#13226  
Old 10-24-2011, 09:50 PM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDLXXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Let me guess. Cells have to be big enough and DNA has to be present in order for them to procreate efferently.

:LOL:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Dragar (10-24-2011), Stephen Maturin (10-24-2011), The Lone Ranger (10-24-2011)
  #13227  
Old 10-24-2011, 09:57 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 Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I want to add one last thing. Seeing that no one is interested at all in anything other than their findings, which are not based on what is observed,
It's astounding you can even make this claim.

We are the ones who have discussed observations. We are the ones who have pointed out how the real world works, experiments that have been done, a multitude of them in fact. We are the ones who have discussed modern technology. You have made zero discussion of any observation. In fact, you've recoiled from doing so, because they have all contradicted your position!

So how can you possibly claim we are not interested in what has been observed?
Because everyone is conveniently overlooking the FACT that we cannot get an image on film if an object is out of the camera's range but in a straight line with it. Doesn't that sound a red flag? The fact that light is moving so fast doesn't have anything to do with this observation or we wouldn't get a picture on film when the object is even closer to the camera.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
By the way, what's an image? You said before it's 'that thing we see', but it still exists if we don't look at it. So what is it an image, peacegirl?
Images may be two-dimensional, such as a photograph, screen display, and as well as a three-dimensional, such as a statue or hologram. They may be captured by optical devices—such as cameras, mirrors, lenses, telescopes, microscopes, etc. and natural objects and phenomena, such as the human eye or water surfaces.

The word image is also used in the broader sense of any two-dimensional figure such as a map, a graph, a pie chart, or an abstract painting. In this wider sense, images can also be rendered manually, such as by drawing, painting, carving, rendered automatically by printing or computer graphics technology, or developed by a combination of methods, especially in a pseudo-photograph.

A volatile image is one that exists only for a short period of time. This may be a reflection of an object by a mirror, a projection of a camera obscura, or a scene displayed on a cathode ray tube. A fixed image, also called a hard copy, is one that has been recorded on a material object, such as paper or textile by photography or digital processes.

Image - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote
  #13228  
Old 10-24-2011, 09:58 PM
Rickoshay75 Rickoshay75 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: CDLXV
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by But View Post
Let me guess. Cells have to be big enough and DNA has to be present in order for them to procreate efferently.

:LOL:
Not necessarily, just large enough and accessible enough to demonstrate how it works to laypeople, not just to the ones that belong to the exclusive club with a vested interest.
__________________
The fact that a great many people believe something is no guarantee of its truth. W. Somerset Maugham
Reply With Quote
  #13229  
Old 10-24-2011, 10:00 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
Because everyone is conveniently overlooking the FACT that we cannot get an image on film if an object is out of the camera's range but in a straight line with it. Doesn't that sound a red flag? The speed of light doesn't have anything to do with it.
No-one is overlooking that. It is exactly what the Hubble pictures provide.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (10-25-2011)
  #13230  
Old 10-24-2011, 10:02 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 thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
[
The only observation that questions afferent vision is that an object that is just out of view of the lens but in direct line with it, with no obstructions, should produce a picture on the film if the wavelength is traveling toward the camera because then we know we would be getting a delayed picture. This is in direct contradiction to the moons of Jupiter experiment. .

This is a contradiction and does not proove anything. If it is out of view it cannot be in a direct line with no obstructions. This is also a good example of Lessans reasoning and writing. He was completely confused about everything he was trying to say.

If the camera produces a delayed image, it supports the 'Moons of Jupiter' observation.
You are speaking in complete gibberish mode thedoc. When an object is out of view of the lens it can still be in a direct line with it, without any obstructions that would cause the light to deflect. You just don't want to admit it because then you'd have to rethink your entire position.
Reply With Quote
  #13231  
Old 10-24-2011, 10:11 PM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDLXXXIX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Because everyone is conveniently overlooking the FACT that we cannot get an image on film if an object is out of the camera's range but in a straight line with it. Doesn't that sound a red flag? The speed of light doesn't have anything to do with it.
No-one is overlooking that. It is exactly what the Hubble pictures provide.
It's again completely circular. It's out of range if we can't get a picture with the object in the camera's field of view. The FACT that we can't get a picture when we can't get a picture tells us.. what, exactly?

:chin:
Reply With Quote
  #13232  
Old 10-24-2011, 10:12 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

Peacegirl, are you retracting your agreement that it is the wavelength of light at the film which determines the color of the resulting photographic image, and that this light has arrived there from somewhere else?

