A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So the non-absorbed photons that were at the object just are the photons at the camera film when the photograph is taken?

Okay, I'm fine with that. Now how about telling me where these photons are located at the two times I just asked you about?

They are only located at the one time, which is at the film or retina. You have to look at this backwards from the eye to the object, not the object to the eye.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They are only located at the one time, which is at the film or retina.

That's not true. You agreed that these photons are not newly existing and that they did also exist at other times.

Have you forgotten the problems that result from having new photons coming into existence at the camera film?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

just like your so-called evidence that you believe proves Lessans wrong. You are deluding yourself.

So-called evidence, peacegirl? Like the so-called evidence that NASA uses delayed-time seeing calclations to hit Mars with pinpoint accuracy, down to the particular patch of land it wants to occupy? And that if it used Lessans' calculations instead, NASA would miss the planet entirely every time? To you, that is merely "so-called" evidence? It appears to be "so-called" evidence that you can't explain away, so you ignore it.

And it's just one example among hundreds that disprove real-time seeing.

You are such a loathesome little liar.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This experiment measures the speed of light. It has nothing to do with these claims.

Did you miss my previous post?

Do you really expect us to believe you fail to understand the meaning of this experiment?

HOW, pray tell, do you suppose the Fizeau experiment measured the speed of light, hmm? The experiment is entirely visual. It was able to measure the speed of light exactly because of the delayed seeing of the light. If the light were seen in real-time, the speed of light would have been calculated to be infinite! Are you really so thick you don't grasp this point, or are you so dishonest you wish to evade it?

[davidm]

Again:

If we see in real time, but the Fizeau experiment measured the speed of light, which you concede, how did it do this?

Explain it to us!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They are only located at the one time, which is at the film or retina.

How can the photons that hit the object and were not absorbed only have ever been located at the film or retina? How did they hit the object if they were never there? You aren't making any sense.

Can you at least acknowledge that your above response (if it actually represents what you meant to say) is a change in position from your earlier stance expressed here:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes Spacemonkey, they exist...

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You know that my answer is "no"...

According to these answers, you say that these photons do exist and have locations at other times. Are you retracting these answers?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This experiment measures the speed of light. It has nothing to do with these claims.

Okay, then look at the diagram again and explain what happens there in terms of efferent vision. What happens when the light hits the mirror just as the mirror is obstructed (from the point of view of the observer) by one of the wheel's teeth? Do we see the light or not?

(Hint: there are (at least) two possibilities based on what you said before. Either we see the light, no matter how fast the wheel rotates, or the speed of light is measured to be twice as fast as it really is.)

The experiment measures the speed of light using vision. It makes a difference if what you say is true or not in this case.


The round thing on the left is a half-silvered mirror and the observer is looking through the tube at the top.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Did you miss my previous post?

Do you really expect us to believe you fail to understand the meaning of this experiment?

HOW, pray tell, do you suppose the Fizeau experiment measured the speed of light, hmm? The experiment is entirely visual. It was able to measure the speed of light exactly because of the delayed seeing of the light. If the light were seen in real-time, the speed of light would have been calculated to be infinite! Are you really so thick you don't grasp this point, or are you so dishonest you wish to evade it?

But I'm not debating this. I know the speed of light is finite, and I also know it's a visual experiment. Where does this experiment disprove real time seeing? We can see from this experiment that light travels at a finite speed, and we can see this in real time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Okay, then look at the diagram again and explain what happens there in terms of efferent vision. What happens when the light hits the mirror just as the mirror is obstructed (from the point of view of the observer) by one of the wheel's teeth? Do we see the light or not?

(Hint: there are (at least) two possibilities based on what you said before. Either we see the light, no matter how fast the wheel rotates, or the speed of light is measured to be twice as fast as it really is.)

The experiment measures the speed of light using vision. It makes a difference if what you say is true or not in this case.


The round thing on the left is a half-silvered mirror and the observer is looking through the tube at the top.

We would not see the light if the mirror was obstructed just as the light is hitting it. Am I right?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They are only located at the one time, which is at the film or retina.

Did you say what you really mean here, Peacegirl? Or was this just something you plucked from your posterior, with no concern for how it coheres with any of your previous statements, merely so as to avoid properly addressing the question you were replying to?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But I'm not debating this. I know the speed of light is finite, and I also know it's a visual experiment. Where does this experiment disprove real time seeing? We can see from this experiment that light travels at a finite speed, and we can see this in real time.

Either stupidity or willful ignorance is now at an all time high.

You cannot use realtime seeing to do a vivual experiment and get a result of a finite speed for light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes.

They are only located at the one time, which is at the film or retina.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How can the photons that hit the object and were not absorbed only have ever been located at the film or retina? How did they hit the object if they were never there? You aren't making any sense.

I didn't say they didn't hit the object and they continue to travel until they get dispersed.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Can you at least acknowledge that your above response (if it actually represents what you meant to say) is a change in position from your earlier stance expressed here:

According to these answers, you say that these photons do exist and have locations at other times. Are you retracting these answers?

