A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are such a liar. You were talking about a "ray of light" emitted from a star, not images or interaction with matter. Can you not read your own words?

You are the liar LadyShea. You will not get away with calling me a liar when I have tried to be civil with you. You don't listen; you talk. You have made up your mind that my father's discovery is crap, so nothing you say means shit to me. You showed your true colors and they're not pretty. I said that light travels. Light is emitted from a star and it travels. If the Sun became father and father away from Earth we would see a ball of light. This would have a shape which could give us some information about the Sun's location, it's size, etc. But that's not what the point of this discussion has been. I said that light interacts with matter IN REAL TIME, and I do not retract this statement. Stop trying to make me look like I don't know what I'm talking about. That's part of your MO and it stinks.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That is not what you said. You clearly stated many times that light doesn't travel independently of its source. See your very own quotes.

I have no clue. That's what science says, but this doesn't relate to what I've been discussing for three years. Are you stoned?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said that light interacts with matter IN REAL TIME, and I do not retract this statement. Stop trying to make me look like I don't know what I'm talking about.

Once light leaves the source or the object it is reflected from, it is completely independent of that source or object. There is no interaction of the light with anything and the light has the characteristics that it had when it left the source or object.

The truth is that you don't know what you are talking about, no-one has to make it look that way.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no clue.

That's for sure, I think you are stoned.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no clue. That's what science says, but this doesn't relate to what I've been discussing for three years. Are you stoned?

I am pointing out your lies and flip flopping, and you are claiming to never have made statements you provably made. Why am I the one that would be stoned?

[thedoc]

If I cared at all about Peacegril, I would be disappointed at least, at her obstinate ignorance. But at this time, I'm merely amused at her nonsense and lack of understanding.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are the liar LadyShea. You will not get away with calling me a liar when I have tried to be civil with you.

But you lied, I did not so how am I a liar? You act like "liar" is an insult rather than a descriptor.

And, you have been uncivil to me since day 1, so who do you think you're kidding with this persecuted victim crap

You don't listen; you talk.

I do listen, that's why I remember all these things you've said previously and note when you've flip flopped or made contradictory statements. That's how I know what Lessans wrote even when you seem to be saying he wrote something else. You can't seem to remember anything for longer than a few days, or never read it at all (like calling the term lunar laser ranging "gibberish" and asking what I was talking about after we had been discussing it for days ) nor can you follow a discussion. Looks like you are the one who doesn't listen.

You have made up your mind that my father's discovery is crap, so nothing you say means shit to me.

Yep, I think it's crap. If nothing I say means shit to you, why are you ranting and raving at me? You are angry, not indifferent, so what I say does mean something to you.

You showed your true colors and they're not pretty.

I have been flying my true colors the whole time.

I said that light travels.

You've said that, sure. You've also said partial spectrum light does not travel and you've also said that light does not travel independently of its source.

Light is emitted from a star and it travels.

If the star dies, does the light it emitted during its lifetime continue to travel indefinitely without the source star existing? In the past you've said it does not. You said the light would "peter out" and that light energy couldn't continue on without "being fueled". Do you maintain those positions, or have your changed your stance?

If the Sun became father and father away from Earth we would see a ball of light.

Freudian slip, there I think.

This would have a shape which could give us some information about the Sun's location, it's size, etc. But that's not what the point of this discussion has been. I said that light interacts with matter IN REAL TIME, and I do not retract this statement.

That's not what you lied about though and that's not what I asked you about. I asked you about your position on light continuing to travel when the source no longer exists. You have made contradictory statements about that.

Stop trying to make me look like I don't know what I'm talking about.

You are the one making contradictory statements, you are the one who doesn't seem to have a firm position...I am not making you look like anything, that's all you.

That's part of your MO and it stinks.

My MO is is to call bullshit when I see it, and you are full of it, and it stinks.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is an insult when someone is called a liar unjustly. Don't tell me you haven't done this.

You have an answer for everything except for admitting you're wrong.

