A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my gosh, who are you to tell me that I don't get to change the topic. I know you're kidding, you have to be.

He gets to tell you what you can and can't do, because you are obsessed with this thread and can't do otherwise, it gives you greater satisfaction to do what others tell you. Just like you are carrying on your fathers legacy, even though you have no idea what that legacy is, it's an obsession without understanding. Your lack of understanding will keep you coming back for your regular dose of abuse to feed your complex.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

It must be that 7th grade reading level? In the 8th grade they teach you to turn the book right side up.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

[center]

That would explain his ideas on vision. Upside down and backwards.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course we have to deal with distances when we're sending a probe or people to Mars which involves measurements and trajectories. I know I know there is this little problem with the time/light delay. I really cannot answer to that because I don't know whether this calculation is as significant as people think. Only time will tell who was right.

The calculations and the delay in seeing are significant to this thread because they prove Peacegirl and Lessans wrong, but since no-one else is even aware of this idea, it has no effect at all on the real world, and never will because real time seeing is a silly idea with no support or merit.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've answered this so many times Spacemonkey. We would see light just like we see light in the morning, only this light is coming from a star or galaxy that is much farther away. According to this model, one of the main functions of light is to reveal what exists; it serves as a bridge between the internal and external worlds. Due to efferent vision we see this world in real time because we are not waiting for light to arrive, although light does travel at 186,000 miles a second. I can only try to extend this knowledge in a way that makes sense. It seems to me that light which bounces off of objects does so at different angles, so by the time the light would reach us (over the course of millions of miles) there would be no resolution. You really don't have to accept this model of sight if you don't believe it's true. I can only offer what I believe is correct based on his observations. I feel bad that this discussion is upsetting to so many of you. That was not my intention when I came here.

That didn't answer what I asked at all.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have been answering you Spacemonkey, but now that you've called me dingbat again, you will have to go back to the end of the line. You just don't learn.

Dingbat lies again. You just can't be honest at all, can you?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said the photon that left the Sun did not arrive. It was already absorbed by my eye. Only photons that did not interact with film or the retina made it to Earth at which time they would strike an object and be absorbed or reflected.

No-one asked you about those photons. My questions remain completely unanswered.


Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

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?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can ask people if they want to discuss his first discovery. It seems apparent that very few people want to participate other than the ones who are already here so maybe this is the end of the road. I certainly do not need permission to change to another topic.

Of course you don't need permission, but you do need cooperation if you want to have a discussion.

[LadyShea]

Of course we have to deal with distances when we're sending a probe or people to Mars which involves measurements and trajectories. I know I know there is this little problem with the time/light delay. I really cannot answer to that because I don't know whether this calculation is as significant as people think

You should know that, since TLR did the math for you and posted it.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Do you want me to gather the quotes, or will you do the honest and honorable thing and retract this falsehood?

Bump

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You should know that, since TLR did the math for you and posted it.

She seems to have some kind of brain damage that affects both her long-term and short-term memory, in addition to being a liar. Or she remembers everything and is just a brazen liar.

TLR, as LadyShea says, did the math for you, and showed the calculations were not just significant, but absolutely crucial to successfully sending a probe to Mars. Shall we reproduce the post for you and rub your snout in it?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course you don't need permission, but you do need cooperation if you want to have a discussion.

She could always post as a series of lectures, since she really doesn't want a discussion. She has stated from the beginning that she is here to teach everyone, not to learn from them. Her whole purpose is to spoon feed this information to a willing audience, uncritical and unquestioning. Discussion and questions are the last thing on her agenda. When she says she will ask people if they want to discuss the discovery, she really means are they willing to read and agree with everything she says on the topic, and accept that it is a discovery without any support or evidence at all.

Oh, she's done talking about light and sight because she really doesn't understand how it works in the real world or in Lessans fantasy world.

[LadyShea]

Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

It's not my opinion. It's 3rd grade math. Shall we go through it?


Let's do it for Mars, the closest extraterrestrial planet. (It gets worse for Lessans if we do it for more distant planets.)


Mars has an orbital velocity of 24 kilometers per second. That is, it moves in its orbit a total of 24 kilometers every second. With me so far?

Mars has a radius of 3,396 kilometers.

At its closest to Earth, Mars is 55.7 million kilometers distant. It takes light 298 seconds to travel that distance.

Still with me? Feel free to check my math. (I've rounded in your favor, by the way.)


So, Lessans says that when we look at Mars, we see it where it is right now. According to NASA, when we look at the planet, we're seeing it where it was a minimum of 298 seconds ago.


So, how far does Mars travel in 298 seconds? That's important, because, when aiming its probe, NASA is assuming that Mars' actual position is different from its apparent position. How different? However far Mars travels in its orbit during 298 seconds.


