A revolution in thought - Page 1157

The Lone Ranger · #**28901** 07-09-2013, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Did you read that link? Did you understand it?

The author's premise is based on a misunderstanding of basic algebra.

I believe I did, did you?

Apparently, you didn't, if you can't even identify the elementary-school-level misunderstanding upon which he bases his entire premise.

But then, we've already established that neither mathematics nor basic logic are exactly your long suits.

No I can't identify the misunderstanding because there is no such thing as going back in time. Why can't you admit that science doesn't always get it right and that some of these theories (e.g., time machines and worm holes) are no more believable than the belief in fairies, or are you too proud to admit this?

Evidently, you didn't read it very carefully. The very elementary misunderstanding comes from his mistaken "proof" that "Nothing Can Move in Spacetime! By Definition!". Anyone who has had an algebra course should be able to identify it.

Dragar · #**28902** 07-09-2013, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Like how, when you were confronted by the fact that bionic eyes already exist -- devices which you yourself repeatedly claimed would disprove Lessans' claims -- you lied and denied that you had made any such claims. When confronted with proof that you had made those claims, and that you had done so repeatedly, you tried to claim that you had mis-spoken somehow -- another lie on your part, to try to cover the one that had just been exposed.

I'm not perfect Lone Ranger. I was being interrogated, and this forced me to come up with an answer so that people wouldn't think I am ignorant on this subject.

But you are ignorant on the subject. Very ignorant, and you know full well you know nothing about physics or bionic eyes.

You weren't forced to come up with an answer to deceive us all. You could have told the truth: that you did not know. Instead you chose to lie. You claim that there was no intent? Cut the crap. You just told us you came up with an answer - any answer - to try to hide an ignorance you are well aware of. To attempt to deceive us. That is lying.

peacegirl · #**28903** 07-09-2013, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Did you read that link? Did you understand it?

The author's premise is based on a misunderstanding of basic algebra.

I believe I did, did you?

Apparently, you didn't, if you can't even identify the elementary-school-level misunderstanding upon which he bases his entire premise.

But then, we've already established that neither mathematics nor basic logic are exactly your long suits.

No I can't identify the misunderstanding because there is no such thing as going back in time. Why can't you admit that science doesn't always get it right and that some of these theories (e.g., time machines and worm holes) are no more believable than the belief in fairies, or are you too proud to admit this?

Evidently, you didn't read it very carefully. The very elementary misunderstanding comes from his mistaken "proof" that "Nothing Can Move in Spacetime! By Definition!". Anyone who has had an algebra course should be able to identify it.

He was talking about time dimension.

Conclusion: There is no time dimension along which we move in one direction or the other. There is only the ever changing present. The so-called "arrow of time" is an absurdity and to speak of the possibility of time travel through wormholes is the ultimate in crackpottery.

http://www.rebelscience.org/Crackpots/notorious.htm

peacegirl · #**28904** 07-09-2013, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Like how, when you were confronted by the fact that bionic eyes already exist -- devices which you yourself repeatedly claimed would disprove Lessans' claims -- you lied and denied that you had made any such claims. When confronted with proof that you had made those claims, and that you had done so repeatedly, you tried to claim that you had mis-spoken somehow -- another lie on your part, to try to cover the one that had just been exposed.

I'm not perfect Lone Ranger. I was being interrogated, and this forced me to come up with an answer so that people wouldn't think I am ignorant on this subject.

But you are ignorant on the subject. Very ignorant, and you know full well you know nothing about physics or bionic eyes.

You weren't forced to come up with an answer to deceive us all. You could have told the truth: that you did not know. Instead you chose to lie. You claim that there was no intent? Cut the crap. You just told us you came up with an answer - any answer - to try to hide an ignorance you are well aware of. To attempt to deceive us. That is lying.

I was not trying to deceive anyone. I was trying to dispute the points that were being made in an attempt to discredit Lessans' claims. That's all I was doing.

peacegirl · #**28905** 07-09-2013, 07:18 PM

This may be interesting to some people.

