A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Of course you have the right to do so. You should ask yourself if it is wise to do so. We don't see in real time.

Then you shouldn't be afraid if I pursue Lessans' observations. I have asked myself this question many times, and the answer always comes back "Yes".

[peacegirl]

Intermission. I need a break from the constant bickering in here. I love this song as a wedding theme. My youngest son is getting married in March and I can see them dancing to this.

Selena Gomez & The Scene - Love You Like A...

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Where did I say anything about proof or even evidence? I thought it was a meaningless analogy. And you posted that dried up old urban legend instead of answering direct questions about your model so it was also a weasel.

[Dragar]

Remember peacegirl, you're not just supporting Lessans any more.

It's Lessans, plus a magical mysterious explanation for the moons of Jupiter observations, plus a magical mysterious explanation for why we can land rockets on distant planets despite doing it 'wrong' if we believed Lessans, plus a magical mysterious explanation for why gravitational lensing lets us see the same galaxy in two parts of the sky with one a slightly older version of the other, plus a magical mysterious explanation for why the standard explanation for vision has never failed us. Plus a new one every time we consider virtually any experiment that involves vision over long enough distance for the finite speed of light to become important.

Lessans never wrote about those. You can't even imagine what they could be. For all intents an purposes, they're magic.

But you have added them, out of pure faith, to preserve your belief in Lessans. They have no independent evidence. Just your faith they exist.

You're not just supporting Lessans.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

There are no forum rules being broken.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then you shouldn't be afraid if I pursue Lessans' observations. I have asked myself this question many times, and the answer always comes back "Yes".

What makes you think I, or anyone here, is afraid? It is YOU who is afraid -- floundering about desperately to support the unsupportable, to prove what is false. We pity you.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

Who or what is TIC?

'Tongue In Cheek'. I thought it was a common expression.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We're talking about two different things: Freedom of speech, and picking a target to bully. I've become that target and in these situations, there needs to be protection under internet law.

LOL, Internet law. Is that like the people who go around checking the sites you plagiarize from for accuracy?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Maybe he's missing a sock?

Not a sock.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, the (P) reflection is moving but, according to optics, this light fades the farther away the object gets. Can you at least agree with that?

Light does not fade away as you have tried to say previously, the light becomes less intense (fewer photons per square meter) but each photon stays just as bright as when it started. Each photon will go on till it is absorbed by some object, sometimes it is reflected and keeps going in another direction but just as bright.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Light does not fade away as you have tried to say previously, the light becomes less intense (fewer photons per square meter) but each photon stays just as bright as when it started. Each photon will go on till it is absorbed by some object, sometimes it is reflected and keeps going in another direction but just as bright.

thedoc is correct. No, peacegirl, the light does NOT fade; it does just as thedoc explains above. And telescopes have a method of collecting more of those photons that the eye misses, making them entirely afferent instruments. Optics does NOT in any way, shape or form, support Lessans.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't worry David. If afferent vision is correct it will hold up under scrutiny.

And it does so very consistantly.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, Internet law. Is that like the people who go around checking the sites your plagiarize from for accuracy?

'Internet law' is enforced by the 'Internet Police', but they are virtual and their handcuffs don't hold very well.

But they do work on imaginary friends, which is why i'm on these forums so much, I'm kind of lonely since they took Harvey away.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Remember peacegirl, you're not just supporting Lessans any more.

It's Lessans, plus a magical mysterious explanation for the moons of Jupiter observations, plus a magical mysterious explanation for why we can land rockets on distant planets despite doing it 'wrong' if we believed Lessans, plus a magical mysterious explanation for why gravitational lensing lets us see the same galaxy in two parts of the sky with one a slightly older version of the other, plus a magical mysterious explanation for why the standard explanation for vision has never failed us. Plus a new one every time we consider virtually any experiment that involves vision over long enough distance for the finite speed of light to become important.

Lessans never wrote about those. You can't even imagine what they could be. For all intents an purposes, they're magic.

But you have added them, out of pure faith, to preserve your belief in Lessans. They have no independent evidence. Just your faith they exist.

