A Revolution in Thought: Part Two - Page 364

davidm · #**9076** 04-28-2012, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are not mentally competent. You need help.

This is correct. She is off her rocker.

The question is, are we ourselves on our rockers? Why are we enabling her mental illness and her rank dishonesty by continuing to indulge her persecution complex in an utterly pointless discussion?

Just think about it: She yet again repeats her claim that light-speed finiteness cannot be measured on earth. Even if that were true, it would be irrelevant. But it isn't true. How many times -- how many! -- has she been given the link to the discussion of the experiment, first done hundreds of years ago, that establishes light speed finiteness right here on earth? And then she comes back, derper that she is, :derp:

to repeat her stupid claim all over again, with her spotless tiny mind.

davidm · #**9077** 04-28-2012, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Absolute proof

All it takes is one picture -- one! -- to completely refute all The Buffoon's claims about light and sight. :giggle:

davidm · #**9078** 04-28-2012, 03:40 PM

Hey, peacegirl, you claimed you were open to questions. When are you going to answer this one?

Quote:

Explain why we use delayed-time seeing to calculate trajectories of spacecraft to Mars and other planets, why Hubble takes images of the universe in delayed time, and why we see the moons of Jupiter and all other bodies in delayed time!

:derp:

Well?

WHAT IS THE ANSWER?

peacegirl · #**9079** 04-28-2012, 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are not mentally competent. You need help.

This is correct. She is off her rocker.

The question is, are we ourselves on our rockers? Why are we enabling her mental illness and her rank dishonesty by continuing to indulge her persecution complex in an utterly pointless discussion?

Just think about it: She yet again repeats her claim that light-speed finiteness cannot be measured on earth.

Dear god, give me strength to deal with this know it all. I never said such a thing. I said that never has an object been out of one's field of view. Everyone keeps using the inverse square law as if this proves that light is bringing us the image, but that doesn't answer the question.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Even if that were true, it would be irrelevant. But it isn't true. How many times -- how many! -- has she been given the link to the discussion of the experiment, first done hundreds of years ago, that establishes light speed finiteness right here on earth? And then she comes back, derper that she is, :derp:

to repeat her stupid claim all over again, with her spotless tiny mind.

Who is arguing over the speed of light? This isn't even part of the conversation. This is a strawman if I ever saw one. :fuming:

peacegirl · #**9080** 04-28-2012, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The following post is a completely unanswered bumped post from the other thread from the last time you tried to claim your question had never been adequately answered:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not at all. I'm saying it seems quite strange that the only time resolution occurs is when an actual piece of matter is in range.

Then you haven't understood the explanation. We just explained exactly why an image of that piece of matter cannot be resolved beyond a certain range. There's nothing strange about it at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It does not make sense logically that there would be no image detected when someone steps slightly out of range if the pattern of light is in a direct in line with the sensor.

Again, that is exactly what was just explained to you, and it makes perfect sense. What part do you not understand?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thank you for explaining how sensors work and why red shows up, but you still have not answered the simple question as to why objects (substance) must be in view for the reflected light to be detected.

You are conflating two different points. One is the claim that an object can be in direct line of sight and still be too far away to be seen. That is what has just been explained. The other is that an object cannot be seen at all unless that object is still in existence and within a certain range at the time light from it is arriving at the eye/detector. That is not true and therefore does not need explaining.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep explaining how detectors work, which is all well and good, but they don't work at all if there if the object is not present. I've said this all along.

All things being equal, if a person is not within visible range, the strongest sensor would still not pick up or detect an image if that individual is literally a few steps back that put that person out of range.

That is simply not true, and is directly disproven by the Hubble telescope. The object has to be within a certain range at the time light leaves it for an image of it to be resolved, but that object need not still be within that range or even still exist at the time that light arrives at the detector. Our explanation does not have to explain this latter 'fact' because it is not a fact. It is your own unsupported claim. You can't argue that our explanation is inadequate because it can't explain your own made up 'facts'. You might as well claim that afferent vision is an inadequate model because it can't explain real-time vision.

Bump.

It is true that the object has to be in range at the time the light responsible for the image hits the surface of the object. Dispersion and resolution explains quite adequately on the afferent account how this works and why this is the case.

It is not true that this object has to still be within range at the later time when this light strikes the detector. That is not any kind of fact, and therefore does not stand in need of explanation. It is not any kind of inadequacy on the part of afferent vision that it does not explain this.

What does it say about your mental condition that you dropped the topic right after I posted this and never addressed these answers to your allegedly unanswered question, and yet that you are now once again repeating the same question this post answers while insisting that your question has never been adequately answered?

