Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #9426  
Old 05-01-2012, 10:53 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 LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Doesn't matter how old it is. If the supernova was only one light year away (which would kill us all, but just for illustrative purposes), and, if we see in real time, then we would see the supernova 1 year earlier than we could detect the photons and neutrinos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
If we see in real time, this does not change the fact that light hasn't reached Earth yet
I only used 1 light year to illustrate the simple mathematical formula that seems to be eluding you. A star exploding only one light year away would vaporize us. Again 1 year is just to have an easy reference point, because it is easier to use 1 and 0 in the formula. Get it?

If we see instantly in real time, we would see the supernova explosion immediately when it happens.

If it were possible to happen without killing us all, for illustrative purposes only, if the supernova happened 1 light year away, it would take 1 year for the photons and neutrinos produced by that supernova to reach Earth to be detected, according to your own claims.

0 time delay seeing the explosion with our eyes or through a telescope
1 year delay for the photons and neutrinos traveling at or near the speed of light

Do you get it yet?

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
The further away the supernova, the longer the delay from visually seeing the supernova to when the photons and neutrinos could be detected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You are talking about two different things, as Lessans explained regarding the Sun.
I am talking about the difference in time between seeing the supernova instantly, because we do not have to await the light to see things according to Lessans, versus when we could detect the photons and neutrinos produced by that supernova, which have to travel from the location of the even to the location of our detectors.

If the supernova happened 5000 light years away and Lessans was correct


0 time delay seeing the explosion with our eyes or through a telescope
5000 year delay for the photons and neutrinos traveling at or near the speed of light


If the supernova happened 500 light years away and Lessans was correct

0 time delay seeing the explosion with our eyes or through a telescope
500 year delay for the photons and neutrinos traveling at or near the speed of light


If the supernova happened 5 light years away and Lessans was correct

0 time delay seeing the explosion with our eyes or through a telescope
5 year delay for the photons and neutrinos traveling at or near the speed of light


Again, this is not at all complicated and is based on your and Lessans claims.
And again, this is not what happens, ever. The photons and neutrinos from the supernova are detected within minutes of seeing the supernova visually, hours at the very longest. Never, ever, ever are the two occurrences separated by years.


Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
You act like this is complicated. What part is confusing to you? What could you possibly mean by "the real thing"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The real thing meaning the real event, not a virtual event via light. It's you that's making it complicated.
Where have I said anything about virtual events vs real events? You are adding a bunch of meaningless bullshit as a weasel. Humans can see stars expand greatly when they go supernova. They can see it through telescopes and take pictures of it.
I know it seems that your example is conclusive proof that Lessans was wrong, but I am not convinced. If it's true that we see efferently, then we have to do empirical testing on the brain because all this talk about light could lead people astray. If N light does not travel through time and space with the pattern of the object in it (I can't explain this any other way), but instead the P light allows us to see the object according to the inverse square law, then I don't see how we can get an image of the past, especially when the P light, after it disperses, joins with the other colors of the spectrum as it travels. According to Lessans, we would never get an image of the 12th century if we were on the star Rigel, and I still believe he is right. We would see what is happening now. We will never figure out the truth in here. No one ever answered why an object must be in one's field of view for us to see it. We never see an image from light alone. I am not satisfied with the answers that were given, and I'm not going to stay here if I get verbally beaten up every time I say something.
Reply With Quote
  #9427  
Old 05-01-2012, 11:13 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:
I know it seems that your example is conclusive proof that Lessans was wrong, but I am not convinced.
Which part of the example is confusing to you and/or do you have a refutation that makes any sense? If you aren't convinced then it is based on your faith that Lessans was correct and not on reality.

Either we see in real time as Lessans said or we do not. This repeated empirical observation definitively proves that we do not.

