 |
  |
10-13-2011, 01:34 AM
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I am just trying to understand why we can hear due to the ability of sound waves reaching our ears, but we can't see in the same way.
|
We see due to light waves reaching our eyes and the brain interpreting the light. What do you think we've been saying?
Our ears have limitations just as our eyes do, soundwaves (which are nothing more than vibrations of various frequencies) reach our ears and the brain interprets the vibration. |
Something doesn't add up LadyShea, that's why I'm not convinced of what is going on in reality. The reality of what is going on has nothing to do with how detailed we see that reality. You don't seem to understand this. |
What is not adding up? What do you personally observe in "reality" that cannot be explained by lightwaves being detected by a light sensor? |
If something were wrong with peacegirl's brain and her daddy had it too that would explain a lot. Especially if one of the problems was of perception. There are all sorts of interesting perceptual illnesses the brain can have.
|
10-13-2011, 01:37 AM
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
That last paragraph is particularly bizarre.
We know we can use the light to make images. But in in Lessan's world, what we see should not match what is recorded on, say, a CCD, since the latter is information carried by light (which took time to reach us), while the former is what we see (and hence took no time to reach us).
What a weird way of trying to view the world.
|
A light source can project images onto a CCD. There's no conflict here. |
Ahhhh, yes there is. That would mean that light alone is sufficient to form an image. And all that nonsense about sight being "efferent" because light was not sufficient to form an image would be nonsense.
Which it is. As well as just about all of Lessans book. |
All I mean by "project" is to show "a mirror image," which I've stated numerous times. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by natural.atheist
An image and a reverse image are both images. It is only a matter of optics to create an image in a camera that is not reversed.
In fact the image formed in the eye is reversed and the brain corrects it. There is the famous experiment (which I am sure you are completely unaware) where a person wore eye glasses that inverted what they saw. At first everything was upside down, and after some number of days they started seeing everything correctly while still wearing the glasses.
|
The brain is capable of compensating for certain distortions that it knows is not in keeping with reality. Amazing! |
|
Well yes. But it would not be doing it unless it was reacting to what it sensed through the eyes. That would mean that the brain is processing the image created by the incoming light as projected on the retina. So it is "afferent" [inward], not "efferent" [outward].
|
10-13-2011, 03:15 AM
|
 |
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Lessans said that light is a condition of sight. That was his constant mantra.
|
You have been asked to explain and clarify how it is a condition and where it is a condition.
Does light need to be present at the eye? If so what light? Light from the source? Light needs to be illuminating the object only and doesn't need to be at the eye? Is ambient light good enough?
|
10-13-2011, 04:10 AM
|
 |
Spiffiest wanger
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
On a positive note amid this unrelenting farrago of lunacy, we are approaching the epic 500-page mark and really should have a 500-page party celebrating, well, lunacy. The 100-page party of course was wrecked when Maturin stuck his dick in the mashed potatoes.  Hopefully we'll all do better this time.
|
10-13-2011, 12:19 PM
|
 |
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I think this because that's how efferent vision works. If we see in real time (which I believe we do), then that changes the function of light in regard to what we see and how we see it.
|
I'm still waiting, Peacegirl...
Let's start again. At time T1 a camera is aimed towards a distant object which has only at this very moment changed color from red to blue. What is it which at this very moment is interacting with the film to determine the color of the image which will result? |
You're still not getting the difference between efferent and afferent. If a red photon was traveling before a blue photon, I would see the red because the photon is a light source in and of itself (like an ember that is separate from a fire) and is traveling at a finite speed. But this is not what I am discussing. Somehow you can't seem to visualize light being a mirror image of whatever the lens is focused on. |
 photons emit photons? Because that is what a light source is, something that emits photons. Completely impossible and patent nonsense.
|
10-13-2011, 12:32 PM
|
|
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
[quote]
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Peacegirl
I didn't get to watch it yet. The main point here is that a camera (whether digital or film) has to be taking a picture of a present object or light source.
