A revolution in thought - Page 1803

thedoc · #**45051** 02-02-2016, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When I say instantly I mean in terms of the efferent account. This is not teleportation, which you keep alluding to.

Sorry Spacemonkey, but you will not make me go away!

I didn't mention teleportation but you seem to have the idea stuck in your brain, where actually it should fit with all the other fictional ideas you have.

You have said you are leaving the forum, now you say you are staying, I really don't think you know what you are doing.

Spacemonkey · #**45052** 02-02-2016, 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have said for ages now that a nanosecond to reach the eye is not 8 minutes. Actually, if we are within the object's field of view and that object is bright enough and large enough to be seen, the photons would already be at the retina. That would be like walking into a room that is lit by a candle. We would see the candle instantly because the light is falling on our retina instantly. If the candle was just being lit, it would take a nanosecond or less to be at the retina. Same with the Sun. This is in contrast to your 8 minute delay.

So we can assume that the nanosecond is the time it takes for the candle or the Sun to start producing photons, but the instant they do those photons are instantly at the eye. The question is, and has been, how do the photons instantly get from the Sun or the candle to the eye, without traveling the distance to the eye. Just saying that distance is not a factor is not good enough, you need to provide a better explanation than that, if you cannot, then the whole idea fails for lack of support.

When I say instantly I mean in terms of the efferent account. This is not teleportation, which you keep alluding to. The fact that you believe there is no support for his claim (which I disagree with) does not invalidate his claim. Sorry Spacemonkey, but you will not make me go away!

That was thedoc, not me. And no-one mentioned teleportation.

Spacemonkey · #**45053** 02-02-2016, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have said for ages now that a nanosecond to reach the eye is not 8 minutes. Actually, if we are within the object's field of view and that object is bright enough and large enough to be seen, the photons would already be at the retina. That would be like walking into a room that is lit by a candle. We would see the candle instantly because the light is falling on our retina instantly. If the candle was just being lit, it would take a nanosecond or less to be at the retina. Same with the Sun. This is in contrast to your 8 minute delay.

If there is a nanosecond delay then we DON'T see instantly. And you still can't tell me anything about these photons you claim are near-instantly at the retina. You don't know where they came from, how they got there, or where or when they began to exist. It's almost as if you're making the whole thing up as you go along. And none of this explains why you keep lying about what you've answered and what you've said, and evading every single question I ask you.

Bump.

But · #**45054** 02-02-2016, 08:16 PM

peacegirl, have you figured out yet why Jupiter's orientation is off by tens of degrees when viewed from Earth versus a space probe close to it? What about Romer's observations of Jupiter's moons? How does NASA manage to land space probes?

Vivisectus · #**45055** 02-03-2016, 10:27 AM

Peacegirl, why can we see and photograph events like supernovas at the same time? They occur lightyears away, so how come a camera can detect the light from that event at the same time as we can see it? Seeing it and photographing these events should be happening many years apart. Is photography instant too?

But then how do we explain that cameras are built only to detect light and not to do anything else? Did we accidentally create something completely different when we created devices to record incoming light?

peacegirl · #**45056** 02-03-2016, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have said for ages now that a nanosecond to reach the eye is not 8 minutes. Actually, if we are within the object's field of view and that object is bright enough and large enough to be seen, the photons would already be at the retina. That would be like walking into a room that is lit by a candle. We would see the candle instantly because the light is falling on our retina instantly. If the candle was just being lit, it would take a nanosecond or less to be at the retina. Same with the Sun. This is in contrast to your 8 minute delay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So we can assume that the nanosecond is the time it takes for the candle or the Sun to start producing photons, but the instant they do those photons are instantly at the eye. The question is, and has been, how do the photons instantly get from the Sun or the candle to the eye, without traveling the distance to the eye. Just saying that distance is not a factor is not good enough, you need to provide a better explanation than that, if you cannot, then the whole idea fails for lack of support.

Quote:

When I say instantly I mean in terms of the efferent account. This is not teleportation, which you keep alluding to. The fact that you believe there is no support for his claim (which I disagree with) does not invalidate his claim. Sorry Spacemonkey, but you will not make me go away!

That was thedoc, not me. And no-one mentioned teleportation.

