Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
If we had a powerful enough lens we would get an image of the light striking the reflector in 1.3 seconds...
|
But we don't. When we use powerful lenses we still see it after a 1.3sec delay, which is exactly the time speed delay predicted by afferent vision. |
Oh really? Show me the proof. You keep repeating what you think is true, but there should be proof out there, shouldn't there? Why don't they have this on youtube? |
If it hasn't been posted on youtube it must not be real science, obviously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The small reflector package (or mirror) in that video was no larger than 18 square inches. The light that is reflected cannot be seen at that distance even with a powerful telescope.
|
Yet it is. How odd. 
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger
...it's difficult to understand how you couple possibly sound more idiotic and ignorant than you do right now.
|
Give her time, she'll do it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
That's all well and good, but the telescope cannot register reflected light off of a tiny piece of reflective material at a quarter of a million miles away, even if the light is intense. It just won't be seen.
|
Yet it can and it is. How odd. |
I just wanted to see the proof with my own eyes (although that is sometimes misleading). Anyway, the parts of this puzzle were not given to me until I saw the video that David gave me. I have to thank David because you all thought this proved Lessans wrong, and it does no such thing.