A revolution in thought

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His example was hypothetical to make a point that we see the image directly. The light from the sun is here and already in a continual stream. It's not like the light takes a break and goes to a bar, like davidm mockingly said. The same goes for the moon, which is just reflecting that same light. When the light from the sun is being reflected by the moon, then the moon can be seen because it is bright enough and large enough for the eye to see.

The Moon shines by reflected light. If the Sun were turned on right now, it would take 8.5 minutes for its light to reach the Moon and be reflected off it, allowing us to see it. Yet Lessans claims that we'd [somehow] see the Sun and the Moon the instant the Sun came on.

How is that possible, even by Lessans' "theory," given that the Moon does not actually emit light? Remember: part of Lessan's hypothetical scenario was that the Sun had not been emitting light previously, so there was not a continuous stream of photons linking the Sun, Moon, and Earth.

Just a guess, but maybe there was a detection of neutrinos first and light 3 hours later because it took 3 hours for the explosion to be large enough to be seen by telescope. Any explosion in space (if it is far enough away) has to be immense for it to be seen. That could account for the 3 hour delay before the light became visible. I'm not trying to make things up just to defend Lessans. I am just trying to offer another possibility rather than just concluding that this proves afferent vision since this is the topic we're debating.

So you're suggesting that the neutrinos were traveling 168,000 times faster than light, so that they'd arrive here on Earth at essentially the same time we saw the star explode?

And what's more, the speed of neutrinos traveling through space varies, so that they always reach us coincident with when the supernova explosion occurs, no matter how far away it happens to be?

Remember that the neutrino burst and the light burst are essentially coincident, no matter how far away the supernova happens to be. Therefore, for your notion to be true, if the supernova is 1,000 light-years away, neutrinos traveling away from it would have to be moving at "only" 1,000c; if the supernova is 20,000 light-years away, neutrinos would have to travel away from it at 20,000c; while if the supernova is 168,000 light-years away, the neutrinos have to be traveling away from it at a whopping 168,000c!

Which would logically mean that the Earth is at the center of the Universe -- or at least, the Universe behaves as if the Earth is at its center, since the very laws of the Universe are suspended in order to ensure that neutrinos reach the Earth coincident with their star's explosion. Wow! Aren't we special!

You're really suggesting that? Seriously?

[Vivisectus]

I am starting to get bored, because you are getting extremely repetitive. Most of the things you said have been conclusively refuted - you are either pretending to be stupid on purpose so you do not have to admit your father was wrong, or you are just so far removed from reality that you couldn't touch it with a ten foot screen of undeniable essence.

Why not? I said that the light is a condition of sight. If that light being reflected in a straight line, we will see the object without any distortions. If the light gets refracted, we will see a visual distortion of said object or image. We cannot get information from the light traveling into our brain billions of miles away without said image being large enough or bright enough for us to see it. Why? Because the light contains no information that is going into the brain. The brain, through the eyes, is seeing the object or image because the light is a condition that allows us to.

But unless the information is in the light, there would be no distortion in the image (the information that ends up in the brain) just because the light is distorted. The brain just sees directly and instantly, remember, and the light just has to be there to make sure this can happen? There is no need for the light to travel through the intervening space to carry the information?

Then why is there a distortion which we can explain perfectly when we use the laws of optics to describe what is going on? What in your model causes the distortion? It cannot be the light itself, because it carries no information according to you.

Do you really not see the enormous holes in this idea? We have come up with a dozen reasons why it is impossible - you have no answer for any of them, and yet you keep repeating these stale refuted arguments time and time again.

[The Lone Ranger]

Speaking of real, observed phenomena that are totally incompatible with Lessans' notions of how we see, I'd love to hear how peacegirl explains away the phenomenon of gravitational lensing.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Speaking of real, observed phenomena that are totally incompatible with Lessans' notions of how we see, I'd love to hear how peacegirl explains away the phenomenon of gravitational lensing.

Same way she has every other aspect of reality: ignore it.

--J.D.