People don't have to mention it. It's implied.

peacegirl · #**45057** 02-03-2016, 11:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Peacegirl, why can we see and photograph events like supernovas at the same time? They occur lightyears away, so how come a camera can detect the light from that event at the same time as we can see it? Seeing it and photographing these events should be happening many years apart. Is photography instant too?

But then how do we explain that cameras are built only to detect light and not to do anything else? Did we accidentally create something completely different when we created devices to record incoming light?

I think people are confused here. Light travels through space/time. It would take 8 minutes to see the Sun's light. Similarly, it would take more time to detect light that was farther away and had not gotten here yet. This is not what he's talking about. He is talking about the function of light. Light reveals matter, it does not travel through space/time bringing the information to us, which would be a logical conclusion if the eyes were a sense organ.

Spacemonkey · #**45058** 02-03-2016, 11:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by (not) thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have said for ages now that a nanosecond to reach the eye is not 8 minutes. Actually, if we are within the object's field of view and that object is bright enough and large enough to be seen, the photons would already be at the retina. That would be like walking into a room that is lit by a candle. We would see the candle instantly because the light is falling on our retina instantly. If the candle was just being lit, it would take a nanosecond or less to be at the retina. Same with the Sun. This is in contrast to your 8 minute delay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by (not) Spacemonkey

So we can assume that the nanosecond is the time it takes for the candle or the Sun to start producing photons, but the instant they do those photons are instantly at the eye. The question is, and has been, how do the photons instantly get from the Sun or the candle to the eye, without traveling the distance to the eye. Just saying that distance is not a factor is not good enough, you need to provide a better explanation than that, if you cannot, then the whole idea fails for lack of support.

Quote:

When I say instantly I mean in terms of the efferent account. This is not teleportation, which you keep alluding to. The fact that you believe there is no support for his claim (which I disagree with) does not invalidate his claim. Sorry Spacemonkey, but you will not make me go away!

That was thedoc, not me. And no-one mentioned teleportation.

People don't have to mention it. It's implied.

Again that was NOT ME. You have attributed thedoc's words to me. I never said any of that. And neither of us said or implied anything about teleportation.

Spacemonkey · #**45059** 02-03-2016, 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have said for ages now that a nanosecond to reach the eye is not 8 minutes. Actually, if we are within the object's field of view and that object is bright enough and large enough to be seen, the photons would already be at the retina. That would be like walking into a room that is lit by a candle. We would see the candle instantly because the light is falling on our retina instantly. If the candle was just being lit, it would take a nanosecond or less to be at the retina. Same with the Sun. This is in contrast to your 8 minute delay.

If there is a nanosecond delay then we DON'T see instantly. And you still can't tell me anything about these photons you claim are near-instantly at the retina. You don't know where they came from, how they got there, or where or when they began to exist. It's almost as if you're making the whole thing up as you go along. And none of this explains why you keep lying about what you've answered and what you've said, and evading every single question I ask you.

Bump for Peacegirl to address, just as soon as she works out who the hell she's talking to.

Spacemonkey · #**45060** 02-03-2016, 11:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

STOP THE BS!!! :wave:

Stop the lies and evasion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have said that the photons are at the retina if the conditions of efferent vision are met.

This part of YOUR account is what these questions are asking you about. They are not based on the afferent account, and do not make any afferent assumptions. Please answer them from the efferent perspective based only on your own account.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film or retina 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 or retina 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 film/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/retina at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

Five words and you're done. Is that so hard?

Bump.

But · #**45061** 02-03-2016, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light reveals matter, it does not travel through space/time bringing the information to us, which would be a logical conclusion if the eyes were a sense organ.

Light travels through space and carries information. This information can be quantified precisely using the known laws of physics. There is no mystery.

Vivisectus · #**45062** 02-03-2016, 03:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Peacegirl, why can we see and photograph events like supernovas at the same time? They occur lightyears away, so how come a camera can detect the light from that event at the same time as we can see it? Seeing it and photographing these events should be happening many years apart. Is photography instant too?

But then how do we explain that cameras are built only to detect light and not to do anything else? Did we accidentally create something completely different when we created devices to record incoming light?

I think people are confused here. Light travels through space/time. It would take 8 minutes to see the Sun's light. Similarly, it would take more time to detect light that was farther away and had not gotten here yet. This is not what he's talking about. He is talking about the function of light. Light reveals matter, it does not travel through space/time bringing the information to us, which would be a logical conclusion if the eyes were a sense organ.

