A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You've now retracted the only answer you've given (bizarrely denying that you even said it), so I will have to repeat the questions. You've said that there will be green photons instantly at the retina when the light first turns green. Regarding those specific green photons...

Where and when did these green photons begin to exist?

No Spacemonkey, now you're talking about teleportation. This is not magic.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You've now retracted the only answer you've given (bizarrely denying that you even said it), so I will have to repeat the questions. You've said that there will be green photons instantly at the retina when the light first turns green. Regarding those specific green photons...

Where and when did these green photons begin to exist?

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Spacemonkey, now you're talking about teleportation. This is not magic.

What? I didn't say anything about magic or teleportation! What on Earth are you on about? I just asked you a plain simple question about the photons YOU SAY will be instantly at the retina. Again...

Where and when did these green photons begin to exist?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are so confused David, it's laughable!!!! Any kind of matter interacting with light will be seen as long as it meets the conditions that I have gone over countless times. If you haven't noticed, light allows us to see anything at all. But that is not the question. The question still remains: whether light brings the images of the material world to us through space/time (as you so fervently believe), or whether we see the material world in real time due to light's presence. You think you're all that. Sorry to inform you, you're not.

You just said that we can't see sunlight until it gets here -- completely contradicting Lessans, and everything you've said online for 15 years!

Thanks for your concession! Now we are done here.

You can burn Daddy's books, take down his Twitter account (where he is still begging, from beyond the grave, for reviewers) and do something useful with your life -- like stop hitting the sauce all day long and maybe even get a job instead of stealing public funds.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by davidm

You can burn Daddy's books, take down his Twitter account (where he is still begging, from beyond the grave, for reviewers) ...

The review that peacegirl purchased made Seymour so sad that he's traveled back along the sacred River of Jizz from the Germinal World of Potential Consciousness to ask for new reviews.

Originally Posted by davidm

and do something useful with your life --

Oh deary deary me oh my, no. Doing something useful would require actual work, and peacegirl is above that sort of thing.

Originally Posted by davidm

like stop hitting the sauce all day long and maybe even get a job instead of stealing public funds.

The Lessans family and ripping off taxpayers go together like right wing militia whackos and firearms.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They travel, but the travel time is virtually nil.

There is no such thing as photons whose travel time is nil or even virtually nil, you are talking about a nonexistent particle, fiction, a fantasy. All photons travel at c in a vacuum and slightly slower in different materials. In some kinds of matter, (opaque) photons are absorbed and converted into different kinds of energy, or reflected at the angle of reflection.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not say that.

You did so! Why do you keep lying about your own words, when we can SHOW YOU where you said them? Look:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When the object turned green.

Were those your words? Do you remember typing them?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We see the light turn green instantly if it meets the conditions, which does not mean the green wavelength/frequency began to exist at that instant. How would we be able to use that light to see if it just came into existence?

I don't know. It's your bizarre theory, not mine. If the green photons at the retina existed before the light turned green, where did they come from and when did they begin to exist?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

IOW, we would not be able to see the Sun turned on instantly if the light had not become luminous enough which takes time but not the time that you imagine (not 8 minutes). Just like the candle being turned on, it doesn't take more than a nanosecond for that light to be at our eyes because it's a closed system.

We were not talking about the Sun or a candle. We were talking about a very distant traffic light. Do the green photons come from the traffic light, and travel from there to the retina in a nanosecond? If so, you have them traveling faster than light; if not, then where and when did they begin to exist?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It doesn't matter. There has to be enough light for the object to be seen. In this case we would see the traffic light change instantly, about the length of time it would take the light from a candle to be at our eyes in a closed room.

Of course it matters. You can't tell me the green photons will be travelling in a direction determined by the angle at which they struck the object when they haven't struck any object.

