A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know you by now, and I can see when I hit a nerve. That's when you say go fuck off peacegirl. I'm sorry you don't like this conversation, but this is not going to stop me from stating what I believe to be true. I could care less who laughs in my face. I don't believe there is absolute proof that we SEE in delayed time.

The only nerve you hit is my contempt for dishonest scumbags. Guess what you are?

Hey, peacegirl, why does NASA use delayed-time seeing to calculate trajectories to Mars and other planets, thereby disproving Lessans' claims? When are you going to deal with this painful fact, which exposes all your online misadventures for the last decade as a gigantic, pitiful waste of time?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Bullshit. He is offering his observations and asking people to test them.

That's because you can't come from that position in order to determine if he is right, especially when we're talking about far away objects that are based on a theory that light brings the image. It doesn't prove it.

Oh my god, I'm laughing. You are saying this as if these other forums actually investigated this work. THEY DID NOT. They were doing what LadyShea does, and calling it day. Well it's not a day. It takes diligence to study what is new to the scientific community. Give me a break, okay?

Bullcrap, what are you saying Spacemonkey? Are you saying point blank that this is a lie, and Lessans was an arrogant man out for his own aggrandizement because he disagrees with you? You're nuts just like David. This work has not ever been carefully analyzed, so where are you coming off to say crazy things about who this man was? And you call me a dam liar? You're the liar but you don't recognize it!

Yes, that's what you rationalize to make yourself confident that Lessans is wrong. If that helps you sleep at night, so be it. It obviously takes too much work for you to question your misguided analysis. I can't do anything about that, only you can.

Peacegirl is getting more hostile and abusive, she gets that way when confronted with the truth that Lessans was a fool and didn't know what he was talking about. It all follows a repeating pattern, she accuses people of not reading the book, calls them a lier whan they say they did, and tells them they need to read it till they understand and agree with it. She is asking us to do the impossible. Perhaps if she hired a 'ghost writer' (No not lessans, that wouldn't help), they could put it in order and make some rational sense out of it, mostly by eliminating the nonsense. Then she could hand out her little tracts on the street corner and take donations.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Critiquing is one thing, but falsely accusing him of being a liar is a form of defamation. You are free to speak whatever you want. We're not talking about criminality here. We're talking about what is morally right.

It was not a false accusation. What he wrote was false, and he wrote it knowing it was false. What is it called when you knowingly make a false statement? It's called lying.

And, defamation, libel, and slander are pretty exclusively legal terms.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are a poster child for shooting yourself in the foot. Until you change your attitude, you will be ignored. So talk to yourself Spacemonkey and have a party of one!

peacegirl has the same mathematical abilities as Lessans, over the decade she has added hundreds if not thousands to that party of one, and the funny thing of it is as one we not only think Lessans was a crackpot but that peacegirl is insane. I'm sure it's not the desired result and any sane person would have realized it years ago.

[LadyShea]

If any "upper echelon" scholars had thought Lessans was on to or had the truth, they could have easily run with his ideas, maybe conducted some tests or reworded things, then presented them formally as their own, and taken all the credit.

That would have been insanely easy to do, since he had no research notes, no recorded data, no test results or anything but his conclusions written down.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not a trivial tautological truth David. Yes, he was making testable, inductive, empirical claims, which you can't just ignore no matter how much you want him to be wrong. I don't believe those calculations prove anything. We're definitely at odds, and somebody is going to lose. I don't think it's going to be me.

You are totally off your rocker David. Your little monologue about who he was doesn't even come close to the great man he was. Just like you did when taking the excerpts in his book completely out of context and trying to ruin his book, so too are you trying now to ruin his reputation, but you can't do it because he was not the character you are trying to portray. I knew him personally. The reason he had to write what he did is because of people like YOU!

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter One: The Hiding Place pp. 10-11

Skepticism alone is not the primary problem that is preventing
this knowledge from coming to light, as everyone who hears of my
discovery would be skeptical. The main problem is the pride of those
people who consider themselves highly educated scholars at the very
top echelon of thought and knowledge. They are more interested in
who you are than what you have to say. Before this group will even
consent to listen you must qualify not by what you are prepared to
prove in a mathematical manner, but by your educational rank. Do
you see what a problem I have? I can’t convince these people to give
me the time even though I have made discoveries that will benefit all
mankind. This pride is the first half of the primary problem; that the
very people who have the intellectual capacity to understand the
knowledge in this book refuse to investigate what must reveal, if
proven true, how unconsciously ignorant they have always been. Is it
any wonder they don’t want to check it out? And even if they do,
could they be objective enough when their reputation for wisdom and
knowledge is at stake? Just as long as these ‘experts’ are permitted to
use fallacious standards with which to judge what is true and false, that
is how long it will take to launch our Golden Age.

