A revolution in thought

[Artemis Entreri]

Ever been bird hunting or skeet shooting Peacegirl? If you've ever been you'd quickly learn that if you aim straight at the bird or skeet you'll never hit it. You have to aim ahead of the bird, lead it, by just the right amount. You know the reason I'm sure. The bullet, although extremely fast, takes time to travel from the gun to the target and if the target is moving fast enough then it will effectively dodge the bullet.
NASA faces a similar but much more complicated process when launching a space probe. Now if Lessans was right and we saw planet where they actually are in space then when they went about aiming a probe towards a planet they would only have to adjust for the known trajectory of the planet and the speed of the probe (actually there are a TON of other things that have to be accounted for but that doesn't matter). But, if they start taking aim at the visual location of a planet they would be aiming at empty space. They would be off target before they even adjusted for target and projectile vectors.
However, because our vision is depended on light and light travel, and there is a known delay in what we see, they also take this into account. It is easy to see, TLR did the calculations, that without adjusting for this delay space probes would miss their targets by huge distances. If that had happened NASA and astronomers would have immediately began investigating why and they would have figured out "efferent vision" a long time ago. However, space probes aren't missing their targets by huge margins. This isn't just about the Mars rover, all of the space probes (their have been many) that were sent out had flight paths calculated with delayed afferent vision. If they had been sent out using the efferent model of vision they would miss their targets completely. For probes like the Voyager 1 & 2 they wouldn't have been anywhere near Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.
You saw how big a difference this makes when sending a probe to Mars, now just think about the magnitude of difference that it would make for those distant planets.

How can you deny that this is definitive proof that efferent vision is false?

[But]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Could it be because those items are not bright enough in their own right? That is, they are not reflecting enough light to be visible even with very powerful telescopes. The photo-reflectors on the Moon do not, under ordinary circumstances, reflect enough light to be visibile from the Earth. However, when they are targeted by the lunar ranging lasers they reflect more light than they do when they are not being targeted, therefore they become visible because they are brighter than they were when they were not being targeted.

If you were to target the laser at anything else but the reflector, you wouldn't pick up the reflected light (maybe with an incredibly powerful one) because it gets reflected more or less diffusely in all directions whereas the reflector is not an ordinary mirror but a retroreflector much like the ones on vehicles which reflects the light back in the same direction where it came from.

[Artemis Entreri]

Hell, the ESA put a probe on Titan, one of Saturn's moons! Not only did they land it on Titan but they picked out just the right spot on the moon before hand and then hit it.
Do you think that they could do that without correctly knowing it's precise location?
How could they possibly do any of that if they didn't know whether to account for a visual delay due to the speed of light???

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Ever been bird hunting or skeet shooting Peacegirl? If you've ever been you'd quickly learn that if you aim straight at the bird or skeet you'll never hit it. You have to aim ahead of the bird, lead it, by just the right amount. You know the reason I'm sure. The bullet, although extremely fast, takes time to travel from the gun to the target and if the target is moving fast enough then it will effectively dodge the bullet.
NASA faces a similar but much more complicated process when launching a space probe. Now if Lessans was right and we saw planet where they actually are in space then when they went about aiming a probe towards a planet they would only have to adjust for the known trajectory of the planet and the speed of the probe (actually there are a TON of other things that have to be accounted for but that doesn't matter). But, if they start taking aim at the visual location of a planet they would be aiming at empty space. They would be off target before they even adjusted for target and projectile vectors.
However, because our vision is depended on light and light travel, and there is a known delay in what we see, they also take this into account. It is easy to see, TLR did the calculations, that without adjusting for this delay space probes would miss their targets by huge distances. If that had happened NASA and astronomers would have immediately began investigating why and they would have figured out "efferent vision" a long time ago. However, space probes aren't missing their targets by huge margins. This isn't just about the Mars rover, all of the space probes (their have been many) that were sent out had flight paths calculated with delayed afferent vision. If they had been sent out using the efferent model of vision they would miss their targets completely. For probes like the Voyager 1 & 2 they wouldn't have been anywhere near Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, and Neptune.
You saw how big a difference this makes when sending a probe to Mars, now just think about the magnitude of difference that it would make for those distant planets.

