A revolution in thought - Page 496

LadyShea · #**12376** 10-15-2011, 03:11 PM

OMG peacegirl. I was trying to figure out why your article about the cancer research fraud was so much more :freakout:

and

than the ones I was looking at...then I looked at the name....Mercola?

Jesus you love your quacks. Do you ever, ever vet your sources?

specious_reasons · #**12377** 10-15-2011, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is an interesting article which discloses the flagrant disregard for objective scientific research.

New Discovery Shakes the Foundation of Cancer Research
Posted By Dr. Mercola | October 15 2011 | 16,559 views

Joe Mercola is not a name that's going to produce much influence in the freethinking community.

Dragar · #**12378** 10-15-2011, 03:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

And hey, look here! If you are feeling adventurous, you can learn how to do the calculation for determining the speed of light via the moons of Jupiter yourself, using some tables of more modern observations of Io. I'm not sure where those tables come from, so if you doubt them we could poke around the NASA website (or ESO, or somewhere famous) for more well respected ones.

So, have we repeated the experiment? You bet we have.

You can't dodge this. Sorry.

So peacegirl, have you had a go at doing the moons of Jupiter calculation yourself yet? That website is based at ESO (the European version of NASA), with a table of observations of Io that are far more modern than the original one. So there is a perfect example of a repeat of the experiment, with the numbers and mathematics all laid out clearly for you to do the calculation yourself.

Notice that now you have gone from presenting ideas that you believe will be confirmed by experiment, to rejecting the experiments because they don't agree with your ideas. How can you possibly expect anyone to believe this book of yours when all our experiments show it to be wrong, and when your only defense is to say all our scientists are simply wrong?

davidm · #**12379** 10-15-2011, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is an interesting article which discloses the flagrant disregard for objective scientific research.

Desperately flailing away with wholly irrelevant asides to the discussion about light, are we, peacegirl? Do you not realize how transparent your silly tactics are?

davidm · #**12380** 10-15-2011, 03:23 PM

Joe Mercola

Hey, that's cool! Let's not forget in the Golden Age, according to Seymour the Great, there will be no more vaccinations! Vaccinations are just wrong! And anyone can be a doctor, Sy says, no qualifications needed! Just a hang a shingle outside your door with the word "Doctor" on it and you're done!

:lol:

peacegirl · #**12381** 10-15-2011, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

OMG peacegirl. I was trying to figure out why your article about the cancer research fraud was so much more :freakout:

and

than the ones I was looking at...then I looked at the name....Mercola?

Jesus you love your quacks. Do you ever, ever vet your sources?

Please stop right there LadyShea. This is not them against us. You are trying to create a false war. I won't let you do that, ok? Just because this knowledge is coming from someone you have labeled a "fraud" doesn't make it so. You are more closed minded than I realized.

peacegirl · #**12382** 10-15-2011, 03:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Joe Mercola

Hey, that's cool! Let's not forget in the Golden Age, according to Seymour the Great, there will be no more vaccinations!

He never said that. Number one, I added these examples. I never lied as people are accusing me of.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Vaccinations are just wrong!

NOT ONLY DID HE NOT SAY THIS; I DIDN'T SAY THIS. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT DAVID? AND YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE A READER OF TECHNICAL BOOKS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH BUT I DECLINE YOUR HELP!

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

And anyone can be a doctor, Sy says, no qualifications needed! Just a hang a shingle outside your door with the word "Doctor" on it and you're done!

:lol:

You have misconstrued this book beyond what I imagined anyone could. You have definitely won a prize.

peacegirl · #**12383** 10-15-2011, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is an interesting article which discloses the flagrant disregard for objective scientific research.

New Discovery Shakes the Foundation of Cancer Research
Posted By Dr. Mercola | October 15 2011 | 16,559 views

Joe Mercola is not a name that's going to produce much influence in the freethinking community.

That is the most prejudice response ever. How can you judge a study that is blatantly wrong in its conclusions just because it came from Mercola's website. Are you kidding me? :eek:

LadyShea · #**12384** 10-15-2011, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

OMG peacegirl. I was trying to figure out why your article about the cancer research fraud was so much more :freakout:

and

than the ones I was looking at...then I looked at the name....Mercola?

Jesus you love your quacks. Do you ever, ever vet your sources?

Please stop right there LadyShea. This is not them against us. You are trying to create a false war. I won't let you do that, ok? Just because this knowledge is coming from someone you have labeled a "fraud" doesn't make it so. You are more closed minded than I realized.

