A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Did the photons at the film/retina at 12:00 come from the Sun? When were they at the Sun, and what traveling have they done?

This is the core contradiction in PG's present blithering about efferent vision. And you can bet your left nipple she won't even try to address it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Back to the same old argument as if you heard nothing I said. You are stuck in a groove just like the old needles that got stuck in the grooves of a record and it would keep repeating the same thing over and over again until it drove you crazy. You're driving me crazy.

Liar. I just directly addressed what you said. At least you now admit that you are crazy, so we have made some progress, I guess.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

This passage is an excellent example of why this book is so much fun to discuss. If the guy had been merely ignorant then it would have just been a bit sad. But it is so chock-full of condescension and a sort of lazy self-satisfaction.

I mean it would have been so easy to just check if he was correct or not. Take a photograph of distant stars and see if they show up in different spots from where you can observe them with the naked eye. Crack open a book about the anatomy of the human eye and see if there are any afferent nerves in them. Attain a high-school level knowledge of physics. All of these can be done cheaply and without spending a lot of time or effort. At the very least it would have meant he would not make an ass of himself when he tried to describe what he was disagreeing with.

He did crack a book Vivisectus, but he thought outside of the box since he was a self-learned man. He was not trying to get funding from an institution so he didn't have to publish flawed studies in order to keep that funding.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But no - despite not bothering to even do the most basic kind of due diligence, here he is condescendingly chiding a science teacher in a pretend conversation for allegedly just accepting what she is told without understanding the evidence. As if we just assume the eye works the way we think it does without checking!

On and on he proses, without the slightest awareness of just how foolish it makes him look.

He did his due diligence, trust me. And stop putting down his writing style which is a desperate attempt to sidetrack people. In that dialogue, all he was trying to get people to see is that a lot of what is taught is information that has been handed down to us and accepted as fact without us knowing for ourselves. We often accept, without question, what we're taught. This occurs in many fields. Unfortunately, there are times that the established viewpoint is wrong but it may take many more years for the mistake to be formally corrected.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All he was trying to get people to see is that a lot of what is taught is just information that has been handed down to us and accepted as fact. He was not putting the scientists down in that conversation, but he was showing that we often accept what we've been taught at face value. This happens in many fields.

It certainly happened with you and your Dad. Not so much with the tested and proven science of vision though.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Liar. I just directly addressed what you said. At least you now admit that you are crazy, so we have made some progress, I guess.

If you think this claim is crazy based on your analysis, then by all means let it go.

[But]

peacegirl, why does spacecraft navigation work? How did NASA manage to get the Juno space probe in the right orbit around Jupiter? After all, they believe the planet is somewhere where it actually isn't, right? How is that possible?

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And stop putting down his writing style which is a desperate attempt to sidetrack people.

I have admit, putting down his writing style is a pleasant diversion from just correcting his inaccuracies.

[davidm]

Thanks for the beer, GdB

Not much of party, though,

We'll really kick out the jams for the Page 2,000 party.

Lest anyone forget, here was our epic Page 100 party (so long ago!) in which, among other things, Maturin stuck his dick in the taters and Doctor X provided NBLs. Alas, he is no longer posting.

Keep babbling away, peacegirl, and we'll get to page 2,000 in a jiffy!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans never said we would see a past event from Rigel. That's what he was disputing.

JESUS. CHUCKING. FRIST. You are STOOPID.

What is actually WRONG with you???

I said that Lessans claimed that if someone on Rigel had a powerful enough telescope, he would see Columbus landing in the Americas in REAL TIME -- that the event of the landing, and of the person on Rigel viewing, it, would be simultaneous. That is, the person on Rigel would see the event in REAL TIME, and not DELAYED TIME.

Is that what he claimed or not, asshole?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

peacegirl, why does spacecraft navigation work? How did NASA manage to get the Juno space probe in the right orbit around Jupiter? After all, they believe the planet is somewhere where it actually isn't, right? How is that possible?

Navigating in Deep Space

Timing is crucial for communicating with a spacecraft traveling across the solar system.

Such a spacecraft navigates using precisely timed radio signals sent back and forth to Earth. Navigators on Earth track its location and speed and transmit course adjustments. These techniques allow navigators to guide a probe to a planetary rendezvous or a pinpoint landing. Navigating a spacecraft to distant locations in the solar system requires a team of scientists and engineers using sophisticated radios, large antennas, computers, and precise timing equipment.

cont. at: Navigating in Deep Space | Time and Navigation

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

JESUS. CHUCKING. FRIST. You are STOOPID.