If you are retracting this, then what determines the color of the image and where did that thing come from?

If you are not, then did the light have the same or different wavelength properties just before it got to the camera?
Reply With Quote
  #13233  
Old 10-24-2011, 10:14 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
Peacegirl, given your current answers I have three stories of light for you to consider.

Story 1: The sun emits some light which, along with all the light of other wavelengths, contains red light which travels towards the ball. The ball is red, so (this means) it absorbs all the other light, reflecting only our red light which bounces off and heads towards the camera. The photograph happens to be taken when this red light arrives at the camera, so the shutter opens as the red light arrives and this red light hits the film resulting in a red photograph of the red ball.

Do you have any problems with this story?

Story 2: The sun emits some light which, along with all the light of other wavelengths, contains blue light which travels towards the ball. The ball is blue, so (this means) it absorbs all the other light, reflecting only our blue light which bounces off and heads towards the camera. The photograph happens to be taken when this blue light arrives at the camera, so the shutter opens as the blue light arrives and this blue light hits the film resulting in a blue photograph of the blue ball.

Do you have any problems with this story?

Story 3: The sun emits some light which, along with all the light of other wavelengths, contains red light which travels towards the ball. The ball is red, so (this means) it absorbs all the other light, reflecting only our red light which bounces off and heads towards the camera. However, the ball changes color from red to blue immediately after reflecting this red light towards the camera (and therefore before our red light gets to the camera). So the ball was red when the red light hit it and bounced off towards the camera, but is blue (i.e. has begun absorbing red light and reflecting only blue light) during the time this previously reflected red light is in transit between the ball and the camera. The photograph happens to be taken when this red light arrives at the camera, so the shutter opens as the red light arrives and this red light hits the film resulting in a red photograph of the blue ball.

Where does this story go wrong, according to your version of what is happening?
I can see where the problem is. The image at the camera could not be blue if the light was first red because, according to science, photons are packets of light energy that aren't connected to each other and are coming out of the factory as separate entities. Therefore, they strike the film in the order in which they arrived.
Reply With Quote
  #13234  
Old 10-24-2011, 10:17 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
Peacegirl, given your current answers I have three stories of light for you to consider.

Story 1: The sun emits some light which, along with all the light of other wavelengths, contains red light which travels towards the ball. The ball is red, so (this means) it absorbs all the other light, reflecting only our red light which bounces off and heads towards the camera. The photograph happens to be taken when this red light arrives at the camera, so the shutter opens as the red light arrives and this red light hits the film resulting in a red photograph of the red ball.

Do you have any problems with this story?

Story 2: The sun emits some light which, along with all the light of other wavelengths, contains blue light which travels towards the ball. The ball is blue, so (this means) it absorbs all the other light, reflecting only our blue light which bounces off and heads towards the camera. The photograph happens to be taken when this blue light arrives at the camera, so the shutter opens as the blue light arrives and this blue light hits the film resulting in a blue photograph of the blue ball.

Do you have any problems with this story?

Story 3: The sun emits some light which, along with all the light of other wavelengths, contains red light which travels towards the ball. The ball is red, so (this means) it absorbs all the other light, reflecting only our red light which bounces off and heads towards the camera. However, the ball changes color from red to blue immediately after reflecting this red light towards the camera (and therefore before our red light gets to the camera). So the ball was red when the red light hit it and bounced off towards the camera, but is blue (i.e. has begun absorbing red light and reflecting only blue light) during the time this previously reflected red light is in transit between the ball and the camera. The photograph happens to be taken when this red light arrives at the camera, so the shutter opens as the red light arrives and this red light hits the film resulting in a red photograph of the blue ball.

Where does this story go wrong, according to your version of what is happening?
I can see where the problem is. The image at the camera could not be blue if the light was first red because, according to science, photons are packets of light energy that aren't connected to each other and are coming out of the factory as separate entities. Therefore, they strike the film in the order in which they arrived.
So what's your solution?
Reply With Quote
  #13235  
Old 10-24-2011, 10:24 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 But View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Because everyone is conveniently overlooking the FACT that we cannot get an image on film if an object is out of the camera's range but in a straight line with it. Doesn't that sound a red flag? The speed of light doesn't have anything to do with it.
No-one is overlooking that. It is exactly what the Hubble pictures provide.
It's again completely circular. It's out of range if we can't get a picture with the object in the camera's field of view. The FACT that we can't get a picture when we can't get a picture tells us.. what, exactly?

