A Revolution in Thought: Part Two - Page 260

peacegirl · #**6476** 01-26-2012, 01:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

The assertion that the ideas in the book are false it not premature, there is ample evidence to disprove Lessans claims.

Agreed. peacegirl, it is not premature to conclude that Lessans ideas about sight and time are false. They have been falsified in hundreds of ways.

Optics has never failed to explain or predict the properties and behaviors of light consistently across all examples, from viewing microscopic life to getting an image of galaxies billions of light years away. It's really a beautiful model in that way. It is consistent, always, 100%.

You are positing "Maybe it's a coincidence", "Maybe there is a consistent hidden, unknown factor in NASA's calculations that allows them to successfully land spacecraft on Mars even though their conscious calculations are completely wrong" and "There is some hidden, unknown property of camera film, which we invented and manufacture, that allows it to physically absorb photons at a distance".

Basically it all amounts to "I don't know how these things work, and I can't explain anything in a way that is consistent with both my belief and observed reality, but I am sure I am right anyway".

That. Is. A. Faith. Statement.

Then let it go LadyShea. I have tried until I'm blue in the face why we are able to see in real time across millions of miles.

And failed to do so, because we do NOT see in real time across millions of miles.

Quote:

It is true that I can't explain the time/light correction that they say is always made, and how much of a difference it would make; or could there be a miscalculation in another area that corrected itself through this calculation.

Of course you can't explain it. But the explanation is simple. The example of the moons of Jupiter, and how NASA corrects for light speed delay to send probes to Mars and other celestial bodies, and the dozens of other concrete examples you have been given, are explained by the fact that we don't see in real time. That IS the explanation for the listed phenomena.

Quote:

All I can tell you is that optics supports efferent vision,

In no way, shape or form does optics support efferent vision. All of our optical instruments are made precisely on the empirically verified premise that vision is afferent and we see in delayed time. NONE of our optical devices would work outside this premise.

So sorry!

All of the optical instruments do not contradict the efferent model of sight. Give me an example David where these optical instruments contradict this model. Show me how they wouldn't work outside of the premise of delayed time.

peacegirl · #**6477** 01-26-2012, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kael

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Optics supports efferent vision, but believe what you want. :sadcheer:

How? Optics is the study of the behavior of light. If light must merely be present around a distant object for us to see it, then its behavior is irrelevant. Optics would have nothing whatsoever to do with vision if we saw efferently (the way Lessans describes, not the convoluted mess that you've cobbled together from buzzwords and half-understood concepts every time you're cornered on something).

It's not true that optics has nothing to do with it. It has everything to do with it because light is working exactly as it would work in the afferent model. That's why the farther something gets, the smaller it gets due to the dispersion of light. The only difference is that we're seeing the object on the retina or film instantly due to the object having to be present, but optics works the same way as it always has.

naturalist.atheist · #**6478** 01-26-2012, 01:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand that the administrators who run the board have the right to do whatever they want because they are paying for the server. That's why I'm going to do my own blog on my own website. There's another more pressing reason. I'm tired of the crude and sarcastic remarks that are being made at my expense which effects my desire to even discuss the book. This is not fair to the people who really do want to understand.

You better get that blog started right away, because everybody here understands that you have no idea of what you are talking about. And many think you are insane. Many people told you long ago that this was not going to turn out the way you wanted and that you should start your own site where you could control the content. You won't create any more converts than you have here but it will be much less stressful for you. And although people will still think you are insane, you will be able to censor those comments. And if you are ever in the mood for more abuse you can always post here.

Vivisectus · #**6479** 01-26-2012, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ok - so the photons are now back to being only at the object, but can still be seen.

That means that objects can have an effect on other objects without crossing the intervening space, and without sending some particle to act as a signal.

That in turn means that this idea does not include causality. But how can you have determinism without causality? Thought could just happen as well in that case, which means our choices could just be random.

This has absolutely nothing to do with causality. You're still not understanding the efferent model. There is nothing random about the efferent model. Now you're mixing his two discoveries together which is going to get you more confused.

If light only needs to be at the object for it to be instantly perceived, as the book clearly states, then that contradicts causality, per definition. It has everything to do with causality: the sun being turned on 8 light-minutes away causes a reaction in the eyes, without anything travelling between the two to cause that reaction!.

