 |
  |
01-22-2012, 06:19 PM
|
 |
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
It is my understanding that Science involves the review of new data as it is discovered, in an effort to verify or disprove. Relative to this, the premise or hypothesis must be clearly stated and can involve an entirely new phenomenon or an anomaly in an existing body of knowledge. Where there is no new data or problem with an existing theory there is no need for examination. The problem with efferent vision, is that there is no new data, there is no problem with the existing model of vision, and there is nothing to support this idea, it's not even a hypothesis just an assertion as to how we see. The example of Edison and the electric light bulb, Edison proved his idea by producing and demonstrating a working light bulb. All Peacegirl needs to do is demonstrate that she can see efferently and her point would be made, she would have proven that efferent vision is true. But no such proof has been seen and all the tests and experiments have supported afferent vision. The claim that tests and observations are biased has no foundation in reality, just a red herring, to cast suspicion where there is no reason for suspicion. Ad-hominem attacks and arguments from authority do not accomplish anything in science
|
That is not true. I don't have to talk to this guy directly either to refute what he's saying. There is no data supporting Lessans' claim because no one has ever challenged the afferent model until now. So all of the empirical tests are going to confirm what everyone believes is a fact. No matter how skewed the results look to me because I'm coming from a different position, to scientists, the results are perfect. It's no surprise that the results confirm the very premise that has hardened into a non-negotiable law.
This reminds me of the story (that I gave here early in the first thread and got clobbered for it, but oh well, I'm repeating it because it feels right) of a family who always cut the end of a roast off because that's how all of the previous generations did it. They didn't know why they were doing it but they assumed it had a special meaning; something to do with how the roast turned out. So this tradition continued for many more generations until, one day, someone in the family tried to discover what was behind the tradition that everyone was following to a T. To everyone's dismay, he found out that long long ago, the great great great great great great great great great great great great grandmother was cooking her roast but her neighbor had borrowed the pot that she normally used, so instead she had to use a smaller pot and in order for the roast to fit she had to cut off the end. Moral of the story: Conventional wisdom may turn out to be plain old ignorance.  |
So you think that scientists are chopping the ends off of photons to make them fit their theory? |
You can't even understand the parallel that is being made. So much for your intellect. 
|
01-22-2012, 06:24 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Because that's not my interest. My only interest is in showing you and others the concept that Lessans proposed. If he turns out to be right, then that will change the landscape of how we view the world. It does not alter successful technologies. The adjustment that science made to get their rockets to land on a planet is obviously correct, but you are assuming that this light correction proves conclusively that we see in delayed time. I'm not so sure about that.
|
Why not? How could we possibly be seeing in real-time if we factor in a difference between actual and observed planetary position due to a time-delay (which doesn't exist if Lessans is correct), aim at a different bit of sky as a result and yet don't actually miss? How could this bit of evidence against Lessans possibly be any more conclusive? |
I don't know the answer to that. Maybe the calculation is correct but not the result of delayed time. |
It doesn't matter peacegirl. If you can see efferently (without a time delay) then again you are wasting your time here. Go to an observatory and show them that you can see Jupiter's moons where they are at this very moment, not as they appear due to the time delay.
If you could do that it would be huge! You would get all the press you could possibly want. Lessans book would fly off the shelves.
What's the problem? Can you not see efferently? |
Folks, if NA actually took this book seriously, he would have recognized the impossibility of what he's asking me to do. If it was that easy, don't you think I would have done it? The same problem exists now as it did when Lessans was living. They would have laughed me out of the meeting, just like they're doing in here, but it would be 100 times worse. |
If you could actually demonstrate real time seeing, nobody would laugh. |
Hell no they wouldn't laugh. It would mean new science and the person who figured out what was going on would get a Nobel Prize. Because peacegirl, as it has been pointed out to you thousands of times. Efferent vision violates scores of scientific principles. And to claim you can do something that violates all those principles and be unable to demonstrate that you do indeed do so, may make them laugh a little but probably not much. That is because cranks like you approach them all the time with their crazy theories but are unwilling to demonstrate their "discovery". They have a book or a paper or a website with all their gibberish on it. But they do not realize that science is like business. You want something in business then "show me the money". You want something in science then "show me the phenomena". Data talks bullshit walks.
However deep down you know what you are actually afraid of. You are afraid that you will go to an observatory, a simple experiment will be set up and measurements will be made. The data will show that you see afferently just like everybody else and you will yet again get nowhere but you will yet again claim that they are wrong and nothing will change from your sick, pathetic situation in life.
You don't need a scientist or a web forum. You need a doctor. |
This guy is dangerous people because he uses phony psychology to throw everyone off guard. I really thought he was joking at first when he tried to diagnose me as some weirdo, but now I see he's for real. This guy is sick, and I hope ThreeLawsSafe can stop him by showing how he is projecting his personality disorder onto others. He is not a benign individual; he could cause serious harm to unsuspecting individuals.
|
01-22-2012, 06:27 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Old wives tales, urban legends, and human traditions are not analogous to repeated empirical observations, repeatedly successful test results, and hard data.
|
Where did I say that this was any kind of proof. I was making an analogy that this storyline mimics. I never said I was using this analogy as proof. Where are you coming from LadyShea? You have misinterpreted what I'm saying more times than I can count. 
