A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

No, it isn't. But at least it's a coherent idea. You would have to start calculating and develop a theory of what you think is going on. Then you would discover that it either doesn't match observations, you would have to break several physical laws, or both.

Also it doesn't explain the first question. Why does a space probe close to Jupiter see it oriented differently compared with the Hubble telescope in Earth's orbit?

To quote Peacegirl "Something else is going on".

Even if she tries to claim that the planets are speeding up and slowing down their rotational velocity, it would not account for the difference in the position of the planet in photos taken at the same time from different distances. Such as photos from a probe near the planet and photos of the same thing taken at the same time from the Hubble telescope near the Earth. That seems to be the one detail that she is ignoring, and will not answer or even attempt to answer. "Something else is going on", like a conspiracy of all the planets and Moons in the solar system to make Earth bound astronomers look as stupid as Lessans and Peacegirl.

I know what it is, the light to either the probe or the Hubble is bent so that it looks like the photo is taken from one angle and the light to the other camera travels straight so that it looks like the photo is taken from a different angle. So the "Something else is going on", is the light is being bent somehow, but Peacegirl has said that light always travels in a straight line, and Gravitational lensing just doesn't happen because she didn't think of it. It will be interesting to read what Peacegirl makes up this time to CYA.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

To quote Peacegirl "Something else is going on".

Even if she tries to claim that the planets are speeding up and slowing down their rotational velocity, it would not account for the difference in the position of the planet in photos taken at the same time from different distances. Such as photos from a probe near the planet and photos of the same thing taken at the same time from the Hubble telescope near the Earth. That seems to be the one detail that she is ignoring, and will not answer or even attempt to answer. "Something else is going on", like a conspiracy of all the planets and Moons in the solar system to make Earth bound astronomers look as stupid as Lessans and Peacegirl.

I know what it is, the light to either the probe or the Hubble is bent so that it looks like the photo is taken from one angle and the light to the other camera travels straight so that it looks like the photo is taken from a different angle. So the "Something else is going on", is the light is being bent somehow, but Peacegirl has said that light always travels in a straight line, and Gravitational lensing just doesn't happen because she didn't think of it. It will be interesting to read what Peacegirl makes up this time to CYA.

Your credibility is on the line thedoc, which is why you're so determined to prove Lessans wrong. You have tried to discredit him to such a degree that if you are wrong, you will hate yourself. I don't want you to hate yourself. You are forgiven. You will need to accept that you were wrong. I hope you can do that when it turns out that Lessans was right all along.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your credibility is on the line thedoc, which is why you're so determined to prove Lessans wrong. You have tried to discredit him to such a degree that if you are wrong, you will hate yourself. I don't want you to hate yourself. You are forgiven. You will need to accept that you were wrong. I hope you can do that when it turns out that Lessans was right all along.

Thank you for the forgiveness, but I don't believe it will be necessary, there will be nothing to be forgiven for. I am under no delusion that Lessans will ever be proven correct, so I will never have any reason to hate myself. Just to be clear, if you check the line under my user I.D., I don't claim to have any credibility, so I have nothing to loose. It does seem odd that both you and Lessans first deride scientists and other educated people, and then plead that some scientist should study and validate his non-discoveries. It's like you two are biting the hand that you are begging to feed you. I don't believe that the derision that you and your father have aimed at educated people will go very far in getting their support, which you so desperately claim to need.

I understand that it is normal for each person to die when they get old or sick, and I have no problem with that, but I also live as if medical science will find some means of extending life beyond the normal span. So I make long term plans as well as trying to get the most out of each day that I am here. In that light I would like to thank you for providing me with a great deal of entertainment over the last several years, and some very humorous stories to tell others, even though most can hardly believe that anyone would post the things you do. Most people just roll their eyes, and I'm sure that some of them think I'm making it up, just to say something unbelievable.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You have said that there will be green photons at the retina a nanosecond after the traffic light turns green...

When and where did those photons begin to exist?

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film or retina 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 or retina when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film/retina 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 film/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/retina at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

Five words, Peacegirl. Five words and a little bit of honesty. Is that too much to ask?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Five words, Peacegirl. Five words and a little bit of honesty. Is that too much to ask?

You're asking Peacegirl to answer honestly, I hesitate to speculate at that possibility. Needless to say that I believe the chances of that happening are somewhere between 0 and nil. But good luck anyway.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Five words, Peacegirl. Five words and a little bit of honesty. Is that too much to ask?

It’s funny to watch peacegirl religiously dodge these questions. You’d think they’d be so easy to answer — and they would be, for Seymour Lessans! But, since years ago peacegirl abandoned Lessans’ own claims, and substituted her own for his, she can’t answer the questions. I think when she committed her heresy and abandoned Lessans’ claims, she didn’t even realize she was doing it; later she figured this out, but can’t admit it. So how would Seymour answer these questions?

