A revolution in thought

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by thedoc

There is an old saying "If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with bull-shit."

peacegirl is certainly fully baffled. . . .

--J.D.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You've stated, many times, that we can see pure light from an emitting source efferently exactly like we see any illuminated object. (remember the discussion about TVs, monitors, stars?)

Therefore, if I was blinking a green laser pointer at you 50 yards away, you would be seeing the blinking green light efferently (ie: instantly), correct?

I know I've answered this, but I don't think I was clear. If you were pointing a laser at me at 50 yards away, that light striking my eye would have taken a certain amount of time to reach my eye. So that light would be delayed. But you are logically concluding that if light is finite, and it takes a certain amount of time to reach a destination, that this authomatically would translate into my seeing the past. This is exactly where the confusion lies, and I hope, in time, this confusion can be clarified, so you will understand where Lessans was coming from.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Interesting ploy, you can't challenge it so you change the subject, and I don't think you can explain it, except to quote sections of the book that yo do not understand.

That's such a last ditch cop out that I am losing patience. You either understand the two-sided equation, or you have no room to talk, okay?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say I'm not ignoring anyone; I said I was giving you (doc) a second chance. David is in time out for the third time. He doesn't learn his lessons very well.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have not ignored anyone.

Originally Posted by thedoc

I don't know but was that a contradiction, does peacegirl even know what she is saying? So 'timeout' is a euphemism for 'ignore' now?

I have never ignored anyone who is a regular poster on this thread. Right now, I have put some people on ignore, or else I couldn't survive in here. They are just too mean spirited and have nothing to say other than to pound into me that I'm a troll. I might take David off ignore when we come close to PARTY TIME, but if he doesn't watch himself, right back on ignore he'll go.

[The Editor]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know I've answered this, but I don't think I was clear. If you were pointing a laser at me at 50 yards away, that light striking my eye would have taken a certain amount of time to reach my eye. So that light would be delayed.

Which directly contradicts the crackpot Lessans.

. . . that this authomatically would translate into my seeing the past.

One only sees the past. Since the distances are so small relative--there is that word again--to the speed of light, we do not notice them in everyday life without sophisticated measurements.

--Ed.

[The Editor]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

We have a few new ones shipped in. Just to give an idea:

We suspect she has worn dresses smarter than peacegirl.

--Ed.

[The Editor]

Since this peacegirl is a cowardly sort who ignores any who challenges her ignorance, we can see little benefit to further interaction with her.

Beneath the notice of Gentlemen and Ladies of Quality she remains.

--Ed.

[peacegirl]

I was trying to find out how far the Earth is from the edge of our galaxy. If a supernova was within our galaxy (two I believe were), Lone Ranger said it would burn us up if we were seeing the actual images in real time, but would it?

over hundreds of light-years....note: 1 light year = 5.9 trillion miles in distance... The Milky Way
is over 100,000 light years across. Pluto is over a billion miles away from the sun, which isnt the
end of our solar system. That gives you the idea on how far away the edge of our galaxy is.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know I've answered this, but I don't think I was clear. If you were pointing a laser at me at 50 yards away, that light striking my eye would have taken a certain amount of time to reach my eye. So that light would be delayed. But you are logically concluding that if light is finite, and it takes a certain amount of time to reach a destination, that this authomatically would translate into my seeing the past. This is exactly where the confusion is, and I hope, in time, this confusion can be clarified, so you will understand where Lessans was coming from.

I understand exactly where he was coming from. Though you are sounding now like maybe you don't understand.

I asked if you believe you would see the blinking light without the photons from the light source traveling to reach your eye, because that's what efferent vision indicates according to Lessans. That was his whole point about the sun being turned on and about viewing the Earth from Rigel. He believed we can see light sources (the sun, stars, supernova, distant objects reflecting light) without the light having to travel and reach and strike the eye.

If you agree with Lessans on that, then you have to accept that efferent vision means instantaneous, faster than light communication is possible because blinking lights can be used to communicate information.

There is no way around it, peacegirl. If we can see the light before the photons from the light source reach and strike our eyes, we can communicate with it. You can't weasel out of that conclusion.

That is impossible according to physics.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You've stated, many times, that we can see pure light from an emitting source efferently exactly like we see any illuminated object. (remember the discussion about TVs, monitors, stars?)

Yes, I remember the discussion clearly.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Therefore, if I was blinking a green laser pointer at you 50 yards away, you would be seeing the blinking green light efferently (ie: instantly), correct?