Last edited by peacegirl; 01-22-2012 at 06:46 PM.
|
01-22-2012, 06:40 PM
|
|
|
Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Because that's not my interest. My only interest is in showing you and others the concept that Lessans proposed. If he turns out to be right, then that will change the landscape of how we view the world. It does not alter successful technologies. The adjustment that science made to get their rockets to land on a planet is obviously correct, but you are assuming that this light correction proves conclusively that we see in delayed time. I'm not so sure about that.
|
Why not? How could we possibly be seeing in real-time if we factor in a difference between actual and observed planetary position due to a time-delay (which doesn't exist if Lessans is correct), aim at a different bit of sky as a result and yet don't actually miss? How could this bit of evidence against Lessans possibly be any more conclusive? |
I don't know the answer to that. Maybe the calculation is correct but not the result of delayed time. |
It doesn't matter peacegirl. If you can see efferently (without a time delay) then again you are wasting your time here. Go to an observatory and show them that you can see Jupiter's moons where they are at this very moment, not as they appear due to the time delay.
If you could do that it would be huge! You would get all the press you could possibly want. Lessans book would fly off the shelves.
What's the problem? Can you not see efferently? |
Folks, if NA actually took this book seriously, he would have recognized the impossibility of what he's asking me to do. If it was that easy, don't you think I would have done it? The same problem exists now as it did when Lessans was living. They would have laughed me out of the meeting, just like they're doing in here, but it would be 100 times worse. |
If you could actually demonstrate real time seeing, nobody would laugh. |
Hell no they wouldn't laugh. It would mean new science and the person who figured out what was going on would get a Nobel Prize. Because peacegirl, as it has been pointed out to you thousands of times. Efferent vision violates scores of scientific principles. And to claim you can do something that violates all those principles and be unable to demonstrate that you do indeed do so, may make them laugh a little but probably not much. That is because cranks like you approach them all the time with their crazy theories but are unwilling to demonstrate their "discovery". They have a book or a paper or a website with all their gibberish on it. But they do not realize that science is like business. You want something in business then "show me the money". You want something in science then "show me the phenomena". Data talks bullshit walks.
However deep down you know what you are actually afraid of. You are afraid that you will go to an observatory, a simple experiment will be set up and measurements will be made. The data will show that you see afferently just like everybody else and you will yet again get nowhere but you will yet again claim that they are wrong and nothing will change from your sick, pathetic situation in life.
You don't need a scientist or a web forum. You need a doctor. |
This guy is dangerous people because he uses phony psychology to throw everyone off guard. I really thought he was joking at first when he tried to diagnose me as some weirdo, but now I see he's for real. This guy is sick, and I hope ThreeLawsSafe can stop him by showing how he is projecting his personality disorder onto others. He is not a benign individual; he could cause serious harm to unsuspecting individuals. |
peacegirl, I'm willing to go to a professional to get a mental checkup, are you? We can settle who is the nut and who is not.
|
01-22-2012, 06:45 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Because that's not my interest. My only interest is in showing you and others the concept that Lessans proposed. If he turns out to be right, then that will change the landscape of how we view the world. It does not alter successful technologies. The adjustment that science made to get their rockets to land on a planet is obviously correct, but you are assuming that this light correction proves conclusively that we see in delayed time. I'm not so sure about that.
|
Why not? How could we possibly be seeing in real-time if we factor in a difference between actual and observed planetary position due to a time-delay (which doesn't exist if Lessans is correct), aim at a different bit of sky as a result and yet don't actually miss? How could this bit of evidence against Lessans possibly be any more conclusive? |
I don't know the answer to that. Maybe the calculation is correct but not the result of delayed time. |
It doesn't matter peacegirl. If you can see efferently (without a time delay) then again you are wasting your time here. Go to an observatory and show them that you can see Jupiter's moons where they are at this very moment, not as they appear due to the time delay.
If you could do that it would be huge! You would get all the press you could possibly want. Lessans book would fly off the shelves.
What's the problem? Can you not see efferently? |
Folks, if NA actually took this book seriously, he would have recognized the impossibility of what he's asking me to do. If it was that easy, don't you think I would have done it? The same problem exists now as it did when Lessans was living. They would have laughed me out of the meeting, just like they're doing in here, but it would be 100 times worse. |
If you could actually demonstrate real time seeing, nobody would laugh. |
Hell no they wouldn't laugh. It would mean new science and the person who figured out what was going on would get a Nobel Prize. Because peacegirl, as it has been pointed out to you thousands of times. Efferent vision violates scores of scientific principles. And to claim you can do something that violates all those principles and be unable to demonstrate that you do indeed do so, may make them laugh a little but probably not much. That is because cranks like you approach them all the time with their crazy theories but are unwilling to demonstrate their "discovery". They have a book or a paper or a website with all their gibberish on it. But they do not realize that science is like business. You want something in business then "show me the money". You want something in science then "show me the phenomena". Data talks bullshit walks.
However deep down you know what you are actually afraid of. You are afraid that you will go to an observatory, a simple experiment will be set up and measurements will be made. The data will show that you see afferently just like everybody else and you will yet again get nowhere but you will yet again claim that they are wrong and nothing will change from your sick, pathetic situation in life.
