A revolution in thought - Page 1559

peacegirl · #**38951** 07-26-2014, 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We can only see that which light is capable of revealing (i.e., material substance). :doh:

So what is being 'revealed' when we see the laser spot appear on the moon?

The light, what else?

peacegirl · #**38952** 07-26-2014, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Spacemonkey, let up okay? You have no idea how knowledgeable this man was...

Actually, I do. You don't because you still think he was knowledgeable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These words have hurt people because they stratisfy us into layers of value. That's why people compete so desperately to be smarter or more beautiful than the next person because they believe this gives them greater value as individuals. This all comes from the belief that this intelligence, this beauty, cannot be denied because it is part of the real world, which it isn't.

Again, words can condition us regardless of how we see.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You haven't taken the time to analyze this knowledge at all, you were too anxious to discredit it. I hope you one day take the time to actually study it. You will be pleasantly surprised as to its authenticity.

But I have taken the time to study it. That's how I know it to be worthless nonsense.

You have absolutely no conception of what you're talking about Spacemonkey. You have not taken the time to study it. You are a big bullshitter of the worst kind. Tell me what his explanation is without resorting to the book, since you know all about it? Come on, I dare you!

Spacemonkey · #**38953** 07-26-2014, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's because light does not reveal itself!

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

So what is being 'revealed' when we see the laser spot appear on the moon?

The light, what else?

LadyShea · #**38954** 07-26-2014, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Wow. Did I nail it, or what?

By the way, you may recall that light always moves at a constant speed (called, conveniently enough, "the speed of light"), and doesn't linger at sensors, waiting for us to process what we've just seen.

I didn't mean that, but the laser would still be shining on the sensor unless it was removed the second the light arrived.

It's sent out in a pulse, it is not left on. Once again refuting one of your statements...or did you retract your claim that light doesn't travel independently of its source?

So how can a *#$( pulse tell us anything. Are you depending on someone's sight to give us this information? We can't even decipher all kinds of images due to illusions, and yet you think this is an accurate test? I don't think so.

ROFL, you don't understand the first thing about how your own model could possibly work, let alone the standard model. 2 reasonably bright children can use light pulses to send messages in Morse Code, so pulses aren't anything weird that can't tell us anything, first of all. Secondly, no, we are not depending on anyone's sight, we depend on state of the art photo receivers and atomic clocks, remember?

This issue is the failure of Lessans ideas every, single time, peacegirl. The other "discoveries" are at least philosophical or psychological in nature, so can't be so easily disproven. Nobody will care about them, though, once they get a load of the efferent vision crap.

peacegirl · #**38955** 07-26-2014, 01:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nothing is being revealed if it's just light. We would be tracking the light and we all know light travels. If there is no matter for light to reveal, we won't get an image in real time.

There is matter for the light to reveal. There is the reflector on the moon. It is revealed more brightly when the additional laser light begins to hit it. Only we see this in delayed time, rather than when it is actually happening.

Keep telling yourself this, maybe you will talk yourself into it. :laugh:

Spacemonkey · #**38956** 07-26-2014, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You have absolutely no conception of what you're talking about Spacemonkey. You have not taken the time to study it. You are a big bullshitter of the worst kind. Tell me what his explanation is without resorting to the book, since you know all about it? Come on, I dare you!

You're just trying to change the subject again, weasel. If you can answer my questions without contradicting yourself, retracting your answers, or talking about completely different photons then I will do this for you.

Spacemonkey · #**38957** 07-26-2014, 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

There is matter for the light to reveal. There is the reflector on the moon. It is revealed more brightly when the additional laser light begins to hit it. Only we see this in delayed time, rather than when it is actually happening.

Keep telling yourself this, maybe you will talk yourself into it. :laugh:

What part of what I said do you disagree with, weasel?

peacegirl · #**38958** 07-26-2014, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Wow. Did I nail it, or what?

By the way, you may recall that light always moves at a constant speed (called, conveniently enough, "the speed of light"), and doesn't linger at sensors, waiting for us to process what we've just seen.

I didn't mean that, but the laser would still be shining on the sensor unless it was removed the second the light arrived.

It's sent out in a pulse, it is not left on. Once again refuting one of your statements...or did you retract your claim that light doesn't travel independently of its source?

So how can a *#$( pulse tell us anything. Are you depending on someone's sight to give us this information? We can't even decipher all kinds of images due to illusions, and yet you think this is an accurate test? I don't think so.

ROFL, you don't understand the first thing about how your own model could possibly work, let alone the standard model. 2 reasonably bright children can use light pulses to send messages in Morse Code, so pulses aren't anything weird that can't tell us anything, first of all. Secondly, no, we are not depending on anyone's sight, we depend on state of the art photo receivers and atomic clocks, remember?

This issue is the failure of Lessans ideas every, single time, peacegirl. The other "discoveries" are at least philosophical or psychological in nature, so can't be so easily disproven. Nobody will care about them, though, once they get a load of the efferent vision crap.

This vision stuff is not crap just because LadyShea says it is. And one discovery has nothing to do with the other. His first discovery is not philosophical, it's factual. It can't be disproven because it's factual. :laugh:

peacegirl · #**38959** 07-26-2014, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you are seeing something, then the light is interacting with something in the atmosphere, otherwise it's just plain old light coming from a laser or any light source.

But we aren't seeing light in the atmosphere. We are seeing the laser light at the moon's surface.

In real time! Didn't you just say that we don't see the laser light at the moon's surface? Don't reply.

peacegirl · #**38960** 07-26-2014, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Wow. Did I nail it, or what?

