#39076  
Old 07-27-2014, 03:11 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

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

:monkey:


:catlady:
That's true Spacemonkey...
Do you really not see the problem with the above response?

Imagine you've just got up in the morning, and check the mail only to meet the postman delivering a letter to you from Japan. Wow, you exclaim, how did this letter get here all the way from Japan? Mail from Japan has been shutdown for the past two weeks!

Well, the postman explains, this morning when mail from Japan resumed, a person in Japan went to the post office to drop it off. The letter was taken to Narita airport and placed on a plane which flies to the US, taking around 14hrs, where the letter was dropped off and taken to a mail sorting facility where it was then dispatched to its labelled address, and should arrive here sometime tomorrow or the day after that.

A little confused, you ask: Do you mean this letter I'm now holding in my hand will arrive tomorrow? Oh no, the postman explains. I was telling you about a completely different letter that hasn't arrived yet. Okay, so how did this letter get here, you ask. The postman looks away guiltily and shuffles his feet. What do you mean, he says, I just told you.

Please tell me what is wrong with the postman's explanation. I'm sure you can figure it out. Don't respond with anything about light or vision. Stick to the story.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-27-2014), Cynthia of Syracuse (07-27-2014), Dragar (07-27-2014), LadyShea (07-27-2014), Pan Narrans (07-28-2014), The Lone Ranger (07-27-2014)
  #39077  
Old 07-27-2014, 09:16 AM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCLXXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
If we had a powerful enough lens we would get an image of the light striking the reflector in 1.3 seconds...
But we don't. When we use powerful lenses we still see it after a 1.3sec delay, which is exactly the time speed delay predicted by afferent vision.
Oh really? Show me the proof. You keep repeating what you think is true, but there should be proof out there, shouldn't there? Why don't they have this on youtube?
If it hasn't been posted on youtube it must not be real science, obviously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
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.
Yet it is. How odd. :chin:

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
...it's difficult to understand how you couple possibly sound more idiotic and ignorant than you do right now.
Give her time, she'll do it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
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.
Yet it can and it is. How odd.:chin:
__________________
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:
The Lone Ranger (07-27-2014)
  #39078  
Old 07-27-2014, 10:37 AM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The only hill in Oxford
Gender: Male
Posts: MVCMXCIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
We can only see that which light is capable of revealing (i.e., material substance). :doh:
So what is being 'revealed' when we see the laser spot appear on the moon?
The light, what else?
But you told me "We can only see that which light is capable of revealing (i.e., material substance)." And that "light can't reveal itself". So it can't be light, unless what you told me was wrong. Which means we've spent a good part of this conversation yet again trying to get you to come up with some self consistent story.

Why are you always so full of these contradictions?
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-28-2014), But (01-10-2018), LadyShea (07-27-2014), Spacemonkey (07-27-2014), The Lone Ranger (07-27-2014)
  #39079  
Old 07-27-2014, 10:46 AM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The only hill in Oxford
Gender: Male
Posts: MVCMXCIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Well, each photon comes in a quantum wave packet...
:nope:

There's no one-to-one correspondence between wavepacket (or any other solution to equations) and photons. It's way more messy than that!
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-28-2014), But (07-27-2014)
  #39080  
Old 07-27-2014, 11:17 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

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

:monkey:


:catlady:
That's true Spacemonkey...
Do you really not see the problem with the above response?

Imagine you've just got up in the morning, and check the mail only to meet the postman delivering a letter to you from Japan. Wow, you exclaim, how did this letter get here all the way from Japan? Mail from Japan has been shutdown for the past two weeks!

Well, the postman explains, this morning when mail from Japan resumed, a person in Japan went to the post office to drop it off. The letter was taken to Narita airport and placed on a plane which flies to the US, taking around 14hrs, where the letter was dropped off and taken to a mail sorting facility where it was then dispatched to its labelled address, and should arrive here sometime tomorrow or the day after that.

A little confused, you ask: Do you mean this letter I'm now holding in my hand will arrive tomorrow? Oh no, the postman explains. I was telling you about a completely different letter that hasn't arrived yet. Okay, so how did this letter get here, you ask. The postman looks away guiltily and shuffles his feet. What do you mean, he says, I just told you.

