice if Peacegirl could confirm this analysis, but she seems to have less of an idea of what she has been thinking than anybody else.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I think you're right. I've been thinking for a while that she must picture light flowing around an object like air around an aerofoil. Recall that she was earlier repeatedly describing light as "passing over" objects, only to retract those words when people asked her about it. She doesn't seem to understand that bouncing off is bouncing off, regardless of the angles involved. Or that the laws of optics dictate the angles of reflection, such that light striking at a low angle of incidence (i.e. nearly square on) cannot just pass by with a gentle caress. It would be nice if Peacegirl could confirm this analysis, but she seems to have less of an idea of what she has been thinking than anybody else.

In other posts, in regard to the speed of light, she has suggested that we are saying that light goes so fast the the eye cannot catch it to form an image. She seems to think that the brain, through the eyes, somehow projects out and catches photons to form the 'Mirror image' in the eye for the brain to see, or something like that. The concept of the light traveling in a straight line from the object or source directly through the lens to the retina seems to have escaped her. Light is illuminating an object and the brain projects out through the eyes to capture these photons before they can get away.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

When did Lessans become the judge of all truth and knowledge; and where did it say this knowledge has to pass through him in order to be approved?

Duh, because he said so.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

We must all be judges of truth and knowledge for ourselves. And your alleged knowledge must at least be consistent and coherent before anyone will approve of it. So far it is not.

That's okay. The seeds of truth have been planted after centuries of misinformation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Didn't Lessans state specifically not to use the long tenure of an accepted belief as a standard from which you think you qualify to disagree with knowledge that contains within itself undeniable proof of its veracity? Do you even know what that means?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yes, I do. But you don't, because just like your father you know nothing about logic or epistemology.

My father was the most knowledgeable regarding epistemology, and you are no match.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

His claims about vision most certainly do not contain within themselves undeniable proof of their veracity. They contain only undeniable proof of his ignorance. And I am not using the long tenure of an accepted belief as a standard at all. I am using evidence and sound logic.

You think you are, but you're missing the entire concept, and why light doesn't have to travel to Earth first to get a mirror image on the film/retina when the brain is looking through the eyes, at the world, not the other way around.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nageli also thought he was right and Mendel was wrong. He rejected the very core of Mendel's discovery, but now he is just a footnote in the annals of history, and Mendel is the father of genetics. Go figure.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Nageli was wrong about Mendel, just like you're wrong about your father.

Whatever Spacemonkey says rules!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you can't be wrong, can you, because your reasoning and your logic are impeccable. So who's to argue with you?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Apparently not you. If you see a flaw in my reasoning and logic, then you need to point it out.

I already did, but you keep coming back with the tired responses about photons traveling, when I'm telling you that a mirror image, when the eyes are looking out at the world, does not require travel time. But you refuse to even consider that this does not break any laws of physics. That's where your logic has gone into a ditch.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You also said Lessans was wrong about determinism, and about conscience.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

He was.

Then let's not discuss this book anymore. The fact that this thread is the only one people seem to be interested in shows me how influenced people can be by others. I know that this book is going to sell and sell big, because this knowledge is undeniable and as long as it takes, the truth will one day come out, because it always does. This is just the beginning of good things to come.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

When did Lessans become the judge of all truth and knowledge; and where did it say this knowledge has to pass through him in order to be approved?

Doesn't fly Angakuk. These are not my father's laws; these are God's laws, and God's laws are eternal. He just happened to observe them.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I think you're right. I've been thinking for a while that she must picture light flowing around an object like air around an aerofoil. Recall that she was earlier repeatedly describing light as "passing over" objects, only to retract those words when people asked her about it. She doesn't seem to understand that bouncing off is bouncing off, regardless of the angles involved. Or that the laws of optics dictate the angles of reflection, such that light striking at a low angle of incidence (i.e. nearly square on) cannot just pass by with a gentle caress. It would be nice if Peacegirl could confirm this analysis, but she seems to have less of an idea of what she has been thinking than anybody else.

Let me clarify this. Even if light bounces off of objects, which word you seem to prefer, this light only goes so far and then it gets dispersed. That is why scientists couldn't figure out another alternative to what was going on because they believed that the eyes were a sense organ and all that was required to form an image was light. If efferent vision is true, then we cannot detect just light and get an image. We detect the object through light but no further than the inverse square law allows us to see said object. To repeat: We don't just gather light on film thousands of lightyears later which then forms an image of the past if efferent vision is true, and only time will tell whether Lessans was right. You are way too confident and premature in your analysis that Lessans was not.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

To repeat: We don't just gather light on film thousands of lightyears later which then forms an image of the past if efferent vision is true, and only time will tell whether Lessans was right. .

The Hubble Deep Field images flat out disprove this, so efferent vision is falsified.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The Hubble Deep Field images flat out disprove this, so efferent vision is falsified.

