A revolution in thought - Page 649

LadyShea · #**16201** 05-09-2012, 01:09 PM

Bump

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

I'm not assuming anything; I'm just going by what you wrote. It was you who said both that "light is interacting with the retina" and that the light "hasn't arrived yet." My question was premised on your own clear and unequivocal statements.

I explained yesterday and in the previous post that vision is not dependent on light traveling.

I understand that, but it has nothing to do with our exchange. You wrote that "light is interacting with the retina" even though it "hasn't arrived." Obviously, if it hasn't arrived, it isn't here. AFAIK, the only way the retina and light interact is via direct physical contact, which can't be happening if the light hasn't arrived. By "interacting" do you mean something other than direct physical contact? If so, what?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

2) The subject matter of this exchange is light interacting with the retina. Why are you talking about cameras?

How many times do I have to repeat myself?

Only you can answer that question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't matter whether I am referring to retinas or film because they work in the same way.

Of course it matters. Consistency counts for a great deal, doesn't it? And I find it hard to believe that you really think that the retina and camera film operate identically in every respect.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

3) I thought your position was that light doesn't carry, form or constitute images. If that's the case, why are you equating the light that illuminates the object with a "mirror image"?

I never said that light was not necessary.

I didn't accuse you of denying the necessity of light. I was simply wondering why you equated light with an image when you believe that light doesn't form or carry images. If you'd rather not answer, that's fine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Well, we know with certainty that Lessans was wrong in claiming that there are no "afferent nerve endings" in the eye. In truth, the human visual system is laden with "afferent nerve endings." Had Lessans know that he was incorrect about the physiology, do you think that knowledge would have affected his claims about vision at all? If so, how?

He was right in what he was trying to explain.

For the reasons that follow, he wasn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was trying to show that we are not receiving signals from the optic nerve that allow the brain to interpret the image, which is what a "sense organ" is supposed to do, by definition.

Well, he wasn't trying to "show" anything in the passage under consideration. He was simply making a declarative statement about his views regarding vision vis-vis the other senses.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can make an issue over this to your heart's content.

I already new that, but thanks just the same.

In any event, I didn't make an issue of it. Lessans did. Let's review carefully the relevant excerpt:

Quote:

What is seen through the eyes is an efferent experience. If a lion roared in that room a newborn baby would hear the sound and react because this impinges on the eardrum and is then transmitted to the brain. The same holds true for anything that makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve ending in this organ.

Lessans is saying that ears are sense organs. Why? Because sound strikes the eardrum and gets transmitted to the brain via afferent nerve endings.

He's also saying that the eyes are not sense organs. Why not? "Because" (you father's word, not mine) there are no afferent nerve endings in the eye. In other words, your father's view that vision is an efferent experience is grounded in his view that the eyes contain no efferent nerve endings. How he came to that belief regarding human physiology is a mystery to me, but there it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't invalidate the claim.

Well, yes, it kinda does. We know for a fact that, contrary to Lessans' view, the neurons in the optic nerve are in fact afferent. Thus, the basis of his assertion that vision is an efferent experience turned out to be factually incorrect. I'd wager that if Lessans were alive today and we showed him that his views about the physiology of the human visual system are inaccurate, he'd substantially revise his claims about vision.

peacegirl · #**16202** 05-09-2012, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

I'm not assuming anything; I'm just going by what you wrote. It was you who said both that "light is interacting with the retina" and that the light "hasn't arrived yet." My question was premised on your own clear and unequivocal statements.

I explained yesterday and in the previous post that vision is not dependent on light traveling.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

]I understand that, but it has nothing to do with our exchange. You wrote that "light is interacting with the retina" even though it "hasn't arrived." Obviously, if it hasn't arrived, it isn't here. AFAIK, the only way the retina and light interact is via direct physical contact, which can't be happening if the light hasn't arrived. By "interacting" do you mean something other than direct physical contact? If so, what?

