A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you see the comparison between Spacemonkey's responses and NA's? It's almost identical. This could be an experiment on how people unconsciously model other people's behavior.

When two people reach the same conclusion (that you are mentally ill) based upon the same compelling evidence (massively and consistently irrational posting behavior over an extended period of time) that doesn't mean one must be modelling their behavior upon the other. People reach the same conclusion regarding your mental health because the evidence is abundantly clear.

Have you worked out why you are still here and posting yet?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Again, this thread is going nowhere. We are not discussing the actual meat of the discovery. All I am getting are retorts that mean absolutely nothing as far as the truth is concerned. I don't have to prove anything to you LadyShea if you don't meet me halfway, and you have done nothing of the sort.

Weasel is weasely weaseling

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Again, this thread is going nowhere.

So... WHY. ARE. YOU. HERE?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We are not discussing the actual meat of the discovery.

You've said repeatedly that you don't want to discuss the meat of his non-discovery. Or had you forgotten that again?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have never ever weaseled.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Also...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

When two people reach the same conclusion (that you are mentally ill) based upon the same compelling evidence (massively and consistently irrational posting behavior over an extended period of time) that doesn't mean one must be modelling their behavior upon the other. People reach the same conclusion regarding your mental health because the evidence is abundantly clear.

Have you worked out why you are still here and posting yet?

Do you know how many times people have been ostracized only because what someone had to say didn't agree with the thinking of that day? You're no different from the old church, except for it being in a different day and time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're acting like an overgrown child.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So... WHY. ARE. YOU. HERE?

You've said repeatedly that you don't want to discuss the meat of his non-discovery. Or had you forgotten that again?

I did say that. And I meant it unless there are new questions. It's like I'm beating a dead horse with this group in particular.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you know how many times people have been ostracized only because what someone had to say didn't agree with the thinking of that day? You're no different from the old church, except for it being in a different day and time.

Have you worked out why you are still here and posting yet?

Have you worked out why you are still here and posting yet?

Have you worked out why you are still here and posting yet?

Have you worked out why you are still here and posting yet?

Have you worked out why you are still here and posting yet?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did say that. And I meant it unless there are new questions. It's like I'm beating a dead horse with this group in particular.

So why are you still complaining that people aren't discussing something YOU DON'T WANT TO DISCUSS? That's completely crazy. And I made this exact same point only a couple of pages ago. Or had you forgotten?

There will not be any new questions, as you've never properly addressed our old questions.

Why are you still here at all?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're acting like an overgrown child.

You claimed never to have weaselled, so I showed you a post you weaselled out of addressing. What is childish about that? (Note also how you just weaselled out of addressing it yet again.)

You are demonstrating delusion compounded by memory impairment. You are not helping yourself by continuing with this behavior. You should be seeking treatment. You really are not well.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Again, this thread is going nowhere.

You hoped that after your extended leave, you thought a small portion of those people still paying attention would ruminate on Lessans' teachings and come to a new realization.

That obviously didn't happen. The conversation is going nowhere because there's not really anywhere to go - you have failed to realized exactly how and why Lessans is wrong, and there no chance anyone else here is going to change their minds, either. Posting here is a complete waste of your time.

You expressed the desire to give up this thread and work on a better way to get Lessans' message out. I'm sorry you seem incapable of finding anything better to do with your time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We are not discussing the actual meat of the discovery. All I am getting are retorts that mean absolutely nothing as far as the truth is concerned. I don't have to prove anything to you LadyShea if you don't meet me halfway, and you have done nothing of the sort.

You're asking the people on dry land to wade halfway into quicksand. You're asking people to drive halfway down the block on a wrong way street. You're asking us to accept 50% of something that's 100% wrong. Why the hell would anyone do that?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did say that. And I meant it unless there are new questions. It's like I'm beating a dead horse with this group in particular.

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?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Weasel is weasely weaseling

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Have you worked out why you are still here and posting yet?

Have you worked out why you are still here and posting yet?

Have you worked out why you are still here and posting yet?

Have you worked out why you are still here and posting yet?

Have you worked out why you are still here and posting yet?

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.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So why are you still complaining that people aren't discussing something YOU DON'T WANT TO DISCUSS? That's completely crazy. And I made this exact same point only a couple of pages ago. Or had you forgotten?

There will not be any new questions, as you've never properly addressed our old questions.

Why are you still here at all?

