A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

A laser doesn't "illuminate distance", but it can travel for greater distances without dispersing, therefore a laser beam can illuminate a small object at greater distances that a flashlight of even a very powerful spot light.

I meant illuminate objects at greater distances. That's what concentrated light means, at least that's what I thought. The light is not dispersed because the beam stays parallel and therefore has a lot more energy.

[The Lone Ranger]

Bravo!

Every time that I think your denial of reality itself can't get any more blatant; every time I think that your desperate flailing about for something, anything to believe -- no matter how ludicrous -- that will allow you to preserve your absolute faith in Lessans' claims; every time I think that maybe, just possibly, you might actually be capable of learning something -- you prove me wrong.

There is literally nothing that's too ludicrous for you to believe, if you think that it somehow supports Lessans' claims.

Wow. Just, wow.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People are confusing the properties of light with the function of light.

No confusion with the other people here, we understand that the properties of light determine it's function, They are not separate and unrelated.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I meant illuminate objects at greater distances. That's what concentrated light means, at least that's what I thought. The light is not dispersed because the beam stays parallel and therefore has a lot more energy.

Truly, your ignorance knows no bounds.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I should have said "concentration of light energy."

I believe "coherent Light" would be a better description.

Perhaps someone would explain what "Coherent" means for Pescegirl.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Well then that makes you embarrassed for two people, me and you. You are certainly embarrassing yourself on this thread, and you're making your father look like a fool.

I knew this man, you did not. I have nothing to be embarrassed about. It's very easy for people to twist things and to make something appear what it's not, or to make something not appear what it is. That's what prosecutors do. They twist things to where your head is spinning, all to make something appear what it's not or to put doubt in people's minds. There's another problem and that is when a person comes online and offers something that has not been verified, it's especially difficult. I realize these are extraordinary claims, but that doesn't mean the claims are false. If you really knew his story (which will be well-known one day), you would understand the position he was in, and the position I'm now in. You have jumped to premature conclusions since day one. You have no understanding of this book, none whatsoever. You don't even understand why all man-made laws will be removed, yet responsibility will increase. You have completely misunderstood when he said people would not have to get a license to mean people won't have high standards of excellence. You can't even explain his first discovery and his second discovery you're just repeating what you've been taught, and concluding that Lessans must be wrong. So the odds are not in my favor, not because his discovery is false but because people don't want to be wrong and I am the underdog. This has nothing to do with the veracity of this knowledge. I'm teetering on whether to ignore you again. You're hard to stomach because you not only say ignorant things, but you constantly attack my father as being someone who he wasn't. It's disgusting.

[The Lone Ranger]

Coherence doesn't seem to be something she's capable of comprehending.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I meant illuminate objects at greater distances. That's what concentrated light means, at least that's what I thought. The light is not dispersed because the beam stays parallel and therefore has a lot more energy.

No, Laser light has no more energy that non laser light, but the energy that it does have can be concentrated into a very small area. Have you ever used a magnifying glass to set paper on fire? A laser is just much more efficient at doing this by emitting coherent light in very small beams and can have the same effect over longer distances rather than just the one point of focus of the magnifying glass.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Bravo!

Every time that I think your denial of reality itself can't get any more blatant; every time I think that your desperate flailing about for something, anything to believe -- no matter how ludicrous -- that will allow you to preserve your absolute faith in Lessans' claims; every time I think that maybe, just possibly, you might actually be capable of learning something -- you prove me wrong.

There is literally nothing that's too ludicrous for you to believe, if you think that it somehow supports Lessans' claims.

Wow. Just, wow.

I'm not denying reality Lone Ranger. I just don't see the conflict between traveling light and real time vision. Sorry.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not denying reality Lone Ranger. I just don't see the conflict between traveling light and real time vision. Sorry.

Of course you see the conflict -- you're lying, as usual.

The fact that you have been desperately waving your hands around to try to invalidate the moon/laser experiment proves that you understand that this simple experiment invalidates the entirety of Lessan's vomitous writings on light and sight.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I knew this man, you did not.

I have nothing to be embarrassed about.

I understand that you grew up with him and think you know much about him, but I know him through his book, and you would be surprised to know how much you can learn about someone by what they write. Lessans writings spoke volumes about what he thought and believed, most of it wrong.

If you are not embarrassed, it's because you are ignorant of what you should be embarrassed about.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

No, Laser light has no more energy that non laser light, but the energy that it does have can be concentrated into a very small area.

I thought that's what I said.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Have you ever used a magnifying glass to set paper on fire? A laser is just much more efficient at doing this by emitting coherent light in very small beams and can have the same effect over longer distances rather than just the one point of focus of the magnifying glass.

