|
|
01-30-2016, 11:38 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
You've said these green photons come into existence at the moment the object turns green.
|
I did not say that.
|
Huh? That's exactly what you said:
Me: Where and when did these green photons begin to exist?
You: When the object turned green.
Are you retracting that answer?
|
I did not say that. We see the light turn green instantly if it meets the conditions, which does not mean the green wavelength/frequency began to exist at that instant. How would we be able to use that light to see if it just came into existence? IOW, we would not be able to see the Sun turned on instantly if the light had not become luminous enough which takes time but not the time that you imagine (not 8 minutes). Just like the candle being turned on, it doesn't take more than a nanosecond for that light to be at our eyes because it's a closed system.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Where are they at that moment when they first come into existence? Also, in what direction are they travelling as they come into existence?
|
What do you mean what direction are they traveling? Obviously light travels in straight lines. Depending on the angle light strikes the object will determine the trajectory of those photons.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Um, there is no light striking the object in the scenario I asked about. That scenario was a light-emitting traffic light that changes from red to green.
|
It doesn't matter. There has to be enough light within our field of view for the object to be seen. In this case it would see the light change instantly, or as close to instant as it would take the light from a candle to be at our eyes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
So far, you've said that there will be green photons at the retina at the very instant that the light turns green, and that these photons begin to exist at that moment.
|
No, the photons that you're speaking of do not begin to exist at that instant. They travel, but the travel time is virtually nil. That's what you are not grasping. You still think that light has to travel (the afferent model of sight) 8 minutes to reach our eyes. But that's not the case in the efferent model. That does not mean light does not travel that nanosecond to be at our eyes. This is not the delay you're referring to when you speak of light traveling through space/time.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
You still haven't told me WHERE these photons are when they come into existence, or in what direction they will be travelling.
|
What do you mean, WHERE are these photons or in what direction will they be traveling. There is too much of a disconnect to even answer this question. You are still assuming that the information is in the light as it travels and reaches our eyes independent of the object. You still don't understand that this IS the afferent account of vision and I cannot explain the efferent account coming from your vantage point. You're asking me to fit a square into a hole.
|
You've now retracted the only answer you've given (bizarrely denying that you even said it), so I will have to repeat the questions. You've said that there will be green photons instantly at the retina when the light first turns green. Regarding those specific green photons...
Where and when did these green photons begin to exist?
|
No Spacemonkey, now you're talking about teleportation. This is not magic.
|
01-30-2016, 11:38 PM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
You've now retracted the only answer you've given (bizarrely denying that you even said it), so I will have to repeat the questions. You've said that there will be green photons instantly at the retina when the light first turns green. Regarding those specific green photons...
Where and when did these green photons begin to exist?
|
Bump.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
01-30-2016, 11:40 PM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
You've now retracted the only answer you've given (bizarrely denying that you even said it), so I will have to repeat the questions. You've said that there will be green photons instantly at the retina when the light first turns green. Regarding those specific green photons...
Where and when did these green photons begin to exist?
|
No Spacemonkey, now you're talking about teleportation. This is not magic.
|
What? I didn't say anything about magic or teleportation! What on Earth are you on about? I just asked you a plain simple question about the photons YOU SAY will be instantly at the retina. Again...
Where and when did these green photons begin to exist?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
01-30-2016, 11:50 PM
|
|
Spiffiest wanger
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You are so confused David, it's laughable!!!! Any kind of matter interacting with light will be seen as long as it meets the conditions that I have gone over countless times. If you haven't noticed, light allows us to see anything at all. But that is not the question. The question still remains: whether light brings the images of the material world to us through space/time (as you so fervently believe), or whether we see the material world in real time due to light's presence. You think you're all that. Sorry to inform you, you're not.
|
You just said that we can't see sunlight until it gets here -- completely contradicting Lessans, and everything you've said online for 15 years!
Thanks for your concession! Now we are done here.
You can burn Daddy's books, take down his Twitter account (where he is still begging, from beyond the grave, for reviewers) and do something useful with your life -- like stop hitting the sauce all day long and maybe even get a job instead of stealing public funds.
|
01-31-2016, 12:39 AM
|
|
Flyover Hillbilly
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
You can burn Daddy's books, take down his Twitter account (where he is still begging, from beyond the grave, for reviewers) ...
|
The review that peacegirl purchased made Seymour so sad that he's traveled back along the sacred River of Jizz from the Germinal World of Potential Consciousness to ask for new reviews.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
and do something useful with your life --
|
Oh deary deary me oh my, no. Doing something useful would require actual work, and peacegirl is above that sort of thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
like stop hitting the sauce all day long and maybe even get a job instead of stealing public funds.
|
The Lessans family and ripping off taxpayers go together like right wing militia whackos and firearms.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
|
01-31-2016, 12:48 AM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
They travel, but the travel time is virtually nil.
|
There is no such thing as photons whose travel time is nil or even virtually nil, you are talking about a nonexistent particle, fiction, a fantasy. All photons travel at c in a vacuum and slightly slower in different materials. In some kinds of matter, (opaque) photons are absorbed and converted into different kinds of energy, or reflected at the angle of reflection.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
|
01-31-2016, 12:53 AM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Me: Where and when did these green photons begin to exist?
