A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Stuff Lincoln never said.

[davidm]

Here is something Lincoln did say, though:

"We may congratulate ourselves that this cruel war is nearing its end.
It has cost a vast amount of treasure and blood. . . .
It has indeed been a trying hour for the Republic; but
I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes
me to tremble for the safety of my country. As a result of the war,
corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places
will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong
its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth
is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.
I feel at this moment more anxiety for the safety
of my country than ever before, even in the midst of war.
God grant that my suspicions may prove groundless."

[davidm]

Here is another Lincoln gem, from all the way back to 1837:

"These capitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert to fleece the people, and now that they have got into a quarrel with themselves, we are called upon to appropriate the people's money to settle the quarrel."

The more things change...

[LadyShea]

And not that you care, peacegirl, but quote mining to support your arguments is another big, well know CrackPot Red Flag sure to set off the for any critical, skeptical reader.

Again, the whole book reads like woo, so why you have not approached the New Agers is beyond me

Also, just to demonstrate again (we've been through this)

No, I haven't forgotten, but I like this quote regardless of who wrote it and I did get it from a legitimate website.

How are you ascertaining a "legitimate" website?

Whether or not he was the one that actually said this is not my problem. It serves the purpose that was intended and I'm not removing it from the book.

It's your problem if you want to be taken seriously rather than seen as a sloppy researcher and editor putting out a bunch of crap with zero citations

There are quite a few websites that attribute Schopenhauer to quoting this. Are they all wrong? Here's are a few more quotes that are applicable.

Yes, they're all wrong because they are simply hearing or reading it and passing it on just like you did.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

This is widely attributed to Gandhi, but whether he said it is disputed. Citation and original sources...not just a good idea.

Collections of quotes on websites are not meant to be scholarly resource citations, they're meant for regular people to read them and maybe be inspired. So, using them makes you look like an amateur and Lessans book look unserious. Your call whether you want to use them, but you are the one that wants Lessans taken seriously and you can't even be bothered to learn how to write seriously.

Notice that none of those websites you quoted above has a citation for that quote? A citation is the date and name/context of the speech, book, essay, interviews or other original source of a quote.

Then it's just a saying you like, not unlike the eating pudding and other vapid ditties that pepper the book.

I appreciate your concern about how this book may be falsely viewed, but no matter what I do at this point, for many it won't be taken seriously and for others it will. I don't think the majority of people who are interested in what this discovery is about will use these minor deviations from standard protocol as a reason to conclude that the discovery must be false. What a non-sequiteur that is!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And not that you care, peacegirl, but quote mining to support your arguments is another big, well know CrackPot Red Flag sure to set off the for any critical, skeptical reader.

Again, the whole book reads like woo, so why you have not approached the New Agers is beyond me

Also, just to demonstrate again (we've been through this)

How are you ascertaining a "legitimate" website?

It's your problem if you want to be taken seriously rather than seen as a sloppy researcher and editor putting out a bunch of crap with zero citations

Yes, they're all wrong because they are simply hearing or reading it and passing it on just like you did.

You did not read the book in its entirety. You're like David who is the worst critic I've ever come across. It's obvious that he is getting back at me because he hates the idea that we see in real time. He thinks he can rid the world of what he believes are "lies" by shooting the messenger. Well, it's not gonna happen. I don't have to go to woo's. I just want to present the book to interested people from all walks of life. If this book is the real deal, it will eventually reach the people who can spread it even further.

[davidm]

Yes, I "hate the idea that we see in real time."

It's like how atheists hate God.

Except, they don't. You can't hate something that does not exist.

Personally, I couldn't care less whether we see in real time or not. Why in the world would anyone care about how light worked? What I and others here care about is what's true. Exactly the opposite of what peacegirl cares about.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because the object is within our visual range. That's why the inverse square law is consistent with efferent vision. You keep forgetting that we are seeing the object, not the light, and you keep telling me that the object is superfluous.

This doesn't answer what I asked. How does light from the object get to be instantly at the camera film without teleporting there or traveling there?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times do I have to say no. You are starting from the opposite position. You should be starting from the eyes. If there is light at the eyes because anytime the object is in view, the light is present at the film/retina (inverse square law), we will see the real substance. The light does nothing more than mirror the real world.

