A revolution in thought

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nothing I say is going to matter which is why I have to leave.

What? Are you leaving again?

How long do you plan to be gone this time?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

What? Are you leaving again?

How long do you plan to be gone this time?

She'll be back tomorrow, if not sooner. It will depend on how long it takes her to shelve what has been posted today and start over again.

[Florence Jellem]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nothing I say is going to matter which is why I have to leave.

But, dear, the Page 2,000 party is only 49 pages away, and you're the guest of honor! You can't leave now.

Flo has taken the liberty of inviting Donald Trump to attend and lecture on how vaccines cause autism.

[Florence Jellem]

Flo is finding some nice potential user names for

Shithead, who is out in space.

Dumbass. I can’t be that dumb, can I?

Just a fucktard, of whom peacegirl has had enough for one day.

Peacegirl won’t address my posts because I’m an arrogant asshole.

Trick Slattery warned peacegirl about people like us

Here, we’re all little dipshits, which is why peacegirl has to leave forever for 18 minutes.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is just more bullshit. Sad but true. You little dipshits (you have all hurt me so bad by your name calling without any real justification, I don't care what I say in retaliation since I am justified in my anger.). It's so unfortunate that his claim regarding the eyes has turned you all into nut cases thinking you know more than Lessans did. What complete and total bunch of crap. You're all arrogant fools, but you don't see it because you're you're blind. Nothing I say is going to matter which is why I have to leave.

It is pretty reasonable to ask a question such as "why should we believe conscience works that way?" or "How come cameras see the same thing eyes do?"

It is just that you have no reasonable answer to these questions (and others), and yet you do not want to change your beliefs. Sometimes you come up with absurdities to try and reconcile the obviously impossible or implausible ideas, at other times you just accuse everyone of persecution, often you are plain old dishonest.

And yet somehow everyone else has closed minds, everyone else is biased, everyone else is just too arrogant to admit they are wrong!

You do not have the slightest idea of just how ironic that is. I find that kinda funny.

[davidm]

Coming Soon ...

On Page 1,999, We'll ....



And then ...

THE PAGE 2,000
PAR-TEHHHHH!!!!!!!

The Countdown Begins ...

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Once again, ChuckF has saved a bit of authentic text from ham-fisted corruption.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say that Maturin. I said that they confirm his discoveries using the scientific method. There are other ways to test his discoveries.

Angakuk dealt with this quite convincingly in #48625.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's the first fair question you've had in a long time.

Thanks, I guess.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Science can test this using a smaller sample size or simulation.

Describe the test with specificity. Otherwise, you're just pontificating.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It would be like someone building a small bridge to verify that the formula is accurate. They would then be able to build bridges on a larger scale with confidence.

Oofa. So bridges are built in accordance with "formulae" now? Why are you pretending that you know something about bridge building in particular or structural engineering in general?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Believe me, it can be done, ...

You'll need to give me a reason to believe that.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

but people are so skeptical I can't even get any real traction.

Why are you blaming your audience for your inability to persuade?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Can you believe in all this time no one has helped to spread word of this thread?

Can't speak for anyone else, but I've certainly told others about this thread.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I realize that this whole thing sounds impossible coming from the vantage point of the world we're living.

There have been plenty of objections raised, but we both know "It's just too good to be true" is not one of 'em.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But when this discovery finally gets confirmed valid and sound, and the transition gets started, it will change every aspect of our lives for the better. It IS the coming of the Golden Age, which was predicted in the Bible, although this coming will not be through supernatural means.

These contentions are 100% faith-based.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Trust me, ...

What reason have you ever given us for trusting you?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

my version of the text is not corrupt, ...

That's incorrect as a simple matter of fact. As discussed upthread, your version comports with the definition of the term "corrupt."

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Can't speak for anyone else, but I've certainly told others about this thread.

I have also told other people about Peacegirls posts and ideas on this thread. The usual reaction is an eye roll of disbelief and the statement "She doesn't really believe that, does she?"

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by thedoc

I have also told other people about Peacegirls posts and ideas on this thread. The usual reaction is an eye roll of disbelief and the statement "She doesn't really believe that, does she?"