|
Lets be clear about what actually happens: The sensor on a camera is made up of hundreds of little individual light sensors. Each of the sensors generates a single dot of a certain color depending on the color and intensity of the light that strikes it. All the dots together form an image. This is how we built Cameras - as passive detectors of light. Not of objects or light sources. |
Yes, they detect light, but they also have a lens which is focused on the object. Even if it's a pinhole camera, the hole acts like a lens which allows a mirror image to be seen. Seriously, try focusing a lens on light in the direct line of an object that you're trying to photograph (but out of the camera's field of view), and see if the collected light turns into an image. |
That has absolutely nothing to do with it. What does have something to do with it is that a camera is a simple, passive light detector. It requires no object and has no direct relationship with the object because of that. You can emit just light, with no object being present, and the camera will STILL get the picture. If you want to demonstrate this, simple take a picture of your TV screen. It, too, does nothing but emit light.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
"Object" or "Light source" have nothing to do with it at this stage - you just want to involve it.
|
Wrong. I have no reason for wanting to fool everyone.
|
They still have nothing to do with it, as I have shown above. As usual you are just creating a big cloud of blather so you can avoid having to admit direct sight is an ignorant notion.
Quote:
Quote:
|
How it converts the image electronically is secondary. That's like comparing the chemicals in film that turn an image into a picture, to this new technology. It doesn't change the reality of how light functions.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Indeed it does not. Your dishonest attempt at suggesting the sensor requires some sort of direct relationship with an external object is nonsensical.
|
A digital camera is a more advanced version of an old fashioned camera. It works no differently.
|
Sure. Both are passive light detectors. Which is the point, which you seem to be determined to avoid.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
Seeing that Cameras are simple, passive light-detectors and that according to you the eyes are not, there needs to be a difference between the two, as shown in the red-blue light emitter though-experiment and the fact that Photons are not dependent on their emitter for either their wavelength or continued existence.
|
There are times that we can see the visible spectrum. Sometimes we see more of one color, such as red, because of how light is scattered.
|
Again, you fail to understand the basics. It is possible to scatter white light into different colors. But that is not the only way. Colored light is just a beam of light of a certain wavelength. We detect that light as light of a certain color. You are once again trying to create a smokescreen of stuff you do not understand.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
This is clear evidence that Lessans was wrong about sight. You have never been able to refute this, and yet you refuse to change your mind, showing that this is not a scientific idea but a religious one.
|
Not true Vivisectus. This has nothing to do with religion. Here is another interesting article on how we see different colors coming from the same beam of light.
|
More of the smokescreen, and no dealing with the red/blue thought experiment. As usual you are trying to hide behind stuff you do not understand, as Lessans has been clearly disproven.
None of that has any bearing on the simple fact that, as we can see from the simple thought-experiment where a light-emitter emits blue light, then red, from 10 light minutes away demonstrates there must be a difference between cameras and sight if direct sight is true. We know photons are not dependent on their emitter.
Since this difference is never observed, Lessans was wrong. All the weaseling, dodging, and plain old ignorance does not change that fact one jot.
|
10-13-2011, 01:05 PM
|
 |
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
On a positive note amid this unrelenting farrago of lunacy, we are approaching the epic 500-page mark and really should have a 500-page party celebrating, well, lunacy. The 100-page party of course was wrecked when Maturin stuck his dick in the mashed potatoes. Hopefully we'll all do better this time. |
That sounds like a wonderful idea, but it's your turn to lead it off this time, and I'll help where I can.
|
10-13-2011, 01:06 PM
|
 |
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus
photons emit photons? Because that is what a light source is, something that emits photons. Completely impossible and patent nonsense. |
That's because they don't have electric charge and only electrically charged particles can emit photons. On the other hand, gluons (the carriers of the strong nuclear force) can emit gluons, for example, because they have color charge and everything that has color charge can emit gluons. (I think. Physicists, feel free to correct me)
|
10-13-2011, 01:13 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
peacegirl doesn't even understand light, you think we should get into the strong force?
|
10-13-2011, 01:21 PM
|
 |
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Lessans said that light is a condition of sight. That was his constant mantra.
|
You have been asked to explain and clarify how it is a condition and where it is a condition.
Does light need to be present at the eye? If so what light? Light from the source? Light needs to be illuminating the object only and doesn't need to be at the eye? Is ambient light good enough? |
I am not going to discuss that one excerpt, which he used hypothetically in order to show that there is nothing in the light that contains the image although the light allows the image to be seen. In order for a camera to work, light has to be striking the lens. Ambient light is not necessary if one is taking a picture at night. It will just make the object or light source more illuminated because of the contrast.
