A revolution in thought

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If this account is right, there is no way you could recognize a change in color in an instant. Your effort to negate this account is full of holes because your reaction time could be lagging behind. Testing reaction time is just not reliable when it comes to light and sight that necessitates seeing with precision.

The test only refutes your silly claims about reactions times, why won't you simply prove it to yourself that a normally functioning* human can react to a color change in less than 1.3 seconds.

*Drugs, alcohol, age, illness, and/or mental issues may slow reaction times.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If this account is right, there is no way you could recognize a change in color in an instant.

This is typical from you: ignore how the world actually is by going and doing an experiment, and instead just assuming it works the way you want.

Why don't you ever open your eyes? For all your talking about 'astute observations', you do your utmost to avoid making any observations at all.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The test only refutes your silly claims about reactions times, why won't you simply prove it to yourself that a normally functioning* human can react to a color change in less than 1.3 seconds.

*Drugs, alcohol, age, and/or mental issues may slow reaction times.

How about intentionally waiting to push the button, in order to get longer than 1.3 seconds as a reaction time. That would be in keeping with Peacegirls past performances and posts, and her dedication to not proving Lessans or herself wrong. She claims longer reaction in the face of direct evidence, do you really expect an honest answer from her now?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It should be noted that verifying the approximate time for light to travel from the Earth to the Moon can be done manually by eye to within a small fraction of a second (1/4 or less). The requirement for atomic clocks is only needed to measure the exact distance from the Earth to the Moon, and it seems that according to the tests that have been done during the last 50 some years, the Moon is moving slowly away from the earth.

Lunar distance (astronomy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia)

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Why are you unable to follow a basic conversation? Or are you lying? As Spacemonkey astutely observes, this completely refutes your claim about human reaction times.

It all depends on the person reacting. LadyShea said a healthy person can react this fast. Not necessarily. Actually, Spacemonkey said he could react in less than a second. If light from a laser takes 11/3 seconds to reach Earth, then seeing the light in less than this time supports efferent vision. You are being too quick to judge Lessans wrong because you want him to be wrong.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you think that's true, try it with a candle.

Why would I do that when I can do it on a computer screen, using a stopwatch accurate to tenths of a second that is programmed to test reaction times?

All we are discussing is reaction times, Weasel, not how long it takes to see.

What does "healthy people" have to do with it. The kids in my class were healthy, but their reaction time was not that fast.

Drugs, alcohol, age, illness, and/or mental issues, stress, etc. may slow reaction times.

And yes, all kinds of people pass all kinds of reaction time tests in less than 1.3 seconds. There are multiple such tests for pilots, for one real life example. Even the simple, everyday act of an aware and alert driver braking for a stoplight is expected to be less than 1 second

Reaction times are greatly affected by whether the driver is alert to the need to brake. I've found it useful to divide alertness into three classes:

Expected: the driver is alert and aware of the good possibility that braking will be necessary. This is the absolute best reaction time possible. The best estimate is 0.7 second. Of this, 0.5 is perception and 0.2 is movement, the time required to release the accelerator and to depress the brake pedal.

http://www.visualexpert.com/Resources/reactiontime.html

This is not an accurate test because no one can see and react to light that has changed color in 1.3 seconds. Face it LadyShea; this is not a reliable test.

Of course they can, which we have proven with the online test.

It wouldn't need to be extremely accurate, it would only need to be consistently under 1.3 seconds.

Face it, peacegirl, your real objection is that you know Lessans ideas will fail even the most basic scientific verification.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It all depends on the person reacting. LadyShea said a healthy person can react this fast. Not necessarily. Actually, Spacemonkey said he could react in less than a second. If light from a laser takes 11/3 seconds to reach Earth, then seeing the light in less than this time supports efferent vision. You are being too quick to judge Lessans wrong because you want him to be wrong.

We were only talking about a possible experiment using lasers shot at the reflectors on the moon and a human reacting. Humans can easily react in under 1.3 seconds....which is all that would be needed to prove you right.

But, sadly for you, the experiment has actually been done using high tech optical sensors with lenses, and your model fails every time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

:huh: So efferent vision moves the whole Sun 93 million miles to inside your eyeballs? That's what "the same physical space" means you know.

Let me guess, you are redefining "same", and "physical space" because you can't explain your model in any way that makes sense?

This makes perfect sense. Where am I redefining the word "same"? If you want to get technical that just means the Sun can be seen because it's present for me to see. It's within my range of sight. I am trying to explain it using different words that might ring a bell. It gets boring to say I am within optical range. But I guess I have to. We are in optical range OF THE SUN when the Sun is in the physical space that the lens is in, in combination with the efferent account of vision. You left out the entire claim that allows for this phenomenon. And you think I'm the one with the problem?

