 |
  |
02-07-2024, 06:21 PM
|
 |
Spiffiest wanger
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by specious_reasons
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Who said the sound of his voice is traveling 186,000 miles per second?
|
Quote:
|
… because the sound of his voice is traveling 186,000 miles a second.
|
It’ right there in the bit you quoted.  |
You are right. He made a mistake by using light as the measurement for sound. It doesn't change the point he was making though, nor does it make his claim that the eyes are not a sense organ incorrect. Keep your eye on the ball, which is all I ask for and don't let an error deter you. Whether sound travels at 186,000 miles a second or 355 m/second, doesn't change the concept at all. If he is right, our gaze is instant while sound takes time. That's the point he was making. it's trivial unless you want to use this error to condemn his proposition because you don't want him to be right. But thanks for bringing this to my attention.  |
Sound didn't travel from the moon through airless space. They talked to the Earth via radios, which uses electromagnetic radiation, or light.
You and/or Lessans are saying you'd see the astronauts lips move on the moon and hear it on the radio 3 seconds later. That is consistent with the incorrect notion that we see things instantly.
So you don't have to change that passage unless you want to remove it because "the eyes are not a sense organ" is literally the dumbest thing in that book. |
No it isn't. You're only trying to confirm that he was wrong without understanding why he made the claim. That's the only way to figure out whether he was right. According to their explanation, there is a delay in converting speech to radio waves which causes a 2 second delay. But are they correct?
When astronauts stood on the Moon during the Apollo missions, they encountered a fascinating phenomenon: they could see things instantly, but there was a delay in hearing sounds. Let’s break down why this happened:
Visual Perception:
When an astronaut looked at the lunar surface or another astronaut, light traveled from the object to their eyes at the speed of light (approximately 299,792 kilometers per second).
Since the Moon has no atmosphere to scatter or slow down light, visual information reached their eyes instantly.
So, when an astronaut waved their hand or moved, their fellow astronauts could see it immediately.
Lack of Atmosphere:
The Moon lacks an atmosphere, which means there is no medium for sound waves to travel through.
On Earth, sound waves propagate through air, water, or other materials. But on the Moon, there’s nothing to carry sound.
Without air molecules to vibrate and transmit sound, any spoken words or noises made by astronauts remained silent.
Communication via Radio Waves:
Astronauts communicated using radio waves.
They wore helmets with built-in microphones and speakers.
When an astronaut spoke, their voice was converted into radio waves and transmitted to other astronauts or mission control on Earth.
These radio waves traveled at the speed of light, just like visual information.
However, the processing time for converting speech to radio waves and transmitting them introduced a slight delay.
As a result, there was a 2-second lag between an astronaut speaking and their colleagues hearing it.
In summary, the absence of an atmosphere on the Moon prevented sound waves from traveling, while radio waves allowed astronauts to communicate despite the delay. It’s a fascinating interplay between physics and technology!
I wonder what would happen on a mission to Mars. Would the conversion of sound to radio signals (accounting for the time lag and adjusted) cause ground control to see the astronauts 0.13 seconds later, or would they see the astronauts instantly (with a powerful telescope here on Earth) but hear their speech with a noticeable delay of 0.13 seconds? How would they reconcile this when the conversion to speech only took two seconds, not 0.13?
Given the speed of light, let’s calculate how long it would take to see an astronaut on Mars from Earth.
Distance to Mars: The average distance between Earth and Mars varies due to their elliptical orbits. On average, it’s approximately 225 million kilometers (140 million miles) when they are closest to each other.
Speed of Light: The speed of light in a vacuum is approximately 300,000 kilometers per second (186,282 miles per second).
Time Calculation: Using the formula Time = Distance / Speed, we can find the time it takes for light to travel from Mars to Earth: [ \text{Time} = \frac{\text{Distance}}{\text{Speed of Light}} ] [ \text{Time} = \frac{225 \times 10^6 , \text{km}}{300,000 , \text{km/s}} ] Calculating this: [ \text{Time} = 750 , \text{s} ] Therefore, it would take approximately 0.13 seconds to see an astronaut on Mars from Earth, assuming the speed of light as the only factor1.
Keep in mind that this calculation doesn’t account for other factors like signal transmission delays or the time it takes for the astronaut’s image to reach our eyes. In reality, it would be slightly longer due to these additional factors. |
peacegirl, from where did you steal the above?
Note that it contradicts you. The writer claims it would take 0.13 seconds to see an astronaut on Mars from earth. 0.13 seconds IS NOT INSTANTANEOUS, peacegirl. Not.