As much as I want to answer your question, you're going to have to change your tactics, or I'm putting on ignore. I am sick of you calling me mentally challenged.

LadyShea · #**9081** 04-28-2012, 03:50 PM

You have been given multiple detailed explanations regarding optics; including resolution, detector size, composition and configuration, and the inverse square law. Your inability to understand the physics is your problem, not a problem with optics, not a problem with the observations or evidence.

This is the strawman

Quote:

Everyone keeps using the inverse square law as if this proves that light is bringing us the image, but that doesn't answer the question.

The inverse square law is only part of the explanations you've been given.

LadyShea · #**9082** 04-28-2012, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

The following post is a completely unanswered bumped post from the other thread from the last time you tried to claim your question had never been adequately answered:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not at all. I'm saying it seems quite strange that the only time resolution occurs is when an actual piece of matter is in range.

Then you haven't understood the explanation. We just explained exactly why an image of that piece of matter cannot be resolved beyond a certain range. There's nothing strange about it at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It does not make sense logically that there would be no image detected when someone steps slightly out of range if the pattern of light is in a direct in line with the sensor.

Again, that is exactly what was just explained to you, and it makes perfect sense. What part do you not understand?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thank you for explaining how sensors work and why red shows up, but you still have not answered the simple question as to why objects (substance) must be in view for the reflected light to be detected.

You are conflating two different points. One is the claim that an object can be in direct line of sight and still be too far away to be seen. That is what has just been explained. The other is that an object cannot be seen at all unless that object is still in existence and within a certain range at the time light from it is arriving at the eye/detector. That is not true and therefore does not need explaining.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep explaining how detectors work, which is all well and good, but they don't work at all if there if the object is not present. I've said this all along.

All things being equal, if a person is not within visible range, the strongest sensor would still not pick up or detect an image if that individual is literally a few steps back that put that person out of range.

That is simply not true, and is directly disproven by the Hubble telescope. The object has to be within a certain range at the time light leaves it for an image of it to be resolved, but that object need not still be within that range or even still exist at the time that light arrives at the detector. Our explanation does not have to explain this latter 'fact' because it is not a fact. It is your own unsupported claim. You can't argue that our explanation is inadequate because it can't explain your own made up 'facts'. You might as well claim that afferent vision is an inadequate model because it can't explain real-time vision.

Bump.

It is true that the object has to be in range at the time the light responsible for the image hits the surface of the object. Dispersion and resolution explains quite adequately on the afferent account how this works and why this is the case.

It is not true that this object has to still be within range at the later time when this light strikes the detector. That is not any kind of fact, and therefore does not stand in need of explanation. It is not any kind of inadequacy on the part of afferent vision that it does not explain this.

What does it say about your mental condition that you dropped the topic right after I posted this and never addressed these answers to your allegedly unanswered question, and yet that you are now once again repeating the same question this post answers while insisting that your question has never been adequately answered?

As much as I want to answer your question, you're going to have to change your tactics, or I'm putting on ignore. I am sick of you calling me mentally challenged.

You don't want to answer the question, or you would have done so when it was originally posed to you. Do you ever take any responsibility for your own actions?

LadyShea · #**9083** 04-28-2012, 03:54 PM

If we see instantly as per Lessans, if efferent vision were true, we would be able to see a supernova much, much, much sooner than we could detect the light photons or the neutrinos from that supernova. Because photons and neutrinos have to travel to our detectors to be detected. The difference between seeing the supernova and detecting the neutrinos or photons would be decades at minimum.

That doesn't happen. What does happen is that we see the supernova and detect the photons at the same time, and the neutrinos within a short time, hours.

LadyShea · #**9084** 04-28-2012, 04:05 PM

Response?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have never ever weaseled.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How do the photons get there?

They travel...

Also...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

1) Where are the unabsorbed photons 0.0001sec after they have hit the object? [Insert answer here]

Are they about 30 meters away from the object and traveling away from it? [Yes or No]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

2) Where were the photons (which are at the film comprising the mirror image when the photograph is taken) 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken? [Insert answer here]

Are they about 30 meters away from the camera film and traveling towards it? [Yes or No]

It doesn't matter where the photons are. The issue is whether the eyes are efferent. If they are, then there is no time involved because we're looking directly at the object through the light. It doesn't work the other way around Spacemonkey. That's all I'm going to say on this question. I still want an apology.

You answered using "eyes" and "looking" (which the brain does according to Lessans) and the questions only concerned cameras/film.

