A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is very clearly a dark skinned man with his ass in the air, but something is sticking up out of his ass, and I can't see what it is.

Now the image is coming into focus. I don't know if I like this avatar now that I know what it is.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right. If that particular photon is no longer traveling because it strikes the film or retina, then that particular photon will not arrive on Earth 81/2 minutes later. So what? Where does this observation negate this model of sight?

You still need to answer how the specific photons absorbed at the camera film got to the camera without traveling there at the speed of light.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm only talking about the partial spectrum that is the mirror image of the object when we are looking at it.

No such thing as a "mirror image of the object" is known to exist, is suspected to exist, it mathematically predicted to exist, nor has been shown to exist, nor have you provided any reason to even think it might exist. It is therefore something you conjured up that doesn't exist.

I did not say light doesn't travel independently but this light is full spectrum light.

Spectroscopy demonstrates differently. Light travels

You are trying to make it seem that light is light

Light is light in reality, I am not trying to make it seem like anything.,

but light has properties LadyShea and whether it is partial or full spectrum light is central to this discussion.

It has properties, but whether light of a single wavelength (like a laser) or multiple wavelengths is traveling together is meaningless to anything in the discussion.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Why do you suppose that Mars is called "The Red Planet"?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

I know you are disputing it, but you are disputing it without presenting even a speck of evidence in support of your position. The standard explanation, on the other hand, has truck loads of evidence, most of which has been presented here on more than one occasion. If you think you have evidence for your position, then produce it. In other words, put up or shut up.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Answer the question. What do you mean by "the location of the beam"?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have to remember that my father came to this finding indirectly.

Which is probably why he got it all so terribly wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The verdict is still out so it's premature of you to make such a bold claim.

You are probably the only person in the world who thinks so. You are so special.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If that particular photon is no longer traveling because it strikes the film or retina, then that particular photon will not arrive on Earth 81/2 minutes later. So what? Where does this observation negate this model of sight?

You are right, it won't be arriving on Earth 8.5 minutes later, because it is already there, absorbed into the film that is also on Earth and it arrived there 8.5 minutes after the Sun was turned on.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is very clearly a dark skinned man with his ass in the air, but something is sticking up out of his ass, and I can't see what it is.

Try looking at it efferently.

[ceptimus]

It looks like a (small) vase of flowers in the ass to me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You still need to answer how the specific photons absorbed at the camera film got to the camera without traveling there at the speed of light.

LadyShea, this has to do with efferent VISION. If the eyes see the object (which is not part of the afferent account), then it creates a closed system where the light would be at the eye as instantly as it would take light to reach your eyes from a candle. It's a perfect analogy because we're not talking about time here; we're talking about proportion; the size and intensity of the Sun relative to the lens.

This font is getting so small I can barely read it. Does anyone know how to fix this?

[ceptimus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This font is getting so small I can barely read it. Does anyone know how to fix this?

Hold down the Ctrl key and press the 0 (zero) key to get standard size.

If you have a mouse wheel, you can hold down the Ctrl key and use the mouse wheel to zoom the text bigger and smaller

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I agree with you. Full spectrum light is made up of many wavelengths. This doesn't change what I'm trying to get across, but thanks for clarifying.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It rather does change what you were trying to get across which was "the information (the wavelength/frequency) does not exist without the object."

I'm sorry to inform you that the light from the Hubble deep field is full spectrum light. This light has no information in it in the sense of bringing to us knowledge about external objects or events. It may give us information about the age of the galaxy, but that's not what I'm talking about. Stop conflating the two issues as if they are one.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Wavelength absolutely does exist without objects, because it is a property of light to have a wavelength, and light exists independent of its source.

That's where we part ways. Full spectrum light has all the wavelengths and that is what travels independently.

I'm only talking about the partial spectrum that is the mirror image of the object when we are looking at it.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No such thing as a "mirror image of the object" is known to exist, is suspected to exist, it mathematically predicted to exist, nor has been shown to exist, nor have you provided any reason to even think it might exist. It is therefore something you conjured up that doesn't exist.

