A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

The model of the solar system is based on images from telescopes and the assumption that the telescope sees the planets where they were when the light left them. If that assumption is wrong, the whole model is wrong.

I don't see any reference to this. It seems almost impossible to map out an entire model of the solar system while accurately making this time/light correction. Something is missing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Do you know, the only reason anyone here responds to you at all anymore is just plain rubbernecking. We just can't help gape at the fifty-car pileups that drop out of your stupid yap every time you open it!

Simple math! What about the simple math, you simpleton, that the Lone Ranger showed you, which demonstrated how much our probes would miss Mars IF we used Daddy Dum Dum's real-time seeing assumption? What about that simple math? Shall we post it or you yet again?

Following where something is by sight is not reliable because what we see in real time is different than the actual location using radio signals. This has nothing to do with the time/light correction.

Originally Posted by Davidm

Finally, dumb ass, as been explained to you infinitely, visible light and radio are subsets of the electromagnetic spectrum and all travel at the same rate of speed, which is c. Therefore we see in delayed time.

How fast light travels has nothing to do with this model, you reprehensible spam faced tool bag.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see any reference to this. It seems almost impossible to map out an entire model of the solar system while accurately making this time/light correction. Something is missing.

Of course not, why should the scientists reference something that is accepted Standard Operating Procedure?

You reject science because it proves that Lessans ideas are wrong, and you maintain your position that "something else is going on", even though the currently accepted model explains everything perfectly.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

The model of the solar system is based on images from telescopes and the assumption that the telescope sees the planets where they were when the light left them. If that assumption is wrong, the whole model is wrong.

The images from telescopes are in visible light, so the navigation is based on a combination of visible light and radio signals, so visible light provides the road map and if those images were according to Lessans ideas, the road map being used would be wrong.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Following where something is by sight is not reliable because what we see in real time is different than the actual location using radio signals. This has nothing to do with the time/light correction.

How fast light travels has nothing to do with this model, you reprehensible spam faced tool bag.

Are you saying that what we see with our eyes is different than the actual position of the object using radio signals which allow for the delay of the signals to arrive. That the position of the object is not in the position in which we see it, is the afferent account of vision.

You are still claiming that the photons are at the object and then instantly at the retina or film? This is impossible according to the currently accepted laws of physics.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It seems almost impossible to map out an entire model of the solar system while accurately making this time/light correction. Something is missing.

Astronomy has been done for all of recorded history, Galileo (as far as we know) was the first to observe the stars and planets with a telescope. Astronomers have been getting more and more accurate for centuries and now observations of the stars and planets are very accurate. Of course you and Lessans have no understanding of this because you are totally ignorant of any astronomy, and anything you don't understand, you deny it's existence or accuracy.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Forget it Vivisectus. Your response early on was a terrible analogy that firemen don't cause fires just as blame doesn't cause us to make bad choices. You believed your response was correct although it was anything but. Understandably, you want the empirical proof that his observations are spot on, but the proof of the pudding can only come when these principles are put into practice on a small or large scale. You never took this book seriously or read the full text with the diligence that is required. The book is a blueprint of how these principles work [in principle] in all areas of human relation such as the economic system, dating, marriage, how children are raised, the medical profession, and the educational system. It is 180 degree turnaround. This is not a theory but an undeniable presentation of a new world that is within our reach when this law of our nature is understood and applied globally. This work takes serious study, not a quick skim. That's all that anyone has done, if that. Most people have rushed to judgment and tried to turn the book into lulz by taking certain excerpts out of context and making a joke out of them.

The book claims it has "undeniable evidence", and so do you, but the moment you are then challenged to produce it there suddenly cannot be any until it is put into practice. So where you lying before? Did you change your mind?

Can you just stop whining and making up weak and transparent excuses for a second and just quote the "undeniable evidence" that conscience works as the book describes?

And no, just calling the claims the book makes a "demonstration" or a "presentation" is not going to do the trick. That is just a rather pathetic attempt to make it seem that your father's claiming something means he has made a case for it. That fools no-one but yourself.

Show some guts for once in your posting history here and either admit you have none, or produce it.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Can you imagine in all of these years not one person has read the book with the intent to understand the full significance of these findings?

In all seriousness, I tried, peacegirl. Even ignoring Lessans' "proof" and accepting the premise that man's will isn't free (not hard for me because I favor that opinion), the rest of it doesn't follow as well as you'd like to think.

But, the book sets itself up for failure. We've discussed this all before, but Lessans comes off as arrogant. The statement, "This discovery will be presented in a step by step fashion that brooks no opposition[...]" challenges the reader to do just that, and faults can be found, in multitudes.

I feel for you. It's sad, both because you get mocked publicly and mercilessly, and because you are so dedicated to something that is so very unlikely to be successful.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see any reference to this. It seems almost impossible to map out an entire model of the solar system while accurately making this time/light correction. Something is missing.