Have you noticed
the parallels between the Catholic Church in the middle ages with its
dogmatism (that it cannot be what must not be — the clergymen even
refused to simply look through Galileo’s telescope and see for
themselves, because they were so arrogantly convinced that they held
the absolute truth in hands, and thus needed no verification), and
today’s self-righteous “church” of “scientificality” with its dogmas;
therefore before I begin I would like to ask a question of every reader
but especially of philosophers, professors and theologians. Is there the
slightest possibility that your head full of knowledge does not contain
as much truth as you would like to believe? Would you gamble your
life or the lives of those you love that you really know, or is there just
the remotest chance that you only think you know? What is the
standard by which you judge the veracity of your knowledge and
wisdom; the fact that it was taught in college? Is your determination
of truth based on the fact that it was written by a noted author,
composed from your own analysis and understanding, or revealed
through heavenly inspiration? What makes you so certain, so
positive, so dogmatic?

Because this book dares to oppose the three
forces that control the thinking of mankind — government, religion
and education — the most dangerous thinking of all; the kind that
really doesn’t know the truth as Socrates observed but because of some
fallacious standard presumes it does, I have found it necessary to
resort to this manner of introducing my work in the fervent hope that
I can break through this sound barrier of learned ignorance and reach
those who will be able to extract the pure, unadulterated relations
involved before another century passes by or an atomic explosion
destroys millions of lives.

Now be honest with yourselves; do you
really know, or only think you know? If you will admit there is just
the slightest possibility that you have not been endowed with the
wisdom of God; that you may be wrong regarding many things despite
the high opinion you and others hold of yourselves; that the
expression the blind leading the blind could even pertain to you; I
know this is difficult for you to conceive; I say, if there is the slightest
possibility you could be mistaken and you are willing to admit this to
yourselves, then I cordially welcome your company aboard, otherwise,
you had better not read this book for my words are not meant for your
ears. But should you decide to accompany me on this voyage I would
like to remind you, once again, that this book is not a religious or
philosophical tract attempting some ulterior form of indoctrination;
it is purely scientific as you will see, and should the word God seem
incongruous kindly remember Spinoza and you will understand
immediately that it is not. While God is proven to be a mathematical
reality as a consequence of becoming conscious of the truth, war and
crime are compelled to take leave of the Earth.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

The only nerve you hit is my contempt for dishonest scumbags. Guess what you are?

Hey, peacegirl, why does NASA use delayed-time seeing to calculate trajectories to Mars and other planets, thereby disproving Lessans' claims? When are you going to deal with this painful fact, which exposes all your online misadventures for the last decade as a gigantic, pitiful waste of time?

You're never going to convince me that these calculations, however correct they may appear, are airtight until more empirical tests are done. There is obviously a conflict and if you are so positive that science has it right, then stop being so defensive and let's take a wait and see approach.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If any "upper echelon" scholars had thought Lessans was on to or had the truth, they could have easily run with his ideas, maybe conducted some tests or reworded things, then presented them formally as their own, and taken all the credit.

That would have been insanely easy to do, since he had no research notes, no recorded data, no test results or anything but his conclusions written down.

Why can't you get through your head LadyShea (I've explained this before) that very few people even know about this book, so how could they follow through with any testing?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're never going to convince me that these calculations, however correct they may appear, are airtight until more empirical tests are done. There is obviously a conflict and if you are so positive that science has it right, then stop being so defensive and let's take a wait and see approach.

Why should we take a wait and see approach? NASA has landed remotely controlled spacecraft on Mars, accurately enough to show that its calculations are correct. How much more empirical evidence do you need?

How about Fizeau's experiment? That proved that we see in delayed time right here on Earth.

Lessans is wrong when it comes to vision - Lessans was conclusively proven wrong 100 years before his even wrote down his ideas.

Like most crackpots, he had some facile "proof" that threw out 100s of years of scientific discovery. Like most crackpots, he was wrong.

The only thing that's compelling about Lessans is how spectacular his wrongness was. The only thing compelling about you, peacegirl, is the object lesson on faith and delusion you represent.

White Nationalists could take a lesson on confirmation bias from you.

[But]

Originally Posted by But

peacegirl, does light have to be at the object or at the eye to see something?

peacegirl, does light have to be at the object or at the eye to see something?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why can't you get through your head LadyShea (I've explained this before) that very few people even know about this book, so how could they follow through with any testing?