Instead of asking any questions at this point, why can't you follow his reasoning before jumping to the conclusion that he has no discovery. 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. 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. If Lessans is right, then conscience will be perfect (i.e., his conscience won't allow him to hurt others with a first blow when there is no justification) under the new environmental conditions, although children will still need help learning what is, and is not, a hurt. They aren't going to be perfect little angels the minute they pop out of their mother's womb, but this in and of itself is trivial.

[naturalist.atheist]

I would say she posts not because she is bored but because she is so isolated due of her mental illness that even abuse looks good. I expect someone to find her dead one day slumped over her computer after spending the rest of her life trying to refute the endless tag team of people telling her she is wrong.

I suppose it is a fitting end for the crazy daughter of a crazy man.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I'm not saying that. I was just wondering how do they know that these particles are millions of years old?

Not at all Lone Ranger, but unintentional errors can be made.

We know the particles are millions of years old because the source is millions of light years away, so it takes millions of years for them to get here, simple.

In science if a mistake is made, there are many who will test it trying to prove it wrong, and make a name for themselves. So no mistake lasts very long and there is no authority that can compell everyone to accept any theory. In fact there are many, actively testing the accepted theory to prove it wrong, even if just a little bit. So far there has been no success in disproving the afferent model of vision.

[davidm]

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.

Last minute corrections? Holy shit!

The Great Man's book requires corrections?

For fuck's sake, would you dare edit the bible?

What, pray, requires last-minute corrections?

Is it the part where Mom is going to make a careful study of the art of cooking to make sure that Seymour has the best goddamn Monday night spaghetti and meatballs in history? Maybe it was that he preferred lasagna instead?

[LadyShea]

On what grounds should we accept the following premises to be true without being required to accept them on faith, trust, your word, assertions, or undocumented observations?

That conscience consists of a standard of rightness and wrongness which in and of itself is:

1) Innate.
2) Universal.
3) God-given.
4) Perfectly infallible when not corrupted.
5) Defeasible only by practices of blame and punishment which facilitate blame-shifting (and some other unspecified factors) which are not an integral aspect of the development and proper functioning of conscience.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What does that even mean?

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.

NEW QUESTION!

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.

For example another supernova. If Lessans was correct and your model based on his idea was valid, we would see the supernova immediately, but we would not be able to detect the ultraviolet, infrared, gamma rays, etc. until they traveled to our detectors, correct?

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.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It doesn't matter where the photons are. The issue is whether the eyes are efferent. If they are, then there is no time involved because we're looking directly at the object through the light. It doesn't work the other way around Spacemonkey. That's all I'm going to say on this question. I still want an apology.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

On what grounds should we accept the following premises to be true without being required to accept them on faith, trust, your word, assertions, or undocumented observations?

That conscience consists of a standard of rightness and wrongness which in and of itself is:

1) Innate.
2) Universal.
3) God-given.
4) Perfectly infallible when not corrupted.
5) Defeasible only by practices of blame and punishment which facilitate blame-shifting (and some other unspecified factors) which are not an integral aspect of the development and proper functioning of conscience.

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.

[LadyShea]

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.

Weasel. You avoided the direct question On what grounds should we accept the following premises to be true without being required to accept them on faith, trust, your word, assertions, or undocumented observations?.

His conclusions are not grounds or bases for acceptance of his premises.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't matter where the photons are. The issue is whether the eyes are efferent. If they are, then there is no time involved because we're looking directly at the object through the light. It doesn't work the other way around Spacemonkey. That's all I'm going to say on this question. I still want an apology.

You answered using "eyes" and "looking" (which the brain does according to Lessans) and the questions only concerned cameras/film.

It matters where the photons are when discussing photography and cameras, because the photons must be in direct physical contact with the camera film.

[The Lone Ranger]

Neutrinos aren't detected in real time.


So why is it that we always see the supernova at essentially the same time we detect the neutrinos? No matter how far away the supernova is? It happens whether the supernova is only a few hundred light years away, a few thousand light years away, tens of thousands of light years away, hundreds of thousands of light years away, or even millions of light years away.


We always detect the light and the neutrinos at essentially the same time. Every single time. No matter how far away the supernova is. Even though there should be a delay of at least several decades between our seeing the explosion and our detecting the neutrinos -- if we saw in "real time," that is.

A remarkable coincidence, to say the least.


Either: 1.) the entire Universe is organized in such a way as to ensure that those of us on Earth -- and only those of us on Earth -- are fooled into thinking that we don't see in real time, or 2.) we don't see in real time.


One of these possibilities must be the case, since neutrinos most-definitely are not detected in "real time."