A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But if the light hasn't gotten to us yet since it's still traveling toward us, how can we see the difference in the speed of light? We need light to see this difference do we not? Obviously, the light that has already arrived is allowing us to see Jupiter's moons, which would indicate something is wrong with this theory.

Holy shit.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

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?

You are threatened by me, which is why you are so nasty. Your nastiness proves nothing except that you are a jerk. But we already knew that. I'm ready to put you on ignore permanently unless you change your tactics.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[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. 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?

We can observe the light as it arrives, the light that is still traveling will be observed when it arrives.

There is no difference in the 'speed of Light', C is a constant. You really don't understand anything, do you? The framing of your questions indicates a complete lack of understanding and the maturity of a small child.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are threatened by me, which is why you are so nasty.

No, as has been explained to you before (but nothing sticks in your little mind) people become naturally angry at those who are are not just willfully ignorant, but aggressively dishonest, as you are. People who care about facts, truth and reality will react indignantly to one such as yourself, particularly when you are trying rip off the gullible by selling a fraudulent book. You are a little fraud. This is why, for example, The Lone Ranger, who is in all respects a perfect gentlemen, called you a "liar" and a "little fool."

Now, answer the goddamned question, peacegirl. If you shine a flashlight for five minutes, and then turn it off, what happens to the photons that the flashlight released while it was turned on, and before it was turned off?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Just today you said

I'm not sure I understand this statement. What does it mean to see "the actual star?"

[Vivisectus]

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?

But it does, all the time. We know that quite a few of the stars that we see actually no longer exist.

[Vivisectus]

The thing is this: we know the orbit of the moons of jupiter. We know hoe long it takes for them to go around. However, when we look at them through a telescope, the timing is different when Jupiter is further away, and different again when Jupiter is a lot closer.

This is because it takes longer for the light to reach us if jupiter is farther away. If you take that into account, the data matches the actual orbit again.

This proves that what we are seeing is something that happened a little while ago, not what is happening right at that moment.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

You are indicating you don't understand what a light year is. A light year is how far light travels in one year. So, in 519 years it has traveled 519 light years.

Rigel is about 800 light years away, so the light from 1492 hasn't reached it yet, and won't for another 200 or so years.

That's why it's a bad example.

Also, which encyclopedia used that example? Or did you just make that up?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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.

You are still weaseling. Reflections "off something in the atmosphere" do not come into play when seeing light in space, on accounta the whole vacuum thing. Since red shift and starlight are part of the discussion, that condition doesn't support your point.

Can we see light itself, or not?

[davidm]

The simple example of the moons of Jupiter is one of literally dozens of proofs that have been offered in this thread, proving two things:

1. The speed of light is finite.

2. We do indeed see images of objects as they were in the past.


That is the end of it. It is an open and shut case. Lessans' real-time seeing nonsense is utterly disproved; it is at total variance with reality. However, peacegirl will never acknowledge the truth, even when the indisputable proof is staring her in the face, because she has the mentality of a six-day young earth creationist when confronted with proof of the antiquity of the earth and the evolution of species.

Nevertheless, the fork is stuck in Lessans.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

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

So the present isn't constantly becoming the past in your world? What is 3 seconds ago? What is half a second ago?

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

No, I am not. It is EXACTLY the same thing. You seem incapable of understanding, but I am trying to use simple analogies. Let's try this.

If I write you a letter that says "I am writing peacegirl a letter right now", and mail it to you, the further it has to travel, the longer it takes to be delivered to you, unless the distance is counteracted by increased speed, correct? See how time and distance are relative?

So, the further the distance, and/or the slower the speed, the older the letter (and the information it contains) becomes before you receive it.

It's the same with light. The further it has to travel, the longer it takes to reach any detectors (eyes, cameras, telescopes). Because we know the speed it travels, if we determine the distance it has traveled we can determine how old it is.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I'm not sure I understand this statement. What does it mean to see "the actual star?"

