A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey, ass hat, why, when we send a radio transmission to Rovers on Mars, do we have to wait for the return message to come to us exactly in accord with the speed of light? Which means DELAYED, as in "delayed seeing." You do realize that the radio spectrum is LIGHT, yeah? Or no? If we had eyes as big as radio telescopes, we could SEE radio light.

Why do you keep going back to this when I am not disputing that radio waves travel, and I'm not disputing that light travels. What I am disputing is afferent vision, which means that the visible spectrum works with the brain and eyes differently. And if you call me this name one more time, just one, don't expect me to answer anymore of your stupid posts.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'd like to see an animation of this. I can't imagine this being possible, or accurate.

Yes, animation is the only proof!

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have never been to a forum where no one is interested in his first discovery. Since I've been here I can count on one hand the number of people that have shown any interest. It's astounds me.

Sorry to learn you have no fingers.

You are all constipated! You can't move forward and let the discussion flow in order to see if there is any value to this knowledge. Right off the bat you tell me that he has no proof; he can't support his presuppositions. You are a broken record Spacemonkey.

I don't know which is funnier, your inability to learn or the inability of posters to figure it out.

[davidm]

Hey, peacegirl, how come when we send a radio (light) message to Rovers on Mars, we have to wait for the response instead of receiving it instantaneously?

[davidm]

Hey, peacegirl, depending on the time of year, Mars is anywhere between 4 and 20 light minutes distant from earth. This means that when we send a message to the Rovers on Mars, using radio (light), it takes between 4 and 20 minutes for the response to get back to us!

Are you trying to tell us that humans are unable to discern the difference between instantaneous and 4 or 20 minutes?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What I don't understand is that you are wasting precious time here, and for what? If you don't think Lessans has a discovery, why would you be spending it on this thread when there are thousands of other things you could be doing?

How many times have I answered this for you? Why do you still have no idea of what that answer is? Every time I tell you why I'm here, you come back and ask me why I'm here again. Why is that?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Believe me, that's not gonna happen. I'm reviewing the book as we speak. When I'm finished and begin advertising along with working on my website, I will have no desire to come here.

Why do you have any desire to be here now? If you are still here one month from now, doing exactly what you are doing now, will we then be justified in saying that you are insane? [Yes or No]

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey, peacegirl, do you know where the word "radio" comes from? No? I'll tell you. It's a neologism for "radiating light." And guess what? Radio light from Mars is delayed, in accordance with c in vacuo, which means real-time seeing is false.

Are you trying to convince me that you're right, or yourself?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What I don't understand is that you are wasting precious time here, and for what? If you don't think Lessans has a discovery, why would you be spending it on this thread when there are thousands of other things you could be doing?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How many times have I answered this for you? Why do you still have no idea of what that answer is? Every time I tell you why I'm here, you come back and ask me why I'm here again. Why is that?

Because it doesn't add up Spacemonkey. This whole debacle of a thread doesn't add up, but who would hang out day after day at a thread that is useless? There isn't even any learning going on from other people, so what's your reason?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Believe me, that's not gonna happen. I'm reviewing the book as we speak. When I'm finished and begin advertising along with working on my website, I will have no desire to come here.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why do you have any desire to be here now? If you are still here one month from now, doing exactly what you are doing now, will we then be justified in saying that you are insane? [Yes or No]

And you already forgot my answer to that? I'm bored. When I'm not bored anymore, I won't be here, you can take that to the bank.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have never been to a forum where no one is interested in his first discovery. Since I've been here I can count on one hand the number of people that have shown any interest.

Here are 2 lies, on every forum you've been on people have been interested in the discovery till you have weaseled and dodged questions and they got discouraged trying to pry information out of you. On this forum people have repeatedly asked you to explain the discoveries but you could only respond with "It's in the 'book"

"It's in the Book" - Johnny Standley ...

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why do you keep going back to this when I am not disputing that radio waves travel, and I'm not disputing that light travels. What I am disputing is afferent vision, which means that the visible spectrum works with the brain and eyes differently. And if you call me this name one more time, just one, don't expect me to answer anymore of your stupid posts.

You're not disputing that light travels! And so now let's go back to the supernova example.

According to YOU, if a star goes supernova, we would see that INSTANTLY, even if the star were 500 light years away! That is YOUR claim!

You also say that light travels, at a finite rate of speed, as well as neutrinos! Great!

This means, ACCORDING TO YOU, that if a star 500 light years away went supernova, we would see this RIGHT NOW on earth. But, ACCORDING TO YOU, we would have to wait 500 years for the photons and the neutrinos given off by the explosion to arrive on earth, since you are not disputing that photons travel, and travel at a finite rate of speed. Right?

So: you say that if a star 500 light years away went supernova, we would see it NOW on earth, but we would have to wait 500 years to register its photons and neutrinos.

IS THAT YOUR CLAIM, PEACEGIRL? YES OR NO?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have never been to a forum where no one is interested in his first discovery. Since I've been here I can count on one hand the number of people that have shown any interest. It's astounds me. You are all constipated! You can't move forward and let the discussion flow in order to see if there is any value to this knowledge. Right off the bat you tell me that he has no proof; he can't support his presuppositions. You are a broken record Spacemonkey.