Here's where the math gets really hard, so try to keep up:

298 seconds x 24 kilometers/second = 7,152 kilometers.


So, if Lessans is right and NASA is wrong, their targeting will be off by a minimum of 7,152 kilometers when aiming a probe at Mars, since NASA is targeting its probe on the assumption that Mars is a minimum of 7,152 kilometers distant from its apparent position.

So if, in order to maximize their chances of hitting the planet, they aim for its center, NASA's probe will miss the planet entirely by more than 3,700 kilometers. [Here's the really hard math, just to prove it: 7,152 - 3,396 = 3,756.]

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It seems to me that light which bounces off of objects does so at different angles, so by the time the light would reach us (over the course of millions of miles) there would be no resolution.

Why does it "seem to you" to be that way?

You can see Andromeda with your naked eye, and it is 2 million light years away

You can see and photograph Saturn, which is reflected light, at 746 million miles

You can see and photograph Jupiter, again reflected light, at 365 million miles

Venus is 162 million miles away...again can be easily resolved with the naked eye.

Mercury 137 million miles

Mars, 35 million miles

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why does it "seem to you" to be that way?

You can see Andromeda with your naked eye, and it is 2 million light years away.

I feel certain that she still does not even grasp what a "light year" is.

It means, peacegirl, that the light from Andromeda takes 2 million years to reach our eyes, meaning that every time we look at it, we see it as it was 2 million years in the past -- NOT instantly!

[LadyShea]

One light year is about 6 trillion miles.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why does it "seem to you" to be that way?

You can see Andromeda with your naked eye, and it is 2 million light years away

Well those photons would certainly be old and grey and all worn out by the time they got here, and wouldn't have enough energy left to reveal anything about Andromeda.
And as fast as they move they wouldn't even be able to eat lunch along the way, they'd be moving too fast.

[Artemis Entreri]

Thanks for posting TLR's calculations. I mean it's pretty easy to see why PG has a hard time wrapping her head around it. I didnt major in mathmatics, only a minor and I had a hard time keeping up...
Maths sure is hard.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't believe I am doing any of those things.

Your disbelief is not justified.

1. invoking impossibilities
Photons being in three places at the same time, photons being "used" for seeing by the eye yet traveling at the same time

2. contradicting yourself constantly
So many times, and I have offered you quotes.

3. misusing terms
Resolution, inverse square law, proportional, closed system, optical range, field of view, efferent, sense, mathematical, scientific, observation

4. fabricating fantastical phenomena
Non-absorbed non-traveling light, mirror images at the eye

[davidm]

Above, molecules of light that have fallen to earth. Below, light prospector Old Saw Dillon holds up one of the molecules he panned in Napa Valley.


SCIENCE AND SOCIOLOGY IN THE NEWS
Molecules of Light Peter Out and Fall to Earth, Sparking Rush for Riches
Old-Nag Horses and Pans in Tow, Prospectors Light Out for California and Dreams of a New World

FREETHOUGHT-FORUM (Internet News Service) -- In Napa Valley, the picturesque wine country north of San Francisco, Sam (Old Saw) Dillon dips a heavy-gauge steel pan into a creek bed and sifts it about.

"Come up roses, baby, come up roses," he mutters as he moves the pan, roiling the shallow water.

A moment later he lifts it up, water sluicing from the rim. Inside is sediment, mingled with a multitude of tiny, multi-colored balls, bound tightly together in groups of three or four.

Old Saw Dillon lets out a whistle.

He then pushes up the rim of his battered fedora and nods down at the lode.

"That thar's pure 390-700 nanometer light, my friend," he whispers, sounding awestruck. "Molecules of light. In the visible range. They's plumb tuckered out but intact, still shining a little bit. Worth a fortune."

The little pebble-like structures glow and waver.

"Look at them thar wavelengths," Old Saw marvels. "Set a man like me up for life, let me tell you."

Every day, uncalculable numbers of molecules of light fall from the heavens and float in the sky, smiling on people the next morning when they wake up. But a certain subset of the molecules, especially those that travel from distant locations like the Andromeda Galaxy, are all tuckered out by the time they arrive on earth. Those molecules fall to the earth like a fine rainbow mist, many of them ending up in creeks, riverbeds and tide pools where they can be easily mined by the storied panning technique.

For prospectors like Old Saw Dillon, these molecules, so large they are visible to the naked eye, are worth their weight in gold.

"Look at 'em glow," Old Saw said, holding up the pan. "Though these babies have mostly run out of steam, that low-level glow will never entirely quit. You can sell 'em for a fortune because people can use 'em in place of lightbulbs and suchlike that burn out."

