A revolution in thought - Page 1552

Spacemonkey · #**38776** 07-25-2014, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

By the way, was "projection through the eyes on a screen of undeniable substance" also a metaphor?

No, not at all. He said our eyes act like a projector. They don't project anything, but the word (the personal descriptor) is projected onto the screen of undeniable substance (meaning real objects like me and you). I thought you read this chapter.

So we can add the term 'metaphor' to the growing list of words you do not understand. If the eyes don't literally project anything then his talk of projection was obviously a metaphor, dingbat.

No it was not a metaphor. The word is projected...

Nope, words do not literally shoot out of people's eyes, so there is no LITERAL projection of words, meaning the actual mechanism of vision is not relevant to what is in reality a PSYCHOLOGICAL rather than a physical phenomenon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't care what you think; you've gotten nasty and I just can't have a normal discourse with you.

You cut off our discourse while I was still being respectful to you. I don't intend to show you any respect at all while you are deliberately lying and weaseling instead of making any attempt to honestly answer questions.

Artemis Entreri · #**38777** 07-25-2014, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

It takes light to travel from the moon 1.3 seconds. How in the world can we know whether we see the moon in real time or not in that small amount of time. The time frame is too close together to get an accurate result.

As we've discussed before, the laser would take 1.3 seconds there and 1.3 seconds back so a total of 2.6 seconds. So, if the subjects consistently pressed a button when they saw the laser in under 2.6 seconds, that would indicate that they could see it before the light had time to travel there and back, correct? It doesn't need to be exactly precise, it merely needs to be under the 2.6 seconds consistently with multiple test subjects.

There are online reflex tests you can take where you press a button when you see something. I can do it consistently in under half a second (averaging around 1/4 a second) and don't have great reaction time. Human Benchmark - Reaction Time Test There is easily enough time in the 2.6 second limit to press a button.

Right, but it would be very difficult to distinguish between seeing the moon in 1.3 seconds or seeing it 2.6 seconds later. It's about the eyes being able to see and register that quickly, not your reaction time pushing a button.

are you f'n kidding me?!

peacegirl · #**38778** 07-25-2014, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It takes light to travel from the moon 1.3 seconds. How in the world can we know whether we see the moon in real time or not in that small amount of time. The time frame is too close together to get an accurate result.

Do you remember ANYTHING that is written to you?

We've been over this in some detail before, haven't we? So are you just dumb or being dishonest again? I suspect the latter. You haven't an honest bone in your body.

As explained to you before, to measure the round trip of light to moon and back, an ATOMIC CLOCK is used, which is accurate down to ... well, nanoseconds, your favorite new word that, like "inverse square law," you use without even understanding what it means.

Scientists bounce laser beams off old Soviet moon rover

From the article:

Quote:

Lunar laser ranging uses short-pulse lasers and state-of-the-art optical receivers and timing electronics to measure how long it takes light beamed from ground stations to travel to retroreflector arrays on the moon and back again.

It takes just two and a half seconds for light to make this roundtrip trek, requiring use of an ATOMIC CLOCK.

Of course, if Lessans were right, we'd see the laser light on the moon in half of 2.5 seconds, when the light arrives. But we see it in twice that interval of time, proving, yet again, that Lessans was WRONG.

Atomic clocks don't have eyes. I am not disputing the accuracy of the atomic clock's measurement.

Atomic clock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

peacegirl · #**38779** 07-25-2014, 12:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Here's some really really complex and involved mathematics for Peacegirl to chew on. If you take several scientists doing the experiment to determine the time it takes light to go from the Moon and back visually. You just need to get an average reaction time for each person, and then do the experiment with the person watching for the flash of light visually, not with instruments, and then adjust the time for the round trip of light by their reaction time. You would need to conduct the experiment several times to get an accurate average for each factor in the equation. It should come out to 2.5 seconds, unless Lessans was right, then it would be about 1.3 seconds.

There is no way the eyes can register what they are seeing in 1.3 seconds. By the time the light made the round trip, they wouldn't know whether they saw the moon in 1.3 seconds or 2.6 seconds, so it would be a poor test.

peacegirl · #**38780** 07-25-2014, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All he meant is that there is nothing in the light that can be used to develop an image in the brain. It was a metaphor but you're taking it literally.

