#38376  
Old 07-19-2014, 06:47 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCLXXII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Well evolution and ID certainly ARE mutually exclusive, but that's neither here nor there. My point is that somebody like Atheistoclast, who is always fighting against the established order of things, might be a potential ally.

Of course, you already have two allies in Wayne Stewart and Thomas Clark on your father's third "discovery," but you didn't want to hear about that. :shrug:
Reply With Quote
  #38377  
Old 07-19-2014, 07:28 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCXL
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Well evolution and ID certainly ARE mutually exclusive, but that's neither here nor there. My point is that somebody like Atheistoclast, who is always fighting against the established order of things, might be a potential ally.

Of course, you already have two allies in Wayne Stewart and Thomas Clark on your father's third "discovery," but you didn't want to hear about that. :shrug:
How do you know there isn't some kind of underlying intelligence that was behind the Big Bang? You really don't know. I personally choose to believe (and I know it's a belief just like yours although there does appear to be an order to the universe that is marvelous to behold) that we're all here as a manifestation of God (or this universal intelligence). But that's neither here nor there, as you stated. :)

So you must go to this forum often just to lurk since you seem to know a lot about these individuals. It's not so much that I need an ally. I need people who can be instrumental in passing this book along in the hope that more and more academics will become interested. I'm stuck right now with nowhere to turn. As far as Clark and Stuart, their papers may have similarities to Lessans, but they aren't exact.
__________________
If there are risks, there must be options.

"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #38378  
Old 07-19-2014, 11:11 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
We are talking about photons from the Sun which are now at the film (on Earth). Where did they travel to, if not their present location? :chin:
The photons travel to Earth...
So the photons from the Sun and now at the camera film are photons that traveled from the Sun to the Earth?

Here then are your present answers. Let me know if you want to flip-flop some more...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peacegirl
You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons? YES

Did they come from the Sun? YES

Did they get to the film by traveling? [Yes] "The photons travel to Earth..."

Did they travel at the speed of light? YES, photons travel at the speed of light.

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited? NO they can't leave before the Sun is ignited...

Can they arrive at the camera film less than 8min after leaving their source? NO Spacemonkey.
So now you have traveling photons from the Sun that leave the Sun when it is first ignited, and then travel the 93 million miles to the camera film on Earth at the speed of light and cannot arrive there until 8min after the Sun is ignited. (This is all what YOU have told ME with YOUR answers above.) And these are supposed to be the same photons that are at the camera film 8min earlier when the Sun is first ignited.

Obviously you have fucked up your answers again, as they are still contradictory. The photons at the camera film when the Sun is ignited clearly cannot be photons which travel there from the Sun and don't get there until 8min after the Sun is ignited. So which of your answers do you want to change?
Bump.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #38379  
Old 07-19-2014, 11:29 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I don't deserve the treatment you're dishing out.
Yes, you do.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I have been upfront with you this whole time, and I even answered your questions again.
Bullshit. You refused to answer my questions until I had bumped them a dozen times. Then you answered 2 out of the 6 questions. Then you answered the rest in a way that contradicted the previously answered ones. Then you retracted your answers by denying you had ever said what you said, and refused to ever try to answer them again.

That is not being upfront at all.
Bump.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #38380  
Old 07-19-2014, 11:41 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCLXXII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

I just cannot even believe you would want me to do an introduction for you! What do you think I would say? "Hello, everyone, I'd like to introduce peacegirl. She wishes to discuss her father's book, which contains the most fabulously idiotic drivel ever written." Surely you don't want that -- I'd just ruin for everyone all over again!

I did, however, write you a nice OP you can use under your name to get the ball rolling. I suggest you do so. Who knows? Forum Umpteenth Millionth might be the winnah for you! :fuckyeah:
Reply With Quote
  #38381  
Old 07-19-2014, 11:49 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCXL
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
We are talking about photons from the Sun which are now at the film (on Earth). Where did they travel to, if not their present location? :chin:
The photons travel to Earth...
So the photons from the Sun and now at the camera film are photons that traveled from the Sun to the Earth?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Here then are your present answers. Let me know if you want to flip-flop some more...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Peacegirl
You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons? YES

Spacemonkey, if you call me dingbat one more time I will not talk to you. Do you understand? Yes they are traveling photons, but you are confused here.

Did they come from the Sun? YES

Yes, they came from the Sun, and yes they travel, but they don't have to travel 81/2 minutes for us to be in optical range OF THE OBJECT.


Did they get to the film by traveling? [Yes] "The photons travel to Earth..."

Did they travel at the speed of light? YES, photons travel at the speed of light.

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited? NO they can't leave before the Sun is ignited...

