A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And I want answers to my questions. But seeing as how I have nothing to apologize for, and how you prefer to dishonestly weasel in addition to being completely delusional, I guess we're both going to be disappointed.

What do you mean 'going to be' I've been disappointed for almost 1,000 pages, I guess I'm just a glutten for punishment.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Of course it's true. You can't provide any reason to believe your claims about from Lessans say-so. So again, you're just making excuses and trying to play this out like you're some sort of victim.

To paraphrase someone famous, I think you are confusing our pointing out that you're completely and hopelessly wrong with persecution.

Just because you say I'm wrong doesn't mean I am wrong. This has nothing to do with feelings of persecution, although being called names just for thinking differently can be thought of as such.

The inflicting of suffering, harassment, isolation, imprisonment, fear, or pain are all factors that may establish persecution.

Persecution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If we see instantly as per Lessans, if efferent vision were true, we would be able to see a supernova much, much, much sooner than we could detect the light photons from that supernova. Decades at minimum.

That doesn't happen.

Like I said, we have to do experiments on Earth before coming to conclusions about outer space. No one has yet answered my question: Why are we able to get an image of someone when their physical being is in our field of view, yet we cannot get an image when their physical being steps out of view. According to the afferent model, the light bouncing off of that individual would allow us to see that person. But this never ever happens. You can't use the inverse square law here, and you can't use the fact that light travels too fast because if that was the case we wouldn't be able to see the person when he is closer to us.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Of course. She is brain damaged. Just recently she brought up, yet again, her incredibly stupid claim that delayed seeing via light has not been tested on earth, and that light at earthly distances would travel "too fast" for us to see. She even put in a after saying this shit, as though she felt she had brought up a key point.

How many times have both of these false claims been refuted, and careful explanations given to her about why they are wrong? Twenty times? Fifty times? a thousand times? And, how long do you want to bet it will be, before Goldfish Brain yet again makes these "points," as if no one had ever addressed them?

She nuts, obviously. Just like deez nuts ----->

I am bringing this up again because it has not been answered to my satisfaction. Offering an inadequate explanation isn't going to get you off the hook that easily.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

She made an attempt to respond, and included a link to a relevant article. That means she had to look something up. That's progress

BTW, peacegirl, those measurements were found to have probably been skewed by a faulty cable and flawed timing in a master clock. It was always thought to be an error and that's why they put it out there to be looked at by other scientists.

But they aren't sure, so they are testing it again since the same results occurred more than once.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

An "understandable mistake" involving mountains of evidence from independent fields of study stretching back hundreds of years, all pointing the same result and showing that Lessans' ideas are completely wrong, and indeed cannot possibly be correct.

Yes, an "understand mistake." More good thinking on your part, little Ms. Dippy Brains!

Now you better hurry up and make those last-minute corrections before going to press!

It doesn't matter how long something has lasted, it doesn't mean it's correct unless there is absolute proof. The danger here is that people are now up in arms just because Lessans offered a different take on what is occurring. You are no different than those who burned people at the stake for having a different point of view, except you use hateful words to try to get me to shut up instead of physical brutality. For those of you who haven't followed this thread from the beginning, Lessans knew what he was up against. That's why he wrote this:

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality pp. 113-114

The idea that man has five senses originated with Aristotle
and it has never been challenged. He did this just as naturally as we
would name anything to identify it. But he made an assumption that
the eyes functioned like the other senses so he included them in the
definition. This is equivalent to calling an apple, pear, peach, orange
and potato, five fruit. The names given to these foods describe
differences in substance that exist in the real world, but we certainly
could not call them five fruit since this word excludes the potato which
is not grown in the same manner as is described by the word fruit.
Since we can see this difference, there is no controversy.

Believe it or
not, the eyes, similar to the potato in the above example, were
classified in a category they did not belong. We cannot name the
organs with which we communicate with the outside world, five senses,
when they do not function alike. Aristotle, however, didn’t know this.
His logic and renown delayed an immediate investigation of his theory
because no one dared oppose the genius of this individual without
appearing ridiculous for such audacity, which brought about almost
unanimous agreement. In fact, to disagree was so presumptuous that
nobody dared to voice their disagreement because this would only
incur disdainful criticism. Everyone believed that such a brilliant
individual, such a genius, had to know whereof he spoke. This is not
a criticism of Aristotle or of anyone. But even today, we are still in
agreement regarding a fallacious observation about the brain and its
relation to the eyes.

