#39676  
Old 08-02-2014, 10:40 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
I have said that this is difficult to explain, but I believe there is an explanation no matter how inadequate I may be at the task.
There isn't though. Lessans was simply wrong and you have gone in all crazy directions trying to make his idea fit with reality. It doesn't.
Quote:
Even though I should be use to the vitriol, it's difficult not to be shocked every time I see how low people can go just to get their rocks off.
You know, you sure have a blind spot for your own nastiness.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (08-02-2014)
  #39677  
Old 08-02-2014, 10:47 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
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.
What is proportional to what?
What encloses the system?
What is the mirror image comprised of, how is it formed. where is it located, and how does it get there?
I have explained what proportional means;
You haven't though. I told you that you were using proportional in an idiosyncratic way, not with its standard definition, and you never explained what exactly you meant. The word makes no sense in the context you are using it. Even if you could explain the word choice, you can't explain the physical mechanism.

Quote:
I have explained what encloses the system;
Again, no you haven't. Again you are using it in a way that is unrelated to its definition. There is nothing closed in the description of a "system" you've given

Quote:
and I've also explained why it becomes a mirror image since the actual distance is not what we're talking about.
I didn't ask why...why is not the correct word at all when discussing physical mechanisms.

How is it formed, where is it located, and how does it get there?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (08-03-2014), Spacemonkey (08-02-2014)
  #39678  
Old 08-02-2014, 10:53 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
I have said that this is difficult to explain, but I believe there is an explanation no matter how inadequate I may be at the task.
There isn't though. Lessans was simply wrong and you have gone in all crazy directions trying to make his idea fit with reality. It doesn't.
Quote:
Even though I should be use to the vitriol, it's difficult not to be shocked every time I see how low people can go just to get their rocks off.
You know, you sure have a blind spot for your own nastiness.
Sorry LadyShea, but this thread has become nothing but pure entertainment with one goal in mind; to discredit my father and me in the most hurtful way possible. Out of the hatred for him, certain people (and you know who you are) have gotten so nasty and so vindictive that I am having a hard time taking the high road. I am a human being first, and I don't deserve to be called disgusting names and be made fun of, just because I have a different point of view. I'm not Gandhi, and I can't always turn the other cheek when I have been falsely accused and verbally attacked every day for almost 3 years. This has become a witch hunt and don't tell me this isn't the right word because it is.

witch hunt
Use witch hunt in a sentence

noun
The definition of a witch hunt is a situation where accusations are made freely, especially against someone or something that is not popular with the majority.

Witch hunt dictionary definition | witch hunt defined


__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"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
  #39679  
Old 08-02-2014, 10:58 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
I have said that this is difficult to explain, but I believe there is an explanation no matter how inadequate I may be at the task.
There isn't though. Lessans was simply wrong and you have gone in all crazy directions trying to make his idea fit with reality. It doesn't.
Quote:
Even though I should be use to the vitriol, it's difficult not to be shocked every time I see how low people can go just to get their rocks off.
You know, you sure have a blind spot for your own nastiness.
Not really. That's exactly what this thread has become nothing but pure entertainment with the goal to drive me out. Out of the hatred for my father, certain people (and you know who you are) have gotten so nasty and so vindictive that I am having a hard time taking the high road. I'm a human being first, and I don't deserve to be called horrible names and made fun of, only because I have a different point of view. This has become a witch hunt.

witch hunt
Use witch hunt in a sentence

noun
The definition of a witch hunt is a situation where accusations are made freely, especially against someone or something that is not popular with the majority.

Witch hunt dictionary definition | witch hunt defined


And we are back to histrionics. There is no hatred of Lessans here. It's not really possible to develop actual hatred toward a mostly harmless crank that has been gone for decades.

Your dishonesty, vindictiveness, and nastiness doesn't make people especially cuddly towards you though. Your blind spot doesn't let you see that you are getting back what you give. You've definitely not taken the high road in this...:lol:
Reply With Quote
  #39680  
Old 08-02-2014, 11:09 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
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.
What is proportional to what?
What encloses the system?
What is the mirror image comprised of, how is it formed. where is it located, and how does it get there?
I have explained what proportional means;
You haven't though. I told you that you were using proportional in an idiosyncratic way, not with its standard definition, and you never explained what exactly you meant. The word makes no sense in the context you are using it. Even if you could explain the word choice, you can't explain the physical mechanism.
It does make sense and I have explained the mechanism. I said that in this account where the object is in optical range there is a definition proportion between the size and brightness of the object relative to the lens of an eye or a camera. This is what creates the closed system I coined to try to help you get the concept.

