A revolution in thought - Page 707

naturalist.atheist · #**17651** 05-29-2012, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wow, it's amazing how quickly you dismiss 35 years of work, without giving it a second thought.

What's more amazing is that Lessans ignored hunderds of years of solid, evidence based science.

Only hundreds? I would say that Lessans systematically ignored at least a million man years of science. And since Lessans "published" there has been many million more man years of science. Lessans ignorance was broad and deep. And its a shame, because to spend all that time and learn so very little when he appeared to be so interested is sad.

davidm · #**17652** 05-29-2012, 12:53 AM

And so we beat on, boats against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.

:rowboat:

specious_reasons · #**17653** 05-29-2012, 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wow, it's amazing how quickly you dismiss 35 years of work, without giving it a second thought.

What's more amazing is that Lessans ignored hunderds of years of solid, evidence based science.

Only hundreds? I would say that Lessans systematically ignored at least a million man years of science. And since Lessans "published" there has been many million more man years of science. Lessans ignorance was broad and deep. And its a shame, because to spend all that time and learn so very little when he appeared to be so interested is sad.

Oh - agreed. I was thinking in terms of the fact that Fizeaus' experiment was 100 years before Lessans, and Rømer's observations of the moon of Jupiter were ~300 years before Lessans. Not to mention the discoveries in biology 100s of years before Lessans had his ideas.

...and it is sad, Amazingly so, and his shame is paraded in public by his deluded, dutiful daughter. :sadcheer:

thedoc · #**17654** 05-29-2012, 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wow, it's amazing how quickly you dismiss 35 years of work, without giving it a second thought.

35 years of wasted effort and he still couldn't get it right. I don't see how over a year here and 9 years on other forums is dismissing it quickly. It really seems that a lot of people have given it a lot more time and consideration than it diserves. Once you get used to his convoluted and twisted manner of writing, what he writes is easy to figure out and see how unrelated his ideas are. He throws a lot of unconnected ideas together and claims proof of his conclusion.
His thinking is like a billiard shot where several different balls are struck in succession to drive the object ball into the pocket. The problem with the book is that he 'scratched'.

naturalist.atheist · #**17655** 05-29-2012, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Reading comprehension still isn't your strong suit, is it Peacegirl? I said that you often say the opposite of what you mean, so if LadyShea is saying the opposite of what you are saying then she's probably saying exactly what you really mean. And you reply by saying that this is exactly what you just said and giving me a dictionary definition of 'antithesis'. You sure are an idiot. That can't really be treated, but your mental illness can.

You are a poster child for shooting yourself in the foot. Until you change your attitude, you will be ignored. So talk to yourself Spacemonkey and have a party of one! :yup:

Threatening to ignore me doesn't work very well when you reply to me again in your very next post, only 7 minutes later. It only provides more compelling evidence of your mental illness and dysfunction.

That's because I'm not at my breaking point, but it's comin'. :popcorn:

Get down everybody... SHE'S GONNA BLOW!

Angakuk · #**17656** 05-29-2012, 02:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't win here if you are steadfast that no matter what Lessans says, you automatically think he's wrong.

I sincerely doubt that anyone here thinks that the things Lessans says are wrong just because he said them. Rather, they think the things he says are wrong because they are wrong.

But it's gotten to the point where the minute I say Lessans said something, they react impulsively, without batting an eye.

Another unsupported claim. You have no way of knowing how much thought someone has put into a post.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It is not reasonable if you are critiquing things that have no bearing on the major concepts. If you want to be critical, be critical of what's important, not the things you bring up (which have no bearing on the validity of the claims) just so you can cause suspicion in people's minds.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The big picture is made up of many little pieces. It is perfectly reasonable to critique those little pieces in the process of critiquing the big picture. If enough of the component parts are defective, then it is reasonable to conclude that the whole is defective as well.

Yes, if she was truly pointing out a flaw in the premises, but she's doing no such thing. LadyShea is bringing up trivialities which have nothing to do with the major concepts. She is so anal, she thinks that the things she is pointing out actually negate the entire book. I'm sure she's gloating with pride at what a wonderful sleuth she is, and how her imagined red flags actually mean anything. :doh:

Lessans' mistakes, even the small ones, inasmuch as they reflect on his competence and credibility, are anything but trivial. Molecules of light, trillions of babies, etc. all provide reasons for questioning that competence and credibility.

Angakuk · #**17657** 05-29-2012, 02:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

BTW how did the sermon go on Sunday, I'd be interested in reading one of them sometime. Sometimes I am making a few notes during the sermon, usually about the day's message, but yesterday I had something different on my mind, but the sermon still stimulated ideas about it.

