A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please stop attributing everything that has gone wrong in here to my weaseling. I have never ever weaseled.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In order for me to explain my position I have to make sure I have a clear understanding of their position so I can respond intelligently.

Then would you care to respond intelligently to the following questions without weaseling:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They travel...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are they about 30 meters away from the object and traveling away from it? [Yes or No]

Are they about 30 meters away from the camera film and traveling towards it? [Yes or No]

I post this knowing full well you will not answer. My purpose is simply to draw your own attention to the transparent falsity of the lies you post as a result of your mental illness. You claim you never weasel, but you will weasel in response to this post. You claim to want to respond intelligently, yet you will not respond intelligently to the above questions.

You are mentally ill and should be seeking professional help. This is not an insult, but the accurate observation of a concerned observer.

[LadyShea]

Hey spacemonkey, did you know that the top of a mountain is at a high altitude because it is many feet above sea level?

Isn't that fascinating and not even strange?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Hey spacemonkey, did you know that the top of a mountain is at a high altitude because it is many feet above sea level?

Isn't that fascinating and not even strange?

Indeed. Can it be climbed if it is low enough to be climbed?

[LadyShea]

Know what else, water is filled with dihydrogen monoxide, which is known to have many destructive effects!

[Vivisectus]

This is true. A few litres of water and some electricity is all you need to make a highly flammable gas!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Indeed. Can it be climbed if it is low enough to be climbed?

That hasn't been proven, more empirical tests are needed.

In more not strange news, in a recent survey of widows, all 100% of the respondents were found to have had a spouse that died and all 100% were also women! Significant!

[Vivisectus]

Plus, we do not know about all the possible chemical interactions this water stuff has inside our bodies. Thus it is logical to assume it is bad for you, and better to avoid it!

[Vivisectus]

hmmm - I wonder if that means that any woman whose spouse dies is compelled of their own free will to become widows?

[LadyShea]

Well, what seems to be the truth is that women whose spouse has died are always also widows. This is meaningful.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then would you care to respond intelligently to the following questions without weaseling:

I post this knowing full well you will not answer. My purpose is simply to draw your own attention to the transparent falsity of the lies you post as a result of your mental illness. You claim you never weasel, but you will weasel in response to this post. You claim to want to respond intelligently, yet you will not respond intelligently to the above questions.

You are mentally ill and should be seeking professional help. This is not an insult, but the accurate observation of a concerned observer.

You are failing to get the concept Spacemonkey because you are using light as your starting point, when I am using the eyes. You don't get it, it's as simple as that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Let me venture a speculation as to what peacegirl means by this remarkably obtuse statement.

They key lies here: "...where it then travels through space and time."

Remember Lessans' goofball statement that the photons that "smile on us" when we wake up in the morning are the same photons that while we sleep arrive at the other side of the earth? The Great Man and his prophetess, peacegirl, actually believe this: When sunlight arrives at some location like the moon, some of it is absorbed, but the rest of it stops and stays there, and it is this light we use to see the "object itself."

You are right in that this is exactly the source of the problem. You are failing to understand that non-absorbed light does not stop the Sun's photons from traveling. It is the non-absorbed light that is revealed due to the absorption of the visual spectrum. It's like subtraction. You start out with a number and subtract, and you get another number. This does not mean that the other number does anything except to reveal the object. It does not travel although white light is constantly replacing the old photons. Of course, you don't get it.

Originally Posted by davidm

I'm sure I don't need to work out for anyone all the things wrong with this statement. One would need to work it out for peacegirl, of course, but she is impervious to facts, reason or knowledge.

Lessans apparently missed the lesson in school, which I am sure is taught even before seventh grade, that light is never at rest, but always travels at velocity c in a vacuum and slightly less in mediums like air and water, but it never stops and hangs around, like overnight guests you wish you were rid of.

HE WAS NOT SAYING THAT LIGHT IS AT REST. THAT'S IN YOUR IMAGINATION DAVID.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are failing to get the concept Spacemonkey because you are using light as your starting point, when I am using the eyes. You don't get it, it's as simple as that.

Light exists and has properties whether vision is efferent or not. This set of questions applies to your understanding of light only and it doesn't matter what you believe about eyes.

You are weaseling as predicted.


Also, did you know that high temperatures are always recorded when and where intense heat is present? This is because the comparative scale created to measure heat intensity is often shown as a vertical line with more intensity indicated in the upper portions with larger numbers. Truth!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is the non-absorbed light that is revealed due to the absorption of the visual spectrum. It does not travel

HE WAS NOT SAYING THAT LIGHT IS AT REST.

If the photons are not traveling and not at rest, then where are they and what are they doing?

[thedoc]

Can it be empericaly proven that if a couple is a husband and wife to each other, then they are married?