Quote:
I have explained what encloses the system;
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Again, no you haven't. Again you are using it in a way that is unrelated to its definition. There is nothing closed in the description of a "system" you've given
But there is. If you picture the actual object and the viewer, this creates a closed system as in the example with the box. If a person is standing at one end of a box and an object is at the other end, if the object is bright enough and large enough for that light to travel across this box, then this will allow the object to be seen in real time. Do we see a candle that is first lighted in real time? We know light is traveling but it's virtually instant. It does not matter how large the box is, if the object is large enough and bright enough to be seen, then this light will be at the other side of the box where the film or eye is located because the object is in proportion to the viewer.

Quote:
and I've also explained why it becomes a mirror image since the actual distance is not what we're talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I didn't ask why...why is not the correct word at all when discussing physical mechanisms.

How is it formed, where is it located, and how does it get there?
Okay, so "how" is a better word. I'm trying to show you how, but it's just not registering.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"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
  #39681  
Old 08-02-2014, 11:16 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
I have said that this is difficult to explain, but I believe there is an explanation no matter how inadequate I may be at the task.
There isn't though. Lessans was simply wrong and you have gone in all crazy directions trying to make his idea fit with reality. It doesn't.
Quote:
Even though I should be use to the vitriol, it's difficult not to be shocked every time I see how low people can go just to get their rocks off.
You know, you sure have a blind spot for your own nastiness.
Not really. That's exactly what this thread has become nothing but pure entertainment with the goal to drive me out. Out of the hatred for my father, certain people (and you know who you are) have gotten so nasty and so vindictive that I am having a hard time taking the high road. I'm a human being first, and I don't deserve to be called horrible names and made fun of, only because I have a different point of view. This has become a witch hunt.

witch hunt
Use witch hunt in a sentence

noun
The definition of a witch hunt is a situation where accusations are made freely, especially against someone or something that is not popular with the majority.

Witch hunt dictionary definition | witch hunt defined


And we are back to histrionics. There is no hatred of Lessans here. It's not really possible to develop actual hatred toward a mostly harmless crank that has been gone for decades.

Your dishonesty, vindictiveness, and nastiness doesn't make people especially cuddly towards you though. Your blind spot doesn't let you see that you are getting back what you give. You've definitely not taken the high road in this...:lol:
Oh but it is hatred, especially from David. He hates my father with a vengeance. He couldn't come up with these horrible satires if he didn't have a lot of loathing for him.

The truth is I have never been first to call anyone a name. This name calling has taken its toll, and I am retaliating. I don't do it that often, but like I said I'm a human being and I have a heart. These verbal attacks hurt and this has no place in a serious discussion. That's why this thread is a train wreck.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"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
  #39682  
Old 08-02-2014, 11:18 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Okay, so "how" is a better word. I'm trying to show you how, but it's just not registering.


It's not registering because you are not explaining how, you are just asserting that it happens and letting it hang with no support.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you donít know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (08-03-2014)
  #39683  
Old 08-02-2014, 11:24 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
What encloses the system IS THE IDEA THAT THE REFLECTION (DO NOT CALL THIS A STRAWMAN BECAUSE IT IS NOT) DOES NOT TRAVEL IN THE TIME IT TAKES TO SEE AN IMAGE IN DELAYED TIME WHICH YOU, SPACEMONKEY AND OTHERS ARE DEPENDING ON TO PROVE YOUR CASE.
:lolwut:

So what you are saying is that light is that is reflected does not travel to eye at the speed of light, but a "mirror image" is somehow projected from the object to the eyes instantaneously?
No LadyShea, that's not what I'm saying. All light is traveling. Does a light emitted from a candle travel? Of course it does, but the viewer is within optical range of the CANDLE. Just because the Sun is farther away doesn't change the fact that the light that is traveling from the Sun is at our eye just as quickly because the Sun and the viewer meet the requirements of efferent vision, not afferent vision which is the complete opposite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Hmm, which "idea" can be and has been empirically observed and measured and has been tested in many different ways, and which "idea" is completely made up by you and does not conform with reality at all?
I know it doesn't conform, but it's questionable which account is more consistent with reality. The verdict is still out.