Those who will consider the possibility that you
might have a discovery reveal their confusion by trying to nullify any
value to it with this comment as was made to me, “What difference
does it make what we call them as a group, this isn’t going to change
what we are. Whether we call them 5 senses, or 4 senses and a pair of
eyes is certainly not going to change them in any way.” However, if
man doesn’t really have five senses, isn’t it obvious that just as long
as we think otherwise we will be prevented from discovering those
things that depend on this knowledge for their discovery?
Consequently, it does make a difference what we call them.

Just as
my first discovery was not that man’s will is not free but the
knowledge revealed by opening that door for a thorough investigation,
so likewise my second discovery is not that man does not have five
senses but what significant knowledge lies hidden behind this door.
Many years later we have an additional problem which is more
difficult to overcome because this fallacious observation has graduated
dogmatically into what is considered genuine knowledge, for it is
actually taught in school as an absolute fact, and our professors,
doctors, etc. would be ready to take up arms, so to speak, against
anyone who would dare oppose what they have come to believe is the
truth without even hearing, or wanting to hear any evidence to the
contrary.

I am very aware that if I am not careful the resentment of
these people will nail me to a cross, and they would do it in the name
of justice and truth. However, it appears that they will not be given
the opportunity because the very moment the will of God is perceived
and understood, man is given no alternative as to what direction he
must travel — which is away from condemning someone who has
uncovered a falsehood. The real truth is that there are thousands
upon thousands of differences existing in the external world but when
words do not describe these differences accurately we are then seeing
a distorted version of what exists — as with free will.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The , imprisonment, a factor that establishes persecution.

Has someone from this froum locked her door and chained her to her computer? Shame on you.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one has yet answered my question: Why are we able to get an image of someone when their physical being is in our field of view, yet we cannot get an image when their physical being steps out of view. According to the afferent model, the light bouncing off of that individual would allow us to see that person. But this never ever happens.

Your eternally recurring question has been answered a thousand times over, and you've never once either (i) shown that you understand those answers; or (ii) shown those answers to be inadequate.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am bringing this up again because it has not been answered to my satisfaction. Offering an inadequate explanation isn't going to get you off the hook that easily.

There is nothing inadequate about the answers you've been given.

There are three different points involved which you keep failing to separate:

Firstly, it is true by definition that something moved outside of your field of view will no longer be visible, because that is what 'field of view' means.

Secondly, something can be close enough to be seen, and then moved further away such that it can no longer be seen due to dispersion and resolution - the exact same explanations which you yourself appeal to for your own explanations.

Thirdly, that something cannot be seen when light from it is still arriving but the object is no longer there IS NOT ACTUALLY TRUE, so this DOES NOT NEED TO BE EXPLAINED. You would first have to establish this to be true before complaining that the afferent account cannot explain it.

And all of these points have already been explained to you a thousand times over. Each time you either agree that you cannot show our responses to be inadequate or you drop the topic. But then you FORGET. And go on to bring up the exact same question a few days or weeks later as if you had never received adequate answers before. You are not mentally competent. You need help.

[Spacemonkey]

The following post is a completely unanswered bumped post from the other thread from the last time you tried to claim your question had never been adequately answered:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

It is true that the object has to be in range at the time the light responsible for the image hits the surface of the object. Dispersion and resolution explains quite adequately on the afferent account how this works and why this is the case.

It is not true that this object has to still be within range at the later time when this light strikes the detector. That is not any kind of fact, and therefore does not stand in need of explanation. It is not any kind of inadequacy on the part of afferent vision that it does not explain this.

What does it say about your mental condition that you dropped the topic right after I posted this and never addressed these answers to your allegedly unanswered question, and yet that you are now once again repeating the same question this post answers while insisting that your question has never been adequately answered?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

it has not been answered to my satisfaction.

an inadequate explanation isn't going to get you off the hook that easily.

The answers and explinations offered are only 'not to your satisfaction' or are 'inadequate for you' because you are incapable of understanding what is being posted. That, or you simply refuse to acknowledge that the nonsensical question has been answered, another aspect of your 'willful ignorance'.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because you say I'm wrong doesn't mean I am wrong. This has nothing to do with feelings of persecution, although being called names just for thinking differently can be thought of as such.

I haven't called you wrong, and haven't merely asserted you are wrong. I've pointed out, many many times, exactly why you are wrong.

