A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Light that exists is traveling, there is no such thing as light that isn't traveling. It is a property of light that cannot be changed. This is a law of physics.

If light is in a location, it had to have gotten to that location. Nothing can be at a location without a physical mechanism for coming to be at that location. This is a law of physics

Since light is always traveling, and since being at a location requires a mechanism for coming to be at that location, according to the laws of physics it must be the case that light at a location traveled to that location.

You are positing something else, so you are either stating that A) light has different properties than it is known to have or B) there is some other mechanism for light to come to be at the location "on the surface of camera film". In other words, your account violates the laws of physics as presented.


Not one word of your attempted explanation below addresses either of these physical laws

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.

[thedoc]

It seems that everyone is asking how the photons get from the object to the eyes in the efferent model of vision. It also seems that Peacegirl is trying the say that when the eye focuses on an object the brain/eye looking at the object are in direct contact, so that the photons at the object are already at the eye or camera. So the question is not 'How does the photon get from one place to another?' but 'How does efferent vision negate the distance between the object and eye/camera?' 'How do the eye/camera and the object come to be in the same place?'

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's gibberish because you don't understand the model at all.

Well at least now I know Peacegirl is reading my post's. She may still try to 'pretend ignore' me but she just gave the game away, no-one else has used the word 'Gibberish' and Peacegirl isn't known for being original.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light that exists is traveling, there is no such thing as light that isn't traveling. It is a property of light that cannot be changed. This is a law of physics.

You are so lost I have nothing to say.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If light is in a location, it had to have gotten to that location. Nothing can be at a location without a physical mechanism for coming to be at that location. This is a law of physics

Once again, you are so lost you aren't even close to understanding the difference between afferent and efferent vision. I am tired of being put down and told that this concept is wrong for the reasons you give.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Since light is always traveling, and since being at a location requires a mechanism for coming to be at that location, according to the laws of physics it must be the case that light at a location traveled to that location.

You are positing something else, so you are either stating that A) light has different properties than it is known to have or B) there is some other mechanism for light to come to be at the location "on the surface of camera film". In other words, your account violates the laws of physics as presented.

No it does not. In your mind it does because you cannot imagine that distance between the object and the eye or film does not have to travel all the way to Earth. You just don't get it. To you, it's supernatural and I can't do anything about it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Not one word of your attempted explanation below addresses either of these physical laws

I have. I have tried to explain that IF the eyes see an object first, then the light is just a conduit. It shows up at the film/retina because the object is seen, not the other way around.

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.

[LadyShea]

I stated a property of light and I stated the physical laws regarding location. You respond to those factual statements by telling me I am "lost"

Was either point incorrect from a physics standpoint?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I stated a property of light and I stated the physical laws regarding location. You respond to those factual statements by telling me I am "lost"

Was either point incorrect from a physics standpoint?

Light travels LadyShea, but you're lost as far as everything else and it disturbs me that you and Spacemonkey are the spokespeople for this thread, along with the other idiots (and I say that with sadness) like David, NA, and thedoc, who I can't stomach. I have to find another group of people who won't be so cock sure of themselves that they dismiss the premise entirely, which is what you're doing. This thread has gotten so unproductive that there is absolutely no point in continuing. I can see that his first and most important discovery is being completely dismissed.

[LadyShea]

Do you agree that these two statements are factual?

1. Light that exists is traveling, there is no such thing as light that isn't traveling. It is a property of light that cannot be changed.

2. Nothing can be at a location without a physical mechanism for coming to be at that location.

I am not asking about "everything else" or anything else. Are those factual statements?

[davidm]

Peacegirl, shown above as she makes her bombshell announcement.


BREAKING NEWS

'Absolutely No Point in Continuing' Unproductive Intertubes Thread

FREETHOUGHT-FORUM.COM (Internet News Service) -- A message board thread on teh Intertubes has grown "unproductive" and there is absolutely no point in continuing it, it was disclosed Thursday.

The thread, "A Revolution in Thought: Part Two" is 670 pages long. In conjunction with a separate and original thread, "A Revolution in Thought," the topic under discussion, a discussion that is now unproductive, has consumed more than 1,000 pages at the Freethought-Forum board.

Teh Intertubes, experts said, is a series of tubes that allows people who are crazier than bedbugs to spout off stuff that in previous generations they would have written down in dense, crabbed, tightly packed script on yellowed sheaves of paper that they would have then mimeographed and handed out on street corners while shrieking mad oaths at imaginary bearded deities in the sky or else loudly declaring that they were being persecuted by government agents who had surgically implanted mind-reading microphones inside their heads.

"Light travels LadyShea, but you're lost as far as everything else and it disturbs me that you and Spacemonkey are the spokespeople for this thread, along with the other idiots (and I say that with sadness) like David, NA, and thedoc, who I can't stomach," wrote the thread starter, peacegirl, in a bombshell announcement time-stamped 2:47 p.m. "I have to find another group of people who won't be so cock sure of themselves that they dismiss the premise entirely, which is what you're doing. This thread has gotten so unproductive that there is absolutely no point in continuing."

peacegirl's decision to give up on the thread sent shockwaves through teh close-knit Intertubes community.