There are no eyes in my photographic scenario. How does the light at the film get there?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Remember, the only thing that is required is for light to be coming from the object whether it's being reflected or it is the source of that light. Even if the object is a million miles away it's the same principle. The only difference between the 8 minutes it takes for the light to arrive on Earth and seeing the Sun turned on instantly is that we can't see anything on Earth until the light arrives because it doesn't meet the requirements. How can I see you if there's no light being reflected from you? Obviously, we need light to see anything at all. Now I'm sure you'll go to right back to blue coming before red. It's like I am talking Greek.

I'm not asking you about vision. I am only asking you about the behavior of light in real-time photography, which requires a red photographic image to be possible at the very moment the ball first turns red. That requires red photons to be at the camera film before they've had time to travel from the now-red object to the camera. So how do red photons get to be at the camera film when at the immediately preceding moment there were no red photons anywhere near the camera?

[davidm]

"We are seeing the object, not the light!" We keep forgetting that!

Jesus Fucking Christ, how stupid does it get?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

On YOUR EFFERENT ACCOUNT do the photons which you just agreed exist, also still exist at the times I am asking about?

Bump.

On YOUR EFFERENT ACCOUNT do the photons which you just agreed exist, also still exist at the times I am asking about?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Are you suggesting that every case of traveling light (Photons) is part of the afferent model, and in the efferent model light does something else. What about your example of the Sun being turned on at noon? Are we seeing the Sun instantly via efferent vision, but must wait 8.5 min. to see the person standing next to us afferently?

bump.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by thedoc

When you say the exact same light, do you mean that the same photons are at the eye and the camera at the same time. That would mean that photons can be at 3 places at once (apparently they are still at the object as well). What if there were 10 people with cameras looking and taking pictured of the same object at once? That would mean that each photon could be at 21 places at once, or are all these eyes and cameras at the same place together with the object? That would be a very crowded place.

bumpity bump.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by thedoc

How can the observer and the object instantly be in the same place if they are miles appart? That would mean something or someone would need to telleport there and back again instantly. That could revolutionize the travel industry, we could be there just by looking at it. All that money NASA is spending is wasted. Or is it just the retina, that would be a stretch.

bumpity bump bump bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

This doesn't answer what I asked. How does light from the object get to be instantly at the camera film without teleporting there or traveling there?

It gets to be there through the light that is instantly at the eye. Remember what I said: If the object is seen by the lens this automatically puts the light at the film/retina because it meets the requirements of efferent vision, not afferent vision. You have it backwards which is why you think the light has to travel to Earth or it would violate the laws of physics.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times do I have to say no. You are starting from the opposite position. You should be starting from the eyes. If there is light at the eyes because anytime the object is in view, the light is present at the film/retina (inverse square law), we will see the real substance. The light does nothing more than mirror the real world.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

There are no eyes in my photographic scenario. How does the light at the film get there?

It could be the lens of a camera or the lens of the eye. You're trying to make a distinction between cameras and eyes, but you can't, because up to the film/retina, they work virtually the same.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Remember, the only thing that is required is for light to be coming from the object whether it's being reflected or it is the source of that light. Even if the object is a million miles away it's the same principle. The only difference between the 8 minutes it takes for the light to arrive on Earth and seeing the Sun turned on instantly is that we can't see anything on Earth until the light arrives because it doesn't meet the requirements. How can I see you if there's no light being reflected from you? Obviously, we need light to see anything at all. Now I'm sure you'll go to right back to blue coming before red. It's like I am talking Greek.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm not asking you about vision. I am only asking you about the behavior of light in real-time photography, which requires a red photographic image to be possible at the very moment the ball first turns red. That requires red photons to be at the camera film before they've had time to travel from the now-red object to the camera. So how do red photons get to be at the camera film when at the immediately preceding moment there were no red photons anywhere near the camera?

Because when you're coming from the efferent perspective, all that is necessary is the object to be in the camera's field of view. That means that the reflected light must be striking the film, or we wouldn't be able to take a photograph of the object in real time. To repeat: As long as the camera has the object in its field of view, we know that the light that is reflected from the object must be at the film, but once again this does not mean light has to travel to Earth for this interaction to take place. Every time you say that light has to reach Earth, you are right back to the afferent account. You can't seem to grasp the concept that when the object is in range (not just the light) and is reflecting its light (which eventually joins the other colors of the spectrum), there is no travel time.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It gets to be there through the light that is instantly at the eye. Remember what I said: If the object is seen by the lens this automatically puts the light at the film/retina because it meets the requirements of efferent vision, not afferent vision. You have it backwards which is why you think the light has to travel to Earth or it would violate the laws of physics.

