A revolution in thought - Page 469

peacegirl · #**11701** 10-05-2011, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Page 121.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lessans

Once the light is here it remains here because the photons
of light emitted by the constant energy of the sun surround us. When
the earth rotates on its axis so the section on which we live is in
darkness, this only means the photons of light are on the other side.
When our rotation allows the sun to smile on us again this does not
mean that it takes another eight minutes for this light to reach us
because these photons are already present.

And there ya go! And, as always, just as wrong as can be!

He said constant energy. Hello?? Anybody there? :lecher:

ceptimus · #**11702** 10-05-2011, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus

How far away do you think the rainbow is? If some of the raindrops are only a few feet away from you, and others are a few miles away, does that make any difference?

You can make your own rainbows on a dry sunny day by spraying water up in the air from a garden hose. Have you ever done that? How far away do such rainbows appear to be, even when you know that the water droplets that cause them are only a few feet distant?

I haven't done that but I can see how the same principles are at work. I would guess that the rainbow would appear farther than it actually is. Am I right?

Yes. Yes you are.

But if you move from side to side, this 'close' rainbow will still move with you (always remaining directly opposite the Sun).

This time you can't use the same explanation as you did before. You said that the rainbow appears to move with us because of its distance - in the same way the moon does. But now you know the rainbow is only coming from a few feet away, so why does it appear to move now?

naturalist.atheist · #**11703** 10-05-2011, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Lessans light seems to behave more like string.

Say someone ties a piece of string to a rock, and then walks towards you, paying out the string until they reach you and gives you the other end.

The 'speed of string' is about three miles an hour. But once it's reached you, you can yank on the string and move the rock - that effect is much faster than the 'speed of string' - if the string isn't particularly stretchy the effect is practically instantaneous.

In the same way, a beam of light may take four years to reach us from a planet orbiting a nearby star, but once it's reached us and is 'connecting' the observed object to our eye, we can see movement, colour change and so on instantly.

That's the only way I can wrap my head around Lessan's claims. It's wrong, of course, but perhaps that is the way he thought it was working. :shrug:

You're at least getting warmer. Everyone else is still cold when it comes to any understanding whatsoever. :sadcheer:

That's good peacegirl. Get other people to explain your own nonsense to you. Because you sure can't. Problem is, it is still nonsense.

davidm · #**11704** 10-05-2011, 11:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Right, it'd be nice if someone who still has a copy of Seymour's Big Fat Mess, as I call his book, would find that idiotic passage of his in which he discusses light hanging around somehow. He said something about how the light waits for us when we get up in the morning! :lol:

Is this it?

That is indeed the astute observation of The Great Man. :yup:

naturalist.atheist · #**11705** 10-05-2011, 11:50 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

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Try taking a photograph of light without an object in view, and see what you get.

I can photograph the blue sky, which is nothing but light. I can photograph a rainbow, which is nothing but light.

Rainbows occur when the sun reflects off of raindrops. Rain is not light.

So you think a photograph of a rainbow is actually photograph of raindrops?

No LadyShea. We see the visible spectrum (red, orange, yellow, green, blue and violet light) due to the refraction of sunlight when it passes through the droplets of water.

So a photograph of a rainbow is a photograph of light.

Yes it's a photograph of light but we're seeing that light in real time.

Errr, there is no object.

ceptimus · #**11706** 10-05-2011, 11:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why does this experiment prove efferent vision wrong? I am not disputing that the speed of light is finite and can be measured.

Well, you're looking at the illuminated slot in a wheel, via a telescope and mirror.

If you were looking at it efferently (and without any delay) then you'd always see the slot lit up, as whenever the telescope can see out through the slot, we know that the slot is lit.

But that's not what happens - depending on the rotation speed, we sometimes see an illuminated slot, and we sometimes see a rotated (and therefore dark) slot.

How could efferent vision explain what happens?

naturalist.atheist · #**11707** 10-05-2011, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Lessans light seems to behave more like string.

Say someone ties a piece of string to a rock, and then walks towards you, paying out the string until they reach you and gives you the other end.

The 'speed of string' is about three miles an hour. But once it's reached you, you can yank on the string and move the rock - that effect is much faster than the 'speed of string' - if the string isn't particularly stretchy the effect is practically instantaneous.

In the same way, a beam of light may take four years to reach us from a planet orbiting a nearby star, but once it's reached us and is 'connecting' the observed object to our eye, we can see movement, colour change and so on instantly.

That's the only way I can wrap my head around Lessan's claims. It's wrong, of course, but perhaps that is the way he thought it was working. :shrug:

You're at least getting warmer. Everyone else is still cold when it comes to any understanding whatsoever. :sadcheer:

Sure he is. Wait till he gets to the string yanking part. You will of course have to discredit his "warmer" explanation. And that is because Lessans didn't have a clue. He appears to have had an inaccurate collection of disjointed thoughts that he just lumped together. And he left you the mess to deal with and you can see how well that is going for you.

davidm · #**11708** 10-05-2011, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus

An early method of measuring the speed of light was devised by Hippolyte Fizeau and Léon Foucault.