How can you deny that this is definitive proof that efferent vision is false?

I understand exactly what you're saying and I don't disagree that by the time the probe would reach the planet, it would not be in the same position. But we're talking about the time/light delay. This is a total theory and it has never been conclusively proven even though the Lone Ranger and David are disagreeing. It's ironic that you don't even know why he came to this conclusion. It has nothing directly to do with light and its properties. It isn't even violating the properties of light, yet people are trying to make it appear that way. I can't do more than I've done. I've spent long hours here and this belief is so ingrained in the mindset of biologists, physicists, and astrophysicists alike that I'm doomed. Who am I to dare come into a tiny forum on the corner of the internet and claim these claims? That's why people are using ad hominems against me because that's all they have. They don't have CONCLUSIVE proof that afferent vision is an accurate claim. They are resorting to logic, not mathematical proof even though they make it appear as if there's no other way to look at this. I'm not a flat earther, and I'm not a faith based fundie but if you look at the many posts that labeled me these things, you would get that impression. That's why I said you have to do your own thinking, not just depend on those who think they are right because they are the so-called "experts".

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand exactly what you're saying and I don't disagree that by the time the probe would reach the planet, it would not be in the same position. But we're talking about the time/light delay. This is a total theory and it has never been conclusively proven even though the Lone Ranger and David are disagreeing. It's ironic that you don't even know why he came to this conclusion. It has nothing directly to do with light and its properties. It isn't even violating the properties of light, yet people are trying to make it appear that way. I can't do more than I've done. I've spent long hours here and this belief is so ingrained in the mindset of biologists, physicists, and astrophysicists alike that I'm doomed. Who am I to dare come into a tiny forum on the corner of the internet and claim these claims? That's why people are using ad hominems against me because that's all they have. They don't have CONCLUSIVE proof that afferent vision is an accurate claim. They are resorting to logic, not mathematical proof even though they make it appear as if there's no other way to look at this. I'm not a flat earther, and I'm not a faith based fundie but if you look at the many posts that labeled me these things, you would get that impression. That's why I said you have to do your own thinking, not just depend on those who think they are right because they are the so-called "experts".

I'm sorry maybe my bit about bird hunting threw you off. I wasn't focusing on the delay of the probe reaching the target planet.

The main point is this; "efferent vision" says that distance planets are exactly where we see them while afferent vision says that we see planets where they were when the light that reaches our eyes was first reflected. This means that the two accounts say the planets are in two different places in space, the difference is directly proportional to our distance from them. (So you know what proportional means; as the distance from us increases so does the difference between afferent vision location and "efferent" vision location likewise increase.)
In both models the correction for the speed and direction of both the probe and the planet will be exactly the same. The ONLY difference is which point in space you add those corrections too. In the "efferent" model you'd start upon the assumption that the planet is exactly where it appears when you look at it. In the afferent model, the one that works, you'd calculate where the planet actually is based on it's orbit and the delay caused by the speed of light traveling from the planet to Earth.

One of these models has been proven correct through mathematical calculation and verified (the probes actually went where they were calculated to go) for decades. If that isn't mathematical proof I don't now what is.

[Artemis Entreri]

Since I mentioned proportional in that last post lets revisit that term and your other new favorite term "nanosecond."
Several pages back when discussing your "closed system" you conceded that it would take a nanosecond for light to travel from a lit candle to the eye.
But then said that the light from the sun would take the same amount of time since it is "proportional."
Here's how that term would correctly by used; Light from a candle that is a foot away from the eye takes a nanosecond to reach the eye. As the distance from between the light source and observer increases the delay increases proportionally. So if the time it takes for light to reach the eye from the sun is proportional it will be a much greater amount of time... using basic math we can calculate that it takes 8.5 minutes.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why people are using ad hominems against me because that's all they have.