If causality does not apply, then determinism does not hold. At its basis, it states that all things are caused by other things. Lessans determinism relies on it too: according to him we are compelled by our own free will to do the things we do. Without causality that is not the case: we could just choose something random, as causality no longer dictates that thought, too, must be caused.

The book contradicts itself here: on the one hand it relies on causality, but then cheerfully makes statements that reject it later on. It is another example of Lessans just not thinking it through.

peacegirl · #**6480** 01-26-2012, 02:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Ok - so the photons are now back to being only at the object, but can still be seen.

That means that objects can have an effect on other objects without crossing the intervening space, and without sending some particle to act as a signal.

That in turn means that this idea does not include causality. But how can you have determinism without causality? Thought could just happen as well in that case, which means our choices could just be random.

This has absolutely nothing to do with causality. You're still not understanding the efferent model. There is nothing random about the efferent model. Now you're mixing his two discoveries together which is going to get you more confused.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If light only needs to be at the object for it to be instantly perceived, as the book clearly states, then that contradicts causality, per definition. It has everything to do with causality: the sun being turned on 8 light-minutes away causes a reaction in the eyes, without anything travelling between the two to cause that reaction!.

You're wrong Vivisectus. Under the efferent model, we can see the object because of the way the lens works. This does not violate physics because a mirror image does not require photons to travel. This can only occur when we're looking at the object because that is the only time the (P) reflection is at the film/retina. All (P) light is is the inverse of the absorbed light when WE'RE VIEWING THE OBJECT.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If causality does not apply, then determinism does not hold. At its basis, it states that all things are caused by other things. Lessans determinism relies on it too: according to him we are compelled by our own free will to do the things we do. Without causality that is not the case: we could just choose something random, as causality no longer dictates that thought, too, must be caused.

As I said, this does not contradict causality in any way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The book contradicts itself here: on the one hand it relies on causality, but then cheerfully makes statements that reject it later on. It is another example of Lessans just not thinking it through.

Everything is caused in one way or another, but don't get the standard definition of determinism confused with Lessans' definition. His definition shows where responsibility goes up, not down, which philosophers believe would occur. Efferent vision does not go against physics. I didn't make this up; there is a reason the brain works this way. God knew what he was doing. :yup:

peacegirl · #**6481** 01-26-2012, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand that the administrators who run the board have the right to do whatever they want because they are paying for the server. That's why I'm going to do my own blog on my own website. There's another more pressing reason. I'm tired of the crude and sarcastic remarks that are being made at my expense which effects my desire to even discuss the book. This is not fair to the people who really do want to understand.

You better get that blog started right away, because everybody here understands that you have no idea of what you are talking about. And many think you are insane. Many people told you long ago that this was not going to turn out the way you wanted and that you should start your own site where you could control the content. You won't create any more converts than you have here but it will be much less stressful for you. And although people will still think you are insane, you will be able to censor those comments. And if you are ever in the mood for more abuse you can always post here.

At least you admit you're being extremely abusive. Right out of the horse's mouth people. And fyi, you have no way of knowing what other people are thinking. Speak for yourself NA and leave others alone to make up their own mind when the facts are in.

Vivisectus · #**6482** 01-26-2012, 02:22 PM

Quote:

You're wrong Vivisectus. Under the efferent model, we can see the object because of the way the lens works. This does not violate physics because a mirror image does not require photons to travel. This can only occur when we're looking at the object because that is the only time the (P) reflection is at the film/retina. All (P) light is is the inverse of the absorbed light when WE'RE VIEWING THE OBJECT.

Point a: That is meaningless waffle. You do not even know what it is supposed to mean yourself, which makes it all the more funny.

Point b: even if it wasn't, it still contradicts causality. Something has an effect on the retina from 8 light minutes away instantly, with nothing travelling over to do actually cause that effect. This is practically the definition of something that contradicts causality.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If causality does not apply, then determinism does not hold. At its basis, it states that all things are caused by other things. Lessans determinism relies on it too: according to him we are compelled by our own free will to do the things we do. Without causality that is not the case: we could just choose something random, as causality no longer dictates that thought, too, must be caused.

As I said, this does not contradict causality in any way.

