A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have asserted dozens of times that your model does not violate laws of physics, you have stated your model does not require a change in the properties of light, you have stated your model is consistent with optics.

Why do you keep making these statements when clearly your model does violate laws of physics, does require a change in the properties of light, and is inconsistent with optics?

No it does not violate the laws of physics when coming from the inside out, not the outside in, which I've said before. You are the one not understanding why this account doesn't violate anything. Furthermore, this model is consistent with optics.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why are you now saying it doesn't matter what science thinks when you have been trying to keep within the realm of the possible and within known scientific parameters all this time? You say you want facts, well physics deals with facts and your model seems to require different facts than those that are empirically observed and tested.

It doesn't matter what science thinks if science has it wrong. I said that scientists are human beings and can make mistakes. Yes, physics deals with facts, or at least tries to. That's why I'm appealing to scientists, but it's going to be a hard road ahead. I can see that. Just remember, empirical observations can be misleading.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Again, why not just admit that your model requires changes in all of these fields instead of asserting that there are no violations or inconsistencies with observed reality in your model?

I don't see any inconsistencies because the speed of light doesn't change one iota. Optics doesn't change one iota. The only thing that changes is the direction in which we see.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see any inconsistencies because the speed of light doesn't change one iota. Optics doesn't change one iota. The only thing that changes is the direction in which we see.

How about the location and behavior of photons? Does that change by a few iotas?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

liar

Weasel. I am talking about camera film. Photons must exist and must be located on the surface of camera film for a photographic image to be created.

Are you saying the photons that are on the surface of camera film, which is on Earth, are not actually on Earth?

This is meaningless as it can be used for anything, including nonsense, and explains absolutely nothing as the conditions are not specified.

"Hurricanes happen because of the conditions that allow it to occur" well great, and true, but do we know anything about the conditions that allow hurricanes to occur from this statement?

"Unicorns can exist in our world undetected because of the conditions that allow this to occur" Really? And what are those conditions? Is this likely to be a true statement? It can't be refuted without the conditions being spelled out, so it might be true! More testing needs to be done!

That's because you keep making statements about your model that violate physics.

For a recent example just above, it would be a huge violation of physics for photons that haven't come to be on Earth by any physical mechanism to be located on the surface of Earth-bound camera film.

Great! So next question, how do they get there?

They had to have a prior location unless they came into spontaneous existence on the surface of the camera film.

Remember, photons are quanta of electromagnetic energy. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed so spontaneously poofing into existence on the surface of camera film is eliminated unless you violate physics.

1. What was the prior location of the photons that are located on the surface of camera film a fraction of a second before a photograph was taken.

2. How does the light get to the surface of the camera film from its prior location if it hasn't traveled there and hasn't spontaneously poofed into existence at that location?

I am not asking about an image I am asking about the photons located on the surface of camera film at the moment a photo is taken and their prior location.

You seem to be saying they have always and forever been located on the surface of the camera film.

Yeah, that would be a violation of physics

Since you don't think your model violates physics, please respond to this post. I highlighted and bolded the pertinent points most in need of response.

[LadyShea]

Lessans was just showing that in reality there is no such thing as the past. We live and die in the present. This is an observation that allowed him to show why there is absolutely nothing to fear in death, although it will always be painful to lose a loved one.

Well since I, and I am willing to bet most others here at , already knew there was nothing to fear in death I didn't need Lessans Germinal Substance and confused drivel about the word "past" for that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How about the location and behavior of photons? Does that change by a few iotas?

Nope, not at all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Well since I, and I am willing to bet most others here at , already knew there was nothing to fear in death I didn't need Lessans Germinal Substance and confused drivel about the word "past" for that.

Well then don't read his work LadyShea. You are so resentful that he made an actual discovery, you just can't believe that it's true.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Since you don't think your model violates physics, please respond to this post. I highlighted and bolded the pertinent points most in need of response.

You're coming from the position that Spacemonkey is coming from, and you will win using your logic. You are missing the entire model by what you're doing, and I'm not spending any more time explaining it. You will never be able to accept this model until someone else confirms it. Then you will say, "Oh, I can see that now." But not until then. And where do you come off telling me that his discovery on death is drivel just because you're not afraid of death? What does this have to do with the authenticity of his findings? Where in the world do you come off being so vindictive?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nope, not at all.

Ah, it doesn't change at all! So on your model, the photons at the film which determine the color of the photograph traveled to get there, did they? And they were 0.0001sec previously at a position 30m from the film and traveling towards it, were they?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're coming from the position that Spacemonkey is coming from...