But it is still wrong. The delay in seeing the astronaut on the moon would be considerably greater, because Mars, ON AVERAGE, is 12.72 light minutes from earth. We use the AVERAGE distance, because the ACTUAL distances between the two planets vary over the course of the year.
What this means is that ON AVERAGE, it would take 12.72 minutes to see an astronaut on Mars from earth.
The statement that lunar astronauts saw themselves instantly is false.
A radio is a device for converting electromagnetic waves (light) into mechanical waves (sound). This would indeed introduce a slight time differential in optical detection and radio detection, but so slight no one would notice. |
That's why a more accurate result would come from Mars since there is a larger gap in the time it would take for the radio signals to get here. If we got a view of Mars at the same time the radio signals were detected, then we would be seeing Mars in delayed time. If the telescope viewed Mars before the radio signals got to mission control 0.13 seconds later, the view of Mars would not be delayed, but instantaneous. |
We’ve already does this experiment many times, peacegirl, including on Mars with Rovers.
As noted, the 0.13 time delay is wrong. The average delay is 12.72 minutes. But even if it were only 0.13 seconds, you, in your charmingly daft way, still seem not to have comprehended that the time-delay figure CONTRADICTS you. |
Is there a way for us to see the result of this; ie., the signal being transmitted and seeing the Rover on Mars at the exact same time that the signal arrives? I'm sure Nasa would show this, right? |
Right, there is a delay. We’ve gone over this many times with you, including how NASA takes into account delayed-seeing to plot spacecraft trajectories to Mars. This because where Mars APPEARS to be in the sky, is not where it actually IS, due to delayed-time seeing. We’ve gone over and over this. In one ear, out the other.
|
02-07-2024, 06:26 PM
|
 |
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChuckF
I do rather enjoy peacegirl's blameful accusations about not having read things invariably directed at the people - possibly the ONLY people - who have read literally all of it.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Who said the sound of his voice is traveling 186,000 miles per second?
|
Quote:
|
… because the sound of his voice is traveling 186,000 miles a second.
|
It’ right there in the bit you quoted. |
You are right. |
Simply delightful. |
He was right when he said sound is traveling at the speed of light, although he didn't use the term radio waves. It's okay, it doesn't change anything or prove him wrong. Why don't you answer my questions Chuck? Changing the subject and thinking no one noticed will get you nowhere.
|
02-07-2024, 06:34 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by specious_reasons
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Who said the sound of his voice is traveling 186,000 miles per second?
|
Quote:
|
… because the sound of his voice is traveling 186,000 miles a second.
|
It’ right there in the bit you quoted. |
You are right. He made a mistake by using light as the measurement for sound. It doesn't change the point he was making though, nor does it make his claim that the eyes are not a sense organ incorrect. Keep your eye on the ball, which is all I ask for and don't let an error deter you. Whether sound travels at 186,000 miles a second or 355 m/second, doesn't change the concept at all. If he is right, our gaze is instant while sound takes time. That's the point he was making. it's trivial unless you want to use this error to condemn his proposition because you don't want him to be right. But thanks for bringing this to my attention. |
Sound didn't travel from the moon through airless space. They talked to the Earth via radios, which uses electromagnetic radiation, or light.
You and/or Lessans are saying you'd see the astronauts lips move on the moon and hear it on the radio 3 seconds later. That is consistent with the incorrect notion that we see things instantly.
So you don't have to change that passage unless you want to remove it because "the eyes are not a sense organ" is literally the dumbest thing in that book. |
No it isn't. You're only trying to confirm that he was wrong without understanding why he made the claim. That's the only way to figure out whether he was right. According to their explanation, there is a delay in converting speech to radio waves which causes a 2 second delay. But are they correct?
When astronauts stood on the Moon during the Apollo missions, they encountered a fascinating phenomenon: they could see things instantly, but there was a delay in hearing sounds. Let’s break down why this happened:
Visual Perception:
When an astronaut looked at the lunar surface or another astronaut, light traveled from the object to their eyes at the speed of light (approximately 299,792 kilometers per second).
Since the Moon has no atmosphere to scatter or slow down light, visual information reached their eyes instantly.
So, when an astronaut waved their hand or moved, their fellow astronauts could see it immediately.
Lack of Atmosphere:
The Moon lacks an atmosphere, which means there is no medium for sound waves to travel through.
On Earth, sound waves propagate through air, water, or other materials. But on the Moon, there’s nothing to carry sound.
