A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is within our visual space (even if it's behind us or around the bend or below the horizon). It can be seen due to its (P) reflection. In other words, it's within our field of view even though a mirror, or water, or some other surface is allowing us to see it through its reflective properties.

peacegirl. Can you actually see something that is below the horizon or around a corner in the efferent vision model?

Originally Posted by thedoc

I would like to see her confirm that if something is 'around the bend' or 'below the horizon' that according to efferent vision we can still see it.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

peacegirl. Just to be clear:

Nobody here thinks images travel or that images are "in" the light.

Nobody here thinks light picks up, takes on, or otherwise acquires the "wavelength of the object"s it encounters.

We know that light travels. We know that light has a wavelength.

From Monday

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[It is very obvious that dogs cannot recognize their owners from a two-dimensional picture, yet scientists are convinced that their unreliable experiments confirm what they believe is fact.

Yes, this is very obvious to her. Why is it very obvious to her? Has she actually done any experiments along these lines? No. Do experiments that have been done disagree with her and Lessans? Yes, unanimously. Did Lessans do any experiments on these lines? No. So why is it very obvious to her? Because Daddy Dumbkins said it was true, even though it's false!

And here is an article about recent experiments with dogs looking at two-dimensional images in which Lessans is refuted all over again!

[Spacemonkey]

Looks like Peacegirl has put me on ignore. Could someone repeat these questions for me:


1. Can blue light (travelling as a part of full spectrum light heading towards a blue ball) stay at the surface of the ball after hitting it without becoming stationary?

2. Can the specific photons at surface of the camera film at the precise time the photograph is taken have been at the exact same position just before the photograph was taken without having been stationary?

3. Is the (P)reflected light which is at the film, comprising the instantaneous image at the film and interacting with it to produce the resulting photograph, also full spectrum sunlight, or is it not?

[LadyShea]

peacegirl, are you ignoring these questions or do you have Spacemonkey on ignore? I am interested in your answers please

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

1. Can blue light (travelling as a part of full spectrum light heading towards a blue ball) stay at the surface of the ball after hitting it without becoming stationary?

2. Can the specific photons at surface of the camera film at the precise time the photograph is taken have been at the exact same position just before the photograph was taken without having been stationary?

3. Is the (P)reflected light which is at the film, comprising the instantaneous image at the film and interacting with the film to produce the resulting photograph, also full spectrum sunlight, or is it not?

[The Lone Ranger]

Also, as I pointed out way back in the first thread, many bird species have been shown to be able to recognize and distinguish between individual humans based upon visual cues only.

As I and several of my colleagues have learned from bitter experience, you must take this into account when doing field research with some bird species.

[davidm]

Yes, and because she has me on Ignore as well, could someone please post my link to the Times article on dogs and 2-d images, in which dogs are shown not only to recognize people, but body language as well!

Pretty soon peacegirl will have everyone on ignore and then she can talk to herself. LadyShea just asked her if she was "mental"; doesn't that put Shea on the shit list too?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by davidm

Yes, this is very obvious to her. Why is it very obvious to her? Has she actually done any experiments along these lines? No. Do experiments that have been done disagree with her and Lessans? Yes, unanimously. Did Lessans do any experiments on these lines? No. So why is it very obvious to her? Because Daddy Dumbkins said it was true, even though it's false!

And here is an article about recent experiments with dogs looking at two-dimensional images in which Lessans is refuted all over again!

Bump

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Yes, and because she has me on Ignore as well,
Pretty soon peacegirl will have everyone on ignore and then she can talk to herself.

Is that 'pretend ignore' or 'real ignore'? and does she really know how to find that function and do it?

Did any one know that putting someone on 'Ignore' will also not allow direct access to threads started by that user? Or is there something wrong with my account?

[LadyShea]

Did any one know that putting someone on 'Ignore' will also not allow direct access to threads started by that user?

That is a default feature of the ignore function, though it is tweakable in your options

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That is a default feature of the ignore function, though it is tweakable in your options

Thanks, its probably just not worth the effort, I can always just skip over posters that aren't worth looking at.

[LadyShea]

She's regrouping again. She'll come back like none of this ever happened.

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Hubble deep field images. You refuse to accept this evidence, however, with made up excuses.

IMHO, Lady Shea is providing pictures that do indeed falsify peacegirl's hypothesis, by peacegirl's own admission. The light has provided images, through Hubble, that are not in my field of view.

[davidm]

I wonder if it is actually possible that peacegirl fails to understand what real-time seeing would actually entail, if it were true? If she does understand, then she cannot fail to grasp the implications of how NASA sends spacecraft to distant planets.