You didn't call it a metaphor years ago, you took it very literally and argued for this ridiculous POV for years. Only now, when you've learned how wrong he was, have you decided it was a "metaphor". You are so dishonest.

Is this a form of back peddling? and is that something like moving the goal posts?

If this is a metaphor, what is the comparison, that I seem to have missed?

I'm using this post to address LadyShea. He knew that there was no actual image being carried on the waves of light, like a basket carrying apples. I can't believe you are accusing me of using the term "metaphor" when I learned how wrong he was. That is ludicrous. FYI, he was not wrong. :laugh:

You've been saying for more than three years that images literally travel on light. You're just a sicko. :lol:

No David, he knew what he was saying. That's also why he said "images are not traveling on the wings of time and light." He didn't believe time and light actually had wings. It was a metaphor. It's you that doesn't want to believe that what he was saying could possibly be right. It's easier just to call me names.

Artemis Entreri · #**38781** 07-25-2014, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no way the eyes can register what they are seeing in 1.3 seconds. By the time the light made the round trip, they wouldn't know whether they saw the moon in 1.3 seconds or 2.6 seconds, so it would be a poor test.

WOW! Are you seriously that delusional or are you seriously that stupid?

Holy F! You spend 3 years saying that the eyes see instantly but then When cornered with experimental data you start saying that they can't register what they are seeing faster than 1.3seconds!

Spacemonkey · #**38782** 07-25-2014, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So after another failed attempt at honestly answering my questions, showing only once more that you cannot make any coherent sense of your own account, you are reverting again to weaseling and ignoring perfectly reasonable questions. Are you getting any closer to recognizing how crazy you are?

I guess I can't, and I guess I'm crazy.

You sure are. Even you are no longer blind to your own mental illness.

peacegirl · #**38783** 07-25-2014, 12:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

By the way, was "projection through the eyes on a screen of undeniable substance" also a metaphor?

No, not at all. He said our eyes act like a projector. They don't project anything, but the word (the personal descriptor) is projected onto the screen of undeniable substance (meaning real objects like me and you). I thought you read this chapter.

So we can add the term 'metaphor' to the growing list of words you do not understand. If the eyes don't literally project anything then his talk of projection was obviously a metaphor, dingbat.

No it was not a metaphor. The word is projected...

Nope, words do not literally shoot out of people's eyes, so there is no LITERAL projection of words, meaning the actual mechanism of vision is not relevant to what is in reality a PSYCHOLOGICAL rather than a physical phenomenon.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't care what you think; you've gotten nasty and I just can't have a normal discourse with you.

You cut off our discourse while I was still being respectful to you. I don't intend to show you any respect at all while you are deliberately lying and weaseling instead of making any attempt to honestly answer questions.

You've been nasty for days now, not just today. I cannot talk to someone who keeps calling me names knowing I politely asked him not to. You can't seem to control yourself.

Dragar · #**38784** 07-25-2014, 12:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

...isn't that just the same thing as saying in the light "point of view" there is no duration?

I think there's a big difference between an undefined duration, an unphysical duration, and no duration. So perhaps there is something to that Kant quote, or perhaps it simply doesn't make sense to ask what a duration even means in the context of null-geodesics.

All good stuff; all the post-Newtonian physics really forces you to be careful with your definitions and interpretations!

davidm · #**38785** 07-25-2014, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Atomic clocks don't have eyes. I am not disputing the accuracy of the atomic clock's measurement.

Atomic clock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Gosh, you are stupid! :lol:

The atomic clock measures the interval between the time the laser is fired from the earth, and the time that the laser light is seen on the moon. SEEN, as with EYES. :bigeyes:

It's telling us that we are seeing the laser light on the moon 2.6 seconds after it was fired from earth -- and because atomic clocks measure down to nanosecond accuracy, we can dispense with your bullshit objection that humans aren't sensitive enough, on their own, to distinguish between 1.3 seconds and 2.6 seconds (even though they are).

