A revolution in thought - Page 1557

Spacemonkey · #**38901** 07-26-2014, 12:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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

I will not.

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.

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?

Still no answers to the above questions?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

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...

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 :weasel:

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.

You've replied to nothing but the last sentence of my post. :facepalm:

LadyShea · #**38902** 07-26-2014, 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

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:

Knowing now that in this empirical demonstration, the atomic clock is using an optical sensor with a lens, do you want to change your answer peacegirl?

Quote:

Originally Posted by linked article

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.

No, all this clock does (why do you think it's called a clock?) is just like any instrument that is used to measure light in terms of distance and time. It's just more precise. This doesn't test what you think it does. So no I do not want to change my answer 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?

It has a lens and a sensor, just like a digital camera.

peacegirl · #**38903** 07-26-2014, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We can only see that which light is capable of revealing (i.e., material substance). :doh:

So what is being 'revealed' when we see the laser spot appear on the moon?

If we had a powerful enough lens we would get an image of the light striking the reflector in 1.3 seconds.

An 'image of the light striking the reflector'? What does that even mean?

Your posts have been almost impossible to comprehend lately.

Let's just say we would see the reflected light at 1.3 seconds. Is that better?

If you like. But when we do the experiment, it turns out you're wrong, and it takes twice that time. Why is Lessans always wrong when it comes to a discriminatory test, peacegirl?

I don't think they were even looking for this. They were measuring the speed of light in relation to how long it would take for light to make the round trip. I still think it would be difficult see light at the moon that is traveling 186,000 miles a second. When something is moving so fast (like the speed of light) the eyes may not be able to adjust in enough time; in fact, it may not be visible to the person at all because of its speed. This is not a good test to determine the time that it takes to see the light. Please don't use this as your final test because I don't think it's reliable.

Spacemonkey · #**38904** 07-26-2014, 12:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nothing is being revealed if it's just light. We would be tracking the light and we all know light travels. If there is no matter for light to reveal, we won't get an image in real time.

There is matter for the light to reveal. There is the reflector on the moon. It is revealed more brightly when the additional laser light begins to hit it. Only we see this in delayed time, rather than when it is actually happening.

Spacemonkey · #**38905** 07-26-2014, 12:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you are seeing something, then the light is interacting with something in the atmosphere, otherwise it's just plain old light coming from a laser or any light source.

But we aren't seeing light in the atmosphere. We are seeing the laser light at the moon's surface.

Spacemonkey · #**38906** 07-26-2014, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If we had a powerful enough lens we would get an image of the light striking the reflector in 1.3 seconds...

But we don't. When we use powerful lenses we still see it after a 1.3sec delay, which is exactly the time speed delay predicted by afferent vision.

Dragar · #**38907** 07-26-2014, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

If you like. But when we do the experiment, it turns out you're wrong, and it takes twice that time. Why is Lessans always wrong when it comes to a discriminatory test, peacegirl?

I don't think they were even looking for this. They were measuring the speed of light in relation to how long it would take for light to make the round trip.

That doesn't matter (and is hardly a surprise, given your father's theories were discredited centuries ago). What matters is it's yet another experimental disproof of Lessans. (Not to mention the fact his ideas about vision appear worse than useless - they would have actively hindered us in our space flight endeavours if we'd listened!).

peacegirl · #**38908** 07-26-2014, 12:56 AM

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:

Originally Posted by davidm

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:

Knowing now that in this empirical demonstration, the atomic clock is using an optical sensor with a lens, do you want to change your answer peacegirl?

Quote:

Originally Posted by linked article

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.

No, all this clock does (why do you think it's called a clock?) is just like any instrument that is used to measure light in terms of distance and time. It's just more precise. This doesn't test what you think it does. So no I do not want to change my answer 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?

It has a lens and a sensor, just like a digital camera.

And that's what a digital camera would show also. It would receive light when it arrived just like our eyes do, but we're not talking about the same thing.

Spacemonkey · #**38909** 07-26-2014, 12:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I still think it would be difficult see light at the moon that is traveling 186,000 miles a second. When something is moving so fast (like the speed of light) the eyes may not be able to adjust in enough time; in fact, it may not be visible to the person at all because of its speed.

Ahem...

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Don't tell me the light is traveling too fast because that is a major weasel.

The Lone Ranger · #**38910** 07-26-2014, 12:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You do know that this experiment has been done, don't you? Many, many times.

Guess how long it actually takes to see the reflected light?

Hint: It's not 1.3 seconds.

What kind of experiments, the same kind that proves dogs can recognize their masters from photographs? :eek:

You haven't been paying attention, have you?

We can shine a laser at the Moon and time how long it takes to see the reflection. We've been doing this for some 50 years now. And every time the experiment is done, it takes 2.6 seconds, not the 1.3 seconds that you claim it would take.

Oh, wait, I get it: You're going to claim that because somebody pulled a lever pushed a button to initiate the laser pulse, that invalidates the experiment -- somehow. Correct?

peacegirl · #**38911** 07-26-2014, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

If you like. But when we do the experiment, it turns out you're wrong, and it takes twice that time. Why is Lessans always wrong when it comes to a discriminatory test, peacegirl?

I don't think they were even looking for this. They were measuring the speed of light in relation to how long it would take for light to make the round trip.

That doesn't matter (and is hardly a surprise, given your father's theories were discredited centuries ago). What matters is it's yet another experimental disproof of Lessans. (Not to mention the fact his ideas about vision appear worse than useless - they would have actively hindered us in our space flight endeavours if we'd listened!).

I don't think so because seeing in real time changes nothing really other than our beliefs. The time/light delay is another one of those things that may have a bearing on landing, or may not. The speed of light measurement that is used in GPS systems, fiber optics, and all the latest technologies doesn't change one bit. This really is only about sight, not measuring distances.

LadyShea · #**38912** 07-26-2014, 12:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Even the movement of your hand to push a button takes more than a second

WTF? No it doesn't. What drugs are you on? Did you ever go to the link and take the reaction time test?

This guy can hit the buttons 155 times in 60 seconds (since you are mathematically impaired that is more than 2 button presses per second)...and some of those buttons are several inches from his hand.

Welcome to the Official BATAK Website!

Quote:

Originally Posted by BATAK website

Current top scores on the BATAK Pro (60 Second Program):

172 Matthew Bishop

155 Menkes van den Briel

The score of 172 (watch here) is currently the unofficial world record.

85 in 60 seconds, again that is more than one per second

peacegirl · #**38913** 07-26-2014, 01:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You do know that this experiment has been done, don't you? Many, many times.

Guess how long it actually takes to see the reflected light?

Hint: It's not 1.3 seconds.

What kind of experiments, the same kind that proves dogs can recognize their masters from photographs? :eek:

You haven't been paying attention, have you?

We can shine a laser at the Moon and time how long it takes to see the reflection. We've been doing this for some 50 years now. And every time the experiment is done, it takes 2.6 seconds, not the 1.3 seconds that you claim it would take.

Oh, wait, I get it: You're going to claim that because somebody pulled a lever pushed a button to initiate the laser pulse, that invalidates the experiment -- somehow. Correct?

No, I'm just saying that to see light reflected from a small piece of photosensitive material on the moon would be difficult for anyone to see. Isn't the light moving at breakneck speed? Reaction time would be taken into consideration, but this isn't the problem. When the laser light gets to Earth, it stays at the sensor longer because it's the final stop, so we would have time to process what we see. This whole experiment is not reliable in my opinion.

thedoc · #**38914** 07-26-2014, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If we had a powerful enough lens we would get an image of the light striking the reflector in 1.3 seconds...

But we don't. When we use powerful lenses we still see it after a 1.3sec delay, which is exactly the time speed delay predicted by afferent vision.

Isn't that 1.3 seconds after the light reached the surface of the Moon and 2.6 seconds after the laser was fired at the Moon?

I know, picky picky picky.

LadyShea · #**38915** 07-26-2014, 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wiki

The fastest typing speed on an alphanumeric keyboard, 216 words in one minute, was achieved by Stella Pajunas in 1946 on an IBM electric. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Words_per_minute

Even if we take a really small number of letters per word, like 3 letter words, that means 648 "button presses" in 60 seconds...about 10 per second.

The Lone Ranger · #**38916** 07-26-2014, 01:08 AM

Wow. Did I nail it, or what?

By the way, you may recall that light always moves at a constant speed (called, conveniently enough, "the speed of light"), and doesn't linger at sensors, waiting for us to process what we've just seen.

By the way, since we use this same technique to measure the distance to the Moon, you do realize that if Lessans is correct, then our measurements of the Moon's distance are off by a factor of 2. Funny, you'd think the Apollo astronauts would have noticed that ...

peacegirl · #**38917** 07-26-2014, 01:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Even the movement of your hand to push a button takes more than a second

WTF? No it doesn't. What drugs are you on? Did you ever go to the link and take the reaction time test?

This guy can hit the buttons 155 times in 60 seconds (since you are mathematically impaired that is more than 2 button presses per second)...and some of those buttons are several inches from his hand.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/PSdKWQx6iwg" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Welcome to the Official BATAK Website!

Quote:

Originally Posted by BATAK website

Current top scores on the BATAK Pro (60 Second Program):

172 Matthew Bishop

155 Menkes van den Briel

The score of 172 (watch here) is currently the unofficial world record.

85 in 60 seconds, again that is more than one per second
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/9mhf9qL7xJs" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

It's not just about reaction time; it's about the brains ability to process what it sees, and light that is traveling 186,000 miles a second could hardly be processed that quickly. If the guy was able to see the light (which I doubt) then his reaction time would be incredible. In fact, this would probably put him in the Guinness Book of world records, if he's not there already.

Spacemonkey · #**38918** 07-26-2014, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, I'm just saying that to see light reflected from a small piece of photosensitive material on the moon would be difficult for anyone to see.

That's why we use telescopes with lenses, which according to you should definitely allow us to see in real time. Yet we still do not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Isn't the light moving at breakneck speed?

We are not seeing light in motion. We are seeing the effect of light reaching the reflector, i.e. it is more illuminated when the laser light hits it, just like when you shine a flashlight at a wall. Also: "Don't tell me the light is traveling too fast because that is a major weasel." - Peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Reaction time would be taken into consideration, but this isn't the problem.

Reaction time is no problem at all, as you've been shown.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When the laser light gets to Earth, it stays at the sensor longer because it's the final stop, so we would have time to process what we see.

Light never lingers anywhere, dumbass. Why do you keep making up ridiculously stupid crap like this?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This whole experiment is not reliable in my opinion.

Damn levers! I guess something else must be going on, right?

Spacemonkey · #**38919** 07-26-2014, 01:17 AM

I can't believe we're back to light being too fast to be seen again. Only 2-3 weeks ago she was insisting she'd never said this and was accusing us of using this as an unacceptable excuse. What a dingbat. :lol:

peacegirl · #**38920** 07-26-2014, 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Wow. Did I nail it, or what?

By the way, you may recall that light always moves at a constant speed (called, conveniently enough, "the speed of light"), and doesn't linger at sensors, waiting for us to process what we've just seen.

I didn't mean that, but the laser would still be shining on the sensor unless it was removed the second the light arrived.

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

By the way, since we use this same technique to measure the distance to the Moon, you do realize that if Lessans is correct, then our measurements of the Moon's distance are off by a factor of 2. Funny, you'd think the Apollo astronauts would have noticed that ...

Why? The measurement of the Moon's distance from the Earth using the speed of light doesn't change at all.

thedoc · #**38921** 07-26-2014, 01:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think they were even looking for this. They were measuring the speed of light in relation to how long it would take for light to make the round trip. I still think it would be difficult see light at the moon that is traveling 186,000 miles a second. When something is moving so fast (like the speed of light) the eyes may not be able to adjust in enough time; in fact, it may not be visible to the person at all because of its speed. This is not a good test to determine the time that it takes to see the light. Please don't use this as your final test because I don't think it's reliable.

