A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quite true. Why don't you try incorporating some actual facts into your arguments? For that matter, why didn't Lessans give that a try?

Oh, Oh, I know, I know, Pick me! -

because neither Peacegirl or Lessans had any facts to use in their arguments.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I suggest that she contact Donald Trump. He has a lot of money and a tinfoil hat. He even has goldfoil and platinumfoil hats. It says so in the encyclopedias. Fact!

I'm not sure about the tinfoil, or gold, or platinum, but I know from seeing him on TV that he has a fur covered hat. Does he really have money, or does he just act like he does, you can fool a lot of people like that.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I asked you what was the light source in this experiment. Was it a lightbulb? I also asked how far the source light was, and LadyShea responded that the mirror was five miles away, and the light source was ten miles away.

No I didn't, I said it was 10 miles round trip and gave you the pertinent paragraph

It doesn't matter what the light source was at all, it was a source of light.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

SOMETHING ELSE MUST BE GOING ON THERE!

PFM.

[thedoc]

[quote=peacegirl;1067830]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If you look back and count all of the posts that had nothing to say except to criticize, you will see that this thread would be half as long, or maybe even less. So don't go using your false testimony to discredit my efforts, or this work. It's all bullshit LadyShea, and you know it. And if you don't know it, you're just as bad as the fundies you criticize. The irony meter is exploding.

OK, half of the posts are criticizism from the other users on this thread, the rest is bullshit posted by Peacegirl.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you look back and count all of the posts that had nothing to say except to criticize, you will see that this thread would be half as long, or maybe even less. So don't go using your false testimony to discredit my efforts, or this work. It's all bullshit LadyShea, and you know it. And if you don't know it, you're just as bad as the fundies you criticize. The irony meter is exploding.

How much shorter do you think this thread would be if we removed all of your weaseling non-responses, evasions, and protestations of faith? How many of your posts do you think would still remain?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[LadyShea]

Fizeau used telescopes, BTW

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you look back and count all of the posts that had nothing to say except to criticize, you will see that this thread would be half as long, or maybe even less. So don't go using your false testimony to discredit my efforts, or this work. It's all bullshit LadyShea, and you know it. And if you don't know it, you're just as bad as the fundies you criticize. The irony meter is exploding.

If you'd answer questions and make clear rational statements the first time(how many of your posts have been "What I meant to say was....") then we wouldn't need to repeat them and criticize you for weaseling

You weasel, I call you on it. Simple as that.

Also lol @ "False Testimony"...so histrionic.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I asked you what was the light source in this experiment. Was it a lightbulb? I also asked how far the source light was, and LadyShea responded that the mirror was five miles away, and the light source was ten miles away.

The mirror was five miles away, and the light source was near the observer for a total round trip distance of ten miles for the light. The light source was a lamp.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I asked you what was the light source in this experiment. Was it a lightbulb? I also asked how far the source light was, and LadyShea responded that the mirror was five miles away, and the light source was ten miles away.

Peacegirl, either your reading comprehension is almost 0 or you are being deliberately stupid. The light sourse was a light bulb a few feet or less from the first mirror and the other mirror was 5 miles away making the round trip from the first mirror to the second and back 10 miles. The position of the light source is really irrelevant as the important distance is the distance between the 2 mirrors.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No I didn't, I said it was 10 miles round trip and gave you the pertinent paragraph

It doesn't matter what the light source was at all, it was a source of light.

So let's move on. I can accept that it doesn't matter what the source is. But it does matter how people measure what we see according to the time it takes for light to reach us. This experiment proves nothing in regard to Lessans' claims, although it does prove the speed of light, which was its intended purpose.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If you'd answer questions and make clear rational statements the first time(how many of your posts have been "What I meant to say was....") then we wouldn't need to repeat them and criticize you for weaseling

You weasel, I call you on it. Simple as that.

Also lol @ "False Testimony"...so histrionic.

I feel that your desire to be the one who right is very important to you. In my estimation, you are trying to prove your importance LadyShea as someone who is smart and can do no wrong. It is clear as day by the words you utter, that you are dependent on what other people tell you is true. You are not an independent thinker at all. Could it be that underneath the facade of being one of the science-minded people that are responsible for showing us the way, that you could be wrong? There are no sacred cows LadyShea, and you are holding out like someone who is protecting his property. Unfortunately, you don't hold the truth in hand. You are agreeing with people who you believe have the answers because they are the 'scientists.' That's exactly why Lessans had to write the introcution the way he did. I know you will never accept my take on what is going on, but it doesn't mean there is not an element of truth in what I'm saying. Think about it.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can accept that it doesn't matter what the source is. But it does matter how people measure what we see according to the time it takes for light to reach us. This experiment proves nothing in regard to Lessans' claims, although it does prove the speed of light, which was its intended purpose.

The experiment used visually seeing or not seeing the light based on time and distance, when the line of sight was unobstructed the light still couldn't be seen, so real time seeing is disproven

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I feel that your desire to be the one who right is very important to you. In my estimation, you are trying to prove your importance LadyShea as someone who is smart and can do no wrong.