For instance, your claims are such that we should see objects before their light reaches us. We don't. Therefore, you're wrong.

[thedoc]

Peacegirl also claims that if an object disapears from sight, and the light reflected from that object is still ariving at the eye or camera, then we will not be able to see it. This, also, is wrong.

[Spacemonkey]

Peacegirl, the following is a quote from an earlier post of mine regarding your eternally recurring 'unanswered' question. Can you guess how long ago it was first posted, or how many times you've reset and asked the question again since then?

"The problem isn't that this hasn't been answered for you, but that you keep ignoring the answers you've been given until the topic changes and you forget about the answer, only to then mentally reset to the same deluded belief that it can't be answered. This is strong evidence of a broken mind. Do you know how many times you've ignored my answer to this very question? I do."

What do you think this says about your mental condition?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Peacegirl also claims that if an object disapears from sight, and the light reflected from that object is still ariving at the eye or camera, then we will not be able to see it. This, also, is wrong.

And even more bizarrely, our account of vision is supposedly flawed for not being able to explain this factually incorrect and completely invented claim of hers.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Like I said, we have to do experiments on Earth before coming to conclusions about outer space. No one has yet answered my question: Why are we able to get an image of someone when their physical being is in our field of view, yet we cannot get an image when their physical being steps out of view. According to the afferent model, the light bouncing off of that individual would allow us to see that person. But this never ever happens. You can't use the inverse square law here, and you can't use the fact that light travels too fast because if that was the case we wouldn't be able to see the person when he is closer to us.

We don't need any more experiments, we have a empirical observations. We have empirical observations that disprove real time seeing on their own. Supernovas.

If we see instantly as per Lessans, if efferent vision were true, we would be able to see a supernova much, much, much sooner than we could detect the light photons and neutrinos from that supernova. Decades at minimum.

That doesn't happen.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Your eternally recurring question has been answered a thousand times over, and you've never once either (i) shown that you understand those answers; or (ii) shown those answers to be inadequate.

I listened to your answer, and it wasn't adequate in my opinion. You gave an example about how, as the object gets more distant from the observer, less photons show up on the retina where eventually only a red dot is seen until it disappears from view. That doesn't answer my question though.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am bringing this up again because it has not been answered to my satisfaction. Offering an inadequate explanation isn't going to get you off the hook that easily.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

There is nothing inadequate about the answers you've been given.

There are three different points involved which you keep failing to separate:

Firstly, it is true by definition that something moved outside of your field of view will no longer be visible, because that is what 'field of view' means.

No, you're still not answering the question as to why the physical object has to be in view. According to you, we are seeing an image from light, but this never happens empirically.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Secondly, something can be close enough to be seen, and then moved further away such that it can no longer be seen due to dispersion and resolution - the exact same explanations which you yourself appeal to for your own explanations.

That still does not answer my question. If it's true that dispersion prevents the light from reaching us, then how in the world could light bouncing off of objects and traveling great distances, eventually reach us whereby we can see an image of the distant past. The inverse square law would prevent it because there would be too much dispersion.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Thirdly, that something cannot be seen when light from it is still arriving but the object is no longer there IS NOT ACTUALLY TRUE, so this DOES NOT NEED TO BE EXPLAINED. You would first have to establish this to be true before complaining that the afferent account cannot explain it.

That is exactly what I'm trying to do Spacemonkey. I'm trying to show that there is never a time that the physical object is not in our field of view, but the only way to prove this is to do empirical testing on Earth, not in space, because we cannot draw conclusive proof (in space) that what we are seeing is, in fact, the real object or physical substance, not the image coming from light.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And all of these points have already been explained to you a thousand times over. Each time you either agree that you cannot show our responses to be inadequate or you drop the topic. But then you FORGET. And go on to bring up the exact same question a few days or weeks later as if you had never received adequate answers before. You are not mentally competent. You need help.

Be quiet Spacemonkey. You're not all that. I do remember and I don't agree with a lot of your comments, which is why I repeat the questions. I don't agree that a discovery cannot be made before it actually is used to help mankind, and that we can empirically test it beforehand, just like we were able to simulate man going to the moon (to check for accuracy) before we actually took the plunge.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But they aren't sure, so they are testing it again since the same results occurred more than once.

