A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

That's out of line thedoc

[thedoc]

Really, like no-one else was out of line telling her she was crazy, practicing medicine without a degree? I've said all along she's in it for the money, if that isn't whoreing what is it?

[thedoc]

It's only out of line because I said it, and not you, or one of the other 'Old Boys Club'. I'm not a long time member, so what, "Think what you like, and say what you think", or is that just for the privileged few?

[thedoc]

hypocrite
(1) A person who engages in the same behaviors he condemns others for.

(2) A person who professes certain ideals, but fails to live up to them.

If the shoe fits?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Really, like no-one else was out of line telling her she was crazy, practicing medicine without a degree? I've said all along she's in it for the money, if that isn't whoreing what is it?

It's misogynistic and therefore crosses a line, for me. Would you call a man who was "in it for the money" a whore?

You can say whatever you want and I can call you on it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Once again, you are clearly saying that light changes its properties when it comes into contact with matter that doesn't absorb it. And that light does not follow the laws of physics, specifically the Laws of Reflection.

Since this is the case:

Why do you keep insisting your model does not violate physics?
Why do you keep asserting your model does not require a change in the properties of light?


The retarded strawman is the part where you think that we assume that light carries or brings a pattern or image with it or that patterns or images get reflected. You know this.

Because light is reflected, but non-absorbed light which is the counterpart of the light that is absorbed is what allows the object to be revealed; it is not reflected although white light is in constant motion.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

If it turns out that Lessans was right I will gladly eat my words. Hell, I'll even eat my hat too. However, I am not rushing out to buy the steak sauce any time soon.

Well to at least give this book a fair chance, why don't you read it when I sell it on kindle? It won't cost much if that's an issue.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So give it up Angakuk, you're wrong in your analysis that he could have achieved more or done better. He achieved more than many Ph.D's. There's nothing magical about getting a formal education, as if it has some special power to make someone great. On the other hand, there's nothing that would stop a person from utilizing what he's learned from a formal education. I never said that there aren't a many great contributions to our world from people who went to college, but college isn't the end all, which is what you're implying. You are missing my whole point.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

At no time have I said, or implied, that college is the end all. I have merely pointed out that your original claim to know that Lessans would not have made his discovery had he gone to college is something that neither you or Lessans can know to be true.

None of us know how things would have worked out if we took a different path, but the chances of him going this route (which happened to be a combination of a lot of fortunate occurrences) would be slim. He even told me that if he had gone to college he probably would have been satisfied with the knowledge he was taught, and left it at that. He would have never desired to pursue his reading which took him much further.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

However, I do actually agree that if Lessans had gone to college he probably would not have made this discovery. If he had actually graduated from high school and college it is likely that in the process he would have learned enough so as to prevent him from making the mistakes that characterize his work. No guaranty mind you. There are plenty of well educated crackpots out running around.

You have no real reason for condemning him like this other than the disbelief that anyone could actually have a genuine discovery that can prevent war and crime. He didn't make any mistakes, in my humble opinion. So what mistakes are you talking about that characterize his work? His claim regarding the eyes? Or the fact that you believe that two choices being equally preferable prove that man can't move in the direction of greater satisfaction? Or the fact that you believe Lessans did not clarify what he meant when he said that nothing can make someone do anything against his will, because he didn't exclude any kind of external force? What is bothering you so much Angakuk?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...the irony is that the people participating think they are doing science a favor.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I don't think that anyone here thinks they are doing a science a favor. Some may think they are doing you a favor by engaging you, but I suspect that most of us are just having fun at your expense.

It's actually not at my expense because, as I said earlier, being here has forced me to slow down, and I caught mistakes I otherwise would not have.

[LadyShea]

You didn't answer my questions

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because light is reflected, but non-absorbed light which is the counterpart of the light that is absorbed is what allows the object to be revealed; it is not reflected although white light is in constant motion.

Once again, you are clearly saying that light changes its properties when it comes into contact with matter that doesn't absorb it (you are saying non-absorbed light has different properties than light or white light). And that light does not follow the laws of physics, specifically the Laws of Reflection.

Since this is the case:

Question 1: Why do you keep insisting your model does not violate physics?

Question 2: Why do you keep asserting your model does not require a change in the properties of light?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You didn't answer my questions

Once again, you are clearly saying that light changes its properties when it comes into contact with matter that doesn't absorb it. And that light does not follow the laws of physics, specifically the Laws of Reflection.

Since this is the case:

Question 1: Why do you keep insisting your model does not violate physics?

Question 2: Why do you keep asserting your model does not require a change in the properties of light?

But it doesn't change properties if you are looking at this from the perspective of the eyes and the fact that a mirror image is instant. The true travel time is not violated because light travels, but the image is seen. I can't explain this any better.

[LadyShea]

But it doesn't change properties (snipped irrelevant points)

You are saying non-absorbed light has different properties than light or white light in your model. That is a change in the properties of light according to physics, specifically optics. That means your model requires a change in the properties of light.

You are saying non-absorbed light with it's different properties doesn't get reflected, which all light has the same properties and can therefore be reflected according to the laws of physics. That is a violation of the laws of physics, specifically the laws of reflection. That means your model requires a change in the laws of physics.

Since this is the case:

Question 1: Why do you keep insisting your model does not violate physics?