If you keep your posts like this one, offering information or asking legitimate questions rather than attacking my father for no good reason, I'll respond to you otherwise I'll need to put you back on ignore. From previous experience, it seems to me you are more interesting in blathering and spouting off lies than actually having a civil discussion. The ball is in your court.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I understand that you grew up with him and think you know much about him, but I know him through his book, and you would be surprised to know how much you can learn about someone by what they write. Lessans writings spoke volumes about what he thought and believed, most of it wrong.

If you are not embarrassed, it's because you are ignorant of what you should be embarrassed about.

I'm not embarrassed about anything thedoc. Again, you are on the verge of being ignored. You do not understand the book. You can't even explain why man's will is not free. You know zilch about the two-sided equation. You are copying what people say in here and then you give your slimy remarks about knowing more about the book than I do. You are one of the most ignorant people that I've met online, even if some of your posts have offered some interesting information. You are so positive that he is wrong that you think this gives you the right to slander him in the most disgusting way. If you had met him and gotten to know him, you would feel sick to your stomach right now.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I thought that's what I said.

Compare what you wrote with what he wrote. Try real hard to see the difference.

If you keep your posts like this one, offering information or asking legitimate questions rather than attacking my father for no good reason, I'll respond to you otherwise I'll need to put you back on ignore. From previous experience, it seems to me you are more interesting in blathering and spouting off lies than actually having a civil discussion. The ball is in your court.

The ONLY person on this thread blathering and spouting off lies is you, you little weasel.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Of course you see the conflict -- you're lying, as usual.

The fact that you have been desperately waving your hands around to try to invalidate the moon/laser experiment proves that you understand that this simple experiment invalidates the entirety of Lessan's vomitous writings on light and sight.

David, you are completely misguided. Your ad hominen attacks aren't going to stop me from explaining why Lessans' claim is relevant. The small reflector package (or mirror) in that video was no larger than 18 square inches. The light that is reflected cannot be seen at that distance even with a powerful telescope.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Compare what you wrote with what he wrote. Try real hard to see the difference.

The ONLY person on this thread blathering and spouting off lies is you, you little weasel.

You all have the same disease; it's called vomititis of the mouth. You can't stop vomiting garbage. That means garbage in, garbage out! You and all your friends are driving me out of here. I'm sure you'll be happy, but you won't get to enjoy any lulz because you won't find me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

"Unable to resolve detail" does not mean the same thing as "blurred." A point source of light is one that is far-enough away that the apparent size of the emitter (or reflector) is too small for the detector (whether an eye, a camera, or whatever) to resolve it. So we see it as a point. That's why it's called a "point source."

Regardless, as you yourself just pointed out, whether or not we can resolve detail is not important; what matters is whether or not we can see the reflected light. And we have detectors that can easily see laser light reflected from reflectors on the Moon. We've been able to do so for some 50 years now.

And they always see the reflected light after some 2.6 seconds, not the 1.3 seconds you claim would be the case.

From what I have gathered, I don't think they can see the reflected laser light from reflectors on the moon. Could you be wrong about this?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The small reflector package (or mirror) in that video was no larger than 18 square inches. The light that is reflected cannot be seen at that distance even with a powerful telescope.

Yes it can. Easily, in fact. We've had telescopes that are easily capable of detecting light of that intensity for well over a century. Didn't you even bother to watch the video?

Probably not: you've repeatedly demonstrated -- and even admitted -- that you won't look at evidence against Lessans' claims.

Which makes you a hypocrite, at best, and an outright liar when you claim that you're "only interested in the truth."


Here's a hint: How on Earth do you think we detect light, if not by seeing it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Yes it can. Easily, in fact. We've had telescopes that are easily capable of detecting light of that intensity for well over a century. Didn't you even bother to watch the video?

Probably not: you've repeatedly demonstrated -- and even admitted -- that you won't look at evidence against Lessans' claims.

Which makes you a hypocrite, at best, and an outright liar when you claim that you're "only interested in the truth."

I did look at it; there's where I found out how small their reflector package is.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Here's a hint: How on Earth do you think we detect light, if not by seeing it?

Of course we detect light in order to see it (in both models), but how can we detect light that cannot be resolved (even to the size of a dot) because it's just too far away?

If we can't see artifacts on the moon, how can we see reflected light from a mirror that's no larger than 18 square inches? Is it any wonder we wouldn't see it at 1.3 seconds?