As usual, you're an idiot.

Note that's not an argumentum ad hominem. If I said "peacegirl is an idiot, therefore she's wrong", that would be. But nobody has said that.

We've mocked and insulted you, primarily because you've said some stupid things and then lied about it. Or you've made stuff up and then lied about it. Or you've contradicted yourself and then lied about it.

But nobody has said "you're an idiot, a weasel, or a liar, and therefore you're wrong". No, you're those things because you've said idiotic things, then weasled and lied when confronted with it. You're wrong entirely irrespective of those things, and the fact that you're claiming this is an actual argument people have used just speaks to your stupidity and/or dishonesty.

[Cynthia of Syracuse]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Ever been bird hunting or skeet shooting Peacegirl?

Not since Daddy took her snipe hunting. She is, however, the Natty Bumppo of hunting for excuses.

How can you deny that this is definitive proof that efferent vision is false?

Seriously, Janis, Ignorance is not an endangered species. It's more inordinately common even than beetles. Your efforts to justify and protect your father's is like a campaign to "Save the Bedbugs". Daddy's dead. Let the stupid he did be interred with his bones (or at least in the nearest appropriate waste receptacle).

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Hell, the ESA put a probe on Titan, one of Jupiter's moons! Not only did they land it on Titan but they picked out just the right spot on the moon before hand and then hit it.
Do you think that they could do that without correctly knowing it's precise location?
How could they possibly do any of that if they didn't know whether to account for a visual delay due to the speed of light???

She didn't know we landed a probe on Titan. Probably still doesn't, even after I posted pictures of the surface of Titan, taken by the probe that landed on it.

The breadth, depth, and comprehensive sweep of her ignorance is breathtaking. It's as if she has spent all her life in a bubble with Lessans' book, and it's the only book she has ever read. That may really be true.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Dragar

As usual, you're an idiot.

Note that's not an argumentum ad hominem. If I said "peacegirl is an idiot, therefore she's wrong", that would be. But nobody has said that.

We've mocked and insulted you, primarily because you've said some stupid things and then lied about it. Or you've made stuff up and then lied about it. Or you've contradicted yourself and then lied about it.

But nobody has said "you're an idiot, a weasel, or a liar, and therefore you're wrong". No, you're those things because you've said idiotic things, then weasled and lied when confronted with it. You're wrong entirely irrespective of those things, and the fact that you're claiming this is an actual argument people have used just speaks to your stupidity and/or dishonesty.

So, in addition to all the other yawning chasms in her knowledge, she is ignorant of the formal fallacy of argumentum ad hominem, eh? Confusing insults with ad hom. What a big surprise!

[davidm]

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What a dingbat.

Peacegirl has stated that if you call her names, she will not respond to you. But here you are calling her a 'Dingbat' and she is still responding? Doesn't that make her a bit insincere? Of course 'Dingbat', in this case, may be considered more descriptive than a derogatory name.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Hell, the ESA put a probe on Titan, one of Jupiter's moons! Not only did they land it on Titan but they picked out just the right spot on the moon before hand and then hit it.
Do you think that they could do that without correctly knowing it's precise location?
How could they possibly do any of that if they didn't know whether to account for a visual delay due to the speed of light???

Well, one of Saturn's moons, but we take your point.

Peacegirl, won't though. Yet it can easily be shown that this successful landing is yet another instance in reality that refutes everything Lessans wrote about light and sight.

[Artemis Entreri]

oops, thank you for the correction.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That certainly seems like conclusive proof, doesn't it?

Yes.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So why not call me delusional and move on?

You are delusional, but you are also entertaining. So why should we move on?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The problem is that Lessans case for efferent vision is just as strong as the case for afferent vision.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You know that is not true. Afferent vision is consistent

So is efferent visioin

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

, supported by mountains of evidence,

Efferent vision has enough supporting evidence to make the claim.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

and faces no contrary evidence.

The contrary evidence is based on lots and lots of logic and circumstantial evidence meaning some of the evidence is based on assumptions.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Efferent vision is flatly contradictory supported by no evidence at all

No it is not. Every supposed contradiction was not really a contradiction at all. He offered his astute observations, and these observations are strongly supported. I don't think you can remember what his observations were.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

and faces mountains of contrary evidence. So how are they equally strong?

They are equally strong. The difference between these two accounts is very subtle because optics works the same way, but they make all the difference when it comes to knowing about ourselves and the world around us. Everyone wants to know the truth and if they give up on this account, it will be taking a big step backwards.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Of course I can you tell you it does. It does! See, I can do what I want.

Are you planning to spend the next several decades arguing with people you can't hope to convince, and being a weasel? Seems counterproductive if your goal is to market the book.

This whole thread has been counterproductive. I have no way to market the book, or I wouldn't be here. If I had a better way, don't you think I would be doing it? I don't want to spend my whole life talking to groups like this; it will get me nowhere. I hope to reach people who will give my father the benefit of the doubt and will also have some kind of influence to take this knowledge to the next level, otherwise I don't think much will come of this book until possibly the next generation when my children pass it on.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What we see is the light the planets reflect from the Sun, which has traveled millions of miles to the planet, then millions of miles from the planet to Earth. If they didn't reflect light that has traveled millions of miles, we couldn't see them. Planets are not luminous themselves.

Planets become luminous due to the Sun's light. That's why we can see them.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

If you were to target the laser at anything else but the reflector, you wouldn't pick up the reflected light (maybe with an incredibly powerful one) because it gets reflected more or less diffusely in all directions whereas the reflector is not an ordinary mirror but a retroreflector much like the ones on vehicles which reflects the light back in the same direction where it came from.

Even so, it still wouldn't be seen at 1.3 seconds because the flash would be too small and therefore out of the telescope's field of view.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no way to market the book, or I wouldn't be here.

Sure you do. You're just too goddamn lazy to do the work.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I had a better way, don't you think I would be doing it?

Nope. You love coming here and tossing word salads. Doing so feeds your need to feel martyred and gives your life a false sense of meaning. It also serves as a half-assed justification for your failure to do any work marketing the book.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't want to spend my whole life talking to groups like this; it will get me nowhere.

Sure you do. If you didn't want to do that, you wouldn't have been coming here for over three years.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I hope to reach people who will give my father the benefit of the doubt and will also have some kind of influence to take this knowledge to the next level,

Fine and dandy, then. GTFO of here and get to work.

Oh wait -- you and work are like oil and water. Never mind.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

otherwise I don't think much will come of this book until possibly the next generation when my children pass it on.

Your children likely respect you too much to say so, but they know full well that their grandfather -- regardless of how lovely a fellow he may have been -- was dumb as dog shit. Seymour's dumbfuckery will die with you.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Even so, it still wouldn't be seen at 1.3 seconds because the flash would be too small and therefore out of the telescope's field of view.

So for fifty years, NASA has been lying about these experiments? And not just NASA! Because others have done it to, independently verifying the experience. The Soviets did it, too!

It disproves your father's claims.

Did NASA fake the moon landing, too, moron, and is it faking using delayed-time seeing calculations to send craft to other worlds?

GTFO of here.

[Stephen Maturin]

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

As usual, you're an idiot.

Note that's not an argumentum ad hominem. If I said "peacegirl is an idiot, therefore she's wrong", that would be. But nobody has said that.

We've mocked and insulted you, primarily because you've said some stupid things and then lied about it. Or you've made stuff up and then lied about it. Or you've contradicted yourself and then lied about it.

But nobody has said "you're an idiot, a weasel, or a liar, and therefore you're wrong". No, you're those things because you've said idiotic things, then weasled and lied when confronted with it. You're wrong entirely irrespective of those things, and the fact that you're claiming this is an actual argument people have used just speaks to your stupidity and/or dishonesty.

I'm sorry but many people have used ad hominens to attack my father. These are insults but they are also ad hominems. They used the fact that he was a pool player to discredit him and his abilities. They used the fact that he only went to 7th grade to discredit him and his abilities. They have taken things out of context in order to portray him as someone he is not (I could puke all over Maturin and David right now). The are using anything they can about his personality or personal characteristics as a way to get people to discount his writings before they even have an opportunity to open the book.

ad hominem

You attacked your opponent's character or personal traits in an attempt to undermine their argument.
Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it.

Example: After Sally presents an eloquent and compelling case for a more equitable taxation system, Sam asks the audience whether we should believe anything from a woman who isn't married, was once arrested, and smells a bit weird.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

So for fifty years, NASA has been lying about these experiments? And not just NASA! Because others have done it to, independently verifying the experience. The Soviets did it, too!

Right, and they all saw the flash at 2.6 seconds. What does this prove? It proves that they couldn't see the flash at 1.3 seconds because it wasn't a large enough flash.

Originally Posted by davidm

It disproves your father's claims.

Did NASA fake the moon landing, too, moron, and is it faking using delayed-time seeing calculations to send craft to other worlds?

GTFO of here.

I don't know about their calculations. Yea, it sounds perfect but we're talking about great distances where there is a large margin of error. You act like the light/time delay is the most important calculation of all, yet you don't hear about it often. It's mentioned briefly. I really wonder about this. And as I told you before, you can walk out today and never come back. Just make sure the door doesn't hit you in the ass!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry but many people have used ad hominens to attack my father. These are insults but they are also ad hominems. They used the fact that he was a pool player to discredit him and his abilities. They used the fact that he only went to 7th grade to discredit him and his abilities. They have taken things out of context in order to discredit him and his abilities. The are using anything they can about his personality or personal characteristics as a way to get people to discount his writings before opening the book.

Lying again, are we?

The argumentum ad hominem would be to say that BECAUSE your father was an idiot, and BECAUSE he dropped out of the seventh grade, and BECAUSE he was a buffoon, etc., then his arguments are wrong. NO ONE ever said that.

What people HAVE said is that maybe, if he had gotten a proper education, he wouldn't have written such stupid shit. That's not ad hominem.

He wrote stupid shit regardless of whether he was a genius or a moron. If you doubt it, go send his "discoveries" to some scientists and don't tell them who Lessans was. They'll all tell you the same thing: His claims are stupid shit.

[Stephen Maturin]

The recent discussion on the various and sundry ways peacegirl has scrubbed the Sacred Text to make her father look less stupid has solved a mystery for me, though in all candor I should have figured it out long ago.

The mystery stems from a customer review posted on Amazon's website. I'm not talking about the Todd P. Brandes review posted on February 17 of this year. Mr. Brandes is peacegirl's son-in-law and was obviously just humoring his batshit mother-in-law as a favor to his spouse. In any event, the 100% content-free nature of the review shows rather plainly that Mr. Brandes never actually read the book.

My confusion stemmed from the K. Greene review from 2007. Greene wrote that the advent of the Golden Age () will "require[] a period of military action first where dissenters are taken care of." Upon reading the book myself and finding no references to "military action" in furtherance of bringing about the Lessantonian novus ordo seclorum, I wondered WTF Greene was talking about and how he came up with it.

Then it hit me: in all likelihood, Seymour's original writings did in fact include "a period of military action" to quell dissent and get everyone in line. It's not there now because, like "molecules of light," peacegirl scrubbed it to make ol' Seymour appear less crazy and stupid than he was. Mystery solved.