A revolution in thought

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Noooooo Dragar, how clear can I get? This DOES NOT violate physics in any sense of the word.

Earlier I wrote:

"You've been told this point repeatedly, and never defended yourself beyond mere assertion."

I like how you've demonstrated this clearly to everyone.

[LadyShea]

Question 1.

If light is located on the retina, either impinging on it, or in the form of a mirror image, you must account for how the light came to be located there...what is the mechanism? How did it get there?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Question 1.

If light is located on the retina, either impinging on it, or in the form of a mirror image, you must account for how the light came to be located there...what is the mechanism? How did it get there?

It didn't get anywhere that physics did not allow. The difference, once again, is how the eyes work, which you are failing to understand. That is why you think there is a violation of physics, which there is not.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Earlier I wrote:

"You've been told this point repeatedly, and never defended yourself beyond mere assertion."

I like how you've demonstrated this clearly to everyone.

I can only do what I can do Dragar. I am trying to show you that there is something wrong in the mistaken notion that light has to travel to Earth for the eyes to use that light in order to see said object. I can't help if you resist what I'm saying, or consider it a mere assertion. Why do you think I am asking people to delay their judgment and wait until further testing is done?

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can only do what I can do Dragar. I am trying to show you that there is something wrong in the mistaken notion that light has to travel to Earth for the eyes to use that light in order to see said object. I can't help if you resist what I'm saying, or consider it a mere assertion. Why do you think I am asking people to delay their judgment and wait until further testing is done?

We consider it mere assertion because that's all it is. Assertion.

I think you're asking for delayed judgement because you know full well every shred of evidence we have says Lessans is wrong, and there's no reason to believe a word you say.

I think you are asking people to delay their judgement because you know you have no case, but have too much emotionally invested in this project of yours to show a shred of honesty and back down from your grandiose claims.

[Dragar]

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It didn't get anywhere that physics did not allow. The difference, once again, is how the eyes work, which you are failing to understand. That is why you think there is a violation of physics, which there is not.

Hey peacegirl, the eyes work according to physics. The way you describe the eyes work is flat contradiction to physics.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It didn't get anywhere that physics did not allow. The difference, once again, is how the eyes work, which you are failing to understand. That is why you think there is a violation of physics, which there is not.

Physics requires that the light either

1. Traveled to that location
2. Came into existence at that location (which requires light emitting processes)

There are no other mechanisms allowed by physics by which light comes to be at a specific physical location. Teleportation is also a possible mechanism, however that is not allowed by physics that I am aware of

How the eyes work does not have any effect on the mechanism involved in light coming to be located somewhere

Which of these mechanisms is at work in the efferent account?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

We consider it mere assertion because that's all it is. Assertion.

I think you're asking for delayed judgement because you know full well every shred of evidence we have says Lessans is wrong, and there's no reason to believe a word you say.

I think you are asking people to delay their judgement because you know you have no case, but have too much emotionally invested in this project of yours to show a shred of honesty and back down from your grandiose claims.

People can do whatever they want. I would hope that they would delay judgment, but I can't force them to. No matter what people say; no matter how wrong they think he is, or how emotionally invested they think I am, I am not going to back down from these claims because I believe he was right. Time will be his vindicator.

[ceptimus]

It doesn't matter how you claim you see - whether it's by mirror images or light impinging or any other non-explanation. If you claim you can see distant objects as they are 'now', without the delay that is caused by the time it takes light to travel from that distant object to your eye, then your claim is counter to the theory of relativity.

Relativity states that there is NO WAY of gaining any information about distant objects in less time than light takes to travel from those objects - by claiming you can see distant objects more quickly than that, you destroy the theory of relativity.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Physics requires that the light either

1. Traveled to that location
2. Came into existence at that location (which requires light emitting processes)

There are no other mechanisms allowed by physics by which light comes to be at a specific physical location. Teleportation is also a possible mechanism, however that is not allowed by physics that I am aware of

How the eyes work does not have any effect on the mechanism involved in light coming to be located somewhere

Which of these mechanisms is at work in the efferent account?

I'm trying to tell you that light is not required to travel to Earth for a mirror image to show up on the retina if the eyes are efferent. If the eyes are afferent, this wouldn't make sense because there would be nothing that allows this phenomenon to occur. For me to continue arguing with you is a waste of time. Do you think we're going to make progress? No, we're not. I don't know how to convince you or get you to see that efferent vision, which allows a mirror image to show up on the retina because this has more to do with the properties of the eye and brain than with light, does not violate the laws of physics. Light continues to travel at 186,000 miles per second.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

It doesn't matter how you claim you see - whether it's by mirror images or light impinging or any other non-explanation. If you claim you can see distant objects as they are 'now', without the delay that is caused by the time it takes light to travel from that distant object to your eye, then your claim is counter to the theory of relativity.

Relativity states that there is NO WAY of gaining any information about distant objects in less time than light takes to travel from those objects - by claiming you can see distant objects more quickly than that, you destroy the theory of relativity.

I can only be concerned with Lessans claim. If it contradicts some other theory, then that needs to be reevaluated as well. To say Lessans is wrong because relativity is right, is not how science works. This has nothing to do with travel, because what is seen is instant. This is also not about seeing a distant object faster than the speed of light because that still involves time, and there is no time delay in efferent vision.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

To say Lessans is wrong because relativity is right, is not how science works.

This is, in effect, a lie. You have demonstrated over and over and over again that you have no idea at all how science works. So you're being disingenuous at best. (Hint: It's dishonest to pretend you understand something that you clearly do not.)



In any event, you're now back to arguing that Einstein was wrong. And more importantly, all the experiments over the past century verifying Relativity Theory are also wrong.



Which is weird, since the technologies which depend on Relativity Theory being correct actually work.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You have demonstrated over and over and over again that you have no idea at all how science works.

Indeed. She thinks "scientific" is a synonym for "undeniable."

=

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Indeed. She thinks "scientific" is a synonym for "undeniable."

=

Indeed. "Undeniable" is almost exactly the opposite of what "scientific" means.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are trying to make it seem as if this violates physics. It does not. I'm not answering your question because you are not using the efferent account which does not require photons to travel to earth for a mirror image to be present at the retina. You are basing your reasoning on the afferent account, which will make the efferent account look wrong.

I am not basing my reasoning on the afferent account. That is a lie. I am simply trying to understand the efferent account, yet you keep refusing to help me. You say there is a mirror image composed of light at the retina. Either that light traveled to get there or it didn't. So which is it?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The problem here is that there is a lack of understanding how this is physically possible in the efferent account.

Yes. The problem is YOUR lack of understanding of how this could be physically possible.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The physical mechanism involves the eye's ability to see the physical world in real time.

That's an ability, not a mechanism.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light plays a completely different role if this claim is true (which I believe it is), but you're not seeing it because you don't understand how this mirror image is able to be created on the retina in this model.

You don't understand how this mirror image gets created on the retina either. Every time we ask you about it you weasel. Nor do you understand the role played by light in your account.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are still coming from the afferent point of view which doesn't involve the object at all.

Your favorite transparent weasel. Every time someone asks you an awkward question that you don't know how to answer, you just accuse them of coming from the afferent position. Someone points out how you've contradicted either physics or yourself? No problem! It's just because they are coming from the afferent position. Weasel weasel weasel! No problem here!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

An object being present in one's field of view creates the mechanism by which the eye can create a mirror image, regardless of how far away that object is.

And what is the mechanism thus created?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You said this doesn't matter, but it does matter only if the brain is using the eyes as a window.

Seriously? You agreed the brain doesn't do this. We just went over at length why this analogy is hopelessly flawed.

There is no disagreement over the direction in which the brain-eye system looks - it looks outwards in whichever direction the eyes are pointing. But for us this 'looking outwards' is explained in terms of light and information traveling inwards. On your account it is not explained at all, and you have no idea what your outwards component even is. Saying that the brain looks outwards through the eyes like a window is flat out wrong and impossible if it is taken as something the brain (distinct from the eyes) is meant to do in relation to the eyes. And taken as something done by the brain-eye system as a whole it is trivially true and accepted by both the afferent and efferent accounts.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Somewhere along the line you are not getting it, and you're certainly not understanding that this does not violate physics. Until you do, you will continue to tell me that this is magic because you don't see how this can occur when light hasn't reached Earth yet.

You don't see how this can occur either. And you aren't explaining it in a way that does not violate physics.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I cannot go through this entire post and make this thread revolve around your confusion. Give me one question at a time and I will answer. That's all I have to say.

Bullshit. You are lying to us. I just did give you one question at a time, and you flat out refused to answer. Stop lying and stop weaseling. Every time you do, you further discredit both yourself and your father.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

If you want us to "think efferent" then you have to stop contradicting yourself and start making sense. How can this light be at the retina without traveling there? How does it get there in efferent vision? Where was this same light one moment beforehand?

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, please clarify what you were talking about here. Because I am pretty sure I did take you up on your offer.

Bump!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Stop weaseling. Your response has nothing to do with my question. I asked you a simple Yes or No question, and you haven't answered it.

Did the light at the retina on Earth (composing the mirror image, and which is supposedly there before any light has arrived on Earth) travel to get there? Yes, or No?

Bump.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Stop weaseling for one moment, and answer this simple question:

If the light at the retina didn't get there by traveling there, then how did it get there?

Bump.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Indeed. "Undeniable" is almost exactly the opposite of what "scientific" means.

peacegirl has well demonstrated that her brain lost most of its ability to learn some time ago. It is probably part of her mental illness. In any case it should be very clear by now that to peacegirl, all matters of "fact" are merely matters of opinion and her opinion is the only one that counts. One would expect this stance from a person who clearly has no command whatsoever of the facts, reason or reality.

It is also interesting to note that this stance extends to her command of the facts of Lessans book. But as the "Editor" she is able to make Lessans correspond to her version of the facts. Not that they differ to great extent since she was probably brain washed by the "great man" as a child, if not abused in many other ways.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

This is, in effect, a lie. You have demonstrated over and over and over again that you have no idea at all how science works. So you're being disingenuous at best. (Hint: It's dishonest to pretend you understand something that you clearly do not.)



In any event, you're now back to arguing that Einstein was wrong. And more importantly, all the experiments over the past century verifying Relativity Theory are also wrong.

That is not what I said. I said that science doesn't work that way. If there is factual proof that something works a certain way, that's a different story, not because of someone's fame. I did not say relativity theory is wrong. I said this claim of seeing in real time is not negated because of an apparent conflict with relativity theory. It doesn't even relate because efferent vision has nothing to do with the speed of light or time.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Which is weird, since the technologies which depend on Relativity Theory being correct actually work.

I never said relativity didn't work, I said that this claim doesn't even relate to Lessans' claim. We had this conversation a long time ago and I still don't think there's a conflict.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Also, I did not say relativity theory is wrong. This claim doesn't even relate to this because it has nothing to do with the speed of light, or time.

Like I said, to her "facts" are just opinion and her opinion is the only one that counts. If she weren't so mentally ill, this statement would be drop down, roll on the floor funny. But in her case it is just the human tragedy of a mental person posturing in the public square.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump!

No you did not. You said you were not interested but you would give me an address to some university that might be.