A revolution in thought - Page 1579

Angakuk · #**39451** 07-31-2014, 03:56 AM

No.

LadyShea · #**39452** 07-31-2014, 04:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

the information (the wavelength/frequency) does not exist without the object.

Light has immutable properties with or without the source in existence. If it is light, it has a wavelength. :facepalm:

peacegirl · #**39453** 07-31-2014, 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That doesn't help you. The empty letter that has arrived can be exactly the same as the one the postman was talking about too. Yet his explanation is obviously still flawed. Can you work out why?

Quote:

Because it didn't have time to get there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What didn't have time to get there? What is the problem with the postman's explanation?

Because it had arrived supposedly without it actually traveling to get there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The nonabsorbed photons do not arrive because they are not being reflected since these photons do not travel at all.

All photons travel, remember? Otherwise they are not photons.

This is getting very confusing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

For you, obviously.

Two different accounts Spacemonkey.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right, photons travel, but if they don't travel with the information...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Information has nothing to do with it. You said the photons don't have to arrive because they don't travel. But they do travel, so they have to arrive (information or not). And you need them to arrive at the same time they are just leaving the Sun.

Photons arrive on Earth or they wouldn't get here 81/2 minutes later. When they do, we see everything on Earth as long as the requirements are met of real time seeing. What Lessans said, and what I believe is true (whether you think it's faith based or not) is that light only has to be at the object being viewed, because if the object is seen (when it meets the requirements) this automatically has the light at the film or retina. That is only because of the efferent account, the fact that we are seeing in real time which creates a different situation. Waiting for light 81/2 minutes later would not give us an image because there is no information in the light that could do this.

Spacemonkey · #**39454** 07-31-2014, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What didn't have time to get there? What is the problem with the postman's explanation?

Because it had arrived supposedly without it actually traveling to get there.

Stop using pronouns without explaining what the hell you are talking about. Anyway, no, that is not the problem with the postman's explanation. The problem is that he was asked about one letter and gave an answer for a completely different letter. Just as YOU do when asked about the photons at the film.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Information has nothing to do with it. You said the photons don't have to arrive because they don't travel. But they do travel, so they have to arrive (information or not). And you need them to arrive at the same time they are just leaving the Sun.

Photons arrive on Earth or they wouldn't get here 81/2 minutes later...

But those are not the photons I asked about, are they?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...this automatically has the light at the film or retina.

THOSE are the photons I asked about. Did THOSE photons come from the Sun and get to the film by traveling?

peacegirl · #**39455** 07-31-2014, 12:53 PM

Spacemonkey, I do appreciate your thoughts on this subject; in fact I really respect you. I am just asking (because I cannot move to another forum if you answer wrongly lol) that you allow us to take a break on this subject. You never did think through (only in my estimation) that man's will is not free. This is soooo important that I hope you will take a second look. Will you or will you not? This will have a major effect on whether it is worth it to me to stick around.

Spacemonkey · #**39456** 07-31-2014, 12:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, I do appreciate your thoughts on this subject; in fact I really respect you. I am just asking (because I cannot move to another forum if you answer wrongly lol) that you allow us to take a break on this subject. You never did think through (only in my estimation) that man's will is not free. This is soooo important that I hope you will take a second look. Will you or will you not? This will have a major effect on whether it is worth it to me to stick around.

No, I won't change the subject until you directly and honestly answer my questions.

BTW, where did your avatar come from? Did you choose it yourself?

LadyShea · #**39457** 07-31-2014, 01:14 PM

Quote:

what I believe is true (whether you think it's faith based or not) is that light only has to be at the object being viewed, because if the object is seen (when it meets the requirements) this automatically has the light at the film or retina.

Now you are back to light photons being at two locations at the same time, which is not compatible with the principles of optics or the properties of light.

1. At the object being viewed
2. At the film/retina

Spacemonkey · #**39458** 07-31-2014, 01:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

what I believe is true (whether you think it's faith based or not) is that light only has to be at the object being viewed, because if the object is seen (when it meets the requirements) this automatically has the light at the film or retina.

Now you are back to light photons being at two locations at the same time.

1. At the object
2. At the film/retina

She doesn't understand what the word 'only' means.

LadyShea · #**39459** 07-31-2014, 01:18 PM

I can't really see the avatar clearly. What exactly is emerging from the person's ass?

LadyShea · #**39460** 07-31-2014, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Here is what he originally wrote:

Quote:

However, there is one change about to take place where sex and marriage are concerned that will absolutely amaze everybody and reveal in an infallible manner the great wisdom that directs every aspect of this universe, for you are about to see how it will be mathematically impossible henceforth for a husband and wife to ever desire one bed for the two of them. That’s right! Sleeping together, except as part of the sexual act, is about to take leave. This is no different than other mathematical problems.