Without air molecules to vibrate and transmit sound, any spoken words or noises made by astronauts remained silent.
Communication via Radio Waves:
Astronauts communicated using radio waves.
They wore helmets with built-in microphones and speakers.
When an astronaut spoke, their voice was converted into radio waves and transmitted to other astronauts or mission control on Earth.
These radio waves traveled at the speed of light, just like visual information.
However, the processing time for converting speech to radio waves and transmitting them introduced a slight delay.
As a result, there was a 2-second lag between an astronaut speaking and their colleagues hearing it.
In summary, the absence of an atmosphere on the Moon prevented sound waves from traveling, while radio waves allowed astronauts to communicate despite the delay. It’s a fascinating interplay between physics and technology!
I wonder what would happen on a mission to Mars. Would the conversion of sound to radio signals (accounting for the time lag and adjusted) cause ground control to see the astronauts 0.13 seconds later, or would they see the astronauts instantly (with a powerful telescope here on Earth) but hear their speech with a noticeable delay of 0.13 seconds? How would they reconcile this when the conversion to speech only took two seconds, not 0.13?
Given the speed of light, let’s calculate how long it would take to see an astronaut on Mars from Earth.
Distance to Mars: The average distance between Earth and Mars varies due to their elliptical orbits. On average, it’s approximately 225 million kilometers (140 million miles) when they are closest to each other.
Speed of Light: The speed of light in a vacuum is approximately 300,000 kilometers per second (186,282 miles per second).
Time Calculation: Using the formula Time = Distance / Speed, we can find the time it takes for light to travel from Mars to Earth: [ \text{Time} = \frac{\text{Distance}}{\text{Speed of Light}} ] [ \text{Time} = \frac{225 \times 10^6 , \text{km}}{300,000 , \text{km/s}} ] Calculating this: [ \text{Time} = 750 , \text{s} ] Therefore, it would take approximately 0.13 seconds to see an astronaut on Mars from Earth, assuming the speed of light as the only factor1.
Keep in mind that this calculation doesn’t account for other factors like signal transmission delays or the time it takes for the astronaut’s image to reach our eyes. In reality, it would be slightly longer due to these additional factors. |
peacegirl, from where did you steal the above?
Note that it contradicts you. The writer claims it would take 0.13 seconds to see an astronaut on Mars from earth. 0.13 seconds IS NOT INSTANTANEOUS, peacegirl. Not.
But it is still wrong. The delay in seeing the astronaut on the moon would be considerably greater, because Mars, ON AVERAGE, is 12.72 light minutes from earth. We use the AVERAGE distance, because the ACTUAL distances between the two planets vary over the course of the year.
What this means is that ON AVERAGE, it would take 12.72 minutes to see an astronaut on Mars from earth.
The statement that lunar astronauts saw themselves instantly is false.
A radio is a device for converting electromagnetic waves (light) into mechanical waves (sound). This would indeed introduce a slight time differential in optical detection and radio detection, but so slight no one would notice. |
That's why a more accurate result would come from Mars since there is a larger gap in the time it would take for the radio signals to get here. If we got a view of Mars at the same time the radio signals were detected, then we would be seeing Mars in delayed time. If the telescope viewed Mars before the radio signals got to mission control 0.13 seconds later, the view of Mars would not be delayed, but instantaneous. |
We’ve already does this experiment many times, peacegirl, including on Mars with Rovers.
As noted, the 0.13 time delay is wrong. The average delay is 12.72 minutes. But even if it were only 0.13 seconds, you, in your charmingly daft way, still seem not to have comprehended that the time-delay figure CONTRADICTS you. |
Is there a way for us to see the result of this; ie., the signal being transmitted and seeing the Rover on Mars at the exact same time that the signal arrives? I'm sure Nasa would show this, right? |
Right, there is a delay. We’ve gone over this many times with you, including how NASA takes into account delayed-seeing to plot spacecraft trajectories to Mars. This because where Mars APPEARS to be in the sky, is not where it actually IS, due to delayed-time seeing. We’ve gone over and over this. In one ear, out the other. |
The course correction doesn't have to do with the delay of light. It has to do with the planet's own trajectory, where its actual position changes over time.
When embarking on a journey to Mars, precise trajectory adjustments are essential. Let me explain why:
Interplanetary Navigation:
Getting to Mars isn’t as straightforward as aiming directly at the planet. Unlike a stationary target, Mars orbits the Sun, and its position changes over time.
