A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Holy shit! Did she just say that?

It just takes one's breath away the ever-increasing sheer stupidity of the utterances of this loon!

All one can say is … what a dingbat!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

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!

Maybe you haven't noticed, but a clock is not a camera, no matter how precise the timing is! It doesn't even prove what you think it proves.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Holy shit! Did she just say that?

It just takes one's breath away the ever-increasing sheer stupidity of the utterances of this loon!

All one can say is … what a dingbat!

When you react with more vitriol than normal (which is already pretty disgusting), that means I'm getting to you because you can't take the heat.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When you react with more vitriol than normal (which is already pretty disgusting), that means I'm getting to you because you can't take the heat.

Your comment was galactically stupid, Peacegirl. No-one has ever suggested that the laser would illuminate the moon.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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

I think -- just guessing here, because I'm not reading her vomit -- that she has retreated to a new desperate tack: she's saying the laser itself doesn't have enough light to be seen. This is now that she can no longer defend her lie that we can't accurately measure the time the laser takes to get to the moon and back to our eyes.

So, dingbat, (that's you, peacegirl), how do you explain the fact that scientists have been successfully doing this experiment for more than fifty years, if the laser doesn't have enough light to be seen? Are these scientists all pretending to do what you claim is an impossible experiment?

BTW, do you even know what a laser is, and why it is used in this particular experiment, instead of, say, a flashlight? That's a rhetorical question from me, you dishonest harridan; answer the question for someone else since I don't read your vomit.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Your comment was galactically stupid, Peacegirl. No-one has ever suggested that the laser would illuminate the moon.

Well that's what is needed to prove that we can or can't see it; we can't prove it using a laser. First of all a laser is just a narrow beam of light. As such, it doesn't prove anything other than at what point we can see the light as its traveling to the moon and back, nothing more. It does not prove what you think it does. You're all mixed up.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well that's what is needed to prove that we can or can't see it; we can't prove it using a laser. First of all a laser is just a narrow beam of light. As such, it doesn't prove anything other than at what point we can see the light as its traveling to the moon and back, nothing more. It does not prove what you think it does. You're all mixed up.

You are being a dishonest idiot again. The experiment has been performed. It is one you could even do yourself. You can see the laser hitting the reflective surface of the Moon. Only we see it 1.3sec later than your father's idiotic account predicts.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

I think -- just guessing here, because I'm not reading her vomit -- that she has retreated to a new desperate tack: she's saying the laser itself doesn't have enough light to be seen. This is now that she can no longer defend her lie that we can't accurately measure the time the laser takes to get to the moon and back to our eyes.

So, dingbat, (that's you, peacegirl), how do you explain the fact that scientists have been successfully doing this experiment for more than fifty years, if the laser doesn't have enough light to be seen? Are these scientists all pretending to do what you claim is an impossible experiment?

Not at all, but if we can see the laser in less than 1 and 1/3 seconds, that would indicate that a full moon could be seen in less than 1 and 1/3 seconds also, which means we would be seeing the moon when it was first turned on, not 2.6 seconds later.

Originally Posted by davidm

BTW, do you even know what a laser is, and why it is used in this particular experiment, instead of, say, a flashlight? That's a rhetorical question from me, you dishonest harridan; answer the question for someone else since I don't read your vomit.

It's a directed beam of intense light energy. When this gang up starts to happen, they feel they have the upper hand and can now attack. It's like a pack of dogs waiting to pounce on their prey at a vulnerable moment. It's hitting below the belt. I don't deserve this kind of treatment. I will have to find another forum to speak my truth but not the one you suggested. Don't worry, I will make sure the search engines don't give it away and if they do, I will find another forum before you have a chance to spew your diarrhea all over the place.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are being a dishonest idiot again. The experiment has been performed. It is one you could even do yourself. You can see the laser hitting the reflective surface of the Moon. Only we see it 1.3sec later than your father's idiotic account predicts.

That's because light does not reveal itself! Following the trajectory of light in order to determine when we are able to see it measures time, that is true, but it does nothing to disprove the efferent account of VISION! That would be like waiting to see when light arrives from the Sun. It doesn't measure what you think it does. Danggggg you people are IMPOSSIBLE!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not at all, but if we can see the laser in less than 1 and 1/3 seconds, that would indicate that a full moon could be seen in less than 1 and 1/3 seconds also, which means we would be seeing the moon when it was first turned on, not 2.6 seconds later.

Are you posting drunk? You seem even more bizarrely retarded than normal. The moon does not get turned on. This is not your newly ignited Sun example (which concerned the Sun, not the moon). Nor can the moon be turned on, as the moon does not emit its own light. The LASER is turned on, and we see light from it hitting the moon 2.6sec after it is switched on, which is 1.3sec after it happens.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are you posting drunk? You seem even more bizarrely retarded than normal. The moon does not get turned on. This is not your newly ignited Sun example (which concerned the Sun, not the moon). Nor can the moon be turned on, as the moon does not emit its own light. The LASER is turned on, and we see light from it hitting the moon 2.6sec after it is switched on, which is 1.3sec after the light is actually first hitting the reflector on the moon.

Your memory must be shot! David was trying to use the moon example as if it was the Sun. Then he switched to lasers. He doesn't know whether he's coming or going, just like you. You're all discombulated! As I said, following a trajectory of light does not disprove efferent VISION. You are grasping at straws Spacemonkey. Face it, you lose!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's because light does not reveal itself! Following the trajectory of light in order to determine when we are able to see it measures time, that is true, but it does nothing to disprove the efferent account of VISION! That would be like waiting to see when light arrives from the Sun. It doesn't measure what you think it does. Danggggg you people are IMPOSSIBLE!

You are still being stupid. Have you never seen a laser pointer? If you aim one at a wall you can see the light hitting the wall. We can do this with the moon, only we don't see the light hitting the moon in real time (after 1.3sec) as Lessans predicts. We see it only after an additional 1.3sec delay, proving Lessans wrong. What we are seeing is an event on the moon, but we are not seeing it in real time as it happens. This is a direct disproof of your father's incredibly stupid ideas.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Your memory must be shot! David was trying to use the moon example as if it was the Sun. Then he switched to lasers. He doesn't know whether he's coming or going, just like you. You're all discombulated! As I said, following a trajectory of light does not disprove efferent VISION. You are grasping at straws Spacemonkey. Face it, you lose!

David wasn't doing anything of the sort. You just made that up. Again, are you posting drunk? You are far worse right now than you usually are.

[davidm]

Hey, peacegirl, did you even read the article I linked?


Pay special attention to this! Bold by me:

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.

Two and a half seconds! Lessans' "model" predicts half that time. So much the worse for silly Seymour. Guess he should have stayed in school and learned stuff!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are still being stupid. Have you never seen a laser pointer? If you aim one at a wall you can see the light hitting the wall. We can do this with the moon, only we don't see the light hitting the moon in real time (after 1.3sec) as Lessans predicts. We see it only after an additional 1.3sec delay, proving Lessans wrong. What we are seeing is an event on the moon, but we are not seeing it in real time as it happens. This is a direct disproof of your father's incredibly stupid ideas.

This has nothing to do with VISION. You are right back to waiting for light to arrive, which we OBVIOUSLY can't see until it arrives. Can I see daylight before it arrives? Of course not. That would be magic. This whole thing about lasers doesn't prove what you think it does. You are not even working on the right question, so how can you expect to have the right answer?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This has nothing to do with VISION. You are right back to waiting for light to arrive, which we OBVIOUSLY can't see until it arrives. Can I see daylight before it arrives? Of course not. That would be magic. You are not even working on the right question, so how can you find the "right" answer?

You are still being a complete moron. This has everything to do with vision. It is about seeing the event of light reaching and hitting the reflector on the moon. We are not waiting to see light as it arrives at the eye. We are waiting to see it arrive at the moon. But we don't see it when it arrives there. We see it 1.3sec later, which means we are seeing this event in delayed time rather than in real-time as your father's account predicts.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey, peacegirl, did you even read the article I linked?


Pay special attention to this! Bold by me:

Two and a half seconds! Lessans' "model" predicts half that time.

No it doesn't. He was a mathematician. I think he would have known that we can't see light until the light arrives. This isn't even addressing the issue; that's how far removed you are from understanding this model.