By rejecting the truth of the very first premise, of course, which is:

You need photons at the camera film or retina when the Sun is first ignited.

Actually, Lessans never addressed cameras at all, so let’s simplify the premise in his favor:

You need photons at retina when the Sun is first ignited [In order to see the sun instantly when God turns it on at noon].

Lessans would reply: No, you do not! That was Lessans’ whole fucking point, which peacegirl, in her dotage, has lost track of. You do NOT need the light at the eye to see the sun — you just need the light at the sun. This is what he means when he says the eye is not a sense organ. Simple! All the answers now consistently follow.

Seymour answers

Are they traveling photons? Answer: No, the photons we see when God turns on the sun at noon are at the sun, and that’s the only place they need to be for us to see them. They don’t need to be at the eye because the eye is not a sense organ. Instead, the eyes are windows that the brain looks out through, to see the light when the light is at an object. The light needs only be at an object, and not at the eye, for us to see the light. Problem solved!

Did they come from the Sun? Answer: No, they stayed there. See above.

Did they get to the retina by traveling? Answer: Since they don’t need to be at the retina to be seen, only at the object, the question is irrelevant.

Did they travel at the speed of light? Answer: Yep, light travels at the speed of light, just as science says. But, since the light only needs to be at the sun for us here on earth to it, then we see that light instantly when God turns on the sun at noon, by definition. But notice I also said that we would have to wait eight and a half minutes to see our neighbors here on earth, if God turns on the sun at noon. This is because, to be seen, the light has to be at the object (the neighbors, in this case), and not at the eye. And the light won’t be at the neighbor-objects until it gets to them: i.e., after eight and a half minutes have passed.

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited? Answer: the questions is irrelevant; but the answer, of course, is no,

See how easy that was, peacegirl? If only you had stuck to Daddy’s plainly written claims, and not invented a different set of claims, of your own! Miserable apostate! Blasphemer!

Alas, peacegirl decided that Seymour was wrong and that the light had to be at the retina after all, to be seen; and she even rewrote the Sacred Text to reflect this. And that is how she ended up arguing the logically impossible proposition that light is at the eye instantly, even though it takes eight and a half minutes to get there! Poor Seymour must be rolling over in his grave at this grave distortion of his pristine teaching! I guess it’s sort of like how Paul fucked over Christ.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Poor Seymour must be rolling over in his grave at this grave distortion of his pristine teaching!

Good 'Ole pinwheel Lessans.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Lessans would reply: No, you do not! That was Lessans’ whole fucking point, which peacegirl, in her dotage, has lost track of. You do NOT need the light at the eye to see the sun — you just need the light at the sun. This is what he means when he says the eye is not a sense organ. Simple! All the answers now consistently follow.

Seymour answers

Are they traveling photons? Answer: No, the photons we see when God turns on the sun at noon are at the sun, and that’s the only place they need to be for us to see them. They don’t need to be at the eye because the eye is not a sense organ. Instead, the eyes are windows that the brain looks out through, to see the light when the light is at an object. The light needs only be at an object, and not at the eye, for us to see the light. Problem solved!

But this scenario does create another problem which was just a bit beyond Lessans. How does the brain, looking through the eye, bridge the distance from the brain to the Sun, or any object that is a measurable distance from the eye. Since c is the maximum speed that anything can travel, how does the image of the Sun get to the brain, even looking out through the eye, there is still the distance between them. And saying that distance is not a factor, does not answer the question, it's only a dodge or evasion.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

But this scenario does create another problem which was just a bit beyond Lessans. How does the brain, looking through the eye, bridge the distance from the brain to the Sun, or any object that is a measurable distance from the eye. Since c is the maximum speed that anything can travel, how does the image of the Sun get to the brain, even looking out through the eye, there is still the distance between them. And saying that distance is not a factor, does not answer the question, it's only a dodge or evasion.

Good God, I didn't Lessans was right! His claims are laughably, idiotically false and stupid! That isn't the point. The point is that he can consistently answer 's questions, whereas peacegirl, with her different claims, can't even do that. Lessans' claims, while gobsmackingly false, are at least logically consistent. Peacegirl's revised claims are not only false, but logically impossible.

Beyond that, the main point is that peacegirl is arguing for something different from what her Dopey Dad advocated. I'm sorry she is an apostate. It's a terrible thing to betray your own father, especially when Dad is the World's Greatest Genius. And his own daughter has renounced him!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Good God, I didn't Lessans was right! His claims are laughably, idiotically false and stupid! That isn't the point. The point is that he can consistently answer 's questions, whereas peacegirl, with her different claims, can't even do that. Lessans' claims, while gobsmackingly false, are at least logically consistent. Peacegirl's revised claims are not only false, but logically impossible.

