#49076  
Old 08-20-2016, 08:10 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCCLI
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
Of course they will disagree over the time order of events because the inertial frames are different and dictate a different order of events. It does not mean all observers would universally agree on the time order of events. This does not cancel out real time vision.
So we can see events instantly, yet still see the same event happen at different times because we are in different inertial frames? :lol:
I don't see the problem. We could see a different order of events depending on our inertial frame of reference and still see in real time.
:lol:

No.

See the chart above. What part of it do you not understand?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (08-20-2016), But (03-21-2018), The Man (08-20-2016), thedoc (08-20-2016)
  #49077  
Old 08-20-2016, 08:12 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCCLI
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

"I don't see the problem" is one of your favorite expressions. You "don't see" the endless problems for your claims either because you are incredibly dishonest or incredibly dumb, or both most likely.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (08-20-2016), The Lone Ranger (08-20-2016), The Man (08-20-2016), thedoc (08-20-2016)
  #49078  
Old 08-20-2016, 08:17 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 davidm View Post
"I don't see the problem" is one of your favorite expressions. You "don't see" the endless problems for your claims either because you are incredibly dishonest or incredibly dumb, or both most likely.
This really has nothing to do with it.
__________________
"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
  #49079  
Old 08-20-2016, 08:26 PM
Florence Jellem's Avatar
Florence Jellem Florence Jellem is offline
Mayor of Mayonnaise
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: CDXLI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Boys, for the two parties, are any of you interested in male strippers? :strip:

Because if you are, I can procure some. I'm not one to judge lifestyle choices. If you boys would rather contact Flo in private on the subject of male strippers, feel free to do so.
__________________
:sammich: :sammich: :sammich:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Man (08-20-2016)
  #49080  
Old 08-20-2016, 08:28 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCCLI
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

:bump: for peacegirl.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Here, peacegirl. A very simple chart that demonstrates both the special theory of relativity, and also why the theory exists only because we don’t see in real time! :2thumbsup:



Any questions? :whatthe:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
thedoc (08-20-2016)
  #49081  
Old 08-20-2016, 08:29 PM
ChuckF's Avatar
ChuckF ChuckF is offline
liar in wolf's clothing
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
Posts: XVMMMDCCLXXXI
Images: 2
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Florence Jellem View Post
Boys, for the two parties, are any of you interested in male strippers? :strip:

Because if you are, I can procure some. I'm not one to judge lifestyle choices. If you boys would rather contact Flo in private on the subject of male strippers, feel free to do so.
:pickme:

Will they partially open up their robes so we can see their penises, and then begin to squirm? (This has to do with physics.)
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (08-20-2016), Stephen Maturin (08-21-2016), The Man (08-20-2016), thedoc (08-20-2016)
  #49082  
Old 08-20-2016, 08:45 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

This may interest the science fiction buffs in here. :biglaugh:

Dead could be brought 'back to life' in groundbreaking projectÂ*
__________________
"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
  #49083  
Old 08-20-2016, 09:17 PM
Florence Jellem's Avatar
Florence Jellem Florence Jellem is offline
Mayor of Mayonnaise
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: CDXLI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Florence Jellem View Post
Boys, for the two parties, are any of you interested in male strippers? :strip:

Because if you are, I can procure some. I'm not one to judge lifestyle choices. If you boys would rather contact Flo in private on the subject of male strippers, feel free to do so.
:pickme:

Will they partially open up their robes so we can see their penises, and then begin to squirm?
Yes, that can be arranged. In addition, if there is a Homo Consensus here, I can arrange for the male strippers to wear translucent robes, as well as sexy jackets.

Furthermore, I can attest that the male strippers I have in mind will be absolutely satisfying to the vast majority (98 percent) of environmental homo-sexuals, but also to the 2 percent of Homos who are either glandular or inherited Homos.

Quote:
(This has to do with physics.)
Or course it does, dear. :pat:
__________________
:sammich: :sammich: :sammich:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (08-20-2016), ChuckF (08-20-2016), The Man (08-20-2016)
  #49084  
Old 08-20-2016, 09:19 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCLXXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The same goes for the Sun...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
The same does not go for the Sun, because it is a very large distance.
It is, but your conclusion is inaccurate in my humble opinion. If you don't care about my opinion, that's your prerogative.
Spacemonkey's opinion is supported by a great deal of evidence and data, while your's has none, and that makes his opinion more valid than your's.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer

Last edited by thedoc; 08-20-2016 at 09:34 PM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (08-20-2016), The Man (08-20-2016)
  #49085  
Old 08-20-2016, 09:21 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCCLI
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
This may interest the science fiction buffs in here. :biglaugh:

Dead could be brought 'back to life' in groundbreaking projectÂ*
Peacegirl, would you like to discuss the relativity graphic? :grin:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Man (08-20-2016)
  #49086  
Old 08-20-2016, 09:23 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCLXXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Do you understand that you cannot have something going a greater distance in the same amount of time without it going faster?

