A revolution in thought - Page 1839

peacegirl · #**45951** 03-22-2016, 07:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Lessans didn't much care for the fat chicks.

Now that explains a lot, Peacegirl's constant striving for attention, in the form of abuse, must have come from the way her father treated her. :yup:

You should come close to being the father and grandfather he was! :kookoo:

peacegirl · #**45952** 03-22-2016, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Remember when :ff:

prevented peacegirl from doing her laundry for two months? Good times indeed.

THE EARLS - "REMEMBER THEN" (1962) - YouTube

peacegirl · #**45953** 03-22-2016, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by ShottleBop

From page 120:

Quote:

If the sound from a plane even though we can’t see it on a clear day will tell us it is in the sky, why can’t we see the plane if an image is being reflected towards the eye on the waves of light? The answer is very simple. An image is not being reflected. We cannot see the plane simply because the distance reduced its size to where it was impossible to see it with the naked eye, but we could see it with a telescope. We can’t see bacteria either with the naked eye, but we can through a microscope. The actual reason we are able to see the moon is because there is enough light present and it is large enough to be seen. 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.

If I understand what Lessans is saying correctly, he did not believe that we see things because of reflected light at all. Light needs to be around for us to see, but it is not what we see--we see things themselves. Do I have that wrong?

No, you're not wrong. But please understand that light is a necessary condition of sight. That was the very first thing he wanted people to understand, but people still believe when he said "we can see the moon instantly" that this meant we can see objects without any light present. :doh:

Lookie' what I found.

There's nothing wrong there. The fact that he said we could see the moon instantly does NOT mean we see objects without any light present.

peacegirl · #**45954** 03-22-2016, 07:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

More than this article, you have not asked one question regarding his observations. NOT ONE!

What observations?

I see lots of unsupported claims, but not a single verifiable observation.

Give us some examples of actual observations, and we can talk.

I already told you that he did not do empirical testing which is what you're looking for. If scientists want to take over from here, great. If not, oh well.

Vivisectus · #**45955** 03-22-2016, 07:19 PM

Quote:

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

This bit is interesting. Distant things seem smaller, and this proves sight is instant!

Peacegirl, can you explain why perspective proves sight is instant?

thedoc · #**45956** 03-22-2016, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Lessans didn't much care for the fat chicks.

Now that explains a lot, Peacegirl's constant striving for attention, in the form of abuse, must have come from the way her father treated her. :yup:

You should come close to being the father and grandfather he was!

You're right, I would never want to be that much of an embarrassment to my children and grandchildren.

peacegirl · #**45957** 03-22-2016, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

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

This bit is interesting. Distant things seem smaller, and this proves sight is instant!

Peacegirl, can you explain why perspective proves sight is instant?

Noooo, he was just saying that size has nothing to do with time, which is true if efferent vision is true. If the object is large enough to be within our field of view, we will see it depending on how close or far away it is. Optics doesn't change. Resolution doesn't change. Please don't read into this passage something that isn't there.

peacegirl · #**45958** 03-22-2016, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Lessans didn't much care for the fat chicks.

Now that explains a lot, Peacegirl's constant striving for attention, in the form of abuse, must have come from the way her father treated her. :yup:

You should come close to being the father and grandfather he was!

You're right, I would never want to be that much of an embarrassment to my children and grandchildren.

His kids and his grandkids loved him sooooo much. Your words are being used to denigrate for no other reason than you didn't like his book. You ARE an embarrassment by the things you write. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Vivisectus · #**45959** 03-22-2016, 08:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

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

This bit is interesting. Distant things seem smaller, and this proves sight is instant!

Peacegirl, can you explain why perspective proves sight is instant?

Noooo, he was just saying that size has nothing to do with time, which is true if efferent vision is true. If the object is large enough to be within our field of view, the wavelength/frequency will be at the retina. Optics doesn't change.

Hey? But no-one ever said perspective has anything to do with how long light takes to get anywhere? And he explicitly states "This proves conclusively that the distance between someone looking, and the object seen, has no relation to time"

How does it prove that, exactly?

The Lone Ranger · #**45960** 03-22-2016, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already told you that he did not do empirical testing which is what you're looking for.

Then stop lying and calling his claims "observations."