A beam of light is shone through a gap in a toothed/slotted wheel. The beam of light is reflected by a mirror several miles away and returned through the same slot in the wheel where it is observed using a telescope.

When the wheel is stationary the light can be seen (if it's shining through a slot) or not seen (when the wheel is rotated slightly so that the light misses a slot and is blocked).

What is interesting is what happens when the wheel is set spinning and then gradually speeded up.

At first the light is seen to blink on and off as you'd expect when looking at any light through a spinning spoked wheel.

At faster speeds the individual flashes are too fast for the eye to detect and we just see a constant light - in the same way that we don't see the screen at the cinema going black 25 times per second, even though we know that the projector shutter blanks off all light while the next frame of the film is being moved into position.

As the wheel goes faster, the observed light gets dimmer and dimmer until we can't see it at all. What is happening is that the light pulses pass through the gaps but by the time they hit the mirror and return, the wheel has rotated so there is no gap to allow the light back through to the telescope.

And now the really interesting part - as the wheel goes faster yet, the light reappears until at a certain speed it is just as bright as when the wheel was going slowly. What is happening now is that the light passes out through one gap in the wheel, and by the time it returns, the next gap has rotated into position!

The wheel can continue to be accelerated till its mechanical limits are reached - we see the light go dark at certain speeds and then light again at higher speeds. Now the wheel is rotating 2, 3, 4, and so on gaps during the flight time of the light out to the mirror and back.

Of course, efferent vision can't explain the results of this experiment. But that is because efferent vision is false, as virtually everyone already knows.

This experiment was explained to her and described to her hundreds of pages ago. Guess what? In one ear and out the other!

The Lone Ranger went over this experiment with her step by step; this experiment alone conclusively disproves Lessans' claims.

Why does this experiment prove efferent vision wrong? I am not disputing that the speed of light is finite and can be measured.

This was already explained to you. Go actually read for a change. Go find the posts that this was discussed. If after all this you still can't see why this single experiment completely demolishes all of Lessans claims about seeing, you are either hopelessly dishonest or hopelessly ignorant -- probably both.

naturalist.atheist · #**11709** 10-06-2011, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

This was already explained to you. Go actually read for a change. Go find the posts that this was discussed. If after all this you still can't see why this single experiment completely demolishes all of Lessans claims about seeing, you are either hopelessly dishonest or hopelessly ignorant -- probably both.

Probably neither. Notice that you keep on calling her ignorant and dishonest yet she will respond to your posts, yet I call her mentally ill and I get nothing.

I'm pretty sure she has been called mentally ill before as a medical diagnosis. Crazy people hate it when you call them crazy.

davidm · #**11710** 10-06-2011, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Lessans light seems to behave more like string.

Say someone ties a piece of string to a rock, and then walks towards you, paying out the string until they reach you and gives you the other end.

The 'speed of string' is about three miles an hour. But once it's reached you, you can yank on the string and move the rock - that effect is much faster than the 'speed of string' - if the string isn't particularly stretchy the effect is practically instantaneous.

In the same way, a beam of light may take four years to reach us from a planet orbiting a nearby star, but once it's reached us and is 'connecting' the observed object to our eye, we can see movement, colour change and so on instantly.

That's the only way I can wrap my head around Lessan's claims. It's wrong, of course, but perhaps that is the way he thought it was working. :shrug:

You're at least getting warmer. Everyone else is still cold when it comes to any understanding whatsoever. :sadcheer:

Ja, except it's wrong. Demonstrably, conclusively, one hundred percent wrong.

davidm · #**11711** 10-06-2011, 12:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Page 121.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lessans

Once the light is here it remains here because the photons
of light emitted by the constant energy of the sun surround us. When
the earth rotates on its axis so the section on which we live is in
darkness, this only means the photons of light are on the other side.
When our rotation allows the sun to smile on us again this does not
mean that it takes another eight minutes for this light to reach us
because these photons are already present.

And there ya go! And, as always, just as wrong as can be!

He said constant energy. Hello?? Anybody there? :lecher:

WTF? Who cares what he said! His own claims are a mishmash of self-contradictory positions that he was too ignorant to recognize! What the fuck did he mean by, "because these photons are already present"? They'are NOT already present! When we are in dark the photons on the other side of the earth are constantly striking the earth and being reflected or else being absorbed by the earth. The photons we see when the sun rises are all new photons, and every second untold numbers of new photons are washing over us again and again because the sun's nuclear processes, the same process that makes the sun work, produce the photons! And, of course, these photons always give us a peek at how the sun looked eight and a half minutes ago!

naturalist.atheist · #**11712** 10-06-2011, 12:12 AM

Just like peacegirl, Lessans frame of reference was not only local but absolute. It mattered not that there are people on the daylight side of the earth while Lessans slept that received a constant stream of light.