Lessans said we would see the Sun in real time because of how the eyes work. Seeing light coming from the Sun or a faraway galaxy does not conflict with anything I've written.

I saw the video. Nothing in it contradicted Lessans' claims. I already explained that the flash of a laser would never be large enough to be picked by a telescope on Earth. That's why it took 2.6 seconds to see it instead of 1.3 seconds.

Yep, I think it's crap. If nothing I say means shit to you, why are you ranting and raving at me? You are angry, not indifferent, so what I say does mean something to you.

Of course I'm angry because you are constantly accusing me of being a liar, which is a lie. That's why I'm ranting and raving. Before you even ask a question, the first word out of your mouth is liar. It's disgusting. You are misusing the word.

You showed your true colors and they're not pretty.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have been flying my true colors the whole time.

As I said, they're not pretty.

I said that light travels.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You've said that, sure. You've also said partial spectrum light does not travel and you've also said that light does not travel independently of its source.

I said that nonabsorbed photons do not get reflected which only means they don't travel through space time where they are decoded as an image in the brain. Full spectrum light travels through space/time. I have never wavered on this. Detecting light from the Hubble deep field doesn't negate real time seeing.

Light is emitted from a star and it travels.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If the star dies, does the light it emitted during its lifetime continue to travel indefinitely without the source star existing?

According to science, yes, it continues to travel yet others say it doesn't travel forever, just like a stream would eventually dry up when the main body of water stops supplying it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

In the past you've said it does not. You said the light would "peter out" and that light energy couldn't continue on without "being fueled". Do you maintain those positions, or have your changed your stance?

I'm assuming science is right in that light either changes into another form of energy, or it continues on as light and never stops. But this has no relevance to this discussion. Whatever light is out there, if the object or event is gone, this light will never bring any information through space/time that would allow us to see the distant past, as if to say the past is in the light and it's traveling through the universe. But this doesn't mean that we wouldn't be able to see full spectrum light that has traveled through space/time, which is why I said this doesn't conflict with the Hubble deep field.

If the Sun became farther and farther away from Earth we would see a ball of light.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Freudian slip, there I think.

Sorry, I was in a hurry. No Freudian slip, just a simple typo.

This would have a shape which could give us some information about the Sun's location, it's size, etc. But that's not what the point of this discussion has been. I said that light interacts with matter IN REAL TIME, and I do not retract this statement.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

That's not what you lied about though and that's not what I asked you about. I asked you about your position on light continuing to travel when the source no longer exists. You have made contradictory statements about that.

No LadyShea. Your bedside manner is awful. If you think I made a mistake, ask me instead of telling me I'm a liar. I told you that I'm trying to answer the questions with as much clarity as I can. I will keep trying to get it right. Regardless of how poorly people think I'm doing in explaining this model of sight, this in itself doesn't negate the claim. I never anticipated the firestorm that has come out of this even though my father knew this claim would upset the scientific community.

Stop trying to make me look like I don't know what I'm talking about.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are the one making contradictory statements, you are the one who doesn't seem to have a firm position...I am not making you look like anything, that's all you.

I'm doing my best LadyShea. No one is even interested in why he came to his conclusions, and why they need to be taken seriously. Only a handful of people even read this chapter. You can't just handwave his observations away as if they mean nothing, because they mean something.

My MO is is to call bullshit when I see it, and you are full of it, and it stinks.

You don't have the capability to know whether this claim is bullshit or not. I know you are trying to understand, but for you to call this claim crap just because you just don't see its validity, is way premature.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is an insult when someone is called a liar unjustly.

You haven't been called a liar unjustly.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have an answer for everything except for admitting you're wrong.

You haven't shown LadyShea to be wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans said we would see the Sun in real time...

And yet this is impossible, for light cannot be at the retina before it has had time to travel there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I saw the video. Nothing in it contradicted Lessans' claims. I already explained that the flash of a laser would never be large enough to be picked by a telescope on Earth...

And yet it is. So you are wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course I'm angry because you are constantly accusing me of being a liar...

