A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Florence Jellem

You mean your iPhone that uses GPS? Which functions according the the theory of relativity, which rules out real-time seeing?

Is that the iPhone you’re referring to, dear?

No dear!

GPS satellite navigation system doesn't use, doesnt need and doesn't prove Einstein's General Relativity. The atomic clocks on the satellites have their rates preset in order to match experimentally observed effects. No General Relativity is needed.
Why does GPS depend on relativity? - Physics Stack Exchange

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Stephen Maturin, be aware: the only authentic text is the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime. The Corrupted Text is corrupt.

#ChuckIsNoTrueSteward

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

#ChuckIsNoTrueSteward

Who is the True Steward of the Authentic Text?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Who is the True Steward of the Authentic Text?

Google says you are, so it must be true!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Florence Jellem

peacegirl is reacting in this negative fashion because her precious world view is under assault. She feels anger and resentment toward ChuckF, and ultimately toward her own father. I hope everyone reading this, can see this.

You know you are describing yourself David, someone whose worldview is threatened by Lessans' claims. You find satisfaction in satirizing the book as if this changes what is true.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Google says you are, so it must be true!

Ok, I have to break the fourth wall for a second here.

Do you seriously not see it? Step back and look carefully. Think hard.

I mean, it's ok if you don't. I can continue #TrueStewardship forever, as it is not especially demanding.

[Florence Jellem]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Ok, I have to break the fourth wall for a second here.

Do you seriously not see it? Step back and look carefully. Think hard.

I mean, it's ok if you don't. I can continue #TrueStewardship forever, as it is not especially demanding.

Takes one's breath away, doesn't it, dear?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

peacegirl, as the True Steward of the Authentic Text, I cannot blame you for seeking to retreat to your Facebook page to discuss your Corrupted Text, and I wish you the best of luck in that endeavor. However, I do not understand why you so dismiss the Authentic Text as "ignorance," and why it agitates you so to see the Authentic Text discussed and analyzed with interest. It seems to me that this is precisely the outcome that you sought for so many years; it simply took me acting as the #TrueSteward of the Authentic Text to bring it about. It makes one wonder if your Corruptions are dearer to you than the Authentic Text.

However, peacegirl, I retain hope that one day you will be able to turn off the switch and remove the negative plate or word slide, you will see clearly on the pure screen of substance that I am the True Steward of the Authentic Text, and thereby transmute the baser metals of your blameful nature into the pure gold of the Golden Age. #TrueStewardship

Originally Posted by peacegirl

peacegirl, as the True Steward of the Authentic Text, I cannot blame you for seeking to retreat to your Facebook page to discuss your Corrupted Text, and I wish you the best of luck in that endeavor. However, I do not understand why you so dismiss the Authentic Text as "ignorance," and why it agitates you so to see the Authentic Text discussed and analyzed with interest. It seems to me that this is precisely the outcome that you sought for so many years; it simply took me acting as the #TrueSteward of the Authentic Text to bring it about. It makes one wonder if your Corruptions are dearer to you than the Authentic Text.

However, peacegirl, I retain hope that one day you will be able to turn off the switch and remove the negative plate or word slide, you will see clearly on the pure screen of substance that I am the True Steward of the Authentic Text, and thereby transmute the baser metals of your blameful nature into the pure gold of the Golden Age. #TrueStewardship

peacegirl, no one blames you for your complete incompetence.

[Florence Jellem]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

peacegirl, no one blames you for your complete incompetence.

This is the sort of thing that happens when you drunk post.

Now, granted, Flo drinks a a LOT of hooch, but when I post I try to make sure I am not seeing double.

[Stephen Maturin]

"My iPhone did it" in 3 ... 2 ... 1...

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No dear!

GPS satellite navigation system doesn't use, doesnt need and doesn't prove Einstein's General Relativity. The atomic clocks on the satellites have their rates preset in order to match experimentally observed effects. No General Relativity is needed.
Why does GPS depend on relativity? - Physics Stack Exchange

The article contains opinions that support both views. It seems that you have picked the ones that support your view and think that settles it. The science states that GPS relies on GR to work, and I would go with science.

[thedoc]

The Universe Jump to Light Speed Universe...

Lessans was wrong.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No dear!

