A revolution in thought - Page 1599

BWE · #**39951** 08-08-2014, 01:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What do you mean by saying that Kevin Greene was supposed to help you?

He offered to moderate the thread in order to help me categorize the questions coming in. Then all of a sudden he disappeared. I remember wondering what was going on. I found out the hard way. :sadcheer:

I don't recall any of this. I think you are making things up again. He didn't go behind your back at all. He just posted a review you didn't like.

I think he PM'd me but I'm not sure. I do recall him saying he was going to help me, and then he disappeared.

I will help you as long as it isn't too hard. I too want to bring peace and harmony to the world.

Artemis Entreri · #**39952** 08-08-2014, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Follow up; do you understand how the lens is bending the light to make the bug appear magnified?

I do.

Care to share more? Please tell me in your own words how this happens and how it fits with efferent vision?

LadyShea · #**39953** 08-08-2014, 01:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He would not be able to recognize his owner if he was seeing efferently because there would be nothing in the light to allow this recognition to take place. Dogs need other cues such as their sense of hearing and smell.

Why can humans recognize faces by sight if we see efferently but other species cannot? In the past you've said it was due to language, but as has been shown dogs are capable of associating names with things.

Dogs can associate names with things to a limited degree. If I said to my dog, "Go get your toy" she would know what toy means. But that's about it. She could not identify me in a line up.

What is the limit? I showed you the video of one dog who knows over 1000 names and is still learning. Did you work hours every day teaching your dog words? I know I don't do that, but they certainly seem capable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artemis

Whether a dog can recognize it's owner, or anything else, from sight would have more to do with how the dog's brain stores memories than how it's eyes function.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, this is much more likely, however this point has been simply dismissed by peacegirl with a definitive "nuh uh!"

Dogs cannot store memories like we do because they don't have the ability to take a photograph of these subtle differences.

How do you know?

LadyShea · #**39954** 08-08-2014, 01:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We discussed all the different sensory receptors, and Lessans' other observation (which has been disproven in this thread) that we can always hear airplanes before we see them. This last one cracks me up, and peacegirl asserted it too.

Anyway you can read that discussion on pages 826 and 827 of this thread (start with post #20626 or thereabouts if you have your pages set weird)

If an airplane is very small we probably would see it before we hear the engine. So what? This doesn't disprove his discovery.

His "observation", and your assertion, that we always hear airplanes before we can see them has been disproven.

BWE · #**39955** 08-08-2014, 01:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Here it is. :bump:

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

OK, here is your OP for Talk Rats:

Hi, everyone, I'd like to discuss a set of discoveries made by an author who died in 1991. The first is a philosophical discovery: why we lack free will, and how, when the reason for this is properly understood, a profound change in human relations is entailed. The second discovery has to do with light and sight, and has philosophical implications that tie in with the first discovery. The third discovery has to do with death and the nature of of consciousness. Taken as a whole, the three discoveries have profound ramifications.

well, peacegirl, your fame has finally escaped this little corner of the internet and now people from TR, (well, at least one person from TR) is interested in what you have to say. But for really real, this thread is way too long and I would appreciate it if you started over at TR. Agree with DavidM that TR is not for everyone but it is home to some surprisingly smart people and I for one would like to read what you have to say there.

LadyShea · #**39956** 08-08-2014, 02:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not true LadyShea. We hear planes before we ever see them, even if we know where to look. You are wrong.

Oh dear. Oh my. Oh dearie dearie me oh my, what a breathtakingly stupid statement!

Yup! Watch her lie about it now.

That was not my father's statement. I realize that this wasn't necessarily right. It all depends on the weather, the direction and altitude of the plane, even the type of plane. A single engine plane is hardly audible if it's at a pretty high altitude, so it all depends.

You were supporting his "observation" :lol:

You also stated "That's why it takes time for the sound of a plane to reach us before we actually see the plane since it hasn't entered our field of view."
And "If the plane is reflecting light, we should see airplanes at far distances before we ever hear them in every single circumstance."
As well as asked "if that's true then why can't we see an airplane before we hear the sound? Explain this to me LadyShea without weaseling"

Here is his statement about it that you were obviously using as the basis for your arguments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lessans

If the sound from a plane even though we can’t see it on a clear day will tell us it is in the sky, why can’t we see the plane if an image is being reflected towards the eye on the waves of light? The answer is very simple. An image is not being reflected. We cannot see the plane simply because the distance reduced its size to where it was impossible to see it with the naked eye, but we could see it with a telescope.

Granted this is a terribly written passage, but it very clearly reads that we can hear planes and know they are there, but cannot see them because they are always too far away to be visible.

BWE · #**39957** 08-08-2014, 02:21 AM

It's awesome that FF has threads with so many pages....

BWE · #**39958** 08-08-2014, 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not true LadyShea. We hear planes before we ever see them, even if we know where to look. You are wrong.

Oh dear. Oh my. Oh dearie dearie me oh my, what a breathtakingly stupid statement!

Yup! Watch her lie about it now.

That was not my father's statement. I realize that this wasn't necessarily right. It all depends on the weather, the direction and altitude of the plane, even the type of plane. A single engine plane is hardly audible if it's at a pretty high altitude, so it all depends.

You were supporting his "observation" :lol:

You also stated "That's why it takes time for the sound of a plane to reach us before we actually see the plane since it hasn't entered our field of view."
And asked "if that's true then why can't we see an airplane before we hear the sound? Explain this to me LadyShea without weaseling"

Here is his statement about it that you were obviously using as the basis for your arguments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lessans

If the sound from a plane even though we can’t see it on a clear day will tell us it is in the sky, why can’t we see the plane if an image is being reflected towards the eye on the waves of light? The answer is very simple. An image is not being reflected. We cannot see the plane simply because the distance reduced its size to where it was impossible to see it with the naked eye, but we could see it with a telescope.

Granted this is a terribly written passage, but it very clearly reads that we can hear planes and know they are there, but cannot see them because they are always too far away to be visible.

I don't have a dog in this fight but this is simply bad logic. No that passage doesn't say always. It says that when we can hear a plane but not see it, it might be too small to see. Maybe the guy who wrote it had bad eyesight. It starts with the word "if" though. I mean, go ahead and shred this book's premises and destroy its arguments and all that suitably militaristic sounding terminology, but for goodness sakes at least get you carpetbombs to explode.

LadyShea · #**39959** 08-08-2014, 03:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWE

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not true LadyShea. We hear planes before we ever see them, even if we know where to look. You are wrong.

Oh dear. Oh my. Oh dearie dearie me oh my, what a breathtakingly stupid statement!

Yup! Watch her lie about it now.

That was not my father's statement. I realize that this wasn't necessarily right. It all depends on the weather, the direction and altitude of the plane, even the type of plane. A single engine plane is hardly audible if it's at a pretty high altitude, so it all depends.

You were supporting his "observation" :lol:

You also stated "That's why it takes time for the sound of a plane to reach us before we actually see the plane since it hasn't entered our field of view."
And asked "if that's true then why can't we see an airplane before we hear the sound? Explain this to me LadyShea without weaseling"

Here is his statement about it that you were obviously using as the basis for your arguments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lessans

If the sound from a plane even though we can’t see it on a clear day will tell us it is in the sky, why can’t we see the plane if an image is being reflected towards the eye on the waves of light? The answer is very simple. An image is not being reflected. We cannot see the plane simply because the distance reduced its size to where it was impossible to see it with the naked eye, but we could see it with a telescope.

Granted this is a terribly written passage, but it very clearly reads that we can hear planes and know they are there, but cannot see them because they are always too far away to be visible.

I don't have a dog in this fight but this is simply bad logic. No that passage doesn't say always. It says that when we can hear a plane but not see it, it might be too small to see. Maybe the guy who wrote it had bad eyesight. It starts with the word "if" though. I mean, go ahead and shred this book's premises and destroy its arguments and all that suitably militaristic sounding terminology, but for goodness sakes at least get you carpetbombs to explode.

