Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #9201  
Old 04-30-2012, 12:52 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

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

The question is when do we see it vs. when do we detect the particles and photons. Pretty simple.

If we see instantly as per Lessans, if efferent vision were true, we would be able to see a supernova much, much, much sooner than we could detect the light photons or the neutrinos from that supernova

You already agreed yesterday that we would see the supernova instantly, at the time it happened, and need not await the arrival of the photons to see it.

You are now weaseling via backpedaling.
I'm not backpedaling. There's just a lot of confusion. We would see a Supernova explode in real time just as we would see the Sun explode in real time, if they met the requirements of efferent vision.
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
Reply With Quote
  #9202  
Old 04-30-2012, 12:54 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 peacegirl View Post
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.
Little lie, Big lie?
Reply With Quote
  #9203  
Old 04-30-2012, 12:58 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 peacegirl View Post
Maybe you just can't stand the thought that you might not be right regarding this discovery. Who knows?

And you can't stand the thought, nor can you comprehend, that Lessans was wrong about sight and the eyes, and probably wrong about his non-discoveries.
Reply With Quote
  #9204  
Old 04-30-2012, 01:04 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
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:
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
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?
Lessans was dishonest and used strawman argumentation. You're dishonest and a weasel.
Reply With Quote
  #9205  
Old 04-30-2012, 01:35 PM
specious_reasons's Avatar
specious_reasons specious_reasons is offline
here to bore you with pictures
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: VCCLXVIII
Images: 8
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Lessans was dishonest and used strawman argumentation. You're dishonest and a weasel.
It is possible that when Lessans wrote that, current science put Rigel closer than we think it is today. It's also possible that Lessans just pulled his facts from his nether regions, or made a simple math error when backdating.

I've been more forgiving on that particular bit of Lessans stupidity because it got his point across. There are far worse mistakes in that book than Lessans screwing up some detail.
__________________
ta-
DAVE!!!
Reply With Quote
  #9206  
Old 04-30-2012, 01:37 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
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:
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
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?
Lessans was dishonest and used strawman argumentation. You're dishonest and a weasel.
I really don't care what conclusions you've come to. You are just as arrogant as the rest, but what makes this tragic is that you think you are the best at deciphering truth from untruth, and you've got it all wrong. You're blind LadyShea.
Reply With Quote
  #9207  
Old 04-30-2012, 01:40 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 specious_reasons View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Lessans was dishonest and used strawman argumentation. You're dishonest and a weasel.
It is possible that when Lessans wrote that, current science put Rigel closer than we think it is today. It's also possible that Lessans just pulled his facts from his nether regions, or made a simple math error when backdating.

I've been more forgiving on that particular bit of Lessans stupidity because it got his point across. There are far worse mistakes in that book than Lessans screwing up some detail.
You've all gotten so nasty in your old persnickety way that I can't even respond anymore with an intelligent answer. It's like I'm talking to robots who can't get out of the same pre-programmed response that Lessans couldn't be right. It's hopeless.
Reply With Quote
  #9208  
Old 04-30-2012, 02:05 PM
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 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.

Mental image of peacegirl sitting at her computer and talking to it
Reply With Quote
  #9209  
Old 04-30-2012, 02:11 PM
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 specious_reasons View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Lessans was dishonest and used strawman argumentation. You're dishonest and a weasel.
It is possible that when Lessans wrote that, current science put Rigel closer than we think it is today. It's also possible that Lessans just pulled his facts from his nether regions, or made a simple math error when backdating.

I've been more forgiving on that particular bit of Lessans stupidity because it got his point across. There are far worse mistakes in that book than Lessans screwing up some detail.
You've all gotten so nasty in your old persnickety way that I can't even respond anymore with an intelligent answer. It's like I'm talking to robots who can't get out of the same pre-programmed response that Lessans couldn't be right. It's hopeless.
Give it a few hours peacegirl, you'll forget this crucial bit of information that was evident for months and start all over again as if we knew nothing of what you are peddling.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (04-30-2012)
  #9210  
Old 04-30-2012, 02:16 PM
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 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?
None of this is "splitting hairs," :asshat: This speaks to the core of The Big Buffoon's assertions, and your delusions.

What about the little problem of the moon and lasers, :asshat: ? This is (along with several hundred examples you've been given) a direct and incontrovertible disproof of real-time seeing. And you know it. The fact that you know Lessans' claims have been debunked, and you continue to lie and pretend that they haven't, is what makes you so contemptible in the eyes of everyone here.
Reply With Quote
  #9211  
Old 04-30-2012, 02:25 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:
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 just be able to see the ships of Columbus reaching
America for the very first time. A former science teacher who taught
this to her students as if it were an absolute fact responded, “I am sure
Columbus would just be arriving; are you trying to tell me that this is
not a scientific fact?
He offered specific statements to prove his point.