And here is what you changed it to:

Quote:

However, there is one change about to take place where sex and marriage are concerned that will surprise everybody, for you are about to see how it will be mathematically impossible henceforth for a husband and wife to ever desire to own only one bed for the two of them. That’s right! Sleeping together except as part of the sexual act will no longer be an unspoken rule of marriage. This is no different than other mathematical problems.

Not to desire one bed for the two of them, is NOT the same as, Not to desire to OWN only one bed for the two of them! In addition to the other changes you made, you added the word OWN which was not in the original!

Any idiot can see your change to the Sacred Text renders the meaning to be completely different!

Moreover, once again, you said that I had LIED about the text; but my characterization of it, BEFORE you altered it, is absolutely accurate.

You are a LIAR.

Your characterization is meant to be a character assassination. You don't like that you're wrong about Lessans' ability and skill to make these discoveries. You would do anything to discredit him even make up stuff if you have to. And by the way, it was LadyShea who changed that sentence for me, so go take it up with her.

LOL, passing the buck to me!

I helped you with words to get the specific meaning you wanted across, the interpretation of Lessans is your responsibility, though.

Come on LadyShea, you offered this sentence (and I thank you for that) because you felt it was clearer to the reader.

It more clearly conveyed the meaning you wanted.

Quote:

Now David comes along and says the word "own" screws things up.

It changes the original meaning, sure. That's why I said the interpretation of the original is your responsibility.

peacegirl · #**39461** 07-31-2014, 01:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

the information (the wavelength/frequency) does not exist without the object.

Light has immutable properties with or without the source in existence. If it is light, it has a wavelength. :facepalm:

Well I believe you're quite wrong here. Light does have a wavelength, and it is full spectrum when it arrives on Earth. You aren't saying anything new, and therefore you are not proving your case.

peacegirl · #**39462** 07-31-2014, 01:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Here is what he originally wrote:

Quote:

However, there is one change about to take place where sex and marriage are concerned that will absolutely amaze everybody and reveal in an infallible manner the great wisdom that directs every aspect of this universe, for you are about to see how it will be mathematically impossible henceforth for a husband and wife to ever desire one bed for the two of them. That’s right! Sleeping together, except as part of the sexual act, is about to take leave. This is no different than other mathematical problems.

And here is what you changed it to:

Quote:

However, there is one change about to take place where sex and marriage are concerned that will surprise everybody, for you are about to see how it will be mathematically impossible henceforth for a husband and wife to ever desire to own only one bed for the two of them. That’s right! Sleeping together except as part of the sexual act will no longer be an unspoken rule of marriage. This is no different than other mathematical problems.

Not to desire one bed for the two of them, is NOT the same as, Not to desire to OWN only one bed for the two of them! In addition to the other changes you made, you added the word OWN which was not in the original!

Any idiot can see your change to the Sacred Text renders the meaning to be completely different!

Moreover, once again, you said that I had LIED about the text; but my characterization of it, BEFORE you altered it, is absolutely accurate.

You are a LIAR.

Your characterization is meant to be a character assassination. You don't like that you're wrong about Lessans' ability and skill to make these discoveries. You would do anything to discredit him even make up stuff if you have to. And by the way, it was LadyShea who changed that sentence for me, so go take it up with her.

LOL, passing the buck to me!

I helped you with words to get the specific meaning you wanted across, the interpretation of Lessans is your responsibility, though.

Come on LadyShea, you offered this sentence (and I thank you for that) because you felt it was clearer to the reader.

It more clearly conveyed the meaning you wanted.

Quote:

Now David comes along and says the word "own" screws things up.

It changes the original meaning, sure. That's why I said the interpretation of the original is your responsibility.

Do you actually think I'm going to argue with you on this point? It doesn't address the issue, and that's the problem. To any serious thinker, they will see the flaw. I am so dumbfounded by the things you and others do to discredit this man, it really is mind boggling but, once again, it doesn't prove Lessans wrong even when it is tested scientifically. I have no doubt that there will be people who will see this flawed thinking and will support Lessans fullly.

LadyShea · #**39463** 07-31-2014, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

the information (the wavelength/frequency) does not exist without the object.

Light has immutable properties with or without the source in existence. If it is light, it has a wavelength. :facepalm:

Well I believe you're quite wrong here. Light does have a wavelength, and it is full spectrum when it arrives on Earth.

Not all light is full spectrum light, that is demonstrably false. We can analyze light, remember?

http://www.astro.washington.edu/user...roduction.html

Quote:

You aren't saying anything new, and therefore you are not proving your case.

You are asserting things that are provably incorrect, as well as silly, so you are not proving your case.

thedoc · #**39464** 07-31-2014, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I can't really see the avatar clearly. What exactly is emerging from the person's ass?