Fair enough it doesn't say always. However it doesn't say "when" nor does it say "might", either. Lessans didn't seem to really use qualifiers.

I read the opening "if" as referring to hearing the sound as the only ambiguous state of affairs. So my interpretation is: "If we hear it, why can't we see it", rather than: "If we can hear it, and if we cannot see it, why might that be the case?"

Peacegirl apparently read it as I did at some point, which led her to make the statements she did.

LadyShea · #**39960** 08-08-2014, 03:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWE

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Here it is. :bump:

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

OK, here is your OP for Talk Rats:

Hi, everyone, I'd like to discuss a set of discoveries made by an author who died in 1991. The first is a philosophical discovery: why we lack free will, and how, when the reason for this is properly understood, a profound change in human relations is entailed. The second discovery has to do with light and sight, and has philosophical implications that tie in with the first discovery. The third discovery has to do with death and the nature of of consciousness. Taken as a whole, the three discoveries have profound ramifications.

well, peacegirl, your fame has finally escaped this little corner of the internet and now people from TR, (well, at least one person from TR) is interested in what you have to say. But for really real, this thread is way too long and I would appreciate it if you started over at TR. Agree with DavidM that TR is not for everyone but it is home to some surprisingly smart people and I for one would like to read what you have to say there.

That's a nice invitation for you peacegirl. Someone is interested in what you have to say...that's an opportunity to get some new people looking at the book for you.

LadyShea · #**39961** 08-08-2014, 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dogs can associate names with things to a limited degree. If I said to my dog, "Go get your toy" she would know what toy means. But that's about it. She could not identify me in a line up.

How often has this been tested and in what cities and police precincts were these line ups conducted? There must be records that could be checked.

It doesn't have to start there. Just show a dog a photograph of his owner whom he loves very much and hasn't seen in a long time, and see if he wags his tail or shows signs of recognition. Do this with all kinds of breeds to get a large sample. If it is confirmed that no dog is able to do this, then it's time to move to the next experiment to see if a dog can recognize his owner on a computer screen without any other cues. If it is confirmed that no dog is able to do this, then it's time to move to the next experiment which is either a line up or to see if a dog can recognize his owner in an unfamiliar setting where there are no other cues that could give it away. They said the experiment has been done and dogs can, in fact, recognize. I certainly haven't seen any reliable conclusions to that end.

How would the researchers know what "signs of recognition" are in a dog? Who would determine what dogs do when they recognize something and how would it be determined that all dogs will do that exact action?

LadyShea · #**39962** 08-08-2014, 04:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This still doesn't answer the question as to why a dog would not be able to recognize his master from a picture or on a computer unless he got other cues.

It is a question that doesn't need to be answered because the question itself assumes a fact which is not in evidence. It is rather like asking why birds can't fly.

The question itself does not assume a fact which is not in evidence. Actually, it is in evidence. It certainly is not analogous to the question: Why birds can't fly because the evidence is clearly supported that birds can fly. It is not evidenced that dogs can recognize their owners without help from their other senses or scientists wouldn't need to confirm this through further testing which is itself biased because they believe it's a fact that the eyes are a sense organ. This leads to confirmation bias.

It is not evidenced that dogs cannot recognize their owners without help from their other senses, either. You are assuming that is fact without evidence.

Currently, neither position can be considered fact. There is experimental evidence, however, that when trained to indicate a choice between two photographs*, dogs choose the the image of a familiar subject over the image of an unfamiliar subject significantly more often (about 80% of the time). If they couldn't recognize anything, they would choose randomly which would work out to around 50%.

*The training is only to get the dog to perform an unambiguous action to indicate a choice between two things. They are rewarded for choosing and performing the action. In one set up the dog would simply walk to the chosen photograph and touch the screen with its nose.

