A revolution in thought - Page 676

LadyShea · #**16876** 05-19-2012, 06:33 PM

Quote:

the non-absorbed light does not get reflected

Quote:

[light] does not bounce off the object and travel.

Then it is at odds with the known physical properties of light, meaning your model is at odds with the laws of physics.

All light that exists travels. If it contacts matter and is not absorbed it is either reflected and travels or transmitted and travels.... never at any time is it not absorbed yet also not reflected and not traveling.

LadyShea · #**16877** 05-19-2012, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

They are not gaslighting* you, these people are telling you flat out that they think you are mentally ill, they are not tricking you to make you doubt your own perception.

*The movie was called Gaslight

I really don't care what they think. What I am concerned about is how they are making me appear to others who don't know me or the discovery of which I speak.

* Thanks for the update!

Others are free to read the threads and draw their own conclusions. They very well may disagree that you are mentally ill.

davidm · #**16878** 05-19-2012, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

the non-absorbed light does not get reflected

Quote:

[light] does not bounce off the object and travel.

Then it is at odds with the known physical properties of light, meaning your model is at odds with the laws of physics.

All light that exists travels. If it contacts matter and is not absorbed it is either reflected and travels or transmitted and travels.... never at any time is it not absorbed yet also not reflected and not traveling.

Remember, she also said it's not static! So some light is 1. not absorbed; 2. not static; and 3. not reflected and therefore no longer traveling! So it's not static but it's not traveling and it's not absorbed! But it's always replaced! What other option is there? Those photons must vanish from the universe!

And, of course, the conservation laws are something else she never bothered her little head to learn about! :giggle:

Angakuk · #**16879** 05-19-2012, 06:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light that strikes an object splits up due to absorption, which allows the remaining non-absorbed light to reveal the object when we are within visual range of that object. This light is not static because it is constantly being replaced by new light, but it does not bounce off the object and travel. I don't know how else to explain it.

I know I have suggested this before, but I am going to try again. Go into a darkened room. Take a mirror and flashlight with you. Position the mirror so that it is facing a blank wall a foot or so distant from the mirror. Shine the flashlight at the mirror. Observe the spot of light that appears on the wall opposite the mirror. Then come back here and tell us that the light which was not absorbed by the mirror did not bounce off the surface of the mirror, travel across the room and strike the wall.

Angakuk · #**16880** 05-19-2012, 07:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Is it possible that our repeated attempts to force peacegirl to acknowledge the irrationality of her position are expressions of our unwillingness to believe that someone who is capable carrying on a discussion of this sort is really as demented as she appears to be?

I'm not going to let all of you make it appear that I am demented or irrational. It reminds me of a movie where a man wanted out of his marriage so he tried to make his wife look like she was mentally ill and in need of psychiatric care. He ended up committing her. If it wasn't for a friend who caught on to what her husband was doing, she would never have gotten out. Well you're not going to make me look like I'm crazy. Maybe it's my fault that I'm not explaining the concept, or the mechanism, to everyone's satisfaction, but that doesn't make Lessans wrong, or me crazy for believing him.

I going to be as clear as I can here. I don't believe that I have ever claimed that you are insane or suffering from dementia. What I said above is that you give the appearance of being demented. You regularly proffer arguments that are, on their face, both irrational and incoherent. This is a fact. The evidence is right here in these two threads and is available for the perusal of anyone who chooses to read the threads. Repeatedly making irrational and incoherent arguments suggests the possibility that you are suffering from some form of dementia or mental instability. This is also a fact. It may be the case that you are not suffering from dementia or mental instability. Appearances can be deceiving and impressions can be mistaken. You, however, are solely responsible for how you appear and the impression you make.

naturalist.atheist · #**16881** 05-19-2012, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Yeah Spacemonkey, you got your logic mixed in with peacegirls (P) logic. Cut it out. You are peacegirls only hope.

Peacegirl's only hope was intervention by her family members. Short of that, there is no hope for her, as she will never seek treatment herself. She is condemned by her condition to continue this tragic farce until she loses the capacity to operate a keyboard.

This is not a joke, Peacegirl. It is not a laughing matter at all.

You seriously need help.

I find it disturbing that you think your deteriorating mental health is something to joke about.

I think it's funny that you resort to my mental health when you can't get me to agree with you.

The crazy woman has a point. You can't keep calling peacegirl crazy and then continue to ask her questions and expect answers as if she were sane.

peacegirl · #**16882** 05-19-2012, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Is it possible that our repeated attempts to force peacegirl to acknowledge the irrationality of her position are expressions of our unwillingness to believe that someone who is capable carrying on a discussion of this sort is really as demented as she appears to be?

