A revolution in thought - Page 1875

peacegirl · #**46851** 06-28-2016, 09:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I knew when I said it that it probably wouldn't stick because I end up feeling the need to discuss the book, and unfortunately this is the only avenue open to me at this time.

So you knew at the time the claim was probably false, but you made it anyway. For shame.

No shame. My response was due to frustration (which compelled me to say the thread was now closed which I wanted it to be) from the lies that have been perpetrated in here regarding my father and the laughter at my expense that continues to permeate this thread. It's horrible, and I don't think if you were in my shoes you would act any differently.

Quote:

I'm making no predictions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I'll make a prediction: there will be no productive conversation with you. It is not possible to have a productive conversation with you -- not where Lessans' claims (yes, claims, not discoveries) are concerned, anyway.

You're free to go! I would never waste my time with someone who I believe has nothing of value to offer intellectually when there are so many other things I could be doing. Life is too damn short. :yup:

The Lone Ranger · #**46852** 06-28-2016, 09:12 PM

As I've pointed out before, I've long-since given up any lingering shreds of hope that you're either educable or capable of any degree of intellectual honesty. (So has pretty-much everyone else.)

However, every so often, when you say something that's particularly egregiously-false, I feel the need to comment. Not for your sake (that would be pointless and a waste of time), but for the sake of others.

But · #**46853** 06-28-2016, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nothing is the fuck wrong with me. You're just failing to understand why light [in this account of vision] puts us within the field of view of the object the instant the object is seen because we are within the actual physical range of said object (the object is present, it's large enough, and there's enough light in which to see it) regardless of how far away it is, and without light having to get to earth because this account has nothing to do with travel time. This does not violate the laws of physics in any way.

It doesn't matter what incoherent nonsense you make up, the fact that spacecraft navigation works alone proves that it's completely wrong. That's a fact. It's also a fact that you're delusional and in denial about this.

And it has been explained to you a million times that when you say that the non-absorbed photons or whatever are instantly at the retina, you're changing the laws of physics.

Sorry, but it doesn't prove him completely wrong. We would not send a spacecraft to the position we see now. We would have to make adjustments according to where the planet will be when the spacecraft arrives. You don't understand the efferent account AT ALL, which is why you don't see how real time vision does not change the laws of physics.

http://www.grandpapencil.net/projects/plansped.htm

You still don't get it. We can track the position of the space probe to within a few meters. This is done using radio waves, which travel at the speed of light. The result matches the position of the planet as seen from Earth. The position we see the planet in is delayed exactly in the same way as the radio waves are. If we saw in real time those two things would be off by tens of thousands of kilometers.

The Lone Ranger · #**46854** 06-28-2016, 09:49 PM

This has been posted before, but it's so neat that it's worth viewing again.

We now have ultra high speed cameras that can, in effect, record a trillion frames per second. With this setup, we can actually watch photons propagating through materials. With these camera setups we can actually measure the difference in time between when photons strike and illuminate an object (in this case, a Coke bottle), and when the camera actually sees the illuminated object.

As every other such test confirms, the camera sees the Coke bottle not when the light pulse reaches the bottle, but when the reflected/refracted light reaches the camera. And the timing difference between when the light illuminates the Coke bottle and when the camera can actually see it is precisely that which is imposed by the finite speed of light.

Thus, "real-time vision" is clearly, unambiguously, and decisively disproved.

None of this is for peacegirl's benefit, because she's incapable of comprehending. Nonetheless, this is precisely the sort of test that she claims she wants to be done, in order to test Lessans' claims. (Not out in space somewhere, but right here on Earth.) But since the test conclusively disproves Lessans' claim regarding "real-time vision," there's no way on Earth that she will accept the results, even though she can see them for herself.

1.000.000.000.000 (1 Billion/Trillion) FPS!!! "Ultra High-Speed Camera" HD - YouTube

One really neat thing is that you can actually see the light slow down as it passes from a less-dense medium to a denser one. Neat!

Spacemonkey · #**46855** 06-28-2016, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

She doesn't care how stupid she sounds, or how much she has to lie and contradict herself. All she cares about is claiming Daddy was right about everything, even when she knows this isn't so.

You're still confused. Light is impinging on the retina when we see the Sun turned on, but light has to travel the 8 minutes to reach us in order for someone to see our face, which includes our eyes the last time I looked. Just forget it.

How is light impinging on the retina 8min before it gets there? Please explain how this is my confusion.

Bump.

Spacemonkey · #**46856** 06-28-2016, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Quote:

Light is impinging on the retina when we see the Sun turned on, but light has to travel the 8 minutes to reach us in order for someone to see our face, which includes our eyes the last time I looked.

And this impinging - what is it? How can something "impinge" when it is not physically there?

It IS there...

Where did it come from and how did it get there?

Spacemonkey · #**46857** 06-28-2016, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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.

