A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

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.

No, that is not what Lessans said. If peacegirl said something different, then she is in contradiction to The Great Man.

The Great Man specifically has a passage in which he says that when Columbus landed in the New World, if an astronomer on Rigel was looking at the earth through a powerful telescope, he would see Columbus landing in the New World without any time delay. Peacegirl has claimed that if the same telescope had a camera attached to it, the camera would not record Columbus landing on the New World until some nine hundred years later Rigel time, or however many light years Rigel is distant from the earth. (I think it's about nine hundred light years.)

Therefore, the test is simple. If peacegirl were right, then pictures of the heavens taken with cameras should ALWAYS DIFFER from what we see with the naked eye, or what we see looking through telescopes (per The Great Man). But, THEY NEVER DO. THEY ALWAYS AGREE.

Hence, Lessans' claims are false.

I'd appreciate it if you'd quote this as well so our resident scholar can see it, thedoc. Thanks!

[thedoc]

Hello, is anybody there?

The debate was lost by Lessans and peacegirl in 1961, everything else has been wheel spinning and kicking up dust to obscure the truth that 'Decline and Fall of All Evil' is nonsensical fiction.

[davidm]

On a bright note, we have reached Page 192. You all know what that means: Party time is getting closer.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

No, that is not what Lessans said. If peacegirl said something different, then she is in contradiction to The Great Man.

The Great Man specifically has a passage in which he says that when Columbus landed in the New World, if an astronomer on Rigel was looking at the earth through a powerful telescope, he would see Columbus landing in the New World without any time delay. Peacegirl has claimed that if the same telescope had a camera attached to it, the camera would not record Columbus landing on the New World until some nine hundred years later Rigel time, or however many light years Rigel is distant from the earth. (I think it's about nine hundred light years.)

Therefore, the test is simple. If peacegirl were right, then pictures of the heavens taken with cameras should ALWAYS DIFFER from what we see with the naked eye, or what we see looking through telescopes (per The Great Man). But, THEY NEVER DO. THEY ALWAYS AGREE.

Hence, Lessans' claims are false.

I'd appreciate it if you'd quote this as well so our resident scholar can see it, thedoc. Thanks!

You're right, so here is a case where Peacegirl contradicts Lessans, she clearly stated that the magnified image would need to wait for the light to arrive.

Wait, Lessans said that looking thru the telescope we would see things as they are now, but a television signal (if it had been possible then) would travel at the speed of light and not arrive on Regal till many years later. Page 120 and 121 on the PDF.

Note, please note the page no. when referencing the book, it makes it easier to find, rather than scrolling thru 500+ pages.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

You're right, so here is a case where Peacegirl contradicts Lessans, she clearly stated that the magnified image would need to wait for the light to arrive.

Peacegirl?

OH NOES! YOU HAVE CONTRADICTED THE GREAT INFALLIBLE ONE!!!1

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

On a bright note, we have reached Page 192. You all know what that means: Party time is getting closer.

are we there yet, I feel sick

[davidm]

Could someone quote the exact passage where peacegirl says light magnified by a telescope would take time to arrive, and then quote Lessans on Rigel, in which Lessans argues just the opposite? That would be amusing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

No, that is not what Lessans said. If peacegirl said something different, then she is in contradiction to The Great Man.

The Great Man specifically has a passage in which he says that when Columbus landed in the New World, if an astronomer on Rigel was looking at the earth through a powerful telescope, he would see Columbus landing in the New World without any time delay. Peacegirl has claimed that if the same telescope had a camera attached to it, the camera would not record Columbus landing on the New World until some nine hundred years later Rigel time, or however many light years Rigel is distant from the earth. (I think it's about nine hundred light years.)

Therefore, the test is simple. If peacegirl were right, then pictures of the heavens taken with cameras should ALWAYS DIFFER from what we see with the naked eye, or what we see looking through telescopes (per The Great Man). But, THEY NEVER DO. THEY ALWAYS AGREE.

Hence, Lessans' claims are false.

