A revolution in thought

[ChuckF]

(He did not prevail)

[-FX-]

Just when I think this thread can't get any worse ...


... it gets worse

[256 colors]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

(He did not prevail)

If only he had been... EverLasting

Originally Posted by -FX-

Just when I think this thread can't get any worse ...


... it gets worse

One, two, three

She's a real left winger 'cause she been down south
And held peasants in her arms
She said, "I can tell you stories that could make you cry"
"What about you?"
I said, "me too"
"I could tell you a story that would make you cry"
And she sighed, "aah"

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by seebs

it's just so weird because there are SO MANY ways you can verify how light works, and how projectors work, and so on

There is nothing contradictory here.

[peacegirl]

A camera works in the same way. For example, a snapshot of the sun exploding would get the same image because it would be taken in real time, not delayed time. If light has not reached earth yet, we would not be able to see each other nor would the camera produce an image, but it would capture an image of the sun exploding because enough light would be present.

[davidm]

After all the years people here spent educating you on how eyes and cameras work, and here you are, a total reset, babbling the same dumb, wrong, impossible shit.

But keep it up, you bring the In that respect you are a candle in the dark, the wind beneath our wings.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

After all the years people here spent educating you on how eyes and cameras work, and here you are, a total reset, babbling the same dumb, wrong, impossible shit.

But keep it up, you bring the In that respect you are a candle in the dark, the wind beneath our wings.

You just can’t stand being wrong David. Your ad hominems reveal a lot about you. Your unbridled emotions have ruined it for everyone. There is nothing regarding how the eyes work that are being debated other than the observation that allow us to see the same image but in real time. I know this bothers you so much that you aren’t the others have no civility. Sad!

[peacegirl]

Duplicate

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You just can’t stand being wrong David. Your ad hominems reveal a lot about you. Your unbridled emotions have ruined it for everyone. There is nothing regarding how the eyes work that are being debated other than the observation that allow us to see the same image but in real time. I know this bothers you so much that you and the others have no civility. Sad!

I thought LadyShea ruined it for everyone?

[davidm]

Classics in Idiot Nonsense Babble, I

I know you’re trying your best to understand this concept

The very second you talk about traveling, you are not taking into consideration the fact that, although photons get replaced, the lens is capturing the mirror image of the object instantly. That's why I keep saying that although light travels, the light or image that is captured on film is not light that has traveled through space and time; it is present as a reverse image, or negative, of the actual object. I know you're trying your best to understand this concept. — peacegirl, May 2012

[ChuckF]

[davidm]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

[-FX-]

If only there was vast amount of scientific information on optics and light and shit like that

[-FX-]

Until that day, we must listen to nobodies on the internet, to help us understand these things

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Sue the President over it, why don't you! (Seymour Lessans sued the President over the dog eyes)

Originally Posted by seebs

?!?

Here ya go, seebs. The Lessans family has been stealing taxpayer money for a very long time.

Originally Posted by ChuckF

(He did not prevail)

Indeed.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Classics in Idiot Nonsense Babble, I

I know you’re trying your best to understand this concept

The very second you talk about traveling, you are not taking into consideration the fact that, although photons get replaced, the lens is capturing the mirror image of the object instantly. That's why I keep saying that although light travels, the light or image that is captured on film is not light that has traveled through space and time; it is present as a reverse image, or negative, of the actual object. I know you're trying your best to understand this concept. — peacegirl, May 2012

It’s not babble. The light is at the lens as long as the requirements of size and brightness are met. The image doesn’t change. The only thing that changes is whether the object viewed through the lens of a camera or the eye is in real time. This disturbs you greatly so you keep trying to hurt me!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

That is true because the switch was not yet turned on until 12 noon. There was no Sun to see. This example is not the same as the sun exploding even before the 8 minutes. That’s how confused you all are! As I mentioned, the light reaching us 8 minutes later would allow us to see each other.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by -FX-

Until that day, we must listen to nobodies on the internet, to help us understand these things

What a misguided judgment. But to your credit you hit the nail on the head. Anyone making extraordinary claims on the internet must be a crackpot, by definition. Why wasn’t this great discovery recognized by now? I know what you’re thinking. I really can’t blame you for thinking this way though. I’d be just as skeptical. It’s the cruelty here that is so disturbing.

[ChuckF]

[seebs]

huh that's weird

like, those look like they're almost the same passage, but one of them has been corrupted.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

That is accurate. We could not see each other for 8 minutes. It would be dark, but the Sun we would see because it’s bright enough and large enough to be seen. It meets the requirements. Proximity has nothing to do with it when time is not involved. One day you’ll wipe that smirk off your face!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by seebs

huh that's weird

like, those look like they're almost the same passage, but one of them has been corrupted.

Wrong! They mean different things. He wrote both. They are not corrupted. You are being corrupted by Chuck. This place should be an experiment regarding how people follow others without any independent thought of their own.

[ChuckF]

[seebs]

Man, the Lessans estate should sue these people for besmirching his reputation with this edited book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ChuckF

No contradiction. You all just keep thinking in terms of the image needing to travel through time in order for it to be at the eye. You can’t fathom how this could be right but that does not make it wrong.