Please tell me what is wrong with the postman's explanation. I'm sure you can figure it out. Don't respond with anything about light or vision. Stick to the story.
This story is not a good analogy because in this model there is nothing in the letter (in that particular photon) that is different from the next letter. Once again, you have made an assumption that the photon itself is traveling with a particular wavelength and is bringing this to the eye rather than trying to understand that the wavelength is revealing the object. If the object changes color, the wavelength will reveal this change instantly in the efferent account.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #39081  
Old 07-27-2014, 11:21 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
We can only see that which light is capable of revealing (i.e., material substance). :doh:
So what is being 'revealed' when we see the laser spot appear on the moon?
The light, what else?
But you told me "We can only see that which light is capable of revealing (i.e., material substance)." And that "light can't reveal itself". So it can't be light, unless what you told me was wrong. Which means we've spent a good part of this conversation yet again trying to get you to come up with some self consistent story.

Why are you always so full of these contradictions?
No, I meant photons coming from the Sun cannot reveal themselves. We see light in the morning but this is not the same thing as light revealing matter. When we see fire, this is light but it's also matter. If we would see a laser reflected off of a piece of reflective material, this is light but it's also concentrated light energy which can be revealed by photons. This is not a contradiction. Light also reveals pixels on a computer which are tiny colored units, or sunsets (which is also light but it's interacting with the atmosphere). Do you see the difference?
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #39082  
Old 07-27-2014, 11:23 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
This story is not a good analogy because in this model there is nothing in the letter (in that particular photon) that is different from the next letter. Once again, you have made an assumption that the photon itself is traveling with a particular wavelength and is bringing this to the eye rather than trying to understand that the wavelength is revealing the object. If the object changes color, the wavelength will reveal this change instantly in the efferent account.
Bzzzzzzzzt!! FAIL!

I said: Don't respond with anything about light or vision. Stick to the story.

Try again. Please explain what is wrong with the postman's response.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #39083  
Old 07-27-2014, 11:31 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
This story is not a good analogy because in this model there is nothing in the letter (in that particular photon) that is different from the next letter. Once again, you have made an assumption that the photon itself is traveling with a particular wavelength and is bringing this to the eye rather than trying to understand that the wavelength is revealing the object. If the object changes color, the wavelength will reveal this change instantly in the efferent account.
Bzzzzzzzzt!! FAIL!

I said: Don't respond with anything about light or vision. Stick to the story.

Try again. Please explain what is wrong with the postman's response.
You are putting me in an impossible position by telling me what I'm required to say or not say. Obviously, if this was a different situation (other than explaining efferent vision), then you would be right. If I was waiting for lemonade to be sent downstream in a bottle and it never arrived but the person sending it said you will be getting it later today but it's going to be orange juice, I would say where's the lemonade I asked for? Did it just disappear? But this is not a good analogy when it comes to what I'm discussing. Sorry Spacemonkey but you're not going to win because you're not right.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #39084  
Old 07-27-2014, 11:34 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
This story is not a good analogy because in this model there is nothing in the letter (in that particular photon) that is different from the next letter. Once again, you have made an assumption that the photon itself is traveling with a particular wavelength and is bringing this to the eye rather than trying to understand that the wavelength is revealing the object. If the object changes color, the wavelength will reveal this change instantly in the efferent account.
Bzzzzzzzzt!! FAIL!

I said: Don't respond with anything about light or vision. Stick to the story.

Try again. Please explain what is wrong with the postman's response.
You are putting me in an impossible position by telling me what I'm required to say or not say. Obviously, if this was a different situation (other than explaining efferent vision), then you would be right. If I was waiting for lemonade to be sent downstream in a bottle and it never arrived but the person sending it said you will be getting it later today but it's going to be orange juice, I would say where's the lemonade I asked for? Did it just disappear? But this is not a good analogy when it comes to what I'm discussing. Sorry Spacemonkey but you're not going to win because you're not right.
Stop weaseling and answer the question. What was wrong with the postman's response in my scenario?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (07-27-2014)
  #39085  
Old 07-27-2014, 11:36 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
If I haven't answered your questions to your satisfaction, I'll try again tomorrow...
Still waiting.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #39086  
Old 07-27-2014, 12:57 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
This story is not a good analogy because in this model there is nothing in the letter (in that particular photon) that is different from the next letter.
It is a good analogy because we aren't asking you about the contents, only the physical letter itself.