It matters not that babies mimic because peacegirl has never seen it. It matters not that others have observed all the properties of light and vision stated here, because peacegirl and Lessans have not. So like a two year old, if it's out of sight, its out of mind.

That sums up Lessans physics, and a good chunk of peacegirls mental illness.

davidm · #**11713** 10-06-2011, 12:18 AM

That's really about it, at this point I'm beginning to think it really is some form of mental illness, a gigantic recording playing in her head. As soon as she begins to think the recording, "Lessans is always right!" plays over and over in her head and destroys all forms of rational thinking.

davidm · #**11714** 10-06-2011, 12:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Lessans light seems to behave more like string.

Say someone ties a piece of string to a rock, and then walks towards you, paying out the string until they reach you and gives you the other end.

The 'speed of string' is about three miles an hour. But once it's reached you, you can yank on the string and move the rock - that effect is much faster than the 'speed of string' - if the string isn't particularly stretchy the effect is practically instantaneous.

In the same way, a beam of light may take four years to reach us from a planet orbiting a nearby star, but once it's reached us and is 'connecting' the observed object to our eye, we can see movement, colour change and so on instantly.

That's the only way I can wrap my head around Lessan's claims. It's wrong, of course, but perhaps that is the way he thought it was working. :shrug:

You're at least getting warmer. Everyone else is still cold when it comes to any understanding whatsoever. :sadcheer:

Except that the above description conflicts with Lessans' own claims. He said that if the sun were turned on at noon, people would see it instantly, and not eight and a half minutes later! If the above analogy were accurate to what Lessans argued for, then we would still not see the sun until eight and a half minutes had initially passed. so the above does not describe what Lessans was saying.

In any case, the rock-string model is wrong anyway, so the whole thing is moot as far as reality is concerned.

LadyShea · #**11715** 10-06-2011, 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Page 121.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lessans

Once the light is here it remains here because the photons
of light emitted by the constant energy of the sun surround us. When
the earth rotates on its axis so the section on which we live is in
darkness, this only means the photons of light are on the other side.
When our rotation allows the sun to smile on us again this does not
mean that it takes another eight minutes for this light to reach us
because these photons are already present.

And there ya go! And, as always, just as wrong as can be!

He said constant energy. Hello?? Anybody there? :lecher:

Constant energy is not the same thing as constant stream of new photons.

He was clearly speaking of photons as somehow separate from the suns energy, and he also clearly thought they somehow hung around in the air, like they traveled here then stopped.

Like we live in a swimming pool full of photons.

thedoc · #**11716** 10-06-2011, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Lessans light seems to behave more like string.

Say someone ties a piece of string to a rock, and then walks towards you, paying out the string until they reach you and gives you the other end.

The 'speed of string' is about three miles an hour. But once it's reached you, you can yank on the string and move the rock - that effect is much faster than the 'speed of string' - if the string isn't particularly stretchy the effect is practically instantaneous.

In the same way, a beam of light may take four years to reach us from a planet orbiting a nearby star, but once it's reached us and is 'connecting' the observed object to our eye, we can see movement, colour change and so on instantly.

That's the only way I can wrap my head around Lessan's claims. It's wrong, of course, but perhaps that is the way he thought it was working. :shrug:

You're at least getting warmer. Everyone else is still cold when it comes to any understanding whatsoever. :sadcheer:

So now light is a continuous string of light molecules (all connected together) and not a stream of individual particles (photons) as science seems to think. This is really getting more and more interesting. Now all those experiments that measured and detected individual photons, should be tossed out because they are simply wrong, (they contradict Lessans).

thedoc · #**11717** 10-06-2011, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He was clearly speaking of photons as somehow separate from the suns energy, and he also clearly thought they somehow hung around in the air, like they traveled here then stopped.

Like we live in a swimming pool full of photons.

They why is it dark at night with all this light hanging arround?

OH! I know she lives in a city where there is always lights on.

LadyShea · #**11718** 10-06-2011, 02:18 AM

Maybe you can decipher this

Quote:

When the earth rotates on its axis so the section on which we live is in darkness, this only means the photons of light are on the other side.

davidm · #**11719** 10-06-2011, 02:42 AM

What would it mean to have all these photons piling up? I mean they are hanging out, maybe drinking in the public parks and getting into fights, a real crime problem. Then of course more and more of them arrive every second, they are never absorbed or deflected, I imagine you'd have terrible sunburn problems! Oh hell the whole earth would shortly be incinerated. Talk about global warming!

davidm · #**11720** 10-06-2011, 02:46 AM

Molecules of light! Did he really characterize them as molecules? I missed that part if he did.

naturalist.atheist · #**11721** 10-06-2011, 03:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Page 121.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lessans

Once the light is here it remains here because the photons
of light emitted by the constant energy of the sun surround us. When
the earth rotates on its axis so the section on which we live is in
darkness, this only means the photons of light are on the other side.
When our rotation allows the sun to smile on us again this does not
mean that it takes another eight minutes for this light to reach us
because these photons are already present.

