A revolution in thought - Page 614

davidm · #**15326** 03-11-2012, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why should we miss the target if we're using the correct calculation to determine its position?

LOL

Just what calculation do you think NASA actually uses to send spacecraft to Mars and other planets? Hmm?

Did you read the thread at the astronomy board that we started for you, that discusses this very topic? No, huh? :giggle:

Just like you didn't read the Lone Ranger's essay on light and sight!

The calculation that NASA ACTUALLY USES is NOT real-time seeing. NASA scientists, who unlike yourself are not brain dead, understand that where we see Mars in the sky from the vantage point of earth is NOT where it ACTUALLY IS, as it would be if real-time seeing is correct. This means they used DELAYED-TIME SEEING, as factored by the speed of light, to carry out their mission calculations. If your father had been right, every single mission to Mars and other planets would miss their target by a wide margin. This is absolute proof that real-time seeing is false.

Now, you are quite dumb, but I don't believe you are so dumb you do not understand what is being told to you here. Even a kindergarten student can see how the above example falsifies what your father said. Since you know this, since you know this simple example disproves Lessans' claims beyond any doubt, you are simply a liar to continue to maintain that what he said was true.

Vivisectus · #**15327** 03-11-2012, 06:20 PM

Another fun fact I just stumbled across: most monitors and TV work at a frequency of about 60 Hz. To us, that makes the image look stable, and movement fluid.

For dogs, the frequency needs to be much higher as they process images faster than we do. What looks like a stable image to us, is flickery and unreal to them, and movement very jerky.

thedoc · #**15328** 03-11-2012, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That makes sense to me. Neutrinos are a warning that a Supernova is about to happen. Why does that mean we couldn't be seeing it in real time with powerful telescopes?

We do NOT SEE NEUTRINOS so vision plays no part in detecting them. Neutrinos are very hard to detect because they do not interact very much with anything. But light is detected by the eyes, so vision and seeing is very much a part of detecting the visible supernova explosion. Which followes the Neutrino burst for close stars but precedes the neutronos for stars farther away.

Peacegirl, do you think that if we listened hard enough we could count the seconds from the time we see the supernova to the time we heard the explosion to tell how far away it was?

Bump please.

thedoc · #**15329** 03-11-2012, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Another fun fact I just stumbled across: most monitors and TV work at a frequency of about 60 Hz. To us, that makes the image look stable, and movement fluid.

For dogs, the frequency needs to be much higher as they process images faster than we do. What looks like a stable image to us, is flickery and unreal to them, and movement very jerky.

Another reason dogs will not respond to a TV picture but will recognize a photograph.

peacegirl · #**15330** 03-11-2012, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Another fun fact I just stumbled across: most monitors and TV work at a frequency of about 60 Hz. To us, that makes the image look stable, and movement fluid.

For dogs, the frequency needs to be much higher as they process images faster than we do. What looks like a stable image to us, is flickery and unreal to them, and movement very jerky.

Good try Vivisectus. So let's go back to pictures.

davidm · #**15331** 03-11-2012, 08:08 PM

Could someone quote this in case she currently has me on pretend ignore? I want no chance to be missed to rub her snout in the offal of her own malignant dishonesty. :yup:

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why should we miss the target if we're using the correct calculation to determine its position?

LOL

Just what calculation do you think NASA actually uses to send spacecraft to Mars and other planets? Hmm?

Did you read the thread at the astronomy board that we started for you, that discusses this very topic? No, huh? :giggle:

Just like you didn't read the Lone Ranger's essay on light and sight!

The calculation that NASA ACTUALLY USES is NOT real-time seeing. NASA scientists, who unlike yourself are not brain dead, understand that where we see Mars in the sky from the vantage point of earth is NOT where it ACTUALLY IS, as it would be if real-time seeing is correct. This means they used DELAYED-TIME SEEING, as factored by the speed of light, to carry out their mission calculations. If your father had been right, every single mission to Mars and other planets would miss their target by a wide margin. This is absolute proof that real-time seeing is false.

Now, you are quite dumb, but I don't believe you are so dumb you do not understand what is being told to you here. Even a kindergarten student can see how the above example falsifies what your father said. Since you know this, since you know this simple example disproves Lessans' claims beyond any doubt, you are simply a liar to continue to maintain that what he said was true.

davidm · #**15332** 03-11-2012, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Another fun fact I just stumbled across: most monitors and TV work at a frequency of about 60 Hz. To us, that makes the image look stable, and movement fluid.