So Peacegirl has been caught in another lie, this one, just like many others, out of ignorance.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Oofa. So bridges are built in accordance with "formulae" now? Why are you pretending that you know something about bridge building in particular or structural engineering in general?

You can't possibly blame Peacegirl for being just like her father, pontificating on subjects he knew nothing about, so she is making statements on a subject she knows nothing about.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl (several hours after her initial response, which made her look (even more) like a raving lunatic who was suffering from terminal butthurt)

What inconvenient facts Lone Ranger?

Well, there's quite a long list. We'll limit ourselves to just a few.

Inconvenient Fact Number 1: Every single time we look at anything farther away than the Moon, much less more distant than that, there is a clearly-evident discrepancy between its actual position and its apparent position. This discrepancy corresponds exactly with the expected delay in when we see something that is imposed by the finite speed of light. More to the point, this discrepancy between an object's apparent position and its actual position flatly contradicts Lessans' claims [or at least, your claims in the Amended Text].

You cannot explain or account for this inconvenient fact, and can only mewl that "something else must be going on."


Inconvenient Fact Number 2: Every single test using fast-responding recording devices reveals that there is a measurable delay between when light is emitted or reflected from an object and when it becomes visible. This delay corresponds exactly with the expected delay imposed by the finite speed of light. More to the point, this discrepancy between when an object emits or reflects light and when it becomes visible flatly contradicts Lessans' claims [or at least, your claims in the Amended Text].

You cannot explain or account for this inconvenient fact, and can only mewl that "something else must be going on."


Inconvenient Fact Number 3: Both anatomical examination and real-time imaging of the brain and visual pathway reveal that the visual cortex of the brain receives and interprets visual impulses from the retina of the eyes, and that this is how we see. This flatly contradicts Lessans' claims [or at least, your claims in the Amended Text].

You cannot explain or account for this inconvenient fact, and can only mewl that "something else must be going on."


Inconvenient Fact Number 4: Both anatomical examination and real-time imaging of the brain and visual pathway reveal that there are no efferent connections between the visual cortex and the retina of the eye. In fact, the only connection between the human brain and the retina contains no efferent fibers. This is, to put it mildly, an inconvenient fact when it comes to Lessans' claims [or at least, your claims in the Amended Text] regarding efferent vision.

You cannot explain or account for this inconvenient fact, and can only spout nonsense about the eyes being windows.


Inconvenient Fact Number 5: Several inches of opaque material (including solid bone) lie between the brain and the eyes. This, to put it mildly, is a problem for the notion that the brain somehow "looks out through the eyes."

You cannot explain or account for this inconvenient fact, and can only spout nonsense about the eyes being windows.


Inconvenient Fact Number 6: Special Relativity flatly rules out the possibility of "real-time" seeing, as real-time seeing conflicts with one of the most thoroughly-tested and well-confirmed of all scientific theories.

You cannot explain or account for this inconvenient fact, and can only sputter about how Lessans was, like, the greatest genius who ever lived.



We can go on and on and on and on and on and on and on. There are so very many inconvenient facts that contradict Lessans' claims. (Or more precisely, your claims regarding Lessans' claims.)

You have never been able to explain away any of them. All you can do is whine about how somehow, someday, Lessans will be vindicated -- and, presumably, somehow, all those inconvenient facts will just magically go away.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have answered your posts over and over again.

Liar. You have replied. You have not answered.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Hey, Peacegirl Fucktard (you're welcome), have you worked out coherent answers yet to any of the following?

How did you go about distinguishing between Lessans' errors that needed removing from the text, and his 100% accurate astute observations that couldn't possibly be wrong?

How will the changed conditions prevent harms resulting from the unaddressed justification of rational self-interest?

What traveling have your magical photons (at the retina at 12:00) done, and when could they ever have been located at the Sun, where you claim they came from?

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Florence Jellem

Flo is finding some nice potential user names for

Shithead, who is out in space.

Dumbass. I can’t be that dumb, can I?

Just a fucktard, of whom peacegirl has had enough for one day.

Peacegirl won’t address my posts because I’m an arrogant asshole.

Trick Slattery warned peacegirl about people like us

Here, we’re all little dipshits, which is why peacegirl has to leave forever for 18 minutes.

