A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light does bounce off of objects, but objects do not reflect light.

"Light does bounce off of objects, but objects do not reflect light." Classic!

Light bouncing off objects is what reflection means!

Really, someone should catalogue your wit and wisdom; it's almost as zany as Lessans'.

Question: How do we see?

Answer: "Voila! We see!"

Question: if we see in real time, why is that observations of the moons of Jupiter consistently and without exception prove that we see in delayed time, and every single obervation of those moons (and all other celestial bodies) have proven so for hundreds of years?

Answer: "Maybe it's a coincidence!"

Question: If we see in real time, how come NASA factors in delayed-time seeing in order to send spacecraft to Mars and other celestial bodies?

Answer: "Maybe something else is going on there!"

Question: Do objects reflect light?

Answer: "Light does bounce off of objects, but objects do not reflect light."

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is where more empirical testing will be necessary to prove, once and for all, that the eyes are not a sense organ. Until then, this is just another far out theory.

Didn't take long.

But I can see in the way you phrased your statement that for you the only valid tests will be the ones that support you idea, everything will be thrown out for one reason or another, no matter how well controled the tests are. This is what creationists do, they deny every thing except that which they can distort and twist to fit their ideas.

[thedoc]

It seems that the general consensus is that Peacegirl is clinging to her belief in the book purely on faith, and It has been suggested that it is then a religious belief. This belief system must have had a form to pattern itself after and I would suggest that if we compaire it to Christianity there are som inconsistencys that put peacegirl in a bad light. Just one example will suffice to demonstrate that Peacegirl does not belong on this forum proselytizing as she is. From

1 Corinthians 14:33-35
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

33 for God is not a God of confusion but of [a]peace, as in all the churches of the saints.
34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is [b]improper for a woman to speak in church.

So it is obvious that Peacegirl should not be posting but only reading and learning from others. It seems that Paul thought that women only spread confusion, and taking Peacegirl as an example, he may have been correct.

With apologies to the other women who are not spouting religion, and therefore are perfectly correct in speaking up on this forum.

[But]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That's stupid. We've already corrected you on this a million times. Why can't you learn? The non-absorbed photons bounce off, and that's it. The individual photons don't pick up and take away any information or wavelength.

I think you're wrong. Information is never lost, but it isn't duplicated either. I'm going to restrict myself to the emission of a single photon because I don't want to get into the mess of reflection and whether or not it means absorption and re-emission. The photon takes away information from the object, for example what energy the electron had before it emitted the photon (there are other variables like angular momentum, which shows up as polarization of the photon I think, but I don't know in detail what the other variables are). That information is now in the photon's bucket, and you would have to ask it to find out what the energy of the electron was.

Each one leaves with exactly the same wavelength it had when it hit the object. Why are you not able to understand this?

It didn't have a definite wavelength (energy) before, and it doesn't have one now.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

It seems that the general consensus is that Peacegirl is clinging to her belief in the book purely on faith, and It has been suggested that it is then a religious belief. This belief system must have had a form to pattern itself after and I would suggest that if we compaire it to Christianity there are som inconsistencys that put peacegirl in a bad light. Just one example will suffice to demonstrate that Peacegirl does not belong on this forum proselytizing as she is. From

1 Corinthians 14:33-35
New American Standard Bible (NASB)

33 for God is not a God of confusion but of [a]peace, as in all the churches of the saints.
34 The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. 35 If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is [b]improper for a woman to speak in church.

So it is obvious that Peacegirl should not be posting but only reading and learning from others. It seems that Paul thought that women only spread confusion, and taking Peacegirl as an example, he may have been correct.

With apologies to the other women who are not spouting religion, and therefore are perfectly correct in speaking up on this forum.

This is not religion, how many times do I have to say that this is not religious. There is so much confusion with this issue that I can't even begin to express.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

"Light does bounce off of objects, but objects do not reflect light." Classic!

Light bouncing off objects is what reflection means!

Really, someone should catalogue your wit and wisdom; it's almost as zany as Lessans'.

Question: How do we see?

Answer: "Voila! We see!"

Question: if we see in real time, why is that observations of the moons of Jupiter consistently and without exception prove that we see in delayed time, and every single obervation of those moons (and all other celestial bodies) have proven so for hundreds of years?

Answer: "Maybe it's a coincidence!"

Question: If we see in real time, how come NASA factors in delayed-time seeing in order to send spacecraft to Mars and other celestial bodies?

Answer: "Maybe something else is going on there!"

Question: Do objects reflect light?

