A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Remember this lie, Peacegirl?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have been answering you Spacemonkey...

How about this one?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I haven't answered your questions to your satisfaction, I'll try again tomorrow...

[LadyShea]

Who said anything at all about visiting the past?

[LadyShea]

I NEVER SAID LIGHT DOESN'T TRAVEL.

You said many times that non-absorbed photons (light) don't get reflected and don't travel. So this statement of yours is a lie.

[LadyShea]

BECAUSE OF EFFERENT VISION WE DO GET A MIRROR IMAGE, SO TO SPEAK. THAT'S WHY IT IS INSTANT AND THAT'S WHY USING WORDS LIKE PROPORTIONAL AND CLOSED SYSTEM ARE RELEVANT.

What is proportional to what?
What encloses the system?
What is the mirror image comprised of, how is it formed. where is it located, and how does it get there?


You know your mirror images sound a lot like the electric images Lessans was arguing against.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is proportional to what?
What encloses the system?
What is the mirror image comprised of, how is it formed. where is it located, and how


You know your mirror images sound a lot like the electric images Lessans was arguing against.

What encloses the system IS THE IDEA THAT THE REFLECTION (DO NOT CALL THIS A STRAWMAN BECAUSE IT IS NOT) DOES NOT TRAVEL IN THE TIME IT TAKES TO SEE AN IMAGE IN DELAYED TIME WHICH YOU, SPACEMONKEY AND OTHERS ARE DEPENDING ON TO PROVE YOUR CASE. YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN YOUR CASE EVEN BY THE MINIMUM STANDARDS. HOW IN THE WORLD CAN YOU ACCEPT ANY CONCLUSION AS FACT WHEN IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN C0NCLUSIVELY? IF I PISS YOU OFF THAT'S A GOOD THING. AT THE VERY LEAST I WILL LEAVE HERE WITH YOU THINKING ABOUT THIS ISSUE AND WHETHER YOUR CONCLUSION IS RIGHT OR NOT. THAT IS A WIN FOR ME.

[Spacemonkey]

CAPSLOCK SHIT FIT!

[Stephen Maturin]

The "system" is enclosed by an "idea." Man oh man, this shit is pure gold.

Also, it looks like she's having an all-caps hysterical shit fit day. I love the all-caps hysterical shit fit days. The gibberish, word salads and butthurt fall like rain on those days.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What encloses the system IS THE IDEA THAT THE REFLECTION (DO NOT CALL THIS A STRAWMAN BECAUSE IT IS NOT) DOES NOT TRAVEL IN THE TIME IT TAKES TO SEE AN IMAGE IN DELAYED TIME WHICH YOU, SPACEMONKEY AND OTHERS ARE DEPENDING ON TO PROVE YOUR CASE. YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN YOUR CASE EVEN BY THE MINIMUM STANDARDS. HOW IN THE WORLD CAN YOU ACCEPT ANY CONCLUSION AS FACT WHEN IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN C0NCLUSIVELY? IF I PISS YOU OFF THAT'S A GOOD THING. AT THE VERY LEAST I WILL LEAVE HERE WITH YOU THINKING ABOUT THIS ISSUE AND WHETHER YOUR CONCLUSION IS RIGHT OR NOT. THAT IS A WIN FOR ME.

Once again you haven't answered a damn thing that was asked. Idiot.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

IF I PISS YOU OFF THAT'S A GOOD THING. AT THE VERY LEAST I WILL LEAVE HERE WITH YOU THINKING ABOUT THIS ISSUE AND WHETHER YOUR CONCLUSION IS RIGHT OR NOT. THAT IS A WIN FOR ME.

CAPSLOCK SHITFIT!

When you leave here (which will be when you die or are forcibly committed) nobody will be thinking about whether our conclusion is right. It has been known to be correct for hundreds of years.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What encloses the system IS THE IDEA THAT THE REFLECTION (DO NOT CALL THIS A STRAWMAN BECAUSE IT IS NOT) DOES NOT TRAVEL IN THE TIME IT TAKES TO SEE AN IMAGE IN DELAYED TIME WHICH YOU, SPACEMONKEY AND OTHERS ARE DEPENDING ON TO PROVE YOUR CASE. YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN YOUR CASE EVEN BY THE MINIMUM STANDARDS. HOW IN THE WORLD CAN YOU ACCEPT ANY CONCLUSION AS FACT WHEN IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN C0NCLUSIVELY? IF I PISS YOU OFF THAT'S A GOOD THING. AT THE VERY LEAST I WILL LEAVE HERE WITH YOU THINKING ABOUT THIS ISSUE AND WHETHER YOUR CONCLUSION IS RIGHT OR NOT. THAT IS A WIN FOR ME.