It rather does, as I have clearly shown above. It is just that it is one of the great many things that you lack a basic understanding of. How on earth did you ever manage to get through college?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The book contradicts itself here: on the one hand it relies on causality, but then cheerfully makes statements that reject it later on. It is another example of Lessans just not thinking it through.

Everything is caused in one way or another, but don't get the standard definition of determinism confused with Lessans' definition which reconciles the issue of responsibility with determinism, which has not been understood by either science or philosophy. Efferent vision does not go against physics. I didn't make this up; there is a reason the brain works this way. God knew what he was doing.

Even Lessans fallacy-ridden version of determinism relies on causality. If thoughts were uncaused they could be random: if they can be random, then we are not "compelled of our own free will" and once again Lessans train derails before it even gets under way.

Either efferent sight has to go, or determinism. They are utterly incompatible, and with it the book contradicts itself. No amount of waffling is going to make that any less of a fact.

thedoc · #**6483** 01-26-2012, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

. Photons are constantly being emitted, that is a fact, but the only way we get the (P) photons on film/retina is when the lens of the film or retina is focused on the object. It's as simple as that. If we happen to be looking at something that is parallel to the object, those photons that are made up of the visible spectrum. The only time we actually get a mirror image of the object is when we're looking directly at it and there is enough light surrounding the object for us to see it.

When the eye focuses on an object and we see that object, what is in our peripheral vision? What about the objects in the background or off to the side that the eye is not focusing on, an object that is further away and out of focus to the eye? Do we see them if the eye is not focused on them?

LadyShea · #**6484** 01-26-2012, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But causality is inherent in all physics, including optics.

Photons interacting with camera film, or a plant leaf, is an example of a cause and effect.

LadyShea, that's not what I was even talking about. Of course photons have to interact with film. I've said that over and over again that this knowledge does not violate the law of physics, but Vivisectus was implying that this model of sight couldn't work because it does violate physics. That is only because the efferent model of sight is being misunderstood, and I'm not sure that I can close the gap of misunderstanding in this thread.

Real time/instantaneous seeing and photography violates causality. You don't seem to understand why that is, so insist that efferent vision does not violate the laws of physics, and make ignorant statements like this

Quote:

This has absolutely nothing to do with causality

.

It does however. Causality is inherent in all of physics including optics.

LadyShea · #**6485** 01-26-2012, 02:39 PM

Quote:

a mirror image does not require photons to travel.

A mirror image cannot be physically interacted with, which is required for camera film to absorb a photon. A miracle you have yet to explain. You have weaseled every time I've tried to get a straight answer on it.

LadyShea · #**6486** 01-26-2012, 02:42 PM

Bump

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Bump. You failed to respond to the majority of points made in this post

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Do you understand that matter is made up of atoms and molecules, and that these atoms and molecules are what cause light to be absorbed? Is the mirror image in our eyes and on film also made up of atoms and molecules?

Of course not. The film/retina interacts with photons, period.

Then you have yet to answer how the photons GET THERE to the film to touch the atoms in the matter that makes up camera film.

Until you can answer this, you are talking nonsense.

How can the photons be absorbed by the atoms in camera film on Earth AT NOON, if the photons are at the newly ignited Sun AT NOON and therefore no photons have arrived on Earth. There must be a physical process of some kind involved for that to happen. What is it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But in order to receive this mirror image, it requires an object to absorb certain wavelengths through its particular configuration of atoms and molecules.

I have been using the same example, of Lessans, for weeks. The newly ignited sun at noon, camera film on Earth at noon.

The only object is the camera film on Earth. The only photons are from the newly ignited sun 93 million miles away.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can it be duplicate (which indicates A moving to B) when there is no travel time in a mirror image?

If the mirror image is not duplicated physical matter consisting of atoms it cannot be interacted with by photons. You can't shake hands with a mirror image.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If not, then the photons from the sun cannot interact with the atoms and molecules in camera film via the mirror image you are positing.

That physical interaction is required to get a photographic image on camera film. The atoms must touch the photons.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know that LadyShea, and they do touch the photons.

HOW? How do the photons and camera film come to share the same physical location?

This is a physical process, no different than you having to physically share my location to shake my hand. How can we come to the same location in order to physically touch without one of us traveling, teleporting, or coming into duplicate physical existence someplace else?

You're the camera film on Earth at noon, I am the photon at the just ignited Sun at noon. How can we shake hands?

