#12501  
Old 10-16-2011, 01:29 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCLXXXVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeP View Post
I heard there was a big party happening!

:partying::party::cheers2::beer::beer::beer:

I don't know, I'm having trouble finding it too.

I think we just missed it.
Reply With Quote
  #12502  
Old 10-16-2011, 01:46 PM
JoeP's Avatar
JoeP JoeP is offline
[thanks] whisperer
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: England/Miisaland
Gender: Male
Posts: XXMMMCCXLVIII
Images: 18
Default Re: A revolution in thought

That was the most disappointing 500-page party I have ever seen.
__________________

:roadrun:
Free thought! Please take one!

:unitedkingdom:   :southafrica:   :unitedkingdom::finland:       :eur:       :m&ms::m&ms::twix::twix: (rotated 180°):m&ms::m&ms:
Reply With Quote
  #12503  
Old 10-16-2011, 01:54 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCDXXVIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Actually, as both I and the Lone Ranger have argued, the most insulting person on this thread, all along, has been peacegirl. She has behaved dishonestly and duplictously throughout. She has repeatedly insulted the intelligence of all her interlocutors. She has dodged and weaseled and bobbed and weaved and wasted everyone's time. She is wilfully dishonest and her act is tiresome.

Hey peacegirl: moons of Jupiter.
Explanations which continually remind one's interlocutor of one's ignorance are a great damper upon the easy flow of talk.

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/interlocutor
Reply With Quote
  #12504  
Old 10-16-2011, 02:03 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCDXXVIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Lessans said that light is a condition of sight. That was his constant mantra.
You have been asked to explain and clarify how it is a condition and where it is a condition.

Does light need to be present at the eye? If so what light? Light from the source? Light needs to be illuminating the object only and doesn't need to be at the eye? Is ambient light good enough?
I want to add here that if there is that ambient light will reflect off of an object, but the object will be dim to the observer. If the light source is emitting bright light, then the image will be bright and it will override any ambient light that is present.
Reply With Quote
  #12505  
Old 10-16-2011, 02:09 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCDXXVIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
NA, we also brought up the fact that because stars move relative to us and are many lightyears away, a camera should see a radically different picture of the night sky then our eyes, as the camera needs to wait for light to arrive while we should see the stars where they are today.

I never really got a good explanation for this either.
I need to clarify this. Assuming for a moment that the eyes are definitely efferent, then we have to look at the world from this perspective. What everyone is doing is using the afferent model to try to understand the efferent model. It won't work. It's like trying to fit a square into a circle. Think about this. If the lens has to be focused on the object, then it's no different as far as distance than an object that is right in front of us. All that matters is that the object is within the field of view of the lens, whether it's the lens of the eye or the lens of a camera or telescope.
Reply With Quote
  #12506  
Old 10-16-2011, 02:11 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCDXXVIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeP View Post
That was the most disappointing 500-page party I have ever seen.
Hey, I'm ready to party! But I never got an invitation. :(
Reply With Quote
  #12507  
Old 10-16-2011, 02:40 PM
ceptimus's Avatar
ceptimus ceptimus is online now
puzzler
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UK
Posts: XMVDCCCXCIV
Images: 28
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I need to clarify this. Assuming for a moment that the eyes are definitely efferent, then we have to look at the world from this perspective. What everyone is doing is using the afferent model to try to understand the efferent model. It won't work. It's like trying to fit a square into a circle. Think about this. If the lens has to be focused on the object, then it's no different as far as distance than an object that is right in front of us. All that matters is that the object is within the field of view of the lens, whether it's the lens of the eye or the lens of a camera or telescope.
I'm trying to understand your efferent model.

At the risk of introducing another sidetrack, I'll try another thought experiment. I'm hoping that this one is simple enough to be worth the distraction.

Imagine that there is a distant clock that is correctly set to the same time as a clock near you.* The clock is so far away that light takes ten minutes to travel from it to you, but the clock is big enough for you to see through a powerful telescope.

Now we claim that when you observe this distant clock, you will see it as it was ten minutes ago, so it will look like it's ten minutes slow compared to your local clock.

If I understand you correctly, you claim that you'll see the clock as it is now, and that therefore the distant clock and the local one will both appear to display exactly the same time.

Is that correct, so far?

* One way we could synchronize the clocks which I think would work under both the afferent and efferent systems, is to have a third clock situated midway between the two end clocks. Observers at the two end clocks would both set them to the same time they see on the middle one. For simplicity, we can assume for now that the distances between all the clocks remain constant.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Dragar (10-16-2011)
  #12508  
Old 10-16-2011, 03:37 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCDXXVIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I need to clarify this. Assuming for a moment that the eyes are definitely efferent, then we have to look at the world from this perspective. What everyone is doing is using the afferent model to try to understand the efferent model. It won't work. It's like trying to fit a square into a circle. Think about this. If the lens has to be focused on the object, then it's no different as far as distance than an object that is right in front of us. All that matters is that the object is within the field of view of the lens, whether it's the lens of the eye or the lens of a camera or telescope.
I'm trying to understand your efferent model.

