A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[davidm]

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.

What proof are you talking about? You think you have proof, but it's either no proof, or circumstantial. How scientific is that?

1. You attributed someone else's quote to me, though I agree with it. You can't even master quote tags, peacegirl. What makes you think you can master science or metaphysics?

2. You have been given a list of proofs numerous times. I, myself, listed nine proofs recently of delayed-time seeing. We have repeatedly attempted to engage with you about these proofs, and you have persistently ignored them, or waffled, or weaseled, or lied about them. Why, peacegirl, does NASA use delayed-time seeing to calculate trajectories to Mars and other planets, if real-time seeing is true? If real-time seeing were true, every single launch would miss its target, based on calculations using delayed-time seeing. Instead, using delayed-time seeing calculations, NASA always hit its targets. Remember when we started a thread on this at the astronomy board, peacegirl? Or has that memory passed through the sieve of your mind, along with your memory of having written that photons can get brighter?

What you should really do is fuck right off. To ask AGAIN for what you have been given untold number of times is beyond the pale.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If this is the level of understanding, it's no wonder this thread has become a nuthouse.

Hey, idiot, explain what's wrong with this experiment, in your own words. It's an experiment that proves we see in delayed time according to the speed of light. You don't even understand what the experiment shows, do you?



Bear in mind that this what you asked for: an experiment that showed delayed-time seeing right here on earth. Asked and given!

[LadyShea]

The proof against real time seeing in that post was the Fizeau experiment you were linked to. Nothing circumstantial about it.

Feel free to try to refute the findings of the experiment, or try to explain how those empirical results could have happened if we saw in real time.

Of course, I am pretty sure davidm is spot on in his observation that "You don't even understand what the experiment shows"

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Just post what you believe to be true, and learn from what others post.

Like this?

Perry Como - I Believe (with lyrics) -...

&feature=related

[Spacemonkey]

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.

See? You weasel and evade just as predicted. No attempt whatsoever at an intelligent response. And don't you think it's rather retarded to use the eyes as a starting point for an example where there are no eyes at all? Isn't that the kind of response one might expect from a mentally ill person?

[Spacemonkey]

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.

Some light hits an object, and not all of it is absorbed. What happens to the non-absorbed light? Do you think it is sensible and sane to suggest that it doesn't travel away and that it doesn't stay there at rest?

What would you think about the mental health of a person who made such silly claims and had their silliness explained to them such that they agreed and changed their position, only to a few weeks later return to stating the exact same silly claims? Should people be concerned about such a person?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Like this?

&feature=related

Someone finally 'gets it', be careful, liking Perry Como is showing your age. Did you know he was a barber in Pittsburgh before he started his singing career?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What's more striking is the fact that you keep coming back to this thread. You're hooked.

Oh, absolutely. I'm quite hooked. But that's hardly more striking than that you will persist in behavior that you admit to be insane, persisting in compulsively posting about Lessans' book even though you know the only attention you will get is strongly negative - just more and more people concerned about your mental health.

You did say that you'd be insane to keep posting here, that you had no intention of restarting the discussion, and that you'd be leaving very soon, right? It was you who said these things, wasn't it Peacegirl?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Some light hits an object, and not all of it is absorbed. What happens to the non-absorbed light? Do you think it is sensible and sane to suggest that it doesn't travel away and that it doesn't stay there at rest?

What would you think about the mental health of a person who made such silly claims and had their silliness explained to them such that they agreed and changed their position, only to a few weeks later return to stating the exact same silly claims? Should people be concerned about such a person?

Yeah, the light is not absorbed, not reflected and not at rest. What happens to it? There are no other options!

And, once again, peacegirl, Lessans DID say the light sticks around. Do you not remember his smiling photons?

[thedoc]

I'll raise you one,

Jackie Evancho - The Lord's Prayer -...

&feature=related

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one has given a satisfactory answer. Why is it that the same object (the same substance) can only be seen when it is in visual range?

The correct answer is that it isn't true that the object must be there at the time it is seen. That you don't personally find this satisfactory is quite irrelevant. That you persist in inventing your own facts and then repeatedly asking us to answer your question while refusing to accept any answer that doesn't accommodate your invented facts speaks only to your mental illness.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by davidm

And, once again, peacegirl, Lessans DID say the light sticks around. Do you not remember his smiling photons?

