|
|
06-05-2012, 02:14 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Others have said that Peacegirl doesn't understand the efferent model, which is why she can't explain it, when all she needs to say is that "The photon that is now at the film, was previously traveling to the object. And on striking the object and not being absorbed, it is instantly at the film or retina." However she doesn't understand the model herself so is incapable of forming this simple explination according to efferent vision. It will be interesting to see if she now denies my explination?
|
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.
|
06-05-2012, 02:17 PM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
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.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
06-05-2012, 02:27 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
None of that explains film photography though, thedoc. Her model must account for actual photons if her model includes cameras.
Last edited by LadyShea; 06-05-2012 at 03:04 PM.
|
06-05-2012, 03:33 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
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.
|
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.
Last edited by peacegirl; 06-05-2012 at 07:26 PM.
|
06-05-2012, 03:34 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
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.
|
06-05-2012, 03:34 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Any frustration is not at the claims, it's at your weaseling.
|
06-05-2012, 03:36 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
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.
|
Then answer my questions
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
You need to stop talking about photons because it's going to get you in trouble. It's not that I'm trying to avoid your query. It just doesn't work in this way.
The photons that do not show up as a mirror image have nothing to do with this model.
|
We are asking about the photons that are on the surface of the camera film at the moment the photograph is taken. They have everything to do with your claims and photography absolutely works "that way".
|
But you're thinking in terms of travel time, which is why you are failing to understand this one iota.
|
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Where were those photons located a fraction of a second before they were located on the surface of the camera film?
|
There is no fraction of a second before
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
don't you understand that yet?
|
Of course I don't understand that, it's absurd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Not when you're viewing the world from the inside out, not the outside in.
|
What are you babbling about?
|
|
06-05-2012, 03:36 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
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.
|
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.
|
06-05-2012, 03:37 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
LOL peacegirl. So what did this statement mean?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There is no fraction of a second before
|
|
06-05-2012, 03:40 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
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.
|
Then answer my questions
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
You need to stop talking about photons because it's going to get you in trouble. It's not that I'm trying to avoid your query. It just doesn't work in this way.
The photons that do not show up as a mirror image have nothing to do with this model.
|
We are asking about the photons that are on the surface of the camera film at the moment the photograph is taken. They have everything to do with your claims and photography absolutely works "that way".
|
But you're thinking in terms of travel time, which is why you are failing to understand this one iota.
|
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Where were those photons located a fraction of a second before they were located on the surface of the camera film?
|
There is no fraction of a second before
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
don't you understand that yet?
|
Of course I don't understand that, it's absurd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Not when you're viewing the world from the inside out, not the outside in.
|
What are you babbling about?
|
|
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.
Last edited by peacegirl; 06-05-2012 at 03:52 PM.
|
06-05-2012, 03:41 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
LOL peacegirl. So what did this statement mean?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There is no fraction of a second before
|
|
Exactly what I said.
|
06-05-2012, 03:42 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
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.
Last edited by peacegirl; 06-05-2012 at 09:28 PM.
|
06-05-2012, 03:44 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
LOL, what's my "getting it" got to do with your weaseling?
|
06-05-2012, 03:46 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
LOL peacegirl. So what did this statement mean?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There is no fraction of a second before
|
|
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.
|
06-05-2012, 03:47 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
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.
|
Then answer my questions
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
You need to stop talking about photons because it's going to get you in trouble. It's not that I'm trying to avoid your query. It just doesn't work in this way.
The photons that do not show up as a mirror image have nothing to do with this model.
|
We are asking about the photons that are on the surface of the camera film at the moment the photograph is taken. They have everything to do with your claims and photography absolutely works "that way".
|
But you're thinking in terms of travel time, which is why you are failing to understand this one iota.
|
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?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Where were those photons located a fraction of a second before they were located on the surface of the camera film?
|
There is no fraction of a second before
|
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
don't you understand that yet?
|
Of course I don't understand that, it's absurd.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Not when you're viewing the world from the inside out, not the outside in.
|
What are you babbling about?
|
|
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?
|
06-05-2012, 03:53 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
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.
|
06-05-2012, 03:54 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
LOL peacegirl. So what did this statement mean?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There is no fraction of a second before
|
|
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.
|
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.
Last edited by peacegirl; 06-05-2012 at 07:40 PM.
|
06-05-2012, 04:01 PM
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
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.
|
06-05-2012, 04:03 PM
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
LOL peacegirl. So what did this statement mean?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There is no fraction of a second before
|
|
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.
|
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.
|
06-05-2012, 04:06 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
LOL peacegirl. So what did this statement mean?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There is no fraction of a second before
|
|
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.
|
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?
|
06-05-2012, 04:11 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
LOL peacegirl. So what did this statement mean?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There is no fraction of a second before
|
|
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.
|
I'm talking to a brick wall.
|
06-05-2012, 04:11 PM
|
|
here to bore you with pictures
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
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.
|
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.
__________________
ta-
DAVE!!!
|
06-05-2012, 04:13 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
LOL peacegirl. So what did this statement mean?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There is no fraction of a second before
|
|
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.
|
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?
|
06-05-2012, 04:15 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Any frustration is not at the claims, it's at your weaseling.
|
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.
|
06-05-2012, 04:22 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
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.
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 36 (0 members and 36 guests)
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:20 PM.
|
|
|
|