A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is taught in school that the eyes are a sense organ ...

Yes, you finally said something correct. It is indeed taught in schools that eyes are a sense organ, because, well, they are a sense organ, par excellence!

You father was an ignorant buffoon.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And I don't see how measuring the time light travels to a spot on the moon and back again proves that we see afferently.

Because the scientists doing the experiment are looking 'with their eyes', and if they saw 'efferently' they would see the illuminated spot on the Moon 1.25 seconds after the light was projected to the moon, but they do not see it till 2.5 seconds after the light is projected to the moon because that is the time it takes for the light to get there and be reflected back to their eyes, so they are seeing 'afferently'. Or perhaps scientists are not as good as everyone else and having rejected the 'Golden Age' and Lessans fantasy are not alowed to have 'efferent' vision, that is reserved only for those who swallow Lessans bilge and are then allowed to see the 'now' as Lessans sees it.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Supernova blast: Source star believed found - Technology & science - Space - Space.com - msnbc.com


This one just happened in March, when that photograph was taken

They've already started analyzing the detected photons

If you are correct peacegirl, the photons from that supernova wouldn't be here yet to be analyzed.

Now what, peacegirl?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Made up passages used to support your own premises are "unimportant details". LOL, that's a new definition

Indeed! It's kinda like ol' Seymour's fraudulent use of "scientific" as a synonym for "undeniable."

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Nope, my train of thought is "he's a fucking liar, why should anything he said be trusted let alone assumed to be true?"

That right there the whole problem with the proven fact that Seymour was a lying sack of shit and entrails. Massive swaths of his imbecilic "book" consist of nothing but self-aggrandizing pontification. We're asked to accept on faith that the self-aggrandizing pontification is reliable because Seymour based it on actual observations. peacegirl tells us that these observations -- none of which he actually shared -- are reliable because Seymour was an extraordinarily astute observer. Again, the latter "fact" is something we must accept on faith.

In other words, the viability of the "book" in the eyes of outside observers such as ourselves depends entirely on trusting the credibility of Lessans and his one and only acolyte. But Lessans is not credible, and neither is peacegirl. They've lied again and again. Nothing they say is even remotely trustworthy. Nothing.

[davidm]

Peacegirl, O great Teacher, could you please address the following post? Thanks ever so much in advance for your no-doubt persuasive explanation!

Originally Posted by thedoc

Because the scientists doing the experiment are looking 'with their eyes', and if they saw 'efferently' they would see the illuminated spot on the Moon 1.25 seconds after the light was projected to the moon, but they do not see it till 2.5 seconds after the light is projected to the moon because that is the time it takes for the light to get there and be reflected back to their eyes, so they are seeing 'afferently'.

[The Lone Ranger]

It speaks volumes regarding peacegirl's own honesty (and of her motivations) that she wants and expects us to ignore the easily-demonstrated fact that Lessans was a lying liar.

The truly weird thing is that it's such a blatant and obvious lie that it's difficult to see how even he could have been arrogant and foolish enough to think that the lie wouldn't be immediately apparent to any remotely educated person. (Even somebody with only a seventh-grade education.)

[Dragar]

So wait, let me recap...Does this mean we don't see things instantly, we have to wait until the light arrives?

I guess Lessans was wrong!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Yes, you finally said something correct. It is indeed taught in schools that eyes are a sense organ, because, well, they are a sense organ, par excellence!

You father was an ignorant buffoon.

That's the point he was making when he gave that example. You're the buffoon.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

It speaks volumes regarding peacegirl's own honesty (and of her motivations) that she wants and expects us to ignore the easily-demonstrated fact that Lessans was a lying liar.

The truly weird thing is that it's such a blatant and obvious lie that it's difficult to see how even he could have been arrogant and foolish enough to think that the lie wouldn't be immediately apparent to any remotely educated person. (Even somebody with only a seventh-grade education.)

That's why I'm in the wrong forum. In fact, of all the forums I've been to, this is the most self-righteous and ignorant of all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Peacegirl, O great Teacher, could you please address the following post? Thanks ever so much in advance for your no-doubt persuasive explanation!