I have asked her that repeatedly, wrt the "actual star" statement as well as other similar statements like the "actual image" of a rainbow or "The actual object" in a reflection. She refuses to answer.

The only thing I can figure is she thinks big balls of plasma would be visible even if they weren't emitting EM radiation in the visible spectrum.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

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?

You are threatened by me, which is why you are so nasty.

Originally Posted by Davidm

I really don't see what's so funny.

Originally Posted by Davidm

No, as has been explained to you before (but nothing sticks in your little mind) people become naturally angry at those who are are not just willfully ignorant, but aggressively dishonest, as you are.

Not true and you know it. That's just an excuse to say whatever you want whenever you want and not have to account for your actions.

Originally Posted by Davidm

People who care about facts, truth and reality will react indignantly to one such as yourself, particularly when you are trying rip off the gullible by selling a fraudulent book. You are a little fraud. This is why, for example, The Lone Ranger, who is in all respects a perfect gentlemen, called you a "liar" and a "little fool."

The facts, according to David, are those that are in agreement with his pet theories. That's your justification for acting like a jerk.

Originally Posted by Davidm

Now, answer the goddamned question, peacegirl. If you shine a flashlight for five minutes, and then turn it off, what happens to the photons that the flashlight released while it was turned on, and before it was turned off?

No David, I will not answer you as long as you have this attitude. And if you keep it up, you will go to ignore island where all the meanies go because they can't control themselves. There they get free lessons on how to treat people respectfully, and when they graduate they will be allowed back into society on the condition they have been fully rehabilitated.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No David, I will not answer you as long as you have this attitude. And if you keep it up, you will go to ignore island where all the meanies go because they can't control themselves. There they get free lessons on how to treat people respectfully, and when they graduate they will be allowed back into society on the condition they have been fully rehabilitated.

1. No, you will not answer the question because you have no answer. If you say that the photons that the flashlight emitted disappear when the flashlight is turned off, this is not only at variance with observed and measured reality, it is at variance with the writings of your own father, who claimed that the photons hang around! But, if you say that they hang around, this is also at variance with demonstraed reality. Photons travel at constant velocity c in a vaccuum after they have been emitted from a source; if they strike an object they are either absorbed by it or they are reflected. Once this is admitted, real-time seeing collapses.

2. I couldn't care less if you put me on Ignore.

3. You have earned no respect, and have constantly shown disrespect to others. I can think of no more disrespectful act that willfully refusing to read the essay that The Lone Ranger wrote on how we see, while also lecturing him that he needed "to go back to school."

Now then, peacegirl, answer the question about the flashlight. Anyone can ask it, so you can ignore me entirely.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I have asked her that repeatedly, wrt the "actual star" statement as well as other similar statements like the "actual image" of a rainbow or "The actual object" in a reflection. She refuses to answer.

The only thing I can figure is she thinks big balls of plasma would be visible even if they weren't emitting EM radiation in the visible spectrum.

It would be nice to get some clarification, but the impression I get is that what she means by "actual star" seems to be entwined with something neurological. Perhaps the recognition of a star inside a brain?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

I'm not sure I understand this statement. What does it mean to see "the actual star?"

We are seeing the actual star. Someone offered this answer to the question which is what Lessans' claim contradicts:

Ok. it's a crazy question, but if we see right now the past of the galaxies and stars when we look at space. and if we look farther out, we can see how galaxies and stars where millions of years ago, this means that the farther we see the older the images are.

we're not "seeing the past".
we're seeing light that was emitted long ago, and is just now coming our way.
sort of like hearing thunder that comes some number of seconds.
we're not hearing the past.
we're hearing a noise that was created in the past.
but we're hearing it now.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are indicating you don't understand what a light year is. A light year is how far light travels in one year. So, in 519 years it has traveled 519 light years.

Rigel is about 800 light years away, so the light from 1492 hasn't reached it yet, and won't for another 200 or so years.