You don't need a scientist or a web forum. You need a doctor. |
This guy is dangerous people because he uses phony psychology to throw everyone off guard. I really thought he was joking at first when he tried to diagnose me as some weirdo, but now I see he's for real. This guy is sick, and I hope ThreeLawsSafe can stop him by showing how he is projecting his personality disorder onto others. He is not a benign individual; he could cause serious harm to unsuspecting individuals. |
peacegirl, I'm willing to go to a professional to get a mental checkup, are you? We can settle who is the nut and who is not. |
Absolutely, and it will be determined that you're a fraud. If someone should be thrown off a thread, it is YOU!!! Where are the administrators??? This guy is not following the rules of this forum at all. LadyShea, you said you're friends with the administrator, could you please help me here? If he doesn't leave, I will be forced to leave. I refuse to put up with these insults anymore.
Last edited by peacegirl; 01-22-2012 at 06:55 PM.
|
01-22-2012, 06:56 PM
|
|
|
Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Because that's not my interest. My only interest is in showing you and others the concept that Lessans proposed. If he turns out to be right, then that will change the landscape of how we view the world. It does not alter successful technologies. The adjustment that science made to get their rockets to land on a planet is obviously correct, but you are assuming that this light correction proves conclusively that we see in delayed time. I'm not so sure about that.
|
Why not? How could we possibly be seeing in real-time if we factor in a difference between actual and observed planetary position due to a time-delay (which doesn't exist if Lessans is correct), aim at a different bit of sky as a result and yet don't actually miss? How could this bit of evidence against Lessans possibly be any more conclusive? |
I don't know the answer to that. Maybe the calculation is correct but not the result of delayed time. |
It doesn't matter peacegirl. If you can see efferently (without a time delay) then again you are wasting your time here. Go to an observatory and show them that you can see Jupiter's moons where they are at this very moment, not as they appear due to the time delay.
If you could do that it would be huge! You would get all the press you could possibly want. Lessans book would fly off the shelves.
What's the problem? Can you not see efferently? |
Folks, if NA actually took this book seriously, he would have recognized the impossibility of what he's asking me to do. If it was that easy, don't you think I would have done it? The same problem exists now as it did when Lessans was living. They would have laughed me out of the meeting, just like they're doing in here, but it would be 100 times worse. |
If you could actually demonstrate real time seeing, nobody would laugh. |
Hell no they wouldn't laugh. It would mean new science and the person who figured out what was going on would get a Nobel Prize. Because peacegirl, as it has been pointed out to you thousands of times. Efferent vision violates scores of scientific principles. And to claim you can do something that violates all those principles and be unable to demonstrate that you do indeed do so, may make them laugh a little but probably not much. That is because cranks like you approach them all the time with their crazy theories but are unwilling to demonstrate their "discovery". They have a book or a paper or a website with all their gibberish on it. But they do not realize that science is like business. You want something in business then "show me the money". You want something in science then "show me the phenomena". Data talks bullshit walks.
However deep down you know what you are actually afraid of. You are afraid that you will go to an observatory, a simple experiment will be set up and measurements will be made. The data will show that you see afferently just like everybody else and you will yet again get nowhere but you will yet again claim that they are wrong and nothing will change from your sick, pathetic situation in life.
You don't need a scientist or a web forum. You need a doctor. |
This guy is dangerous people because he uses phony psychology to throw everyone off guard. I really thought he was joking at first when he tried to diagnose me as some weirdo, but now I see he's for real. This guy is sick, and I hope ThreeLawsSafe can stop him by showing how he is projecting his personality disorder onto others. He is not a benign individual; he could cause serious harm to unsuspecting individuals. |
peacegirl, I'm willing to go to a professional to get a mental checkup, are you? We can settle who is the nut and who is not. |
Absolutely, and it will be determined that you're a fraud. If someone should be thrown off a thread, it is YOU!!! Where are the administrators??? This guy is not following the rules of this forum at all. LadyShea, you said you're friends with the administrator, could you please help me here? If he doesn't leave, I will be forced to leave. I refuse to put up with these insults anymore. |
peacegirl, there are a few things that can get you banned from this forum. Calling someone crazy is not one of them. And I am glad that you finally figured out that I genuinely think you are crazy. But I got news for you. Most people here also think you are crazy. They are not calling you crazy as some sort of an insult or a debating trick. They genuinely think you are out of your mind. And it is not because somehow I have turned them against you. They pretty much ignore me. It is because your posts are insane.
And I know that you will not ignore me. You will not leave. You can't leave. You are crazy. A sane person would have left long ago.
|
01-22-2012, 07:02 PM
|
 |
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Because that's not my interest. My only interest is in showing you and others the concept that Lessans proposed. If he turns out to be right, then that will change the landscape of how we view the world. It does not alter successful technologies. The adjustment that science made to get their rockets to land on a planet is obviously correct, but you are assuming that this light correction proves conclusively that we see in delayed time. I'm not so sure about that.
|
Why not? How could we possibly be seeing in real-time if we factor in a difference between actual and observed planetary position due to a time-delay (which doesn't exist if Lessans is correct), aim at a different bit of sky as a result and yet don't actually miss? How could this bit of evidence against Lessans possibly be any more conclusive? |
I don't know the answer to that. Maybe the calculation is correct but not the result of delayed time. |
It doesn't matter peacegirl. If you can see efferently (without a time delay) then again you are wasting your time here. Go to an observatory and show them that you can see Jupiter's moons where they are at this very moment, not as they appear due to the time delay.