Light-time correction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Light-time correction is a displacement in the apparent position of a celestial object from its true position (or geometric position) caused by the object's motion during the time it takes its light to reach an observer.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The book claims it has "undeniable evidence", and so do you, but the moment you are then challenged to produce it there suddenly cannot be any until it is put into practice. So where you lying before? Did you change your mind?

Can you just stop whining and making up weak and transparent excuses for a second and just quote the "undeniable evidence" that conscience works as the book describes?

And no, just calling the claims the book makes a "demonstration" or a "presentation" is not going to do the trick. That is just a rather pathetic attempt to make it seem that your father's claiming something means he has made a case for it. That fools no-one but yourself.

Show some guts for once in your posting history here and either admit you have none, or produce it.

Then let's go no further Vivisectus. If you're so sure he was wrong without even reading the book (which is only 600 pages; a lot less pages than in here), there is no real reason for you to stay. I am not going to produce anything because you will continue to tell me that he didn't prove conscience works the way he described, so there's no point in continuing. You are looking for flaws that aren't there. It's amazing to me how you and the few participants here (when there's no new people, it causes a thread to go stale) have shown very little curiosity. You are such a skeptical person that it has actually gotten in the way of you being a good investigator. If you really were interested rather than looking for ways to discredit him before you even know whether his discovery is valid and sound, you would have read the book in its entirety and kept an open mind. But you have done no such thing. Neither has anyone here. This is really not a free-thought forum. It's run by a few self-appointed people who run this place. If they say you're wrong, everyone accepts that you must be wrong. As Richard Milton wrote:

p. 7 One way of explaining this odd reluctance to come to terms with the
new, even when there is plenty of concrete evidence available, is to
appeal to the natural human tendency not to believe things that sound
impossible unless we see them with our own eyes — a healthy
skepticism. But there is a good deal more to this phenomenon than
a healthy skepticism. It is a refusal even to open our eyes to examine
the evidence that is plainly in view. And it is a phenomenon that
occurs so regularly in the history of science and technology as to be
almost an integral part of the process. It seems that there are some
individuals, including very distinguished scientists, who are willing to
risk the censure and ridicule of their colleagues by stepping over that
mark. This book is about those scientists. But, more importantly, it
is about the curious social and intellectual forces that seek to prohibit
such research; those areas of scientific research that are taboo subjects;
about subjects whose discussion is forbidden under pain of ridicule and
ostracism.

Often those who cry taboo do so from the best of motives:
a desire to ensure that our hard-won scientific enlightenment is not
corrupted by the credulous acceptance of crank ideas and that the
community does not slide back into what Sir Karl Popper graphically
called the ‘tyranny of opinion.’ Yet in setting out to guard the
frontiers of knowledge, some scientific purists are adopting a brand of
skepticism that is indistinguishable from the tyranny they seek to
resist. These modern skeptics are sometimes the most unreflecting of
individuals yet their devotion to the cause of science impels them to
appoint themselves guardians of spirit of truth. And this raises the
important question of just how we can tell a real crank from a real
innovator — a Faraday from a false prophet. Merely to dismiss a
carefully prepared body of evidence — however barmy it may appear
— is to make the same mistake as the crank.

[specious_reasons]

A mangling of one of peacegirl's favorite quotes appeared in the wild not so long ago:

“This is what happens when you work to change things, and first they think you’re crazy, then they fight you and then all of a sudden you change the world,” [Theranos CEO Elizabeth] Holmes told the host.

Who is Elizabeth Holmes? This may be a clue.

or, I could quote the most relevant part:

The FDA and CMS weren’t the only federal agencies interested in Theranos. On April 18, the Journal reported that the Securities Exchange Commission—the agency charged with protecting investors—and the Department of Justice had issued subpeonas to Theranos and several of its business partners.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As Richard Milton wrote:

One way of explaining this odd reluctance to come to terms with the
new, even when there is plenty of concrete evidence available ...

Full stop! There is NO concrete evidence, no evidence at all, that your father's absurd shit is correct. All the evidence is to the contrary. That's why we reject it!