Because you keep lying, by denying you've said things even when your own words are quoted back to you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said that nonabsorbed photons do not get reflected...

And yet they do, as you have conceded every time when pressed on this.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...which only means they don't travel through space time where they are decoded as an image in the brain.

No, that is not what it means to say photons don't get reflected.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Full spectrum light travels through space/time.

As does ALL light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have never wavered on this.

What about the light at the film or retina when the Sun is first ignited? You've CONSTANTLY wavered on whether or not that light traveled to get there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Detecting light from the Hubble deep field doesn't negate real time seeing.

It does when we form a delayed image from the properties of the arriving light, which is how Hubble works.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

According to science, yes, it continues to travel yet others say it doesn't travel forever, just like a stream would eventually dry up when the main body of water stops supplying it.

There are no 'others' saying that. Only you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Whatever light is out there, if the object or event is gone, this light will never bring any information through space/time that would allow us to see the distant past...

Light ALWAYS arrives with measurable properties - such as direction, frequency, and intensity - from which time-delayed images can be formed.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that I'm trying to answer the questions with as much clarity as I can.

But that's a lie. You're not doing that at all. You are quite deliberately and openly refusing to answer questions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm doing my best LadyShea.

Your best at what? Honestly and directly answering all reasonable questions? Or dishonestly weaseling to protect your faith-based delusions from criticism?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's true Spacemonkey...

Do you really not see the problem with the above response?

Imagine you've just got up in the morning, and check the mail only to meet the postman delivering a letter to you from Japan. Wow, you exclaim, how did this letter get here all the way from Japan? Mail from Japan has been shutdown for the past two weeks!

Well, the postman explains, this morning when mail from Japan resumed, a person in Japan went to the post office to drop it off. The letter was taken to Narita airport and placed on a plane which flies to the US, taking around 14hrs, where the letter was dropped off and taken to a mail sorting facility where it was then dispatched to its labelled address, and should arrive here sometime tomorrow or the day after that.

A little confused, you ask: Do you mean this letter I'm now holding in my hand will arrive tomorrow? Oh no, the postman explains. I was telling you about a completely different letter that hasn't arrived yet. Okay, so how did this letter get here, you ask. The postman looks away guiltily and shuffles his feet. What do you mean, he says, I just told you.

Please tell me what is wrong with the postman's explanation. I'm sure you can figure it out. Don't respond with anything about light or vision. Stick to the story.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, the same photon arrived on Earth that left the Sun 81/2 minutes ago. It's not teleporting and it's not in two places at once.

Is that photon also one of the ones at the film when the Sun is first ignited? If not, then it ISN'T the same photon as any that my questions asked you about, is it?


You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How in the world does this account put the Sun inside people's eyes?

That was in response to YOUR comment here: "...this account changes everything. It puts the Sun in the same physical space as your eyes..." Yes, I know. That was just you saying something stupid that you didn't really mean.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right; that photon has no use to me...

Then that should be the end of your magical lenses nonsense, as you've agreed that a lens can only affect light that is of no use to you and which arrives 8min AFTER you need us to be able to see the Sun.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it's not necessarily the light I need at the film when I'm looking efferently at the object. That light may have already reached Earth...

You said you have always maintained that ALL light travels.

1. Does that include the light you need at the film on Earth when the Sun is first ignited? [Y/N]

2. Did that light travel from the Sun to get there? [Y/N]

3. If so, how long did it take to complete the journey? [insert duration]

4. And when did it leave the Sun? [insert time relative to Sun's ignition]

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You haven't been called a liar unjustly.

And she has definitely not shown Lessans to be wrong. It's like saying she hasn't proven Einstein to be wrong. Laugh if you want, but the last laugh will on...

But it has traveled there. No one is saying that.

No I'm not wrong at all. Your saying I'm wrong makes me wonder what you understand.

I never denied things I've said. I am telling you that you are misconstruing what I said.

I've been pressed over and over and I still don't agree with you. I will not concede just to make you happy Spacemonkey. Destroy me with your anger, but I will stick with my belief that Lessans was not wrong.