Quote:
YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN YOUR CASE EVEN BY THE MINIMUM STANDARDS. HOW IN THE WORLD CAN YOU ACCEPT ANY CONCLUSION AS FACT WHEN IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN C0NCLUSIVELY?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Standard optics stands up to rigorous testing and empirical observation, and makes predictions that are actually useful because they actually work in the real world. That's pretty conclusive proof in my book.
Of course optics is useful. When did I ever say it wasn't? I have never disputed standard optics. The only thing I'm questioning is whether our brain is looking at the world through the eyes, as a window, or whether the afferent account is the correct one. Optics still works in either case.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"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; 08-03-2014 at 04:16 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #39684  
Old 08-02-2014, 11:27 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Okay, so "how" is a better word. I'm trying to show you how, but it's just not registering.


It's not registering because you are not explaining how, you are just asserting that it happens and letting it hang with no support.
I don't know what else to do other than explain what efferent vision is, and why we would be seeing in real time. I am also trying to give people metaphors that they can relate to in order to get a visual of what I'm talking about.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"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
  #39685  
Old 08-02-2014, 11:37 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Who said anything at all about visiting the past?
Knock knock, anybody there? That is what a timeline is all about.
Nobody was talking about timelines or visiting the past. I asked you how we could see very old light from the past in the present.
But that is the take home LadyShea. David mentions it all the time, as if there is a fourth dimension where the past and future actually exist; an actual location. He's in a dreamworld of his own making. :laugh: :lmao: :lol:

As far as seeing very old light from the past, if science tells us that light never stops traveling unless it strikes an object, then it would follow that we would see light when it strikes our telescopes similar to light from the Sun striking our eyes when morning arrives. We see different colors of galaxies or stars because of certain wavelengths/frequencies. But if Lessans is right, we would be seeing this distant light in real time meaning that we are still seeing the world as it exists right now, even the light that showed up in the Hubble Deep Field.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"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
  #39686  
Old 08-02-2014, 11:44 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
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.
What is proportional to what?
What encloses the system?
What is the mirror image comprised of, how is it formed. where is it located, and how does it get there?
I have explained what proportional means;
You haven't though. I told you that you were using proportional in an idiosyncratic way, not with its standard definition, and you never explained what exactly you meant. The word makes no sense in the context you are using it. Even if you could explain the word choice, you can't explain the physical mechanism.
It does make sense and I have explained the mechanism. I said that in this account where the object is in optical range there is a definition proportion between the size and brightness of the object relative to the lens of an eye or a camera. This is what creates the closed system I coined to try to help you get the concept.
This is word salad! You are still using proportional incorrectly. What is the relational constant? What is the comparative relation between the lens and the object? How does the lens change with the size and brightness of the object or vice versa?

And how does any of that create a closed system? "Proportional" describes a relative system by definition!

Quote:
Quote:
I have explained what encloses the system;
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Again, no you haven't. Again you are using it in a way that is unrelated to its definition. There is nothing closed in the description of a "system" you've given
But there is. If you picture the actual object and the viewer, this creates a closed system as in the example with the box.
There is nothing closed about it, because the viewer and object are not actually in a box.


Quote:
Quote:
and I've also explained why it becomes a mirror image since the actual distance is not what we're talking about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I didn't ask why...why is not the correct word at all when discussing physical mechanisms.

How is it formed, where is it located, and how does it get there?
Okay, so "how" is a better word. I'm trying to show you how, but it's just not registering.
You are trying nothing of the sort since all you are doing is evading direct questions and making assertions.

How is the mirror image formed? To answer this you need to describe a mechanism and components
Where is it located?
How did it get there?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (08-03-2014), Spacemonkey (08-03-2014)
  #39687  
Old 08-02-2014, 11:50 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quotes form Peacegirl's very early posts

From post 16 directed at LadyShea
"unless you just happen to be a very bitter individual."

From post 21 directed at everyone in general,
"I never expected the caustic reaction I got."

From post 23 again directed at Ladyshea
"I really don't care if you care or not. You are too angry for me to even communicate with you."

