A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

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?

Dang, how many times are you going to repeat the same question? Do you have a memory problem?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dang, how many times are you going to repeat the same question? Do you have a memory problem?

You haven't answered them yet. You got halfway to answer on the first, but completely misread the second. I'll keep repeating them until you stop evading them.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by 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.)

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

So now you are saying we see mirror images in delayed time, but the sun in real time? Is there no end to your stupdity? Seriously!

God, but you are stoopid.

To see a reflection in a mirror, there would have to be (P) reflected light, which is the necessary condition I was talking about in the previous post. If there is no light at the eye, or it's blocked, how can we see the image in the mirror?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

To see a reflection in a mirror, there would have to be (P) reflected light, which is the necessary condition I was talking about in the previous post. If there is no light at the eye, or it's blocked, how can we see the image in the mirror?

Is reflected light seen in delayed time or real time?

The experiment that we have all so patiently explained to you, demonsrtates conclusively that the reflected light was seen in delayed time, which is precisely why it was possible to measure its velocity at all.

This simple experiment destroys all of Lessans' claims.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by 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.)

Do you actually think this post is helping to better our communication? I answered your question but you're not paying attention. I said the red photons are at the eye when the brain is looking through the eyes, as a window, which changes the role of light. The red photon is there because in this version, there is no travel time. We are looking directly at the object, and the light allows us to do just that by creating a mirror image on our retina; it does not bring the image to us. That's why we see the object turn red without a delay.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Is reflected light seen in delayed time or real time?

We would see light 8 1/2 minutes later, if the Sun was turned on, which would allow us to see each other, but we could still see the Sun turned on instantly because of how the eyes work.

Originally Posted by davidm

The experiment that we have all so patiently explained to you, demonsrtates conclusively that the reflected light was seen in delayed time, which is precisely why it was possible to measure its velocity at all.

This simple experiment destroys all of Lessans' claims.

I'm not in disagreement with you on this count.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Do you actually think this post is helping to better our communication?

I want answers to these questions. Why can't you answer them? I will keep asking them until you answer either these questions or my questions about photons and light.

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?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I answered your question but you're not paying attention. I said the red photons are at the eye when the brain is looking through the eyes, as a window, which changes the role of light.

That's not an answer to any question I have ever asked.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The red photon is there because in this version, there is no travel time. We are looking directly at the object, and the light allows us to do just that by creating a mirror image on our retina; it does not bring the image to us. That's why we see the object turn red without a delay.

Neither is any of this. You are not answering what I am asking you.

Care to remind us again of how the red photons get to be at the camera film at the very moment the distant object first turns red? Where did you say those same photons where just a moment beforehand?

And...

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?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We would see light 8 1/2 minutes later, if the Sun was turned on, which would allow us to see each other, but we could still see the Sun turned on instantly because of how the eyes work.

I'm not in disagreement with you on this count.

You're not in disagreement?? So now you are saying that source light is seen instantly, but reflected light is not?



Goodness gracious peacegirl, that's the biggest bunch of idiot stew that you've cooked up yet! Why would we see source light instantly but reflected light in delay?

And no, "because of how the eyes work" is not an explanation!

Oh, and peacegirl? This bizarre change of position on your part, in addition to contradicting previous statements of your own, directly contradicts Lessans, who said we would see the moon instantly. Except, of course, the moon gives off reflected light, which you now admit we would see in delayed time.

Wow, what a muddle you are in! Shows what happens when you don't get an edumucation!

[naturalist.atheist]

peacegirl has so many of these symptoms.

NIMH · What are the symptoms of schizophrenia?
The symptoms of schizophrenia fall into three broad categories: positive symptoms, negative symptoms, and cognitive symptoms.