At the risk of introducing another sidetrack, I'll try another thought experiment. I'm hoping that this one is simple enough to be worth the distraction.

Imagine that there is a distant clock that is correctly set to the same time as a clock near you.* The clock is so far away that light takes ten minutes to travel from it to you, but the clock is big enough for you to see through a powerful telescope.

Now we claim that when you observe this distant clock, you will see it as it was ten minutes ago, so it will look like it's ten minutes slow compared to your local clock.

If I understand you correctly, you claim that you'll see the clock as it is now, and that therefore the distant clock and the local one will both appear to display exactly the same time.

Is that correct, so far?
Yes.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceptimus
* One way we could synchronize the clocks which I think would work under both the afferent and efferent systems, is to have a third clock situated midway between the two end clocks. Observers at the two end clocks would both set them to the same time they see on the middle one. For simplicity, we can assume for now that the distances between all the clocks remain constant.
No, we can't do that because that's not how it works in real life. In the afferent model, time is a factor. In the efferent model, there is no time delay, therefore the two systems are incompatible. Now let's say you were Atlas and had the strength to throw the clock that says 1:00 across the U.S. It takes 10 minutes for it to get to the other side. It would then say 1:10 because the clock took 10 minutes to get to its destination.

Last edited by peacegirl; 10-16-2011 at 07:22 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #12509  
Old 10-16-2011, 03:39 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCDXXVIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

I have just declared the next 5 pages as party time based on 500 pages. Every hundred pages deserves its own special page. Here are the rules: Anyone can say anything he wants, just as long as it's not related to this discussion. The party will start on page 502. We need to have fun and this is a good time to have it. P.S. Everyone's invited!!! :)
Reply With Quote
  #12510  
Old 10-16-2011, 03:52 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: MVCMLXXX
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
Is that correct, so far?
That's a good try Ceptimus, and I really congratulate you for your efforts at resolving this issue, but I cannot degrade these observations by a compromise. That's like saying you can be a little bit pregnant. At the risk of being ridiculed, I still maintain that the clock strikes present, not past. Therefore if it is two oclock in any part of the world, it remains two oclock based on the position of the Earth at that moment. This means that we see in the present, and I will not back down until proven otherwise.
He's not making an argument or observations, you daftie. He's trying to figure out what your model actually says about the world.

And you have been proven otherwise (moons of Jupiter, amongst millions of other observations!), you just decided to ignore it and hope they are wrong!
__________________
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 (10-16-2011)
  #12511  
Old 10-16-2011, 03:56 PM
ceptimus's Avatar
ceptimus ceptimus is online now
puzzler
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UK
Posts: XMVDCCCXCIV
Images: 28
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Okay, I'll respect your wishes and come back to the clock thought experiment on page 507, assuming we ever reach that page.

Party on!

:slide:
Reply With Quote
  #12512  
Old 10-16-2011, 04:07 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

Nobody is going to spend 5 pages of this thread chit chatting about other shit, that's 75 posts! That's what the rest of the forum is for.

Nice try, peacegirl. Either discuss your views or don't. Take a break if you want...you are the boss of you!
Reply With Quote
  #12513  
Old 10-16-2011, 04:32 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCLXXXVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by JoeP View Post
That was the most disappointing 500-page party I have ever seen.

I was thinking this is the most disappointing 500 pages I've ever seen, but watching Peacegirl weaseling her way around the truth trying to support her fathers nonsense has been entertaining, and many of the other posts have been educational. So it hasn't been a total loss, but it seems to have been a total loss for Peacegirl.
Reply With Quote
  #12514  
Old 10-16-2011, 04:35 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCLXXXVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Either discuss your views or don't. Take a break if you want...you are the boss of you!

Just what makes you think Peacegirl is going to seriously start to discuss her views, or the topic now, after 500 pages of evasion, ignoring, and weaseling?
Reply With Quote
  #12515  
Old 10-16-2011, 04:40 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCLXXXVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Nobody is going to spend 5 pages of this thread chit chatting about other shit, !
Well considering the thread, most of us have been chit chatting about irrilevant nonsense, especially if you consider the book and Peacegirls posts. I do appreciate everyone elses efforts to seriously consider the ideas presented, but as far as the book is concerned, it's much like a computer, G.I.G.O.
Reply With Quote
  #12516  
Old 10-16-2011, 06:04 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCDXXVIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

This is to celebrate the coming of the New World. :)


Last edited by peacegirl; 10-16-2011 at 07:23 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #12517  
Old 10-16-2011, 06:09 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCDXXVIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Reply With Quote
  #12518  
Old 10-16-2011, 06:28 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCDXXVIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

amp;feature=related
Reply With Quote
  #12519  
Old 10-16-2011, 06:31 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCDXXVIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Nobody is going to spend 5 pages of this thread chit chatting about other shit, that's 75 posts! That's what the rest of the forum is for.