To hit the moving target accurately, spacecraft must be inserted into their interplanetary trajectories at precisely the right moment. Imagine throwing a dart at a bullseye that’s constantly shifting1.
Course Corrections:
During transit, probes must make multiple trajectory corrections to ensure they arrive at Mars when it’s in the right position.
These adjustments involve firing small onboard rockets to fine-tune the spacecraft’s path. Think of it as recalibrating your aim during a long-distance archery competition2.
|
02-07-2024, 06:36 PM
|
|
Spiffiest wanger
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
No, peacegirl, it is not correct to say that sound travels at the speed of light. Radio waves, which do travel at the speed of light, are not sound. They are, um, light. Which is why they, uh, travel at the speed of light.
|
02-07-2024, 06:46 PM
|
|
Spiffiest wanger
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The course correction doesn't have to do with the delay of light. It has to do with the planet's own trajectory, where its actual position changes over time.
When embarking on a journey to Mars, precise trajectory adjustments are essential. Let me explain why:
Interplanetary Navigation:
Getting to Mars isn’t as straightforward as aiming directly at the planet. Unlike a stationary target, Mars orbits the Sun, and its position changes over time.
To hit the moving target accurately, spacecraft must be inserted into their interplanetary trajectories at precisely the right moment. Imagine throwing a dart at a bullseye that’s constantly shifting1.
Course Corrections:
During transit, probes must make multiple trajectory corrections to ensure they arrive at Mars when it’s in the right position.
These adjustments involve firing small onboard rockets to fine-tune the spacecraft’s path. Think of it as recalibrating your aim during a long-distance archery competition2.
|
Yes, peacegirl, we take into account that the planet is not stationary, IN ADDITION TO the fact that it is not actually where it appears to be in the sky, because of the time delay in seeing it.
|
02-07-2024, 06:59 PM
|
 |
liar in wolf's clothing
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
He was right when he said sound is traveling at the speed of light
|
Also delightful (desoundful?)
|
02-07-2024, 07:08 PM
|
|
God Made Me A Skeptic
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Minnesota
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
People often say things like "you see it instantly" because the delay introduced by light speed is so small it makes no difference, for things that are near you. For instance, if you're on the moon, and someone else is also on the moon, you see them "instantly" -- meaning the delay from light speed is too small for a human to experience it.
That doesn't mean "there's actually no delay at all, not even nanoseconds", it just means "you don't experience a discernable delay".
__________________
Hear me / and if I close my mind in fear / please pry it open
See me / and if my face becomes sincere / beware
Hold me / and when I start to come undone / stitch me together
Save me / and when you see me strut / remind me of what left this outlaw torn
|
02-07-2024, 07:10 PM
|
|
Spiffiest wanger
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by seebs
People often say things like "you see it instantly" because the delay introduced by light speed is so small it makes no difference, for things that are near you. For instance, if you're on the moon, and someone else is also on the moon, you see them "instantly" -- meaning the delay from light speed is too small for a human to experience it.
That doesn't mean "there's actually no delay at all, not even nanoseconds", it just means "you don't experience a discernable delay".
|
We explained this to her in detail years ago, including the concept of nanoseconds, femtoseconds, etc. In one ear …
|
02-07-2024, 07:11 PM
|
|
Spiffiest wanger
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
It appears peacegirl imagines that radio waves are sound waves that travel through outer space at the speed of light. Another resounding (relighting?) FAIL on her part. 
|
02-07-2024, 07:22 PM
|
|
liar in wolf's clothing
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
It appears peacegirl imagines that radio waves are sound waves that travel through outer space at the speed of light. Another resounding (relighting?) FAIL on her part. |
personally, I think this guy was on to something:
|
02-07-2024, 07:22 PM
|
|
Karma is Rael
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Paradise Park
Gender: Bender
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I don't know who you are, but you're completely off base. THIS IS A SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY. Look up epistemology. He spelled out his discovery which I gave everyone.
|
Ok, where is "THIS" "DISCOVERY," peacegirl?
If Lessans "spelled it out," and you "gave" the "scientific discovery" to "everyone," then, gosh, why are you wasting so much time typing all of the other words you type?
Just post the link to the published studies in their peer-reviewed scientific journals, peacegirl!
That's all an internet user needs to do to show science to another internet user, peacegirl! Just share the links to the published results.
ohh... wait.
I just remembered that at the end of my own long-ass post, last night, I realized that both Lessans and you are making the terrible mistake of trying to use science and its language to reinforce an unstated theological belief.
Why would you do this? Why reject faith?
