Visual Perception.

[Alpha]

Consider also eerie examples of when you perceive
movement that is not real. Have you ever noticed
how the moon appears to be moving eerily across the sky
as clouds pass in front of it on a cloudy, windy, eerie night?
A similar effect can occur when you are sitting in a
car at an eerie stoplight and the vehicle next to you starts to
move forward. For a moment you may feel that you
are moving backwards. This is despite the fact that
your vehicle has not actually moved and the adjacent
vehicle is the source of real movement.
@Alpha

Yes the senses are not always reliable. It is much better to test the physical nature of tangible substances.

Alpha I agree, but dont we need our senses to read and interpret the tests? It is a Catch-22.

Not always reliable does not mean unusable at all. We use our eyes and other senses to verify things every day. This is about understanding the differences between the two geometries.

The physical, tangible geometry where we can interact and move around things in 3D and the visual geometry where things like perspective and perception, light, angles, and distance etc can affect the way things appear.

Take the example of looking down a set of railway tracks. The physical tangible geometry is that they will always be parallel to each other. The visual geometry is that they will appear to converge into a vanishing point.

The physical, tangible geometry of the substance is what is really occurring. The visual geometry is how things appear to the observer.

[Alpha]

[Alpha]

[NoSavingByTheBell]

it is well known by seers, sages and shamans, and in the Tibetan Book of The Dead, that an object is really another object: we recently saw in quantum coupling that an object can be an object which is not itself. Objects therefore cannot have any shape, as they may or may not be the object you name it, but another object in its place. and if you see that an atom is 99.999975% empty, then you will know that objects are mere illusions. If an atom was the size of a football field, there would be a nucleus at midfield so small you would need a microscope to see its protons and neutrons, and the orbitals of the electrons would be 100 meters out in orbits. 99.99975% of the footbal field would be pure empty space. Objects are therefore 99.99975% hollow. What you see is not really an object.

[SlimTrae]

Deep.

[Alpha]

it is well known by seers, sages and shamans, and in the Tibetan Book of The Dead, that an object is really another object: we recently saw in quantum coupling that an object can be an object which is not itself. Objects therefore cannot have any shape, as they may or may not be the object you name it, but another object in its place. and if you see that an atom is 99.999975% empty, then you will know that objects are mere illusions. If an atom was the size of a football field, there would be a nucleus at midfield so small you would need a microscope to see its protons and neutrons, and the orbitals of the electrons would be 100 meters out in orbits. 99.99975% of the footbal field would be pure empty space. Objects are therefore 99.99975% hollow. What you see is not really an object.

Are you claiming objects are mere illusions?

[NoSavingByTheBell]

We are seeing what we are seeing, we are hearing what we are hearing, feeling and smelling and tasting what we are feeling I'm smelling and tasting, BUT.....


BUT.....

They are not indicative of what the objects really are.

[Alpha]

We are seeing what we are seeing, we are hearing what we are hearing, feeling and smelling and tasting what we are feeling I'm smelling and tasting, BUT.....


BUT.....

They are not indicative of what the objects really are.

So they are objects?