Beyond that, the main point is that peacegirl is arguing for something different from what her Dopey Dad advocated. I'm sorry she is an apostate. It's a terrible thing to betray your own father, especially when Dad is the World's Greatest Genius. And his own daughter has renounced him!

I suppose that you have just demonstrated how difficult sarcasm in on a forum, even when it is true.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

To quote Peacegirl "Something else is going on".

Even if she tries to claim that the planets are speeding up and slowing down their rotational velocity, it would not account for the difference in the position of the planet in photos taken at the same time from different distances. Such as photos from a probe near the planet and photos of the same thing taken at the same time from the Hubble telescope near the Earth. That seems to be the one detail that she is ignoring, and will not answer or even attempt to answer. "Something else is going on", like a conspiracy of all the planets and Moons in the solar system to make Earth bound astronomers look as stupid as Lessans and Peacegirl.

I know what it is, the light to either the probe or the Hubble is bent so that it looks like the photo is taken from one angle and the light to the other camera travels straight so that it looks like the photo is taken from a different angle. So the "Something else is going on", is the light is being bent somehow, but Peacegirl has said that light always travels in a straight line, and Gravitational lensing just doesn't happen because she didn't think of it. It will be interesting to read what Peacegirl makes up this time to CYA.

I found that something else, didn't I? You are a stupid fool thedoc, along with Davidm who believes in wormholes and time travel but can't dare contemplate that the brain works in a different way than originally believed. It's just too far fetched yet time travel and wormholes are not. It's no surprise that people are getting more indignant than ever because they realize that Roemer's conclusions that the delay we see may not be due to the finite speed of light after all.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I found that something else, didn't I? You are a stupid fool thedoc, along with Davidm who believes in wormholes and time travel but can't dare contemplate that the brain works in a different way than originally believed. It's just too far fetched yet time travel and wormholes are not. It's no surprise that people are getting more indignant than ever because they realize that Roemer's conclusions that the delay we see may not be due to the finite speed of light after all.

The difference between time travel and your idea is that time travel could possibly work in principle. This doesn't.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I found that something else, didn't I?
You are a stupid fool thedoc,

It's no surprise that people are getting more indignant than ever because they realize that Roemer's conclusions that the delay we see may not be due to the finite speed of light after all.

Can I put that on my resume?

Which people are getting indignant about Roemer's conclusions? Can you name any of them?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

The difference between time travel and your idea is that time travel could possibly work in principle. This doesn't.

If there is no such thing as a 4th dimension called time, it is not possible in principle or otherwise. Yes, in science fiction, it's possible. Real time vision is absolutely possible if understood correctly.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If there is no such thing as a 4th dimension called time, it is not possible in principle or otherwise. Yes, in science fiction, it's possible. Real time vision is absolutely possible if understood correctly.

Space/time has been demonstrated through theory and experiments and the empirical evidence is there to be examined and understood. Your denying the existence of time or claiming the possibility of real time seeing doesn't make them true, and most of your fathers claims, including these, have been demonstrated to be wrong. All this, the result of a real lack of education, your father should have spent more time reading real science books instead of comic books or hanging around a beer soaked pool hall. Only large doses of alcohol could have produced the ideas that he came up with.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Five words, Peacegirl. Five words and a little bit of honesty. Is that too much to ask?

Bump.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If there is no such thing as a 4th dimension called time, it is not possible in principle or otherwise.

You're the only one who believes that. And it's incoherent nonsense.

Real time vision is absolutely possible if understood correctly.

Bullshit. It's self-contradictory, theoretically impossible and ruled out by all available observational evidence.

[The Lone Ranger]

While it has always been abundantly clear, peacegirl has by now more or less come right out and said it: "There is absolutely nothing that will shake my absolute faith in Lessans. If I have to throw out every last bit of science and every single observation that has ever been made, so be it. Nothing could ever make me question my absolute faith in Lessans."

No amount of evidence will ever be convincing. No matter how many times people point out that her claims are self-contradictory, totally unsupported, flatly contradicted by every single test of them that has ever been done, and completely inconsistent with reality -- it won't matter.

She has more or less come right out and said as much. The only thing that matters is her fanatical claim that Lessans was right -- logic and evidence be damned. She'll instantly accept any unsupported claim which she thinks supports Lessan, no matter how preposterous -- and she'll instantly and thoughtlessly reject any evidence which disproves Lessans' claims, no matter how well-supported. And she won't hesitate for even one second to lie outright when it suits her.


