A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey, why don't you explain why you altered your father's "mathematically undeniable" assertion that in the "new world" it will be "mathematically impossible" for husbands and wives to desire to share the same bed, to say something completely different? And then, when I CORRECTLY quoted the text before you altered it to make Lessans seem less the fool, you called me a liar even though I had NOT lied; I quoted the original text before you CHANGED it. Got an explanation for those facts, liar?

David, sorry but the change didn't alter what he meant. I already explained that he was showing how this law works when it comes to sleeping together and why this law works even in smaller conflicts. He didn't say couples would never desire to sleep together but both desires need to be taken into consideration, not just one. That was clearly explained in both versions. You are so filled with vitriol, you have lost all objectivity.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't have to constantly call me a liar to get your questions answered.

If you wanted to be gracious about it you could say I think I see a contradiction and I would try to see where the problem was.

To charge someone with lying is a serious charge and it's implying that you know my motivation. Lying is a purposeful desire to deceive. I have never done that.

Calling you a liar seems to be the only way to get your attention.

Oh my Goodness, The Dingbat is going to school us on being gracious, when she is the most ignorant, histrionic, abusive and arrogant bitch, on this forum. If there was anyone whose manner was ungracious, it would be The dingbat.

If you are trying to claim that you did not intentionally lie, then many of your posts must have been accidental and unintentional. I can believe that no sane person would post some of the things that you have posted.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

How close is that? At precisely what distance is optical range achieved? I have asked you this question before and you have not bothered to answer it.

I did answer it Angakuk. When the object is bright enough, the light would already be at the eye as quickly as it takes light to be at the eye when a candle is lighted in this closed system where we see the object directly.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Why he came to his conclusions does not matter. How he came to his conclusion would be of interest if his conclusions had merit. They don't, so it doesn't. Those observations might be of some interest, if he had recorded them in a way that would allow others to check and replicate his work. He didn't do that, so they also don't matter or mean anything. So you are correct. No one is interested in "why" he came to his conclusions and those conclusions do not need to be taken seriously.

I don't agree. Regardless of how he came to his conclusions, if they turn out to be correct people will be very interested in his life. This will especially be true when his first discovery brings peace to our world.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're totally biased which makes you blind...

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You accuse Spacemonkey of being blinded by bias, are not equally biased and therefore blind as well?

I'm sure that's what people think, but when I say he is biased it's because this idea of traveling light bringing the information has been with us for a much longer time, and it seems logical, so he is just following logic. But logic isn't always right. I believe Lessans' observations were based on more than logic or circumstantial evidence. No one seems to care. What can I say? Maybe not this generation, but generations to come, will give this knowledge the attention it deserves.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Lying again, we all see!

1. You cannot alter a "mathematically undeniable truth." Lessans stated that it was mathematically undeniable that husbands and wives would no longer desire to share a bed. You changed this to something completely different. This proves that even you don't believe that his rubbish was "mathematically undeniable."

2. The main point, though, is that I correctly quoted the original text, before you altered it, and you called me a liar for having correctly quoted the text! This proves that the only liar here is YOU.

You are in such denial David; I posted the excerpt twice to show you that both versions said there is nothing wrong with desiring to sleep in the same bed, but both desires have to be considered. In today's world it is expected that people should want this, and when a person doesn't want this for whatever reason, they are made to feel guilty because sleeping in the same bed has always been a condition of marriage. I think this unspoken rule is loosening its grip somewhat.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

From the first page of this thread, in March 2011:

That's true. It's not a religious work. It's a spiritual work because it shows that God is everywhere, not just in churches or synagogues or mosques. When I say God I mean the intelligence that is governing our universe and all that's in it.

[Artemis Entreri]

p. 365 However, there is one change about to take
place where sex and marriage are concerned that will surprise
everybody, for you are about to see how it will be mathematically
impossible henceforth for a husband and wife to ever desire to own
only one bed for the two of them. That’s right! Sleeping together
except as part of the sexual act will no longer be an unspoken rule of
marriage. This is no different than other mathematical problems. If
you understand what it means that man’s will is not free and are able
to perceive and extend the mathematical relations thus far, you will
easily see the reason for this. Take note.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

David, sorry but the change didn't alter what he meant. I already explained that he was showing how this law works when it comes to sleeping together and why this law works even in smaller conflicts. He didn't say couples would never desire to sleep together but both desires need to be taken into consideration, not just one. That was clearly explained in both versions. You are so filled with vitriol, you have lost all objectivity.

Ok so I guess he was only saying that it was mathematically impossible for them to ever desire to only own one bed. Presumably this bed is for them to sleep in... together.
Sure they can still sleep together if they both so desire, except that Lessans is going to prove "mathematically" that they will never desire to. But he's definitely not saying that it's impossible, except that he is.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Ok so I guess he was only saying that it was mathematically impossible for them to ever desire to only own one bed. Presumably this bed is for them to sleep in... together.
Sure they can still sleep together if they both so desire, except that Lessans is going to prove "mathematically" that they will never desire to. But he's definitely not saying that it's impossible, except that he is.

