A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I used the word 'pattern'. But I never said light travels with a pattern.

Whether you are trying to or not, that's what you're doing.

This is turning into a semantic nightmare. You know what I mean and that's all that counts. I am trying to accommodate everyone's sensibilities, but no matter what word I use, no one seems to be happy. The pattern is in the light. There is no other way to put it unless I go back to the original expression.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then stop making claims that require teleportation.

No, it's you that is not grasping why the requirements for sight; that the object is bright enough and large enough to be seen, work in the efferent model and do not violate the laws of physics. The only difference is that we wouldn't be able to see each other until 8.3 minutes later. We're at a standstill because you will never give up the notion that in this version, photons are doing something that is physically impossible.

[LadyShea]

The pattern is in the light. There is no other way to put it unless I go back to the original expression.

Light travels.

No need for any other words.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it's you that is not grasping why the requirements for sight; that the object is bright enough and large enough to be seen, work in the efferent model and do not violate the laws of physics. The only difference is that we wouldn't be able to see each other until 8.3 minutes later. We're at a standstill because you will never give up the notion that in this version, photons are doing something that is physically impossible.

The mirror image is made of photons? Yes or no? If yes, then the photons have to get there somehow for your model to be compatible with the laws of physics.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So the light is at the film. How did it get there?

So the light is at the film and didn't travel to get there. How did it get there?

So how does the light get to be there, at the camera on Earth, if it has not traveled there, teleported there, come into existence there, or always been there? How did it get there?

Light arrives 8.3 minutes later, but efferent vision changes the direction the brain and eyes see, thus creating this phenomenon of instant sight, which you're just not understanding.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Let's try an analogy. When you look at a painting of a barn, does anyone think the image of the barn traveled in or with the paint to the canvas? Does anyone think the pattern of the barn traveled on the brush to the canvas? No.

The image was created by the paint physically contacting the canvas in a certain pattern of colors and intensities.

When we talk about vision and photography, we are saying that the light physically contacts the sensor, and that there are different colors and intensities of light contacting those sensors, and the image is created from the pattern of color and intensity of that light. The image did not exist before this physical contact. There was just light traveling.

I'm not disputing this analogy. But the light making contact with the eyes depends on the brightness of the object, not the travel time to Earth. This is the crux of the problem. You keep saying it's physically impossible, and I'm saying it's not when you understand the mechanism behind efferent vision.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The mirror image is made of photons? Yes or no? If yes, then the photons have to get there somehow for your model to be compatible with the laws of physics.

How do the photons get there?

They travel and are constantly being replaced by the Sun's emissions. But you're still missing half of the equation. If the object must be in the field of view (which you seem to think is circular so we have a problem right there), then when the lens is aimed at the object, it is not just receiving light that is traveling over the course of time. It is receiving a mirror image of that object. In the afferent model, it doesn't matter that the object is there or not which is why everyone keeps talking about light that travels and is received by the eye or film. Do you at least see the difference in the two models?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Are you saying now that we can't take photographs in real time?

We can't take a photograph without light being present. That is a necessary condition in order to see anything in the external world, or to take a photograph. It would be dark otherwise. Lessans (I use his last name to make it less personal) has always maintained that we must have light but it works backwards. We see what's out there due to light's properties. We don't see because light is bringing the world to us. So until light is here on Earth, how could we see each other if light must be present? We can't see each other at night either, for the same reason. The requirements for sight are such that light must be reflecting the object, not the other way around.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

They travel from where?

Light is already on the surface of the film? Light from where? How did it get there? Where do the "replaced" photons go?

I told you that they don't disappear. They join the other light in the visual spectrum when that light is no longer capable of being absorbed by the object at that distance (inverse square law). Science thinks the non-absorbed light just continues on forever but that's not what happens according to the efferent version.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You should change the bit about there being evidence too, seeing as no evidence is provided in the subsequent paragraphs.

No, I won't do that because there is evidence.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're welcome. But how did you fix it? I thought the book was already published. Also, what about the claim of evidence? Why are you adding claims about there being supporting evidence - claims which Lessans apparently did not make?

I told everyone that the book is published and for sale, but I can revise it at a cost to me. If I'm not satisfied, I need to fix it. That's the good part about POD publishing. He provided his observations, which were accurate in my estimation. He also said that this could be tested for further proof.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I read an updated Dr. Spock book (the child-rearing guy not the Star Trek guy). Dr. Spocks original words were all italicized and indented, and the words of the doctor who did the compiling and updating and additions were not italicized or indented , so the reader knew exactly who said what at all times.

You really should have done that.