Can light go any faster than the speed of light?
Completely unrelated.
No, it is directly related and the fact that light nor anything can travel faster than c has been tested and verified many times over the years.
Lessans was wrong.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (08-20-2016), The Man (08-20-2016)
  #49087  
Old 08-20-2016, 09:27 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCLXXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Oops! Sorry.
We all know that you're Sorry, we can only hope that you can soon realize it.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (08-20-2016)
  #49088  
Old 08-20-2016, 10:24 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: VMCLXXI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Stop talking about being nice, as if I am now obligated to answer you just because you're not cursing me out. :whup:
When you deliberately weasel and evade people lose respect for you and lose their patience. Do you really not understand how rude and disrespectful it is to prolong a discussion while refusing to address what people are saying?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Because you should know what my answer is. That IS an answer.
No, it isn't. And you can't expect people to know what your answers are when you refuse to give them. That's not reasonable.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The world won't end if I say this, but if this model of sight is necessary for how this conditioning takes place...
It isn't. There is no logical connection between them at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
If you understood what made him come to this conclusion...
How could we possibly understand that when you don't even understand it yourself? Five minutes ago you had no idea whether or not to back his claim that we would see the newly ignited Sun in real time! You are as clueless on this as we are. No-one knows how your father came to these conclusions. Because he never adequately explained it himself.
Bump.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #49089  
Old 08-20-2016, 10:25 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: VMCLXXI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
No, that's the deception.
Then you need to present an alternative explanation, not based on distance and travel time, to explain how and why we see the candle quickly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
It is, but your conclusion is inaccurate in my humble opinion. If you don't care about my opinion, that's your prerogative.
I do care about your opinion. This is why I ask you questions. But you do not answer them, so I don't get to hear your opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Actually it would do nothing of the sort. It would help for 5 minutes and then reset. The pay-off is negligible so I get greater satisfaction in ignoring your request.
Then don't complain when we conclude that you are lying and making things up. You've had your chance to show otherwise, and apparently can't be bothered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
definitions have to be used in context. You know that as well as I. It does not apply here and for you to throw this word around to mean anything that is said is an effort to make light of how he uses the word claim so you can throw all of his genuine claims out in one fell swoop.
It's what the word 'claim' means, Peacegirl.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
you are failing to understand this concept and are therefore guarding your worldview with impenetrable armor?
No, I'm simply pointing out what any child can understand—things can't be somewhere before getting there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
The photons we are talking about are at the retina on Earth at 12:00, which is exactly the same time that the Sun is ignited and begins emitting photons. So if these photons came from the Sun then when were they at the Sun?
At the time they were emitted Soacemonkey.
Obviously, but when was that? At, before, or after 12:00?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
And if they are traveling photons then what traveling have they done?
You're just not understanding this model. I'm not trying to force anything on you.
Answer the question please. If the photons at the retina at 12:00 are traveling photons, then what traveling have they done?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I guess I -am, and I'll deal with it.
Can you please deal with it by answering my questions instead of rudely evading them?
Bump.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #49090  
Old 08-20-2016, 10:27 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 davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
This may interest the science fiction buffs in here. :biglaugh:

Dead could be brought 'back to life' in groundbreaking projectÂ*
Peacegirl, would you like to discuss the relativity graphic? :grin:
No I would not. I looked over the link below and I don't think it conflicts with real time vision because we would see these relative differences. You believe that if we saw in real time, we would see the same exact thing regardless of the differences in inertial frames. That's just not true. Let it go David. I don't think there is a conflict when it comes to the relativity of simultaneity.

Special Relativity Basics
__________________
"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
  #49091  
Old 08-20-2016, 10:37 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCCLI
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
This may interest the science fiction buffs in here. :biglaugh:

Dead could be brought 'back to life' in groundbreaking projectÂ*
Peacegirl, would you like to discuss the relativity graphic? :grin:
No I would not.
Well, I am going to discuss it anyway, and rub your nose in it. :2thumbsup:

