A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Assuming, as you do, that efferent vision is correct. How would you describe the image of the Pinwheel Galaxy? Is the galaxy an object, a relic, a remnant, something else?

Quit dodging the very direct question with your waffling!

Although I participated in the tangent, I have been waiting for you to answer this damn question for weeks. So I am not dropping it

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Assuming, as you do, that efferent vision is correct. How would you describe the image of the Pinwheel Galaxy? Is the galaxy an object, a relic, a remnant, something else?

Quit dodging the very direct question with your waffling!

I'm not waffling LadyShea. There is a problem with these two opposite thought systems. Science believes objects reflect light, and Lessans' believed light reflects objects or the material world. Yes, it's true that light itself can be seen (the visible spectrum) under certain atmospheric conditions, but if he is right, objects absorb light so we can see what exists in the real world; objects don't reflect images that light brings to our eyes. I can see that the conversation turned back to space, which is not the direction I wanted to go. I can't answer all these physics questions because I'm not a physicist and I'm not pretending to be. I still hope that people will consider the possibility that there could be something to Lessans' claims even if they don't see it now. All I can do is give you the reasoning and observations that led him to these conclusions. I want to stop this part of the discussion for now because the answers are not going to be found in this thread, and because I think the discussion has ran its course.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I can do is give you the reasoning and observations that led him to these conclusions.

Then you should give us the specifics of those aledged observations so that we can evaluate them for ourselves. Just like good emperical data that can be independently verified by others, these observations should be repeatable by others and verified. However if there were no observations, then Lessans would be proved a fraud. What did he observe.

[LadyShea]

OMG answer the question. You don't have to be a physicist to answer it, it's a simple question.

Is the Pinwheel Galaxy an object, a relic, a remnant, a clue? What is it? You can look at the image, what is it YOU think you are looking at? What is it an image of, in your opinion?

Seriously if Lessans was on to anything real, it shouldn't matter if the picture is of a galaxy, a kitty cat, a rainbow, or a car. The correct explanation for an observation works across all examples.

[Stephen Maturin]

We have a certain nature, and it is this nature that crosses all religious, political, gender, or denominational lines.

That's raw, unadulterated woo right there.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

OMG answer the question. You don't have to be a physicist to answer it, it's a simple question.

Is the Pinwheel Galaxy an object, a relic, a remnant, a clue? What is it? You can look at the image, what is it YOU think you are looking at? What is it an image of, in your opinion?

Seriously if Lessans was on to anything real, it shouldn't matter if the picture is of a galaxy, a kitty cat, a rainbow, or a car. The correct explanation for an observation works across all examples.

This is fascinating. peacegirl, why are you so struggling to answer this question?

[LadyShea]

I am still reeling from the invocation of dark matter to avoid answering this question.

[thedoc]

But there is plenty of light in the universe, and 'Dark Matter' is big enough to see, and if we look in the right direction it would be in our line of sight, So if efferent vision is correct why can't we see 'Dark Matter'? We can see other objects that are a dark color? We should also be able to see a 'Black Hole', some of them are really big, there is a lot of light, they just suck it in like crazy, and scientists know where to look, Why can't we see 'Black Holes'?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by thedoc

No-one said the light has not gotten here yet, there is a constant stream of light from the object to us. What was stated is that the one image would be of the same galaxy just slightly older than the other image. The light for both images is arriving all the time but we are seeing two images at the same time, that are of slightly different ages of the same galaxy. You seem to be misunderstanding, or deliberately trying to obstruct the dialogue by suggesting that the light from these distant objects is just now arriving and had not been here before. Almost as if you believe that God has just turned them on for us to see when we look. There are objects in the Universe that do appear to turn on and off but galaxies are not one of them.

Bump.

Just wanted to try it, fun, but not as much as the dance, that was for all the B.O.F.s out there.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't care about Swartz' credentials. That should not even be part of the conversation, and for you to use that as some kind of proof is very telling. I read some of the papers. Lessans' proof has nothing to do with any of these modal fallacies. You can't stand that you could be wrong about Lessans, can you? Well you are, and it will come out whether it's in this thread or some other avenue. The truth always wins David.

Just like the dishonest little shit that you are to be suggesting that I thought Swartz is right because of his credentials. I was merely introducing him to people who may not have heard of him, that's all. It's also just like your father; you and he have turned everything upside down. You both seem to feel that someone will be wrong because of their advanced credentials; and that lame-brain seventh-grade dropout pool hustlers like your father will be right because they are lame-brain seventh-grade dropout pool hustlers.

Fuck you, peacegirl. The proof is in the pudding, as you like to say. Those articles aren't right because of the credentials of who wrote them. They are right because they correctly identify the LOGIC behind the modal fallcy that your idiot father straightforwardly commits. And so, just as he was wrong about reality, so too is he wrong about logic itself. Too fucking bad, peacegirl.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All of this comes down to is a vendetta because, like David, you don't like the implications.