The good news is that my father trusted me, and actually he said at the end of the book, if anyone can explain this discovery in a clearer way, please come forward.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: AFTERWORD

This book was not meant to satisfy the connoisseur of style,
grammar, punctuation, vocabulary and form in general (I’m quite sure
this book has errors when measured by the standards of whether a
certain word should have been capitalized, or a comma should have
gone here instead of there), but was written primarily to reveal
knowledge never before understood. I don’t deny that others could
have done a better job in explaining this discovery, and their services
are still welcome if they can clarify it even more. My job was to make
known this discovery, which I have done to the best of my ability.

Because the knowledge herein is completely scientific and
mathematical (undeniable), as with the simple equation given in the
introduction, it should be obvious that if you find yourself in
disagreement then there must be something you do not understand.
It is for this reason that this work must be studied thoroughly, chapter
by chapter, and also why it must be read more than once. When you
have read it over at least two times, you will realize that all the
problems of human relation have been unquestionably solved. Well,
what are you waiting for? I did my part, now you do yours.

If you would like to see the transition get started as quickly as
possible, then you will desire to help in disseminating this knowledge.
If you cannot reach the political leaders but you would still like to be
of assistance, it will be necessary to select several people that you
consider as qualified thinkers, with or without a title, so that they can
also become part of the chain reaction. Before long it will spread like
wildfire right across the entire globe. Once a sufficient number of
people understand the principles and demand that this work be
thoroughly investigated by the scientific community, this discovery
will be confirmed valid and celebrated as one of the most important
discoveries of all time. This knowledge will then become part of every
school curriculum, and it won’t be but a relatively short period of time
that the Golden Age can be officially launched.

When man fully realizes that all evil came into existence out of
necessity in his years of development, and out of necessity it will be
removed as he comes of age, he will recognize the fantastic wisdom
guiding this universe. No longer will man need to blame as a way to
solve his problems because the actions that made blame and
punishment necessary will be prevented from arising. Our prayers for
peace on earth will be answered at long last. The next time you feel
like expressing your appreciation or gratitude for this new world, don’t
thank me for pointing the way because my will is not free. Thank
God, for it was His wisdom that has guided us to this Promised Land.
And so, my friends, I bid you adieu. If God is willing, perhaps we
shall all meet, one day, in the Golden Age.

[Vivisectus]

Because the knowledge herein is completely scientific and
mathematical (undeniable), as with the simple equation given in the
introduction, it should be obvious that if you find yourself in
disagreement then there must be something you do not understand.

The funny thing is that that very statement proves that this book is NOT scientific at all, and that Lessans did not understand the scientific method at all. A scientific book would NEVER claim to be the final word on ANY subject - ever. Any theory is only good until a better one comes along that explains more, and explains it better. We will discard evolution if a better explanation surfaces, and we are already starting to see the limitations of classical atomic theory. The beauty of science is that it is adaptable, and tries to avoid dogmatism. This statement by Lessans is the most dogmatic statement imaginable, and further proof of his foolish arrogance.

As for equating disagreement with lack of understanding - that is one of the well-known hallmarks of a crackpot. It is just the very worst thing you could possibly say, especially if you want to be taken seriously.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light arrives 8.3 minutes later, but efferent vision changes the direction the brain and eyes see, thus creating this phenomenon of instant sight, which you're just not understanding.

People are not understanding it because you are not explaining it, you are only asserting that this is the way it happens. What part of "How does it work?" do you not understand?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But the light making contact with the eyes depends on the brightness of the object.

Light making contact with the eye is photons traveling through the lens and contacting the retina. That is 'contact with the eye'. The brightness of the object only effects how many photons travel to the eye.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They travel and are constantly being replaced by the Sun's emissions.

then when the lens is aimed at the object, it is not just receiving light that is traveling over the course of time. It is receiving a mirror image of that object. In the afferent model, it doesn't matter that the object is there or not which is why everyone keeps talking about light that travels and is received by the eye or film.

Do you at least see the difference in the two models?

The Sun's emmisions are photons and existing photons DO NOT get replaced they continue to travel till they are absorbed.

Light/photons travel to the eye, through the lens, to the retina and are intrepreted by the brain as an image. The image is composed of photons in different intensities and frequencies, and once reflected continue on till absorbed.

The main difference is that afferent vision describes what is happening in the real world, Efferent vision is the product of a warped and twisted imagination.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that they don't disappear. They join the other light in the visual spectrum when that light is no longer capable of being absorbed by the object at that distance (inverse square law). Science thinks the non-absorbed light just continues on forever but that's not what happens according to the efferent version.

When you say they "join the other light" what exactly do you mean? If they don't disappear, and they are now with "other light" then that means they are still "continuing", correct? How is this not those photons still traveling? How does "joining other light" stop them from continuing?

In the standard optics model, all light whether reflected or emitted is traveling around, so the non-absorbed photons are in that same mix of billions of photons...this could be considered "joining" other light, too.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We can't take a photograph without light being present.

