A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Then why aren't these photographs of full spectrum (aka white) light?

Bump

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Announcement: This guy is oblivious to anything I'm saying. I have agreed that NASA calculates the trajectory to send spacecraft to Mars and other places by the speed of light. But they don't calculate the position of a planet by factoring in an extra time delay.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

I truly don't understand why people continue to post to this thread in response to peacegirl. It's clear no one is out to understand one another any longer. I've never seen people beat a horse this dead.

Some time ago I used an example of a frog in a pan of water, which was quickly pointed out to be wrong, but the idea is that the frog was in the water as it heated up and didn't try to get out. Here many of the posters have been here from the begining, or close to it, and it has become a bad habit, where some come just to see what Peacegirl has posted now, and others post to refute what she has posted. For many its like 'rubber-necking' at a wreck site, curiosity is a powerful draw.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know what you've read, but these people are very threatened by these claims. They would not act like this if they weren't. I am listening but I know Lessans was right. They can call me anything they want but it does not change reality. I cannot deal with Davidm and Natual Atheist. I believe Spacemonkey is becoming brainwashed. He never acted like this in the other forum. I also said that we can end this discussion any time, but people keep coming back. They say it's to learn what other people are educating them on. That's fine, but I am not going to give into peer pressure. This is a form of a witch hunt (for lack of a better word). They would tar and feather me if they could, but fortunately we're in a different day and age.

Wait, you refuse to put up with anyone else describing you as mentally ill, but you think posting comments like this is perfectly fine? Hypocrite.

If you keep refusing to answer any of my questions you'll leave me with no option but to revert to discussing your mental state with other posters instead. Is that what you want? I'd rather discuss your material, but you're making that impossible for me.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have agreed that NASA calculates the trajectory to send spacecraft to Mars and other places by the speed of light. But they don't calculate the position of a planet by factoring in an extra time delay.

You can't be blamed for not understanding the astrophysics, I don't fully understand it either, because I have never studied it nor that high of a level of math.

But, Dragar is an astrophysicist, he explained what that math means regarding position and that speed of light is factored into it.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

peacegirl claimed that she wanted to see the proof that NASA must take into account the delay in when we see distant planets when launching space probes. She further specified that she wanted to see the actual equations, as proof.

LadyShea gave her exactly what she demanded as proof that NASA must take into account the delay in when we see things when calculating the trajectory of space probes.

Strange that she's ignoring that fact ...

Bump.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What are you trying to prove with that picture TLR?

It's a picture of light -- what you claim is impossible!

[ThreeLawsSafe]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know what you've read, but these people are very threatened by these claims. They would not act like this if they weren't. I am listening to everyone's refutations, but I believe Lessans was right. They can call me anything they want but it does not change reality. I cannot deal with Davidm and Natual Atheist. I believe Spacemonkey is being extremely influenced by them. He never called me names in the other forum. I also stated that we can end this discussion any time, but people keep coming back. They say it's to learn from others, not me. That's fine, but I am not going to give into peer pressure. This is a type of witch hunt (for lack of a better word). They would tar and feather me if they could, but fortunately we're in a different day and age.

I guess I am going to give some unsolicited advice to you in this case. I would recommend that you enroll in an optics or physics class at your local college or university (or, alternatively, you could also do some serious digging around the internet at sites like Khan Academy). Get an education in physics, do it with an open-mind, and start experimenting in a guided lab using standard scientific methods. I think you would come away the better person for it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Did the specific photons (at the camera when the photograph is taken) exist immediately before the photograph was taken?
[Yes or No]

The photons at the camera existed at the object. The (P) reflected light is present as long as the object is in view. Therefore, if the object is part of our field of view, the mirror image will show up instantly at the film/retina. Why can't you understand what I'm saying?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know what you've read, but these people are very threatened by these claims. They would not act like this if they weren't. I am listening to everyone's refutations, but I believe Lessans was right. They can call me anything they want but it does not change reality. I cannot deal with Davidm and Natual Atheist. I believe Spacemonkey is being extremely influenced by them. He never called me names in the other forum. I also stated that we can end this discussion any time, but people keep coming back. They say it's to learn from others, not me. That's fine, but I am not going to give into peer pressure. This is a type of witch hunt (for lack of a better word). They would tar and feather me if they could, but fortunately we're in a different day and age.

Nope, as has been explained to you, we are offended by your lying and your wilfull ignorance, and it's important for some people here to stand up for truth and facts against the lies and deceit practiced by the likes of you.