You: When the object turned green.
|
I did not say that.
|
You did so! Why do you keep lying about your own words, when we can SHOW YOU where you said them? Look:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Where and when did these green photons begin to exist?
|
When the object turned green.
|
Were those your words? Do you remember typing them?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
We see the light turn green instantly if it meets the conditions, which does not mean the green wavelength/frequency began to exist at that instant. How would we be able to use that light to see if it just came into existence?
|
I don't know. It's your bizarre theory, not mine. If the green photons at the retina existed before the light turned green, where did they come from and when did they begin to exist?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
IOW, we would not be able to see the Sun turned on instantly if the light had not become luminous enough which takes time but not the time that you imagine (not 8 minutes). Just like the candle being turned on, it doesn't take more than a nanosecond for that light to be at our eyes because it's a closed system.
|
We were not talking about the Sun or a candle. We were talking about a very distant traffic light. Do the green photons come from the traffic light, and travel from there to the retina in a nanosecond? If so, you have them traveling faster than light; if not, then where and when did they begin to exist?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
It doesn't matter. There has to be enough light for the object to be seen. In this case we would see the traffic light change instantly, about the length of time it would take the light from a candle to be at our eyes in a closed room.
|
Of course it matters. You can't tell me the green photons will be travelling in a direction determined by the angle at which they struck the object when they haven't struck any object.
You are now rejecting your previous claim that there will be green photons instantly at the retina, claiming instead that there will be some minuscule time delay. Fine, but that still doesn't answer my question of where and when these green photons began to exist. If they came from the traffic light, then you have them travelling faster than the speed of light—and you also have them getting to the retina, contrary to your previous denials.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
No, the photons that you're speaking of do not begin to exist at that instant.
|
Fine, then when do they begin to exist? Before or after the traffic light turns green? And where are they when they first begin to exist?
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
They travel, but the travel time is virtually nil. That's what you are not grasping. You still think that light has to travel (the afferent model of sight) 8 minutes to reach our eyes for us to utilize that light. But that's not the case in the efferent model. That's why Lessans said light has to be at the object ONLY. That is also why we would be able to see the Sun being turned on, but not see each other for 8 minutes. Do you even understand what I'm saying?
|
Do you understand what you're saying? Where are these green photons travelling from, where are they travelling to, and have they covered this distance faster than the speed of light? Photons cannot travel huge distances in a nanosecond. Light cannot travel faster than the speed of light.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
What do you mean, WHERE are these photons or in what direction will they be traveling.
|
I mean just that. It's a perfectly simple question expressed in clear English. What part of the question confuses you? I can re-express the question taking into account your nanosecond time-delay if you like:
You have said that there will be green photons near-instantly at the retina, in less time than it would take them to travel from the newly-turned-green traffic light to the retina, so...
Where and when did these green photons begin to exist?
(Please note that this question has nothing to do with whether or not there is any information in the travelling light.)
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
01-31-2016, 01:05 AM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
It is so frustrating to watch Peacegirl flailing about trying to deny that the green photons are coming into existence, when all she needs to do is to state that the red photons have turned into green photons. Then all she needs to do is to explain how this can happen, and considering all the fiction she has invented before, it should be no problem at all.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
|
01-31-2016, 01:14 AM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
It is so frustrating to watch Peacegirl flailing about trying to deny that the green photons are coming into existence, when all she needs to do is to state that the red photons have turned into green photons. Then all she needs to do is to explain how this can happen, and considering all the fiction she has invented before, it should be no problem at all.
|
Well, we can always ask her about that. I'm sure she will have no difficulties providing a direct and honest answer:
Peacegirl, were these green photons—the ones near-instantly at the retina once the traffic light turns green—always green, or have they changed to green from some other colour during their existence as photons?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
01-31-2016, 01:55 AM
|
|
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
|
|
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You're asking me to fit a square into a hole.
|
The correct phrase is "fit a square peg into a round hole". Absent the peg the words make no sense. In any case, you can fit a square peg into round hole, if the hole is enough larger than the peg.