If You Can Read This, I Can Prove God Exists

And one more by the same guy.

http://www.cosmicfingerprints.com/darwin-half-right/

Angakuk · #**28906** 07-09-2013, 07:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Peacegirl, before you leave for good would you please be so kind as to explain to me why we can't see the back of another person's head when we are standing face-to-face with them in broad daylight.

One of your frequent objections to the astronomical (eg. moons of jupiter, supernovas, Hubble Deep Space Images, etc.) examples that have been offered as evidence against your claims is that they include to many (possibly even unknown) variables and that you would prefer some examples a little closer to home. The above question is about as close to home as one can get. I cannot imagine what an answer in terms of Efferent Vision would look like. Please provide me with such an answer before you tootle off for parts unknown.

I answered you. We can't see the back of someone's head because the conditions are such that it would make it impossible. If a mirror was present we would be able to see the back of someone's head indirectly. This has no bearing on efferent vision because I never said that light was unessential to sight.

What conditions are those? Why would we need a mirror? You have repeatedly maintained that the only necessary conditions are that the object be big enough and bright enough. The back of a person's head is just as big and just as bright as the front under conditions of full (noon) daylight. What is missing? Why can't we see the back of the head just as well as we see the front?

Angakuk · #**28907** 07-09-2013, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I was not trying to deceive anyone. I was trying to dispute the points that were being made in an attempt to discredit Lessans' claims.

By making stuff up.

Stephen Maturin · #**28908** 07-09-2013, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're still stuck on that? Oh my goodness, you will hold this against him forever because you have nothing else.

Try actually reading posts before responding. I wasn't talking about your father's frivolous lawsuit against President Carter. The taxpayer money that little misadventure wasted was a drop in the bucket compared to the public funds expended on your shenanigans.

There were no public funds used.

Really? So you've never actually spent any of those federal disability benefits you're collecting?

My health issue has nothing to do with my father.

I never suggested it did. However, the fact that you're taking federal benefits for which you don't qualify is yet another nail in the coffin of your credibility.

By the way, a sizeable percentage of the people who've participated in this thread are Americans who pay into the Social Security system. You should be a lot more respectful of your benefactors.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will not talk to you if you keep this up.

You'll stop talking to me when I goddamn jolly well give you permission to stop, not a moment before.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen_Maturin

I respect your considerable expertise in the field of dishonesty, but you're wrong as a simple matter of fact. Liar. Noun. One who tells lies. You know who the describes? You! Keep in mind that you've told the "friend of the family" lie multiple times on multiple forums. The list of whoppers you've told here is massive and gets longer by the day. The observation that you're a liar is both spot-on and astute.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Telling people that my father was a friend of the family ...

You mean lying? Because that's what it was -- a lie. You know, like all the other lies you've told. Do you know that that makes you? A liar. :wave:

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

... was justified.

Of course. The first and most fundamental tenet of Lessantology is that anything a Lessans does is ipso facto justified.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

FYI, I could care less what you think of me.

More dishonesty. If you weren't concerned, you wouldn't respond. :wave:

peacegirl · #**28909** 07-09-2013, 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Peacegirl, before you leave for good would you please be so kind as to explain to me why we can't see the back of another person's head when we are standing face-to-face with them in broad daylight.

One of your frequent objections to the astronomical (eg. moons of jupiter, supernovas, Hubble Deep Space Images, etc.) examples that have been offered as evidence against your claims is that they include to many (possibly even unknown) variables and that you would prefer some examples a little closer to home. The above question is about as close to home as one can get. I cannot imagine what an answer in terms of Efferent Vision would look like. Please provide me with such an answer before you tootle off for parts unknown.

I answered you. We can't see the back of someone's head because the conditions are such that it would make it impossible. If a mirror was present we would be able to see the back of someone's head indirectly. This has no bearing on efferent vision because I never said that light was unessential to sight.