Everything else you wrote is a weasel.
Reply With Quote
  #9428  
Old 05-01-2012, 11:15 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
We will never figure out the truth in here.
You won't, but everyone else can and has.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
No one ever answered why an object must be in one's field of view for us to see it. We never see an image from light alone. I am not satisfied with the answers that were given...
You've already admitted that you won't accept any answer other than your own - which presupposes something which you cannot show to be true and which our answers therefore do not have to explain. Only a mentally ill person would keep asking a question that has already been answered, while refusing to accept any answer other than their own incorrect one, and knowing that the answers they have been given are not going to change.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
...and I'm not going to stay here if I get verbally beaten up every time I say something.
But you are. You are going to stay here, and not only in spite of what is said about you but because of it. You are deliberately seeking negative attention. This is what you come here for. Why else would you repeatedly say that you are leaving, that you won't put up with such treatment, and that you'd be crazy to stay, while also indicating that you fully expect to still be posting here a month from now? You really are crazy, Peacegirl. Get help.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (05-01-2012)
  #9429  
Old 05-01-2012, 11:17 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 LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Doesn't matter how old it is. If the supernova was only one light year away (which would kill us all, but just for illustrative purposes), and, if we see in real time, then we would see the supernova 1 year earlier than we could detect the photons and neutrinos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
If we see in real time, this does not change the fact that light hasn't reached Earth yet
I only used 1 light year to illustrate the simple mathematical formula that seems to be eluding you. A star exploding only one light year away would vaporize us. Again 1 year is just to have an easy reference point, because it is easier to use 1 and 0 in the formula. Get it?

If we see instantly in real time, we would see the supernova explosion immediately when it happens.

If it were possible to happen without killing us all, for illustrative purposes only, if the supernova happened 1 light year away, it would take 1 year for the photons and neutrinos produced by that supernova to reach Earth to be detected, according to your own claims.

0 time delay seeing the explosion with our eyes or through a telescope
1 year delay for the photons and neutrinos traveling at or near the speed of light

Do you get it yet?

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
The further away the supernova, the longer the delay from visually seeing the supernova to when the photons and neutrinos could be detected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You are talking about two different things, as Lessans explained regarding the Sun.
I am talking about the difference in time between seeing the supernova instantly, because we do not have to await the light to see things according to Lessans, versus when we could detect the photons and neutrinos produced by that supernova, which have to travel from the location of the even to the location of our detectors.

If the supernova happened 5000 light years away and Lessans was correct


0 time delay seeing the explosion with our eyes or through a telescope
5000 year delay for the photons and neutrinos traveling at or near the speed of light


If the supernova happened 500 light years away and Lessans was correct

0 time delay seeing the explosion with our eyes or through a telescope
500 year delay for the photons and neutrinos traveling at or near the speed of light


If the supernova happened 5 light years away and Lessans was correct

0 time delay seeing the explosion with our eyes or through a telescope
5 year delay for the photons and neutrinos traveling at or near the speed of light


Again, this is not at all complicated and is based on your and Lessans claims.
And again, this is not what happens, ever. The photons and neutrinos from the supernova are detected within minutes of seeing the supernova visually, hours at the very longest. Never, ever, ever are the two occurrences separated by years.


Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
You act like this is complicated. What part is confusing to you? What could you possibly mean by "the real thing"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The real thing meaning the real event, not a virtual event via light. It's you that's making it complicated.
Where have I said anything about virtual events vs real events? You are adding a bunch of meaningless bullshit as a weasel. Humans can see stars expand greatly when they go supernova. They can see it through telescopes and take pictures of it.
I know it seems that your example is conclusive proof that Lessans was wrong, but I am not convinced. If it's true that we see efferently, then we have to do empirical testing on the brain because all this talk about light could lead people astray. If N light does not travel through time and space with the pattern of the object in it (I can't explain this any other way), but instead the P light allows us to see the object according to the inverse square law, then I don't see how we can get an image of the past, especially when the P light, after it disperses, joins with the other colors of the spectrum as it travels. According to Lessans, we would never get an image of the 12th century if we were on the star Rigel, and I still believe he is right. We would see what is happening now. We will never figure out the truth in here. No one ever answered why an object must be in one's field of view for us to see it. We never see an image from light alone. I am not satisfied with the answers that were given, and I'm not going to stay here if I get verbally beaten up every time I say something.
peacegirl, except for some people who just can't get over how insane you are and for some strange reason think that presenting you one more time with evidence that Lessans was wrong will somehow change your mind, many here do not care if you can't understand that the evidence shows Lessans was wrong. It is way, way beyond mattering what you think on the matter because it is obvious you unable to assess the situation in a sane and rational way.