That taken care of, who is Richard Milton? Could it be the same Richard Milton who wrote, "They Myths of Darwinism"? Of whom Richard Dawkins memorably wrote:

Every day I get letters, in capitals and obsessively underlined if not actually in green ink, from flat earthers, young earthers, perpetual-motion merchants, astrologers and other harmless fruitcakes. The only difference here is that Richard Milton managed to get his stuff published.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then let's go no further Vivisectus. If you're so sure he was wrong without even reading the book (which is only 600 pages; a lot less pages than in here), there is no real reason for you to stay. I am not going to produce anything because you will continue to tell me that he didn't prove conscience works the way he described, so there's no point in continuing. You are looking for flaws that aren't there. It's amazing to me how you and the few participants here (when there's no new people, it causes a thread to go stale) have shown very little curiosity. You are such a skeptical person that it has actually gotten in the way of you being a good investigator. If you really were interested rather than looking for ways to discredit him before you even know whether his discovery is valid and sound, you would have read the book in its entirety and kept an open mind. But you have done no such thing. Neither has anyone here. This is really not a free-thought forum. It's run by a few self-appointed people who run this place. If they say you're wrong, everyone accepts that you must be wrong. As Richard Milton wrote:

p. 7 One way of explaining this odd reluctance to come to terms with the
new, even when there is plenty of concrete evidence available, is to
appeal to the natural human tendency not to believe things that sound
impossible unless we see them with our own eyes — a healthy
skepticism. But there is a good deal more to this phenomenon than
a healthy skepticism. It is a refusal even to open our eyes to examine
the evidence that is plainly in view. And it is a phenomenon that
occurs so regularly in the history of science and technology as to be
almost an integral part of the process. It seems that there are some
individuals, including very distinguished scientists, who are willing to
risk the censure and ridicule of their colleagues by stepping over that
mark. This book is about those scientists. But, more importantly, it
is about the curious social and intellectual forces that seek to prohibit
such research; those areas of scientific research that are taboo subjects;
about subjects whose discussion is forbidden under pain of ridicule and
ostracism.

Often those who cry taboo do so from the best of motives:
a desire to ensure that our hard-won scientific enlightenment is not
corrupted by the credulous acceptance of crank ideas and that the
community does not slide back into what Sir Karl Popper graphically
called the ‘tyranny of opinion.’ Yet in setting out to guard the
frontiers of knowledge, some scientific purists are adopting a brand of
skepticism that is indistinguishable from the tyranny they seek to
resist. These modern skeptics are sometimes the most unreflecting of
individuals yet their devotion to the cause of science impels them to
appoint themselves guardians of spirit of truth. And this raises the
important question of just how we can tell a real crank from a real
innovator — a Faraday from a false prophet. Merely to dismiss a
carefully prepared body of evidence — however barmy it may appear
— is to make the same mistake as the crank.

You fail to understand the difference between not proving something, and merely claiming it. Your book does the latter - and then does something worse, which is pretending to have proven it.

That has nothing to do with opinion: that is a simple fact. And as long as you fail to acknowledge the facts, you will always be a crank, by the standards you yourself seem to agree with: your Milton quote mentions evidence, over and over, the same evidence we have in such copious amounts for the opposite of some of your claims, the evidence that you are never able to produce because it simply does not exist.

If I was ignoring "a carefully prepared body of evidence", then I would indeed be guilty of what you accuse me of. But all I ever do is ask for evidence. For anything beyond a simple claim. It is not my fault that you have failed to come up with anything beyond "because he said so".

The people Milton seeks to stick up for in that quote is people who are mistaken for the likes of you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You fail to understand the difference between not proving something, and merely claiming it. Your book does the latter - and then does something worse, which is pretending to have proven it.

That has nothing to do with opinion: that is a simple fact. And as long as you fail to acknowledge the facts, you will always be a crank, by the standards you yourself seem to agree with: your Milton quote mentions evidence, over and over, the same evidence we have in such copious amounts for the opposite of some of your claims, the evidence that you are never able to produce because it simply does not exist.

If I was ignoring "a carefully prepared body of evidence", then I would indeed be guilty of what you accuse me of. But all I ever do is ask for evidence. For anything beyond a simple claim. It is not my fault that you have failed to come up with anything beyond "because he said so".

The people Milton seeks to stick up for in that quote is people who are mistaken for the likes of you.

The evidence is there. His observations were correct. Man does not have free will. Man's conscience works exactly as he described. Under the changed conditions, people will no longer be able to hurt others with a first blow (gaining at another's expense) because their conscience will not have the necessary justification to do so. I know I'm wasting my time here, so let's stop.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The evidence is there.

Where?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His observations were correct.

What observations? You mean his claims?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Man does not have free will. Man's conscience works exactly as he described. Under the changed conditions, people will no longer be able to hurt others with a first blow (gaining at another's expense) because their conscience will not have the necessary justification to do so. I know I'm wasting my time here, so let's stop.

Where's your evidence that conscience has an innate level of perfection that it would reach if only it were not held back by belief in free will and our practices of blaming people? Oh, that's right. You don't have any.

All you can do is insist that it just must be so because Daddy's book assumes it. Just like his claims about vision just must be right, even when they require traveling non-traveling photons coming from a place they were never at. Dumbass.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Where's your evidence that conscience has an innate level of perfection that it would reach if only it were not held back by belief in free will and our practices of blaming people? Oh, that's right. You don't have any.