[Kael]

She'll probably claim that it in no way contradicts Lessans' claims about sight, which would be the default answer for one who has already assumed Lessans is correct but does not have a direct or complete explanation for how seemingly-contradictory observations fit in. It just means we don't know yet, obviously, since we have already established that it CANNOT mean Lessans was mistaken or incorrect in any way, shape, or form, even to the tiniest detail.

This is how science works.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But can you image a truth where you father was just - well, wrong?

I don't believe he was wrong. I know the kind of person he was and he would never have refined and refined this knowledge for 30 years if he was doubtful in any way.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light Year:
NOUN:
1. The distance that light travels in a vacuum in one year

Columbus "discovery" of America= 1485-1492 or 520 years ago

You got the gist. Even seeing Columbus discovering America 520 years ago for the very first time would not be occurring.

[thedoc]

What I do not understand is why everyone is trying to teach peacegirl anything about reality. She is obviously incapable of learning, incapable of understanding, incapable of comprehending anything other than the dogma contained in Lessans book. She has been indoctrinated with this since early childhood and it is now her only reality, the truth is simply beyond her grasp. If it is so essential that the truth be presented on this forum that a few are actually looking at, just formulate it into a post and periodically do so following one of peacegirls rants. There is no point in addressing peacegirl directly as she probabily doesn't understand it, even if she actually reads it. Just watch for her to posts some nonsensical rant, and post a clear summary of reality, the back and forth banter is useless.

[LadyShea]

if were millions of light years away, we would be seeing Columbus discovering America.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't believe he was wrong. I know the kind of person he was and he would never have refined and refined this knowledge for 30 years if he was doubtful in any way.

That's non-responsive. Vivisectus didn't ask whether you believe Lessans was wrong or whether Lessans himself had any doubt. The question is whether you acknowledge a possibility that Lessans was in fact wrong.

To me, it's obvious that the answer to the question V. actually asked is, "No." It's time to abandon your facade of objectivity and get honest with yourself about this issue.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by thedoc

There is no point in addressing peacegirl directly

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by thedoc

There is no point in addressing peacegirl directly ...

That is entirely true, unless we could somehow sneak past the cerebral cortex and address who or whatever exists on the other side. Then we'd be communicating directly.

Of course if your idea of who you think you are is not compatible with her idea of who she thinks she is, it probably won't help much. It may even require an exorcism.

[Kael]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

he would never have refined and refined this knowledge for 30 years if he was doubtful in any way.

I know Stephen beat me to this, but that is not what you were asked. That he was not doubtful in no way precludes him being wrong.

So, can you imagine that the truth might be as simple as Lessans being wrong, regardless of how certain he might have felt?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by thedoc

What I do not understand is why everyone is trying to teach peacegirl anything about reality. She is obviously incapable of learning, incapable of understanding, incapable of comprehending anything other than the dogma contained in Lessans book. She has been indoctrinated with this since early childhood and it is now her only reality, the truth is simply beyond her grasp. If it is so essential that the truth be presented on this forum that a few are actually looking at, just formulate it into a post and periodically do so following one of peacegirls rants. There is no point in addressing peacegirl directly as she probabily doesn't understand it, even if she actually reads it. Just watch for her to posts some nonsensical rant, and post a clear summary of reality, the back and forth banter is useless.

That she's completely un-teachable was very, very clear a long time ago, and I very-much doubt that anyone is laboring under the delusion that this isn't the case. Some people evidently find it fascinating to see such pig-headed denial of reality in action. For myself, I think that it can be of use [for other readers, of course -- not her] to point out just how ludicrous, self-contradictory and out-of-touch-with-reality her claims are.

Ironically, her silly claims provide an excellent excuse to muse on such interesting topics as gravitational lensing, how vision actually works, and the like.