Oh My Goodness! We're back to this again, light is traveling too fast for the eye to see? Peacegirl, can you really be that stupid, or is it willful ignorance? The eye has evolved to receive light, at light speed, and transmit that information to the brain where the brain forms images from the information from the eyes. The speed of light has been constant (as far as science knows) since the beginning of time. Light passes through the lens of the eye, which focuses that light onto the retina, stimulating it to send signals to the brain where the signals are interpreted as images of the objects and people that are being seen. Simple really, well documented, and understood by science. Only you and your buffoon of a father can't grasp the reality of afferent vision.

thedoc · #**38922** 07-26-2014, 01:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

You do know that this experiment has been done, don't you? Many, many times.

Guess how long it actually takes to see the reflected light?

Hint: It's not 1.3 seconds.

What kind of experiments, the same kind that proves dogs can recognize their masters from photographs? :eek:

You haven't been paying attention, have you?

We can shine a laser at the Moon and time how long it takes to see the reflection. We've been doing this for some 50 years now. And every time the experiment is done, it takes 2.6 seconds, not the 1.3 seconds that you claim it would take.

Oh, wait, I get it: You're going to claim that because somebody pulled a lever pushed a button to initiate the laser pulse, that invalidates the experiment -- somehow. Correct?

No, I'm just saying that to see light reflected from a small piece of photosensitive material on the moon would be difficult for anyone to see. Isn't the light moving at breakneck speed? Reaction time would be taken into consideration, but this isn't the problem. When the laser light gets to Earth, it stays at the sensor longer because it's the final stop, so we would have time to process what we see. This whole experiment is not reliable in my opinion.

No it does not! light arrives at the speed of light and is absorbed or reflected, also at the speed of light. There is no staying at the sensor longer, there would be no additional time to process what we see. You can't really be that stupid? The laser pulse is a stream of photons that are many trillions of photons long, the laser can't be turned on and off quickly enough for there to be less.

If the laser is on for a nanosecond, how many photons long is the stream?

LadyShea · #**38923** 07-26-2014, 01:31 AM

Quote:

My father did not make basic math errors. He was excellent in math and in chess.

Yet there was a math error in the book that Ceptimus corrected for you.

LadyShea · #**38924** 07-26-2014, 01:38 AM

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:

Originally Posted by davidm

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:

Knowing now that in this empirical demonstration, the atomic clock is using an optical sensor with a lens, do you want to change your answer peacegirl?

Quote:

Originally Posted by linked article

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.

No, all this clock does (why do you think it's called a clock?) is just like any instrument that is used to measure light in terms of distance and time. It's just more precise. This doesn't test what you think it does. So no I do not want to change my answer 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?

It has a lens and a sensor, just like a digital camera.

And that's what a digital camera would show also. It would receive light when it arrived just like our eyes do, but we're not talking about the same thing.

What is different? Why would the lens and sensor not interact with the photons instantly when they arrived on the moon? Why does it take an additional 1.3 seconds?

thedoc · #**38925** 07-26-2014, 01:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not just about reaction time; it's about the brains ability to process what it sees, and light that is traveling 186,000 miles a second could hardly be processed that quickly. If the guy was able to see the light (which I doubt) then his reaction time would be incredible. In fact, this would probably put him in the Guinness Book of world records, if he's not there already.

The eye / brain processes a stream of photons many trillions of photons long which gives the person time to respond to what he is seeing. No-one can respond to a single photon, in fact I doubt that anyone would be aware of a single photon striking the retina, it wouldn't even generate a signal to the brain. I'm sure there is a threshold for the number of photons that are needed to trigger a signal to the brain, but I'll let that for others to post. (that way they can look really, really smart). There is probably also a threshold for the length of time light must be striking the retina to generate a signal to the brain, but again I'll let that for others.

Yes, I'm lazy.