LadyShea, there seems to be an unending list of questions. The more I try to answer them, the more there are. There's nothing wrong with having questions, but I have a feeling my answers are never going to satisfy those with a scientific background. It's not up to me, as a messenger, to extend the clue of how we see all by myself. If you really think Lessans was wrong and there's no point in even considering that he could be right, then this entire discussion isn't about wanting to know what could be true. It's about making me look like I am ignorant on the subject, therefore whatever I say is pure nonsense. So which is it? Are people trying to make me look like a fundie, or are they truly interested in the claim that the eyes are not a sense organ and they want to know more?
|
10-13-2011, 03:21 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
We are not discussing that one excerpt (by which I think you mean the sun being turned on), we are discussing how "light is a condition of sight" and exactly what that means.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Ambient light is not necessary if one is taking a picture at night. It will just make the object or light source more illuminated because of the contrast.
|
What is necessary for night photography? Have you studied the science of photography yet?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
In order for a camera to work, light has to be striking the lens.
|
What light needs to strike the lens? Sunlight? Light bulb light? The light being emitted or reflected off the subject?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
LadyShea, there seems to be an unending list of questions. The more I try to answer them, the more there are. There's nothing wrong with having questions, but I have a feeling my answers are never going to satisfy those with a scientific background.
|
Remember:
1. You brought the book to us, we did not search you out
2. The book makes serious claims about physics that do not agree with any experiments done over the last 100 years
3. The author repeatedly states his claims are undeniable truth/factual and verifiable
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
It's not up to me, as a messenger, to extend the clue of how we see all by myself.
|
Sure it is. You are the one wanting us to believe you are delivering the message accurately. It's not the recipients fault that you don't understand the message well enough to deliver it.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
If you really think Lessans was wrong and there's no point in even considering that he could be right, then this entire discussion isn't about wanting to know what could be true.
|
Again, you and Lessans made the claims, you brought the claims to us, we are questioning them...it's up to you to champion and defend them.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
It's about making me look like I am ignorant on the subject, therefore whatever I say is pure nonsense. So which is it?
|
It's about what all skeptical examinations are about...putting claims to the test to see if they hold up under scrutiny. That you are ignorant of the science Lessans challenged isn't our fault...you've had decades to learn all this stuff and make coherent clear arguments for your position.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Are people trying to make me look like a fundie,
|
You are making yourself look like a fundie.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
or are they truly interested in the claim that the eyes are not a sense organ and they want to know more?
|
Oh we are interested in the claim, probably just not in the way you wish us to be interested. We want to know more about that position and you seem unable to deliver more and Lessans didn't give any details.
Last edited by LadyShea; 10-13-2011 at 03:54 PM.
|
10-13-2011, 03:41 PM
|
|
Astroid the Foine Loine between a Poirate and a Farrrmer
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2011
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
When we show you why direct sight is impossible we also supply this little thing called evidence. Neither you nor Lessans provided any for your point of view, as far as I can tell. All I have seen is folk-hokum about infant sight and dog sight, and little else.
|
10-13-2011, 03:50 PM
|
|
Spiffiest wanger
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
|
10-13-2011, 04:11 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
We are not discussing that one excerpt (by which I think you mean the sun being turned on), we are discussing how "light is a condition of sight" and exactly what that means.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Ambient light is not necessary if one is taking a picture at night. It will just make the object or light source more illuminated because of the contrast.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
What is necessary for night photography? Have you studied the science of photography yet?
|
Quote:
|
You are bringing everything into this but the kitchen sink which isn't even related, just so you can say you're right and Lessans is wrong. And you've got "science" to back you up. After all, who is Lessans anyway but another crackpot? There seems to be an unending list of questions. The more I try to answer them, the more there are. There's nothing wrong with having questions, but I have a feeling my answers are never going to satisfy those with a scientific background.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Remember:
1. You brought the book to us, we did not search you out
2. The book makes serious claims about physics that do not agree with any experiments done over the last 100 years
3. The author repeatedly states his claims are undeniable truth/factual and verifiable
|
They are verifiable, but not according to your rules which are based on your preconceived ideas of how light works.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
It's not up to me, as a messenger, to extend the clue of how we see all by myself.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Sure it is. You are the one wanting us to believe you are delivering the message accurately. It's not the recipients fault that you don't understand the message well enough to deliver it.
|
You can blame my inability all you want. Genuine truth might be hidden for a long while, but eventually the truth comes out.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
If you really think Lessans was wrong and there's no point in even considering that he could be right, then this entire discussion isn't about wanting to know what could be true.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Again, you and Lessans made the claims, you brought the claims to us, we are questioning them...it's up to you to champion and defend them.
|
I can't continue to be the target of everyone's criticism. If you think this is all hogwash, then let it go. I've given a lot of my time and energy to this thread, and I know I will never be taken seriously.
