A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[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.

No, No, No, it is not effort, it's simply inertia. It's easier to stay where you are, than to move.

[Angakuk]

That can't be right. Don't you remember that Lessans proved that we are always moving in the direction of greater satisfaction? Not moving is not an option. Not moving = dead. However, "dead man walking" is just another name for not being a bachelor, so that is all right then.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

That can't be right. Don't you remember that Lessans proved that we are always moving in the direction of greater satisfaction? Not moving is not an option. Not moving = dead. However, "dead man walking" is just another name for not being a bachelor, so that is all right then.

Like I said, you're not really dead, it just feels that way.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

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.

That's in your imagination. I didn't lie about anything just because I disagree that you have absolute proof in hand.

Originally Posted by davidm

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?

Using the speed of light to calculate the distance from one place to another is accurate, but that does not prove we see afferently. One thing has nothing to do with the other.

Astronomers have technologies to measure distances to other planets more directly. When we have a spacecraft at another planet, we know the time it takes a radio signal to travel between Earth and the spacecraft. We can also send a powerful radar signal toward a planet and time how long it takes for the echo to return. Astronomers know how fast these signals travel (the speed of light), so measuring how long they take makes it easy to calculate the distance very accurately.

http://spaceplace.nasa.gov/review/dr...distances.html

Originally Posted by davidm

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.

If you don't like it here, leave.

[peacegirl]

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?

It seems silly to you because you don't even understand what I'm saying. I never said light stays at rest. You're just as lost as everyone else.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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?

I don't care what psychological scale you've created to judge my behavior. The point is YOU are displaying behavior that is maladaptive.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

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?

No, he was using an idiom but he never indicated that light "sticks around". That's what you want to have people think.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The correct answer is that it isn't true that the object must be there at the time it is seen.

This has not been proven.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

You can't come up with a better answer than that? If that was true then we would get an image without the object being in view. That never happens and you can't use the stupid excuse that light is traveling too fast for an image to show up on film.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

Did you not hear my explanation, or do you have cotton in your ears? If the eyes see efferently, then a mirror image shows up on the retina OR FILM in the same way because the phenomenon works the same way in either case.

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.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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?

Until you stop talking for a change, and listen, you'll never get it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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?

It's YOU THAT IS MAKING MISTAKES IN YOUR COMPREHENSION, NOT ME.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

That can't be right. Don't you remember that Lessans proved that we are always moving in the direction of greater satisfaction? Not moving is not an option. Not moving = dead. However, "dead man walking" is just another name for not being a bachelor, so that is all right then.

There ya go! So to expand on davidm's excerpt from The Decline and Fall of All Sapience:

The rabbi gazed lovingly at me, reduced to a state of gibbering incontinence by the profundity of my words. "But Seymour, if all you say is true ..."

"Excuse me Rabbi, but the fact that you chose to ask a question rather than eat a bullet conclusively proves the scientific, mathematical and undeniable truth of all I have said."

"It is just too unbelievable, and I just feel like crying for sheer happiness."

"So will all mankind, once everything sinks in. As always, though, don't thank me ... thank God."

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It seems silly to you because you don't even understand what I'm saying. I never said light stays at rest. You're just as lost as everyone else.

Then what happens to the non-absorbed light? Why is it not silly to say that it neither stays there at rest nor travels away? What else can it possibly do?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't care what psychological scale you've created to judge my behavior. The point is YOU are displaying behavior that is maladaptive.

That I've created? Did I say that you'd be crazy to stay here and keep posting, or did YOU?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This has not been proven.

You can't come up with a better answer than that? If that was true then we would get an image without the object being in view. That never happens and you can't use the stupid excuse that light is traveling too fast for an image to show up on film.

The answer is correct, whether you'll accept it or not. And repeatedly asking us the same question, without giving us any reason to change our answer, and while refusing to accept any answer that does not accommodate your own invented facts is not the behavior of a sane mind.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Did you not hear my explanation, or do you have cotton in your ears? If the eyes see efferently, then a mirror image shows up on the retina OR FILM in the same way because the phenomenon works the same way in either case.

