A revolution in thought - Page 740

peacegirl · #**18476** 06-11-2012, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Um, you actually think that after your attacking me as being mentally ill, that I am going to continue to engage you? You can talk to yourself all you want, but until you stop with these idiotic posts, you will never an answer from me.

No-one is attacking you as being mentally ill. People are genuinely concerned for your mental health because you keep saying and doing things that no sane person would say or do. If you refuse to answer my questions about light than I will ask you about your mental condition. It doesn't seem to make any difference what I ask you about, because you never answer my questions anyway no matter what the topic.

This is the biggest bullshit answer anyone could give. And you gave it Spacemonkey. It doesn't surprise me at all.

peacegirl · #**18477** 06-11-2012, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

I love how peacegirl, who doesn't understand much about anything and nothing at all about science, nonetheless feels sufficiently credentialed to tell scientists what they can and can't do, and specifically to tell them that they can't do something that they have done for a long, long time. You'd think by now that they would have noticed that they can't do the Fizeau experiment! :lol:

Notice how the :weasel:

just can't cope with Mars and NASA! :awesome:

Oh my #*$*L*L*#*$(@AIKR%$(A@K goddddddddd, where did I say that this experiment is wrong???? Show me? You are using this against me for no reason, and I don't appreciate your charades David. :fuming:

davidm · #**18478** 06-11-2012, 12:46 AM

Accusing someone else of bullshit answers.

Hey, peacegirl, why does NASA use delayed-time seeing calculations to send spacecraft to Mars and other destinations?

Haven't figured that one out yet, have you?

:lol:

davidm · #**18479** 06-11-2012, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

I love how peacegirl, who doesn't understand much about anything and nothing at all about science, nonetheless feels sufficiently credentialed to tell scientists what they can and can't do, and specifically to tell them that they can't do something that they have done for a long, long time. You'd think by now that they would have noticed that they can't do the Fizeau experiment! :lol:

Notice how the :weasel:

just can't cope with Mars and NASA! :awesome:

Oh my #*$*L*L*#*$(@AIKR%$(A@K goddddddddd, where did I say that this experiment is wrong???? Show me? You are using this against me for no reason, and I don't appreciate your charades David. :fuming:

The reason that the experiment was able to derive the speed of light was precisely because there was a delay in seeing the light.

Asshat.

peacegirl · #**18480** 06-11-2012, 12:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

I love how peacegirl, who doesn't understand much about anything and nothing at all about science, nonetheless feels sufficiently credentialed to tell scientists what they can and can't do, and specifically to tell them that they can't do something that they have done for a long, long time. You'd think by now that they would have noticed that they can't do the Fizeau experiment! :lol:

Notice how the :weasel:

just can't cope with Mars and NASA! :awesome:

Oh my #*$*L*L*#*$(@AIKR%$(A@K goddddddddd, where did I say that this experiment is wrong???? Show me? You are using this against me for no reason, and I don't appreciate your charades David. :fuming:

The reason that the experiment was able to derive the speed of light was precisely because there was a delay in seeing the light.

Asshat.

Mr Ass bullshitter, you have no *#$($L* clue what Lessans is even claiming. So shut the #*A$&A%O# up. You are so full of it David, that it makes me sick.

davidm · #**18481** 06-11-2012, 12:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

I love how peacegirl, who doesn't understand much about anything and nothing at all about science, nonetheless feels sufficiently credentialed to tell scientists what they can and can't do, and specifically to tell them that they can't do something that they have done for a long, long time. You'd think by now that they would have noticed that they can't do the Fizeau experiment! :lol:

Notice how the :weasel:

just can't cope with Mars and NASA! :awesome:

Oh my #*$*L*L*#*$(@AIKR%$(A@K goddddddddd, where did I say that this experiment is wrong???? Show me? You are using this against me for no reason, and I don't appreciate your charades David. :fuming:

The reason that the experiment was able to derive the speed of light was precisely because there was a delay in seeing the light.

Asshat.

Mr Ass bullshitter, you have no *#$($L* clue what Lessans is even claiming. So shut the #*A$&A%O# up. You are so full of it David, that it makes me sick.

Losing it again, are we, asshat?

Hey, peacegirl, why does NASA use delayed-time seeing calculations to plot trajectories to Mars and other heavenly bodies? Have you ever thought about that?

:popcorn:

Dragar · #**18482** 06-11-2012, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

How is it flawed? If we could see in realtime, we would see instantly through the hole between the 'spokes' of the wheel. And when the hole is blocked by the spoke, we shouldn't at that instant be able to see what is behind the spoke. Which of these do you disagree with?

Bump.

Spacemonkey · #**18483** 06-11-2012, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I need you to stop posting as if I'm mentally ill. If you continue, then I will not talk to you anymore. Take it or leave it.

We'd like YOU to stop posting as if you're mentally ill, but we all know that's not going to happen.

You can take your pick: Either answer my questions about light and photography, or answer my questions about your mental condition. But as long as you continue to answer neither, I'll keep posting both sets of questions.