No he isn't Artemis. All he meant was that both desires have to be considered. That's it. Stop listening to these people who are doing whatever they can to discredit everything he says. They are out to get him big time. They don't like his discovery on the eyes, and some people (you know who) are completely enraged. So please use your own thinking instead of joining the anti-Lessans bandwagon. It's so sick you have no idea. This discovery is being jeered at when it's this very knowledge that has the power to bring global peace. If that isn't heartbreaking I don't know what is.

[Artemis Entreri]

Ok so he's only saying "it will be mathematically
impossible henceforth for a husband and wife to ever desire to own
only one bed for the two of them."
Well, that's just perfectly reasonable....
Also, if they've been proven to never desire own only one bed (meaning they'd be sleeping together), but they can sleep together only if they both desire to, then wouldn't that mean that they'd never be able to... unless they are doing so against their own desires.... which they couldn't do?
At the very least he's saying that it's mathematically impossible that a married couple will always desire to sleep together, for then they'd have absolutely no need of a second bed.... It would be reasonable to assume that even if they only desired to sleep together most of the time a second bed would be mostly pointless.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Dingbat

[

All he meant was that both desires have to be considered.

What Lessans meant was that he was describing his ideal world based on his own adolescent urges and desires. I really don't think he developed much past puberty if that. He seemed to be obsessed with genitals and sex. According to him the genitals and sex were the be all and end all of a relationship. Read closely his idea of the ideal relationship was that the man got whatever he wanted and the woman was little better than his sex slave.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This example isn't analogous because of the opposite nature of this account. If there's no time involved (other than the speed that it takes for light to be at the eye when a candle is first lit), then we're not waiting for a particular photon to arrive, like a piece of mail with specific information in it. The photon doesn't bring with it any information that would make this photon any different than the next.

Not what I asked, weasel. I don't care whether you think it is analogous. I just want to know what is wrong with the postman's explanation. And it is perfectly analogous anyway, as you need to explain how the photon at the film or retina got there, just as the postman needs to explain how the letter got there. Weaseling about information is irrelevant, as the letter can be an empty envelope if you prefer, so the scenario remains perfectly analogous. Try again.

[davidm]

Here is what he originally wrote:

However, there is one change about to take place where sex and marriage are concerned that will absolutely amaze everybody and reveal in an infallible manner the great wisdom that directs every aspect of this universe, for you are about to see how it will be mathematically impossible henceforth for a husband and wife to ever desire one bed for the two of them. That’s right! Sleeping together, except as part of the sexual act, is about to take leave. This is no different than other mathematical problems.

And here is what you changed it to:

However, there is one change about to take place where sex and marriage are concerned that will surprise everybody, for you are about to see how it will be mathematically impossible henceforth for a husband and wife to ever desire to own only one bed for the two of them. That’s right! Sleeping together except as part of the sexual act will no longer be an unspoken rule of marriage. This is no different than other mathematical problems.

Not to desire one bed for the two of them, is NOT the same as, Not to desire to OWN only one bed for the two of them! In addition to the other changes you made, you added the word OWN which was not in the original!

Any idiot can see your change to the Sacred Text renders the meaning to be completely different!

Moreover, once again, you said that I had LIED about the text; but my characterization of it, BEFORE you altered it, is absolutely accurate.

You are a LIAR.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Whatever.

Non-responsive weaseling.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Spacemonkey, I don't need it to travel 8 minutes. That individual photon does not bring with it any information whatsoever, so I'm not waiting for it.

Information or not, you need it at the retina instantly, which is 8min before it can possibly be there. So your account fails.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Right, only when it gets close enough to be picked up by the telescope which is 2.6 seconds later.

Which is delayed rather than real-time vision.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because this is a difficult concept to understand and it sometimes sounds contradictory, especially when I say that light travels and yet I also say that it doesn't travel with the wavelength that brings an image of a physical event or object through space/time that can be decoded.

The alleged difficulty of the topic doesn't excuse your flat out lying about what you have previously said.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But there is an answer to that, and that is the closed system that this account brings. This does not require the time you think it takes to see the object. The object within the closed system is in proportion to the viewer, which causes the light to be at the eye as quickly as it would take to see a candle lighted. I know you don't see how this can happen but that doesn't mean it doesn't.

Completely unrelated to what you were replying to. Non-absorbed light DOES get reflected, as you have your self conceded every time you've been pressed on this subject. It gets reflected because there is nothing else it can possibly do.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He said images are not reflected.

He didn't say anything about non-absorbed photons not getting reflected, so Lessans cannot possibly have meant what you say he meant by this phrase. So again, YOU are wrong about what it means to say that photons do not get reflected.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But if this light travels from the object to the eye as quickly as light does from a candle because of the nature of this account which forms a closed system, then we're not talking about time when it comes to sight. All other areas of physics where it takes a certain amount of time to get from one place to another, time does matter.

If the light travels "just as quickly" (i.e. at the same speed) then it arrives after 8min, which is 8min too late for your account to work. If you meant that it arrives in the same amount of time then you have light traveling faster than light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will say this once again: In this account if the object is large enough and bright enough to be seen, the light is already at the eye. If the Sun was turned on, it would be seen just as quickly as we would see a candle being lighted.

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

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know what I meant. Hubble Deep Field does not negate real time vision.

So you meant the opposite of what you said? By "Can't argue with that" you actually meant 'I completely reject and deny that'. Tough. Hubble disproves Lessans by doing what you say is impossible - forming an image from nothing but the properties of arriving light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Someone did say that or I wouldn't have thought about it when the subject came up.

Dingbat. Saying that light will cease to be replaced by later following photons isn't to say that the emitted light won't travel forever until absorbed. YOU are still the only one saying that.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why did you have a ... after I said true. What was the rest of the comment?

Because the rest of your comment was you completely rejecting what you just said was "true", i.e. you were only pretending to agree with what you were replying to - one of your favourite weasel-moves. But it doesn't matter, because what I said is true and refutes your claim that light could arrive without information.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm answering your questions Spacemonkey.

You are a liar. This right here is a blatant lie. You haven't answered a single question of mine, and are quite openly and deliberately refusing to even try.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's true Spacemonkey...

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

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

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

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

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

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

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


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

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

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

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

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

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

You said you have always maintained that ALL light travels.

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

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

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

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

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Not what I asked, weasel. I don't care whether you think it is analogous. I just want to know what is wrong with the postman's explanation. And it is perfectly analogous anyway, as you need to explain how the photon at the film or retina got there, just as the postman needs to explain how the letter got there. Weaseling about information is irrelevant, as the letter can be an empty envelope if you prefer, so the scenario remains perfectly analogous. Try again.

Don't call me names before you even get an answer. Done for today.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Here is what he originally wrote:

And here is what you changed it to:

Not to desire one bed for the two of them, is NOT the same as, Not to desire to OWN only one bed for the two of them! In addition to the other changes you made, you added the word OWN which was not in the original!

What the fuck are you saying now David? Not to desire one bed for the two of them, or not to desire to OWN only one bed for the two of them has no bearing at all on what he's saying. How far will you go to try to ruin this man when he was so much more brilliant than you David although, ironically, he never used the word.

Originally Posted by davidm

Any idiot can see your change to the Sacred Text renders the meaning to be completely different!

Moreover, once again, you said that I had LIED about the text; but my characterization of it, BEFORE you altered it, is absolutely accurate.

You are a LIAR.

Well I was his daughter and he would have applauded me for my effort. You did nothing because you weren't there, so it's easy for you to dismiss all of it because, truly, this is not what you care about. You hate that he claimed the eyes are not a sense organ. Your motive is so obvious, and it's not working.

[davidm]

Do you think people are as stupid as you are? Put those two paragraphs before anyone and ask them if they are different. They are radically different, not just on the bed thing, but in all material aspects.

You are such a ridiculous, dishonest creep! Today you said four times, OUT OF HERE, yet here you still are! That was a lie, and everything else you say is a lie.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't call me names before you even get an answer. Done for today.

When have you ever answered ANY question? Done for today! How rich! I thought you were OUT OF HERE, remember?

And what's going to be different tomorrow? Tomorrow you're actually going to answer, for the first time ever, Spacemonkey's questions?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't call me names before you even get an answer. Done for today.

Another of your favourite dishonest weasel moves - refusing to answer questions until you get called a weasel, then using that as an excuse for not answering the questions. You really are pathetic.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well I was his daughter and he would have applauded me for my effort.

If he had an ounce of integrity and any sliver of a conscience, Lessans would be absolutely shocked and appalled by your dishonesty and evasive weaseling.

[Stephen Maturin]

Yeah, if.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Dingbat

I'm sure that's what people think, but when I say he is biased it's because this idea of traveling light bringing the information has been with us for a much longer time...

How dishonest of you. As I've explained to you several times, my objection and questions have nothing to do with information in light, and would still hold even if there were no such information at all.

Originally Posted by Dingbat

...and it seems logical, so he is just following logic. But logic isn't always right.

It is when the alternative is a flat contradiction. And you can't answer my questions without contradicting yourself.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Shit-faced-lier

How far will you go to try to ruin this man when he was so much more brilliant than you David although, ironically, he never used the word.

Yes, it appropriate that he never used the word brilliant as it didn't apply to him at all. He wanted to eliminate the word intelligent because he wasn't. He wanted to eliminate the wore beautiful because he wasn't. He wanted to eliminate the word educated because he wasn't. It seems that everything that Lessans had failed at, he wanted to eliminate from the English language. I would assume that 'Pool Hustler' was one of the words that he wanted to keep?

Just curious, did he want to eliminate the word "Stud" from the English language?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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

I hope you realize just how this is for .

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Lying-sack-of-shit

Don't call me names before you even get an answer.

Ah, the name calling defense, perfect for when you have nothing else to say.