Of course peacegirl, you are completely correct. Without Lessans nobody would care to know about light, eyes, dogs, babies, consciousness, determinism, meatballs, or peace. Only with the prodding of the great man would there be any research or thought in these areas.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are a poster child for shooting yourself in the foot. Until you change your attitude, you will be ignored. So talk to yourself Spacemonkey and have a party of one!

Threatening to ignore me doesn't work very well when you reply to me again in your very next post, only 7 minutes later. It only provides more compelling evidence of your mental illness and dysfunction.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Bullshit. He is offering his observations and asking people to test them.

He hasn't made or offered any actual observations. Only claims. His second non-discovery claims have already been tested and disproved. His first non-discovery claims cannot be tested without restructuring all of society, which requires taking them on faith as plausible, as they rest on presuppositions you cannot do anything to support.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's because you can't come from that position in order to determine if he is right, especially when we're talking about far away objects that are based on a theory that light brings the image. It doesn't prove it.

This is a lie. The only position I've come from is your own. I've asked questions presupposing only what you yourself have explicitly agreed to, and you refuse to answer. I ask you to work backwards with me and you refuse to do so. You have offered no mechanism whatsoever for how red photons can be at the camera film at the very moment an object first turns red.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god, I'm laughing. You are saying this as if these other forums actually investigated this work. THEY DID NOT. They were doing what LadyShea does, and calling it day. Well it's not a day. It takes diligence to study what is new to the scientific community. Give me a break, okay?

You have no idea what was or was not discussed at other forums. Your memory is notoriously unreliable. You forget your own words five minutes after typing them. There are other forums where Lessans' ideas have been just as comprehensively investigated and refuted as they have been here. And at this forum alone months have been spent dissecting his claims and exposing his errors. Only a delusionally insane person could possibly consider any verdict at this point to be a rush to judgement.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Bullcrap, what are you saying Spacemonkey? Are you saying point blank that this is a lie, and Lessans was an arrogant man out for his own aggrandizement because he disagrees with you? You're nuts just like David. This work has not ever been carefully analyzed, so where are you coming off to say crazy things about who this man was? And you call me a dam liar? You're the liar but you don't recognize it!

Playground tactics won't cover your obvious dysfunction, Peacegirl. I am quite clearly saying that his work has been read, refuted, and rejected, and that you have nothing left to offer.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, that's what you rationalize to make yourself confident that Lessans is wrong. If that helps you sleep at night, so be it. It obviously takes too much work for you to question your misguided analysis. I can't do anything about that, only you can.

You have never given me or anyone else any reason to question our analysis or consider it misguided. All you've ever done is weasel, lie, and protest your unwavering faith. You have accepted your father's work on faith, and lack the intellectual capacity and basic cognitive functioning required to either explain or defend his claims. You refuse to answer reasonable questions on either of his two non-discoveries, and are now posting on a daily basis to do nothing more than whine, complain, and insult people. All you are doing now is confirming everyone's belief that you are addicted to this and incapable of leaving.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Why should we take a wait and see approach? NASA has landed remotely controlled spacecraft on Mars, accurately enough to show that its calculations are correct. How much more empirical evidence do you need?

How about Fizeau's experiment? That proved that we see in delayed time right here on Earth.

Lessans is wrong when it comes to vision - Lessans was conclusively proven wrong 100 years before his even wrote down his ideas.

Like most crackpots, he had some facile "proof" that threw out 100s of years of scientific discovery. Like most crackpots, he was wrong.

The only thing that's compelling about Lessans is how spectacular his wrongness was. The only thing compelling about you, peacegirl, is the object lesson on faith and delusion you represent.

White Nationalists could take a lesson on confirmation bias from you.

I'm not sure where Fizeau's experiment disproves efferent vision. He did an experiment that measured the speed of light, but that's different than seeing an object that is the result of light traveling through space and time. And calculating the landing of controlled spacecraft on Mars does not prove that we're seeing Mars in delayed time. I really don't want to get into this again. You can think whatever you want.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

peacegirl, does light have to be at the object or at the eye to see something?

Light has to be at the eye to see something, but the problem is that everyone thinks light has to travel to the eye in order to be interacting with it, or we're violating the laws of physics. According to efferent vision, the instant an object is in one's field of view, and it's bright enough to be seen, the light is at the eye because of how efferent vision works which is the complete opposite of the way afferent vision works. That's why he said light only needs to be surrounding the object for it to be seen.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Threatening to ignore me doesn't work very well when you reply to me again in your very next post, only 7 minutes later. It only provides more compelling evidence of your mental illness and dysfunction.