What is actually WRONG with you???

I said that Lessans claimed that if someone on Rigel had a powerful enough telescope, he would see Columbus landing in the Americas in REAL TIME -- that the event of the landing, and of the person on Rigel viewing, it, would be simultaneous. That is, the person on Rigel would see the event in REAL TIME, and not DELAYED TIME.

Is that what he claimed or not, asshole?

You are not going to talk to me this way David. Take out the expletive and I will answer you. You just don't learn, do you?

[davidm]

Do you need me to quote him from the fucking book?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are not going to talk to me this way David. We're done for the day. You just don't learn, do you?

Fuck you, you ignorant cow. I CORRECTLY characterized what he wrote; you then lied about what I said and are caught out in another whopper. And you can't admit you are wrong!

How does it feel being the Village Idiot of ? Because that is all you are.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Fuck you, you ignorant cow. I CORRECTLY characterized what he wrote; you then lied about what I said and are caught out in another whopper. And you can't admit you are wrong!

How does it feel being the Village Idiot of ? Because that is all you are.

I don't care what you say or think. Your tantrums are not helping your argument. He did not say if we were on the star Rigel we would be seeing Columbus landing in America in real time because the event is over. Columbus is dead. We cannot see an event that is no longer taking place. What we would see are events that are happening NOW, like me wasting my time answering your stoooopid questions!

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

He did crack a book Vivisectus, but he thought outside of the box since he was a self-learned man. He was not trying to get funding from an institution so he didn't have to publish flawed studies in order to keep that funding.

Indeed he did not, in the same way that I am not pandering to the crowd with popular but artistically bland ballet: something for which I have neither training, inclination nor aptitude.

What books he cracked seem to have had little bearing on what he was making claims about. I mean we are talking about a guy who thought "the history of civilization" was a magnum opus.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But no - despite not bothering to even do the most basic kind of due diligence, here he is condescendingly chiding a science teacher in a pretend conversation for allegedly just accepting what she is told without understanding the evidence. As if we just assume the eye works the way we think it does without checking!

On and on he proses, without the slightest awareness of just how foolish it makes him look.

He did his due diligence, trust me. And stop putting down his writing style which is a desperate attempt to sidetrack people. In that dialogue, all he was trying to get people to see is that a lot of what is taught is information that has been handed down to us and accepted as fact without us knowing for ourselves. We often accept, without question, what we're taught. This occurs in many fields. Unfortunately, there are times that the established viewpoint is wrong but it may take many more years for the mistake to be formally corrected.

What he was doing was pretending that we think sight works the way it does out of habit or something. That is not the case: we think so because there is such a large amount of consilient evidence telling us it is so. None of which he seems to have been even aware of!

If that is due diligence, then what does a lack of due diligence look like in your family? Performing a frontal lobotomy on yourself?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Navigating in Deep Space

Timing is crucial for communicating with a spacecraft traveling across the solar system.

Such a spacecraft navigates using precisely timed radio signals sent back and forth to Earth. Navigators on Earth track its location and speed and transmit course adjustments. These techniques allow navigators to guide a probe to a planetary rendezvous or a pinpoint landing. Navigating a spacecraft to distant locations in the solar system requires a team of scientists and engineers using sophisticated radios, large antennas, computers, and precise timing equipment.

cont. at: Navigating in Deep Space | Time and Navigation

Yes, so they use precisely timed radio signals to guide the probe to a pinpoint landing on a planet or a moon that they think is somewhere where it isn't. They guide the probe to a planetary rendezvous with a planet that's actually not where they think it is. How does that work?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

This is the core contradiction in PG's present blithering about efferent vision. And you can bet your left nipple she won't even try to address it.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are not going to talk to me this way David. Take out the expletive and I will answer you. You just don't learn, do you?

Like you've been answering me?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't care what you say or think. Your tantrums are not helping your argument. He did not say if we were on the star Rigel we would be seeing Columbus landing in America in real time because the event is over. Columbus is dead. We cannot see an event that is no longer taking place. What we would see are events that are happening NOW, like me wasting my time answering your stoooopid questions!

Do you want me to quote directly from the book, you ignorant fuck? Because I have the quote.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Do you want me to quote directly from the book, you ignorant fuck? Because I have the quote.