The sermon went fine. I didn't fall asleep during it, not even a little bit. As for your reading one of them, there is nothing to read. I work without a net.

Angakuk · #**17658** 05-29-2012, 02:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is it called when you knowingly make a false statement?

Fiction

davidm · #**17659** 05-29-2012, 03:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

BTW how did the sermon go on Sunday, I'd be interested in reading one of them sometime. Sometimes I am making a few notes during the sermon, usually about the day's message, but yesterday I had something different on my mind, but the sermon still stimulated ideas about it.

The sermon went fine. I didn't fall asleep during it, not even a little bit.

Yeah, but what about your listeners? :grin:

thedoc · #**17660** 05-29-2012, 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's because I'm not at my breaking point, but it's comin'. :popcorn:

Get down everybody... SHE'S GONNA BLOW!

Oh, please, please, not me, not me!

thedoc · #**17661** 05-29-2012, 03:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

BTW how did the sermon go on Sunday, I'd be interested in reading one of them sometime. Sometimes I am making a few notes during the sermon, usually about the day's message, but yesterday I had something different on my mind, but the sermon still stimulated ideas about it.

The sermon went fine. I didn't fall asleep during it, not even a little bit.

Yeah, but what about your listeners? :grin:

Walls don't fall asleep.

thedoc · #**17662** 05-29-2012, 04:00 AM

[quote=Angakuk;1064711]

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

BTW how did the sermon go on Sunday, I'd be interested in reading one of them sometime. [/quote'

As for your reading one of them, there is nothing to read. I work without a net.

There's a word for that, but right now I can't think of it. (Or too polite to say it.)

Angakuk · #**17663** 05-29-2012, 04:11 AM

The word you are looking for thedoc is "inspired".

Angakuk · #**17664** 05-29-2012, 04:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

BTW how did the sermon go on Sunday, I'd be interested in reading one of them sometime. Sometimes I am making a few notes during the sermon, usually about the day's message, but yesterday I had something different on my mind, but the sermon still stimulated ideas about it.

The sermon went fine. I didn't fall asleep during it, not even a little bit.

Yeah, but what about your listeners? :grin:

Well, if they are listening then they aren't sleeping. :doh:

peacegirl · #**17665** 05-29-2012, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's not defamation of either type. Critiques of written work are understood and assumed to be opinion, and therefore not false claims and not criminal, but well within free speech rights.

Critiquing is one thing, but falsely accusing him of being a liar is a form of defamation. You are free to speak whatever you want. We're not talking about criminality here. We're talking about what is morally right.

It was not a false accusation. What he wrote was false, and he wrote it knowing it was false. What is it called when you knowingly make a false statement? It's called lying.

And, defamation, libel, and slander are pretty exclusively legal terms.

It's so easy for someone to make something appear what it's not --- if that's their goal --- and that's exactly what you're doing LadyShea. Face the music and stop being self-righteous!

peacegirl · #**17666** 05-29-2012, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're never going to convince me that these calculations, however correct they may appear, are airtight until more empirical tests are done. There is obviously a conflict and if you are so positive that science has it right, then stop being so defensive and let's take a wait and see approach. :wink:

Why should we take a wait and see approach? NASA has landed remotely controlled spacecraft on Mars, accurately enough to show that its calculations are correct. How much more empirical evidence do you need?

How about Fizeau's experiment? That proved that we see in delayed time right here on Earth.

Lessans is wrong when it comes to vision - Lessans was conclusively proven wrong 100 years before his even wrote down his ideas.

Like most crackpots, he had some facile "proof" that threw out 100s of years of scientific discovery. Like most crackpots, he was wrong.

The only thing that's compelling about Lessans is how spectacular his wrongness was. The only thing compelling about you, peacegirl, is the object lesson on faith and delusion you represent.

White Nationalists could take a lesson on confirmation bias from you.

I'm not sure where Fizeau's experiment disproves efferent vision. He did an experiment that measured the speed of light, but that's different than seeing an object that is the result of light traveling through space and time. And calculating the landing of controlled spacecraft on Mars does not prove that we're seeing Mars in delayed time. I really don't want to get into this again. You can think whatever you want.

Of course Fizeau's experiment disproves real-time seeing. The experiment was able to measure the speed of light, precisely because the light was seen in delayed time. If real-time seeing had been true, the experiment would not have produced the results that it did. A kindergartner could understand this.