And what way is that? Whatever way it is, it obviously cannot involve the eyes in the scenario I've asked you about. Yet you tried to excuse yourself from answering my questions because they didn't mention eyes and only concerned light. But whatever is going on in your alleged real-time photography, it CANNOT involve eyes, and MUST be explainable in terms of light only. So your excuse for not answering my questions was obviously wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Until you stop talking for a change, and listen, you'll never get it.

I am listening, but you're not answering. 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?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's YOU THAT IS MAKING MISTAKES IN YOUR COMPREHENSION, NOT ME.

Am I mistaken to say that you are wrong to refuse to answer my questions on the grounds that they ask about light rather than eyes, when there are no eyes involved in what I am asking you about? Am I wrong to think that real-time photography must be explainable in terms of light rather than eyes?

Am I mistaken to think that light which strikes an object but is not absorbed, and does not stay there at rest, must instead travel away from the object? Am I wrong to say that it is silly to suggest this unabsorbed light neither stays there at rest nor travels away?

[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.

Now that we've established that there are no eyes involved in real-time photography, and that I am therefore not making any mistake in asking only about the light involved, perhaps you could answer the above two questions?

Or would you prefer to waste everybody's time by trying to invent another bogus excuse?

[peacegirl]

I want to say one thing. You think you're right Spacemonkey, and so does everybody else. I am the underdog. I am being targeted because you think you are educating me and the only reason I can't accept your wonderful knowledge is because I'm a fanatic. Your entire premise is wrong, and this thread will one day be a testament to how hard I tried to convince the "smart" ones; the ones who are scientifically more advanced, THAT THEY ARE WRONG. How long it will take, I don't know and I don't care. That's up to the universe. But at least this thread will be available at a future date as an unseen witness.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I want to say one thing. You think you're right Spacemonkey, and so does everybody else. I am the underdog. I am being targeted because you think you are educating me and the only reason I can't accept your wonderful knowledge is because I'm a fanatic.

I can assure you, I'm certainly not under the illusion that I'm actually managing to educate you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your entire premise is wrong, and this thread will one day be a testament to how hard I tried to convince the "smart" ones; the ones who are scientifically more advanced, THAT THEY ARE WRONG. How long it will take, I don't know and I don't care. That's up to the universe. But at least this thread will be available at a future date as an unseen witness.

Is this you throwing in the towel and leaving? Or are you just throwing another hissy fit to distract from your inability to answer simple questions, own up to your own mistakes, or face the reality of your own obvious mental dysfunction?

[Spacemonkey]

Some simple questions for you to evade and weasel out of answering:

1) If there can be a mirror image at the eyes before any light has reached the Earth, then what does that mirror image consist of and how did it get there?

2) Why should an explanation of real-time photography, in a scenario where there are no eyes at all, be required to use the eyes rather than light as a starting point?

3) How can the unabsorbed remainder of light striking an object neither stay there at rest nor travel away from the object?

Don't forget to lie and weasel. If you were to accidentally answer these questions instead of avoiding them, then you would make it much more difficult for us to draw attention to your mental dysfunction and provide you with the negative attention you crave.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Some simple questions for you to evade and weasel out of answering:

1) If there can be a mirror image at the eyes before any light has reached the Earth, then what does that mirror image consist of and how did it get there?

2) Why should an explanation of real-time photography, in a scenario where there are no eyes at all, be required to use the eyes rather than light as a starting point?

3) How can the unabsorbed remainder of light striking an object neither stay there at rest nor travel away from the object?

Don't forget to lie and weasel. If you were to accidentally answer these questions instead of avoiding them, then you would make it much more difficult for us to draw attention to your mental dysfunction and provide you with the negative attention you crave.

