A revolution in thought

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If afferent vision were true we could see all kinds of past events as the light reaches us, but this never happens.

False. This has already been shown to you, but you refuse to understand or admit.

[LadyShea]

Obviously we can see light in the visible spectrum if the atmospheric conditions allow, such as rainbows or other phenomena. I never said that our eyes don't detect light.

You've said it repeatedly that we don't see light. Here's one very specific example. You can't even try to weasel on this one and say "that's not what I meant"

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We don't see light LadyShea. We use light to see. Post

Just today you said

We are not seeing the light from that star; but rather the actual star.

Either we can see light itself, or we can't peacegirl. Which is it?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then let's end this conversation.

You can end this anytime you choose. Apparently, not ending the conversation provides you with greater satisfaction than ending it. Not having free will sucks, doesn't it?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

For instance, we cannot see an image of Columbus discovering America because that event does not exist, therefore the light that reflected off of this event can never be seen. If afferent vision were true we could see all kinds of past events as the light reaches us, but this never happens. I wonder why?

Wrong, what astronomers look at, and everything we see in the night sky, is of the past, and how long past is directly related to how far away the object is. Looking at the stars is looking at the history of the universe. The further away, the more ancient the history, and that is an undeniable truth.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

False. This has already been shown to you, but you refuse to understand or admit.

Specious_reasons, if it's not true why is it in the encyclopedia? It is believed that if we were on the star Rigel we would just be seeing Columbus discovering America or some other past event as the light reaches us.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

You can end this anytime you choose. Apparently, not ending the conversation provides you with greater satisfaction than ending it. Not having free will sucks, doesn't it?

At least you got the "no free will" part right. When it gives me less satisfaction to discuss this subject, I will choose not to discuss it. Not having free will doesn't suck at all. I still have options.

[LadyShea]

Cameras detect light, but only when the object that is reflecting that light exists in the present.

Cameras detect light. Period.

For instance, we cannot see an image of Columbus discovering America because that event does not exist, therefore the light that reflected off of this event can never be seen.

If we were observing from 519 light years away we could see it, if we had a powerful enough telescope etc.

If afferent vision were true we could see all kinds of past events as the light reaches us, but this never happens.

It happens all the time. Reading the word you are reading right now is already a few nanoseconds in the past.

If I run outside take a picture of my house on my phone and send it to your phone or email, are you seeing my house as it is now, or as it was a few minutes in the past when I photographed it?

The further the distance the further into the past we are seeing. That's why we are viewing stars and galaxies as they were in the distant past.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Specious_reasons, if it's not true why is it in the encyclopedia?

What is in which encyclopedia?

It is believed that if we were on the star Rigel we would just be seeing Columbus discovering America or some other past event as the light reaches us

No, because Rigel is ~800 light years away and Columbus landed in 1492, so only 519 years.

That was a really stupid example that Lessans used because it's not even close to the correct distance. You should stop using it.

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Specious_reasons, if it's not true why is it in the encyclopedia? It is believed that if we were on the star Rigel we would just be seeing Columbus discovering America or some other past event as the light reaches us.

The example of the moons of Jupiter, very early IIT. Events on Jupiter are seen to happen sooner when Jupiter is closer and later when Jupiter is further away. I can't help that you fail to understand this.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It happens all the time. Reading the word you are reading right now is already a few nanoseconds in the past.

If I run outside take a picture of my house on my phone and send it to your phone or email, are you seeing my house as it is now, or as it was a few minutes in the past when I photographed it?

The further the distance the further into the past we are seeing. That's why we are viewing stars and galaxies as they were in the distant past.

The first order fix by GPS is determined by the difference in time it takes light to reach the GPS receiver. All GPS satellites have highly synchronized clocks on board and send their current time and position constantly. Your position is determined by the difference in time it takes the signal to travel from each of the satellites you detect at your particular location on earth as well as the transmitted location of the satellites. It is interesting to note that in order to get better accuracy you must also take into account time dilation in a gravitational well as predicted by Einstein in his theory of General Relativity.

So every GPS receiver on the planet is direct evidence that light has a constant speed and it's time dilation is accounted for by General and Special Relativity.

Peacegirl, did Lessans know about GPS? Did he know about Special and General Relativity? Was he aware of all the experimental science that has gone on over Einstein's theories?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

The first order fix by GPS is determined by the difference in time it takes light to reach the GPS receiver. All GPS satellites have highly synchronized clocks on board and send their current time and position constantly. Your position is determined by the difference in time it takes the signal to travel from each of the satellites you detect at your particular location on earth as well as the transmitted location of the satellites. It is interesting to note that in order to get better accuracy you must also take into account time dilation in a gravitational well as predicted by Einstein in his theory of General Relativity.

So every GPS receiver on the planet is direct evidence that light has a constant speed and it's time dilation is accounted for by General and Special Relativity.

Peacegirl, did Lessans know about GPS? Did he know about Special and General Relativity? Was he aware of all the experimental science that has gone on over Einstein's theories?

We went over and over and over SR and GR with the big box of rocks for pages and pages. All in futility.




Moons of Jupiter

[naturalist.atheist]

Another interesting phenomena which shows that light travels at a constant speed is the Hubble red shift. As everyone probably knows by now distant objects in the night sky exhibit the interesting property that light from the object is shifted to the red the further away it is. This can be determined by looking for the spectra of hydrogen in light from the object, which is the most abundant element in the universe by several times. When you look at the spectra from distant objects the hydrogen spectra is shifted in frequency towards the red and the further the object is from us, the more it is shifted.

Now why would that be?

