A revolution in thought

[Iacchus]

Originally Posted by Goliath

Wow...so in PeaceGirlLand, the speed of light is infinite. I'm no scientist, but wouldn't that mean that light would have an infinite amount of relativistic energy (E=mc^2 and all that)?

I understand those damn electrons within an atom can be pretty darn fast at least anyway. They can be at the furthest reaches of the galaxy, and yet, in the same instant, hold their structure within the atom. Boy that's fast!

[Sock Puppet]

Originally Posted by Iacchus

I understand

No, you don't.

[SharonDee]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my goddd, that does not prove the premise that is being offered SharonDee, although I know your heart is in the right place.

Yeah, that's why I prefaced my little story with the "anecdotal" disclaimer. I just felt like sharing (and helping wildernesse without making post after post of smilies or jpgs).

Of all the members reading the thread, I am probably the dumbest one when it comes to understanding the science-y stuff. So I've appreciated your coming along and making me feel there's at one person around here who's even dumber.

(I'm going to be very disappointed if it's revealed that you were a troll all along. )

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He will see us talking in real time, because the telescope is magnifying us to where we are big enough to be seen and the light is bright enough for us to be seen through a telescope. Now you better be careful what you say back to me, or I will hit that ignore button as quickly as it takes to see you in real time.

So the speed of light is infinite Peacegirl?

And the theory of relativity is wrong?

But if the speed of light is infinite, peacegirl, how come Daddy wrote that it would take eight minutes to see your neighbor if the sun were turned on NOW? And why, peacegirl, did he write that if the sun were turned on NOW, one would see the sun instantaneously, but not see one's neighbor for eight minutes? What does that mean, peacegirl, what does that even mean?

Hey peacegirl, how does a camera work? You have repeatedly stated that a camera works not because of light, but because the object takes a picture of "the object itself." I now ask again: How does the camera do that, peacegirl? Does the tree uproot itself and crawl into the camera and impress itself upon the film?



What does it mean, peacegirl, to say that light "is a condition, but not a cause," of vision. As was pointed out to you dozens of pages back, everyone knows that light is a "condition of seeing." The question is HOW it is a condition of seeing. The Lone Ranger (and others) have explained HOW it is a condition of seeing. What is Lessans' explanation for how it is a " condition of seeing?"

Lessans' explanation so far: ________________________________________
________________________________________
_________

Just .. wow!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The person making a claim is expected to provide the evidence. So where is it?

I have said that he observed something that was obviously overlooked by many profound thinkers of his day. They probably weren't looking in the right direction. If people need more proof that he was right, we must do the empirical studies. If this discovery can prevent war and crime, it would be a real tragedy if it was so easily dismissed and thrown into a scrap heap.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have said that he observed something that was obviously overlooked by many profound thinkers of his day. They did not look in the right direction. They also may not have had the intellectual capacity to see these relations, which is not meant to put anyone down. If people need more proof that he was right, we must do the empirical studies because it would be absolutely a travesty if this discovery was passed over because people assumed he was wrong.

He's wrong, not because anyone assumes he is wrong, but because all the empirical studies have been exhaustively done and nothing that he writes is true. It's worse: what he says is manifestly incoherent.

[davidm]

From The Great Man's book:

Once the light is here it remains here because the photons
of light emitted by the constant energy of the sun surround us. When
the earth rotates on its axis so the section on which we live is in
darkness, this only means the photons of light are on the other side.
When our rotation allows the sun to smile on us again this does not
mean that it takes another eight minutes for this light to reach us
because these photons are already present. If the sun were to explode
while we were looking at it we would see it the instant it happened, not
8 minutes later. We are able to see the moon, the sun, the distant
stars, etc., not because the one is 3 seconds away, the other 8 minutes
away, and the last many light years away, but simply because these
objects are large enough to be seen at their great distance when
enough light is present. This fallacy has come into existence because
the eyes were considered a sense organ, like the ears.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They also may not have had the intellectual capacity to see these relations ...

[LadyShea]

must do the empirical studies

There have been exhaustive empirical studies regarding light and sight and all indicate Lessans' ideas are completely wrong.

[davidm]

More profundities from The Great Man:

if we could see someone talking on the moon via a
telescope and hear his voice on radio we would see his lips move
instantly but not hear the corresponding sound for approximately 3
seconds later due to the fact that the sound of his voice is traveling
186,000 miles a second, but our gaze is not, nor is it an electric
image of his lips impinging on our optic nerve after traversing this
distance.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by davidm

manifestly incoherent.

I should go through this thread and find all of the wonderful ways we've written to say "this is wrong".

[davidm]

More from The Half Wit The Great Man:

Because Aristotle assumed the eyes functioned like the
other four and the scientific community assumed he was right, it
made all their reasoning fit what appeared to be undeniable.

See that, Lone Ranger? All that stuff you wrote about how the eye and light work, down to the atomic structure, were never things theoretically or empirically derived; they were just stuff that scientists made up after smoking some crack just because they assumed that Aristotle was correct.