"Sadly, peacegirl is giving up on teh thread, because it is unproductive," acknowledged E. Mota Khan, an Intertubes message board analyst with the RAND Corporation. "This is a devastating blow to her legions of admirers who can't wait to see what insanely fucking stupid thing the dishonest harridan writes next."

At press time, peacegirl, who had given up on the unproductive thread, was still jabbering on nonstop. Sources reported that they were thinking of pooling their funds to buy her a nice mimeograph machine.

[LadyShea]

LOL, of course I don't get that, it is word salad. Let me make it easier for you. The object and the camera film are both on Earth, and are 10 feet apart.

[davidm]

Her buffoon of a father "reasoned" like this:

We can look and see a tree, say, a hundred yards distant. The tree doesn't have to "travel" to our eyes to be seen. We see it, at a distance. Therefore the space between it and us is irrelevant; it's as if the space did not exist at all.

While lining up an eight-ball shot at the beer hall one day, the Erudite Scholar had an Immense Insight: That light is just like that tree! We see it at a distance; like the tree, it doesn't travel to our eyes! We just see it.



Old Seymour, while banking that eight ball into the corner pocket and pissing himself with delight over his Amazing Discovery, seems to have forgotten to ask himself a rather elementary question. HOW do we see the fucking tree?

Well, of course, science explains how: It reflects lights, which the sense organs of our eyes pick up and interpret as an image!

If you drop that idea, and say light is just like the tree, and we just "see" it at a distance as though no space exists between it and us, one is of course left with NO IDEA whatsoever HOW we see the light, and the tree, and everything else! There is no longer an explanatory mechanism outside of peacegirl's celebrated formulation, which no doubt will one day be as famous as E=MC2: "Voila! We See!"

This is how stupid he was and she is.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light travels LadyShea, but you're lost as far as everything else and it disturbs me that you and Spacemonkey are the spokespeople for this thread, along with the other idiots (and I say that with sadness) like David, NA, and thedoc, who I can't stomach. I have to find another group of people who won't be so cock sure of themselves that they dismiss the premise entirely, which is what you're doing. This thread has gotten so unproductive that there is absolutely no point in continuing. I can see that his most important discovery is being dismissed entirely. It's absolutely insane.

peacegirl, you know you are having no effect, you know you will have no effect. You've done this on many forums to tha same effect. Your illness will doom you to wasting your life trying to no effect. Get help peacegirl.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can see that his most important discovery is being dismissed entirely. It's absolutely insane.

Well Lessans "Discovery"? will be dismissed but I wouldn't be so generous as to call it insane, it's just a harmless bit of nonsense that when Peacegirl is no longer hawking it, will rightly be ignored.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Well at least now I know Peacegirl is reading my post's. She may still try to 'pretend ignore' me but she just gave the game away, no-one else has used the word 'Gibberish' and Peacegirl isn't known for being original.

I guess you missed the fact that Lady Shea used the word gibberish in the very post to which peacegirl was responding.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

It is sad that you are so desperate for attention that you have to make up lies just to convince yourself (and others) that you are so important that it is inconceivable that peacegirl could actually be ignoring you. Get help doc!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, of course I don't get that, it is word salad. Let me make it easier for you. The object and the camera film are both on Earth, and are 10 feet apart.

And so are the eyes LadyShea. Why do you keep ignoring the fact that if we SEE efferently, it is the same light that allows a camera to take an instant photograph? This can only happen because of how the eyes work, which then translates to how cameras work. It is YOU that is failing to grasp the concept because you can't understand how an object that is distant can still be interacting with the film or the retina. But a mirror image does interact.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

peacegirl, you know you are having no effect, you know you will have no effect. You've done this on many forums to tha same effect. Your illness will doom you to wasting your life trying to no effect. Get help peacegirl.

naturalist.atheist, you know you are having no effect on peacegirl, you know you will have no effect on peacegirl. You've posted this sort of thing many times to the same effect. Your illness will doom you to wasting your life trying to no effect. Get help naturalist.atheist.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Do you agree that these two statements are factual?

1. Light that exists is traveling, there is no such thing as light that isn't traveling. It is a property of light that cannot be changed.

2. Nothing can be at a location without a physical mechanism for coming to be at that location.

I am not asking about "everything else" or anything else. Are those factual statements?

Once again, you are not understanding what a mirror image is. If the eyes are efferent, we are not waiting for the light to reach us because the pattern of light is not traveling through space or time, which has been assumed all these years. Yes, light is traveling but what is captured on film is a mirror image of what exists in the material world. We see all substance in real time (whether it's with a camera or the eyes) because the light that is reflected is instantly on the film/retina the second the lens is focused on the object. Light becomes a necessary condition or bridge to the external world, not the other way around. We are not changing the properties of light, but rather showing how the efferent model allows real time seeing or real time photography to occur. If it were true that we had to wait for the light to reach Earth, that would be a different story because we would be interpreting the image from light itself whether or not the object was in view, but this is the fallacy.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the eyes are efferent, we are not waiting for the light to reach us because the pattern of light is not traveling away from the object through space or time, which has been assumed all these years.