Well the universe has been expanding, but not in the way an explosion expands but more like how a balloon expands. As it gets bigger there is more of it. To understand what is going on you have to understand that light is a bundle of oscillating electric and magnetic fields. A given color of light oscillates at a particular frequency. What we see as blue light is oscillating at between 631THz and 668 THz (THz = 1,000,000,000,000 cycles per second).

So blue light traveling at c will have a wavelength between 450nm and 575nm. So light has a frequency and a length.

Now when I said that the universe is expanding more like a balloon what I meant was the physical space is expanding. If the earth were that balloon and one day you put two stakes in the ground 1 ft apart and came back in a year you might discover that they are now 1.5ft apart. This is the kind of expansion I'm talking about.

As light travels through expanding space it gets longer, but since it must move at the same speed it's frequency must get lower. The longer it travels through expanding space the more it is stretched out and the lower it's frequency goes. It's frequency is shifted towards the red and the amount of shift is proportional to how long it spend in expanding space. And the further away it started before getting here the longer it will spend in expanding space.

Yet another example of the fixed speed of light as well as pretty good evidence that the universe is expanding.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I can't count how many times I have said that we need light to see. Cameras detect light, but only when the object that is reflecting that light exists in the present. For instance, we cannot see an image of Columbus discovering America because that event does not exist, therefore the light that reflected off of this event can never be seen. If afferent vision were true we could see all kinds of past events as the light reaches us, but this never happens. I wonder why?

If the folks on Rigel install a mirror in the next 120 years, we will see Columbus entering America sometime between 2800 and 3200.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by davidm

We went over and over and over SR and GR with the big box of rocks for pages and pages. All in futility.




Moons of Jupiter

Of course it was futile. You were posting.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Of course it was futile. You were posting.

What a terrible thing to say to someone who is going to thank your post on the expanding universe.

But knock yourelf out. Go ahead, you post to peacegirl. See how much luck you have in demonstrating reality to her! Let us know how it works out for you!

[davidm]

Hey peacegirl, speaking of the expansion of the universe and the red-shifting of light, do you know what "The Observable Universe" means, and what implications it bears for your father's mad "theories" of instantaneous seeing?

Just wondering!

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by davidm

What a terrible thing to say to someone who is going to thank your post on the expanding universe.

I may get nowhere with Peacegirl but as long as she is not derogatory I see no reason to be that way either.

You on the other hand do not deserve that kind of consideration.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I may get nowhere with Peacegirl but as long as she is not derogatory I see no reason to be that way either.

You on the other hand do not deserve that kind of consideration.

Yes, the non-derogatory peacegirl, who has developed custom insults for everyone on this thread that has wasted his or her time trying to educate the little weasel; the non-derogatory peacegirl who famously told The Lone Ranger (!) that he "needed to go back to school."

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What is in which encyclopedia?

No, because Rigel is ~800 light years away and Columbus landed in 1492, so only 519 years.

That was a really stupid example that Lessans used because it's not even close to the correct distance. You should stop using it.

If you get the point, then that's all that matters. Besides, if light from Columbus has been traveling for 519 light years, it's traveled pretty darn far and it was a fine example for his purpose.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You've said it repeatedly that we don't see light. Here's one very specific example. You can't even try to weasel on this one and say "that's not what I meant"

Just today you said

Either we can see light itself, or we can't peacegirl. Which is it?

There is so much confusion here. We can see light if it reflects off of something in the atmosphere, but when we are looking at someone, we aren't interpreting the light, we are seeing the actual person. Furthermore, whether we see light, as in a rainbow, or an object due to light's reflection, we are seeing efferently (if Lessans is correct). No objection has been able to negate or disprove his claim.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Cameras detect light. Period.

I never said they didn't, but they don't detect light without the object or image being present. Tell me, what does the lens focus on?

For instance, we cannot see an image of Columbus discovering America because that event does not exist, therefore the light that reflected off of this event can never be seen.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If we were observing from 519 light years away we could see it, if we had a powerful enough telescope etc.

Oh really? Without the event actually happening; just from old light?

If afferent vision were true we could see all kinds of past events as the light reaches us, but this never happens.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

It happens all the time. Reading the word you are reading right now is already a few nanoseconds in the past.

That's not proof. That's just an assertion.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If I run outside take a picture of my house on my phone and send it to your phone or email, are you seeing my house as it is now, or as it was a few minutes in the past when I photographed it?

That's different. You are sending a picture that has traveled through circuitry to reach me. Therefore, I would be seeing a picture of your house (that you took in real time) a few minutes in the past.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The further the distance the further into the past we are seeing. That's why we are viewing stars and galaxies as they were in the distant past.

You are comparing two different things as if they are the same.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh really? Without the event actually happening; just from old light? .

Uh, yeah. Just from old light, you goddamned idiot.

Hey, peacegirl, suppose someone turns on a flashlight for five minutes, and then turns it off. What happens to the photons that the flashlight released during the five minutes it was on, after it is turned off? Hmmm?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Tell me, what does the lens focus on?

The camera lens doesn't focus 'ON' anything, it focuses the light that is reflected or emited on to the film or image sensor. The light travels from the object to the camera, through the lens and onto the back of the camera where it is recorded, and if the object is very far away, (light years) it does not even need to be there.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

The example of the moons of Jupiter, very early IIT. Events on Jupiter are seen to happen sooner when Jupiter is closer and later when Jupiter is further away. I can't help that you fail to understand this.

But if the light hasn't gotten to us yet since it's still traveling toward us, how can we see the difference in what is going on based on the speed of light? We need light to be able to document what is causing this difference. The present theory doesn't add up in my humble opinion. How can we see what is going on if the light has not gotten here for us to see, and if it is here, a camera or a telescope should be able to prove this theory.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh really? Without the event actually happening; just from old light?

The event has actually happened, the light is still traveling to us. And in some cases 'Old Light' is all we have to observe.