Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #9301  
Old 04-30-2012, 11:28 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
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9302  
Old 04-30-2012, 11:31 PM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
Posts: VCII
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
That is not what I said. I said it would be hard to determine if the person could see the spot in 1.25 seconds because the light is already back to Earth a second later, so this experiment doesn't prove efferent vision wrong.
Don't be stupid. Response times in psychology are regularly accurately measured to within tens of milliseconds. There is nothing even remotely difficult about determining when a spot becomes visible. The difference between 1.25 and 2.5 seconds is huge and easily measurable. You don't have to stop and ask the person what they can see. The observer can be the one doing the timing.
I'd like to see an animation of this. I can't imagine this being possible, or accurate.
Yes, animation is the only proof! :untwo:
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
davidm (05-01-2012), LadyShea (05-01-2012), Spacemonkey (04-30-2012), Stephen Maturin (04-30-2012)
  #9303  
Old 04-30-2012, 11:31 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 Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
When was the last time the most important chapter was even touched on. I can't remember. It is YOU that constantly goes off the beaten track to distract from the main topic.
You can't remember much of anything, can you Peacegirl? You've already forgotten again that it was YOU who stated that you don't want to discuss his main topic at all. Just as you've forgotten my previous posts pointing out how batshit crazy it is to criticize others for not discussing something YOU don't even want to discuss. You are mentally ill, Peacegirl.
I don't want to discuss his first discovery with you because you can't get past your one post about presuppositions. It's the biggest joke of all.
Correction: You don't want to discuss his first non-discovery with anyone here. At least that is what you've repeatedly told us. Yet here you are again criticizing others for not discussing what you yourself do not want to discuss. Can you tell me why this behavior should not be viewed as evidence of mental illness?
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.

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9304  
Old 04-30-2012, 11:31 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

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?
Reply With Quote
  #9305  
Old 04-30-2012, 11:34 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

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?

:lol:
Reply With Quote
  #9306  
Old 04-30-2012, 11:35 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
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
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]
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #9307  
Old 04-30-2012, 11:36 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
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? :chin:
Reply With Quote
  #9308  
Old 04-30-2012, 11:38 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 peacegirl View Post
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?
Quote:
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
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.
Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9309  
Old 04-30-2012, 11:39 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 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"

Reply With Quote
  #9310  
Old 04-30-2012, 11:40 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXV
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
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.
:lol:

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?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (05-01-2012)
  #9311  
Old 04-30-2012, 11:42 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
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?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #9312  
Old 04-30-2012, 11:43 PM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Flyover Hillbilly
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: MXDCXXV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
but who would hang out day after day at a thread that is useless?
:you:
__________________
"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:
Angakuk (05-01-2012), LadyShea (05-01-2012), Spacemonkey (04-30-2012)
  #9313  
Old 04-30-2012, 11:44 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
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?

:lol:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9314  
Old 04-30-2012, 11:44 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXV
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
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? :chin:
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?

:lol:
Reply With Quote
  #9315  
Old 04-30-2012, 11:46 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 Stephen Maturin View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
but who would hang out day after day at a thread that is useless?
:you:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9316  
Old 04-30-2012, 11:46 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXV
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
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?

:lol:
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. :wave:
Reply With Quote
  #9317  
Old 04-30-2012, 11:47 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXV
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 peacegirl View Post
but who would hang out day after day at a thread that is useless?
:you:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9318  
Old 04-30-2012, 11:48 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
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?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
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.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (05-01-2012)
  #9319  
Old 04-30-2012, 11:49 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Hey, peacegirl, did you miss this? :popcorn:


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

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?
Reply With Quote
  #9320  
Old 04-30-2012, 11:49 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 davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
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? :chin:
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?

:lol:
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?
Reply With Quote
  #9321  
Old 04-30-2012, 11:52 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 davidm View Post
Hey, peacegirl, did you miss this? :popcorn:


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

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?
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.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (05-01-2012)
  #9322  
Old 04-30-2012, 11:53 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
That is not what I said. I said it would be hard to determine if the person could see the spot in 1.25 seconds because the light is already back to Earth a second later, so this experiment doesn't prove efferent vision wrong.
Don't be stupid. Response times in psychology are regularly accurately measured to within tens of milliseconds. There is nothing even remotely difficult about determining when a spot becomes visible. The difference between 1.25 and 2.5 seconds is huge and easily measurable. You don't have to stop and ask the person what they can see. The observer can be the one doing the timing.
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
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #9323  
Old 04-30-2012, 11:53 PM
Stephen Maturin's Avatar
Stephen Maturin Stephen Maturin is offline
Flyover Hillbilly
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
Posts: MXDCXXV
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 peacegirl View Post
but who would hang out day after day at a thread that is useless?
:you:
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I never see people hanging out at a thread that has nothing to offer.
Sure you have. Need some reminders?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
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.
__________________
"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
  #9324  
Old 04-30-2012, 11:54 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 naturalist.atheist View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9325  
Old 04-30-2012, 11:55 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXV
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 davidm View Post
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? :chin:
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?

:lol:
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?

:lol:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (05-01-2012)
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 4 (0 members and 4 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 03:49 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.12305 seconds with 15 queries