A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But as soon as she says that, she has to admit to positing teleporting light.

Yes, except that she has also claimed that the brain looking through the eye is in direct contact with the object being looked at and everything else around that object fades to white, as if the eye is so focused on a single object that all else disapears. She should probably have her eyes checked. She DOES NOT explain how the brain through the eyes can span the distance between the eye and the object, it just happens due to 'efferent vision' which now becomes some other means of instant transfer of information at least (as you say teleporting). If I remember correctly her words were that the "Brain reaches out through the eyes to the object", or something to that effect, therefore the distance is irrevelant, according to Peacegirl and Lessans.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

the past doesn't exist according to peacegirl. She doesn't believe in time either

Makes sense for someone with no functioning memory, I guess.

[LadyShea]

None of that explains film photography though, thedoc. Her model must account for actual photons if her model includes cameras.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Makes sense for someone with no functioning memory, I guess.

That's your defense and I do forgive you for being upset, because I know you are troubled by these claims. But I will never compromise these claims for your sake only, therefore you'll have to find another way to quell your anger.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

None of that explains film photography though, thedoc. Her model must account for actual photons if her model includes cameras.

But it does.

[LadyShea]

Any frustration is not at the claims, it's at your weaseling.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it does.

Then answer my questions

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I didn't say anything about travel time.

I am asking you about the locations of photons that must exist for a photographic image to be created on camera film.

They must be located on the surface of camera film at the moment a photograph is taken.

In your model, what was the location of those specific photons a fraction of a second prior to them being located on the surface of the camera film?

They have to be somewhere just before they are on the surface of camera film. Where is it?

Of course there is, unless you are stopping time when you take a photograph. There is the moment the photochemical process begins by the absorption of photons and there is a fraction of a second before that.

Of course I don't understand that, it's absurd.

What are you babbling about?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Makes sense for someone with no functioning memory, I guess.

Time is relative Spacemonkey, but not in the way you think. It's so sad that you will continue putting me down at the expense of me talking to you. I will have to cut you off, and if it doesn't matter to you, then that's fine, but you will never learn the truth.

[LadyShea]

LOL peacegirl. So what did this statement mean?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no fraction of a second before

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then answer my questions

Oh dear god, if you're really there (you know I mean this facetiously), please help me because I feel like shaking LadyShea into reality (not literally, of course) because she is someone who believes she has the way to distinguish fraud from truth. She is way too proud to even admit that she may be wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL peacegirl. So what did this statement mean?

Exactly what I said.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Any frustration is not at the claims, it's at your weaseling.

According to LadyShea, who believes she knows more than Lessans. I'm not weaseling; I'm trying to answer your questions.

[LadyShea]

LOL, what's my "getting it" got to do with your weaseling?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Exactly what I said.

Exactly what you said is science fiction.

There is a fraction of a second before an event in the real world, unless you are now positing that efferent vision changes the laws of physics and stops time.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh dear god, if you're really there (you know I mean this facetiously), please help me because I feel like shaking LadyShea's neck (not literally so don't worry) because she is someone who thinks she is smarter than Lessans. You are the one babbling girl, and don't be so proud that you think you know it all. You really truly are the one with the problem, but I will never be able to convince you that your thinking is wrong until a scientist puts his stamp of truth on this discovery.

Answer the questions

In your model, what was the location of those specific photons a fraction of a second prior to them being located on the surface of the camera film?

They have to be somewhere just before they are on the surface of camera film. Where is it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, what's my "getting it" got to do with your weaseling?

I have never weaseled, but your questions don't even apply.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Exactly what you said is science fiction.

There is a fraction of a second before an event in the real world, unless you are now positing that efferent vision changes the laws of physics and stops time.

Oh my god, you have absolutely no understanding of the difference between these two models. I know what I'm up against, but it doesn't change the truth. I won't be able to convince you, so remain in your pseudo world of delayed vision and time. It really makes no difference to me because there will be others who will be able to take this knowledge to the next level of empirical proof.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

the past doesn't exist according to peacegirl. She doesn't believe in time either

This would be expected from a person with a poor memory. But it could also be an inherited trait from her dad, along with her vision disorder.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god, oh my god, oh my god, you have no understand of the difference between these two models, yet you think you do. I know what I'm up against, but it doesn't change the truth. I won't be able to convince you, so remain in your pseudo world of delayed vision and time. It really makes no difference to me because there will be others who will be able to take this knowledge to the next level of empirical proof.

Not likely to be others unless they share your neurological disorders.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god, oh my god, oh my god, you have no understand of the difference between these two models, yet you think you do. I know what I'm up against, but it doesn't change the truth. I won't be able to convince you, so remain in your pseudo world of delayed vision and time. It really makes no difference to me because there will be others who will be able to take this knowledge to the next level of empirical proof.

Answer the questions

In your model, what was the location of those specific photons a fraction of a second prior to them being located on the surface of the camera film?

They have to be somewhere just before they are on the surface of camera film. Where is it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Exactly what you said is science fiction.

There is a fraction of a second before an event in the real world, unless you are now positing that efferent vision changes the laws of physics and stops time.

I'm talking to a brick wall.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have never weaseled, but your questions don't even apply.

Of course they apply. Photography works based on the detection of light and light alone, yet somehow cameras see the same thing as people do.

For real time vision to be true, either our entire understanding of photography is false, or there's somehow a mechanism which allows a camera to "see" in real time.

Spacemonkey and LadyShea are trying to pin you down on a mechanism, because it's the least unlikely of the two options.

We all know why you weasel on the answers, because whenever you make a clear statement, a contradiction becomes apparent. Any answer you give, which assumes real time vision is true, will generate a contraction. I think you understand that, deep down, which is why you avoid being "trapped" into giving actual answers.

Would you like to try your hand at dismantling the 100s of years of science behind light photography? It may be the easier way for you.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm talking to a brick wall.

Answer the questions

In your model, what was the location of those specific photons a fraction of a second prior to them being located on the surface of the camera film?

They have to be somewhere just before they are on the surface of camera film. Where is it?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

According to LadyShea, who knows more than Lessans. You don't even get it.

L.O.L. Probably everyone on this forum knows more that Lessans, and most of what he thought he knew was totally warped from whatever real knowledge he may have had.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

None of that explains film photography though, thedoc. Her model must account for actual photons if her model includes cameras.

Given the chance I would guess that Peacegirl will claim that the film, like the brain, somehow looks out through the lens and is in direct contact with the object once the lens is focused on it. Just wild speculation but it seems to fit with the other things she has been saying.