If you could do that it would be huge! You would get all the press you could possibly want. Lessans book would fly off the shelves.
What's the problem? Can you not see efferently? |
Folks, if NA actually took this book seriously, he would have recognized the impossibility of what he's asking me to do. If it was that easy, don't you think I would have done it? The same problem exists now as it did when Lessans was living. They would have laughed me out of the meeting, just like they're doing in here, but it would be 100 times worse. |
If you could actually demonstrate real time seeing, nobody would laugh. |
Hell no they wouldn't laugh. It would mean new science and the person who figured out what was going on would get a Nobel Prize. Because peacegirl, as it has been pointed out to you thousands of times. Efferent vision violates scores of scientific principles. And to claim you can do something that violates all those principles and be unable to demonstrate that you do indeed do so, may make them laugh a little but probably not much. That is because cranks like you approach them all the time with their crazy theories but are unwilling to demonstrate their "discovery". They have a book or a paper or a website with all their gibberish on it. But they do not realize that science is like business. You want something in business then "show me the money". You want something in science then "show me the phenomena". Data talks bullshit walks.
However deep down you know what you are actually afraid of. You are afraid that you will go to an observatory, a simple experiment will be set up and measurements will be made. The data will show that you see afferently just like everybody else and you will yet again get nowhere but you will yet again claim that they are wrong and nothing will change from your sick, pathetic situation in life.
You don't need a scientist or a web forum. You need a doctor. |
This guy is dangerous people because he uses phony psychology to throw everyone off guard. I really thought he was joking at first when he tried to diagnose me as some weirdo, but now I see he's for real. This guy is sick, and I hope ThreeLawsSafe can stop him by showing how he is projecting his personality disorder onto others. He is not a benign individual; he could cause serious harm to unsuspecting individuals. |
Yes he could have them uncontrollably convulsed in laughter.
|
01-22-2012, 07:05 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
It is my understanding that Science involves the review of new data as it is discovered, in an effort to verify or disprove. Relative to this, the premise or hypothesis must be clearly stated and can involve an entirely new phenomenon or an anomaly in an existing body of knowledge. Where there is no new data or problem with an existing theory there is no need for examination. The problem with efferent vision, is that there is no new data, there is no problem with the existing model of vision, and there is nothing to support this idea, it's not even a hypothesis just an assertion as to how we see. The example of Edison and the electric light bulb, Edison proved his idea by producing and demonstrating a working light bulb. All Peacegirl needs to do is demonstrate that she can see efferently and her point would be made, she would have proven that efferent vision is true. But no such proof has been seen and all the tests and experiments have supported afferent vision. The claim that tests and observations are biased has no foundation in reality, just a red herring, to cast suspicion where there is no reason for suspicion. Ad-hominem attacks and arguments from authority do not accomplish anything in science
|
That is not true. I don't have to talk to this guy directly either to refute what he's saying. There is no data supporting Lessans' claim because no one has ever challenged the afferent model until now. So all of the empirical tests are going to confirm what everyone believes is a fact. No matter how skewed the results look to me because I'm coming from a different position, to scientists, the results are perfect. It's no surprise that the results confirm the very premise that has hardened into a non-negotiable law.
This reminds me of the story (that I gave here early in the first thread and got clobbered for it, but oh well, I'm repeating it because it feels right) of a family who always cut the end of a roast off because that's how all of the previous generations did it. They didn't know why they were doing it but they assumed it had a special meaning; something to do with how the roast turned out. So this tradition continued for many more generations until, one day, someone in the family tried to discover what was behind the tradition that everyone was following to a T. To everyone's dismay, he found out that long long ago, the great great great great great great great great great great great great grandmother was cooking her roast but her neighbor had borrowed the pot that she normally used, so instead she had to use a smaller pot and in order for the roast to fit she had to cut off the end. Moral of the story: Conventional wisdom may turn out to be plain old ignorance. |
So you think that scientists are chopping the ends off of photons to make them fit their theory? |
You can't even understand the parallel that is being made. So much for your intellect. |
It might have been OK but you really butchered the story, you didn't just trim the end off.
|
01-22-2012, 07:12 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Because that's not my interest. My only interest is in showing you and others the concept that Lessans proposed. If he turns out to be right, then that will change the landscape of how we view the world. It does not alter successful technologies. The adjustment that science made to get their rockets to land on a planet is obviously correct, but you are assuming that this light correction proves conclusively that we see in delayed time. I'm not so sure about that.
|
Why not? How could we possibly be seeing in real-time if we factor in a difference between actual and observed planetary position due to a time-delay (which doesn't exist if Lessans is correct), aim at a different bit of sky as a result and yet don't actually miss? How could this bit of evidence against Lessans possibly be any more conclusive? |
I don't know the answer to that. Maybe the calculation is correct but not the result of delayed time. |
It doesn't matter peacegirl. If you can see efferently (without a time delay) then again you are wasting your time here. Go to an observatory and show them that you can see Jupiter's moons where they are at this very moment, not as they appear due to the time delay.