For dogs, the frequency needs to be much higher as they process images faster than we do. What looks like a stable image to us, is flickery and unreal to them, and movement very jerky.

And this frequency theory of dogs is what you are basing the truth on?

LOL no, unlike you, is basing the truth on multiple examples, experiments and independent lines of evidence that show the same thing, and not on a big stupid book that your big dumb daddy scribbled.

Spacemonkey · #**15333** 03-11-2012, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Not really. If Romer miscalculated the speed of light thinking that this delay was accurate, then scientists are just putting his mis-calculation back into the equation. So it wouldn't surprise me at all if they use the time-light delay and are in the right position.

That doesn't work. And this has been explained to you before. We observe the planet and conclude that its real position is further along its path than its apparent position due to the time it takes for the light from it to arrive. We therefore aim for a point further along that path than we otherwise would, including this calculated time delay due to the speed of light in addition to the expected further travel of the planet. For us to still hit the planet if we see in real-time, given our estimate of the speed of the planet and its distance of further travel to be accurate, then the correct measurement of the speed of light would have to be infinite. So the speed of light can be as wrong as you want, but as long as it is finite the calculation for the speed of the planet and its consequent further travel time would have to be off as well. And this differs for each planet we have sent spacecraft too. So it would have to be the case that we have made a different miscalculation in every single case, which by an astronomically improbable coincidence always happened to exactly match the light's travel time which will also have been different in each case.

So for two different variables (i.e. how far away the target planet is, and how fast it is moving) which vary in completely unrelated ways, you have a whole group of scientists consistently making independent calculation errors, whereby (and for any given error for the speed of light) the error on the second variable just so happens to have always been matched by the value of the first variable. This is not just one massive coincidence, but a whole series of massive coincidences which by a further massive coincidence just so happen to coincide.

In short, your suggestion is completely ridiculous.

Yes, it is ridiculous coming from your reasoning. This is no surprise at all, and unless you stop calling Lessans names becasue you're frustrated, the truth will never be known in this thread. You are not the end all of truth Spacemonkey. Eventually, the truth will come out because it does not violate the laws of phsyics, as you vehemently believe.

Can't address the point, can you? Your response to how we calculate trajectories without missing planets does not work. It is not a simple matter of adding a miscalculation back into the equation. That is not how it works.

peacegirl · #**15334** 03-11-2012, 08:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I did not make that up. So if that wasn't the answer, then give me the answer as to why we cannot get an image of a person (a real human being with substance) when he steps out of visual range but he is in a straight line with the observer. According to the current belief, the person should be reflecting said light toward the film/retina, and we should get an image. Tell me why we don't. The inverse square law isn't the reason because the person isn't that far from the observer to be the cause.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angagkuk

How far is "that far"? In other words, how do you, peacegirl, go about calculating, for any particular object, how far it needs to be from the observer before it is "too far" away for its image to be resolved by the film/retina? Additionally, if the non-absorbed photons do not bounce/reflect off the object then why and how is their subsequent activity governed by the inverse square law, a law that applies specifically to movement of photons?

I already went over this. The field of view is what is capable of being seen, even if it's magnified. Too far means that the object is too small or too dim to see by the lens. If a telescope is used, it will still meet the definition of "in range", therefore the inverse square law works regardless of how far away an object is. In efferent vision, light energy continues to flow, but the non-absorbed light does not travel and get carried along through time and space. It fades the farther away it gets from the object. Ladyshea asked, where does it go? It joins the other light in the visible spectrum. It does not bounce off of another object and continue with that wavelength light. I asked this question earlier: if the blue light is traveling through space and time (as believed) and strikes a tree, how does the tree show up as green if there is no green in that light? Does that mean light from all different sources is striking the tree? Occam's razor would say the simplest explanation is probably the right explanation, and this explanation is definitely simpler.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Science's present account is no more circumstantial than Lessans' account when it comes to whether we see afferently or efferently.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Indeed, the scientific account is considerably less circumstantial than Lessans' account. You at least got that much right, apparently by accident.

I didn't mean to imply that Lessans' account was actually circumstantial; I was using it to compare the two accounts.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not logic at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Again, you got that right. Neither you or Lessans' employ logic in any recognizable fashion.