That's odd, because I'm coming from YOUR position (according to which the photons at the film previously existed and had some other location).

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well then don't read his work LadyShea.

You won't let us read that chapter, and no, I am not buying the book just for that.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're coming from the position that Spacemonkey is coming from, and you will win using your logic. You are missing the entire model by what you're doing, and I'm not spending any more time explaining it.

It isn't "my logic" it's laws of physics, the properties of light, and optics. You are weaseling because you can't offer a model that is consistent with these things.

You have asserted dozens of times that your model does not violate laws of physics, you have stated your model does not require a change in the properties of light, you have stated your model is consistent with optics.

Why do you keep making these statements when clearly your model does violate laws of physics, does require a change in the properties of light, and is inconsistent with optics?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You will never be able to accept this model until someone else confirms it. Then you will say, "Oh, I can see that now."

I don't need confirmation from someone else. If someone simply explains your model in a way that does not violate laws of physics, does not require a change in the properties of light, and is consistent with optics and is able to answer questions and remain consistent in those answers, then I will be happy to concede that the model is possible.

It would be great if you are that someone, but clearly you're not.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That's odd, because I'm coming from YOUR position (according to which the photons at the film previously existed and had some other location).

Unless you are schizophrenic you are not coming from peacegirls position.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it does not violate the laws of physics when coming from the inside out, not the outside in

The laws of physics would not change if our brains look out. The requirements for film photography would not change if our brains look out. The need for photons to have locations and physical mechanisms for coming to be at those locations would not change if our brains look out.

You need to account for the location of light photons in photography- including where exactly they were located previously and how they get to the surface of the camera film- to be consistent with the laws of physics and the known properties of light.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The laws of physics would not change if our brains look out.

This is probably the most basic mistake that Lessans has made. Information/energy must be flowing into the brain if it is to perceive anything from the outside. Both radar and sonar send out a signal but in order to work a reflected signal must return afferently. Light, velocity, nerve endings and brains aside, this is a fundamental flaw in Lessans scheme.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

This is probably the most basic mistake that Lessans has made. Information/energy must be flowing into the brain if it is to perceive anything from the outside. Both radar and sonar send out a signal but in order to work a reflected signal must return afferently. Light, velocity, nerve endings and brains aside, this is a fundamental flaw in Lessans scheme.

As was passing any of this on to his daughter.

[LadyShea]

Lessans seemed to think seeing was somehow a direct experience, not an incidence of perceiving.

[naturalist.atheist]

Even if it is a "direct" experience the information is afferent. The brain doesn't know what it's trying to find out, so information has to arrive/move to the brain. Fundamentally it must be afferent. The rest is working out the details.

But pointing any of this out to peacegirl is a waste of time. Repeat it as much as you like but her schizophrenia will always prevail with it's version of reality.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

This is probably the most basic mistake that Lessans has made. Information/energy must be flowing into the brain if it is to perceive anything from the outside. Both radar and sonar send out a signal but in order to work a reflected signal must return afferently. Light, velocity, nerve endings and brains aside, this is a fundamental flaw in Lessans scheme.

This could be the source of Lessans confusion, Both of these sending out a signal (efferent) but sonar with an obvious delay and radar at a speed that seems instantaneous. For an uneducated person it would seem reasonable that hearing involved a delay and must be afferent, but vision seemed to be instant so must be efferent. 'Ignorance is bliss', and Lessans must have been very happy with his discoveries.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Ah, it doesn't change at all! So on your model, the photons at the film which determine the color of the photograph traveled to get there, did they? And they were 0.0001sec previously at a position 30m from the film and traveling towards it, were they?

What is wrong with your comprehension? In efferent vision, there is no time involved? Do you even understand what that means Spacemonkey? THERE IS NO TRAVEL TIME INVOLVED WHICH IS WHY WE ARE ABLE TO SEE IN REAL TIME.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans seemed to think seeing was somehow a direct experience, not an incidence of perceiving.

No LadyShea. Perceiving is another aspect altogether. Perception has to do with all of our experiences that help us make sense out of what we are seeing, even if that perception is inaccurate. Seeing in real time just means that we are seeing the external world without a time delay due to light.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What is wrong with your comprehension? In efferent vision, there is no time involved? Do you even understand what that means Spacemonkey? THERE IS NO TRAVEL TIME INVOLVED WHICH IS WHY WE ARE ABLE TO SEE IN REAL TIME.

What's wrong with your comprehension? You said that on your model the location and behavior of photons doesn't change from the afferent account. That's what YOU said. Did you again say something you didn't actually mean? Does the location and behavior of photons change on your account or not?