Quote:
I looked over the link below and I don't think it conflicts with real time vision because we would see these relative differences.
Anybody who actually read that link and still thinks relativity theory is consistent with real time seeing is either breathtakingly stupid or breathtakingly dishonest or both. In you case I vote "both." :vote:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (08-21-2016), The Man (08-20-2016), thedoc (08-21-2016)
  #49092  
Old 08-20-2016, 10:37 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 Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
No, that's the deception.
Then you need to present an alternative explanation, not based on distance and travel time, to explain how and why we see the candle quickly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
It is, but your conclusion is inaccurate in my humble opinion. If you don't care about my opinion, that's your prerogative.
I do care about your opinion. This is why I ask you questions. But you do not answer them, so I don't get to hear your opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Actually it would do nothing of the sort. It would help for 5 minutes and then reset. The pay-off is negligible so I get greater satisfaction in ignoring your request.
Then don't complain when we conclude that you are lying and making things up. You've had your chance to show otherwise, and apparently can't be bothered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
definitions have to be used in context. You know that as well as I. It does not apply here and for you to throw this word around to mean anything that is said is an effort to make light of how he uses the word claim so you can throw all of his genuine claims out in one fell swoop.
It's what the word 'claim' means, Peacegirl.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
you are failing to understand this concept and are therefore guarding your worldview with impenetrable armor?
No, I'm simply pointing out what any child can understand—things can't be somewhere before getting there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
The photons we are talking about are at the retina on Earth at 12:00, which is exactly the same time that the Sun is ignited and begins emitting photons. So if these photons came from the Sun then when were they at the Sun?
At the time they were emitted Soacemonkey.
Obviously, but when was that? At, before, or after 12:00?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
And if they are traveling photons then what traveling have they done?
You're just not understanding this model. I'm not trying to force anything on you.
Answer the question please. If the photons at the retina at 12:00 are traveling photons, then what traveling have they done?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I guess I -am, and I'll deal with it.
Can you please deal with it by answering my questions instead of rudely evading them?
Bump.
I'm not going to feed into your logic. Of course light traveling to Earth would take 81/2 minutes to get here. But this is not related to the efferent model which does not involve travel time since we're seeing the object directly. Light is always streaming, so there is no violation of physics. It's revealing to me that you have not even responded to my request to see if this claim of efferent sight could be removed and the claim still work. That's what I want to focus on because otherwise this discussion could go on forever without a resolution.
__________________
"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
  #49093  
Old 08-20-2016, 10:39 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 davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
This may interest the science fiction buffs in here. :biglaugh:

Dead could be brought 'back to life' in groundbreaking projectÂ*
Peacegirl, would you like to discuss the relativity graphic? :grin:
No I would not.
Well, I am going to discuss it anyway, and rub your nose in it. :2thumbsup:

Quote:
I looked over the link below and I don't think it conflicts with real time vision because we would see these relative differences.
Anybody who actually read that link and still thinks relativity theory is consistent with real time seeing is either breathtakingly stupid or breathtakingly dishonest or both. In you case I vote "both." :vote:
Do what you need to do. I just won't interact with 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
  #49094  
Old 08-20-2016, 10:40 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCCLI
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Incidentally, in that Norton piece you linked, did you read this?

Quote:
When we look at a distant galaxy 10 million light years away, we are seeing it as it appeared 10 million years ago.
Or does "I looked it over" mean you didn't actually read it at all? :awesome:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (08-21-2016), The Man (08-20-2016), thedoc (08-21-2016)
  #49095  
Old 08-20-2016, 10:42 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 davidm View Post
Incidentally, in that Norton piece you linked, did you read this?

Quote:
When we look at a distant galaxy 10 million light years away, we are seeing it as it appeared 10 million years ago.
Or does "I looked it over" mean you didn't actually read it at all? :awesome:
I did, but that part about 10 million light years away is to be expected. Actually, the light might have just arrived from that long ago. But to get an image of an event that is no longer present (such as Columbus discovering America) is quite another story. Back to relativity of simultaneity, real time vision doesn't contradict the observation that what we see is relative to our inertial frame of reference.
__________________
"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
  #49096  
Old 08-20-2016, 10:42 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCCLI
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
This may interest the science fiction buffs in here. :biglaugh:

Dead could be brought 'back to life' in groundbreaking projectÂ*
Peacegirl, would you like to discuss the relativity graphic? :grin:
No I would not.
Well, I am going to discuss it anyway, and rub your nose in it. :2thumbsup:

Quote:
I looked over the link below and I don't think it conflicts with real time vision because we would see these relative differences.
Anybody who actually read that link and still thinks relativity theory is consistent with real time seeing is either breathtakingly stupid or breathtakingly dishonest or both. In you case I vote "both." :vote:
Do what you need to do. I just won't interact with you.
Of course you won't! We all know a lying turd you are! A simple graphic easily disproves real-time seeing and so you will avoid it like the plague!