[Iacchus]

Well, just so long as her immortal soul doesn't hang in the balance. Then I suppose, since she can't communicate with any of us directly, it really doesn't matter what "fairy tale" she believes. And that, in the most direct response I could possibly muster (which is not direct at all), is a fact.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Because Jimmy Carter refused to grant an audience for the
purpose of demonstrating how a scientific discovery can now unite all
nations in a harmonious agreement that will break the vicious cycle
of inflation and solve to everybody’s satisfaction the problems that are
costing the people billions of dollars in rising prices and excessive
taxes, and because this refusal violates my rights and his oath to
faithfully execute the office of President of the United States which
obviously includes doing everything in his power to solve these
problems even to the extent of allowing someone outside the political
arena to show him the answer, I, Seymour Lessans, representing the
taxpayers who want to see a permanent solution, am taking Jimmy
Carter to court as the only alternative to prove before 12 top ranking
scientists, not political scientists, that his failure to faithfully execute
his oath of office by investigating this discovery is a crime of the
greatest magnitude and reason enough for the people who hired him
and pay his salary to remove him from office.

~Lessans page 568

Absolutely not. He was using this as a last resort because he couldn't reach people in academia. We already went through LadyShea. If you want to look at him in this light, there's nothing I can do. All I can say is you're completely wrong.

[thedoc]

Yes he is. - No he isn't.
Yes he is. - No he isn't.
Yes he is. - No he isn't.
Yes he is. - No he isn't.
- Ad nauseam - Ad infinitum.

Summary of the last 165 pages.

Can we just get to the party?

[thedoc]

How about if everyone post their favorite recepie for party food and what they like to drink. I'm getting hungry and I've been thirsty for awhile. I hope I don't run out of wine before the party starts, I've still got plenty of whine.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Yes he is. - No he isn't.
Yes he is. - No he isn't.
Yes he is. - No he isn't.
Yes he is. - No he isn't.
- Ad nauseam - Ad infinitum.

Summary of the last 165 pages.

Can we just get to the party?

What's the next prime number? We could party on the primes!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His example was hypothetical to make a point that we see the image directly. The light from the sun is here and already in a continual stream. It's not like the light takes a break and goes to a bar, like davidm mockingly said. The same goes for the moon, which is just reflecting that same light. When the light from the sun is being reflected by the moon, then the moon can be seen because it is bright enough and large enough for the eye to see.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

The Moon shines by reflected light. If the Sun were turned on right now, it would take 8.5 minutes for its light to reach the Moon and be reflected off it, allowing us to see it. Yet Lessans claims that we'd [somehow] see the Sun and the Moon the instant the Sun came on.

No, Lessans did not say that. We wouldn't be able to see the Sun and the Moon at the same time. Obviously, we would see the Moon 8.5 minutes later.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

How is that possible, even by Lessans' "theory," given that the Moon does not actually emit light? Remember: part of Lessan's hypothetical scenario was that the Sun had not been emitting light previously, so there was not a continuous stream of photons linking the Sun, Moon, and Earth.

That's why it's not possible, and why Lessans never said that to begin with.

Just a guess, but maybe there was a detection of neutrinos first and light 3 hours later because it took 3 hours for the explosion to be large enough to be seen by telescope. Any explosion in space (if it is far enough away) has to be immense for it to be seen. That could account for the 3 hour delay before the light became visible. I'm not trying to make things up just to defend Lessans. I am just trying to offer another possibility rather than just concluding that this proves afferent vision since this is the topic we're debating.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

So you're suggesting that the neutrinos were traveling 168,000 times faster than light, so that they'd arrive here on Earth at essentially the same time we saw the star explode?

And what's more, the speed of neutrinos traveling through space varies, so that they always reach us coincident with when the supernova explosion occurs, no matter how far away it happens to be?

Remember that the neutrino burst and the light burst are essentially coincident, no matter how far away the supernova happens to be. Therefore, for your notion to be true, if the supernova is 1,000 light-years away, neutrinos traveling away from it would have to be moving at "only" 1,000c; if the supernova is 20,000 light-years away, neutrinos would have to travel away from it at 20,000c; while if the supernova is 168,000 light-years away, the neutrinos have to be traveling away from it at a whopping 168,000c!

Which would logically mean that the Earth is at the center of the Universe -- or at least, the Universe behaves as if the Earth is at its center, since the very laws of the Universe are suspended in order to ensure that neutrinos reach the Earth coincident with their star's explosion. Wow! Aren't we special!

