A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Yes, they do. That's what the known and tested laws of physics say. Also, the laws of physics say that those photons don't turn up at the retina before they have traveled there. Period.

As I said, let's end the discussion. I have no idea how I was sucked into it again.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As I said, let's end the discussion. I have no idea how I was sucked into it again.

Just admit that you're wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Just admit that you're wrong.

Absolutely not, but we can still shake hands!!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

A self-described internet nutter discusses the many ways in which peacegirl has gone awry:

Nhoj Morley | FUN with THE TRIOOOON SCHEME | The Art of Internet Nutting

Interesting how this guy (I remember him) is now classifying me as an internet nutter because I tried to use the internet to share this knowledge. This is nuttier than nutty because he was the moderator of Project Reason, which was founded by Sam Harris whom I was hoping to contact. I never had a chance unfortunately. In the meantime, Nhoj Morley never questioned anything. Never was curious about anything. Never had much to say about anything. I didn't even stay on that forum too long because no one responded, good or bad. He just decided that I was an online nutter as the sponsor of the book, and he painted a false picture of my father. Taking snippets out of the book in an effort to diminish it is so wrong. He could have at least read the book and given me a fair and honest review like he did with Harris. But no, he didn't. Do you not see the way people can misconstrue and write lies about people? So who is the internet nutter NOW?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So who is the internet nutter NOW?

[peacegirl]

SoundCloud - Hear the world’s sounds

[davidm]

Now that peaccegirl has “ended” this discussion (is the thread being closed again? ) a brief recap:

She has misrepresented her father’s writings on light and sight, either because she never understood them or because she realized how stupid they were and decided to change them. If the latter, then, ironically enough, she made something stupid even stupider. Lessans wrote that the light only needed to be at the object (like the sun) to be seen, and NOT at the eye at all. That’s really stupid. But peacegirl succeeded in making it even stupider, claiming light is instantly at the eye even though it has not arrived there yet. This is not only a violation of the laws of physics, it is a violation of the laws of logic.

Peacegirl changed her father’s instant seeing to nanosecond seeing. Nowhere did Lessans say we saw distant objects in a nanosecond. I am certain he did not even know what a nanosecond was. A couple of years ago, when she first pulled this loony idea straight out of her ass, we did the calculations for her on seeing a candle a short distance from the eye in a room; GdB just did them again. But why a nanosecond? A nanosecond is not at all the same thing as instantly. It’s not even close! A nansecond is infinitely longer than no time at all — and no time at all is what Lessans claimed.

And there are shorter periods of time than a nanosecond — much shorter! Why not a picosecond? A femtosecond? An attosecond? A zeptosecond? A yoctosecond? Planck Time? These are all measurable lengths of time during which real physical processes take place, yet each is vastly shorter than a nanosecond, while being infinitely longer than instantly. For example, one nanosecond is to one second, as one second is to 31.71 years. But one femtosecond is to one second, as one second is to about 31.71 million years. The shorter units of time that are briefer even than a femtosecond are correspondingly briefer by orders of magnitude. Compared to Planck time, a nanosecond is so vast a stretch of time it exceeds the imagination — yet Planck time is still infinite in duration compared to no time at all.

So why did she change Daddy’s “no time at all” to “a nanosecond”? She pulled that out of her ass because she heard one of us mention a nanosecond in calculating the time it would take to see a candle a short distance from the eye. That's all. Pulled it right out of her ass with no justification. Just her usual babble.

Finally, she just wrote:

We may even see light from galaxies that have traveled great distances over time but I don't believe we would be able to see Columbus discovering America in that light.

But that’s not what Lessans wrote! He wrote that IF an astronomer on Rigel (about 500 light years distant) had a powerful enough telescope, he would be able to see Columbus landing in the Americas — instantly! That is, Columbus landing in America, and the astronomer on Rigel viewing this, would occur at the same time. This is sheer lunacy, of course, but I bring this up only to point out that peacegirl yet again misrepresents the nutty thing Lessans wrote. Conclusion: peacegirl does not understand what her father wrote about light and sight. And, to the extent that she tries to change what he wrote, her claims are even nuttier than his were — no small feat! That’s real Internet nutting, to make even nuttier that which was utterly nuts to begin with!

Glad to have cleared up peacegirl’s confusion. You’re welcome, peacegirl!

Will there be a page 1,900 party, or should we wait for page 2,000 even though the conversation has officially ended here?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Absolutely not, but we can still shake hands!!

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by davidm

Will there be a page 1,900 party, or should we wait for page 2,000 even though the conversation has officially ended here?