This outcome, of course, as everyone understands (including you) decisively refutes Lessans' claim. On his account, we should see the laser light appear on the moon when it gets there -- i.e., 1.3 seconds after it leaves earth. Instead, we have to wait for the light to strike the moon, and then return to the eye. Which means, of course, that we see the moon as it was in the past. So this simple demonstration proves Lessans wrong.

And you KNOW this -- there is nothing complicated about what I have just described. A child could grasp it. You do understand what we are telling you, but you are an obsessive-compulsive liar who cannot admit that the Great Man was in fact a Big Buffoon. :lol:

Spacemonkey · #**38786** 07-25-2014, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You cut off our discourse while I was still being respectful to you. I don't intend to show you any respect at all while you are deliberately lying and weaseling instead of making any attempt to honestly answer questions.

You've been nasty for days now, not just today. I cannot talk to someone who keeps calling me names knowing I politely asked him not to. You can't seem to control yourself.

You're completely full of shit. Go back and read the last few pages of the thread. I didn't call you any names at all while you were willing to be reasonable. You stopped talking to me BEFORE I called you any names. It is only when when you revert to lying, weaseling, and evading my posts that I will call you names. Dingbat.

davidm · #**38787** 07-25-2014, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no way the eyes can register what they are seeing in 1.3 seconds. By the time the light made the round trip, they wouldn't know whether they saw the moon in 1.3 seconds or 2.6 seconds, so it would be a poor test.

WOW! Are you seriously that delusional or are you seriously that stupid?

Holy F! You spend 3 years saying that the eyes see instantly but then When cornered with experimental data you start saying that they can't register what they are seeing faster than 1.3seconds!

Not only that, but look how the harridan moved the goalposts :shiftgoalpost:

when confronted with the fact that we measure the laser experiment using atomic clocks, not fucking stopwatches as she probably thought. Suddenly, according to her, clocks have to have eyes in order to measure the passage of time. :foocl:

LadyShea · #**38788** 07-25-2014, 03:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

It takes light to travel from the moon 1.3 seconds. How in the world can we know whether we see the moon in real time or not in that small amount of time. The time frame is too close together to get an accurate result.

As we've discussed before, the laser would take 1.3 seconds there and 1.3 seconds back so a total of 2.6 seconds. So, if the subjects consistently pressed a button when they saw the laser in under 2.6 seconds, that would indicate that they could see it before the light had time to travel there and back, correct? It doesn't need to be exactly precise, it merely needs to be under the 2.6 seconds consistently with multiple test subjects.

There are online reflex tests you can take where you press a button when you see something. I can do it consistently in under half a second (averaging around 1/4 a second) and don't have great reaction time. Human Benchmark - Reaction Time Test There is easily enough time in the 2.6 second limit to press a button.

Right, but it would be very difficult to distinguish between seeing the moon in 1.3 seconds or seeing it 2.6 seconds later. It's about the eyes being able to see and register that quickly, not your reaction time pushing a button.

Not at all, all you need is for people to press a button when they see the laser light as it returns from the moon.

The reaction test tests your reflexes after seeing something. In the one I linked to you press the button when you see the color change. I can do it in a quarter of one second! So I am able to see and register that quickly consistently.

LadyShea · #**38789** 07-25-2014, 03:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

We've been over this before -- what have we not been over before? :shrug:

-- but there is a simple experiment that replicates by precise analogy Lessans' "turning on the sun at noon" scenario, and that is firing a laser at the moon. In essence, we "turn on a spot of light on the moon" (analogous to the sun being turned on) and determine how quickly we see it. This test has been conducted routinely since the 1960s.

If Lessans were right, we would see the light at time x. If science is right, we would see it at time y. Every time we do the experiment, we see the light at time y (science) and not at time x (Lessans).

Simple disproof of Lessans' claims, not open to contradiction. But just like so much else: moons of Jupiter, calculating trajectories to Mars, etc. This disproof is especially nice, though, because it is precisely analogous to the turn-on-the-sun scenario.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Lasers emit coherent light, do they not? Coherence, of any sort, has no place in Lessans' or peacegirl's accounts.

As I said, 1 1/3 second is not enough time to blink let alone tell if we are seeing in real time or not. Am I on Candid Camera?

