A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[LadyShea]

Bump

The only confused person is you. This is simple math and cannot be refuted.

If we see a supernova instantly as it happens, without any delay at all
and
Photons and neutrinos produced by that supernova must travel the distance at/near the speed of light before they can be detected on Earth
then
We would see the supernova much, much earlier, decades earlier at the very least, than we could detect the photons and neutrinos produced by that supernova

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This has absolutely nothing to do with the validity of this discovery. You're doing everything you can to discredit him on trivial points. Even if this particular example was not actually stated in an encyclopedia.

Little lie, Big lie?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe you just can't stand the thought that you might not be right regarding this discovery. Who knows?

And you can't stand the thought, nor can you comprehend, that Lessans was wrong about sight and the eyes, and probably wrong about his non-discoveries.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are splitting hairs until there's no hair left to split. I have no idea why you're doing this. Maybe you just can't stand the thought that you might not be right regarding this discovery. Who knows?

Lessans was dishonest and used strawman argumentation. You're dishonest and a weasel.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans was dishonest and used strawman argumentation. You're dishonest and a weasel.

It is possible that when Lessans wrote that, current science put Rigel closer than we think it is today. It's also possible that Lessans just pulled his facts from his nether regions, or made a simple math error when backdating.

I've been more forgiving on that particular bit of Lessans stupidity because it got his point across. There are far worse mistakes in that book than Lessans screwing up some detail.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans was dishonest and used strawman argumentation. You're dishonest and a weasel.

I really don't care what conclusions you've come to. You are just as arrogant as the rest, but what makes this tragic is that you think you are the best at deciphering truth from untruth, and you've got it all wrong. You're blind LadyShea.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

It is possible that when Lessans wrote that, current science put Rigel closer than we think it is today. It's also possible that Lessans just pulled his facts from his nether regions, or made a simple math error when backdating.

I've been more forgiving on that particular bit of Lessans stupidity because it got his point across. There are far worse mistakes in that book than Lessans screwing up some detail.

You've all gotten so nasty in your old persnickety way that I can't even respond anymore with an intelligent answer. It's like I'm talking to robots who can't get out of the same pre-programmed response that Lessans couldn't be right. It's hopeless.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If this is the kind of junk I'm going to get in here, and there's no one else who wants to come forward except to repeat the same junk over and over again, then I'm not wasting my breath in here.

Mental image of peacegirl sitting at her computer and talking to it

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You've all gotten so nasty in your old persnickety way that I can't even respond anymore with an intelligent answer. It's like I'm talking to robots who can't get out of the same pre-programmed response that Lessans couldn't be right. It's hopeless.

Give it a few hours peacegirl, you'll forget this crucial bit of information that was evident for months and start all over again as if we knew nothing of what you are peddling.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are splitting hairs until there's no hair left to split. I have no idea why you're doing this. Maybe you just can't stand the thought that you might not be right regarding this discovery. Who knows?

None of this is "splitting hairs," This speaks to the core of The Big Buffoon's assertions, and your delusions.

What about the little problem of the moon and lasers, ? This is (along with several hundred examples you've been given) a direct and incontrovertible disproof of real-time seeing. And you know it. The fact that you know Lessans' claims have been debunked, and you continue to lie and pretend that they haven't, is what makes you so contemptible in the eyes of everyone here.

[LadyShea]

Our scientists, becoming enthralled over the discovery that light
travels approximately 186,000 miles a second and taking for granted
that 5 senses was equally scientific, made the statement (which my
friend referred to) and still exists in our encyclopedias that if we could
sit on the star Rigel with a very powerful telescope focused on the
earth we would just be able to see the ships of Columbus reaching
America for the very first time. A former science teacher who taught
this to her students as if it were an absolute fact responded, “I am sure
Columbus would just be arriving; are you trying to tell me that this is
not a scientific fact?”

He offered specific statements to prove his point.

1. This was in encyclopedias
2. It was taught in school as fact
3. A science teacher taught it as fact and thought it was fact

If he had stuck to the general point that science teaches that past events would be seen from great distances, he wouldn't have been lying. He chose to make specific false claims.

That's lying. Unless peacegirl can cite a single encyclopedia that includes this statement or put us in touch with a school teacher who taught this as scientific fact, it remains a lie.

In light of her statement that she could replace "Columbus discovering America" with any past event (making the specific above even more dishonest), I am also wondering now if Lessans wrote that at all, or if it was one of peacegirl's additions of fake dialog and "updated examples".