I'm not going to let all of you make it appear that I am demented or irrational. It reminds me of a movie where a man wanted out of his marriage so he tried to make his wife look like she was mentally ill and in need of psychiatric care. He ended up committing her. If it wasn't for a friend who caught on to what her husband was doing, she would never have gotten out. Well you're not going to make me look like I'm crazy. Maybe it's my fault that I'm not explaining the concept, or the mechanism, to everyone's satisfaction, but that doesn't make Lessans wrong, or me crazy for believing him.

I going to be as clear as I can here. I don't believe that I have ever claimed that you are insane or suffering from dementia. What I said above is that you give the appearance of being demented. You regularly proffer arguments that are, on their face, both irrational and incoherent. This is a fact.

Not true. If anything, I could do better at explaining the concept.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The evidence is right here in these two threads and is available for the perusal of anyone who chooses to read the threads.

There's no evidence. All there is is total bullying and libel on the part of certain individuals in here. This will be an interesting thread in a hundred years when these discoveries turn out to be true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Repeatedly making irrational and incoherent arguments suggests the possibility that you are suffering from some form of dementia or mental instability. This is also a fact. It may be the case that you are not suffering from dementia or mental instability. Appearances can be deceiving and impressions can be mistaken. You, however, are solely responsible for how you appear and the impression you make.

I am not solely responsible for how I appear and the impression I make. Everyone has their own individual perceptions. I can't worry about how someone sees me. My purpose for being here is not to impress but to try to present another view regarding the eyes. If I lose in this effort, it still doesn't mean Lessans was wrong or that I am mentally unstable. David is soooo threatened by the thought of efferent vision (even though he says he isn't) that he feels compelled to says terrible things about his nemesis. These remarks will be here for everyone to see many years from now when this discovery is finally recognized for its validity. I have a feeling he will feel remorse for saying these terrible things about a man he never met. He isn't even here to defend himself. How fair is that?

naturalist.atheist · #**16883** 05-19-2012, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you Spacemonkey that the traveling light continues on as it joins the rest of the spectrum.

That doesn't constitute an answer to either of my two questions.

Quote:

As far as I'm concerned it does.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What is it that you not get?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Answers to my questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And your accusatory attitude is very pompous and not helping the situation.

Your dishonest weaseling attitude isn't exactly helping things either. And I think I should be allowed to accuse you of avoiding my questions when that is what you are doing.

Accuse me or not accuse me, this is not what this discussion is about. This entire conversation is about YOUR premise, and YOUR conclusions as if they are the only way to perceive what's going on. I don't have to fight you, I only have to explain what his observations were and have them tested for accuracy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm really getting tired of the attacks, therefore I am going to let go of this conversation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No you're not. You're not about to let go of anything. Another 24hrs and you will have forgotten ever having said this.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You have such pomposity that you don't even see what you're doing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why won't you answer my questions by telling me the locations of the photons concerned at the times I am asking about? You've agreed that they have to have locations at these times on your account. So what are those locations?

I told you that I'm not continuing the conversation. You seem to be the only person left to talk to, and that's not enough for me to hang on. I know this thread is on its last legs because I'm not willing to continue, and I know the other thread is done because no one seems to be interested in his discovery that demonstrates how there is a way to prevent war. I'm not going to beg you people. I will move on to another forum, and I will ignore you if you try to dissuade people from listening. You're not the gestapo.

What peacegirl means to say is that she is (P) not continuing these discussions.

naturalist.atheist · #**16884** 05-19-2012, 07:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

They are not gaslighting* you, these people are telling you flat out that they think you are mentally ill, they are not tricking you to make you doubt your own perception.

*The movie was called Gaslight

I really don't care what they think. What I am concerned about is how they are making me appear to others who don't know me or the discovery of which I speak.

* Thanks for the update!

These people whom you think are making you look mentally ill come from the general pool of internet posters. They were not selected specifically to do anything to you. So if your hope is that others will read what you have posted and come to a different conclusion, I wouldn't hold my breath if I were you.

davidm · #**16885** 05-19-2012, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

David is soooo threatened by the thought of efferent vision (even though he says he isn't) that he feels compelled to says terrible things about his nemesis. These remarks will be here for everyone to see many years from now when this discovery is finally recognized for its validity. I have a feeling he will feel remorse for saying these terrible things about a man he never met. He isn't even here to defend himself. How fair is that?

The only one threatened here is you. Only you have a personal stake in the gibberish you spout. It must terrify you to realize, as you doubt do from time to time in your fleeting and infrequent flashes of lucidity, that you have wasted your life parroting the nonsense of a buffoon, and you are going to grow old having futile discussions with strangers on message boards. Your plight is sad.

You have yet to answer this question: Why does NASA use calculations based on delayed seeing to send spacecraft to Mars and other celestial bodies, Peacegirl?

If they used Lessans' real time seeing model, they would miss their targets every time.

How do you explain that?

