A revolution in thought - Page 507

LadyShea · #**12651** 10-18-2011, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Projecting as a form of deflection aka weasel.

davidm is not getting high blood pressure at all, nor is he even angry. He is bemused, peacegirl.

No no no, he is not just bemused, he is fuming, like this. :fuming:

He can't stand that someone would come along and ruin his worldview. I hate to be the one to ruin it for him actually. I feel it's my fault, but I can't worry about David. I have to continue on to prove that Lessans was not a liar.

I have interacted with davidm online for over a decade. He is not fuming

And I don't think anyone thinks Lessans was a liar so much as seriously mistaken. You have been shown to lie for him though

peacegirl · #**12652** 10-18-2011, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I get that wavelengths are properties of the Sun, and I asked this for a reason. Don't those wavelengths produce white light, or light that has no real color unless something in the atmosphere causes the colors of the visible spectrum which is a mixture of red, orange, yellow, green, blue, and violet light to show up?

The sun produces light in multiple wavelengths. When we see all the wavelengths together we call it white light. When they interact with various types of matter (some things, like plant leaves, absorb some wavelengths and reflect others, the atmosphere acts as a filter, water droplets can cause refraction), the wavelengths can become separated, so we no longer receive all of them and the light we receive is no longer white.

Oh my godddd, where does this contradict what I just took all morning to explain? :doh:

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

1. Wavelengths are not a property of the sun
2. Wavelengths do not produce light
3. The atmosphere doesn't "cause the colors of the visible spectrum"

You keep getting things wrong, which indicates you do not understand

Then what are THE IMAGES WE SEE IF NOT A PROPERTY OF THE SUN ITSELF? DO WE SEE IN THE DARK?

The Lone Ranger · #**12653** 10-18-2011, 02:27 PM

Here's an interesting experiment that's easy to perform.

Here's the reflectance spectrum of a red ball. Note that it reflects red light very well, but that it reflects almost no light in the blue portion of the spectrum. That's why it's a red ball.

Now, picture an enclosed room that has been painted entirely black. We'll tape a piece of perfectly-red paper to one of the walls. (It's "perfectly" red because it will reflect only red light; it absorbs all other visible wavelengths.)

Now turn on a light that emits only light in the red part of the spectrum. Make the light as bright as you like. Can we see the paper?

Now turn off the red light and turn on a light that emits light only in the blue part of the spectrum. The piece of paper has lots of light shining on it, and in a part of the spectrum that we can easily see. Can we see it against the black background? Why or why not?

Note two things: 1.) All of Lessans' conditions are met for seeing the paper.

2.) This experiment has been done. Indeed, you can do it for yourself.

peacegirl · #**12654** 10-18-2011, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Projecting as a form of deflection aka weasel.

davidm is not getting high blood pressure at all, nor is he even angry. He is bemused, peacegirl.

No no no, he is not just bemused, he is fuming, like this. :fuming:

He can't stand that someone would come along and ruin his worldview. I hate to be the one to ruin it for him actually. I feel it's my fault, but I can't worry about David. I have to continue on to prove that Lessans was not a liar.

I have interacted with davidm online for over a decade. He is not fuming

And I don't think anyone thinks Lessans was a liar so much as seriously mistaken. You have been shown to lie for him though

LadyShea, I can only go by his responses, and they are filled with anger.

peacegirl · #**12655** 10-18-2011, 02:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Here's an interesting experiment that's easy to perform.

Here's the reflectance spectrum of a red ball. Note that it reflects red light very well, but that it reflects almost no light in the blue portion of the spectrum. That's why it's a red ball.

Now, picture an enclosed room that has been painted entirely black. We'll tape a piece of perfectly-red paper to one of the walls. (It's "perfectly" red because it will reflect only red light; it absorbs all other visible wavelengths.)

Now turn on a light that emits only light in the red part of the spectrum. Make the light as bright as you like. Can we see the paper?

Now turn off the red light and turn on a light that emits light only in the blue part of the spectrum. The piece of paper has lots of light shining on it, and in a part of the spectrum that we can easily see. Can we see it against the black background? Why or why not?

Note two things: 1.) All of Lessans' conditions are met for seeing the paper.

2.) This experiment has been done. Indeed, you can do it for yourself.

Where does this experiment negate anything Lessans said? Seeing is all about how objects reflect light and which wavelength of light is most prominent. It's a neat experiment but it doesn't prove Lessans wrong in any way.

Lab #7: Analyzing Light: The Spectroscope

LadyShea · #**12656** 10-18-2011, 02:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

1. Wavelengths are not a property of the sun
2. Wavelengths do not produce light
3. The atmosphere doesn't "cause the colors of the visible spectrum"

You keep getting things wrong, which indicates you do not understand

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What the hell are you talking about LadyShea?

I am talking about what light is and how it works, which you seem bound and determined to not understand.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Then what pray tell are THE IMAGES WE SEE IF NOT A PROPERTY OF OF THE SUN ITSELF?

What images are you talking about? What images are a "property of the sun"? Do you even know what a property is?

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

DO WE SEE IN THE DARK?

Humans? No. Our eyes evolved to see light.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I swear to god (may god forgive me for using his name in vain) that I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Please break it down so that a little guy like me can understand.

We have offered you links to information and videos, essays, explanations, and pointed you to pertinent literature. You either cannot comprehend it, or won't try to do so.

Spacemonkey · #**12657** 10-18-2011, 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What the hell are you talking about LadyShea? Then what pray tell are THE IMAGES WE SEE IF NOT A PROPERTY OF OF THE SUN ITSELF? DO WE SEE IN THE DARK?

Is it possible that you don't even understand the difference between X is a property of Y, and X is an effect of Y?

You claimed wavelength was a property of the sun.

That was wrong. Wavelength is a property of light.

LadyShea · #**12658** 10-18-2011, 02:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Projecting as a form of deflection aka weasel.

davidm is not getting high blood pressure at all, nor is he even angry. He is bemused, peacegirl.

No no no, he is not just bemused, he is fuming, like this. :fuming:

He can't stand that someone would come along and ruin his worldview. I hate to be the one to ruin it for him actually. I feel it's my fault, but I can't worry about David. I have to continue on to prove that Lessans was not a liar.

I have interacted with davidm online for over a decade. He is not fuming

And I don't think anyone thinks Lessans was a liar so much as seriously mistaken. You have been shown to lie for him though

LadyShea, I can only go by his responses, and they are filled with anger.

You are interpreting or perceiving anger because of your own neural makeup, he is not expressing anger however. Contempt, bemusement, maybe even disgust at your apparent intellectual dishonesty...not anger

The Lone Ranger · #**12659** 10-18-2011, 02:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

David, why are you so defensive? The truth will come out eventually.

He isn't defensive; he's annoyed. Because the truth has come out. Your dogged refusal to accept reality doesn't change it.

Quote:

Can't we all come together in respect?

You've been anything but respectful toward us.

The Lone Ranger · #**12660** 10-18-2011, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Here's an interesting experiment that's easy to perform.

Here's the reflectance spectrum of a red ball. Note that it reflects red light very well, but that it reflects almost no light in the blue portion of the spectrum. That's why it's a red ball.

Now, picture an enclosed room that has been painted entirely black. We'll tape a piece of perfectly-red paper to one of the walls. (It's "perfectly" red because it will reflect only red light; it absorbs all other visible wavelengths.)

Now turn on a light that emits only light in the red part of the spectrum. Make the light as bright as you like. Can we see the paper?

Now turn off the red light and turn on a light that emits light only in the blue part of the spectrum. The piece of paper has lots of light shining on it, and in a part of the spectrum that we can easily see. Can we see it against the black background? Why or why not?

Note two things: 1.) All of Lessans' conditions are met for seeing the paper.

2.) This experiment has been done. Indeed, you can do it for yourself.

I'm closing my ears for now because you are talking about light, not about objects. It's a cop out and I'm tired of it. I will not try to defend your explanation that has nothing to do with what Lessans meant. It's a convoluted way to prove him wrong, when it has nothing to do with his being wrong.

There is an object. It is fully illuminated, and it's certainly close-enough and large-enough for us to see. All of Lessans' conditions for seeing it are met.

