A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

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

Whoa! are you trying to scare everyone away.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are splitting hairs until there's no hair left to split.

That's incorrect. She's pointing out that Lessans made shit up from whole cloth and launched it from his ass, presenting his made-up shit as fact. In other words, she's pointing out that Lessans lied. Repeatedly.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no idea why you're doing this.

Then please allow me to help. LadyShea can and will correct me if I'm wrong, of course, but I'm p. sure she's doing this to point out that Lessans made shit up from whole cloth and launched it from his ass, presenting his made-up shit as fact. In other words, she's doing this to point out that Lessans lied. Repeatedly.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Which discovery? The discovery that Lessans made shit up from whole cloth and launched it from his ass, presenting his made-up shit as fact? I'm fairly confident that LadyShea is right about that discovery.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who knows?

I do.

[davidm]

peacegirl, let's focus on this post from LadyShea, shall we?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

See? She has taken your claims and tested them against reality. And reality disagrees with you and Lessans, as usual. Your beef is not with us. It is with reality. Of course, I pointed this out to you about nine months ago.

Not what, peacegirl?

Oh, and about the moon and those lasers...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

That's incorrect. She's pointing out that Lessans made shit up from whole cloth and launched it from his ass, presenting his made-up shit as fact. In other words, she's pointing out that Lessans lied. Repeatedly.

Then please allow me to help. LadyShea can and will correct me if I'm wrong, of course, but I'm p. sure she's doing this to point out that Lessans made shit up from whole cloth and launched it from his ass, presenting his made-up shit as fact. In other words, she's doing this to point out that Lessans lied. Repeatedly.

Which discovery? The discovery that Lessans made shit up from whole cloth and launched it from his ass, presenting his made-up shit as fact? I'm fairly confident that LadyShea is right about that discovery.

I do.

You're still a son of a bitch. Nothing you say surprises me.

[LadyShea]

Apparently peacegirl thinks being "nasty" and a "son of bitch" or being "persnickety" or straying from the "beaten track" is way worse than making up lies and presenting them as facts

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

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

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're still a son of a bitch. Nothing you say surprises me.

And you are a simpering, dishonest weasel. When are you going to answer the questions put to you, weasel?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And ol' Seymour is still a lying liar with pants afire. Like father, like daughter.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

peacegirl, let's focus on this post from LadyShea, shall we?

I am not disputing that neutrinos and photons are detected in close proximity. But this doesn't contradict real time seeing. After all this time you're still confused as to what I'm even talking about.

Originally Posted by davidm

See? She has taken your claims and tested them against reality. And reality disagrees with you and Lessans, as usual. Your beef is not with us. It is with reality. Of course, I pointed this out to you about nine months ago.

Not what, peacegirl?

Oh, and about the moon and those lasers...

Neither of these examples contradict efferent vision. Lessans never disputed that light travels at a finite speed or that remnants from a Supernova can't be detected. And I don't see how measuring the time light travels to a spot on the moon and back again proves that we see afferently.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

And ol' Seymour is still a lying liar with pants afire. Like father, like daughter.

You're soooooo boring.

[Stephen Maturin]

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Apparently peacegirl thinks being "nasty" and a "son of bitch" or being "persnickety" or straying from the "beaten track" is way worse than making up lies and presenting them as facts

Yes, your accusations can be dangerous because in the effort to prove him wrong, you pick on unimportant details. You're doing a disservice by making him look foolish in the eyes of others, and he was anything but. Here is your train of thought, "If he is wrong about this detail, his entire book must be wrong." That is a false premise LadyShea. He used that phrase to make a point. If you wanted, you could tear this book to shreds, like David is trying to do, and miss the entire discovery. When was the last time the most important chapter was even touched on. I can't remember. It is YOU that constantly goes off the beaten track to distract from the main topic. You're looking for errors that aren't even there.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

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

It is taught in school that the eyes are a sense organ and we don't see in the present. Don't play these rhetorical games with me LadyShea.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am not disputing that neutrinos and photons are detected in close proximity. But this doesn't contradict real time seeing. After all this time you're still confused as to what I'm even talking about.

Do you actually enjoy disgracing yourself?

