A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.)

I never said it did Spacemonkey.

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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

It obviously looks like an airtight model. That's why the mistake was made in the first place, but that doesn't make it true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But we can. Therefore efferent vision is not true.

But that's a theory. If we could see from light alone, we would get an image without the actual object being in view, but we can't. You keep bringing up sensors and how they won't pick up light at a certain point. And that's true, but the object must be in one's visual range. We cannot detect an image from the past from light alone. The reasons you give aren't adding up.

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

I believe I have given a consistent and coherent model. You just can't understand why time is not involved, therefore you believe this model of sight breaks the laws of physics, which it doesn't.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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.

But light traveling in a straight line at different frequencies will form an image when focused on a surface, this is what optics states, this is what has been observed, demonstrated, and tested over many years, till it is an undeniable fact of science. There has been no credable evidence that this is not so.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

You did it again. You're arguing with yourself.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said it did Spacemonkey.

Hey WEASEL! You just completely ignored another question:

"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'."

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that's a theory. If we could see from light alone, we would get an image without the actual object being in view, but we can't. You keep bringing up sensors and how they won't pick up light at a certain point. And that's true, but the object must be in one's visual range. We cannot detect an image from the past from light alone. The reasons you give aren't adding up.

Now you're back to conflating the two questions of whether the object has to be in range at the time the light leaves its surface and whether the object has to still be in range and in existence when that light arrives at the camera and the photograph is taken. The former is a fact and is explained perfectly well by dispersion and resolution on the afferent model. The latter is not a fact at all, and therefore does not need explaining. This was all explained to you in previous posts. Your response? You completely ignored it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe I have given a consistent and coherent model.

No you don't. You know it doesn't work, and that's why you refuse to answer even simple Yes or No questions about it. Your continued dishonest avoidance shows that you know there are problems which you are refusing to face up to.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You just can't understand why time is not involved, therefore you believe this model of sight breaks the laws of physics, which it doesn't.

How can light be somewhere without getting there, or get there without traveling there and taking time to do so, without breaking the laws of physics? You have absolutely no idea at all, so don't complain that I'm the one who doesn't understand it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

You did it again. You're arguing with yourself.

Perhaps she feels that no-one else is worth arguing with?

[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.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If we could see from light alone, we would get an image without the actual object being in view, but we can't.

Yes we can, you little liar, as has been repeatedly demonstrated to you. WTF do you think the Hubble telescope is taking images of, you little fool? And how many times has this been patiently explained to you, and how many times have you lied about it?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Perhaps she feels that no-one else is worth arguing with?

She always wins.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

She always wins.

And looses at the same time. The best of both worlds, now and the 'Golden Age'.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said it did Spacemonkey.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Hey WEASEL! You just completely ignored another question:

"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'."

Non-absorbed light travels but it becomes white light when the object is too far away or too dim for the sensor to pick up. The pattern of the object does not go on forever if Lessans is right. This P light becomes a condition of sight, which means it reveals objective reality as we look out, through the eyes, as a window to the world.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that's a theory. If we could see from light alone, we would get an image without the actual object being in view, but we can't. You keep bringing up sensors and how they won't pick up light at a certain point. And that's true, but the object must be in one's visual range. We cannot detect an image from the past from light alone. The reasons you give aren't adding up.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Now you're back to conflating the two questions of whether the object has to be in range at the time the light leaves its surface and whether the object has to still be in range and in existence when that light arrives at the camera and the photograph is taken. The former is a fact and is explained perfectly well by dispersion and resolution on the afferent model. The latter is not a fact at all, and therefore does not need explaining. This was all explained to you in previous posts. Your response? You completely ignored it.

I have not ignored anything. The whole discussion is predicated on Lessans' claim that the object has to be within visible range. You say it's not fact, and I'm saying the claim that objects don't have to be within visible range is not fact.

You're the one that is mixing the two concepts up. I told you that light is always traveling but just as the surface of the object absorbs light, the photons just leaving the surface of the object become the mirror image when lens of the eyes, or film, is aimed at the object.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe I have given a consistent and coherent model.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No you don't. You know it doesn't work, and that's why you refuse to answer even simple Yes or No questions about it. Your continued dishonest avoidance shows that you know there are problems which you are refusing to face up to.

Have it your way.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You just can't understand why time is not involved, therefore you believe this model of sight breaks the laws of physics, which it doesn't.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How can light be somewhere without getting there, or get there without traveling there and taking time to do so, without breaking the laws of physics? You have absolutely no idea at all, so don't complain that I'm the one who doesn't understand it.

I never said light doesn't travel, but you're still missing the concept of efferent VISION. It's the eyes that cause a mirror image to be at the retina (it works the same way with cameras), and it doesn't take the light to travel to Earth for this to occur. The reason for this is when the eyes are looking at the external world in real time (whatever is seen is bright enough or large enough for it to be in one's visual range), the light becomes an instant mirror image.

[davidm]

More infantile nonsense. You're like a nonsense-spewing machine.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have not ignored anything.