It matters where the photons are when discussing photography and cameras, because the photons must be in direct physical contact with the camera film.

peacegirl · #**9085** 04-28-2012, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have been given multiple detailed explanations regarding optics; including resolution, detector size, composition and configuration, and the inverse square law. Your inability to understand the physics is your problem, not a problem with optics, not a problem with the observations or evidence.

This is the strawman

Quote:

Everyone keeps using the inverse square law as if this proves that light is bringing us the image, but that doesn't answer the question.

The inverse square law is only part of the explanations you've been given.

I already addressed this issue LadyShea. And you think you are any less emotionally involved in being right, than me? What a joke this is.

peacegirl · #**9086** 04-28-2012, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If we see instantly as per Lessans, if efferent vision were true, we would be able to see a supernova much, much, much sooner than we could detect the light photons or the neutrinos from that supernova. Because photons and neutrinos have to travel to our detectors to be detected. The difference between seeing the supernova and detecting the neutrinos or photons would be decades at minimum.

That doesn't happen. What does happen is that we see the supernova and detect the photons at the same time, and the neutrinos within a short time, hours.

Why are you not paying attention? I refuse to discuss results from outer space, until they can be resolved at home. I'm sorry if you think that this is impossible because light travels too fast, which is a distraction, as far as I'm concerned. I believe part of the problem is that the premise that signals from light are interpreted in the brain, is taken for granted. Do you see the problem I have? I can't get past square one, and you think you're an open-minded group?

LadyShea · #**9087** 04-28-2012, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have been given multiple detailed explanations regarding optics; including resolution, detector size, composition and configuration, and the inverse square law. Your inability to understand the physics is your problem, not a problem with optics, not a problem with the observations or evidence.

This is the strawman

Quote:

Everyone keeps using the inverse square law as if this proves that light is bringing us the image, but that doesn't answer the question.

The inverse square law is only part of the explanations you've been given.

I already addressed this issue LadyShea.

No you didn't "address" it, you weaseled. You keep referring only to the inverse square law as if that is the entirety of the explanations you've been give when it's not.

LadyShea · #**9088** 04-28-2012, 04:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If we see instantly as per Lessans, if efferent vision were true, we would be able to see a supernova much, much, much sooner than we could detect the light photons or the neutrinos from that supernova. Because photons and neutrinos have to travel to our detectors to be detected. The difference between seeing the supernova and detecting the neutrinos or photons would be decades at minimum.

That doesn't happen. What does happen is that we see the supernova and detect the photons at the same time, and the neutrinos within a short time, hours.

Why are you not paying attention? I refuse to discuss results from outer space, until they can be resolved at home. (

You can't explain the empirical evidence that clearly refutes your point of view, that in fact is the "absolute proof" Lessans demanded, so you refuse to discuss it...that's weaseling. That's dogmatism. That's being blinded by your faith. You can see supernova from "home". You can view the Hubble images from "home". The neutrino and photon detectors are here at "home". Evidence is evidence, and empirical observations are empirical observations. Your baseless differentiation is moving the goalposts

Lessans ideas on light and sight are absolutely proven to be false and wrong.

thedoc · #**9089** 04-28-2012, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

"We" can't do that

Because 'We' don't have FTL travel so cannot get 520 light years away in time to see the light from Columbus discovering the new world. However 'IF' there were beings with the capability to gather and focus enough light from that event 'They' could be watching Columbus landing right now, provided there are no obstructions and they are in the right direction. Does anyone know if that was a cloudy day, because that would spoil everything.

davidm · #**9090** 04-28-2012, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you not paying attention? I refuse to discuss results from outer space, until they can be resolved at home. I'm sorry if you think that this is impossible because light travels too fast, which is a distraction, as far as I'm concerned.

You are so contemptible.

The speed of light and delayed time seeing has been resolved "at home" here on earth, you little weasel. How many times have you been given this link? Go to "Fast-flickering lanterns," liar.

davidm · #**9091** 04-28-2012, 04:49 PM

Notice that, hundreds of pages ago, The Lone Ranger and several others patiently explained to her the measurement of the speed of light right here on earth, using fast-flickering lanterns described in the link above. I myself have given her that link at least a dozen times. And she has the temerity to pretend that none of that ever happened.

:lol:

thedoc · #**9092** 04-28-2012, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Notice that, hundreds of pages ago, The Lone Ranger and several others patiently explained to her the measurement of the speed of light right here on earth, using fast-flickering lanterns described in the link above. I myself have given her that link at least a dozen times. And she has the temerity to pretend that none of that ever happened.

