Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #9176  
Old 04-29-2012, 10:52 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
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.
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. :fuming:
Chicken ...


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

:chicken:
I'm not taking the bait and stooping to your level. :whup:
Reply With Quote
  #9177  
Old 04-29-2012, 10:58 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
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.
Why are you even here? Boredom doesn't explain it.

You're now avoiding both conclusive evidence against Lessans and conclusive evidence of your own mental illness.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #9178  
Old 04-29-2012, 11:03 PM
The Lone Ranger's Avatar
The Lone Ranger The Lone Ranger is offline
Jin, Gi, Rei, Ko, Chi, Shin, Tei
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXDXCIX
Images: 523
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
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.
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. :fuming:
Chicken ...


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

:chicken:
I'm not taking the bait and stooping to your level. :whup:
Ah, so you're admitting that you can't prove that Lessans wasn't a liar.


A pity. It'd be easy to do -- if he wasn't a big fat liar, that is.
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
-- Socrates

Last edited by The Lone Ranger; 04-29-2012 at 11:42 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9179  
Old 04-29-2012, 11:04 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
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.
Well-timed and well understood DOES mean that the light has to return for us to see it. There is nothing subjective about it at all, and this IS a test of afferent vision - one that it passes and one that efferent vision clearly fails.

If Lessans were right we would see the laser light hitting the moon as soon as it has had time to get there. But instead we only see it later, after that light has had time to both travel there AND travel back to our eyes.

I think I can guess your response: Something else must be going on there!

Lessans was wrong, but your faith-based delusion will prevent you from ever being able to acknowledge it. You should be seeking professional help for your mental condition, before you sink any more time, effort, or money into this hopeless nonsense.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (04-30-2012)
  #9180  
Old 04-29-2012, 11:50 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
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.
Why are you even here? Boredom doesn't explain it.

You're now avoiding both conclusive evidence against Lessans and conclusive evidence of your own mental illness.
This is a joke. There is no conclusive evidence against Lessans. I really don't care what you think about me Spacemonkey, it doesn't make Lessans wrong. There is no proof whatsoever.
Reply With Quote
  #9181  
Old 04-29-2012, 11:56 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
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.
Well-timed and well understood DOES mean that the light has to return for us to see it. There is nothing subjective about it at all, and this IS a test of afferent vision - one that it passes and one that efferent vision clearly fails.
Show me the evidence that this test is iron-clad. Show me that the stop-watch at the moment the light reaches the spot on the moon can't be seen until the light circles back 1.3 seconds later.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
If Lessans were right we would see the laser light hitting the moon as soon as it has had time to get there. But instead we only see it later, after that light has had time to both travel there AND travel back to our eyes.

I think I can guess your response: Something else must be going on there!
I don't believe that they entertained the question, so how could they prove it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Lessans was wrong, but your faith-based delusion will prevent you from ever being able to acknowledge it. You should be seeking professional help for your mental condition, before you sink any more time, effort, or money into this hopeless nonsense.
If you believe Lessans is wrong, then believe it. I'm not telling what to believe. I really don't know why you're here. Don't worry about me. I'll do what I feel is appropriate which is to market this book. What's it to you anyway? Even if Lessans was wrong, there are plenty books on the market that are wrong, so why make a big deal about what I choose to do with my life? Are you upset that I would make money on something you don't believe is true? What is driving you to come here day after day? I don't trust your motives Spacemonkey. :(
Reply With Quote
  #9182  
Old 04-30-2012, 12:22 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Show me the evidence that this test is iron-clad. Show me that the stop-watch at the moment the light reaches the spot on the moon can't be seen until the light circles back 1.3 seconds later.
Don't be ridiculous. Are you telling me you'll admit Lessans is wrong if I post a photograph of the stopwatch? The experiment has been done and proves Lessans wrong. If you don't trust those who have done the experiment - if you think there's some kind of global conspiracy concerning the moon and lasers, or if you think professional scientists can't be trusted to operate a simple stopwatch - then you can DO IT FOR YOURSELF. It is an observable fact that you won't be able to see the light on the moon until it has had time to travel both there and back again. Denying this fact won't make it go away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I don't believe that they entertained the question, so how could they prove it?
They prove it by measuring the time it takes to see the light. It takes twice as long as it would if Lessans were right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
If you believe Lessans is wrong, then believe it.
We all do. Everyone here. The evidence is quite conclusive. The only question is why you don't believe the irrefutable evidence right in front of your face. The most plausible answer is that you are quite clearly delusional.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I really don't know why you're here... What is driving you to come here day after day? I don't trust your motives Spacemonkey.
You've asked me why I'm here, and I've told you. So if you still don't know it's because you're either not paying any attention, or you have no memory of what you've read.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Don't worry about me. ...why make a big deal about what I choose to do with my life? Are you upset that I would make money on something you don't believe is true?
I do worry about you. I am very concerned for your well-being given your obvious mental health issues. You are not going to make any money on this. You will almost certainly spend more on marketing than you will ever make back in sales. You are wasting your time and energy, as well as money, on nothing but fantasy and delusion. Your family ought to be stepping in to get you the treatment you need.

