A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[davidm]

*Bump*

Originally Posted by davidm

She wants new questions, because she can't answer any of the old questions!

Hey, try answering this question for once:


Explain why we use delayed-time seeing to calculate trajectories of spacecraft to Mars and other planets, why Hubble takes images of the universe in delayed time, and why we see the moons of Jupiter and all other bodies in delayed time!



Well?

WHAT IS THE ANSWER?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If Lessans was correct and we see in real time, with no light travel delay, we would always, always see the supernova quite some time (decades at least) before we detected the neutrinos...without exception.

Neutrinos travel slightly under the speed of light, so they would be subject to a travel delay while seeing the supernova would happen without the delay.

This is not the case.

In case you are unable to understand the words of real working scientists, peacegirl, I simplified it for you above

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is a lot of controversy surrounding the speed of neutrinos, therefore it is premature to use this as evidence in favor of afferent vision.

Neutrinos still faster than light in latest version of experiment | Science | guardian.co.uk

White light, or the full visible spectrum, travels at a finite speed so it takes time for that light to be detected, just as it takes time to detect non-visible light.

That would be a great way to determine distance, a simple formula using the time we see something and the time the non-visible electromagnetic radiation reached us.

I think that's true because light energy is always traveling at a finite speed. That's like saying we would see the Sun explode instantly but it would take 8.3 minutes for the energy from the Sun to reach Earth.

[LadyShea]

There is a lot of controversy surrounding the speed of neutrinos, therefore it is premature to use this as evidence in favor of afferent vision.

Neutrinos still faster than light in latest version of experiment | Science | guardian.co.uk

LOL, we know they do not travel instantaneously, meaning they do not teleport. The controversy surrounds nanoseconds only.

We know they travel right around the speed of light, so my point stands and you're just weaseling.

If Lessans was correct and we see in real time, with no light travel delay, we would always, always see the supernova quite some time (decades at least) before we detected the neutrinos (because the neutrinos do travel)...without exception.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not true Dragar. You give me no credit and that's why you won't even consider the possibility that science is wrong.

Of course it's true. You can't provide any reason to believe your claims about from Lessans say-so. So again, you're just making excuses and trying to play this out like you're some sort of victim.

To paraphrase someone famous, I think you are confusing our pointing out that you're completely and hopelessly wrong with persecution.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Let me ask you this. If only the visible spectrum is subject to real time seeing, would that necessarily mean that we could see something before we are able to detect the non-visible light? If only the brain and eyes are efferent, then the light speed delay would apply to that light the brain can't see through the eyes.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

White light, or the full visible spectrum, travels at a finite speed so it takes time for that light to be detected, just as it takes time to detect non-visible light.

If we see instantly as per Lessans, if efferent vision were true, we would be able to see a supernova much, much, much sooner than we could detect the light photons from that supernova. Decades at minimum.

That doesn't happen.

[thedoc]

Does anyone on this thread understand that it is completely useless to explain anything to Peacegirl, because she is either incapable of understanding or refuses to understand what is being stated?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Does anyone on this thread understand that it is completely useless to explain anything to Peacegirl, because she is either incapable of understanding or refuses to understand what is being stated?

Of course. She is brain damaged. Just recently she brought up, yet again, her incredibly stupid claim that delayed seeing via light has not been tested on earth, and that light at earthly distances would travel "too fast" for us to see. She even put in a after saying this shit, as though she felt she had brought up a key point.

How many times have both of these false claims been refuted, and careful explanations given to her about why they are wrong? Twenty times? Fifty times? a thousand times? And, how long do you want to bet it will be, before Goldfish Brain yet again makes these "points," as if no one had ever addressed them?

She nuts, obviously. Just like deez nuts ----->

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Does anyone on this thread understand that it is completely useless to explain anything to Peacegirl, because she is either incapable of understanding or refuses to understand what is being stated?