Get help peacegirl.
Reply With Quote
  #9430  
Old 05-01-2012, 11:25 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
I know it seems that your example is conclusive proof that Lessans was wrong, but I am not convinced. If it's true that we see efferently, then we have to do empirical testing on the brain because all this talk about light could lead people astray. If N light does not travel through time and space with the pattern of the object in it (I can't explain this any other way), but instead the P light allows us to see the object according to the inverse square law,...
All of the foregoing is incoherent nonsense.

Quote:
We will never figure out the truth in here.
YOU will never figure out the truth in here, or anywhere else.

Quote:
No one ever answered why an object must be in one's field of view for us to see it. We never see an image from light alone.
Yes, this has been answered repeatedly. To take one example, the Hubble Telescope registers light from objects that no longer even exist, and those that do exist are in entirely different places and entirely different forms.

Quote:
I am not satisfied with the answers that were given...
Nobody gives a shit.
Reply With Quote
  #9431  
Old 05-01-2012, 11:38 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

Peacegirl, all I did below was apply Lessans own hypothetical observation* to actual observations, and his hypothetical fails in actuality.

Are you saying his hypothetical observation should not be applicable to reality? If it was correct and should be applicable to reality, why does it fail?

*Sun turned on at noon would be seen at noon. We could not detect photons until 8.5 minutes later

Quote:
I am talking about the difference in time between seeing the supernova instantly, because we do not have to await the light to see things according to Lessans, versus when we could detect the photons and neutrinos produced by that supernova, which have to travel from the location of the even to the location of our detectors.

If the supernova happened 5000 light years away and Lessans was correct

0 time delay seeing the explosion with our eyes or through a telescope
5000 year delay for the photons and neutrinos traveling at or near the speed of light

If the supernova happened 500 light years away and Lessans was correct

0 time delay seeing the explosion with our eyes or through a telescope
500 year delay for the photons and neutrinos traveling at or near the speed of light

If the supernova happened 5 light years away and Lessans was correct

0 time delay seeing the explosion with our eyes or through a telescope
5 year delay for the photons and neutrinos traveling at or near the speed of light

Again, this is not at all complicated and is based on your and Lessans claims.
Reply With Quote
  #9432  
Old 05-02-2012, 01:07 AM
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 davidm View Post
No. 8 : There are no fucking efferent nerves in the eye!
From page 134 of the Holy Babble:

Quote:
If a lion roared in that room a newborn baby would hear the sound and react because this impinges on the eardrum and is then transmitted to the brain. The same holds true for anything that makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve ending in this organ. (Emphasis added.)
Looks like you're wrong, David. Lessans was a humble and extraordinarily intelligent person who always admitted when he was wrong. He never admitted being wrong about any of the above, so it's necessarily correct. Thus, the fact that there are no efferent neurons in the human optic nerve conclusively establishes that the human optic nerve is stuffed to the gun'les with efferent neurons.
__________________
"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
  #9433  
Old 05-02-2012, 01:13 AM
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:
I know it seems that your example is conclusive proof that Lessans was wrong, but I am not convinced.
Which part of the example is confusing to you and/or do you have a refutation that makes any sense? If you aren't convinced then it is based on your faith that Lessans was correct and not on reality.

Either we see in real time as Lessans said or we do not. This repeated empirical observation definitively proves that we do not.

Everything else you wrote is a weasel.
If you are that positive that you're right, then let's end it. I don't believe you are, but we can agree to disagree.
Reply With Quote
  #9434  
Old 05-02-2012, 01:15 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
I know.
All of the foregoing is incoherent nonsense.
Quote:
I am not satisfied with the answers that were given...
Nobody gives a shit.
That just about sums it up for this thread.
Reply With Quote
  #9435  
Old 05-02-2012, 01:16 AM
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
Peacegirl, all I did below was apply Lessans own hypothetical observation* to actual observations, and his hypothetical fails in actuality.

Are you saying his hypothetical observation should not be applicable to reality? If it was correct and should be applicable to reality, why does it fail?

*Sun turned on at noon would be seen at noon. We could not detect photons until 8.5 minutes later

Quote:
I am talking about the difference in time between seeing the supernova instantly, because we do not have to await the light to see things according to Lessans, versus when we could detect the photons and neutrinos produced by that supernova, which have to travel from the location of the even to the location of our detectors.

