A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You still don't know whether he is right or wrong about the eyes.

Almost everyone knows that Lessans was wrong about the eyes, it's only you who still believe his nonsense.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did my best. Now I know there's no hope for this thread. You can't even admit you were wrong. You would rather continue to make false accusations. This came right out of his book but you won't acknowledge this fact because you're having too much fun lying about me. You have no couth!

No you didn't, you continued to hawk your corrupted book in spite of being constantly corrected. You were the one who is wrong and refuses to admit it, you continue to lie and make false statements.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by But

peacegirl, how is it possible that NASA hasn't figured out yet that their calculations are off by tens of thousands of kilometers?

NASA simply doesn't understand the two-sided equation.

[ChuckF]

Maybe NASA's calculations simply reflect the Authentic Text instead of peacegirl's Corrupted Text:

[JoeP]

Originally Posted by Florence Jellem

Do you boys mean to tell Flo that there is not just one, but two massive threads devoted to peacegirl's textual corruptions?

Are there any others?

Does need to hire an exterminator?

Is this a rhetorical question?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Laugh all you want. It's really okay.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

peacegirl, how is it possible that NASA hasn't figured out yet that their calculations are off by tens of thousands of kilometers?

This is a fake issue because no one is refuting their calculations.

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

NASA simply doesn't understand the two-sided equation.

What the hell are you talking about now? The two-sided equation has nothing to do with light and sight. This just shows me how f:!$&@ ignorant you really are. I can see clearly now, the rain is gone.

Jimmy Cliff - I Can See Clearly Now With Lyrics - YouTube

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Unfortunately, as a result of this one misunderstanding the thread took a turn for the worse and has never recovered.

Incorrect. After a lengthy independent inquiry it has been conclusively determined that the thread took a fatal turn for the worse at post #3017 from which it could not and never has recovered. At that point you were asked a series of questions relating to light and photons which you could only respond to with lies and evasion. Of course, you were lying and evading questions well before that (from the beginning of the thread in fact, as the inquiry has also determined) but post #3017 is certainly the point from which the thread could not possibly recover.

[Florence Jellem]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is a fake issue because no one is refuting their calculations.

But if you can't refute their calculations, then you concede that your father was wrong. Do you understand this, dear? Or are you too muddled by mead to make this obvious connection?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Florence Jellem

But if you can't refute their calculations, then you concede that your father was wrong. Do you understand this, dear? Or are you too muddled by mead to make this obvious connection?

There is no conflict. You're creating a problem that isn't there.

How do space probes navigate large distances with such accuracy and how do the mission controllers know when they've reached their target? - Scientific American

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Incorrect. After a lengthy independent inquiry it has been conclusively determined that the thread took a fatal turn for the worse at post #3017 from which it could not and never has recovered. At that point you were asked a series of questions relating to light and photons which you could only respond to with lies and evasion. Of course, you were lying and evading questions well before that (from the beginning of the thread in fact, as the inquiry has also determined) but post #3017 is certainly the point from which the thread could not possibly recover.

You tried to discredit the two-sided equation but you could not. You are now assuming Lessans could not possibly be right regarding the eyes based on your sketchy analysis. I refuse to get into this again. All I can tell you is to not depend on your evaluation as it leaves out the very real possibility that Lessans' account is not as far-fetched as you think. That's all I'm going to say on this subject.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You were wrong

Yes, I was wrong to ask you a question as if you were capable of responding honestly and directly.

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no conflict. You're creating a problem that isn't there.

How do space probes navigate large distances with such accuracy and how do the mission controllers know when they've reached their target? - Scientific American

For all U.S. interplanetary probes, the antennas of the Deep Space Network (DSN) act as the measurement system. These antennas transmit radio signals to a probe, which receives these signals and, with a slight frequency shift, returns them to the ground station. By computing the difference between the transmitted and received signals, a probe's distance and speed along the line from the antenna can be determined with great accuracy, thanks to the high frequency of the signals and a very accurate atomic clock by which to measure the small frequency changes. By combining these elements, navigators can measure a probe's instantaneous line-of-sight velocity and range to an accuracy of 0.05 millimeter-per-second and three meters respectively, relative to the antenna.

Hm...frequency shift...what could cause that.

[Florence Jellem]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no conflict. You're creating a problem that isn't there.