That's why it's a bad example.

Also, which encyclopedia used that example? Or did you just make that up?

I did not mean that specific example. I meant the entire concept of afferent sight, and that we see the past due to the finite speed of light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You are still weaseling. Reflections "off something in the atmosphere" do not come into play when seeing light in space, on accounta the whole vacuum thing. Since red shift and starlight are part of the discussion, that condition doesn't support your point.

Can we see light itself, or not?

Maybe this question and answer will help you understand what I meant.

Why can’t we see sun light in night?
In night we see moon due to falling sun light on it then why we can not see ray of sun light?
What is the reason?
What are the properties that I don’t know?


you cant actually see rays of light from the side.
you can only see light when it goes directly into your eye and hits your retina.
So at night, you cant see any light because you cant see the sun directly. the rays of light are blocked by the earth.

When you are looking at a ray in the earths atmosphere, (perhaps at sunset, or when the sun shines through a hole in the clouds) you cannot see the actual light ray... you are looking at the light that bounces off the particles in the atmosphere, and those rays do travel straight into your eye, just like the light bouncing off the moon. Think of the dust/mist in the atmosphere as millions of tiny moons.

At night in space... there is no atmosphere, and no particles or dust for the sunlight to reflect off.... so you cant see it even though it is there.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We are seeing the actual star. Someone offered this answer to the question which is what Lessans' claim contradicts:

Ok. it's a crazy question, but if we see right now the past of the galaxies and stars when we look at space. and if we look farther out, we can see how galaxies and stars where millions of years ago, this means that the farther we see the older the images are.

we're not "seeing the past".
we're seeing light that was emitted long ago, and is just now coming our way.
sort of like hearing thunder that comes some number of seconds.
we're not hearing the past.
we're hearing a noise that was created in the past.
but we're hearing it now.

Define "actual star"

[peacegirl]

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?

No, he was not a physicist. His knowledge came indirectly but is just as sound as other theories that have been put forth. Unfortunately, Lessans cannot compete with Einstein.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Define "actual star"

What is a star?

The Pleiades, a cluster of young stars A star is a sphere of gas held together by its own gravity. The force of gravity is continually trying to cause the star to collapse, but this is counteracted by the pressure of hot gas and/or radiation in the star's interior. This is called hydrostatic support. During most of the lifetime of a star, the interior heat and radiation is provided by nuclear reactions near the center, and this phase of the star's life is called the main sequence. Before and after the main sequence, the heat sources differ slightly. Before the main sequence, the star is contracting and is not yet hot enough or dense enough in its interior for the nuclear reactions to begin. During this phase, hydrostatic support is provided by the heat generated during contraction. After the main sequence, most of the nuclear fuel in the core has been used up. The star now requires a series of less-efficient nuclear reactions for internal heat. Eventually, when these reactions no longer generate sufficient heat to support the star against its own gravity, the star will collapse.

Stars

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

The thing is this: we know the orbit of the moons of jupiter. We know hoe long it takes for them to go around. However, when we look at them through a telescope, the timing is different when Jupiter is further away, and different again when Jupiter is a lot closer.

This is because it takes longer for the light to reach us if jupiter is farther away. If you take that into account, the data matches the actual orbit again.

This proves that what we are seeing is something that happened a little while ago, not what is happening right at that moment.

All I can say is that there could be another explanation, but because afferent vision is already considered a fact, the explanation given is the most logically consistent with this model.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by 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.

Very interesting. Thank you!

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, he was not a physicist. His knowledge came indirectly but is just as sound as other theories that have been put forth. Unfortunately, Lessans cannot compete with Einstein.

Peacegirl, how have you come to the conclusion that Lessan's theories are just a sound as other theories? You do realize that Einstein's theory is one of the other theories?

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I can say is that there could be another explanation, but because afferent vision is already considered a fact, the explanation given is the most logically consistent with this model.

What explanation would this be?