SHORTWAVE radio! My wife and I used to have a battery-operated shortwave radio receiver. Maybe five or six years ago the electric power distribution gear our neck of the woods had deteriorated to the point where 4-5 hour power outages during peak usage times in the summer weren't uncommon. Sometimes we'd entertain ourselves with the shortwave radio.
You hear some very cool stuff from around the world on shortwave radio. You also hear a lot of lunacy. My, oh my, what a motley collection of doomsday preppers, mentally ill fundamentalist preachers and preacher wannabes, conspiracy whackadoos and other apocalyptic fruit loops! If the Sacred Text can't find an audience on shortwave radio, then the audience straight up doesn't exist.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
[Lessans] did not have a method, don't you understand that?
At long last, a statement on which everyone can agree.
You know what I meant.
Nope. The only evidence I have of what you mean is what you write. How am I or anyone else supposed to know what "meant" when it's completely different from what you posted?
When I said Lessans didn't have a method, you should know what I meant. We've been discussing the scientific method for over two years. I just left out the word "scientific". That should make everyone happy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The SCIENTIFIC method ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen_Maturin
Okay. So if you meant to say that Lessans didn't use the scientific method, then why did you write that he "did not have a method" at all? Your command of the language can most charitably be described as poor, but I reckon that total immersion in the Sacred Text would do that to anyone. Clarity and coherence are our friends, long lost friends in your case.
Funny is, I think you lost your chance of learning anything from this thread a long time ago. You made up your mind that Lessans was a crackpot, and never took a thing seriously. You haven't asked a pertinent question as far back as I can remember.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
... which happens to be wrong half the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen_Maturin
Did you really mean that the scientific method itself is wrong, but only half the time? If so, because the statement is wholly nonsensical.
There is nothing wrong with the methodology, but it fails a lot of the time because it can never gather all of the variables that may have a bearing on the results. In fact, the results can be extremely misleading.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen_Maturin
If, on the other hand, you meant to say that the scientific method produces incorrect results half the time, then that's what you should have written. You also should have backed it up. Can you do that?
lol no you can't.
There are plenty of misleading conclusions out there. The methodology may be okay, but there is a lot of bias, and this is not okay.
SHORTWAVE radio! My wife and I used to have a battery-operated shortwave radio receiver. Maybe five or six years ago the electric power distribution gear our neck of the woods had deteriorated to the point where 4-5 hour power outages during peak usage times in the summer weren't uncommon. Sometimes we'd entertain ourselves with the shortwave radio.
You hear some very cool stuff from around the world on shortwave radio. You also hear a lot of lunacy. My, oh my, what a motley collection of doomsday preppers, mentally ill fundamentalist preachers and preacher wannabes, conspiracy whackadoos and other apocalyptic fruit loops! If the Sacred Text can't find an audience on shortwave radio, then the audience straight up doesn't exist.
That is not the kind of audience I am looking for. Thanks but no thanks.
You don't know what it took for Lessans to "earn" what he will one day be remembered for, and it's the opposite of crackpot.
Neither he nor you have earned the authority that you try to gain by claiming you have done lots of research, by not sharing anything about that research. Or by claiming the book is "scientific" when the book has nothing to do with science.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
But hey! This is easily cleared up. Simply share the research so we can all see that some decent research with a sound methodology was used! Nothing could be simpler.
Stop making this the only method that can be used to determine what is true. He did not have a method, don't you understand that? He wasn't looking to make a discovery. You're really spiting yourself Vivisectus because the very thing you would love to be true, is true, but you are mocking and snubbing your nose at this man, which will never allow you to understand these principles. You are too quick to criticize them. Even your criticism of the right-of-way system is wrong, but maybe it's my fault for not explaining it better.
I was referring to your own research, but you are correct: it is clear he did not use any method for his research, relying purely on inspirations that you call "astute observations".
And what am I to make of this garbled mess of a sentence?
Quote:
You're really spiting yourself Vivisectus because the very thing you would love to be true, is true, but you are mocking and snubbing your nose at this man, which will never allow you to understand these principles.