Going back to this picture is like putting the cart before the horse. You can't infer anything until more rigorous tests are done. And if Lessans is right by further testing, then and only then can scientists interpret what those images are based on this new knowledge. This includes the moons of Jupiter as well. You can't just assume because you want to believe these images are from the distant past. LadyShea, I have to say that you are no different than the fundamentalists you judge so harshly. You are trying to protect your sacred science at all costs, and that's probably why you can't even imagine the possibility that Lessans could be right. That's why if you and Spacemonkey are the only ones left, this thread is history. But that's okay because I don't expect centuries of belief to be accepted or even taken seriously in an online philosophy forum. I did try to plant a seed, as I already mentioned, and I explained Lessans' observations to the best of my ability (though maybe not good enough). Whether he was right will not be determined here. The truth will be revealed at some future date, whether it's in our lifetime or not.

[LadyShea]

The image is the proof, the image is the test result. It's there, it exists. There it is, peacegirl! Explain it! We know exactly how it was made, the coordinates in the sky and the number of minutes of exposure and exactly how the Hubble's CCD works.

If your model can't explain the image right now, you don't have a model, you have a falsified idea.


And lol on the ad homs. I don't have to believe in that image, as I said there it is, it exists, anyone and everyone can study it to their heart's content, it's not a figment of my belief in it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The image is the proof, the image is the test result. It's there, it exists. There it is, peacegirl! Explain it! We know exactly how it was made, the coordinates in the sky and the number of minutes of exposure and exactly how the Hubble's CCD works.

If your model can't explain the image right now, you don't have a model, you have a falsified idea.


And lol on the ad homs. I don't have to believe in that image, as I said there it is, it exists, anyone and everyone can study it to their heart's content, it's not a figment of my belief in it.

Okay Ladyshea, that's fine. Believe that this IS the proof. I disagree. I will say, once again, that only time will tell.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The image is the proof, the image is the test result. It's there, it exists. There it is, peacegirl! Explain it! We know exactly how it was made, the coordinates in the sky and the number of minutes of exposure and exactly how the Hubble's CCD works.

If your model can't explain the image right now, you don't have a model, you have a falsified idea.


And lol on the ad homs. I don't have to believe in that image, as I said there it is, it exists, anyone and everyone can study it to their heart's content, it's not a figment of my belief in it.

Oh my god, all you're doing is ranting to defend your position. That's all you're doing. You're no different than the fundamentalists you are so against, but you don't see it because you're blind to any problem with science's premises. I really get it, but unless you see things with an open mind, you'll try to cream me with no proof but your precious science that proves nothing at all. These are assertions LadyShea.

[LadyShea]

I am not the one ranting. This is a rant, or rave if you prefer...it's also pure projection. You can't explain anything so you resort to crackpottery like this.

I have to say that you are no different than the fundamentalists you judge so harshly. You are trying to protect your sacred science at all costs, and that's probably why you can't even imagine the possibility that Lessans could be right.

Oh and another one

You're no different than the fundamentalists you are so against, but you don't see it because you're blind to any problem with science's premises. I really get it, but unless you see things with an open mind, you'll try to cream me with no proof but your precious science that proves nothing at all.

You have yet to name any problem within optics, except that it refutes Lessans.

Explain the Hubble Deep Field images within the efferent vision model, peacegirl. Go ahead...you say it's not proof but you can't even start explaining it with your nonsense...you won't even try

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god, all you're doing is ranting to defend your position. That's all you're doing. You're no different than the fundamentalists you are so against, but you don't see it because you're blind to any problem with science's premises. I really get it, but unless you see things with an open mind, you'll try to cream me with no proof but your precious science that proves nothing at all. These are assertions LadyShea.

LOL, look at the weasel flail and squirm and lie when presented yet again with yet another irrefutable refutation of the big bonehead's nonsense. Such a liar, she can't utter the truth.

[LadyShea]

These are assertions LadyShea.

Yeah, you're still cloudy on the definitions of words.

An actual image you can look at and study, along with detailed explanations of the methods used to get the image, is the opposite of an assertion. It's an empirical piece of evidence that any alternative model has to explain or it can be dismissed as crackpottery immediately.

They pointed the Hubble at an apparently empty bit of space, exposed the CCD for a million minutes, and got that image. How do you explain that?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are they about 30 meters away from the object and traveling away from it? [Yes or No]

Are they about 30 meters away from the camera film and traveling towards it? [Yes or No]

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You think you are, but you're missing the entire concept, and why light doesn't have to travel to Earth first to get a mirror image on the film/retina when the brain is looking through the eyes, at the world, not the other way around.

Okay, then how does that light comprising the mirror image get to be there at the film/retina on Eath if it never travels there? Does it teleport there, or was it always there and stationary, or did it come into existence there? Those are the only other options if it doesn't travel.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already did, but you keep coming back with the tired responses about photons traveling, when I'm telling you that a mirror image, when the eyes are looking out at the world, does not require travel time. But you refuse to even consider that this does not break any laws of physics. That's where your logic has gone into a ditch.