:chin:
It's not circular in any way. BTW, I was limiting the conversation to objects, not distant images because of the confusion it has caused. The fact that we can't get a picture from light itself tells us something. If the light's wavelength gives us the information about the object because the lens is a collector of light, then we should be able to get an image on film of that object whether or not the object is in the camera's field of view, as long as the photons are in a straight line with the lens with no obstructions.
Reply With Quote
  #13236  
Old 10-24-2011, 10:26 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Peacegirl, given your current answers I have three stories of light for you to consider.

Story 1: The sun emits some light which, along with all the light of other wavelengths, contains red light which travels towards the ball. The ball is red, so (this means) it absorbs all the other light, reflecting only our red light which bounces off and heads towards the camera. The photograph happens to be taken when this red light arrives at the camera, so the shutter opens as the red light arrives and this red light hits the film resulting in a red photograph of the red ball.

Do you have any problems with this story?

Story 2: The sun emits some light which, along with all the light of other wavelengths, contains blue light which travels towards the ball. The ball is blue, so (this means) it absorbs all the other light, reflecting only our blue light which bounces off and heads towards the camera. The photograph happens to be taken when this blue light arrives at the camera, so the shutter opens as the blue light arrives and this blue light hits the film resulting in a blue photograph of the blue ball.

Do you have any problems with this story?

Story 3: The sun emits some light which, along with all the light of other wavelengths, contains red light which travels towards the ball. The ball is red, so (this means) it absorbs all the other light, reflecting only our red light which bounces off and heads towards the camera. However, the ball changes color from red to blue immediately after reflecting this red light towards the camera (and therefore before our red light gets to the camera). So the ball was red when the red light hit it and bounced off towards the camera, but is blue (i.e. has begun absorbing red light and reflecting only blue light) during the time this previously reflected red light is in transit between the ball and the camera. The photograph happens to be taken when this red light arrives at the camera, so the shutter opens as the red light arrives and this red light hits the film resulting in a red photograph of the blue ball.

Where does this story go wrong, according to your version of what is happening?
I can see where the problem is. The image at the camera could not be blue if the light was first red because, according to science, photons are packets of light energy that aren't connected to each other and are coming out of the factory as separate entities. Therefore, they strike the film in the order in which they arrived.
So what's your solution?
I don't have one. All I know is that there is a contradiction but this in no way means Lessans' observations were at fault. I'm going to leave it at that because we're not going to make any progress coming from two completely different positions. Only time will tell who was right. We won't be able to figure it out in here, that's for sure.
Reply With Quote
  #13237  
Old 10-24-2011, 11:03 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 But View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Because everyone is conveniently overlooking the FACT that we cannot get an image on film if an object is out of the camera's range but in a straight line with it. Doesn't that sound a red flag? The speed of light doesn't have anything to do with it.
No-one is overlooking that. It is exactly what the Hubble pictures provide.
It's again completely circular. It's out of range if we can't get a picture with the object in the camera's field of view. The FACT that we can't get a picture when we can't get a picture tells us.. what, exactly?
It's not circular in any way. BTW, I was limiting the conversation to objects, not distant images because of the confusion it has caused.
Galaxies are objects.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The fact that we can't get a picture from light itself tells us something.
That's not a fact. Pinhole cameras (and in fact all cameras) do this all the time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
If the light's wavelength gives us the information about the object because the lens is a collector of light, then we should be able to get an image on film of that object whether or not the object is in the camera's field of view, as long as the photons are in a straight line with the lens with no obstructions.
And we do, as the Hubble pictures show.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (10-25-2011)
  #13238  
Old 10-24-2011, 11:08 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Peacegirl, given your current answers I have three stories of light for you to consider.

Story 1: The sun emits some light which, along with all the light of other wavelengths, contains red light which travels towards the ball. The ball is red, so (this means) it absorbs all the other light, reflecting only our red light which bounces off and heads towards the camera. The photograph happens to be taken when this red light arrives at the camera, so the shutter opens as the red light arrives and this red light hits the film resulting in a red photograph of the red ball.

Do you have any problems with this story?

Story 2: The sun emits some light which, along with all the light of other wavelengths, contains blue light which travels towards the ball. The ball is blue, so (this means) it absorbs all the other light, reflecting only our blue light which bounces off and heads towards the camera. The photograph happens to be taken when this blue light arrives at the camera, so the shutter opens as the blue light arrives and this blue light hits the film resulting in a blue photograph of the blue ball.

