#38276  
Old 07-18-2014, 06:43 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 davidm View Post
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
You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons? YES Good.

Did they come from the Sun? YES Good.

Did they get to the film by traveling? THIS IS WHERE THE CONFUSION STARTS Whose confusion? What is your answer?

Did they travel at the speed of light? LIGHT CAN ONLY TRAVEL AT C Is that a Yes?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited? THAT WAS NEVER IMPLIED Is that a No?

Can they arrive at the camera film less than 8min after leaving their source? ANOTHER SOURCE OF CONFUSION Again, whose confusion, and what is your answer?
I'm not weaseling Spacemonkey so stop accusing me of this. I answered all of your questions. I hope you're happy.
Thank you for making an effort. As you can see though, you've only answered the first two questions. I am refraining from calling you any names, and am simply asking you to continue being reasonable by properly answering the remaining questions:

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Did they get to the film by traveling?

NO, the light was at the film the instant the lens focused on the object.

Did they travel at the speed of light?

YES, photons travel at the speed of light. :doh:

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

I answered this. NO they can't leave before the Sun is ignited, but as I said "distance" is not related to this account, so you're barking up the wrong tree Spacemonkey.

Can they arrive at the camera film less than 8min after leaving their source?
NO Spacemonkey. I know your reasoning, and it doesn't change a thing. You think this logic is going to back me against a wall for, according to you, there is nowhere to go. But you're wrong here. I have said that light travels, but the light does not bring the information that would allow us to form an image in the brain. That's number one. Number two is that the inverse square law would create such a distance between the nonabsorbed photons that we would never receive light that could be resolved into an image after 93 million miles; we would only get full spectrum light. :yawn:
:rofl:

Did you miss the posts from this morning, weasel? :lol:
David, contrary to your protestations othewise, you must be reading her posts, as that post had not yet been quoted by anyone else before you replied to it. YOU ARE SUCH A LIAR!!!!!!
__________________
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
  #38277  
Old 07-18-2014, 12:26 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I'm really trying to understand why you keep bringing up the fact that I am being dishonest.
:lol:

Thanks for admitting it!
You're right, I shouldn't have used the word fact. It should have read, "I'm really trying to understand why you keep bringing up the lie that I am being dishonest. Thanks for pointing this out. :)
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"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
  #38278  
Old 07-18-2014, 01:08 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I'm not lying.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
You're repeatedly making a claim that you know to be false. That's called lying.
I don't know this claim to be false.

Quote:
You're using the word inappropriately.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
Not in the least. You see, the dictionary definition of "lying" is "making claims that you know to be false."
Again, I don't know this claim to be false.

Quote:
You are trying to portray me as someone who is untrustworthy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
Incorrect. I'm pointing out that you are untrustworthy and dishonest. That's an important distinction.
I'm neither so the distinction is moot.

Quote:
I'm tired of the character assassinations.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
It is not "character assassination" to point out that you habitually lie.
Cite the times I've lied Lone Ranger? You are underhandedly trying to discredit me (just like LadyShea tried to do) and therefore my father. You're doing a terrible job.

Quote:
None of this has anything to do with the validity of these discoveries.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
Given that you frequently use the Mendel/Nägeli claim to justify your father's claims, it most definitely is relevant to point out that your Mendel/Nägeli claim is at best inaccurate.
This example was not being used to justify his claims. He only used this as an analogy to what he was going through. What is it you don't get Lone Ranger?A claim cannot piggyback off of someone else. It has to be proven through rigorous testing and thorough analysis and investigation.

Nägeli, Karl Wilhelm (1817-1891), a Swiss botanist, is remembered both for his contributions to the understanding of plant cells and for his rejection of Gregor Johann Mendel's laws of heredity. He was one of the best-known plant authorities of his time.

http://www.howstuffworks.com/diction...ageli-info.htm
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"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
  #38279  
Old 07-18-2014, 01:10 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: VMCLXXIII
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
You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons? YES

Did they come from the Sun? YES

Did they get to the film by traveling? NO, the light was at the film the instant the lens focused on the object.

Did they travel at the speed of light? YES, photons travel at the speed of light. :doh:
.
Um, how does that make any sense? How did these traveling photons which travel at the speed of light get from the Sun to the film on Earth without traveling???

How did they get from the Sun to the camera film?

When were these photons at the Sun?
Bump.