Light being present WHERE? Name the physical location where light must be to take a photograph.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light travels.

No need for any other words.

But that doesn't explain white light that does travel and non-absorbed light that does not travel when the object is no longer present.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light being present WHERE? Name the physical location where light must be to take a photograph.

At the film LadyShea. You still can't believe that light can be present at the film without the light traveling to Earth. Here again is the answer. If the lens is aimed at the real object, or substance (in this version the object must be in the field of view), then that non-absorbed light which is bouncing off of the surface of the object provides an instant mirror image at the film when the snapshot is taken. I know you're going to say that this means the photons are teleporting, but they really aren't.

[LadyShea]

But that doesn't explain white light that does travel and non-absorbed light that does not travel when the object is no longer present.

There is no such thing as light that does not travel. Light that doesn't travel is a blatant violation of physical laws.

You either need to stop talking about non traveling light, or stop asserting that efferent vision does not violate the laws of physics. You can't have it both ways.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

At the film LadyShea. You still can't believe that light can be present at the film without the light traveling to Earth.

It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of the laws of physics and the laws of nature which you claim you are not violating in your model.

You cannot have photons at a location without a physical mechanism by which they came to be at that location unless you violate the laws of physics.

If they aren't traveling, and they aren't teleporting, and they aren't spontaneously coming into existence at that location, then how did they get there?

Either tell us the mechanism, admit that you have no idea what you are talking about, or admit that efferent vision is not compatible with physics.

These are your only choices unless you prefer more mealy mouthing and weaseling, which of course you seem to prefer.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that doesn't explain white light that does travel and non-absorbed light that does not travel when the object is no longer present.

"non-absorbed light that does not travel" does not need an explaination because it is total nonsense, there is no such thing. All light travels at c and continues whether the object is in view, present, or nonexistent, the light/photons exist independently of any object or light source.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The funny thing is that that very statement proves that this book is NOT scientific at all, and that Lessans did not understand the scientific method at all. A scientific book would NEVER claim to be the final word on ANY subject - ever. Any theory is only good until a better one comes along that explains more, and explains it better. We will discard evolution if a better explanation surfaces, and we are already starting to see the limitations of classical atomic theory. The beauty of science is that it is adaptable, and tries to avoid dogmatism. This statement by Lessans is the most dogmatic statement imaginable, and further proof of his foolish arrogance.

It's ironic, but it's you that is dogmatic. Lessans knew what he was up against which is why he introduced the book in this way. You are proving to me that he was correct in prefacing this book as he did.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: The Most Important Discovery of Our Times

Who, in his right mind or with knowledge of history would believe
it possible that the 20th century will be the time when all war, crime,
and every form of evil or hurt in human relations must come to a
permanent end? [Note: This is a reminder that the author lived in the
20th century. Though we are well into the 21st century, this discovery
has yet to be given a thorough investigation by our world’s leading
scientists]. When first hearing this prophesy, shortly after Hitler had
slaughtered 6 million Jews, I laughed with contempt because nothing
appeared more ridiculous than such a statement. But after 15 years
(8 hours a day) of extensive reading and thinking, my dissatisfaction
with a certain theory that had gotten a dogmatic hold on the
mind compelled me to spend nine strenuous months in the deepest
analysis, and I made a finding that was so difficult to believe it took
me two years to thoroughly understand its full significance for all
mankind and three additional years to put it into the kind of language
others could comprehend.

It is the purpose of this book to reveal this
finding — a scientific discovery about the nature of man whose life,
as a direct consequence of this mathematical revelation, will be
completely revolutionized in every way for his benefit bringing about
a transition so utterly amazing that if I were to tell you of all the
changes soon to unfold, without demonstrating the cause as to why
these must come about, your skepticism would be aroused sufficiently
to consider this a work of science fiction, for who would believe it
possible that all evil (every bit of hurt that exists in human relation)
must decline and fall the very moment this discovery is thoroughly
understood.

<snip>

There is quite a difference between being positive or
dogmatic over knowledge that is questionable and being positive over
something that is undeniable such as two plus two equals four.
(Note: Please don't tell me that two plus two doesn't equal four).

<snip>

People have often questioned, “Well assuming that you did make
a fantastic discovery, why bring it to me? You should run to the
nearest university so it can be acknowledged. Then you would be
acclaimed a genius and become famous the world over.”

“That’s exactly what I did but when one professor heard my claims
he smiled and lost all interest. Another used a method for screening
out the wrong applicants for such a discovery. He immediately
questioned my educational background and wanted to know from what
university I graduated, to which I replied, “I have no formal education
because I never completed the 7th grade.” Then without giving me
a chance to tell him that my informal education was far superior to
his formal education he responded without giving much thought to
what he was about to say, ‘And you dare to come in here with such
outrageous claims about solving all the problems of human relation!’”