You are missing the point that what light is comprised of DOES MATTER. Full spectrum light is not the same thing as nonabsorbed light, which photons use to reveal.

Who cares?

What is true is most important, not what others say. I agree with you in that respect.

True, but when light interacts with matter we see this image in real time. Sorry you don't agree. Doesn't change what is.

I'm not agreeing with you so you say I don't have clarity. I'm exhausted from the attacks on my father that are not well thought out.

Your best at what? Honestly and directly answering all reasonable questions? Or dishonestly weaseling to protect your faith-based delusions from criticism?

I'm here aren't I, and I'm taking the brunt of a lot of criticism. So how can you say that I'm only here to protect my faith Spacemonkey? This is not at all about faith, but if you believe that's all it is, then by golly move on. I wouldn't blame you at all.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Is that photon also one of the ones at the film when the Sun is first ignited? If not, then it ISN'T the same photon as any that my questions asked you about, is it?


You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

That was in response to YOUR comment here: "...this account changes everything. It puts the Sun in the same physical space as your eyes..." Yes, I know. That was just you saying something stupid that you didn't really mean.

Then that should be the end of your magical lenses nonsense, as you've agreed that a lens can only affect light that is of no use to you and which arrives 8min AFTER you need us to be able to see the Sun.

You said you have always maintained that ALL light travels.

1. Does that include the light you need at the film on Earth when the Sun is first ignited? [Y/N]

2. Did that light travel from the Sun to get there? [Y/N]

3. If so, how long did it take to complete the journey? [insert duration]

4. And when did it leave the Sun? [insert time relative to Sun's ignition]

Nope, you are not going to entangle me in something that has no relevance and, worse, does nothing to prove this claim false. You're totally biased which makes you blind, so why should I kowtow to someone who is basing his proof on a centuries old account only because he won't allow himself to understand why this new account is even plausible? I'm not even asking for verification at this point. It's just impossible for us to come together on any intellectual level and for that reason, I'M OUT.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course I'm angry because you are constantly accusing me of being a liar, which is a lie.

You tell lies, that makes you a liar. If you don't like being called a liar, stop lying.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why I'm ranting and raving. Before you even ask a question, the first word out of your mouth is liar. It's disgusting. You are misusing the word.

I did ask a question, your answered with a lie. How am I misusing the word?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said that nonabsorbed photons do not get reflected which only means they don't travel through space time. I have never wavered on this.

This is a lie because you recently said:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I said photons don't travel, I would be changing the properties of light. So I renig on that

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You tell lies, that makes you a liar. If you don't like being called a liar, stop lying.

I did ask a question, your answered with a lie. How am I misusing the word?

This is a lie because you recently said:

I don't even have time to respond to you LadyShea. You are a person who is determined to show her intelligence for all to see. That makes this debate with you very cumbersome and filled with holes. Call me a liar if you want. I"m sure this elevates you to a position you don't hold.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who cares?

What is true is most important, not what others say. I agree with you in that respect.

You are the one who mentioned what "others" believed, as if you had some kind of agreement with your ridiculous position. So obviously you "care" enough to have made the comment in the first place.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't even have time to respond to you LadyShea. You are a person who is determined to show her intelligence for all to see. That makes this debate with you very cumbersome and filled with holes. Call me a liar if you want. I"m sure this elevates you to a position you don't hold.

No, I am determined to highlight your dishonesty, at this point. This weaseling away from your obvious bullshit by attacking me is a good example of it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And she has definitely not shown Lessans to be wrong.

Don't change the subject. Why were you criticizing LadyShea for not admitting she was wrong when you haven't shown her to be wrong?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it has traveled there. No one is saying that.

It hasn't had time to travel there. To travel there would take 8min, and you need it there instantly, remember?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No I'm not wrong at all. Your saying I'm wrong makes me wonder what you understand.

Of course you are wrong. You just said the laser flash is not large enough to be picked up by the telescope, yet that is exactly what happens.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never denied things I've said. I am telling you that you are misconstruing what I said.