First of all this entire discovery is unprecedented. That's why certain words have to be explained in the context of this discussion. Of course a mirror image is not known to exist, nor has it been shown to exist, or mathematically predicted to exist, but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist in reference to this model of sight. I am saying that a mirror image is a pretty accurate term in the sense that the space between the object and the lens would create a mirror image as we look at the object. So why shouldn't I use the term? I think it gives people a better idea of how this account works.

I did not say light doesn't travel independently but this light is full spectrum light.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Spectroscopy demonstrates differently. Light travels

Why do you keep saying that? We all know light travels but spectroscopy does not prove what you think it does.

You are trying to make it seem that light is light

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Light is light in reality, I am not trying to make it seem like anything.

Yes you are. It would be like clumping all people of one race together and saying they are all alike because people are people and therefore have no individual characteristics.

but light has properties LadyShea and whether it is partial or full spectrum light is central to this discussion.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It has properties, but whether light of a single wavelength (like a laser) or multiple wavelengths is traveling together is meaningless to anything in the discussion.

It has absolute relevance to this discussion. Moreover, there is no way scientists can prove through observation that the light being reflected from a distant object is traveling with a partial spectrum or a full spectrum of light, so your opinion doesn't mean much.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Hold down the Ctrl key and press the 0 (zero) key to get standard size.

If you have a mouse wheel, you can hold down the Ctrl key and use the mouse wheel to zoom the text bigger and smaller

Thanks Ceptimus. I can now see what I'm typing. lol I didn't realize how small the font can get. My laptop is doing all kinds of weird things. This was one of them. My mouse broke not too long ago so my daughter-in-law offered to get the same mouse for me that she bought for herself.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry to inform you that the light from the Hubble deep field is full spectrum light. This light has no information in it in the sense of bringing to us knowledge about external objects or events.

"Full spectrum" light? Do you mean white light? It sure doesn't look that way to me. Look at the picture, that's not just white light. And that this light has no information in it is a pretty stupid claim.

The Hubble Ultra Deep Field:

That's where we part ways. Full spectrum light has all the wavelengths and that is what travels independently.

So white light travels, but yellow light doesn't? Is that what you mean?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Why do you suppose that Mars is called "The Red Planet"?

Because of its iron content. What's your point?

Originally Posted by Angakuk

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.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I know you are disputing it, but you are disputing it without presenting even a speck of evidence in support of your position. The standard explanation, on the other hand, has truck loads of evidence, most of which has been presented here on more than one occasion. If you think you have evidence for your position, then produce it. In other words, put up or shut up.

Are you kidding me? Did you not read Chapter Four? He observed something about the eyes that proves we don't see in real time. Can you remember anything about that chapter?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Answer the question. What do you mean by "the location of the beam"?

The beam's reflection is either at the moon or on Earth. We can't see the reflection on the moon because it's too small, but we would be able to see the light as it strikes the telescope on Earth.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have to remember that my father came to this finding indirectly.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Which is probably why he got it all so terribly wrong.

That's just not true. Maybe I'm not explaining it like he could.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The verdict is still out so it's premature of you to make such a bold claim.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You are probably the only person in the world who thinks so. You are so special.

I don't know why I happen to be the daughter of someone who made three discoveries, so if that makes me special, I can accept that. But everybody is special in their own unique way.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If that particular photon is no longer traveling because it strikes the film or retina, then that particular photon will not arrive on Earth 81/2 minutes later. So what? Where does this observation negate this model of sight?

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You are right, it won't be arriving on Earth 8.5 minutes later, because it is already there, absorbed into the film that is also on Earth and it arrived there 8.5 minutes after the Sun was turned on.