This has become such a joke. It really doesn't matter what you think Spacemonkey; that's the bottom line. This knowledge will be recognized sooner or later because it is an accurate observation. I'm so sorry that you are so completely defensive. Most people who are this defensive have a lot to lose. Maybe you don't want to lose your worldview. Whatever it is, you are the one that is being anything but objective.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The answer is correct, whether you'll accept it or not. And repeatedly asking us the same question, without giving us any reason to change our answer, and while refusing to accept any answer that does not accommodate your own invented facts is not the behavior of a sane mind.

Shut up with my sane mind, or you are going on ignore. If you can't talk man to man without the insults, it's over Spacemonkey. You are not the only one on this Earth that can validate this knowledge, so give it up, or leave. If you continue to talk about my mental state as some kind of defense, then don't talk to me at all. I'm done with your shananigans.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I want to say one thing. You think you're right Spacemonkey, and so does everybody else. I am the underdog. I am being targeted because you think you are educating me and the only reason I can't accept your wonderful knowledge is because I'm a fanatic. Your entire premise is wrong, and this thread will one day be a testament to how hard I tried to convince the "smart" ones; the ones who are scientifically more advanced, THAT THEY ARE WRONG. How long it will take, I don't know and I don't care. That's up to the universe. But at least this thread will be available at a future date as an unseen witness.

Just as I said, this forum & thread is Peacegirls 'Hair Shirt' to prove just how dedicated she is to Lessans book. She actually believes that someday her perseverance and dedication will be recognized as a good thing and not as a waste of 10 years for nothing.

Peacegirls theme song to 'the book',

Flamingos - I Only Have Eyes For You (Original...

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Shut up with my sane mind, or you are going on ignore. If you can't talk man to man without the insults, it's over Spacemonkey.

I think it might be slightly inaccurate to suggest that Spacemonkey and Peacegirl can talk 'Man to Man', there is just a slight physical difficulty, I think? Of course, as has been demonstrated by Peacegirl, insults are in abundance.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's in your imagination. I didn't lie about anything just because I disagree that you have absolute proof in hand.

Really? You disagree? How?

In Fizeau's experiment, he determined that the light was blocked by visual inspection. If he saw the light reflected off the mirror in real time, his geared wheel would have to be spinning fast enough to block his view as soon as the light reached the mirror. That would be (distance from gear to mirror)/time.

Instead, he calculated the speed based on the distance between the gear and mirror and back, 2*(distance from gear to mirror)/time.

If real time seeing were correct, Fizeau would have calculated the speed of light two times faster than the correct speed of light.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This has become such a joke. It really doesn't matter what you think Spacemonkey; that's the bottom line. This knowledge will be recognized sooner or later because it is an accurate observation. I'm so sorry that you are so completely defensive. Most people who are this defensive have a lot to lose. Maybe you don't want to lose your worldview. Whatever it is, you are the one that is being anything but objective.

Permit me to translate from peacegirlese to standard English.

Translation: I haven't got a fucking clue how to answer these perfectly reasonable questions, all of which are based on my own claims. Nor can I ever hope to explain why NASA sends spacecraft to Mars and other worlds based on calculations for delayed-time seeing, because if they used my father's method all their spacecraft would miss their targets. Because I can't answer questions that naturally arise from examining what Lessans said, I'll throw another hissy fit instead, and threaten for the 5,000th time to leave the forum and put people on Pretend Ignore. Of course because I'm such a little liar I'll do neither, but instead continue to spew my bilge and dodge all questions about it until the day I die.

</translation>

[davidm]

Oh, peacegirl? This:

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Really? You disagree? How?

In Fizeau's experiment, he determined that the light was blocked by visual inspection. If he saw the light reflected off the mirror in real time, his geared wheel would have to be spinning fast enough to block his view as soon as the light reached the mirror. That would be (distance from gear to mirror)/time.

Instead, he calculated the speed based on the distance between the gear and mirror and back, 2*(distance from gear to mirror)/time.

If real time seeing were correct, Fizeau would have calculated the speed of light two times faster than the correct speed of light.

Conclusive disproof of Lessans' real-time seeing claim, and right here on earth, too, just as you asked for! What now? Another hissy fit?