Now watch her run away, terrified, from the question that completely explodes all of Lessans' dim hokum!

Spacemonkey · #**16886** 05-19-2012, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

All the two questions below are asking you for is the locations of these two sets of photons at the times concerned. You have agreed that both sets of photons exist at these times, and that they must have locations at these times. And that is all the questions presuppose. They say nothing at all about whether or not an object has to be present, what brains or lenses do, what else other than light may be necessary, changing distances, or instant mirror images. For the purposes of these two questions you can assume that your own answers concerning such matters are all accepted. All I'm asking for is the location of these photons at the times concerned according to your own model. That's it. Nothing else. You can take all the rest of your model as a given, and use it to provide the answers which you have agreed these two questions must have. No more excuses. Stop being such a big baby and just answer the questions already.

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.

Remember how you said that you are answering my questions and that you never weasel?

Spacemonkey · #**16887** 05-19-2012, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You have given me an answer for red photons in general rather than for the specific red photons I am referring to. At the previous moment the object was blue and all red photons hitting the object are getting absorbed. But those photons cease to exist, as they get absorbed and used up. So none of those photons can ever turn up at the film.

I am asking you about the specific red photons which are at the film when the photograph is taken. How do they get to the film? Where did they come from? Where were they at the immediately previous moment (when the object was still blue)?

Those are photons that have not been absorbed when the object changes color. These new photons are always replacing old, which I've said all along.

But this isn't going to be possible without teleportation. You say that the red photons at the film are photons which were not absorbed by the object once the object turns red. This has to happen AT THE OBJECT, because that is where absorption either happens or does not happen. And it has to happen when the object turns red, because prior to this the object would have absorbed the red photons. But at the VERY NEXT INSTANT you need to have these very same photons AT THE DISTANT FILM. So you have them at the object and not being absorbed as the object changes color to red, and at the very first moment when the object is this now red, you have them at the film. You have them at one location at one moment, and then at a different and distant location instantly at the very next moment. That is teleportation again.

What you are saying requires teleportation. So what part of what you are telling me do you not understand?

Bump.

Spacemonkey · #**16888** 05-19-2012, 07:42 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.

Bump.

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?

Bump.

LadyShea · #**16889** 05-19-2012, 07:44 PM

So you can't worry about how you are perceived, but are concerned about how you appear to others, even though everyone has their own perceptions and the impression you make is not your responsibility.

Got it.

Quote:

I can't worry about how someone sees me.
What I am concerned about is how they are making me appear to others
Everyone has their own individual perceptions.

thedoc · #**16890** 05-19-2012, 07:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

. The afferent position wrongly assumes that this wavelength and frequency travel forever and that it is this meeting of distance and time which photons must traverse in order to interact with the film.

You've got it backwards, even though I don't think you're ever going to understand how it's possible for light to interact with film in the efferent account without light traveling to earth.

.

No, Photons of a particular frequency do travel indefenitaly or untill they are absorbed and they do not change frequencies, but due to the expantion of space photons can appear to have been shifted in color.

Light cannot interact with film unless it is in direct contact and so far the only rational way for that to happen is for photons to travel to Earth or from an object. No magic or unexplained mechanism, just afferent vision.

Spacemonkey · #**16891** 05-19-2012, 07:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Accuse me or not accuse me, this is not what this discussion is about. This entire conversation is about YOUR premise, and YOUR conclusions as if they are the only way to perceive what's going on. I don't have to fight you, I only have to explain what his observations were and have them tested for accuracy.

The questions you are refusing to answer are not based on any afferent premise at all. This was proven to you. Efferent vision is shown to be impossible by your inability to establish a consistent account of the behavior of light in real-time photography.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that I'm not continuing the conversation. You seem to be the only person left to talk to, and that's not enough for me to hang on. I know this thread is on its last legs because I'm not willing to continue, and I know the other thread is done because no one seems to be interested in his discovery that demonstrates how there is a way to prevent war. I'm not going to beg you people. I will move on to another forum, and I will ignore you if you try to dissuade people from listening. You're not the gestapo.

Oh dear. Are you fake-leaving again?

thedoc · #**16892** 05-19-2012, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not going to let all of you make it appear that I am demented or irrational.

Well you're not going to make me look like I'm crazy.

Maybe it's my fault that I'm not explaining the concept, or the mechanism, to everyone's satisfaction, but that doesn't make Lessans wrong, or me crazy for believing him.

Well no-one here needs to make you look demented, irrational, or crazy, you are doing that very well all by yourself.

And beleiving in Lessans does make you look crazy because he is wrong.

davidm · #**16893** 05-19-2012, 07:55 PM

naturalist.atheist · #**16894** 05-19-2012, 07:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Accuse me or not accuse me, this is not what this discussion is about. This entire conversation is about YOUR premise, and YOUR conclusions as if they are the only way to perceive what's going on. I don't have to fight you, I only have to explain what his observations were and have them tested for accuracy.