Quote:

If scientists want to take over from here, great.

Virtually all of those claims have been tested. Repeatedly, and in depth. That you don't like the results doesn't change that fact.

Stephen Maturin · #**45961** 03-22-2016, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And he explicitly states "This proves conclusively that the distance between someone looking, and the object seen, has no relation to time"

V, by now you should know that what Lessans wrote means exactly jack. All that counts is what he meant. And even though Thou Shalt Not Blame, clearly, all blame for inability to bridge the gulf between what Lessans stated and what he meant lies with the reader. :yup:

thedoc · #**45962** 03-22-2016, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Lessans didn't much care for the fat chicks.

Now that explains a lot, Peacegirl's constant striving for attention, in the form of abuse, must have come from the way her father treated her. :yup:

You should come close to being the father and grandfather he was!

You're right, I would never want to be that much of an embarrassment to my children and grandchildren.

His kids and his grandkids loved him sooooo much. Your words are being used to denigrate for no other reason than you didn't like his book. You ARE an embarrassment by the things you write. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Then Lessans must have kept his writings well hidden from everyone, and if he burned all his books because he know they were nonsense, how did you find 7 different versions to cobble together into the joke that you are trying to foist onto those who are less able to think than the members of this forum?

Spacemonkey · #**45963** 03-22-2016, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are right; in the afferent account of VISION, there hasn't been time for light to reach the eye.

There hasn't been time in the efferent account either. How do your photons get from the source to the retina in zero time?

It's not zero time, but it's not 8 minutes. You say that the farther away the object is the longer it takes to reach the eye. That IS the afferent position. If you think in terms of the efferent position, distance IS NOT A FACTOR. If DISTANCE IS NOT A FACTOR, then seeing the Sun turned at noon on would be analogous to lighting a candle in a room. It would be virtually instant.

If it is anything less than 8 minutes then the light cannot have gotten to the retina by traveling from the object at light speed. So how do your photons at the retina get from the object to the retina in whatever sub-8-min time you think it takes?

I already explained why your candle example does not work, and you have not explained how distance is not a factor. The only way for the distance to not be a factor is if you have some alternative, other than light speed travel, for how your photons get from the object to the retina. Do you have that? We could resolve this easily if you would just answer my questions.

Quote:

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.

Bump for

peacegirl · #**45964** 03-22-2016, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

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

This bit is interesting. Distant things seem smaller, and this proves sight is instant!

Peacegirl, can you explain why perspective proves sight is instant?

Noooo, he was just saying that size has nothing to do with time, which is true if efferent vision is true. If the object is large enough to be within our field of view, the wavelength/frequency will be at the retina. Optics doesn't change.

Hey? But no-one ever said perspective has anything to do with how long light takes to get anywhere? And he explicitly states "This proves conclusively that the distance between someone looking, and the object seen, has no relation to time"

How does it prove that, exactly?

He was just explaining that seeing objects has nothing to do with the length of time it takes for light to arrive. That's all he was saying, so don't read into it.

Spacemonkey · #**45965** 03-22-2016, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was just explaining that seeing objects has nothing to do with the length of time it takes for light to arrive. That's all he was doing.

You should answer my questions.

Or fuck off like you said you were going to.

peacegirl · #**45966** 03-22-2016, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already told you that he did not do empirical testing which is what you're looking for.

Then stop lying and calling his claims "observations."

They were his observations and I will continue to use this word. They may not have been supported by empirical testing, but that does not mean his observations count for nothing.

Quote:

If scientists want to take over from here, great.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Virtually all of those claims have been tested. Repeatedly, and in depth. That you don't like the results doesn't change that fact.

I don't agree, sorry. I'm sure the name calling will increase. Real mature, let me tell you. :chin:

peacegirl · #**45967** 03-22-2016, 09:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was just explaining that seeing objects has nothing to do with the length of time it takes for light to arrive. That's all he was doing.

You should answer my questions.

Or fuck off like you said you were going to.

THIS IS MY THREAD. IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, YOU FUCK OFF!!!!! :fuming:

peacegirl · #**45968** 03-22-2016, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Lessans didn't much care for the fat chicks.

Now that explains a lot, Peacegirl's constant striving for attention, in the form of abuse, must have come from the way her father treated her. :yup:

You should come close to being the father and grandfather he was!