No, it was never "assumed" that "light has a pattern."

Yes, light is traveling but what is captured on film is a mirror image of what exists in the material world. We see all substance in real time (whether it's with a camera or the eyes) because the light that is reflected must be at the film/retina when the object is in view, otherwise we wouldn't be able to see the object.

Except for the inconvenient, empircal fact that we don't see in real time, as has been demonstrated to you hundreds of times. Think (well, I use that term facetiously, in your case) of the moons of Jupiter example, or of how NASA sends spacecraft to Mars.

[davidm]

Err, asshat, thanking Angakuk for what he wrote to naturalist.atheist just proves that you are irony-deficient, as well as brain dead.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I guess you missed the fact that Lady Shea used the word gibberish in the very post to which peacegirl was responding.

Yes, but I tend to skim Peacegirls posts quickly, so it was an honest mistake, not an intentional deception.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

It is sad that you are so desperate for attention that you have to make up lies just to convince yourself (and others) that you are so important that it is inconceivable that peacegirl could actually be ignoring you. Get help doc!

Now I am offended, my shrink says that I am important.

And I wasn't lying, at least not in my world.

BTW, could you give me the number of your therapist, I'd like a third opinion. Or is that fourth? Does he make house-calls?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And so are the eyes LadyShea. Why do you keep ignoring the fact that if we SEE efferently, it is the same light that allows a camera to take an instant photograph? This can only happen because of how the eyes work, which then translates to how cameras work. It is YOU that is failing to grasp the concept because you can't understand how an object that is distant can still be interacting with the film or the retina. But a mirror image does interact.

Light at a distance cannot be photochemically reacting with camera film, which requires the absorption of photons at the surface of the camera film

If light is present at a location (the camera film), it had to come to be at that location through some physical mechanism.

What is the physical mechanism by which light comes to be at the location "surface of the camera film"?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Once again, you are not understanding what a mirror image is. If the eyes are efferent, we are not waiting for the light to reach us because the pattern of light is not traveling through space or time, which has been assumed all these years. Yes, light is traveling but what is captured on film is a mirror image of what exists in the material world. We see all substance in real time (whether it's with a camera or the eyes) because the light that is reflected is instantly on the film/retina the second the lens is focused on the object. Light becomes a necessary condition or bridge to the external world, not the other way around. We are not changing the properties of light, but rather showing how the efferent model allows real time seeing or real time photography to occur. If it were true that we had to wait for the light to reach Earth, that would be a different story because we would be interpreting the image from light itself whether or not the object was in view, but this is the fallacy.

This is a yes or no question that your response avoids answering

Do you agree that these two statements are factual?

1. Light that exists is traveling, there is no such thing as light that isn't traveling. It is a property of light that cannot be changed.

2. Nothing can be at a location without a physical mechanism for coming to be at that location.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light at a distance cannot be photochemically reacting with camera film, which requires the absorption of photons at the surface of the camera film

Light is not at a distance though. The film is capturing the actual light because of the location of the OBJECT.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If light is present at a location (the camera film), it had to come to be at that location through some physical mechanism.

It has. It just doesn't have to travel to Earth for light to actually be at the film if the OBJECT is in view.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is the physical mechanism by which light comes to be at the location "surface of the camera film"?

Object = light = mirror image = photograph

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Yes, but I tend to skim Peacegirls posts quickly, so it was an honest mistake, not an intentional deception.

You would be better off just admitting to lying. Once you start admitting that you can make mistakes there is no telling where that might lead.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Now I am offended, my shrink says that I am important.

And I wasn't lying, at least not in my world.

BTW, could you give me the number of your therapist, I'd like a third opinion. Or is that fourth? Does he make house-calls?

I don't have a therapist. I'm beyond help. There is nothing wrong with me.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light is not at a distance though. The film is capturing the actual light because of the location of the OBJECT.

The photochemical reaction that occurs during film photography requires the absorption of photons at the surface of the camera film.

What is the location of the "actual light"? If the location is "on the surface of the camera film" what is the physical mechanism by which light comes to be at the location "surface of the camera film"?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It has. It just doesn't have to travel to Earth for light to actually be at the film if the OBJECT is in view.

I've not mentioned anything about traveling to the Earth.

What is the physical mechanism by which light comes to be at the location "surface of the camera film". An object being in view is not a physical mechanism by which light can come to be at a location.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Object = light = mirror image = photograph

What does that mean? Are the = symbols meant to be taken literally in that the object is the light which is the mirror image which is the photograph?

Are you answering that an = symbol is the physical mechanism by which light comes to be at the location "surface of the camera film"?

What is the mirror image? Is it material? What is it made of? Does it have a location? What is the physical mechanism by which the mirror images comes to be at the location?