:lol:

Did you expect any less of her?

davidm · #**9093** 04-28-2012, 05:09 PM

Here, shit nozzle (thanks to Maturin! :thankee:

), in case you missed it from the link I have given you dozens of times, is the proof both of the speed of light and delayed time seeing right here on earth:

Quote:

We can see, though, that if the two lanterns are ten miles apart, the time lag is of order one-ten thousandth of a second, and it is difficult to see how to arrange that. This technical problem was solved in France about 1850 by two rivals, Fizeau and Foucault, using slightly different techniques. In Fizeau’s apparatus, a beam of light shone between the teeth of a rapidly rotating toothed wheel, so the “lantern” was constantly being covered and uncovered. Instead of a second lantern far away, Fizeau simply had a mirror, reflecting the beam back, where it passed a second time between the teeth of the wheel. The idea was, the blip of light that went out through one gap between teeth would only make it back through the same gap if the teeth had not had time to move over significantly during the round trip time to the far away mirror. It was not difficult to make a wheel with a hundred teeth, and to rotate it hundreds of times a second, so the time for a tooth to move over could be arranged to be a fraction of one ten thousandth of a second. The method worked. Foucault’s method was based on the same general idea, but instead of a toothed wheel, he shone the beam on to a rotating mirror. At one point in the mirror’s rotation, the reflected beam fell on a distant mirror, which reflected it right back to the rotating mirror, which meanwhile had turned through a small angle. After this second reflection from the rotating mirror, the position of the beam was carefully measured. This made it possible to figure out how far the mirror had turned during the time it took the light to make the round trip to the distant mirror, and since the rate of rotation of the mirror was known, the speed of light could be figured out. These techniques gave the speed of light with an accuracy of about 1,000 miles per second.

naturalist.atheist · #**9094** 04-28-2012, 05:55 PM

ARE YOU CRAZY?

peacegirl · #**9095** 04-28-2012, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Response?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have never ever weaseled.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How do the photons get there?

They travel...

Also...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

1) Where are the unabsorbed photons 0.0001sec after they have hit the object? [Insert answer here]

Are they about 30 meters away from the object and traveling away from it? [Yes or No]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

2) Where were the photons (which are at the film comprising the mirror image when the photograph is taken) 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken? [Insert answer here]

Are they about 30 meters away from the camera film and traveling towards it? [Yes or No]

It doesn't matter where the photons are. The issue is whether the eyes are efferent. If they are, then there is no time involved because we're looking directly at the object through the light. It doesn't work the other way around Spacemonkey. That's all I'm going to say on this question. I still want an apology.

You answered using "eyes" and "looking" (which the brain does according to Lessans) and the questions only concerned cameras/film.

It matters where the photons are when discussing photography and cameras, because the photons must be in direct physical contact with the camera film.

You still are missing why there is a mirror image without light having to travel to Earth, and why a mirror image shows up on a camera the same way even though cameras don't have a brain.

peacegirl · #**9096** 04-28-2012, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Here, shit nozzle (thanks to Maturin! :thankee:

), in case you missed it from the link I have given you dozens of times, is the proof both of the speed of light and delayed time seeing right here on earth:

Quote:

We can see, though, that if the two lanterns are ten miles apart, the time lag is of order one-ten thousandth of a second, and it is difficult to see how to arrange that. This technical problem was solved in France about 1850 by two rivals, Fizeau and Foucault, using slightly different techniques. In Fizeau’s apparatus, a beam of light shone between the teeth of a rapidly rotating toothed wheel, so the “lantern” was constantly being covered and uncovered. Instead of a second lantern far away, Fizeau simply had a mirror, reflecting the beam back, where it passed a second time between the teeth of the wheel. The idea was, the blip of light that went out through one gap between teeth would only make it back through the same gap if the teeth had not had time to move over significantly during the round trip time to the far away mirror. It was not difficult to make a wheel with a hundred teeth, and to rotate it hundreds of times a second, so the time for a tooth to move over could be arranged to be a fraction of one ten thousandth of a second. The method worked. Foucault’s method was based on the same general idea, but instead of a toothed wheel, he shone the beam on to a rotating mirror. At one point in the mirror’s rotation, the reflected beam fell on a distant mirror, which reflected it right back to the rotating mirror, which meanwhile had turned through a small angle. After this second reflection from the rotating mirror, the position of the beam was carefully measured. This made it possible to figure out how far the mirror had turned during the time it took the light to make the round trip to the distant mirror, and since the rate of rotation of the mirror was known, the speed of light could be figured out. These techniques gave the speed of light with an accuracy of about 1,000 miles per second.