Thanks for reminding me of the afferent account, like I haven't heard it a thousand times already.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you're missing the fact that this one photon (this one letter) can be used to see the Sun if it happens to be the light that forms the mirror image which takes virtually no time (think about the candle and how the Sun example is analogous. This photon is still in the process of traveling to Earth which takes 81/2 minutes. These are two completely different phenomena. Your question is fair. I just hope you realize that there is no conflict between the traveling photon and using this same photon to see what's out there before it actually arrives on Earth.

Not the photons I asked about.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just explained that this one photon can be used to see the Sun as I look at it in real time, but this lasts only an instant. This same photon continues traveling to Earth and if I keep my eye on the Sun, there are many different photons that will be taking its place because it's not the photon that has any individual characteristics other than the full spectrum; it's what these photons are revealing as we look in that direction.

Still not the photons I asked about.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course. Photons travel and each and every second they are in a different place in time.

Right, so please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

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. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well I may not stick around for long then.

Can't be honest, huh?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It amazes me that there is no interest in determinism. On every other forum I've been to, this is discussed quite often.

It's not about a lack of interest. It's about refusing to let you get away with dishonesty and evasive weaseling.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It came from the list of avatars that was offered. I chose it myself but I only chose it because I'm constantly thinking WTF when people misunderstand what I'm saying. I have no idea what the picture represents. Do you?

I think it represents you perfectly.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

"Full spectrum" light? Do you mean white light? It sure doesn't look that way to me. Look at the picture, that's not just white light. And that this light has no information in it is a pretty stupid claim.

The Hubble Ultra Deep Field:

So white light travels, but yellow light doesn't? Is that what you mean?

You're right. We do see different colors. I read that galaxies and stars evolve and their color changes as they mature, evolve, and eventually die. I also read that you can tell the temperature of a star or galaxy by its color because color is closely related to the wavelength at which its light intensity peaks. This is very interesting, but I'm not sure how it negates real time vision. Changes in color actually help scientists determine a stars age and temperature. But seeing galaxies in different colors, and seeing events from the past (as if this were possible) are two entirely different things. I don't see the connection. You may. The following video gives you an even closer look at the many galaxies found in this one spot of sky.

https://www.khanacademy.org/science/...ge-of-galaxies

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well I may not stick around for long then.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Can't be honest, huh?

Why are you being nasty all over again? I don't like talking about light and sight with no end to this. There is a war going on, and it's more important to talk about his other discovery.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It amazes me that there is no interest in determinism. On every other forum I've been to, this is discussed quite often.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It's not about a lack of interest. It's about refusing to let you get away with dishonesty and evasive weaseling.

I didn't say I wouldn't come back to this topic. His other discovery is more important at the moment.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It came from the list of avatars that was offered. I chose it myself but I only chose it because I'm constantly thinking WTF when people misunderstand what I'm saying. I have no idea what the picture represents. Do you?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I think it represents you perfectly.

You would.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

When did you first say this? Back in early 2011?

Desperately trying to change the subject from light and sight again, are we?

We've been over your "two-sided equation." It's not an equation, and it's rubbish.

You are priceless. You are the greatest generator of WTF in the history of the Internet.

I think that's a horse's tail coming out of the rear end. It is suggesting that you are a horse's ass.

If no one wants to talk about his other discovery, then I don't want to stay. The two-sided equation is not rubbish David. It's amazing how easy it is to put a value on something you don't even understand.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have to remember that my father came to this finding indirectly. From this observation he realized that two things are necessary for sight (which I've been repeating for years); that the object has to be bright enough and large enough to be seen. In other words, the photon that is traveling may be there at that exact moment when I'm looking at the Sun.

You are just weaseling again because you can't come up with a model that doesn't contradict observed reality and known principles of physics.

If a light photon is somewhere, it had to either be emitted there, or traveled there at the speed of light. Make that work with light photons being instantly on camera film on Earth or admit that your model is nonsense.

It will not be there an instant later, for photons are constantly being replaced

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Weasel

You need to tell us where those specific photons, the ones that are being absorbed by camera film on Earth at exactly 12:00 noon at the exact moment the Sun was turned on, came from and how they got to the camera film on Earth without a travel time delay.

