A revolution in thought

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

What a complete hypocrite you are!

You insist that other people are close-minded, but when a direct test of your father's claims provides conclusive evidence that he was wrong, your response is to deny the evidence.

You are the exact opposite of open-minded. By your own admission you won't seriously consider the possibility that Lessans could have been wrong. Yet you have the gall to insist that it's other people who are being close-minded.

Here's a new entry for the Lessans-to-English dictionary: "hypocrite: see peacegirl"

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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?

From the video, sometimes there were as few as 5 - 10 photons from the reflector, which may have been difficult for the eye to pick up, but other times there were more and at those times the eye could easily have picked up the flash of light.

[davidm]

Peacegirl's fawning devotion to a self-aggrandizing nitwit, so extreme that she denies reality when it is shoved in her face, has its sad and even tragic aspects. There are times I am tempted to actually feel sorry for her -- but then I remember what a dishonest, willfully ignorant she is, and the mood passes.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by 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.

That could be true. So what's your point?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

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.

Right, but the guy said only a few photons reach the telescope so that light can't be very intense by the time it reaches Earth. The point I'm making is if Lessans' claims are correct, we would be able to see this light at the point of reflection but if the light isn't intense enough at that distance, then it wouldn't be detected at 1.3 seconds. The theory that it can't be seen until 2.6 seconds later may be true but for a different reason.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

I'm really sorry to hear that. Even if I do make some mistakes, I'm trying to figure out how efferent vision could work with the questions that are being posed. I still don't believe that there is a conflict with traveling light (which Lessans never denied), and seeing in real time. I am not going to concede just to make you happy.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

You weren't there, I was, and I know the dog and how she reacts to different people. The dog was definitely recognizing my wife and wanting to play with her. You have a nasty habit of posting things that you know nothing about, you don't know my daughters dog, you don't know anything about my house, and you don't know anything about the relationship between my daughters dog and my wife. It seems that this is a bad habit that you inherited from your father, as throughout the book he was constantly blathering on about things that he obviously knew nothing about. If you only posted on the things you knew something about, you wouldn't post anything at all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

From the video, sometimes there were as few as 5 - 10 photons from the reflector, which may have been difficult for the eye to pick up, but other times there were more and at those times the eye could easily have picked up the flash of light.

That's just not true. Light that is being reflected from a quarter of a million miles away off of a tiny 18 square inch reflector would be very difficult, if not impossible, to see even with a powerful telescope, so the conclusion that this proves my father's claim false is invalid.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Peacegirl's fawning devotion to a self-aggrandizing nitwit, so extreme that she denies reality when it is shoved in her face, has its sad and even tragic aspects. There are times I am tempted to actually feel sorry for her -- but then I remember what a dishonest, willfully ignorant she is, and the mood passes.

Good for you, no sympathy for those like her.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

You weren't there, I was, and I know the dog and how she reacts to different people. The dog was definitely recognizing my wife and wanting to play with her. You have a nasty habit of posting things that you know nothing about, you don't know my daughters dog, you don't know anything about my house, and you don't know anything about the relationship between my daughters dog and my wife. It seems that this is a bad habit that you inherited from your father, as throughout the book he was constantly blathering on about things that he obviously knew nothing about. If you only posted on the things you knew something about, you wouldn't post anything at all.

Um hello? I would appreciate if you do the same. You didn't know my father, you didn't know anything about him. You cannot extrapolate from his book anything about his honesty and character. You have a bad habit of blathering but you can't take the very thing you dish out. I can admit I don't know the dog or your wife, but this proves nothing. Dogs have wanted to play with statues in a park because they see the shape of the human and they associate that with play. This has to be a joke thedoc or you're getting extremely desperate.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The theory that it can't be seen until 2.6 seconds later may be true but for a different reason.

"Something else must be going on," in other words. So, when faced with inconvenient facts, you simply choose to ignore them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Even if I do make some mistakes, I'm trying to figure out how efferent vision could work with the questions that are being posed.

No you aren't. Would you at least be honest for a change? What you're trying to do is explain away the mountains of evidence against Lessans' claims. The last thing you're interested in is an honest evaluation of the evidence. And you certainly make no effort to actually understand the evidence which refutes Lessans' claims, as even you occasionally admit in your more lucid moments.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The theory that it can't be seen until 2.6 seconds later may be true but for a different reason.

Ah! We're back to "Something else is Going on" as an excuse for being a dishonest .

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

"Something else must be going on," in other words. So, when faced with inconvenient facts, you simply choose to ignore them.

No, I'm saying that the reason why we can't see the reflected light might NOT be the real reason at all. Why can't you keep an open mind? You don't want to. You've already concluded that Lessans is wrong which causes your mind to be closed. That does not serve science at all.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Even if I do make some mistakes, I'm trying to figure out how efferent vision could work with the questions that are being posed.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

No you aren't. Would you at least be honest for a change? What you're trying to do is explain away the mountains of evidence against Lessans' claims. The last thing you're interested in is an honest evaluation of the evidence. And you certainly make no effort to actually understand the evidence which refutes Lessans' claims, as even you occasionally admit in your more lucid moments.

All I'm doing is trying to show that this model is plausible. You have had your day in court, I haven't. Science has had centuries to create a model that seems to fit every conceivable scenario. I haven't, so I'm at a disadvantage. You've got to cut me a little slack if you want to be fair about it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Ah! We're back to "Something else is Going on" as an excuse for being a dishonest .