Please explain how these traveling photons got somewhere without traveling.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #38280  
Old 07-18-2014, 01:17 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
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
You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons? YES

Did they come from the Sun? YES

Did they get to the film by traveling? NO, the light was at the film the instant the lens focused on the object.

Did they travel at the speed of light? YES, photons travel at the speed of light. :doh:
.
Um, how does that make any sense? How did these traveling photons which travel at the speed of light get from the Sun to the film on Earth without traveling???

How did they get from the Sun to the camera film?

When were these photons at the Sun?
I never said they didn't travel Spacemonkey. What you are failing to understand is why this change in vision also changes the timing of what we see. Remember, light traveling 93 million miles would not give us the information (due to the inverse square law) that would allow us to interpret that light into an image.
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"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

Last edited by peacegirl; 07-18-2014 at 08:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #38281  
Old 07-18-2014, 01:20 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I'm trying to let you know that you are one of the few people who are taking this thread seriously.
If only you could start taking it seriously.

(Giving contradictory answers and then failing to address, correct, or even acknowledge such inconsistencies is not taking the things seriously.)
There are no inconsistencies Spacemonkey. You are just stuck in a groove and until you get unstuck you won't even begin to understand this model. I knew this would happen when you didn't get the concession you wanted from me.
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"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
  #38282  
Old 07-18-2014, 01:29 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
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
You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Can they arrive at the camera film less than 8min after leaving their source?
NO Spacemonkey.
Well, so much for efferent vision then. You need photons at the film instantly, and you've just admitted that they won't be there until 8min later. Photons can't be somewhere before they arrive there. Nothing can.
You're still lost with your faulty reasoning. When the eyes are looking outward, the system is closed. When this occurs, it does not require light to reach Earth. It only requires light to have traveled to where it becomes a mirror image as we look out at the actual object. This is in nanoseconds, just like with the candle because distance (and therefore time) is not a factor when we're not waiting for the light to arrive. You are rejecting this claim because you can't see how the retina and light could interact when light hasn't reached Earth yet. This is where you are confused since you are still using the afferent account to analyze this claim, whether you see it or not. Light is a necessary condition of sight but it's function has changed with this account and you're not even trying to understand it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Will you weasel by going off on an irrelevant tangent about information or reflection?
I have said that light travels, but the light does not bring the information that would allow us to form an image in the brain. That's number one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Ha! That's a definite YES to that question.
You can't just hear "yes" and not see how its qualified Spacemonkey. Are you that desperate that you will misuse my words just so you can claim victory?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Number two is that the inverse square law would create such a distance between the nonabsorbed photons that we would never receive light that could be resolved into an image after 93 million miles; we would only get full spectrum light.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Again, disproven by Hubble. The Hubble space telescope resolves an image from light that has traveled far further than a mere 93 million miles. This is light from stars, just like our own Sun, only even further away. So the inverse square law obviously does not prevent an image from being resolved from light at such distances.
I've already been through this. Light can be resolved on a telescope, but not an image that comes from matter. In other words, if the Sun was just turned on, light would be resolved on our eyes 81/2 minutes later, but it would be full spectrum light; nothing that could be used to decode an image. The same is true for light coming from galaxies. You haven't been paying attention to anything I've said. I don't even think you've read my posts.
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"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

Last edited by peacegirl; 07-18-2014 at 01:41 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #38283  
Old 07-18-2014, 01:37 PM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
Posts: VCI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
When the eyes are looking outward, the system is closed. When this occurs, it does not require light to reach Earth. It only requires light to have traveled to where it becomes a mirror image as we look out at the actual object.

This is where you are confused...
I can't imagine why.

Quote:
This is in nanoseconds, just like with the candle...
And here you make stuff up again! Seriously, where are you getting this nonsense from? This nanoseconds business isn't in your Dad's book. So why are you just brazenly bullshitting in front of us?
__________________
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:
Angakuk (07-19-2014)
  #38284  
Old 07-18-2014, 01:46 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
When the eyes are looking outward, the system is closed. When this occurs, it does not require light to reach Earth. It only requires light to have traveled to where it becomes a mirror image as we look out at the actual object.

This is where you are confused...
I can't imagine why.

Quote:
This is in nanoseconds, just like with the candle...
And here you make stuff up again! Seriously, where are you getting this nonsense from? This nanoseconds business isn't in your Dad's book. So why are you just brazenly bullshitting in front of us?
Dragar, all I'm doing is extending the knowledge he offered to show that his claim does not violate the laws of physics. Maybe you don't get it yet, but that doesn't mean I am brazenly bullshitting anyone. After all this time you should know be better than that. :sadcheer:
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"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
  #38285  
Old 07-18-2014, 02:22 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: VMCLXXIII
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
You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons? YES

Did they come from the Sun? YES

Did they get to the film by traveling? NO, the light was at the film the instant the lens focused on the object.