All you can do is insist that it just must be so because Daddy's book assumes it.

That's the frustrating thing about trying to deal with peacegirl. Sure, there's the rampant dishonesty, the almost unbelievable degree of hypocrisy, the astonishing and willful ignorance, and the occasional display of just plain nastiness on her part -- but that's just so much random noise. The heart of it is that we keep providing evidence for our claims and asking her to provide some for hers -- but she, of course, cannot and will not do so.

Instead, she keeps acting as if she believes that saying "because Lessans said so" is evidence, while acting perplexed and angered that no one else agrees.

Whether she's delusional enough to actually believe that or it's some kind of act is not entirely clear.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your anger won't get you anywhere. You are not all that Spacemonkey. Who in the world do you think you are just because you got your formal degree in philosophy? Do you think all philosophers know what the hell they're talking about? Let me inform you, they don't. You say, "we aren't interested." Who is "we"? You hide behind the group because you can't stand on your own two feet.

Where did I say I was right because of my credentials? You asked why we aren't interested in Lessans' moronic crap about determinism and conscience, so I told you. We aren't interested because we have already investigated ALL of his claims and found them ALL to be worthless drivel. You seem to forget that we have spent a DECADE refuting EVERY SINGLE PART of your father's stupid book. And how am I hiding? You are the one refusing to answer questions, regardless of the topic and regardless of how we treat you.

[Vivisectus]

The evidence is there. His observations were correct. Man does not have free will. Man's conscience works exactly as he described. Under the changed conditions, people will no longer be able to hurt others with a first blow (gaining at another's expense) because their conscience will not have the necessary justification to do so. I know I'm wasting my time here, so let's stop.

Then stop whining and quote it! But you won't, because you cannot find it either.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Where?

What observations? You mean his claims?

Where's your evidence that conscience has an innate level of perfection that it would reach if only it were not held back by belief in free will and our practices of blaming people? Oh, that's right. You don't have any.

All you can do is insist that it just must be so because Daddy's book assumes it. Just like his claims about vision just must be right, even when they require traveling non-traveling photons coming from a place they were never at. Dumbass.

I have no desire to discuss this book with you. You are antagonistic and have no understanding of these principles. And let me tell you one more thing; you are not as smart as you think. Your analysis is half-baked.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Then stop whining and quote it! But you won't, because you cannot find it either.

There are three justifications that allow us to perform an action that could hurt another. When these justifications are removed, there is no way conscience will permit said actions. It's not that difficult. You just can't believe that there is an answer to a problem this big.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have no desire to discuss this book with you. You are antagonistic and have no understanding of these principles. And let me tell you one more thing; you are not as smart as you think. Your analysis is half-baked.

Fuck off. If you were as confident as you claim in your father's material—or if you had an ounce of integrity—you'd address my points instead of resorting to ad hominem nonsense like this while ignoring everything I say.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are three justifications that allow us to perform an action that could hurt another. When these justifications are removed, there is no way conscience will permit said actions. It's not that difficult. You just can't believe that there is an answer to a problem this big.

That is what you claim. So how do we know your claim is correct?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Fuck off. If you were as confident as you claim in your father's material—or if you had an ounce of integrity—you'd address my points instead of resorting to ad hominem nonsense like this while ignoring everything I say.

Are you insane? You're in the thread that I started. You fuck off! You are the one calling me ad hominem names. You've completely lost it Spacemonkey and I have no desire to talk to you. Your bluff and bluster don't scare me. Your false bravado means nothing. It's all a bunch of hot air!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

That is what you claim. So how do we know your claim is correct?

By hearing what he says and seeing if it matches anything that you can identify with. You cannot know the truth of his words by judging them from afar. Use your own experiences first; then we can talk.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Are you insane?

No, you're the insane one remember. Blithering on about magical teleporting photons and supernatural consciences.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're in the thread that I started. You fuck off!

You're the one who said she'd fuck off, so you fuck off. I'm merely asking you to stick to your word.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are the one calling me ad hominem names.

I see you don't know what 'ad hominem' means. Calling you names isn't an ad hominem, fucktard. But dismissing valid criticisms on the grounds that I'm not as smart as you think that I think I am sure is.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You've completely lost it Spacemonkey and I have no desire to talk to you.

What have I lost, and where can I find it again?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your bluff and bluster don't scare me. Your false bravado means nothing. It's all a bunch of hot air!

"It's all a bunch of hot air!"—a new tag line for your sad excuse for a book. Sold any yet? Of course you haven't. You're too busy wasting time online and projecting your own false bravado, for as I just explained: If you were as confident as you claim in your father's material—or if you had an ounce of integrity—you'd address my points instead of resorting to ad hominem nonsense like this while ignoring everything I say...

...

...

...Dingbat.