And yes, the Mars calculations prove precisely that. If we were seeing Mars in real time, then that red dot in the sky when the rocket is on the launch pad, the apparent position of Mars, would also be its REAL position. If that were the case, then the calculations NASA uses to hit the target would have to be adjusted to take into account the fact that the apparent position, and real position, were identical. Instead, they aim the rocket in such a way as to account for the difference between the apparent and the real positions. Thus, real time seeing is false, and cannot possibly be true.

I am saying that you can't assume that this difference in apparent and real positions is due to the time-light delay. It could be that we are correcting a mistake that was originally made in some other calculations. The point I'm making is that no matter how perfect this whole thing looks to you, Lessans had a different take and I believe his perceptions are just as compelling. So who is right? You can't just throw his observations out in order to avoid a showdown. And you can't just pretend that Lessans was a crackpot and call it a day. Only more empirical testing will prove who is right, even though you think there is no need for this.

peacegirl · #**17667** 05-29-2012, 01:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light has to be at the eye to see something, but the problem is that everyone thinks light has to travel to the eye in order to be interacting with it, or we're violating the laws of physics. According to efferent vision, the instant an object is in one's field of view, and it's bright enough to be seen, the light is at the eye because of how efferent vision works which is the complete opposite of the way afferent vision works. That's why he said light only needs to be surrounding the object for it to be seen.

Does light have to be at the eye, or does it only have to be surrounding the object? Which is it?

That's what I'm trying to tell you; the fact that light is surrounding the object, and the fact that the object is bright enough to be seen by the lens of a camera or eye, allows this interaction to occur. You are thinking in terms of photons traveling, and I'm coming from a completely different position. That's why there is no understanding whatsoever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And how did the light at the eye get there, if it never traveled there? ('Because of how efferent vision works' is not an answer. Neither is listing conditions that must be satisfied.)

The light didn't get there but the eyes did, so to speak. I don't mean the eyes actually traveled, but if the brain is looking out, through the eyes, as a window, it's a completely opposite phenomenon than the one you're basing your logic on.

LadyShea · #**17668** 05-29-2012, 01:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's so easy for someone to make something appear what it's not --- if that's their goal --- and that's exactly what you're doing LadyShea. Face the music and stop being self-righteous!

I didn't "make it appear" to be anything. This appears to be a set of false claims, and Lessans said it. Face the music that Lessans lied to make his points.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seymour Lessans

Our scientists, becoming enthralled over the discovery that light
travels approximately 186,000 miles a second and taking for granted
that 5 senses was equally scientific, made the statement (which my
friend referred to) and still exists in our encyclopedias that if we could
sit on the star Rigel with a very powerful telescope focused on the
earth we would just be able to see the ships of Columbus reaching
America for the very first time. A former science teacher who taught
this to her students as if it were an absolute fact responded, “I am sure
Columbus would just be arriving; are you trying to tell me that this is
not a scientific fact?”
Again my reply was, “Are you positive because you were told this,
or positive because you, yourself, saw the relations revealing this
truth? And if you are still positive, will you put your right hand on
the chopping block to show me how positive you really are?”
“I am not that positive, but this is what I was taught.”

Spacemonkey · #**17669** 05-29-2012, 01:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's so easy for someone to make something appear what it's not --- if that's their goal --- ...

Then why can't you make Lessans' ideas appear plausible (to anyone but yourself)?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Face the music and stop being self-righteous!

Face the music and accept that you have an unhealthy addiction to promoting material you can neither explain nor defend, and which you have accepted on pure faith that you will not allow yourself to question.

Spacemonkey · #**17670** 05-29-2012, 01:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I am saying that you can't assume that this difference in apparent and real positions is due to the time-light delay...

If Lessans was right, then there wouldn't be any difference between real and apparent positions. So it doesn't matter what we assume it is due to. If it exists at all, then Lessans is wrong.

LadyShea · #**17671** 05-29-2012, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're never going to convince me that these calculations, however correct they may appear, are airtight until more empirical tests are done. There is obviously a conflict and if you are so positive that science has it right, then stop being so defensive and let's take a wait and see approach. :wink:

Why should we take a wait and see approach? NASA has landed remotely controlled spacecraft on Mars, accurately enough to show that its calculations are correct. How much more empirical evidence do you need?

How about Fizeau's experiment? That proved that we see in delayed time right here on Earth.

Lessans is wrong when it comes to vision - Lessans was conclusively proven wrong 100 years before his even wrote down his ideas.

Like most crackpots, he had some facile "proof" that threw out 100s of years of scientific discovery. Like most crackpots, he was wrong.

