A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So if you, David and thedoc take over the thread like you did in Project Reason, what good will it do? I won't get a word in edgewise.

It will do a lot of good. Everyone will get to see you for the lying evasive weasel that you are.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, nothing in this model has changed the properties of light. That's why we cannot continue to discuss light when it's the way the eyes work that causes this change. I have answered your questions to the best of my ability. You may need some time to ruminate on this model before closing the door, but for me to be interrogated by you regarding the location of photons doesn't answer the question as to whether this change from afferent to efferent causes us to see in real time. This argument could go on for another 3 years, and I'm getting bored.

You just weaseled again, dingbat. You said the photons from the Sun now at the eye traveled (after flatly denying that they traveled to the camera film on Earth). So where did they travel from and where did they travel to?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Okay, lets work on that. (Working backwards, remember?) Keep in mind that we are talking about photons from the Sun which are now at the camera film on Earth...

Where did they travel from?

Where did they travel to?

How long did it take?

When did they get to wherever they traveled to?

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Can they arrive at the camera film less than 8min after leaving their source?

Will you answer these questions, or just weasel and ignore them?

Will you weasel by going off on an irrelevant tangent about information or reflection?

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Let's try this another way, Peacegirl. Let's start by assuming that the photons at the film/retina came from the Sun.

Assumption #1: The photons at the film/retina came from the Sun.

Now lets define traveling and teleporting. Traveling is getting from A to B by passing through all intervening points. Teleporting is getting from A to B without passing through all intervening points. Clearly these are jointly exhaustive - if you get from A to B you must do so either by passing through the intervening points or by not passing through them. So...

Conclusion #1: If the photons came from the Sun then they either traveled there or teleported there.

Now you insist that they neither traveled there nor teleported, so we can conclude via modus tollens (If A then B, not B, therefore not A) that these photons cannot have come from the Sun.

Assumption #2: The photons at the film/retina did not travel or teleport there.

Conclusion #2: The photons at the film/retina did not come from the Sun.

So now the million-dollar question: Where the fuck did these photons come from? We can note also that the exact same reasoning as above will still apply for any location other than the Sun - as long as the photons are getting from A to B, they have to either travel there or teleport there - so we can know that...

Conclusion #3: The photons at the film/retina did not get there from anywhere else.

That leaves two remaining possibilities: (i) These photons were always there, i.e. sitting stationary at the film/retina surface; or (ii) They did not previously exist, and instead came into existence at the film/retina. But of course neither of these are plausible either, as photons cannot be stationary, and they do not pop into existence in our eyes or on film. But unless you accept one of these options we are forced to conclude that...

Conclusion #4: Assumption #2 was bollocks.

Basically, what we have proven is that you have only four options for the photons at the film/retina:

(i) Traveling photons.
(ii) Teleporting photons.
(iii) Stationary photons.
(iv) Newly existing photons.

So which is it going to be? (Remember, weaseling and fake-conceding are not honest responses.)

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It will do a lot of good. Everyone will get to see you for the lying evasive weasel that you are.

I don't deserve the treatment you're dishing out. I have been upfront with you this whole time, and I even answered your questions again. Just because you can't wrap your head around this model doesn't mean I'm to blame. You have misplaced anger.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't deserve the treatment you're dishing out.

Yes, you do.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have been upfront with you this whole time, and I even answered your questions again.

Bullshit. You refused to answer my questions until I had bumped them a dozen times. Then you answered 2 out of the 6 questions. Then you answered the rest in a way that contradicted the previously answered ones. Then you retracted your answers by denying you had ever said what you said, and refused to ever try to answer them again.

That is not being upfront at all.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I will follow you there and I will ask you the exact same questions you are dishonestly evading now.

You really are trying to spoil things for everyone, aren't you?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Forget the evidence right now

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

We can't "forget" what has never been presented.

It was presented, but without people understanding how he came to this conclusion I'm not being as effective as I could be.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

In any event, that's not how science -- or basic logic -- works. First you must provide some evidence if you want your extraordinary claims to be taken seriously. And the more extraordinary the claim, the stronger the evidence must be.

