A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

How on Earth would you know what the studies do and do not "prove"? [Incidentally, you're betraying 1.) your complete lack of understanding of what science is and how it's done and 2.) your fundamental dishonesty by using the word "proven" there. You've been corrected on that point many, many times before, so you can't claim ignorance.]

By your own admission, you won't read those studies, so it's fundamentally dishonest of you to pontificate about what they do or do not "prove." At best, you glance at a summary, insist that the studies are "flawed" somehow (but since you won't actually read them, you can never specify what those supposed flaws are, other than that they fail to conform to your prejudices), and blithely dismiss them as you revel in your self-imposed ignorance.

That is precisely the sort of dishonest behavior that earns you so much scorn.

What studies are you talking about? The studies that try to prove dogs can identify their masters or their dog friends on a TV screen is a bunch of malarkey. I already agreed that dogs can recognize certain things such as their own kind over humans. But that's not what I'm talking about. You can't group these abilities with the ability to distinguish individual features and call it a success.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is a pattern of light that allows us to see the outside world. This pattern has to be at the eye, or we wouldn't see the object.

Fine. It's there. Now explain where it came from and how it got there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All you think about is traveling light which relates to time without understanding that if we are not interpreting the light (due to the way we see), time is not a factor.

Fine. Then explain where this light came from and how it got to the eyes without mentioning traveling light and without making time or distance a factor.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What studies are you talking about?

As TLR said, they are the studies you refuse to read. The same studies you were given over five years ago at IIDB and decided were flawed, again without having read them. The same studies you have rejected because of non-existent levers.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Noooo, there are no different photons Spacemonkey. Maybe you have to go back to the drawing board to even consider what Lessans was demonstrating. I refuse to give all my attention to you and your refusal to even contemplate that Lessans could be right. It would be time wasted and I don't have this kind of time to waste. Neither do you. We all get 24 hours a day to use this time to the best of our ability, and I'm not sure whether I'm using my time wisely. I have to continual reconsider my options, IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER SATISFACTION.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Noooo, there are no different photons Spacemonkey.

I didn't say there were. The only photons I am asking you about are those at the film/retina when the Sun is first ignited. You've agreed that these questions do apply (after evading them hundreds of times claiming they don't), so I think you owe me some answers here.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe you have to go back to the drawing board to even consider what Lessans was demonstrating.

That's exactly what I'm doing by asking these questions.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I refuse to give all my attention to you and your refusal to even contemplate that Lessans could be right.

It wouldn't take any more of your attention to answer these questions than you are already giving me by responding with evasive excuses.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It would be time wasted and I don't have this kind of time to waste.

It appears that you certainly do, and you've been wasting it for over a decade now. What is so pressing that you can spend hours here each day but can't spare 5min to answer my questions?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We all get 24 hours a day to use this time to the best of our ability, and I'm not sure whether I'm using my time wisely.

You know you're not. You've said so several times. Yet here you still are.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have to continual reconsider my options, IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER SATISFACTION.

You mean... IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER WEASELING AND EVASION.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No dog can recognize their master from a picture.

The tests prove otherwise, Lessans was wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

By your own reasoning, your grammar is atrocious, therefore your scientific knowledge is just as atrocious.

How would you know, you didn't even read my post. My grammar is very good, just as my knowledge of science is very good.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It means promoting the truth to a place of honor. My father used the phrase and I'm not changing it.

I am about to demonstrate, in a manner our
world’s leading scientists will be unable to deny, not only that the
mankind system is just as harmonious as the solar system despite all
the evil and ignorance that ever existed, but that the inception of the
Golden Age cannot commence until the knowledge pertaining to this
law is accurately understood. What is about to be revealed is
unprecedented. Soon enough everyone will know, without reservation,
that mankind is on the threshold of a NEW WORLD prophesied in
the Bible that must come to pass out of absolute necessity when this
natural law is stamped by the exact sciences with the brevet of truth.

peacegirl, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say "I've never showed any interest in the book because it is obviously, patently nonsense babble." Just in case you ever wondered.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

How would you know, you didn't even read my post. My grammar is very good, just as my knowledge of science is very good.

Yes, you are someone with great knowledge. I should have recognized your brilliance.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

peacegirl, this is the kind of thing I'm talking about when I say "I've never showed any interest in the book because it is obviously, patently nonsense babble." Just in case you ever wondered.

You don't even know what the book is about other than what you've heard others say, so your opinion means nothing to me.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, you are someone with great knowledge. I should have recognized your brilliance.

I don't blame you for it, your willful ignorance is just you moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. It's a pity that everything you believe is just fiction, just as your fake recognition of my knowledge of science.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I didn't say there were. The only photons I am asking you about are those at the film/retina when the Sun is first ignited. You've agreed that these questions do apply (after evading them hundreds of times claiming they don't), so I think you owe me some answers here.