Did they travel at the speed of light? YES, photons travel at the speed of light. :doh:
.
Um, how does that make any sense? How did these traveling photons which travel at the speed of light get from the Sun to the film on Earth without traveling???

How did they get from the Sun to the camera film?

When were these photons at the Sun?
I never said they didn't travel Spacemonkey...
Yeah, you did. Look above. I put it in red for you. You've obviously answered the questions incorrectly. Here, try again:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Can they arrive at the camera film less than 8min after leaving their source?

Will you answer these questions, or just weasel and ignore them?

Will you weasel by going off on an irrelevant tangent about information or reflection?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #38286  
Old 07-18-2014, 02:31 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: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
There are no inconsistencies Spacemonkey...
Sure there are. Here's one:

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Did they get to the film by traveling? NO...
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I never said they didn't travel Spacemonkey.
That's an inconsistency.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-19-2014)
  #38287  
Old 07-18-2014, 02:32 PM
Artemis Entreri's Avatar
Artemis Entreri Artemis Entreri is offline
Phallic Philanthropist
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mobile
Gender: Male
Posts: MCDXXII
Images: 6
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I've already been through this. Light can be resolved on a telescope, but not an image that comes from matter. In other words, if the Sun was just turned on, light would be resolved on our eyes 81/2 minutes later, but it would be full spectrum light; nothing that could be used to decode an image.
So it kinda seems like what you're saying here is; for 8.5 minutes after the sun is turned on we will see the sun as an object and after 8.5 minutes, when light strikes the eye we will just see light. Right now (assuming you're in a place on earth were the sun is shining) if you look up at the sun you can't see an object, you'll only see an intense light source. You must use filters to look at the sun and see anything substantial.
However, this continues to contradict what you've said about light being at the eye in order to see.
This is the big hole I was referring to earlier; By what mechanism is the light instantly at the eye?
If I look up into the sky on a sunny day the light from the sun might seem like it is "instantly on my eye." But this is only from the perspective of my eye, from the light's perspective it is ending a 8.5 minute long journey from the sun to my eye. It would have to make that same journey whether the sun was just turned on.
To say that the eye could see the sun turned on instantly at noon is to say that the eye can see without light striking the eye. Which really does sound like what Lessans was saying. It seems like he thought that the only conditions for light were; light at the object, the object is big enough to be seen, and the observer is looking in the object's direction... the same things you keep saying, but then you add in "the light is instantly at the eye."
The first part violates what we know about the eyes; that they function by means of photoreceptors which absorb light.
Your additional condition "the light is instantly on the eye" violates the laws of physics by having light move from an object to the eye instantly. It doesn't matter if this instant movement is across 93 million miles or 93 feet, it is still a violation of the properties of light. in fact it doesn't even make light travel faster than the speed of light... in case you haven't noticed the light would have to be in two places at once!
In order for vision to truly be instant then the light from the object would have to be at the eye at the same instant in time.

Now if you really want to try to find some validation for that idea you will have to crawl down the quantum mechanics bunny hole but I really think it might melt your brain.
__________________
Why am I naked and sticky?... Did I miss something fun?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-19-2014), Spacemonkey (07-18-2014)
  #38288  
Old 07-18-2014, 02:38 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: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You're still lost with your faulty reasoning. When the eyes are looking outward, the system is closed. When this occurs, it does not require light to reach Earth. It only requires light to have traveled to where it becomes a mirror image as we look out at the actual object. This is in nanoseconds, just like with the candle because distance (and therefore time) is not a factor when we're not waiting for the light to arrive. You are rejecting this claim because you can't see how the retina and light could interact when light hasn't reached Earth yet. This is where you are confused since you are still using the afferent account to analyze this claim, whether you see it or not. Light is a necessary condition of sight but it's function has changed with this account and you're not even trying to understand it.
You need photons at the camera film on Earth, and you just admitted that there will not be any photons there until 8min after the Sun is ignited. Photons cannot be somewhere before they get there.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You can't just hear "yes" and not see how its qualified Spacemonkey. Are you that desperate that you will misuse my words just so you can claim victory?
You didn't say 'Yes', qualified or otherwise. I predicted you would go off on an irrelevant tangent about information, and that is exactly what you've done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I've already been through this. Light can be resolved on a telescope, but not an image that comes from matter. In other words, if the Sun was just turned on, light would be resolved on our eyes 81/2 minutes later, but it would be full spectrum light; nothing that could be used to decode an image.
Full spectrum light CAN be used to form an image of the Sun, so this is no problem.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-19-2014)
  #38289  
Old 07-18-2014, 04:07 PM
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: MXDXCIX
Images: 523
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Cite the times I've lied Lone Ranger?
Do you really want to do this? Seriously?