LOL.

It is quite obvious that this applies to LadyShea not at all. Of all the people on this thread, it applies solely to you.

Unlike you, we here have no desire to be "right." We have a desire to understand and say what is TRUE. It is true we don't see in real time, and Lessans' claims are false. It is also true that you are a liar.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I feel that your desire to be the one who right is very important to you. In my estimation, you are trying to prove your importance LadyShea as someone who is smart and can do no wrong. It is clear as day by the words you utter, that you are dependent on what other people tell you is true. You are not an independent thinker at all. Could it be that underneath the facade of being one of the science-minded people that are responsible for showing us the way, that you could be wrong? There are no sacred cows LadyShea, and you are holding out like someone who is protecting his property. Unfortunately, you don't hold the truth in hand. You are agreeing with people who you believe have the answers because they are the 'scientists.' That's exactly why Lessans had to write the introcution the way he did. I know you will never accept my take on what is going on, but it doesn't mean there is not an element of truth in what I'm saying. Think about it.

These ad homs are just another way to weasel, peacegirl.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

liar

Weasel. I am talking about camera film. Photons must exist and must be located on the surface of camera film for a photographic image to be created.

Are you saying the photons that are on the surface of camera film, which is on Earth, are not actually on Earth?

This is meaningless as it can be used for anything, including nonsense, and explains absolutely nothing as the conditions are not specified.

"Hurricanes happen because of the conditions that allow it to occur" well great, and true, but do we know anything about the conditions that allow hurricanes to occur from this statement?

"Unicorns can exist in our world undetected because of the conditions that allow this to occur" Really? And what are those conditions? Is this likely to be a true statement? It can't be refuted without the conditions being spelled out, so it might be true! More testing needs to be done!

That's because you keep making statements about your model that violate physics.

For a recent example just above, it would be a huge violation of physics for photons that haven't come to be on Earth by any physical mechanism to be located on the surface of Earth-bound camera film.

Great! So next question, how do they get there?

They had to have a prior location unless they came into spontaneous existence on the surface of the camera film.

Remember, photons are quanta of electromagnetic energy. Energy cannot be created nor destroyed so spontaneously poofing into existence on the surface of camera film is eliminated unless you violate physics.

1. What was the prior location of the photons that are located on the surface of camera film a fraction of a second before a photograph was taken.

2. How does the light get to the surface of the camera film from its prior location if it hasn't traveled there and hasn't spontaneously poofed into existence at that location?

I am not asking about an image I am asking about the photons located on the surface of camera film at the moment a photo is taken and their prior location.

You seem to be saying they have always and forever been located on the surface of the camera film.

Yeah, that would be a violation of physics

Bumping to give you the opportunity to respond clearly and answer the questions without weaseling.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

The mirror was five miles away, and the light source was near the observer for a total round trip distance of ten miles for the light. The light source was a lamp.

If it takes light 1.3 seconds to reach earth from the moon which is 250,000 miles away, how much faster do you think it takes light to reach the wheel from the distance of a round trip distance of ten miles?

[LadyShea]

The rotation speed of the toothed wheel was an important factor

Once again, you don't understand the experiment at all do you?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

These ad homs are just another way to weasel, peacegirl.

This is not an ad hom. This is another way of evading the question so you don't have to explain yourself.

[LadyShea]

The wheel rotated at hundreds of times a second; therefore a fraction of a second was easy to measure. By varying the speed of the wheel, it was possible to determine at what speed the wheel was spinning too fast for the light to pass through the gap between the teeth, to the remote mirror, and then back through the same gap. He knew how far the light traveled and the time it took. By dividing that distance by the time, he got the speed of light. Fizeau measured the speed of light to be 313,300 Km/s.

Speed of Light Measurement

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not an ad hom. This is another way of evading the question so you don't have to explain yourself.

LOL. Watch dumb shit do her pathetic projection routine.


Everything has been explained. We don't see in real time. You are a lying nut.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The spinning toothed wheel was used to determine the speed

Once again, you don't understand the experiment at all do you?

I understand the experiment LadyShea, but what does measuring the speed of light have to do with determining whether we see an object in real time? Our eyes would never be able to determine this in such a short interval.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not an ad hom. This is another way of evading the question so you don't have to explain yourself.

It is an ad hom and you are using it to weasel away from the questions about photon locations with regard to film photography.

What question am I not answering? That I could be wrong? Sure I could be wrong. I've never claimed infallibility nor have I claimed to hold special knowledge.

And what would you like me to explain about myself?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand the experiment LadyShea, but what does measuring the speed of light have to do with determining whether we see an object in real time? Our eyes would never be able to determine this in such a short interval.

If real time seeing were true, then the viewer would be able to see the light all the time regardless of the speed of rotation of the wheel

The viewer could not see the light AT ALL if the wheel was rotating at a specific speed, even with an unobstructed line of sight at various intervals, because of the the light travel time delay which caused the returning light to hit the teeth of the wheel instead of the gaps between the teeth

At slower rotation speeds the light could be seen
At faster rotation speeds the light could be seen