I assume this is the usual "It is YOUR fault the book makes no sense because you are (Stupid/Biased/Malicious - cross out what is not applicable)"?
This book is clearly written. It makes every bit of sense. You will snub your nose at it, like the others in here, until this book gets recognized.
As far as a marketing plan, this is where I am going to have difficulty. I don't know how I'm going to contact the people that could help be intrumental without them thinking this is some kind of joke.
Yes, it is going to be very difficult to get anyone to treat this as anything but a joke.
So what's on the list for your marketing plan so far, peacegirl? AFAICT all you've said about it so far is that you're going to look for a well-known and credible person to do the work for you. Is that your only plan? Who do you have on your list to contact? What is plan B if no one will take it seriously and agree to help you? Have you ever tried to present this material verbally to a group in a lecture series format? That might be very good practice for you and you can set it up so that no one gets to interrupt you when you don't make sense.
That would need to be a 'listen only' lecture, with no question and comment period. We already know there would be no answers.
__________________ The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
I will contact some radio stations and see if I can get an interview that is prerecorded. This is such a difficult topic that it could easily confuse people as it has done in here if they haven't actually read the book. A live radio show could probably do me harm because it could easily turn into a fiasco.
At least she's being honest.
If you do a radio interview, make sure the host has only half a brain and can't think, and doesn't know anything about science, especially optics and vision, and psychology. If the host believes in UFO's and Big Foot and conspiracys, you'll probably have a better chance.
__________________ The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
I brought up photons because they are believed to have the pattern of the object they bounced off of, and as long as science holds this position, there is no way they will take this claim seriously because they believe it violates physics.
The nature of reflected light (wavelength, intensity, angle) provides information about the material it was reflected from. This is a fact. It can be empirically observed and consistently measured.
In that it is somewhat similar to sonar. The nature of the returning soundwaves (frequency, intensity, angle) provides information of what it was reflected from, and we can then use that information to create an image. Do you have similar problems with this aspect of sonar? Sonar Image
Not at all.
Quote:
Photons are compared to drops of water that travel independently from their source
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Again, fact. Empirically observed and consistently measurable. Light energy exists separately from matter.
Just curious, how is that observed?
Quote:
or they are seen as artifacts from some other time in history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Light is energy, energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only be transformed into some other kind of energy. So light that has not been transformed into another kind of energy necessarily still exists as light...regardless of how long ago it was emitted. This is a fact.
Energy does not go on forever if it isn't fueled. I just don't get that.
Interesting. She begged you all to stop talking about vision and let her move on but when I tried to get her to move on and talk about the realities of marketing she posted about vision. Hmmm.
[Lessans] did not have a method, don't you understand that?
At long last, a statement on which everyone can agree.
You know what I meant.
Nope. The only evidence I have of what you mean is what you write. How am I or anyone else supposed to know what "meant" when it's completely different from what you posted?
When I said Lessans didn't have a method, you should know what I meant.
Okay. So, we should assume that whenever you write something it's possible (or even likely) that you mean something completely different. In other words, what you write isn't to be trusted. Gotcha.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The SCIENTIFIC method ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen_Maturin
Okay. So if you meant to say that Lessans didn't use the scientific method, then why did you write that he "did not have a method" at all? Your command of the language can most charitably be described as poor, but I reckon that total immersion in the Sacred Text would do that to anyone. Clarity and coherence are our friends, long lost friends in your case.
Funny is, I think you lost your chance of learning anything from this thread a long time ago.
That's not true at all. This thread and its sibling have been treasure troves of valuable information. I don't mean the Lessantonian gibberish, of course. That part's been like watching a gibbon bang on a computer keyboard 8-10 hours per day, stopping occasionally to pant-hoot and fling its own shit. That has entertainment value, but it's not particularly informative.