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful.
|
01-31-2016, 02:18 AM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You're asking me to fit a square into a hole.
|
The correct phrase is "fit a square peg into a round hole". Absent the peg the words make no sense. In any case, you can fit a square peg into round hole, if the hole is enough larger than the peg.
|
But that fits with everything else she has ever said, as none of it makes any sense. Peacegirl has got to be the original square peg in a round hole, and not a hole that is big enough.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
|
01-31-2016, 02:38 AM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
The Lessans family and ripping off taxpayers.
|
Well that fits with her trying to rip everyone else off, trying the get them to buy her fathers book.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
|
01-31-2016, 02:11 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You're asking me to fit a square into a hole.
|
The correct phrase is "fit a square peg into a round hole". Absent the peg the words make no sense. In any case, you can fit a square peg into round hole, if the hole is enough larger than the peg.
|
But that fits with everything else she has ever said, as none of it makes any sense. Peacegirl has got to be the original square peg in a round hole, and not a hole that is big enough.
|
It makes complete sense to you, which is the opposite of what anyone with a working brain thinks.
|
01-31-2016, 02:15 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You're asking me to fit a square into a hole.
|
The correct phrase is "fit a square peg into a round hole". Absent the peg the words make no sense. In any case, you can fit a square peg into round hole, if the hole is enough larger than the peg.
|
It makes sense to those who are looking for something to make an issue over like you Angakuk. When a person is a stickler for grammatical perfection, it's because they have nothing left to argue. It's a complete dodge.
|
01-31-2016, 02:19 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
It is so frustrating to watch Peacegirl flailing about trying to deny that the green photons are coming into existence, when all she needs to do is to state that the red photons have turned into green photons. Then all she needs to do is to explain how this can happen, and considering all the fiction she has invented before, it should be no problem at all.
|
Well, we can always ask her about that. I'm sure she will have no difficulties providing a direct and honest answer:
Peacegirl, were these green photons—the ones near-instantly at the retina once the traffic light turns green—always green, or have they changed to green from some other colour during their existence as photons?
|
This goes right back to whether the image (the information) is reflected in the light over long distances irregardless of whether the object is present or not. The efferent account disputes this belief, and your effort to find a flaw in this account based on your questioning is falling flat.
|
01-31-2016, 02:22 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
You can burn Daddy's books, take down his Twitter account (where he is still begging, from beyond the grave, for reviewers) ...
|
The review that peacegirl purchased made Seymour so sad that he's traveled back along the sacred River of Jizz from the Germinal World of Potential Consciousness to ask for new reviews.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
and do something useful with your life --
|
Oh deary deary me oh my, no. Doing something useful would require actual work, and peacegirl is above that sort of thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
like stop hitting the sauce all day long and maybe even get a job instead of stealing public funds.
|
The Lessans family and ripping off taxpayers go together like right wing militia whackos and firearms.
|
You are working overtime Stephen Dumbfuck (thank you for giving me the perfect name for you; it is so appropriate) because all you have to offer is your brand of ridicule, which hides your true insecurity about what you know and what you don't when it comes to this discovery. Your knowledge as a lawyer is one thing; your knowledge of this work is so poor that it doesn't even warrant a response from me. I am offering my response to you as a friendly gesture, free of charge. Be grateful!
|
01-31-2016, 03:10 PM
|
|
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You're asking me to fit a square into a hole.
|
The correct phrase is "fit a square peg into a round hole". Absent the peg the words make no sense. In any case, you can fit a square peg into round hole, if the hole is enough larger than the peg.
|
It makes sense to those who are looking for something to make an issue over like you Angakuk. When a person is a stickler for grammatical perfection, it's because they have nothing left to argue. It's a complete dodge.
|
While we're at it, "irregardless" is not a word.
|
01-31-2016, 03:54 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by But
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You're asking me to fit a square into a hole.
|
The correct phrase is "fit a square peg into a round hole". Absent the peg the words make no sense. In any case, you can fit a square peg into round hole, if the hole is enough larger than the peg.
|
It makes sense to those who are looking for something to make an issue over like you Angakuk. When a person is a stickler for grammatical perfection, it's because they have nothing left to argue. It's a complete dodge.
|
While we're at it, "irregardless" is not a word.
|
You're right, but it didn't show up as a misspelling so somewhere along the line it has been included as a colloquialism. Therefore it's legitimate enough for me to use in a thread; maybe not in a book.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), irregardless was first acknowledged in 1912 by the Wentworth American Dialect Dictionary as originating from western Indiana,[5] though the word was in use in South Carolina before Indiana became a territory.[1] The usage dispute over irregardless was such that, in 1923, Literary Digest published an article titled "Is There Such a Word as Irregardless in the English Language?". The OED goes on to explain the word is primarily a North American colloquialism.[5]
Irregardless - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
01-31-2016, 04:05 PM
|
|
Flyover Hillbilly
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Your knowledge as a lawyer is one thing; your knowledge of this work is so poor that it doesn't even warrant a response from me.
|
Remember the multiple times in this thread that you've disagreed with direct quotes from your father's book? It must be disheartening to have spent thousands upon thousands of hour on the book and not even know what's in it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I am offering my response to you as a friendly gesture, free of charge.
