A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's all well and good, but the telescope cannot register reflected light off of a tiny piece of reflective material at a quarter of a million miles away, even if the light is intense. It just won't be seen.

Again, could you please post on subjects that you know something about, and leave those subjects about which you are completely ignorant, to those who know, which obviously excludes you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Spacemonkey, the same photon traveled from the Sun to the Earth but this has no relevance at all. You keep trying to attribute to light abilities that it doesn't have.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The same photon as what? And what abilities am I attributing to light that it doesn't have?

That left the Sun and arrived on Earth.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Do you realize this is the third time you've responded to this post without addressing a single thing it says?

Is that reasonable?

Due to all the posts I'm answering, they are all merging because they are all alike. I don't even take the time to see if I've answered them more than once. If I feel like answering again, I will. Sometimes I have something else to add. Most the time my answers are slightly different as a means of clarifying what I said.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's all well and good, but the telescope cannot register reflected light off of a tiny piece of reflective material at a quarter of a million miles away, even if the light is intense. It just won't be seen.

God … DAMN … but you are stupid!

But never mind how stupid what you just said is. Here's what I want to know: are you claiming that NASA and astronomers all over the world who have been doing this shit you claim is impossible for the last 50 years, are lying?

You really are a nasty little nut!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

It's as I've often said: as a professional writer and editor, I'd be happy to edit Lessans' book. I would make it much more concise and understandable. In fact, it would be the easiest project I ever had. Here's the whole edit:

The Decline and Fall of All Evil
By Seymour Lessans

The End

You can have the edit free of charge, peacegirl. Just glad to have helped out!

As much as I don't like some of the things you say, you happen to be very funny on occasion. When you make a satire out of the book, that's not funny because it's based on lies. But some of your posts crack me up like this one.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That left the Sun and arrived on Earth.

What the fuck? The photon that left the Sun and traveled to the Earth is the same as itself? What photon is that? What the fuck are you even talking about? Do you know? How does this relate to anything in my post?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Due to all the posts I'm answering, they are all merging because they are all alike. I don't even take the time to see if I've answered them more than once. If I feel like answering again, I will. Sometimes I have something else to add. Most the time my answers are slightly different as a means of clarifying what I said.

The problem wasn't that you've responded to the same post multiple times. The problem is that you STILL haven't responded to a single goddamn thing that it says!!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

God … DAMN … but you are stupid!

But never mind how stupid what you just said is. Here's what I want to know: are you claiming that NASA and astronomers all over the world who have been doing this shit you claim is impossible for the last 50 years, are lying?

You really are a nasty little nut!

It has nothing to do with lying. Why are all of you so obsessed with this word that you use it in the wrong way?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Due to all the posts I'm answering, they are all merging because they are all look alike. I don't even take the time to see what they say.

Obviously.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That left the Sun and arrived on Earth.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What the fuck? The photon that left the Sun and traveled to the Earth is the same as itself? What photon is that? What the fuck are you even talking about? Do you know? How does this relate to anything in my post?

No, the same photon arrived on Earth that left the Sun 81/2 minutes ago. It's not teleporting and it's not in two places at once.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Due to all the posts I'm answering, they are all merging because they are all alike. I don't even take the time to see if I've answered them more than once. If I feel like answering again, I will. Sometimes I have something else to add. Most the time my answers are slightly different as a means of clarifying what I said.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The problem wasn't that you've responded to the same post multiple times. The problem is that you STILL haven't responded to a single goddamn thing that it says!!

I did respond. I shouldn't have as the escalation of your namecalling is getting worse and worse. I said it's the same photon that leaves the Sun which arrives on Earth 81/2 minutes later. You think photons come in little packets with their own wavelengths, so the first photon must be a different image that arrives at the eye first. Am I right?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When you make a satire out of the book, that's not funny because it's based on lies.

You're absolutely right, the book is based on lies.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's all well and good, but the telescope cannot register reflected light off of a tiny piece of reflective material at a quarter of a million miles away, even if the light is intense. It just won't be seen.

But the telescope DOES detect it and it CAN be seen. That is exactly what you've been shown. Do you have any moves left here other than compete denial of reality?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But the telescope DOES detect it and it CAN be seen. That is exactly what you've been shown. Do you have any moves left here other than compete denial of reality?

