A revolution in thought

[But]

Originally Posted by But

Which is it? Can we see aluminium foil in real time, or can we not?

Exactly, why would this be any different from any other object that is interacting with light, like a mirror? Or aluminium foil? Or crumpled aluminium foil? Or glass? Or a white object?

Bump

[davidm]

She is not going to answer these questions. She can't answer them. She's helpless. She's already been "tricked" into admitting that we see reflected light in delayed time. That's the end of her whole game. It not only contradicts Lessans, it contradicts the crap she has been spewing for hundreds of pages. Even if she now tries to salvage this stupidity by admitting that we see reflected light in delayed time but maintaining that we see source light in real time, a wholly asinine position since it is all the same light, she still ends up contradicting Lessans and her earlier arguments. Her crap is finished. There is nothing more to see here, now that she has admitted she is wrong.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Bump

If real time turns out to be true, the type of matter would have nothing to do with this fact, although the type and consistency of the material will have everything to do with the angle and intensity of the non-absorbed light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

She is not going to answer these questions. She can't answer them. She's helpless. She's already been "tricked" into admitting that we see reflected light in delayed time. That's the end of her whole game. It not only contradicts Lessans, it contradicts the crap she has been spewing for hundreds of pages. Even if she now tries to salvage this stupidity by admitting that we see reflected light in delayed time but maintaining that we see source light in real time, a wholly asinine position since it is all the same light, she still ends up contradicting Lessans and her earlier arguments. Her crap is finished. There is nothing more to see here, now that she has admitted she is wrong.

You would love to believe that, wouldn't you? It would free you from having to be here to defend your position. But this isn't a game to be won or lost by a click of a mouse. It is either the truth or it's not, and just because I misunderstood the question is not the deal breaker you thought it was.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If real time turns out to be true, the type of matter would have nothing to do with this fact, although the type and consistency of the material will have everything to do with the angle and intensity of the non-absorbed light.

So you are saying now that regardless of the type of material, we see everything in delayed time?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by davidm

She is not going to answer these questions. She can't answer them. She's helpless. She's already been "tricked" into admitting that we see reflected light in delayed time. That's the end of her whole game. It not only contradicts Lessans, it contradicts the crap she has been spewing for hundreds of pages. Even if she now tries to salvage this stupidity by admitting that we see reflected light in delayed time but maintaining that we see source light in real time, a wholly asinine position since it is all the same light, she still ends up contradicting Lessans and her earlier arguments. Her crap is finished. There is nothing more to see here, now that she has admitted she is wrong.

peacegirl is schizophrenic. Without medication she will always insist that her delusions are real no matter how many times you "trick" her into admitting they are not. The only way to make this over is to stop trying to "trick" her and make this about her illness.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

So you are saying now that regardless of the type of material, we see everything in delayed time?

No, that's not what I'm saying. I have said all along that light is a necessary condition of sight. We can't see anything without light, but the pattern of non-absorbed light does not bounce off of the object and travel through space and time. That doesn't mean the full spectrum of electromagnetic energy isn't traveling.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sincerely sorry.

We all know that you are sorry, it would be nice if you would appologize.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

but the pattern of non-absorbed light does not bounce off of the object and travel through space and time. That doesn't mean the full spectrum of electromagnetic energy isn't traveling.

But we all know that this is wrong, light does reflect off an object and the light is the pattern of the image that travels to the eye or camera. We also know that most light that travels is NOT full spectrum. For example the light reflected from the red ball is composed of red light and does not combine with other light to form 'white light', it remains distinct and can be focused with a lens to form an image of the red ball.

You are welcome in advance for the lesson in reality.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You would love to believe that, wouldn't you? It would free you from having to be here to defend your position. But this isn't a game to be won or lost by a click of a mouse. It is either the truth or it's not, and just because I misunderstood the question is not the deal breaker you thought it was.

You misunderstood the question? A question so simple that an ocelot could understand what was being asked? So now you are back to denying we see reflected light in delayed time? But what about the Fizeau experiment, peacegirl? It proves we see reflected light in delayed time!

You are history. Fork, meet peacegirl.

Buh bye!

You really should see a psychiatrist, if you aren't already.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

You misunderstood the question? A question so simple that an ocelot could understand what was being asked? So now you are back to denying we see reflected light in delayed time? But what about the Fizeau experiment, peacegirl? It proves we see reflected light in delayed time!

We can measure light David by the time it takes to arrive, but this does not prove that the brain interprets objects from this light as it travels to our eyes, nor does it prove that non-absorbed photons are bouncing off of objects and traveling, even though the full spectrum of electro-magnetic energy does travel. I understand that this is still a difficult concept to grasp, but that does not mean it's wrong.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, that's not what I'm saying. I have said all along that light is a necessary condition of sight. We can't see anything without light, but the pattern of non-absorbed light does not bounce off of the object and travel through space and time. That doesn't mean the full spectrum of electromagnetic energy isn't traveling.

Can we see aluminium foil in real time? Can we see a mirror in real time?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I understand that this is still a difficult concept to grasp, but that does not mean it's wrong.

Unfortunately you do not understand many things. And the concept is difficult to grasp precisely because it is wrong.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Unfortunately you do not understand many things. And the concept is difficult to grasp precisely because it is wrong.