Old Saw estimates that he can fetch between five hundred and a thousand dollars for each molecule of light from a reputable Market Street trading house in San Francisco. And in this one pan alone, there are hundreds and perhaps thousands of weary, but still dimly shining, light molecules.

As a result, every year, Old Saw and people like him make the pilgrimage out to California from points east, moving by wagon train, horse and buggy, on horseback and even on foot. Their goal is to get rich quick.

"California is prime light-molecule territory," Old Saw says, squinting up at the summer sun, almost directly overhead. "Just lookie how bright it is in these here parts. Whoo-whee!"

Now that Old Saw has hit it big, what does he intend to do with his riches?

The old man with his wizened, crab-apple face and scraggly beard under his dusty fedora grows momentarily reflective, gazing off into some indefinable middle distance. After a long pause he says, "Gonna find me a nice set of female genitals, and settle down for life. Find me a pussy that can cook me some primo spaghetti and meatballs, who won't sleep in the same bed as me, and who gives it up on the dinner table provided ain't no little boys and goils underfoot."

But for now, Old Saw has more short-term goals. Bundling up his stuff and giving his old nag, Nellie, a great big smack on the ass, he mounts the broken-down horse, grabs the reins and says, "Gonna hit me that tradin' house on Market Street and then head on down to the Barbary Coast for some gamblin' and hoorah-raisin', and then I'm a gonna top me a high-priced whore." He smacks the horse on the ass again and yells, "Gidyap!" Old Saw and Nellie ride off into the dusty afternoon and toward a better tomorrow, a veritable New World.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bump

That statement could be taken the wrong way which obviously it has. I didn't mean that events never took place, but in reality there is no such thing as the past because there is no timeline where we can visit the past. The past is a memory of what happened a second ago, a day ago, a year ago, etc. But the truth is from moment to moment, we live and breathe in the present.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course you don't need permission, but you do need cooperation if you want to have a discussion.

Sure I need cooperation, but this is not the only forum on the internet. I've stuck this out for a long time because I already had so much invested but if people aren't interested in discussing what I'm interested in, then it will force me out.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That statement could be taken the wrong way which obviously it has. I didn't mean that events never took place, but in reality there is no such thing as the past because there is no timeline where we can visit the past. The past is a memory of what happened a second ago, a day ago, a year ago, etc. But the truth is from moment to moment, we live and breathe in the present.

Another words you're arguing against another retarded strawman - this time that the past exists in the present. What a dingbat.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Your disbelief is not justified.

1. invoking impossibilities
Photons being in three places at the same time, photons being "used" for seeing by the eye yet traveling at the same time
THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING AND YOU KNOW IT.

2. contradicting yourself constantly
So many times, and I have offered you quotes.

AND I HAVE CORRECTED THE THINGS THAT SOUND CONTRADICTORY. THAT MEANS THEY ARE NOT CONTRADICTORY. YOU JUST WANT TO SEE WHAT YOU WANT TO SEE.

3. misusing terms
Resolution, inverse square law, proportional, closed system, optical range, field of view, efferent, sense, mathematical, scientific, observation

I HAVE USED THESE TERMS ACCURATELY, EVEN IF I USED THEM AS A METAPHOR. I AM TRYING TO EXPLAIN THIS MODEL IN ANY WAY THAT I THINK WILL MAKE SENSE TO THE LISTENER. YOU ARE GRASPING AT STRAWS BECAUSE NONE OF THESE ACCUSATIONS ACTUALLY PROVE THIS MODEL IMPLAUSIBLE

4. fabricating fantastical phenomena
Non-absorbed non-traveling light, mirror images at the eye

BULL LADYSHEA. I NEVER SAID LIGHT DOESN'T TRAVEL. I HAVE REPEATEDLY STATED THIS, BUT BECAUSE OF EFFERENT VISION WE DO GET A MIRROR IMAGE, SO TO SPEAK. THAT'S WHY IT IS INSTANT AND THAT'S WHY USING WORDS LIKE PROPORTIONAL AND CLOSED SYSTEM ARE RELEVANT. REMEMBER, THIS OBSERVATION IS UNPRECEDENTED SO YOU WOULD EXPECT NEW OR COINED TERMS THAT ARE EXPLAINING THIS [THEORY] IN WAYS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN HEARD BEFORE. THAT DOESN'T MAKE IT FANTASTICAL AND, MORE IMPORTANTLY, IT DOESN'T MAKE THE OBSERVATION WRONG.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

BULL LADYSHEA. I NEVER SAID LIGHT DOESN'T TRAVEL.

How about the light you need instantly at the camera film? Did THAT light travel to get there? Where did it travel from and how long did it take to get from there to the film?

Weaseling evasion in 3... 2... 1...