If you could do that it would be huge! You would get all the press you could possibly want. Lessans book would fly off the shelves.
What's the problem? Can you not see efferently? |
Folks, if NA actually took this book seriously, he would have recognized the impossibility of what he's asking me to do. If it was that easy, don't you think I would have done it? The same problem exists now as it did when Lessans was living. They would have laughed me out of the meeting, just like they're doing in here, but it would be 100 times worse. |
If you could actually demonstrate real time seeing, nobody would laugh. |
Hell no they wouldn't laugh. It would mean new science and the person who figured out what was going on would get a Nobel Prize. Because peacegirl, as it has been pointed out to you thousands of times. Efferent vision violates scores of scientific principles. And to claim you can do something that violates all those principles and be unable to demonstrate that you do indeed do so, may make them laugh a little but probably not much. That is because cranks like you approach them all the time with their crazy theories but are unwilling to demonstrate their "discovery". They have a book or a paper or a website with all their gibberish on it. But they do not realize that science is like business. You want something in business then "show me the money". You want something in science then "show me the phenomena". Data talks bullshit walks.
However deep down you know what you are actually afraid of. You are afraid that you will go to an observatory, a simple experiment will be set up and measurements will be made. The data will show that you see afferently just like everybody else and you will yet again get nowhere but you will yet again claim that they are wrong and nothing will change from your sick, pathetic situation in life.
You don't need a scientist or a web forum. You need a doctor. |
This guy is dangerous people because he uses phony psychology to throw everyone off guard. I really thought he was joking at first when he tried to diagnose me as some weirdo, but now I see he's for real. This guy is sick, and I hope ThreeLawsSafe can stop him by showing how he is projecting his personality disorder onto others. He is not a benign individual; he could cause serious harm to unsuspecting individuals. |
peacegirl, I'm willing to go to a professional to get a mental checkup, are you? We can settle who is the nut and who is not. |
Absolutely, and it will be determined that you're a fraud. If someone should be thrown off a thread, it is YOU!!! Where are the administrators??? This guy is not following the rules of this forum at all. LadyShea, you said you're friends with the administrator, could you please help me here? If he doesn't leave, I will be forced to leave. I refuse to put up with these insults anymore. |
peacegirl, there are a few things that can get you banned from this forum. Calling someone crazy is not one of them. And I am glad that you finally figured out that I genuinely think you are crazy. |
I could care less what you think, but I'm not going to stay if you continue the same old refrain over and over again. It's as simple as that. And I doubt that people want me to leave on account of you.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by natural.atheist
But I got news for you. Most people here also think you are crazy. They are not calling you crazy as some sort of an insult or a debating trick. They genuinely think you are out of your mind. And it is not because somehow I have turned them against you. They pretty much ignore me. It is because your posts are insane.
|
Whether my posts are insane or not is not your concern. You've given your opinion, and that should be enough. But to continue to harass me like this is grounds for removal. And I will let the administrator know. It's going to be up to her whether you have broken any rules.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by natural.atheist
And I know that you will not ignore me. You will not leave. You can't leave. You are crazy. A sane person would have left long ago.
|
Whether I choose to stay or not is none of your business. You are not my psychiatrist. You've given your spiel, so now it's time to leave it alone, or one of us is going to have to say goodbye. And I don't think it will sit well with those who are sincerely interested in this discovery that I should be the one to leave. Just as we need government for protection in a free society (until the new world, that is), we need moderators for protection in a free-thought forum. In this particular case, moderation is not a hindrance to free thought, it is a protection of free thought.
Last edited by peacegirl; 01-22-2012 at 07:24 PM.
|
01-22-2012, 07:14 PM
|
 |
A Warrior for Positronic Freedom!
|
|
|
|
Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist
You don't need a scientist or a web forum. You need a doctor.
|
Yes, you're just so kind to her, aren't you naturalist.atheist. Such an empathetic soul.
__________________
"Knowledge is indivisible. When people grow wise in one direction, they are sure to make it easier for themselves to grow wise in other directions as well. On the other hand, when they split up knowledge, concentrate on their own field, and scorn and ignore other fields, they grow less wise — even in their own field." - Isaac Asimov
|
01-22-2012, 07:16 PM
|
|
A Warrior for Positronic Freedom!
|
|
|
|
Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist
peacegirl, I'm willing to go to a professional to get a mental checkup, are you? We can settle who is the nut and who is not.
|
Yes, please, NA, do get a checkup. Sincerely.
__________________
"Knowledge is indivisible. When people grow wise in one direction, they are sure to make it easier for themselves to grow wise in other directions as well. On the other hand, when they split up knowledge, concentrate on their own field, and scorn and ignore other fields, they grow less wise — even in their own field." - Isaac Asimov
|
01-22-2012, 07:16 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
It is my understanding that Science involves the review of new data as it is discovered, in an effort to verify or disprove. Relative to this, the premise or hypothesis must be clearly stated and can involve an entirely new phenomenon or an anomaly in an existing body of knowledge. Where there is no new data or problem with an existing theory there is no need for examination. The problem with efferent vision, is that there is no new data, there is no problem with the existing model of vision, and there is nothing to support this idea, it's not even a hypothesis just an assertion as to how we see. The example of Edison and the electric light bulb, Edison proved his idea by producing and demonstrating a working light bulb. All Peacegirl needs to do is demonstrate that she can see efferently and her point would be made, she would have proven that efferent vision is true. But no such proof has been seen and all the tests and experiments have supported afferent vision. The claim that tests and observations are biased has no foundation in reality, just a red herring, to cast suspicion where there is no reason for suspicion. Ad-hominem attacks and arguments from authority do not accomplish anything in science
|
That is not true. I don't have to talk to this guy directly either to refute what he's saying. There is no data supporting Lessans' claim because no one has ever challenged the afferent model until now. So all of the empirical tests are going to confirm what everyone believes is a fact. No matter how skewed the results look to me because I'm coming from a different position, to scientists, the results are perfect. It's no surprise that the results confirm the very premise that has hardened into a non-negotiable law.
