A revolution in thought

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh shut up NA. I wish people were banned. You would be the first to go. It is you who doesn't let up. Talk about consistency. You win the prize of being the most obnoxious poster on this thread.

Get help peacegirl and we all win.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Get help peacegirl and we all win.

No, we will all win when you leave and stop making up lies about my mental state. You are making a total fool of yourself.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But you've never once explained where that light came from or how it got there.

There is an actual gap of millions of miles between the Sun and the retina on Earth, so if the photons at the retina came from the Sun then you need to explain how they got from there to the retina without traveling this intervening distance and without teleporting. And if those photons didn't come from the Sun then you need to explain where they did come from.

Once again, you are thinking in terms of light bringing the image through space/time. That is the afferent position. If you think in terms of efferent, the distance is not the issue. It's whether the object is large enough and bright enough to be seen. If it is, it puts the eye or film in the optical range of the object. The light does not have to reach Earth because the image is not being received through light that has traveled a certain distance. We are seeing the object due to light's presence, which changes the entire phenomenon. Please don't bump your posts anymore because it's going to be the same old thing over and over again without any resolution. You will then put the blame on me for your lack of understanding.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The problem with this forum is that free speech means anything goes. It is not conducive for me to discuss such an important piece of knowledge in this kind of atmosphere. I really don't know how I lasted this long. Must have been God's grace.

Only if god's grace is your mental illness. Because that is how you have lasted so long. A sane person would have left long ago, insults or not. You are not capable of accepting that there is nothing you can do here. You can only make it worse.

Get help peacegirl. It's your only hope. Otherwise this will go on until you die, or FF closes. This is no way for you to live your life.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, we will all win when you leave and stop making up lies about my mental state. You are making a total fool of yourself.

peacegirl, everyone here has said you are crazy. I'm the only person who actually cares if you get help. The rest are only in it for the sport, such as it is.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No doc, I have not attacked people until they attacked me. Don't rewrite history. I have made every attempt to answer questions all along, but the attacks on my character have been nonstop. You have been one of the ring leaders.

I have never contradicted myself. It is not a contradiction to say that man is compelled to do what he does (because his will is not free), although nothing can make him do anything against his will. It is not a contradiction to say that in the efferent account we can see objects as long as they are bright enough and large enough to be seen. This means that anything we are able to see places our eyes within the object's optical range.

This thread will be a reminder of what I went through to try to bring this discovery to light. It will be interesting for people to read in the future, if it's still online.

Peacegirl, the attacks started when you started accusing people of lying by saying they had not read the book when it was obvious that they had. no-one could have asked the questions whey did, or make the comments they did, without reading the book. It would not be possible to randomly open the book and find just the page with the point they were questioning, it is obvious that posters here did read the book and were asking for clarification. You, however, took every question as a criticism and an attack on your father, and refused to be even a little helpful. Instead you demanded that they read the parts of the book they were questioning, without giving any assistance at all. You then state that you aren't here to learn but only to pass on this information without question, you assumed the role of a teacher and having superior knowledge to everyone else. As a professional teacher myself, I would say You are a very poor teacher, as you have not presented your message at all clearly, in fact your posts are just as garbled and confused as your fathers book. And that will be here for all to see, as long as this forum exists, longer if someone were to save this entire thread in some kind of archive, a sort of cautionary tale.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have made every attempt to answer questions all along...

No you haven't.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have never contradicted myself...

Yes you have.

Stop lying Peacegirl. You're not fooling anyone.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I'm the only person who actually cares if you get help.

That's not true at all, NA.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Once again, you are thinking in terms of light bringing the image through space/time. That is the afferent position. If you think in terms of efferent, the distance is not the issue. It's whether the object is large enough and bright enough to be seen. If it is, it puts the eye or film in the optical range of the object. The light does not have to reach Earth because the image is not being received through light that has traveled a certain distance. We are seeing the object due to light's presence, which changes the entire phenomenon. Please don't bump your posts anymore because it's going to be the same old thing over and over again without any resolution. You will then put the blame on me for your lack of understanding.

