A revolution in thought - Page 749

thedoc · #**18701** 06-13-2012, 07:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no way I would even attempt to wade through the logical cobwebs of faulty reasoning that are 'the book', and instead I will focus my energies on trying to 'bamboozle' people who are truly interested.

Ahh, much closer to the truth.

LadyShea · #**18702** 06-13-2012, 07:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nasa uses delayed time to navigate to other worlds? And this is what you call factual?

Of course it is factual, as has been demonstrated and explained to you many times. You don't understand it, obviously.

LadyShea · #**18703** 06-13-2012, 07:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no way I would even attempt to wade through the logical cobwebs of faulty reasoning that you are employing

Translation: I cannot refute the simple logic demonstrating that Lessans used fallacious and circular reasoning in his "proofs" so I am going to call logic and reason faulty instead.

davidm · #**18704** 06-13-2012, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nasa uses delayed time to navigate to other worlds?

Of course it does, you little fool. Another disproof of real-time seeing.

Quote:

And this is what you call factual?

Of course it's factual, you fool. Shall we ask NASA?

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Do you remember when we hauled your sad ass over to a board of professional astronomers to discuss this very point? And you refused to read the thread, didn't you?

I did read the thread, and you were so meek talking to them because you believed they were your betters, that it actually made me laugh. :yup:

A little while later, I'll find that thread and link you up to it, and you can point out what you mean. You read the thread, eh? Do you recall what they said about Lessans' claims? Do you recall the advice of one astronomer which basically was that you are nuts, and because your father is involved we should be merciful to you and not try any longer to puncture your delusions? Remember that, peacegirl? I mean, you claim you read the thread, so you must know what was said in it, right?

peacegirl · #**18705** 06-13-2012, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Anyway, I am happy to discuss his first discovery. Can you explain the difference between possible truths, actual truths, and necessary truths?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Hold it right there. Are you telling me this question proves Lessans wrong, or that I don't undertand these principles?

Our last discussion about it indicated you don't understand the principles and therefore did not understand the charge of modal fallacy. If you don't understand why someone would think an argument was fallacious you can't effectively refute the fallacy charge.

You have never been able to demonstrate that the modal fallacy was not committed...you've asserted that it wasn't plenty, but no demonstration or explanations. Understanding these principles is the key to that demonstration and explanation.

So, do you want to have the discussion or not? If so

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Actual and necessary are reconciled, do you not get this at all, or are you too caught up in your self-importance to not even care?

Actual and necessary are two different things. How do you figure they are "reconciled"?

Once a choice is made, it could not have been otherwise since, at that moment, it gave greater satisfaction. But that doesn't mean that we must make a particular choice, before we've actually made it. This is where there is a lot of confusion when it comes to the meaning of determinism because the standard definition has turned the free will/determinism debate into a false dichotomy.

peacegirl · #**18706** 06-13-2012, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nasa uses delayed time to navigate to other worlds?

Of course it does, you little fool. Another disproof of real-time seeing.

Quote:

And this is what you call factual?

Of course it's factual, you fool. Shall we ask NASA?

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Do you remember when we hauled your sad ass over to a board of professional astronomers to discuss this very point? And you refused to read the thread, didn't you?

I did read the thread, and you were so meek talking to them because you believed they were your betters, that it actually made me laugh. :yup:

A little while later, I'll find that thread and link you up to it, and you can point out what you mean. You read the thread, eh? Do you recall what they said about Lessans' claims? Do you recall the advice of one astronomer which basically was that you are nuts, and because your father is involved we should be merciful to you and not try any longer to puncture your delusions? Remember that, peacegirl? I mean, you claim you read the thread, so you must know what was said in it, right?

Who cares what this one person said. He didn't know my father or his capabilities. Of course, because he was an astronomer, you put him on a pedestal. And it showed by the way you were acting. You were so servile, it was nauseating.

davidm · #**18707** 06-13-2012, 07:40 PM

Oh, peacegirl?

See my question in Post 3 in that thread, followed by the reply in Post 4.

The thread you claimed to have read.

:lol:

davidm · #**18708** 06-13-2012, 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nasa uses delayed time to navigate to other worlds?

Of course it does, you little fool. Another disproof of real-time seeing.

Quote:

And this is what you call factual?

Of course it's factual, you fool. Shall we ask NASA?

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Do you remember when we hauled your sad ass over to a board of professional astronomers to discuss this very point? And you refused to read the thread, didn't you?