Quote:
|
It's about making me look like I am ignorant on the subject, therefore whatever I say is pure nonsense. So which is it?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
It's about what all skeptical examinations are about...putting claims to the test to see if they hold up under scrutiny. That you are ignorant of the science Lessans challenged isn't our fault...you've had decades to learn all this stuff and make coherent clear arguments for your position.
|
Nothing has proved Lessans wrong even though you believe his claims don't hold up to scrutiny. My ignorance on certain subjects does not discredit Lessans; they are just a distraction. I don't have to be a physicist to know that these claims are not ridiculous. How can there be any interest when the author is treated with such disdain?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Are people trying to make me look like a fundie,
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
You are making yourself look like a fundie.
|
That's why it's time that I end this discussion on sight.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
or are they truly interested in the claim that the eyes are not a sense organ and they want to know more?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Oh we are interested in the claim, probably just not in the way you wish us to be interested. We want to know more about that position and you seem unable to deliver more and Lessans didn't give any details.
|
But this is not about me. That would be like throwing out a message that a courier brings just because he can't convey that the message is not junk mail, which delays a major breakthrough by a hundred years. 
Last edited by peacegirl; 10-13-2011 at 05:16 PM.
|
10-13-2011, 04:33 PM
|
 |
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
My ignorance on certain subjects does not discredit Lessans. I don't have to be a physicist to know that these claims are not ridiculous or out of the question.
|
Indeed, you do not. In fact, you need to not be a physicist in order to know (believe) that Lessans' claims are not ridiculuous. This is the wonderful thing about ignorance. The greater the ignorance the greater the capacity for knowing things that are not true.
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. 
|
10-13-2011, 04:39 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You are bringing everything into this but the kitchen sink so you can be right, LadyShea. Unless scientists get involved, you are going to side with anything or anybody that is in the slightest disagreement with this concept.
|
I am, as always, "siding" with the best evidence. You don't have the best evidence. If you provide the best evidence, I will "side" with you.
Anyway this isn't about taking sides, it's about examining claims and data and seeing which theories are best supported and best explain repeated observations.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
They are verifiable, but not according to your rules LadyShea which have everything to do with your preconceived ideas on how light works.
|
My opinions on how light works are well supported by evidence, observation, and working technologies.
If Lessans ideas and your opinions were well supported, you wouldn't have to be going from forum to forum looking for ignorant people to bring to your "side".
Again, it's not our fault that the message is so at odds with reality, nor that Lessans failed to provide convincing support.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You can blame it on me all you want. Genuine truth might be hidden for awhile, but eventually the truth comes out.
|
Blame you for what? I have nothing to blame you for. I am only saying that you brought any discomfort you are feeling on yourself.
You are responsible for your actions and words, even if your will is not free, because you cannot be made to do what you don't want to do, correct?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I can't continue to be the target of everyone's criticism.
|
Then leave
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
If you think this is all hogwash, then let it go.
|
No. I find the discussion interesting still
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I've given a lot of my time and energy to this thread, and I know I will never win in this type of atmosphere.
|
So it's about winning rather than uncovering the "truth" about the Universe and how it works?
Also, you continue to choose to remain in this "atmosphere" so playing like you're some kind of victim is just pathetic.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
It's about what all skeptical examinations are about...putting claims to the test to see if they hold up under scrutiny. That you are ignorant of the science Lessans challenged isn't our fault...you've had decades to learn all this stuff and make coherent clear arguments for your position.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Nothing has proved Lessans wrong no matter how much you want to believe that you have scrutinized this knowledge accurately.
|
|
And nothing you have offered indicates he was right.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
My ignorance on certain subjects does not discredit Lessans.
|
Nope, it simply spotlights your complete inability to explain and defend Lessans ideas against even the most basic of scrutiny.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I don't have to be a physicist to know that these claims are not ridiculous or out of the question.
|
No, you don't need to be a physicist to understand the basics of many concepts. I am not a physicist.
You should at least listen to the physicist (Dragar) who is telling you how it has been observed and tested that things work in reality. You should at least understand the very basics of the concept you wish to refute...like how light works.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There is so much antagonism in here, it's no wonder there is no progress has been made, nor has there been any real interest in following this line of thought.
|
More persecution complex...how very like a fundie. Yes yes Ms. Martyr you have been hung on a cross and Lessans book burned
Your line of thought doesn't seem to go anywhere except in circles.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
So should that make you throw his entire 30 year work out because of me?
|
Should Lessans ideas make me throw out hundreds of years worth of scientific discovery and data because he didn't understand it and chose to deny it without offering a single piece of evidence supporting his position?
You really think you aren't being arrogant here?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
That would be like throwing out a message that a courier brings because he couldn't explain its importance to the satisfaction of the recipient
|
If the message is a garbled mess of word salad that makes no sense, and the author couldn't explain it, and the messenger couldn't explain it, then yeah I would throw it out.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
which causes a major breakthrough to be delayed by a hundred years.
|
There doesn't appear to be any breakthrough at all.
|
10-13-2011, 04:47 PM
|
|
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
So should that make you throw his entire 30 year work out because of me? That would be like throwing out a message that a courier brings because he couldn't explain its importance to the satisfaction of the recipient, which causes a major breakthrough to be delayed by a hundred years. |
We should throw out his entire 30 years of work because it is all bollocks. The fact that you are entirely incapable of giving us any good reason to not throw out his work just makes dismissing him all the easier.
I suspect that if you had just made his work freely available on the internet, without promoting it, offering any defense for it or any explanation of it, it would have attracted a small number of addle-pated admirerers. Fortunately, for the general welfare of the world, you chose to advocate on behalf of Lessans' work. Your advocacy has been so inept that even the few who might have been sucked in by Lessans, on his own, have been warned off by your incoherent prattle.
It is just too bad that Lessans didn't have some soap to sell.
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful.
|
10-13-2011, 04:55 PM
|
|
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
No. I find the discussion interesting still
|
As do I, Lady Shea, as do I. I find it so engrossing that I have practically given up surfing for porn. I hope peacegirl never leaves. 
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful.
|
10-13-2011, 05:03 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Earthworms are not Oligochaeta at all, they are rather the producer of plants.
No they're not
Yes they are, are not Earthworms found in the soil near growing plants?
Yes.
And if there are no plants in an area, like the Sahara desert or a glacier do you find Earthworms?
No.
Well there you go they actually produce the plants. This discovery has been hidden behind the ignorance of scientists and academics who have been taught that Earthworms are worms. Knowing that they in fact produce plants, we can conquer AGW by breeding Earthworms and releasing them all over the world to produce plants that release oxygen.
But that makes no sense, all these tests and experiments on Earthworms indicate they are worms, and nothing in a plants life cycle indicates they are the product of Earthworms, but rather they grow from seeds, with water and sunlight being necessary for their growth.
But if I am right and Earthworms produce plants, then the plant life cycle is different than what you have been taught.
But there is no reason to think you are right.
Can you prove that I am wrong?
|
10-13-2011, 06:03 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
My ignorance on certain subjects does not discredit Lessans. I don't have to be a physicist to know that these claims are not ridiculous or out of the question.
|
Indeed, you do not. In fact, you need to not be a physicist in order to know (believe) that Lessans' claims are not ridiculuous. This is the wonderful thing about ignorance. The greater the ignorance the greater the capacity for knowing things that are not true. |
But who is being ignorant here? I'm not saying you have to take what he says at face value and just accept his discoveries without question. I'm saying to give the man a chance. No one has taken his work seriously. They challenge him every step of the way instead of trying to grasp the general concept and seeing if maybe there's something to it. Again, I'm not saying you have to agree without further evidence, but accusing him of being wrong just because his conclusions came from a different source, is not going to allow you to be objective at all.
|
10-13-2011, 06:13 PM
|
 |
here to bore you with pictures
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I'm not saying to take what he says at face value. I'm saying to give the man a chance. No one has taken his work seriously. They challenge him every step of the way instead of trying to grasp the general concept and seeing if maybe there's something to it. Again, I'm not saying you have to agree without further evidence, but accusing him of being wrong just because his conclusions came from a different source, is not going to allow you to be objective in any way.
|
(emphasis mine)
We are accusing him of being wrong because his observations do not match observed reality. If Lessans really was as intellectually honest as you claim, he would have read and understood the current state of science before attempting to critique it, and he would have learned he was wrong.