Question 2: Why do you keep asserting your model does not require a change in the properties of light?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because light is reflected, but non-absorbed light which is the counterpart of the light that is absorbed is what allows the object to be revealed; it is not reflected although white light is in constant motion.

So what happens to this non-absorbed light that has hit an object but doesn't get reflected? (You've previously agreed that it does get reflected.)

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it doesn't change properties if you are looking at this from the perspective of the eyes and the fact that a mirror image is instant. The true travel time is not violated because light travels, but the image is seen. I can't explain this any better.

It is a property of light that when it hits an object it cannot pass through, and which does not absorb it, that it will be reflected. If you are denying this on your non-model then you are changing the properties of light.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It's misogynistic and therefore crosses a line, for me. Would you call a man who was "in it for the money" a whore?

You can say whatever you want and I can call you on it.

In the consulting industry, those that do it for the money are often called "hoews" and and those that manage them "pmps".

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So what happens to this non-absorbed light that has hit an object but doesn't get reflected? (You've previously agreed that it does get reflected.)

It is a property of light that when it hits an object it cannot pass through, and which does not absorb it, that it will be reflected. If you are denying this on your non-model then you are changing the properties of light.

Apologize, or I'm not answering you. Sorry.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

In the consulting industry, those that do it for the money are often called "hoews" and and those that manage them "pmps".

Oh really? I thought that those who were making money from their own sweat and brawn were helping to get the economy going. You are in a world of your own making.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh really? I thought that those who were making money from their own sweat and brawn were helping to get the economy going. You are in a world of your own making.

In a world of automation and mechanization, people who make their living by physical labor do not make much money unless they are performers of some kind. But I don't think paying professional athletes multi-million dollar salaries for their ability to score points in a game a good way to help the economy.

[thedoc]

I would think that in an economy, moving money is a good thing. You can argue that money going to one place or another is good, or not, but as long as it is moving, it is good for the economy.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are saying non-absorbed light has different properties than light or white light in your model. That is a change in the properties of light according to physics, specifically optics. That means your model requires a change in the properties of light.

You are saying non-absorbed light with it's different properties doesn't get reflected, which all light has the same properties and can therefore be reflected according to the laws of physics. That is a violation of the laws of physics, specifically the laws of reflection. That means your model requires a change in the laws of physics.

Since this is the case:

Question 1: Why do you keep insisting your model does not violate physics?

Question 2: Why do you keep asserting your model does not require a change in the properties of light?

Ladyshea, please don't start taking on Spacemonkey's mannerisms by repeating the same thing over and over again in the same exact way.

I just told you that white light travels and is constantly taking the place of old photons. When light strikes an object some gets absorbed which allows the object to be seen, but it's a misconception to think that non-absorbed light travels. Only the full spectrum of light travels.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

In a world of automation and mechanization, people who make their living by physical labor do not make much money unless they are performers of some kind. But I don't think paying professional athletes multi-million dollar salaries for their ability to score points in a game a good way to help the economy.

Regardless of whether you think it's a fair distribution of money for labor, the fact remains that spectator sports keep a lot of people working.

[davidm]

Speaking of sports, just think: One more page, and this retarded thread will number as many home runs as Hank Aaron hit.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Regardless of whether you think it's a fair distribution of money for labor, the fact remains that spectator sports keeps a lot of people working.

Well why stop there? Let's build bombs and blow up cities. It removes the competition, reduces the population, so more global resources for us, and it employs people.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Ladyshea, please don't start taking on Spacemonkey's mannerisms by repeating the same thing over and over again in the same exact way.

I just told you that white light travels and is constantly taking the place of old photons. When light strikes an object some gets absorbed which allows the object to be seen, but it's a misconception to think that non-absorbed light travels. Only the full spectrum of light travels.

Quit not answering the questions you are asked and I won't repeat my questions


Question 1: Why do you keep insisting your model does not violate physics when it clearly does?

Question 2: Why do you keep asserting your model does not require a change in the properties of light when it clearly does?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Well why stop there? Let's build bombs and blow up cities. It removes the competition, reduces the population, so more global resources for us, and it employs people.

Because blowing up cities for one's gain is not a means to an end that most people would find conscionable.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quit not answering the questions you are asked and I won't repeat my questions


Question 1: Why do you keep insisting your model does not violate physics when it clearly does?

Question 2: Why do you keep asserting your model does not require a change in the properties of light when it clearly does?

I answered them. Light is reflected, but images are not. You know what I mean by this, so call it a strawman all you want. Nothing is violated.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because blowing up cities for one's gain is not a means to an end that most people would find conscionable.

So paying billions to athletes to play a game that most would play for free is a better way to stimulate the economy and a good use of the money? If you really want to get the economy going by spending money stupidly, there is nothing like a full out war. And unlike athletics, you can count on some of it being spent to fund science for super weapons that will also happen to advance science that can help people after the idiocy has ended.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Apologize, or I'm not answering you. Sorry.

Apologize for what? You're the one with the demeaning attitude, remember. You're the one who has lied and weaselled without ever answering my questions. What is it I'm meant to be apologizing for?


So what happens to this non-absorbed light that has hit an object but doesn't get reflected? (You've previously agreed that it does get reflected.)

It is a property of light that when it hits an object it cannot pass through, and which does not absorb it, that it will be reflected. If you are denying this on your non-model then you are changing the properties of light.