A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Ladyshea, please don't start taking on Spacemonkey's mannerisms by repeating the same thing over and over again in the same exact way.

It's not a mannerism. It's simply what you can expect to happen when you repeatedly evade and ignore the questions you are actually asked.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just told you that white light travels and is constantly taking the place of old photons. When light strikes an object some gets absorbed which allows the object to be seen, but it's a misconception to think that non-absorbed light travels. Only the full spectrum of light travels.

Once more you've regressed to a position you had previously acknowledged to be wrong. What happens to this non-absorbed light that has just hit an object if it is incapable of traveling? What does it do instead? Does it float there stationary at the surface of the object? Does it instantaneously teleport to some other location? Does it cease to exist? What does it do if it still exists but doesn't stay there and doesn't go anywhere else?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Speaking of sports, just think: One more page, and this retarded thread will number as many home runs as Hank Aaron hit.

Is there a 'Hall of Fame' for that, or is it the 'Hall of Shame' in this case?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because blowing up cities for one's gain is not a means to an end that most people would find conscionable.

But think of all those people in the weapons industry that you are putting out of work.

And the people in the bombed cities that you are putting out of work, (and life, if that matters to anyone).

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I answered them. Light is reflected, but images are not. You know what I mean by this, so call it a strawman all you want. Nothing is violated.

I don't know what you mean because you are not saying what you mean in a way that makes sense as an answer to my questions

Your statements:
1. Light is reflected
2. Non-absorbed light is not reflected
3. Light travels
4. Non-absorbed light does not travel

Non-absorbed light has different properties than light in your model. Non-absorbed light in your model does not follow the laws of physics that light follows.

There is no such differentiation between light and non-absorbed light in optics, therefore this differentiation in your model requires a change in the properties of light and violates the laws of physics as found within optics

So, since you are still not answering the questions at all

Question 1: Why do you keep insisting your model does not violate physics when it clearly does?

Question 2: Why do you keep asserting your model does not require a change in the properties of light when it clearly does?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

So paying billions to athletes to play a game that most would play for free is a better way to stimulate the economy and a good use of the money? If you really want to get the economy going by spending money stupidly, there is nothing like a full out war. And unlike athletics, you can count on some of it being spent to fund science for super weapons that will also happen to advance science that can help people after the idiocy has ended.

This discovery is about peace, not war, so I'm not interested in how war can stimulate the economy.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I don't know what you mean because you are not saying what you mean in a way that makes sense as an answer to my questions

Your statements:
1. Light is reflected
2. Non-absorbed light is not reflected
3. Light travels
4. Non-absorbed light does not travel

Non-absorbed light has different properties than light in your model. Non-absorbed light in your model does not follow the laws of physics that light follows.

There is no such differentiation between light and non-absorbed light in optics, therefore this differentiation in your model requires a change in the properties of light and violates the laws of physics as found within optics

So, since you are still not answering the questions at all

Question 1: Why do you keep insisting your model does not violate physics when it clearly does?

Question 2: Why do you keep asserting your model does not require a change in the properties of light when it clearly does?

I told you the only change is that light does not bring us the image without the object being present because that's not how we see. WE DON'T INTERPRET THE IMAGE FROM LIGHT. WE SEE OBJECTS BECAUSE OF LIGHT. If this is true then you're starting out with a false premise. So no matter how many times you ask me this question, you're not going to be happy with the answer. Therefore, you'll just have to wait until more empirical testing is done.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This discovery is about peace, not war, so I'm not interested in how war can stimulate the economy.

So you think paying athletes to play games like football which deliberately creates rivalries many of which has resulted in fan violence not to mention the violence inherent in the game is okay?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you the only change is that light does not bring us the image without the object being present because that's not how we see.

Suppose that we accept that claim. Will you now deign to tell us what you think happens to the unabsorbed portion of the light that strikes an object after it has struck the object?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you the only change is that light does not bring us the image without the object being present because that's not how we see. WE DON'T INTERPRET THE IMAGE FROM LIGHT. WE SEE OBJECTS BECAUSE OF LIGHT. If this is true then you're starting out with a false premise. So no matter how many times you ask me this question, you're not going to be happy with the answer. Therefore, you'll just have to wait until more empirical testing is done.

You clearly don't have the faintest idea what you're claiming anymore. You're obviously just making it up as you go along, as it keeps changing with every post. Is non-absorbed light reflected or not? What happens to it if it isn't? Where was the light at the film just before the photograph was taken? You don't know, do you? You can't answer any of these questions.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

So you think paying athletes to play games like football which deliberately creates rivalries many of which has resulted in fan violence not to mention the violence inherent in the game is okay?

Fan violence isn't okay if it causes disruption or hurts others, but if people want to participate in a game of sports knowing the inherent risks (and hopefully taking the proper precautions), then that's a completely different situation.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You clearly don't have the faintest idea what you're claiming anymore. You're obviously just making it up as you go along, as it keeps changing with every post. Is non-absorbed light reflected or not? What happens to it if it isn't? Where was the light at the film just before the photograph was taken? You don't know, do you? You can't answer any of these questions.

If that's what you think, then let this discussion go. I'm not invested in proving anything to you. I don't need your permission to believe what I want to believe, and you can call it fundamentalism all you want. You are just frustrated because you don't see how this model is plausible based on your logistics, so you want answers. But whether or not you recognize its plausibility, doesn't change the reality that we see in real time if Lessans turns out to be right.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Suppose that we accept that claim. Will you now deign to tell us what you think happens to the unabsorbed portion of the light that strikes an object after it has struck the object?

I told you that white light travels, so when the non-absorbed light fades out due to the dispersion of photons (the inverse square law), this non-absorbed light does not travel on forever. White light continues on through space and time which comprises the non-absorbed part of the visual spectrum.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If that's what you think, then let this discussion go. I'm not invested in proving anything to you. I don't need your permission to believe what I want to believe, and you can call it fundamentalism all you want. You are just frustrated because you don't see how this model is plausible based on your logistics, so you want answers. But whether or not you recognize its plausibility, doesn't change the reality that we see in real time if Lessans turns out to be right.

Why do you keep throwing a hissy fit whenever you are asked simple questions about your own claims?

Simple questions from the above post which YOU JUST WEASELED out of answering:

Is non-absorbed light reflected or not? What happens to it if it isn't? Where was the light at the film just before the photograph was taken?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that white light travels, so when the non-absorbed light fades out due to the dispersion of photons (the inverse square law), this non-absorbed light does not travel on forever. White light continues on through space and time which comprises the non-absorbed part of the visual spectrum.

Non-absorbed light cannot fade out or disperse unless it gets reflected and travels away from the object. So are you admitting once more that non-absorbed light gets reflected and travels away from the object?

And neither dispersion nor the inverse square law says that the non-absorbed light doesn't travel on forever. If you are claiming that it only travels for some finite distance after being reflected, then YOU are making a change to optics and the basic physics of light. Do you acknowledge this?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that white light travels, so when the non-absorbed light fades out due to the dispersion of photons (the inverse square law), this non-absorbed light does not travel on forever. White light continues on through space and time which comprises the non-absorbed part of the visual spectrum.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Non-absorbed light cannot fade out or disperse unless it gets reflected and travels away from the object. So are you admitting once more that non-absorbed light gets reflected and travels away from the object?

How many times do I have to say that I agree with that? And that non-absorbed light that is at the retina is constantly being replaced by new light.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And neither dispersion nor the inverse square law says that the non-absorbed light doesn't travel on forever. If you are claiming that it only travels for some finite distance after being reflected, then YOU are making a change to optics and the basic physics of light. Do you acknowledge this?

But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that we're not going to get an image from that dispersed light as it goes beyond the point where it can be resolved. That's all I'm saying.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times do I have to say that I agree with that? And that non-absorbed light that is at the retina is constantly being replaced by new light.

It doesn't matter how many times you say it, when 5 minutes later you start denying it again. When this new light replaces the old light at the retina, how did it get there? Did it travel there at light speed? Where was it 0.0001sec before it replaces the old light at the retina?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that we're not going to get an image from that dispersed light as it goes beyond the point where it can be resolved. That's all I'm saying.

Flip flop flip flop. So now you agree that that the nonabsorbed light does get reflected, does travel away, and does continue traveling away indefinitely? So then why do you keep denying these things?

Do you also agree that this nonabsorbed light travels away from the object in a pattern with red light traveling away from the red parts of the object, and blue light traveling away from the blue parts of the object?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you the only change is that light does not bring us the image without the object being present because that's not how we see. WE DON'T INTERPRET THE IMAGE FROM LIGHT. WE SEE OBJECTS BECAUSE OF LIGHT. If this is true then you're starting out with a false premise. So no matter how many times you ask me this question, you're not going to be happy with the answer. Therefore, you'll just have to wait until more empirical testing is done.

All I am asking is why you keep insisting your model is compatible with physics and optics when it is clearly not. You keep answering some other questions I have not asked.

Why won't you answer the questions asked? Do you feel dishonesty and weaseling puts Lessans in a good light?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why do you keep throwing a hissy fit whenever you are asked simple questions about your own claims?

Simple questions from the above post which YOU JUST WEASELED out of answering:

Is non-absorbed light reflected or not? What happens to it if it isn't? Where was the light at the film just before the photograph was taken?

No, it's not reflected. White light is reflected.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

All I am asking is why you keep insisting your model is compatible with physics and optics when it is clearly not. You keep answering some other questions I have not asked.

Why won't you answer the questions asked? Do you feel dishonesty and weaseling puts Lessans in a good light?

I answer every question, but because it doesn't fit into your logic, you say I didn't answer the question. Talk about circular reasoning.

[LadyShea]

I asked you quite clearly why you keep making specific statement. You have not answered the question. You have not stated your reasoning as to why you've made those statement repeatedly.

Explaining your model does not answer the questions asked.

Your model has substantial disagreement with optics and physics, specifically in the ways I've pointed out. Why won't you acknowledge this disagreement instead of stating it doesn't exist?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I asked you quite clearly why you keep making specific statement. You have not answered the question. You have not stated your reasoning as to why you've made those statement repeatedly.

Explaining your model does not answer the questions asked.

Your model has substantial disagreement with optics and physics, specifically in the ways I've pointed out. Why won't you acknowledge this disagreement instead of stating it doesn't exist?

Of course there is disagreement or there wouldn't be any controversy. I told you that light travels, but light itself will not resolve an image unless the object is present, so if we can't see the object with our very eyes, light will not produce an image. Sorry LadyShea, but you're wrong. I have a feeling that you are here to be the winner. I know this because if I leave here, you would never be interested in buying the book (on kindle) or the mp3 which would cost pennies. I really want to know the truth, because it will help me to know how to proceed. Thank you for your help in this matter.

[LadyShea]

Look, if I was insisting rhesus monkeys are canines, and at the same time denying that my classification violated current taxonomy standards, wouldn't you wonder why I was denying that very clear fact?

Whatever I think about rhesus monkeys, even if I am correct, does not change the absolute fact that they are not classified as canines by science currently. I would be stupid to say that my categorization as a canine would not require a change in currently understood taxonomy

Whatever you think about non-absorbed light, even if it is correct, does not change the absolute fact that it does not match the currently accepted properties of light and laws of physics. You are stupid to say that your model does not require a change in currently understood physics.