None of this addresses my point. Distance is very much an issue even in your efferent account. You just refuse to address or acknowledge the problems it causes. You are saying there is light at the retina. If that light came from the Sun, then you need to explain how it got from the Sun to the retina given the non-negotiable real distance between them. I will keep bumping my questions until you stop dishonestly evading them. You only tried to answer them once, and contradicted yourself when you did. That is not acceptable. For your account to be plausible it has to explain where the light at the retina came from and how it got there.

Did the photons which are at the retina (at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited) come from the Sun? [Yes or No]

Were they ever located at the Sun? [Yes or No]

If so, when were they located at the Sun? [State a time relative to the moment of ignition of the Sun]

If not, where did they come from? [State a physical object or location]

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Only if god's grace is your mental illness. Because that is how you have lasted so long. A sane person would have left long ago, insults or not. You are not capable of accepting that there is nothing you can do here. You can only make it worse.

Get help peacegirl. It's your only hope. Otherwise this will go on until you die, or FF closes. This is no way for you to live your life.

Whether I want to stay here until FF closes or until I die, is none of your business. How I live my life is my business. Obviously, you have nothing going on in your life if you're wasting your time here. I suggest you find a different pasttime or you may die here too.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

None of this addresses my point. Distance is very much an issue even in your efferent account. You just refuse to address or acknowledge the problems it causes. You are saying there is light at the retina. If that light came from the Sun, then you need to explain how it got from the Sun to the retina given the non-negotiable real distance between them. I will keep bumping my questions until you stop dishonestly evading them. You only tried to answer them once, and contradicted yourself when you did. That is not acceptable. For your account to be plausible it has to explain where the light at the retina came from and how it got there.

Did the photons which are at the retina (at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited) come from the Sun? [Yes or No]

Were they ever located at the Sun? [Yes or No]

If so, when were they located at the Sun? [State a time relative to the moment of ignition of the Sun]

If not, where did they come from? [State a physical object or location]

No Spacemonkey, you cannot analyze it this way. If we can see an object, the light is already at the eye because we wouldn't be able to see the object otherwise. That light becomes the mirror image on the retina. These non-absorbed photons do not travel beyond the point at which the object can be seen.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Spacemonkey, you cannot analyze it this way. If we can see an object, the light is already at the eye because we wouldn't be able to see the object otherwise. That light becomes the mirror image on the retina. These non-absorbed photons do not travel beyond the point at which the object can be seen.

That the light is already at the eye is not the issue. Your problem is that you have no explanation for where that light came from or how it got there. The afferent account can explain where light at the retina came from and how it got there. Your efferent account cannot, and that is why it fails.

Did the photons which are at the retina (at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited) come from the Sun? [Yes or No]

Were they ever located at the Sun? [Yes or No]

If so, when were they located at the Sun? [State a time relative to the moment of ignition of the Sun]

If not, where did they come from? [State a physical object or location]

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Whether I want to stay here until FF closes or until I die, is none of your business. How I live my life is my business. Obviously, you have nothing going on in your life if you're wasting your time here. I suggest you find a different pasttime or you may die here too.

I'm afraid that's the very sad part of all this. I will eventually give up or die or FF will close. And unless you get help, you will still be parading around the internet, flogging Lessans book with people who think he was a moron and who know you are crazy but post with you anyway, because they find it fun to taunt a crazy person. No one here expects you to do anything other than what you have already done hundreds of times on this very forum and will do again, and again until you die. You are an internet freak show.

Get help peacegirl.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That's not true at all, NA.

Sorry, quite right. I know that you are genuinely concerned for peacegirl. It's just hard for me to remember this with all the questions you ask her about Lessans' science as if you expect a crazy person to give you a sane answer. If you actually think she is crazy and you know how she will answer then what is the point of the questions to her? Are you expecting the horse to sing?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Spacemonkey, you cannot analyze it this way. If we can see an object, the light is already at the eye because we wouldn't be able to see the object otherwise. That light becomes the mirror image on the retina. These non-absorbed photons do not travel beyond the point at which the object can be seen.