But Peacegirl, a camera just records light. If a supernova happens, we should not be able to photograph it for a gazillion years - it takes THAT long for the light to reach us. In stead we can photograph it at the same time as we can see it.

peacegirl · #**45063** 02-03-2016, 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light reveals matter, it does not travel through space/time bringing the information to us, which would be a logical conclusion if the eyes were a sense organ.

Light travels through space and carries information. This information can be quantified precisely using the known laws of physics. There is no mystery.

You are just repeating the same old theory of sight. You're right, there is no mystery.

peacegirl · #**45064** 02-03-2016, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

STOP THE BS!!! :wave:

Stop the lies and evasion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have said that the photons are at the retina if the conditions of efferent vision are met.

This part of YOUR account is what these questions are asking you about. They are not based on the afferent account, and do not make any afferent assumptions. Please answer them from the efferent perspective based only on your own account.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film or retina 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 or retina 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 film/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/retina at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

Five words and you're done. Is that so hard?

Bump.

Five words and I'm done? Who are you kidding? I've offered a lot more than five words, and you'll never let me be done. :eek:

peacegirl · #**45065** 02-03-2016, 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by (not) thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have said for ages now that a nanosecond to reach the eye is not 8 minutes. Actually, if we are within the object's field of view and that object is bright enough and large enough to be seen, the photons would already be at the retina. That would be like walking into a room that is lit by a candle. We would see the candle instantly because the light is falling on our retina instantly. If the candle was just being lit, it would take a nanosecond or less to be at the retina. Same with the Sun. This is in contrast to your 8 minute delay.

Quote:

Originally Posted by (not) Spacemonkey

So we can assume that the nanosecond is the time it takes for the candle or the Sun to start producing photons, but the instant they do those photons are instantly at the eye. The question is, and has been, how do the photons instantly get from the Sun or the candle to the eye, without traveling the distance to the eye. Just saying that distance is not a factor is not good enough, you need to provide a better explanation than that, if you cannot, then the whole idea fails for lack of support.

Quote:

When I say instantly I mean in terms of the efferent account. This is not teleportation, which you keep alluding to. The fact that you believe there is no support for his claim (which I disagree with) does not invalidate his claim. Sorry Spacemonkey, but you will not make me go away!

That was thedoc, not me. And no-one mentioned teleportation.

People don't have to mention it. It's implied.

Again that was NOT ME. You have attributed thedoc's words to me. I never said any of that. And neither of us said or implied anything about teleportation.

I understand I made a mistake. Sorry bout that, but it doesn't matter who said it. It still applies.

Teleportation, or Teletransportation, is the theoretical transfer of matter or energy from one point to another without traversing the physical space between them. It is a common subject of science fiction literature, film, and television.

Teleportation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

thedoc · #**45066** 02-03-2016, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Teleportation, or Teletransportation, is the theoretical transfer of matter or energy from one point to another without traversing the physical space between them. It is a common subject of science fiction literature, film, and television.

This is an exact description of your claim of how the photons get from the object to the eye. How is your account of efferent vision different than this one for the photons that get from the object to the eye?

peacegirl · #**45067** 02-03-2016, 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Teleportation, or Teletransportation, is the theoretical transfer of matter or energy from one point to another without traversing the physical space between them. It is a common subject of science fiction literature, film, and television.

This is an exact description of your claim of how the photons get from the object to the eye. How is your account of efferent vision different than this one for the photons that get from the object to the eye?

Nope, you just can't understand why light can be at the eye as long as the object meets the conditions of this account. That's why Lessans said that a person would be able to see the Sun turned on at noon, but not be able to see the person next to him for 8 1/2 minutes. Nevermind, I'm wasting my breath. :onstrike:

thedoc · #**45068** 02-03-2016, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Teleportation, or Teletransportation, is the theoretical transfer of matter or energy from one point to another without traversing the physical space between them. It is a common subject of science fiction literature, film, and television.

This is an exact description of your claim of how the photons get from the object to the eye. How is your account of efferent vision different than this one for the photons that get from the object to the eye?