You're right, I would never want to be that much of an embarrassment to my children and grandchildren.

His kids and his grandkids loved him sooooo much. Your words are being used to denigrate for no other reason than you didn't like his book. You ARE an embarrassment by the things you write. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Then Lessans must have kept his writings well hidden from everyone, and if he burned all his books because he know they were nonsense, how did you find 7 different versions to cobble together into the joke that you are trying to foist onto those who are less able to think than the members of this forum?

SHAME ON YOU! You are the epitome of a follower. You cannot think for yourself! You are a prisoner of your own making!! :jail:

peacegirl · #**45969** 03-22-2016, 09:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

And he explicitly states "This proves conclusively that the distance between someone looking, and the object seen, has no relation to time"

V, by now you should know that what Lessans wrote means exactly jack. All that counts is what he meant. And even though Thou Shalt Not Blame, clearly, all blame for inability to bridge the gulf between what Lessans stated and what he meant lies with the reader. :yup:

Maturin, you have no idea what the book is about. You don't understand the two-sided equation, and the reason why not blaming is better than blaming. If you think you're that knowledgeable, put your money where your mouth is and explain his discovery. Trust me, you can't. And by the way, no one is blaming the reader for their inability to grasp these principles, but I am blaming you for being such a goddamn jerk. :mad:

The Lone Ranger · #**45970** 03-22-2016, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already told you that he did not do empirical testing which is what you're looking for.

Then stop lying and calling his claims "observations."

They were his observations and I will continue to use this word. They may not have been supported by empirical testing, but that does not mean his observations count for nothing.

Quote:

If scientists want to take over from here, great.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Virtually all of those claims have been tested. Repeatedly, and in depth. That you don't like the results doesn't change that fact.

I don't agree, sorry. I'm sure the name calling will increase. Real mature, let me tell you. :chin:

What "name calling" would that be? It's not "name calling" to point out that you're lying when you call his unsupported and repeatedly discredited claims "observations."

Spacemonkey · #**45971** 03-22-2016, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was just explaining that seeing objects has nothing to do with the length of time it takes for light to arrive. That's all he was doing.

You should answer my questions.

Or fuck off like you said you were going to.

THIS IS MY THREAD. IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, YOU FUCK OFF!!!!! :fuming:

But you said you would. Was that just another lie?

AND RAAAAAR! CAPS! RAAAR!

I think you should answer my very reasonable questions.

Spacemonkey · #**45972** 03-22-2016, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They were his observations and I will continue to use this word. They may not have been supported by empirical testing, but that does not mean his observations count for nothing.

Nothing is exactly what they count for. You are using 'observation' to mean no more than claim or assertion (as opposed to something directly observed via perceptual means). And unsupported claims count for nothing at all.

peacegirl · #**45973** 03-22-2016, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They were his observations and I will continue to use this word. They may not have been supported by empirical testing, but that does not mean his observations count for nothing.

Nothing is exactly what they count for. You are using 'observation' to mean no more than claim or assertion (as opposed to something directly observed via perceptual means). And unsupported claims count for nothing at all.

I don't care what you think Spacemonkey. If that's all you think this is, then the door is open! Now gooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

peacegirl · #**45974** 03-22-2016, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He was just explaining that seeing objects has nothing to do with the length of time it takes for light to arrive. That's all he was doing.

You should answer my questions.

Or fuck off like you said you were going to.

THIS IS MY THREAD. IF YOU DON'T LIKE IT, YOU FUCK OFF!!!!! :fuming:

But you said you would. Was that just another lie?

AND RAAAAAR! CAPS! RAAAR!

I think you should answer my very reasonable questions.

So I lied. That should be all the more reason for you to walk out that door and never come back. Just don't let it hit you in the a*#* on the way out! :rolleyes:

Spacemonkey · #**45975** 03-22-2016, 10:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Nothing is exactly what they count for. You are using 'observation' to mean no more than claim or assertion (as opposed to something directly observed via perceptual means). And unsupported claims count for nothing at all.

I don't care what you think Spacemonkey. If that's all you think this is, then the door is open! Now gooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Nah, I think I'll stay here and keep asking those questions you are too incompetent and dishonest to answer.