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He offered specific statements to prove his point.

1. This was in encyclopedias
2. It was taught in school as fact
3. A science teacher taught it as fact and thought it was fact

If he had stuck to the general point that science teaches that past events would be seen from great distances, he wouldn't have been lying. He chose to make specific false claims.

That's lying. Unless peacegirl can cite a single encyclopedia that includes this statement or put us in touch with a school teacher who taught this as scientific fact, it remains a lie.

In light of her statement that she could replace "Columbus discovering America" with any past event (making the specific above even more dishonest), I am also wondering now if Lessans wrote that at all, or if it was one of peacegirl's additions of fake dialog and "updated examples".

It doesn't matter what your argument is, it's so off the beaten track that it's a joke to me. You are so sure that your back up of scientists in here, free you of false statements against Lessans. You think you are a top investigator because of this, and you are nothing of the sort LadyShea. You've missed the forest from the trees, just like Spacemonkey and others. This forum is a sham.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You've all gotten so nasty in your old persnickety way that I can't even respond anymore with an intelligent answer. It's like I'm talking to robots who can't get out of the same pre-programmed response that Lessans couldn't be right. It's hopeless.

You are correct, it's hopeless. Lessans' book is a hopelessly lost cause.

Besides the major flaws in the book, simple factual errors such as this will simply be used as the red flags to indicate that Lessans was such a poor academic that he couldn't even get the basic facts straight. His ideas can rhetorically be written off because he can't even criticize the current theory correctly.

If you want this book to be taken seriously, you'd address these problems, nor argue with us about how nasty we are. That you don't think the the content of the facts matter is telling about your relationship with the truth.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't matter what your argument is, it's so off the beaten track that it's a joke to me. You are so sure that your back up of scientists in here, free you of false statements against Lessans. You think you are a top investigator because of this, and you are nothing of the sort LadyShea. You've missed the forest from the trees, just like Spacemonkey and others. This forum is a sham.

You are trying to distract from the point that Lessans made completely false claims in that paragraph to try to prove his point that he claims is irrefutable, mathematical and scientific. If he had the truth, why resort to falsehoods?

He offered specific statements to prove his point.

1. This was in encyclopedias
2. It was taught in school as fact
3. A science teacher taught it as fact and thought it was fact

Originally Posted by Lessans

Our scientists, becoming enthralled over the discovery that light
travels approximately 186,000 miles a second and taking for granted
that 5 senses was equally scientific, made the statement (which my
friend referred to) and still exists in our encyclopedias that if we could
sit on the star Rigel with a very powerful telescope focused on the
earth we would just be able to see the ships of Columbus reaching
America for the very first time. A former science teacher who taught
this to her students as if it were an absolute fact responded, “I am sure
Columbus would just be arriving; are you trying to tell me that this is
not a scientific fact?”

He was not telling the truth, therefore he lied. It doesn't matter if the lies are immaterial to his point, he lied. It was purposeful. He was dishonest in this instance, how many more lies are in there that haven't been caught?

Also this

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

simple factual errors such as this will simply be used as the red flags to indicate that Lessans was such a poor academic that he couldn't even get the basic facts straight. His ideas can rhetorically be written off because he can't even criticize the current theory correctly.

If you want this book to be taken seriously, you'd address these problems, nor argue with us about how nasty we are. That you don't think the the content of the facts matter is telling about your relationship with the truth.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't matter what your argument is, it's so off the beaten track that it's a joke to me.

Off the beaten track? Here are some things that are not off the beaten track:

1. The moon and lasers

2. The moons of Jupiter

3. The fact that delayed-time seeing is factored in when we send spacecraft to Mars and other celestial bodies, and if we used Lessans' real-time seeing, we would miss our targets by wide margins.

When are you going to address these fatal problems for Lessans' theories, you disingenuous little fool?

[LadyShea]

Also not off the "beaten track" (another one for the collector)

If we see a supernova instantly as it happens, without any delay at all
and
Photons and neutrinos produced by that supernova must travel the distance at/near the speed of light before they can be detected on Earth
then
We would see the supernova much, much earlier, decades earlier at the very least, than we could detect the photons and neutrinos produced by that supernova.

That is not what happens

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

None of this is "splitting hairs," This speaks to the core of The Big Buffoon's assertions, and your delusions.