You can blink multiple times in 1.33 seconds. I just tested and could blink 3-4 times in that duration. There are stopclocks all over the Internet, test it yourself! You are not on Candid Camera, but you might be on drugs?

http://www.shodor.org/interactivate/...ies/Stopwatch/

LadyShea · #**38790** 07-25-2014, 03:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no way the eyes can register what they are seeing in 1.3 seconds. By the time the light made the round trip, they wouldn't know whether they saw the moon in 1.3 seconds or 2.6 seconds, so it would be a poor test.

WOW! Are you seriously that delusional or are you seriously that stupid?

Holy F! You spend 3 years saying that the eyes see instantly but then When cornered with experimental data you start saying that they can't register what they are seeing faster than 1.3seconds!

Not only that, but look how the harridan moved the goalposts :shiftgoalpost:

when confronted with the fact that we measure the laser experiment using atomic clocks, not fucking stopwatches as she probably thought. Suddenly, according to her, clocks have to have eyes in order to measure the passage of time. :foocl:

I knew she would say that, which is why I posited an experiment using human subjects with stopwatches. It can certainly be done, and she can't weasel about no eyes or lenses or pinholes or whatever.

Angakuk · #**38791** 07-25-2014, 04:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is evidence to support it, that's just it. He didn't pull this out of a hat.

We know that he didn't pull it out of his hat. He pulled it out of his magic hole.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That is true, but again by the time we would see the Sun the light would have traveled enough distance to where we would be in optical range on Earth.

What is that distance? Please be precise. How far does the light from the Sun have to travel before the Sun would be in optical range on Earth?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

He showed exactly why he believed the eyes were not a sense organ and what observations made him come to this conclusion.

I think we are all aware that he gave his reasons for believing that the eyes are not a sense organ. What he failed to do was provide any evidence in support of that belief.

Angakuk · #**38792** 07-25-2014, 04:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It takes light to travel from the moon 1.3 seconds. How in the world can we know whether we see the moon in real time or not in that small amount of time. The time frame is too close together to get an accurate result.

Do you remember ANYTHING that is written to you?

We've been over this in some detail before, haven't we? So are you just dumb or being dishonest again? I suspect the latter. You haven't an honest bone in your body.

As explained to you before, to measure the round trip of light to moon and back, an ATOMIC CLOCK is used, which is accurate down to ... well, nanoseconds, your favorite new word that, like "inverse square law," you use without even understanding what it means.

Scientists bounce laser beams off old Soviet moon rover

From the article:

Quote:

Lunar laser ranging uses short-pulse lasers and state-of-the-art optical receivers and timing electronics to measure how long it takes light beamed from ground stations to travel to retroreflector arrays on the moon and back again.

It takes just two and a half seconds for light to make this roundtrip trek, requiring use of an ATOMIC CLOCK.

Of course, if Lessans were right, we'd see the laser light on the moon in half of 2.5 seconds, when the light arrives. But we see it in twice that interval of time, proving, yet again, that Lessans was WRONG.

Atomic clocks don't have eyes. I am not disputing the accuracy of the atomic clock's measurement.

Atomic clock - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In this case the the atomic clock does have eyes. It is connected to "state-of-the-art optical receivers". Optical receivers are light sensors, just like cameras and eyes. I guess you missed that part.

Here is a picture of an electronic optical receiver.

See, it even has a lens!

LadyShea · #**38793** 07-25-2014, 04:18 AM

Oh a lens! That makes all the difference, right peacegirl?

So how do you explain why the lens on the atomic clock doesn't register the light in a nanosecond?

davidm · #**38794** 07-25-2014, 04:26 AM

Even if atomic clocks did not have eyes, it's completely irrelevant to the point that the clock measures the interval of time it takes to see the light on the moon after it has left the earth. Amazingly, she does not dispute the clock's findings. But of course, (as she surely understands) the clock's finding just means that Lessans' model is wrong, and if you don't dispute its finding, then it logically follows that Leassans' model is false. Of course, peacegirl has long ago dispensed with logic itself, claiming that light can be at the retina eight and a half minutes before it gets there.

But now we see that atomic clocks have eyes. So now what will she say?

"More testing is required."

"Something else must be going on there."

