A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You certainly do if you expect anyone to think you are sane. You yourself said it would be insane for you to continue here. And yet here you are still, showing no sign of ever leaving.

What's it to you whether I stay or leave, or for that matter whether I'm sane or insane? You care too much!

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In order for me to explain my position I have to make sure I have a clear understanding of their position so I can respond intelligently. That's not something you know anything about.

Yup, I know nothing about it because you've never done it. Get help peacegirl.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He could have probably worded it better but the concept is still the same. Just like his example of seeing Columbus discovering America, you're trying to use a technicality against him. The bottom line is that if he is right, the eyes don't receive stimuli that are interpreted as normal vision in the brain. Therefore, you can't put the eyes in the category of "sense" organ.

Well this tells me that Peacegirl is not crazy or mentally incompetent, she is just a dileberately dishonest person who can see and understand but still denies. The very evasive nature of this exchange tells me that she knows exactly what is being said but is a dispicable con-artist milking this thread for whatever she can get out of it while giving nothing in return. It's obvious that no-one is ever going to get a straight answer from the sleazy little scum-bag. My original question was Why is she doing it but that isn't even important because she is thinkg she is going to gain some benefit for selling her piece of garbage book, so now the question is what is she getting out of being on this thread. Most likely she will make up some lie to put on the dust jacket to decieve customers that the length of the debate could indicate how worthwhile the book is. The book is a joke and she is a conniving little lier just out for the money.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Get help peacegirl.

The only thing that would help Peacegirl is a pair of handcuffs, if I knew what the charges should be.

I believe it used to fall under 'Bunco'.

[davidm]

Excuse me, peacegirl, you seem to be avoiding the essence of the problem here.

Lessans made a prediction about reality.

The prediction was tested against reality.

It turned out to be false.

What part of that are you having difficulty with? The example of the supernova is absoloutely clear, and you know it. If Lessans were right, we would detect photons after we saw the supernova. We don't. We detect them at the same time we see the light, which is consistent with the model of standard science that he rejected, and wholly incosistent with his own model.

Lessans was wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

This has already been explained to you. Numerous times. But in fact, the answers don't matter. Can you really not follow a simple chain of reasoning?

Lessans predicted that if a supernova occurred 500 light years away, we would see it in real time, but we would have to wait 500 years for the photons to be detected. This was the point of his stuff about God turning on the sun.

What ACTUALLY HAPPENS is that we see the light as we detect the photons. Therefore, Lessans' claim is wrong.

What part of that are you having trouble with?

He did not predict that we would see a Supernova 500 light years away. It would be too far away to be seen. This means that if we see a Supernova in real time, it would have to be closer to us than once thought.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He did not predict that we would see a Supernova 500 light years away. It would be too far away to be seen. This means that if we see a Supernova in real time, it would have to be closer to us than once thought.

She doesn't have a clue.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Excuse me, peacegirl, you seem to be avoiding the essence of the problem here.

Lessans made a prediction about reality.

The prediction was tested against reality.

It turned out to be false.

What part of that are you having difficulty with? The example of the supernova is absoloutely clear, and you know it. If Lessans were right, we would detect photons after we saw the supernova. We don't. We detect them at the same time we see the light, which is consistent with the model of standard science that he rejected, and wholly incosistent with his own model.

Lessans was wrong.

Light that is emitted from a star which comes in contact with the eye is not the same thing as seeing an actual image. Light from the Sun causes the pupils to dilate but there is no image from the emitted photons. In order to get an image I have to look directly at the Sun or see the image on a photograph.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What's it to you whether I stay or leave, or for that matter whether I'm sane or insane? You care too much!

Thank you.

Why do you think I should not care about your well-being?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He did not predict that we would see a Supernova 500 light years away. It would be too far away to be seen. This means that if we see a Supernova in real time, it would have to be closer to us than once thought.

WHAT THE FUCK?

How far away CAN we see, peacegirl? Are you now trying to tell us that the whole visible universe is compressed into a volume less than 500 light years across?

Beside, IT STILL DOESN'T MATTER. I ask again: Can you not follow a simple chain of logic?

If the super nova were five light minutes away, peacegirl, closer to us than our own sun, then his prediction is that we would see the nova first and have to wait five minutes to detect the photons. But, we don't. We see the light and detect the photons at the same time, peacegirl, at the same time. THAT is the problem for his prediction -- it's what makes his predicton FALSE, and it's irrelevant what actual distances are.

Do you seriously expect us to believe you can't grasp this obvious refutation of his model?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I love those pictures. Thanks! So you're saying that we could not be seeing the real explosion, only the light, correct?

I am still not sure what you are asking. What differentiates the "real explosion" from the light? What visual properties does a "real explosion" of a supernova have?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

NO!!!!!!!!!

Was this you responding intelligently? Or even honestly?

Read through the above exchange please, Peacegirl. You agree Lessans wrote that there are no "afferent nerve endings" in the human eye, and you agree that there obviously are afferent nerve endings connecting the external world to the internal world through the optic nerve. Yet you are compelled to deny that what he actually wrote was wrong, despite having just directly contradicted what he actually wrote.

How do you explain that, Peacegirl?

I am not using this minor point to discredit Lessans. I am using it to present you with the broken nature of your own mind. A sane person would have no problem acknowledging that what Lessans wrote was incorrect, but intended to express something slightly different. But your mind is so far gone that you can't even acknowledge that he was wrong on minor points that you yourself contradict him on.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Seen a light? We're talking about the exact second we see a spot on the moon.

Yes, aka seeing a light. Something about as difficult as tying one's shoelaces, and yet which clearly refutes efferent vision.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light that is emitted from a star which comes in contact with the eye is not the same thing as seeing an actual image. Light from the Sun causes the pupils to dilate but there is no image from the emitted photons. In order to get an image I have to look directly at the Sun or see the image on a photograph.

You are dodging the point. It is no doubt deliberate, but your futile evasions are irrelevant.

We are taking Lessans' own words. He said that if the sun were turned on at noon, we would see it immediately, but not detect the photons from it until eight and a half minutes had passed. We can test this against reality. The prediction is that if the sun went supernova, we would see the supernova immediately but not detect the potons from it for eight and a half minutes. Testing this model against actual supernovae, we discover that what we see, and the arrival time of the photons, matches. This is in direct contradiction to what he predicted. Hence, his claim is false, and you know it.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How do they know the distance these neutrinos have traveled without making the very assumption about light that is being questioned?

As has been explained to you, we do not rely upon the speed of light to measure the distance to astronomical objects. We use such methods as parallax measurement, which uses simple high-school-level math, and comparison of absolute vs. relative magnitude -- which, again, uses simple, high-school-level math.

So, unless you're now arguing that mathematics is invalid, yes we can and do directly measure the distances to objects such as supernovae.

[davidm]

peacegirl, it was the ancient Greeks who first began measuring the distances to other bodies, like the sun. They did not use the speed of light. They did not even know what the speed of light was.

Again: are you now seriously contending that the diameter of the whole universe is less than 500 lights years? It is two fucking million light years just to Andromeda, the nearest galaxy to the Milky Way! And there are billions of galaxies!

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He did not predict that we would see a Supernova 500 light years away. It would be too far away to be seen. This means that if we see a Supernova in real time, it would have to be closer to us than once thought.

You do realize that those were pictures of supernovae in other galaxies, do you not? You can't seriously be claiming that a supernova in another galaxy could possibly be less than 500 light-years distant, are you? That would truly be insane.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light from the Sun causes the pupils to dilate ...

Another word to add to the list of those that you like to use, but clearly don't know the meaning of ...

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You do realize that those were pictures of supernovae in other galaxies, do you not? You can't seriously be claiming that a supernova in another galaxy could possibly be less than 500 light-years distant, are you? That would truly be insane.

Anybody who thinks peacegirl is aware of common scientific knowledge just has not been paying attention to this thread. And certainly anyone who thinks she is capable of understanding common scientific knowledge has also not been paying attention to this thread.

peacegirl is mentally dysfunctional.

[LadyShea]

peacegirl, gamma ray bursts are the most energetic explosions in the universe, but they usually don't have an eye visible component at all, because they emit light outside of the visible spectrum.

However, a few years ago

09.10.2008 - March 19 gamma-ray burst was first visible to naked eye

It is the only known gamma-ray burst to have had a visible component bright enough to see with the naked eye.

"This was the brightest optical and infrared event that mankind has ever recorded," said Joshua Bloom, an assistant professor of astronomy at the University of California, Berkeley, and first author of an analysis of the event submitted to The Astrophysical Journal (ApJ) less than a week after the burst and accepted this week.

Bloom's group, using a robotic telescope in Arizona, began observing the intense infrared light just 54 seconds after the event began.

They were detecting photons in the infrared part of the spectrum within 54 seconds of visual.


Also

Filippenko calculated that if the supernova were located about 6,000 light years from Earth, the gamma-ray burst would have appeared as bright as the sun. Perley noted, too, that the burst at its peak was about 200 million times brighter than the entire galaxy in which it occurred.

What do you not understand about all this and how it is proof that Lessans example re: the Sun on at noon was false?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

peacegirl, gamma ray bursts are the most energetic explosions in the universe, but they usually don't have a visible component at all, because they emit light outside of the visible spectrum

However, a few years ago

They were detecting photons in the infrared part of the spectrum within 54 seconds of visual.


Also

What do you not understand about all this and how it is proof that Lessans example re: the Sun on at noon was false?

She doesn't understand just about everything.

She isn't capable of understanding it.

And it is cruel to pretend that she can when it is so obvious she can't.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He did not predict that we would see a Supernova 500 light years away. It would be too far away to be seen. This means that if we see a Supernova in real time, it would have to be closer to us than once thought.

What are you talking about? It wouldn't be too far away to be seen. We routinely see things much further away. Including eye visible whole galaxies (Andromeda).

If you have a smart phone, get the Starwalk app and go outside for once in your life and look at reality.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

In order for me to explain my position I have to make sure I have a clear understanding of their position so I can respond intelligently.

Why have you so consistently failed to do this?

[Dragar]

Meanwhile, science pushes on. We ignored Lessans and helped two blind men be able to see (after a fashion):

BBC News - Two blind British men have electronic retinas fitted

That uses our knowledge of how light, and the pattern of light alone falling on the retina, is how people see. Lessans claims are not only wrong when tested, they are irrelevent and unimportant to our understanding on practical levels.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Thank you.

Why do you think I should not care about your well-being?

Not to this extent. After all, I'm just some person that you met online. This isn't real life; it's virtual. I don't understand your motivations. Maybe you need to go to a shrink and get help for this problem. Sound familiar?