Dearest peacegirl, in Creation,
Typing out your faith frustration
I could tell you in my verse
Words I'd waste like "swine" and "pearls"
... ehhhhfort.
|
02-07-2024, 07:57 PM
|
|
Spiffiest wanger
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by 256 colors
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I don't know who you are, but you're completely off base. THIS IS A SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY. Look up epistemology. He spelled out his discovery which I gave everyone.
|
Ok, where is "THIS" "DISCOVERY," peacegirl?
If Lessans "spelled it out," and you "gave" the "scientific discovery" to "everyone," then, gosh, why are you wasting so much time typing all of the other words you type?
Just post the link to the published studies in their peer-reviewed scientific journals, peacegirl!
That's all an internet user needs to do to show science to another internet user, peacegirl! Just share the links to the published results.
ohh... wait.
I just remembered that at the end of my own long-ass post, last night, I realized that both Lessans and you are making the terrible mistake of trying to use science and its language to reinforce an unstated theological belief.
Why would you do this? Why reject faith?
Dearest peacegirl, in Creation,
Typing out your faith frustration
I could tell you in my verse
Words I'd waste like "swine" and "pearls"
... ehhhhfort. |
Peacegirl has made it clear that this is a scientific and totally nonreligious text whose doctrines will be manifested at God’s appointed hour.
|
02-07-2024, 09:25 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
No, peacegirl, it is not correct to say that sound travels at the speed of light. Radio waves, which do travel at the speed of light, are not sound. They are, um, light. Which is why they, uh, travel at the speed of light.
|
Okay, he said sound but it didn't change what he meant. Radio waves (or light) are converted to sound. It would take time to receive the communication.
how do radio signals from a planet turn into sound - Search Videos</title><title>Videos
|
02-07-2024, 09:31 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by 256 colors
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I don't know who you are, but you're completely off base. THIS IS A SCIENTIFIC DISCOVERY. Look up epistemology. He spelled out his discovery which I gave everyone.
|
Ok, where is "THIS" "DISCOVERY," peacegirl?
If Lessans "spelled it out," and you "gave" the "scientific discovery" to "everyone," then, gosh, why are you wasting so much time typing all of the other words you type?
Just post the link to the published studies in their peer-reviewed scientific journals, peacegirl!
That's all an internet user needs to do to show science to another internet user, peacegirl! Just share the links to the published results.
ohh... wait.
I just remembered that at the end of my own long-ass post, last night, I realized that both Lessans and you are making the terrible mistake of trying to use science and its language to reinforce an unstated theological belief.
Why would you do this? Why reject faith?
Dearest peacegirl, in Creation,
Typing out your faith frustration
I could tell you in my verse
Words I'd waste like "swine" and "pearls"
... ehhhhfort. |
I haven't been able to get it reviewed. Of course, his claim regarding the eyes will be dismissed just like other discoverers who went against the grain were dismissed. This is not an unstated theological belief. Why don't you try to read even the first chapter before you spout off what you think this is. I love it when people barge in and tell me it is theological when it has nothing to do with religion. Talk about coming to premature conclusions, you take the cake.
As these miraculous changes become a reality religion comes to an end along with evil because one was the complement of the other. Religion came into existence out of necessity, but when all evil declines and falls and God reveals Himself as the creator as well as the deliverer of all evil, it must also, out of necessity, come to an end. It is important to recognize that religion gets displaced only because mankind will no longer need its services since God, our Creator (this world is no accident), is answering our prayers. Of what value is having an institution that asks mankind to have faith in God, to have faith that one day God will reveal that He is a reality, when He does this by answering our prayers and delivering us from all evil? Is it possible for a minister to preach against sin when there is no further possibility of committing a sin? Is it possible to desire telling others what is right, when it is mathematically impossible for them to do what is wrong? However, there is no mathematical standard as to what is right and wrong in human conduct except this hurting of others, and once this is removed, once it becomes impossible to desire hurting another human being, then there will be no need for all those schools, religious or otherwise, that have been teaching us how to cope with a hostile environment that will no longer be.
|
02-07-2024, 09:37 PM
|
|
Spiffiest wanger
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
No, peacegirl, it is not correct to say that sound travels at the speed of light. Radio waves, which do travel at the speed of light, are not sound. They are, um, light. Which is why they, uh, travel at the speed of light.
|
Okay, he said sound but it didn't change what he meant. Radio waves (or light) are converted to sound. It would take time to receive the communication.