It’s very simple, peacegirl. Here it is, step by step.

1. We want to go to Mars. We observe that Mars is in a certain location in the sky.

2. To travel to Mars, we have to calculate how and where to fire the ship. Because Mars is not just sitting there in the sky; it is moving and we will have to know where it will be YEARS later, to make sure the ship will arrive there.

3. According to Lessans, we see Mars (and all other celestial objects) in real time. This means its apparent location in the sky, is also its actual location.

3. According to the standard model of light and sight, Mars’s apparent location in the sky, is NOT its actual location. We are seeing Mars as it was in the past, because the light reflected off Mars took time to reach our eyes.

4. Sending spacecraft to Mars is now a direct and unambiguous test of Lessans’ claims. There is no way anybody can fail to recognize this.

5. What scientists actually do is calculate how and where to fire the rockets according to the standard scientific knowledge that we are seeing Mars as it was in the past; and that the planet has moved on to a different location from where it appears to be in the sky. Now, the point, of course, is this: If Lessans had been right about real-time seeing every single one of our Mars probes would have spectacularly failed, missing Mars by a wide mark. But, they didn’t! Every single probe arrived at Mars based on calculations that the position of Mars in the sky, as seen from earth, is only apparent -- i.e., we are seeing Mars as it was in the past. Note that some probes to Mars did indeed fail, but not because we miscalculated the flight route; they failed for technical, mechanical reasons.

Now, how does peacegirl explain this? She can’t explain it; it’s an irrefutable refutation of real-time seeing!

If she does have me on Ignore, please someone post this, so she can’t pretend she did not see it!

[LadyShea]

Here is how apparent location factors into NASA calculations. As I mentioned before, if the apparent location and the actual location are the same location, as real time seeing predicts, then the calculations would be WRONG. This indicates that we do not see Mars in real time at all.

Originally Posted by davidm

I wonder if it is actually possible that peacegirl fails to understand what real-time seeing would actually entail, if it were true? If she does understand, then she cannot fail to grasp the implications of how NASA sends spacecraft to distant planets.

It’s very simple, peacegirl. Here it is, step by step.

1. We want to go to Mars. We observe that Mars is in a certain location in the sky.

2. To travel to Mars, we have to calculate how and where to fire the ship. Because Mars is not just sitting there in the sky; it is moving and we will have to know where it will be YEARS later, to make sure the ship will arrive there.

3. According to Lessans, we see Mars (and all other celestial objects) in real time. This means its apparent location in the sky, is also its actual location.

3. According to the standard model of light and sight, Mars’s apparent location in the sky, is NOT its actual location. We are seeing Mars as it was in the past, because the light reflected off Mars took time to reach our eyes.

4. Sending spacecraft to Mars is now a direct and unambiguous test of Lessans’ claims. There is no way anybody can fail to recognize this.

5. What scientists actually do is calculate how and where to fire the rockets according to the standard scientific knowledge that we are seeing Mars as it was in the past; and that the planet has moved on to a different location from where it appears to be in the sky. Now, the point, of course, is this: If Lessans had been right about real-time seeing every single one of our Mars probes would have spectacularly failed, missing Mars by a wide mark. But, they didn’t! Every single probe arrived at Mars based on calculations that the position of Mars in the sky, as seen from earth, is only apparent -- i.e., we are seeing Mars as it was in the past. Note that some probes to Mars did indeed fail, but not because we miscalculated the flight route; they failed for technical, mechanical reasons.

Now, how does peacegirl explain this? She can’t explain it; it’s an irrefutable refutation of real-time seeing!

If she does have me on Ignore, please someone post this, so she can’t pretend she did not see it!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

I wonder if it is actually possible that peacegirl fails to understand what real-time seeing would actually entail, if it were true? If she does understand, then she cannot fail to grasp the implications of how NASA sends spacecraft to distant planets.

It’s very simple, peacegirl. Here it is, step by step.

1. We want to go to Mars. We observe that Mars is in a certain location in the sky.

2. To travel to Mars, we have to calculate how and where to fire the ship. Because Mars is not just sitting there in the sky; it is moving and we will have to know where it will be YEARS later, to make sure the ship will arrive there.

3. According to Lessans, we see Mars (and all other celestial objects) in real time. This means its apparent location in the sky, is also its actual location.

3. According to the standard model of light and sight, Mars’s apparent location in the sky, is NOT its actual location. We are seeing Mars as it was in the past, because the light reflected off Mars took time to reach our eyes.

4. Sending spacecraft to Mars is now a direct and unambiguous test of Lessans’ claims. There is no way anybody can fail to recognize this.