But it has arrived. It's just that the distance between the object, light and film is must shorter in this model than in the afferent model.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

2) The subject matter of this exchange is light interacting with the retina. Why are you talking about cameras?

Quote:

How many times do I have to repeat myself?

Only you can answer that question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't matter whether I am referring to retinas or film because they work in the same way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Of course it matters. Consistency counts for a great deal, doesn't it? And I find it hard to believe that you really think that the retina and camera film operate identically in every respect.

The retina and film work the same exact way. The lens works the same exact way. And the light that is captured by the film and retina work exactly the same way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

I thought your position was that light doesn't carry, form or constitute images. If that's the case, why are you equating the light that illuminates the object with a "mirror image"?

Quote:

I never said that light was not necessary.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

I didn't accuse you of denying the necessity of light. I was simply wondering why you equated light with an image when you believe that light doesn't form or carry images. If you'd rather not answer, that's fine.

You're misunderstanding me again. Light obviously has the pattern of the object within it which is what interacts with the film/retina, but it cannot provide this information in the efferent model, without the object present (i.e., that material substance that is more than just photons). That's why I keep saying the object and light work hand in hand. The afferent model assumes that the pattern of the light is all that is necessary since the eyes and cameras are just light detectors, but there's a huge part missing in this analysis.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Well, we know with certainty that Lessans was wrong in claiming that there are no "afferent nerve endings" in the eye. In truth, the human visual system is laden with "afferent nerve endings." Had Lessans know that he was incorrect about the physiology, do you think that knowledge would have affected his claims about vision at all? If so, how?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

He was right in what he was trying to explain.

For the reasons that follow, he wasn't.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was trying to show that we are not receiving signals from the optic nerve that allow the brain to interpret the image, which is what a "sense organ" is supposed to do, by definition.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Well, he wasn't trying to "show" anything in the passage under consideration. He was simply making a declarative statement about his views regarding vision vis-vis the other senses.

He was describing the difference between how the eyes work and the other senses which would disqualify the eyes as a sense organ, if he is right in his description.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can make an issue over this to your heart's content.

I already new that, but thanks just the same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

In any event, I didn't make an issue of it. Lessans did. Let's review carefully the relevant excerpt:

Quote:

What is seen through the eyes is an efferent experience. If a lion roared in that room a newborn baby would hear the sound and react because this impinges on the eardrum and is then transmitted to the brain. The same holds true for anything that makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve ending in this organ.

Lessans is saying that ears are sense organs. Why? Because sound strikes the eardrum and gets transmitted to the brain via afferent nerve endings.

He's also saying that the eyes are not sense organs. Why not? "Because" (you father's word, not mine) there are no afferent nerve endings in the eye. In other words, your father's view that vision is an efferent experience is grounded in his view that the eyes contain no efferent nerve endings. How he came to that belief regarding human physiology is a mystery to me, but there it is.

All the other senses are experiencing a sensation by what comes in through nerve endings. If the brain is looking out through the eyes at the external world instead of obtaining images from signals sent from the optic nerve (again, this has to be proven through further testing), then you cannot categorize the eyes as a sense organ because they don't fit the definition of what a sense organ is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't invalidate the claim.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Well, yes, it kinda does. We know for a fact that, contrary to Lessans' view, the neurons in the optic nerve are in fact afferent. Thus, the basis of his assertion that vision is an efferent experience turned out to be factually incorrect. I'd wager that if Lessans were alive today and we showed him that his views about the physiology of the human visual system are inaccurate, he'd substantially revise his claims about vision.

You're wrong. He knew what he was talking about.

LadyShea · #**16203** 05-09-2012, 02:30 PM

I simply bumped Maturin's post, none of those quotes is mine. Please change the quote tags to Stephen Maturin

When you click edit, you will see instances of quote=LadyShea, delete LadyShea and replace it with Stephen Maturin

Spacemonkey · #**16204** 05-09-2012, 02:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times do I have to say that light travels (I'm not disagreeing with that)...