"Let's talk about the two-sided equation."

"I am done discussing photons."

"Look, what a lovely video of cute kitties I found! I thought I'd share this with everyone!"

:lol:

davidm · #**38795** 07-25-2014, 04:29 AM

What now, peacegirl? The atomic clock has a lens! Remember, if it has a lens, we see the light in a nanosecond! (wtf ever happened to "instantaneously?" :lol:

) But, we don't. And you say you don't dispute the reading of the clock, which contradicts every word you wrote. :popcorn:

thedoc · #**38796** 07-25-2014, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Here's some really really complex and involved mathematics for Peacegirl to chew on. If you take several scientists doing the experiment to determine the time it takes light to go from the Moon and back visually. You just need to get an average reaction time for each person, and then do the experiment with the person watching for the flash of light visually, not with instruments, and then adjust the time for the round trip of light by their reaction time. You would need to conduct the experiment several times to get an accurate average for each factor in the equation. It should come out to 2.5 seconds, unless Lessans was right, then it would be about 1.3 seconds.

There is no way the eyes can register what they are seeing in 1.3 seconds. By the time the light made the round trip, they wouldn't know whether they saw the moon in 1.3 seconds or 2.6 seconds, so it would be a poor test.

Just to be fair, it is quite possible that Peacegirl is incapable of reacting in less than 2.6 seconds and she probably considers that she is normal, (which we all know she isn't), so she would project that others are incapable of reacting in less that 2.6 seconds. It is entirely normal for those with abnormalities to project their affliction to others in an effort to feel normal. This abnormality most likely also manifests itself in her delusional persistence of stating the ideas in her fathers book as indisputable facts, when in fact they are delusional nonsense.

thedoc · #**38797** 07-25-2014, 04:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

In this case the the atomic clock does have eyes. It is connected to "state-of-the-art optical receivers". Optical receivers are light sensors, just like cameras and eyes. I guess you missed that part.

Here is a picture of an electronic optical receiver.

See, it even has a lens!

OH! Shit!, In that case the clock sees things instantly and any delay is due to operator error. We almost had her.

peacegirl · #**38798** 07-25-2014, 10:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Unfortunately, PG thinks that the camera is taking a picture of the object, not the light, in real time. Even though the photograph needs to receive photons from the object in order for a reaction to occur and produce an image and she has no explanation for how it gets there.

That's exactly what is happening; it just doesn't take 81/2 minutes. I know you don't see how...

You don't see how either. You have absolutely no idea how efferent vision could possibly work. That's why you keep finding yourself making up utter nonsense, such as your recent insanity about nanoseconds, candles, and the inverse square law.

As fast as we see a candle when it's first lit would be the same amount of time we would see the Sun being turned on. It's no different. As a result, we would be within optical range of the Sun just like we are with the candle.

peacegirl · #**38799** 07-25-2014, 11:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Look at your above answers. You have said that the photons now at the film got there by traveling from the Sun at 11 million miles per minute, and began this journey by leaving the Sun only after it is ignited, and yet somehow complete this journey by arriving at the camera film less than 8min later. So I ask you again...

How can photons traveling at just over 11 million miles per minute cover a distance of 93 million miles in less than 8 minutes?

They can't...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then you need to change your answers, because the answers you gave said that they can.

I will not. You either are 100% blocked, or you don't have the capacity to grasp what I'm even talking about. I think it's the former.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't have to change my answers. I am perfectly content with the answers I gave because I don't believe they are contradictory.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You just rejected your own answers above, so you do need to answer them again. Here they are:

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?

Can they arrive at the camera film less than 8min after leaving their source?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If it's a lens that gathers light which is on photosensitive paper, we would get an image of the Sun (the object) before the light arrives 81/2 minutes later.

The ONLY thing a lens ever does is to change the direction of light passing through it. So a lens cannot do anything to produce an image of the Sun until light has had time to reach it from the Sun.

And it has in less than a nanosecond.

How? How does light get from the Sun to the lens on Earth in a nanosecond? If it does so by traveling then it is traveling faster than light. And if it doesn't travel then it isn't light.