FYI, the only thing anyone said, was to question what the book was about and to ask Peacegirl to present some of the ideas, without resorting to reading the 500+ page book. Apparently summarizing the book was offensive to Peacegirl.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you donít know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (08-03-2014)
  #39688  
Old 08-02-2014, 11:53 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
The inverse square law does relate to this because light that is reflected off of objects is reflected at an angle.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
How do you think the angle of reflection and the inverse square law are related in this? The angle of reflection is a function of the traveling direction of the source light, so you need to describe a whole scenario, not just ask about unspecified objects and angles.
This isn't going to work because all in all both accounts are very similar. What works for afferent vision (i.e., optics) also works for efferent vision. The only thing that is being questioned is whether light itself brings the world to us, or whether light reveals the world to us.

Quote:
How far do you think this light has to travel before the object can no longer be resolved? That's a fair question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
It depends on the intensity of the light and the sensitivity of the receptor :shrug: Do you have a specific scenario in mind?
No I don't. This really doesn't address the issue after all. What addresses the issue boils down to whether his observations were correct, or whether science got it correct; whether light is all that is necessary to allow us to see, or whether the object needs to be present for us to see; whether we see objects in delayed time due to afferent vision, or whether we see the world in real time due to efferent vision. In the end this is what will determine whether he was right or not and all the arguing in the world isn't going to change the truth.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"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; 08-03-2014 at 12:06 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #39689  
Old 08-02-2014, 11:57 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Sorry LadyShea, but this thread has become nothing but pure entertainment with one goal in mind; to discredit my father and me in the most hurtful way possible. Out of the hatred for him, certain people (and you know who you are) have gotten so nasty and so vindictive that I am having a hard time taking the high road. I am a human being first, and I don't deserve to be called disgusting names and be made fun of, just because I have a different point of view. I'm not Gandhi, and I can't always turn the other cheek when I have been falsely accused and verbally attacked every day for almost 3 years. This has become a witch hunt and don't tell me this isn't the right word because it is.
You haven't been falsely accused at all. You deserve to be ridiculed and made fun of when you refuse to be honest or reasonable.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #39690  
Old 08-03-2014, 12:00 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I don't know what else to do...
Be honest. Answer questions.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #39691  
Old 08-03-2014, 12:03 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
How in the world would these different wavelengths actually form an image when every square mile away from the object the angle of reflection grows enormously?
The angle of reflection does not grow at all. You're talking complete mindless gibberish again. Get help.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (08-03-2014)
  #39692  
Old 08-03-2014, 12:04 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
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.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (08-03-2014)
  #39693  
Old 08-03-2014, 12:04 AM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Oh but it is hatred, especially from David. He hates my father with a vengeance. He couldn't come up with these horrible satires if he didn't have a lot of loathing for him.
You really are the most ridiculously histrionic person I have ever met!

Quote:
The truth is I have never been first to call anyone a name. This name calling has taken its toll, and I am retaliating. I don't do it that often, but like I said I'm a human being and I have a heart. These verbal attacks hurt and this has no place in a serious discussion. That's why this thread is a train wreck.
Might want the check the records their, Chet. You called me bitter and angry within hours of first posting here. You were arrogant, evasive, patronizing and insulting from Day 1. You don't get to play innocent victim when your behavior is on full display.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (08-03-2014)
  #39694  
Old 08-03-2014, 12:11 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Oh but it is hatred, especially from David. He hates my father with a vengeance. He couldn't come up with these horrible satires if he didn't have a lot of loathing for him.
You really are the most ridiculously histrionic person I have ever met!

Quote:
The truth is I have never been first to call anyone a name. This name calling has taken its toll, and I am retaliating. I don't do it that often, but like I said I'm a human being and I have a heart. These verbal attacks hurt and this has no place in a serious discussion. That's why this thread is a train wreck.
Might want the check the records their, Chet. You called me bitter and angry within hours of first posting here. You were arrogant, evasive, patronizing and insulting from Day 1. You don't get to play innocent victim when your behavior is on full display.
Well, I guess your perspective is different than mine.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"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; 08-03-2014 at 04:53 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #39695  
Old 08-03-2014, 12:14 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
How in the world would these different wavelengths actually form an image when every square mile away from the object the angle of reflection grows enormously?
The angle of reflection does not grow at all. You're talking complete mindless gibberish again. Get help.
That's why I said it doesn't apply. The only thing that applies is whether distance and time are true factors or not.
__________________
"We will not solve the problems of the world from the level of thinking we were at when we created them" -- Einstein

"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
  #39696  
Old 08-03-2014, 12:19 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCCLXXII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
How in the world would these different wavelengths actually form an image when every square mile away from the object the angle of reflection grows enormously?
:lol: OMGUS!