How can they test this when there is only seconds in between? It's almost impossible. They can't stop the light at 1.25 seconds and ask if the spot can be seen. By the time they ask the question the light is already back to Earth, so of course they would say it takes 2.5 seconds to see the spot, which would confirm what they already believe to be true.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's the point he was making when he gave that example. You're the buffoon.

WHAT is the point that he was making? That eyes ARE a sense organ? The buffoon said otherwise!

Hey, peacegirl, when I asked you when we would see a laser striking the moon, after it left earth, you said we would see it at the moment that it struck the moon. In fact, we don't see it until it has reflected off the moon, and returned to our eyes. This has been repeatedly experimentally confirmed since 1962, and it means that real-time seeing is false.

How do you explain that, peacegirl?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why I'm in the wrong forum. In fact, of all the forums I've been to, this is the most self-righteous and ignorant of all.

Says the arrogant ignoramus.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Indeed! It's kinda like ol' Seymour's fraudulent use of "scientific" as a synonym for "undeniable."

That right there the whole problem with the proven fact that Seymour was a lying sack of shit and entrails. Massive swaths of his imbecilic "book" consist of nothing but self-aggrandizing pontification. We're asked to accept on faith that the self-aggrandizing pontification is reliable because Seymour based it on actual observations. peacegirl tells us that these observations -- none of which he actually shared -- are reliable because Seymour was an extraordinarily astute observer. Again, the latter "fact" is something we must accept on faith.

In other words, the viability of the "book" in the eyes of outside observers such as ourselves depends entirely on trusting the credibility of Lessans and his one and only acolyte. But Lessans is not credible, and neither is peacegirl. They've lied again and again. Nothing they say is even remotely trustworthy. Nothing.

It doesn't matter what you say Stephen, one day you will regret the things you've said about this man. Your comments only show your ignorance, nothing else. You don't have a clue what this discovery is about. You just like to talk *A$*. It gives you great satisfaction.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why I'm in the wrong forum. In fact, of all the forums I've been to, this is the most self-righteous and ignorant of all.

So why the hell are you still here, Peacegirl? Have you worked that out yet? Do you know why it is that you find yourself compelled to return wth completely content-free posts to a forum where everyone thinks both you and your father are deluded liars with nothing of value to share? I know why you keep coming back. Do you?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can they test this when there is only seconds in between? It's almost impossible. They can't stop the light at 1.25 seconds and ask if the spot can be seen. By the time they ask the question the light is already back to Earth, so of course they would say it takes 2.5 seconds to see the spot, which would confirm what they already believe to be true.

What the hell are you talking about, peacegirl? Do you even know? Would you honestly have us believe, in a world of atomic clocks, that one can't tell the difference between 1.25 seconds and 2.5 seconds? Just how fucking stupid are you, anyway? Do you own a watch or a clock, peacegirl? Do you mean to say you can't tell the difference between 1.25 seconds and 2.50 seconds?

Laugh Out Loud.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

WHAT is the point that he was making? That eyes ARE a sense organ? The buffoon said otherwise!

Hey, peacegirl, when I asked you when we would see a laser striking the moon, after it left earth, you said we would see it at the moment that it struck the moon. In fact, we don't see it until it has reflected off the moon, and returned to our eyes. This has been repeatedly experimentally confirmed since 1962, and it means that real-time seeing is false.

How do you explain that, peacegirl?

Since people have ruined this book by the lies they've made up, and since no one seems at all interested in his first discovery, I'm not going to stay. To be the brunt of these unwarranted attacks is insane.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When was the last time the most important chapter was even touched on. I can't remember. It is YOU that constantly goes off the beaten track to distract from the main topic.

You can't remember much of anything, can you Peacegirl? You've already forgotten again that it was YOU who stated that you don't want to discuss his main topic at all. Just as you've forgotten my previous posts pointing out how batshit crazy it is to criticize others for not discussing something YOU don't even want to discuss. You are mentally ill, Peacegirl.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Supernova blast: Source star believed found - Technology & science - Space - Space.com - msnbc.com


This one just happened in March, when that photograph was taken

They've already started analyzing the detected photons

If you are correct peacegirl, the photons from that supernova wouldn't be here for another 33 million years or so. But, you are incorrect, of course. We can't see in real time at all.