This reminds me of the story (that I gave here early in the first thread and got clobbered for it, but oh well, I'm repeating it because it feels right) of a family who always cut the end of a roast off because that's how all of the previous generations did it. They didn't know why they were doing it but they assumed it had a special meaning; something to do with how the roast turned out. So this tradition continued for many more generations until, one day, someone in the family tried to discover what was behind the tradition that everyone was following to a T. To everyone's dismay, he found out that long long ago, the great great great great great great great great great great great great grandmother was cooking her roast but her neighbor had borrowed the pot that she normally used, so instead she had to use a smaller pot and in order for the roast to fit she had to cut off the end. Moral of the story: Conventional wisdom may turn out to be plain old ignorance. |
So you think that scientists are chopping the ends off of photons to make them fit their theory? |
You can't even understand the parallel that is being made. So much for your intellect. |
It might have been OK but you really butchered the story, you didn't just trim the end off. |
And you're next to be reported. You have crossed the line.
|
01-22-2012, 07:17 PM
|
|
|
Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two
thedoc, you may be on to something regarding the sock puppet.
|
01-22-2012, 07:19 PM
|
|
|
Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist
You don't need a scientist or a web forum. You need a doctor.
|
Yes, you're just so kind to her, aren't you naturalist.atheist. Such an empathetic soul. |
Is this your internet diagnosis?
|
01-22-2012, 07:20 PM
|
|
|
Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Whether I choose to stay or not is none of your business. You are not my psychiatrist. You've given your spiel, so now it's time to let it go, or one of us is going to have to say goodbye. And I don't think it will sit well with those who are sincerely interested in this discovery that I should be the one to leave.
|
Concern for your illness has made it my business. I'll stop posting about your illness when you stop making mentally ill posts.
|
01-22-2012, 07:21 PM
|
 |
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I'm not going to talk about where photons are before the picture. They are obviously at the film or retina.
|
No, that's not obvious at all. And if true it would mean you have stationary photons again. If you have the same photons at the same place (at the film/retina) at two consecutive times (when the photograph is taken, and just immediately before that) then that means they have been stationary rather than moving. What part of this do you not follow? |
No, this is not about stationary photons. It is about seeing the object by what light reveals, not by what light brings. Photons are always moving but if we're looking at the object that has absorbed certain wavelengths, we will always get the same mirror image. Once the (P) reflection is so far away from the object that it can no longer be seen, we will then get white light on our retina, or film. |
If you don't want there to be stationary photons then you'll have to stop giving me answers that posit stationary photons. I asked you a legitimate question about your model - a question not coming from the afferent model and not based upon any afferent assumptions - and you repeated an answer (in bold above) which requires photons at the camera to be stationary. Given that you reject stationary photons, that means you have yet to give a non-contradictory answer to the question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
The evidence isn't circumstantial. It will always be possible - for any evidence whatsoever, no matter how conclusive - that there might be some "mysterious unknown factors" that if known would solve the problem for you. By resorting to this you are rendering your position completely invulnerable to any and all evidence. You are making it a faith-position.
|
It is circumstantial to the extent that there is no absolute proof when you're talking about inferences that cannot be formally tested. I have seen television shows where I was positive that the prosecutor had it right. It was a slam dunk because it appeared beyond a reasonable doubt. His explanation for what occurred seemed to resist any argument to the contrary until the defense lawyer contested his "airtight" conclusions. It turned out that there was an alternative explanation for every single point that the prosecutor made. Don't you see the comparison? |
You're missing the point. There is no such thing as evidence for which it is impossible to simply reject by saying "Hey, maybe there are some mysterious unknown factors which explain what's happening here". The evidence you are rejecting and ignoring is as strong as evidence ever gets. By rejecting it you are adopting a faith-based position immune to any and all evidence. If you think other-wise, then explain to me exactly how you could expect to be able to tell the difference between inconclusive evidence for which unknown factors are a legitimate possibility and conclusive evidence for which it would be irrational to posit them.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Last edited by Spacemonkey; 01-22-2012 at 07:48 PM.
|
01-22-2012, 07:24 PM
|
|
|
Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist
peacegirl, I'm willing to go to a professional to get a mental checkup, are you? We can settle who is the nut and who is not.
|
Yes, please, NA, do get a checkup. Sincerely. |
I'll go but you have to be the doctor.
|
01-22-2012, 07:26 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Whether I choose to stay or not is none of your business. You are not my psychiatrist. You've given your spiel, so now it's time to let it go, or one of us is going to have to say goodbye. And I don't think it will sit well with those who are sincerely interested in this discovery that I should be the one to leave.