Wrong again, you lying sack of shit. There is no vendetta here, and no one cares about the implications. Lessans is wrong because he is wrong.

That's all that matters.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This comment makes no sense in terms of this natural law. There is no "necessarily true" until something becomes an actuality. In other words, it is only necessarily true that someone had to wear a certain hat because he did, in fact, wear that hat as the choice that was most preferable given his particular circumstances. There was no foreknowledge that said it is necessarily true that he must choose that hat before actually choosing it.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't answer all these physics questions because I'm not a physicist and I'm not pretending to be.

You're not a physiologist either. That hasn't stopped you from telling an actual physiologist how the eye works. And getting it spectacularly wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

OMG answer the question. You don't have to be a physicist to answer it, it's a simple question.

Is the Pinwheel Galaxy an object, a relic, a remnant, a clue? What is it? You can look at the image, what is it YOU think you are looking at? What is it an image of, in your opinion?

Seriously if Lessans was on to anything real, it shouldn't matter if the picture is of a galaxy, a kitty cat, a rainbow, or a car. The correct explanation for an observation works across all examples.

Obviously, you want me to say that the Hubble Deep Field experiment received images of galaxies that existed when the universe began. As far as the Pinwheel Galaxy, this is what is believed to be happening and I'm going to leave it at that.

When something is 21 million light years away, that means it's taken 21 million years for that light to get to us. So it has been a long, long time ago in a galaxy far away.

Supernova Burns Bright in a Galaxy Not So Far Away | PBS NewsHour | Sept. 7, 2011 | PBS

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

I really don't see what's so funny David.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Wrong again, you lying sack of shit. There is no vendetta here, and no one cares about the implications. Lessans is wrong because he is wrong.

That's all that matters.

It seems that the intensity of your emotions are disproportionate to the discussion. Maybe the word "vendetta" isn't appropriate, because I don't think you're out to get me, but you are very determined to make sure everyone knows how wrong Lessans is.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

That's raw, unadulterated woo right there.

That is not woo. I was trying to point out that a law of nature has no exceptions; it is universal. A law of nature is not a contingent truth; it is a necessary truth.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously, you want me to say that {weasel, backtrack, move goalposts, waffle} As far as the Pinwheel Galaxy,{blah blah blah irrelevant copypaste}

I want you to answer the fargin question

Is the Pinwheel Galaxy an object, a relic, a remnant, a clue? What is it? You can look at the image, what is it YOU think you are looking at? What is it an image of, in your opinion?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I really don't see what's so funny David.

You don't understand the difference between an actual truth and a necessary truth, for one thing.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not woo.

The notion that humans have such "certain nature" that exists independent of any sociocultural considerations is pretty much quintessential woo.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was trying to point out that a law of nature has no exceptions; it is universal.

Lex naturalis, eh? Great, just great. That always leads to wonderfully productive discussions. "It's a natural law because it's universal. We know it's universal because natural laws are universal by definition! Circular? Whadaya mean, circular?! stfu ya big fat meanie!!"

This here woo parade just keeps growing in length. But hey, everybody loves a parade!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A law of nature is not a contingent truth; it is a necessary truth.

You'd benefit from studying up on the meaning of "contingent" and "necessary" in this context.

Or maybe not.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think this is just a matter of faith although, like you, I believe having faith is a good thing to have in our troubled world.

So explain to me how your statement differs from a statement of faith.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You don't understand the difference between an actual truth and a necessary truth, for one thing.

I said the difference between a contingent and necessary truth, not an actual truth, whatever that means.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

So explain to me how your statement differs from a statement of faith.

It's not a matter of faith when something is proven scientifically. I believe Lessans did prove something that can be empirically tested (which relies on science), and that's why I don't call Lessans' observations faith.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said the difference between a contingent and necessary truth, not an actual truth, whatever that means.

It's fairly simple, really. An actual truth is something that did in fact happen. A possible truth is something that could happen. A necessary truth is something that couldn't happen any other way no matter the circumstances.

I typed this on my computer. That is an actual truth.
It was a possible truth before I did it. It was never a necessary truth for one simple reason: there are many, many factors that could easily have prevented me from typing this, ranging from personal choices to power failure to website errors. Since it is not true that this couldn't possibly have happened any other way, it is not a necessary truth, despite the fact that it did actually happen. Hence, it is possible for a truth to be actual but not necessary.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not a matter of faith when something is proven scientifically. I believe Lessans did prove something that can be empirically tested (which relies on science), and that's why I don't call Lessans' observations faith.

It is just possible that some of Lessans' claims could be empirically tested and found to be correct. However, given that they have not been tested and demonstrated to be correct, your belief that they are correct is a matter of faith and your stated conviction that they will be so demonstrated is a statement of faith.