You're not just supporting Lessans.

I'm not discussing the finite speed of light at this moment. I'm discussing optics and the fact that wavelengths reflected from an object do not travel indefinitely. What happens when the light fades out? You can't see the object anymore which means that (N) light is not the same as (P) light.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not discussing the finite speed of light at this moment. I'm discussing optics and the fact that wavelengths reflected from an object do not travel indefinitely. What happens when the light fades out? You can't see the object anymore which means that (N) light is not the same as (P) light.

LIGHT DOES NOT FADE OUT, peacegirl. See thedoc's post.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

thedoc is correct. No, peacegirl, the light does NOT fade; it does just as thedoc explains above. And telescopes have a method of collecting more of those photons that the eye misses, making them entirely afferent instruments. Optics does NOT in any way, shape or form, support Lessans.

Regardless of what causes the light to fade out (which I'm not even contesting), it becomes less intense to where you can't see the object anymore if you are far enough away. Therefore the object has to be in view for it to be seen. You can't argue with this, and it does, in fact, support Lessans' claim of efferent vision.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Regardless of what causes the light to fade out (which I'm not even contesting), it becomes less intense to where you can't see the object anymore if you are far enough away. Therefore the object has to be in view for it to be seen. You can't argue with this, and it does, in fact, support Lessans' claim of efferent vision.

NO, peacegirl, you are entirely incorrect, as usual. Google "how telescopes work" to find out all your errors.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm discussing optics and the fact that wavelengths reflected from an object do not travel indefinitely. What happens when the light fades out? You can't see the object anymore which means that (N) light is not the same as (P) light.

So, you are saying that all of optics and light physics is wrong.

[davidm]

peacegirl, the photons DO travel indefinitely. Space is mostly empty. Unless a photon is reflected or absorbed, it will continue to travel indefinitely in a straight line in conformance with Newton's laws of motion. Are you familiar with those laws? Thus, there are photons raining down on earth right now from objects billions of light years away; this means the photons have been traveling uninterrupted at constant speed c for billions of years. (c is the letter that stands for the velocity of the speed of light in a vacuum.) The reason we can't see distant objects without a telescope is that the density of the photons becomes attenuated with time, in conformance with a graphic that LadyShea gave you. But a telescope fixes that problem. Google "how a telescope works" if you really want to learn. But you won't.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

And additional evidence of your inherent nastiness.

Thanks, n.a. That was so sweet. You are such a charmer. It almost makes me want to take back all the true things I have said about you.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not discussing the finite speed of light at this moment. I'm discussing optics and the fact that wavelengths reflected from an object do not travel indefinitely. What happens when the light fades out? You can't see the object anymore which means that (N) light is not the same as (P) light.

If you are discussing 'optics' then you are discussing the finite speed of light, the fact that light does not fade out over distance, and that wavelengths are not a characteristic of objects but are a characteristic of light. Your constant misuse of the terms of optics indicates that you have no understanding of optics at all. Light is light, there is no (N)light or (P)light, that was only to differentiate reality from your fiction.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...maybe it's time that we end the conversation.

What, again?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't worry David. If afferent vision is correct it will hold up under scrutiny.

Originally Posted by davidm

It's been scrutinized for hundreds of years. It's false. Every time we look at the moons of Jupiter or send a spaceship to Mars, it is proved false. You are wasting your time, and making both you and your father look very bad indeed.

I guess you didn't notice that she wrote "afferent" vision not "efferent". What about that mister high-and-mighty newpaper editor person? Are you now claiming that vision is not afferent?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Thanks, n.a. That was so sweet. You are such a charmer. It almost makes me want to take back all the true things I have said about you.

So I guess you are going to let all the untrue things stand?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

What, again?

I guess you didn't notice that she wrote "afferent" vision not "efferent". What about that mister high-and-mighty newpaper editor person? Are you now claiming that vision is not afferent?

Haste makes waste, and retractions.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by thedoc

So I guess you are going to let all the untrue things stand?

If there were any I would surely let them stand. Alas, I have only ever spoken the truth about n.a, unseemly though it be.