Do you have any problems with this story?

Story 3: The sun emits some light which, along with all the light of other wavelengths, contains red light which travels towards the ball. The ball is red, so (this means) it absorbs all the other light, reflecting only our red light which bounces off and heads towards the camera. However, the ball changes color from red to blue immediately after reflecting this red light towards the camera (and therefore before our red light gets to the camera). So the ball was red when the red light hit it and bounced off towards the camera, but is blue (i.e. has begun absorbing red light and reflecting only blue light) during the time this previously reflected red light is in transit between the ball and the camera. The photograph happens to be taken when this red light arrives at the camera, so the shutter opens as the red light arrives and this red light hits the film resulting in a red photograph of the blue ball.

Where does this story go wrong, according to your version of what is happening?
I can see where the problem is. The image at the camera could not be blue if the light was first red because, according to science, photons are packets of light energy that aren't connected to each other and are coming out of the factory as separate entities. Therefore, they strike the film in the order in which they arrived.
So what's your solution?
I don't have one. All I know is that there is a contradiction but this in no way means Lessans' observations were at fault. I'm going to leave it at that because we're not going to make any progress coming from two completely different positions. Only time will tell who was right. We won't be able to figure it out in here, that's for sure.
Time has already told. You and Lessans are wrong. You claim to see the problem and have absolutely no solution. That means your claims have been refuted. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

You can't explain, even in your own terms and by reference to your own beliefs about how light works, how real-time photography is even possible. And yet you require real-time photography to maintain the possibility of efferent vision.

Can you at least agree that efferent vision/real-time photography are impossible given the assumptions about light and physics you had agreed to in the answers you gave to my questions? And that efferent vision will therefore require rejecting at least some of these basic properties of light and physics?

You've just agreed that you are holding contradictory beliefs in your attempt to maintain belief in efferent vision. Why aren't you interested in resolving those contradictions? Why is it more important to you to continue believing in efferent vision than it is to be logically consistent and avoid false beliefs (contradictory beliefs imply that at least one must be false)?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (10-25-2011), Vivisectus (10-25-2011)
  #13239  
Old 10-24-2011, 11:20 PM
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
Because everyone is conveniently overlooking the FACT that we cannot get an image on film if an object is out of the camera's range but in a straight line with it.
Wuh? If an object is out of range (assuming some sensible definition of that), the standard theory of light predicts we won't be able to get an image on the film. That's not a problem, it's a confirmation of the usual theory. The fact a range exists at all is only explainable by the theory of light. We can predict (using our knowledge of light) how far away we can see for a given camera setup. It all works. Lessans ideas, on the other hand...

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
By the way, what's an image? You said before it's 'that thing we see', but it still exists if we don't look at it. So what is it an image, peacegirl?
[quote from wikipedia]
Those are all things images can do or the forms they come in. But what is an image, peacegirl? Like the one on the back of a pinhole camera? :popcorn:
__________________
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:
LadyShea (10-25-2011)
  #13240  
Old 10-25-2011, 12:06 AM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Refreshingly Stupid
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: VMMCCLXXVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by But View Post
Let me guess. Cells have to be big enough and DNA has to be present in order for them to procreate efferently.

:LOL:
Exactly! In addition, there's indirect evidence for efferent procreation in the form of efferent ejaculation. We can in turn soundly infer the truth of efferent ejaculation from the undeniable existence and popularity of the bukkake industry.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos don't explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (10-25-2011), Vivisectus (10-25-2011)
  #13241  
Old 10-25-2011, 01:16 AM
Rickoshay75 Rickoshay75 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: CDLXV
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by But View Post
Let me guess. Cells have to be big enough and DNA has to be present in order for them to procreate efferently.