GPS satellite navigation system doesn't use, doesnt need and doesn't prove Einstein's General Relativity. The atomic clocks on the satellites have their rates preset in order to match experimentally observed effects. No General Relativity is needed.
Why does GPS depend on relativity? - Physics Stack Exchange

While there may be some debate about whether or not the satellites need to adjust for the time-dilation effects of General Relativity on the satellites, only the outright cranks think that time is not dilating on the satellites, as predicted by GR.

Go ahead and side with the person who says, "The Cesium atoms are being compressed as they move through the ether." That's not any more stupid than thinking vaccines cause autism.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Google says you are, so it must be true!

it is one of the attractions of talking to you that you can be counted upon to do the exact thing you accuse others of, pretty much on the same page as the accusation.

A few posts back you referred to a sort of yahoo answers page for physics, where one of the answers (heavily criticized by actual physicists) happened to think GR did not have anything to do with the observed time difference between satellites and the devices on earth they have to communicate with. It kind of boiled down to "Atomic clocks just tick faster at high altitude", which is a silly thing to say when you consider how atomic clocks work. But of course you did not bother to actually try and understand how any of it works, but just quoted whatever seemed to suit you. Again.

So I guess whatever google says IS true, when it seems to agree with you. Just not when it doesn't!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

...as far as you can tell. And that, of course, is the problem. I know you believe you got it right. Just as the doctor from the example believes he is doing the right thing. But you are treating it with a level of confidence you criticize in others... and that the book itself criticizes when it comes to healthcare providers, for instance.

I made no claims regarding healthcare providers. All I wrote is that no doctor will make claims he isn't sure of.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Language gap I am afraid - English is not my first language. I was also referring to doctors. The point remains the same.

You're not listening. I did not change the concepts. They were in his own words.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

So you assume. But we cannot be sure, and neither can you.

I'm 100% positive.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And you have no way of knowing if your changes are 100% correct. That is the problem. I know you feel they are. But unless we look at an unchanged text, we just cannot be sure - and there are significant differences.

That's not true. If you feel uncertain, you can study (not just peruse) his 7 books on your own. Only then will you know the true significance of his discovery.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Not at all - some of the statements about the experiment where we turn on the sun at noon, for instance, are the exact opposite in your version.

It wasn't my version. These were his words in his later books. He must have made intentional corrections later in his writing, or he wouldn't have changed that passage.

Respect is a theme running through the entire book.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Which is neither here nor there. Nowhere in the book does it say respect is the basis of sexual gratification, an issue you are now trying to dodge.

So what if it wasn't said outright. It is a direct inference of how people will treat each other.

There were 7 books in all. All I did was compile things he took out and I left out things that were not necessary and could be problematic as we have seen

.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

There you go: there are omissions where you decided to leave something out. But how can you be sure they were not important?

No Vivisectus, there are a very small amount of omissions that were insignificant because they were just examples that did not have to be included such as the explicit sex stuff that you all are making so much fun over.

People have purposely taken things out of context because they resent his claim regarding the eyes. These people did not study the book in sequence therefore they don't even have the basic understanding that is the foundation for the rest of the book.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You mean the sequence you put them in, or the sequence that they were in originally? You just admitted that the sequence is important, and yet that is exactly one of the things you changed!

No Vivisectus, the sequence is essential especially with the first two chapters. Also, in order to understand the extension of these principles into marriage, you have to understand his chapter on the eyes and his chapter on premarital relations. You cannot just open the book like the fake steward and think you know what you're talking about. This guy's ignorance is beyond anything I've ever seen.

In view of the fact that the first two chapters must be read
thoroughly before any other reading is done, it is my hope that the
table of contents will not tempt you to read in a desultory manner.
Should you jump ahead and read other chapters this work could
appear like a fairy tale otherwise the statement that truth is stranger
than fiction will be amply verified by the scientific world, or by
yourself, if you are able to follow the reasoning of mathematical
relations.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And there are several important differences between your version and the older one. It says the exact opposite about the sun-turned-on-at-noon thought experiment, for a start.

Yes, but what he meant to say was clarified in his later books.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You decided which version to put forth as the correct answer - and we have all seen how disastrously you failed at explaining it. How can you be sure it was the right one? 100% beyond any doubt?

I'm not going to argue with you. The book Chuck has was written in 1971. It was his 3rd text. He wrote 7. In his later books he seemed to correct his earlier mistake or it wouldn't have been changed. You can think whatever you want.

