A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

While Ass Hat has me on Pretend Ignore for a while, will others kindly quote my latest "trip to Mars" scenario that the liar is intent on ignoring? Thanks!

I would gladly re-post everything you post, but it seems Peacegirl has had me on pretend ignore for quite some time, so it wouldn't do much good except to make the 'too long' thread even longer. What puzzles me is why does Peacegirl have me on ignore? I don't call her names like some others, I don't use profanity like others, I'm not really insulting except to tell her she's wrong. The only thing I can think of is that I'm too close to the truth, so she has to ignore me because she can't refute me, even with nonsense. Or she just doesn't like me? I've had worse.

[davidm]

Well, she puts people on p-ignore (pretend-ignore) which is exactly like her p-photons (pretend photons, showing she knows she is making shit up). But by saying she has people on Ignore, even though she doesn't (I'm sure she avidly devours every word written about her) she can dodge answering inconvenient posts, like the rocket-to-Mars post that proves real-time seeing is wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

It didn't "stop" stop, it (P) stopped.

That stands for (P),

The Music Man "Ya Got Trouble" -...

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Well, she puts people on p-ignore (pretend-ignore) which is exactly like her p-photons (pretend photons, showing she knows she is making shit up). But by saying she has people on Ignore, even though she doesn't (I'm sure she avidly devours every word written about her) she can dodge answering inconvenient posts, like the rocket-to-Mars post that proves real-time seeing is wrong.

Yes, as you say she can avoid answering questions because she has no real answers, but she can't avoid reading every post that may be in reference to her, because it may be about her, and she's addicted to attention, even negative attention, Maybe expecially negative attention, because that is what she is familiar with. I wonder what Daddy did to the child?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by davidm

Well, she puts people on p-ignore (pretend-ignore) which is exactly like her p-photons (pretend photons, showing she knows she is making shit up).

Indeed, the whole enterprise is spectacularly (p)tarded.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

In that diagram, the eye sees the light bulb reflected in the mirror.
Do we see:
- the light bulb in real time?
- the light bulb reflected off the glass plate in real time?
- the reflection of light bulb off the mirror in real time?
- nothing in real time?

Or, to make it more like Lessans' example, if we start with the light bulb off, then turn it on, when do we see the light bulb?
- instantly?
- after the light bulb reflects off the glass plate?
- after the light bulb reflects off the mirror?
- some other time that I can't figure out?

It's impossible to detect light before it arrives. That's like saying if the Sun was turned on and it took 8 minutes to reach Earth, we could detect the light before it arrives 8 minutes later. That's not what Lessans is saying.

[The Lone Ranger]

So you're now saying that we wouldn't see the Sun the moment it was "turned on," but would have to wait 8 1/2 minutes, for the light to reach us?


Because in the experiment, they measured the speed of light by timing how long it took to see the reflection of the light bulb. (And thus neatly demonstrating that we don't see it immediately.)

[davidm]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So you're now saying that we wouldn't see the Sun the moment it was "turned on," but would have to wait 8 1/2 minutes, for the light to reach us?


Because in the experiment, they measured the speed of light by timing how long it took to see the reflection of the light bulb. (And thus neatly demonstrating that we don't see it immediately.)

No, this is not what she thinks. She still thinks what Lessans wrote -- even though the experiment above disproves what she thinks.

It's incredibly (p)tarded. She thinks if the sun is turned on at noon, we would see it immediately, but we wouldn't detect the photons form the sun until they arrived at earth eight and a half minutes later -- which means we couldn't see our neighbors for eight and a half minutes after the sun was turned on, but we would see the sun immediately when it was turned on.

It still boggles me when I think about this, and how someone could dream up something so obviously senseless.

Anyway, the experiment that specious_reasons explains show that we would NOT see the sun immediately when God turned it on, and that Lessans was wrong. She still does not and will not get this. This is also why she won't talk about my example of sending spacecraft to Mars.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So you're now saying that we wouldn't see the Sun the moment it was "turned on," but would have to wait 8 1/2 minutes, for the light to reach us?

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that we cannot detect photons coming from the Sun before those photons reach Earth. Once they reach Earth, we would be able to see each other because it meets the requirements of efferent vision.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Because in the experiment, they measured the speed of light by timing how long it took to see the reflection of the light bulb. (And thus neatly demonstrating that we don't see it immediately.)

Just like the example of the spot on the moon, it would be very difficult to determine with accuracy whether the light bulb could be seen after the light made its return, or before. Obviously, when looking at any object, the light that is (P) reflected is not static. It has to get from A to B (from the object to the eye), but that distance is virtually nil due to the fact that the eyes are seeing the object efferently, which changes everything. Light becomes a condition for real time vision; it does not bring the image to us. In the efferent model, we are not waiting for light to travel long distances in order to see the image. It is believed that light brings the image to our eyes with or without the object present in some form. In this case, the object was present (the light bulb). That already indicates to me that this experiment met the first requirement of efferent vision (that the physical object must be large enough or bright enough to be seen), so it doesn't rule out that we don't see the light bulb in real time.