By the way, you may recall that light always moves at a constant speed (called, conveniently enough, "the speed of light"), and doesn't linger at sensors, waiting for us to process what we've just seen.

I didn't mean that, but the laser would still be shining on the sensor unless it was removed the second the light arrived.

It's sent out in a pulse, it is not left on. Once again refuting one of your statements...or did you retract your claim that light doesn't travel independently of its source?

Pulses don't carry wavelengths that bring information to the eye to be converted into an image, and if that's what you think, you're wrong, but who am I to tell you you're wrong. That's what hubris does to people; it makes them full of themselves. This stops progress.

Spacemonkey · #**38961** 07-26-2014, 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you are seeing something, then the light is interacting with something in the atmosphere, otherwise it's just plain old light coming from a laser or any light source.

But we aren't seeing light in the atmosphere. We are seeing the laser light at the moon's surface.

In real time! Didn't you just say that we don't see the laser light at the moon's surface? Don't reply.

I will reply. No, I did not just say that. And no, we do not see it in real time. The laser light illuminates the reflector when it hits it, i.e. 1.3sec after being switched on. But we only see it 2.6sec after it is switched on. That is not real time, Dingbat.

Spacemonkey · #**38962** 07-26-2014, 02:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Pulses don't carry wavelengths that bring information to the eye to be converted into an image...

What on Earth do you think a pulse is? Or a wavelength, for that matter? (And no, that wasn't a request for you to go Googling to cut-and-paste a response you don't understand.)

peacegirl · #**38963** 07-26-2014, 02:47 PM

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?

peacegirl · #**38964** 07-26-2014, 02:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you are seeing something, then the light is interacting with something in the atmosphere, otherwise it's just plain old light coming from a laser or any light source.

But we aren't seeing light in the atmosphere. We are seeing the laser light at the moon's surface.

In real time! Didn't you just say that we don't see the laser light at the moon's surface? Don't reply.

I will reply. No, I did not just say that. And no, we do not see it in real time. The laser light illuminates the reflector when it hits it, i.e. 1.3sec after being switched on. But we only see it 2.6sec after it is switched on. That is not real time, Dingbat.

You are such a bully. I refuse to continue this conversation with you. You are too invested in being right at all costs. BULLY!

Spacemonkey · #**38965** 07-26-2014, 02:57 PM

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 be? Why don't they have this on youtube?

Have you tried LOOKING on Youtube?

Spacemonkey · #**38966** 07-26-2014, 02:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are such a bully. I refuse to continue this conversation with you. You are too invested in being right at all costs. BULLY!

Oh, you poor perpetual victim! Grow up, Peacegirl.

davidm · #**38967** 07-26-2014, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are such a bully. I refuse to continue this conversation with you. You are too invested in being right at all costs. BULLY!

davidm · #**38968** 07-26-2014, 04:24 PM

davidm · #**38969** 07-26-2014, 04:36 PM

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 be? Why don't they have this on youtube?

Proof by youtube! Yeah, that's science!

Probably, though, it IS on youtube! It's also all over the goddamned Internet and in books scattered throughout the world, you dishonest, whining little snot. Why don't you go to school and learn something? Or how about you contact NASA about this experiment and ask them to explain it to you? Want us to ask for you? :lol:

davidm · #**38970** 07-26-2014, 04:38 PM

Here ya go, dumbass -- YouTube!

peacegirl · #**38971** 07-26-2014, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's because light does not reveal itself!

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

So what is being 'revealed' when we see the laser spot appear on the moon?

The light, what else?

There is nothing being revealed; we see the laser spot as it is being reflected back to Earth. That's what I meant. I still don't think it would be possible to see this light because it's too far away and the reflector is too small. We're talking about a quarter of a million miles away. Even the Hubble cannot resolve a small artifact let alone a dot of light no matter how bright that dot is.

peacegirl · #**38972** 07-26-2014, 05:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Here ya go, dumbass -- YouTube!

The reflector is 18 inches square at almost a quarter million miles away, and you expect someone to be able to see this reflection when a powerful telescope can't? It's not that the light can't be seen in real time; it's that the light is too far away to be resolved.

The Lone Ranger · #**38973** 07-26-2014, 05:36 PM

Really? That is what you're claiming now?

The Palomar Telescope is theoretically capable of detecting the light output of a single candle at the distance of the Moon -- even through the Earth's atmosphere. Detecting laser light reflected from the Moon's surface is no big deal. These aren't cheap laser pointers we're talking about; we're talking about big, powerful, very bright laser emitters.

peacegirl · #**38974** 07-26-2014, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Wow. Did I nail it, or what?

By the way, you may recall that light always moves at a constant speed (called, conveniently enough, "the speed of light"), and doesn't linger at sensors, waiting for us to process what we've just seen.

Forget what I said, it didn't come out right. :innocent:

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

By the way, since we use this same technique to measure the distance to the Moon, you do realize that if Lessans is correct, then our measurements of the Moon's distance are off by a factor of 2. Funny, you'd think the Apollo astronauts would have noticed that ...

Why? I didn't say it would take 1.3 seconds for a round trip, only one way, so how would that compute to being off by a factor of 2. None of these measurements using the speed of light are even being disputed.

peacegirl · #**38975** 07-26-2014, 05:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Really? That is what you're claiming now?

The Palomar Telescope is theoretically capable of detecting the light output of a single candle at the distance of the Moon -- even through the Earth's atmosphere. Detecting laser light reflected from the Moon's surface is no big deal. These aren't cheap laser pointers we're talking about; we're talking about big, powerful, very bright laser emitters.

That's not what I read regarding artifacts left on the moon. I was assuming that the same would hold true for laser dots.