Speaking symbolically, that would be everything that Peacegirl is posting.

Spacemonkey · #**39465** 07-31-2014, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

the information (the wavelength/frequency) does not exist without the object.

Light has immutable properties with or without the source in existence. If it is light, it has a wavelength. :facepalm:

Well I believe you're quite wrong here. Light does have a wavelength, and it is full spectrum when it arrives on Earth. You aren't saying anything new, and therefore you are not proving your case.

Full spectrum is NOT a wavelength. And LadyShea was quite right to say that all light always has a wavelength even without the light source remaining in existence. You were wrong to claim otherwise.

peacegirl · #**39466** 07-31-2014, 01:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

the information (the wavelength/frequency) does not exist without the object.

Light has immutable properties with or without the source in existence. If it is light, it has a wavelength. :facepalm:

Well I believe you're quite wrong here. Light does have a wavelength, and it is full spectrum when it arrives on Earth.

Not all light is full spectrum light, that is demonstrably false. We can analyze light, remember?

Quote:

You aren't saying anything new, and therefore you are not proving your case.

You are asserting things that are provably incorrect, as well as silly, so you are not proving your case.

LadyShea, you have completely ignored this model of sight. I never said that we don't need nonabsorbed light to get the information needed to see anything, but unbeknownst to you, this does not prove him wrong at all. It just shows that the photons that allow us to see in real time are instantly at the eye, whereas the photons that travel to Earth encompass full spectrum light until they strike an object ON EARTH. Do not tell me you know what I'm talking about. You are so convinced I am wrong that you have lost your objectivity just like Davidm and many others as well.

Spacemonkey · #**39467** 07-31-2014, 01:44 PM

You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00.
Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about.

Spacemonkey · #**39468** 07-31-2014, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It just shows that the photons that allow us to see in real time are instantly at the eye...

Where did they come from and how did they get there?

thedoc · #**39469** 07-31-2014, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by clueless

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by dumbshit

the information (the wavelength/frequency) does not exist without the object.

Light has immutable properties with or without the source in existence. If it is light, it has a wavelength. :facepalm:

Well I believe you're quite wrong here. Light does have a wavelength, and it is full spectrum when it arrives on Earth. You aren't saying anything new, and therefore you are not proving your case.

The Sunlight that arrives is almost full spectrum but as soon as that light hits an object and reflects in all directions, (including our eyes), the light is a partial spectrum because part of the light is absorbed, and what is reflected corresponds to the perceived color of the object. That partial spectrum is the information that allows the brain to know what color the object is.

thedoc · #**39470** 07-31-2014, 02:13 PM

There is no such thing as non-absorbed photons that do not travel, they are a made up fantasy. In the real world there is almost never full spectrum light, sunlight has small gaps that tell the scientists what materials the sun is made of. Partial spectrum light being reflected from an object can easily be demonstrated. Shine white light onto an object, focus the reflected light through a prism and you will see only a partial spectrum that corresponds to the color of the object.

davidm · #**39471** 07-31-2014, 03:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light does have a wavelength, and it is full spectrum when it arrives on Earth. You aren't saying anything new, and therefore you are not proving your case.

Full spectrum is NOT a wavelength.

God, make it stop!

Really? You're going to go over this with her again? Obviously she has already forgotten what she accepted some pages back -- the proof that full-spectrum light does not have a wavelength! Once again, her little brain has hit the Reset button! She has completely forgotten what she herself Googled up.

I am sure she still does not grasp the elementary fact that wavelengths are associated with individual colors, whereas white light (full spectrum) is a mix of all the wavelengths and thus cannot itself have a wavelength. But go ahead and explain that to her again -- and then flash forward five years from now and you'll be explaining to her exactly the same thing!

All one has to do is go to practically any page at random and you'll find, if the discussion isn't about her idiotic "two-sided equation," then it's about light and sight, and the questions and answers will be virtually identical!

Why go through the trouble of re-creating reruns? Just read the reruns and save yourself the wear and tear on the keyboard!

LadyShea · #**39472** 07-31-2014, 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

the information (the wavelength/frequency) does not exist without the object.

Light has immutable properties with or without the source in existence. If it is light, it has a wavelength. :facepalm:

Well I believe you're quite wrong here. Light does have a wavelength, and it is full spectrum when it arrives on Earth.

Not all light is full spectrum light, that is demonstrably false. We can analyze light, remember?

Quote:

You aren't saying anything new, and therefore you are not proving your case.

You are asserting things that are provably incorrect, as well as silly, so you are not proving your case.

LadyShea, you have completely ignored this model of sight. I never said that we don't need nonabsorbed light to get the information needed to see anything, but unbeknownst to you, this does not prove him wrong at all.