Not so much that it is wrong, although it is that, but because it is the incoherent babbling of a schizophrenic. peacegirl has not made much sense since post 1. Get help peacegirl, your condition can be treated.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Not so much that it is wrong, although it is that, but because it is the incoherent babbling of a schizophrenic. peacegirl has not made much sense since post 1. Get help peacegirl, your condition can be treated.

Agreed, The incoherent babbling does not make it right or wrong but it contributes to the confusing nature of an inherently incorrect idea.

'If you can't dazzle them with 'brilliance', baffel them with 'Bull Shit'.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Can we see aluminium foil in real time? Can we see a mirror in real time?

We see everything in real time, if Lessans is right. How can we see in delayed time if we see in real time? The brain doesn't switch back and forth. It's one or the other.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Oh my god. Would you please stop repeating yourself because it doesn't change a thing, especially the truth of how we see.

Sure, I'll stop repeating myself as soon as you answer my questions.


1) Do you accept that you have significant memory impairment?

2) Are you presently in institutional care of any sort?

3) Have you ever been diagnosed or treated for any mental health related condition?

[Spacemonkey]

Peacegirl, in real-time photography, in a scenario involving only an object, a camera, and light (and no eyes, brains, or vision)...

1) You agree that some of the light which hits the object is not absorbed, still exists 0.0001sec after hitting the object, and must have a location at that time. So what is the location of these nonabsorbed photons 0.0001sec after they have hit the object? Are they about 30 meters from the object and traveling away from it at light speed? Yes or No? If no, then where are they located at this time?

2) You agree that there are photons at the camera film (interacting with it to determine the color of the resulting image) when the photograph is taken, that this light also existed 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken, and that it must have had a location at this time. So what is the location of these photons 0.0001sec before they are at the camera film (i.e. 0.0001sec before the photograph is taken)? Were they about 30 meters away from the camera film and traveling towards it at light speed? Yes or No? If no, then were were they located at this time?

[Spacemonkey]

Care to remind us again of how the red photons get to be at the camera film at the very moment the distant object first turns red? Where did you say those same photons where just a moment beforehand?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We can't see anything without light, but the pattern of non-absorbed light does not bounce off of the object and travel through space and time.

Ahem...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

They can't disperse unless they are traveling. And no-one says they travel with a pattern. They travel in a pattern. All this means is that the red photons bounce off the parts of the object that are absorbing all non-red light, while blue photons bounce off the parts of the object that are absorbing all non-blue light. The only way to avoid this reflected non-absorbed light from traveling in this pattern is to either violate the laws of the angle of reflection or have light not moving in straight lines. On your account, what stops the nonabsorbed light from traveling in a pattern such that non-absorbed red photons are traveling in a straight line away from the red parts of the object, while non-absorbed blue photons are traveling in a straight line away from the blue parts of the object?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nothing in my account stops non-absorbed light from traveling in a pattern...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Care to remind us again of how the red photons get to be at the camera film at the very moment the distant object first turns red? Where did you say those same photons where just a moment beforehand?

Please stop Spacemonkey. You don't understand the difference between these two models. You can't go by photons arriving at the eye in this model even though we know light does travel, because that would mean there is a delay in seeing the object. There is no delay in this model. There is no time involved at all. Why can't you wait until further testing either supports his claims or doesn't, instead of making it look like I'm the one with the problem? I don't think there's any progress to be made in continuing this discussion.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please stop Spacemonkey. You don't understand the difference between these two models. You can't go by photons arriving at the eye in this model even though we know light does travel, because that would mean there is a delay in seeing the object. There is no delay in this model. There is no time involved at all. Why can't you wait until further testing either supports his claims or doesn't, instead of making it look like I'm the one with the problem? I don't think there's any progress to be made in continuing this discussion.

Don't be so stupid. YOUR MODEL has light at the film. So YOUR MODEL needs to say where that light previously was. So...

Care to remind us again of how the red photons get to be at the camera film at the very moment the distant object first turns red? Where did you say those same photons where just a moment beforehand?

[Spacemonkey]

1) Do you accept that you have significant memory impairment?

2) Are you presently in institutional care of any sort?

3) Have you ever been diagnosed or treated for any mental health related condition?

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Please stop Spacemonkey. You don't understand the difference between these two models. You can't go by photons arriving at the eye in this model even though we know light does travel, because that would mean there is a delay in seeing the object. There is no delay in this model. There is no time involved at all. Why can't you wait until further testing either supports his claims or doesn't, instead of making it look like I'm the one with the problem? I don't think there's any progress to be made in continuing this discussion.

peacegirl you are the one making it look like you have a problem. Nobody but you is doing this. There is no need to wait for testing. Go to a doctor and get tested. Your condition is treatable.

http://www.schizophrenia.com/index.html

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We see everything in real time, if Lessans is right. How can we see in delayed time if we see in real time? The brain doesn't switch back and forth. It's one or the other.

That's right, it's one or the other. But it isn't real-time seeing, because the Fizeau experiment alone disproves this. The light, the mirror, the reflection of the light in the mirror, none of these things is seen in real time, as I explained to you.