You've stated there are light photons on the camera film at noon when the Sun is newly ignited. Where did those exact light photons come from and how did they get to the camera film? You keep talking about different light photons that are traveling and will arrive at 12:08, though you are being asked about these specific light photons that are at the camera film at noon. You are being terribly dishonest.

Quote:
Once again, you have made an assumption that the photon itself is traveling with a particular wavelength and is bringing this to the eye rather than trying to understand that the wavelength is revealing the object.
The object is the Sun, so full spectrum light (many photons of many different wavelengths). The time is noon. How are the photons at the camera film, at noon, "revealing" the Sun?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-28-2014), Spacemonkey (07-27-2014), The Lone Ranger (07-27-2014)
  #39087  
Old 07-27-2014, 01:03 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
We can only see that which light is capable of revealing (i.e., material substance). :doh:
So what is being 'revealed' when we see the laser spot appear on the moon?
The light, what else?
But you told me "We can only see that which light is capable of revealing (i.e., material substance)." And that "light can't reveal itself". So it can't be light, unless what you told me was wrong. Which means we've spent a good part of this conversation yet again trying to get you to come up with some self consistent story.

Why are you always so full of these contradictions?
No, I meant photons coming from the Sun cannot reveal themselves. We see light in the morning but this is not the same thing as light revealing matter. When we see fire, this is light but it's also matter. If we would see a laser reflected off of a piece of reflective material, this is light but it's also concentrated light energy which can be revealed by photons. This is not a contradiction. Light also reveals pixels on a computer which are tiny colored units, or sunsets (which is also light but it's interacting with the atmosphere). Do you see the difference?
Mealy Mouth. His question was "what is being 'revealed' when we see the laser spot appear on the moon?"

Though I am curious now exactly what matter is "revealed" by a flame, and why this same matter is not revealed when there is an invisible flame burning in full daylight. Why doesn't sunlight reveal that matter?

Quote:
concentrated light energy which can be revealed by photons
LOL, what does that mean? Concentrated light energy is photons, so are you flip flopping and saying light can reveal itself?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-28-2014), The Lone Ranger (07-27-2014)
  #39088  
Old 07-27-2014, 01:20 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
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 LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Wow. Did I nail it, or what?


By the way, you may recall that light always moves at a constant speed (called, conveniently enough, "the speed of light"), and doesn't linger at sensors, waiting for us to process what we've just seen.
I didn't mean that, but the laser would still be shining on the sensor unless it was removed the second the light arrived.
It's sent out in a pulse, it is not left on. Once again refuting one of your statements...or did you retract your claim that light doesn't travel independently of its source?
So how can a *#$( pulse tell us anything. Are you depending on someone's sight to give us this information? We can't even decipher all kinds of images due to illusions, and yet you think this is an accurate test? I don't think so.
ROFL, you don't understand the first thing about how your own model could possibly work, let alone the standard model. 2 reasonably bright children can use light pulses to send messages in Morse Code, so pulses aren't anything weird that can't tell us anything, first of all. Secondly, no, we are not depending on anyone's sight, we depend on state of the art photo receivers and atomic clocks, remember?

This issue is the failure of Lessans ideas every, single time, peacegirl. The other "discoveries" are at least philosophical or psychological in nature, so can't be so easily disproven. Nobody will care about them, though, once they get a load of the efferent vision crap.
This vision stuff is not crap just because LadyShea says it is.
It's crap because it's crap and your mealymouthing, weaseling, flip-flopping, and all around dishonesty sure don't add to your or Lessans credibility.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Lone Ranger (07-27-2014)
  #39089  
Old 07-27-2014, 01:35 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
If we had a powerful enough lens we would get an image of the light striking the reflector in 1.3 seconds...
But we don't. When we use powerful lenses we still see it after a 1.3sec delay, which is exactly the time speed delay predicted by afferent vision.
Oh really? Show me the proof. You keep repeating what you think is true, but there should be proof out there, shouldn't there? Why don't they have this on youtube?
If it hasn't been posted on youtube it must not be real science, obviously.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
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.
Yet it is. How odd. :chin:

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
...it's difficult to understand how you couple possibly sound more idiotic and ignorant than you do right now.
Give her time, she'll do it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
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.
Yet it can and it is. How odd.:chin:
I just wanted to see the proof with my own eyes (although that is sometimes misleading). Anyway, the parts of this puzzle were not given to me until I saw the video that David gave me. I have to thank David because you all thought this proved Lessans wrong, and it does no such thing.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #39090  
Old 07-27-2014, 01:37 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
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 LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Wow. Did I nail it, or what?