Go for it!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Yes, so they use precisely timed radio signals to guide the probe to a pinpoint landing on a planet or a moon that they think is somewhere where it isn't. They guide the probe to a planetary rendezvous with a planet that's actually not where they think it is. How does that work?

Seeing something that far away could give the appearance that it's located in another area of the sky. Looks are deceiving. We can't depend on sight alone to know where something is, especially in deep space. We need other instruments to determine the actual location.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Indeed he did not, in the same way that I am not pandering to the crowd with popular but artistically bland ballet: something for which I have neither training, inclination nor aptitude.

What books he cracked seem to have had little bearing on what he was making claims about. I mean we are talking about a guy who thought "the history of civilization" was a magnum opus.

You are right in that his claim about sight did not come from the field of optics, but it came indirectly due to his understanding of how the brain and eyes work in regard to language. You cannot dictate who is entitled to make a discovery based on such a fixed idea because there are exceptions.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But no - despite not bothering to even do the most basic kind of due diligence, here he is condescendingly chiding a science teacher in a pretend conversation for allegedly just accepting what she is told without understanding the evidence. As if we just assume the eye works the way we think it does without checking!

On and on he proses, without the slightest awareness of just how foolish it makes him look.

He did his due diligence, trust me. And stop putting down his writing style which is a desperate attempt to sidetrack people. In that dialogue, all he was trying to get people to see is that a lot of what is taught is information that has been handed down to us and accepted as fact without us knowing for ourselves. We often accept, without question, what we're taught. This occurs in many fields. Unfortunately, there are times that the established viewpoint is wrong but it may take many more years for the mistake to be formally corrected.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

What he was doing was pretending that we think sight works the way it does out of habit or something. That is not the case: we think so because there is such a large amount of consilient evidence telling us it is so. None of which he seems to have been even aware of!

Sure, just like their large amount of consilient evidence that there's no connection between vaccines and autism. The only problem is THEY ARE WRONG!

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

If that is due diligence, then what does a lack of due diligence look like in your family? Performing a frontal lobotomy on yourself?

You were doing very well until now. Be forewarned; you will be ignored the rest of the day if you continue.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[Vivisectus]

You are right in that his claim about sight did not come from the field of optics, but it came indirectly due to his understanding of how the brain and eyes work in regard to language. You cannot dictate who is entitled to make a discovery based on such a fixed idea because there are exceptions.

As if anyone is rejecting this nonsense because of the person claiming it! It is the claim itself people object to: the facts are that

- He never bothered to check if he was correct - even though this would have been easy to do, inexpensive and not time consuming. When you DO check, you run into unexplainable problems - light arriving from where we see stars that are lightyears away, moons of jupiter, fizeau's experiment, relativity, space probes arriving at distant planets, etc etc etc.

- He never provided any evidence. He never explained how he reached his conclusions so we can check if we agree with his reasoning. This is why you are forced to call it an "astute observation".

- He lacked even the most basic knowledge about any of the fields he made claims about. In fact he was so ignorant that he probably never realized he was making claims about things like relativity, he made erroneous statements about nerves in the eyes, !

No-one is being biased against him. The problem is that it is a silly claim, which is poorly expressed and unsupported by either logic or evidence!

Sure, just like their large amount of consilient evidence that there's no connection between vaccines and autism. The only problem is THEY ARE WRONG!

You can indeed decide that evidence, no matter how strong, does not matter to you and choose to believe what you feel like believing in stead. But that makes your constant complaining about bias, closed-mindedness and dogmatism very hypocritical indeed, because you are displaying all of these in heaps: evidence be damned, the dogma is the dogma!

You were doing very well until now. Be forewarned; you will be ignored the rest of the day if you continue.

Ignore what you want, or don't: the fact remains that it would have been extremely easy to gain even a superficial knowledge of what he was talking about, and we can clearly see he did no such thing.

Even a simple course in essay writing would have helped: at least he would not have forgotten to include some evidence or other support for what he was claiming.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Seeing something that far away could give the appearance that it's located in another area of the sky. Looks are deceiving. We can't depend on sight alone to know where something is, especially in deep space. We need other instruments to determine the actual location.

That's why we have precisely timed radio signals!

Explain how "Seeing something that far away could give the appearance that it's located in another area of the sky." Especially if we use telescopes with an angular resolution of a couple of milliarcseconds.