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

Bump.

peacegirl · #**46858** 06-28-2016, 10:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nothing is the fuck wrong with me. You're just failing to understand why light [in this account of vision] puts us within the field of view of the object the instant the object is seen because we are within the actual physical range of said object (the object is present, it's large enough, and there's enough light in which to see it) regardless of how far away it is, and without light having to get to earth because this account has nothing to do with travel time. This does not violate the laws of physics in any way.

It doesn't matter what incoherent nonsense you make up, the fact that spacecraft navigation works alone proves that it's completely wrong. That's a fact. It's also a fact that you're delusional and in denial about this.

And it has been explained to you a million times that when you say that the non-absorbed photons or whatever are instantly at the retina, you're changing the laws of physics.

Sorry, but it doesn't prove him completely wrong. We would not send a spacecraft to the position we see now. We would have to make adjustments according to where the planet will be when the spacecraft arrives. You don't understand the efferent account AT ALL, which is why you don't see how real time vision does not change the laws of physics.

The speed of the planets

You still don't get it. We can track the position of the space probe to within a few meters. This is done using radio waves, which travel at the speed of light. The result matches the position of the planet as seen from Earth. The position we see the planet in is delayed exactly in the same way as the radio waves are. If we saw in real time those two things would be off by tens of thousands of kilometers.

I guess the only way to know if we see the planet in delayed time is to see it come into view at the exact time the position of the space probe is tracked.

peacegirl · #**46859** 06-28-2016, 10:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

She doesn't care how stupid she sounds, or how much she has to lie and contradict herself. All she cares about is claiming Daddy was right about everything, even when she knows this isn't so.

You're still confused. Light is impinging on the retina when we see the Sun turned on, but light has to travel the 8 minutes to reach us in order for someone to see our face, which includes our eyes the last time I looked. Just forget it.

How is light impinging on the retina 8min before it gets there? Please explain how this is my confusion.

Bump.

Because we're not dealing with distance or travel time.

peacegirl · #**46860** 06-28-2016, 11:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

This has been posted before, but it's so neat that it's worth viewing again.

We now have ultra high speed cameras that can, in effect, record a trillion frames per second. With this setup, we can actually watch photons propagating through materials. With these camera setups we can actually measure the difference in time between when photons strike and illuminate an object (in this case, a Coke bottle), and when the camera actually sees the illuminated object.

As every other such test confirms, the camera sees the Coke bottle not when the light pulse reaches the bottle, but when the reflected/refracted light reaches the camera. And the timing difference between when the light illuminates the Coke bottle and when the camera can actually see it is precisely that which is imposed by the finite speed of light.

Thus, "real-time vision" is clearly, unambiguously, and decisively disproved.

None of this is for peacegirl's benefit, because she's incapable of comprehending. Nonetheless, this is precisely the sort of test that she claims she wants to be done, in order to test Lessans' claims. (Not out in space somewhere, but right here on Earth.) But since the test conclusively disproves Lessans' claim regarding "real-time vision," there's no way on Earth that she will accept the results, even though she can see them for herself.

1.000.000.000.000 (1 Billion/Trillion) FPS!!! "Ultra High-Speed Camera" HD - YouTube

One really neat thing is that you can actually see the light slow down as it passes from a less-dense medium to a denser one. Neat!

I can't imagine it taking longer than a nanosecond for the light to be at the camera.

thedoc · #**46861** 06-28-2016, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I knew when I said it that it probably wouldn't stick because I end up feeling the need to discuss the book, and unfortunately this is the only avenue open to me at this time. Not that it will always be this way, but right now this is the way it is. If it does get to the point where the ridicule is so extreme, and the viciousness is so out of hand, that I can't have a decent conversation, that will be the time that I will leave. Right now I'm talking to GdB, and it's related to the topic that is the most important of all Lessans' discoveries because this issue has philosophical, ethical, political, economic, social, and personal importance. I'm also talking to David, and so far his responses to me have been pretty tame. As long as he keeps on course, the conversation could be productive, but I'm making no predictions.

You didn't feel any need to discuss the book, you haven't yet so why start now. The only need you felt was for the abuse and hostility you get on this site that feeds your martyr complex.

GdB is too polite and I predict that you will soon accuse him of something just to provoke some abuse from him, and DavidM has been consistently abusive, you have just gotten used to it and now it feels normal, he'll have to step up his game to keep you on the hook.

Given your track record of how quickly you accomplish things on the internet, I would guess that you will be here for a very long time, or as long as the moderators let you, and if they were to shut you down, you would just find another forum that will tolerate you for a long time. There is just about as much chance that you will set something up on the social media, as a snow ball would have to survive in Hell, as long as some crackpot doesn't validate your father and garner you a following. Then I will be running the hot chocolate stand while everyone ice skates.

I must say that your father would be proud, your a chip off the old stupid block head.

thedoc · #**46862** 06-28-2016, 11:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

As I've pointed out before, I've long-since given up any lingering shreds of hope that you're either educable or capable of any degree of intellectual honesty. (So has pretty-much everyone else.)