I did read the thread, and you were so meek talking to them because you believed they were your betters, that it actually made me laugh. :yup:

A little while later, I'll find that thread and link you up to it, and you can point out what you mean. You read the thread, eh? Do you recall what they said about Lessans' claims? Do you recall the advice of one astronomer which basically was that you are nuts, and because your father is involved we should be merciful to you and not try any longer to puncture your delusions? Remember that, peacegirl? I mean, you claim you read the thread, so you must know what was said in it, right?

Who cares what this one person said. He didn't know my father or his capabilities. Of course, because he was an astronomer, you put him on a pedestal. And it showed by the way you were acting. You were so servile, it was nauseating.

Are you reading the thread yet, peacegirl? :awesome:

It is a FACT that NASA factors delayed-time seeing into calculating trajectories of craft to Mars and other worlds. This FACT is restated in the thread. This FACT is at odds with Lessans' stupid cliams, and proves him to be wrong.

This FACT has nothing to do with putting people on pedestals or not. FACTS are FACTS, whether you like them or not.

davidm · #**18709** 06-13-2012, 07:44 PM

Oh, look! One of the linked you to Romer's measurement of the speed of light! Just as we did!

davidm · #**18710** 06-13-2012, 07:46 PM

My goodness, look at Post 16!

davidm · #**18711** 06-13-2012, 07:46 PM

And check out Post 18!

davidm · #**18712** 06-13-2012, 07:48 PM

And post 24!

Getting the picture, peacegirl?

davidm · #**18713** 06-13-2012, 07:51 PM

Oh, and then there is Post 26!

Oh, I know, I know, what do astronomers know, eh? It's all just a matter of opinion! :awesome:

Except it's not.

It's not a matter of opinion that NASA uses delayed-time seeing to calculate trajectories to Mars and other worlds. It's a matter of FACT.

Therefore Lessans is wrong.

davidm · #**18714** 06-13-2012, 07:56 PM

Hey, peacegirl, why don't you go sign up at that board, and tell those snooty-nosed overeducated astronomers what's what, eh? Go tell them how the fact that NASA uses delayed-time seeing calculations to send spacecraft to Mars is not a fact after all! Go on, peacegirl, I dare you.

:lol:

That you won't do it, says all we need to know about your honesty, which is nil.

You know perfectly well that Lessans' claims are bullshit.

LadyShea · #**18715** 06-13-2012, 08:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Once a choice is made, it could not have been otherwise since, at that moment, it gave greater satisfaction.

This is an assertion. You cannot back that up with science or logic, you don't even know what Lessans actually observed to come up with that conclusion, so what is it based on? Without a basis, it is baseless.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But that doesn't mean that we must make a particular choice, before we've actually made it.

If there are one or more possible choices that could be made, then the choice that is ultimately made can only be actual, it cannot be said to have been necessary.

LadyShea · #**18716** 06-13-2012, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Some flames meet all of the requirements of efferent vision, yet we can't see them.

Obviously it does not. It is not bright enough to be seen because there's no interaction with light that would allow it to reveal this type of vapor. How can anything be seen if it doesn't contain the necessary properties within it that allow light to do its job?

Hydrogen and alcohol fire flames are not vapor, they are actual flames. They are very very bright flames, according to the dictionary definition of bright which is adj: Giving out or reflecting a lot of light. The flame is emitting a ton of light. And in all the videos there was plenty of outside light illuminating the area so YOUR condition of bright enough is also met.

It's large enough and close enough seeing as how it is within inches of the observer in the ice/gel experiment and has set a number of people on fire in the race car fire.

So the conditions of large enough, bright enough, and close enough are met.

Quote:

You're getting more and more desperate as we speak.

I can explain it using standard optics, so what in Earth would I be desperate about? Why can't you explain it using efferent vision is the big question?

So what are you arguing here? I've lost you.

Can you not read?

Some flames meet all of the requirements of efferent vision, yet we can't see them. Can you explain that?

Did you catch back up to the original, simple, point yet?

davidm · #**18717** 06-13-2012, 08:12 PM

Let us not overlook post 33, either!

Peacegirl isn't even clicking on these links.

So I will quote Post 33:

Quote:

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

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

Now, you, peacegirl, go wade right in there, and don't you be servile to those confused science crumb bums! You go set 'em straight! :awesome:

davidm · #**18718** 06-13-2012, 08:17 PM

This your chance, peacegirl! Bell the lion of science in its very den! You will be world famous! Lessans' book will sell millions!

Now waiting for you to sign up at the Baut Forum, and usher in the era of world peace! :yay:

Surely you won't pass up this opportunity!

davidm · #**18719** 06-13-2012, 08:32 PM

Finally, I think Post 41 from the Baut Forum is something all of us should have taken to heart long ago.