LadyShea, you are making me sound like an idiot, and I really don't want to answer right now because I believe you will, as a good lawyer would in a courtroom, twist everything I have said.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I know I've answered this, but I don't think I was clear. If you were pointing a laser at me at 50 yards away, that light striking my eye would have taken a certain amount of time to reach my eye. So that light would be delayed. But you are logically concluding that if light is finite, and it takes a certain amount of time to reach a destination, that this authomatically would translate into my seeing the past. This is exactly where the confusion is, and I hope, in time, this confusion can be clarified, so you will understand where Lessans was coming from.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I understand exactly where he was coming from. Though you are sounding now like maybe you don't understand.

I know exactly where I'm coming from, but you don't seem to.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I asked if you believe you would see the blinking light without the photons from the light source traveling to reach your eye, because that's what efferent vision indicates according to Lessans. That was his whole point about the sun being turned on and about viewing the Earth from Rigel. He believed we can see light sources (the sun, stars, supernova, distant objects reflecting light) without the light having to travel and reach and strike the eye.

If you agree with Lessans on that, then you have to accept that efferent vision means instantaneous, faster than light communication is possible because blinking lights can be used to communicate information.

There is no way around it, peacegirl. If we can see the light before the photons from the light source reach and strike our eyes, we can communicate with it. You can't weasel out of that conclusion.

That is impossible according to physics.

You're right that you see the image directly (which eliminates the need for the photons to impinge on the photoreceptors to be seen), but that does not mean I'm weaseling out of anything. At the very least, it means there is a miscommunication. That's all it is at this point.

[LadyShea]

If a supernova was within our galaxy (two I believe were), Lone Ranger said it would burn us up if we were seeing the actual images in real time, but would it?

What are you asking? We know we can't see them on Earth at the same time they happen at the star, because Earth time is different than the time wherever the star is. That's the theory of relativity...time is relative. There is no real time, there is only our time, and the time wherever else an object might be in the Universe.

Mars time and Earth time aren't the same. Earth time and Rigel time aren't the same.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What are you asking? We know we can't see them on Earth at the same time they happen at the star, because Earth time is different than the time wherever the star is. That's the theory of relativity...time is relative.

LadyShea, you are repeating the premise as if it were absolute fact. This is what is being disputed, so I don't get it if you think you have proven Lessans wrong. Are you kidding me???

Originally Posted by LadyShea

There is no real time, there is only our time, and the time wherever else an object might be in the Universe.

That is your opinion, but it's not fact until the cows come home.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Mars time and Earth time aren't the same. Earth time and Rigel time aren't the same.

The cows haven't come home. Sorry.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, I remember the discussion clearly.

LadyShea, you are making me sound like an idiot, and I really don't want to answer right now because I believe you will, as a good lawyer would in a courtroom, twist everything I have said.

I am not twisting anything, I am using your claims exactly as you state them. You have said these things. If I have mistaken something you said, please quote where you clarified, or where you stated something other than what I am repeating back to you.

You and Lessans said we can see light sources efferently...immediately.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know exactly where I'm coming from, but you don't seem to.

Then correct where I have misinterpreted your own claims.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right that you see the image directly (which eliminates the need for the photons to impinge on the photoreceptors to be seen), but that does not mean I'm weaseling out of anything. At the very least, it means there is a miscommunication. That's all it is at this point.

There is no miscommunication. I accurately represented your claims, as you just agreed. That you don't understand or want to accept the necessary consequences of those claims is not a communication problem, it's a problem with you understanding the physics.

[LadyShea]

The cows came home, lived a long life, died and decomposed a long time ago.

You have stated we need to recalculate the speed of light, and apparently now throw out the theory of relativity, along with everything we know about the eyes.

Also, you recently stated efferent vision doesn't mess with the proven physics. Efferent vision does not mean physics does not work~peacegirl

So contradictions from peacegirl.

Originally Posted by ladyshea

What are you asking? We know we can't see them on Earth at the same time they happen at the star, because Earth time is different than the time wherever the star is. That's the theory of relativity...time is relative.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, you are repeating the premise as if it were absolute fact. This is what is being disputed, so I don't get it if you think you have proven Lessans wrong. Are you kidding me???

Which is it, are the physics proven or not?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have never ignored anyone who is a regular poster on this thread. Right now, I have put some people on ignore,

Davidm would certainly qualify as a regular poster, and he has been on ignore, according to you. Maybe you are just threatening and not actually doing it. If the 'Ignore' is just not looking at the post, but not actually useing the ignore button, you could justify the lie. Really you're just not being honest. Do you even read your own posts?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What are you asking? We know we can't see them on Earth at the same time they happen at the star, because Earth time is different than the time wherever the star is. That's the theory of relativity...time is relative. There is no real time, there is only our time, and the time wherever else an object might be in the Universe.