She's an attention whore, plain and simple. She may actually believe her own claims. If so, she has my genuine pity, because she's a profoundly damaged and dysfunctional individual. But I rather suspect she's mainly in it for the attention, because I find it difficult to believe that someone as irrational, ignorant and stupid as she pretends to be could actually function.


Meanwhile, technologies like GPS continue to work, though they wouldn't, if Lessans was correct. And space probes continue to hit their targets, even though they'd miss by thousands of miles if Lessans were correct. And the night sky isn't white, though it would be if Lessans were correct. And so on, and so on.

The rest of the world will continue to ignore Lessans, to its benefit. And peacegirl will continue to scream: "Pay attention to me!".

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Space/time has been demonstrated through theory and experiments and the empirical evidence is there to be examined and understood. Your denying the existence of time or claiming the possibility of real time seeing doesn't make them true, and most of your fathers claims, including these, have been demonstrated to be wrong. All this, the result of a real lack of education, your father should have spent more time reading real science books instead of comic books or hanging around a beer soaked pool hall. Only large doses of alcohol could have produced the ideas that he came up with.

Funny that you know so much about him since you never met him. Once again, you are portraying him as someone he wasn't. He hardly drank, except for an occasional highball at a party. You are living up to your name: IGNORANT JERK!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

While it has always been abundantly clear, peacegirl has by now more or less come right out and said it: "There is absolutely nothing that will shake my absolute faith in Lessans. If I have to throw out every last bit of science and every single observation that has ever been made, so be it. Nothing could ever make me question my absolute faith in Lessans."

No amount of evidence will ever be convincing. No matter how many times people point out that her claims are self-contradictory, totally unsupported, flatly contradicted by every single test of them that has ever been done, and completely inconsistent with reality -- it won't matter.

She has more or less come right out and said as much. The only thing that matters is her fanatical claim that Lessans was right -- logic and evidence be damned. She'll instantly accept any unsupported claim which she thinks supports Lessan, no matter how preposterous -- and she'll instantly and thoughtlessly reject any evidence which disproves Lessans' claims, no matter how well-supported. And she won't hesitate for even one second to lie outright when it suits her.


She's an attention whore, plain and simple. She may actually believe her own claims. If so, she has my genuine pity, because she's a profoundly damaged and dysfunctional individual. But I rather suspect she's mainly in it for the attention, because I find it difficult to believe that someone as irrational, ignorant and stupid as she pretends to be could actually function.


Meanwhile, technologies like GPS continue to work, though they wouldn't, if Lessans was correct. And space probes continue to hit their targets, even though they'd miss by thousands of miles if Lessans were correct. And the night sky isn't white, though it would be if Lessans were correct. And so on, and so on.

The rest of the world will continue to ignore Lessans, to its benefit. And peacegirl will continue to scream: "Pay attention to me!".

Your little diatribe is ridiculous. You keep stating that probes continue to hit their targets. Guess what? They may reach their targets without the time/light correction although you have claimed that this is impossible. GPS systems would still work because nothing regarding what scientists know about light has changed. BTW, I am not an attention whore. I actually loathe the negative attention I'm getting. So you're wrong TLR. I am doing this because I believe Lessans was right and I have nowhere else to go to share his discoveries at this moment. That will change eventually. You're right, I will defend him at all costs but that doesn't make me a dysfunctional, irrational, profoundly damaged, stupid human being.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Funny that you know so much about him since you never met him. Once again, you are portraying him as someone he wasn't. He hardly drank, except for an occasional highball at a party. You are living up to your name: IGNORANT JERK!

Possibly true, but more likely that you are so blinded by your devotion to your father that you just can't see the truth. It's true enough that alcohol isn't the only thing that could cause your fathers delusions but it's a likely blame. His delusions were probably caused by his lack of education and the intoxicating success that he experienced at pool. He probably believed that since he was so good at billiards that he must be correct about everything, even though he was completely detached from reality about everything else. People don't behave like billiard balls, and that is where he made his mistake, to think that he could predict the actions of individuals in the same way he could predict the motion of a ball on the table. It's funny how a little education could have saved him and you from all this delusion and error.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That will change eventually.

You're right, I will defend him at all costs but that doesn't make me a dysfunctional, irrational, profoundly damaged, stupid human being.

It will never change, Lessans will never be proven correct, because Lessans was wrong.

Actually defending Lessans ideas and claims does make you all those things, plus a lot less. All the time you are wasting and not spending with your grandchildren, that time would be a lot more valuable to them, and the time you are wasting here, is of no value to anyone, except for entertainment.

[Spacemonkey]

It seems today will not be the day where Peacegirl provides honest and direct answers to my reasonable and relevant questions. Oh well. Maybe tomorrow? I'm sure she could squeeze the necessary five words in somewhere between all the insults and personal attacks she has planned.