Can we, or can we not see it under the conditions specified?

If I didn't know better, I'd think: :chicken:

LadyShea · #**12661** 10-18-2011, 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Here's an interesting experiment that's easy to perform.

Here's the reflectance spectrum of a red ball. Note that it reflects red light very well, but that it reflects almost no light in the blue portion of the spectrum. That's why it's a red ball.

Now, picture an enclosed room that has been painted entirely black. We'll tape a piece of perfectly-red paper to one of the walls. (It's "perfectly" red because it will reflect only red light; it absorbs all other visible wavelengths.)

Now turn on a light that emits only light in the red part of the spectrum. Make the light as bright as you like. Can we see the paper?

Now turn off the red light and turn on a light that emits light only in the blue part of the spectrum. The piece of paper has lots of light shining on it, and in a part of the spectrum that we can easily see. Can we see it against the black background? Why or why not?

Note two things: 1.) All of Lessans' conditions are met for seeing the paper.

2.) This experiment has been done. Indeed, you can do it for yourself.

I'm closing my ears for now because you are talking about light, not about objects. It's a cop out and I'm tired of it. I will not try to defend your explanation that has nothing to do with what Lessans meant. It's a convoluted way to prove him wrong, when it has nothing to do with his being wrong.

Light, and its properties and how it interacts with matter, is what allows us to visually perceive objects (aka SEE). If you don't understand light, you cannot possibly understand the objections to Lessans ideas, nor will you ever be able to determine if we're wrong or if he was wrong.

davidm · #**12662** 10-18-2011, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Jesus. Fucking. Christ. Click on the four big words below, peacegirl.

Moons of Jupiter, peacegirl

That's it! Lessans' claim is dead!

In effect, he is claiming that while the speed of light is finite, we see objects in real time. So there is some (never, ever explained!) mechanism that allows us to see. He is saying that light is a necessary, but not sufficient component, of sight. The moons of Jupiter is a direct test of this claim.

For simplicity, take just one of the moons: Io. If Lessan were right, then no matter where Io is, realtive to the earth, then when we point a telescope at it, we should see it immediately! It doesn't matter how far or near it is, we would see it immediately. That is Lessans' claim.

His claim is WRONG. See the link!

The fact that the moons were seen at different times than exepcted, demonstrated both the velocity of light and the fact that we see the moons because of the light, in delayed and not real time.

There is literally nothing else to say.

Why even go on with peacegirl? The moons of Jupiter by itself is a direct and incontrovertable refutation of real-time seeing. Case closed! :doh:

David, why are you so defensive? The truth will come out eventually. Can't we all come together in respect? You don't have to defend yourself to such an extent that your anger is literally taking over. I am worried about you because you could get high blood pressure. I'm being very serious. Why would you sacrifice your health for anything? It's not worth it.

The only person here whose health is at risk, is you. Your mental health is very suspect. And your classic Freudian traits of projection are ever on display.

Answer the question, peacegirl. The moons of Jupiter are seen at different times, depending on their position relative to the earth. This directly contradicts Lessans' claim of real-time seeing, while simultanously demonstraing that the speed of light is finite and that we see the light, in delayed time. There is no other possible explanation to be derived from the example of the moons of Jupiter. So what do you do now, peacegirl? How do you explain it? I would like to know how you can go on advocating real-time seeing, now that a simple experiment, which you yourself could carry out, has debunked it?

Your dishonesty is yet again well noted. Do you think it is not transparent? Instead of dealing with the issue at hand, the conclusive refutation of real-time seeing, you switch the subject.

How do you explain the result of the moons of Jupiter, peacegirl, in light of Lessans' claim of real-time seeing? We would all like to know. :popcorn:

davidm · #**12663** 10-18-2011, 02:45 PM

I think a good strategy at this point would be for everyone to ask peacegirl to explain how the findings with respect to the moons of Jupiter are compatible with real-time seeing. They are not compatible, nor can they be made compatible. Real-time seeing is conclusively refuted. I suggest everyone hold peacegirl's feet to the fire on this one point.

peacegirl · #**12664** 10-18-2011, 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Here's an interesting experiment that's easy to perform.