That's because I'm not at my breaking point, but it's comin'.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not sure where Fizeau's experiment disproves efferent vision. He did an experiment that measured the speed of light, but that's different than seeing an object that is the result of light traveling through space and time. And calculating the landing of controlled spacecraft on Mars does not prove that we're seeing Mars in delayed time. I really don't want to get into this again. You can think whatever you want.

Of course Fizeau's experiment disproves real-time seeing. The experiment was able to measure the speed of light, precisely because the light was seen in delayed time. If real-time seeing had been true, the experiment would not have produced the results that it did. A kindergartner could understand this.

And yes, the Mars calculations prove precisely that. If we were seeing Mars in real time, then that red dot in the sky when the rocket is on the launch pad, the apparent position of Mars, would also be its REAL position. If that were the case, then the calculations NASA uses to hit the target would have to be adjusted to take into account the fact that the apparent position, and real position, were identical. Instead, they aim the rocket in such a way as to account for the difference between the apparent and the real positions. Thus, real time seeing is false, and cannot possibly be true.

You're welcome,

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light has to be at the eye to see something, but the problem is that everyone thinks light has to travel to the eye in order to be interacting with it, or we're violating the laws of physics. According to efferent vision, the instant an object is in one's field of view, and it's bright enough to be seen, the light is at the eye because of how efferent vision works which is the complete opposite of the way afferent vision works. That's why he said light only needs to be surrounding the object for it to be seen.

Does light have to be at the eye, or does it only have to be surrounding the object? Which is it?

And how did the light at the eye get there, if it never traveled there? ('Because of how efferent vision works' is not an answer. Neither is listing conditions that must be satisfied.)

[LadyShea]

Light that is at the object is not light at the eye. Those are two different locations. The brain looking out through the eyes cannot cause light photons to change their location....a physical mechanism must be at work for that.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's because I'm not at my breaking point, but it's comin'.

Unless you're actually going to ignore me, don't claim that you are now going to ignore me. It only makes you look insane and incompetent.




...but discusses photons again in the very next post only minutes later.




...but replies to me again in the very next post only minutes later.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

He hasn't made or offered any actual observations. Only claims. His second non-discovery claims have already been tested and disproved. His first non-discovery claims cannot be tested without restructuring all of society, which requires taking them on faith as plausible, as they rest on presuppositions you cannot do anything to support.

Wow, it's amazing how quickly you dismiss 35 years of work, without giving it a second thought.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's because you can't come from that position in order to determine if he is right, especially when we're talking about far away objects that are based on a theory that light brings the image. It doesn't prove it.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

This is a lie. The only position I've come from is your own. I've asked questions presupposing only what you yourself have explicitly agreed to, and you refuse to answer. I ask you to work backwards with me and you refuse to do so. You have offered no mechanism whatsoever for how red photons can be at the camera film at the very moment an object first turns red.

The instant you talk about red arriving --- which involves time --- we're already back at square one.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god, I'm laughing. You are saying this as if these other forums actually investigated this work. THEY DID NOT. They were doing what LadyShea does, and calling it day. Well it's not a day. It takes diligence to study what is new to the scientific community. Give me a break, okay?

Originally Posted by Spacemokey

You have no idea what was or was not discussed at other forums. Your memory is notoriously unreliable. You forget your own words five minutes after typing them. There are other forums where Lessans' ideas have been just as comprehensively investigated and refuted as they have been here. And at this forum alone months have been spent dissecting his claims and exposing his errors. Only a delusionally insane person could possibly consider any verdict at this point to be a rush to judgement.

His discovery has not been thoroughly investigated Spacemonkey whether you believe it or not. These discussions were all fragmented and of course most of the discussion was related to his second discovery, as it is in here. You cannot use these forums as your proof that Lessans was wrong. How unreliable!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Bullcrap, what are you saying Spacemonkey? Are you saying point blank that this is a lie, and Lessans was an arrogant man out for his own aggrandizement because he disagrees with you? You're nuts just like David. This work has not ever been carefully analyzed, so where are you coming off to say crazy things about who this man was? And you call me a dam liar? You're the liar but you don't recognize it!

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Playground tactics won't cover your obvious dysfunction, Peacegirl. I am quite clearly saying that his work has been read, refuted, and rejected, and that you have nothing left to offer.