You are now rejecting your previous claim that there will be green photons instantly at the retina, claiming instead that there will be some minuscule time delay. Fine, but that still doesn't answer my question of where and when these green photons began to exist. If they came from the traffic light, then you have them travelling faster than the speed of light—and you also have them getting to the retina, contrary to your previous denials.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, the photons that you're speaking of do not begin to exist at that instant.

Fine, then when do they begin to exist? Before or after the traffic light turns green? And where are they when they first begin to exist?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They travel, but the travel time is virtually nil. That's what you are not grasping. You still think that light has to travel (the afferent model of sight) 8 minutes to reach our eyes for us to utilize that light. But that's not the case in the efferent model. That's why Lessans said light has to be at the object ONLY. That is also why we would be able to see the Sun being turned on, but not see each other for 8 minutes. Do you even understand what I'm saying?

Do you understand what you're saying? Where are these green photons travelling from, where are they travelling to, and have they covered this distance faster than the speed of light? Photons cannot travel huge distances in a nanosecond. Light cannot travel faster than the speed of light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What do you mean, WHERE are these photons or in what direction will they be traveling.

I mean just that. It's a perfectly simple question expressed in clear English. What part of the question confuses you? I can re-express the question taking into account your nanosecond time-delay if you like:

You have said that there will be green photons near-instantly at the retina, in less time than it would take them to travel from the newly-turned-green traffic light to the retina, so...

Where and when did these green photons begin to exist?

(Please note that this question has nothing to do with whether or not there is any information in the travelling light.)

[thedoc]

It is so frustrating to watch Peacegirl flailing about trying to deny that the green photons are coming into existence, when all she needs to do is to state that the red photons have turned into green photons. Then all she needs to do is to explain how this can happen, and considering all the fiction she has invented before, it should be no problem at all.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by thedoc

It is so frustrating to watch Peacegirl flailing about trying to deny that the green photons are coming into existence, when all she needs to do is to state that the red photons have turned into green photons. Then all she needs to do is to explain how this can happen, and considering all the fiction she has invented before, it should be no problem at all.

Well, we can always ask her about that. I'm sure she will have no difficulties providing a direct and honest answer:

Peacegirl, were these green photons—the ones near-instantly at the retina once the traffic light turns green—always green, or have they changed to green from some other colour during their existence as photons?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're asking me to fit a square into a hole.

The correct phrase is "fit a square peg into a round hole". Absent the peg the words make no sense. In any case, you can fit a square peg into round hole, if the hole is enough larger than the peg.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The correct phrase is "fit a square peg into a round hole". Absent the peg the words make no sense. In any case, you can fit a square peg into round hole, if the hole is enough larger than the peg.

But that fits with everything else she has ever said, as none of it makes any sense. Peacegirl has got to be the original square peg in a round hole, and not a hole that is big enough.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

The Lessans family and ripping off taxpayers.

Well that fits with her trying to rip everyone else off, trying the get them to buy her fathers book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

But that fits with everything else she has ever said, as none of it makes any sense. Peacegirl has got to be the original square peg in a round hole, and not a hole that is big enough.

It makes complete sense to you, which is the opposite of what anyone with a working brain thinks.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The correct phrase is "fit a square peg into a round hole". Absent the peg the words make no sense. In any case, you can fit a square peg into round hole, if the hole is enough larger than the peg.

It makes sense to those who are looking for something to make an issue over like you Angakuk. When a person is a stickler for grammatical perfection, it's because they have nothing left to argue. It's a complete dodge.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Well, we can always ask her about that. I'm sure she will have no difficulties providing a direct and honest answer:

Peacegirl, were these green photons—the ones near-instantly at the retina once the traffic light turns green—always green, or have they changed to green from some other colour during their existence as photons?

This goes right back to whether the image (the information) is reflected in the light over long distances irregardless of whether the object is present or not. The efferent account disputes this belief, and your effort to find a flaw in this account based on your questioning is falling flat.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

The review that peacegirl purchased made Seymour so sad that he's traveled back along the sacred River of Jizz from the Germinal World of Potential Consciousness to ask for new reviews.

