A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So am I! The optical instrument used to detect the laser pulses on the moon is at the same telescope that sends the pulse out.

Did you not read a single article on lunar laser ranging? Did you not see in the video where they discussed the special mirrors on the reflector apparatus that reflect light at the same angle it was received?

What does that have to do with anything LadyShea? Srsly! I am not disputing the angle at which the laser strikes the reflector apparatus, and I'm not disputing the time it takes for light to get to the moon and come back.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Here is one by the Mythbusters explaining the reflector. Start at around 37 seconds
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/VmVxSFnjYCA" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

The video is cool, but it really doesn't relate to why we wouldn't be able to see the flash of light at 1.3 seconds.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So? You were were discussing supernovas, which are exploding stars, not galaxies.

Andromeda looks just like a star in the night sky (and is often visible to the naked eye), so obviously meets the conditions, why would efferent vision have different "rules" for other galaxies than for a star in our galaxy?

It's not about different rules. Any type of matter, including a star, that is bright enough and large where it it could be seen with the naked eye or a telescope, would meet the requirements. If the star doesn't exist anymore, then we would be seeing light. This doesn't disprove his claim that light's function is to reveal things that exist in the external world.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Obviously some galaxies are large enough to be seen and have enough light present to be "seen" by a powerful telescope, right?

Like I said, it all depends. Hubble deep field saw galaxies that were just coming into view, so this must have been pure light.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Like I said, it all depends. Hubble deep field saw galaxies that were just coming into view, so this must have been pure light.

Nope, moron. Galaxies are made of matter, not pure light. Idiot. We see them (in delayed time) because of arriving pure light, but then that is true of everything we see.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What does that have to do with anything LadyShea? Srsly! I am not disputing the angle at which the laser strikes the reflector apparatus, and I'm not disputing the time it takes for light to get to the moon and come back.

1. The fact that we detect light from the reflector on the moon all the time refutes your statement "it would be impossible to detect at that great distance even with a powerful telescope".

2. Why did you say "I'm talking about instruments here on Earth" as if I was not talking about instruments on Earth?

The video is cool, but it really doesn't relate to why we wouldn't be able to see the flash of light at 1.3 seconds.

We see it at 2.6 seconds, the time it takes to get to the moon and back at the speed of light. Why don't we see it when it reaches the moon at 1.3 seconds as efferent vision predicts?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

So? You were were discussing supernovas, which are exploding stars, not galaxies.

Andromeda looks just like a star in the night sky (and is often visible to the naked eye), so obviously meets the conditions, why would efferent vision have different "rules" for other galaxies than for a star in our galaxy?

It really doesn't matter whether we're seeing light or the actual star because we're not talking about our ability to detect light (we all know light travels and when it gets to the lens we can see it; we're talking about what that light actually does in relation to matter. I will continue to defend this claim. Yes, we can get information about a galaxy from light, but this isn't what he was talking about. We would never get an image of a physical event. Why? Because images of objects do not travel; they are not reflected. There is no conflict as far as I'm concerned.

[The Lone Ranger]

It's also worth pointing out -- again -- that the Moon is hardly the only object whose distance we can determine by shining light on it and timing how long it takes to see the reflected light.

And every single time we do this, we see the reflected light as if we see in delayed time, contradicting Lessans' claims.

Yet again, the Universe conspires to convince us that we see in delayed time.

What is it about the Earth that the whole Universe is conspiring against us so?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's not about different rules. Any type of matter, including a star, that is bright enough and large where it it could be seen with the naked eye or a telescope, would meet the requirements. If the star doesn't exist anymore, then we would be seeing light. This doesn't disprove his claim that light's function is to reveal things that exist in the external world.

When did you decide that the light would still travel without the source existing? That's a major flip flop

[LadyShea]

Why? Because images of objects do not travel; they are not reflected.

No shit, Weasel, nobody ever said images travel or images are reflected. This is not news.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What does that have to do with anything LadyShea? Srsly! I am not disputing the angle at which the laser strikes the reflector apparatus, and I'm not disputing the time it takes for light to get to the moon and come back.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

1. The fact that we detect light from the reflector on the moon all the time refutes your statement "it would be impossible to detect at that great distance even with a powerful telescope".

We detect light when it strikes the telescope. We can't detect light that far away, so when it first gets reflected off of the reflector we wouldn't see the flash. The reflector is small and the laser is a concentrated beam of light. How could we see something that small when we can't even resolve the base of the lunar module using the Hubble telescope?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

2. Why did you say "I'm talking about instruments here on Earth" as if I was not talking about instruments on Earth?

Because there are space probes out there. I realize they were testing the distance from Earth, but I just wanted to be on the same page as there are constant misunderstandings.

The video is cool, but it really doesn't relate to why we wouldn't be able to see the flash of light at 1.3 seconds.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

We see it at 2.6 seconds, the time it takes to get to the moon and back at the speed of light. Why don't we see it when it reaches the moon at 1.3 seconds as efferent vision predicts?

Because there's not enough light (it's not bright enough) to see the flash at that distance.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

No shit, Weasel, nobody ever said images travel or images are reflected. This is not news.

You still don't get it, and I'm tired of translating it for you. You are the weasel.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Imagine you've just got up in the morning, and check the mail only to meet the postman delivering a letter to you from Japan. Wow, you exclaim, how did this letter get here all the way from Japan? Mail from Japan has been shutdown for the past two weeks!

Well, the postman explains, this morning when mail from Japan resumed, a person in Japan went to the post office to drop it off. The letter was taken to Narita airport and placed on a plane which flies to the US, taking around 14hrs, where the letter was dropped off and taken to a mail sorting facility where it was then dispatched to its labelled address, and should arrive here sometime tomorrow or the day after that.

A little confused, you ask: Do you mean this letter I'm now holding in my hand will arrive tomorrow? Oh no, the postman explains. I was telling you about a completely different letter that hasn't arrived yet. Okay, so how did this letter get here, you ask. The postman looks away guiltily and shuffles his feet. What do you mean, he says, I just told you.

Please tell me what is wrong with the postman's explanation. I'm sure you can figure it out. Don't respond with anything about light or vision. Stick to the story.

Is Peacegirl too stupid to be able to answer this question? She is incredibly stupid, but that is not why she won't answer. She won't even try, because she knows that to explain the postman's mistake would be to admit that she understands her own deliberate weaseling on previous questions where she answered by talking about completely different photons. Do you even remember what it was like, Peacegirl, not to have to lie to people on a daily basis in order to protect your faith?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

When did you decide that the light would still travel without the source existing? That's a major flip flop

I've never even attempted to argue that point because that's what science tells us. I am not here to dispute anything other than delayed vision based on the afferent account of sight.

[Spacemonkey]

Remember making this statement, Peacegirl?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If I haven't answered your questions to your satisfaction, I'll try again tomorrow...

What does it feel like to know that you cannot keep your word?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You still don't get it, and I'm tired of translating it for you. You are the weasel.

Why do you keep saying things that are so stupidly wrong that they need translating out of Peacegirl-idiom into coherent meaningful English?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Dingbat

Didn't you read any of my recent posts?

The video explained why we wouldn't see the flash of light at 1.3 seconds. It did not meet the requirements of brightness and size, which is mandatory in this account. The light was reflected on a tiny reflective surface (18 square inches) which would be impossible to detect at that great distance even with a powerful telescope.

Your posts are mostly irrational gibberish, so are not worth referring to, even less for reading.

The ability of the eye to detect a flash of light is not dependent on the size of the reflecting surface, but it is dependent on the intensity of the light being reflected. If a small surface reflects a large number of photons (thousands or more) the eye can see it easily. If a large surface reflects a small number of photons the eye may not be able to see it. I believe it has been stated by DavidM that the eye can detect as few as 10 photons in a very short period of time. Dingbat, all your arguments are worthless drivel, word salad of the most useless kind.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

She seems to be coming unglued. Her posts are not just increasingly dishonest, but erratic, strange, bizarre and just plain awful.

One would hope that she has a therapist on speed dial.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are being sarcastic which doesn't belong in a serious debate.

This is not, and never has been, a serious debate. You can't have a serious debate with someone who is talking pure nonsense. You are talking pure nonsense. Ergo, it is not possible to have a serious debate with you.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light HAS arrived at the lens because we're in optical range instantly since distance in this account is irrelevant (it's the size of the object in relation to the viewer that counts). You keep talking about the arrival of light. Yes, light has to arrive to interact with matter that's on Earth.

Both the retina and the camera film are made of matter. You have just admitted that for light to interact with with the retina and/or film it must have arrived at the retina or film. For light to arrive anywhere it has to travel from its point of origin to the point of arrival. Light travels at the speed of light. Therefore, the light that interacts with the retina and/or the film has to have traveled from its point of origin at the speed of light. If it has traveled at the speed of light it cannot have arrived instantly. The Sun is 93 million miles distant from the retina and/or the film on Earth. Therefore, for the light from the Sun to interact with the retina and/or the film on Earth it must have traveled a distance of 93 million miles and must have traveled at the speed of light. That means that it must have taken 8.5 minutes for the light to travel from the Sun to the Earth in order for it to interact with the retina and/or the film on Earth. It cannot have done so instantly. This is a mathematical, scientific and indisputable truth.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

(Though once again, that raises the question of why the Universe is trying so hard to make us think that we're not the center of the Universe.)

The Universe is an enormously big bully.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Dingbat

Because there's not enough light (it's not bright enough) to see the flash at that distance.

Are you suggesting that the flash of laser light that arrives on the Moon in 1.3 seconds is too dim to see, but once reflected and travels another 1.3 seconds, or 2.6 seconds total, it becomes bright enough to be detected? I suppose this just fits with the other magic that you are claiming for efferent vision.

[thedoc]

Dingbat (Peacegirl), In case you haven't noticed, you are not preaching to the choir. No-one here believes what you are selling. No-one here accepts the truth of what you are saying. I just wanted to point these things out because it seems that you are laboring under the assumption that you can convince anyone here that what you are posting in any way resembles the truth of reality. Just thought I'd tell you, in case you didn't know already. I really don't mean to be insulting, that's just a bonus.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The Universe is an enormously big bully.

Shame on the Universe, you'd think that after being around for that long it would know better.

[Angakuk]

6,000 years is not really all that long of a time.

[davidm]

I first linked peacegirl to this page probably two years ago. Of course she didn't read it, or promptly forgot/disregarded it just as soon as she discovered it proved Lessans wrong.

The first successful tests were carried out in 1962 when a team from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology succeeded in observing reflected laser pulses using a laser with a millisecond pulse length.

Bold-face mine.

They've been doing this stuff for more than half a century, peacegirl, and every time Lessans' claims are refuted by this simple experiemnt.

Are you suggesting that NASA and other parties are LYING about this? If not, what ARE you suggesting?