Here's the reflectance spectrum of a red ball. Note that it reflects red light very well, but that it reflects almost no light in the blue portion of the spectrum. That's why it's a red ball.

Now, picture an enclosed room that has been painted entirely black. We'll tape a piece of perfectly-red paper to one of the walls. (It's "perfectly" red because it will reflect only red light; it absorbs all other visible wavelengths.)

Now turn on a light that emits only light in the red part of the spectrum. Make the light as bright as you like. Can we see the paper?

Now turn off the red light and turn on a light that emits light only in the blue part of the spectrum. The piece of paper has lots of light shining on it, and in a part of the spectrum that we can easily see. Can we see it against the black background? Why or why not?

Note two things: 1.) All of Lessans' conditions are met for seeing the paper.

2.) This experiment has been done. Indeed, you can do it for yourself.

Where does this contradict anything I've been saying?

LadyShea · #**12665** 10-18-2011, 02:47 PM

She said she would admit Lessans was wrong if we could show her an image made from the collected light from a subject in direct line with the sensor but not "in view" due to distance

Both of Hubble's deep field images qualify. I would like her to address that as well

peacegirl · #**12666** 10-18-2011, 02:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

I think a good strategy at this point would be for everyone to ask peacegirl to explain how the findings with respect to the moons of Jupiter are compatible with real-time seeing. They are not compatible, nor can they be made compatible. Real-time seeing is conclusively refuted. I suggest everyone hold peacegirl's feet to the fire on this one point.

I agree that this issue has to be resolved, but first we have to see if what Lessans observed is spot on. If it is, then we can worry about the MOONS OF JUPITER.

LadyShea · #**12667** 10-18-2011, 02:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Here's an interesting experiment that's easy to perform.

Here's the reflectance spectrum of a red ball. Note that it reflects red light very well, but that it reflects almost no light in the blue portion of the spectrum. That's why it's a red ball.

Now, picture an enclosed room that has been painted entirely black. We'll tape a piece of perfectly-red paper to one of the walls. (It's "perfectly" red because it will reflect only red light; it absorbs all other visible wavelengths.)

Now turn on a light that emits only light in the red part of the spectrum. Make the light as bright as you like. Can we see the paper?

Now turn off the red light and turn on a light that emits light only in the blue part of the spectrum. The piece of paper has lots of light shining on it, and in a part of the spectrum that we can easily see. Can we see it against the black background? Why or why not?

Note two things: 1.) All of Lessans' conditions are met for seeing the paper.

2.) This experiment has been done. Indeed, you can do it for yourself.

Where does this contradict anything I've been saying?

You would not be able to see the red piece of paper if it was bathed in only blue light...no matter how close, how "in view", or how bright the blue light. This refutes Lessans, because it meets all of his conditions for sight yet you wouldn't see the red paper.

peacegirl · #**12668** 10-18-2011, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

She said she would admit Lessans was wrong if we could show her an image made from the collected light from a subject in direct line with the sensor but not "in view" due to distance

Both of Hubble's deep field images qualify. I would like her to address that as well

For now LadyShea, forget the Hubble Spacecraft. That is meant to sidetrack the issue of efferent vision and I will not allow it. You can talk about it until the cows come home, but I will be relentless in my effort to prove that this observation is unrelated to what Lessans was referring to.

Spacemonkey · #**12669** 10-18-2011, 02:52 PM

I'd like answers to my questions. Preferably consistent ones this time which don't change with every alternate post.

While I'm at it, I'd like a Ferrari and a winning lottery ticket.

peacegirl · #**12670** 10-18-2011, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Here's an interesting experiment that's easy to perform.

Here's the reflectance spectrum of a red ball. Note that it reflects red light very well, but that it reflects almost no light in the blue portion of the spectrum. That's why it's a red ball.

Now, picture an enclosed room that has been painted entirely black. We'll tape a piece of perfectly-red paper to one of the walls. (It's "perfectly" red because it will reflect only red light; it absorbs all other visible wavelengths.)

Now turn on a light that emits only light in the red part of the spectrum. Make the light as bright as you like. Can we see the paper?