|
Concern for your illness has made it my business. I'll stop posting about your illness when you stop making mentally ill posts. |
There has to be some protection under the law, if not on these forums. This is out and out bullying but it's disguised as acceptable online discourse, which we all know it's not. Everyone can see through you NA. I'm telling you now that you or me will have to go, and I think it will be you when all is said and done. This is a clear warning that you better stop your nonsense for if you don't, it will be no surprise that the administrator is going to come after you.
|
01-22-2012, 07:26 PM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You have absolutely no understanding of efferent vision... You need to first try to recognize the plausibility of the efferent model before coming to the premature conclusion that he is wrong...
|
If you want or expect me to understand efferent vision or recognise its alleged plausibility, then you'll need to answer my questions about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
...you keep basing your logic on the afferent model (even if you don't see it).
|
The help me see it. Show me exactly where and what the afferent assumptions are in the following set of questions:-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
When sunlight (including light of all wavelengths, including blue) hits a blue object, what happens to the blue-wavelength light as it hits that object? At one moment it is travelling towards the object along with all the light of other wavelengths. Then it hits the surface of the object. Then what?
Does it bounce off the surface to travel away from it? [Y/N?]
Is it absorbed by the blue object? [Y/N?]
Does it cease to exist? [Y/N?]
Does it stay there, at the surface of the blue object? [Y/N?]
Does it teleport itself instantly to any nearby films or retinas? [Y/N?]
If none of the above, then what? [Insert answer here]
|
And how about the next set? Where and what are the afferent assumptions here:-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
1. Did the specific photons (at the camera when the photograph is taken) exist immediately before the photograph was taken? [Yes or No]
2. If so, then according to efferent vision where were those specific photons at the moment in time immediately preceding the taking of the photograph? [State a location]
3. If something is at the same place at two consecutive times, is it moving during that time period, or is it stationary?
|
Either show me these alleged afferent assumptions, or answer the questions already. |
Bumpity bump bump McBump. |
...bump bump.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
01-22-2012, 07:28 PM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Whether I choose to stay or not is none of your business. You are not my psychiatrist. You've given your spiel, so now it's time to let it go, or one of us is going to have to say goodbye. And I don't think it will sit well with those who are sincerely interested in this discovery that I should be the one to leave.
|
Concern for your illness has made it my business. I'll stop posting about your illness when you stop making mentally ill posts. |
There has to be some protection under the law, if not on these forums. This is out and out bullying but it's disguised as acceptable discourse, which it isn't. Everyone can see through you NA. I'm telling you now that you or me will have to go, unless you change your tactics. |
It's not bullying. It's genuine concern for your mental health.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Last edited by Spacemonkey; 01-22-2012 at 07:48 PM.
|
01-22-2012, 07:28 PM
|
 |
Spiffiest wanger
|
|
|
|
Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist
peacegirl, I'm willing to go to a professional to get a mental checkup, are you? We can settle who is the nut and who is not.
|
Yes, please, NA, do get a checkup. Sincerely. |
I thought you said we're not supposed to be diagnosing people on the Internet. Yet here you are, diagnosing N.A., if only by implication.
My, my.
|
01-22-2012, 07:32 PM
|
|
|
Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Whether I choose to stay or not is none of your business. You are not my psychiatrist. You've given your spiel, so now it's time to let it go, or one of us is going to have to say goodbye. And I don't think it will sit well with those who are sincerely interested in this discovery that I should be the one to leave.
|
Concern for your illness has made it my business. I'll stop posting about your illness when you stop making mentally ill posts. |
There has to be some protection under the law, if not on these forums. This is out and out bullying but it's disguised as acceptable discourse, which it isn't. Everyone can see through you NA. I'm telling you now that you or me will have to go, and I think it will be you when all is said and done. This is a clear warning that you better stop your nonsense for if you don't, it will be no surprise that the administrator is going to come after you. |
peacegirl, you would not be reacting like this if even you didn't think you were off your rocker.
|
01-22-2012, 07:35 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I'm not going to talk about where photons are before the picture. They are obviously at the film or retina.
|
No, that's not obvious at all. And if true it would mean you have stationary photons again. If you have the same photons at the same place (at the film/retina) at two consecutive times (when the photograph is taken, and just immediately before that) then that means they have been stationary rather than moving. What part of this do you not follow? |
No, this is not about stationary photons. It is about seeing the object by what light reveals, not by what light brings. Photons are always moving but if we're looking at the object that has absorbed certain wavelengths, we will always get the same mirror image. Once the (P) reflection is so far away from the object that it can no longer be seen, we will then get white light on our retina, or film. |
If you don't want there to be stationary photons then you'll have to stop giving me answers that posit stationary photons. I asked you a legitimate question about your model - a question not coming from the afferent model and not based upon any afferent assumptions - and you repeated an answer (in bold above) which requires photons at the camera to be stationary. Given that you reject stationary photons, that means you have yet to give a non-contradictory answer to the question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
The evidence isn't circumstantial. It will always be possible - for any evidence whatsoever, no matter how conclusive - that there might be some "mysterious unknown factors" that if known would solve the problem for you. By resorting to this you are rendering your position completely invulnerable to any and all evidence. You are making it a faith-position.