What about the little problem of the moon and lasers, ? This is (along with several hundred examples you've been given) a direct and incontrovertible disproof of real-time seeing. And you know it. The fact that you know Lessans' claims have been debunked, and you continue to lie and pretend that they haven't, is what makes you so contemptible in the eyes of everyone here.

No David, it is not. Show me where they can prove that a person cannot see the spot on the moon before the light returns. You can't do it, and I'm tired of your insinuations.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Also not off the "beaten track" (another one for the collector)

If we see a supernova instantly as it happens, without any delay at all
and
Photons and neutrinos produced by that supernova must travel the distance at/near the speed of light before they can be detected on Earth
then
We would see the supernova much, much earlier, decades earlier at the very least, than we could detect the photons and neutrinos produced by that supernova.

That is not what happens

I am not disputing that LadyShea. You're twisting the entire claim to suit you so you don't have to be pulled up on anything. Remember, you can't be wrong. You have the best scientists backing you up.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

You are correct, it's hopeless. Lessans' book is a hopelessly lost cause.

Besides the major flaws in the book, simple factual errors such as this will simply be used as the red flags to indicate that Lessans was such a poor academic that he couldn't even get the basic facts straight. His ideas can rhetorically be written off because he can't even criticize the current theory correctly.

If you want this book to be taken seriously, you'd address these problems, nor argue with us about how nasty we are. That you don't think the the content of the facts matter is telling about your relationship with the truth.

I can't win here because people will use anything they can, even if it's trivial, to try to confirm that Lessans didn't know what he was talking about. But he did know what he was talking about and no matter how much you disagree, it doesn't change the truth of his findings.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No David, it is not. Show me where they can prove that a person cannot see the spot on the moon before the light returns. You can't do it, and I'm tired of your insinuations.

It is easily proved.

1. We know the distance to the moon.

2. We know the velocity of light.

3. Because we know those two things, we know how long it takes for light to travel from the earth to the moon: 1.25 seconds.

You claim is that if we shined a laser at the moon, we would see the spot on the moon where the laser strikes, 1.25 seconds after we send the light.

Instead, we see it in 2.5 seconds after we send it -- the time it takes for the light to bounce off the moon and return to our eyes. Hence, we see the illuminated spot as it was some 1.25 seconds in the past.

Real-time seeing is disproved.

It's as simple and iron-clad a disproof of real-time seeing as one could hope to have. And you know this. Your continued denial of the obvious is what makes you an

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not disputing that LadyShea.

It proves that we do not see in real time. So if you say we see in real time, your are disputing it

You're twisting the entire claim to suit you

What is twisted?

1. You claimed we could see the supernova in real time as it happened
2. You claimed that we could not detect the photons and neutrinos until they arrived after traveling

If your two claims are correct, then this conclusion is correct: We would see the supernova much, much earlier, decades earlier at the very least, than we could detect the photons and neutrinos produced by that supernova.

Since the photons and neutrinos are always detected within hours of being able to see supernova, your claims are incorrect. Real time seeing is disproven

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

You are correct, it's hopeless. Lessans' book is a hopelessly lost cause.

Besides the major flaws in the book, simple factual errors such as this will simply be used as the red flags to indicate that Lessans was such a poor academic that he couldn't even get the basic facts straight. His ideas can rhetorically be written off because he can't even criticize the current theory correctly.

If you want this book to be taken seriously, you'd address these problems, nor argue with us about how nasty we are. That you don't think the the content of the facts matter is telling about your relationship with the truth.

At this point it's more telling about peacegirl's relationship to reality.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't win here because people will use anything they can, even if it's trivial, to try to confirm that Lessans didn't know what he was talking about. But he did know what he was talking about and no matter how much you disagree, it doesn't change the truth of his findings.

It couldn't be more clear. You are incapable of changing your own mind but can't conceive that others may be unable to change their minds based on what you've given them. And you are incapable of learning what others think despite at least six months of exposure. You are so inadequate to the task that you are completely incapable of asking questions or comprehending answers to even begin the task of relating the knowledge of the rest of the world to that of Lessan. Your cause was lost before you began.

You need help peacegirl.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If this is the kind of junk I'm going to get in here, and there's no one else who wants to come forward except to repeat the same junk over and over again, then I'm not wasting my breath in here.

Hey, you are the one requesting proof that the proof was proof. Whereas you seem to need none where your fathers genius was concerned.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't even respond anymore with an intelligent answer. .

Anymore? You haven't given an intelligent answer yet, but then why start now.