A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

No.

See the chart above. What part of it do you not understand?

[davidm]

"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.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

"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.

[Florence Jellem]

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

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.

[davidm]

for peacegirl.

Originally Posted by davidm

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!



Any questions?

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by Florence Jellem

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

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.

Will they partially open up their robes so we can see their penises, and then begin to squirm? (This has to do with physics.)

[peacegirl]

This may interest the science fiction buffs in here.

Dead could be brought 'back to life' in groundbreaking projectÂ*

[Florence Jellem]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

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.

(This has to do with physics.)

Or course it does, dear.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This may interest the science fiction buffs in here.

Dead could be brought 'back to life' in groundbreaking projectÂ*

Peacegirl, would you like to discuss the relativity graphic?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oops! Sorry.

We all know that you're Sorry, we can only hope that you can soon realize it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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?

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.

It isn't. There is no logical connection between them at all.

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.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

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.

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.

It's what the word 'claim' means, Peacegirl.

No, I'm simply pointing out what any child can understand—things can't be somewhere before getting there.

Obviously, but when was that? At, before, or after 12:00?

Answer the question please. If the photons at the retina at 12:00 are traveling photons, then what traveling have they done?

Can you please deal with it by answering my questions instead of rudely evading them?

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Peacegirl, would you like to discuss the relativity graphic?

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

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No I would not.

Well, I am going to discuss it anyway, and rub your nose in it.

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."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Well, I am going to discuss it anyway, and rub your nose in it.

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."

Do what you need to do. I just won't interact with you.

[davidm]

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

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?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

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

Or does "I looked it over" mean you didn't actually read it at all?

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.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

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.

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.

It's what the word 'claim' means, Peacegirl.

No, I'm simply pointing out what any child can understand—things can't be somewhere before getting there.

Obviously, but when was that? At, before, or after 12:00?

Answer the question please. If the photons at the retina at 12:00 are traveling photons, then what traveling have they done?

Can you please deal with it by answering my questions instead of rudely evading them?

Bump.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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."

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

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.