It was not an interpretation. My compilation was based on his words. That is why I am the true steward of his work. I cannot explain his reasoning in this caustic environment. Anyone would find this impossible. I cannot believe I lasted this long.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Based on.

Again, how can you be sure that the words you based on his were correct?

Most of the book were his actual words, not based on his words. I only gave examples or changed the way a sentence was structured because there was a better way of saying the same thing. I don't think there are 100 different ways to interpret his writing although I can see where people could make anything up they want to just to turn it into a joke.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I never said you did. I just said that you are making positive claims when you simply cannot know for sure, just as the books say doctors and other experts should stop doing in the new world. And just like them, you feel you are doing it for the best.

Your logic is off.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Your complete failure to refute it suggests otherwise.

I haven't failed in my refutation.

I didn't make a mistake.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You cannot be certain. That is why what you did was a mistake - the same the book actually warns about.

Think what you want.

.

You just did it again.

Did what again? I copied his observations from his own words. You can believe his observations were wrong. That's your choice.

[Vivisectus]

You're not listening. I did not change the concepts. They were in his own words.

I'm 100% positive.

Fortunately, this being you, your next response shows us that while you feel certain that you are correct, you are in fact basing that on an assumption.

It wasn't my version. These were his words in his later books. He must have made intentional corrections later in his writing, or he wouldn't have changed that passage.

And you assume that he really meant what he said in later books. And despite this, you claim you are 100% correct. Despite the fact you are utterly unable to explain what actually happens.

That rather makes my point for me, don't you think?

So what if it wasn't said outright. It is a direct inference of how people will treat each other.

Here you make my point for me again. You assume he means something, and then claim it is the only possible correct interpretation.

No Vivisectus, there are a very small amount of omissions that were insignificant because they were just examples that did not have to be included such as the explicit sex stuff that you all are making so much fun over.

Which you decided were not important, or just did not like.

No Vivisectus, the sequence is essential especially with the first two chapters. Also, in order to understand the extension of these principles into marriage, you have to understand his chapter on the eyes and his chapter on premarital relations. You cannot just open the book like the fake steward and think you know what you're talking about. This guy's ignorance is beyond anything I've ever seen.

The sequence is crucial even? But that is one of the things you changed. Based on your opinion on how it should be presented.

That is your interpretation.

I'm not going to argue with you. The book Chuck has was written in 1971. It was his 3rd text. He wrote 7. In his later books he seemed to correct his earlier mistake or it wouldn't have been changed. You can think whatever you want.

There you go - you assume that it was correct because it was written later. But that does not necessarily follow. And yet you pretend it is 100% certain that it was correct... even though you have no way of knowing that. You make my point for me yet again.

Most of the book were his actual words, not based on his words. I only gave examples or changed the way a sentence was structured because there was a better way of saying the same thing. I don't think there are 100 different ways to interpret his writing although I can see where people could make anything up they want to just to turn it into a joke.

And again - you assumed the better way of saying things is correct, even though you really just assume it is.

I haven't failed in my refutation.

Of course not - there was none. You didn't fail IN your refutation. You failed to refute.

Think what you want.

I do not just think it, I can demonstrate it, like I just did, using your own words.

Did what again? I copied his observations from his own words. You can believe his observations were wrong. That's your choice.

You say something is absolutely true when in fact you base your belief that it is true on assumptions... exactly what the book says has to stop. This is why it is so funny that you keep on doing it... about the book!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Fortunately, this being you, your next response shows us that while you feel certain that you are correct, you are in fact basing that on an assumption.

And you assume that he really meant what he said in later books. And despite this, you claim you are 100% correct. Despite the fact you are utterly unable to explain what actually happens.

That rather makes my point for me, don't you think?

Here you make my point for me again. You assume he means something, and then claim it is the only possible correct interpretation.

Which you decided were not important, or just did not like.

The sequence is crucial even? But that is one of the things you changed. Based on your opinion on how it should be presented.

That is your interpretation.

There you go - you assume that it was correct because it was written later. But that does not necessarily follow. And yet you pretend it is 100% certain that it was correct... even though you have no way of knowing that. You make my point for me yet again.

And again - you assumed the better way of saying things is correct, even though you really just assume it is.

Of course not - there was none. You didn't fail IN your refutation. You failed to refute.

I do not just think it, I can demonstrate it, like I just did, using your own words.

You say something is absolutely true when in fact you base your belief that it is true on assumptions... exactly what the book says has to stop. This is why it is so funny that you keep on doing it... about the book!

You're right Vivisectus. I made no refutations in 6 years and none of his observations that lead to the two-sided equation are proven to be 100 percent correct. You are the winner!

[Vivisectus]

I was talking about the specific point you responded to, not about your 6 years of bizarro logic that gave us gems like the other side of the coin of the image, the Astute Observation that constitutes it's own proof, Something Else Must Be Going On, and the conditions for efferent sight, which, when they are met, mean that the non-absorbed photon must be at the retina, which explains how that photon got there.

That, and the flat-out statement that if your dad had been wrong, he would have corrected it, so he couldn't have been.

Though those were really good too.

[ChuckF]

I thought we had a breakthrough there for a second, but it looks like a full reset is underway now. Back to work, I suppose - as the True Steward of the Authentic Text, my work is never done!

The fundamental problem with the Corrupted Text is that it is Corrupt and therefore must be rejected. The only authentic text is the Authentic Text as written by the Author and published in his lifetime.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Google says you are, so it must be true!

If it were not true I am sure the Internet Checkers would have promptly brought that fact to our attention.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

I was talking about the specific point you responded to, not about your 6 years of bizarro logic that gave us gems like the other side of the coin of the image, the Astute Observation that constitutes it's own proof, Something Else Must Be Going On, and the conditions for efferent sight, which, when they are met, mean that the non-absorbed photon must be at the retina, which explains how that photon got there.

That, and the flat-out statement that if your dad had been wrong, he would have corrected it, so he couldn't have been.

Though those were really good too.

I am basing my belief that he is right by his observations regarding the eyes. I'm sorry that it conflicts with the mainstream view, but that's life.

[Florence Jellem]

Peacegirl, if you would only listen to ChuckF, then you could learn something about your father’s book. As it stands, all of us are learning from ChuckF except you. But your constant inane interruptions, defensive posturing, links to incompetent attempts to decouple the functioning of GPS devices from the special and general theories of relativity (if Google says so, it must be true, right dear?) and overall churlishness is ruining it for everyone.

At some point we are going to have to ask you to sit in a corner and wear a dunce cap, dear. That won’t be pleasant for you or us.

Bottom line, dear: try not to be a dumbass for once in your life.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

it is one of the attractions of talking to you that you can be counted upon to do the exact thing you accuse others of, pretty much on the same page as the accusation.

A few posts back you referred to a sort of yahoo answers page for physics, where one of the answers (heavily criticized by actual physicists) happened to think GR did not have anything to do with the observed time difference between satellites and the devices on earth they have to communicate with. It kind of boiled down to "Atomic clocks just tick faster at high altitude", which is a silly thing to say when you consider how atomic clocks work. But of course you did not bother to actually try and understand how any of it works, but just quoted whatever seemed to suit you. Again.

So I guess whatever google says IS true, when it seems to agree with you. Just not when it doesn't!

The guy that invented GPS did not use general relativity in GPS systems. He used classical relativity. So you're saying that's incorrect?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The guy that invented GPS did not use general relativity in GPS systems. He used classical relativity. So you're saying that's incorrect?

Oh really?

From the article,

"History
The design of GPS is based partly on similar ground-based radio-navigation systems, such as LORAN and the Decca Navigator, developed in the early 1940s and used by the British Royal Navy during World War II.

In 1956, the German-American physicist Friedwardt Winterberg[12] proposed a test of general relativity — detecting time slowing in a strong gravitational field using accurate atomic clocks placed in orbit inside artificial satellites.

Special and general relativity predict that the clocks on the GPS satellites would be seen by the Earth's observers to run 38 microseconds faster per day than the clocks on the Earth. The GPS calculated positions would quickly drift into error, accumulating to 10 kilometers per day. The relativistic time effect of the GPS clocks running faster than the clocks on earth was corrected for in the design of GPS."

Global Positioning System - Wikipedia

Peacegirl continues to Make Shit Up to support her position.

[Florence Jellem]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The guy that invented GPS did not use general relativity in GPS systems. He used classical relativity. So you're saying that's incorrect?

Yes, dear, that's incorrect.

But you found someone on Google who said it is correct, so it must be true, right? Since Google also says ChuckF is the true steward of the Authentic Text, then you now must agree that he is, right?