What conditions are those? Why would we need a mirror? You have repeatedly maintained that the only necessary conditions are that the object be big enough and bright enough. The back of a person's head is just as big and just as bright as the front under conditions of full (noon) daylight. What is missing? Why can't we see the back of the head just as well as we see the front?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. It's obvious that we can only see that part of an object that is facing us because that provides light at the retina.

Angakuk · #**28910** 07-09-2013, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Peacegirl, before you leave for good would you please be so kind as to explain to me why we can't see the back of another person's head when we are standing face-to-face with them in broad daylight.

One of your frequent objections to the astronomical (eg. moons of jupiter, supernovas, Hubble Deep Space Images, etc.) examples that have been offered as evidence against your claims is that they include to many (possibly even unknown) variables and that you would prefer some examples a little closer to home. The above question is about as close to home as one can get. I cannot imagine what an answer in terms of Efferent Vision would look like. Please provide me with such an answer before you tootle off for parts unknown.

I answered you. We can't see the back of someone's head because the conditions are such that it would make it impossible. If a mirror was present we would be able to see the back of someone's head indirectly. This has no bearing on efferent vision because I never said that light was unessential to sight.

What conditions are those? Why would we need a mirror? You have repeatedly maintained that the only necessary conditions are that the object be big enough and bright enough. The back of a person's head is just as big and just as bright as the front under conditions of full (noon) daylight. What is missing? Why can't we see the back of the head just as well as we see the front?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. It's obvious that we can only see that part of an object that is facing us because that provides light at the retina.

How does the part that is facing us provide light at the retina.

peacegirl · #**28911** 07-09-2013, 07:40 PM

dupe

peacegirl · #**28912** 07-09-2013, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Peacegirl, before you leave for good would you please be so kind as to explain to me why we can't see the back of another person's head when we are standing face-to-face with them in broad daylight.

One of your frequent objections to the astronomical (eg. moons of jupiter, supernovas, Hubble Deep Space Images, etc.) examples that have been offered as evidence against your claims is that they include to many (possibly even unknown) variables and that you would prefer some examples a little closer to home. The above question is about as close to home as one can get. I cannot imagine what an answer in terms of Efferent Vision would look like. Please provide me with such an answer before you tootle off for parts unknown.

I answered you. We can't see the back of someone's head because the conditions are such that it would make it impossible. If a mirror was present we would be able to see the back of someone's head indirectly. This has no bearing on efferent vision because I never said that light was unessential to sight.

What conditions are those? Why would we need a mirror? You have repeatedly maintained that the only necessary conditions are that the object be big enough and bright enough. The back of a person's head is just as big and just as bright as the front under conditions of full (noon) daylight. What is missing? Why can't we see the back of the head just as well as we see the front?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. It's obvious that we can only see that part of an object that is facing us because that provides light at the retina.

How does the part that is facing us provide light at the retina.

Because we're in optical range which allows us to see the object. I never said light doesn't travel; I only said the image does not.

Angakuk · #**28913** 07-09-2013, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Peacegirl, before you leave for good would you please be so kind as to explain to me why we can't see the back of another person's head when we are standing face-to-face with them in broad daylight.

One of your frequent objections to the astronomical (eg. moons of jupiter, supernovas, Hubble Deep Space Images, etc.) examples that have been offered as evidence against your claims is that they include to many (possibly even unknown) variables and that you would prefer some examples a little closer to home. The above question is about as close to home as one can get. I cannot imagine what an answer in terms of Efferent Vision would look like. Please provide me with such an answer before you tootle off for parts unknown.

I answered you. We can't see the back of someone's head because the conditions are such that it would make it impossible. If a mirror was present we would be able to see the back of someone's head indirectly. This has no bearing on efferent vision because I never said that light was unessential to sight.

What conditions are those? Why would we need a mirror? You have repeatedly maintained that the only necessary conditions are that the object be big enough and bright enough. The back of a person's head is just as big and just as bright as the front under conditions of full (noon) daylight. What is missing? Why can't we see the back of the head just as well as we see the front?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. It's obvious that we can only see that part of an object that is facing us because that provides light at the retina.

How does the part that is facing us provide light at the retina.