Now turn off the red light and turn on a light that emits light only in the blue part of the spectrum. The piece of paper has lots of light shining on it, and in a part of the spectrum that we can easily see. Can we see it against the black background? Why or why not?

Note two things: 1.) All of Lessans' conditions are met for seeing the paper.

2.) This experiment has been done. Indeed, you can do it for yourself.

Where does this contradict anything I've been saying?

You would not be able to see the red piece of paper if it was bathed in only blue light...no matter how close, how "in view", or how bright the blue light. This refutes Lessans, because it meets all of his conditions for sight yet you wouldn't see the red paper.

I told you I refuse to respond unless you respond to Earth experiments. You never responded to the thermal experiment. Maybe I missed it.

LadyShea · #**12671** 10-18-2011, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

I think a good strategy at this point would be for everyone to ask peacegirl to explain how the findings with respect to the moons of Jupiter are compatible with real-time seeing. They are not compatible, nor can they be made compatible. Real-time seeing is conclusively refuted. I suggest everyone hold peacegirl's feet to the fire on this one point.

I agree that this issue has to be resolved, but first we have to see if what Lessans observed is spot on. If it is, then we can worry about the MOONS OF JUPITER.

The moons of Jupiter observation disproves Lessans claims of real time seeing

The Lone Ranger · #**12672** 10-18-2011, 02:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

I think a good strategy at this point would be for everyone to ask peacegirl to explain how the findings with respect to the moons of Jupiter are compatible with real-time seeing. They are not compatible, nor can they be made compatible. Real-time seeing is conclusively refuted. I suggest everyone hold peacegirl's feet to the fire on this one point.

I agree that this issue has to be resolved, but first we have to see if what Lessans observed is spot on. If it is, then we can worry about the MOONS OF JUPITER.

The Moons of Jupiter directly contradict Lessans' "observations." Therefore, it is very much a relevant question, since it directly addresses whether or not Lessans' so-called "observations" were accurate.

peacegirl · #**12673** 10-18-2011, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

I'd like answers to my questions. Preferably consistent ones this time which don't change with every alternate post.

While I'm at it, I'd like a Ferrari and a winning lottery ticket.

Oh my, where did I not answer you. I just took all morning to answer you. Maybe the computer is messed up. That's the only thing I can think of.

Spacemonkey · #**12674** 10-18-2011, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

She said she would admit Lessans was wrong if we could show her an image made from the collected light from a subject in direct line with the sensor but not "in view" due to distance

Both of Hubble's deep field images qualify. I would like her to address that as well

For now LadyShea, forget the Hubble Spacecraft. That is meant to sidetrack the issue of efferent vision and I will not allow it. You can talk about it until the cows come home, but I will be relentless in my effort to prove that this observation is unrelated to what Lessans was referring to.

We should just forget evidence meeting your own conditions for disproving efferent vision, because it would be an irrelevant sidetrack?

LadyShea · #**12675** 10-18-2011, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Here's an interesting experiment that's easy to perform.

Now, picture an enclosed room that has been painted entirely black. We'll tape a piece of perfectly-red paper to one of the walls. (It's "perfectly" red because it will reflect only red light; it absorbs all other visible wavelengths.)

Now turn on a light that emits only light in the red part of the spectrum. Make the light as bright as you like. Can we see the paper?

Now turn off the red light and turn on a light that emits light only in the blue part of the spectrum. The piece of paper has lots of light shining on it, and in a part of the spectrum that we can easily see. Can we see it against the black background? Why or why not?

Note two things: 1.) All of Lessans' conditions are met for seeing the paper.

2.) This experiment has been done. Indeed, you can do it for yourself.

Where does this contradict anything I've been saying?

You would not be able to see the red piece of paper if it was bathed in only blue light...no matter how close, how "in view", or how bright the blue light. This refutes Lessans, because it meets all of his conditions for sight yet you wouldn't see the red paper.

I told you I refuse to respond unless you respond to Earth experiments. You never responded to the thermal experiment. Maybe I missed it.

This is an Earth experiment

Vivisectus responded to the thermal imaging question