Spacemonkey's analysis is quite correct, the burden of proof is on you to come up with an explanation to it, preferably ones that do not violate known properties of light.

When people tell you Lessans' ideas break the the laws of physics, they're telling you that it does not correctly describe how the universe behaves. This is why Lessans is wrong.

You shouldn't be here, peacegirl. You'll never "win" the debate because you're wrong, and even if you weren't, you're not capable of describing Lessans' ideas in a way that makes sense to others. It's a fool's errand.

[naturalist.atheist]

By now it should be abundantly clear that peacegirl cares nothing for "burden of proof", assuming that she understands what it is in the first place. What peacegirl expects from everyone is complete and utter acceptance of Lessans and his book. That is it really. The rest has been histrionics. Early on it had its charms, but for a long time now it's just mental illness on display.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Once again, you are thinking in terms of light bringing the image through space/time.

Once again, nobody here thinks light brings anything. This idea of light carrying images was Lessans misunderstanding of the standard model of vision, and you've stated many times that you understand that it is not correct. Why do you keep using it?

[naturalist.atheist]

LadyShea, since when has peacegirl been consistent? Are you expecting her to be consistent?

[thedoc]

Peacegirl, some time ago you mentioned that you had written a 'Child Safety Book' and right now I can't remember the title. Could you post the title and the date of publication, I know the author. I din't know if you remember my experience potty training my grandson, who is now 7, but at a few months before he was 4 I trained him in 3 days. The Grandaughter turned 3 in Nov. and she is practically potty training herself, with just a little encouragment from everyone. This has taken a little longer but now I think she is accident free for at least a month. As far as the safety book, if I know the title I'll see if the local Library has a copy, It is in print, isn't it?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

As I said, I'm not a mental health professional, so all I can do is rely on my on experience. In my experience she is well outside the bounds of normal crack pottery. She is crazy.

She behaves in an irrational way, I agree. So much so that you could wonder if there is not something more going on. I think crazy is a good word to use: a lay mans term for something so bizarre that you wonder if it is outside the bounds of what is strictly sane.

But still I do not think it warrants saying repeatedly and with certainty that someone is mentally ill.

[LadyShea]

Order | See More Safety

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I'm afraid that's the very sad part of all this. I will eventually give up or die or FF will close. And unless you get help, you will still be parading around the internet, flogging Lessans book with people who think he was a moron and who know you are crazy but post with you anyway, because they find it fun to taunt a crazy person. No one here expects you to do anything other than what you have already done hundreds of times on this very forum and will do again, and again until you die. You are an internet freak show.

Get help peacegirl.

No, I'm really not NA. That's all in your head. You never read the book; all you do is go by what others say in here. You are a fraud of the worst kind. You are basing all of your conclusions on a lie. I feel sorry for you NA. I really truly do, because when this knowledge is confirmed valid, you will have to answer to yourself as to why you said the things you did about me. Your attitude and condemnation will be very hard to justify. But I will forgive you because your will is not free and you could not help yourself.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Spacemonkey's analysis is quite correct, the burden of proof is on you to come up with an explanation to it, preferably ones that do not violate known properties of light.

When people tell you Lessans' ideas break the the laws of physics, they're telling you that it does not correctly describe how the universe behaves. This is why Lessans is wrong.

You shouldn't be here, peacegirl. You'll never "win" the debate because you're wrong, and even if you weren't, you're not capable of describing Lessans' ideas in a way that makes sense to others. It's a fool's errand.

Oh my god, all these people telling me I shouldn't be in my own thread, yet they are here. Makes no sense at all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Order | See More Safety

Why the snooping around LadyShea. You are like a rat with a big snout. I don't get it. This website has absolutely nothing to do with this thread, so why link it to this forum. You are doing a disservice.

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why the snooping around LadyShea. You are like a rat with a big snout. I don't get it. This website has absolutely nothing to do with this thread, so why link it to this forum. You are doing a disservice.

Did it cross your mind that LadyShea was just trying to help thedoc? He'd asked about the book a couple of posts earlier.

But I suppose you think saying that LadyShea is like a rat with a big snout is just a bit of friendly well-deserved banter.