1. This was in encyclopedias
2. It was taught in school as fact
3. A science teacher taught it as fact and thought it was fact

If he had stuck to the general point that science teaches that past events would be seen from great distances, he wouldn't have been lying. He chose to make specific false claims.

That's lying. Unless peacegirl can cite a single encyclopedia that includes this statement or put us in touch with a school teacher who taught this as scientific fact, it remains a lie.

In light of her statement that she could replace "Columbus discovering America" with any past event (making the specific above even more dishonest), I am also wondering now if Lessans wrote that at all, or if it was one of peacegirl's additions of fake dialog and "updated examples".

Last edited by LadyShea; 04-30-2012 at 03:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (05-01-2012)
  #9212  
Old 04-30-2012, 03:19 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:
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 just be able to see the ships of Columbus reaching
America for the very first time. A former science teacher who taught
this to her students as if it were an absolute fact responded, “I am sure
Columbus would just be arriving; are you trying to tell me that this is
not a scientific fact?
He offered specific statements to prove his point.

1. This was in encyclopedias
2. It was taught in school as fact
3. A science teacher taught it as fact and thought it was fact

If he had stuck to the general point that science teaches that past events would be seen from great distances, he wouldn't have been lying. He chose to make specific false claims.

That's lying. Unless peacegirl can cite a single encyclopedia that includes this statement or put us in touch with a school teacher who taught this as scientific fact, it remains a lie.

In light of her statement that she could replace "Columbus discovering America" with any past event (making the specific above even more dishonest), I am also wondering now if Lessans wrote that at all, or if it was one of peacegirl's additions of fake dialog and "updated examples".
It doesn't matter what your argument is, it's so off the beaten track that it's a joke to me. You are so sure that your back up of scientists in here, free you of false statements against Lessans. You think you are a top investigator because of this, and you are nothing of the sort LadyShea. You've missed the forest from the trees, just like Spacemonkey and others. This forum is a sham.
Reply With Quote
  #9213  
Old 04-30-2012, 03:23 PM
specious_reasons's Avatar
specious_reasons specious_reasons is offline
here to bore you with pictures
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: VCCLXVIII
Images: 8
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by specious_reasons View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Lessans was dishonest and used strawman argumentation. You're dishonest and a weasel.
It is possible that when Lessans wrote that, current science put Rigel closer than we think it is today. It's also possible that Lessans just pulled his facts from his nether regions, or made a simple math error when backdating.

I've been more forgiving on that particular bit of Lessans stupidity because it got his point across. There are far worse mistakes in that book than Lessans screwing up some detail.
You've all gotten so nasty in your old persnickety way that I can't even respond anymore with an intelligent answer. It's like I'm talking to robots who can't get out of the same pre-programmed response that Lessans couldn't be right. It's hopeless.
You are correct, it's hopeless. Lessans' book is a hopelessly lost cause.

Besides the major flaws in the book, simple factual errors such as this will simply be used as the red flags to indicate that Lessans was such a poor academic that he couldn't even get the basic facts straight. His ideas can rhetorically be written off because he can't even criticize the current theory correctly.

If you want this book to be taken seriously, you'd address these problems, nor argue with us about how nasty we are. That you don't think the the content of the facts matter is telling about your relationship with the truth.
__________________
ta-
DAVE!!!
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (05-01-2012), Spacemonkey (04-30-2012)
  #9214  
Old 04-30-2012, 03:26 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
It doesn't matter what your argument is, it's so off the beaten track that it's a joke to me. You are so sure that your back up of scientists in here, free you of false statements against Lessans. You think you are a top investigator because of this, and you are nothing of the sort LadyShea. You've missed the forest from the trees, just like Spacemonkey and others. This forum is a sham.
You are trying to distract from the point that Lessans made completely false claims in that paragraph to try to prove his point that he claims is irrefutable, mathematical and scientific. If he had the truth, why resort to falsehoods?

He offered specific statements to prove his point.

1. This was in encyclopedias
2. It was taught in school as fact
3. A science teacher taught it as fact and thought it was fact
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lessans
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 just be able to see the ships of Columbus reaching
America for the very first time.
A former science teacher who taught
this to her students as if it were an absolute fact responded, “I am sure
Columbus would just be arriving; are you trying to tell me that this is
not a scientific fact?”
He was not telling the truth, therefore he lied. It doesn't matter if the lies are immaterial to his point, he lied. It was purposeful. He was dishonest in this instance, how many more lies are in there that haven't been caught?