Oh the studies contained fraudulent data, I linked to another article about it, but Mercola interpreted it as devastating to 10 years worth of others' research and as "foundation shaking"

How can that be since the studies were only published 2 years ago and no other scientists have stated that their own work was reliant on the falsified findings? They were not remotely "foundational" nor were they old enough to have ramifications retroactive to 10 years back.

Seriously the guy's a quack and a scaremonger, using unwarranted fear and false claims of efficacy to sell his own products. You just eat that crap up like it's Manna from Heaven and you handwave away 400 years of real science.

Unbelievable.

davidm · #**12385** 10-15-2011, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Joe Mercola

Hey, that's cool! Let's not forget in the Golden Age, according to Seymour the Great, there will be no more vaccinations!

He never said that. Number one, I added these examples. I never lied as people are accusing me of.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Vaccinations are just wrong!

NOT ONLY DID HE NOT SAY THIS; I DIDN'T SAY THIS. WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT DAVID? AND YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO BE A READER OF TECHNICAL BOOKS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH BUT I DECLINE YOUR HELP!

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

And anyone can be a doctor, Sy says, no qualifications needed! Just a hang a shingle outside your door with the word "Doctor" on it and you're done!

:lol:

You have misconstrued this book beyond what I imagined anyone could. You have definitely won a prize.

You seem to be wandering desperately off topic now, peacegirl. I believe the reason for your hysteria is that you now understand that real-time seeing is false, and that Lessans' claims have been invalidated. I understand that this is impossible for you to accept, and so, probably against your will, your subconscious mind will do a "reset" in which your mind will be scrubbed clean all your newly won knowledge, and you can go back to bleating about how we see in real time.

This can be the only explanation for why, when presented with an experiment demonstrating the speed of light (and demonstrating that eyes are sense organs and that we don't see in real time) you responded as if it were the first time you were exposed to this experiment. Tell me, do you really not recall the long discussion about that experiment, in this very thread?

naturalist.atheist · #**12386** 10-15-2011, 04:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Peacegirl, from that same linked paper on Jupiter's moons, there is the following. Do you not recall this being discussed in this thread?

Quote:

Fast Flickering Lanterns
The problem is, all these astronomical techniques do not have the appeal of Galileo’s idea of two guys with lanterns. It would be reassuring to measure the speed of a beam of light between two points on the ground, rather than making somewhat indirect deductions based on apparent slight variations in the positions of stars. We can see, though, that if the two lanterns are ten miles apart, the time lag is of order one-ten thousandth of a second, and it is difficult to see how to arrange that. This technical problem was solved in France about 1850 by two rivals, Fizeau and Foucault, using slightly different techniques. In Fizeau’s apparatus, a beam of light shone between the teeth of a rapidly rotating toothed wheel, so the “lantern” was constantly being covered and uncovered. Instead of a second lantern far away, Fizeau simply had a mirror, reflecting the beam back, where it passed a second time between the teeth of the wheel. The idea was, the blip of light that went out through one gap between teeth would only make it back through the same gap if the teeth had not had time to move over significantly during the round trip time to the far away mirror. It was not difficult to make a wheel with a hundred teeth, and to rotate it hundreds of times a second, so the time for a tooth to move over could be arranged to be a fraction of one ten thousandth of a second. The method worked. Foucault’s method was based on the same general idea, but instead of a toothed wheel, he shone the beam on to a rotating mirror. At one point in the mirror’s rotation, the reflected beam fell on a distant mirror, which reflected it right back to the rotating mirror, which meanwhile had turned through a small angle. After this second reflection from the rotating mirror, the position of the beam was carefully measured. This made it possible to figure out how far the mirror had turned during the time it took the light to make the round trip to the distant mirror, and since the rate of rotation of the mirror was known, the speed of light could be figured out. These techniques gave the speed of light with an accuracy of about 1,000 miles per second.

Very cool experiment, and I applaud their efforts to determine the exact speed of light.

Again, a clear indication that peacegirl is unable to make an inference. She isn't able to connect the dots. The intrepid posters here can try and try as they might but she is as unable to form an inference as that poor woman in the video was unable to remember its Tuesday.

peacegirl deserves pity and help, because the trouble the poor woman in the video was having was over in twenty four hours, but the problem peacegirl is having may have been going on for decades. So by now she is well adapted to her condition and is able to present the facade of a normal person and thus fit in at a superficial level but underneath she has a profound mental illness.

BTW, this inability to form inferences goes not only for the information presented to her by other posters but to the writing of Lessans as well. This is why she appears to garble Lessans claims as well.

davidm · #**12387** 10-15-2011, 04:57 PM

Oh, peacegirl, just in case you forgot, you also have this to address:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

1. What is it that causally interacts with the film to determine the color of the (allegedly real-time) photgraphic image?

Light.