I didn't say that, I said that we might not be seeing the reflection because the light is just not intense enough to be seen in real time. The conclusion drawn is that we don't see the light because it hasn't reached our telescopes. That could be the wrong conclusion after all. Don't give me a knee jerk reaction that this isn't possible, because it is.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I would appreciate if you do the same. You didn't know my father, you didn't know anything about him. You cannot extrapolate from his book anything about his honesty and character. You have a bad habit of blathering but you can't take the very thing you dish out. I can admit I don't know the dog or your wife, but this proves nothing. Dogs have wanted to play with statues in a park because they see the shape of the human and they associate that with play. This has to be a joke thedoc or you're getting extremely desperate.

My wife didn't write a book of nonsense in an effort to sell that nonsense, that book gives me a very good insight into the kind of man your father was, a dishonest charlatan.

Yes, you are correct, this is a joke, and you are the joke.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

My wife didn't write a book of nonsense in an effort to sell that nonsense, that book gives me a very good insight into the kind of man your father was, a dishonest charlatan.

Yes, you are correct, this is a joke, and you are the joke.

It's too bad that you have diarrhea of the mouth and can't control it.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

From the video, sometimes there were as few as 5 - 10 photons from the reflector, which may have been difficult for the eye to pick up, but other times there were more and at those times the eye could easily have picked up the flash of light.

As noted earlier, 5-9 photons within 100 ms is sufficient for the human brain to register the light.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I'm saying that the reason why we can't see the reflected light might NOT be the real reason at all. Why can't you keep an open mind? You don't want to. You've already concluded that Lessans is wrong which causes your mind to be closed. That does not serve science at all.

All I'm doing is trying to show that this model is plausible. You have had your day in court, I haven't. Science has had centuries to create a model that seems to fit every conceivable scenario. I haven't, so I'm at a disadvantage. You've got to cut me a little slack if you want to be fair about it.

Just when I think you can't say anything that's more idiotic or hypocritical than what you've already said, you prove me wrong yet again. Bravo.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

If you only posted on the things you knew something about, you wouldn't post anything at all.

It's as I've often said: as a professional writer and editor, I'd be happy to edit Lessans' book. I would make it much more concise and understandable. In fact, it would be the easiest project I ever had. Here's the whole edit:

The Decline and Fall of All Evil
By Seymour Lessans

The End

You can have the edit free of charge, peacegirl. Just glad to have helped out!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Spacemonkey, the same photon traveled from the Sun to the Earth but this has no relevance at all. You keep trying to attribute to light abilities that it doesn't have.

The same photon as what? And what abilities am I attributing to light that it doesn't have?

Do you realize this is the third time you've responded to this post without addressing a single thing it says?

Is that reasonable?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I'm doing is trying to show that this model is plausible. You have had your day in court, I haven't. Science has had centuries to create a model that seems to fit every conceivable scenario. I haven't, so I'm at a disadvantage. You've got to cut me a little slack if you want to be fair about it.

The "day in court" has come and gone, the evidence is in, afferent vision is supported by an overwhelming mountain of evidence, efferent has none, and all the evidence that exists is against efferent vision. And before you make the false claim, Scientists were not biased in favor of afferent vision, they originally believed in efferent vision, and couldn't prove it.

[davidm]

Peacegirl's "something else may be going on there" is not entirely stupid -- it's just stupid in this context. Indeed, for all our theories, something else might be going on there, in such a way that a competing theory would evince the same empirical consequences. See: Undetermination of Scientific Theory

But that's what Lessans failed to offer: a competing theory that, 1. light travels at a finite speed, but also that 2. We see in real time. I've no idea what such a theory would remotely look like -- I doubt there could be one -- but the point is that it would have to jibe with all empirical evidence that we have, AND explain a mechanism for this astounding claim. Of course Seymour failed to provide either. But, anyway, theory underdetermination in the philosophy of science IS an interesting topic, and in a perfect world, we would all now go on to discuss this and ignore peacegirl, but this is far from a perfect world.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

These questions remain completely unanswered, Peacegirl. See if you can answer them without weaseling and without ending up talking about completely different photons. Can you do it?

Bump.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's too bad that you have diarrhea of the mouth and can't control it.

Tis' a pity that you can't post the truth, or at least be honest about what you know and don't know.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

As noted earlier, 5-9 photons within 100 ms is sufficient for the human brain to register the light.

That's all well and good, but the telescope cannot register reflected light off of a tiny piece of reflective material at a quarter of a million miles away, even if the light is intense. It just won't be seen.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

But, anyway, theory underdetermination in the philosophy of science IS an interesting topic, and in a perfect world, we would all now go on to discuss this and ignore peacegirl, but this is far from a perfect world.

So we're stuck with Peacegirl.

I don't believe that any scientific theory has ever been declared as "finally proven", but I might be wrong.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's all well and good, but the telescope cannot register reflected light off of a tiny piece of reflective material at a quarter of a million miles away, even if the light is intense. It just won't be seen.

Gah! Do you even listen to yourself?

Do you have any idea how idiotic what you just said is?

As was just pointed out, the unaided human eye is capable of detecting light of that intensity, much less a telescope.