“I couldn’t believe my ears, and my blood was beginning to boil.”
“Well tell me,” I said, trying to control myself, “What is your
formal education?”

“I graduated from Harvard with many honors and credentials.”
I then inquired, “With all your formal education, your honors,
your degrees and diplomas, what discoveries have you made to solve
the problems plaguing mankind?” There was no answer and he hung
up.

After that I was completely frustrated. Did you ever hear of
anything so insulting, as if a discovery could not be made unless
someone graduates college first? Which of these universities taught
Newton, Edison, or Einstein, or did they perceive relations their
professors were unable to understand until explained to them?
Instead of being centers of investigation where new knowledge can be
thoroughly analyzed, the professors use what they have been taught as
a standard of truth from which vantage point they survey the
landscape of divergent views for the sole purpose of criticism and
disagreement. Isn’t this a perfect example of putting the proverbial
cart before the horse, which should be a lesson to all professors that
they should never become so dogmatic about their theories or
opinions that they won’t take the time to investigate anything that
might lead to the truth.

<snip>

I am therefore offering this question of every reader
but especially of philosophers, professors and theologians because
pride may prevent them from going beyond the introduction. Is there
the slightest possibility that your head full of knowledge does not
contain as much truth as you would like to believe? Would you
gamble your life or the lives of those you love that you really know, or
is there just the remotest chance that you only think you know?
What is the standard by which you judge the veracity of your
knowledge and wisdom; the fact that it was taught in college? Is your
determination of truth based on the fact that it was written by a noted
author, composed from your own analysis and understanding, or
revealed through heavenly inspiration? What makes you so certain,
so positive, so dogmatic?

Because this book dares to oppose the three
forces that control the thinking of mankind — government, religion
and education — the most dangerous thinking of all; the kind that
really doesn’t know the truth as Socrates observed but because of
some fallacious standard presumes it does, I have found it necessary
to resort to this manner of introducing my work in the fervent hope
that I can break through this sound barrier of learned ignorance and
reach those who will be able to extract the pure, unadulterated
relations involved before another century passes by or an atomic
explosion destroys millions of lives.

Now be honest with yourselves;
do you really know, or only think you know? If you will admit there
is just the slightest possibility that you have not been endowed with
the wisdom of God; that you may be wrong regarding many things
despite the high opinion you and others hold of yourselves; that the
expression the blind leading the blind could even pertain to you; I
know this is difficult for you to conceive; I say, if there is the slightest
possibility you could be mistaken and you are willing to admit this to
yourselves, then I cordially welcome your company aboard otherwise
you had better not read this book for my words are not meant for your
ears. But should you decide to accompany me on this voyage I would
like to remind you, once again, that this book is not a religious or
philosophical tract attempting some ulterior form of indoctrination;
it is purely scientific as you will see, and should the word God seem
incongruous kindly remember Spinoza and you will understand
immediately that it is not. While God is proven to be a mathematical
reality as a consequence of becoming conscious of the truth, war and
crime are compelled to take leave of the Earth.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

As for equating disagreement with lack of understanding - that is one of the well-known hallmarks of a crackpot. It is just the very worst thing you could possibly say, especially if you want to be taken seriously.

You're 100% wrong. There are laws of nature that do not change with time. They are few and far between, but they do exist Vivisectus. One of those laws is that man's will is not free. It can't be free and not free; it has to be one or the other. This is a universal law, and there are no exceptions. If you can't see this, or you don't even want to try to understand why this is true, maybe this book isn't meant for you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's not a matter of belief, it's a matter of the laws of physics and the laws of nature which you claim you are not violating in your model.

You cannot have photons at a location without a physical mechanism by which they came to be at that location unless you violate the laws of physics.

If they aren't traveling, and they aren't teleporting, and they aren't spontaneously coming into existence at that location, then how did they get there?

Either tell us the mechanism, admit that you have no idea what you are talking about, or admit that efferent vision is not compatible with physics.

These are your only choices unless you prefer more mealy mouthing and weaseling, which of course you seem to prefer.

I don't know what the *#$& you're talking about. The mechanism is efferent vision. If it turns out, through empirical testing, that this version of sight is true, then the mechanism as to how this occurs will be investigated further. Based on your reasoning abilities, you obviously think you have enough knowledge to determine that this discovery is invalid. So why not move on LadyShea? Why invest your precious time in a thread that you believe has no merit? I don't get you people at all. Today I'm leaving for my trip. Just wanted to give you a heads up so you won't be waiting for me. Hopefully when I come back, you'll have some pertinent questions, otherwise I'm afraid the conversation will be just another trip around the same old mountain with no progress at all.