By the way, you may recall that light always moves at a constant speed (called, conveniently enough, "the speed of light"), and doesn't linger at sensors, waiting for us to process what we've just seen.
I didn't mean that, but the laser would still be shining on the sensor unless it was removed the second the light arrived.
It's sent out in a pulse, it is not left on. Once again refuting one of your statements...or did you retract your claim that light doesn't travel independently of its source?
So how can a *#$( pulse tell us anything. Are you depending on someone's sight to give us this information? We can't even decipher all kinds of images due to illusions, and yet you think this is an accurate test? I don't think so.
ROFL, you don't understand the first thing about how your own model could possibly work, let alone the standard model. 2 reasonably bright children can use light pulses to send messages in Morse Code, so pulses aren't anything weird that can't tell us anything, first of all. Secondly, no, we are not depending on anyone's sight, we depend on state of the art photo receivers and atomic clocks, remember?

This issue is the failure of Lessans ideas every, single time, peacegirl. The other "discoveries" are at least philosophical or psychological in nature, so can't be so easily disproven. Nobody will care about them, though, once they get a load of the efferent vision crap.
This vision stuff is not crap just because LadyShea says it is.
It's crap because it's crap and your mealymouthing, weaseling, flip-flopping, and all around dishonesty sure don't add to your or Lessans credibility.
No LadyShea, it's not crap. You just haven't given it the time and thought that would prove this to you. You have an agenda; you have all along which disqualifies you to be the person to analyze this knowledge. It's as simple as that. Other people will have to take the lead in this investigation, not you.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #39091  
Old 07-27-2014, 01:40 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
No LadyShea, it's not crap.
It really is. You can't even answer simple questions about it coherently.

Quote:
You have an agenda; you have all along which disqualifies you to be the person to analyze this knowledge. It's as simple as that. Other people will have to take the lead in this investigation, not you.
LOL, I have no agenda, WTF? Take the lead on what investigation? You and your crackpot exaggerations and persecution complex :lol:
Reply With Quote
  #39092  
Old 07-27-2014, 01:42 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
This story is not a good analogy because in this model there is nothing in the letter (in that particular photon) that is different from the next letter.
It is a good analogy because we aren't asking you about the contents, only the physical letter itself.
What does that even mean in regard to this model? I just gave you a similar analogy that has to do with the physical bottle of lemonade. It doesn't even make sense in light of this model.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
You've stated there are light photons on the camera film at noon when the Sun is newly ignited. Where did those exact light photons come from and how did they get to the camera film? You keep talking about different light photons that are traveling and will arrive at 12:08, though you are being asked about these specific light photons that are at the camera film at noon. You are being terribly dishonest.
No I'm not being dishonest. All I am showing you is that the photon that is at the eye when the eye is looking directly at the object changes what photons are thought to do. You don't have a clue LadyShea, yet you're coming off like a damn know it all.

Quote:
Once again, you have made an assumption that the photon itself is traveling with a particular wavelength and is bringing this to the eye rather than trying to understand that the wavelength is revealing the object.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
The object is the Sun, so full spectrum light (many photons of many different wavelengths). The time is noon. How are the photons at the camera film, at noon, "revealing" the Sun?
Just like photons reveal a candle in real time. It's the same phenomenon.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #39093  
Old 07-27-2014, 01:44 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

I'm still waiting for you to answer my earlier questions as you said you would. Just as I'm still waiting for you to answer my question about the postman scenario.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #39094  
Old 07-27-2014, 01:45 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
No LadyShea, it's not crap.
It really is. You can't even answer simple questions about it coherently.