That still isn't an answer. How did the light at the film get there? Where was that light 0.0001sec beforehand? Was it also at the film then? Was it traveling between the object and the film? Was it at the object? Where was it?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It could be the lens of a camera or the lens of the eye. You're trying to make a distinction between cameras and eyes, but you can't, because up to the film/retina, they work virtually the same.

Fine, they work the same. So then how does the light get to the camera film? Remember that lenses can't reach out and capture light that is at a distance. A lens can only bend light that has traveled to it and is passing through it. That is all lenses ever do. So how did the light at the camera film get there?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because when you're coming from the efferent perspective, all that is necessary is the object to be in the camera's field of view. That means that the reflected light must be striking the film, or we wouldn't be able to take a photograph of the object in real time. To repeat: As long as the camera has the object in its field of view, we know that the light that is reflected from the object must be at the film, but once again this does not mean light has to travel to Earth for this interaction to take place. Every time you say that light has to reach Earth, you are right back to the afferent account. You can't seem to grasp the concept that when the object is in range (not just the light) and is reflecting its light (which eventually joins the other colors of the spectrum), there is no travel time.

So then how did the red photons get to the camera film without traveling? They weren't there at the immediately previous moment when the object was still blue. Yet at the very next moment there must be red photons at the film to interact with it. So where did they come from and how did they get there? All your answer tells me is that they have to be there. I already know that. What I want to know is how they got there.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're trying to make a distinction between cameras and eyes, but you can't, because up to the film/retina, they work virtually the same.

That is because they are both afferent. Information is flowing toward the film/retina. It doesn't then turn around and move outward back to where it came from.

[LadyShea]

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The reflected light must be striking the film

we know that the light that is reflected from the object must be at the film

Yes, this has been our point for months and months.

How does that light get there? "Through the light that is instantly at the eye" is gibberish.

How, by what mechanism, does the light reflected from the object get to the camera film that is, say, 10 feet away?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have, and have always continued to answer your questions, until I'm blue in the face but it won't matter as long as your premise starts out with light traveling to reach the eyes. This is NOT the efferent model whatsoever. This is a catastrophic failure to understand this demonstration, whether it is my failure or yours.

You have provided no demonstration, just assertions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is a mechanism. In afferent vision, light does not require the object, but in efferent vision, it does. You are not seeing how opposite these models really are. You can't seem to get out of the trap of thinking in terms of light traveling.

If there is a mechanism you have yet to provide it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's like I am talking Greek.

It is not at all like you are talking Greek. Greek has rules and definitions that are known and understood by those who speak and read it. It is more like you are speaking a private language all your own.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

It is not at all like you are talking Greek. Greek has rules and definitions that are known and understood by those who speak and read it. It is more like you are speaking a private language all your own.

But is it formal or everyday Gibberish, the one is almost indistinguishable from the other, but understanding one you will totally not understand the other.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

It is not at all like you are talking Greek. Greek has rules and definitions that are known and understood by those who speak and read it. It is more like you are speaking a private language all your own.

Well of course. peacegirl is using (P) language.

[thedoc]

Make that (P) Gibberish.

I belive that is a special dialect of (P) word salad.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

On YOUR EFFERENT ACCOUNT do the photons which you just agreed exist, also still exist at the times I am asking about?

Yes Spacemonkey, they exist, but you are not understanding why a mirror image is produced IF the eyes see in the opposite direction than what was previously believed. You are holding on so tightly to the concept of traveling photons (which I am not disputing), that you are having a hard time grasping why the image of the object would show up on the film/retina as it exists now, not as it was a second ago. I don't know at this point if it's even possible to get through to you. You will continue to be confounded by what appears illogical to you, but that's only because you are still thinking in terms of light traveling and striking the eye, which is the afferent account. I don't care how you try to fit a square peg into a round hole, you're going to get the same result because the premise hasn't changed.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, this has been our point for months and months.

How does that light get there? "Through the light that is instantly at the eye" is gibberish.

How, by what mechanism, does the light reflected from the object get to the camera film that is, say, 10 feet away?

It's gibberish because you don't understand the model at all. You don't grasp that light has a different role than previously thought. You and everyone else can't seem to understand that light cannot bring an image to the eye through space and time as if light is responsible for sight. Light is not responsible for sight, although it is the bridge that allows sight to occur. If you don't understand the difference between these two accounts, or even attempt to understand the difference, then you will continue to tell me that it violates physics.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes

Yes...

Yes Spacemonkey, they exist...

Thank you for finally answering. One more question: On your account do photons ever exist at any time without having a location?