YOU SAID that photons and neutrinos travel at a finite rate of speed. YOU SAID that Lessans AGREES that light travels at a finite rate of speed: namely, the speed denoted c, in a vacuum.

Now, then, weasel: You and Lessans ALSO claim that if a star went supernova, we would see that INSTANTLY.

Now try to master your little goldfish brain and follow a simple chain of logic that probably a goldfish could in fact follow.

Imagine a star going supernova five hundred light years from earth. This means, ACCORDING TO YOU, that the photons and neutrinos from that exploding star would take FIVE HUNDRED YEARS to reach us. BUT, you also claim that if a star five hundred light years away went supernova, we here on earth would see that IMMEDIATELY.

This means -- logically! -- that under YOUR assumption, we would see the supernova NOW, here on earth, but we would have to wait five hundred years to detect the photons and neutrinos! That is YOUR claim.

Instead, what actually happens, is that we detect the photons and neutrinos at the same time we see the supernova. Thus, your claim is proved to be WRONG.

Asshat.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

You are too big for your britches!!!!

[LadyShea]

I am not disputing that neutrinos and photons are detected in close proximity. But this doesn't contradict real time seeing.

Nobody is confused except you, and yes, it absolutely disproves real time seeing

How about you refute this simple logical conclusion drawn from your premises instead of weaseling around?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If, as you and Lessans state repeatedly, we see a supernova instantly as it happens, in real time, 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

How about you explain exactly what it is you are not refuting and exactly what it is I twisted?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is taught in school that the eyes are a sense organ and we don't see in the present. Don't play these rhetorical games with me LadyShea.

No, ass hat, it is NOT taught in school that we "don't see in the present." OBVIOUSLY we see in the present. We do EVERYTHING "in the present," by definition. What is taught, correctly, is that when we see light, we are seeing, in the present, the objects that the light shows, as they were in the past.

Ass hat.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Do you actually enjoy disgracing yourself?

YOU SAID that photons and neutrinos travel at a finite rate of speed. YOU SAID that Lessans AGREES that light travels at a finite rate of speed: namely, the speed denoted c, in a vacuum.

Now, then, weasel: You and Lessans ALSO claim that if a star went supernova, we would see that INSTANTLY.

Lessans said that if the Sun was turned on, we would see it instantly because it meets the requirements of efferent vision. But if remnants of a Supernova are traveling, we would see those remnants as they travel through time and space.

Originally Posted by davidm

Now try to master your little goldfish brain and follow a simple chain of logic that probably a goldfish could in fact follow.

Imagine a star going supernova five hundred light years from earth. This means, ACCORDING TO YOU, that the photons and neutrinos from that exploding star would take FIVE HUNDRED YEARS to reach us. BUT, you also claim that if a star five hundred light years away went supernova, we here on earth would see that IMMEDIATELY.

This means -- logically! -- that under YOUR assumption, we would see the supernova NOW, here on earth, but we would have to wait five hundred years to detect the photons and neutrinos! That is YOUR claim.

Instead, what actually happens, is that we detect the photons and neutrinos at the same time we see the supernova. Thus, your claim is proved to be WRONG.

Asshat.

You're all discombobulated David! That's why talking about Supernovas are causing so much confusion. But, of course, no one will answer the question as to why an object must be in one's field of view, not just light. And don't tell me I forgot the answers that were already given. They just don't add up to diddly squat.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

No, ass hat, it is NOT taught in school that we "don't see in the present." OBVIOUSLY we see in the present. We do EVERYTHING "in the present," by definition. What is taught, correctly, is that when we see light, we are seeing, in the present, the objects that the light shows, as they were in the past.

Ass hat.

No, that's not what they say. They say that we never get a real time picture of anything because light is delayed, and we receive the image from light. You're weaseling.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans said that if the Sun was turned on, we would see it instantly because it meets the requirements of efferent vision. But if remnants of a Supernova are traveling, we would see those remnants as they travel through time and space.

You're all discombobulated David! That's why talking about Supernovas are going to cause confusion.

Let's start over again, ass hat.

YOU SAID that if a star went supernova, we would see it IMMEDIATELY, even if it were five hundred light years away.