:weasel:

Spacemonkey · #**18484** 06-11-2012, 01:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

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?

Bump.

This doesn't apply Spacemonkey, and I'm sick and tired of you badgering that I am avoiding the question.

Why doesn't it apply? The questions themselves explain why they do apply. You agreed that these photons exist, that they previously existed at the times mentioned, and that they had locations at those times. This proves that these questions do apply to your own non-model.

Spacemonkey · #**18485** 06-11-2012, 01:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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?

I'm still after an answer to these questions. Answer them once, honestly, and they will go away.

Bump.

naturalist.atheist · #**18486** 06-11-2012, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This doesn't apply Spacemonkey, and I'm sick and tired of you badgering that I am avoiding the question.

Why doesn't it apply? The questions themselves explain why they do apply. You agreed that these photons exist, that they previously existed at the times mentioned, and that they had locations at those times. This proves that these questions do apply to your own non-model.

Really Spacemonkey! We all know the past doesn't exist so how could past photons exist? Just like Lessans no longer exists.

....

What were we talking about?

LadyShea · #**18487** 06-11-2012, 02:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand this perfectly, but it doesn't apply at all to what Lessans is saying. How do you expect to prove that we see, or don't see, in real time, when light is traveling so fast? As I said in the previous post, by the time we even have a chance to look, the light has reached our eyes, so there is no way we can answer the question of real time seeing with this example.

You realize that that's the brilliance of Fizeau's experiment? Scientists knew that the speed of light was really incredibly fast, so they had to concoct methods using fast spinning objects to manipulate the light.

You never answered this question:
Suppose a light source is bright enough to be seen at a fairly long distance (Say several miles). Lessans predicts that you will see the light source a tiny fraction of a second before the light reaches our eyes. What does the light source look like to us?

The reason why I ask that question is because in Fizeau's experiment, the light source is bright enough to be seen from miles away. When the wheel is spinning at the right speed, the light source is bright enough to be seen and the object is in the field of view, but none of its light is reaching the eye.

Lessans predicts that we would "see" this light source. what might it look like?

No specious_reasons, we could never test whether we see in real time using this experiment because there is no way we can determine at which point we would see the light bulb when light is traveling so fast.

"At which point" shows your misunderstanding.

It had nothing to do with when one could see the light, only if one could see the light

So what did it have to do with LadyShea?

As you've been told several times now, and just above, it's not about when, it's about if.

"only if one could see the light"

But said "whether one can see the light"

I used "can/cannot see the light at all" several times.

Is your crap about "when" it is seen weaseling or ignorance? You say you understand perfectly, then talk about something that was not part of the experiment.

Spacemonkey · #**18488** 06-11-2012, 03:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Is your crap about "when" it is seen weaseling or ignorance? You say you understand perfectly, then talk about something that was not part of the experiment.

She means she (P)understands perfectly...

IOW she has absolutely no idea what she is talking about but will continue to pretend otherwise.

naturalist.atheist · #**18489** 06-11-2012, 03:40 AM

I'm pretty sure peacegirl is not pretending. It is the best she can do. But when you're schizophrenic it may not be much.

peacegirl · #**18490** 06-11-2012, 12:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

How is it flawed? If we could see in realtime, we would see instantly through the hole between the 'spokes' of the wheel. And when the hole is blocked by the spoke, we shouldn't at that instant be able to see what is behind the spoke. Which of these do you disagree with?

Bump.

You can't see something if light is cut off. It won't show up. You are misinterpreting this claim. It doesn't say we can see something when there is no light in which to see. It's just that efferent vision allows us to see without that light having to travel to Earth. The film/retina is still interacting with light as long as the object is within one's field of view. This is what you're having a hard time with, but in no uncertain terms does this violate the laws of physics.

Dragar · #**18491** 06-11-2012, 12:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The film/retina is still interacting with light as long as the object is within one's field of view.

But it's not within one's field of view. There is a spoke of the wheel between the retina and the light-source. Yet we can still see the light. Why? (For us it is easy to explain!)

Equally, sometimes the object is in the field of view, but we cannot see the light. Why? (For us, it is easy to explain!)

But · #**18492** 06-11-2012, 12:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't see something if light is cut off. It won't show up. You are misinterpreting this claim. It doesn't say we can see something when there is no light in which to see. It's just that efferent vision allows us to see without that light having to travel to Earth. The film/retina is still interacting with light as long as the object is within one's field of view. This is what you're having a hard time with, but in no uncertain terms does this violate the laws of physics.

You aren't paying attention. The experiment shows that if light can't travel to the eye, nothing can be seen. You say that the light doesn't have to travel to the eye, it only has to be at the object. That's not true.

Oh, and explain the experiment. In your own words.

Spacemonkey · #**18493** 06-11-2012, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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?

I'm still after an answer to these questions. Answer them once, honestly, and they will go away.

Bump.

peacegirl · #**18494** 06-11-2012, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The film/retina is still interacting with light as long as the object is within one's field of view.

