A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These same variables can be manipulated on Earth. You say that it can't be done on Earth because light travels too fast.

It can be done on earth. Shall we show you the link, and remind you of the discussion on this point, yet again? Are you able to retain anything at all that is presented to you?

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.

We're already been over this point, too. Doznes of times! Listen carefully, goldfish brain: It does not matter how fast light travels. All the photons have to do is intersect with the eye. And they do, millions of them, all the time.

LOL, now get lost.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I thought that people would have mulled this thread over and maybe have come up with some new questions, at the very least.

Maybe people would come up with new questions, if you were to answer all of the old questions. You haven't answered any of them. Like this one, for instance:

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!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said objects don't move.

The point being that we see them where they were when the light left them and not where they are.

[Dragar]

If we see in real time, why does the slow moving debris (in the form of neutrinos) from distant supernovae reach us at the same time as we see it happen?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Dragar

If we see in real time, why does the slow moving debris (in the form of neutrinos) from distant supernovae reach us at the same time as we see it happen?

Not exactly at the same time, depending on the distance from the supernova, but your point is well taken. The neutrinos and light usually arrive within hours of each other and for a star millions of light years away, if efferent vision were true, we would see the supernova millions of years before the neutrinos arrived, but this does not happen. Even if the supernova were only a few light years away, not a good thing, we would see the explosion years before the neutrinos arrived, but there would probably be no-one to observe the detection of the neutrinos, or maybe it would be the last thing they would observe.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I really don't know what you want from me, but the bottom line is you have not given Lessans a chance. You can think what you want, and you can make stories about my motivations. It really doesn't matter. The truth is the truth and will come out in the end.

You really are batshit insane. How can you not know what I want from you? I want you to answer the questions that I ask. Such as the one in the above post in bold caps. I'm not making stories about your motivation. I'm straight up ASKING YOU to take a look at your own reasons for still being here and to tell me what they are. Is that so hard?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

His claims on light and sight are not empirically wrong. 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.

You are demonstrating your broken mind once again. Your memory is failing you. This is your eternally recurring question. Every time you bring it up you get provided with an explanation which you admit that you cannot show to be inadequate, only you then drop it and a few days or weeks later you've forgotten all about it and repeat the same stupid question completely oblivious to what happened the last time you did so. Do you have any idea how many times you've been through this cycle? You are not mentally well, Peacegirl. You really do need help.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am going to have to move to another forum...

And how many times have you insisted that you will never do that? The last time was only a couple of days ago.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just don't get why he chooses to waste his time here. I have to leave as well because nothing has changed. It's deja vu.

I told you exactly why I'm still here. Have you forgotten? When you asked me, I actually answered. But you didn't.

Why are you still here?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

So it was all bluster. I said that his listed presuppositions are presuppositions within the context of his book because they must be true for his arguments to work, and that he gives no-one any reason to believe they are true. You tried to deny this claiming that he gave plenty of these reasons, but when called on it you can't deliver - showing that you are the one who doesn't know what she is talking about.

[Spacemonkey]

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.

Your other options are either to break your addiction to this unhealthy behavior and leave, or to start honestly and directly addressing the questions and evidence presented to you for the first time in your life. But your mental illness will prevent you from doing either.

[Spacemonkey]

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.

See? Once again you are trying to criticize the answers you've been given for not explaining something that is only true on your account. You are insisting upon a 'fact' that simply isn't true, and then claiming that our explanations are inadequate for not explaining your made up 'fact'.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I thought that people would have mulled this thread over and maybe have come up with some new questions, at the very least.

Why would anyone come up with new questions? You've spent months doing nothing but weaselling and avoiding our old questions. You have to answer our previous questions before getting new ones.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People are not taking this discovery seriously because of everything that's been said.

You are not taking people's responses seriously. You never have.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

I warned you about this 10,000 posts ago. I warned you that this would not go well for you.

At least the idea is dawning on you, however with your goldfish brain it will probably take another 10,000 posts before you take the advice and forget about promoting Lessans.

You will always have this effect. This task is not for you.

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.

A dark cloud you personally put there. At least before you started all this he was more or less anonymous. Now he is a laughing stock. And he will always be a laughing stock because he was not merely wrong, he was absurdly wrong.

Do him a favor, stop promoting him. This task is not for you.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

See? Once again you are trying to criticize the answers you've been given for not explaining something that is only true on your account. You are insisting upon a 'fact' that simply isn't true, and then claiming that our explanations are inadequate for not explaining your made up 'fact'.

peacegirl is so crazy she thinks she is entitled to her own facts.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

peacegirl is so crazy she thinks she is entitled to her own facts.

Actually this is a 'Lessans fact' from the book, I'm not sure that Peacegirl could make up one of her own facts, at least the ones I've seen that may have been hers have been really unrecognizable as anything even resembling reality.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Actually this is a 'Lessans fact' from the book, I'm not sure that Peacegirl could make up one of her own facts, at least the ones I've seen that may have been hers have been really unrecognizable as anything even resembling reality.

She does make up her own facts but she does it by way of her mental illness. She takes what she thinks is a Lessan fact then misunderstands it to absurd proportions and then defends if vehemently. At that point it has little resemblance from whence it came and is uniquely peacegirls.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

The point being that we see them where they were when the light left them and not where they are.

If the object is moving, then we see the difference between where it was and where we see it now, but we will not see the image of the object from light itself, if Lessans is right about efferent vision.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

<BLAH BLAH BLAH> ...if Lessans is right about efferent vision.

Lessans is not right about efferent vision.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I thought that people would have mulled this thread over and maybe have come up with some new questions, at the very least.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why would anyone come up with new questions? You've spent months doing nothing but weaselling and avoiding our old questions. You have to answer our previous questions before getting new ones.

I have not purposely avoided any questions. I have not weaseled or dissembled anything. I don't want to keep talking about light traveling because in efferent vision, light is a condition of sight, whereas the second you talk about time, you are implying that light is the cause of sight. There is no point in continuing to discuss this topic until there is more empirical testing. Until then it's a waste of time to talk about this further.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

People are not taking this discovery seriously because of everything that's been said.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are not taking people's responses seriously. You never have.

I have always taking people's responses seriously, at least the ones that are relevant.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Lessans is not right about efferent vision.

You're entitled to your opinion.

[thedoc]

I just posted in the Bible thread that mythology is symbolic of something that is not the object or idea written about. Perhaps the mistake Peacegirl is making, and we have not picked up on yet, is that Lessans writing was symbolic and did not represent what it appeared to at face value. It may have been that the imagery in the book was all hyperbole and really ment something different than what was written. If this is true then Peacegirl needs to re-read the book to discover the true meaning behind the symbolism.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Lessans is not right about efferent vision.

It has been explained ad-nauseam that Lessans ideas were the result of a misunderstanding of psychology and total lack of understanding of physiology. IE. totally out of his ass.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

If we see in real time, why does the slow moving debris (in the form of neutrinos) from distant supernovae reach us at the same time as we see it happen?

Maybe it's a warning that a supernova is about to occur so what we are seeing is the actual explosion.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're entitled to your opinion.

And you are entitled to your delusions.