She made an attempt to respond, and included a link to a relevant article. That means she had to look something up. That's progress

BTW, peacegirl, those measurements were found to have probably been skewed by a faulty cable and flawed timing in a master clock. It was always thought to be an error and that's why they put it out there to be looked at by other scientists.

[The Lone Ranger]

Actually, I think that's kind of insulting.

Goldfish can learn. I've yet to see any evidence that this is true of peacegirl, but there's always hope.


Nonetheless, I think that it's occasionally useful to point out some of the truly outrageous implications of the Lessans/peacegirl "model" -- like the necessity of believing that the entire freaking Universe is somehow conspiring to trick us pathetic Earthlings into thinking that we see in delayed time.

You'd think that the stars and planets would have better things to do.



Just on the off chance that some lurker might stumble upon the thread and not immediately realize the extent of the insanity ...


Cheers,

Michael

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, we know they do not travel instantaneously, meaning they do not teleport. The controversy surrounds nanoseconds only.

We know they travel right around the speed of light, so my point stands and you're just weaseling.

That's like seeing solar flares at the same time radio waves are being detected. It's true that we would detect light, but to say that this light travels with an image or pattern of an event (that contains substance) although the event has been gone for millions of years is exactly what is being disputed. I like the example of Columbus discovering America because it's easy to understand what I'm talking about, as opposed to Supernovas that are made up of gases. You can think I'm weaseling all you want.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I like the example of Columbus discovering America because it's easy to understand what I'm talking about, as opposed to Supernovas that are made up of gases. You can think I'm weaseling all you want.

Weasel.

When a supernova occurs when would we see it with our eyeballs or through a telescope, according to efferent vision? It is my understanding of Lessans claims that you believe we would see it instantly at the same time it occurs, without having to await the traveling light to reach Earth. Is my understanding of this aspect of efferent vision correct?

Seeing Columbus discovering America from a distance of 520 light years away is not empirically testable, so will always be a useless example. Seeing a supernova is empirically testable because we can see them with our eyes.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Actually, I think that's kind of insulting.

Goldfish can learn. I've yet to see any evidence that this is true of peacegirl, but there's always hope.


Nonetheless, I think that it's occasionally useful to point out some of the truly outrageous implications of the Lessans/peacegirl "model" -- like the necessity of believing that the entire freaking Universe is somehow conspiring to trick us pathetic Earthlings into thinking that we see in delayed time.

You'd think that the stars and planets would have better things to do.

Why can't you even contemplate the idea that scientists could have made an understandable mistake. There is no conspiracy Lone Ranger.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Just on the off chance that some lurker might stumble upon the thread and not immediately realize the extent of the insanity ...


Cheers,

Michael

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Weasel.

When a supernova occurs when would we see it with our eyeballs or through a telescope, according to efferent vision? It is my understanding of Lessans claims that you believe we would see it instantly at the same time it occurs, without having to await the traveling light to reach Earth. Is my understanding of this aspect of efferent vision correct?

You should know the answer to this. Yes, that's right. As long as there is light surrounding the event, and it is large enough to be seen with a telescope or by the naked eye, we would be able to see it instantly because it meets the requirements of efferent vision. But white visible light is always traveling at a finite speed. Therefore, just because we can see in real time doesn't mean that efferent vision changes the world of physics.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why can't you even contemplate the idea that scientists could have made an understandable mistake. There is no conspiracy Lone Ranger.

An "understandable mistake" involving mountains of evidence from independent fields of study stretching back hundreds of years, all pointing the same result and showing that Lessans' ideas are completely wrong, and indeed cannot possibly be correct.

Yes, an "understand mistake." More good thinking on your part, little Ms. Dippy Brains!

Now you better hurry up and make those last-minute corrections before going to press!

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You should know the answer to this. Yes, that's right. As long as there is light surrounding the event, and it is large enough to be seen with a telescope or by the naked eye, we would be able to see it instantly because it meets the requirements of efferent vision.

So in your world, we should see events instantly - before the light reaches us.