But it's not within one's field of view. There is a spoke of the wheel between the retina and the light-source. Yet we can still see the light. Why? (For us it is easy to explain!)

We can see the light when it's not blocked by the wheel, but when it is blocked, we can't see it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Equally, sometimes the object is in the field of view, but we cannot see the light. Why? (For us, it is easy to explain!)

It's probably not bright enough, or large enough. What's your explanation?

thedoc · #**18495** 06-11-2012, 12:57 PM

Peacegirl, in the efferent model, when we look at an object useing a mirror does the brain looking through the eye instantly see the object itself, or do we instantly see the reflection of the object in the mirror? In other words when seeing a reflection instantly in a mirror does the light from the object first have to travel to the mirror to form an image there, or do we instantly see the object?

But · #**18496** 06-11-2012, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The film/retina is still interacting with light as long as the object is within one's field of view.

But it's not within one's field of view. There is a spoke of the wheel between the retina and the light-source. Yet we can still see the light. Why? (For us it is easy to explain!)

We can see the light when it's not blocked by the wheel, but when it is blocked, we can't see it.

We can see it when it's not blocked from traveling to the eye, we can see it when it travels to the eye, through space, at light speed, which takes time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Equally, sometimes the object is in the field of view, but we cannot see the light. Why? (For us, it is easy to explain!)

It's probably not bright enough, or large enough. What's your explanation?

No, the brightness or size hasn't changed.

peacegirl · #**18497** 06-11-2012, 01:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You can't see something if light is cut off. It won't show up. You are misinterpreting this claim. It doesn't say we can see something when there is no light in which to see. It's just that efferent vision allows us to see without that light having to travel to Earth. The film/retina is still interacting with light as long as the object is within one's field of view. This is what you're having a hard time with, but in no uncertain terms does this violate the laws of physics.

You aren't paying attention. The experiment shows that if light can't travel to the eye, nothing can be seen. You say that the light doesn't have to travel to the eye, it only has to be at the object. That's not true.

In this experiment, if light hasn't traveled to the eye, we can't see the light. But how can you determine what we see when light is traveling so fast, and the lightbulb is only 10 miles away? If it takes 1.3 seconds for light to reach Earth from the moon, how would anyone be able to determine what it is we are seeing in a millisecond?

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Oh, and explain the experiment. In your own words.

Light travels from the light bulb, strikes a mirror and travels toward the wheel. Depending on how fast or slow the wheel is turning will determine whether the light gets through the teeth of the wheel or whether it gets blocked. This, in turn, allows us to figure out the speed at which light is traveling.

peacegirl · #**18498** 06-11-2012, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

How is it flawed? If we could see in realtime, we would see instantly through the hole between the 'spokes' of the wheel. And when the hole is blocked by the spoke, we shouldn't at that instant be able to see what is behind the spoke. Which of these do you disagree with?

Bump.

How could we see instantly through the hole between the spokes when the light is blocked. That would be magic. :eek:

Somehow you're mixing up the speed of light with efferent vision. You are trying to get me to say that we could see something without light as a condition, and that is not possible.

peacegirl · #**18499** 06-11-2012, 01:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The film/retina is still interacting with light as long as the object is within one's field of view.

But it's not within one's field of view. There is a spoke of the wheel between the retina and the light-source. Yet we can still see the light. Why? (For us it is easy to explain!)

We can see the light when it's not blocked by the wheel, but when it is blocked, we can't see it.

We can see it when it's not blocked from traveling to the eye, we can see it when it travels to the eye, through space, at light speed, which takes time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Equally, sometimes the object is in the field of view, but we cannot see the light. Why? (For us, it is easy to explain!)

It's probably not bright enough, or large enough. What's your explanation?

No, the brightness or size hasn't changed.

So what's your explanation? That the light hasn't traveled to us and therefore even though the object is in our field of view, we can't it. Is that it?

Dragar · #**18500** 06-11-2012, 01:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The film/retina is still interacting with light as long as the object is within one's field of view.

But it's not within one's field of view. There is a spoke of the wheel between the retina and the light-source. Yet we can still see the light. Why? (For us it is easy to explain!)

We can see the light when it's not blocked by the wheel, but when it is blocked, we can't see it.

But it's the other way around! When we spin the wheel, we find that we sometimes can't see the mirror even though there is a clear path between us and it. Why?

Quote:

It's probably not bright enough, or large enough. What's your explanation?

No, it's bright enough and large enough. We can see it if we change the speed of the wheel, remember?

We explain the experiment easily - we see in 'delayed' time, so even though in real time there is a clear path between us and the object at that instant, it doesn't matter - completely the opposite of realtime seeing.

Likewise, if you sit any distance back from the wheel, there will be moments when the path at that instant is blocked between our eyes and the object, yet we can still see it. Because the instantaneous path does not matter. Again, impossible if we see in realtime, but obvious if we don't.

So explain. We spin the wheel, and it stops us seeing an object that's perfectly bright enough and clear enough to be seen. It has plenty of light illuminating it. So why can't we see it through the spokes of the wheel?