Well you're right about this one thing, people here do think about what you say. Mostly they are thinking "What kind of stupid shit will she come up with this time?" So please carry on, I'm sure people here are anxiously waiting for your next installment.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Who said anything at all about visiting the past?

Knock knock, anybody there? That is what a timeline is all about.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

CAPSLOCK SHITFIT!

When you leave here (which will be when you die or are forcibly committed) nobody will be thinking about whether our conclusion is right. It has been known to be correct for hundreds of years.

These so-called truths will be disproved because they are wrong. Who cares when this happens; what is more important is that when it does happen it will be the time it was meant to be happen and not a second sooner.

[Spacemonkey]

Hey, look everybody. Idiot's back.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These so-called truths will be disproved because they are wrong. Who cares when this happens; what is more important is that when it does happen it will be the time it was meant to be happen and not a second sooner.

Oh my. Someone's been visiting the liquor cabinet extra early today.

[davidm]

President Obama on Saturday gave the finger to House Speaker John Boehner during their contentious debate on Obamalight.

Obama, G.O.P. Square Off Over Inverse Square Law
House Republicans to Make 1,459th Attempt to Repeal ‘Obamalight’; Cite ‘Internet Retard’ as Inspiration for Efforts

FREETHOUGHT-FORUM (Internet News Service) – Republicans in the House of Representatives announced on Saturday that they would again try to repeal or defund the inverse square law, also known as Obamalight.

“This law is nothing but photonic socialism, which will bankrupt society and leave us all in the dark,” House Speaker John Boehner said during a press conference at a D.C.-area gay bathhouse, attended by more than 150 other House Republicans, many of them wearing nothing but white towels.

The repeal attempt will mark the 1,459th attempt to scuttle the longstanding law of nature since the current Congressional session began in January 2013.

At a White House press briefing, President Obama expressed exasperation at the gridlock over the law.

“Contrary to what Republicans apparently believe, I had nothing to do with passing this law,” the president said. “It is a law of nature, and has been around since long before I took office. “

Under the law, the intensity of light is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from the light source.

“I don’t think anyone really understands this law,” said Representative Heehaw Boyfuck of Skunkspunk, Arkansas, during the news conference at the gay bathhouse. “I mean, did anyone actually read the Obamalight bill before voting on it? I know I didn’t.”

Boyfuck went on to assert that under the law, light from the sun has become so attenuated that not enough photons reach the earth for the sun to be seen, “leaving us all in the dark.” He went on to say that the law was “socialistic” because it tried to guarantee that the poor as well as the rich can see.

“The poor should be made to work for their light,” Boyfuck said.

When it was pointed out that the law was in effect and the sun was shining in the sky, Boyfuck glanced out the window and said, “No, it’s not. It’s completely dark out there, thanks to Obamalight.”

Boyfuck and other Republicans said that their thinking on this matter had been informed by reading the posts of “some retard on the Internet” who was arguing for a concept called “efferent seeing.” Since the retard, Peacegirl, began posting on the subject, right-wing Republican think tanks have embraced the cause with a fervor unseen since the days when they promoted supply-side economics and, before that, the flat earth.

[Hermit]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

IF I PISS YOU OFF THAT'S A GOOD THING. AT THE VERY LEAST I WILL LEAVE HERE WITH YOU THINKING ABOUT THIS ISSUE AND WHETHER YOUR CONCLUSION IS RIGHT OR NOT. THAT IS A WIN FOR ME.

Debating Peacegirl is like playing chess with a pigeon. She'll knock the pieces over, shit on the board and claim victory.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What encloses the system IS THE IDEA THAT THE REFLECTION (DO NOT CALL THIS A STRAWMAN BECAUSE IT IS NOT) DOES NOT TRAVEL IN THE TIME IT TAKES TO SEE AN IMAGE IN DELAYED TIME WHICH YOU, SPACEMONKEY AND OTHERS ARE DEPENDING ON TO PROVE YOUR CASE.