I'm sorry but that's not what is happening. My father never said that...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, but you did. Why did you say it if it isn't true and isn't what your father said? And given that your statement was wrong, I refer you back to what you were initially replying to when you made this wrong statement: The ONLY thing a lens ever does is to change the direction of light passing through it. So a lens cannot do anything to produce an image of the Sun until light has had time to reach it from the Sun.

But it has Spacemonkey. I'm not going to keep saying the same thing over and over again because you can't accept that this account changes everything. It puts the Sun in the same physical space as your eyes, which creates a different mechanism. You are instantly in optical range of the Sun just like you are with the candle. Actual distance has no bearing on this model of sight, which you keep bringing into it. He never said light doesn't travel and take 81/2 minutes to reach Earth, but this is not relevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'm not the one reverting back to traveling photons. YOU are. Whenever you answer my questions YOU tell ME that the photons at the film are traveling photons that got there by traveling there from the Sun.

I have always maintained that light travels...

Does that include the light you need at the film on Earth when the Sun is first ignited? Did that light travel from the Sun to get there? If so, how long did it take to complete the journey, and when did it leave the Sun? Try not to talk about completely different photons this time.

It doesn't matter what photons are being replaced, it is an instant view of the Sun just like the candle. Would any lens be able to pick up the delay when a candle is first turned on? NOOOOOOO, well the same is true here. You keep bringing up distance which has NO BEARING ON THIS ACCOUNT. NADA.

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

That's true Spacemonkey, but you just can't grasp the concept. What can I do? :chin:

How is it true? How can the same photons not be the same photons? What am I not getting that would make flat contradictions like this reasonable?

It's not reasonable only because you don't understand what I mean. That's why I said the image is not reflected, even though light is traveling. If that's true, then there is no contradiction.

If I don't understand what you mean, it's only because you aren't saying what you mean. But I know what your mind is doing even if you don't. You begin by saying that the photons I am asking about traveled from the Sun to get to the film, because that is the only conceivable answer. But then you switch to saying that these photons must be different photons because your answer would have them arriving 8min too late. Then you conveniently ignore the fact that this means you haven't answered the original question, due to these no longer being the photons you were asked about. Your response above is also nonsense, as there is no reflection of any image in the afferent account for your newly ignited Sun either.

There actually is, just like in the candle example. We see the candle because it's there to be seen. The candle being bright enough and large enough meets the requirement of efferent vision but because the candle is on Earth, you don't get how the two are the same. The truth is they are the same, but you are too caught up in the idea that we can't see the Sun before the light gets to Earth (distance and time), which is not true in this account. If no one even gets this a little bit, this conversation really has to end. I am talking blue in the face to people who are in denial.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But not if the image or information is not traveling LadyShea. That's the problem with the afferent viewpoint. It is believed that the image or information or raw material is in the light which is then transduced. The whole concocted story is not right.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You seem to be thinking of the information as some kind of secret code hidden away inside the traveling light. It isn't. The information is simply the known and measurable properties of the arriving light, i.e. direction, wavelength, and intensity. Arriving light is known to have these properties, and they are all that is needed to form an image.

Bump.

All of those things are relevant, but it doesn't take 81/2 minutes for us to get this information in the light. It takes us no time because that light is at the eye when the Sun is first turned on. I'm warning you Spacemonkey, call me a name today and you just won't get your bumped posts answered. If you don't care about my warning, keep doing what you're doing.

Spacemonkey · #**38800** 07-25-2014, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Artemis Entreri

Unfortunately, PG thinks that the camera is taking a picture of the object, not the light, in real time. Even though the photograph needs to receive photons from the object in order for a reaction to occur and produce an image and she has no explanation for how it gets there.

That's exactly what is happening; it just doesn't take 81/2 minutes. I know you don't see how...

You don't see how either. You have absolutely no idea how efferent vision could possibly work. That's why you keep finding yourself making up utter nonsense, such as your recent insanity about nanoseconds, candles, and the inverse square law.

As fast as we see a candle when it's first lit would be the same amount of time we would see the Sun being turned on. It's no different. As a result, we would be within optical range of the Sun just like we are with the candle.

For light to travel a much greater distance in the same amount of time requires it to travel at a faster speed, i.e. faster than the speed of light.