[The Lone Ranger]

Okay. So you're either lying through your teeth or you don't understand how the experiment was done.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that we cannot detect photons coming from the Sun before those photons reach Earth. Once they reach Earth, we would be able to see each other because it meets the requirements of efferent vision.

Just like the example of the spot on the moon, it would be very difficult to determine, with accuracy, whether the light bulb could be seen before the light made its return.

1. No, it is not difficult. It is EASY.

2. Let me again call everyone's attention to this weasel's weaseling ways. When we bring up objects at an astronomical distance that disprove real-time seeing, like the moons of Jupiter, she says these can't count, because they are done in space -- too far away! Of course this objection is absurd, ESPECIALLY since Lessans himself used astronomical distances in his sun example.

OK. So then we give her short-distance examples, like the laser hitting the moon and the experiment discussed by specious_reasons. Now, she lies, the distances are too short -- the findings are unreliable!

So neither long-distance nor short-distance nor medium-distance experiments, all of which show we don't see in real time, are reliable according to her!

Truthless, dishonest, prevaricating little twit.

She is currently pretending to ignore me (p-ignore). I would appreciate if someone would quote this and also my Mars rocket example about a page back so she can't pretend she isn't reading them. Thanks.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by davidm

It's very simple, peacegirl. There is a rocket ship sitting on a launch pad. In the sky is a little red dot. It's Mars.

Lessans claims that the little red dot in the sky is where Mars actually is at the time we launch the rocket. If that were the case, the rocket would have to be programmed to follow a particular trajectory to reach Mars.

Science, on the other hand, says that where Mars APPEARS TO BE in the sky, is not where it actually is. Where it ACTUALLY is, is further along in its orbit, but we don't see it at that different location from the earth, because the light has not arrived at our eyes yet.

If science is right, the rocket would have to be programmed to follow a DIFFERENT trajectory to reach Mars, than it would be if Lessans were right.

The launch to Mars, therefore, is a clear test of whether we see in real time or delayed time. NASA sends to the rocket to Mars according to delayed-time trajectory, thereby conclusively proving that Lessans' claim that we see in real time is wrong.

You have nothing to say to this. In the face of this conclusive disproof of Lessans, to hold to your position that we see in real time is either irrational, or dishonest, or both.

Originally Posted by davidm

1. No, it is not difficult. It is EASY.

2. Let me again call everyone's attention to this weasel's weaseling ways. When we bring up objects at an astronomical distance that disprove real-time seeing, like the moons of Jupiter, she says these can't count, because they are done in space -- too far away! Of course this objection is absurd, ESPECIALLY since Lessans himself used astronomical distances in his sun example.

OK. So then we give her short-distance examples, like the laser hitting the moon and the experiment discussed by specious_reasons. Now, she lies, the distances are too short -- the findings are unreliable!

So neither long-distance nor short-distance nor medium-distance experiments, all of which show we don't see in real time, are reliable according to her!

Truthless, dishonest, prevaricating little twit.

She is currently pretending to ignore me (p-ignore). I would appreciate if someone would quote this and also my Mars rocket example about a page back so she can't pretend she isn't reading them. Thanks.

Done.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's impossible to detect light before it arrives. That's like saying if the Sun was turned on and it took 8 minutes to reach Earth, we could detect the light before it arrives 8 minutes later. That's not what Lessans is saying.

Did I say "detect light"? No I did not. In the example above you see a reflection of the light bulb in the mirror.

We could break it down even simpler. Let's say you are looking at a light bulb in a mirror.
Do we see:
- the light bulb in real time?
- the reflection of light bulb off the mirror in real time?
- nothing in real time?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Okay. So you're either lying through your teeth or you don't understand how the experiment was done.

Maybe I didn't.

[The Lone Ranger]

Oh, and by the way, just in case it isn't clear why the referenced experiment demonstrates that we don't see in "real time" ...

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course we see images from a mirror in real time, just like we see rainbows in real time, or pixels on a computer in real time.

The whole point of the experiment is that it measures how long it takes to see the reflected image of the light bulb. And thus it conclusively demonstrates that we don't see in "real time," because if we saw the reflection in "real time," the calculated speed of light would be "infinity."

I don't believe that peacegirl is truly too stupid to comprehend how the very simple and conclusive experiment works, and why it demonstrates that we don't see in "real time." She's either suppressing that understanding because it conflicts with her worldview, or she's pretending not to understand. So either she's lying to herself, or she's lying to everyone else.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Oh, and by the way, just in case it isn't clear why the referenced experiment demonstrates that we don't see in "real time" ...

The whole point of the experiment is that it measures how long it takes to see the reflected image of the light bulb. And thus it conclusively demonstrates that we don't, because if we saw the reflection in "real time," the calculated speed of light would be "infinity."