So what you are saying is that light that is reflected does not travel to eye at the speed of light, but a "mirror image" is somehow projected from the object to the eyes instantaneously?

Hmm, which "idea" can be and has been empirically observed and measured and has been tested in many different ways, and which "idea" is completely made up by you and does not conform with reality at all?

YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN YOUR CASE EVEN BY THE MINIMUM STANDARDS. HOW IN THE WORLD CAN YOU ACCEPT ANY CONCLUSION AS FACT WHEN IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN C0NCLUSIVELY?

Standard optics stands up to rigorous testing and empirical observation, and makes predictions that are actually useful because they actually work in the real world. That's pretty conclusive proof in my book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You said many times that non-absorbed photons (light) don't get reflected and don't travel. So this statement of yours is a lie.

I was trying to show that although light travels, it is not the light that is responsible for sight other than being a necessary condition. So when Lessans said the image is not reflected, he meant that the information does not travel through space/time to the eye to be decoded. This is not a lie. As usual, you throw that word around like it's nothing.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Knock knock, anybody there? That is what a timeline is all about.

Nobody was talking about timelines or visiting the past. I asked you how we could see very old light from the past in the present.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was trying to show that although light travels, it is not the light that is responsible for sight other than being a necessary condition.

But that's not what you said, you clearly said that non-absorbed photons (light) don't get reflected and don't travel...many times. You are a liar because you are lying about your very own words...AGAIN!

Why do you always say things that you later decide that you didn't mean? Don't you get tired of saying "what I really meant was nothing like what I actually said!"

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is proportional to what?
What encloses the system?
What is the mirror image comprised of, how is it formed. where is it located, and how does it get there?

I have explained what proportional means; I have explained what encloses the system; and I've also explained why it becomes a mirror image since the actual distance is not what we're talking about.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was trying to show that although light travels, it is not the light that is responsible for sight other than being a necessary condition.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But that's not what you said, you clearly said that non-absorbed photons (light) don't get reflected and don't travel...many times. You are a liar because you are lying about your very own words...AGAIN!

The image does not get reflected, but this doesn't mean light doesn't travel. The inverse square law does relate to this because light that is reflected off of objects is reflected at an angle. How far do you think this light has to travel before the object can no longer be resolved? That's a fair question.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why do you always say things that you later decide that you didn't mean? Don't you get tired of saying "what I really meant was nothing like what I actually said!"

I have said that this is difficult to explain, but I believe there is an explanation no matter how inadequate I may be at the task. Even though I should be use to the vitriol, it's difficult not to be shocked every time I see how low people can go just to get their rocks off.

[davidm]

We do not have an Anton Chigurh smilie.

No Country for Old Dingbats

Script (excerpt)






















Chirguh takes photon from pocket and shows it to peacegirl

































Chigurh flips photon, catches it on wrist, uncovers it and looks down.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I HAVE REPEATEDLY STATED THIS, BUT BECAUSE OF EFFERENT VISION WE DO GET A MIRROR IMAGE, SO TO SPEAK. THAT'S WHY IT IS INSTANT AND THAT'S WHY USING WORDS LIKE PROPORTIONAL AND CLOSED SYSTEM ARE RELEVANT. REMEMBER, THIS OBSERVATION IS UNPRECEDENTED SO YOU WOULD EXPECT NEW OR COINED TERMS THAT ARE EXPLAINING THIS [THEORY] IN WAYS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN HEARD BEFORE. THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT FANTASTICAL AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT DOESN'T MAKE THE OBSERVATION WRONG.

Isn't that thoughtful that many terms will need to be redefined, but not explained, to better fit Lessans fictional reality.

[LadyShea]

The inverse square law does relate to this because light that is reflected off of objects is reflected at an angle.

How do you think the angle of reflection and the inverse square law are related in this? The angle of reflection is a function of the traveling direction of the source light, so you need to describe a whole scenario, not just ask about unspecified objects and angles.

How far do you think this light has to travel before the object can no longer be resolved? That's a fair question.

It depends on the intensity of the light and the sensitivity of the receptor Do you have a specific scenario in mind?