LOL, none of that has anything to do with what I was saying.

Quote:

It just shows that the photons that allow us to see in real time are instantly at the eye

Then you need to explain where they come from and how they get to the eye, or your model is incompatible with reality. The laws of physics are God's laws, right? If you don't like them, take it up with God.

Quote:

whereas the photons that travel to Earth encompass full spectrum light

Not true. If it were true, all light would be the same (full spectrum), and we couldn't analyze anything with spectroscopy.

Quote:

Spectroscopy is the analysis of light we observe from an object. It is a measure of the amount of light received at each wavelength. It is a powerful tool in astronomy. In fact, most of what we know in astronomy is a result of spectroscopy: it can reveal the temperature, velocity and composition of an object as well as be used to infer mass, distance and many other pieces of information. Spectroscopy is done at all wavelengths of the electromagnetic spectrum, from radio waves to gamma rays; here we will focus on optical or visible light having wavelengths between 360 and 760 nanometers (nm) - from the deep blue to the far red. Stellar Spectroscopy The Message of Starlight

Quote:

until they strike an object ON EARTH. Do not tell me you know what I'm talking about.

I know what you are talking about, but you are wrong.

peacegirl · #**39473** 07-31-2014, 04:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The optical receiver on the telescope, which has a lens and sensor just like a camera, detects the laser light at 2.6 seconds. You have said over and over and over again that cameras, and microscopes and telescopes and binoculars (anything with a lens) detect in real time.

Why is this experiment different? Why the delay?

The delay is because the object or flash didn't meet the requirements. Being too far away and therefore too dim, regardless of how intense the laser light was), renders the inability for the telescope to pick up this light. It's as simple as that LadyShea, and you are denying this because you never paid any attention to what the requirements are otherwise this question wouldn't even come up.

Lessans never made this exception for things that are small or far away. He said that if we see things at all, we see them in real time. And we do see the flash on the moon. We just see it 1.3sec after it happens.

He also said that they have to be big enough and bright enough. So, according to Lessans, we see (i.e. perceive or detect) things that are big enough and bright enough to be seen. Therefore, if we see/perceive/detect something then that means that it must be big enough and bright enough to be seen/perceived/detected.

That is true. That means that we are seeing this piece of substance in real time.

No it doesn't. It means that we see the thing when the light coming from it reaches the optical receiver (i.e. eye, camera, etc.). That is never instantly.

That's what I'm disputing Angakuk, the fact that if the flash did meet these requirements, we would see it when it strikes the reflector, not 1.3 seconds later.

peacegirl · #**39474** 07-31-2014, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

We see/perceive/detect the flash of laser light that has been reflected off the photo-reflector on the Moon. Ipso facto, that flash of laser light is big enough and bright enough to be seen/perceived/detected. Q.E.D.

It is large enough when it is detected on Earth because we can't see the laser beam in between the 1.3 seconds and 2.6 seconds. But at 1.3 seconds when it reaches the moon, we would never be able to see it because the telescope's magnification capability is not that powerful.

You are right, we would never be able to see it at 1.3 seconds. Not because the telescope's magnification capability is insufficient, but because the light has not had enough time to travel from the Moon to the Earth.

Sure, that's exactly why David gave this example thinking it proved his case but, in fact, it did just the opposite because it didn't meet the requirements that would allow anyone to see the flash in real time. Sorry David but you lose.

peacegirl · #**39475** 07-31-2014, 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Lessans never made this exception for things that are small or far away. He said that if we see things at all, we see them in real time. And we do see the flash on the moon. We just see it 1.3sec after it happens.

Of course he did.

No, he didn't. Lessans never said that we see some things in real-time and small or far away things in delayed time. He said we see things in real-time or not at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The laser was a small flash reflected off of an 18 inch reflective surface. How in the world could a telescope detect something that small. That would be the size of an artifact which a telescope cannot resolve.

But the telescope DOES detect and resolve it, remember?

Yes, at 2.6 seconds. The flash would have been too dim to be detected at that distance and one of the requirements is that the object (in this case the light) has to be bright enough, which at 1.3 seconds it was not .

So, was the flash brighter at 2.6 seconds than it was at 1.3 seconds? If it was brighter at 2.6 seconds, how do you account for this increase in brightness?

The intensity didn't change, but the location of the beam as it arrived on Earth allowed the telescope to detect it.

What does "the location of the beam" even mean? If you mean the location of the photons then you are correct. The photons had to change their location from the photo-reflector on the Moon to the optical receiver on the Earth. They can only accomplish that by traveling from the Moon to the Earth at the speed of light.

All you're doing is going right back to the afferent account and repeating it. That's what sounds logical and therefore that's what you believe is true.