[LadyShea]

Same physical space means being located at the same place. You certainly didn't mean that the Sun could literally be in the same physical space as the eyeballs, so you were using a metaphor, or redefining words.

Optical range is meaningless when it comes to physical locations of light and matter, so your continued use of it isn't making your argument any stronger, it just sounds deranged.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It is highly relevant if you need light photons on the surface of camera film, on Earth to take a photograph. Forget about vision, and discuss only photography.

Your choice is to admit that photography cannot be in real time, or to coherently account for that distance with respect to light photons being located on camera film on Earth.

You don't get to just dismiss it without demonstrating, without a doubt, the complete failure of Lessans idea.

You are still confused LadyShea as to why light photons ARE at the camera film in this account of vision. I already explained that a camera lens would get an image on photosensitive paper if the Sun was just turned on, whereas it would take 8 1/2 minutes longer for there to be light in which the same lens could take a picture on Earth. Lessans' claim is not a failure, but he knew what he was up against. The sad part is this isn't nearly as important as his other discovery, yet you are all stuck on this. If scientists react the same way, there is no telling how long it will take for this discovery to be brought to light and for peace on earth to prevail.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It all depends on the person reacting. LadyShea said a healthy person can react this fast. Not necessarily. Actually, Spacemonkey said he could react in less than a second. If light from a laser takes 11/3 seconds to reach Earth, then seeing the light in less than this time supports efferent vision. You are being too quick to judge Lessans wrong because you want him to be wrong.

Are you really this stupid? No-one is saying you can SEE the light in less than the time it takes for light to get from the Moon back to the Earth. We are refuting your bogus claim that human reaction times are not fast enough to register the difference between the instantaneous vision predicted by Lessans and the 1.3sec delay afferent vision predicts.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are still confused LadyShea as to why light photons ARE at the camera film in this account of vision. I already explained that a camera lens would get an image on photosensitive paper if the Sun was just turned on, whereas it would take 8 1/2 minutes longer for there to be light in which the same lens could take a picture on Earth.

You haven't explained any of this, you dishonest dingbat. In fact you know it doesn't make any sense, which is why you are presently refusing to answer questions about it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Same physical space means being located at the same place. You certainly didn't mean that the Sun could literally be in the same physical space as the eyeballs, so you were using a metaphor, or redefining words.

Optical range is meaningless when it comes to physical locations of light and matter, so your continued use of it isn't making your argument any stronger, it just sounds deranged.

Like I said, it might not have been a perfect usage of the term, but I have been talking to you for 3 years. It's not like you don't know what I'm referring to. Optical range is very important when we're distinguishing between what scientists believe we're seeing (the resolution of light) and what Lessans says we're seeing (the actual object). I have to use this term because it's accurate. We are in optical range of the actual object. It is far from meaningless and for you to say this shows me how confused you really are.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dragar, there is no way in the world a person's reaction time can be that fast. By the time they push the button, it would be a delay not because of what they see but because of their reaction time. I had the fastest reaction time in my class in 6th grade. We were given green and red lights (like a traffic light) to observe, and we were asked to push the pedal when we saw the change from red to green. I did it so fast they couldn't believe it. To this day my reflexes are super fast, yet I could never push a button that quickly to determine whether I was seeing in delayed time or real time.

I've skipped over most of her daily rubbish -- I can't imagine how LadyShe and Spacemonkey have the intestinal fortitude to wade through her vomit -- but has she addressed the ATOMIC CLOCK yet?

You see, airhead (talking to you now, peacegirl), even if you were right about reaction times (and you're wrong as usual -- provably wrong!), the experiment of bouncing lasers off the moon uses optical equipment with a lens -- the very thing to which you ascribe magical sooper-dooper properties of making light appear magically on earth! It doesn't depend on humans holding stopwatches and their differing reaction times. It's a clock that is accurate to nanoseconds -- your favorite new chew-toy word whose meaning you don't even know! And every time this experiment is done, it shows we register the laser light on the moon in 2.6 seconds and NOT 1.3 seconds as Leassans' "model" predicts. Guess what? That means he was wrong!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are you really this stupid? No-one is saying you can SEE the light in less than the time it takes for light to get from the Moon back to the Earth. We are refuting your bogus claim that human reaction times are not fast enough to register the difference between the instantaneous vision predicted by Lessans and the 1.3sec delay afferent vision predicts.

You supported my claim if you could see the color change before the light got here, regardless of whether I was wrong about reaction time. Thank you Spacemonkey!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Dragar

Why are you unable to follow a basic conversation? Or are you lying? As Spacemonkey astutely observes, this completely refutes your claim about human reaction times.