Can they arrive at the camera film less than 8min after leaving their source? NO Spacemonkey.

So now you have traveling photons from the Sun that leave the Sun when it is first ignited, and then travel the 93 million miles to the camera film on Earth at the speed of light and cannot arrive there until 8min after the Sun is ignited. (This is all what YOU have told ME with YOUR answers above.) And these are supposed to be the same photons that are at the camera film 8min earlier when the Sun is first ignited.
No, we are talking about two different things. Photons do travel to Earth and it does take 81/2 minutes. I am not debating this, but if Lessans is right and the eyes are efferent, it would not take 81/2 minutes for the object to be within our optical range. It would take virtually no time for this light to be at our eyes (or film) due to the inverse square law. The inverse square law would not allow us to see any object at 93 million miles away because there would be no information in that light from which to form an image of the Sun. I think this is what is confusing you. Again, this doesn't mean light isn't traveling but it is not required to strike our eyes on Earth for us to be within optical range when we're looking at the actual object.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Obviously you have fucked up your answers again, as they are still contradictory. The photons at the camera film when the Sun is ignited clearly cannot be photons which travel there from the Sun and don't get there until 8min after the Sun is ignited. So which of your answers do you want to change?
Bump.
What I'm saying is not contradictory because we're talking about light coming from the Sun (not the same photons obviously). The only difference is that we are within optical range instantly due to how fast the light is traveling and also due to the fact that seeing efferently creates a closed system which does not require light to travel the actual distance to Earth. In other words, the photons we are using to see the object are from the light that has obviously traveled, but this distance from the eye to the object is a closed system and that's why you get a mirror image which takes virtually no time for us to be within optical range OF THE OBJECT WE ARE LOOKING AT. To make a comparison, it would take about the same time it takes us to see a candle being lit because they both meet the requirements but when I say this you go right back talking about distance and time, which don't apply to this model.
__________________
If there are risks, there must be options.

"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 07-20-2014 at 12:07 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #38382  
Old 07-20-2014, 12:05 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
What I'm saying is not contradictory...
But it is contradictory. Your present answers are not consistent. You've said that the photons which are instantly at the film are photons that travel there and arrive 8min after they are already there. That means your present answers simply don't work. So which answers will you change to make your account consistent?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
...because we're talking about light coming from the Sun (not the same photons obviously).
What photons are not the same as what other photons? The ONLY photons we have been discussing are the ones at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited. No other photons are relevant to the questions you were meant to be answering.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The only difference is that we are in optical range instantly due to how fast the light is traveling...
You said they were traveling 93 million miles at just over 11 million miles per minute. That doesn't get photons anywhere instantly. It takes 8 minutes. This is simple mathematics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
...and also due to the fact that seeing efferently creates a closed system which does not require light to travel the actual distance to Earth.
This again flatly contradicts your previous claim that the photons at the film traveled there from the Sun. How many times will you continue to flip-flop on this simple point? Did these traveling photons travel there or not?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
What I'm saying is that the photons we are using to see the object are from the light that has obviously traveled...
If they didn't travel the actual distance from the Sun to the Earth, then where did they travel from and where did they travel to?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I've said this before but you keep talking about distance and time, which don't relate to this model.
But they obviously do relate to your model. You can't coherently explain what light does in your model at all. That's why you have to keep ignoring questions about distance, time, and travel, and pretending they don't apply.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-20-2014), LadyShea (07-20-2014)
  #38383  
Old 07-20-2014, 12:09 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCXL
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
I just cannot even believe you would want me to do an introduction for you! What do you think I would say? "Hello, everyone, I'd like to introduce peacegirl. She wishes to discuss her father's book, which contains the most fabulously idiotic drivel ever written." Surely you don't want that -- I'd just ruin for everyone all over again!

I did, however, write you a nice OP you can use under your name to get the ball rolling. I suggest you do so. Who knows? Forum Umpteenth Millionth might be the winnah for you! :fuckyeah:
David, I have looked at the site and read some of the threads. I am exhausted just thinking about being called a new set of expletives from these people. Look how long it's taken for you to stop satirising the book? Over three years? I can't go through another three years trying to clear up the confusion that is bound to occur (because they haven't read the book) and to have to clarify what Lessans meant because they misinterpreted everything yet acted like they understood everything. Sound familiar? I just can't get myself to start a new thread at another forum. Maybe tomorrow I'll feel differently (I doubt it though) but the way I'm feeling right now, I just can't do it.
__________________
If there are risks, there must be options.