Thanks. Those are all pretty good, though I'm still warming in my current one!

My shenanigans just cannot be stopped.

[peacegirl]

repeat

[Spacemonkey]

Inconvenient Fact #7: Light cannot be somewhere before it gets there.

Inconvenient Fact #8: Light cannot have come from the Sun if it was never located there.

Inconvenient Fact #9: Light cannot be light if it has never traveled.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I don't see where the discrepancy contradicts Lessans' claim. We see the object instantly but it is in a different location when we measure its location using radio waves.

We know it takes time for light to arrive at a destination. That's not even what he is disputing.

If it's true that something else must be going on, then that needs to be considered.

You cannot explain or account for this inconvenient fact, and can only mewl that "something else must be going on."

There is a lot we don't know about the brain. You're just repeating the model of sight that's being disputed. Just remember what seems obviously true is not always the truth. You can pooh pooh this all you want, but there are cases when what was once thought to be true turned out to be untrue.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Inconvenient Fact Number 4: Both anatomical examination and real-time imaging of the brain and visual pathway reveal that there are no efferent connections between the visual cortex and the retina of the eye. In fact, the only connection between the human brain and the retina contains no efferent fibers. This is, to put it mildly, an inconvenient fact when it comes to Lessans' claims [or at least, your claims in the Amended Text] regarding efferent vision.

You cannot explain or account for this inconvenient fact, and can only spout nonsense about the eyes being windows.

Because you don't care to hear his explanation (even if it makes sense) since you are convinced he's wrong. That's not the sign of a good investigator..

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Inconvenient Fact Number 5: Several inches of opaque material (including solid bone) lie between the brain and the eyes. This, to put it mildly, is a problem for the notion that the brain somehow "looks out through the eyes."

You cannot explain or account for this inconvenient fact, and can only spout nonsense about the eyes being windows.

That's because you're analysis is faulty. The eyes are part of the brain so there's no opaque material to look through.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Inconvenient Fact Number 6: Special Relativity flatly rules out the possibility of "real-time" seeing, as real-time seeing conflicts with one of the most thoroughly-tested and well-confirmed of all scientific theories.

The theory might be true but some of the interpretations are reckless. We cannot travel back in time, not even in theory but because Hawkings and other big wheels said so, it actually is believed to be possible. Pure science fiction.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You cannot explain or account for this inconvenient fact, and can only sputter about how Lessans was, like, the greatest genius who ever lived.

I never said that but if he was right we will have a reason to celebrate.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

We can go on and on and on and on and on and on and on. There are so very many inconvenient facts that contradict Lessans' claims. (Or more precisely, your claims regarding Lessans' claims.)

You have never been able to explain away any of them. All you can do is whine about how somehow, someday, Lessans will be vindicated -- and, presumably, somehow, all those inconvenient facts will just magically go away.

Each one of those inconvenient "facts" do not prove him wrong. It just makes it appear that way. It's a bummer that looks can be so deceiving.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Each one of those inconvenient "facts" do not prove him wrong. It just makes it appear that way. It's a bummer that looks can be so deceiving.

peacegirl, pretty much any single one of those facts does, in fact, gut these particular claims, but setting that aside: what factual basis is there to suggest that these claims are correct? What set of data supports them?

For example, what is the factual basis for believing that "molecules of light" travel in a vacuum at a different speed depending on whether the light is in the visible spectrum or a different part of the electromagnetic spectrum? What data support that conclusion?

What is the factual basis for the claim that scientists determined the speed of light from analogy to sound? What data support that claim?

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

peacegirl, pretty much any single one of those facts does, in fact, gut these particular claims, but setting that aside: what factual basis is there to suggest that these claims are correct? What set of data supports them?

Did you miss the stuff about dogs, language and projection of words onto screens of undeniable substance?

Or perhaps those are exclusive features of the Corrupted Text. At this point, who can say?

Originally Posted by ChuckF

For example, what is the factual basis for believing that "molecules of light" travel in a vacuum at a different speed depending on whether the light is in the visible spectrum or a different part of the electromagnetic spectrum? . . .

What is the factual basis for the claim that scientists determined the speed of light from analogy to sound? . . .