I'd appreciate it if you'd quote this as well so our resident scholar can see it, thedoc. Thanks!

David, I took you off ignore, but you were given immunity. Don't ruin it for yourself. As far as cameras go, I thought about it. If we are using efferent vision, then a camera would not need the light to travel that far for a picture to be taken. So you are back to the drawing board!!!!!!!!!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

[SIZE=1]are we there yet, I feel sick.[/SIZE]

Why do you feel sick doc? You should be excited. No talk about the book for 10 whole pages, and lots and lots of ice cream and cake.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

You're right, so here is a case where Peacegirl contradicts Lessans, she clearly stated that the magnified image would need to wait for the light to arrive.

Wait, Lessans said that looking thru the telescope we would see things as they are now, but a television signal (if it had been possible then) would travel at the speed of light and not arrive on Regal till many years later. Page 120 and 121 on the PDF.

Note, please note the page no. when referencing the book, it makes it easier to find, rather than scrolling thru 500+ pages.

It appears Lessans was too stupid to understand what television is.

Anyway, we now have a plain contradiction between peacegirl and The Great Man! The religion has become schismatic! Will bloodshed and revolution follow? Stay tuned!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Hello, is anybody there?

The debate was lost by Lessans and peacegirl in 1961, everything else has been wheel spinning and kicking up dust to obscure the truth that 'Decline and Fall of All Evil' is nonsensical fiction.

No doc, you are not going to get away with this. It is not just kicking up dust. You want to believe this, so you don't actually have to read the first two chapters and understand them.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

David, I took you off ignore, but you were given immunity. Don't ruin it for yourself. As far as cameras go, I thought about it. If we are using efferent vision, then a camera would not need the light to travel that far for a picture to be taken. So you are back to the drawing board!!!!!!!!!

So you "thought about" your idiotic claim, and then just decided to change it?

You (and Lessans) obviously have no idea what you are talking about. The two claims are wholly opposite, and yet you have no problem in holding to one claim yesterday, and the opposite claim today? This means that yesterday, The Great Man's "theory" said just the opposite of what it says today!

[peacegirl]

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.

Originally Posted by davidm

No bloodshed, just a fair and square win. I do suggest the party starting as quickly as possible, or you will lose your shirt David.

Originally Posted by davidm

Anyway, we now have a plain contradiction between peacegirl and The Great Man! The religion has become schismatic! Will bloodshed and revolution follow? Stay tuned!

No contradiction here if you are viewing the world through efferent vision. If you're not, then eveything will look backward, which your thinking has become. No offense.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

So you "thought about" your idiotic claim, and then just decided to change it?

You (and Lessans) obviously have no idea what you are talking about. The two claims are wholly opposite, and yet you have no problem in holding to one claim yesterday, and the opposite claim today? This means that yesterday, The Great Man's "theory" said just the opposite of what it says today!

That's why I clarified the response, because I knew it sounded contradictory. But when carefully analyzing it, there was no contradiction Davey poo.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No bloodshed, just a fair and square win. I do suggest the party starting as quickly as possible, or you will lose your shirt David.

No contradiction here if you are viewing the world through efferent vision. If you're not, then eveything will look backward, which your thinking has become. No offense.

Excuse me, you bloody idiot, it is YOU who has completely changed your story today, from yesterday! That means your "theory" today, is DIFFERENT FROM what it was yesterday! In fact, a key prediction of the "theory" is now, today, the opposite of what it was yesterday! This clearly means either that the "theory" is the opposite today, of what it was yesteday, or that you yourself haven't understood any of your father's rubbish from Day One, and are just "winging it," to use your own words.

And you say that WE have to go back to the drawing board!

Serene in your ignorance, unruffled by facts, logic and reality, you go babbling and bombinating on, completely changing your story from one day to the next, and you say that WE have to go back to the drawing board!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Excuse me, you bloody idiot, it is YOU who has completely changed your story today, from yesterday! That means your "theory" today, is DIFFERENT FROM what it was yesterday! In fact, a key prediction of the "theory" is now, today, the opposite of what it was yesterday! This clearly means either that the "theory" is the opposite today, of what it was yesteday, or that you yourself haven't understood any of your father's rubbish from Day One, and are just "winging it," to use your own words.