You are mentally ill, Peacegirl. You need professional help.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #9183  
Old 04-30-2012, 12:32 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
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


Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
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.
:nope:

Lessans was an honest humble man who always admitted when he was wrong, you see. He never admitted being wrong about real-time seeing (:lol:), 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.
Laugh Out Loud. You shameless, weaseling little liar.

There is NO ambiguity here, and NOTHING is subjective, "extremely" or otherwise. And NO assumptions are being made, because they don't need to be made.

We know EXACTLY how far away the moon is, we know EXACTLY how fast light travels. And we have ways of measuring the passage of time with the uttermost of precision (have you ever heard of atomic clocks?)

We have here a CLEAR TEST of Lessans' claims (of course, all the OTHER tests that you have been given are equally clear).

You stated that according to Lessans, we would see the light here on earth, when it arrived on the surface of the moon. That means we would see the light 1.25 seconds after we sent it out.

BUT WE DON'T.

It takes twice as long for us to see it -- which means it had to make the reutrn trip to our eyes, and THAT means we are seeing that illuminated spot of moon as it was 1.25 seconds in the past, and NOT in real time.

There is no more weaseling left for you to do. Lessans was wrong, and you have no reply.

Oh, and very nice work, Maturin. :D
Reply With Quote
  #9184  
Old 04-30-2012, 12:38 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
This is a joke. There is no conclusive evidence against Lessans. I really don't care what you think about me Spacemonkey, it doesn't make Lessans wrong. There is no proof whatsoever.
This very thread stands as conclusive evidence both that Lessans was wrong and that you are mentally ill. The evidence on both counts is overwhelmingly conclusive and you've never been able to refute or even properly address so much as an ounce of it. Get help Peacegirl. You are addicted to this. Note how you are not ceasing to reply to these posts. You WANT to feel persecuted. This is exactly what you are coming here for.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #9185  
Old 04-30-2012, 12:38 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
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. :fuming:
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.
Nope, you're a big fat liar. Deal with the issue of the laser and the moon. It proves we see in delayed time, not in real time, and that Lessans was wrong, and you know it.
Reply With Quote
  #9186  
Old 04-30-2012, 12:40 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
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.
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. :fuming:
Chicken ...


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

:chicken:
I'm not taking the bait and stooping to your level. :whup:
:lol: Caught out in another lie, so she changes the subject. Do you really think you're fooling anyone, yourself included, with your transparent evasions?

You know perfectly well that all of Lessans' claims on light and sight have been exposed to be utter buncombe.
Reply With Quote
  #9187  
Old 04-30-2012, 12:41 AM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
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.
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. :fuming:
You'll never get tired of it. Just wait a little while and you will have forgotten all about it. Then you get get shocked all over again.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (04-30-2012), The Lone Ranger (04-30-2012)
  #9188  
Old 04-30-2012, 12:42 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
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.
Why are you even here? Boredom doesn't explain it.