Fortunately, there have been many other participants. I learned a great deal from them about philosophy - a subject I haven't studied seriously for 30 years - along with biology and physics - subjects I hadn't studied seriously at all. The participation of people who are actually knowledgeable about the subjects at hand give these threads real value.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
... which happens to be wrong half the time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen_Maturin
Did you really mean that the scientific method itself is wrong, but only half the time? If so, because the statement is wholly nonsensical.
There is nothing wrong with the methodology, ...
Then why did you write otherwise?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
... but it fails a lot of the time because it can never gather all of the variables that may have a bearing on the results. In fact, the results can be extremely misleading.
Oh yeah, that's the stuff -- stay on message, silliness be damned! It's like watching a George W. Bush debate performance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen_Maturin
If, on the other hand, you meant to say that the scientific method produces incorrect results half the time, then that's what you should have written. You also should have backed it up. Can you do that?
lol no you can't.
There are plenty of misleading conclusions out there. The methodology may be okay, but there is a lot of bias, and this is not okay.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
Light is energy, energy cannot be created nor destroyed, it can only be transformed into some other kind of energy. So light that has not been transformed into another kind of energy necessarily still exists as light...regardless of how long ago it was emitted. This is a fact.
Energy does not go on forever if it isn't fueled. I just don't get that.
Photons are not like little cars that need to be refueled periodically. Photons are energy that exists and continue to exist till they are transformed into another form of energy. You should really study just a little physics to understand what happens in the real world.
__________________ The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
You don't know what it took for Lessans to "earn" what he will one day be remembered for, and it's the opposite of crackpot.
Neither he nor you have earned the authority that you try to gain by claiming you have done lots of research, by not sharing anything about that research. Or by claiming the book is "scientific" when the book has nothing to do with science.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
But hey! This is easily cleared up. Simply share the research so we can all see that some decent research with a sound methodology was used! Nothing could be simpler.
Stop making this the only method that can be used to determine what is true. He did not have a method, don't you understand that? He wasn't looking to make a discovery. You're really spiting yourself Vivisectus because the very thing you would love to be true, is true, but you are mocking and snubbing your nose at this man, which will never allow you to understand these principles. You are too quick to criticize them. Even your criticism of the right-of-way system is wrong, but maybe it's my fault for not explaining it better.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
I was referring to your own research, but you are correct: it is clear he did not use any method for his research, relying purely on inspirations that you call "astute observations".
B*#*$ S**$%, you were not referring to my own research. Why would you say this Vivisectus? I can't even read further because of your comment.
I was, actually. I meant it would be very easy to clear up the doubts about the quality of your research into child safety by simply sharing it.
Children get injured or killed every year due to preventable accidents. I have tried to show children how to look for risks in their everyday life. The book is entertaining for kids but it gets the main points across. The statistics are alarming but even if one child gets hurt, it's too many.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
I already know that no trace of the research your father was supposed to have done remains. It seems to have consisted solely of reading and what we shall call inspirations just to be nice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
And what am I to make of this garbled mess of a sentence?
Quote:
Quote:
You're really spiting yourself Vivisectus because the very thing you would love to be true, is true, but you are mocking and snubbing your nose at this man, which will never allow you to understand these principles.
I assume this is the usual "It is YOUR fault the book makes no sense because you are (Stupid/Biased/Malicious - cross out what is not applicable)"?
There you go. This is tit for tat. I'm not interested anymore. This discussion has gone on not for the purpose of truly understanding his claims, but to mock them. You did a great job, but don't post anymore because I have no desire interacting with you.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
You say that every time it becomes abundantly clear even to you that your ideas are irrational. Amazing how such irrational, biased and unfounded criticism is still completely impossible for you to refute without hissy fits, appeals to emotion, appeals to special standards, and even outright contradiction such as your famous photons that are in two places at the same time.
But apparently, that too is someone else's fault!
That's why I must end this discussion on the eyes. There are no special standards, just astute observation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Photons are compared to drops of water that travel independently from their source, or they are seen as artifacts from some other time in history. Now if science holds this position, everything I say will look like total nonsense.