How do space probes navigate large distances with such accuracy and how do the mission controllers know when they've reached their target? - Scientific American

Land’s sake, dear, Flo isn’t the hottest hamburger in the skillet, and a lot of this discussion happened before my time, but I seem to recall someone — was it LadyShea? — found the NASA math calculation specifically used to take into account delayed-time seeing in order to successfully navigate spacecraft to other worlds. Would you like Flo or someone else here to look that up for you and rub your filthy little snout in in yet again?

The issue, though, is quite moot, as we know from the Authentic Text that the author agreed with us and Einstein that we do not see the sun in real time. You changed his text to say something different, for reasons unknown; no doubt it was connected with your lust for lucre, but you are too dumb to realize that the changes you made to the text rendered it ridiculous in the eyes of everyone, and thus unable to be sold. O irony!

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by Florence Jellem

The issue, though, is quite moot, as we know from the Authentic Text that the author agreed with us and Einstein that we do not see the sun in real time.

I thank the 100% nonreligious God every single day for ChuckF, who rescued the actual writings of Seymour Lessans from the obscurity that peacegirl intentionally generated and brought those writings to a world in need, exposing peacegirl's aggravated and egregious fraud in the process.

If only peacegirl had an inkling as to how one goes about corrupting someone else's work effectively, she'd be rolling in money by now. The Authentic Text featured some spectacularly bizarre sado-masochistic porn. What did peacegirl do? She dumped it!

The Authentic Text contains statements to the effect that the Germans murdered 6 million Jews on Hitler's orders. But as so very, very many of peacegirl's most trusted sources repeatedly tell us, none of that ever happened!

Imagine how many sales peacegirl would have made had she kept the porn, scrubbed the Holocaust orthodoxy, and replaced the latter with denialism. That would have gone over very well with neo-Nazis, who are peacegirl's spiritual kin and jointly responsible with her for the Trump administration.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What the hell? He mentioned one time about environmental causes that could be a factor in homosexuality, and you all went ballistic. He said nothing wrong. And he wasn't standing in judgment. He was trying to address questions that people had, but it obviously was taken the wrong way. That has nothing to do with the validity of his discovery. It's a joke. And you still don't know whether he is right or wrong about the eyes. Regardless, I didn't deserve the fallout that took place.

Not interested in getting into a discussion about it. Let's just say that it was another example of Lessans holding forth on subjects that caused much amusement to many people. I could have used suing presidents, translucent robes and spaghetti dinners instead.

I've told you many times before, these mistakes, misstatements and malapropisms make Lessans look like a crackpot. It lessens his credibility such that if Lessans had any idea that might benefit humanity, it's ignored because the rest of the text is a joke.

And then you had to double down in your bid to make Lessans a laughingstock by adding in your own antivaccine bias into the text. If you wanted to do your father's memory a better disservice, I couldn't find a better choice than advocating for the death of children. Well done.

[peacegirl]

Lessans will not be seen as a laughingstock just because this group is trying their darndest to get him to be seen in that light. If anything, you all have increased my determination to move forward and find others who will give him the respect he deserves. Thank you for doing the opposite of what you intended. You have not broken me. As much as you want to break me with your lies, you have done the opposite. I look at you people with pity (you know who you are) for the need to spew such hatred against me, and for what? You are the most arrogant group of people that I've ever met. If this is what atheism is all about, no thank you.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans will not be seen as a laughingstock just because this group is trying their darndest to get him to be seen in that light.

You accidentally told a truth! Lessans will be, in fact is, seen as a laughingstock not "because [of] this group" but instead because of you.

Oh hey, here's your daily reminder that Trump trolled the shit out of you and all the other anti-vaxx morons. Thanks, peacegirl!

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I look at you people with pity (you know who you are) for the need to spew such hatred against me, and for what?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I hate you

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

You accidentally told a truth! Lessans will be, in fact is, seen as a laughingstock not "because [of] this group" but instead because of you.

Oh hey, here's your daily reminder that Trump trolled the shit out of you and all the other anti-vaxx morons. Thanks, peacegirl!

[ChuckF]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans will not be seen as a laughingstock just because this group is trying their darndest to get him to be seen in that light. If anything, you all have increased my determination to move forward and find others who will give him the respect he deserves.

Yes, peacegirl, so, so, so, so much determination. Not enough to sustain a Facebook page, or use Twitter yourself...but so much determination. Huge determination. Really fantastic determination. Great determination. So much. Nobody is more determined that you are, peacegirl. You have the best determination.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thanks, peacegirl!

Originally Posted by ChuckF

Yes, peacegirl, so, so, so, so much determination. Not enough to sustain a Facebook page, or use Twitter yourself...but so much determination. Huge determination. Really fantastic determination. Great determination. So much. Nobody is more determined that you are, peacegirl. You have the best determination.

Hey now, peacegirl's determination is unparalleled when it comes to squabbling with strangers on the Internet about dog eyes. When it comes to actual work, well, that's another story entirely. peacegirl is to work as Seymour Lessans was to fat chicks.

[Florence Jellem]

Not only does she have the best determination, she has the best lurkers, too. The greatest lurkers. The most lurkers. More lurkers than Obama had at either of his inaugurations. Really fantastic lurkers. Huge lurkers. The best lurkers.

Unfortunately, that mean Mr. Maturin — destitute of couth! — has intimidated every one of them into silence.

[Stephen Maturin]

I am, after all, in charge of all knowledge. Moreover, my personal agenda is to ruin it for the whole world.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans will not be seen as a laughingstock just because this group is trying their darndest to get him to be seen in that light. If anything, you all have increased my determination to move forward and find others who will give him the respect he deserves. Thank you for doing the opposite of what you intended. You have not broken me. As much as you want to break me with your lies, you have done the opposite. I look at you people with pity (you know who you are) for the need to spew such hatred against me, and for what? You are the most arrogant group of people that I've ever met. If this is what atheism is all about, no thank you.

#mentalfog

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Wrong. I based my logic only on what you have tried to tell me about efferent vision. The contradiction comes from you and you alone.

They can't work the same way if Lessans was right, because cameras don't have a brain to "look out" and "see" things. Unless this activity of the brain (i.e. the actually efferent part of efferent vision) is completely redundant, they have to work differently.

Since you've gone and brought up vision again, I'm going to require you to answer my list of questions again. The problem for you was Question 4. If you answer 'No' then you have to explain how light which arrived from somewhere other than the object being photographed can have properties which will interact with the film to create an image of that object. If you answer 'Yes' then you have to explain how the light's properties can change during its travel time to match the state of the object at the time when the photograph is taken and the light hits the film.

Neither problem is solvable, and that's why you kept flip-flopping between answering 'Yes' and 'No' each time you realized the answer you were trying to give wouldn't work.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You need to answer these questions without contradicting yourself, otherwise real-time photography and efferent vision remains impossible:

1. What is it that interacts with the film in a camera to determine the color of the resulting image?

Light

2. Where is whatever it is which does this (when it interacts)?

At the film

3. Which properties of whatever it is that does this will determine the color of the resulting image?

The nonabsorbed photons

4. Did the light present at the camera initially travel from the object to get there?

Light is always traveling (no one is arguing with that), but if a camera works like the eye, then the wavelength/frequency would be at the film instantly as the lens is focused on said object. That is because the requirements of capturing an image have been met, which is the same as the requirements for seeing in real time.

5. How did the light already present at the camera get to be there, i.e. where did it come from?

The object.

6. Can light travel to the camera without arriving at the camera?

If the light is already present the instant the lens focuses on said object (because it's bright enough and large enough to be seen by the observer), the wavelength/frequency would be at the film instantly. The camera and eye would work the same way.

7. Can light travel faster than light?

This is not about light traveling faster than light, as in the mailman example using letters. If an object turned another color, we would see that change instantly not because the previous photons weren't there first, but because distance and time are not factors in this account. If they were, then the afferent model would be correct.

8. Is wavelength a property of light?

Yes

9. Can light travel without any wavelength?

No

10. Can wavelengths travel independently of light?

No

11. Do objects reflect light or does light reflect objects?

Objects reflect light, but we don't interpret the light as an image. That's what Lessans meant when he said an image is not being reflected.

12. What does a reflection consist of?

Wavelengths

13. What does light consist of?

Wavelengths

14. Do you agree with our account of what it means for the ball to be blue (i.e. that it is presently absorbing all non-blue light striking it, and reflecting from its surface only the light of blue-wavelength)?

I do understand Spacemonkey

15. What happens to any light striking the surface of an object which does not get absorbed, after it strikes that object?

That light is reflected, but this has nothing to do with our ability to see in real time. The non-absorbed photons that show blue will be blue when we look at the object. The only difference is that we will see the object instantly (because the wavelength/frequency is already at the eye/film when we are looking directly at the object through a lens or with the eye), not 8 minutes later.