But we don't! Uh-oh, you're wrong again!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, that's right. As long as there is light surrounding the event, and it is large enough to be seen with a telescope or by the naked eye, we would be able to see it instantly because it meets the requirements of efferent vision.

Then, if that's true, we would see supernova, instantly, many years before we could possibly detect the photons or neutrinos that are traveling from that event.

That doesn't happen, ever. Efferent vision disproved.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You'd think that the stars and planets would have better things to do.
Cheers,
Michael

I don't know about that, can you imagine how boreing it would be just floating around in space, alone, very far away from anyone else. And with the distances involved conversation would be very slow. Any kind of amusment to break up the boredom would be welcome. Yeah, I can see the stars and planets doing that.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, in between reading the book and making any last minute corrections, I'm bored, and I'm not ready to start another thread in another forum. But it won't be long before I go, so don't worry.

So you really were just full of it whenever you claimed you would never go to another forum and start all of this over again? Also, mere boredom doesn't explain your continued presence here. I wouldn't stick a needle in my eye just because I was bored. There would have to be something in it for me - some kind of motivation. So what is yours? Why are you still choosing to come here and post in an environment where no-one values your claims and everyone thinks you are crazy? I'm not asking you because I don't know. I'm asking because I want you to ask yourself. Have you even thought about why you keep persisting in this pointless endeavor?

[Spacemonkey]

Your mind is broken, Peacegirl, and your memory impairment is leading you around in circles. For example...

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I answered your questions over and over about photons traveling until I realized that, given your premise that light bounces and travels with the pattern forever and ever, even if the object is no longer there, your conclusion will be valid but not sound.

Do you remember making this response before? Do you remember what my counter to this is? If I were to respond, my counter would still be the same as it has been the last hundred times you've tried this response. So do you know what that counter is? Can you remember it?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As far as you asking me to defend his presuppositions, I'm not answering you because he didn't presuppose anything. For example, if I am accurately describing something I see and am trying to explain it to you, there are no presuppositions.

Again, do you remember employing this response before? Do you remember my counter to it? Tell me what you think I'm likely to say in response to this point.

You keep bringing up the same refuted responses over and over again, each time apparently oblivious to having raised them before and having had them shot down before. It's hard to tell how much of it is due to the crazy and how much to the memory impairment. But in either case it is clear that you are in need of help. What you are doing is not healthy.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't matter where the photons are.

But it does. There has to be some consistent story about the behavior of photons on your account, if that account is to be possible. Yet you cannot provide one.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The issue is whether the eyes are efferent.

But if the eyes are afferent and real time, then cameras must operate in real-time too. And that means you have to be able to explain where the travelling photons are at various times in order for this to be possible. But you can't. Whenever you try you just contradict yourself. The problems do not arise from any afferent assumptions, but purely from premises that YOU specifically agree to when asked about them. So the eyes cannot possibly be afferent.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's all I'm going to say on this question. I still want an apology.

And I want answers to my questions. But seeing as how I have nothing to apologize for, and how you prefer to dishonestly weasel in addition to being completely delusional, I guess we're both going to be disappointed.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The very first thing you need to do is read Chapter Two. He explains the two-sided equation in detail which allows us to see that, under the changed conditions, man cannot derive greater satisfaction in striking a first blow knowing in advance that they will be excused for that which cannot be justified.

Chapter Two doesn't support these points. These are the unsupported presuppositions of the chapter. You know this already. This is why you gave up and refused to present or discuss the chapter, remember? Or do you not remember?

[thedoc]

Can you imagine how boreing it would be to be Peacegirl, locked inside that tiny intellect that is encompased by Lessans book, not ever having even a glimpse of the real world?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Can you imagine how boreing it would be to be Peacegirl, locked inside that tiny intellect that is encompased by Lessans book, not ever having even a glimpse of the real world?

I don't think peacegirl is bored at all. Each reset for her is a whole new adventure even though she has repeated it hundreds of times. It's the eternal sunshine of the spotless mind.

[LadyShea]

Help Scientists Hunt for Exploding Stars | Wired Science | Wired.com