2. Where is whatever it is that so interacts with the film?

At the lens. I'm really not sure if that's the answer you are looking for, because I'm not sure if I understood you correctly.

3. What properties of this determine the color of the resulting image?

The wavelengths.

Thank you. Now let's follow through on the implications of this. At time T1 the ball is blue, and film in the camera is forming a real-time blue image on the basis of the wavelength of the blue light present at the lens/camera, correct?

Next question: How did that blue light get there?

Light travels. So at time T-1 (a moment before T1) that light was presumably still blue and had not quite reached the lens/camera, and yet the ball at T-1 was red. So where did that blue light come from?

Oh dear. It looks like you are indeed going to ignore this, Peacegirl.

davidm · #**12388** 10-15-2011, 05:03 PM

Coming Soon....

THE 500-PAGE PARTY!

specious_reasons · #**12389** 10-15-2011, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is an interesting article which discloses the flagrant disregard for objective scientific research.

New Discovery Shakes the Foundation of Cancer Research
Posted By Dr. Mercola | October 15 2011 | 16,559 views

Joe Mercola is not a name that's going to produce much influence in the freethinking community.

That is the most prejudice response ever. How can you judge a study that is blatantly wrong in its conclusions just because it came from Mercola's website. Are you kidding me? :eek:

Damn right it's prejudiced. I'm prejudiced against Joe Mercola for advocating unscientific quack medicine. You haven't given two thoughts about Mercola's biases, have you? He has a vested interest in questioning the medical establishment, because mistrust in "conventional" medicine drives business to him - the exact same motivations he says drives "big pharma."

So we have advocates for competing practices. How do we know which one is better? By evaluating the science. Mercola always loses the science debate, always, even if "big pharma" loses too.

peacegirl · #**12390** 10-15-2011, 05:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

OMG peacegirl. I was trying to figure out why your article about the cancer research fraud was so much more :freakout:

and

than the ones I was looking at...then I looked at the name....Mercola?

Jesus you love your quacks. Do you ever, ever vet your sources?

So you're telling me that these studies were not flawed in any way? Are you telling me that all of the research on the safety of drugs by pharmaceutical companies should be accepted without a careful eye on who is doing the research to make sure there are no conflicting interests? Who are you kidding?

peacegirl · #**12391** 10-15-2011, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Natural.atheist, your responses are worse than Davidm's, and that's saying somethin.

Stephen Maturin has dropped to 3rd place now.
:loser2:

No he hasn't. I still have a thing for bald men, so he continues to take first place.

peacegirl · #**12392** 10-15-2011, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

1. What is it that causally interacts with the film to determine the color of the (allegedly real-time) photgraphic image?

Light.

2. Where is whatever it is that so interacts with the film?

At the lens. I'm really not sure if that's the answer you are looking for, because I'm not sure if I understood you correctly.

3. What properties of this determine the color of the resulting image?

The wavelengths.

Thank you. Now let's follow through on the implications of this. At time T1 the ball is blue, and film in the camera is forming a real-time blue image on the basis of the wavelength of the blue light present at the lens/camera, correct?

Next question: How did that blue light get there?

Light travels. So at time T-1 (a moment before T1) that light was presumably still blue and had not quite reached the lens/camera, and yet the ball at T-1 was red. So where did that blue light come from?

Oh dear. It looks like you are indeed going to ignore this, Peacegirl.

The blue comes from the absorption and reflection of the object that is being photographed, but when that object changes color, the absorption and reflection pattern changes as well.

peacegirl · #**12393** 10-15-2011, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Peacegirl, what you need to do, in all honesty, is see a psychiatrist.

Lessans said that psychiatrists need to have their heads examined. Therefore, it is true.

He said that for very good reason. Many psychiatrists (not all) have hurt the public by handing out dangerous psychotropic drugs (as if they were candy) to innocent patients who don't need them --- and the consequences have been disastrous.

LadyShea · #**12394** 10-15-2011, 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

OMG peacegirl. I was trying to figure out why your article about the cancer research fraud was so much more :freakout:

and

than the ones I was looking at...then I looked at the name....Mercola?

Jesus you love your quacks. Do you ever, ever vet your sources?

So you're telling me that these studies were not flawed in any way? Are you telling me that all of the research on the safety of drugs by pharmaceutical companies should be accepted without a careful eye on who is doing the research to make sure there are no conflicting interests? Who are you kidding?

I have two posts about the actual, revealed, falsified data in those studies and the governing body that sanctioned the researcher and where Mercola went wrong in his interpretation of the implications. Read them, and respond to them, please.

And the falsified data was about gene interactions. What does that have to do with drug safety?