[The Lone Ranger]

I and others have been almost literally begging her to enroll in a few basic science-literacy courses for months now. She has ignored all such advice.

In particular, I've pointed out that she could easily have her claims about how we see disproved by taking a basic course in Human Anatomy & Physiology at any nearby college.

I've also been literally begging her to take the time to visit any college or university library to read up on some of the studies which she claims don't exist (and she won't read when given links). Again, to no avail.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The photons at the camera existed at the object. The (P) reflected light is present as long as the object is in view. Therefore, if the object is part of our field of view, the mirror image will show up instantly at the film/retina. Why can't you understand what I'm saying?

What you are saying requires a photon at be at two places at once. You have yet to explain how this works from a simple mechanics point of view...how does it touch the film if it's at the object?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ThreeLawsSafe

I guess I am going to give some unsolicited advice to you in this case. I would recommend that you enroll in an optics or physics class at your local college or university (or, alternatively, you could also do some serious digging around the internet at sites like Khan Academy). Get an education in physics, do it with an open-mind, and start experimenting in a guided lab using standard scientific methods. I think you would come away the better person for it.

I'm sure it would be extremely interesting, but it would not change what I know to be true. This is a scientific discovery ThreeLawsSafe, and one day it will be recognized. I do want to get off of this topic before I decide not to discuss his other discovery, which no one understands. His first discovery is the most important because it has the power to prevent war, crime and hatred.

[davidm]

Oh, peacegirl, you seem to have ignored this. Why is that?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What you are saying requires a photon at be at two places at once. You have yet to explain how this works from a simple mechanics point of view...how does it touch the film if it's at the object?

So are you telling me that there is no such thing as a mirror image?

[LadyShea]

So are you telling me that there is no such thing as a mirror image?

Can you shake hands with a mirror image? If not, then a photon cannot be absorbed by one.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I and others have been almost literally begging her to enroll in a few basic science-literacy courses for months now. She has ignored all such advice.

In particular, I've pointed out that she could easily have her claims about how we see disproved by taking a basic course in Human Anatomy & Physiology at any nearby college.

Please stop TLR, all this will do is confirm what science believes to be true, so it will be much of the same. I already know what science believes.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

I've also been literally begging her to take the time to visit any college or university library to read up on some of the studies which she claims don't exist (and she won't read when given links). Again, to no avail.

What studies are you talking about? I have read the links for the most part, and nothing is going to convince me that Lessans is wrong until more empirical tests are done.

[LadyShea]

A Guide to the Dark Side - ScienceNOW

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please stop TLR, all this will do is confirm what science believes to be true, so it will be much of the same. I already know what science believes.

And yet again the liar will have to be corrected.

Science does not perform experiments to confirm what it "believes to be true." It performs experiments to falsify its claims.

I believe it was Dragar who even posted a video discussion of this. Did you forget it already? Or are you just, as I suspect, lying your sorry ass off again? Hm?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The photons at the camera existed at the object. The (P) reflected light is present as long as the object is in view. Therefore, if the object is part of our field of view, the mirror image will show up instantly at the film/retina. Why can't you understand what I'm saying?

I do understand what you're saying. But I don't think you do. You've just said that the photons teleport themselves from the object to the camera film.

And if there are two cameras both pointing at the same object, can you tell me which of those two camera films a given photon will go to? Or will it simultaneously exist at both film locations?

And if the blue photons are disappearing from the object's surface to appear instantly at one or more camera films, then they aren't still there at the object to bounce off as part of (N)reflected sunlight. So how can that (N)reflected sunlight still be full spectrum? The blue part of that spectrum will have teleported itself away to any and all nearby cameras.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please stop TLR, all this will do is confirm what science believes to be true, so it will be much of the same. I already know what science believes.

What studies are you talking about? I have read the links for the most part, and nothing is going to convince me that Lessans is wrong until more empirical tests are done.

Well, that was entirely predictable.


And note, for the record, that if you took an A&P course or two, you'd probably get the opportunity to dissect eyes and see for yourself how they work.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Can you shake hands with a mirror image? If not, then a photon cannot be absorbed by one.

That's not the point I'm making. I'm not saying that this world is a mirror image, but I can use this phenomenon to help you understand how the (P) reflection of an object will give us a mirror image on the film or retina, assuming that efferent vision is true.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Well, that was entirely predictable.

You should know me by now.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

So are you telling me that there is no such thing as a mirror image?

Not according to what you mean by the term.

[The Lone Ranger]

As I pointed out, if you weren't so willfully ignorant, you could take a few A&P courses, dissect a few eyes, and see for yourself how they work.