There's nothing to consider. Light that can be somewhere without getting there, or which gets there without traveling there violates the laws of physics. Your repeated assertions to the contrary do nothing to change that. And you are flip-flopping again. Your words:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They did travel there...

According to you, the photons did travel there, and that means there is a travel time involved.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then let's not discuss this book anymore.

You are free to leave any time you want. Or at least you would be were it not for your mental condition which compels you to continue.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that this thread is the only one people seem to be interested in shows me how influenced people can be by others.

You are the one who stopped responding in the other thread. You gave up because you could not answer my questions about conscience. YOU chose to focus on this thread instead.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know that this book is going to sell and sell big, because this knowledge is undeniable and as long as it takes, the truth will one day come out, because it always does. This is just the beginning of good things to come.

Who are you trying to convince? You know you have no reason to think the book will sell, or that its contents are rationally undeniable or even true. You have nothing but your faith and delusion.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Let me clarify this. Even if light bounces off of objects, which word you seem to prefer, this light only goes so far and then it gets dispersed.

So now you agree that the non-absorbed light hitting objects does bounce off? And that you have been wrong to repeatedly claim that it does not? Please clarify your 'clarification'.

(And according to the afferent model (aka reality) dispersion begins from the moment light leaves the surface of the object. It doesn't happen all at once at some specified distance from the object.)

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is why scientists couldn't figure out another alternative to what was going on because they believed that the eyes were a sense organ and all that was required to form an image was light.

Which as all the evidence conclusively shows, is quite true. Therefore no alternative account is required.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If efferent vision is true, then we cannot detect just light and get an image.

But we can. Therefore efferent vision is not true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...only time will tell whether Lessans was right. You are way too confident and premature in your analysis that Lessans was not.

Time has told, and Lessans was wrong. You have been way too confident and premature in your judgment that he was right. You accepted his claims on faith without first learning anything at all about the afferent model he was rejecting or the mountains of evidence supporting it. You continue to maintain that he was right despite being unable to reconcile the evidence with his claims or provide a consistent and coherent model by which his claims could even possibly be true.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am not the one ranting. This is a rant, or rave if you prefer...it's also pure projection. You can't explain anything so you resort to crackpottery like this.

I'm not ranting. I'm just expressing my feelings.

I have to say that you are no different than the fundamentalists you judge so harshly. You are trying to protect your sacred science at all costs, and that's probably why you can't even imagine the possibility that Lessans could be right.

But that's what you're doing. The Hubble deep field is not proof that the eyes are not a sense organ. That's what I mean when I say you are acting like a fundamentalist. What if empirical tests prove that Lessans was right after all? I'm sure you'd be shocked. And saying you're a fundamentalist was not meant to be an ad hom.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Oh and another one

You have yet to name any problem within optics, except that it refutes Lessans.

There is no problem in optics. It's just wrong when it comes to patterns in light traveling forever.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Explain the Hubble Deep Field images within the efferent vision model, peacegirl. Go ahead...you say it's not proof but you can't even start explaining it with your nonsense...you won't even try

No, I'm not. I'm not obligated to explain what these images are. All I know is if Lessans is right, we're seeing something going on in real time. Hopefully, science will take another look once the empirical tests are affirmative, and this misconception is corrected.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

LOL, look at the weasel flail and squirm and lie when presented yet again with yet another irrefutable refutation of the big bonehead's nonsense. Such a liar, she can't utter the truth.

Davidm is rubbing off on you. It's not becoming.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The Hubble deep field is not proof that the eyes are not a sense organ.

I didn't say it was proof that the eyes are a sense organ. That's dishonesty right there, Weasel

I said it was proof that the following statement of yours is flat out false. Notice you mentioned "on film" and nothing about eyes.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We don't just gather light on film thousands of lightyears later which then forms an image of the past

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What if empirical tests prove that Lessans was right after all? I'm sure you'd be shocked. And saying you're a fundamentalist was not meant to be an ad hom.

If empirical tests prove that Lessans was right I will indeed be shocked..however I would study the evidence and see where science got things wrong and would have to change my position should it be demonstrated to be wrong. That is the opposite of fundamentalism.

Or, I could instead learn from you to just dismiss all empirical evidence and maintain a faith position. That's what real fundamentalists do.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have yet to name any problem within optics, except that it refutes Lessans.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no problem in optics. It's just wrong when it comes to patterns in light traveling forever.

Optics says nothing, anywhere about "patterns in light" traveling at all. That's dishonesty again, Weasel. That's a strawman

Optics/physics says that light, which is electromagnetic energy, travels unless it has been absorbed and is therefore no longer light at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not obligated to explain what these images are. All I know is if Lessans is right, we're seeing something going on in real time. Hopefully, science will take another look once this misconception is corrected.

Science is going to say "crackpottery" unless you have an alternative model that actually works at all at explaining any and all observations. So, no you're not obligated, but you are demonstreating that Lessans was a class A nutjob.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Davidm is rubbing off on you. It's not becoming.

LOL davidm is the one who posted that