If the supernova happened 5000 light years away and Lessans was correct

0 time delay seeing the explosion with our eyes or through a telescope
5000 year delay for the photons and neutrinos traveling at or near the speed of light

If the supernova happened 500 light years away and Lessans was correct

0 time delay seeing the explosion with our eyes or through a telescope
500 year delay for the photons and neutrinos traveling at or near the speed of light

If the supernova happened 5 light years away and Lessans was correct

0 time delay seeing the explosion with our eyes or through a telescope
5 year delay for the photons and neutrinos traveling at or near the speed of light

Again, this is not at all complicated and is based on your and Lessans claims.
Well, it is rather complicated because there's more to it. I believe that any material substance that absorbs light does not reflect the remaining non-absorbed light where it then travels through space and time. I stand by these claims, even though you think they are faith based, and that the only reason I can't accept "your truth" is because Lessans was my father. Not! :popcorn:
Reply With Quote
  #9436  
Old 05-02-2012, 01:18 AM
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 davidm View Post
No. 8 : There are no fucking efferent nerves in the eye!
From page 134 of the Holy Babble:

Quote:
If a lion roared in that room a newborn baby would hear the sound and react because this impinges on the eardrum and is then transmitted to the brain. The same holds true for anything that makes direct contact with an afferent nerve ending, but this is far from the case with the eyes because there is no similar afferent nerve ending in this organ. (Emphasis added.)
Looks like you're wrong, David. Lessans was a humble and extraordinarily intelligent person who always admitted when he was wrong. He never admitted being wrong about any of the above, so it's necessarily correct. Thus, the fact that there are no efferent neurons in the human optic nerve conclusively establishes that the human optic nerve is stuffed to the gun'les with efferent neurons.
You can't be serious, can you?
Reply With Quote
  #9437  
Old 05-02-2012, 01:20 AM
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 naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Doesn't matter how old it is. If the supernova was only one light year away (which would kill us all, but just for illustrative purposes), and, if we see in real time, then we would see the supernova 1 year earlier than we could detect the photons and neutrinos.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
If we see in real time, this does not change the fact that light hasn't reached Earth yet
I only used 1 light year to illustrate the simple mathematical formula that seems to be eluding you. A star exploding only one light year away would vaporize us. Again 1 year is just to have an easy reference point, because it is easier to use 1 and 0 in the formula. Get it?

If we see instantly in real time, we would see the supernova explosion immediately when it happens.

If it were possible to happen without killing us all, for illustrative purposes only, if the supernova happened 1 light year away, it would take 1 year for the photons and neutrinos produced by that supernova to reach Earth to be detected, according to your own claims.

0 time delay seeing the explosion with our eyes or through a telescope
1 year delay for the photons and neutrinos traveling at or near the speed of light

Do you get it yet?

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
The further away the supernova, the longer the delay from visually seeing the supernova to when the photons and neutrinos could be detected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You are talking about two different things, as Lessans explained regarding the Sun.
I am talking about the difference in time between seeing the supernova instantly, because we do not have to await the light to see things according to Lessans, versus when we could detect the photons and neutrinos produced by that supernova, which have to travel from the location of the even to the location of our detectors.

If the supernova happened 5000 light years away and Lessans was correct


0 time delay seeing the explosion with our eyes or through a telescope
5000 year delay for the photons and neutrinos traveling at or near the speed of light


If the supernova happened 500 light years away and Lessans was correct

0 time delay seeing the explosion with our eyes or through a telescope
500 year delay for the photons and neutrinos traveling at or near the speed of light


If the supernova happened 5 light years away and Lessans was correct

0 time delay seeing the explosion with our eyes or through a telescope
5 year delay for the photons and neutrinos traveling at or near the speed of light


Again, this is not at all complicated and is based on your and Lessans claims.
And again, this is not what happens, ever. The photons and neutrinos from the supernova are detected within minutes of seeing the supernova visually, hours at the very longest. Never, ever, ever are the two occurrences separated by years.


Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
You act like this is complicated. What part is confusing to you? What could you possibly mean by "the real thing"?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The real thing meaning the real event, not a virtual event via light. It's you that's making it complicated.
Where have I said anything about virtual events vs real events? You are adding a bunch of meaningless bullshit as a weasel. Humans can see stars expand greatly when they go supernova. They can see it through telescopes and take pictures of it.
I know it seems that your example is conclusive proof that Lessans was wrong, but I am not convinced. If it's true that we see efferently, then we have to do empirical testing on the brain because all this talk about light could lead people astray. If N light does not travel through time and space with the pattern of the object in it (I can't explain this any other way), but instead the P light allows us to see the object according to the inverse square law, then I don't see how we can get an image of the past, especially when the P light, after it disperses, joins with the other colors of the spectrum as it travels. According to Lessans, we would never get an image of the 12th century if we were on the star Rigel, and I still believe he is right. We would see what is happening now. We will never figure out the truth in here. No one ever answered why an object must be in one's field of view for us to see it. We never see an image from light alone. I am not satisfied with the answers that were given, and I'm not going to stay here if I get verbally beaten up every time I say something.
peacegirl, except for some people who just can't get over how insane you are and for some strange reason think that presenting you one more time with evidence that Lessans was wrong will somehow change your mind, many here do not care if you can't understand that the evidence shows Lessans was wrong. It is way, way beyond mattering what you think on the matter because it is obvious you unable to assess the situation in a sane and rational way.

Get help peacegirl.
I don't mean to be nasty but you sound autistic.
Reply With Quote
  #9438  
Old 05-02-2012, 01:23 AM
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 LadyShea View Post
Peacegirl, all I did below was apply Lessans own hypothetical observation* to actual observations, and his hypothetical fails in actuality.

Are you saying his hypothetical observation should not be applicable to reality? If it was correct and should be applicable to reality, why does it fail?

*Sun turned on at noon would be seen at noon. We could not detect photons until 8.5 minutes later

Quote:
I am talking about the difference in time between seeing the supernova instantly, because we do not have to await the light to see things according to Lessans, versus when we could detect the photons and neutrinos produced by that supernova, which have to travel from the location of the even to the location of our detectors.

If the supernova happened 5000 light years away and Lessans was correct

0 time delay seeing the explosion with our eyes or through a telescope
5000 year delay for the photons and neutrinos traveling at or near the speed of light

If the supernova happened 500 light years away and Lessans was correct

0 time delay seeing the explosion with our eyes or through a telescope
500 year delay for the photons and neutrinos traveling at or near the speed of light

If the supernova happened 5 light years away and Lessans was correct

0 time delay seeing the explosion with our eyes or through a telescope
5 year delay for the photons and neutrinos traveling at or near the speed of light

Again, this is not at all complicated and is based on your and Lessans claims.
Well, it is rather complicated because there's more to it. I believe that any material substance that absorbs light does not reflect the remaining non-absorbed light where it then travels through space and time. I stand by these claims, even though you think they are faith based, and that the only reason I can't accept "your truth" is because Lessans was my father. Not! :popcorn:
:lol:

The non-absorbed light is NOT reflected?

Then what the fuck happens to it?

:foocl:

Are you seriously telling us that the moon, to take one big-assed example, does NOT reflect light from the sun?

Hey, well, that's what they believe in Waco, Texas, anyhoo!

Waco! It sounds kinda like wacko!

Just like peacegirl.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (05-02-2012)
  #9439  
Old 05-02-2012, 01:26 AM
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
We will never figure out the truth in here.
You won't, but everyone else can and has.
People here are no different than the church elders who ostracized anyone who opposed the thinking of that time. The sad part is people are doing this in the name of science. Ugh!

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
No one ever answered why an object must be in one's field of view for us to see it. We never see an image from light alone. I am not satisfied with the answers that were given...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
You've already admitted that you won't accept any answer other than your own - which presupposes something which you cannot show to be true and which our answers therefore do not have to explain. Only a mentally ill person would keep asking a question that has already been answered, while refusing to accept any answer other than their own incorrect one, and knowing that the answers they have been given are not going to change.
I will not discuss his first discovery with you because you will not accept that he presupposed nothing. You won't even allow me to share his observations without prejudging. FYI, no questions were adequately answered.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
...and I'm not going to stay here if I get verbally beaten up every time I say something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
But you are. You are going to stay here, and not only in spite of what is said about you but because of it. You are deliberately seeking negative attention. This is what you come here for. Why else would you repeatedly say that you are leaving, that you won't put up with such treatment, and that you'd be crazy to stay, while also indicating that you fully expect to still be posting here a month from now? You really are crazy, Peacegirl. Get help.
Oh my god, you sound like a clone of NA. This forum has turned you into a groupie.
Reply With Quote
  #9440  
Old 05-02-2012, 01:28 AM
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
Peacegirl, all I did below was apply Lessans own hypothetical observation* to actual observations, and his hypothetical fails in actuality.