Everything else you are rambling about it just red herrings. Answer the questions or shut the fuck up already.

These are no red herrings. The photon is at the film due to a mirror image which takes as little time as it takes to see any mirror image because it's the size and intensity of the object relative to the viewer that makes this possible, not traveling light.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why are you being nasty all over again?

I'm not being nasty. You just said you won't stick around because I won't change the subject until you can be honest in answering my questions. You obviously have a problem with directly and honestly answering questions.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

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

Just so you know, most of my posts and I assume many of the posts of others, excepting Peacegirl, are not for the benefit of Peacegirl, nor do I have any expectation of changing her mind, and I assume others may feel the same way. My posts and many of the others are purely for the benefit of the thousands, nay millions of lurkers who are silently reading this thread and possibly being misled by the Lessans/Peacegirl fantasy.

FYI, if this thread is very distressing to you, you have my permission to not browse this thread. Just thought you'd like to know.

[thedoc]

[quote=Clueless;1198485]
But you're missing the fact that this one photon (this one letter) can be used to see the Sun if it happens to be the light that forms the mirror image which takes virtually no time (think about the candle and how the Sun example is analogous. This photon is still in the process of traveling to Earth which takes 81/2 minutes. These are two completely different phenomena. Your question is fair. I just hope you realize that there is no conflict between the traveling photon and using this same photon to see what's out there before it actually arrives on Earth.

Originally Posted by oblivious

I just explained that this one photon can be used to see the Sun as I look at it in real time, but this lasts only an instant. This same photon continues traveling to Earth and if I keep my eye on the Sun, there are many different photons that will be taking its place because it's not the photon that has any individual characteristics other than the full spectrum; it's what these photons are revealing as we look in that direction.

Do you even read your posts, and don't you see just how stupid all this is?

There is no such thing as a photon with a full spectrum, each photon has a frequency that corresponds to a particular color. A full spectrum consists of all frequencies of photons together.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It came from the list of avatars that was offered. I chose it myself but I only chose it because I'm constantly thinking WTF when people misunderstand what I'm saying. I have no idea what the picture represents. Do you?

The picture represents that everything you post is coming out of your ass.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry to inform you that the light from the Hubble deep field is full spectrum light.

You see, everyone? She is sorry to inform of us this.

My God, you are stupid.

All you have to do is take a look at the pictures from the Hubble to disprove your statement. You don't know what full spectrum even means, do you? You don't even know what wavelengths mean, or what they denote, do you? Despite having his explained to you more times than one can count.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Just so you know, most of my posts and I assume many of the posts of others, excepting Peacegirl, are not for the benefit of Peacegirl, nor do I have any expectation of changing her mind, and I assume others may feel the same way. My posts and many of the others are purely for the benefit of the thousands, nay millions of lurkers who are silently reading this thread and possibly being misled by the Lessans/Peacegirl fantasy.

FYI, if this thread is very distressing to you, you have my permission to not browse this thread. Just thought you'd like to know.

It doesn't distress me in the least! I'm just absolutely gobsmacked confounded why you all keep asking the same questions over and over and getting the same non-answers as you did two, three years ago!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It rather does change what you were trying to get across which was "the information (the wavelength/frequency) does not exist without the object."

Wavelength absolutely does exist without objects, because it is a property of light to have a wavelength, and light exists independent of its source.

I am envisioning seeing the light from our own Sun if suddenly it turned into a dwarf and its color changed. I would see the light emitted from the Sun as a different color, but it still wouldn't change the fact that I would be seeing this light in real time (if efferent vision is correct). As far as galaxies that no longer exist, if scientists say this light travels forever, then I believe it. But even that doesn't negate the plausibility of real time vision. We would just be seeing light that had traveled a great distance to get here, but we would be seeing very old light in real time. This doesn't apply to objects and events of the past.