Indeed: as long as people think it is impossible that a photon can somehow be at two places at the same time when they are looked at, this idea is going to seem particularly nonsensical. But that is not because the position that photons cannot be in two places at the same time is unreasonable: quite the reverse. You idea is impossible, as it relies on impossible things ocurring.
You could use your excuse for anything: just because cameras, when at very great altitude, make pictures that make the earth seem round, makes it seem that the idea that the earth is flat seem ridiculous. Just because it looks like babies come from semen and an ovum, makes the idea that babies are created by faries look silly...
I never said that a photon can be at two places at one time.
Interesting. She begged you all to stop talking about vision and let her move on but when I tried to get her to move on and talk about the realities of marketing she posted about vision. Hmmm.
Christina, I didn't know you were trying to help me move on. Why didn't you say so? I am not going to continue discussing the eyes, so if there is nothing more to talk about, this thread is over.
I never said that a photon can be at two places at one time.
Actually you did say that, in effect. You stated that an object had to be 'surrounded by light' (photons), and when we looked at the object photons would be instantly at our retina. An instant transfer means that the photon much disapear at one location (the object) and reappear at the same time at another location (the retina). That means that at the instant of transfer the photon is 2 places at once. However you never stated that the photon disappears at the object, so we could assume that you mean that the photon continues to exist at the object while it appears at the retina, thus being 2 places at once.
__________________ The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
I never said that a photon can be at two places at one time.
Yes you did, you dishonest, jabbering little ass. You have said this repeatedly. You even said that you understood how "hard" it was for people to understand how photons can be at the eye before photons have arrived at the eye!
Gosh criminey, are you stoopid.
As for wingnut radio and Web sites, check out Coast to Coast A.M., which used to be hosted by Art Bell. They might give you an audience. Also check out Richard Hoagland's Enterprise Project. Hoagland might give you a hearing; he maintains that an ordinary butte on Mars is a carved face! Try to hook up with Obama birfers and 9/11 troofers; all these people are your speed. Oh, and also check out Alex Jones at Inforwars, who recently said that Obama is putting chemicals into our orange juice to make us all gay. Try to link Lessans' "discoveries" to this sort of wingnuttery and you WILL get a hearing; in fact you will probably get a lot of fans, given how many retarded people like you inhabit America. Good luck.
My question is why are people still here? Are they here just to see how far I will go to twist things to make things fit into a worldview that I can't seem to let go of? I guess that's it.
Well, it is fascinating to observe just how willing you are to dissemble, distort, and outright lie in support of your "Lessans is infallible, and reality itself must be wrong if it conflicts with Lessans' claims" premise.
"Fascinating" in much the same way that a train wreck is fascinating, but fascinating nonetheless.
I have not dissembled, distorted, or lied in support of Lessans. I have tried to explain his observations but had no idea that the fallout would be this bad. That's why I'm done.
I never said that a photon can be at two places at one time.
Yes you did, you dishonest, jabbering little ass. You have said this repeatedly. You even said that you understood how "hard" it was for people to understand how photons can be at the eye before photons have arrived at the eye!
Gosh criminey, are you stoopid.
As for wingnut radio and Web sites, check out Coast to Coast A.M., which used to be hosted by Art Bell. They might give you an audience. Also check out Richard Hoagland's Enterprise Project. Hoagland might give you a hearing; he maintains that an ordinary butte on Mars is a carved face! Try to hook up with Obama birfers and 9/11 troofers; all these people are your speed. Oh, and also check out Alex Jones at Inforwars, who recently said that Obama is putting chemicals into our orange juice to make us all gay. Try to link Lessans' "discoveries" to this sort of wingnuttery and you WILL get a hearing; in fact you will probably get a lot of fans, given how many retarded people like you inhabit America. Good luck.
Did you notice that David is always right there to chime when he thinks I'm down for the count? This must give him such great satisfaction!
Actually, you've outright lied on many, many occasions. You've even lied about your lying. Like you just did, for example. Should we list some examples?
__________________
“The greatest way to live with honor in this world is to be what we pretend to be.”
I never said that a photon can be at two places at one time.