Quote:

The reason for this, which you seem to be forgetting, is that if efferent vision is true, the object must be in range, and due to this phenomenon, we're not just detecting light

This is a weasel. It doesn't answer my very clear and precise questions regarding physical interactions between photons at the newly ignited Sun simultaneously touching camera film on Earth.

You keep forgetting that it is no different than two people shaking hands. They must physically exist in the same location in order to touch.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The lens MUST be focusing on the object to get the mirror image. The mirror image (or light that is at the film) is the opposite side of the imaginary coin.

Focusing lenses cannot warp or fold space to bring two objects together at the same location

I have answered these questions more than once.

You haven't answered them at all. You've made some assertions about mirror images and weaseled about retinas and vision and haven't explained the physical mechanism causing photons to be in physical contact with camera film and absorbed by the silver halide molecules on that camera film at a distance of 93 millions miles, nor shown how this is possible within the laws of physics.

Quote:

A focused lens and the reality of efferent vision (which is key and can be empirically proven), produces real time vision.

I am asking about photographing the sun at noon when it was turned on at noon and therefore according to Lessans, the photons have not arrived on Earth to touch the camera film.

This is a physical process, no different than you having to physically share my location to shake my hand. How can we come to the same location in order to physically touch without one of us traveling, teleporting, or coming into duplicate physical existence someplace else?

You're the camera film on Earth at noon, I am the photon at the just ignited Sun at noon. How can we shake hands?

davidm · #**6487** 01-26-2012, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The wolves have come out in rare form. I cannot continue the discussion under these conditions. I wanted to go back to discuss Lessans' first discovery, but I've lost all desire. I've taken a lot of crap from everyone and it's finally gotten to me. You guys won! I'm sure you're all happy now.

davidm · #**6488** 01-26-2012, 03:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not fair to the people who really do want to understand.

There are no such people, because there is nothing to understand. Kindergarteners know we don't see in real time.

davidm · #**6489** 01-26-2012, 03:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All of the optical instruments do not contradict the efferent model of sight. Give me an example David where these optical instruments contradict this model. Show me how they wouldn't work outside of the premise of delayed time.

This discussion has already been gone over, like all aspects of the drivel you promote, again and again and again. That you have a hole in the head and can't retain what you've been told, or that you are incapable of honesty, or both, is not my concern. Why don't you Google "How telescopes work," and find out exactly why and how they work precisely according to delayed-time seeing. Oh, and why you don't you read The Lone Ranger's essay on light and sight?

You have a hell of a lot of Goddamn nerve asking over and over again for the very same information that has been given to you literally dozens if not hundreds of times.

Say, peacegirl, when were you going to get around to explaining how your "efferent seeing" accounts for the fact that in order to send spacecraft to Mars or any other planet, NASA adjusts for light-speed delay, which proves both that we see light, and see objects as they were in the past, the very two things that you deny? Were you planning to address that point soon, or are you going to continue to scuttle away from it?

peacegirl · #**6490** 01-26-2012, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

You're wrong Vivisectus. Under the efferent model, we can see the object because of the way the lens works. This does not violate physics because a mirror image does not require photons to travel. This can only occur when we're looking at the object because that is the only time the (P) reflection is at the film/retina. All (P) light is is the inverse of the absorbed light when WE'RE VIEWING THE OBJECT.

Point a: That is meaningless waffle. You do not even know what it is supposed to mean yourself, which makes it all the more funny.

I do know what it means, and you are, once again, trying to deflect the truth. I will stand up against this nonsense. :popcorn:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Point b: even if it wasn't, it still contradicts causality. Something has an effect on the retina from 8 light minutes away instantly, with nothing travelling over to do actually cause that effect. This is practically the definition of something that contradicts causality.

I will say for the thousandth time that this is why science never saw the truth. I'm not blaming science but it was hidden behind the premise that information is in the light itself. All you're doing is going back to the old premise, and I can't win if that's what you're doing, but this does not make Lessans wrong. :whup:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If causality does not apply, then determinism does not hold. At its basis, it states that all things are caused by other things. Lessans determinism relies on it too: according to him we are compelled by our own free will to do the things we do. Without causality that is not the case: we could just choose something random, as causality no longer dictates that thought, too, must be caused.