You're mangling the inverse square law again, you goddamned dishonest little fool. Do you even REMEMBER that you AGREED that "uncalculable (your word!)" numbers of photons fall on the earth EVERY SECOND? Can you not fucking follow a simple conversation or argument? Did you read the figure I gave you for the number of photons in the visible range that are emitted by the sun every second (a number so large it has never been named) and the number of photons that strike the earth every second, given to you by Doc (also a number so large it has never been named). And this happens under the inverse square law, which you still do not understand. The law simply says that the intensity of light is inversely proportional to the square of the distance from its source. Given the "uncalculable" number of photons that leave the sun every second, it is easy to see why we see that sun, eight light minutes distant, big and bright in the sky! Hell, the naked eye can make out the Andromeda Galaxy, which is two and a half million light years distant.

You are so dishonest and disgusting. You give no evidence of actually reading what people write to you. You contradict yourself constantly. You babble about the math for sending a probe to Mars, and when it was given to you AGAIN in the last 24 hours, proving that if we followed Lessans we would miss Mars by a wide margin, you have no response!

GTFO.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (08-03-2014)
  #39697  
Old 08-03-2014, 12:21 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dingbat View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dingbat View Post
How in the world would these different wavelengths actually form an image when every square mile away from the object the angle of reflection grows enormously?
The angle of reflection does not grow at all. You're talking complete mindless gibberish again. Get help.
That's why I said it doesn't apply. The only thing that applies is whether distance and time are true factors or not.
You didn't say that. You said it grows enormously. It doesn't. That is just the latest stupid thing you have completely made up. You are a liar and a weasel. Get professional help.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (08-03-2014)
  #39698  
Old 08-03-2014, 12:32 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCCLXXII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

And yes, the anger you get is entirely because of your incessant dishonesty and weaseling. It's offensive. Nobody is angry at your stupid claims, or those of Lessans. We :lol: at those. They are a rich source of parody, satire and ridicule.
Reply With Quote
  #39699  
Old 08-03-2014, 12:38 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
What constantly amazes me is the sheer number of bizarre things peacegirl must believe in order to maintain her faith.

Does believing in impossible things make you eligible for breakfast at Milliways?
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you donít know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
  #39700  
Old 08-03-2014, 12:43 AM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
What encloses the system IS THE IDEA THAT THE REFLECTION (DO NOT CALL THIS A STRAWMAN BECAUSE IT IS NOT) DOES NOT TRAVEL IN THE TIME IT TAKES TO SEE AN IMAGE IN DELAYED TIME WHICH YOU, SPACEMONKEY AND OTHERS ARE DEPENDING ON TO PROVE YOUR CASE.
:lolwut:

So what you are saying is that light is that is reflected does not travel to eye at the speed of light, but a "mirror image" is somehow projected from the object to the eyes instantaneously?
No LadyShea, that's not what I'm saying. All light is traveling. Does a light emitted from a candle travel? Of course it does, but the viewer is within optical range of the CANDLE. Just because the Sun is farther away doesn't change the fact that the light that is traveling from the Sun is at our eye just as quickly because the Sun and the viewer meet the requirements of efferent vision, not afferent vision which is the complete opposite.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Hmm, which "idea" can be and has been empirically observed and measured and has been tested in many different ways, and which "idea" is completely made up by you and does not conform with reality at all?
I know it doesn't conform, but it's questionable which account is more consistent with reality. The verdict is still out.

Quote:
YOU HAVE NOT PROVEN YOUR CASE EVEN BY THE MINIMUM STANDARDS. HOW IN THE WORLD CAN YOU ACCEPT ANY CONCLUSION AS FACT WHEN IT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN C0NCLUSIVELY?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Standard optics stands up to rigorous testing and empirical observation, and makes predictions that are actually useful because they actually work in the real world. That's pretty conclusive proof in my book.
Of course optics is useful. When did I ever say it wasn't? I have never disputed standard optics. The only thing I'm questioning is whether our brain is looking at the world through the eyes, as a window, or whether the afferent account is the correct one. Optics still works in either case.
Optics does not allow for instantaneous physical light interactions from afar, light traveling virtually instantly, the negating of actual physical distance by any means, or candles having an optical range.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (08-03-2014)
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 18 (0 members and 18 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 10:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 2.59379 seconds with 14 queries