Baloney! This work has not been read carefully. You can barely knock out a few sentences to summarize his entire first discovery. The sad part is that you think you've done the book justice.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, that's what you rationalize to make yourself confident that Lessans is wrong. If that helps you sleep at night, so be it. It obviously takes too much work for you to question your misguided analysis. I can't do anything about that, only you can.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You have never given me or anyone else any reason to question our analysis or consider it misguided. All you've ever done is weasel, lie, and protest your unwavering faith. You have accepted your father's work on faith, and lack the intellectual capacity and basic cognitive functioning required to either explain or defend his claims. You refuse to answer reasonable questions on either of his two non-discoveries, and are now posting on a daily basis to do nothing more than whine, complain, and insult people. All you are doing now is confirming everyone's belief that you are addicted to this and incapable of leaving.

When I leave has nothing to do with you. Even if I was here for attention, WHAT'S IT TO YOU? You are no longer invested in learning about this discovery, so who cares why I'm here? And if people are so fed up with my whining, complaining, and insulting, all they have to do is opt out of this thread.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Unless you're actually going to ignore me, don't claim that you are now going to ignore me. It only makes you look insane and incompetent.

I'm at the point that I really could care less what people think. Let them believe what they want.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

...but discusses photons again in the very next post only minutes later.

I was discussing the eyes relative to the photons that are instantly there because of the property of the brain and eyes. That's not the same thing as what you keep bringing up over and over again.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

...but replies to me again in the very next post only minutes later.

I was hoping beyond all hope that something would rattle you and wake you up, but nothing seems to be working, unfortunately.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wow, it's amazing how quickly you dismiss 35 years of work, without giving it a second thought.

He hasn't made or offered any actual observations. Only claims. His second non-discovery claims have already been tested and disproved. His first non-discovery claims cannot be tested without restructuring all of society, which requires taking them on faith as plausible, as they rest on presuppositions you cannot do anything to support.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The instant you talk about red arriving --- which involves time --- we're already back at square one.

I didn't say anything about red photons arriving. I said you have offered no mechanism whatsoever for how red photons can be at the camera film at the very moment an object first turns red. The only position I've come from is your own. I've asked questions presupposing only what you yourself have explicitly agreed to, and you refuse to answer. I ask you to work backwards with me and you refuse to do so.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His discovery has not been thoroughly investigated Spacemonkey whether you believe it or not. These discussions were all fragmented and of course most of the discussion was related to his second discovery, as it is in here. You cannot use these forums as your proof that Lessans was wrong. How unreliable!

His claims have been very thoroughly investigated, both here and elsewhere. At this forum alone months have been spent dissecting his claims and exposing his errors. Only a delusionally insane person could possibly consider any verdict at this point to be a rush to judgement.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Baloney! This work has not been read carefully. You can barely knock out a few sentences to summarize his entire first discovery. The sad part is that you think you've done the book justice.

How long was my summary of his first non-discovery? Can you support your claim that it was barely a few sentences? Do you have any memory of it at all? Lessans' work has been read, refuted, and rejected, and you have nothing left to offer.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When I leave has nothing to do with you. Even if I was here for attention, WHAT'S IT TO YOU? You are no longer invested in learning about this discovery, so who cares why I'm here? And if people are so fed up with my whining, complaining, and insulting, all they have to do is opt out of this thread.

Ah, so you are only here for the attention. Thank you for confirming this.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was discussing the eyes relative to the photons that are instantly there because of the property of the brain and eyes. That's not the same thing as what you keep bringing up over and over again.

Photons that get to be anywhere instantly and without traveling are teleporting photons. Stating that you will no longer discuss photons, and then continuing to discuss photons 7 minutes later only makes you look insane.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was hoping beyond all hope that something would rattle you and wake you up, but nothing seems to be working, unfortunately.

Stating that you will no longer reply to my posts, and then immediately replying to another of my posts only 7 minutes later was never going to rattle me. It only makes you look insane.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light has to be at the eye to see something, but the problem is that everyone thinks light has to travel to the eye in order to be interacting with it, or we're violating the laws of physics. According to efferent vision, the instant an object is in one's field of view, and it's bright enough to be seen, the light is at the eye because of how efferent vision works which is the complete opposite of the way afferent vision works. That's why he said light only needs to be surrounding the object for it to be seen.

That is disproved by Fizeau's experiment. When the wheel stands still, the distant light can be seen between its teeth. When it rotates at a certain speed, no light can be seen although half the time the path is unobstructed and all your criteria are still met. The light has to travel to the eye.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wow, it's amazing how quickly you dismiss 35 years of work, without giving it a second thought.

What's more amazing is that Lessans ignored hunderds of years of solid, evidence based science.