You're right. He employed undeniable reasoning based on astute observation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Where do the old, non-absorbed photons go? What do they do?

They get spread out the farther away they are from the object until there is no more (P) light, which means that white light is left to travel on indefinitely.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You say there are "new" photons replacing them, but the ones that have been replaced have to be somewhere, they have to have some location.

What is that location? Where do the "new" replacement photons come from, and where do they go?

They are somewhere, they get spread out until they no longer reveal the object at that distance. These photons do not bounce and travel, therefore when they fade out (which means they are not resolved on the film/retina), white light continues on.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Please explain how it is that the photons in your (P) light manage to accomplish this movement away from an object which causes them to spread out if they have not bounced/reflected off that same object. How, exactly, are they propelled away from the object?

Because light energy continues to flow as it gets absorbed. The remaining non-absorbed light gets spread out, but it doesn't bounce and travel long distances. These are two different things.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Please take note of the fact that I am asking you questions, not making any claims of my own.

Fine.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are still confused. These photons are not traveling. White light is traveling. The object is revealing, therefore these photons do not continue. The light fades out when the object cannot be seen. Do you see what you're doing LadyShea? You are saying that this light cannot fade out because light continues on. That is true, but it's white light that continues on, not P light.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Same question as above. If the photons that make up the (P) light are not traveling, why do they "fade out" and why is distance a factor in this "fading"?

To repeat: White light is traveling so when it passes over or strikes an object, only part of the spectrum is seen because of absorption, but as soon as it gets too far away from the object, the full spectrum appears once again. The inverse square law still applies and actually supports efferent vision since we would not be able to see the object once it is out of range even when it's in a straight line with the lens.

Spacemonkey · #**15335** 03-11-2012, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is the last time I'm going to answer you on this question.

You haven't answered it at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light didn't have to get there.

Unless they were always at the film, or came into existence at the film, then they did have to get there.

Did these photons at the film previously exist? If not, then you have them magically coming into existence at the film.

If so, then was their previous location ever different (i.e. other than at the film)? If not, then you have stationary photons again which have always been in the same location.

If so, then you have photons which were once at point A and are now at point B. That means they had to get there somehow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The eyes were able to see the object...

Wrong. There are no eyes involved in the scenario at all. Only an object, a camera, and light.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sorry Spacemonkey if you don't understand, but I'm tired of trying to show you that the object, being in the field of view of the eyes or camera, is what allows this phenomenon to occur and has nothing to do with teleportation, or the need to travel to Earth first.

You mean you're tired of having to weasel out of simple questions that you cannot answer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why do you think he wrote this:

If I couldn’t see you standing right
next to me because we were living in total darkness since the sun had
not yet been turned on but God was scheduled to flip the switch at 12
noon, we would be able to see the sun instantly — at that very
moment — although we would not be able to see each other for 8
minutes afterwards. The sun at 12 noon would look exactly like a
large star; the only difference being that in 8 minutes we would have
light with which to see each other, but the stars are so far away that
their light diminishes before it gets to us.

Because he was a raving idiot who had no idea what he was talking about.

I have no desire to talk to you further. You blew it.

I suggest then that you don't ask questions for which you do not want to hear the answers. You asked me why I thought Lessans wrote what he did. I gave you my honest answer. I'm not going to lie to you to protect your feelings.

In the meantime, my point stands. You still cannot answer simple questions about your own model. You are positing photons at the film but cannot explain how they got there. Your claim that they don't have to get there doesn't work, unless you are prepared to accept either stationary photons or photons that pop into existence at the film from nowhere. So...

How did the photons comprising that mirror image at the film get to the film, if they didn't travel there and didn't teleport there?

Spacemonkey · #**15336** 03-11-2012, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So you have photons at the film when the photograph is taken. How did they get there? [Answer goes here]

Did they exist, say, 10 seconds ago? [Yes or No]

[If Yes, then...] Where were those photons then? [State a location]

How did they get from wherever they were 10 seconds ago to the film where they are now? [Answer goes here]

What does happen to the non-absorbed photons hitting the object if they don't bounce off and travel away? ((P)reflection isn't an answer - you need to explain what happens to the (P)reflected photons by specifying their location and behavior after they hit the object.)