You're now avoiding both conclusive evidence against Lessans and conclusive evidence of your own mental illness.
This is a joke. There is no conclusive evidence against Lessans. I really don't care what you think about me Spacemonkey, it doesn't make Lessans wrong. There is no proof whatsoever.
:lol:

Moon + laser = Lessans wrong. Of course, so do several hundred other experiments we've explained to you as well!
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
The Lone Ranger (04-30-2012)
  #9189  
Old 04-30-2012, 12:43 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post

Show me the evidence that this test is iron-clad. Show me that the stop-watch at the moment the light reaches the spot on the moon can't be seen until the light circles back 1.3 seconds later.
Holy fuck! You actually think they use stop-watches?

:foocl:
Reply With Quote
  #9190  
Old 04-30-2012, 01:49 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post

Show me the evidence that this test is iron-clad. Show me that the stop-watch at the moment the light reaches the spot on the moon can't be seen until the light circles back 1.3 seconds later.
Holy fuck! You actually think they use stop-watches?

:foocl:
No, she thinks they use egg timers, much more accurate. You know the little hour glass thingies.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
davidm (04-30-2012), Stephen Maturin (04-30-2012), The Lone Ranger (04-30-2012)
  #9191  
Old 04-30-2012, 01:57 AM
The Lone Ranger's Avatar
The Lone Ranger The Lone Ranger is offline
Jin, Gi, Rei, Ko, Chi, Shin, Tei
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXDXCIX
Images: 523
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

That was my thought. I get the distinct impression that peacegirl has no idea at all of the difference between, say, astrology and astronomy -- and why one is science and the other is not.

It would seem that to her, "science" just means "some stuff a bunch of guys made up."
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
-- Socrates
Reply With Quote
  #9192  
Old 04-30-2012, 02:06 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two


Stooge scientists at Mt. Palomar Observatory try to see the moon through makeshift telescopes made out of rolled-up wallpaper.

SCIENCE IN THE NEWS
LOL! Stooge Scientists Fuck Up Laser/Moon Projects!


FREETHOUGHT-FORUM.COM (Internet News Service) LOL! For the last fifty years, stooge scientists have been firing lasers at the moon and measuring the time it takes to make the round trip -- but it was revealed on Sunday that they fucked it all up.

According to the stooge scientists, a laser fired at the moon will not be seen hitting its target until about two and half seconds have passed -- the time it takes for the light to reach the moon, and then be reflected back to the earth.

But an Internet message board poster, peacegirl, maintains that we would see the light as soon as it hit the moon, about 1.25 seconds after leaving earth. As to the findings that flatly contradict this claim, peacegirl said, “Something else must be going on there.”

And how! A recent visit to Mt. Palomar Observatory revealed stooge scientist running wildly about in slapstick fashion, bopping and boinking one another, and sticking their fingers in each other’s eyes!

As stooge scientist Moe Howard prepared to press a Big Red Button that would go WHOOSH! and send a big-ass laser flash to the moon, another stooge scientist, Curly Howard, kept his thumb on a stopwatch, hoping to click it at the EXACT moment that Moe pressed the Big Red Button! But unbeknownst to either, a third stooge scientist, Larry Fine, was sneaking up behind with a paper bag that he had inflated.

Just as Moe started to press the button, Larry CLOBBERED the paper sack with the flats of both hands, making a Big BANG! that not only fucked up the whole experiment but created a new, expanding universe in its own spacetime continuum!

“OOOH! Wise guy, eh?” Moe said to Larry. And then he put Larry’s head in a meat grinder that happened to be conveniently lying about.

“This episode proves that we see efferently, and thousands of years of scientific endeavor have been for naught,” Stephen Hawking said in a written statement. Speaking of the scientific community in general, Hawking added sadly: “OMGUS.”


Stooge scientists try to determine whether hearing is efferent or afferent.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (04-30-2012), LadyShea (04-30-2012), Spacemonkey (04-30-2012), SR71 (04-30-2012), Stephen Maturin (04-30-2012), The Lone Ranger (04-30-2012), The Man (09-23-2012), thedoc (04-30-2012)
  #9193  
Old 04-30-2012, 02:35 AM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Flyover Hillbilly
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: MXDXCI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
No, she thinks they use egg timers, much more accurate. You know the little hour glass thingies.
:yup:

Especially if they're synced to the NIST-F1 Cesium Fountain Hourglass Egg Timer Thingie in Colorado.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis

"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko

"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
davidm (04-30-2012), SR71 (04-30-2012), The Lone Ranger (04-30-2012), thedoc (04-30-2012), Vivisectus (04-30-2012)
  #9194  
Old 04-30-2012, 04:28 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Peacegirl's theme song?