You're expecting people to accept your claims on pure faith.

It is absolutely, positively not the job of the listener to provide evidence for a claim. It is the job of the person making the claim. And no claimant has any business expecting listeners to take his or her claims seriously if they cannot/will not provide evidence for those claims.

I'm not expecting people to accept these claims on faith alone and I never expected the listener to provide evidence for this claim. It's just that his spot on observations are difficult to back up empirically, but it can be done, and it will be done, when people start questioning whether science could actually be mistaken. The theory that the eyes are a sense organ and that we see in delayed time is not conclusive. The evidence makes it appear that it is conclusive, but the evidence is circumstantial and based on inference.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

The lesson of history is that the vast majority of extraordinary claims turn out to be false. Therefore, no one has either the obligation or the time to seriously consider every extraordinary and unsupported claim. Especially when the claim, if true, would violate well-established principles and theories.

These are not extraordinary claims. They just seem that way because of the entrenched idea that we have 5 senses. This claim is supported based on his observations and reasoning, which happened to be extremely accurate. Furthermore, this claim regarding the eyes does not violate the laws of physics although it does violate what has been thought to be true. If you want to stick to your beliefs, that's understandable, but sooner or later the truth will come out because we are all truth seekers. More importantly, it wasn't the knowledge that the eyes are not a sense organ that really mattered to my father; it was the knowledge that was hidden behind this hermetic door.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So if you, David and thedoc take over the thread like you did in Project Reason, what good will it do? I won't get a word in edgewise.

Bull Shit, Just like any other thread you can post whatever you want, whenever you want, no-one is keeping you from posting anything you want except your own vanity and persecution complex.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

We are talking about photons from the Sun which are now at the film (on Earth). Where did they travel to, if not their present location?

The photons travel to Earth, but this doesn't answer the question as to whether the film is interacting with the light (the distance from the eyes to the object is not the same as the distance that it takes for the photons to travel to Earth) when the lens is focused on said object. There is no contradiction.

[davidm]

I think her few remaining interlocutors here should promise NOT to follow peacegirl there. I know I won't. Let her get a fresh start, with reasonable people. If we go there, we'll just ruin it for everyone.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

I think her few remaining interlocutors here should promise NOT to follow peacegirl there. I know I won't. Let her get a fresh start, with reasonable people. If we go there, we'll just ruin it for everyone.

If people would promise me that, I would leave here because I need fresh eyes to look at this claim. I know I've overstayed my welcome anyway, so it will be a relief for all of us.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

I think her few remaining interlocutors here should promise NOT to follow peacegirl there. I know I won't. Let her get a fresh start, with reasonable people. If we go there, we'll just ruin it for everyone.

Can we just go to watch, if we don't say anything, till it's absolutely necessary.

[davidm]

I certainly won't post there, and I think Spacemonkey and others should agree to do so as well. I will be content to sit back and watch.

[davidm]

Also, peacegirl, I think you should employ exactly the same strategy you've employed on message boards for more than a decade. Announce that you have an earth-shattering announcement to make, then never actually announce it when people ask what it is. Reprimand them for being too hasty, then copypasta huge swaths of your father's book in post after post and demand that the people there read every word of it, and not talk back to you until they can recite to you what the "two-sided equation [sic]" is. That strategy has worked well for you in the past; no reason it won't work again.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The photons travel to Earth...

So the photons from the Sun and now at the camera film are photons that traveled from the Sun to the Earth?

Here then are your present answers. Let me know if you want to flip-flop some more...

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons? YES

Did they come from the Sun? YES

Did they get to the film by traveling? [Yes] "The photons travel to Earth..."

Did they travel at the speed of light? YES, photons travel at the speed of light.

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited? NO they can't leave before the Sun is ignited...

Can they arrive at the camera film less than 8min after leaving their source? NO Spacemonkey.

So now you have traveling photons from the Sun that leave the Sun when it is first ignited, and then travel the 93 million miles to the camera film on Earth at the speed of light and cannot arrive there until 8min after the Sun is ignited. (This is all what YOU have told ME with YOUR answers above.) And these are supposed to be the same photons that are at the camera film 8min earlier when the Sun is first ignited.