And you say that WE have to go back to the drawing board!

Serene in your ignorance, unruffled by facts, logic and reality, you go babbling and bombinating on, completely changing your story from one day to the next, and you say that WE have to go back to the drawing board!

WRONG DAVID. I AM ALLOWED TO BE STUMPED ONCE AND AWHILE. I HAVE TO CAREFULLY THINK THESE QUESTIONS THROUGH, SO IF I MADE A MISTAKE, SO BE IT!!! THAT DOESN'T MEAN LESSANS IS CONDEMNED FOREVER AND EVER JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE TO BE IN THE LOSING POSITION. DOES THAT MEAN THE PARTY'S CANCELED?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

WRONG DAVID. I AM ALLOWED TO BE STUMPED ONCE AND AWHILE. I HAVE TO CAREFULLY THINK THESE QUESTIONS THROUGH, SO IF I MADE A MISTAKE, SO BE IT!!! THAT DOESN'T MEAN LESSANS IS CONDEMNED FOREVER AND EVER JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE TO BE IN THE LOSING POSITION. DOES THAT MEAN THE PARTY'S CANCELED?

You are saying today, the opposite of what you said yesterday! Wow, and you've been peddling this bullshit for years, and last night for the first time you thought about the consquences of all this nonsense, and you totally change your story? And we are in the "losing position"?



Very telling, too, that you constantly employ the rhetoric of "winning" and "losing." You see this as a contest, which is why you are impervious to facts, reason and logic. All that matters is "winning" even if it means denying reality itself -- which is what you constantly do. Amazing.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

You're right, so here is a case where Peacegirl contradicts Lessans, she clearly stated that the magnified image would need to wait for the light to arrive.

Wait, Lessans said that looking thru the telescope we would see things as they are now, but a television signal (if it had been possible then) would travel at the speed of light and not arrive on Regal till many years later. Page 120 and 121 on the PDF.

He never said that. You are misquoting him. He said objects do not send out pictures.

If it was possible to transmit a television picture from
the earth to a planet as far away as the star Rigel, it is true that the
people living there would be seeing the ships of Columbus coming into
America for the first time because the picture would be in the process
of being transmitted through space at a certain rate of speed. But
objects do not send out pictures that travel through space and impinge
on the optic nerve.
----------------------------------------------------------------
Radio—with pictures

The basic idea of television is "radio with pictures". In other words, where radio transmits a sound signal (the information being broadcast) through the air, television sends a picture signal as well. You probably know that these signals are carried by radio waves, invisible patterns of electricity and magnetism that race through the air at the speed of light (300,000 km or 186,000 miles per second). Think of the radio waves carrying information like the waves on the sea carrying surfers: the waves themselves aren't the information: the information surfs on top of the waves.

How television (TV) works: A simple introduction from Explain that Stuff!

Television is really a three-part invention: the TV camera that turns a picture and sound into a signal; the TV transmitter that sends the signal through the air; and the TV receiver (the TV set in your home) that captures the signal and turns it back into picture and sound. TV creates moving pictures by repeatedly capturing still pictures and presenting these frames to your eyes so quickly that they seem to be moving. Think of TV as an electronic flick-book. The images are flickering on the screen so fast that they fuse together in your brain to make a moving picture (really, though they're really lots of still pictures displayed one after another).

[peacegirl]

[quote=davidm;948486]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

WRONG DAVID. I AM ALLOWED TO BE STUMPED ONCE AND AWHILE. I HAVE TO CAREFULLY THINK THESE QUESTIONS THROUGH, SO IF I MADE A MISTAKE, SO BE IT!!! THAT DOESN'T MEAN LESSANS IS CONDEMNED FOREVER AND EVER JUST BECAUSE YOU DON'T LIKE TO BE IN THE LOSING POSITION. DOES THAT MEAN THE PARTY'S CANCELED?