&feature=related
Reply With Quote
  #9195  
Old 04-30-2012, 12:07 PM
Vivisectus's Avatar
Vivisectus Vivisectus is offline
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
Posts: VMMCCCLVI
Blog Entries: 1
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Show me the evidence that this test is iron-clad. Show me that the stop-watch at the moment the light reaches the spot on the moon can't be seen until the light circles back 1.3 seconds later.
But then, we also need proof that the test to test the test was iron-clad. And the test to test the test that tests the test that tested the test! But that STILL isn't proof, because we can in fact demand an infinite regression of tests!

Now, Lessans saying it is so, THAT is ironclad. Because as you pointed out in one of your more typical displays of Lessanese Logic, he was a very clever man and he spent a lot of time thinking about it, so if he had been wrong, he would have spotted it and corrected it, so he was not. QED!

The possibility that perhaps he was not particularly clever, and actually rather dense is simply unthinkable, because Peacegirl knows a clever man when she sees one and that is just that.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
But (04-30-2012)
  #9196  
Old 04-30-2012, 12:46 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
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.
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. :fuming:
Chicken ...


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

:chicken:
I'm not taking the bait and stooping to your level. :whup:
Ah, so you're admitting that you can't prove that Lessans wasn't a liar.


A pity. It'd be easy to do -- if he wasn't a big fat liar, that is.
I'm not playing this game with you. This has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of this discovery. You're doing everything you can to discredit him on trivial points. Even if this particular example was not actually stated in an encyclopedia, the point he was making still stands.
Reply With Quote
  #9197  
Old 04-30-2012, 12:48 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post

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 made the statement LIE. no they didn't

and still exists in our encyclopedias LIE no it doesn't

that if we could sit on the star Rigel Rigel is 800+ light years away, so absolutely false based on his misunderstanding of the principles of optics

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 800+ light years away so this is your misunderstanding of the principles of optics

Quote:
I could care less if it was or wasn't in the encyclopedia. This does not change ANYTHING.
It speaks directly to Lessans honesty and now yours. HE LIED. You said he didn't lie.

Last edited by LadyShea; 04-30-2012 at 01:01 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9198  
Old 04-30-2012, 12:48 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Peacegirl knows a clever man when she sees one.

Yes, and I'm quite sure Peacegirl can see theough all the 'Pretend Clever' on this thread.
Reply With Quote
  #9199  
Old 04-30-2012, 12:49 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
Show me the evidence that this test is iron-clad. Show me that the stop-watch at the moment the light reaches the spot on the moon can't be seen until the light circles back 1.3 seconds later.
But then, we also need proof that the test to test the test was iron-clad. And the test to test the test that tests the test that tested the test! But that STILL isn't proof, because we can in fact demand an infinite regression of tests!

Now, Lessans saying it is so, THAT is ironclad. Because as you pointed out in one of your more typical displays of Lessanese Logic, he was a very clever man and he spent a lot of time thinking about it, so if he had been wrong, he would have spotted it and corrected it, so he was not. QED!

The possibility that perhaps he was not particularly clever, and actually rather dense is simply unthinkable, because Peacegirl knows a clever man when she sees one and that is just that.
If this is the kind of junk I'm going to get in here, and there's no one else who wants to come forward except to repeat the same junk over and over again, then I'm not wasting my breath in here.
Reply With Quote
  #9200  
Old 04-30-2012, 12:50 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post

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:
[I]Our scientists made the statement[i] LIE. no they didn't

and still exists in our encyclopedias LIEno it doesn't

that if we could sit on the star Rigel Rigel is 800 light years away, so absolutely false based on his misunderstanding of the principles of optics

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 800 light years away so this is your misunderstanding of the principles of optics
You are splitting hairs until there's no hair left to split. I have no idea why you're doing this. Maybe you just can't stand the thought that you might not be right regarding this discovery. Who knows?
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.55208 seconds with 17 queries