Well to be painfully, shit-postingly, accurate the star blew up 33 million years ago, I just didn't want Peacegirl to think it want nova in March and we saw it right away. Ladyshea I knew exactly what you ment, I'm just picky that way.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Since people have ruined this book by the lies they've made up, and since no one seems at all interested in his first discovery, I'm not going to stay. To be the brunt of these unwarranted attacks is insane.

We agree that you are insane. So if you are still here and posting tomorrow as you are now, will you agree that we are correct in saying that you are insane?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But, of course, no one will answer the question as to why an object must be in one's field of view, not just light. And don't tell me I forgot the answers that were already given. They just don't add up to diddly squat.

What you have here forgotten is that we established that you can't show our answers to be incorrect, and that the only answer you will accept is one which is consistent with efferent vision. We established that it is batshit insane to repeatedly return to asking others a question when the only answer you are prepared to accept is your own. And yet here you are doing it again.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can they test this when there is only seconds in between? It's almost impossible. They can't stop the light at 1.25 seconds and ask if the spot can be seen. By the time they ask the question the light is already back to Earth, so of course they would say it takes 2.5 seconds to see the spot, which would confirm what they already believe to be true.

L.O.L. Now this is funny, I need to thank Peacegirl for making me laugh. It is inconceivable that any one could be this stupid, it's just funny. Almost as funny as her saying that light travels too fast for us to see it go by, so we can't get images from light. Peacegirls post's are an endless source of amusement. I don't care if she's 'wack-job insane', she's funny.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Since people have ruined this book by the lies they've made up, and since no one seems at all interested in his first discovery, I'm not going to stay. To be the brunt of these unwarranted attacks is insane.

Let me translate your answer into English:

"I can't answer your question, because to answer honestly would be to admit that Lessans was wrong."

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can they test this when there is only seconds in between? It's almost impossible. They can't stop the light at 1.25 seconds and ask if the spot can be seen. By the time they ask the question the light is already back to Earth, so of course they would say it takes 2.5 seconds to see the spot, which would confirm what they already believe to be true.

You're not this stupid, so this must be you lying again. No-one needs to stop the light or ask any questions. A timer can be started when the laser is fired and stopped when the lazer dot becomes visible on the moon. The difference between 1.25 and 2.50 seconds is easily measurable. When you resort to silliness like this it only proves how radically disconnected you have become from both reality and honesty.

[davidm]

NAMES IN THE NEWS

Report: Maturin Still 'a Son of a Bitch.'

FREETHOUGHT-FORUM.COM (Internet News Serivice) -- Stephen Maturin is still a "son of a bitch," informed sources said Monday.

The veteran message board poster at freethought-forum.com, who by his own admission "presents as a tool," is also "sooooo boring" and "too big for his britches," confirmed the informed sources, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the delicacy of the subject.

"It's not just that he is a son of a bitch," one of the sources elaborated. "It's also that he is all hair and no substance, which is especially amazing given the claim of other informed sources that he does not have any hair."

"It doesn't matter what Maturin says," the informed sources went on. "One day he will regret the things he said about this man."

At press time, Maturin remained a son of a bitch who presents as a tool and is too big for his britches and is soooo boring. Tellingly, he remains all hair and no substance, and he still has not expressed regret over the things that he said about this man.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by thedoc

L.O.L. Now this is funny, I need to thank Peacegirl for making me laugh. It is inconceivable that any one could be this stupid, it's just funny. Almost as funny as her saying that light travels too fast for us to see it go by, so we can't get images from light. Peacegirls post's are an endless source of amusement. I don't care if she's 'wack-job insane', she's funny.

Peacegirl, if you're wondering why we all keep coming back here given that none of us have any remaining doubt that you and your father are wrong, THIS right here is your answer. You might need to write it down or tattoo it to your forehead or something, because we both know you will forget and later return to asking us why we are here.