LadyShea · #**39963** 08-08-2014, 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times did I say that optics works the same way in the efferent account?

And how many times have you said things about efferent vision that are not compatible with various principles of optics? Just today you said part of optics is a "made up story".

thedoc · #**39964** 08-08-2014, 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWE

It's awesome that FF has threads with so many pages....

you should have been here from the beginning, you wouldn't be so easily impressed.

thedoc · #**39965** 08-08-2014, 04:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

*The training is only to get the dog to perform an unambiguous action to indicate a choice between two things. They are rewarded for choosing and performing the action. In one set up the dog would simply walk to the chosen photograph and touch the screen with its nose.

Apparently, to Peacegirl, training a dog negates any spontaneous action, and only a spontaneous action is a valid response. Like spontaneously making a shot at billiards, which could explain how Lessans won his championship, dumb luck.

davidm · #**39966** 08-08-2014, 04:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWE

well, peacegirl, your fame has finally escaped this little corner of the internet and now people from TR, (well, at least one person from TR) is interested in what you have to say. But for really real, this thread is way too long and I would appreciate it if you started over at TR. Agree with DavidM that TR is not for everyone but it is home to some surprisingly smart people and I for one would like to read what you have to say there.

Hell, you don't need to wait for peacegirl to start a thread. Do it yourself! The Website and book in question is here.

Clearly, you folks need some new shit for your toilet. You've been gnawing on Socrates (!) Gary Gaulin (sp?) Dave Hawkins (lol!) and Atheistoclast for years, right? You need new Crazy Blood! You can start the thread yourself: "Hey gang, look at this Internets Book I found."

Bartholomew Roberts: STFU BWE or I will track you to your home and switch your balls with your eyes.

Socrates: But this is not worth arguing about.

etc.

LOL.

If peacegirl doesn't do it, do it for her! She'll thank you afterward!

Angakuk · #**39967** 08-08-2014, 05:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The truth is dogs do not recognize the same way humans do, which is why a vicious dog would attack his own master if he wasn't able to use his other senses to identify him.

Surely you have documented cases of this happening that you can share with us.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't believe my dog would recognize me in a line up if all the controls were in place. That is the problem. It requires very tight controls which I wouldn't be able to set up so easily.

I see, so you are amending your previous claim that your dog "could not identify me in a line up". Now it is "I don't believe my dog would recognize me". I guess maybe you were just exagerating your degree of certainty before by claiming something to be true when you didn't actually know it to be true.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I would like to see a replication of many different tests on different breeds. Then we'd know. I believe my father was right and there has been nothing to date that has proven dogs can recognize their master from a photograph.

And I would like to see the reports of all those tests that conclusively demonstrate that dogs cannot indentify their owners from a photograph. You know, something a little more reliable than Lessans' unsupported assertions that such is the case.

Angakuk · #**39968** 08-08-2014, 05:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Hell, you don't need to wait for peacegirl to start a thread. Do it yourself! The Website and book in question is here.

Clearly, you folks need some new shit for your toilet. You've been gnawing on Socrates (!) Gary Gaulin (sp?) Dave Hawkins (lol!) and Atheistoclast for years, right? You need new Crazy Blood! You can start the thread yourself: "Hey gang, look at this Internets Book I found."

Bartholomew Roberts: STFU BWE or I will track you to your home and switch your balls with your eyes.

Socrates: But this is not worth arguing about.

etc.

LOL.

If peacegirl doesn't do it, do it for her! She'll thank you afterward!

After which she will blame him for the subsequent debacle and deny that she ever thanked him.

BWE · #**39969** 08-08-2014, 08:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWE

well, peacegirl, your fame has finally escaped this little corner of the internet and now people from TR, (well, at least one person from TR) is interested in what you have to say. But for really real, this thread is way too long and I would appreciate it if you started over at TR. Agree with DavidM that TR is not for everyone but it is home to some surprisingly smart people and I for one would like to read what you have to say there.