Answer: "Light does bounce off of objects, but objects do not reflect light."

The only way this will be solved is with THE EVIDENCE DAVID. You're continuing your tantrum because you are angry at God for creating real time vision. What can I say? This is absolutely nuts and I cannot continue this thread with me being condemned by expressing what Lessans' insights uncovered.

[davidm]

More priceless dingbatty quotes from peacegirl to add to the collection!

I think I'll Internet publish a book: "Thus Sayeth Peacegirl!"

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not religion, how many times do I have to say that religion is coming to a gradual end, so how could you be right thedoc????

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're continuing your tantrum because you are angry at God for creating real time vision.

In addition to contradicting yourself (yet again!) you might want to ask yourself, peacegirl, why I, or anyone, would be "angry with God" for creating real-time vision? First, there is no God to be angry with; and second, there is no real-time seeing, as as been proved to you repeatedly!

The only person who is angry, frightened and defensive is you. No one here, except you, has a personal stake in the way that the world works. You have a personal stake that the world should work the way that Lessans described. Because if it doesn't, he stands exposed as a rather mundane, uneducated individual; more: a bloviating, self-important buffoon, presuming to lecture his betters on matters of which he knew nothing. And that is what he was. That is the stark truth, which you cannot bear to face. That is why you pursue this sunk-cost fallacy and cocoon yourself ever more tightly into a complete fantasy world.

Oh, and all the evidence is in. We've been looking at the moons of Jupiter through telescopes for hundreds of years. Every single time we do, we see it as it was in the past, as is easily proved.

[thedoc]

[quote=But;1032811]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It didn't have a definite wavelength (energy) before, and it doesn't have one now.

Every photon has a definite frequency, that is one of the characteristics of a photon, there is no such thing as a photon without a specific frequency. When a photon arrives at an object it does have a frequency, but it could be absorbed and the energy could cause the object to warm up in addition the object could re-emit another photon at a different frequency depending on the characteristics of the object. I believe it is also possible for the photon to simply be reflected, that is to 'bounce off' the object, but I will defer to TLR to verify this or someone else if they know. Peacegirl obviously doesn't know shit about light or reflection, among many other things.

[But]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Every photon has a definite frequency, that is one of the characteristics of a photon, there is no such thing as a photon without a specific frequency.

No, it doesn't have a specific frequency. All you have is probabilities that the energy (frequency, momentum) is in a particular range.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The only way this will be solved is with THE EVIDENCE DAVID. You're continuing your tantrum because you are angry at God for creating real time vision. What can I say? This is absolutely nuts and I cannot continue this thread with me being condemned by expressing what Lessans' insights uncovered.

The evidence is in, all that any sane person would ever need, it is only a person who is so blinded to the truth by a fantasy who would demand more proof to prove their ideas. And now you are projecting your anger that no-one is automatically accepting your silly fiction onto Davidm, he is certainly more frustrated than anything else. If you wish to leave please do so and decrease the surplus nonsense of this thread.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by But

No, it doesn't have a specific frequency. All you have is probabilities that the energy (frequency, momentum) is in a particular range.

Untill you actually measure it. But you are probably right, but we can't know for sure.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light does bounce off of objects, but objects do not reflect light.

Yes, they do. We can observe and measure the reflected light. You can do this at home with a prism.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

More priceless dingbatty quotes from peacegirl to add to the collection!

I think I'll Internet publish a book: "Thus Sayeth Peacegirl!"

In addition to contradicting yourself (yet again!) you might want to ask yourself, peacegirl, why I, or anyone, would be "angry with God" for creating real-time vision? First, there is no God to be angry with; and second, there is no real-time seeing, as as been proved to you repeatedly!

The only person who is angry, frightened and defensive is you. No one here, except you, has a personal stake in the way that the world works. You have a personal stake that the world should work the way that Lessans described. Because if it doesn't, he stands exposed as a rather mundane, uneducated individual; more: a bloviating, self-important buffoon, presuming to lecture his betters on matters of which he knew nothing. And that is what he was. That is the stark truth, which you cannot bear to face. That is why you pursue this sunk-cost fallacy and cocoon yourself ever more tightly into a complete fantasy world.

Oh, and all the evidence is in. We've been looking at the moons of Jupiter through telescopes for hundreds of years. Every single time we do, we see it as it was in the past, as is easily proved.

Of course we see it as if it was in the past because of the false logic that gives it its impeccable appearance. One day your lack of tolerance will be seen as a learning tool.

[But]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Untill you actually measure it. But you are probably right, but we can't know for sure.