Quote:
You have an agenda; you have all along which disqualifies you to be the person to analyze this knowledge. It's as simple as that. Other people will have to take the lead in this investigation, not you.
LOL, I have no agenda, WTF? Take the lead on what investigation? You and your crackpot exaggerations and persecution complex :lol:
Bullshit. That's your lame canned excuse. It's like you have a list of phrases and you try to figure out which phrase best suits me. You are not thinking for yourself but you can't see it because you have already decided that Lessans is wrong. This disqualifies you to offer anything that could add to this conversation in any legitimate way.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #39095  
Old 07-27-2014, 01:47 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Still waiting...
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #39096  
Old 07-27-2014, 01:48 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
I'm still waiting for you to answer my earlier questions as you said you would. Just as I'm still waiting for you to answer my question about the postman scenario.
What is your problem Spacemonkey? Did you not receive my post this morning using the example of the lemonade? Or are you just in such denial that you can't even see the similarity? I won't go on talking to you if you can't even accept any of my responses because you don't like them, and you want somehow to force me to answer in a way that will discount Lessans' claim and give credit to your belief. Ain't gonna happen. I'm really tired of kowtowing to you and everyone here so that I'm not ridiculed unfairly. That would be cowardice on my part.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #39097  
Old 07-27-2014, 01:48 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Bullshit. That's your lame canned excuse. It's like you have a list of phrases and you try to figure out which phrase best suits me. You are not thinking for yourself but you can't see it because you have already decided that Lessans is wrong. This disqualifies you to offer anything that could add to this conversation in any legitimate way.
WTF are you talking about, :dramaq:? I can't be "disqualified" from an informal discussion. This isn't a televised debate, this isn't historic record. We don't even have an audience. Good god, woman, you are histrionic.

Anyway, if you would answer the questions instead of lying and weaseling, maybe you would have some credibility. You are the one who is not offering any legitimate discussion.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Dragar (07-27-2014)
  #39098  
Old 07-27-2014, 01:50 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
I'm still waiting for you to answer my earlier questions as you said you would. Just as I'm still waiting for you to answer my question about the postman scenario.
What is your problem Spacemonkey? Did you not receive my post this morning using the example of the lemonade? Or are you just in such denial that you can't even see the similarity? I won't go on talking to you if you can't even accept any of my responses because you don't like them, and you want somehow to force me to answer in a way that will discount Lessans' claim and give credit to your belief. Ain't gonna happen. I'm really tired of kowtowing to you and everyone here in order to appease you so I'm not ridiculed unfairly.
My only problem is that you are still dishonestly weaseling instead of answering my questions as you said you would. Again, it's not that I don't like your answers. It's that you have not answered the questions at all.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #39099  
Old 07-27-2014, 01:51 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
If I haven't answered your questions to your satisfaction, I'll try again tomorrow...
Still waiting.
Was this another lie?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #39100  
Old 07-27-2014, 01:51 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Bullshit. That's your lame canned excuse. It's like you have a list of phrases and you try to figure out which phrase best suits me. You are not thinking for yourself but you can't see it because you have already decided that Lessans is wrong. This disqualifies you to offer anything that could add to this conversation in any legitimate way.
WTF are you talking about, :dramaq:? I can't be "disqualified" from an informal discussion. This isn't a televised debate, this isn't historic record. We don't even have an audience. Good god, woman, you are histrionic.

Anyway, if you would answer the questions instead of lying and weaseling, maybe you would have some credibility. You are the one who is not offering any legitimate discussion.
You are disqualified to be an authority on this subject LadyShea. You are incapable of analyzing this discovery in any objective way due to your extreme bias. From day one, you tried to put Lessans in a bad light, for no good reason. You said he was irrational just because he was frustrated that his first attempt at putting his thoughts to paper didn't work out, so he chose to burn those books which was easier than carrying them out to the trash. You didn't trust that his friend actually saw a sign that read, The Eyes Are Not A Sense Organ, at a scientific exposition in Canada. That was true. You have tried to discredit him based on finding inconsistencies which aren't there. Open your ears and listen instead of yap all the time. Maybe you'll get something from this discussion after all.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 07-27-2014 at 02:08 PM.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 8 (0 members and 8 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 06:27 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.60776 seconds with 14 queries