Mars time and Earth time aren't the same. Earth time and Rigel time aren't the same.

THAT'S THE PREMISE THAT'S BEING DISPUTED LADYSHEA. IF YOU CAN'T THINK IN TERMS OF EFFERENT VISION, IT'S NO WONDER YOU WILL NEVER GET IT. GET IT????

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Davidm would certainly qualify as a regular poster, and he has been on ignore, according to you. Maybe you are just threatening and not actually doing it. If the 'Ignore' is just not looking at the post, but not actually useing the ignore button, you could justify the lie. Really you're just not being honest. Do you even read your own posts?

Davidm is on ignore because he uses such nasty expletives that I can't deal with it. Other than that, he has very relevant things to say. But he's ruining it by calling me names. I just can't deal with the infantile behavior just because he isn't winning the debate by any means.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

IF YOU CAN'T THINK IN TERMS OF EFFERENT VISION,

Thinking in terms of 'efferent vision' is not a problem, but when you do, you run into physics, and biology, and all that has been observed, experimented, and verified, that prove that 'efferent vision' is unworkable and wrong.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

THAT'S THE PREMISE THAT'S BEING DISPUTED LADYSHEA. IF YOU CAN'T THINK IN TERMS OF EFFERENT VISION, IT'S NO WONDER YOU WILL NEVER GET IT. GET IT????

I do get it. I get it very, very well. I understand efferent vision and I understand the necessary consequences of it. You're the one who keeps contradicting yourself, you're the one who doesn't get it.

Efferent vision breaks the laws of physics, yet you stated it doesn't. So which is it?

Are you seriously prepared to throw out physics as well as biology based on Lessans' unsupported assertions? How do you suppose you can get a top scientist to do experiments on efferent vision, that you consider up to snuff, when you can't even explain the model in a way that makes it even possible without breaking all known physical laws?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Davidm is on ignore because he uses such nasty expletives that I can't deal with it. Other than that, he has very relevant things to say. But he's ruining it by calling me names. I just can't deal with the infantile behavior just because he isn't winning the debate by any means.

Davidm's use of expletives is out of frustration at your lack of understanding and refusal to admit when you are wrong. The 'debate' has been won and you have lost years ago, long before you came to this forum, but it seems that you cannot comprehend that you have nothing that correspondes to reality. You present this fiction, and people feel compelled to counter it with the truth. Unlike religion that cannot be proved or disproved, your claims and ideas are easily refuted with facts and valid theories. But just like the 'religious fanatics' you will claim they are 'Just Theories' and therefore, because they counter your belief, must be wrong. The only thing left on this forum of any value are the constant refutations of your fiction and THE PARTY !

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I might take David off ignore when we come close to PARTY TIME, but if he doesn't watch himself, right back on ignore he'll go.

Fuck off, asshat.

By the way, dumb bell, your "model" of sight says that what we see with the naked eye, or assisted by a telescope, when we look into space, must necessarily differ from the image recorded by a camera. However, what we see, and what the camera portrays, never differ, so your prediction is falsified, and Lessans is proved to be wrong. What now?

Won't someone be kind enough to post this so she can see it, or repeat the question to her. I would like her to answer the above question. Thanks!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is your opinion, but it's not fact until the cows come home.

No, it is NOT an opinion, it is a well-confirmed scientific fact.

The cows haven't come home. Sorry.

A little ignoramus like you, who admits she knows nothing about physics, says this on what authority? Oh, I know! Daddy!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

... because he isn't winning the debate by any means.

God, what an infantile dumb bell you are.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Yes he is. - No he isn't.
Yes he is. - No he isn't.
Yes he is. - No he isn't.
Yes he is. - No he isn't.
- Ad nauseam - Ad infinitum.

Summary of 300 pages.

??

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Fuck off, asshat.

By the way, dumb bell, your "model" of sight says that what we see with the naked eye, or assisted by a telescope, when we look into space, must necessarily differ from the image recorded by a camera. However, what we see, and what the camera portrays, never differ, so your prediction is falsified, and Lessans is proved to be wrong. What now?

Won't someone be kind enough to post this so she can see it, or repeat the question to her. I would like her to answer the above question. Thanks!

Done, One of the things with the telescope was that we could see the star naked eye and if we looked thru a telescope we would not see the magnified image thill the light got here. Slight but important difference and only comes into play in the case of an event that changes the appearence of the star being observed.