And I quote:

Quote:

Hi new guys.

Welcome to BAUT.

Another take on this, after reading the whole thread, is after a point you're not merely rubber necking anymore you're "poking the mentally disabled person", which never looks good on later reflection.

Both of you ought to just man up leave her to her fate. For sure you're not going to do a darn thing to change it by talking crap about her on the 'net. If you try to fathom out the mind of every single person you encountered in life you'ld soon find your thoughts circling around the lowest common denominator. That's a bad way to look at your fellow humans.

Take it from an old guy who tried to change the world too.

"If you stare long enough into the abyss, the abyss stares also into you."

peacegirl · #**18720** 06-13-2012, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nasa uses delayed time to navigate to other worlds? And this is what you call factual?

Of course it is factual, as has been demonstrated and explained to you many times. You don't understand it, obviously.

I guess not. I really think you love to argue with me for argument's sake.

LadyShea · #**18721** 06-13-2012, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nasa uses delayed time to navigate to other worlds? And this is what you call factual?

Of course it is factual, as has been demonstrated and explained to you many times. You don't understand it, obviously.

I guess not. I really think you love to argue with me for argument's sake.

You questioned a known and demonstrated fact as if it was insanity on fire, but you think I am the one looking for an argument?

So, when you asked "Nasa uses delayed time to navigate to other worlds? And this is what you call factual?", which has been explained to you many times, was it because you don't think that NASA factors a speed of light delay in it's probe and explorer missions?

peacegirl · #**18722** 06-13-2012, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Once a choice is made, it could not have been otherwise since, at that moment, it gave greater satisfaction.

This is an assertion. You cannot back that up with science or logic, you don't even know what Lessans actually observed to come up with that conclusion, so what is it based on? Without a basis, it is baseless.

Oh my god, if we're back to that LadyShea, I have no desire to continue. I was trying to show you that before something is chosen, it is not written in stone that it has to be chosen. There is always another option that could come into play which would be considered a more preferable choice but still in the direction of greater satisfaction. If you call that an assertion, it only means you don't understand his reasoning as to why we are compelled to move in this direction. And I really don't enjoy the way you confront me all the time. You don't ask, you accuse, and you wonder why it's hard for me to explain anything to you? You are not here to learn; you're here to find flaws that don't exist.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But that doesn't mean that we must make a particular choice, before we've actually made it.

If there are one or more possible choices that could be made, then the choice that is ultimately made can only be actual, it cannot be said to have been necessary.

I don't care what words you use LadyShea, it doesn't matter. If you want to say it was actual, and not necessary, that's fine with me. The point is, once a choice is made, it could not have been otherwise, for we are compelled to choose [what we believe to be] the most preferable alternative given our particular circumstances.

peacegirl · #**18723** 06-13-2012, 10:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nasa uses delayed time to navigate to other worlds? And this is what you call factual?

Of course it is factual, as has been demonstrated and explained to you many times. You don't understand it, obviously.

I guess not. I really think you love to argue with me for argument's sake.

You questioned a known and demonstrated fact as if it was insanity on fire, but you think I am the one looking for an argument?

So, when you asked "Nasa uses delayed time to navigate to other worlds? And this is what you call factual?", which has been explained to you many times, was it because you don't think that NASA factors a speed of light delay in it's probe and explorer missions?

It sounded like he was talking about other dimensions. Never mind. I am not interested in anything David has to say. So this conversation has just ended.

davidm · #**18724** 06-13-2012, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It sounded like he was talking about other dimensions.

You know perfectly well what I was talking about. I was talking about the fact that NASA always takes the delay in seeing the light from Mars into account in plotting trajectories to Mars. Which fact disproves Lessans beyond all appeal.

Lessans was wrong. Period.

LadyShea · #**18725** 06-13-2012, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nasa uses delayed time to navigate to other worlds? And this is what you call factual?

Of course it is factual, as has been demonstrated and explained to you many times. You don't understand it, obviously.

I guess not. I really think you love to argue with me for argument's sake.

You questioned a known and demonstrated fact as if it was insanity on fire, but you think I am the one looking for an argument?

So, when you asked "Nasa uses delayed time to navigate to other worlds? And this is what you call factual?", which has been explained to you many times, was it because you don't think that NASA factors a speed of light delay in it's probe and explorer missions?

It sounded like he was talking about other dimensions. Never mind. I am not interested in anything David has to say. So this conversation has just ended.

Other dimensions? What?

Is Mars another world? Saturn? Pluto? Does NASA send probes and explorers to these places? Why the hell would you think he was talking about other dimensions?