2nd bump.

davidm · #**15337** 03-11-2012, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why do you think he wrote this:

If I couldn’t see you standing right
next to me because we were living in total darkness since the sun had
not yet been turned on but God was scheduled to flip the switch at 12
noon, we would be able to see the sun instantly — at that very
moment — although we would not be able to see each other for 8
minutes afterwards. The sun at 12 noon would look exactly like a
large star; the only difference being that in 8 minutes we would have
light with which to see each other, but the stars are so far away that
their light diminishes before it gets to us.

Priceless, isn't it?

She's asking us why we think he wrote that? What the hell does she think we are going to say? "Oh, peacegirl, I guess he wrote it because it's true, since anything Lessans wrote was right because he wrote it!" :derp:

He wrote it because he was a fool.

Spacemonkey · #**15338** 03-11-2012, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not logic at all.

Again, you got that right. Neither you or Lessans' employ logic in any recognizable fashion.

You're right. He employed undeniable reasoning based on astute observation.

Undeniable reasoning just is logical reasoning (from true premises). It is not possible to employ undeniable reasoning without using logic. Logic is a good thing. Sound reasoning requires its use.

And as well as being contradictory, this is still just a faith claim from you. Lessans did not employ "undeniable reasoning based on astute observation". As everyone has shown, he employed fallacious reasoning based on faulty assumptions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They are somewhere, they get spread out until they no longer reveal the object at that distance. These photons do not bounce and travel, therefore when they fade out (which means they are not resolved on the film/retina), white light continues on.

The remaining non-absorbed light gets spread out, but it doesn't bounce and travel long distances. These are two different things.

To repeat: White light is traveling so when it passes over or strikes an object, only part of the spectrum is seen because of absorption, but as soon as it gets too far away from the object, the full spectrum appears once again.

More contradictions. You agree that the light strikes the object. You agree that it then travels away from the object. But you deny that it has bounced off that object. But "bounce" just means to strike the object and then travel away from it.

The word 'bounce' is not a complicated technical term. We have used it precisely because you couldn't understand what 'reflect' means. But your responses show that you can't even understand what 'bounce' means either.

Spacemonkey · #**15339** 03-11-2012, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why do you think he wrote this:

If I couldn’t see you standing right
next to me because we were living in total darkness since the sun had
not yet been turned on but God was scheduled to flip the switch at 12
noon, we would be able to see the sun instantly — at that very
moment — although we would not be able to see each other for 8
minutes afterwards. The sun at 12 noon would look exactly like a
large star; the only difference being that in 8 minutes we would have
light with which to see each other, but the stars are so far away that
their light diminishes before it gets to us.

Priceless, isn't it?

She's asking us why we think he wrote that? What the hell does she think we are going to say? "Oh, peacegirl, I guess he wrote it because it's true, since anything Lessans wrote was right because he wrote it!" :derp:

He wrote it because he was a fool.

Makes you wonder why she would ask such a question. My guess is that she was fishing for negative comments about Lessans that she could then use as an excuse for more dishonest weaseling and avoidance of questions.

Vivisectus · #**15340** 03-11-2012, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Another fun fact I just stumbled across: most monitors and TV work at a frequency of about 60 Hz. To us, that makes the image look stable, and movement fluid.

For dogs, the frequency needs to be much higher as they process images faster than we do. What looks like a stable image to us, is flickery and unreal to them, and movement very jerky.

And this frequency theory of dogs is what you are basing the truth on?

Merely an interesting fact to add to what we already know. Apparently dogs pay a lot more attention to TV and monitor images if you double the frequency.

thedoc · #**15341** 03-11-2012, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Could someone quote this in case she currently has me on pretend ignore? I want no chance to be missed to rub her snout in the offal of her own malignant dishonesty. :yup:

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why should we miss the target if we're using the correct calculation to determine its position?

LOL

Just what calculation do you think NASA actually uses to send spacecraft to Mars and other planets? Hmm?

Did you read the thread at the astronomy board that we started for you, that discusses this very topic? No, huh? :giggle:

Just like you didn't read the Lone Ranger's essay on light and sight!

The calculation that NASA ACTUALLY USES is NOT real-time seeing. NASA scientists, who unlike yourself are not brain dead, understand that where we see Mars in the sky from the vantage point of earth is NOT where it ACTUALLY IS, as it would be if real-time seeing is correct. This means they used DELAYED-TIME SEEING, as factored by the speed of light, to carry out their mission calculations. If your father had been right, every single mission to Mars and other planets would miss their target by a wide margin. This is absolute proof that real-time seeing is false.