Your memory obviously cannot be trusted for what was happening five minutes ago, never mind the history of this thread or what has occurred at other forums. And you just weaselled again. Can you tell me why it should not be viewed as evidence of mental illness that you keep trying to criticize us for not discussing what you yourself no longer wish to discuss?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

but who would hang out day after day at a thread that is useless?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey, peacegirl, depending on the time of year, Mars is anywhere between 4 and 20 light minutes distant from earth. This means that when we send a message to the Rovers on Mars, using radio (light), it takes between 4 and 20 minutes for the response to get back to us!

Are you trying to tell us that humans are unable to discern the difference between instantaneous and 4 or 20 minutes?

Of course not, but we're talking about the visible spectrum, and we're talking about 1.5 seconds, not 4 and 20 light minutes.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you trying to convince me that you're right, or yourself?

Excuse me? I asked you a question. If real-time seeing is true, why is radio light from Mars to Earth delayed by between 4 and 20 minutes, depending on the time of year? The distance that light must traverse from Mars to Earth is different depending on the time of year, because sometimes Mars is farther away from Earth than at other times.

Your answer, please?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

But I'm the author of this thread. I never see people hanging out at a thread that has nothing to offer. And right now, there's no purpose to this thread.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course not, but we're talking about the visible spectrum, and we're talking about 1.5 seconds, not 4 and 20 light minutes.

The nonvisible specturm is also light, consisting of the exact same photons, you ignorant little ass hat.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But I'm the author of this thread. I never see people hanging out at a thread that has nothing to offer. And right now, there's no purpose to this thread.

Sure there is. It's to point and laugh at you -- and, secondarily, to make sure, in case any lurkers are about, that no one will waste any money on Lessans' fraudulent book that you are trying to peddle.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because it doesn't add up Spacemonkey. This whole debacle of a thread doesn't add up, but who would hang out day after day at a thread that is useless? There isn't even any learning going on from other people, so what's your reason?

What was the reason I gave you? Do you remember? Can you tell me what that reason is and why it does not add up?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And you already forgot my answer to that? I'm bored. When I'm not bored anymore, I won't be here, you can take that to the bank.

Not forgotten. Already addressed. Mere boredom does not explain your behavior. Boredom explains why someone does something interesting or that will bring them some kind of satisfaction. It does not explain why you would deliberately return to an environment where no-one thinks you have anything to offer and where everyone thinks you are a delusional and dishonest crackpot. You've repeatedly said that you think you are being unfairly attacked and persecuted. No-one seeks that out just because they are bored.

[davidm]

Hey, peacegirl, did you miss this?

Originally Posted by davidm

You're not disputing that light travels! And so now let's go back to the supernova example.

According to YOU, if a star goes supernova, we would see that INSTANTLY, even if the star were 500 light years away! That is YOUR claim!

You also say that light travels, at a finite rate of speed, as well as neutrinos! Great!

This means, ACCORDING TO YOU, that if a star 500 light years away went supernova, we would see this RIGHT NOW on earth. But, ACCORDING TO YOU, we would have to wait 500 years for the photons and the neutrinos given off by the explosion to arrive on earth, since you are not disputing that photons travel, and travel at a finite rate of speed. Right?

So: you say that if a star 500 light years away went supernova, we would see it NOW on earth, but we would have to wait 500 years to register its photons and neutrinos.

IS THAT YOUR CLAIM, PEACEGIRL? YES OR NO?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Excuse me? I asked you a question. If real-time seeing is true, why is radio light from Mars to Earth delayed by between 4 and 20 minutes, depending on the time of year? The distance that light must traverse from Mars to Earth is different depending on the time of year, because sometimes Mars is farther away from Earth than at other times.

Your answer, please?

What are you getting at? I realize that light travels and therefore it's delayed, but what does this have to do with how the brain and eyes work?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey, peacegirl, did you miss this?

I said there is a definite connection between the timing of neutrinos and photons, but the problem still exists as to how old these Supernova are, and whether we are seeing just an image from light, or whether we're seeing the real thing.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'd like to see an animation of this. I can't imagine this being possible, or accurate.

Better than an animation, try this:

Human Benchmark - Reaction Time Test

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But I'm the author of this thread.

Yes, and you're hanging out day after day at a thread you consider useless, and have considered it useless for quite some time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never see people hanging out at a thread that has nothing to offer.

Sure you have. Need some reminders?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And right now, there's no purpose to this thread.

And yet, here you are, hanging out day after day at a thread you consider useless.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I don't know which is funnier, your inability to learn or the inability of posters to figure it out.

I think most have figured it out, it's more like poking the idiot with a stick to watch them dance. I know it would be cruel in most cases, but Peacegirl is special, and brings it onto herself.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What are you getting at? I realize that light travels and therefore it's delayed, but what does this have to do with how the brain and eyes work?

If real-time seeing were true, you little fool, then we would receive radio messages (light) from Mars instantaneously. But, we don't.

If real-time seeing were true, then, in the visible spectrum, where Mars appears to be in the sky, would be where it actually is. If THAT were the case, then, when we send rockets to Mars, we would calculate the trajectory according to where Mars appears to be in the sky, But, we don't do that, as has been explained to your sorry ass ad nauseum.

If real-time seeing is true, why does NASA calculate trajectories to Mars according to delayed-time seeing, peacegirl?