Of course she can follow a basic conversation. She's LYING.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You supported my claim if you could see the color change before the light got here, regardless of whether I was wrong about reaction time. Thank you Spacemonkey!

No-one said you can see the colour change before the light gets to your eyes. Idiot. Why do you lie like this?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are you really this stupid? No-one is saying you can SEE the light in less than the time it takes for light to get from the Moon back to the Earth. We are refuting your bogus claim that human reaction times are not fast enough to register the difference between the instantaneous vision predicted by Lessans and the 1.3sec delay afferent vision predicts.

Same cavil: Lessans's bogus "model" wouldn't predict instantaneous seeing of the light in this case; since the moon is 1.3 light seconds distant, we would, under the buffoon's vaporous pronouncements, expect to register the light on the moon when it arrives there from the earth -- 1.3 seconds after departure. Instead, we register the light in double the time, 2.6 seconds, because the light needs the extra 1.3 seconds to return to our eyes and make contact with them -- an iron-clad refutation of his claims, and peacegirl knows this perfectly well and she just can't stand it! For Lessans to be right consistent with what we actually observe in this experiment, the moon would have to be twice as far from the earth as it actually is -- but of course we know precisely the distance of the moon from the earth, independently of optical tests. So poor peacegirl is sunk as usual, but she'll keep on going for the rest of her life with her dishonest rubbish.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The clock is attached to a state of the art optical receiver with a lens, the presence of a few photons in the receiver is what activates the clock.

Did you even read the experiment, weasel?

Obviously this lens is receiving light, just like any telescope. It is an instrument that is able to detect light frequencies to measure time more precisely. Where is this instrument built like a camera?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by davidm

Same cavil: Lessans's bogus "model" wouldn't predict instantaneous seeing of the light in this case; since the moon is 1.3 light seconds distant, we would, under the buffoon's vaporous pronouncements, expect to register the light on the moon when it arrives there from the earth -- 1.3 seconds after departure. Instead, we register the light in double the time, 2.6 seconds, because the light needs the extra 1.3 seconds to return to our eyes and make contact with them...

I know. I meant instantaneously seeing the light as it hits the reflector on the Moon, which is why I spoke of a 1.3sec delay.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I know. I meant instantaneously seeing the light as it hits the reflector on the Moon, which is why I spoke of a 1.3sec delay.

OK, carry on. Just wanted to make sure we were all on the same page with the Daily Dingbat.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The test only refutes your silly claims about reactions times, why won't you simply prove it to yourself that a normally functioning* human can react to a color change in less than 1.3 seconds.

*Drugs, alcohol, age, illness, and/or mental issues may slow reaction times.

Maybe I was wrong. You all want me to be wrong so you got your wish. The point is a laser would not allow us to see the moon. There's not enough light. We would be testing our ability to see the laser striking the moon at 1.3 seconds before it made its round trip. That would mean that if there was enough light (if the moon was bright enough), we would be able to see it in real time.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Maybe I was wrong. You all want me to be wrong so you got your wish. The point is a laser would not allow us to see the moon. There's not enough light. We would be testing our ability to see the laser striking the moon at 1.3 seconds before it made its round trip. That would mean that if there was enough light (if the moon was bright enough), we would be able to see it in real time.

And if you actually perform this test you will find that we do not see it in real time at 1.3sec, but rather at a light speed delay of 2.6sec. Ergo, your father was wrong just as you have been.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why would I do that when I can do it on a computer screen, using a stopwatch accurate to tenths of a second that is programmed to test reaction times?

All we are discussing is reaction times, Weasel, not how long it takes to see.

Drugs, alcohol, age, illness, and/or mental issues, stress, etc. may slow reaction times.

And yes, all kinds of people pass all kinds of reaction time tests in less than 1.3 seconds. There are multiple such tests for pilots, for one real life example. Even the simple, everyday act of an aware and alert driver braking for a stoplight is expected to be less than 1 second

Of course they can, which we have proven with the online test.

It wouldn't need to be extremely accurate, it would only need to be consistently under 1.3 seconds.

Face it, peacegirl, your real objection is that you know Lessans ideas will fail even the most basic scientific verification.

No LadyShea, you are way too premature to make that kind of announcement. Your brazenness is just a bunch of hot air with nothing really to show for it except the same old repetition of what you've been taught is true. You have no real proof but because it's hard to believe that someone comes online and makes such an extraordinary claim, in your mind I must be a flat earther.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The point is a laser would not allow us to see the moon. There's not enough light.

What an idiot! No-one has suggested that the laser would illuminate the moon! The Sun does. That is why you can see it.