Nice try, peacegirl. Either discuss your views or don't. Take a break if you want...you are the boss of you!
If nobody wants to have a 5 page party, then let's scrap that idea. Let's take a vote. Party or no party? One page, that is. ;)
Reply With Quote
  #12520  
Old 10-16-2011, 06:52 PM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXIX
Images: 7
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
NA, we also brought up the fact that because stars move relative to us and are many lightyears away, a camera should see a radically different picture of the night sky then our eyes, as the camera needs to wait for light to arrive while we should see the stars where they are today.

I never really got a good explanation for this either.
I need to clarify this. Assuming for a moment that the eyes are definitely efferent, then we have to look at the world from this perspective. What everyone is doing is using the afferent model to try to understand the efferent model. It won't work. It's like trying to fit a square into a circle. Think about this. If the lens has to be focused on the object, then it's no different as far as distance than an object that is right in front of us. All that matters is that the object is within the field of view of the lens, whether it's the lens of the eye or the lens of a camera or telescope.
This is a good example of peacegirls mental dysfunction. She understands that information about the world is some how going towards the brain, but she doesn't understand that this is a fundamentally "afferent" [inward] process. I don't think she has a good grasp of boundaries and directions.
Reply With Quote
  #12521  
Old 10-16-2011, 06:55 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCDXXVIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

THE TRIBE HAS SPOKEN. NO PARTY! :bow:

Last edited by peacegirl; 10-16-2011 at 07:15 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #12522  
Old 10-16-2011, 07:13 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCDXXVIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
Is that correct, so far?
That's a good try Ceptimus, and I really congratulate you for your efforts at resolving this issue, but I cannot degrade these observations by a compromise. That's like saying you can be a little bit pregnant. At the risk of being ridiculed, I still maintain that the clock strikes present, not past. Therefore if it is two oclock in any part of the world, it remains two oclock based on the position of the Earth at that moment. This means that we see in the present, and I will not back down until proven otherwise.
He's not making an argument or observations, you daftie. He's trying to figure out what your model actually says about the world.

And you have been proven otherwise (moons of Jupiter, amongst millions of other observations!), you just decided to ignore it and hope they are wrong!
I am not ignoring the moons of Jupiter, but I can only try to validate Lessans' observations. If they turn out to be true, then I've done my part.
Reply With Quote
  #12523  
Old 10-16-2011, 07:19 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCCV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Yikes! Where's the party?? :sadcheer:

Yes, I see some partying here, but alas I still see people posting to the twat.

I didn't think it would hit page 500 before now, but then I underestimated the narcissism of the pathetic little fool who started this thread and keeps driving it forward hundreds of pages after her father was conclusively demonstrated to be a moron.
Reply With Quote
  #12524  
Old 10-16-2011, 07:23 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCCV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
I recommend we suspend all debate here until acceptable answers are given. There is way too much ability to avoid and dodge as it is. What is your answer to spacemonkeys questions?
Bingo.

All the key questions that she has evaded or lied about should be re-posted again and again and again, without further comment. Other than that the little fool should be ignored. What she wants most of all is the oxygen of attention, because of her boundless narcissism, no doubt inherited from her father.
Reply With Quote
  #12525  
Old 10-16-2011, 07:26 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCDXXVIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Until more experiments are done to confirm or negate Lessans' claim, I will have to refrain from making any further comments regarding this observation.
This is classical flat-earther thinking.

Until more experiments are done to confirm that the Earth is spherical, I will continue to believe in my flat Earth, thank you very much.

How many different confirming experiments do you want? 100? 10,000? A googolplex?
I don't need that many actually. Just more than we have now, and with very strict controls.
I don't think you even know what a control is. And no, don't Google it to copy/paste.
It is making sure that all the variables that could interfere with the results of an experiment are eliminated so that the evidence that is being tested to support a theory is reliable.
Wrong. To the surprise of exactly no one, you've just demonstrated that, with respect to how experiments are conducted, "controls" is yet another one of those words that you like to use, while having no idea what it actually means.
Sorry about that. I got the control group confused with the manipulated group.

Scientific Method
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 01:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.67015 seconds with 15 queries