Are you saying his hypothetical observation should not be applicable to reality? If it was correct and should be applicable to reality, why does it fail?

*Sun turned on at noon would be seen at noon. We could not detect photons until 8.5 minutes later

Quote:
I am talking about the difference in time between seeing the supernova instantly, because we do not have to await the light to see things according to Lessans, versus when we could detect the photons and neutrinos produced by that supernova, which have to travel from the location of the even to the location of our detectors.

If the supernova happened 5000 light years away and Lessans was correct

0 time delay seeing the explosion with our eyes or through a telescope
5000 year delay for the photons and neutrinos traveling at or near the speed of light

If the supernova happened 500 light years away and Lessans was correct

0 time delay seeing the explosion with our eyes or through a telescope
500 year delay for the photons and neutrinos traveling at or near the speed of light

If the supernova happened 5 light years away and Lessans was correct

0 time delay seeing the explosion with our eyes or through a telescope
5 year delay for the photons and neutrinos traveling at or near the speed of light

Again, this is not at all complicated and is based on your and Lessans claims.
Well, it is rather complicated because there's more to it. I believe that any material substance that absorbs light does not reflect the remaining non-absorbed light where it then travels through space and time. I stand by these claims, even though you think they are faith based, and that the only reason I can't accept "your truth" is because Lessans was my father. Not! :popcorn:
:lol:

The non-absorbed light is NOT reflected?

Then what the fuck happens to it?

:foocl:

Are you seriously telling us that the moon, to take one big-assed example, does NOT reflect light from the sun?

Hey, well, that's what they believe in Waco, Texas, anyhoo!

Waco! It sounds kinda like wacko!

Just like peacegirl.
Unfortunately, you failed and now have to take the whole grade over again.
Reply With Quote
  #9441  
Old 05-02-2012, 01:29 AM
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

Bill Nye, The Science Guy, was booed (!) in Waco, Texas, for saying that the moon reflects the sun! :lol: Am I living in 21st century America, really? Honestly, where and when the fuck am I?

peacegirl, you should move to Waco and preach it! :lol:
Reply With Quote
  #9442  
Old 05-02-2012, 01:32 AM
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 LadyShea View Post
Peacegirl, all I did below was apply Lessans own hypothetical observation* to actual observations, and his hypothetical fails in actuality.

Are you saying his hypothetical observation should not be applicable to reality? If it was correct and should be applicable to reality, why does it fail?

*Sun turned on at noon would be seen at noon. We could not detect photons until 8.5 minutes later

Quote:
I am talking about the difference in time between seeing the supernova instantly, because we do not have to await the light to see things according to Lessans, versus when we could detect the photons and neutrinos produced by that supernova, which have to travel from the location of the even to the location of our detectors.

If the supernova happened 5000 light years away and Lessans was correct

0 time delay seeing the explosion with our eyes or through a telescope
5000 year delay for the photons and neutrinos traveling at or near the speed of light

If the supernova happened 500 light years away and Lessans was correct

0 time delay seeing the explosion with our eyes or through a telescope
500 year delay for the photons and neutrinos traveling at or near the speed of light

If the supernova happened 5 light years away and Lessans was correct

0 time delay seeing the explosion with our eyes or through a telescope
5 year delay for the photons and neutrinos traveling at or near the speed of light

Again, this is not at all complicated and is based on your and Lessans claims.
Well, it is rather complicated because there's more to it. I believe that any material substance that absorbs light does not reflect the remaining non-absorbed light where it then travels through space and time. I stand by these claims, even though you think they are faith based, and that the only reason I can't accept "your truth" is because Lessans was my father. Not! :popcorn:
:lol:

The non-absorbed light is NOT reflected?

Then what the fuck happens to it?