If you are not disagreeing with this then you need to stop saying that the nonabsorbed light doesn't travel. You've said this several times. You've also denied it several times.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...but when the light splits up due to absorption, the remaining light is instantly at the retina...

If the nonabsorbed light at the object is instantly at the retina then it has teleported. If it does not teleport, then it must instead travel the intervening distance between the object and the retina, and therefore cannot get there instantly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When I say the eyes capture the photons, it is because of how the brain and eyes work.

You've said this several times, yet it is completely worthless because you cannot explain how this works, for vision or for photography.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Remember, light does not have to travel millions of miles to reach the eye or film if the lens is focused on the OBJECT.

Unless it teleports, light cannot reach any location without traveling there, and thereby taking time to do so.

Seek help. Your mental condition is not improving.

Spacemonkey · #**16205** 05-09-2012, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're really doing a disservice Spacemonkey. Your acting this way is either due to frustration or arrogance. I'm not sure which.

All I'm doing is presenting you with the evidence of your own irrational behavior.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They do not require teleportation. How is that possible if light energy is in a continual stream?

Your claims require teleportation. You said light can reach the retina without traveling the intervening distance. That is teleportation. Nonabsorbed light at the object cannot be instantly at a distant retina or camera film without teleporting.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are misinterpreting what I said. It's the light that is leaving the object that is captured by the eye because of the eye's capabilities, therefore it always gets a mirror image of the OBJECT as it is presently. When I say mirror image, it does not mean that the light is not traveling, but (and this is where the confusion is...) the light does not have to travel millions of miles to reach the eye in this model.

If light is reaching the eye then it has traveled to and arrived at the eye, taking time to do so. If it is there instantly, or if it arrives there without traveling the intervening distance, then it has teleported. The eyes cannot reach out and 'capture' light which is still at or just leaving the object. The retina can only interact with light that has traveled to and arrived at the retina.

We've been over all of these points a million times with you already. But you don't learn anything and just keep reverting to the same ridiculous nonsense. Seek help while you still can. If you still can.

Spacemonkey · #**16206** 05-09-2012, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times do I have to explain why a photographs would work the same way as the retina? And I already explained 1000 times that regardless of where the object is in the camera's field of view, the same mirror image will show up as it would on the retina.

That's a weasel Peacegirl. Saying it works the same as for the retina doesn't help, because you can't tell me how it works for the retina either. Asserting that mirror images will magically show up doesn't answer my questions about the location and behavior of photons during this process.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

1) Where are the unabsorbed photons 0.0001sec after they have hit the object? [Insert answer here]

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

2) Where were the photons (which are at the film comprising the mirror image when the photograph is taken) 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken? [Insert answer here]

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

Bump.

Spacemonkey · #**16207** 05-09-2012, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, here's a very simple disproof of efferent vision and real-time photography. Both require a camera to be able to record the color change of a distant object in real-time. So when a distant ball changes from blue to red, a camera must be able to photograph it as red as soon as it has become red. But if the camera is inside the range where the traveling non-absorbed light has yet to return to 'white full-spectrum' light, then all that light will be blue before the color change. And at the very moment the ball changes to red (i.e. has turned into a ball that absorbs all but red photons) there are no red photons at the camera. They were previously all being absorbed by the ball, and are only now free to bounce off the ball and begin traveling towards the camera. So none of them can be at the camera yet. But the camera cannot produce a red image on film without any red photons there to chemically interact with the film. So the camera cannot produce a real-time image of the newly red ball, and real-time photgraphy and efferent vision are thereby disproved. QED.

Peacegirl, you'll need to address this again, because your previous answer claimed that the non-absorbed light does not travel, and that it can instead teleport to the camera film. As you've indicated that you didn't intend to make either of these claims, you'll need to reanswer the post without saying these things.

Bump.

peacegirl · #**16208** 05-09-2012, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I simply bumped Maturin's post, none of those quotes is mine. Please change the quote tags to Stephen Maturin

When you click edit, you will see instances of quote=LadyShea, delete LadyShea and replace it with Stephen Maturin

Instead of bumping, just make your own post. Is it that hard to do? That way I won't get confused as to who is talking.

peacegirl · #**16209** 05-09-2012, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, here's a very simple disproof of efferent vision and real-time photography. Both require a camera to be able to record the color change of a distant object in real-time. So when a distant ball changes from blue to red, a camera must be able to photograph it as red as soon as it has become red. But if the camera is inside the range where the traveling non-absorbed light has yet to return to 'white full-spectrum' light, then all that light will be blue before the color change. And at the very moment the ball changes to red (i.e. has turned into a ball that absorbs all but red photons) there are no red photons at the camera. They were previously all being absorbed by the ball, and are only now free to bounce off the ball and begin traveling towards the camera. So none of them can be at the camera yet. But the camera cannot produce a red image on film without any red photons there to chemically interact with the film. So the camera cannot produce a real-time image of the newly red ball, and real-time photgraphy and efferent vision are thereby disproved. QED.

Peacegirl, you'll need to address this again, because your previous answer claimed that the non-absorbed light does not travel, and that it can instead teleport to the camera film. As you've indicated that you didn't intend to make either of these claims, you'll need to reanswer the post without saying these things.

I correct that. It does travel but the actual image that is seen is instant because of how the eyes work and which photons it is capturing at the retina. Is that better or are you going to search for another fake error so that you don't have to face the fact that images are not seen in the past without the object being present.

peacegirl · #**16210** 05-09-2012, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times do I have to explain why a photographs would work the same way as the retina? And I already explained 1000 times that regardless of where the object is in the camera's field of view, the same mirror image will show up as it would on the retina.

That's a weasel Peacegirl. Saying it works the same as for the retina doesn't help, because you can't tell me how it works for the retina either. Asserting that mirror images will magically show up doesn't answer my questions about the location and behavior of photons during this process.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

1) Where are the unabsorbed photons 0.0001sec after they have hit the object? [Insert answer here]

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

2) Where were the photons (which are at the film comprising the mirror image when the photograph is taken) 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken? [Insert answer here]

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

Bump.

Oh my gosh, you have disregarded every single thing I said. You are constipated Spacemonkey because you can't get off the idea that images, without the object, are interpreted in the brain. You can't even begin to compare these two models because you keep interjecting ideas that come from the afferent model. Seriously, I give up.

Dragar · #**16211** 05-09-2012, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Remember, light does not have to travel millions of miles to reach the eye or film if the lens is focused on the OBJECT.

No, peacegirl, we've been through this. Lenses aren't magic, remember? We can takes pictures without lenses that you insist are also 'real-time'. Some animals see without lenses.

Or have you forgotten all of that discussion? You cannot start bringing up magical properties of lenses again.

peacegirl · #**16212** 05-09-2012, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times do I have to say that light travels (I'm not disagreeing with that)...

If you are not disagreeing with this then you need to stop saying that the nonabsorbed light doesn't travel. You've said this several times. You've also denied it several times.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...but when the light splits up due to absorption, the remaining light is instantly at the retina...

If the nonabsorbed light at the object is instantly at the retina then it has teleported. If it does not teleport, then it must instead travel the intervening distance between the object and the retina, and therefore cannot get there instantly.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When I say the eyes capture the photons, it is because of how the brain and eyes work.

You've said this several times, yet it is completely worthless because you cannot explain how this works, for vision or for photography.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Remember, light does not have to travel millions of miles to reach the eye or film if the lens is focused on the OBJECT.

Unless it teleports, light cannot reach any location without traveling there, and thereby taking time to do so.

Seek help. Your mental condition is not improving.

Repeating NA is such a copout, it makes me realize that you are the one with major issues that are not being addressed.

peacegirl · #**16213** 05-09-2012, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Remember, light does not have to travel millions of miles to reach the eye or film if the lens is focused on the OBJECT.

No, peacegirl, we've been through this. Lenses aren't magic, remember? We can takes pictures without lenses that you insist are also 'real-time'. Some animals see without lenses.

Oh really? Show me someone or something that has no lenses and can see objects? Yes, they can detect light, but where are the objects?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Or have you forgotten all of that discussion? You cannot start bringing up magical properties of lenses again.

What magical properties are you talking about? A lense helps to focus light, but this doesn't change that the object must be present.

Dragar · #**16214** 05-09-2012, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Remember, light does not have to travel millions of miles to reach the eye or film if the lens is focused on the OBJECT.

No, peacegirl, we've been through this. Lenses aren't magic, remember? We can takes pictures without lenses that you insist are also 'real-time'. Some animals see without lenses.

Oh really? Show me someone or something that has no lenses and can see objects? Yes, they can detect light, but where are the objects?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Or have you forgotten all of that discussion? You cannot start bringing up magical properties of lenses again.

What magical properties are you talking about? A lense helps to focus light, but this doesn't change that the object must be present.

Did you forget the pinhole camera?

And the 'magical properties' being that it lets a retina instantly interact with an object billions of miles away (in violation of special relativity, I should add).

davidm · #**16215** 05-09-2012, 04:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Remember, light does not have to travel millions of miles to reach the eye or film if the lens is focused on the OBJECT.

No, peacegirl, we've been through this. Lenses aren't magic, remember? We can takes pictures without lenses that you insist are also 'real-time'. Some animals see without lenses.

Oh really? Show me someone or something that has no lenses and can see objects? Yes, they can detect light, but where are the objects?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Or have you forgotten all of that discussion? You cannot start bringing up magical properties of lenses again.

What magical properties are you talking about? A lense helps to focus light, but this doesn't change that the object must be present.

In one ear, out the other, little bubblegum mind resets again. Void of knowledge as always.

No, objects do not need to be "present" to be seen. All that is needed is the light reflected or given off by those objects. The Hubble telescope shows the light of objects that have changed their location, their form, or even ceased to exist altogether, eons ago.

And no, this light does not carry images. It's just light. The images are in the mind interpreting the number of photons impinging on the optical system, and their wavelenghts, as light/dark and as hues. As every first grader knows.

:derp:

LadyShea · #**16216** 05-09-2012, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I simply bumped Maturin's post, none of those quotes is mine. Please change the quote tags to Stephen Maturin

When you click edit, you will see instances of quote=LadyShea, delete LadyShea and replace it with Stephen Maturin

Instead of bumping, just make your own post. Is it that hard to do? That way I won't get confused as to who is talking.

You ignored it, I wanted you to respond to it, so I bumped it. What's confusing, his name was in the quotes.

How hard is it to copy this text Stephen Maturin and paste it in place of my name? It takes less than a second to paste

Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin

davidm · #**16217** 05-09-2012, 04:50 PM

BULLETIN BULLETIN BULLETIN

Oh My Gosh, Spacemonkey! Seriously, I Give Up!

FREETHOUGHT-FORUM.COM (Internet News Seriously) -- Oh my gosh, Spacemonkey! Seriously, peacegirl gives up!

Peacegirl gave up trying to persuade the Freethought-Forum message board of the truth of the crackbrained ideas of Seymour Lessans on Wednesday, May 9, 2012, in a post time-stamped 3:15 p.m.

The epochal surrender set off wild celebrations around the globe, with the celebration in New York's Times Square rivaling that of V-E day. Perfect strangers embraced in the street and kissed. Dancing and revelry was general.

"Oh my gosh, peacegirl has given up!" exclaimed E. Mota Khan, a message board analyst with the RAND Corporation. "Well, fuck a duck. Who would have expected that?"

IMPORTANT FLASH BULLETIN UPDATE TO NEWS SUBSCRIBERS: Please disregard the above bulletin. peacegirl resumed posting at 3:16 p.m., one minute after giving up.

peacegirl · #**16218** 05-09-2012, 05:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times do I have to say that light travels (I'm not disagreeing with that)...