Quote:

As I said, this does not contradict causality in any way.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

It rather does, as I have clearly shown above. It is just that it is one of the great many things that you lack a basic understanding of. How on earth did you ever manage to get through college?

Oh shut up already and stop using ad hominems to discredit this work when you have nothing else to lean on. :sadcheer:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The book contradicts itself here: on the one hand it relies on causality, but then cheerfully makes statements that reject it later on. It is another example of Lessans just not thinking it through.

Quote:

Everything is caused in one way or another, but don't get the standard definition of determinism confused with Lessans' definition which reconciles the issue of responsibility with determinism, which has not been understood by either science or philosophy. Efferent vision does not go against physics. I didn't make this up; there is a reason the brain works this way. God knew what he was doing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Even Lessans fallacy-ridden version of determinism relies on causality. If thoughts were uncaused they could be random: if they can be random, then we are not "compelled of our own free will" and once again Lessans train derails before it even gets under way.

Either efferent sight has to go, or determinism. They are utterly incompatible, and with it the book contradicts itself. No amount of waffling is going to make that any less of a fact.

You're so confused I can't work with you. I'll have to stick with certain people who are a little open minded. That way you may glean the information from them. I'm sorry to say that a direct conversation with you will only lead to results that reflect (no pun intended) your truth, not reality.

peacegirl · #**6491** 01-26-2012, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All of the optical instruments do not contradict the efferent model of sight. Give me an example David where these optical instruments contradict this model. Show me how they wouldn't work outside of the premise of delayed time.

This discussion has already been gone over, like all aspects of the drivel you promote, again and again and again. That you have a hole in the head and can't retain what you've been told, or that you are incapable of honesty, or both, is not my concern. Why don't you Google "How telescopes work," and find out exactly why and how they work precisely according to delayed-time seeing. Oh, and why you don't you read The Lone Ranger's essay on light and sight?

You have a hell of a lot of Goddamn nerve asking over and over again for the very same information that has been given to you literally dozens if not hundreds of times.

Say, peacegirl, when were you going to get around to explaining how your "efferent seeing" accounts for the fact that in order to send spacecraft to Mars or any other planet, NASA adjusts for light-speed delay, which proves both that we see light, and see objects as they were in the past, the very two things that you deny? Were you planning to address that point soon, or are you going to continue to scuttle away from it?

This whole thread is getting funnier and funnier by the minute. I told you many times that this is not how truth is found. Truth is found in a situation where the variables can be manipulated, not inferred. You can't stand that your science is wrong, and that maybe your logic has led you into realms that are beyond the scope of true science. You can't stand that your logic has led you astray into realms of science fiction. I am not to blame for this, and the fact that you are blaming me is just another angry projection of your worldview demise.

LadyShea · #**6492** 01-26-2012, 03:20 PM

Faith statements ITT

davidm · #**6493** 01-26-2012, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All of the optical instruments do not contradict the efferent model of sight. Give me an example David where these optical instruments contradict this model. Show me how they wouldn't work outside of the premise of delayed time.

This discussion has already been gone over, like all aspects of the drivel you promote, again and again and again. That you have a hole in the head and can't retain what you've been told, or that you are incapable of honesty, or both, is not my concern. Why don't you Google "How telescopes work," and find out exactly why and how they work precisely according to delayed-time seeing. Oh, and why you don't you read The Lone Ranger's essay on light and sight?

You have a hell of a lot of Goddamn nerve asking over and over again for the very same information that has been given to you literally dozens if not hundreds of times.

Say, peacegirl, when were you going to get around to explaining how your "efferent seeing" accounts for the fact that in order to send spacecraft to Mars or any other planet, NASA adjusts for light-speed delay, which proves both that we see light, and see objects as they were in the past, the very two things that you deny? Were you planning to address that point soon, or are you going to continue to scuttle away from it?

This whole thread is getting funnier and funnier by the minute. I told you many times that this is not how truth is found. Truth is found in a situation where the variables can be manipulated, not inferred. You can't stand that your science is wrong, and that maybe your logic has led you into realms that are beyond the scope of true science. You can't stand that your logic has led you astray into realms of science fiction. I am not to blame for this, and the fact that you are blaming me is just another angry projection of your worldview demise.

There you go again, scuttling away from the question at hand, which is: Why does NASA correct for light-speed delay in sending spacecraft to Mars?