They have locations but they don't exist two places at the same time. In other words, they don't teleport.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Did you say what you really mean here, Peacegirl? Or was this just something you plucked from your posterior, with no concern for how it coheres with any of your previous statements, merely so as to avoid properly addressing the question you were replying to?

You probably misunderstood me, which is par for the course.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say they didn't hit the object and they continue to travel until they get dispersed.

So you didn't mean what you said. In that case you have no excuse for not answering these questions (which you evaded by wrongly saying that the photons don't have a location at any other time):

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Peacegirl, in real-time photography, in a scenario involving only an object, a camera, and light (and no eyes, brains, or vision)...

1) You agree that some of the light which hits the object is not absorbed, still exists 0.0001sec after hitting the object, and must have a location at that time. So what is the location of these nonabsorbed photons 0.0001sec after they have hit the object? Are they about 30 meters from the object and traveling away from it at light speed? Yes or No? If no, then where are they located at this time?

2) You agree that there are photons at the camera film (interacting with it to determine the color of the resulting image) when the photograph is taken, that this light also existed 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken, and that it must have had a location at this time. So what is the location of these photons 0.0001sec before they are at the camera film (i.e. 0.0001sec before the photograph is taken)? Were they about 30 meters away from the camera film and traveling towards it at light speed? Yes or No? If no, then were were they located at this time?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They have locations but they don't exist two places at the same time. In other words, they don't teleport.

Oh wow. This mistake again??? Existing at two places at the same time is NOT teleportation. Do you have any idea how many times you've said this, accepted correction on it, but then reverted back to saying it again? Your memory is totally gone, isn't it?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You probably misunderstood me, which is par for the course.

I didn't misunderstand you. I asked if you meant what you said, and you confirmed that you didn't.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But I'm not debating this. I know the speed of light is finite, and I also know it's a visual experiment. Where does this experiment disprove real time seeing? We can see from this experiment that light travels at a finite speed, and we can see this in real time.

Holy shit!

This dense, eh?

Or is it dishonesty?

Maybe we need a poll!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Go on then. Answer these to the best of your ability:

Bump.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by davidm

Holy shit!

This dense, eh?

Or is it dishonesty?

Maybe we need a poll!

It's neither. It's mental illness. Schizophrenia at its finest.

[Spacemonkey]

New questions Peacegirl!

1) Do you accept that you have significant memory impairment?

2) Are you presently in institutional care of any sort?

3) Have you ever been diagnosed or treated for any mental health related condition?


(You can either answer these questions or my questions about photons, but they won't go away until at least one or the other set of questions has been answered.)

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say they didn't hit the object and they continue to travel until they get dispersed.

what happens when the photons get dispersed? Do they disappear, or do they continue to travel? Do they stop traveling when they are dispersed, and what does that mean?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by thedoc

what happens when the photons get dispersed? Do they disappear, or do they continue to travel? Do they stop traveling when they are dispersed, and what does that mean?

I don't think she has the faintest idea of what the word 'dispersed' even means. She seems to think it is something that happens at a specific distance from the object.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I don't think she has the faintest idea of what the word 'dispersed' even means. She seems to think it is something that happens at a specific distance from the object.

That's not all she doesn't understand. I have no idea why ya'll bother to try to teach her anything. Her mental problems are so bad she is pretty much unteachable.

[thedoc]

Peacegirl, what kind of dressing do you use on your word salad?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We would not see the light if the mirror was obstructed just as the light is hitting it. Am I right?

Yes, right, if your idea of efferent vision was correct. But this is not what happens. If the mirror is obstructed just as the light hits it, the light can be seen between the teeth of the wheel. This shows that the light travels (and has to travel) from the mirror to the eye, the same way that it traveled to the mirror, just in the opposite direction. When the light has traveled to the wheel, the wheel has turned further and the mirror is unobstructed again, so the light can pass between the teeth and it can be seen. This should not happen if what you say is true.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So you didn't mean what you said. In that case you have no excuse for not answering these questions (which you evaded by wrongly saying that the photons don't have a location at any other time):

Oh wow. This mistake again??? Existing at two places at the same time is NOT teleportation. Do you have any idea how many times you've said this, accepted correction on it, but then reverted back to saying it again? Your memory is totally gone, isn't it?

I understand what you're trying to get at. You're trying to get me to admit that time is involved when the speed of light is finite because the light must reach our eyes through space/time in order for the light to strike our eyes. All I can tell you is that efferent vision, which requires the object to be in one's visual range, automatically puts the light at the eye (as long as said object is bright enough for the object to be seen in real time) because the phenomenon that allows this to occur has to do with how the brain and eyes work, and thus how cameras work.

Teleportation is a term that refers to a number of theories and notions concerning the transfer of matter from one point to another without traversing the physical space between them.

Teleportation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Didn't you agree that I should take a break and start a new thread that didn't discuss this topic? So why were you were the first one to start this discussion up again? You believe Lessans is wrong, so why do you keep pressing me? Just to prove that I'm a fundie?