And if you care about drug efficacy and consumer safety, Mercola has been sanctioned by the FDA 3 times for making false claims.

peacegirl · #**12395** 10-15-2011, 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

but this is not true if Lessans is right

if Lessans was right he was right...that's just a circular argument you keep making as if it means something.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This radio lab is supposed to discredit Lessans claims? Isn't that the purpose of the link?

The link was illustrating the loop he says you are in

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Think of peacegirl as being stuck in a massive loop but with massive logic failure as well.

Then I'll take out the [if] in my comments. That was for your benefit, not me.

davidm · #**12396** 10-15-2011, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

but this is not true if Lessans is right

if Lessans was right he was right...that's just a circular argument you keep making as if it means something.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This radio lab is supposed to discredit Lessans claims? Isn't that the purpose of the link?

The link was illustrating the loop he says you are in

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Think of peacegirl as being stuck in a massive loop but with massive logic failure as well.

Then I'll take out the [if] in my comments. That was for your benefit, not me.

Aw, look! She's back in her loop! Isn't that precious. :awesome:

Moons of Jupiter, peacegirl. Stick a fork in you and Lessans. You could have discovered this back on page 39, except you have no brain. :wave:

LadyShea · #**12397** 10-15-2011, 05:51 PM

Your argument remains circular whether it is phrased "if X then X" or "X because of X" or "Not Not-X because of X"

If Lessans was right then he was right
vs.
Lessans was right because he was right
or
Not-Lessans is wrong because Lessans was right

peacegirl · #**12398** 10-15-2011, 05:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

So, peacegirl, here is what you said:

Quote:

In order for a camera to work, light has to be striking the lens.

So the light has to be striking the lens. Now according to Lessans, if God were to turn on the sun at noon, we would see the sun immediately, but we would not see the neighbor standing next to us for eight and a half minutes.

So here is the scenario.

1. God turns on the sun at noon.

2. Your neighbor has a camera pointed at the sun.

3. The light has to be striking the lens, according to you, for the camera to take a picture of the sun.

4. However, according to Lessans, even though we would see the sun immediately, when God turned it on, we would not see our neighbor for eight and a half minutes. So the light is not striking the neighbor until that much time has passed. If the light is not striking the neighbor, it’s also not striking the camera.

5. You now say that we take pictures in real time, just like seeing in real time. But you also say that the light has to be at the lens of the camera, in order to take a picture. But according to Lessans, the light will not be at the camera for eight and a half minutes, because that is how long it will take for the light to reach your neighbor, who is holding the camera. So the camera, according to Lessans, cannot take pictures in real time.

Therefore, you have contradicted your father’s claims. It behooves you to return to your original position, which was that while we see in real time, the camera takes pictures in delayed time. If you don’t return to your original position, you are in disagreement with Lessans.

However, if you do return to your original position — that we see in real time, but cameras take pictures in delayed time — this position is wholly refuted by the fact that what we see, and the images made by cameras, are the same. That would be impossible if we saw in real time but took pictures in delayed time.

So either you are making a claim that contradicts plainly observed reality, or you are making a claim that contradicts Lessans.

Which is it, peacegirl? We’re dying to know. :popcorn:

By the way, you can't wriggle out of this jam by dismissing Lessans' claim here as "merely hypothetical." This just shows you don't know the meaning of "hypothesis." He is a making a claim of the fashion that: Assuming what I say is true, if x occuirs, we should expect y to happen. If y does not happen, then what Lessans says about the world is untrue. Since y does not happen, Lessans is wrong.

If you don't stop these false accusations, I am going to delete you which will be horrible for me because, believe it or not, I like you. I just think you are having a hard time with this information. But I will not be subjected to tactics that are cold hearted. These disgusting tactics that would literally throw me under a bus would make it appear as if you are right and I am wrong, but this is not true if Lessans is right. Is that what you want just so you can be the one to claim that you are the winner? This is not about winning; this is about the truth.

He followed all your arguments to their logical conclusions and posed them to you as questions.

He is not making false accusations, using cold hearted tactics, throwing you under a bus*, nor being disgusting.

You're getting histrionic and persecution complexed again.

*I don't think that idiom means what you think it means, because it's not really appropriate in that context

His questions are legitimate (even though I thought I answered them), but his strategy is cold and calculating. For what other reason does he call me names in just about every post than to make me look stupid so everyone will not take Lessans seriously. Those tactics are underhanded and have no place in this discussion.

LadyShea · #**12399** 10-15-2011, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He said that for very good reason. Many psychiatrists (not all) have hurt the public by handing out dangerous psychotropic drugs (as if they were candy) to innocent patients who don't need them --- and the consequences have been disastrous.

Evidence of disaster?