I vote we wait for 2,000. Ended conversations/closed threads ain't what they used to be, and this course of this here skid mark on the boxers of the universe demonstrates that reaching 2,000 pages is a scientific, mathematical and undeniable certainty.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Interesting how this guy (I remember him) is now classifying me as an internet nutter because I tried to use the internet to share this knowledge.

As always, you are a silly cow with zero reading comprehension. "Internet nutter" is a term of endearment/respect for this guy. After all, he proudly describes himself as an internet nutter. What he's tried to do is establish a set of guidelines for effectively conveying what he termed "idea-monsters" via the internet (see his Ten Steps to Better Internet Nutting). He used Lessans' book and your inept advocacy thereof as examples of what not to do. It's hard to argue with that, given that you've been engaged in online advocacy for 14 years with exactly zero success.

Dudebro had exactly nothing bad to say about the substance of Lessans' claims. You being paranoid and dumb, though, you assumed the opposite.

show spoiler

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, photons travel which means it takes time for them to get to a destination.

What traveling have the photons at the film/retina at 12:00 done? Where did they travel from? Where did they travel to? And how long did it take?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are trying to get me to agree with you that his claim therefore violates the laws of physics.

I'm just trying to get you to honestly answer questions instead of running away and then lying about what you have or have not answered.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In fact, I don't know how I was suckered into discussing this topic again.

I believe it was because you became uncomfortable about having to LIE about having answered my questions, which you are still presently evading.

You need photons at the camera film or retina when the Sun is first ignited.
1. Are they traveling photons?
PG: I already agreed that light travels [Yes?]
2. Did they come from the Sun?
PG: Light comes from the Sun [Yes?]
3. Did they get to the film/retina by traveling?
PG: Light is at the film but not due to travel time [No?]
PG: Light cannot be at the Sun and at the eye instantaneously as if by magic [Huh?]
4. Did they travel at the speed of light?
PG: Light travels at a finite speed [Yes?]
5. Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?
PG: Light cannot leave the Sun before it is ignited [No?]

Are the above queried Yes/No interpretations accurate?

If so, then you now have light at the retina at 12:00 which came from the Sun, which is traveling light yet somehow didn't get from the Sun to the film/retina by traveling, and which never left the Sun until at or after 12:00. So...

6. If these photons (which are at the film/retina at 12:00) came from the Sun, then when were they ever at the Sun? (Name a time when these photons were at the Sun)

7. What traveling did these photons do, if they didn't travel from the Sun to the film/retina? How can they be traveling photons if they haven't traveled from their source to their present location? (Name a time when these photons were traveling, or specify a distance they have traveled)

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't believe there is a contradiction.

Then why are you so terrified of discussing it? Why refuse to answer questions about it? You clearly know full well that your account is contradictory.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one is denying that light travels...

Then what traveling has the light at the film/retina at 12:00 done? Where did it travel from and to? How long did it take? YOU are denying that this light travels.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I agree with that. There is no teleportation or magic involved. Photons travel...

Again, what traveling have the photons at the film/retina at 12:00 done? Where did they travel from/to? How long did it take?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As I said, let's end the discussion. I have no idea how I was sucked into it again.

Let me remind you: It was because you were caught LYING about having answered questions that you still haven't answered.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

As always, you are a silly cow with zero reading comprehension. "Internet nutter" is a term of endearment/respect for this guy. After all, he proudly describes himself as an internet nutter. What he's tried to do is establish a set of guidelines for effectively conveying what he termed "idea-monsters" via the internet (see his Ten Steps to Better Internet Nutting). He used Lessans' book and your inept advocacy thereof as examples of what not to do. It's hard to argue with that, given that you've been engaged in online advocacy for 14 years with exactly zero success.

Dudebro had exactly nothing bad to say about the substance of Lessans' claims. You being paranoid and dumb, though, you assumed the opposite.

show spoiler

He had nothing bad to say about the claims because he didn't read the goddamn book and he knows nothing about it. Yes, I could improve my presentation (even though I'm not doing any more forums). I read his list of dos and don'ts but the fact that he was assuming that the sponsor of "the great idea" is more about a personality flaw than anything else is, once again, placing the cart before the horse. No one that I know of is trying to bring a major discovery to light, so he cannot put me in the same category as other internet nutters (like himself). In doing so he has missed the mark by generalizing too much and putting everyone into the same pot.