If you are not disagreeing with this then you need to stop saying that the nonabsorbed light doesn't travel. You've said this several times. You've also denied it several times.

Because although light travels, non-absorbed light does not go beyond the inverse square law.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...but when the light splits up due to absorption, the remaining light is instantly at the retina...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If the nonabsorbed light at the object is instantly at the retina then it has teleported. If it does not teleport, then it must instead travel the intervening distance between the object and the retina, and therefore cannot get there instantly.

Nooooooooo spacemonkey, it does not teleport. You never were able to get the concept. You fail.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When I say the eyes capture the photons, it is because of how the brain and eyes work.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You've said this several times, yet it is completely worthless because you cannot explain how this works, for vision or for photography.

Whatever you say.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Remember, light does not have to travel millions of miles to reach the eye or film if the lens is focused on the OBJECT.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Unless it teleports, light cannot reach any location without traveling there, and thereby taking time to do so.

You don't have to keep repeating your mantra over and over again.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Seek help. Your mental condition is not improving.

And your someone who can't take the heat, hence the name calling.

Stephen Maturin · #**16219** 05-09-2012, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin

Recognition at last!

:ovation:

davidm · #**16220** 05-09-2012, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times do I have to say that light travels (I'm not disagreeing with that)...

If you are not disagreeing with this then you need to stop saying that the nonabsorbed light doesn't travel. You've said this several times. You've also denied it several times.

Because although light travels, non-absorbed light does not go beyond the inverse square law.

More random-text-generator spew from peacegirl.

Stephen Maturin · #**16221** 05-09-2012, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

"Oh my gosh, peacegirl has given up!" exclaimed E. Mota Khan, a message board analyst with the RAND Corporation.

peacegirl · #**16222** 05-09-2012, 05:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Remember, light does not have to travel millions of miles to reach the eye or film if the lens is focused on the OBJECT.

No, peacegirl, we've been through this. Lenses aren't magic, remember? We can takes pictures without lenses that you insist are also 'real-time'. Some animals see without lenses.

Oh really? Show me someone or something that has no lenses and can see objects? Yes, they can detect light, but where are the objects?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Or have you forgotten all of that discussion? You cannot start bringing up magical properties of lenses again.

What magical properties are you talking about? A lense helps to focus light, but this doesn't change that the object must be present.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Did you forget the pinhole camera?

What about it? It acts exactly like a lens.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

And the 'magical properties' being that it lets a retina instantly interact with an object billions of miles away (in violation of special relativity, I should add).

This is your proof that we see in delayed time? You are just as lost as everyone else. You can think whatever you want about me, it doesn't matter. I feel bad that I am upsetting the apple cart to this degree. I suggest you all ignore me and go back to your way of thinking. I never intended to cause this much angst.

davidm · #**16223** 05-09-2012, 05:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is your proof that we see in delayed time?

We have given you hundreds of proofs of delayed-time seeing. Alas, you have a little piece of of chewed-up bubblegum for a brain.

LadyShea · #**16224** 05-09-2012, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Because although light travels, non-absorbed light does not go beyond the inverse square law

There is no "beyond" the inverse square law, because it is not in a location, it is has no mass nor does it take up space, nor does it have a limited size nor an outer perimeter nor any kind of boundary whatsoever. There is no end point to go beyond or anything to prohibit going beyond.

So, what do you really mean when you say this, since obviously you must mean something other than what you said, as what you said makes no sense at all.

davidm · #**16225** 05-09-2012, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nooooooooo spacemonkey, it does not teleport. You never were able to get the concept. You fail.

Let's review, asshat.

You claimed that this Miracle Light does not get absorbed. Nor does it stay still, hanging around (though that is exactly what Lessans stupidly claimed it does, because he laughably thought that light was made of "molecules" and probably thought it behaved like a gas or something). So it does not get absorbed, and it does not hang around. But nor, says you, does it get reflected or travel or get teleported!

Then what the fuck does it do? You've ruled out all possible options for its behavior! :derp: