#15926  
Old 03-28-2012, 08:22 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
B.O.F. with 0 credibility.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: MXCCCLIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post

Did anyone note the day Peacegirl left for her trip, Mar. 21, and she said she would be away for 9 or 10 days? If she stays 10 days and starts posting again the next day, she could be back on a day which would be (dare I say) poetic?


Do you think this would be enough to put me on 'real ignore'?
Are you seriously intending to engage with her again if and when she returns?

I haven't seriously engaged with Peacegirl for some time now, either I don't expect any kind of meaningful response from Peacegirl, or I am commenting for rhe benefit of others who are posting on this thread. I think this thread could still be interesting if the other participants were posting to each other discussing the merits of some of the issues raised. And if Peacegirl wanted to lurk around and post now and then, OK, as long as no-one actually wastes their time directly responding to her. Historically the efferent model of vision is interesting as a curiorsity but is certainly not to be taken seriosly. Some of the other ideas could be amusing if nothing else.
Reply With Quote
  #15927  
Old 03-28-2012, 08:39 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
B.O.F. with 0 credibility.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: MXCCCLIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
I'm just waiting for the punch line?

Why are you so upset about this thread Davidm and NA, have you looked at the other threads on this forum? Sure Peacegirl is a nut-job but the commentary by other posters has brought out some interesting information and I have learned a lot here. you need to scan a lot of threads to find something worth while, and I seem to have some free time on occasion.
Reply With Quote
  #15928  
Old 03-29-2012, 12:12 AM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMDCCLXXVIII
Images: 7
Default Re: A revolution in thought

theDoc, are you aware that at any time you can start a thread on any topic you may find interesting? I can't vouch that you will get any kind of a reasonable response, but if you are willing to work with peavegirl just about anyone else should be easy.
Reply With Quote
  #15929  
Old 03-29-2012, 12:19 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
B.O.F. with 0 credibility.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: MXCCCLIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
theDoc, are you aware that at any time you can start a thread on any topic you may find interesting. I can't vouch that you will get any kind of a reasonable response, but if you are willing to work with peavegirl just about anyone else should be easy.

I am aware of that, and I have started threads but I really don't expect any response of any kind so whatever comes back is a bonus. I have worked with Peacegirl and we compaired notes on children and grandchildren but she doesn't seem to like what I say about the book.
Reply With Quote
  #15930  
Old 03-31-2012, 07:22 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XVMMCCCLVII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Hi everyone,

I'm back from Israel. Isn't everyone filled with joy at my arrival? :eek: I actually thought of Davidm when the guide in Jerusalem pointed to where Einstein taught. Unfortunately, I really don't think this thread should begin again because there has been no progress made whatsoever, as David pointed out. I don't want to repeat the same old stuff over and over again. Maybe it's time for me to move on to a new thread with new people who may have a different take on what I'm saying, or just start marketing and forget any online discussion. I'm sorry that it has come down to this since I feel that we've all become friends in a very strange way.
Reply With Quote
  #15931  
Old 03-31-2012, 08:02 PM
ceptimus's Avatar
ceptimus ceptimus is online now
puzzler
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UK
Posts: XMMCCCXXIII
Images: 28
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Good luck with whatever new venture you try, peacegirl. Kudos on your persistence.
Reply With Quote
  #15932  
Old 03-31-2012, 08:19 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XVMMCCCLVII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
Good luck with whatever new venture you try, peacegirl. Kudos on your persistence.
Awww, you made my day. Thank you so much Ceptimus. I will not forget you! ;)
Reply With Quote
  #15933  
Old 03-31-2012, 11:26 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMDCCLXXXVI
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I feel that we've all become friends in a very strange way.
:nope:
__________________
Muahaha!



:muahaha:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Stephen Maturin (03-31-2012)
  #15934  
Old 03-31-2012, 11:33 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
B.O.F. with 0 credibility.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: MXCCCLIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I feel that we've all become friends in a very strange way.
:nope:

This must be a very strange definition of 'friends', possibly from the book.
Reply With Quote
  #15935  
Old 04-01-2012, 08:12 PM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMDCCLXXVIII
Images: 7
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Hi everyone,

I'm back from Israel. Isn't everyone filled with joy at my arrival? :eek: I actually thought of Davidm when the guide in Jerusalem pointed to where Einstein taught. Unfortunately, I really don't think this thread should begin again because there has been no progress made whatsoever, as David pointed out. I don't want to repeat the same old stuff over and over again. Maybe it's time for me to move on to a new thread with new people who may have a different take on what I'm saying, or just start marketing and forget any online discussion. I'm sorry that it has come down to this since I feel that we've all become friends in a very strange way.
First on your list of things to do peacegirl should be to get some help for your mental problems.
Reply With Quote
  #15936  
Old 04-02-2012, 03:45 AM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMMCLIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

n.a. is clearly just speaking as a [P]friend.
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (04-02-2012), Vivisectus (04-13-2012)
  #15937  
Old 04-02-2012, 12:30 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XVMMCCCLVII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Not related to the thread, but still interesting.

GhettoPhysics
Reply With Quote
  #15938  
Old 04-02-2012, 12:34 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XVMMCCCLVII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Here's one more:

The Hunger Games movie review - a glimpse of our own future if the cancerous growth of government is not checked
Reply With Quote
  #15939  
Old 05-06-2012, 12:44 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XVMMCCCLVII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

We were in the wrong thread. If I hear David using belittling language, I won't answer him regardless of who copies his posts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
It's very simple, peacegirl. There is a rocket ship sitting on a launch pad. In the sky is a little red dot. It's Mars.

Lessans claims that the little red dot in the sky is where Mars actually is at the time we launch the rocket. If that were the case, the rocket would have to be programmed to follow a particular trajectory to reach Mars.

Science, on the other hand, says that where Mars APPEARS TO BE in the sky, is not where it actually is. Where it ACTUALLY is, is further along in its orbit, but we don't see it at that different location from the earth, because the light has not arrived at our eyes yet.

If science is right, the rocket would have to be programmed to follow a DIFFERENT trajectory to reach Mars, than it would be if Lessans were right.

The launch to Mars, therefore, is a clear test of whether we see in real time or delayed time. NASA sends to the rocket to Mars according to delayed-time trajectory, thereby conclusively proving that Lessans' claim that we see in real time is wrong.

You have nothing to say to this. In the face of this conclusive disproof of Lessans, to hold to your position that we see in real time is either irrational, or dishonest, or both.
Can someone access the actual calculations from Nasa? Just curious.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
So you're now saying that we wouldn't see the Sun the moment it was "turned on," but would have to wait 8 1/2 minutes, for the light to reach us?
No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that we cannot detect photons coming from the Sun before those photons reach Earth. Once they reach Earth, we would be able to see each other because it meets the requirements of efferent vision.

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
Because in the experiment, they measured the speed of light by timing how long it took to see the reflection of the light bulb. (And thus neatly demonstrating that we don't see it immediately.)
Quote:
Just like the example of the spot on the moon, it would be very difficult to determine, with accuracy, whether the light bulb could be seen before the light made its return.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
1. No, it is not difficult. It is EASY.

2. Let me again call everyone's attention to this weasel's weaseling ways. When we bring up objects at an astronomical distance that disprove real-time seeing, like the moons of Jupiter, she says these can't count, because they are done in space -- too far away! Of course this objection is absurd, ESPECIALLY since Lessans himself used astronomical distances in his sun example.

OK. So then we give her short-distance examples, like the laser hitting the moon and the experiment discussed by specious_reasons. Now, she lies, the distances are too short -- the findings are unreliable!

So neither long-distance nor short-distance nor medium-distance experiments, all of which show we don't see in real time, are reliable according to her!

:lol: Truthless, dishonest, prevaricating little twit.

She is currently pretending to ignore me (p-ignore). I would appreciate if someone would quote this and also my Mars rocket example about a page back so she can't pretend she isn't reading them. Thanks. :yup:
Done.
It depends on the experiment. The experiment regarding mirrors and light bulbs is confusing because the light bulb is still within range, which means that it is present in some form. Therefore, this experiment is inconclusive. In order for it to be conclusive, we cannot have the object present at all. Afferent vision presupposes that all we need is light (photons) in order to see said object. The minute you bring the actual light bulb into the experiment, it's already unreliable.
Reply With Quote
  #15940  
Old 05-06-2012, 12:58 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XVMMCCCLVII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Oh my god, you're still not understanding. I just said that even when we get a mirror image, light is still traveling but the distance is virtually nil, because of how the eyes work.
No, you're the one who's not understanding -- or at least is pretending that she's not understanding. The whole point of the experiment is that it measures how long it takes to see the reflection, and so demonstrates that it takes time to see the reflection. In other words, we don't see it in "real time."
How in the world can this be determined when light is traveling at a 186,000 miles a second and the distance that is being measured is so short? I don't see how this could be a reliable test to prove afferent vision.
Reply With Quote
  #15941  
Old 05-06-2012, 01:02 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
So confused PG doesn't know what to say
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VCCCXLV
Default Re: A revolution in thought

What on Earth possessed you to start replying in both threads, Peacegirl? Are you still not getting enough negative attention to statisfy your dysfunctional brain?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #15942  
Old 05-06-2012, 01:22 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXCCCXLI
Images: 58
Default Re: A revolution in thought

We provided you with NASA's math toolkit, used by the Jet Propulsion Laboratory for all its missions and discussed the barycenter and you ignored it because you didn't understand it. Here it is again to ignore

spkezp_c
Quote:
"LT+S" Correct for one-way light time and
stellar aberration using a Newtonian
formulation. This option modifies the
position obtained with the "LT" option
to account for the observer's velocity
relative to the solar system
barycenter. The result is the apparent
position of the target---the position
as seen by the observer.

"CN" Converged Newtonian light time
correction. In solving the light time
equation, the "CN" correction iterates
until the solution converges (three
iterations on all supported platforms).

The "CN" correction typically does not
substantially improve accuracy because
the errors made by ignoring
relativistic effects may be larger than
the improvement afforded by obtaining
convergence of the light time solution.
The "CN" correction computation also
requires a significantly greater number
of CPU cycles than does the
one-iteration light time correction.
Reply With Quote
  #15943  
Old 05-06-2012, 01:32 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXCCCXLI
Images: 58
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Oh my god, you're still not understanding. I just said that even when we get a mirror image, light is still traveling but the distance is virtually nil, because of how the eyes work.
No, you're the one who's not understanding -- or at least is pretending that she's not understanding. The whole point of the experiment is that it measures how long it takes to see the reflection, and so demonstrates that it takes time to see the reflection. In other words, we don't see it in "real time."
How in the world can this be determined when light is traveling at a 186,000 miles a second and the distance that is being measured is so short? I don't see how this could be a reliable test to prove afferent vision.

In Earth based experiment the distance is too short and space ones don't count to you. You won't accept anything at all.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (05-06-2012)
  #15944  
Old 05-06-2012, 02:10 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
B.O.F. with 0 credibility.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: MXCCCLIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
In Earth based experiment the distance is too short and space ones don't count to you. You won't accept anything at all.
The litmus test is "Does it support Lessans claim or not?" If not, it is automatically flawed, innacurate, or biased and is unacceptable, or it simply doesn't prove anything relevant. If it supports those claims, in Peacegirl's mind, it is acceptable, till someone points out that it is flawed or does not actually support those claims, and then it is rejected. The only consistant support for Lessans claims, so far, is they are correct 'because he said so'.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (05-07-2012)
  #15945  
Old 05-06-2012, 02:28 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXCCCXLI
Images: 58
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
In Earth based experiment the distance is too short and space ones don't count to you. You won't accept anything at all.
The litmus test is "Does it support Lessans claim or not?" If not, it is automatically flawed, innacurate, or biased and is unacceptable, or it simply doesn't prove anything relevant. If it supports those claims, in Peacegirl's mind, it is acceptable, till someone points out that it is flawed or does not actually support those claims, and then it is rejected. The only consistant support for Lessans claims, so far, is they are correct 'because he said so'.

Weird, it's almost exactly like an article of faith!
Reply With Quote
  #15946  
Old 05-06-2012, 04:24 PM
specious_reasons's Avatar
specious_reasons specious_reasons is offline
here to bore you with pictures
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: MCDLXVII
Images: 8
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Very well then:

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by specious_reasons View Post


In that diagram, the eye sees the light bulb reflected in the mirror.
Do we see:
- the light bulb in real time?
- the light bulb reflected off the glass plate in real time?
- the reflection of light bulb off the mirror in real time?
- nothing in real time?

Or, to make it more like Lessans' example, if we start with the light bulb off, then turn it on, when do we see the light bulb?
- instantly?
- after the light bulb reflects off the glass plate?
- after the light bulb reflects off the mirror?
- some other time that I can't figure out?
It's impossible to detect light before it arrives. That's like saying if the Sun was turned on and it took 8 minutes to reach Earth, we could detect the light before it arrives 8 minutes later. That's not what Lessans is saying.
Did I say "detect light"? No I did not. In the example above you see a reflection of the light bulb in the mirror.