The typical response is panic and a cry of foul. Followed by a tragic appeal to Greatness. A better response is to come to terms with a basic conundrum of internet nutting. It doesn't matter how much confidence a nutter has in their idea-monster or even whether it is decisively correct. I can attest that there is a sort of inner clarity about one's idea-monster that leads one to consider it ready for internet nutting that is definitely something other than an objective plain perception. However, there is no simple way to express that inner clarity through the dense and damp fog of one's personality. This is a fog so regular in its daily appearance that the personality that generates it has adjusted its sight to see through it. Kind of. The view is still a bit dark and obscure. It is like turning up an internal brightness control to compensate.

No such compensation is taking place for the reading public. Any initial public response will express a sincere concern that there is only a dense and damp fog to be found where clarity was promised. Okay, I'm putting that gracefully. And charitably. It can be a flogging on bare parts you didn't know were bare. I've watched many times as well-meaning nutters come to the forums to announce the availability of their idea-monster. Expecting to get straight to whipping the world's problems, the nutter is instead shocked and appalled to find that things get quickly bogged down over trivialities like spelling and grammar. Clearly, these aren't the butt-people.

Nhoj Morley | FUN with THE TRIOOOON SCHEME | The Art of Internet Nutting

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Now that peaccegirl has “ended” this discussion (is the thread being closed again? ) a brief recap:

She has misrepresented her father’s writings on light and sight, either because she never understood them or because she realized how stupid they were and decided to change them. If the latter, then, ironically enough, she made something stupid even stupider. Lessans wrote that the light only needed to be at the object (like the sun) to be seen, and NOT at the eye at all. That’s really stupid. But peacegirl succeeded in making it even stupider, claiming light is instantly at the eye even though it has not arrived there yet. This is not only a violation of the laws of physics, it is a violation of the laws of logic.

No it isn't.

Originally Posted by davidm

Peacegirl changed her father’s instant seeing to nanosecond seeing. Nowhere did Lessans say we saw distant objects in a nanosecond. I am certain he did not even know what a nanosecond was. A couple of years ago, when she first pulled this loony idea straight out of her ass, we did the calculations for her on seeing a candle a short distance from the eye in a room; GdB just did them again. But why a nanosecond? A nanosecond is not at all the same thing as instantly. It’s not even close! A nansecond is infinitely longer than no time at all — and no time at all is what Lessans claimed.

And there are shorter periods of time than a nanosecond — much shorter! Why not a picosecond? A femtosecond? An attosecond? A zeptosecond? A yoctosecond? Planck Time? These are all measurable lengths of time during which real physical processes take place, yet each is vastly shorter than a nanosecond, while being infinitely longer than instantly. For example, one nanosecond is to one second, as one second is to 31.71 years. But one femtosecond is to one second, as one second is to about 31.71 million years. The shorter units of time that are briefer even than a femtosecond are correspondingly briefer by orders of magnitude. Compared to Planck time, a nanosecond is so vast a stretch of time it exceeds the imagination — yet Planck time is still infinite in duration compared to no time at all.

So why did she change Daddy’s “no time at all” to “a nanosecond”? She pulled that out of her ass because she heard one of us mention a nanosecond in calculating the time it would take to see a candle a short distance from the eye. That's all. Pulled it right out of her ass with no justification. Just her usual babble.

He said that the light has to be bright enough and large enough for us to see it in real time; real time meaning the light does not have to travel to Earth. If it isn't bright enough and large enough to be seen with the naked eye or a telescope, then we wouldn't be able to see it. He was differentiating "real time vision" which does not require light to travel 8 1/2 minutes even though it might take a nano second to reach the celestial body's intrinsic brightness or luminosity. I give up.

Originally Posted by davidm

Finally, she just wrote:

Originally Posted by davidm

But that’s not what Lessans wrote! He wrote that IF an astronomer on Rigel (about 500 light years distant) had a powerful enough telescope, he would be able to see Columbus landing in the Americas — instantly! That is, Columbus landing in America, and the astronomer on Rigel viewing this, would occur at the same time. This is sheer lunacy, of course, but I bring this up only to point out that peacegirl yet again misrepresents the nutty thing Lessans wrote. Conclusion: peacegirl does not understand what her father wrote about light and sight. And, to the extent that she tries to change what he wrote, her claims are even nuttier than his were — no small feat! That’s real Internet nutting, to make even nuttier that which was utterly nuts to begin with!

That's not what he said David. He did not say that we would view Columbus landing in America. He said that's the present belief.

p. 117 Our scientists, becoming enthralled over the discovery that light
travels approximately 186,000 miles a second and taking for granted
that 5 senses was equally scientific, made the statement (which my
friend referred to and still exists in our encyclopedias) that if we could
sit on the star Rigel with a very powerful telescope focused on the
earth we would just be able to see the ships of Columbus reaching
America for the very first time. A former science teacher who taught
this to her students as if it were an absolute fact responded, “I am sure
Columbus would just be arriving; are you trying to tell me that this is
not a scientific fact?”

Again my reply was, “Are you positive because you were told this,
or positive because you, yourself, saw the relations revealing this
truth? And if you are still positive, will you put your right hand on
the chopping block to show me how positive you really are?”

“I am not that positive, but this is what I was taught.”

Once again certain facts have been confused and all the reasoning
except for light traveling at a high rate of speed are completely
fallacious. Scientists made the assumption that since the eyes are a
sense organ it followed that light must reflect an electric image of
everything it touches which then travels through space and is received
by the brain through the eyes. What they tried to make us believe is
that if it takes 8 minutes for the light from the sun to reach us it
would take hundreds of years for the reflection of Columbus to reach
Rigel, even with a powerful telescope. But why would they need a
telescope?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He said that the light has to be bright enough and large enough for us to see it in real time; real time meaning the light does not have to travel to Earth.

So how does it get from the Sun to the film/retina on Earth without traveling there? All photons are traveling photons, remember, so if it didn't travel then it isn't light. You are still contradicting not only physics and logic, but also yourself.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[davidm]

Holy fuck, peacegirl, you are stoopid. And dishonest! But we all knew that already, didn't we?

Why don't you post the rest of that passage on Rigel and Columbus? The present belief he was disputing, was not the belief that with a powerful enough telescope, someone on Rigel could see Columbus arriving in America. The present belief he was disputing, was that from the standpoint of someone on Rigel with a telescope, that person would be seeing the earth as it was 500 years in the past. He said that the arrival of Columbus in the Americas, and the person on Rigel viewing this through a telescope, would be simultaneous.

Why did you not post the rest of the passage which proves that this is what he meant? Or did you rewrite the whole text to eliminate yet another big bunch of stupid?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it isn't.

Wow, that's quite the cogent rebuttal, peacegirl! I'm sure you're impressing the shit out of all the imaginary lurkers who secretly support you but are too intimated to start posting! Nice work!

... even though it might take a nano second to reach the celestial body's intrinsic brightness or luminosity.

Whatever! Just throw up a bunch of shit you don't understand and hope no one notices that you have no clue about anything, as usual!

I give up.

Again??

Page 2,000 party, here we come.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are dodging the issue again.

WHY. DO. YOU. KEEP. LYING. ABOUT. HAVING. ANSWERED. THESE. QUESTIONS???

It is all a matter of definitions. Peacegirl thinks that responding to a post is the same thing as answering the questions contained in the post. Kind of like answering the phone but not answering the questions the caller is asking.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Scientists made the assumption that since the eyes are a sense organ it followed that light must reflect an electric image of everything it touches which then travels through space and is received by the brain through the eyes.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Holy fuck, peacegirl, you are stoopid. And dishonest! But we all knew that already, didn't we?

Why don't you post the rest of that passage on Rigel and Columbus? The present belief he was disputing, was not the belief that with a powerful enough telescope, someone on Rigel could see Columbus arriving in America. The present belief he was disputing, was that from the standpoint of someone on Rigel with a telescope, that person would be seeing the earth as it was 500 years in the past. He said that the arrival of Columbus in the Americas, and the person on Rigel viewing this through a telescope, would be simultaneous.

Why did you not post the rest of the passage which proves that this is what he meant? Or did you rewrite the whole text to eliminate yet another big bunch of stupid?

That's not what he meant David. He meant the opposite. With a powerful enough telescope we would see someone in the present, not the past. You understand less than I imagined, if that's possible.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by davidm

He wrote that IF an astronomer on Rigel (about 500 light years distant) had a powerful enough telescope, he would be able to see Columbus landing in the Americas — instantly! That is, Columbus landing in America, and the astronomer on Rigel viewing this, would occur at the same time.

Originally Posted by davidm

He said that the arrival of Columbus in the Americas, and the person on Rigel viewing this through a telescope, would be simultaneous.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not what he meant David. He meant the opposite. With a powerful enough telescope we would see someone in the present, not the past.

Is that the opposite?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You understand less than I imagined, if that's possible.

Hmmm....

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

Is that the opposite?

Hmmm....

GdB, you know less than he does because you haven't been here long enough. This just goes to show how biased people are in a bad way. Everyone is biased to a degree, but this takes the cake.