Also this

Quote:
Originally Posted by specious_reasons
simple factual errors such as this will simply be used as the red flags to indicate that Lessans was such a poor academic that he couldn't even get the basic facts straight. His ideas can rhetorically be written off because he can't even criticize the current theory correctly.

If you want this book to be taken seriously, you'd address these problems, nor argue with us about how nasty we are. That you don't think the the content of the facts matter is telling about your relationship with the truth.
Reply With Quote
  #9215  
Old 04-30-2012, 03:31 PM
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
It doesn't matter what your argument is, it's so off the beaten track that it's a joke to me.
Off the beaten track? Here are some things that are not off the beaten track:

1. The moon and lasers

2. The moons of Jupiter

3. The fact that delayed-time seeing is factored in when we send spacecraft to Mars and other celestial bodies, and if we used Lessans' real-time seeing, we would miss our targets by wide margins.

When are you going to address these fatal problems for Lessans' theories, you disingenuous little fool?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (04-30-2012), Spacemonkey (04-30-2012)
  #9216  
Old 04-30-2012, 03:44 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

Also not off the "beaten track" (another one for the collector)

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.

That is not what happens
Reply With Quote
  #9217  
Old 04-30-2012, 03:53 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 davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
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?
None of this is "splitting hairs," :asshat: This speaks to the core of The Big Buffoon's assertions, and your delusions.

What about the little problem of the moon and lasers, :asshat: ? This is (along with several hundred examples you've been given) a direct and incontrovertible disproof of real-time seeing. And you know it. The fact that you know Lessans' claims have been debunked, and you continue to lie and pretend that they haven't, is what makes you so contemptible in the eyes of everyone here.
No David, it is not. Show me where they can prove that a person cannot see the spot on the moon before the light returns. You can't do it, and I'm tired of your insinuations.
Reply With Quote
  #9218  
Old 04-30-2012, 03:55 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
Also not off the "beaten track" (another one for the collector)

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.

That is not what happens
I am not disputing that LadyShea. You're twisting the entire claim to suit you so you don't have to be pulled up on anything. Remember, you can't be wrong. You have the best scientists backing you up. :eek:
Reply With Quote
  #9219  
Old 04-30-2012, 03:57 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 specious_reasons View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by specious_reasons View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Lessans was dishonest and used strawman argumentation. You're dishonest and a weasel.
It is possible that when Lessans wrote that, current science put Rigel closer than we think it is today. It's also possible that Lessans just pulled his facts from his nether regions, or made a simple math error when backdating.

I've been more forgiving on that particular bit of Lessans stupidity because it got his point across. There are far worse mistakes in that book than Lessans screwing up some detail.
You've all gotten so nasty in your old persnickety way that I can't even respond anymore with an intelligent answer. It's like I'm talking to robots who can't get out of the same pre-programmed response that Lessans couldn't be right. It's hopeless.
You are correct, it's hopeless. Lessans' book is a hopelessly lost cause.

Besides the major flaws in the book, simple factual errors such as this will simply be used as the red flags to indicate that Lessans was such a poor academic that he couldn't even get the basic facts straight. His ideas can rhetorically be written off because he can't even criticize the current theory correctly.

If you want this book to be taken seriously, you'd address these problems, nor argue with us about how nasty we are. That you don't think the the content of the facts matter is telling about your relationship with the truth.
I can't win here because people will use anything they can, even if it's trivial, to try to confirm that Lessans didn't know what he was talking about. But he did know what he was talking about and no matter how much you disagree, it doesn't change the truth of his findings.
Reply With Quote
  #9220  
Old 04-30-2012, 04:01 PM
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 davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
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?
None of this is "splitting hairs," :asshat: This speaks to the core of The Big Buffoon's assertions, and your delusions.

What about the little problem of the moon and lasers, :asshat: ? This is (along with several hundred examples you've been given) a direct and incontrovertible disproof of real-time seeing. And you know it. The fact that you know Lessans' claims have been debunked, and you continue to lie and pretend that they haven't, is what makes you so contemptible in the eyes of everyone here.
No David, it is not. Show me where they can prove that a person cannot see the spot on the moon before the light returns. You can't do it, and I'm tired of your insinuations.
It is easily proved.

1. We know the distance to the moon.

2. We know the velocity of light.

3. Because we know those two things, we know how long it takes for light to travel from the earth to the moon: 1.25 seconds.

You claim is that if we shined a laser at the moon, we would see the spot on the moon where the laser strikes, 1.25 seconds after we send the light.