That it has a definite value, even if it isn't measurable, is ruled out by this:

Bell's theorem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Yes, they do. We can observe and measure the reflected light. You can do this at home with a prism.

Measuring the non-absorbed light does not mean that light is reflected LadyShea. I'm done with this topic for now. I will ask again: Is anyone interested in his first discovery? If not, it's okay, I will move on gladly.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Measuring the non-absorbed light does not mean that light is reflected LadyShea. I'm done with this topic for now. I will ask again: Is anyone interested in his first discovery? If not, it's okay, I will move on gladly.

Lessans made no discoveries. All he did was claim to make discoveries, but neither you nor he ever demonstrated any discoveries. You can't even see efferently because if you could you could save NASA a lot of money.

[LadyShea]

I have one of these. It creates a 3d image above the real location using mirrors only http://www.teachersource.com/LightAn...TheMirage.aspx

Here's a fun kit
http://www.teachersource.com/LightAn...FilterKit.aspx

When white light hits the filter, yellow is reflected and blue is transmitted. When the filter is placed on a mirror, the phenomenon disappears. When the angle is changed, the colors change. Some colored light travels through the filter and some casts a shadow. The effect is different when the filter is placed on pieces of colored paper. Those familiar with the Observations of the Candle Experiment, will appreciate the new Observations of the Filter Experiment. The plastic color shifting disks have multiple layers of coatings of differing indexes of refraction. Truly Amazing!

Here's some prisms http://www.teachersource.com/LightAn...ightAngle.aspx

Here's a whole optics kit for 35.00
Economy Optics Kit | Edmund Scientific

Do some experimenting, peacegirl, so you can make empirical observations, then try to explain them with efferent vision

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Measuring the non-absorbed light does not mean that light is reflected LadyShea.

If it's not reflected and it's not absorbed, where does it go?

[LadyShea]

I'm done with this topic for now. I will ask again: Is anyone interested in his first discovery? If not, it's okay, I will move on gladly.

His other "discoveries" are based on poor and fallacious reasoning, and make no predictions that can be feasibly empirically tested.

[LadyShea]

Also, as I told you in the last thread, the light/sight/time thing will ALWAYS be the focus amongst rational people. It doesn't matter where you go to discuss or promote it, if the people there are skeptical or in any way science minded, efferent vision will be the topic of discussion.

Your best bet is to promote to the woos. You had a few big names in crystal waving on your radar already, so start with them.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

"Light does bounce off of objects, but objects do not reflect light." Classic!

Light bouncing off objects is what reflection means!

Really, someone should catalogue your wit and wisdom; it's almost as zany as Lessans'.

Question: How do we see?

Answer: "Voila! We see!"

Question: if we see in real time, why is that observations of the moons of Jupiter consistently and without exception prove that we see in delayed time, and every single obervation of those moons (and all other celestial bodies) have proven so for hundreds of years?

Answer: "Maybe it's a coincidence!"

Question: If we see in real time, how come NASA factors in delayed-time seeing in order to send spacecraft to Mars and other celestial bodies?

Answer: "Maybe something else is going on there!"

Question: Do objects reflect light?

Answer: "Light does bounce off of objects, but objects do not reflect light."

Yes David, (N) light is white light and it is constantly being reflected off of objects. But objects do not reflect their image. Do you get it now? Of course not.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

His other "discoveries" are based on poor and fallacious reasoning, and make no predictions that can be feasibly empirically tested.

You are completely off base LadyShea, and your arrogance is waving its ugly head. Don't say anything if you don't know what you're talking about is my best advice to you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If it's not reflected and it's not absorbed, where does it go?

You failed the course not because Lessans was wrong but because you can't get beyond your entrenched ideas.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have one of these. It creates a 3d image above the real location using mirrors only http://www.teachersource.com/LightAn...TheMirage.aspx

Here's a fun kit
http://www.teachersource.com/LightAn...FilterKit.aspx

Here's some prisms http://www.teachersource.com/LightAn...ightAngle.aspx

Here's a whole optics kit for 35.00
Economy Optics Kit | Edmund Scientific

Do some experimenting, peacegirl, so you can make empirical observations, then try to explain them with efferent vision

I have no desire after your last post. Who are you to tell me this is woo??? Yes it boils down to you against Lessans, and you don't have a shot in hell.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes David, (N) light is white light and it is constantly being reflected off of objects. But objects do not reflect their image. Do you get it now? Of course not.

They do not reflect their "image", nobody has ever said they reflect their "image" all anyone here has said is that objects reflect light. Light can have varying frequencies.