Positive symptoms

Positive symptoms are psychotic behaviors not seen in healthy people. People with positive symptoms often "lose touch" with reality. These symptoms can come and go. Sometimes they are severe and at other times hardly noticeable, depending on whether the individual is receiving treatment. They include the following:

• Hallucinations are things a person sees, hears, smells, or feels that no one else can see, hear, smell, or feel. "Voices" are the most common type of hallucination in schizophrenia. Many people with the disorder hear voices. The voices may talk to the person about his or her behavior, order the person to do things, or warn the person of danger. Sometimes the voices talk to each other. People with schizophrenia may hear voices for a long time before family and friends notice the problem.
• Other types of hallucinations include seeing people or objects that are not there, smelling odors that no one else detects, and feeling things like invisible fingers touching their bodies when no one is near.
• Delusions are false beliefs that are not part of the person's culture and do not change. The person believes delusions even after other people prove that the beliefs are not true or logical. People with schizophrenia can have delusions that seem bizarre, such as believing that neighbors can control their behavior with magnetic waves. They may also believe that people on television are directing special messages to them, or that radio stations are broadcasting their thoughts aloud to others. Sometimes they believe they are someone else, such as a famous historical figure. They may have paranoid delusions and believe that others are trying to harm them, such as by cheating, harassing, poisoning, spying on, or plotting against them or the people they care about. These beliefs are called "delusions of persecution."
• Thought disorders are unusual or dysfunctional ways of thinking. One form of thought disorder is called "disorganized thinking." This is when a person has trouble organizing his or her thoughts or connecting them logically. They may talk in a garbled way that is hard to understand. Another form is called "thought blocking." This is when a person stops speaking abruptly in the middle of a thought. When asked why he or she stopped talking, the person may say that it felt as if the thought had been taken out of his or her head. Finally, a person with a thought disorder might make up meaningless words, or "neologisms."
• Movement disorders may appear as agitated body movements. A person with a movement disorder may repeat certain motions over and over. In the other extreme, a person may become catatonic. Catatonia is a state in which a person does not move and does not respond to others. Catatonia is rare today, but it was more common when treatment for schizophrenia was not available.2
  "Voices" are the most common type of hallucination in schizophrenia.

Negative symptoms

Negative symptoms are associated with disruptions to normal emotions and behaviors. These symptoms are harder to recognize as part of the disorder and can be mistaken for depression or other conditions. These symptoms include the following:

• "Flat affect" (a person's face does not move or he or she talks in a dull or monotonous voice)
• Lack of pleasure in everyday life
• Lack of ability to begin and sustain planned activities
• Speaking little, even when forced to interact.

People with negative symptoms need help with everyday tasks. They often neglect basic personal hygiene. This may make them seem lazy or unwilling to help themselves, but the problems are symptoms caused by the schizophrenia.

Cognitive symptoms

Cognitive symptoms are subtle. Like negative symptoms, cognitive symptoms may be difficult to recognize as part of the disorder. Often, they are detected only when other tests are performed. Cognitive symptoms include the following:

• Poor "executive functioning" (the ability to understand information and use it to make decisions)
• Trouble focusing or paying attention
• Problems with "working memory" (the ability to use information immediately after learning it).

Cognitive symptoms often make it hard to lead a normal life and earn a living. They can cause great emotional distress.

Get help peacegirl. Schizophrenia can be treated.

[davidm]

On an up note, I've just discovered "Derpoland."

[LadyShea]

Maybe there was a smudge on the mirror! Did you ever think of that Fizeau??

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Is reflected light seen in delayed time or real time?

The experiment that we have all so patiently explained to you, demonsrtates conclusively that the reflected light was seen in delayed time, which is precisely why it was possible to measure its velocity at all.

This simple experiment destroys all of Lessans' claims.

How many times do I have to say that this does not conflict with real time seeing? It does not destroy Lessans' claims although I know you are trying hard to convince yourself that it does.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

You're not in disagreement?? So now you are saying that source light is seen instantly, but reflected light is not?



Goodness gracious peacegirl, that's the biggest bunch of idiot stew that you've cooked up yet! Why would we see source light instantly but reflected light in delay?