[davidm]

Yes, NASA has made up all this shit about bouncing lasers off the moon for fifty years, and also, in reality, they calculate trajectories to the other planets employing Lessans' real-time seeing and not the delayed-time seeing calculations they claim they use. Why? Because they are aware of Lessans' work and they hate him and want to cover up what he discovered!

In fact, the conspiracy stretches back hundreds of years, long before Seymour shuffled on to this mortal coil! The delayed-time seeing of the moons of Jupiter, which allowed the measuring of the speed of light, was a hoax, anticipating the arrival of The Great Seymour centuries in the future! People of that time wanted to pre-emptively sabotage Seymour's reputation.

[thedoc]

My daughters dog is staying with us a few days and just a few minutes ago was outside and happened to look in one window. My wife was looking out of the window and the dog gave clear indications that she recognized my wife and wanted to play, the dog was waging her tail and jumping around even though My wife wasn't moving or making any kind of motion, just looking out the window. My daughters dog recognized my wife from sight alone. Therefore, according to Peacegirl, efferent vision is disproven, once and for all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Yes, NASA has made up all this shit about bouncing lasers off the moon for fifty years, and also, in reality, they calculate trajectories to the other planets employing Lessans' real-time seeing and not the delayed-time seeing calculations they claim they use. Why? Because they are aware of Lessans' work and they hate him and want to cover up what he discovered!

David, who is saying anything about made up shit? I'm sure NASA has bounced lasers off of the moon for fifty years, but from what I gathered watching the video, these reflectors are tiny. How in the world could a telescope (even the largest one we have) pick up this reflection from a quarter of a million miles away? Be honest for a change.

Originally Posted by davidm

In fact, the conspiracy stretches back hundreds of years, long before Seymour shuffled on to this mortal coil! The delayed-time seeing of the moons of Jupiter, which allowed the measuring of the speed of light, was a hoax, anticipating the arrival of The Great Seymour centuries in the future! People of that time wanted to pre-emptively sabotage Seymour's reputation.

This has nothing to do with a conspiracy that stretches back hundreds of years. Years don't prove anything David. People have believed in free will for ages and ages. Does that make it true? The moons of Jupiter is just another conclusion that appears airtight. I don't know why this moon isn't seen at that point in its orbit at the expected time? You have to be open-minded to the fact that the conclusion that we're seeing this moon in delayed time may not be accurate. If you can't do that, you're no scientist, but then again you never were. People have concluded many things, some true, some not true, at each stage of development. We correct the things that we find out aren't true, or we don't progress. I know you don't believe his claims are true, but you can't just throw away his claims like garbage either.

[The Lone Ranger]

So, according to peacegirl, stars cannot be seen. After all, they're point light sources from our perspective, and cannot be resolved as anything other than point light sources -- not even by most telescopes.

Here's a clue for you: most astronomical telescopes aren't capable of resolving stars (other than the Sun) any more than our eyes can. The telescopes simply gather more light than our eyes do, meaning that the stars in question look like brighter dots.


Similarly, according to peacegirl, all the times we've used lasers and telescopes to measure the distance to the Moon? You know, the ones that determine how far away the Moon is by timing how long it takes to see the reflected laser light? Those were faked. Apparently, there are a lot of astronomers out there who have nothing better to do with their time than conducting fake experiments to fool the gullible public. Thank goodness peacegirl has seen through their conspiracy!

You know, peacegirl, you wouldn't sound quite so idiotic if you'd make even a minimal effort to educate yourself on these things. Our ability to detect light is due to its intensity, not the apparent size of the object emitting or reflecting the light.

You should try to learn at least something about these things if you're going to pontificate on them. Because honestly, it's difficult to understand how you couple possibly sound more idiotic and ignorant than you do right now.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Compare what you wrote with what he wrote. Try real hard to see the difference.

Peacegirl, From what you said it wasn't clear whether you meant the "light had more energy" or the "Beam of light has more energy", The latter may be correct, the former is not, and you most definitely have little to no understanding of any of this.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

My daughters dog is staying with us a few days and just a few minutes ago was outside and happened to look in one window. My wife was looking out of the window and the dog gave clear indications that she recognized my wife and wanted to play, the dog was waging her tail and jumping around even though My wife wasn't moving or making any kind of motion, just looking out the window. My daughters dog recognized my wife from sight alone. Therefore, according to Peacegirl, efferent vision is disproven, once and for all.

No, your dog is familiar with your house and saw a human figure (your wife) which she responded to by wagging her tail and wanting to play because she has associated being at your house with having a good time. This in no way tells you whether she actually identified your wife by her features and knew who she was without using her other senses.