Because we're in optical range which allows us to see the object. I never said light doesn't travel; I only said the image does not.

Why isn't the back of the person's head also in optical range? The difference in distance is probably only about 8 inches or so?

Suppose that this person is standing in front of a building. Would you be able to see the building? Would the building be in optical range?

Also, what light is traveling? Where is it coming from? Where is it going? What is it going to do when it gets to wherever it is going?

thedoc · #**28914** 07-09-2013, 07:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This may be interesting to some people.

If You Can Read This, I Can Prove God Exists

From the link, I think this might be part of the problem,

"Random Mutation is exactly the same as noise, and noise always destroys the signal, never enhances it".

I think that probability has some bearing on 'random mutations' effect on an organism, and not all random mutations are detrimental.

Stephen Maturin · #**28915** 07-09-2013, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't know anything about my health condition.

I know the condition you claim to have (and let's not forget that you're a liar) doesn't keep you from spending 5-10 hours per day squabbling on the Internet and spending God knows how much more time trying to polish the turd that is the Sacred Text. If you can do all that -- and you can -- then you don't qualify for the taxpayer funds you're getting.

You're a thief. People like you are the reason people who really have the condition at issue have such a hard time getting a fair shake in the medical community.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will not talk to you if you keep this up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen_Maturin

You'll stop talking to me when I goddamn jolly well give you permission to stop, not a moment before.

Oh really?

Yes, really. You are, after all, still talking to me. :yup:

And you will until I tell you to stop.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Call it what you will, ...

Thank you! In that case, I'll call it lying because that's what it is.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

but you cannot take from me (a pure heart) what is not yours to take

No one can take a pure heart from you for the same reason no one can take the stovepipe hat from Ebenezer Scrooge's head.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen_Maturin

More dishonesty. If you weren't concerned, you wouldn't respond. :wave:

Who said I wasn't concerned? The only thing I said is that I don't care what you think of me, which is true.

Then permit me to rephrase:

More dishonesty. If you didn't care about that, you wouldn't respond.

The Lone Ranger · #**28916** 07-09-2013, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This may be interesting to some people.

If You Can Read This, I Can Prove God Exists

And one more by the same guy.

Darwin: Brilliantly Half-Right; Tragically Half-Wrong

Again, half-truths, misrepresentations (DNA is not a code in the sense that he's using the term), and outright falsehoods.

So why should anyone take this guy's claims seriously?

Spacemonkey · #**28917** 07-09-2013, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why are you still here, Peacegirl? What are you going to do next?

What difference does it make to you what I do next?

You don't know, do you? You're trapped here, unwilling to continue discussing vision, unwilling to change the subject, and unable to leave.

Spacemonkey · #**28918** 07-09-2013, 09:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

LOL. I've highlighted the problematic parts for you.

If efferent means to be conveyed outwards, and vision is an efferent experience, then what is conveyed outwards in efferent vision?

I have no problem with saying "conveyed outward", but nothing shoots out of the eyes!!

So then what is it that is "conveyed outwards" in your allegedly efferent account?

Bump.

Spacemonkey · #**28919** 07-09-2013, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But, according to Lessans, no image of the object will show up at the retina or film from light alone because there is nothing in the light itself that is bringing anything.

Strawman. There doesn't have to be anything in the light itself or which the light is bringing. All you need is the light. As I explained to you in a previous post which you have completely ignored several times already...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If there is no object present, there is no image or pattern that can be made out or detected.

Of course there is. If light of one frequency is hitting one part of the retina (real or artificial) while light of a different frequency is hitting another part of the retina, then this is a pattern of light detection whose information can be sent to the brain. This is also exactly how a camera and film works. Different frequency light hits different parts of the film after coming from different parts of an object, resulting in an image with parts of differing colors. And this will happen so long as different frequencies of light are hitting different parts of the retina or film, regardless of whether or not the object the light came from is still in existence.

Bump.