how do radio signals from a planet turn into sound - Search Videos</title><title>Videos |
Yes, peacegirl, it would take time to receive the conversation, for the SAME REASON it would TAKE TIME to see the astronauts on the moon through a telescope — because the images and the sound come from LIGHT. And light travels at a finite rate of speed, and hence we see things as they were in the past.
|
02-07-2024, 11:09 PM
|
 |
Flyover Hillbilly
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Maybe so, David, but what about the freaks of nature born without any junk. Huh? What about them? Are you trying to say they cast their eyes crotchward and observe their Ken doll-like anatomy in delayed time? Preposterous! Imaginary rabbis the world over are shaking their imaginary heads in amazement right now.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
|
02-07-2024, 11:10 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
No, peacegirl, it is not correct to say that sound travels at the speed of light. Radio waves, which do travel at the speed of light, are not sound. They are, um, light. Which is why they, uh, travel at the speed of light.
|
Okay, he said sound but it didn't change what he meant. Radio waves (or light) are converted to sound. It would take time to receive the communication.
how do radio signals from a planet turn into sound - Search Videos</title><title>Videos |
Yes, peacegirl, it would take time to receive the conversation, for the SAME REASON it would TAKE TIME to see the astronauts on the moon through a telescope — because the images and the sound come from LIGHT. And light travels at a finite rate of speed, and hence we see things as they were in the past. |
The converted sound comes from radio waves (or light). You are assuming that images travel over space and time in the same way that radio waves travel. That's exactly what he is refuting. You are just repeating your premise. I haven't found anything in regard to how delayed light from Mars is used to calculate an accurate trajectory. Maybe you can find something and pass it on.
|
02-07-2024, 11:28 PM
|
|
Spiffiest wanger
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
No, peacegirl, it is not correct to say that sound travels at the speed of light. Radio waves, which do travel at the speed of light, are not sound. They are, um, light. Which is why they, uh, travel at the speed of light.
|
Okay, he said sound but it didn't change what he meant. Radio waves (or light) are converted to sound. It would take time to receive the communication.
how do radio signals from a planet turn into sound - Search Videos</title><title>Videos |
Yes, peacegirl, it would take time to receive the conversation, for the SAME REASON it would TAKE TIME to see the astronauts on the moon through a telescope — because the images and the sound come from LIGHT. And light travels at a finite rate of speed, and hence we see things as they were in the past. |
The converted sound comes from radio waves (or light). You are assuming that images travel over space and time in the same way that radio waves travel. That's exactly what he is refuting. You are just repeating your premise. I haven't found anything in regard to how delayed light from Mars is used to calculate an accurate trajectory. Maybe you can find something and pass it on. |
Fuck off, peacegirl, WE ALREADY DID THAT, MANY TIMES, and no one is going to waste any more time trying to cure your incurable imbecility. There are a few newcomers here, and I just wanted to give them a taste of what you are all about. Mission accomplished. Also, as we explained to your thick head innumerable time, IMAGES do not travel, LIGHT travels. Now it’s back to our regularly scheduled  , and preparations for the party.
|
02-07-2024, 11:30 PM
|
|
Karma is Rael
|
|
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Paradise Park
Gender: Bender
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
peacegirl: You said "God" many times, as did Seymour Lessans. This means that your topic is theology. Period. It's okay! Theology sells, but, not this way.
This is not the correct audience or platform on which to promote books or literature about the Divine and other theological or atheological concepts.
However, if you merely seek a minyan, then, keep typing away.
There is a huge market for books and ideas like Lessans' and yours, peacegirl. I am astounded that you choose to play Sadducees versus Pharisees instead of just going to the audience that will buy what you're selling.
|
02-07-2024, 11:49 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
No, peacegirl, it is not correct to say that sound travels at the speed of light. Radio waves, which do travel at the speed of light, are not sound. They are, um, light. Which is why they, uh, travel at the speed of light.
|
Okay, he said sound but it didn't change what he meant. Radio waves (or light) are converted to sound. It would take time to receive the communication.
how do radio signals from a planet turn into sound - Search Videos</title><title>Videos |
Yes, peacegirl, it would take time to receive the conversation, for the SAME REASON it would TAKE TIME to see the astronauts on the moon through a telescope — because the images and the sound come from LIGHT. And light travels at a finite rate of speed, and hence we see things as they were in the past. |
The converted sound comes from radio waves (or light). You are assuming that images travel over space and time in the same way that radio waves travel. That's exactly what he is refuting. You are just repeating your premise. I haven't found anything in regard to how delayed light from Mars is used to calculate an accurate trajectory. Maybe you can find something and pass it on. |
Fuck off, peacegirl, WE ALREADY DID THAT, MANY TIMES, and no one is going to waste any more time trying to cure your incurable imbecility. There are a few newcomers here, and I just wanted to give them a taste of what you are all about. Mission accomplished. Also, as we explained to your thick head innumerable time, IMAGES do not travel, LIGHT travels. Now it’s back to our regularly scheduled , and preparations for the party. |
That's not an answer. Light travels, true, but if the eyes are not a sense organ, then the object is seen instantly, not the image. Find something that shows that the delayed image is factored into the trajectory calculation. I'll read it. The only thing I found is below which does not contradict the claim at all.