The Authentic Text is truly a treasure trove.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The theory might be true but some of the interpretations are reckless. We cannot travel back in time, not even in theory but because Hawkings and other big wheels said so, it actually is believed to be possible. Pure science fiction.

Yes, and since the theory is true, real-time seeing is ruled out. This has nothing to do with interpretation. The special theory of relativity is referring to the relativity of simultaneity. If real-time seeing were true, simultaneity would be absolute and not relative. But I already explained this to you five fucking years ago and will not bother explaining it yet again to a donkey like you.

The rest of the above quote is your usual twaddle. Backward travel in time is NOT a claim of special relativity, but rather an interpretation of general relativity. In any event, it's completely irrelevant to the claim of real-time seeing. Finally, Hawking does NOT say we can travel backward in time -- just the opposite. He proposed the Chronology Protection Principle, which excludes backward time travel in practice (though not in principle) at all but the submicroscopic level.

But thanks for parading your vast ignorance yet again!

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because you don't care to hear his explanation (even if it makes sense) since you are convinced he's wrong. That's not the sign of a good investigator..

Considering that the text as we know it contains numerous contradictions of fact, a good investigator would reject the idea at that point.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see where the discrepancy contradicts Lessans' claim. We see the object instantly but it is in a different location when we measure its location using radio waves.

That is an interesting claim. Are you implying looking at an object and detecting it with radio waves yields different results?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said that but if he was right we will have a reason to celebrate.

Oh, please. You are such a liar! You have repeatedly claimed that Lessans was one of the greatest geniuses of all time. It's one of your most common claims. You regularly compare him to Einstein, for example, and have claimed that Lessans' was the greater intellect.

Each one of those inconvenient "facts" do not prove him wrong. It just makes it appear that way. It's a bummer that looks can be so deceiving.

And that's the point. There are tons and tons and tons of facts that are inconvenient for your claims. (I'm going to stop saying "Lessans' claims" now, since it seems that they're really your claims.) It's conceivable (though hardly likely) that "something else is going on" in every such case, but these facts are nonetheless most inconvenient for your claims, since you cannot explain them within the framework of your "theory."


It is a fact, for example, that we detect the neutrinos from a supernova explosion at approximately the same time we see the light from it. This is most inconvenient for you, because if your claims about how we see were true, then this is not what we would expect. Thus, this is evidence against your claim, since this fact cannot be explained within the framework of your "theory."


It is a fact that there is no efferent connection between the visual cortex of the brain and the retina of the eye. This is a most inconvenient fact for you, because if "efferent vision" is true, then you'd (obviously) expect there to be an efferent connection between them. Thus, this is evidence against your claim, since this fact cannot be explained within the framework of your "theory."


Spacecraft consistently reach their targets with a precision measured in meters. This is a most inconvenient fact for you, because if your claims were true, we'd expect there to be thousands of miles of difference between a planet's apparent position and its actual position. Thus, this is evidence against your claim, since this fact cannot be explained within the framework of your "theory," and you can only insist that "something else must be going on."



And we can go on and on and on and on and on. There are so very many facts that are inconvenient for you, because they contradict what we'd expect to see if your claims were correct. That's why I said that these are "inconvenient facts."



You have failed to provide an explanation for any of these facts that is consistent with both your claims and observed reality. And more to the point, you have failed to provide a single piece of evidence that supports your claims. Why on Earth should anyone take your claims seriously when even you can't provide any actual evidence that they're true -- much less explain the evidence against them?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Inconvenient Fact Number 4: Both anatomical examination and real-time imaging of the brain and visual pathway reveal that there are no efferent connections between the visual cortex and the retina of the eye. In fact, the only connection between the human brain and the retina contains no efferent fibers. This is, to put it mildly, an inconvenient fact when it comes to Lessans' claims [or at least, your claims in the Amended Text] regarding efferent vision.

Originally Posted by Peacegirl

Because you don't care to hear his explanation (even if it makes sense) since you are convinced he's wrong. That's not the sign of a good investigator..

Easily solved: simply quote the explanation!

Not the claim sight works like that, but the reason why we should believe it works that way. Or even better - how it actually works. What facts is the claim that sight works that way based on?

Surely it is good investigating to ask those fairly basic questions?