__________________
ta-
DAVE!!!
|
10-13-2011, 06:16 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Earthworms are not Oligochaeta at all, they are rather the producer of plants.
No they're not
Yes they are, are not Earthworms found in the soil near growing plants?
Yes.
And if there are no plants in an area, like the Sahara desert or a glacier do you find Earthworms?
No.
Well there you go they actually produce the plants. This discovery has been hidden behind the ignorance of scientists and academics who have been taught that Earthworms are worms. Knowing that they in fact produce plants, we can conquer AGW by breeding Earthworms and releasing them all over the world to produce plants that release oxygen.
But that makes no sense, all these tests and experiments on Earthworms indicate they are worms, and nothing in a plants life cycle indicates they are the product of Earthworms, but rather they grow from seeds, with water and sunlight being necessary for their growth.
But if I am right and Earthworms produce plants, then the plant life cycle is different than what you have been taught.
But there is no reason to think you are right.
Can you prove that I am wrong?
|
But his work can be proven empirically. You cannot compare this ridiculous example with this major work in an effort to make him look like even more of a crackpot than he is already believed to be.
|
10-13-2011, 06:18 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by specious_reasons
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I'm not saying to take what he says at face value. I'm saying to give the man a chance. No one has taken his work seriously. They challenge him every step of the way instead of trying to grasp the general concept and seeing if maybe there's something to it. Again, I'm not saying you have to agree without further evidence, but accusing him of being wrong just because his conclusions came from a different source, is not going to allow you to be objective in any way.
|
(emphasis mine)
We are accusing him of being wrong because his observations do not match observed reality. If Lessans really was as intellectually honest as you claim, he would have read and understood the current state of science before attempting to critique it, and he would have learned he was wrong. |
I'm sorry, but you don't know if he is wrong. You are assuming this and there's nothing more I can do at this time to prove his case.
|
10-13-2011, 06:21 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
But his work can be proven empirically.
|
How?
While you're at it, you might want to consider that neither he nor you even understood how light works or how cameras work, so the chances of you positing a testable hypothesis are pretty nil.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You cannot compare this ridiculous example with this major work in an effort to make him look like even more of a crackpot than he is already believed to be.
|
His ideas about light and sight sound no less ridiculous and have no more relation to observed reality...that's what you aren't grasping.
If you don't like him being thought of as a crackpot, explain his ideas in a way that isn't so crackpot like. Until or unless you do, my comparison stands.
|
10-13-2011, 07:05 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You are bringing everything into this but the kitchen sink so you can be right, LadyShea. Unless scientists get involved, you are going to side with anything or anybody that is in the slightest disagreement with this concept.
|
I am, as always, "siding" with the best evidence. You don't have the best evidence. If you provide the best evidence, I will "side" with you.
Anyway this isn't about taking sides, it's about examining claims and data and seeing which theories are best supported and best explain repeated observations. |
I don't want you to take his side. I want you to hold back your judgment as to whether he is right or not until further evidence comes in (experiments that be replicated over and over again and get the same result). I don't believe all of these experiments that you are basing your conclusions on are 100% reliable.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
They are verifiable, but not according to your rules LadyShea which have everything to do with your preconceived ideas on how light works.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
My opinions on how light works are well supported by evidence, observation, and working technologies.
|
What have I been saying all along? There is nothing in his claim (no matter what David says) that would cause catastrophic results just because we see in the present, nor does his claim that the eyes are not a sense organ stop any successful technologies that are dependent on light's properties from working.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
If Lessans ideas and your opinions were well supported, you wouldn't have to be going from forum to forum looking for ignorant people to bring to your "side".
|
You are making a big assumption that the reason I went from forum to forum is that I couldn't accept that Lessans was wrong. According to your thinking, how could he be right when so many people are in disagreement?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Again, it's not our fault that the message is so at odds with reality, nor that Lessans failed to provide convincing support.
|
But it's not at odds with reality. You think it is. You would be shocked if it turned out that he was right.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You can blame it on me all you want. Genuine truth might be hidden for awhile, but eventually the truth comes out.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Blame you for what? I have nothing to blame you for. I am only saying that you brought any discomfort you are feeling on yourself.