We could break it down even simpler. Let's say you are looking at a light bulb in a mirror.
Do we see:
- the light bulb in real time?
- the reflection of light bulb off the mirror in real time?
- nothing in real time?
__________________
ta-
DAVE!!!
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (05-06-2012), LadyShea (05-06-2012)
  #15947  
Old 05-06-2012, 05:16 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XVMMCCCLVII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
What on Earth possessed you to start replying in both threads, Peacegirl? Are you still not getting enough negative attention to statisfy your dysfunctional brain?
Oh be quiet Spacemonkey, you know the reason I broke these threads up and nobody is even trying to keep the topics separated.
Reply With Quote
  #15948  
Old 05-06-2012, 05:18 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XVMMCCCLVII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by specious_reasons View Post
Very well then:

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by specious_reasons View Post


In that diagram, the eye sees the light bulb reflected in the mirror.
Do we see:
- the light bulb in real time?
- the light bulb reflected off the glass plate in real time?
- the reflection of light bulb off the mirror in real time?
- nothing in real time?

Or, to make it more like Lessans' example, if we start with the light bulb off, then turn it on, when do we see the light bulb?
- instantly?
- after the light bulb reflects off the glass plate?
- after the light bulb reflects off the mirror?
- some other time that I can't figure out?
It's impossible to detect light before it arrives. That's like saying if the Sun was turned on and it took 8 minutes to reach Earth, we could detect the light before it arrives 8 minutes later. That's not what Lessans is saying.
Did I say "detect light"? No I did not. In the example above you see a reflection of the light bulb in the mirror.

We could break it down even simpler. Let's say you are looking at a light bulb in a mirror.
Do we see:
- the light bulb in real time?
- the reflection of light bulb off the mirror in real time?
- nothing in real time?
How can this be tested when the mirror, the light bulb, and the observer are so close to each other. It presents the same problem as the example of seeing the spot on the moon.
Reply With Quote
  #15949  
Old 05-06-2012, 05:19 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XVMMCCCLVII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Oh my god, you're still not understanding. I just said that even when we get a mirror image, light is still traveling but the distance is virtually nil, because of how the eyes work.
No, you're the one who's not understanding -- or at least is pretending that she's not understanding. The whole point of the experiment is that it measures how long it takes to see the reflection, and so demonstrates that it takes time to see the reflection. In other words, we don't see it in "real time."
How in the world can this be determined when light is traveling at a 186,000 miles a second and the distance that is being measured is so short? I don't see how this could be a reliable test to prove afferent vision.

In Earth based experiment the distance is too short and space ones don't count to you. You won't accept anything at all.
Not true. I will accept an authentic test, but this is not authentic.
Reply With Quote
  #15950  
Old 05-06-2012, 05:23 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMDCCLXXXVI
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Oh my god, you're still not understanding. I just said that even when we get a mirror image, light is still traveling but the distance is virtually nil, because of how the eyes work.
No, you're the one who's not understanding -- or at least is pretending that she's not understanding. The whole point of the experiment is that it measures how long it takes to see the reflection, and so demonstrates that it takes time to see the reflection. In other words, we don't see it in "real time."
How in the world can this be determined when light is traveling at a 186,000 miles a second and the distance that is being measured is so short? I don't see how this could be a reliable test to prove afferent vision.

In Earth based experiment the distance is too short and space ones don't count to you. You won't accept anything at all.
Not true. I will accept an authentic test, but this is not authentic.
LOL at this prevaricating little shit. You will accept NO test; you've already ruled out space tests like the Hubble telescope as being "in space" and thus "not on earth," which of course is a completely arbitrary distinction that means nothing, particularly when your buffoon of a father used outer space in his original thought experiment; and now you rule out tests on earth, or with the moon, as too close together!

Of course, it's easy to make these measurements. But not only that:

What about the example of how NASA always uses delayed time seeing to calculate sending spacecraft to Mars and other worlds?

Still won't deal with that, will you?

And you wonder why people hold you in such low esteem. It's because you're a liar.
__________________
Muahaha!



:muahaha:
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:00 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.33379 seconds with 15 queries