"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #38384  
Old 07-20-2014, 12:16 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I can't go through another three years of this trying to clarify what Lessans meant because they misinterpreted everything I explained.
You haven't been clarifying what Lessan meant about vision. You've been making things up because you don't know what he meant or how it could be made consistent with the known facts about the properties of light.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-20-2014), Dragar (07-20-2014), LadyShea (07-20-2014)
  #38385  
Old 07-20-2014, 12:31 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCXL
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
What I'm saying is not contradictory...
But it is contradictory. Your present answers are not consistent. You've said that the photons which are instantly at the film are photons that travel there and arrive 8min after they are already there. That means your present answers simply don't work. So which answers will you change to make your account consistent?
No Spacemonkey, they do work. Something is wrong with the way you are interpreting what I'm saying. I didn't say the same photons that arrive at Earth are the same photons that are already there. This is worse than pulling teeth. :doh:

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
...because we're talking about light coming from the Sun (not the same photons obviously).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
What photons are not the same as what other photons? The ONLY photons we have been discussing are the ones at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited. No other photons are relevant to the questions you were meant to be answering.
But these photons are constantly being replaced. So I'm not sure what photons you're referring to. The mirror image using constantly changing photons will reveal the object. In this model, the photons would not have any information in them such that we need to think about traveling blue photons before red. I'm really not sure what the problem is.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The only difference is that we are in optical range instantly due to how fast the light is traveling...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
You said they were traveling 93 million miles at just over 11 million miles per minute. That doesn't get photons anywhere instantly. It takes 8 minutes. This is simple mathematics.
Forget the word "instant", okay? It could be nanoseconds to see the Sun when it's first turned on, but this delay doesn't mean that another object would be further delayed. No matter what the distance between an object and the viewer, it would take a nanosecond to be within optical range if the object was large enough and bright enough to be seen otherwise we would be out of optical range because the object would be too far away or too dim therefore not meeting the requirements.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
...and also due to the fact that seeing efferently creates a closed system which does not require light to travel the actual distance to Earth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
This again flatly contradicts your previous claim that the photons at the film traveled there from the Sun. How many times will you continue to flip-flop on this simple point? Did these traveling photons travel there or not?
I'm really not flip flopping. The photons did travel and they are different photons that are at the eye every single second.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
What I'm saying is that the photons we are using to see the object are from the light that has obviously traveled...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
If they didn't travel the actual distance from the Sun to the Earth, then where did they travel from and where did they travel to?
I'm trying to tell you that the light is traveling from the Sun to Earth, but due to efferent vision we are within optical range much quicker than 81/2 minutes. If our eyes were afferent we would be waiting to interpret the light, but how can we decode an image from the light when the inverse square law would turn into full spectrum light?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I've said this before but you keep talking about distance and time, which don't relate to this model.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
But they obviously do relate to your model. You can't coherently explain what light does in your model at all. That's why you have to keep ignoring questions about distance, time, and travel, and pretending they don't apply.
Time and distance don't apply in this account even if it takes a nanosecond for the light to travel. For all intents and purposes, there is virtually no delay.
__________________
If there are risks, there must be options.

"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 07-20-2014 at 05:12 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #38386  
Old 07-20-2014, 12:38 AM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCXL
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I can't go through another three years of this trying to clarify what Lessans meant because they misinterpreted everything I explained.
You haven't been clarifying what Lessan meant about vision. You've been making things up because you don't know what he meant or how it could be made consistent with the known facts about the properties of light.
You're absolutely wrong. I am trying to show you that it is consistent with the known facts about the properties of light. The only change is with vision, not light. It does show that light traveling 93 million miles would not have the information that would allow anyone to form an image in the brain.
__________________
If there are risks, there must be options.

"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #38387  
Old 07-20-2014, 12:56 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
No Spacemonkey, they do work. Something is wrong with the way you are interpreting what I'm saying. I didn't say the same photons that arrive at Earth are the same photons that are already there. This is like pulling teeth, I swear. :doh:
Then you have obviously misread the questions and need to re-answer them. Because what you actually said in your answers was flatly contradictory. I asked you about the photons at the film when the Sun is first ignited, and you answered that they were traveling photons that cannot be at the film until 8min after the Sun is ignited. That is what you actually said, whether you meant it or not. Obviously that doesn't work, but it's the only answer you've given.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
What photons are not the same as what other photons? The ONLY photons we have been discussing are the ones at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited. No other photons are relevant to the questions you were meant to be answering.
But these photons are constantly being replaced. So I'm not sure what photons you're referring to.
I just told you EXACTLY which photons I'm referring to. I don't know how to make it any clearer. Replacement of photons by other photons is irrelevant, for you need to first explain how these photons got to the film before you can start worrying about them being replaced by any others (which will also take 8min to get there).