Now, you are quite dumb, but I don't believe you are so dumb you do not understand what is being told to you here. Even a kindergarten student can see how the above example falsifies what your father said. Since you know this, since you know this simple example disproves Lessans' claims beyond any doubt, you are simply a liar to continue to maintain that what he said was true.

For all the good it will do? But those of us on 'Ignore Island' need to stick together.

peacegirl · #**15342** 03-11-2012, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is the last time I'm going to answer you on this question.

You haven't answered it at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light didn't have to get there.

Unless they were always at the film, or came into existence at the film, then they did have to get there.

Did these photons at the film previously exist? If not, then you have them magically coming into existence at the film.

If so, then was their previous location ever different (i.e. other than at the film)? If not, then you have stationary photons again which have always been in the same location.

If so, then you have photons which were once at point A and are now at point B. That means they had to get there somehow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The eyes were able to see the object...

Wrong. There are no eyes involved in the scenario at all. Only an object, a camera, and light.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sorry Spacemonkey if you don't understand, but I'm tired of trying to show you that the object, being in the field of view of the eyes or camera, is what allows this phenomenon to occur and has nothing to do with teleportation, or the need to travel to Earth first.

You mean you're tired of having to weasel out of simple questions that you cannot answer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why do you think he wrote this:

If I couldn’t see you standing right
next to me because we were living in total darkness since the sun had
not yet been turned on but God was scheduled to flip the switch at 12
noon, we would be able to see the sun instantly — at that very
moment — although we would not be able to see each other for 8
minutes afterwards. The sun at 12 noon would look exactly like a
large star; the only difference being that in 8 minutes we would have
light with which to see each other, but the stars are so far away that
their light diminishes before it gets to us.

Because he was a raving idiot who had no idea what he was talking about.

I have no desire to talk to you further. You blew it.

I suggest then that you don't ask questions for which you do not want to hear the answers. You asked me why I thought Lessans wrote what he did. I gave you my honest answer. I'm not going to lie to you to protect your feelings.

In the meantime, my point stands. You still cannot answer simple questions about your own model. You are positing photons at the film but cannot explain how they got there. Your claim that they don't have to get there doesn't work, unless you are prepared to accept either stationary photons or photons that pop into existence at the film from nowhere. So...

How did the photons comprising that mirror image at the film get to the film, if they didn't travel there and didn't teleport there?

If you can't control yourself, I'm not going to talk to you.

Spacemonkey · #**15343** 03-11-2012, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...the non-absorbed light does not travel and get carried along through time and space. It fades the farther away it gets from the object.

Contradiction. Something that is allegedly not traveling away from the object cannot get further away from it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I asked this question earlier: if the blue light is traveling through space and time (as believed) and strikes a tree, how does the tree show up as green if there is no green in that light?

And this question was answered for you when you earlier asked it. Have you forgotten the answer already? If only blue light is striking a purely green tree (such that here is no overlap between the range of wavelengths that are hitting the tree and those that the tree does not absorb) then you won't see the tree. You will only be able to see the tree if there is other additional light striking the tree, which that tree is not absorbing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Does that mean light from all different sources is striking the tree?

If you can see the tree, then there must be light from another source striking the tree, yes. You cannot see an object when the only light hitting it is getting absorbed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Occam's razor would say the simplest explanation is probably the right explanation, and this explanation is definitely simpler.

The simplest explanation is the one you've been given. You don't even have a coherent alternative.

Spacemonkey · #**15344** 03-11-2012, 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you can't control yourself, I'm not going to talk to you.

If you don't want to hear why I think Lessans wrote what he did, then don't ask me to tell you.

In the meantime, my point stands. You still cannot answer simple questions about your own model. You are positing photons at the film but cannot explain how they got there. Your claim that they don't have to get there doesn't work, unless you are prepared to accept either stationary photons or photons that pop into existence at the film from nowhere. So...

How did the photons comprising that mirror image at the film get to the film, if they didn't travel there and didn't teleport there?

You can't answer this question at all, can you?

And because you can't admit this, your only option is more dishonest weaseling and evasion.

davidm · #**15345** 03-11-2012, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is the last time I'm going to answer you on this question.

You haven't answered it at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light didn't have to get there.

Unless they were always at the film, or came into existence at the film, then they did have to get there.

Did these photons at the film previously exist? If not, then you have them magically coming into existence at the film.