Oh deary deary me oh my, no. Doing something useful would require actual work, and peacegirl is above that sort of thing.

The Lessans family and ripping off taxpayers go together like right wing militia whackos and firearms.

You are working overtime Stephen Dumbfuck (thank you for giving me the perfect name for you; it is so appropriate) because all you have to offer is your brand of ridicule, which hides your true insecurity about what you know and what you don't when it comes to this discovery. Your knowledge as a lawyer is one thing; your knowledge of this work is so poor that it doesn't even warrant a response from me. I am offering my response to you as a friendly gesture, free of charge. Be grateful!

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It makes sense to those who are looking for something to make an issue over like you Angakuk. When a person is a stickler for grammatical perfection, it's because they have nothing left to argue. It's a complete dodge.

While we're at it, "irregardless" is not a word.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

While we're at it, "irregardless" is not a word.

You're right, but it didn't show up as a misspelling so somewhere along the line it has been included as a colloquialism. Therefore it's legitimate enough for me to use in a thread; maybe not in a book.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), irregardless was first acknowledged in 1912 by the Wentworth American Dialect Dictionary as originating from western Indiana,[5] though the word was in use in South Carolina before Indiana became a territory.[1] The usage dispute over irregardless was such that, in 1923, Literary Digest published an article titled "Is There Such a Word as Irregardless in the English Language?". The OED goes on to explain the word is primarily a North American colloquialism.[5]

Irregardless - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your knowledge as a lawyer is one thing; your knowledge of this work is so poor that it doesn't even warrant a response from me.

Remember the multiple times in this thread that you've disagreed with direct quotes from your father's book? It must be disheartening to have spent thousands upon thousands of hour on the book and not even know what's in it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am offering my response to you as a friendly gesture, free of charge.

Much obliged, but it's only fair considering that American taxpayers -- myself included -- pay all your bills.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Remember the multiple times in this thread that you've disagreed with direct quotes from your father's book? It must be disheartening to have spent thousands upon thousands of hour on the book and not even know what's in it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am offering my response to you as a friendly gesture, free of charge.

Originally Posted by Stephen Dumbfuck

Much obliged, but it's only fair considering that American taxpayers -- myself included -- pay all your bills.

...

[peacegirl]

Very nice video.

Watch The Video That’s Taking The World By Storm Today. This Will Leave You Questioning Everything! | Globe Today

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right, but it didn't show up as a misspelling so somewhere along the line it has been included as a colloquialism. Therefore it's legitimate enough for me to use in a thread; maybe not in a book.

According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), irregardless was first acknowledged in 1912 by the Wentworth American Dialect Dictionary as originating from western Indiana,[5] though the word was in use in South Carolina before Indiana became a territory.[1] The usage dispute over irregardless was such that, in 1923, Literary Digest published an article titled "Is There Such a Word as Irregardless in the English Language?". The OED goes on to explain the word is primarily a North American colloquialism.[5]

Irregardless - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To summarize: Like "I could care less" and "is comprised of", it's broken language that makes you sound like an idiot.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

To summarize: Like "I could care less" and "is comprised of", it's broken language that makes you sound like an idiot.

Sorry, but I speak English and I'm entitled to use colloquialisms at my discretion. It makes you look desperate to find something, anything, that makes me look bad because you don't want to believe Lessans knew what he was talking about. It's not working.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This goes right back to whether the image (the information) is reflected in the light over long distances irregardless of whether the object is present or not. The efferent account disputes this belief, and your effort to find a flaw in this account based on your questioning is falling flat.

No, it has nothing to do with that, and you haven't answered the question. In fact you haven't answered any of my questions at all. You half-answered a question earlier, only to then immediately retract your answer and deny ever having said it. Pathetic.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What? I didn't say anything about magic or teleportation! What on Earth are you on about? I just asked you a plain simple question about the photons YOU SAY will be instantly at the retina. Again...

Where and when did these green photons begin to exist?

Bump.