Originally Posted by davidm

So much the worse for silly Seymour. Guess he should have stayed in school and learned stuff!

No David, it's you that can't even get the problem straight in your head. Your disrespect for my father will one day kick you in the ass.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are still being a complete moron. This has everything to do with vision. It is about seeing the event of light reaching and hitting the reflector on the moon. We are not waiting for light to arrive at the eye. We are waiting for it to arrive at the moon. But we don't see it when it arrives there. We see it 1.3sec later, which means we are seeing this event in delayed time rather than in real-time as your father's account predicts.

There is nothing to see other than light, which cannot reveal itself. There is no matter we are testing. Now if we couldn't see a remnant left on the moon until 2.5 seconds later, that's a different story. But they can't even test remnants because they don't have the resolution capacity to do this.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing to see other than light, which cannot reveal itself. There is no matter we are testing. Now if we couldn't see a remnant left on the moon until 2.5 seconds later, that's a different story. But they can't even test remnants because they don't have the resolution capacity to do this.

Light does reveal itself. Take a flashlight and shine it at a wall. This is what the experiment does, only with a laser and the moon. We see the light hitting the moon 1.3sec AFTER it has done so.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it doesn't. He was a mathematician. I think he would have known that we can't see light until the light arrives.

Until it arrives where? If you do the experiment you will see light arriving at the moon. Only you don't see it when it arrives. You see it 1.3sec later.

[davidm]

I think scientists have been pretending to bounce lasers off the moon for fifty years and thus proving delayed-time seeing, because they were all aware of Lessans' profound insights, and were bitter and jealous and wanted to discredit him because they feared the collapse of their precious world view.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Fine. Don't change your answers. That just means your account remains flatly contradictory, with the photons in question both traveling and not traveling the 93 million miles from the Sun to the film in under 8min.

Still no answers to the above questions?

Don't be daft. Your account cannot put the Sun inside people's eyes. And if the lens is affecting light that has had time (8min) to travel from the Sun to the lens, then we are talking about light that has arrived 8min too late to be of any use to you.

I didn't say anything about replacement or about distance. Try reading what you are replying to. You said you have always maintained that light travels. So I asked: 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?

No, there is not. There is no reflection at all involved in the afferent account of looking at and seeing a newly ignited Sun.

Bump for the

Just in case you thought your latest diversionary tactic had actually achieved anything.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You are still being a complete moron. This has everything to do with vision. It is about seeing the event of light reaching and hitting the reflector on the moon. We are not waiting to see light as it arrives at the eye. We are waiting to see it arrive at the moon. But we don't see it when it arrives there. We see it 1.3sec later, which means we are seeing this event in delayed time rather than in real-time as your father's account predicts.

I am still having a hard time understanding why we wouldn't see light as it strikes the reflector at that moment. The 1 1/3 delayed response was the time it takes to notice the light and respond to it. Even the movement of your hand to push a button takes more than a second. Maybe it would be more accurate using a pinhole camera (that doesn't involve our reflexes) to see when the image of the laser shows up, 1 1/3 or 2 2/6 seconds later.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is nothing to see other than light, which cannot reveal itself. There is no matter we are testing.

But the light source (the laser) is comprised of matter, so the shape of the laser head that is emitting the light would show up just like the shape of the Sun would show up (as gravity and plasma come together) to give the Sun its circular shape.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Now if we couldn't see a remnant left on the moon until 2.5 seconds later, that's a different story. But they can't even test remnants because they don't have the resolution capacity to do this.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Light does reveal itself. Take a flashlight and shine it at a wall. This is what the experiment does, only with a laser and the moon. We see the light hitting the moon 1.3sec AFTER it has done so.

Sorry but that is not light revealing itself. That is just following the trajectory of light as we see it on a reflective surface. Light does not reveal itself. Can we see photons? Of course not, we see daylight, but photons are not things that can be seen like cars and houses. We can only see that which light is capable of revealing (i.e., material substance).

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump for the

Just in case you thought your latest diversionary tactic had actually achieved anything.

Okay, emission. It really doesn't make a difference. Light is light whether it's being emitted from a light source or reflected from an object.