Obviously you have fucked up your answers again, as they are still contradictory. The photons at the camera film when the Sun is ignited clearly cannot be photons which travel there from the Sun and don't get there until 8min after the Sun is ignited. So which of your answers do you want to change?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The photons travel to Earth, but this doesn't answer the question as to whether the film is interacting with the light (the distance from the eyes to the object is not the same as the distance that it takes for the photons to travel to Earth) when the lens is focused on said object. There is no contradiction.

That in itself is a contradiction, silly. If these photons from the Sun travel to Earth, then the distance from the eyes (on Earth) to the object (the Sun) is exactly the same as the distance they have just traveled.

Sun-to-Earth distance = Earth-to-Sun distance.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If people would promise me that, I would leave here because I need fresh eyes to look at this claim. I know I've overstayed my welcome anyway, so it will be a relief for all of us.

Why would you even want to start this whole thing all over again at TalkRat? You know it won't end any differently than your last dozen forums. Different people will still ask you the exact same questions which you can't answer now. You'll just end up convincing a new handful of people that your dad was a crackpot and that you are sadly delusional and compulsively dishonest. Do you really need to keep continually re-enacting this sick roleplay fetish over and over again?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why would you even want to start this whole thing all over again at TalkRat?

While perhaps not for Peacegirl, for everyone else, it would be fun to watch.

Maybe that is Peacegirl's and Lessans whole purpose, to provide some comic relief for everyone.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I need fresh eyes to look at this claim.

Yes, you need fresh eyes to look at these claims, unsullied by the 10+ years of posting the same old, same old, that you have posted before. Maybe someone there will not have any knowledge of science, optics, psychology, reincarnation, human relationships, or any of the topics your father expounded on, and will believe it, sight unseen.

You need to contact some religious fundamentalists to get this "discovery" out.

Have you tried to contact Jimmy Baker?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are rejecting this claim because you can't see how the retina and light could interact when light hasn't reached Earth yet.

We can't see it because you can't explain how that is even possible. You can't explain because it isn't possible.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm just trying to get you to understand the plausibility of this model. Forget the evidence right now, I can't even get past first base.

The first base is evidence. You can't get past it because you don't have any evidence.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So if you, David and thedoc take over the thread like you did in Project Reason, what good will it do? I won't get a word in edgewise.

Just like you haven't been able to get a word in edgewise here. It is truly a shame that your opportunities to post here have been so severely limited.

[davidm]

Yes, with XVMCLXXVIII posts over three and a half years and more than one million pages views, you haven't gotten a word in edgewise!



You never cease to amaze.

BTW, have you figured out yet that your claim (1) that "uncalculable" numbers of photons strike the earth each moment, and your simultaneous claim that (2) few or no photons strike it because of the inverse square law, is, er, a logical contradiction?

Just trying to get you primed for Talk Rational. I promise I won't post there if you do.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That in itself is a contradiction, silly. If these photons from the Sun travel to Earth, then the distance from the eyes (on Earth) to the object (the Sun) is exactly the same as the distance they have just traveled.

Sun-to-Earth distance = Earth-to-Sun distance.

I had an answer for you, but you blew it again. I just noticed you called me dingbat again along with liar and other horrible names. I am sorry Spacemonkey but I need a break from you. If you continue to disregard my request not to call me names, I will not engage with you. What is it you don't get?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Yes, with XVMCLXXVIII posts over three and a half years and more than one million pages views, you haven't gotten a word in edgewise!



You never cease to amaze.

BTW, have you figured out yet that your claim (1) that "uncalculable" numbers of photons strike the earth each moment, and your simultaneous claim that (2) few or no photons strike it because of the inverse square law, is, er, a logical contradiction?

Just trying to get you primed for Talk Rational. I promise I won't post there if you do.

I accept your promise, but maybe my first post will rub everyone the wrong way. I don't want that to happen, so what do you suggest? I will do what you think is the best way to approach this.