WHO IS ARGUING WITH THIS?

peacegirl · #**9097** 04-28-2012, 06:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you not paying attention? I refuse to discuss results from outer space, until they can be resolved at home. I'm sorry if you think that this is impossible because light travels too fast, which is a distraction, as far as I'm concerned.

You are so contemptible.

The speed of light and delayed time seeing has been resolved "at home" here on earth, you little weasel. How many times have you been given this link? Go to "Fast-flickering lanterns," liar.

This doesn't even address the issue! Didn't Lessans say that light travels at 186,000 miles a second? You don't remember because you didn't read the book. The speed of light has nothing to do with how the brain works in relation to the eyes.

specious_reasons · #**9098** 04-28-2012, 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Here, shit nozzle (thanks to Maturin! :thankee:

), in case you missed it from the link I have given you dozens of times, is the proof both of the speed of light and delayed time seeing right here on earth:

Quote:

We can see, though, that if the two lanterns are ten miles apart, the time lag is of order one-ten thousandth of a second, and it is difficult to see how to arrange that. This technical problem was solved in France about 1850 by two rivals, Fizeau and Foucault, using slightly different techniques. In Fizeau’s apparatus, a beam of light shone between the teeth of a rapidly rotating toothed wheel, so the “lantern” was constantly being covered and uncovered. Instead of a second lantern far away, Fizeau simply had a mirror, reflecting the beam back, where it passed a second time between the teeth of the wheel. The idea was, the blip of light that went out through one gap between teeth would only make it back through the same gap if the teeth had not had time to move over significantly during the round trip time to the far away mirror. It was not difficult to make a wheel with a hundred teeth, and to rotate it hundreds of times a second, so the time for a tooth to move over could be arranged to be a fraction of one ten thousandth of a second. The method worked. Foucault’s method was based on the same general idea, but instead of a toothed wheel, he shone the beam on to a rotating mirror. At one point in the mirror’s rotation, the reflected beam fell on a distant mirror, which reflected it right back to the rotating mirror, which meanwhile had turned through a small angle. After this second reflection from the rotating mirror, the position of the beam was carefully measured. This made it possible to figure out how far the mirror had turned during the time it took the light to make the round trip to the distant mirror, and since the rate of rotation of the mirror was known, the speed of light could be figured out. These techniques gave the speed of light with an accuracy of about 1,000 miles per second.

She doesn't (or is not willing to) understand how Fizeau's experiment would fail to work if we saw in real time.

Since it contains buzzwords such as "mirrors," she will come up with a demented explanation based on her failed understanding of reflections and how they somehow prove real time seeing, and how she's sure there's some sort of mistake in the experiment that the scientists just didn't know about until Lessans came along.

LadyShea · #**9099** 04-28-2012, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Response?

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have never ever weaseled.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

How do the photons get there?

They travel...

Also...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

1) Where are the unabsorbed photons 0.0001sec after they have hit the object? [Insert answer here]

Are they about 30 meters away from the object and traveling away from it? [Yes or No]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

2) Where were the photons (which are at the film comprising the mirror image when the photograph is taken) 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken? [Insert answer here]

Are they about 30 meters away from the camera film and traveling towards it? [Yes or No]

It doesn't matter where the photons are. The issue is whether the eyes are efferent. If they are, then there is no time involved because we're looking directly at the object through the light. It doesn't work the other way around Spacemonkey. That's all I'm going to say on this question. I still want an apology.

You answered using "eyes" and "looking" (which the brain does according to Lessans) and the questions only concerned cameras/film.

It matters where the photons are when discussing photography and cameras, because the photons must be in direct physical contact with the camera film.

You still are missing why there is a mirror image without light having to travel to Earth, and why a mirror image shows up on a camera the same way even though cameras don't have a brain.

LOL, you haven't explained "why" nor have you explained "how". You've yet to come up with a possible physical mechanism or even composition or location.

Magical Mirror Images! That's what you're going with? Magic?

LadyShea · #**9100** 04-28-2012, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you not paying attention? I refuse to discuss results from outer space, until they can be resolved at home. I'm sorry if you think that this is impossible because light travels too fast, which is a distraction, as far as I'm concerned.

You are so contemptible.

The speed of light and delayed time seeing has been resolved "at home" here on earth, you little weasel. How many times have you been given this link? Go to "Fast-flickering lanterns," liar.

This doesn't even address the issue! Didn't Lessans say that light travels at 186,000 miles a second? You don't remember because you didn't read the book. The speed of light has nothing to do with how the brain works in relation to the eyes.

The experimental results and empirical observations would have been completely different if we saw in real time.

Delayed time seeing was verified along with the speed of light.