Yes, they are testing it again before they reach a conclusion. That's how science works. However it still doesn't support your point because the speed is still right around the speed of light. It is still not neutrinos teleporting instantly. They still have to travel and that takes time. We know that light photons travel at the speed of light. We can't detect them instantaneously either.

If we see instantly as per Lessans, if efferent vision were true, we would be able to see a supernova much, much, much sooner than we could detect the light photons or the neutrinos from that supernova. Because photons and neutrionos have to travel to our detectors to be detected. The difference between seeing the supernova and detecting the neutrinos or photons would be decades at minimum.

That doesn't happen.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I listened to your answer, and it wasn't adequate in my opinion. You gave an example about how, as the object gets more distant from the observer, less photons show up on the retina where eventually only a red dot is seen until it disappears from view. That doesn't answer my question though,

It answers the only part of it that needs answering. The rest is invented nonsense.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, you're still not answering the question as to why the physical object has to be in view. According to you, we are seeing an image from light, but this never happens empirically.

But it does happen empirically. You've been shown this repeatedly.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That still does not answer my question. If light is traveling with the pattern from the object, it should strike our eyes because it is traveling. When something travels, eventually it reaches us. That's why it is believed we would see Columbus discovering America. The light that has this pattern would eventually reach our telescopes.

Light travels in a pattern, not with a pattern. And our answers only have to explain the observable phenomena. They don't have to explain it in a way that is consistent with what you think should be happening, and it doesn't have to explain your made up and factually incorrect claims.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is exactly what I'm trying to do Spacemonkey. I'm trying to show that there is never a time that the physical object is not in our field of view, but the only way to prove this is to do empirical testing on Earth, not in space, because we cannot draw conclusive proof (in space) that what we are seeing is, in fact, the real object or physical substance, not the image coming from light.

The only part of your question that has not been adequately explained is this last part which you HAVEN'T SHOWN TO ACTUALLY BE TRUE. You can't criticize our account or claim our answers to be inadequate just because they don't explain something that you alone think is true and in need of explanation. Our answers explain all the observable phenomena. They don't also need to explain your invented and unsupported 'facts'.

[LadyShea]

because we cannot draw conclusive proof (in space) that what we are seeing is, in fact, the real object or physical substance, not the image coming from light.

What does that mean? You can see the supernova or stars with your eyes and a telescope. They can be photographed. We can see what we can see, and it is up to the hypothesis or model to explain that evidence or observation.

Your not being able to explain them within the framework of efferent vision is not a problem with the evidence or observation, it's a problem with YOUR model, so this is a weasel....namely you are moving the goalposts

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I listened to your answer, and it wasn't adequate in my opinion.

Well regardless of your personal opinion, our answers to your question have been correct. They are therefore not going to change. So whether you agree with them or not, returning to ask the very same question of us every few weeks is completely pointless and insane. You will just get the same answers which you have previously (and irrationally) rejected.

[LadyShea]

That's why it is believed we would see Columbus discovering America. The light that has this pattern would eventually reach our telescopes.

Um, no, not "our" telescopes. A telescope would need to be 520 light years away in space, incredibly powerful to resolve such detail, and in direct line with the traveling photons, with no obstacles, like planets, in the way to detect that event.

"We" can't do that

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because you say I'm wrong doesn't mean I am wrong. This has nothing to do with feelings of persecution, although being called names just for thinking differently can be thought of as such.

The inflicting of suffering, harassment, isolation, imprisonment, fear, or pain are all factors that may establish persecution.

Persecution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It feels like defusing a bomb... in a haunted house... that's built on a minefield. And there are bears everywhere... and all the bears have knives.

~Grey's Anatomy

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am bringing this up again because it has not been answered to my satisfaction. Offering an inadequate explanation isn't going to get you off the hook that easily.

LOL to your satisfaction. Nobody gives a fuck about the satisfaction of your tiny, dishonest little brain. You're a lair, or brain damaged, or both. Delayed time seeing HAS been measured right here on earth, contrary to your claim. You've been given the link to the demonstration numerous times. Would you like to be given the link yet again, asshat?

And of course, if we give you the link, either you won't read it, or won't recall it, and then further on down the road, you will repeat your same simpleton claim, won't you?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't matter how long something has lasted, it doesn't mean it's correct unless there is absolute proof.

Oh, look, stupid is copypasting the works of The Buffoon again.

Didn't you say you were leaving?

[LadyShea]

Absolute proof