That's exactly what I'm doing by asking these questions.

It wouldn't take any more of your attention to answer these questions than you are already giving me by responding with evasive excuses.

It appears that you certainly do, and you've been wasting it for over a decade now. What is so pressing that you can spend hours here each day but can't spare 5min to answer my questions?

You know you're not. You've said so several times. Yet here you still are.

You mean... IN THE DIRECTION OF GREATER WEASELING AND EVASION.

I have answered your questions for years, and you still don't get it. I don't know how many times I said that the Sun would need to be luminous enough and large enough for it to be seen, but in the efferent account that light would not need to travel 8 minutes to reach Earth for it to be at our retina. It would be similar to the candle example even though a candle is a few feet away and the Sun is millions of miles away. It would work on the same principle.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I don't blame you for it, your willful ignorance is just you moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. It's a pity that it's all just fiction.

Well at least you learned that we are always moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. It only took 4 years. lol If you weren't as stubborn as you are, you may one day give up your bravado and admit that he was right.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You don't even know what the book is about other than what you've heard others say, so your opinion means nothing to me.

Not true, you have posted plenty from the book, and the rest is much the same, so it's easy to make an astute observation as to the content of the book, from what you have posted.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Not true, you have posted plenty from the book, and the rest is much the same, so it's easy to make an astute observation as to the content of the book, from what you have posted.

After 4 years, you can't even explain to me what his first discovery is. You are one to talk.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well at least you learned that we are always moving in the direction of greater satisfaction. It only took 4 years. lol If you weren't as stubborn as you are, you may one day give up your bravado and admit that he was right.

You have obviously misunderstood what I have written, I said that you are moving in the direction of greater satisfaction, in that is what you believe. I don't believe that you are correct in what you believe, and your participation in this thread proves it, unless feeding your martyr complex is giving you greater satisfaction, which makes you a masochistic. I am not moving in a direction of greater satisfaction, there are many other things that I would be doing that would accomplish that, but I am restricted for one reason or another. Sparing with you is definitely not satisfying, but it is amusing. My only possibility of satisfaction would be when you return to reality.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

After 4 years, you can't even explain to me what his first discovery is. You are one to talk.

Why should I repeat what you have already posted from the book. It would prove nothing to you, and since the "discovery" is bogus, repeating it would mean nothing.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have answered your questions for years...

That is a lie. You have never answered them. You have spent years simply refusing to answer them.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know how many times I said that the Sun would need to be luminous enough and large enough for it to be seen...

Irrelevant, as this does not answer any of the questions I am asking.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...but in the efferent account that light would not need to travel 8 minutes to reach Earth for it to be at our retina.

So where does that light come from, and how does it get to the retina?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It would be similar to the candle example even though a candle is a few feet away and the Sun is millions of miles away. It would work on the same principle.

You haven't explained how the candle example would work either, Dingbat.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

Bump.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You haven't explained how the candle example would work either, Dingbat.

Interesting that in spite of her claims, (Peacegirl claims to have explained everything), she has explained nothing. Then she demands that others explain the book to her. It's as if she is looking for a plain word description of the principles that she can then repeat to others as if they were her own. The problem is that you cannot explain nonsense without using nonsense. Trying to explain the principles in the book in rational terms is not possible.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That is a lie. You have never answered them. You have spent years simply refusing to answer them.

Irrelevant, as this does not answer any of the questions I am asking.

So where does that light come from, and how does it get to the retina?

You haven't explained how the candle example would work either, Dingbat.

If you had any sense, you would have realized that calling me Dingbat again would be counterproductive. You blew it AGAIN!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you had any sense, you would have realized that calling me Dingbat again would be counterproductive. You blew it AGAIN!

Yeah, because you were just on the verge of being reasonable and rational, right? You lying dumbass sack of shit. GTFO.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yeah, because you were just on the verge of being reasonable and rational, right? You lying dumbass sack of shit. GTFO.

OTOH, if Peacegirl were to actually leave, we'd have to make fun of each other, not that it would be difficult, after all we all post something Lutz worthy once in awhile, not like Peacegirl who posts silly nonsense almost every time, (OK I was being kind). For myself, I hope she continues to post, it gives me something to laugh at every day.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is a pattern of light that allows us to see the outside world. This pattern has to be at the eye, or we wouldn't see the object.

Yes, you told me that. I'm asking: Why?

You are refusing to answer.

I think you're making this up as you go along! All this 'pattern of light' stuff having to be at the eye is brand new!

You can't even explain mirrors, can you?