Nope, you just can't understand why light can be at the eye as long as the object meets the conditions of this account. That's why Lessans said that a person would be able to see the Sun turned on at noon, but not be able to see the person next to him for 8 1/2 minutes. Nevermind, I'm wasting my breath. :onstrike:

No, you are not wasting your breath because you have never offered any kind of an explanation of the mechanism, other than to say "It's efferent vision" and that is not an explanation. Why will you not even try to explain how efferent vision is different than teleportation. And you are correct, I don't understand how photons that are at the object can instantly be at the eye, because neither you nor Lessans have ever explained how it happens.

Spacemonkey · #**45069** 02-03-2016, 11:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Five words and I'm done?

Yep, five words is all it takes to answer five Yes or No questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Who are you kidding? I've offered a lot more than five words, and you'll never let me be done. :eek:

Yes, you've offered a lot more than five words in your endless excuses and evasions. Imagine how much effort you could have saved if you'd just directly answered the five questions to start with!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

STOP THE BS!!! :wave:

Stop the lies and evasion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have said that the photons are at the retina if the conditions of efferent vision are met.

This part of YOUR account is what these questions are asking you about. They are not based on the afferent account, and do not make any afferent assumptions. Please answer them from the efferent perspective based only on your own account.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film or retina 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 or retina 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 film/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/retina at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

Five words and you're done. Is that so hard?

Spacemonkey · #**45070** 02-03-2016, 11:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand I made a mistake. Sorry bout that, but it doesn't matter who said it. It still applies.

Teleportation, or Teletransportation, is the theoretical transfer of matter or energy from one point to another without traversing the physical space between them. It is a common subject of science fiction literature, film, and television.

Teleportation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Neither of us said or implied anything about teleportation. You are just making this up as an excuse for more evasion of our questions.

You have said that there will be green photons at the retina a nanosecond after the traffic light turns green...

When and where did those photons begin to exist?

Spacemonkey · #**45071** 02-03-2016, 11:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nope, you just can't understand why light can be at the eye as long as the object meets the conditions of this account...

Neither do you, and you've never once tried to explain it. You still have no idea where this light came from, how it got to be at the retina, or where and when it began to exist. This makes your account nonsensical magical garbage.

peacegirl · #**45072** 02-03-2016, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nope, you just can't understand why light can be at the eye as long as the object meets the conditions of this account...

Neither do you, and you've never once tried to explain it. You still have no idea where this light came from, how it got to be at the retina, or where and when it began to exist. This makes your account nonsensical magical garbage.

As I said, you can say bye bye anytime. :wave:

And I'm still on strike. :onstrike:

Spacemonkey · #**45073** 02-03-2016, 11:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nope, you just can't understand why light can be at the eye as long as the object meets the conditions of this account...

Neither do you, and you've never once tried to explain it. You still have no idea where this light came from, how it got to be at the retina, or where and when it began to exist. This makes your account nonsensical magical garbage.

As I said, you can say bye bye anytime. :wave:

And I'm still on strike. :onstrike:

You've been on strike from answering questions since you arrived here. How does that change anything?

thedoc · #**45074** 02-04-2016, 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As I said, you can say bye bye anytime. :wave:

And I'm still on strike. :onstrike:

No, to go "on strike" is to say that you are going to stop doing something that you were doing before. I must assume that you are claiming to "go on strike" from answering questions about your fathers book, but you have never really answered any questions, so you can't stop doing something you have not been doing, you can't "go on strike". You can't "go on strike" from answering questions, when you have not been answering those questions before.

Just another lie from Peacegirl, - no surprise, - it's what we expected.

Oh, if you try to claim that you have answered questions, the thread is here for anyone to read, and your evasions and dodges are here.

peacegirl · #**45075** 02-05-2016, 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by But

peacegirl, have you figured out yet why Jupiter's orientation is off by tens of degrees when viewed from Earth versus a space probe close to it? What about Romer's observations of Jupiter's moons?

The moon slows down during its orbit at certain times of the year, which is why it's delayed. That's a real possibility.

The moon accelerates or decelerates because the pull of gravity between it and the earth changes as it moves closer or farther from earth. As the moon orbits the earth, it moves closer in one half of its cycle and away in the other half. As the moon approaches the earth, mutual gravity increases its speed.

What causes the moon to speed up or slow down in orbit?