How 'bout we start with how you once claimed that if someone invented a bionic eye, this would disprove Lessans' claims. When it was pointed out that bionic eyes already exist, your response was to deny that you had ever made the claim in the first place.

You've had this particular lie thrown back in your face several times now. Is it really necessary to pull out the quotes yet again?


How about when you spent several pages arguing that since cameras don't have brains, they do see in delayed time, unlike eyes? Then, when you discovered that you had misinterpreted the Holy Book, you instantly reversed position and insisted that cameras do indeed "see" in real time. When it was pointed out that you had reversed positions, your initial response was to deny that you had ever claimed that cameras see in delayed time, even though you had just spent several pages doing just that.

Shall we go on?
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
-- Socrates
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-19-2014)
  #38290  
Old 07-18-2014, 04:07 PM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
Posts: VCI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post

Dragar, all I'm doing is extending the knowledge he offered...
No, you're making it up. Why nanoseconds? My not miliseconds, or seconds? Where did this 'closed system' business come from? There's lots of ways things could be, even if you accept what your Father wrote down. But you (probably like him) just believe the first thing you like that pops into your head, rather than actually doing any experiments and seeing how the world is.

Do you really not realise you're just making stuff up as you talk to us? That's why you keep answering Spacemonkey's questions differently and contradicting yourself!
__________________
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:
Angakuk (07-19-2014), Spacemonkey (07-18-2014), The Lone Ranger (07-18-2014)
  #38291  
Old 07-18-2014, 04:14 PM
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: MXDXCIX
Images: 523
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
But you (probably like him) just believe the first thing you like that pops into your head, rather than actually doing any experiments and seeing how the world is.

Do you really not realise you're just making stuff up as you talk to us? That's why you keep answering Spacemonkey's questions differently and contradicting yourself!
To all appearances, that's exactly how she operates. Which would explain why she keeps repeating ludicrously false claims when she has been corrected regarding those claims literally hundreds -- if not thousands -- of times.


Anyone care to take bets on how long it will be before she next mentions how "scientists believe that images travel through space, carried by light"?
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
-- Socrates
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-19-2014), Dragar (07-19-2014)
  #38292  
Old 07-18-2014, 04:44 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons? YES

Did they come from the Sun? YES

Did they get to the film by traveling? NO, the light was at the film the instant the lens focused on the object.

Did they travel at the speed of light? YES, photons travel at the speed of light. :doh:
.
Um, how does that make any sense? How did these traveling photons which travel at the speed of light get from the Sun to the film on Earth without traveling???

How did they get from the Sun to the camera film?

When were these photons at the Sun?
I never said they didn't travel Spacemonkey...
Yeah, you did. Look above. I put it in red for you. You've obviously answered the questions incorrectly. Here, try again:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Can they arrive at the camera film less than 8min after leaving their source?

Will you answer these questions, or just weasel and ignore them?

Will you weasel by going off on an irrelevant tangent about information or reflection?
You can't use that Spacemonkey. We all know that it takes time for light to reach Earth. I will say, once again, that you have absolutely no understanding of this model of sight.
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"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
  #38293  
Old 07-18-2014, 04:46 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
There are no inconsistencies Spacemonkey...
Sure there are. Here's one:

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Did they get to the film by traveling? NO...
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I never said they didn't travel Spacemonkey.
That's an inconsistency.
You're still missing the point Spacemonkey. Both of these answers are correct if you are coming from the perspective of seeing in real time. If you don't come from this perspective, it will appear as an inconsistency. If you don't know by now what the difference is, I GIVE UP!
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"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
  #38294  
Old 07-18-2014, 04:48 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: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You can't use that Spacemonkey. We all know that it takes time for light to reach Earth. I will say, once again, that you have absolutely no understanding of this model of sight.
I can't use what, Peacegirl? That was YOUR answer, and it's exactly what you just denied ever saying. Am I supposed to be satisfied with such contradictory responses? You clearly need to answer the questions again:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Can they arrive at the camera film less than 8min after leaving their source?