Yes, it detects it at 2.6 seconds when the light is now within the field of view of the telescope. At a quarter of a million miles it's not. I'm not in denial of reality Spacemonkey. That's just your little boy speaking who doesn't want to lose.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, the same photon arrived on Earth that left the Sun 81/2 minutes ago. It's not teleporting and it's not in two places at once.

Is that photon also one of the ones at the film when the Sun is first ignited? If not, then it ISN'T the same photon as any that my questions asked you about, is it?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did respond. I shouldn't have as the escalation of your namecalling is getting worse and worse. I said it's the same photon that leaves the Sun which arrives on Earth 81/2 minutes later. You think photons come in little packets with their own wavelengths, so the first photon must be a different image that arrives at the eye first. Am I right?

No, I don't think anything of the sort. And I know you've responded to the post. You've done so several times. But you haven't actually addressed any of its content. Go back and read the post. Look at all the points raised and questions asked. You haven't even touched on any of them. Fuck it, I'll just re-post all the content below (for you to no-doubt continue to ignore):


Fine. Don't change your answers. That just means your account remains flatly contradictory, with the photons in question both traveling and not traveling the 93 million miles from the Sun to the film in under 8min.


You just rejected your own answers above, so you do need to answer them again. Here they are:

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 be daft. Your account cannot put the Sun inside people's eyes. And if the lens is affecting light that has had time (8min) to travel from the Sun to the lens, then we are talking about light that has arrived 8min too late to be of any use to you.


I didn't say anything about replacement or about distance. Try reading what you are replying to. You said you have always maintained that light travels. So I asked: Does that include the light you need at the film on Earth when the Sun is first ignited? Did that light travel from the Sun to get there? If so, how long did it take to complete the journey, and when did it leave the Sun?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You think photons come in little packets with their own wavelengths,

Yes, each photon has it's own specific wavelength that doesn't change as long as that photon exists, and each photon has it's own trajectory that doesn't change till it's deflected or refracted by some substance. The usual end for a photon is that it is absorbed by some substance and it's energy converted to another form. But photons don't come in packets, each photon is an individual that is independent of the source or the object that it has been reflected from. And even though they travel in company of other photons each photon is independent of the other photons.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, it detects it at 2.6 seconds when the light is now within the field of view of the telescope. At a quarter of a million miles it's not. I'm not in denial of reality Spacemonkey. That's just your little boy speaking who doesn't want to lose.

At 2.6sec the light is INSIDE the telescope. At 1.3sec it is at the reflector on the moon, beginning to illuminate it (the reflector, not the moon). And that is what we see - these photons hitting the reflector - only we see it AFTER it happened. Your claims that there are two few photons for the eye too detect, and that the reflector is too small and far away to be seen, are quite simply false.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It has nothing to do with lying. Why are all of you so obsessed with this word that you use it in the wrong way?

Then what ARE you suggesting? The experiment is done. It has been done for fifty years! It has been shown to you! You asked for youtube, and I gave it to you. Yet you say the experiment that is done, and has been done, for fifty years, is impossible. How do you explain how something that is done all the time, and has been done for half a century, is at the same time impossible?

Is it the same way you maintain that light is instantly at the eye even though it takes eight minutes to get there?

The reason we call you a liar, is because you're a liar! See? No violation of the law of noncontradiction there! Instead, the law of identity!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Is that photon also one of the ones at the film when the Sun is first ignited? If not, then it ISN'T the same photon as any that my questions asked you about, is it?

No, I don't think anything of the sort. And I know you've responded to the post. You've done so several times. But you haven't actually addressed any of its content. Go back and read the post. Look at all the points raised and questions asked. You haven't even touched on any of them. Fuck it, I'll just re-post all the content below (for you to no-doubt continue to ignore):


Fine. Don't change your answers. That just means your account remains flatly contradictory, with the photons in question both traveling and not traveling the 93 million miles from the Sun to the film in under 8min.


You just rejected your own answers above, so you do need to answer them again. Here they are:

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 be daft. Your account cannot put the Sun inside people's eyes.

How in the world does this account put the Sun inside people's eyes? That's like your answer to his claim that the brain has a projecting function. You say it's just psychological when it's absolutely not psychological. It's physical conditioning that takes place as a result of what the brain is able to do.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And if the lens is affecting light that has had time (8min) to travel from the Sun to the lens, then we are talking about light that has arrived 8min too late to be of any use to you.

