A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No they wouldn't, are you kidding me? This idea of delayed vision is so entrenched in today's thinking that any accounting of what is occurring would not involve efferent vision. They would come up with some reason as to why this is occurring without changing their basic premise; that the eyes are a sense organ.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

LOL, we'll never know, because the various space programs have not missed their targets by huge margins as they absolutely would have if efferent vision were true.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What does that even mean? They had to have a location to aim at to even start the calculations

I know they did, but I don't see where the time/light correction plays a major role.

I know what the come back is going to be. We would miss the planet altogether if the time/light delay wasn't included in the calculation. I don't know if this is as true as claimed.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

TLR proved it with mathematics. What part do you not understand about the math?

Like I said, it sounds perfectly airtight. Just one thing; I don't buy it completely. I don't believe that this correction has this much impact on reaching the target.

I still wonder whether this light/time delay calculation (which everyone is saying has major significance) actually is based on something else which makes it appear that this calculation is directly linked to the time/light delay.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Such as? You are appealing to a mysterious "something else" for no reason! Occam's Razor, remember.

This is not an appeal to anything mysterious. There is the location of the planet, the location and speed of the probe, radio signals, and other data which are essential in reaching the target. I just don't think the time/light correction is as essential as everyone is making it out to be.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Cynthia of Syracuse

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

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).

This is coming from someone who never asked one question. She's too busy looking for her lulz so it's not surprising that this is what she finds.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by 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.

That is one type of proportionality, but when we're talking about EFFERENT VISION, the type of proportionality changes. Distance and time do not play a part in this account because of the change in the model from afferent to efferent. No one is extending the relations accurately, which is why they're not understanding it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by 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.

This guy never read the book. It wasn't in stock. He went behind my back and wrote this poor review from a forum like this one. I didn't scrub anything Maturin. This was not an accurate representation. There are no military references whatsoever in any of his books.

[Artemis Entreri]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you asking me this question sincerely, or are you trying to trap me into conceding, and when I don't, you will call me a dingbat? Just wondering.

You can try to answer is sincerely but it seems your only response is that either A) The speed of light delay doesn't matter or B) there is something else going on that causes the calculations using the delay to be correct even though the delay isn't real.
Option A can be eliminated mathematically. It's stunning that while Lessans put so much stock in the truth of mathematics you want to ignore the math in this instance. Calculations using efferent vision and afferent vision put the targets for space probes in vastly different points in space. The equations that show this are quite simple. It absolutely does matter if we're seeing distant planets (or moons) in real time or delayed since all calculations used to target them is based off where we see them.
Option B is just conformation bias and an argument from ignorance. You believe that efferent vision is real even though it doesn't fit with the evidence (if efferent vision were real space probes wouldn't hit their targets) so you propose that an unknown and unexplained "something" is making it the calculations work even though they should be WAY off.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Telemetry and optical physics are indeed accurate ways to measure the trajectory and location of a planet down to a very small margin of error, but we're talking about the light/time correction. I don't see this correction as of major significance or it would be mentioned much more than it is.

It's not mentioned because it is one of the most basic factors that are included in the calculations. NASA assumes that everyone knows how it works and doesn't feel the need to explain it for people like you. Just the same as they don't feel the need to explain addition, subtraction, multiplication and division, but these processes are used in all the calculations. Are you implying that because NASA doesn't explain these basic processes that they can't be very important, so if they aren't done accurately, it doesn't matter? That would be a rather stupid thing to think, just as thinking the light delay isn't an important factor just because NASA doesn't go on about it is a rather stupid thing to say.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is coming from someone who never asked one question.

Why should she ask questions? Everyone else has been asking questions about just about everything in the book, and you are not answering, so why should she ask a question that you won't answer?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This guy never read the book. It wasn't in stock. He went behind my back and wrote this poor review from a forum like this one. I didn't scrub anything Maturin. This was not an accurate representation. There are no military references whatsoever in any of his books.

You don't know that, but it's one of your standard complaints when someone disagrees with the ideas in the book. Also the book was a PDF online at that time for anyone to read till you had it removed.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

You can try to answer is sincerely but it seems your only response is that either A) The speed of light delay doesn't matter or B) there is something else going on that causes the calculations using the delay to be correct even though the delay isn't real.
Option A can be eliminated mathematically. It's stunning that while Lessans put so much stock in the truth of mathematics you want to ignore the math in this instance. Calculations using efferent vision and afferent vision put the targets for space probes in vastly different points in space. The equations that show this are quite simple. It absolutely does matter if we're seeing distant planets (or moons) in real time or delayed since all calculations used to target them is based off where we see them.

Yes, but I really don't think the time/light delay is making as much difference to the target as everyone is claiming. Of course, the math that TLR gave would make it appear that way, but if all the other data is in place, I don't think the planet would be missed.

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Option B is just conformation bias and an argument from ignorance. You believe that efferent vision is real even though it doesn't fit with the evidence (if efferent vision were real space probes wouldn't hit their targets) so you propose that an unknown and unexplained "something" is making it the calculations work even though they should be WAY off.

I don't know and I don't claim to know. What I do know is that Lessans made certain observations that cause me to believe he was right about efferent vision. This is causing a problem because scientists have their evidence, and Lessans has his, so who is right? Of course you are going to say he is a crank because the majority of mankind believes that the eyes are a sense organ, which is taken for granted, and they also believe man has at least some free will, which isn't true.

[Artemis Entreri]

No, I would be inclined to say that Lessans did not have evidence, he had "observations" and conjecture. What actual evidence did he have?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Telemetry and optical physics are indeed accurate ways to measure the trajectory and location of a planet down to a very small margin of error, but we're talking about the light/time correction. I don't see this correction as of major significance or it would be mentioned much more than it is.

Mentioned where?
It is included in every math program used by the Jet Propulsion Labs as I showed you several times when I linked to and quoted their websites. Hell do a Google search for "light-time correction NASA" and see for yourself. It's always included.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't believe that this correction has this much impact on reaching the target

We lost a Mars orbiter due to the difference between metric and English measurements (centimeters to inches)...which was a much smaller difference than the thousands of kilometers that TLR demonstrated would be involved without accounting for planetary aberration. CNN - Metric mishap caused loss of NASA orbiter - September 30, 1999

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This guy never read the book. It wasn't in stock. He went behind my back and wrote this poor review from a forum like this one. I didn't scrub anything Maturin. This was not an accurate representation. There are no military references whatsoever in any of his books.

Did he have access to a pdf like we did? You said at another forum he was supposed to "help" you. Help with what?

[Angakuk]

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.

Incorrect. I wouldn't be seen at 1.3 seconds because the light would not have had time to travel back to Earth. The flash could be as bright as a nuclear explosion and it would still not be visible until the light from the flash had time to travel the distance from the Moon to the Earth.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Most people who go into a scientific field do so for the main purpose of making new discovers and sharing them with the world.

No, most people go into a scientific field for the same reason that most people learn to play the guitar; money, fame and hot sex with groupies. Everyone knows that to be true. That is why you don't see it mentioned very often.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He went behind my back and wrote this poor review from a forum like this one.

Please explain how he went behind your back. Do you think he was obligated to get your permission and approval before writing a review?

Let's suppose he did somehow go behind your back. Are you suggesting that his going behind your back is a reason for discounting his review? Wouldn't that be an ad hominem argument?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Why should she ask questions? Everyone else has been asking questions about just about everything in the book, and you are not answering, so why should she ask a question that you won't answer?

You can't learn anything that peacegirl is trying to teach unless you ask her questions directly. It doesn't matter if someone else has already asked your question and peacegirl has already non-answered it. That is like hearsay evidence, or something. You have to get your non-answers straight from the horse's ass or you ain't got shit. Remember, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it eat pudding.

[LadyShea]

What I do know is that Lessans made certain observations that cause me to believe he was right about efferent vision.

Are you interested in looking at those observations 1 by 1?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is coming from someone who never asked one question.

And what exactly would be the point of having more people asking you questions you refuse to even try to answer?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said the photon that left the Sun did not arrive. It was already absorbed by my eye. Only photons that did not interact with film or the retina made it to Earth at which time they would strike an object and be absorbed or reflected.

No-one asked you about those photons. My questions remain completely unanswered.


Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

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?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You have to get your non-answers straight from the horse's ass or you ain't got shit.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is one type of proportionality, but when we're talking about EFFERENT VISION, the type of proportionality changes. Distance and time do not play a part in this account because of the change in the model from afferent to efferent. No one is extending the relations accurately, which is why they're not understanding it.

Bump

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How exactly is this proportionality established? You have simply come up with another word/phrase you can't explain!

You've not established that any proportional relationship exists at all, let alone explained it with any kind of physical mechanism or principles. Why would we believe it to be true?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This guy never read the book.

We've got nothing to go on in that regard except your word, and it's conclusively established that your word isn't worth shit.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't scrub anything Maturin.

You're a liar.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are no military references whatsoever in any of his books.

We can now add "references" to the list of word you don't understand. There are dozens of military references in the book even now. Dumbfuck.

[ceptimus]

Probably just blind luck that the European Space Agency were able to steer the Rosetta comet probe to graze Mars once, Earth three times, and a couple of asteroid fly-pasts and still successfully rendezvous with the comet just as planned after ten years of interplanetary flight.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Probably just blind luck that the European Space Agency were able to steer the Rosetta comet probe to graze Mars once, Earth three times, and a couple of asteroid fly-pasts and still successfully rendezvous with the comet just as planned after ten years of interplanetary flight.

They obviously weren't focusing on any precise location.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

No, I would be inclined to say that Lessans did not have evidence, he had "observations" and conjecture. What actual evidence did he have?

Read the book. Then you will have both sides.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Read the book. Then you will have both sides.

He didn't offer any evidence and you know it.