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Will you weasel by going off on an irrelevant tangent about information or reflection?
In this model, the photons would not have any information in them such that we need to think about traveling blue photons before red...
You've done it again.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
You said they were traveling 93 million miles at just over 11 million miles per minute. That doesn't get photons anywhere instantly. It takes 8 minutes. This is simple mathematics.
Forget the word "instant", okay? It could be nanoseconds...
Nope, not nanoseconds. It takes 8 minutes for light to travel 93 million miles at just over 11 million miles per minute. Again, simple mathematics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
This again flatly contradicts your previous claim that the photons at the film traveled there from the Sun. How many times will you continue to flip-flop on this simple point? Did these traveling photons travel there or not?
I'm really not flip flopping. The photons did travel and they are different photons that are at the eye every single second.
We're not talking about the eye but only a camera film, and we're not talking about any photons other than the ones at the film when the Sun is first ignited. Did THOSE photons travel the actual distance from the Sun to the Earth?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
If they didn't travel the actual distance from the Sun to the Earth, then where did they travel from and where did they travel to?
I'm trying to tell you that the light is traveling from the Sun to Earth...
But that's the exact opposite of what you just said ("...which does not require light to travel the actual distance to Earth..."). Are you still talking about the light I was asking you about (the photons at the camera film when the Sun is ignited), or are you here talking about completely different light when you say it is traveling from the Sun to the Earth?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
If our eyes were afferent we would be waiting to interpret the light, but how can we decode an image from the light when the inverse square law would turn into full spectrum light?
The light we are talking about started as, and has always been, full spectrum light, so it cannot change into this at all - and certainly not due to your made up nonsense about the inverse square law, which is something you still don't understand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Time and distance don't apply in this account even if it takes a nanosecond for the light to travel. For all intents and purposes, there is virtually no delay.
Time and distance DOES apply, because the light we are talking about needs to change its location by a DISTANCE of 93 million miles, and it can ONLY do so by traveling at the speed of light, which takes 8 minutes of TIME.

Things that actually don't apply to what you are being asked about: Absorption, reflection, non-absorbed partial spectrum, information, eyes and brains, traveling images, and different photons (from those at the film when the Sun is first ignited).
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor

Last edited by Spacemonkey; 07-20-2014 at 01:22 AM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-20-2014)
  #38388  
Old 07-20-2014, 01:01 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You're absolutely wrong. I am trying to show you that it is consistent with the known facts about the properties of light.
And you are failing. Your only given answers to questions based on the known facts about the properties of light have been and remain flatly contradictory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The only change is with vision, not light. It does show that light traveling 93 million miles would not have the information that would allow anyone to form an image in the brain.
Again, the questions you are being asked to address have NOTHING to do with whether or not information is in the light. The questions concern ONLY how light can be where and when you need it to be in your model.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-20-2014), LadyShea (07-20-2014)
  #38389  
Old 07-20-2014, 01:05 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

You clearly need to re-answer the questions below. Please answer ONLY with respect to the specific photons being asked about (i.e. those at the film when the Sun is first ignited).

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Can they arrive at the camera film less than 8min after leaving their source?

Will you answer these questions, or just weasel and ignore them?

Will you weasel by going off on an irrelevant tangent about information or reflection?
Unacceptable responses:

#1 Insisting that they have already been answered.
#2 Responding without giving at least a Yes or No as part of your answer.
#3 Answering by talking about photons other than those asked about.
#4 Insisting that previous and since retracted answers should be good enough.
#5 Insisting that contradictory answers should be good enough.
#6 Refusing to answer because of name-calling.
#7 Answering with irrelevant nonsense about mirror images, information, reflection, full spectrum light, absorption, the inverse square law, etc.
#8 Answering by talking about the eyes or brain instead of the camera and film being asked about.
#9 Fake conceding.
#10 Trying to change the subject.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #38390  
Old 07-20-2014, 01:14 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCLXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
even if it takes a nanosecond for the light to travel. For all intents and purposes, there is virtually no delay.

"A nanosecond", "Virtually no delay", are not instantly. Are you now back peddling from you claim of photons instantly at the eye or camera? Soon you'll be admitting that it takes 8 1/2 minutes to see the Sun, and denying that you ever said anything else.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you donít know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-20-2014)
  #38391  
Old 07-20-2014, 01:18 AM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCLXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
If our eyes were afferent we would be waiting to interpret the light, but how can we decode an image from the light when the inverse square law would turn into full spectrum light?

You really don't know anything about optics or light, do you?