:LOL:
Exactly! In addition, there's indirect evidence for efferent procreation in the form of efferent ejaculation. We can in turn soundly infer the truth of efferent ejaculation from the undeniable existence and popularity of the bukkake industry.
Are you putting us on, or is that really science lingo?
__________________
The fact that a great many people believe something is no guarantee of its truth. W. Somerset Maugham
Reply With Quote
  #13242  
Old 10-25-2011, 01:18 AM
The Lone Ranger's Avatar
The Lone Ranger The Lone Ranger is offline
Jin, Gi, Rei, Ko, Chi, Shin, Tei
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCDVI
Images: 523
Default Re: A revolution in thought

That you have to ask the question (and that you frame it that way) speaks volumes.
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
-- Socrates
Reply With Quote
  #13243  
Old 10-25-2011, 01:24 AM
Rickoshay75 Rickoshay75 is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: CDLXV
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
That you have to ask the question (and that you frame it that way) speaks volumes.
Yeah, but you don't speak answers, maybes or could be.
__________________
The fact that a great many people believe something is no guarantee of its truth. W. Somerset Maugham
Reply With Quote
  #13244  
Old 10-25-2011, 02:03 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 The Lone Ranger View Post
Riiight.

Meanwhile, here's an actual photograph of a DNA molecule. (85,000X magnification, scanning electron microscope)

LOL, who you trying to kid? That's just something you made out of
__________________
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:
Stephen Maturin (10-25-2011)
  #13245  
Old 10-25-2011, 04:50 AM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I want to add one last thing. Seeing that no one is interested at all in anything other than their findings, which are not based on what is observed, it makes me think this is pseudo-science, the very science you all despise. Isn't that ironic that you are now in the position of the religious fundamentalists that you can't stand. :laugh:
peacegirl, you and Lessans appear to be the only people in the world that have observed what you claim is the basis of your findings. No one else has been able to reproduce anything that you or Lessans claim. Yet the very instrument you are using to read what I have typed here confirms all that everyone else has been saying and shows your "observations" to clearly be the result of mental illness. You are not capable of comprehending the degree to which the very scientific principles you doubt are the bedrock or your everyday life.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (10-25-2011)
  #13246  
Old 10-25-2011, 05:23 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I want to add one last thing. Seeing that no one is interested at all in anything other than their findings, which are not based on what is observed, it makes me think this is pseudo-science, the very science you all despise. Isn't that ironic that you are now in the position of the religious fundamentalists that you can't stand. :laugh:
peacegirl, you and Lessans appear to be the only people in the world that have observed what you claim is the basis of your findings. No one else has been able to reproduce anything that you or Lessans claim. Yet the very instrument you are using to read what I have typed here confirms all that everyone else has been saying and shows your "observations" to clearly be the result of mental illness. You are not capable of comprehending the degree to which the very scientific principles you doubt are the bedrock or your everyday life.

I would suggest that it was only Lessans who is supposed to have made these 'observations', Peacegirl is only taking the claims on faith based on her indoctrination by her father and a passing familarity with the book. She has never claimed to have made any observations herself, but everything must be taken on faith that Lessans was correct in his conclusions from these undisclosed observations. If any of these were disclosed and detailed it might help to explain how Lessans misconstrued that data into his conclusions that were so totally off the mark.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (10-25-2011)
  #13247  
Old 10-25-2011, 05:28 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof. – Christopher Hitchens
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
ceptimus (10-25-2011), Crumb (10-25-2011), The Lone Ranger (10-25-2011)
  #13248  
Old 10-25-2011, 12:28 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
BTW, I was limiting the conversation to objects, not distant images because of the confusion it has caused. The fact that we can't get a picture from light itself tells us something.
Is the Pinwheel Galaxy and object, an image, a remnant, or a relic? Are the thousands of galaxies in the Hubble photos objects, images, remnants or relics? Is a rainbow an object or an image? Is the Aurora and object or an image? Is a mirror reflection an object or an image?

Do you know what "field of view" actually means in optics and why something that is too far away can't be photographed unless you correct for distance with longer exposure time, telephoto lenses, etc.? We've explained all this. We've given you multiple photos of "light itself".

You're causing confusion by refusing to address or accept these examples.

Last edited by LadyShea; 10-25-2011 at 03:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (10-25-2011), Stephen Maturin (10-25-2011)
  #13249  
Old 10-25-2011, 12:34 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
All I know is that there is a contradiction but this in no way means Lessans' observations were at fault.
There's no contradiction except in your own mind. What contradiction have you personally observed?

Quote:
We won't be able to figure it out in here, that's for sure.
Why not? The only reason we are unable to figure it out is your obstinate refusal to believe Lessans was fallible.
Reply With Quote
  #13250  
Old 10-25-2011, 12:37 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 Rickoshay75 View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
That you have to ask the question (and that you frame it that way) speaks volumes.
Yeah, but you don't speak answers, maybes or could be.
What are you on about?
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 11:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.13883 seconds with 15 queries