However, every so often, when you say something that's particularly egregiously-false, I feel the need to comment. Not for your sake (that would be pointless and a waste of time), but for the sake of others.

The thousands of lurkers that are just hanging on every word posted on this thread, Yeah in Peacegril's wet dreams.

thedoc · #**46863** 06-28-2016, 11:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No shame.

Yes, you are too stupid and dishonest to feel any shame. Shame is only for people Who can honestly be aware of the dishonest things they try to do. You are totally oblivious to reality, you are stuck in your fathers fantasy world.

But · #**46864** 06-28-2016, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nothing is the fuck wrong with me. You're just failing to understand why light [in this account of vision] puts us within the field of view of the object the instant the object is seen because we are within the actual physical range of said object (the object is present, it's large enough, and there's enough light in which to see it) regardless of how far away it is, and without light having to get to earth because this account has nothing to do with travel time. This does not violate the laws of physics in any way.

It doesn't matter what incoherent nonsense you make up, the fact that spacecraft navigation works alone proves that it's completely wrong. That's a fact. It's also a fact that you're delusional and in denial about this.

And it has been explained to you a million times that when you say that the non-absorbed photons or whatever are instantly at the retina, you're changing the laws of physics.

Sorry, but it doesn't prove him completely wrong. We would not send a spacecraft to the position we see now. We would have to make adjustments according to where the planet will be when the spacecraft arrives. You don't understand the efferent account AT ALL, which is why you don't see how real time vision does not change the laws of physics.

The speed of the planets

You still don't get it. We can track the position of the space probe to within a few meters. This is done using radio waves, which travel at the speed of light. The result matches the position of the planet as seen from Earth. The position we see the planet in is delayed exactly in the same way as the radio waves are. If we saw in real time those two things would be off by tens of thousands of kilometers.

I guess the only way to know if we see the planet in delayed time is to see it come into view at the exact time the position of the space probe is tracked.

Why?

Spacemonkey · #**46865** 06-28-2016, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

She doesn't care how stupid she sounds, or how much she has to lie and contradict herself. All she cares about is claiming Daddy was right about everything, even when she knows this isn't so.

You're still confused. Light is impinging on the retina when we see the Sun turned on, but light has to travel the 8 minutes to reach us in order for someone to see our face, which includes our eyes the last time I looked. Just forget it.

How is light impinging on the retina 8min before it gets there? Please explain how this is my confusion.

Bump.

Because we're not dealing with distance or travel time.

How is that supposed to explain how light can be impinging on something without ever having arrived there?

Where did the light at the film/retina come from, and how did it end up there?

thedoc · #**46866** 06-28-2016, 11:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't imagine it taking longer than a nanosecond for the light to be at the camera.

Of course not, you can't comprehend anything that proves your daddy was a raving nutcase, who was so ignorant that he didn't even know when he was wrong. Lessans was wrong.

thedoc · #**46867** 06-28-2016, 11:34 PM

Q. - How stupid is Peacegirl?

A. - Peacegirl is so stupid that she thinks that young boys and goils will fall in love with each others genitals.

thedoc · #**46868** 06-28-2016, 11:35 PM

Q. - How stupid is Peacegirl?

A. - Peacegirl is so stupid that she thinks that we see objects instantly.

thedoc · #**46869** 06-28-2016, 11:37 PM

Q. - How stupid is Peacegirl?

A. - Peacegirl is so stupid that she believes that everything her father wrote is correct.

Spacemonkey · #**46870** 06-28-2016, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't imagine it taking longer than a nanosecond for the light to be at the camera.

Can you imagine light traveling at light speed for 90 million miles?

How long do you think that would take?

thedoc · #**46871** 06-28-2016, 11:39 PM

Q. - How stupid is Peacegirl?

A. - Peacegirl is so stupid that she thinks there will be an unlimited supply of money to pay everyone who will be put out of work.

Spacemonkey · #**46872** 06-28-2016, 11:39 PM

Q. - How stupid is Peacegirl?

A. - Peacegirl is so stupid that she believes she can lie her ass off without this turning people away from her Daddy's daft claims.

thedoc · #**46873** 06-28-2016, 11:41 PM

Q. - How stupid is Peacegirl?

A. - Peacegirl is so stupid that she thinks that efferent vision negates distance.

thedoc · #**46874** 06-28-2016, 11:42 PM

Q. - How stupid is Peacegirl?

A. - Peacegirl is so stupid that she thinks people can't read past posts on this thread to catch her lies.

thedoc · #**46875** 06-28-2016, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't imagine it taking longer than a nanosecond for the light to be at the camera.

Can you imagine light traveling at light speed for 90 million miles?

How long do you think that would take?

Oh! I know, I know, please call on me!

It would take approximately 8.5 minutes.