If so, then was their previous location ever different (i.e. other than at the film)? If not, then you have stationary photons again which have always been in the same location.

If so, then you have photons which were once at point A and are now at point B. That means they had to get there somehow.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The eyes were able to see the object...

Wrong. There are no eyes involved in the scenario at all. Only an object, a camera, and light.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sorry Spacemonkey if you don't understand, but I'm tired of trying to show you that the object, being in the field of view of the eyes or camera, is what allows this phenomenon to occur and has nothing to do with teleportation, or the need to travel to Earth first.

You mean you're tired of having to weasel out of simple questions that you cannot answer.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why do you think he wrote this:

If I couldn’t see you standing right
next to me because we were living in total darkness since the sun had
not yet been turned on but God was scheduled to flip the switch at 12
noon, we would be able to see the sun instantly — at that very
moment — although we would not be able to see each other for 8
minutes afterwards. The sun at 12 noon would look exactly like a
large star; the only difference being that in 8 minutes we would have
light with which to see each other, but the stars are so far away that
their light diminishes before it gets to us.

Because he was a raving idiot who had no idea what he was talking about.

I have no desire to talk to you further. You blew it.

I suggest then that you don't ask questions for which you do not want to hear the answers. You asked me why I thought Lessans wrote what he did. I gave you my honest answer. I'm not going to lie to you to protect your feelings.

In the meantime, my point stands. You still cannot answer simple questions about your own model. You are positing photons at the film but cannot explain how they got there. Your claim that they don't have to get there doesn't work, unless you are prepared to accept either stationary photons or photons that pop into existence at the film from nowhere. So...

How did the photons comprising that mirror image at the film get to the film, if they didn't travel there and didn't teleport there?

If you can't control yourself, I'm not going to talk to you.

Translation: "If you can't stop asking questions that expose me and Lessans as a couple of utter boneheds, I'm not going to talk to you." :derp:

LadyShea · #**15346** 03-11-2012, 11:18 PM

Quote:

I asked this question earlier: if the blue light is traveling through space and time (as believed) and strikes a tree, how does the tree show up as green if there is no green in that light? Does that mean light from all different sources is striking the tree? Occam's razor would say the simplest explanation is probably the right explanation, and this explanation is definitely simpler.

I answered, and it's so simple I can't imagine what part is confusing to you.

All light of all wavelengths, blue, green, red, etc. always travels in a straight line. When light encounters matter it is either absorbed (and transformed so no longer light), reflected, or transmitted, with or without refraction. If it is reflected it travels in a straight line in another direction (determined by angles).

Your dad was a pool player, right? Imagine breaking the balls, you have balls going in straight lines in different directions. Some hit the side and reflect and travel in a new direction. Some go in a pocket and are no longer on the table (like absorption). This is not unlike photons. Imagine a pool table with billions and billions of tiny little balls.

Tree leaves absorb blue wavelength light, so if the blue wavelength that reflected off a blue object a few minutes ago, then encounters a leaf it will be absorbed. The blue light is not the ONLY light hitting that leaf, there is light previously reflected coming in from other directions, direct and indirect sunlight. Photons of all wavelenghts are zooming everywhere all the time.

thedoc · #**15347** 03-11-2012, 11:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you can't control yourself, I'm not going to talk to you.

Yes Spacemonkey, don't you know that you shouldn't ask questions that Peacegirl can't answer or that expose her's and Lessans ignorance?

Spacemonkey · #**15348** 03-11-2012, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you can't control yourself, I'm not going to talk to you.

Yes Spacemonkey, don't you know that you shouldn't ask questions that Peacegirl can't answer or that expose her's and Lessans ignorance?

Indeed. Otherwise she'll ignore my questions instead of just not answering them.

thedoc · #**15349** 03-11-2012, 11:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by thedoc

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you can't control yourself, I'm not going to talk to you.

Yes Spacemonkey, don't you know that you shouldn't ask questions that Peacegirl can't answer or that expose her's and Lessans ignorance?

Indeed. Otherwise she'll ignore my questions instead of just not answering them.

What's the difference, you get no response either way? But in reality she has no coherent response, just nonsense.

thedoc · #**15350** 03-11-2012, 11:58 PM

Well, enough of this frivolity and mirth, it's back to the Piano. I was playing the first movement of 'Moonlight Sonata' and totally blanked out at the last 2 measures, got to work on that.