When an image of Mars is delayed, it doesn’t directly impact the trajectory of the spacecraft or rover. Let me explain:
Image Delay and Trajectory:
The trajectory of a spacecraft or rover is determined by its planned path through space. It involves complex calculations based on gravitational forces, propulsion, and orbital mechanics.
An image delay occurs when the transmission of data (including images) from the spacecraft to Earth takes longer than expected due to various factors (distance, communication bandwidth, data processing, etc.).
However, this delay doesn’t alter the spacecraft’s physical trajectory. The spacecraft continues along its planned course regardless of when the images are received on Earth.
Why Image Delays Happen:
Mars missions involve significant distances. The time it takes for signals to travel between Mars and Earth varies due to their changing positions in their orbits.
When a spacecraft captures an image, it stores it in its memory. Later, during a communication window, it transmits the data to Earth.
Factors affecting image delays include:
Distance: Mars can be millions of kilometers away from Earth. Signals take several minutes (or more) to travel one way.
Data Prioritization: Space agencies prioritize critical data (such as telemetry) over images. Images may wait in a queue for transmission.
Orbital Position: The relative positions of Mars and Earth affect communication windows. Sometimes, the planets are on opposite sides of the
Sun, causing longer delays.
Data Processing: Images need processing before transmission. This adds to the delay.
Impact on Science and Operations:
Delayed images don’t affect the spacecraft’s mission goals or scientific objectives. They are part of the data collected during the mission.
Scientists and engineers account for these delays in mission planning. They schedule communication windows and manage data flow.
While real-time images are exciting, the overall success of the mission depends on various data, not just immediate visuals.
Examples:
Ingenuity Helicopter: NASA’s Ingenuity helicopter captured detailed images of debris from its own landing on Mars. These images provide insights for future missions and improve landing techniques1.
Mars Express Orbiter: The Mars Express orbiter provides near-real-time images of Mars, enhancing our understanding of the planet’s surface and atmosphere2.
In summary, image delays don’t alter the spacecraft’s trajectory but are part of the fascinating process of exploring distant worlds.
|
02-07-2024, 11:53 PM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Originally Posted by 256 colors
peacegirl: You said "God" many times, as did Seymour Lessans. This means that your topic is theology. Period. It's okay! Theology sells, but, not this way.
This is not the correct audience or platform on which to promote books or literature about the Divine and other theological or atheological concepts.
However, if you merely seek a minyan, then, keep typing away.
There is a huge market for books and ideas like Lessans' and yours, peacegirl. I am astounded that you choose to play Sadducees versus Pharisees instead of just going to the audience that will buy what you're selling.
|
God was used as a metaphor, not a personal god.
Some people may be offended that the word God is used throughout the book and conclude that this is a religious work. Perhaps the "G" word even makes them want to shut down and disconnect from what is being said. This would be unfortunate. As you carefully read the text you will see that the word God (often referred to as "He") is simply a symbol pointing to the laws that govern our universe.
|
02-07-2024, 11:59 PM
|
|
Spiffiest wanger
|
|
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
For those handful of newcomers, this idiot thread began in 2011 and has been a source of great amusement. After a time a little tradition began of throwing a party when key pages ticked over: pages 500, 600, 700, etc. The biggest bash of all, orchestrated by my Aunt Flo (whose Manchester terrier, Adolf, peacegirl murdered) was a Page Millennium bash, which actually covered three whole pages: Page 1999 (party like it’s Seymour Lessans time), page 2000 (the authentic page 2000 party), and page 2001 (2001: a space-case oddity). ChuckF had a special surprise gift for the 2000 party, but alas it is no longer accessible. Anyway, you can view the whole bacchanal beginning here.
|
02-08-2024, 12:09 AM
|
|
Flyover Hillbilly
|
|
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Juggalonia
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
Quote:
Eyes were all efferent
There were dogs with levers everywhere
Tryin' to run from my corruption
You know I didn't even care
|
Misty water-colored memories, yo.