And there ya go! And, as always, just as wrong as can be!

He said constant energy. Hello?? Anybody there? :lecher:

Constant energy is not the same thing as constant stream of new photons.

He was clearly speaking of photons as somehow separate from the suns energy, and he also clearly thought they somehow hung around in the air, like they traveled here then stopped.

Like we live in a swimming pool full of photons.

I don't mean to encourage peacegirl, not that she needs any, but if you count IR then we are in a swimming pool full of photons. About 2/3 of them are the result of absorption/re-emission of solar photons. The other third are thermally generated photons from the radioactive decay at the earth's core. All that eventually radiates into space. Otherwise we would be in big trouble.

It would be a neat trick if photons did hang around in the air. It certainly would solve a lot of technical problems for the next generation of quantum computers. Alas, they do not.

Lessans was wrong again.

(Is anybody keeping score of how many things Lessans got wrong vs right? I'll bet he is doing far worse than random chance. Even a monkey would be smarter than Lessans.)

peacegirl · #**11722** 10-06-2011, 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Try taking a photograph of light without an object in view, and see what you get.

I can photograph the blue sky, which is nothing but light. I can photograph a rainbow, which is nothing but light.

Rainbows occur when the sun reflects off of raindrops. Rain is not light.

So you think a photograph of a rainbow is actually photograph of raindrops?

No LadyShea. We see the visible spectrum (red, orange, yellow, green, blue and violet light) due to the refraction of sunlight when it passes through the droplets of water.

So a photograph of a rainbow is a photograph of light.

Yes it's a photograph of light but we're seeing that light in real time.

Errr, there is no object.

I never said it has to be an object. We can see images made up of pure light, such as rainbows, if the atmospheric conditions allow. Once again, this does not negate efferent vision.

peacegirl · #**11723** 10-06-2011, 04:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why does this experiment prove efferent vision wrong? I am not disputing that the speed of light is finite and can be measured.

Well, you're looking at the illuminated slot in a wheel, via a telescope and mirror.

If you were looking at it efferently (and without any delay) then you'd always see the slot lit up, as whenever the telescope can see out through the slot, we know that the slot is lit.

The telescope collects light, it doesn't see out through the slot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ceptimus

But that's not what happens - depending on the rotation speed, we sometimes see an illuminated slot, and we sometimes see a rotated (and therefore dark) slot.

How could efferent vision explain what happens?

I'm assuming that it's rotating so fast that the light doesn't have a chance to strike the mirror, therefore it appears dark.

peacegirl · #**11724** 10-06-2011, 04:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Maybe you can decipher this

Quote:

When the earth rotates on its axis so the section on which we live is in darkness, this only means the photons of light are on the other side.

Why Does Earth Have Day and Night?

While you don't feel it, Earth is spinning. Once every 24 hours Earth turns — or rotates on its axis — taking all of us with it. When we are on the side of Earth that is facing the Sun, we have daylight. As Earth continues its spin, we are moved to the side facing away from our Sun, and we have nighttime. If we were looking down on Earth from above the north pole, we could see that Earth rotates counterclockwise, and we would watch daylight and darkness sweeping across our globe from east to west.

SkyTellers - About Day and Night

peacegirl · #**11725** 10-06-2011, 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Page 121.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lessans

Once the light is here it remains here because the photons
of light emitted by the constant energy of the sun surround us. When
the earth rotates on its axis so the section on which we live is in
darkness, this only means the photons of light are on the other side.
When our rotation allows the sun to smile on us again this does not
mean that it takes another eight minutes for this light to reach us
because these photons are already present.

And there ya go! And, as always, just as wrong as can be!

He said constant energy. Hello?? Anybody there? :lecher:

WTF? Who cares what he said! His own claims are a mishmash of self-contradictory positions that he was too ignorant to recognize! What the fuck did he mean by, "because these photons are already present"? They'are NOT already present! When we are in dark the photons on the other side of the earth are constantly striking the earth and being reflected or else being absorbed by the earth. The photons we see when the sun rises are all new photons, and every second untold numbers of new photons are washing over us again and again because the sun's nuclear processes, the same process that makes the sun work, produce the photons! And, of course, these photons always give us a peek at how the sun looked eight and a half minutes ago!

I am not disagreeing with anything you just said. I even agree that the photons reaching Earth take 8 and 1/2 minutes to get here.