Spacemonkey · #**28920** 07-09-2013, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It makes no difference how he came to his findings. You still can't plausibly claim photons will be somewhere without any possible explanation for where they came from or how they got there. What exactly is wrong with this analysis, Peacegirl? Do you think it is plausible to say light will be somewhere when you can't explain where it came from or how it got there?

I don't know why you close your ears when it comes to my explanation. I keep telling you that when we are looking outward at the object itself (not just light), the light that is being [reflected] from the object (regardless of the fact that it has not reached Earth yet), puts our retina or lens in optical range, which means that the photons are at the eye instantly. This is the polar opposite of traveling photons, which takes time to get where they're going.

You've just put the light in two places at once again. You've just said light which is not yet at the Earth is also at the eye... on Earth! That's flatly contradictory. Also, how can you maintain both that all photons travel and that your account involves "the polar opposite of traveling photons"? That also is flatly contradictory. Plus you are describing photons getting from one place to another without traveling or taking time - which is the very definition of teleportation. These are all exactly the same problems you've run into every single time you've tried to explain this account. When will you admit to yourself that it makes no sense?

And you still haven't answered my questions. Regarding the light instantly at the eye in Lessans' newly ignited Sun scenario...

1) Where did this light come from?

2) When was it located at wherever it came from?

Bump.

Spacemonkey · #**28921** 07-09-2013, 09:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, now that you've admitted to weaseling, are you going to make any effort to stop doing it?

Bump.

peacegirl · #**28922** 07-09-2013, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Peacegirl, before you leave for good would you please be so kind as to explain to me why we can't see the back of another person's head when we are standing face-to-face with them in broad daylight.

One of your frequent objections to the astronomical (eg. moons of jupiter, supernovas, Hubble Deep Space Images, etc.) examples that have been offered as evidence against your claims is that they include to many (possibly even unknown) variables and that you would prefer some examples a little closer to home. The above question is about as close to home as one can get. I cannot imagine what an answer in terms of Efferent Vision would look like. Please provide me with such an answer before you tootle off for parts unknown.

I answered you. We can't see the back of someone's head because the conditions are such that it would make it impossible. If a mirror was present we would be able to see the back of someone's head indirectly. This has no bearing on efferent vision because I never said that light was unessential to sight.

What conditions are those? Why would we need a mirror? You have repeatedly maintained that the only necessary conditions are that the object be big enough and bright enough. The back of a person's head is just as big and just as bright as the front under conditions of full (noon) daylight. What is missing? Why can't we see the back of the head just as well as we see the front?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. It's obvious that we can only see that part of an object that is facing us because that provides light at the retina.

How does the part that is facing us provide light at the retina.

Because we're in optical range which allows us to see the object. I never said light doesn't travel; I only said the image does not.

Why isn't the back of the person's head also in optical range? The difference in distance is probably only about 8 inches or so?

Suppose that this person is standing in front of a building. Would you be able to see the building? Would the building be in optical range?

Also, what light is traveling? Where is it coming from? Where is it going? What is it going to do when it gets to wherever it is going?

These questions don't sound legit so I'm not answering them.

Spacemonkey · #**28923** 07-09-2013, 09:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These questions don't sound legit so I'm not answering them.

Gasp! There's a surprise.

peacegirl · #**28924** 07-09-2013, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why are you still here, Peacegirl? What are you going to do next?

What difference does it make to you what I do next?

You don't know, do you? You're trapped here, unwilling to continue discussing vision, unwilling to change the subject, and unable to leave.

Look at you? You can't get off this merry-go-round, can you? I'm not going to answer anymore questions regarding photons, so why do you keep bumping the same questions over and over again?

peacegirl · #**28925** 07-09-2013, 09:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This may be interesting to some people.

If You Can Read This, I Can Prove God Exists

And one more by the same guy.

Darwin: Brilliantly Half-Right; Tragically Half-Wrong

Again, half-truths, misrepresentations (DNA is not a code in the sense that he's using the term), and outright falsehoods.

So why should anyone take this guy's claims seriously?

I didn't say you should take his claims seriously if you don't think he has anything to offer.