Hell, you don't need to wait for peacegirl to start a thread. Do it yourself! The Website and book in question is here.

Clearly, you folks need some new shit for your toilet. You've been gnawing on Socrates (!) Gary Gaulin (sp?) Dave Hawkins (lol!) and Atheistoclast for years, right? You need new Crazy Blood! You can start the thread yourself: "Hey gang, look at this Internets Book I found."

Bartholomew Roberts: STFU BWE or I will track you to your home and switch your balls with your eyes.

Socrates: But this is not worth arguing about.

etc.

LOL.

If peacegirl doesn't do it, do it for her! She'll thank you afterward!

What the fuck is wrong with you?

BWE · #**39970** 08-08-2014, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWE

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is not true LadyShea. We hear planes before we ever see them, even if we know where to look. You are wrong.

Oh dear. Oh my. Oh dearie dearie me oh my, what a breathtakingly stupid statement!

Yup! Watch her lie about it now.

That was not my father's statement. I realize that this wasn't necessarily right. It all depends on the weather, the direction and altitude of the plane, even the type of plane. A single engine plane is hardly audible if it's at a pretty high altitude, so it all depends.

You were supporting his "observation" :lol:

You also stated "That's why it takes time for the sound of a plane to reach us before we actually see the plane since it hasn't entered our field of view."
And asked "if that's true then why can't we see an airplane before we hear the sound? Explain this to me LadyShea without weaseling"

Here is his statement about it that you were obviously using as the basis for your arguments.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lessans

If the sound from a plane even though we can’t see it on a clear day will tell us it is in the sky, why can’t we see the plane if an image is being reflected towards the eye on the waves of light? The answer is very simple. An image is not being reflected. We cannot see the plane simply because the distance reduced its size to where it was impossible to see it with the naked eye, but we could see it with a telescope.

Granted this is a terribly written passage, but it very clearly reads that we can hear planes and know they are there, but cannot see them because they are always too far away to be visible.

I don't have a dog in this fight but this is simply bad logic. No that passage doesn't say always. It says that when we can hear a plane but not see it, it might be too small to see. Maybe the guy who wrote it had bad eyesight. It starts with the word "if" though. I mean, go ahead and shred this book's premises and destroy its arguments and all that suitably militaristic sounding terminology, but for goodness sakes at least get you carpetbombs to explode.

Fair enough it doesn't say always. However it doesn't say "when" nor does it say "might", either. Lessans didn't seem to really use qualifiers.

I read the opening "if" as referring to hearing the sound as the only ambiguous state of affairs. So my interpretation is: "If we hear it, why can't we see it", rather than: "If we can hear it, and if we cannot see it, why might that be the case?"

Peacegirl apparently read it as I did at some point, which led her to make the statements she did.

fair enough. I haven't read it. I can also tell this is a long running discussion with more going on than I need to get into. In my own experience, it's much harder to remain objective with someone who you've argued with over a long time.

peacegirl · #**39971** 08-08-2014, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Incidentally, here's yet another study for peacegirl to misunderstand and/or ignore and/or lie about. Note that the study not only provides convincing evidence that dogs can recognize photographs of their masters, it also provides convincing evidence that they can form mental images of their masters, which they can then match to the correct photographs.

No levers were involved, by the way.

You can't be serious Lone Ranger. Do you actually think this test of the length of time a dog looks at the incongruecy between the owner's voice and the photograph actually trumps careful observation? Why not observe a dog who shows absolute excitement when his master comes home from the service yet cannot recognize him on a computer screen. Why do you ignore this? The basic assumption in this test is that the longer a dog looks at a picture proves what is going on in his mind. This is an example of exactly what I was talking about; confirmation bias. Why not do a test on dogs that we know have a loving relationship with their owner to see if a picture of that owner will cause any kind of reaction. That would be a better indicator than all of these flawed tests put together.

Dogs Welcoming Soldiers Home Compilation 2012 [HD] - YouTube

peacegirl · #**39972** 08-08-2014, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only difference is that in the efferent account light doesn't travel away from the object through space/time and bring the information to the eye. In the example you just gave, the bug is present. The lens is just magnifying the bug, which would occur in the efferent account as well.

So why does changing the path of light magnify the insect?

Why does a mirror work?

Why does a coloured filter change the colour of objects?

Unless you believe that the wavelength, position and intensity of the light landing on the retina governs what we see, you have no explanation for any of the above. And if you believe it's the properties of light striking the retina that governs what we see, you can't have your precious real-time vision.

Whoever said that these things don't matter Dragar? How many times did I say that optics works the same way in the efferent account? Why do you keep bringing these questions up when I'm not denying that they work just as predicted? Light is a necessary condition of sight, therefore it has to be physically at the eye or film. But this doesn't prove that this same light can travel far beyond the optical range where the object could be seen and still bring the information to the retina or film just from the light alone. This IS the afferent account of vision, and it is far from conclusive.

You should just say you don't know, rather than weasel and evade like that. It's not fooling anyone.

Where am I weaseling? I can't get anymore clear than what I just said; OPTICS WORKS THE SAME WAY IN THE EFFERENT ACCOUNT SO ALL OF YOUR REFUTATIONS AGAINST EFFERENT VISION FOR THIS VERY REASON IS MOOT.

peacegirl · #**39973** 08-08-2014, 12:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWE

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeP

Ladyshea is not being bitter, she's being cynical. You've mentioned the trolls that come online. People turning up and pronouncing a mystery without any personal introduction are quite common too, and routinely disappointing.

I get that, but please don't put everyone in the same category, or else you'll lose the baby with the bathwater.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe

Also, asking for some commitment to interest without any evidence from you is arrogant, if not rude. (I'll grant you are being polite.)

Who was asking for a commitment? I was only sharing a book that is online. I never expected the caustic reaction I got.

I for one do not want to lose the baby again. I haven't got past here in this thread yet. is there a free e-book available?

I gave away the first chapter. You can also hear the author read and elaborate on Chapter One of his 6th book, Beyond the Framework of Modern Thought. Just go to that heading and scroll down. You'll see the audio. All of his books relate to the same topic so don't get confused because one book is entitled Decline and Fall of All Evil and the other Beyond the Framework of Modern Thought.

- Decline and Fall of All Evil

peacegirl · #**39974** 08-08-2014, 12:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWE

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by BWE

well, peacegirl, your fame has finally escaped this little corner of the internet and now people from TR, (well, at least one person from TR) is interested in what you have to say. But for really real, this thread is way too long and I would appreciate it if you started over at TR. Agree with DavidM that TR is not for everyone but it is home to some surprisingly smart people and I for one would like to read what you have to say there.

Hell, you don't need to wait for peacegirl to start a thread. Do it yourself! The Website and book in question is here.

Clearly, you folks need some new shit for your toilet. You've been gnawing on Socrates (!) Gary Gaulin (sp?) Dave Hawkins (lol!) and Atheistoclast for years, right? You need new Crazy Blood! You can start the thread yourself: "Hey gang, look at this Internets Book I found."

Bartholomew Roberts: STFU BWE or I will track you to your home and switch your balls with your eyes.

Socrates: But this is not worth arguing about.

etc.

LOL.

If peacegirl doesn't do it, do it for her! She'll thank you afterward!

What the fuck is wrong with you?

BWE, do you think it's worth me going to TR? I know David thinks it's a garbage dump, which is why he told me to go there. What is your take? I respect your thoughts.

Spacemonkey · #**39975** 08-08-2014, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Compulsive Liar

I answered this Spacemonkey. The photon that left the Sun could not travel millions of miles to Earth instantly, but that same photon could be at the retina in virtually no time if proportionality (which means we would see the Sun being turned on as quickly as we would see a lighted candle) --- along with the efferent model of sight --- is correct.

No, that is not what proportionality means, and no, you have not answered my questions. So stop lying to me and answer them:

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

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?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.