:foocl:

Are you seriously telling us that the moon, to take one big-assed example, does NOT reflect light from the sun?

Hey, well, that's what they believe in Waco, Texas, anyhoo!

Waco! It sounds kinda like wacko!

Just like peacegirl.
Unfortunately, you failed and now have to take the whole grade over again.
:lol:

Answer the question, ass hat.

Is the light we seen from the moon reflected sunlight, or not?

Take the whole grade over again! :lol: Fuck off, peacegirl. :wave:
Reply With Quote
  #9443  
Old 05-02-2012, 01:34 AM
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
Bill Nye, The Science Guy, was booed (!) in Waco, Texas, for saying that the moon reflects the sun! :lol: Am I living in 21st century America, really? Honestly, where and when the fuck am I?

peacegirl, you should move to Waco and preach it! :lol:
Light reflects the world through our eyes; light does not bring the world to our eyes. Yes, we're living in the 21st century, an epoch that is on the cutting edge of many new technologies and discoveries. It's an exciting time!
Reply With Quote
  #9444  
Old 05-02-2012, 01:34 AM
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Peacegirl, all I did below was apply Lessans own hypothetical observation* to actual observations, and his hypothetical fails in actuality.

Are you saying his hypothetical observation should not be applicable to reality? If it was correct and should be applicable to reality, why does it fail?

*Sun turned on at noon would be seen at noon. We could not detect photons until 8.5 minutes later

Quote:
I am talking about the difference in time between seeing the supernova instantly, because we do not have to await the light to see things according to Lessans, versus when we could detect the photons and neutrinos produced by that supernova, which have to travel from the location of the even to the location of our detectors.

If the supernova happened 5000 light years away and Lessans was correct

0 time delay seeing the explosion with our eyes or through a telescope
5000 year delay for the photons and neutrinos traveling at or near the speed of light

If the supernova happened 500 light years away and Lessans was correct

0 time delay seeing the explosion with our eyes or through a telescope
500 year delay for the photons and neutrinos traveling at or near the speed of light

If the supernova happened 5 light years away and Lessans was correct

0 time delay seeing the explosion with our eyes or through a telescope
5 year delay for the photons and neutrinos traveling at or near the speed of light

Again, this is not at all complicated and is based on your and Lessans claims.
Well, it is rather complicated because there's more to it. I believe that any material substance that absorbs light does not reflect the remaining non-absorbed light where it then travels through space and time. I stand by these claims, even though you think they are faith based, and that the only reason I can't accept "your truth" is because Lessans was my father. Not! :popcorn:
:lol:

The non-absorbed light is NOT reflected?

Then what the fuck happens to it?

:foocl:

Are you seriously telling us that the moon, to take one big-assed example, does NOT reflect light from the sun?

Hey, well, that's what they believe in Waco, Texas, anyhoo!

Waco! It sounds kinda like wacko!

Just like peacegirl.
Unfortunately, you failed and now have to take the whole grade over again.
:lol:

Answer the question, ass hat.

Is the light we seen from the moon reflected sunlight, or not?

Take the whole grade over again! :lol: Fuck off, peacegirl. :wave:
Done! :wave:
Reply With Quote
  #9445  
Old 05-02-2012, 01:41 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
I believe that any material substance that absorbs light does not reflect the remaining non-absorbed light where it then travels through space and time. I stand by these claims...
No you don't. You've repeatedly conceded that the above is false. What happens to the unabsorbed portion of the light that hits an object if it doesn't bounce off and travel away through space and time?

Can you guess how many times you've cycled through this exact same point already? You are mentally ill, Peacegirl. Get help.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #9446  
Old 05-02-2012, 01:44 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

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The sad part is people are doing this in the name of science.
You keep using that word.


It does not mean what you think it means.
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
-- Socrates
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (05-02-2012)
  #9447  
Old 05-02-2012, 01:44 AM
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
Bill Nye, The Science Guy, was booed (!) in Waco, Texas, for saying that the moon reflects the sun! :lol: Am I living in 21st century America, really? Honestly, where and when the fuck am I?

peacegirl, you should move to Waco and preach it! :lol:
Light reflects the world through our eyes; light does not bring the world to our eyes. Yes, we're living in the 21st century, an epoch that is on the cutting edge of many new technologies and discoveries. It's an exciting time!
Laugh Out Loud.