Instead, we see it in 2.5 seconds after we send it -- the time it takes for the light to bounce off the moon and return to our eyes. Hence, we see the illuminated spot as it was some 1.25 seconds in the past.

Real-time seeing is disproved.

It's as simple and iron-clad a disproof of real-time seeing as one could hope to have. And you know this. Your continued denial of the obvious is what makes you an :asshat:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (04-30-2012)
  #9221  
Old 04-30-2012, 04:14 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Also not off the "beaten track" (another one for the collector)

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.

That is not what happens
I am not disputing that LadyShea.
It proves that we do not see in real time. So if you say we see in real time, your are disputing it
Quote:
You're twisting the entire claim to suit you
What is twisted?

1. You claimed we could see the supernova in real time as it happened
2. You claimed that we could not detect the photons and neutrinos until they arrived after traveling

If your two claims are correct, then this conclusion is correct: 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.

Since the photons and neutrinos are always detected within hours of being able to see supernova, your claims are incorrect. Real time seeing is disproven

Last edited by LadyShea; 04-30-2012 at 05:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9222  
Old 04-30-2012, 04:15 PM
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 specious_reasons View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by specious_reasons View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Lessans was dishonest and used strawman argumentation. You're dishonest and a weasel.
It is possible that when Lessans wrote that, current science put Rigel closer than we think it is today. It's also possible that Lessans just pulled his facts from his nether regions, or made a simple math error when backdating.

I've been more forgiving on that particular bit of Lessans stupidity because it got his point across. There are far worse mistakes in that book than Lessans screwing up some detail.
You've all gotten so nasty in your old persnickety way that I can't even respond anymore with an intelligent answer. It's like I'm talking to robots who can't get out of the same pre-programmed response that Lessans couldn't be right. It's hopeless.
You are correct, it's hopeless. Lessans' book is a hopelessly lost cause.

Besides the major flaws in the book, simple factual errors such as this will simply be used as the red flags to indicate that Lessans was such a poor academic that he couldn't even get the basic facts straight. His ideas can rhetorically be written off because he can't even criticize the current theory correctly.

If you want this book to be taken seriously, you'd address these problems, nor argue with us about how nasty we are. That you don't think the the content of the facts matter is telling about your relationship with the truth.
At this point it's more telling about peacegirl's relationship to reality.
Reply With Quote
  #9223  
Old 04-30-2012, 04:26 PM
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 specious_reasons View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by specious_reasons View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Lessans was dishonest and used strawman argumentation. You're dishonest and a weasel.
It is possible that when Lessans wrote that, current science put Rigel closer than we think it is today. It's also possible that Lessans just pulled his facts from his nether regions, or made a simple math error when backdating.

I've been more forgiving on that particular bit of Lessans stupidity because it got his point across. There are far worse mistakes in that book than Lessans screwing up some detail.
You've all gotten so nasty in your old persnickety way that I can't even respond anymore with an intelligent answer. It's like I'm talking to robots who can't get out of the same pre-programmed response that Lessans couldn't be right. It's hopeless.
You are correct, it's hopeless. Lessans' book is a hopelessly lost cause.

Besides the major flaws in the book, simple factual errors such as this will simply be used as the red flags to indicate that Lessans was such a poor academic that he couldn't even get the basic facts straight. His ideas can rhetorically be written off because he can't even criticize the current theory correctly.

If you want this book to be taken seriously, you'd address these problems, nor argue with us about how nasty we are. That you don't think the the content of the facts matter is telling about your relationship with the truth.
I can't win here because people will use anything they can, even if it's trivial, to try to confirm that Lessans didn't know what he was talking about. But he did know what he was talking about and no matter how much you disagree, it doesn't change the truth of his findings.
It couldn't be more clear. You are incapable of changing your own mind but can't conceive that others may be unable to change their minds based on what you've given them. And you are incapable of learning what others think despite at least six months of exposure. You are so inadequate to the task that you are completely incapable of asking questions or comprehending answers to even begin the task of relating the knowledge of the rest of the world to that of Lessan. Your cause was lost before you began.

You need help peacegirl.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (04-30-2012)
  #9224  
Old 04-30-2012, 04:36 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:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
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.
Hey, you are the one requesting proof that the proof was proof. Whereas you seem to need none where your fathers genius was concerned.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (04-30-2012), naturalist.atheist (04-30-2012), Stephen Maturin (04-30-2012)
  #9225  
Old 04-30-2012, 05:09 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 peacegirl View Post
I can't even respond anymore with an intelligent answer. .

Anymore? You haven't given an intelligent answer yet, but then why start now.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (05-01-2012)
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 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 12:04 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.21077 seconds with 16 queries