The questions you are refusing to answer are not based on any afferent premise at all. This was proven to you. Efferent vision is shown to be impossible by your inability to establish a consistent account of the behavior of light in real-time photography.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that I'm not continuing the conversation. You seem to be the only person left to talk to, and that's not enough for me to hang on. I know this thread is on its last legs because I'm not willing to continue, and I know the other thread is done because no one seems to be interested in his discovery that demonstrates how there is a way to prevent war. I'm not going to beg you people. I will move on to another forum, and I will ignore you if you try to dissuade people from listening. You're not the gestapo.

Oh dear. Are you fake-leaving again?

peacegirl is full of promises but she never delivers. She hasn't brought peace to the world, people still blame each other, nobody but her sees efferently, no one thinks Lessans was a great man. She can't leave when she says she will, she doesn't ignore people when she says she has, she doesn't answer questions she says she has and she doesn't have a mind as open as she expects others the have. After more than ten years of promises and seeing the reactions of people to what she promises she would have to be out of her mind to quit. (Well only if she were actually crazy.)

Angakuk · #**16895** 05-19-2012, 08:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There's no evidence. All there is is total bullying and libel on the part of certain individuals in here.

Not quite. There are also your own posts. They constitute the evidence to which I was referring.

thedoc · #**16896** 05-19-2012, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Exactly what I said. Light that strikes an object splits up due to absorption, which allows the remaining non-absorbed light to reveal the object when we are within visual range of that object.

This light is not static because it is constantly being replaced by new light, but it does not bounce off the object and travel. I don't know how else to explain it.

Individual photons travel in proximity to other photons but are not connected to any other photon or object, so 'splits up' is a very poor choice of words. Some photons are absorbed and some are reflected and some of the energy from the absorbed photons is converted to new photons that are emmited with the reflected photons, or is that the mechanism of reflection? Those 'reflected photons than travel away from the object, forever if necessary at their reflected frequency.

Photons are not static and are not 'replaced' in that new photons do not take the place of old photons that disapear, the old ones simply move away and newer ones are following. And light does 'bounce' off an object, that is what reflection is.

peacegirl · #**16897** 05-19-2012, 08:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

the non-absorbed light does not get reflected

Quote:

[light] does not bounce off the object and travel.

Then it is at odds with the known physical properties of light, meaning your model is at odds with the laws of physics.

All light that exists travels. If it contacts matter and is not absorbed it is either reflected and travels or transmitted and travels.... never at any time is it not absorbed yet also not reflected and not traveling.

Light energy travels but the image (or non-absorbed wavelength) does not get reflected. And please don't tell me this is a contradiction or is at odds with physics, because it's not.

thedoc · #**16898** 05-19-2012, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Others are free to read the threads and draw their own conclusions. They very well may disagree that you are mentally ill.

Others will certainly conclude that Peacegirl is mentally ill, But they may also conclude that we are all a 'few bricks shy of a load' for staying here and arguing with her. Never mind the weak excuse of posting the truth to counter Peacegirls nonsense.

davidm · #**16899** 05-19-2012, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

the non-absorbed light does not get reflected

Quote:

[light] does not bounce off the object and travel.

Then it is at odds with the known physical properties of light, meaning your model is at odds with the laws of physics.

All light that exists travels. If it contacts matter and is not absorbed it is either reflected and travels or transmitted and travels.... never at any time is it not absorbed yet also not reflected and not traveling.

Light energy travels but the image (or non-absorbed wavelength) does not get reflected. And please don't tell me this is a contradiction or is at odds with physics, because it's not.

1. Science does not say an "image gets reflected," as has been explained hundreds of times to you, dope.

2. You said the light is not reflected, the light is not static and the light is not absorbed, plus it is constantly replaced. If it's not reflected, not absorbed, not static and is also replaced, what happens to it?

:lol:

peacegirl · #**16900** 05-19-2012, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So you can't worry about how you are perceived, but are concerned about how you appear to others, even though everyone has their own perceptions and the impression you make is not your responsibility.

Got it.

I can't worry about how I am perceived by certain individuals because their perceptions have nothing to do with me personally, but when their goal is to get others to see me the way they see me, it's a different story. The constant abuse will have an impact on how others see me, and they know it, which is why they keep doing it. If you repeat something enough times, people start to believe it.

Quote:

I can't worry about how someone sees me.
What I am concerned about is how they are making me appear to others
Everyone has their own individual perceptions.

It's true. We all come to an experience with prejudices and perceptions that are based on our own way of seeing things, but this is not what I'm talking about. The people in here are purposely spreading vicious lies about Lessans and me to get people to laugh along with them. This isn't a fair give and take.