The sun is made up of mass, that's why we would see it.

Originally Posted by davidm

And no, "because of how the eyes work" is not an explanation!

It's going to have to be, for now. If his observations are taken seriously, further testing will be an option at a later date.

Originally Posted by davidm

Oh, and peacegirl? This bizarre change of position on your part, in addition to contradicting previous statements of your own, directly contradicts Lessans, who said we would see the moon instantly. Except, of course, the moon gives off reflected light, which you now admit we would see in delayed time.

We would not see the moon in the reflected light David, if the moon is not within our visual range. Somewhere along the line you've gotten confused between full spectrum light that does travel, and patterns of light that don't.

Originally Posted by davidm

Wow, what a muddle you are in! Shows what happens when you don't get an edumucation!

Whatever you say!

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We would not see the moon in the reflected light David, if the moon is not within our visual range. Somewhere along the line you've gotten confused between full spectrum light that does travel, and patterns of light that don't.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Somewhere along the line you've gotten confused between full spectrum light that does travel, and patterns of light that don't.

But you agreed that the patterns of light do travel. Have you forgotten saying this? Do you need to be reminded of your own words again?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously, if light is being reflected from a mirror we can't see that light until it strikes our eyes. But that's a different phenomenon than seeing an object which is interacting with light. That's why we would be able to see the Sun, which is made up of gases, even though the photons that are being emitted have not yet reached Earth.

A mirror is an object that interacts with light! What about aluminium foil? Could we see that in real time? What about crumpled aluminium foil?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by 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.)

Bump.

The more you avoid these questions, the more suspicious that avoidance will appear.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The sun is made up of mass, that's why we would see it.

Check the definition of mass there, cupcake, you're using it wrong.

Also, black holes have mass and we cannot see them.

If the Sun didn't emit visible light, you wouldn't be able to see it, just like you wouldn't be able to see the flame of a fire if it didn't emit visible light.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's going to have to be, for now. If his observations are taken seriously, further testing will be an option at a later date.

They can't be taken seriously, they are silly.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We would not see the moon in the reflected light David, if the moon is not within our visual range. Somewhere along the line you've gotten confused between full spectrum light that does travel, and patterns of light that don't.

The moon does not emit light, it reflects light only. So is moonlight on the grass seen in delayed time, or real time? You've now said reflected light is subject to delayed time seeing.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Obviously, if light is being reflected from a mirror we can't see that light until it strikes our eyes.

[naturalist.atheist]

If peacegirl is saying anything, she is saying very clearly, she is schizophrenic.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

I have answered them, but you won't be happy until I agree with you, so your mind tells you I have not answered them.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

A mirror is an object that interacts with light! What about aluminium foil? Could we see that in real time? What about crumpled aluminium foil?

No, because the light is too bright, but this has NOTHING to do with these claims. Do you actually think this one example proves Lessans wrong? Of course. You are all so matter of fact it makes me cringe.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But you agreed that the patterns of light do travel. Have you forgotten saying this? Do you need to be reminded of your own words again?

A bit fat NOOOOOOOOOOO. I did not say that Spacemonkey. I said that photons are replaced by new photons as the old photons move forward, but the image or pattern itself does not travel in the sense of independently leaving the object from which it came. Are you kidding me?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

the image or pattern itself does not travel in the sense of independently leaving the object from which it came

Who said it does? Who disagrees with this, do you think? We've never said that the image or pattern travels. Not once. That is a stupid strawman mischaracterization of optics.

All any of us has ever said is that light travels and that light is independent of its source. Period.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

A bit fat NOOOOOOOOOOO. I did not say that Spacemonkey. I said that photons are replaced by new photons as the old photons move forward, but the image or pattern itself does not travel in the sense of independently leaving the object from which it came.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nothing in my account stops non-absorbed light from traveling in a pattern such that non-absorbed red photons are traveling in a straight line away from the red parts of the object. Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought