A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

And you continue to use it, even though it is not useful?

It is very useful because it gives a clear understanding of what Lessans is trying to convey. It might not be useful to you, but you are not everyone.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why on Earth would you persist in repeatedy asking us the same question when the only answer you will accept is your own?

Could anyone ask for clearer evidence of your mental illness?

More to the point, why in God's name would you stick around when you already know what the answer to your very own question would be?

[LadyShea]

It is very useful because it gives a clear understanding of what Lessans is trying to conveying. It might not be useful to you, but you are not everyone.

He stated that he used it because it was a widely held belief found in the encyclopedia and taught as fact. He expanded that to the belief including that this event would be seen from Rigel. Which was a lie, and ridiculous, and a strawman in itself as he obviously had no understanding of optics and what it predicts. It is not a widely held belief at all and nobody would say it could be seen from Rigel even if it was a known and used example from optics, which it isn't.

It is not useful, or illuminating, he lied about its being taught as fact, and it is not correct as Lessans used it making it a strawman. So your continuing to use it is baffling.

[LadyShea]

Bump

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The only confused person is you. This is simple math and cannot be refuted.

If we see a supernova instantly as it happens, without any delay at all
and
Photons and neutrinos produced by that supernova must travel the distance at/near the speed of light before they can be detected on Earth
then
We would see the supernova much, much earlier, decades earlier at the very least, than we could detect the photons and neutrinos produced by that supernova

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

More to the point, why in God's name would you stick around when you already know what the answer to your very own question would be?

Yes, peacegirl, why would you stick around when you know what the answers will be? Our answers will not change.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, peacegirl, why would you stick around when you know what the answers will be? Our answers will not change.

And the answers will not be any less correct the next time they are posted.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There would be a delay depending on how long it takes for the laser to reach the spot on the moon in order to illuminate it.

And you think this can't be TESTED, is to see if you are right?

This, peacegirl:

And the time it takes corosponds to the total time for the 'round trip' not just the 'one way' trip of the light reaching the Moon. So in reality the light must travel to the Moon and illuminate the spot, which is then big enough and bright enough to be seen, but the observer does not see it till the light has been reflected and travels back to the observers eye. So the delay is the total 2 way trip, not just the one way trip. Efferent vision is disproved and false, we see in delayed time 'afferently'.
-
FYI, the distance to the Moon has been accurately measured, so there is no question there, and the speed of light has been accurately measured, so again there is no question. The brain looking through the eyes, does not change the distance to the moon or the speed of light, these are known quantities and the math is simple enough, even for you to do.

So you, peaegirl, believe that if we aimed a laser at the moon, then we would see the spot of light as soon as it hit the surface.

Well, you're fucking wrong, as usual, and therefore so is real-time seeing. In fact, we must wait for the light to make the roundtrip -- to bounce off the moon and back to our eye -- before we see it. This experiment was first done fifty years ago, peacegirl, and it has been done repeatedly since, and it ALWAYS shows the same result, which (along with so many other examples) flatly disproves real-time seeing!

Now remember, you claim that we see the light IMMEDIATELY when it hits the moon.

But the ACTUAL EXPERIMENT always shows that we have to wait for the light to make the return trip, which means real-time seeing is false and we are seeing the illuminated spot on the moon as it was a short time in the past.

What now, peacegirl? BTW there are probably a few hundred pages on the Internet where this experiment is discussed -- shall we dig them up for you?

Laugh Out Loud at your abject ignorance and your snot-nosed arrogance.

[davidm]

Hey, peacegirl, let me put it in terms so simple even you can grasp them.

We KNOW the distance to the moon.

We KNOW the speed of light.

We therefore KNOW it takes a beam of light about 1.25 seconds to reach the moon.

If Lessans were right, we should see the light on the surface of the moon 1.25 seconds after we send out the pulse.

Instead, we see it 2.5 seconds after we send it out, which is explained by the fact that light has to make the round trip back to the eye, and we are seeing the illuminated part of the moon as it was about 1.25 seconds in the past.

Lessans. Fork. Finis.



How are you going to out of this one, peacegirl?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He stated that he used it because it was a widely held belief found in the encyclopedia and taught as fact. He expanded that to the belief including that this event would be seen from Rigel. Which was a lie, and ridiculous, and a strawman in itself as he obviously had no understanding of optics and what it predicts. It is not a widely held belief at all and nobody would say it could be seen from Rigel even if it was a known and used example from optics, which it isn't.

It is not useful, or illuminating, he lied about its being taught as fact, and it is not correct as Lessans used it making it a strawman. So your continuing to use it is baffling.

He did not lie LadyShea. I will continue to use this example. I could use any past event and it would mean the same thing. I could say this:

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 be able to see President Kennedy at the moment he
was assassinated.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, peacegirl, why would you stick around when you know what the answers will be? Our answers will not change.

What you're actually saying is: "I'm going to win no matter what." Believe me I am not staying much longer; I'm just biding my time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey, peacegirl, let me put it in terms so simple even you can grasp them.

We KNOW the distance to the moon.

We KNOW the speed of light.

We therefore KNOW it takes a beam of light about 1.25 seconds to reach the moon.

If Lessans were right, we should see the light on the surface of the moon 1.25 seconds after we send out the pulse.

Instead, we see it 2.5 seconds after we send it out, which is explained by the fact that light has to make the round trip back to the eye, and we are seeing the illuminated part of the moon as it was about 1.25 seconds in the past.

Lessans. Fork. Finis.



How are you going to out of this one, peacegirl?

It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to know the exact point we are able to see the illuminated part of the moon, especially when the laser is traveling so fast, although this experiment would prove the time it takes for a laser to make a complete trip to the moon and back.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What you're actually saying is: "I'm going to win no matter what." Believe me I am not staying much longer; I'm just biding my time.

Nahhh, you're just making sure that not a single person here will doubt that you are insane.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to know the exact point we are able to see the illuminated part of the moon, especially when the laser is traveling so fast, although this experiment would prove the time it takes for a laser to make a complete trip to the moon and back.

No, peacegirl, it takes 2.5 seconds to see the illuminated art of the moon after we shine a laser at it! It's not hard to know this at all, and it constitutes a direct disproof of Lessans' claims. And, yes, the experiment proves the time it takes for a laser to make the complete trip to the moon and back, because of when we SEE it after shining the light. This is an absolute disproof of real-time seeing. Sorry real-time seeing didn't work out for you, and that you've wasted your life on the buffoon's blathering nonsense.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It would be extremely difficult, if not impossible, to know the exact point we are able to see the illuminated part of the moon, especially when the laser is traveling so fast, although this experiment would prove the time it takes for a laser to make a complete trip to the moon and back.

This would only be difficult for someone who has no idea of the science involved, like Peacegirl. Science has very accurate timing devices that can measure E.T. very accurately. In fact this method has been used to make more precise measurements of the distance to the Moon. Scientists knew the distance to the Moon within a very small margin, but this method has given a much more precise measure of that distance, and scientists have discovered from this that the Moon is slowly moving away from the earth in it's orbit. This has given support to one of the theories about the origin of the Moon, as a piece of the Earth that was broken off when another small planet collided with the Earth and some of the original material of the Earth was thrown off and formed the Moon. Scientists know this was correct because Moon rocks brought back from the Moon matched the chemistry of similar earth rocks.

BTW, each of the Planets has a different chemistry so it's not just a coincidence.

Oh, the speed of the Laser is 'c' which is not a problem for scientists, only for someone who has no idea what they are talking about.

[davidm]

peacegirl must think that when scientists measure the time it takes to bounce a laser off the moon that they are a group of three stooges, Larrys, Moes and Curleys running around with broken stop watches and bopping and boinking one another and sticking their fingers in one another's eyes.

Or maybe she thinks they are playing billiards during the measuring process and not paying attention to reality.

Uh, no, sorry, peacegirl. The time it takes to see a laser reflection off the moon after sent from earth is well timed, well understood, has been done for fifty years and is an iron-clad disproof of real-time seeing.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by davidm

peacegirl must think that when scientists measure the time it takes to bounce a laser off the moon that they are a group of three stooges, Larrys, Moes and Curleys running around with broken stop watches and bopping and boinking one another and sticking their fingers in one another's eyes.

When scientists aim lights at the moon
They can't help actin' like a buncha goons
Don't wanna take part in no science kerfuffle
They just pound their puds doin' the See-More shuffle

They never miss a chance
To take down their pants
And do the See-More shuffle

Originally Posted by davidm

The time it takes to see a laser reflection off the moon after sent from earth is well timed, well understood, has been done for fifty years and is an iron-clad disproof of real-time seeing.