When NASA sends a spacecraft to Mars, they know that the little red speck in the night sky labeled "Mars" is where Mars used to be, not where it actually is. That is to say, its apparent location is not the same as its actual location. In order to send a spacecraft to Mars, they have to set the trajectory for where Mars ACTUALLY IS, which is not where they see it in the sky.

And so real-time seeing is proved to be false. Do you think your transparent dishonesty in scuttling away from this disproof of Lessans is not noticed?

LadyShea · #**6494** 01-26-2012, 03:30 PM

lol, truth is not found in successfully sending and landing spacecraft on a whole other planet. Yep, no truth to be found anywhere in that feat.

peacegirl · #**6495** 01-26-2012, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

. Photons are constantly being emitted, that is a fact, but the only way we get the (P) photons on film/retina is when the lens of the film or retina is focused on the object. It's as simple as that. If we happen to be looking at something that is parallel to the object, those photons that are made up of the visible spectrum. The only time we actually get a mirror image of the object is when we're looking directly at it and there is enough light surrounding the object for us to see it.

When the eye focuses on an object and we see that object, what is in our peripheral vision? What about the objects in the background or off to the side that the eye is not focusing on, an object that is further away and out of focus to the eye? Do we see them if the eye is not focused on them?

We see it exactly as a mirror image, which means the peripheral vision would be blurred. It's an inverse relation to the object's absorptive properties, so it makes perfect sense unless you're trying to defend your standpoint come hell or high water.

peacegirl · #**6496** 01-26-2012, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

lol, truth is not found in successfully sending and landing spacecraft on a whole other planet. Yep, no truth to be found anywhere in that feat.

Yes, that's the truth LadyShea. We cannot make absolute inferences from outer space because we cannot change the circumstances to infer, absolutely and positively, that what we THINK is going on is actually what IS going on.

davidm · #**6497** 01-26-2012, 03:41 PM

Hey, peacegirl, have you checked out the thread on real-time seeing over at the BAUT astronomy board? Here is is: Thread.

Some nice comments by the scientists there. Here is one I like:

Quote:

Originally Posted by scientist

My gods... this person has been trolling your board for over 1,000 pages? I can see no other possibility.

I can not reconcile a person honestly believing what you say they believe who can also operate a computer... nevermind persevere in a discussion of such length. Must be a troll.

Oh, I know, those big-shot scientists with their fancy-pants degrees! You can't trust 'em! Best listen to the seventh-grade dropout who set 'em straight, ayup! :lol:

peacegirl · #**6498** 01-26-2012, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Faith statements ITT

I really don't care what you call it LadyShea, you are obviously biased, and therefore these observations by Lessans will never sit right with you since you are convinced that there is no way that we can see the Sun as it explodes in real time, which is the very thing that science can't handle. Do you see the catch 22 here, or don't you? I suggest letting somebody else take the floor.

davidm · #**6499** 01-26-2012, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

lol, truth is not found in successfully sending and landing spacecraft on a whole other planet. Yep, no truth to be found anywhere in that feat.

Yes, that's the truth LadyShea. We cannot make absolute inferences from outer space because we cannot change the circumstances to infer, absolutely and positively, that what we THINK is going on is actually what IS going on.

Little imbecile, yet another lacuane in your knowledge: Precise mathematical calculations must be carried out to send craft to Mars. There is no wiggle room in math! If we sent the craft to Mars based on real-time seeing, it would miss the target badly!

God, you are such a disgusting little liar. You're not so stupid that you can't understand these simple points. You are just a disgustingly dishonest person.

peacegirl · #**6500** 01-26-2012, 03:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey, peacegirl, have you checked out the thread on real-time seeing over at the BAUT astronomy board? Here is is: Thread.

Some nice comments by the scientists there. Here is one I like:

Quote:

Originally Posted by scientist

My gods... this person has been trolling your board for over 1,000 pages? I can see no other possibility.

I can not reconcile a person honestly believing what you say they believe who can also operate a computer... nevermind persevere in a discussion of such length. Must be a troll.

Oh, I know, those big-shot scientists with their fancy-pants degrees! You can't trust 'em! Best listen to the seventh-grade dropout who set 'em straight, ayup! :lol:

Can you see the pattern everyone? The second he feels trapped, he resorts to ad hominems, and he thinks no one notices. :sadcheer: