|
|
07-31-2014, 11:35 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Yes, but it cannot be proven that light bounces off an object with that wavelength/frequency and travels through space/time until it strikes another object. All scientists are able to do is show that objects absorb and reflect light, but, once again, they don't know whether that light reveals the object or travels with the wavelength/frequency bringing the information to the eye or film through space/time.
|
Actually scientists do know this and have been able to demonstrate it with experiments, that I am sure you will refuse to look at, because they prove Lessans wrong.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
|
07-31-2014, 11:36 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I'm sorry to inform you that the light from the Hubble deep field is full spectrum light.
|
You see, everyone? She is sorry to inform of us this.
My God, you are stupid.
All you have to do is take a look at the pictures from the Hubble to disprove your statement. You don't know what full spectrum even means, do you? You don't even know what wavelengths mean, or what they denote, do you? Despite having his explained to you more times than one can count.
|
I already said I was wrong.
|
07-31-2014, 11:37 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
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
I just explained that this one photon can be used to see the Sun as I look at it in real time, but this lasts only an instant. This same photon continues traveling to Earth
|
Are you fucking insane? Is this what you've been thinking all this time when you've argued against what seemed to all of us to be a very simple point regarding location?
A photon is "used" by camera film or the retina by being absorbed and ceasing to exist as a light photon. Light that us "used" is no longer light at all, let alone traveling light! It can't be both "used" by the camera film or retina and continue traveling at the same time.
That is physically impossible, logically impossible, and even the most basic common sense reveals this is a total contradiction.
|
You're right. If that particular photon is no longer traveling because it strikes the film or retina, then that particular photon will not arrive on Earth 81/2 minutes later. So what? Where does this observation negate this model of sight?
|
You still need to answer how the specific photons absorbed at the camera film got to the camera without traveling there at the speed of light.
|
LadyShea, this has to do with efferent VISION. If the eyes see the object (which is not part of the afferent account), then it creates a closed system where the light would be at the eye as instantly as it would take light to reach your eyes from a candle.
|
How?
Quote:
It's a perfect analogy because we're not talking about time here; we're talking about proportion; the size and intensity of the Sun relative to the lens.
|
What does the lens actually do?
|
07-31-2014, 11:39 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by But
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I'm sorry to inform you that the light from the Hubble deep field is full spectrum light. This light has no information in it in the sense of bringing to us knowledge about external objects or events.
|
"Full spectrum" light? Do you mean white light? It sure doesn't look that way to me. Look at the picture, that's not just white light. And that this light has no information in it is a pretty stupid claim.
The Hubble Ultra Deep Field:
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Wavelength absolutely does exist without objects, because it is a property of light to have a wavelength, and light exists independent of its source.
|
That's where we part ways. Full spectrum light has all the wavelengths and that is what travels independently.
|
So white light travels, but yellow light doesn't? Is that what you mean?
|
That wasn't right and I admitted that.
|
07-31-2014, 11:41 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Who in the world ever said that all we ever get is full spectrum light when that light strikes an object?
|
You have repeatedly claimed that light that is reflected from an object is full spectrum light. Photons are either absorbed or reflected, nothing else is possible.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
|
07-31-2014, 11:41 PM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I'm sorry to inform you that the light from the Hubble deep field is full spectrum light.
|
You see, everyone? She is sorry to inform of us this.
My God, you are stupid.
All you have to do is take a look at the pictures from the Hubble to disprove your statement. You don't know what full spectrum even means, do you? You don't even know what wavelengths mean, or what they denote, do you? Despite having his explained to you more times than one can count.
|
I already said I was wrong.
|
But now you have a whole slew of posts based on this argument sitting out there; all of your efforts to explain efferent vision using claims about non-absorbed photons vs. white light are completely negated. Are you going to retract several years of claims and assertions?
|
07-31-2014, 11:42 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
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 peacegirl
I just explained that this one photon can be used to see the Sun as I look at it in real time, but this lasts only an instant. This same photon continues traveling to Earth
|
Are you fucking insane? Is this what you've been thinking all this time when you've argued against what seemed to all of us to be a very simple point regarding location?
A photon is "used" by camera film or the retina by being absorbed and ceasing to exist as a light photon. Light that us "used" is no longer light at all, let alone traveling light! It can't be both "used" by the camera film or retina and continue traveling at the same time.
That is physically impossible, logically impossible, and even the most basic common sense reveals this is a total contradiction.
|
You're right. If that particular photon is no longer traveling because it strikes the film or retina, then that particular photon will not arrive on Earth 81/2 minutes later. So what? Where does this observation negate this model of sight?
|
You still need to answer how the specific photons absorbed at the camera film got to the camera without traveling there at the speed of light.
|
LadyShea, this has to do with efferent VISION. If the eyes see the object (which is not part of the afferent account), then it creates a closed system where the light would be at the eye as instantly as it would take light to reach your eyes from a candle.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
How?
|
Because actual distance that photons have to travel to reach Earth are not the same phenomenon as looking at an object with a lens due to this mirror image effect.