Seriously, you are a clown. You missed your calling.

Light reflects the world through our eyes; light does not bring the world to our eyes.

What the fuck does that pile of word salad even mean, peacegirl? Can you venture an explanation?

No, of course not. :lol:

Hey, peacegirl, how come a laser bounced off the moon takes 2.5 seconds to show up at our eyes, when according to you we should see it 1.25 seconds after we send the light to the moon?
Reply With Quote
  #9448  
Old 05-02-2012, 01:45 AM
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

Peacegirl, is the light of the moon reflected sunlight? Yes or no?

:derp:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (05-02-2012), Stephen Maturin (05-02-2012)
  #9449  
Old 05-02-2012, 01:46 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
You've already admitted that you won't accept any answer other than your own - which presupposes something which you cannot show to be true and which our answers therefore do not have to explain. Only a mentally ill person would keep asking a question that has already been answered, while refusing to accept any answer other than their own incorrect one, and knowing that the answers they have been given are not going to change.
I will not discuss his first discovery with you because you will not accept that he presupposed nothing. You won't even allow me to share his observations without prejudging. FYI, no questions were adequately answered.
You really are clueless. The above concerns his second non-discovery, not his first. You just saw the word "presupposes" and wrongly assumed I was speaking of his first discovery. Your memory is so poor you can't even follow the chain of discussion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
...and I'm not going to stay here if I get verbally beaten up every time I say something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
But you are. You are going to stay here, and not only in spite of what is said about you but because of it. You are deliberately seeking negative attention. This is what you come here for. Why else would you repeatedly say that you are leaving, that you won't put up with such treatment, and that you'd be crazy to stay, while also indicating that you fully expect to still be posting here a month from now? You really are crazy, Peacegirl. Get help.
Oh my god, you sound like a clone of NA. This forum has turned you into a groupie.
Already addressed (though you've no doubt forgotten). People are independently arriving at the same conclusion and saying the same things because the content of your posts makes it blatantly clear that you are mentally ill. For example: You are deliberately seeking negative attention. This is what you come here for. Why else would you repeatedly say that you are leaving, that you won't put up with such treatment, and that you'd be crazy to stay, while also indicating that you fully expect to still be posting here a month from now?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #9450  
Old 05-02-2012, 02:06 AM
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
Peacegirl, all I did below was apply Lessans own hypothetical observation* to actual observations, and his hypothetical fails in actuality.

Are you saying his hypothetical observation should not be applicable to reality? If it was correct and should be applicable to reality, why does it fail?

*Sun turned on at noon would be seen at noon. We could not detect photons until 8.5 minutes later

Quote:
I am talking about the difference in time between seeing the supernova instantly, because we do not have to await the light to see things according to Lessans, versus when we could detect the photons and neutrinos produced by that supernova, which have to travel from the location of the even to the location of our detectors.

If the supernova happened 5000 light years away and Lessans was correct

0 time delay seeing the explosion with our eyes or through a telescope
5000 year delay for the photons and neutrinos traveling at or near the speed of light

If the supernova happened 500 light years away and Lessans was correct

0 time delay seeing the explosion with our eyes or through a telescope
500 year delay for the photons and neutrinos traveling at or near the speed of light

If the supernova happened 5 light years away and Lessans was correct

0 time delay seeing the explosion with our eyes or through a telescope
5 year delay for the photons and neutrinos traveling at or near the speed of light

Again, this is not at all complicated and is based on your and Lessans claims.
Well, it is rather complicated because there's more to it.
Really there was more to the sun turned on at noon hypothetical? What was the "more" to that particular example? It was stated pretty straightforwardly...if the sun was turned on at noon we would see it at noon, but would have to wait for the photons to travel to Earth 8.5 minutes later to see each other. The sun is a star, so this should apply to all stars. It fails when we apply it to other stars though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I believe that any material substance that absorbs light does not reflect the remaining non-absorbed light where it then travels through space and time.
What does that have to do with seeing stars go supernova or the sun turned on at noon? No absorption or reflection involved in starlight.

You are just weaseling yet again because you can't address the positive proof above that I took directly from Lessans examples.
Reply With Quote
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 04:02 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.17488 seconds with 14 queries