Listen, dispshit, isn't time for you to post some irrelevant videos of cute puppy dogs and then run way with your tail between your legs for a couple of weeks to reset? :chin:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (08-21-2016), The Man (08-20-2016), thedoc (08-21-2016)
  #49097  
Old 08-20-2016, 10:42 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: VMCLXXI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
No, that's the deception.
Then you need to present an alternative explanation, not based on distance and travel time, to explain how and why we see the candle quickly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
It is, but your conclusion is inaccurate in my humble opinion. If you don't care about my opinion, that's your prerogative.
I do care about your opinion. This is why I ask you questions. But you do not answer them, so I don't get to hear your opinion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Actually it would do nothing of the sort. It would help for 5 minutes and then reset. The pay-off is negligible so I get greater satisfaction in ignoring your request.
Then don't complain when we conclude that you are lying and making things up. You've had your chance to show otherwise, and apparently can't be bothered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
definitions have to be used in context. You know that as well as I. It does not apply here and for you to throw this word around to mean anything that is said is an effort to make light of how he uses the word claim so you can throw all of his genuine claims out in one fell swoop.
It's what the word 'claim' means, Peacegirl.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
you are failing to understand this concept and are therefore guarding your worldview with impenetrable armor?
No, I'm simply pointing out what any child can understand—things can't be somewhere before getting there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
The photons we are talking about are at the retina on Earth at 12:00, which is exactly the same time that the Sun is ignited and begins emitting photons. So if these photons came from the Sun then when were they at the Sun?
At the time they were emitted Soacemonkey.
Obviously, but when was that? At, before, or after 12:00?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
And if they are traveling photons then what traveling have they done?
You're just not understanding this model. I'm not trying to force anything on you.
Answer the question please. If the photons at the retina at 12:00 are traveling photons, then what traveling have they done?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I guess I -am, and I'll deal with it.
Can you please deal with it by answering my questions instead of rudely evading them?
Bump.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #49098  
Old 08-20-2016, 10:43 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCCLI
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Incidentally, in that Norton piece you linked, did you read this?

Quote:
When we look at a distant galaxy 10 million light years away, we are seeing it as it appeared 10 million years ago.
Or does "I looked it over" mean you didn't actually read it at all? :awesome:
I did, but that part about delayed vision is to be expected. That doesn't change the basic idea that what we see is relative to motion and not fixed.
The reason it is "relative to motion" is because we don't see in real time! Which is obvious from the Norton piece you "looked over." :lol:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (08-21-2016), The Man (08-20-2016), thedoc (08-21-2016)
  #49099  
Old 08-20-2016, 10:50 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: VMCLXXI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I'm not going to feed into your logic. Of course light traveling to Earth would take 81/2 minutes to get here. But this is not related to the efferent model which does not involve travel time since we're seeing the object directly. Light is always streaming, so there is no violation of physics.
Your 'model' (it's not really a model) requires photons from the Sun which cannot have come from the Sun and which cannot be photons.

They cannot have come from the Sun because there is no time at which they could possibly have been located there. They can't have been there before 12:00 because the Sun was not then ignited to emit them. They cannot have been there at 12:00 because that is when they are at the retina on Earth. And they cannot be there after 12:00 because that would be 'going to' rather than 'coming from'.

They cannot possibly be photons because all photons are traveling photons, and your photons at the retina at 12:00 haven't done any traveling according to you and your account.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
It's revealing to me that you have not even responded to my request to see if this claim of efferent sight could be removed and the claim still work.
It is revealing to me that you have ignored my response to this request. The claim can indeed be removed, as there is no logical connection whatsoever between the claim of efferent vision and the claims about conditioning.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (08-21-2016), The Man (08-20-2016), thedoc (08-21-2016)
  #49100  
Old 08-20-2016, 11:11 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I'm not going to feed into your logic. Of course light traveling to Earth would take 81/2 minutes to get here. But this is not related to the efferent model which does not involve travel time since we're seeing the object directly. Light is always streaming, so there is no violation of physics.
Your 'model' (it's not really a model) requires photons from the Sun which cannot have come from the Sun and which cannot be photons.

They cannot have come from the Sun because there is no time at which they could possibly have been located there. They can't have been there before 12:00 because the Sun was not then ignited to emit them. They cannot have been there at 12:00 because that is when they are at the retina on Earth. And they cannot be there after 12:00 because that would be 'going to' rather than 'coming from'.

They cannot possibly be photons because all photons are traveling photons, and your photons at the retina at 12:00 haven't done any traveling according to you and your account.
Lessans agreed that it takes 81/2 minutes to get to Earth, but if he is right and the way we see is not the decoding of incoming light, but using light to see the real world not as it was but as it is (because the wavelength/frequency is already at the eye), then to ignore this model because you think it's impossible would be very unfortunate indeed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
It's revealing to me that you have not even responded to my request to see if this claim of efferent sight could be removed and the claim still work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
It is revealing to me that you have ignored my response to this request. The claim can indeed be removed, as there is no logical connection whatsoever between the claim of efferent vision and the claims about conditioning.
That's your answer? To just spout off that there is no logical connection whatsoever between the claim of efferent vision and the claim about conditioning without giving me a reason as to why, makes me believe you're bluffing regarding your understanding of anything he wrote on this subject.
__________________
"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
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 7 (0 members and 7 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 03:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.61983 seconds with 14 queries