I imagine photons would be laughing their asses off if they could read what Lessans and Peacegirl have had to say about them.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light has properties but so do the eyes. This knowledge came from understanding how the eyes work. It doesn't change the property of light. You and Spacemonkey keep focusing on light traveling to the eyes, when, in reality, the eyes see the object because it is large enough to be seen.

There are NO EYES involved in the scenarios my questions ask you about. They concern only real-time photography, remember? (Of course you don't.) To explain real-time photography you have to be able to explain how the travelling light behaves. Eyes are irrelevant. They don't exist in the scenarios you need to be able to explain, so they can't contribute to any explanation.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the eyes see the object because it meets the requirements of efferent vision, then there is no time involved. That is why the photons (although traveling) become a mirror image of what is seen in real time. That is also why one could see an object that is millions of miles away (such as the sun) and see it in real time even before the photons have reached Earth. You are all so entrenched with the idea of light traveling, that you cannot grasp what I'm even talking about.

Where is the mirror image you mention, and what does it consist of? How can it be at the eyes and consisting of photons before any photons have reached the Earth?

How many times do you think you've faced the exact same two points I've just made above? What does it say about your mental health that you keep repeating the same mistakes like this without ever learning from them?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The not strange statements just keep coming!

I just read that to hear something, there must be soundwaves produced within our audible range!!

There's nothing strange about that, LadyShea.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Too soon to say. Needs moar empirical testing.

And the testing needs to be done on the Earth this time instead of in space.

[thedoc]

or this,

Jackie Evancho Video - To Believe with Lyrics HD...

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And the testing needs to be done on the Earth this time instead of in space.

Space testing would be better, no pesky gravity to bother with.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

There's nothing strange about that, LadyShea.

If a tree falls down in the forest and no-one is there to hear it, Does it make a sound? Define sound?

[thedoc]

ditto sorry.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And the testing needs to be done on the Earth this time instead of in space.

I know, right? They've been testing the thesis that all bachelors are unmarried in space! What's up with that?

The level of understanding of efferent bachelorhood is so low here I can't believe it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

I know, right? They've been testing the thesis that all bachelors are unmarried in space! What's up with that?

The level of understanding of efferent bachelorhood is so low here I can't believe it.

Apparently unmarried bachelors in space are easier to come by than terrestrial unmarried bachelors. The real question is where did they find the married bachelors as a control group?

[Angakuk]

It is clear to me that there is no such thing as an efferent bachelor. Bachelorhood was easy. It is being, and staying, married that requires significant effort.

[davidm]

"Rabbi, these scientists would have you believe that bachelorhood is afferent. That is why they say, 'All bachelors are unmarried.'"

The rabbi looked at me in astonishment. "Do you mean to say, Seymour, it's not a scientific fact that all bachelors are unmarried?"

"Rabbi, these scientists have always assumed that bachelorhood was afferent, because Aristotle said so. But it isn't afferent. Bachelorhood is efferent."

The rabbi looked completely pole-axed. All his life he had been taught that all bachelors are unmarried.

"Your reasoning is profound, Seymour. Never have I heard such astute observations. Please continue!"

"With pleasure, rabbi! You see, each bachelor has a mirror-image, a p-bachelor, and the p-bachelor is married. They remain bachelors, however, because the marriage begins and ends instantaneously. There is no time delay between wedding and divorce."

The rabbi's mouth fell open, and strands of drool dangled from it as he regarded me with pop-eyed awe and wonder. "Never have I beheld such Talmudic wisdom in the mouth of one man," he ejaculated. "But why instantaneously, Seymour?"

"Because, rabbi, the p-bachelors won't sleep in the same beds as their wives, and compel them of their own free will to undertake a serious study of cooking to prepare the best spaghetti and meatballs of all time for Monday night dinner. Also the p-bachelors fall in love with their instantaneous wives' genitals, and like to have a little rumpy-pumpy at the dinner table provided no young ones are present. Believe me, those marriages are over in no time at all!"

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

It is clear to me that there is no such thing as an efferent bachelor. Bachelorhood was easy. It is being, and staying, married that requires significant effort.

Definition please, is efferent happy or unhappy?

[davidm]

Now I'm reading in Scientific American that some scientists in Colorado are planning to fire a bunch of bachelors through a rapidly rotating toothed wheel to see what happens. Should be interesting.