5. What scientists actually do is calculate how and where to fire the rockets according to the standard scientific knowledge that we are seeing Mars as it was in the past; and that the planet has moved on to a different location from where it appears to be in the sky. Now, the point, of course, is this: If Lessans had been right about real-time seeing every single one of our Mars probes would have spectacularly failed, missing Mars by a wide mark. But, they didn’t! Every single probe arrived at Mars based on calculations that the position of Mars in the sky, as seen from earth, is only apparent -- i.e., we are seeing Mars as it was in the past. Note that some probes to Mars did indeed fail, but not because we miscalculated the flight route; they failed for technical, mechanical reasons.

Now, how does peacegirl explain this? She can’t explain it; it’s an irrefutable refutation of real-time seeing!

If she does have me on Ignore, please someone post this, so she can’t pretend she did not see it!

L.O.L. if I''m on ignore this will do a fat lot of good, but here it is anyway.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

IMHO, Lady Shea is providing pictures that do indeed falsify peacegirl's hypothesis, by peacegirl's own admission. The light has provided images, through Hubble, that are not in my field of view.

They are not in the "field of view" even looking through the telescope itself. The telescope was pointed at what appeared to be empty space. Only after collecting photons for a million minutes was the image created.

Of course, according to peacegirl, galaxies are not objects, and we are not seeing the past in these images, and only doing her experiment on Earth is acceptable for some unknown reason..

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course, according to peacegirl, galaxies are not objects, and we are not seeing the past in these images, and only doing her experiment on Earth is acceptable for some unknown reason..

And, of course, as was explained to her in detail, we CAN do the experiment on earth, with fast flickering lanterns!

See here.

[Spacemonkey]

I think Peacegirl will still need some kind of simplified diagram or picture to follow what is being said. (And even then she'll just have to flatly deny it or appeal to mysterious unknown factors once she gets it.) Anyway, I'll give it a shot...


Peacegirl, imagine that we want to send a rocket to planet . This planet is moving across the sky from left to right, across the points represented by letters below:

<- A - B - C - D - E - F - G - H - I - J - K - L - M - N - O - P - Q - R - S - T ->

At time T1 we look at the planet and see it at point B, like so:


<- A - - C - D - E - F - G - H - I - J - K - L - M - N - O - P - Q - R - S - T ->

Bob is a lessanologist and proponent of real-time efferent vision, so he assumes that the planet really is at B at T1. He calculates how far the planet will travel across the sky while the rocket travels to get there, and works out that will cover ten letter-points during this travel time. So Bob fires his rocket towards point L.

Jim is a normal person and proponent of delayed afferent vision, so he assumes that what he sees at T1 is a dated image and that the planet only appears to be at B at T1, while it is really at point E. So Jim also calculates how far the planet will travel while his rocket is in flight - using the exact same calculation for this as Bob - and also determines that will cover ten letter-points during this travel time. But because he believes that the planet is at E rather than B at T1, he aims his rocket towards point O instead of point L like Bob.

Bob understands the situation like this:

<- A - - C - D - E - F - G - H - I - J - K - L - M - N - O - P - Q - R - S - T ->

Point B is both the perceived and actual position of at T1, and point L is where he aims his rocket.

Jim understands the situation like this:

<- A - - C - D - - F - G - H - I - J - K - L - M - N - O - P - Q - R - S - T ->

Point B is only the apparent position of the planet at T1 which is really at E, so he aims his rocket at Point O instead of point L.

When they fire their rockets, guess what happens. Jim's rocket arrives at the planet while Bob's rocket does not. Both use the exact same calculations. The only difference is that Bob takes his perception of the planet's location at T1 to be real-time, while Jim takes it to be dated. Yet it turns out that Jim was right, and both Bob and Lessans were wrong.

[davidm]

OK, peacegirl mode:




</peacegirl>

Because she has already said just that. It's not as if this point hasn't been raised ad nauseum before, just like all the other obvious refutations of Lessans.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

L.O.L. if I''m on ignore this will do a fat lot of good, but here it is anyway.

Nobody is on ignore here. peacegirl obsesseses over this thread.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

She's regrouping again. She'll come back like none of this ever happened.

Reset is more like it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Nobody is on ignore here. peacegirl obsesseses over this thread.

I believe you are probably correct, but are you an admin. here and can the admin. dig into an account and see the details like that?

[davidm]

There are only 2 admins, viscousmemories and Livius Drusus.

[LadyShea]

No, he just feels that peacegirl is probably not actually using the ignore function. She certainly does seem unable to stop coming to :ff and posting here, even though she knows it's a lost cause for her. I also don't understand the warnings about ignore...either ignore people or don't we aren't toddlers