Originally Posted by davidm

You are saying today, the opposite of what you said yesterday! Wow, and you've been peddling this bullshit for years, and last night for the first time you thought about the consquences of all this nonsense, and you totally change your story? And we are in the "losing position"?

I did not change my story. I just didn't have the time to extend the principles properly because the questions were coming too fast, and therefore didn't analyze them correctly. Have you ever made a mistake David, or are you infallible?

Originally Posted by davidm

Very telling, too, that you constantly employ the rhetoric of "winning" and "losing." You see this as a contest, which is why you are impervious to facts, reason and logic. All that matters is "winning" even if it means denying reality itself -- which is what you constantly do. Amazing.

No David. It is you that has turned this into a contest of win or lose, and you are using your name calling to up the ante by using it to look bigger and stronger than you really are.

[specious_reasons]

Pecegirl, the problem is that a camera is designed and built to detect light - only light. Cameras were designed and built on the physical properties of light, and the chemistry of light sensitive chemicals. Denying that a camera works any other way is to throw out large portions of our understanding of physics and chemistry - which work now as is and without any known flaws.

To suggest that we see objects in real time and without using the information in light, suggests that cameras will not record the same thing as what you're seeing when viewing very distant objects.

Where is the flaw in that reasoning?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

Could someone quote the exact passage where peacegirl says light magnified by a telescope would take time to arrive, and then quote Lessans on Rigel, in which Lessans argues just the opposite? That would be amusing.

Post #4320 page 173

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A telescope gathers light and magnifies it. The telescope isn't hanging around for the light to arrive before a picture can be taken. A picture is taken immediately because the telescope is close enough to Jupiter to be able to gather its light and magnify it. Therefore, the picture taken from the telescope would be the same exact picture that we would see with our eyes.

Not really. If the supernova is that large that it can be seen by the naked eye, you can rest assured that there is no time delay because the lightwaves have already arrived and therefore the camera would be able to take a snapshot of the supernova as it exists in real time. Therefore, there would be no difference between the picture and what we see with our eyes.

Post 4556 page 183

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I agree that the light would have to be drawn in to see the image in a telscope, or else there would be no light in which to see anything at all.

According to efferent vision, if a star went supernova our eyes would see it instantly as long as it was large enough to be seen by the naked eye, whereas a telescope would need the emitted lightwaves to reach its mirrors in order to be able to magnify the image.

Looks like a contradiction to me.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why do you feel sick doc? You should be excited.

This has been an extremely bumpy ride, being bounced between fact and fiction.

How about Ice cream and Ravioli, I remember someone really got sick on that for lunch, and then had it for supper.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Now let's hear from The Great Man Himself!

Originally Posted by Lessans

if you
could sit upon the star Rigel with a telescope powerful enough to see
me writing this very moment, you would see me at the exact same
time that a person sitting right next to me would.

Oh noes! Peacegirl has contradicted her father!

ETA: freakout time!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No doc, you are not going to get away with this. It is not just kicking up dust. You want to believe this, so you don't actually have to read the first two chapters and understand them.

One more time, and this time I'll type slow and large for you. I read the book, I understand what Lessans was trying to say. I don't agree with him and I think he was wrong. Get over yourself.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

You are saying today, the opposite of what you said yesterday! Wow, and you've been peddling this bullshit for years, and last night for the first time you thought about the consquences of all this nonsense, and you totally change your story? And we are in the "losing position"?



Very telling, too, that you constantly employ the rhetoric of "winning" and "losing." You see this as a contest, which is why you are impervious to facts, reason and logic. All that matters is "winning" even if it means denying reality itself -- which is what you constantly do. Amazing.

Davidm, you are familiar with the concept of a debate, where each team is given a side of an issue to either defend or attack. The personal beliefs and the truth is not at issue, but who can present the most convincing argument determines the winner. To peacegirl winning will be to sell lots of books, so defending Lessans is of prime importance. He needs to be made to look good no matter what, so that she can use the debate in her promotions.