Oh my god, you're still not understanding. I just said that even when we get a mirror image, light is still traveling but the distance is virtually nil, because of how the eyes work.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I don't believe that peacegirl is truly too stupid to comprehend how the very simple and conclusive experiment works, and why it demonstrates that we don't see in "real time." She's either suppressing that understanding because it conflicts with her worldview, or she's pretending not to understand. So either she's lying to herself, or she's lying to everyone else.

I disagree that it proves that we don't see in real time. Not at all. And I'm not lying to myself or anyone else.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god, you're still not understanding. I just said that even when we get a mirror image, light is still traveling but the distance is virtually nil, because of how the eyes work.

No, you're the one who's not understanding -- or at least is pretending that she's not understanding. The whole point of the experiment is that it measures how long it takes to see the reflection, and so demonstrates that it takes time to see the reflection. In other words, we don't see it in "real time."

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Oh, and by the way, just in case it isn't clear why the referenced experiment demonstrates that we don't see in "real time" ...

The whole point of the experiment is that it measures how long it takes to see the reflected image of the light bulb. And thus it conclusively demonstrates that we don't see in "real time," because if we saw the reflection in "real time," the calculated speed of light would be "infinity."

I don't believe that peacegirl is truly too stupid to comprehend how the very simple and conclusive experiment works, and why it demonstrates that we don't see in "real time." She's either suppressing that understanding because it conflicts with her worldview, or she's pretending not to understand. So either she's lying to herself, or she's lying to everyone else.

I took that to mean that we see the mirror image in real time, which is why I said Fizeau would have calculated the speed to be twice the correct speed. However, I agree with you that if we see the light bulb in real time, Fizeau would have come to the conclusion that light speed is infinite.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This has become such a joke. It really doesn't matter what you think Spacemonkey; that's the bottom line. This knowledge will be recognized sooner or later because it is an accurate observation. I'm so sorry that you are so completely defensive. Most people who are this defensive have a lot to lose. Maybe you don't want to lose your worldview. Whatever it is, you are the one that is being anything but objective.

How am I being defensive, Peacegirl? I'm asking questions, and you're weaselling exactly as predicted. You're the one desperately evading so as to protect your beliefs, not me. A sane person would simply answer the questions or admit that they cannot do so. Are you a sane person, Peacegirl?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Shut up with my sane mind, or you are going on ignore. If you can't talk man to man without the insults, it's over Spacemonkey. You are not the only one on this Earth that can validate this knowledge, so give it up, or leave. If you continue to talk about my mental state as some kind of defense, then don't talk to me at all. I'm done with your shananigans.

So do you think it is the behavior of a sane mind to repeatedly ask us the same question, without giving us any reason to change our answer, and while refusing to accept any answer that does not accommodate your own invented facts? That's sane, Peacegirl?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times do I have to say that light travels, but non-absorbed light (the light that provides the mirror image) does not get (N) reflected which would indicate that it travels in that pattern forever. You will not understand why this is so if you don't see this from the efferent standpoint. That's why you're getting confused.

Of course it travels. The problem was your above quoted claim that it doesn't. It doesn't matter how many times you say it travels if you keep forgetting and claiming otherwise.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe I didn't.

peacegirl, you will never understand much of anything until you get help. I don't think you are a weaseling, dishonest liar. I think you are crazy and need help.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't even know what you're asking from this diagram. You'll have to do better than that.

Why is it that when you don't understand something, it's always others who have to do better?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just like the example of the spot on the moon, it would be very difficult to determine with accuracy...

The spot on the moon is not even remotely difficult to determine with accuracy. Why is it that operating a timer or knowing when you can see a light is supposedly "very difficult to determine", but the accuracy of determining specific and complex empirical points of human psychology merely by reading unspecified history books is not even questioned?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god, you're still not understanding. I just said that even when we get a mirror image, light is still traveling but the distance is virtually nil, because of how the eyes work.

LOL, you little liar, the whole point of this experiment, and all the others, is not JUST that light is "traveling" (what an astounding discovery!) but also that we don't see in real time, as you and Lessans claim.

Stop lying for once. You understand PERFECTLY WELL the implications of this experiment.

And you understand perfectly well the implications of how NASA uses delayed-time seeing to send spacecraft to Mars and other bodies. And that's why you keep scurrying away from this example like the weasel that you are. The reason that I know you understand, is that some time back, you came up with a desperate, hand-waving "solution" to the problem -- positing that Mars is so large, we could hit it with a spacecraft whether we used real-time seeing calculations or delayed-time seeing calculations. (No, it's not that large! Sorreh!)

So, you understand what these experiments show: that Lessans was wrong. But that is a very inconvenient fact for you, who nurtures (hopeless!) dreams of selling his stupid book to a lot of rubes and making money off of it. I am convinced that is what this is all about. You're just a would-be swindler.