Liar, you are ignoring me.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said light doesn't travel, but you're still missing the concept of efferent VISION. It's the eyes that cause a mirror image to be at the retina (it works the same way with cameras), and it doesn't take the light to travel to Earth for this to occur. The reason for this is when the eyes are looking at the external world in real time (whatever is seen is bright enough or large enough for it to be in one's visual range), the light becomes an instant mirror image.

HOW

do the eyes do this?

"Voila, we see!" Is that it?

Also, could your address the rather inconvenient fact that they eyes in fact DON'T do this, since we don't see in real time, as is proved by the special theory of relativity, the moons of Jupiter and NASA calculations, all explained repeatedly to your sorry ass and duly ignored by you.

[LadyShea]

The pattern of the object does not go on forever

We agree then, optics does not say that the "pattern of the object goes on forever" at all.

That is a misrepresentation of the standard model you are arguing against, also called a strawman, because you are not arguing against the real thing

[LadyShea]

Lessans' claim that the object has to be within visible range.

Lessans didn't make that claim at all!! You made that claim trying to come up with a model.So now you are blaming your nonsense on Lessans...lol.

[LadyShea]

It's the eyes that cause a mirror image to be at the retina (it works the same way with cameras)

So cameras are magical photon teleportation devices, in that they can "cause" photons to suddenly be at the surface of the camera film?

just as the surface of the object absorbs light, the photons just leaving the surface of the object become the mirror image when lens of the eyes, or film, is aimed at the object.

Yeah right, no laws of physics broken here, except the miraculous workings of discs of plastic or glass that move photons across distances instantly.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have not ignored anything.

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.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans didn't make that claim at all!! You made that claim trying to come up with a model.So now you are blaming your nonsense on Lessans...lol.

Of course the object has to be within visual range. That's his entire claim.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality pp. 121-122

We are able to see the moon, the sun, the distant
stars, etc., not because the one is 3 seconds away, the other 8 minutes
away, and the last many light years away, but simply because these
objects are large enough to be seen at their great distance when
enough light is present. This fallacy has come into existence because
the eyes were considered a sense organ, like the ears. Since it takes
longer for the sound from an airplane to reach our ears when it is a
five thousand feet away than when a thousand, it was assumed that the
same thing occurred with the object sending a picture of itself on the
waves of light. If it was possible to transmit a television picture from
the earth to a planet as far away as the star Rigel, it is true that the
people living there would be seeing the ships of Columbus coming into
America for the first time because the picture would be in the process
of being transmitted through space at a certain rate of speed. But
objects do not send out pictures that travel through space and impinge
on the optic nerve. We see objects directly by looking at them and it
takes the same length of time to see an airplane, the moon, the sun,
or distant stars.

To sum this up — just as we have often observed
that a marching band is out of step to the beat when seen from a
distance because the sound reaches our ears after a step has been
taken, so likewise, if we could see someone talking on the moon via a
telescope and hear his voice on radio we would see his lips move
instantly but not hear the corresponding sound for approximately 3
seconds later due to the fact that the sound of his voice is traveling
186,000 miles a second, but our gaze is not, nor is it an electric
image of his lips impinging on our optic nerve after traversing this
distance. Because Aristotle assumed the eyes functioned like the
other four and the scientific community assumed he was right, it
made all their reasoning fit what appeared to be undeniable.
According to their thinking, how else was it possible for knowledge to
reach us through our eyes when they were compelled to believe that
man had five senses? Were they given any choice?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have not ignored anything.

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]

Every single time you start out with photons traveling, you've lost the concept because a snapshot of the object provides an instant mirror image on the film/retina, even though photons are constantly moving.

[LadyShea]

All he said was a vague "If it's large enough and bright enough it can be seen", your "visual range" also means nothing more than it can be seen. So my apologies, you were making his same vacuous argument.

Neither you nor he details or defines what is large enough, close enough, or bright enough except that if we can see it it meets the criteria for seeing it so we can see it because we can see it. Circles of roundness orbiting a spherical circularity.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

So he says. We have no reason to believe that this is true.

On the first page of this thread you were asked to provide a reason for why we should read Lessans' book and take him seriously. You have still not managed to accomplish that seemingly simple task. You have, however, provided hours of amusement. For that I thank you.

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.

Actually, I prefer the word 'reflect' but I have been using 'bounce' because reflect seems to give you the heebie-jeebies.

Light begins to disperse from the moment it is emitted or reflected and it continues to travel along the path of dispersion until it is either absorbed or redirected. There is no "only goes so far".

[davidm]

"Light only goes so far and then it gets dispersed."



Priceless. How can you not laugh at such vacuousness and stupidity?

She's just like her father, a never-ending source of mirth.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Davidm, if you don't stop rubbing off on yourself you'll go blind.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Davidm, if you don't stop rubbing off on yourself you'll go blind.

Can I just do it till I need glasses? Oops, too late.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Every single time you start out with photons traveling, you've lost the concept because a snapshot of the object provides an instant mirror image on the film/retina, even though photons are constantly moving.

They are Yes or No questions, Peacegirl. The photons have to either be where I said or not be where I said. And think about what you just said: Even though there are traveling photons, I am allegedly losing the concept by asking about traveling photons. That's pretty stupid, even for you. If they are there then I get to ask about them. Try again (minus the weasel).