Will you answer these questions, or just weasel and ignore them?

Will you weasel by going off on an irrelevant tangent about information or reflection?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #38295  
Old 07-18-2014, 04:49 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Cite the times I've lied Lone Ranger?
Do you really want to do this? Seriously?

How 'bout we start with how you once claimed that if someone invented a bionic eye, this would disprove Lessans' claims. When it was pointed out that bionic eyes already exist, your response was to deny that you had ever made the claim in the first place.

You've had this particular lie thrown back in your face several times now. Is it really necessary to pull out the quotes yet again?


How about when you spent several pages arguing that since cameras don't have brains, they do see in delayed time, unlike eyes? Then, when you discovered that you had misinterpreted the Holy Book, you instantly reversed position and insisted that cameras do indeed "see" in real time. When it was pointed out that you had reversed positions, your initial response was to deny that you had ever claimed that cameras see in delayed time, even though you had just spent several pages doing just that.

Shall we go on?
Why are you calling this the Holy Book? This right there proves to me that you are totally biased. Who calls this the Holy Book except for people who are being sarcastic? Now you are acting like Stephen Maturin. It's amazing how you copy each other. I told you early on that I hadn't thought it through, and I didn't want to lose you, so I weaseled. I admit this. What more do you want Lone Ranger? :fuming:
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"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
  #38296  
Old 07-18-2014, 04:49 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: VMCLXXIII
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
There are no inconsistencies Spacemonkey...
Sure there are. Here's one:

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Did they get to the film by traveling? NO...
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I never said they didn't travel Spacemonkey.
That's an inconsistency.
You're still missing the point Spacemonkey. Both of these answers are correct if you are coming from the perspective of seeing in real time. If you don't come from this perspective, it will appear as an inconsistency. If you don't know by now what the difference is, I GIVE UP!
How can both answers be correct when one says the photons traveled and the other says they didn't? That is a flat contradiction.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #38297  
Old 07-18-2014, 04:52 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You can't use that Spacemonkey. We all know that it takes time for light to reach Earth. I will say, once again, that you have absolutely no understanding of this model of sight.
I can't use what, Peacegirl? That was YOUR answer, and it's exactly what you just denied ever saying. Am I supposed to be satisfied with such contradictory responses? You clearly need to answer the questions again:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Can they arrive at the camera film less than 8min after leaving their source?

Will you answer these questions, or just weasel and ignore them?

Will you weasel by going off on an irrelevant tangent about information or reflection?
Now it's my turn. I will not answer this post ever again. Unless and until you not only hear but try to understand the efferent position, I'm done talking to you. You will not win because you are not right, end of sentence. :( Now please move on because I'm washed out from your harassment.
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"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
  #38298  
Old 07-18-2014, 04:53 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
There are no inconsistencies Spacemonkey...
Sure there are. Here's one:

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Did they get to the film by traveling? NO...
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I never said they didn't travel Spacemonkey.
That's an inconsistency.
You're still missing the point Spacemonkey. Both of these answers are correct if you are coming from the perspective of seeing in real time. If you don't come from this perspective, it will appear as an inconsistency. If you don't know by now what the difference is, I GIVE UP!
How can both answers be correct when one says the photons traveled and the other says they didn't? That is a flat contradiction.
Last time, because you don't understand the difference between traveling photons that reach Earth, and the efferent position which does not require photons to reach Earth. You are so behind the eight ball, it's upsetting to me as you won't even accept the possibility that it's your problem that you don't get it, not mine.
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"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
  #38299  
Old 07-18-2014, 04:55 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: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Now it's my turn. I will not answer this post ever again. Unless and until you not only hear but try to understand the efferent position, I'm done talking to you. You will not win because you are not right, end of sentence. :( Now please move on because I'm washed out from your harassment.
Well then, I'm going back to calling you a dingbat and a lying weasel. :fuming:
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #38300  
Old 07-18-2014, 04:56 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: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Last time, because you don't understand the difference between traveling photons that reach Earth, and the efferent position which does not require photons to reach Earth. You are so behind the eight ball, it's upsetting to me as you won't even accept the possibility that it's your problem that you don't get it, not mine.
Don't try to blame me. You're the one contradicting yourself and refusing to answer questions again. You're being completely unreasonable.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 4 (0 members and 4 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 05:52 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.91243 seconds with 14 queries