A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

you dishonest little twerp. You don't even have a clue about what you just wrote.

Now then, here is the question again. Let's see if you can do better:

Explain why we use delayed-time seeing to calculate trajectories of spacecraft to Mars and other planets, why Hubble takes images of the universe in delayed time, and why we see the moons of Jupiter and all other bodies in delayed time!

Answer, please!

David, until Lessans' claims are tested, there is nothing more to say.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

All bluster was it?

Spacemonkey, I really hope that one day you listen to his audio. I'm sure you'll get a different picture of him and his knowledge, even if you feel that more empirical testing has to be done.

[The Lone Ranger]

You yourself state outright that Lessans' claims are untested.


So how dare you call them "scientific"? That's an outright lie.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

David, until Lessans' claims are tested, there is nothing more to say.

They HAVE been tested! That is the point.

They have been tested for hundreds of years. And every single test shows that we see in delayed time!

You are a liar.

Get lost.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You aren't serious with this shit? ROFL

No, I'm not serious but there's nothing else to talk about so I might as well talk shit like everyone else.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

They HAVE been tested! That is the point.

They have been tested for hundreds of years. And every single test shows that we see in delayed time!

You are a liar.

Get lost.

No David, Lessans' claims have not been empirically tested for accuracy. I believe when they are, people will begin to realize that a mistake has been made.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one gave me an adequate answer as to why someone slightly out of visual range cannot be seen. To say it's due to the inverse square law is not an adequate answer.

If someone is out of visual range, even slightly, they cannot be seen by definition there is no why except that they cannot be seen. The inverse square law does not apply, the whole question is nonsense and a red herring to divert the thread and confuse the issue. The phrasing of the question only demonstrated your complete lack of understanding of the subject.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You yourself state outright that Lessans' claims are untested.


So how dare you call them "scientific"? That's an outright lie.

His observations were extremely astute, but he knew that people would want to test for accuracy. He encouraged that.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

If someone is out of visual range, even slightly, they cannot be seen by definition there is no why except that they cannot be seen. The inverse square law does not apply, the whole question is nonsense and a red herring to divert the thread and confuse the issue. The phrasing of the question only demonstrated your complete lack of understanding of the subject.

There is never a time that we see an image without the object (the actual material substance) being in view. If just light brought the image to us, then people would be able to see the object when it's long gone, but that never ever happens.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I'm not serious but there's nothing else to talk about so I might as well talk shit like everyone else.

Hey, knock it off, that's my job.

[The Lone Ranger]

You can't have it both ways. Either he used scientific methodology or he didn't.

If he didn't even bother to test his supposed "observations," nor to document his methodology, then he didn't employ scientific methodology by any legitimate definition of science.

In which case you're outright lying when you claim that there's anything at all "scientific" about his unsupported and -- by your own admission -- untested claims.



That having been said, quite a lot of his claims most-definitely have been tested. And falsified.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I believe

And that is the sum total of Peacegirl's position.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is never a time that we see an image without the object (the actual material substance) being in view. If just light brought the image to us, then people would be able to see the object when it's long gone, but that never ever happens.

Actually astronomers see objects that are no longer there all the time. Many of the objects observed are gone or have moved and are not in the position where seen. On Earth it can happen but only for a small fraction of a second, as has been explained before, pity you don't remember.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is never a time that we see an image without the object (the actual material substance) being in view

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No David, Lessans' claims have not been empirically tested for accuracy. I believe when they are, people will begin to realize that a mistake has been made.

They haven't?


Then explain why we use delayed-time seeing to calculate trajectories of spacecraft to Mars and other planets, why Hubble takes images of the universe in delayed time, and why we see the moons of Jupiter and all other bodies in delayed time!



It makes you look really bad that you can't answer this question.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have to leave as well because nothing has changed. It's deja vu.

So, you were gone for a few days and when you come back nothing has changed. Did you expect that things would change while you were away? Now that would be crazy.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is never a time that we see an image without the object (the actual material substance) being in view. If just light brought the image to us, then people would be able to see the object when it's long gone, but that never ever happens.

That's exactly what happens. As has been shown to you hundreds of times.

How many times has LadyShea shown you those Hubble images, and explained how they were made?

Those images on those photos made NOW are of objects that no longer exist at the location described by the photos; none of them any longer exist in the form they were in when the light left them on its way to earth, and some of them don't exist at all!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You can't have it both ways. Either he used scientific methodology or he didn't.

If he didn't even bother to test his supposed "observations," nor to document his methodology, then he didn't employ scientific methodology by any legitimate definition of science.

In which case you're outright lying when you claim that there's anything at all "scientific" about his unsupported and -- by your own admission -- untested claims.

That having been said, quite a lot of his claims most-definitely have been tested. And falsified.

There's no doubt that he saw patterns in behavior and was able to glean the common denominator that is shared by all human beings. I don't believe his claims have been tested; at least not formally. No one has challenged the present model because it's been taken for granted that afferent vision is a fact.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

That's exactly what happens. As has been shown to you hundreds of times.

How many times has LadyShea shown you those Hubble images, and explained how they were made?

Those images on those photos made NOW are of objects that no longer exist at the location described by the photos; none of them any longer exist in the form they were in when the light left them on its way to earth, and some of them don't exist at all!

No David, you can't prove your theory because you can't manipulate the variables. These same variables can be manipulated on Earth. You say that it can't be done on Earth because light travels too fast. That doesn't even make sense when you realize that a person within range is closer to us than a person who is out of range. If light travels too fast the image would not be seen on the film or retina. Of course, you try to let this slip right by without me noticing.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You aren't serious with this shit? ROFL

A person with a dysfunctional memory would say things like this, it's the eternal sunshine of the spotless mind. It is hilarious behavior on a forum since there is a written record of everything that had gone on. That's where the mental illness comes in. An illness she shares with her dad. The amazing dance and contortion they go through to maintain that empty mind.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

So, you were gone for a few days and when you come back nothing has changed. Did you expect that things would change while you were away? Now that would be crazy.

I thought that people would have mulled this thread over and maybe have come up with some new questions, at the very least. Or maybe there would be new people here. But no, they're the same people and they're back to the same old shenanigans. I cannot do this again. It's ashame that after all this time there is a dark cloud over this thread. People are not taking this discovery seriously because of everything that's been said. I guess this is part of the process. Genuine discoveries are not often recognized until many years later. Possibly centuries later.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Actually astronomers see objects that are no longer there all the time. Many of the objects observed are gone or have moved and are not in the position where seen. On Earth it can happen but only for a small fraction of a second, as has been explained before, pity you don't remember.

I never said objects don't move.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There's no doubt that he saw patterns in behavior and was able to glean the common denominator that is shared by all human beings.
.

The only 'Patterns in Behavior' Lessans ever saw was on the billiard table. But he must have shot without any 'English' because he didn't use it well in his book.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No you didn't

Why are you still posting if this is how you feel? You are not acting rationally.

I'm hanging on by a thread, but I do realize it's a lost cause.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one has challenged the present model because it's been taken for granted that afferent vision is a fact.

Not, it is not "taken for granted" it is observed to be a fact, which you would know if your goldfish brain were able to read The Lone Ranger's essay, for example.