|
Much obliged, but it's only fair considering that American taxpayers -- myself included -- pay all your bills.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
|
01-31-2016, 05:53 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Your knowledge as a lawyer is one thing; your knowledge of this work is so poor that it doesn't even warrant a response from me.
|
Remember the multiple times in this thread that you've disagreed with direct quotes from your father's book? It must be disheartening to have spent thousands upon thousands of hour on the book and not even know what's in it.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I am offering my response to you as a friendly gesture, free of charge.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stephen Dumbfuck
Much obliged, but it's only fair considering that American taxpayers -- myself included -- pay all your bills.
|
...
|
01-31-2016, 05:56 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
|
01-31-2016, 06:19 PM
|
|
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
|
|
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by But
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You're asking me to fit a square into a hole.
|
The correct phrase is "fit a square peg into a round hole". Absent the peg the words make no sense. In any case, you can fit a square peg into round hole, if the hole is enough larger than the peg.
|
It makes sense to those who are looking for something to make an issue over like you Angakuk. When a person is a stickler for grammatical perfection, it's because they have nothing left to argue. It's a complete dodge.
|
While we're at it, "irregardless" is not a word.
|
You're right, but it didn't show up as a misspelling so somewhere along the line it has been included as a colloquialism. Therefore it's legitimate enough for me to use in a thread; maybe not in a book.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), irregardless was first acknowledged in 1912 by the Wentworth American Dialect Dictionary as originating from western Indiana,[5] though the word was in use in South Carolina before Indiana became a territory.[1] The usage dispute over irregardless was such that, in 1923, Literary Digest published an article titled "Is There Such a Word as Irregardless in the English Language?". The OED goes on to explain the word is primarily a North American colloquialism.[5]
Irregardless - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
To summarize: Like "I could care less" and "is comprised of", it's broken language that makes you sound like an idiot.
|
01-31-2016, 08:15 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by But
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by But
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You're asking me to fit a square into a hole.
|
The correct phrase is "fit a square peg into a round hole". Absent the peg the words make no sense. In any case, you can fit a square peg into round hole, if the hole is enough larger than the peg.
|
It makes sense to those who are looking for something to make an issue over like you Angakuk. When a person is a stickler for grammatical perfection, it's because they have nothing left to argue. It's a complete dodge.
|
While we're at it, "irregardless" is not a word.
|
You're right, but it didn't show up as a misspelling so somewhere along the line it has been included as a colloquialism. Therefore it's legitimate enough for me to use in a thread; maybe not in a book.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), irregardless was first acknowledged in 1912 by the Wentworth American Dialect Dictionary as originating from western Indiana,[5] though the word was in use in South Carolina before Indiana became a territory.[1] The usage dispute over irregardless was such that, in 1923, Literary Digest published an article titled "Is There Such a Word as Irregardless in the English Language?". The OED goes on to explain the word is primarily a North American colloquialism.[5]
Irregardless - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
|
To summarize: Like "I could care less" and "is comprised of", it's broken language that makes you sound like an idiot.
|
Sorry, but I speak English and I'm entitled to use colloquialisms at my discretion. It makes you look desperate to find something, anything, that makes me look bad because you don't want to believe Lessans knew what he was talking about. It's not working.
|
01-31-2016, 08:24 PM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
It is so frustrating to watch Peacegirl flailing about trying to deny that the green photons are coming into existence, when all she needs to do is to state that the red photons have turned into green photons. Then all she needs to do is to explain how this can happen, and considering all the fiction she has invented before, it should be no problem at all.
|
Well, we can always ask her about that. I'm sure she will have no difficulties providing a direct and honest answer:
Peacegirl, were these green photons—the ones near-instantly at the retina once the traffic light turns green—always green, or have they changed to green from some other colour during their existence as photons?
|
This goes right back to whether the image (the information) is reflected in the light over long distances irregardless of whether the object is present or not. The efferent account disputes this belief, and your effort to find a flaw in this account based on your questioning is falling flat.
|
No, it has nothing to do with that, and you haven't answered the question. In fact you haven't answered any of my questions at all. You half-answered a question earlier, only to then immediately retract your answer and deny ever having said it. Pathetic.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
01-31-2016, 08:25 PM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
You've now retracted the only answer you've given (bizarrely denying that you even said it), so I will have to repeat the questions. You've said that there will be green photons instantly at the retina when the light first turns green. Regarding those specific green photons...
Where and when did these green photons begin to exist?
|
No Spacemonkey, now you're talking about teleportation. This is not magic.
|
What? I didn't say anything about magic or teleportation! What on Earth are you on about? I just asked you a plain simple question about the photons YOU SAY will be instantly at the retina. Again...
Where and when did these green photons begin to exist?
|
Bump.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 42 (0 members and 42 guests)
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:14 AM.
|
|
|
|