[davidm]

More:

Let me prove in
still another way that the eyes are not a sense organ.
Line up 50 people who will not move, and a dog, from a slight
distance away cannot identify his master. If the eyes were a sense; if
an image was traveling on the waves of light and striking the optic
nerve then he would recognize his master instantly as he can from
sound and smell. In fact, if he was vicious and accustomed to
attacking any stranger entering the back gate at night, and if his sense
of hearing and smell were disconnected, he would have no way of
identifying his master’s face even if every feature was lit up like a
Christmas tree, and would attack. This is why he cannot recognize
his master from a picture or statue because nothing from the external
world is striking the optic nerve. The question as to how man is able
to accomplish this continues to confound our scientists.

I'm sorry that how man is able to see confounds you, Lone Ranger.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I think I already answered you, but I will repeat, we are not discussing visual cues. It is true that animals get visual cues to help identify another animal or person, but they cannot identify a person through his facial features alone.

Fine, I'll play along.

What about all of those studies (there have been many) which have demonstrated that some dogs (and some birds) can and do recognize individual humans by their facial features? I've even given you some direct citations so that you could read the papers for yourself.


Speaking of which, here's another interesting study. It's of particular interest because the study provides convincing evidence that dogs can recognize photographs of their masters.

But I'm sure you'll ignore this one, too.


Ikuma Adachi, Hiroko Kuwahata and Kazuo Fujita. 2007. Dogs recall their owner's face upon hearing the owner's voice. Animal Cognition. Volume 10, Number 1, 17-21.

Ranger, are you telling me that no non-human animals can recognize humans by facial features alone? You mean all this time we've been in agreement?

Reading comprehension isn't your strong suit.


[ETA: Just for fun, I thought I'd point out that it has been demonstrated that Chimpanzees and Macaque Monkeys can recognize photographs of the faces of conspecifics. They even use the same regions of their brains to process the faces. They don't seem to do as well at identifying the faces of other primate species. But then, how many humans can recognize individual chimpanzees from photographs of their faces?]

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The fact that he was a salesman doesn't mean he was a snake oil salesman.

Of course not. The only snake oil pitch evident in this thread is yours.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously, he needed to make a commission, but he presented his pitch honestly. If people didn't need a home improvement, he wouldn't try to fool them into believing they did.

You can't possibly know that, but for discussion's sake we will assume it's true.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So don't use the fact that he was a salesman by trade to imply that he must have been slick or dishonest.

I'm not. I never had the pleasure of meeting or interacting with Mr. Lessans and thus have no basis for making such judgments. The purpose of the post to which you were responding -- a purpose I would have thought painfully obvious -- was to suggest that you are dishonest.

Please note that I do not consider you the least bit "slick." Your dissembling in this thread has been spectacularly ham-handed. You are about as slick as 24-grit sandpaper.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Einstein knew he was right.

But Einstein wasn't invariably right, was he? One cannot "know" what is incorrect.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Just because it was impossible for Einstein to be incorrect ...

But it wasn't impossible for Einstein to be incorrect. That being true, why do you believe it was impossible Mr. Lessans to be incorrect? Did Mr. Lessans have access to some fount of infallibility that Einstein lacked?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

... does translate to "if Einstein said it was so, then it must be so."

I think maybe you're missing a "not," but the statement is breathtakingly incoherent either way.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my godddd, I was soooo joking.

No, you weren't. You were trying to disparage the scientific community's consensus-building process and having a go at insulting Demimonde as well.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I should have put (I'm being sarcastic) next to that post.

No need. The sarcasm was every bit as obvious as the fact that you were not joking.

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it isn't Doctor X.

Of course it is, despite your attempts to lie about what people post. You know, it is difficult to misrepresent others when you quote them directly. Readers can see your dishonesty.

I have--as others--merely noted that you have ignored evidence for years. Your lying and hypocrisy has proven a characteristic of you for years.

You lose again.

--J.D.

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by davidm

More profundities from The Great Man:

[Doctor X]

Originally Posted by davidm

Further engagement with peacegirl is pointless. After nearly 90 pages of this rubbish, she can't even master something as basic as the quote function. How can she be expected to master the basics of light and vision?

Time for NBLs?

--J.D.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

Time for NBLs?

--J.D.

[Doctor X]

"I am a RIVER to my people!"



--J.D.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Doctor X

"I am a RIVER to my people!"



--J.D.

Finally something of value on this thread, Except of course posts by Doctor X, The Lone Ranger, and a few others who have posted actual scientific evidence.

[thedoc]

* wildernesse doing her part to get this thread to 100 pages

Are we there yet?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

He's wrong, not because anyone assumes he is wrong, but because all the empirical studies have been exhaustively done and nothing that he writes is true. It's worse: what he says is manifestly incoherent.

No David, this will be a real tragedy because instead of a serious investigation, we are bickering back and forth and it will go nowhere and mean nothing to anyone when this thread is over. Just imagine if this discovery is right and no one is listening. Think about it.

[LadyShea]

Imagine if the discovery is wrong, peacegirl.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

I gotta give it to you for creativity. That was really funny, even though it was a complete mockery of Lessans' work. BTW, I love pitbulls. My son has a pitbull named Charlie, and he is sooo sweet.