Actually you did say that, in effect. You stated that an object had to be 'surrounded by light' (photons), and when we looked at the object photons would be instantly at our retina. An instant transfer means that the photon much disapear at one location (the object) and reappear at the same time at another location (the retina). That means that at the instant of transfer the photon is 2 places at once. However you never stated that the photon disappears at the object, so we could assume that you mean that the photon continues to exist at the object while it appears at the retina, thus being 2 places at once.
By now you should know that's not what I meant. I said light travels and is replaced by new photons.
Interesting. She begged you all to stop talking about vision and let her move on but when I tried to get her to move on and talk about the realities of marketing she posted about vision. Hmmm.
Christina, I didn't know you were trying to help me move on. Why didn't you say so? I am not going to continue discussing the eyes, so if there is nothing more to talk about, this thread is over.
I didn't mean move on off of the forum, just move on with your project of getting the book out there. If you aren't going to talk about eyes anymore what are you going to talk about next? It's just the way that I think - I can't help trying to figure out what it is that you really want from this conversation and how someone could give it to you. I'm very practical and I'm much better at figuring out how to actually do something (once I know what it is that someone is trying to do) than I am at having the patience to explain the same things over and over. I'm pretty sure that you keep saying that you're done with forums because no one gets it and people just ridicule it so what do you want to do next? If it's to work on a marketing plan then you could talk about that or you could also choose to move on to the next chapter. It's like you have one foot nailed to the floor and want to know why you're going in circles. If you want to get somewhere you need to pick a direction and start moving.
Actually, you've outright lied on many, many occasions. You've even lied about your lying. Like you just did, for example. Should we list some examples?
I've lied about my lying? I guess your idea of a lie is different than mine. None of these definitions fit me.
lie
lie1 [lahy] Show IPA noun, verb, lied, ly·ing.
noun
1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. Synonyms: prevarication, falsification. Antonyms: truth.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.
4. the charge or accusation of telling a lie: He flung the lie back at his accusers.
verb (used without object)
5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive. Synonyms: prevaricate, fib.
6. to express what is false; convey a false impression.
Interesting. She begged you all to stop talking about vision and let her move on but when I tried to get her to move on and talk about the realities of marketing she posted about vision. Hmmm.
Christina, I didn't know you were trying to help me move on. Why didn't you say so? I am not going to continue discussing the eyes, so if there is nothing more to talk about, this thread is over.
I didn't mean move on off of the forum, just move on with your project of getting the book out there. If you aren't going to talk about eyes anymore what are you going to talk about next? It's just the way that I think - I can't help trying to figure out what it is that you really want from this conversation and how someone could give it to you. I'm very practical and I'm much better at figuring out how to actually do something (once I know what it is that someone is trying to do) than I am at having the patience to explain the same things over and over. I'm pretty sure that you keep saying that you're done with forums because no one gets it and people just ridicule it so what do you want to do next? If it's to work on a marketing plan then you could talk about that or you could also choose to move on to the next chapter. It's like you have one foot nailed to the floor and want to know why you're going in circles. If you want to get somewhere you need to pick a direction and start moving.
Thanks for your input. I think this thread is completely used up because I've already discussed his first discovery, of which no one gives any credence to, and the discussion on the eyes is not worth discussing anymore, so I don't know. I am almost in the marketing phase, so maybe that's something people want to discuss. Regardless of what people think of me, this has been an informative thread due to all the side discussions that went on.
Well, I don't know how anyone else feels and I'm sure that they'll continue to discuss the first 2 discoveries for as long as you'd like to but if you're serious about beginning to do things about marketing instead of just think about it I'll talk to you about it. I'm not an expert at marketing but I can help break it down into manageable tasks to do in an order that makes sense.
Actually, you've outright lied on many, many occasions. You've even lied about your lying. Like you just did, for example. Should we list some examples?
Are you serious! This thread is alreaty 1145 pages long, are you going for 2000 all at one time?
__________________ The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Re: A revolution in thought
because the statement is wholly nonsensical.
Linear Mode