[thedoc]

Can you explain why the ocean is always near the shore?

[thedoc]

A man had suffered a bad fall and was in pretty bad shape, in the hospital opperating the staff didn't seem to be very hopefull about the success of the surgery. One was asking the usual questions and got to the one about "Is there anything you are allergic to?" he responded very clearly "Yes." and then paused, the whole room seemed to get quiet listening for the reply, then he said "gravity" and the room burst out in laughter. Then he said, "I know I'm in bad shape and might not survive, but I would like all of you to do something for me. Please opperate on me as if I were a living person and not someone who is already dead." The whole mood in the room changed and he survived the opperation.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If the photons are not traveling and not at rest, then where are they and what are they doing?

Oh, if I had a dollar for every time peacegirl has been asked that question.

At this point I have no idea why anyone would need to ask her anything more than, when is she gonna get help.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said photons change their property. Why are you making stuff up?

Quoting YOU, from about two or three days ago:

"The emitted photons would just get brighter."

Since you have no memory, I suggest that when you make a post, you get a Magic Marker and write down in big letters what you yourself said, and then post it around the walls of your room as reminders, the way instructions will be posted on the walls of the rooms of patients in rehab for brain damage.

As far as brightness, it's not that difficult David.

Says peacegirl, who can't find her ass with both hands.

Either something is bright enough to be seen with the naked eye, or a telescope, or its not."

LOL. Back to, "If we can see it, we can see it!" Good holy shit, what an astute observation that is! Hurry, peacegirl, email that astonishing "observation" to the Nobel committee and await Express delivery of Lessans' posthumous Nobel Prize for physics!

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by davidm

Quoting YOU, from about two or three days ago:

Since you have no memory, I suggest that when you make a post, you get a Magic Marker and write down in big letters what you yourself said, and then post it around the walls of your room as reminders, the way instructions will be posted on the walls of the rooms of patients in rehab for brain damage.

If people weren't sure if peacegirl was schizophrenic they would be after she started doing that.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said light itself doesn't get reflected. I said the pattern of light that bounces off of an object doesn't travel.

What pattern are you talking about? Light does not carry a PATTERN. Images do not "fly on wings of light." What part of this are you unable to process, even though it has been explained to you about 500 times by now?

Does the moon shine by reflected sunlight or not? Yes or No?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I could care less what they think. They are not on pretend ignore David. I'm through with NA and thedoc. Yes, I do have a standard as to the kind of posting I will accept.

You have standards. That is to laugh. I guess one of those standards isn't honesty, is it?

Like when you are presented with a clear proof of delayed-time seeing: to take just one example, the FACT that NASA factors delayed-time seeing to send spacecraft to other worlds, and if it used real-time seeing it would miss its targets every time. How do you explain that, peacegirl? An honest person would admit that there IS no explanation, and that real-time seeing must be wrong. But not a liar like you.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So now you are telling me that we would not see a past event or object, even through the event or object was no longer present? Please make up your mind.

Wow, you are just ... so ... fucking ... stupid! How many times has this been explained to her? Anyone?

Could someone please assplain it to asshat again, maybe using simple cartoon stick figures and "Cat in a Hat" style prose?

[davidm]

Er, peacegirl, can you recall my story about darts fired from a machine landing on a wall, and the machine is taken away before the darts hit the wall?

Remember it? Oh, fuck, what am I thinking? You can't even remember that about two days ago, you stated that photons had the ability to get brighter!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You gotta do better than that. How many times do I have to repeat that I know what light is, but the only way to explain it is by saying that the image is traveling on the "waves of light" or "the pattern of light". They all mean the same thing. This pattern does impinge on the optical system, but only when we're looking at the object in real time. The light is a condition. You still don't get it because you're blocked.

LOL, a real amusing trove of your buffooneries this morning.

Peacegirl, if you really want to sell a book, just repeat in aphorism form your posts in this thread. Sell it has "The Stupidest Things Anyone Ever Said," and you will make money.

"How many times to I have to repeat..."

First, you DON'T know what light is, still, even after receiving a free education. Nor did you buffoon of a father, who thought that light was made of molecules, remember? Why did you change that in the book, peacegirl? Are you saying Lessans was actually wrong about something?

There is no "image" traveling on "wings of light." This has been explained to you so many times that it is obviously fruitless to go over this with you again -- or go over anything with you again, for that matter. In fact, I just explained it to you yet again in the very post you quoted!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That hasn't been proven, more empirical tests are needed.

In more not strange news, in a recent survey of widows, all 100% of the respondents were found to have had a spouse that died and all 100% were also women! Significant!

Inconclusive. That's why it's a waste of time to talk about "efferent widowhood" until more empirical testing is done. Someday you'll be sorry. The proof of the pudding is in the eating.