You're really suggesting that? Seriously?

I'm not sure what you're getting at. All I'm saying is that there are other possibilities that could account for this apparent coincidence. The neutrinos (which you said is approx. close to the speed of light) could be reaching Earth at the same time it takes for the supernova to build in size until it can be seen, without it being a coincidence. There could be an inverse relationship between the time it takes for the neutrinos to travel to Earth and the massive explosion that is building. This answer if off the top of my head (which I'm sure you all realize) because I don't know enough about the topic to give a straightforward answer. Therefore, I'm not going to say something that will incriminate me or Lessans just because of my ignorance on this particular subject. Also, efferent vision would change the perception of how far a star really is. It might not be as many light years away as was previously thought.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, Lessans did not say that. We wouldn't be able to see the Sun and the Moon at the same time. Obviously, we would see the Moon 8.5 minutes later.

Oh, dear! I guess you didn't read your idiot father's book very carefully! Here, permit me to quote from the Great Man Himself, with the key portion in bold face:

The
explanation as to why the sun looks to be the size of the moon —
although much larger — is because it is much much farther away,
which is the reason it would look like a star to someone living on a
planet the distance of Rigel. This proves conclusively that the
distance between someone looking, and the object seen, has no
relation to time because the images are not traveling toward the optic
nerve on waves of light, therefore it takes no time to see the moon, the sun and the distant stars.

Halfwit. You can't even remember your own lies.

In case this shitwit has me on Ignore again, could someone point out this paragraph from Daddy Dearest's book to her? Thanks!

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It might not be as many light years away as was previously thought.

Not if the Universe were a hologram and it were merely a simulation, in which case the whole thing, including how many light years it is across, could probably fit on something no larger than the head of pin .. or, something "infinitely" smaller than that even. There's even scientific evidence to back it up.

Hey, maybe if we were like God or, In The Spirit like God, we could all see in REAL TIME too.

[SharonDee]

Originally Posted by thedoc

What I do not understand is why everyone is trying to teach peacegirl anything about reality.

Look, do you want to get to 200 or don't you?

Originally Posted by thedoc

How about if everyone post their favorite recepie for party food and what they like to drink.

No, no, no. That would be cheating. If you want to just shoot the shit, go to that million posts thread thingy. I get my jollies watching peacegirl twist in the wind, not reading nonsense posts just for the sake of growing the thread.

And yes, it is all about me.
________

Now, because davidm asked us to, I present this cleaned-up (i.e., meanness-removed) point he made:

Originally Posted by davidm

[But your dad said] :

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Absolutely not. He was using this as a last resort because he couldn't reach people in academia. We already went through LadyShea. If you want to look at him in this light, there's nothing I can do. All I can say is you're completely wrong.

What do you mean, "absolutely not"? Lessans represented the material LadyShea quoted as the text of a complaint he filed with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. That's "complaint" as in the formal document that initiates a lawsuit.

By placing those ridiculous allegations in a complaint -- and make no mistake, they are spectacularly ridiculous -- Lessans was representing to a federal court that: he was entitled to "an audience" with POTUS; Carter's refusal to grant the audience affirmatively violated Lessans' "rights"; Lessans represents all "taxpayers who want to see a permanent solution"; Lessans and the taxpayers he purports to represent have standing to challenge a perceived breach of the president's oath of office (the terms of which Lessans misrepresents rather egregiously, BTW); and all these taxpayers may petition a court to remove a wayward president from office, a proposition that anyone with so much as a grade-school understanding of the U.S. Constitution knows is preposterous.

Your father's own statements completely belie your claim that "[h]e didn't feel entitled to anything." "Last resort" or not, he plainly felt entitled to quite a bit, as his frivolous lawsuit demonstrates in spades.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This answer if off the top of my head (which I'm sure you all realize) because I don't know enough about the topic to give a straightforward answer. Therefore, I'm not going to say something that will incriminate me or Lessans just because of my ignorance on this particular subject.