You've routinely been caught flat out lying about what you have previously said. When caught you just weasel further by trying to claim you didn't really mean what you said.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've been pressed over and over and I still don't agree with you. I will not concede...

You already have conceded this point, several times in fact. When shown that there is nothing else the non-absorbed photons can do but be reflected you always retract your claim and concede that they do get reflected.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what he meant. What you mean is moot.

How could it be what Lessans meant? He never said anything about photons or reflection. This is purely shit YOU have made up. And it is wrong. You are wrong about what it means to say photons are not reflected.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are missing the point that what light is comprised of DOES MATTER. Full spectrum light is not the same thing as nonabsorbed light, which photons use to reveal.

No-one is denying the difference between full and partial spectrum light. The point is that ALL light travels through space/time, not just full spectrum light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's there Spacemonkey if the object or light source can be seen. You're having a problem with this, that's all. It doesn't mean it's wrong.

I didn't ask if it was there or not. I asked whether or not it traveled to get to where it now is. Once again you weasel and waver on this point, contrary to your above claim.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Can't argue with that.

You can't argue with Hubble negating real-time vision? Good. So much for efferent vision then.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who cares?

What is true is most important, not what others say.

Anyone who cares about basic honesty will care. Why did you just make up that lie about 'others' saying something they are not?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

True...

So your claim about information was false. Arriving light DOES bring information, even if the object or event is gone.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not agreeing with you so you say I don't have clarity...

Classic dishonest weasel move. I wasn't saying you weren't achieving clarity. That is a given. My point was that you are not even trying to answer questions at all. You are deliberately refusing to do so.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm here aren't I, and I'm taking the brunt of a lot of criticism. So how can you say that I'm only here to protect my faith Spacemonkey? This is not at all about faith, but if you believe that's all it is, then by golly move on. I wouldn't blame you at all.

I didn't say that. I asked a question, and you have again failed to answer. When you claim to be doing 'your best', what do you mean? Are you doing your best to honestly and directly answer all reasonable questions? Or are you rather doing your best to dishonestly weasel to protect your faith-based delusions from criticism?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Dingbat

Nope, you are not going to entangle me in something that has no relevance and, worse, does nothing to prove this claim false. You're totally biased which makes you blind, so why should I kowtow to someone who is basing his proof on a centuries old account only because he won't allow himself to understand why this new account is even plausible? I'm not even asking for verification at this point. It's just impossible for us to come together on any intellectual level and for that reason, I'M OUT.

Out of your mind. You've yet again just weaseled by completely refusing to even try to answer perfectly reasonable questions - ones that you had said you would answer. You are lying when you say you are doing your best. You're not doing anything of the sort. Weasel queen.

[LadyShea]

Destroy me with your anger, but I will stick with my belief that Lessans was not wrong.

Martyr

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't even have time to respond to you LadyShea. You are a person who is determined to show her intelligence for all to see.

And you are a person determined to show her dishonesty and stupidity for all to see. Yet we are still here, giving you the opportunity to change your behaviour and try being reasonable.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is an insult when someone is called a liar unjustly. Don't tell me you haven't done this.

I have offered supporting evidence of lies and lying, consisting of your own words, every single time I have called you a liar. I do not use the word lightly, let alone use it unjustly or misuse it.

Anyone can read your words and see that I am not being unjust.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are the one who mentioned what "others" believed, as if you had some kind of agreement with your ridiculous position. So obviously you "care" enough to have made the comment in the first place.

What the hell? You play these trivial games, as if this back and forth banter has anything whatsoever to do with the reason I came here. I'M OUT.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have offered supporting evidence of lies and lying, consisting of your own words, every single time I have called you a liar. I do not use the word lightly, let alone use it unjustly or misuse it.

Anyone can read your words and see that I am not being unjust.

You're right, I'm a liar. You won. I'M OUT.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And you are a person determined to show her dishonesty and stupidity for all to see. Yet we are still here, giving you the opportunity to change your behaviour and try being reasonable.

Are you being serious Spacemonkey? I'M OUT.