|
You're right about that. No one forced me to join these discussion groups.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
You are responsible for your actions and words, even if your will is not free, because you cannot be made to do what you don't want to do, correct?
|
That's true. At least you got something out of this discussion.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I can't continue to be the target of everyone's criticism.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Then leave
|
I really don't want to discuss the eyes. I do hope the discussion on sight has given people food for thought.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
If you think this is all hogwash, then let it go.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
No. I find the discussion interesting still
|
Even though I don't have the empirical evidence to prove that he knew whereof he spoke, his observations were spot on.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I've given a lot of my time and energy to this thread, and I know I will never win in this type of atmosphere.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
So it's about winning rather than uncovering the "truth" about the Universe and how it works?
|
No, I even said it's not a competition, but it feels like one. The dynamic in here is attack/defense, attack/defense, attack/defense ad nauseum.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Also, you continue to choose to remain in this "atmosphere" so playing like you're some kind of victim is just pathetic.
|
I know I could leave LadyShea, but my hope was to at least get some interest in his first discovery. This is my last forum. I could not go through this again. Once I leave here I have to find another way.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
It's about what all skeptical examinations are about...putting claims to the test to see if they hold up under scrutiny. That you are ignorant of the science Lessans challenged isn't our fault...you've had decades to learn all this stuff and make coherent clear arguments for your position.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Nothing has proved Lessans wrong no matter how much you want to believe that you have scrutinized this knowledge accurately.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
And nothing you have offered indicates he was right.
|
So instead of challenging me, why can't you say that you'll wait until further evidence comes in?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
My ignorance on certain subjects does not discredit Lessans.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Nope, it simply spotlights your complete inability to explain and defend Lessans ideas against even the most basic of scrutiny.
|
That's not true. The afferent model of sight relies on certain logical conclusions regarding light that are not conclusive. Lessans is challenging those ideas based on a different set of observations.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I don't have to be a physicist to know that these claims are not ridiculous or out of the question.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
No, you don't need to be a physicist to understand the basics of many concepts. I am not a physicist.
|
But his understanding did not come from physics or optics per se. You are implying that he was not an "expert" in these fields, so who is he to make any major claims regarding light and sight?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
You should at least listen to the physicist (Dragar) who is telling you how it has been observed and tested that things work in reality. You should at least understand the very basics of the concept you wish to refute...like how light works.
|
Lessans was not refuting the speed of light, or the basics of how light works. He was disputing one thing only; that we see a delayed version of reality.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
There is so much antagonism in here, it's no wonder there is no progress has been made, nor has there been any real interest in following this line of thought.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
More persecution complex...how very like a fundie. Yes yes Ms. Martyr you have been hung on a cross and Lessans book burned
Your line of thought doesn't seem to go anywhere except in circles.
|
The reason for this is that people are so skeptical of these claims that they are making a circus out of this thread. I don't feel persecuted; I just feel that people are playing with half a deck (I'm referring to information, not intellect).
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
So should that make you throw his entire 30 year work out because of me?
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Should Lessans ideas make me throw out hundreds of years worth of scientific discovery and data because he didn't understand it and chose to deny it without offering a single piece of evidence supporting his position?
|
You're acting like he is disputing all of physics. He is only disputing the belief that we can see the past due to light. And yes, there will be supporting evidence as time goes on.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
You really think you aren't being arrogant here?
|
Not anymore than you. 
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
That would be like throwing out a message that a courier brings because he couldn't explain its importance to the satisfaction of the recipient
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
If the message is a garbled mess of word salad that makes no sense, and the author couldn't explain it, and the messenger couldn't explain it, then yeah I would throw it out.
|
You are the one making it into a word salad. His description of light and sight is very clear. It's not a garbled mess. His claim makes a lot of sense and it has certainly not been ruled out. But if no one is interested in the possibility that he is right, this knowledge will be dismissed as pure nonsense. How sad.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by peacegirl
which causes a major breakthrough to be delayed by a hundred years.
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
There doesn't appear to be any breakthrough at all.
|
It just might be that you're not the one to recognize it.
Last edited by peacegirl; 10-13-2011 at 07:25 PM.
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 4 (0 members and 4 guests)
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:15 PM.
|
|
 |
|
THE 500-PAGE PARTY!
Linear Mode