|
It is circumstantial to the extent that there is no absolute proof when you're talking about inferences that cannot be formally tested. I have seen television shows where I was positive that the prosecutor had it right. It was a slam dunk because it appeared beyond a reasonable doubt. His explanation for what occurred seemed to resist any argument to the contrary until the defense lawyer contested his "airtight" conclusions. It turned out that there was an alternative explanation for every single point that the prosecutor made. Don't you see the comparison? |
You're missing the point. There is no such thing as evidence for which it is impossible to simply reject by saying "Hey, maybe there are some mysterious unknown factors which explain what's happening here". The evidence you are rejecting and ignoring is as strong as evidence ever gets. By rejecting it you are adopting a faith-based position immune to any and all evidence. If you think other-wise, then explain to me exactly how you could expect to be able to tell the difference between inconclusive evidence for which unknown factors are a legitimate possibility and conclusive evidence for which it would be irrational to posit them.
And I think it's about time you answered my questions. Don't you? |
How can there be stationary photons when white light is constantly in motion Spacemonkey? You're getting confused because you think that because light travels, the light that is coming from the object is traveling in the same way. I already told you that (P) reflective light diminishes as the (P) reflective light gets more and more distant from the object. Do you understand what I'm saying? And don't tell me what is and what is not a legitimate possibility. That's what got science in trouble in the first place because of the accepted premise that the eyes are a sense organ, and everything that followed seemed to fit into place. How wrong could they have been if Lessans turns out to be right?
|
01-22-2012, 07:38 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Whether I choose to stay or not is none of your business. You are not my psychiatrist. You've given your spiel, so now it's time to let it go, or one of us is going to have to say goodbye. And I don't think it will sit well with those who are sincerely interested in this discovery that I should be the one to leave.
|
Concern for your illness has made it my business. I'll stop posting about your illness when you stop making mentally ill posts. |
There has to be some protection under the law, if not on these forums. This is out and out bullying but it's disguised as acceptable discourse, which it isn't. Everyone can see through you NA. I'm telling you now that you or me will have to go, and I think it will be you when all is said and done. This is a clear warning that you better stop your nonsense for if you don't, it will be no surprise that the administrator is going to come after you. |
peacegirl, you would not be reacting like this if even you didn't think you were off your rocker. |
Keep it up NA, you're sealing your own fate. How dumb could anyone be to be kicking themselves in the ass?
|
01-22-2012, 07:38 PM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I'm not going to talk about where photons are before the picture. They are obviously at the film or retina.
|
No, that's not obvious at all. And if true it would mean you have stationary photons again. If you have the same photons at the same place (at the film/retina) at two consecutive times (when the photograph is taken, and just immediately before that) then that means they have been stationary rather than moving. What part of this do you not follow? |
No, this is not about stationary photons. It is about seeing the object by what light reveals, not by what light brings. Photons are always moving but if we're looking at the object that has absorbed certain wavelengths, we will always get the same mirror image. Once the (P) reflection is so far away from the object that it can no longer be seen, we will then get white light on our retina, or film. |
If you don't want there to be stationary photons then you'll have to stop giving me answers that posit stationary photons. I asked you a legitimate question about your model - a question not coming from the afferent model and not based upon any afferent assumptions - and you repeated an answer (in bold above) which requires photons at the camera to be stationary. Given that you reject stationary photons, that means you have yet to give a non-contradictory answer to the question.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
The evidence isn't circumstantial. It will always be possible - for any evidence whatsoever, no matter how conclusive - that there might be some "mysterious unknown factors" that if known would solve the problem for you. By resorting to this you are rendering your position completely invulnerable to any and all evidence. You are making it a faith-position.
|
It is circumstantial to the extent that there is no absolute proof when you're talking about inferences that cannot be formally tested. I have seen television shows where I was positive that the prosecutor had it right. It was a slam dunk because it appeared beyond a reasonable doubt. His explanation for what occurred seemed to resist any argument to the contrary until the defense lawyer contested his "airtight" conclusions. It turned out that there was an alternative explanation for every single point that the prosecutor made. Don't you see the comparison? |
You're missing the point. There is no such thing as evidence for which it is impossible to simply reject by saying "Hey, maybe there are some mysterious unknown factors which explain what's happening here". The evidence you are rejecting and ignoring is as strong as evidence ever gets. By rejecting it you are adopting a faith-based position immune to any and all evidence. If you think other-wise, then explain to me exactly how you could expect to be able to tell the difference between inconclusive evidence for which unknown factors are a legitimate possibility and conclusive evidence for which it would be irrational to posit them.
And I think it's about time you answered my questions. Don't you? |
How can there be stationary photons when white light is constantly in motion Spacemonkey? You're getting confused because you think that because light travels, the light that is coming from the object is traveling in the same way. I already told you that (P) reflective light diminishes according as the light from the object gets more and more distant from the object. Do you understand what I'm saying? |
I quoted you telling me there are stationary photons. It's in bold above. I explained to you why this answer posits stationary photons. I know you think there cannot be any stationary photons. That's why the answer you gave must be wrong. That's why I need you to re-answer the questions!
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 3 (0 members and 3 guests)
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:57 AM.
|
|
 |
|
Linear Mode