__________________
"We can have democracy in this country, or we can have great wealth concentrated in the hands of a few, but we can't have both." ~ Louis D. Brandeis
"Psychos do not explode when sunlight hits them, I don't give a fuck how crazy they are." ~ S. Gecko
"What the fuck is a German muffin?" ~ R. Swanson
|
02-08-2024, 12:31 AM
|
|
Member
|
|
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
"Although solving the problem of evil requires balancing an equation of such magnitude, it is not difficult when we have our infallible slide rule which God has given us as a guide. By now I hope you understand that the word God is a symbol for the source of everything that exists, whereas theology draws a line between good and evil using the word God only as a symbol for the former. Actually no one gave me this slide rule, that is, no one handed it to me, but the same force that gave birth to my body and brain compelled me to move in the direction of satisfaction and for me to be satisfied after reading Will Durant's analysis of free will it was necessary to disagree with what obviously was the reasoning of logic, not mathematics. I was not satisfied, which forced me to get rid of my dissatisfaction by proving that this philosopher did not know whereof he spoke. To say that God made me do this is equivalent to saying I was compelled, by my nature, to move in this direction of greater satisfaction, which is absolutely true. Definitions mean absolutely nothing where reality is concerned. Regardless of what words I use to describe the sun; regardless of how much there is I don't know about this ball of fire does not negate the fact that it is a part of the real world, and regardless of what words I employ to describe God does not change the fact that He is a reality. You may ask, "But isn't there quite a difference between seeing the sun and seeing God? I know that the description of the sun could be inaccurate, but I know it is a part of the real world. However, we cannot point to any particular thing and say this is God, therefore we must assume because of certain things that God is a reality, correct?"
We assumed energy was contained within the atom until a discovery was made that proved this, and we also assumed or believed that there was a design to this universe by the fact that the solar system moves in such mathematical harmony. Did the sun, moon, earth, planets and stars just fall into perfect order, or is there some internal urgency pushing everything in a particular direction? Now that it has been discovered that man=s will is not free and at the very moment this discovery is made a mathematical demonstration compels man to veer sharply in a new direction although still towards greater satisfaction, then it can be seen just as clearly as we see the sun that the mankind system has always been just as harmonious as the solar system only we never knew it because part of the harmony was this disharmony between man and man which is now being permanently removed. This discovery also reveals that God is a mathematical, undeniable reality. This means, to put it another way, that Man Does Not Stand Alone. Therefore, to say God is good is a true observation for nothing in this universe when seen in total perspective is evil since each individual must choose what is better for himself, even if that choice hurts another as a consequence.
Every human being is and has been obeying God's will -- Spinoza, his sister, Nageli, Durant, Mendel, Christ and even those who nailed him to the cross; but God has a secret plan that is going to shock all mankind due to the revolutionary changes that must come about for his benefit. This new world is coming into existence not because of my will, not because I made a discovery (sooner or later it had to be found because the knowledge of what it means that man's will is not free is a definite part of reality), but only because we are compelled to obey the laws of our nature. Do you really think it was an accident the solar system came into existence; an accident that the sun is just the proper distance from the earth so we don't roast or freeze; an accident that the earth revolved just at the right speed to fulfill many exacting functions; an accident that our bodies and brains developed just that way; an accident that I made my discovery exactly when I did? To show you how fantastic is the infinite wisdom that controls every aspect of this universe through invariable laws that we are at last getting to understand, which includes the mankind as well as the solar system, just follow this: Here is versatile man -- writer, composer, artist, inventor, scientist, philosopher, theologian, architect, mathematician, chess player, prostitute, murderer, thief, etc., whose will is absolutely and positively not free despite all the learned opinions to the contrary, yet compelled by his very nature and lack of development to believe that it is since it was impossible not to blame and punish the terrible evils that came into existence out of necessity and then permitted to perceive the necessary relations as to why will is not free and what this means for the entire world which perception was utterly impossible without the development and absolutely necessary for the inception of our Golden Age. In all of history have you ever been confronted with anything more incredible?
|
02-08-2024, 12:57 AM
|
|
liar in wolf's clothing
|
|
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Frequently about
|
|
Re: A revolution in thought
 The return of SymbolGod!
That reminds me of this one:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
His writing was not metaphorical nor was he a symbolic writer.
|
|
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 39 (0 members and 39 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 06:18 PM.
|
|
 |
|
Linear Mode