You're right; that photon has no use to me except that when it arrives on Earth I will be able to see you. I know you think they are no use to me because you believe these photons that have the image of whatever I am looking at is now past history. But this is the afferent model, not what I'm trying to show.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I didn't say anything about replacement or about distance. Try reading what you are replying to. You said you have always maintained that light travels. So I asked: Does that include the light you need at the film on Earth when the Sun is first ignited? Did that light travel from the Sun to get there? If so, how long did it take to complete the journey, and when did it leave the Sun?

Again, you are not seeing this from my perspective which is why there is no meeting of the minds or photons, for that matter. No, it's not necessarily the light I need at the film when I'm looking efferently at the object. That light may have already reached Earth. I am not counting on that individual photon to reveal the object or light source. If I haven't answered your questions to your satisfaction, I'll try again tomorrow, that is, if you don't piss me off. Goodnight!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Yes, each photon has it's own specific wavelength that doesn't change as long as that photon exists, and each photon has it's own trajectory that doesn't change till it's deflected or refracted by some substance. The usual end for a photon is that it is absorbed by some substance and it's energy converted to another form. But photons don't come in packets, each photon is an individual that is independent of the source or the object that it has been reflected from. And even though they travel in company of other photons each photon is independent of the other photons.

Well, each photon comes in a quantum wave packet, but I'm sure she wasn't talking about that.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Is that photon also one of the ones at the film when the Sun is first ignited? If not, then it ISN'T the same photon as any that my questions asked you about, is it?

You have ignored the above question.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Fine. Don't change your answers. That just means your account remains flatly contradictory, with the photons in question both traveling and not traveling the 93 million miles from the Sun to the film in under 8min.


You just rejected your own answers above, so you do need to answer them again. Here they are:

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?

You have ignored ALL of the above.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How in the world does this account put the Sun inside people's eyes?

That was in response to YOUR comment here: "...this account changes everything. It puts the Sun in the same physical space as your eyes..." Yes, I know. That was just you saying something stupid that you didn't really mean.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right; that photon has no use to me...

Then that should be the end of your magical lenses nonsense, as you've agreed that a lens can only affect light that is of no use to you and which arrives 8min AFTER you need us to be able to see the Sun.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it's not necessarily the light I need at the film when I'm looking efferently at the object. That light may have already reached Earth...

Well, that was the only light I was asking you about. Look at the questions in the above paragraph. Can you count the question marks? How many did you answer? Maybe spacing them out will help you:

You said you have always maintained that ALL light travels.

1. Does that include the light you need at the film on Earth when the Sun is first ignited? [Y/N]

2. Did that light travel from the Sun to get there? [Y/N]

3. If so, how long did it take to complete the journey? [insert duration]

4. And when did it leave the Sun? [insert time relative to Sun's ignition]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I haven't answered your questions to your satisfaction...

You know you haven't. Have you answered them to your satisfaction? If so, why are you satisfied with simply ignoring most of what was asked?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That was a typo. That was not even a difficult math problem. You can't accept that this man knew more than you.

You assume it was a typo, because you can't accept that he might have made of mistake, but you have no way to verify it was a typo rather than a wrong answer. You have no evidence except your faith.

[davidm]

Hey, peacegirl, if the sun were in the same "physical space" as the eyes, you'd dissolve into your constituent atoms, because the temperature at the eyes would be about 10,000 degrees F.

Of course I think I first pointed that out to you three years ago, but with you it's in one ear and out the other!

[LadyShea]

you won't get to enjoy any lulz because you won't find me

Are you shutting down your website? Are you stopping all marketing efforts?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Well, each photon comes in a quantum wave packet, but I'm sure she wasn't talking about that.

Do you think Peacegirl understands the words, "Photon", "Quantum", "Wave", "Packet", or any other word in the English language?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Well, each photon comes in a quantum wave packet, but I'm sure she wasn't talking about that.

Could you describe that in more detail, for those of us who might appreciate it.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey, peacegirl, if the sun were in the same "physical space" as the eyes, you'd dissolve into your constituent atoms, because the temperature at the eyes would be about 10,000 degrees F.

Of course I think I first pointed that out to you three years ago, but with you it's in one ear and out the other!

Are you Sirius, do you really believe it even got in the one ear? I'm beginning to think you're as out of touch as Sirius.

Sirius - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

My daughters dog even knows better.

[thedoc]

Hey Peacegirl, See you tomorrow, if not before.