Quote:
It's a perfect analogy because we're not talking about time here; we're talking about proportion; the size and intensity of the Sun relative to the lens.
|
What does the lens actually do?
|
The lens focuses the light from an object that must be within the camera's field of view otherwise there will be no image on the lens.
|
07-31-2014, 11:45 PM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Stop using pronouns without explaining what the hell you are talking about. Anyway, no, that is not the problem with the postman's explanation. The problem is that he was asked about one letter and gave an answer for a completely different letter. Just as YOU do when asked about the photons at the film
|
But you're missing the fact that this one photon (this one letter) can be used to see the Sun if it happens to be the light that forms the mirror image which takes virtually no time (think about the candle and how the Sun example is analogous. This photon is still in the process of traveling to Earth which takes 81/2 minutes. These are two completely different phenomena. Your question is fair. I just hope you realize that there is no conflict between the traveling photon and using this same photon to see what's out there before it actually arrives on Earth.
|
Not the photons I asked about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
But those are not the photons I asked about, are they?
|
I just explained that this one photon can be used to see the Sun as I look at it in real time, but this lasts only an instant. This same photon continues traveling to Earth and if I keep my eye on the Sun, there are many different photons that will be taking its place because it's not the photon that has any individual characteristics other than the full spectrum; it's what these photons are revealing as we look in that direction.
|
Still not the photons I asked about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
...this automatically has the light at the film or retina.
|
THOSE are the photons I asked about. Did THOSE photons come from the Sun and get to the film by traveling?
|
Of course. Photons travel and each and every second they are in a different place in time.
|
Right, so please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.
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?
Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
07-31-2014, 11:51 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
This font is getting so small I can barely read it. Does anyone know how to fix this?
|
Have your eyes checked, and get new glasses. Ones that let you see afferently.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
|
07-31-2014, 11:58 PM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Moreover, there is no way scientists can prove through observation that the light being reflected from a distant object is traveling with a partial spectrum or a full spectrum of light.
|
In other words, you have no understanding how scientists can do this, so you deny that it can be done. Yet anyone else with even a minimum of scientific knowledge will understand instantly how it is possible, unlike vision which, because of the speed of light, is not instant.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
|
08-01-2014, 12:05 AM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
and it's more important to talk about his other discovery.
I didn't say I wouldn't come back to this topic. His other discovery is more important at the moment.
|
Lessans made no other discovery, everything he wrote was nonsense.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
|
08-01-2014, 12:12 AM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
God, make it stop!
Why go through the trouble of re-creating reruns? Just read the reruns and save yourself the wear and tear on the keyboard!
|
Just so you know, most of my posts and I assume many of the posts of others, excepting Peacegirl, are not for the benefit of Peacegirl, nor do I have any expectation of changing her mind, and I assume others may feel the same way. My posts and many of the others are purely for the benefit of the thousands, nay millions of lurkers who are silently reading this thread and possibly being misled by the Lessans/Peacegirl fantasy.
FYI, if this thread is very distressing to you, you have my permission to not browse this thread. Just thought you'd like to know.
|
It doesn't distress me in the least! I'm just absolutely gobsmacked confounded why you all keep asking the same questions over and over and getting the same non-answers as you did two, three years ago!
|
If I might point out, unlike some others, I usually only ask a question or make a comment once and then let it die, due to being ignored by almost everyone. Angakuk is one of the few who will regularly leave abusive comments for me for which I am very grateful.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
|
08-01-2014, 12:16 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
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
No, I won't change the subject until you directly and honestly answer my questions.
|
Well I may not stick around for long then.
|
Can't be honest, huh?
|
Why are you being nasty all over again?
|
I'm not being nasty. You just said you won't stick around because I won't change the subject until you can be honest in answering my questions. You obviously have a problem with directly and honestly answering questions.
|
I'm really trying Spacemonkey, but you also have a problem because you won't even try to understand this account. If a photon gets absorbed by the eye, then that photon won't reach Earth. That photon will not be able to strike an object on Earth and either get absorbed or get reflected because it's already been used up.
|
08-01-2014, 12:16 AM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
(if efferent vision is correct).
|
And that is the crux of the matter, efferent vision is not correct, nor even plausible, It's just wrong, and the whole discussion is moot.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
|
08-01-2014, 12:19 AM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
I'm not being nasty. You just said you won't stick around because I won't change the subject until you can be honest in answering my questions. You obviously have a problem with directly and honestly answering questions.
|
I'm really trying Spacemonkey...
|
No you're not. You're not trying at all. My questions are still right there waiting to be answered, and you are still completely ignoring them.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
08-01-2014, 12:22 AM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
What does the lens actually do?
|
The lens focuses the light from an object that must be within the camera's field of view otherwise there will be no image on the lens.
|
The light has been reflected from the object, travels independently of the object and is focused by the lens onto the film or sensors of the camera. There is no image on the lens, the image is formed on the film, light sensors or retina of the eye.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
|
08-01-2014, 12:26 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I'm sorry to inform you that the light from the Hubble deep field is full spectrum light.
|
You see, everyone? She is sorry to inform of us this.
My God, you are stupid.
All you have to do is take a look at the pictures from the Hubble to disprove your statement. You don't know what full spectrum even means, do you? You don't even know what wavelengths mean, or what they denote, do you? Despite having his explained to you more times than one can count.
|
I already said I was wrong.
|
But now you have a whole slew of posts based on this argument sitting out there; all of your efforts to explain efferent vision using claims about non-absorbed photons vs. white light are completely negated. Are you going to retract several years of claims and assertions?
|
All I said is that by the time light gets to Earth the wavelengths or nonabsorbed photons will be so far apart (the inverse square law) that we will not get an image. I didn't say that light doesn't travel with particular wavelengths and if I did say that I was wrong. I am not changing the properties of light which you keep accusing me of. So no, I am not retracting anything I said in regard to that.
|
08-01-2014, 12:27 AM
|
|
I'm Deplorable.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I'm really trying Spacemonkey, but you also have a problem because you won't even try to understand this account. If a photon gets absorbed by the eye, then that photon won't reach Earth. That photon will not be able to strike an object on Earth and either get absorbed or get reflected because it's already been used up.
|
The photon that is absorbed by the eye? The eye is on the Earth, so how can it not arrive on the Earth? According to you it has already arrived on the Earth, how did it get there?
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
|
08-01-2014, 12:32 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
I'm not being nasty. You just said you won't stick around because I won't change the subject until you can be honest in answering my questions. You obviously have a problem with directly and honestly answering questions.
|
I'm really trying Spacemonkey...
|
No you're not. You're not trying at all. My questions are still right there waiting to be answered, and you are still completely ignoring them.
|
Because I answered you Spacemonkey. I said the photon that left the Sun did not arrive. It was already absorbed by my eye. Even though my eye is on Earth I am getting a mirror image of the faraway object, which does not require photons to travel to Earth for me to see this object. And only photons that did not interact with film or my eye made it to Earth at which time they will strike an object and be absorbed or reflected.
|
08-01-2014, 12:33 AM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
08-01-2014, 12:35 AM
|
|
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Because I answered you Spacemonkey.
|
No, you didn't. Liar.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I said the photon that left the Sun did not arrive. It was already absorbed by my eye. Only photons that did not interact with film or the retina made it to Earth at which time they would strike an object and be absorbed or reflected.
|
No-one asked you about those photons. My questions remain completely unanswered.
Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.
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?
Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
|
08-01-2014, 12:43 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
|
I'm sorry if you don't like how I explain it, but isn't that what resolution is about? If there is nothing to resolve because the reflected light is no longer capable of producing an image on the film, that means there will be no image, only white light. That's all I meant.
|
08-01-2014, 12:48 AM
|
|
I said it, so I feel it, dick
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Moreover, there is no way scientists can prove through observation that the light being reflected from a distant object is traveling with a partial spectrum or a full spectrum of light
|
What do you think stellar spectroscopy is?
|
08-01-2014, 12:55 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Moreover, there is no way scientists can prove through observation that the light being reflected from a distant object is traveling with a partial spectrum or a full spectrum of light
|
What do you think stellar spectroscopy is?
|
I don't see where I'm violating any laws of spectroscopy because the properties of light remain the same.
Spectroscopy pertains to the dispersion of an object's light into its component colors (i.e. energies). By performing this dissection and analysis of an object's light, astronomers can infer the physical properties of that object (such as temperature, mass, luminosity and composition).
http://loke.as.arizona.edu/~ckulesa/...opy_intro.html
|
08-01-2014, 12:56 AM
|
|
Spiffiest wanger
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Moreover, there is no way scientists can prove through observation that the light being reflected from a distant object is traveling with a partial spectrum or a full spectrum of light
|
What do you think stellar spectroscopy is?
|
Wow ... just wow!
She really says the most astonishingly stupid things without batting an eye, doesn't she?
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 95 (0 members and 95 guests)
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:25 PM.
|
|
|
|