The only thing that's compelling about Lessans is how spectacular his wrongness was. The only thing compelling about you, peacegirl, is the object lesson on faith and delusion you represent.

White Nationalists could take a lesson on confirmation bias from you.

I'm not sure where Fizeau's experiment disproves efferent vision. He did an experiment that measured the speed of light, but that's different than seeing an object that is the result of light traveling through space and time. And calculating the landing of controlled spacecraft on Mars does not prove that we're seeing Mars in delayed time. I really don't want to get into this again. You can think whatever you want.

Of course Fizeau's experiment disproves real-time seeing. The experiment was able to measure the speed of light, precisely because the light was seen in delayed time. If real-time seeing had been true, the experiment would not have produced the results that it did. A kindergartner could understand this.

And yes, the Mars calculations prove precisely that. If we were seeing Mars in real time, then that red dot in the sky when the rocket is on the launch pad, the apparent position of Mars, would also be its REAL position. If that were the case, then the calculations NASA uses to hit the target would have to be adjusted to take into account the fact that the apparent position, and real position, were identical. Instead, they aim the rocket in such a way as to account for the difference between the apparent and the real positions. Thus, real time seeing is false, and cannot possibly be true.

I am saying that you can't assume that this difference in apparent and real positions is due to the time-light delay. It could be that we are correcting a mistake that was originally made in some other calculations.

Such as? If we saw in real time we would always see Mars where it actually is and only calculate for movement in it's orbit when sending spacecraft, but we account for movement PLUS apparent location due to light travel delay.

Quote:

The point I'm making is that no matter how perfect this whole thing looks to you, Lessans had a different take and I believe his perceptions are just as compelling. So who is right?

Did Lessans land a space probe on Mars? So, NASA wins in this case as most likely right.

Quote:

You can't just throw his observations out in order to avoid a showdown. And you can't just pretend that Lessans was a crackpot and call it a day. Only more empirical testing will prove who is right, even though you think there is no need for this.

Landing space probes on target on Mars is as empirical as it gets.

Spacemonkey · #**17672** 05-29-2012, 01:33 PM

You really are batshit insane. Your replies don't even come close to answering the simple questions you were replying to. They don't even make any kind of coherent sense whatsoever.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Does light have to be at the eye, or does it only have to be surrounding the object? Which is it?

That's what I'm trying to tell you; the fact that light is surrounding the object, and the fact that the object is bright enough to be seen by the lens of a camera or eye, allows this interaction to occur. You are thinking in terms of photons traveling, and I'm coming from a completely different position. That's why there is no understanding whatsoever.

So... Does light have to be at the eye, or does it only have to be surrounding the object? Which is it?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

And how did the light at the eye get there, if it never traveled there? ('Because of how efferent vision works' is not an answer. Neither is listing conditions that must be satisfied.)

The light didn't get there but the eyes did, so to speak. I don't mean the eyes actually traveled, but if the brain is looking out, through the eyes, as a window, it's a completely opposite phenomenon than the one you're basing your logic on.

The eyes got to where the eyes are, but didn't travel? WTF?

So... How did the light at the eye get there, if it never traveled there? ('Because of how efferent vision works' is not an answer. Neither is listing conditions that must be satisfied.)

naturalist.atheist · #**17673** 05-29-2012, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The point I'm making is that no matter how perfect this whole thing looks to you, Lessans had a different take and I believe his perceptions are just as compelling.

peacegirl, this is progress. You have now acknowledged that it is your "belief".

Quote:

So who is right? You can't just throw his observations out in order to avoid a showdown. And you can't just pretend that Lessans was a crackpot and call it a day. Only more empirical testing will prove who is right, even though you think there is no need for this.

This is where you mentally fall down. You assume that for the last several hundred years the things Lessans referred to in his book have not been extensively investigated. There are several tens of thousands of papers written and published. And the preponderance of evidence is in. Lessans was wrong.

naturalist.atheist · #**17674** 05-29-2012, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Landing space probes on target on Mars is as empirical as it gets.

At that point it is beyond empirical, it is engineering.

LadyShea · #**17675** 05-29-2012, 02:07 PM

peacegirl, do you realize NASA lost a 135 million dollar Mars orbiter to a miscalculation cause by the difference between the English and Metric systems? They were expecting Metric, it was in English, the probe went only 60 miles off course and disintegrated in Mars' atmosphere.

Do you think a miscalculation of the distance when we're talking millions of miles, as would be the case with the speed of light delay, wouldn't spell disaster?