YOU ALSO CLAIMED that we would see the photons and neutrinos five hundred years later, because they travel at a finite rate of speed -- the speed of light.

If your claim were correct, we would see a supernova five hundred light years away IMMEDIATELY, and we would not be able to detect the photons and the neutrionos until five hundred years had passed. That is YOUR CLAIM.

We can test this claim against reality.

And when we do, it turns out that we see the supernova, and detect the photons and neutrinos at the same time, and NOT five hundred years apart, as you claim.

Therefore, your claim is false.

Now what?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, that's not what they say. They say that we never get a real time picture of anything because light is delayed, and we receive the image from light. You're weaseling.

That's right, ass hat, we never get a real-time picture, BUT, we SEE in the present. We see in the present, images of the past. YOU SAID that schools teach "we don't see in the present." Your claim is a lie. Everything that we do, by definition, is in the present.

Now then, peacegirl, when were you going to address lasers and the moon?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, your accusations can be dangerous because in the effort to prove him wrong, you pick on unimportant details.

Made up passages used to support your own premises are "unimportant details". LOL, that's a new definition

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're doing a disservice by making him look foolish in the eyes of others, and he was anything but.

He's the one that completely made up a retarded strawman argument and presented it as a fact...if he looks foolish that's not on me.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Here is your train of thought, "If he is wrong about this detail, his entire book must be wrong."

Nope, my train of thought is "he's a fucking liar, why should anything he said be trusted let alone assumed to be true?"

That is a false premise LadyShea. He used that phrase to make a point.

Which phrase was used to make a point? The phrase "scientists stated and it's in encyclopedias..." The phrase "a former science teacher who taught this as fact..." the quoted response attributed to the former science teacher?

What point was he trying to make by lying as above?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

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

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 peacegirl

It is taught in school that the eyes are a sense organ and we don't see in the present. Don't play these rhetorical games with me LadyShea.

It was not taught in school, nor stated by scientists, nor printed in an encyclopedia, nor told to Lessans by a former science teacher that an observer on Rigel would see Columbus discovering America. Those are the lies.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're all discombobulated David! That's why talking about Supernovas are causing so much confusion. But, of course, no one will answer the question as to why an object must be in one's field of view, not just light. And don't tell me I forgot the answers that were already given. They just don't add up to diddly squat.

You either forgot them or you are lying, but either way, you are mentally ill and need help.

[davidm]

Hey, ass hat, did you forget about this post, or are you deliberately ignoring it?

Originally Posted by davidm

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

Lessans said that if the Sun was turned on, we would see it instantly because it meets the requirements of efferent vision.

He said we see all stars and planets and everything we can see in space instantly, in real time. You have also stated this.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But if remnants of a Supernova are traveling, we would see those remnants as they travel through time and space.

Photons and neutrinos are not "remnants" of anything at all. They are products of stellar fusion. We can't see neutrinos, we can only detect them.

As for photons, your claim is that we need not await the arrival of those photons to see the event. But we would need to await their arrival to detect them

So my point stands, if we saw instantly, in real time, as you claim. we would see the supernova using our eyes and telescopes long, long before the photons and neutrinos reached us to be detected, because they have to travel the distance at the speed of light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why talking about Supernovas are causing so much confusion.

You cannot reconcile your claims with observed reality. This is not confusion, this is you weaseling and lying.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You cannot reconcile your claims with observed reality. This is not confusion, this is you weaseling and lying.

This is it, peacegirl. It is YOUR CLAIM, that we would see the supernova instantly, but not detect the photons and neutrinos it gave off until later. Instead, we see the supernova, and detect the photons and neutrinos, at the same time. Now what, weasel?

[LadyShea]

Supernova blast: Source star believed found - Technology & science - Space - Space.com - msnbc.com


This one just happened in March, when that photograph was taken

They've already started analyzing the detected photons

Follow-up spectroscopic measurements, which break up light into its constituent wavelengths, show that the supernova contains hydrogen, classifying it as a Type II supernova, one thought to be born from the death throes of such massive stars.

If you are correct peacegirl, the photons from that supernova wouldn't be here for another 33 million years or so. But, you are incorrect, of course. We can't see in real time at all.