Lessans was an honest humble man who always admitted when he was wrong, you see. He never admitted being wrong about real-time seeing (), so it follows logically, scientifically and mathematically that he was right.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

They just pound their puds doin' the See-More shuffle

I doubt that Seymour was doing that, he didn't have it in him, or anywhere else from reading his book.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He did not lie LadyShea. I will continue to use this example. I could use any past event and it would mean the same thing. I could say this:

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 be able to see President Kennedy at the moment he
was assassinated.

Rigel is 860 light-years distant. A hypothetical observer on a planet orbiting Rigel who was examining the Earth with a powerful telescope right now would see the Earth as it looked in the 12th century.

Lessans was an idiot and/or a liar.

Find one encyclopedia which makes that claim. Go ahead. I dare you.


FIND IT OR ADMIT THAT LESSANS WAS LYING. If Lessans wasn't lying, then you should have no difficulty at all in finding an example of an encyclopedia saying what Lessans insists was a common claim.


I say Lessans was lying. By all means, feel free to prove me wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He stated that he used it because it was a widely held belief found in the encyclopedia and taught as fact. He expanded that to the belief including that this event would be seen from Rigel. Which was a lie, and ridiculous, and a strawman in itself as he obviously had no understanding of optics and what it predicts. It is not a widely held belief at all and nobody would say it could be seen from Rigel even if it was a known and used example from optics, which it isn't.

It is not useful, or illuminating, he lied about its being taught as fact, and it is not correct as Lessans used it making it a strawman. So your continuing to use it is baffling.

You're making an issue out of nothing, as usual. This was hypothetical. I could care less if it was or wasn't in the encyclopedia. This does not change ANYTHING. This is the conclusion based on the afferent model of sight. So you are now telling me that we wouldn't see a past event such that if we were on a star and the light from that event was in a direct line to our eyes, we wouldn't see said event? If not, what are you saying???

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Rigel is 860 light-years distant. A hypothetical observer on a planet orbiting Rigel who was examining the Earth with a powerful telescope right now would see the Earth as it looked in the 12th century.

Lessans was an idiot and/or a liar.

Find one encyclopedia which makes that claim. Go ahead. I dare you.


FIND IT OR ADMIT THAT LESSANS WAS LYING. If Lessans wasn't lying, then you should have no difficulty at all in finding an example of an encyclopedia saying what Lessans insists was a common claim.


I say Lessans was lying. By all means, feel free to prove me wrong.

Never would I say any such thing about my father. He wasn't a liar, and I'm tired of dealing with people who have the gall to even suggest something like that. You didn't even know this man. Be careful what you say because it will come back to bite you, even if you're here anonymously.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

More to the point, why in God's name would you stick around when you already know what the answer to your very own question would be?

That's not "more to the point" at all. It's a blatant diversion, and a question I've already answered. I've told you why I'm here, remember? (Of course you don't.)

So again: Why on Earth would you persist in repeatedy asking us the same question when the only answer you will accept is your own? That is crazy.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Never would I say any such thing about my father. He wasn't a liar, and I'm tired of dealing with people who have the gall to even suggest something like that. You didn't even know this man. Be careful what you say because it will come back to bite you, even if you're here anonymously.

We have no reason to believe that he was any more honest than you are.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

When scientists aim lights at the moon
They can't help actin' like a buncha goons
Don't wanna take part in no science kerfuffle
They just pound their puds doin' the See-More shuffle

They never miss a chance
To take down their pants
And do the See-More shuffle

Lessans was an honest humble man who always admitted when he was wrong, you see. He never admitted being wrong about real-time seeing (), so it follows logically, scientifically and mathematically that he was right.

Well timed and well understood does not prove that the light had to return for us to see the moon. This is extremely subjective because there is no way to stop the light in mid-stream to see what the person sees, nor has it been tested because it's assumed that the eyes are afferent.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Never would I say any such thing about my father. He wasn't a liar, and I'm tired of dealing with people who have the gall to even suggest something like that. You didn't even know this man. Be careful what you say because it will come back to bite you, even if you're here anonymously.

Chicken ...


Come on, if he wasn't lying, it should be easy for you to prove it ...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

We have no reason to believe that he was any more honest than you are.

It's very easy to make someone into something they're not, especially when others are jumping on the same bandwagon. Just throw in a couple of nasty words, a little jeer, a touch of vindictiveness, and a splash of hatred and you've got the perfect concoction. The only thing is, it's a big fat lie.