FYI, the Inverse square law, has nothing to do with the color of the light, only the density of the photons, which could be any color or all colors, except white. There are no white photons.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you donít know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
  #38392  
Old 07-20-2014, 01:35 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMMDCCLXXII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
If our eyes were afferent we would be waiting to interpret the light, but how can we decode an image from the light when the inverse square law would turn into full spectrum light?
The light we are talking about started as, and has always been, full spectrum light, so it cannot change into this at all - and certainly not due to your made up nonsense about the inverse square law, which is something you still don't understand.
:lol:

Jesus. Christ. After all this time, you simply know nothing of what you are talking about!

No wonder you can say that "uncalculable" numbers of photons can fall every second on earth, while at the same time saying that the inverse square law would make the sun unresolvable by the eye! You have no idea what the inverse square law is. As we all knew, of course, but it's breathtaking that you can be this off.

1. The inverse square law has nothing to do with light's spectrum. Literally nothing. Anyway full-spectrum light does arrive from the sun, and we see it just fine!

2. You don't really know what wavelengths are, do you, and what they mean?

3. The inverse square law has only to do with the decrease in the density of photons as they travel away in all directions from a light source. Nothing else. Since, as you yourself say, "uncalculable" numbers of photons arrive from the sun on the earth, though far fewer than left the sun (most are not even traveling in earth's direction) it is perfectly obvious that we have enough photons at the eye to see the sun in the sky, as it was eight minutes in the past (the time it takes the photons to arrive).

You are really one of a kind. Please take your schtick to Talk Rats -- how amusing that would be!
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Dragar (07-20-2014), LadyShea (07-20-2014), Spacemonkey (07-20-2014)
  #38393  
Old 07-20-2014, 01:52 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
You haven't been clarifying what Lessan meant about vision. You've been making things up because you don't know what he meant or how it could be made consistent with the known facts about the properties of light.
You're absolutely wrong...
Am I? I don't think so...

Light needed at the retina according to Lessans' account? You made that up.

Lenses that can affect distant light not yet at the lens? You made that up.

Mirror images arriving at a film or retina before light gets there? You made that up.

Non-absorbed light not being reflected? You made that up.

'Closed systems' somehow negating actual distances? You made that up.

Traveling partial spectra turning into full spectrum light? You made that up.

No information in the arriving light? You made that up.

The inverse square law preventing traveling light from being resolved? You made that up.

The fiction that your account is plausible and contradiction-free? You made that up too.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-20-2014), Dragar (07-20-2014), LadyShea (07-20-2014)
  #38394  
Old 07-20-2014, 04:59 AM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCLXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Where is the evidence (you are always asking me for evidence, so now I'm asking you) that Jesus was the Son of God?
Firstly, where have I made such a claim? Please quote the post in which you think I made that claim.

Secondly, if I were to make such a claim I would certainly not claim that it was scientific, mathematical or undeniable. It would instead be in the nature a faith statement and, as such, no empirical evidence would be required.

Thirdly, you have repeatedly said that there is evidence that supports your claims regarding efferent vision. It is therefore incumbent upon you to produce such evidence and subject it to critical inquiry. To date you have failed to do so.
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Cynthia of Syracuse (07-20-2014), LadyShea (07-20-2014)
  #38395  
Old 07-20-2014, 05:00 AM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCLXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Forget the word "instant", okay? It could be nanoseconds to see the Sun when it's first turned on, but this delay doesn't mean that another object would be further delayed. No matter what the distance between an object and the viewer, it would take a nanosecond to be within optical range if the object was large enough and bright enough to be seen otherwise we would be out of optical range because the object would be too far away or too dim therefore not meeting the requirements.
If I recall correctly it was Lessans who said that if the Sun was turned on we would see it instantly. Instantly, not a nanosecond later. Are you now disavowing Lessans' claim?
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
  #38396  
Old 07-20-2014, 01:34 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCXL
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You're absolutely wrong. I am trying to show you that it is consistent with the known facts about the properties of light.
And you are failing. Your only given answers to questions based on the known facts about the properties of light have been and remain flatly contradictory.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The only change is with vision, not light. It does show that light traveling 93 million miles would not have the information that would allow anyone to form an image in the brain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Again, the questions you are being asked to address have NOTHING to do with whether or not information is in the light. The questions concern ONLY how light can be where and when you need it to be in your model.
It has EVERYTHING to do with whether the light is comprised of nonabsorbed photons or the full spectrum. I don't know what your problem is but this is integral to the issue we're discussing.
__________________
If there are risks, there must be options.

"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 07-20-2014 at 09:48 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #38397  
Old 07-20-2014, 01:36 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCXL
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Forget the word "instant", okay? It could be nanoseconds to see the Sun when it's first turned on, but this delay doesn't mean that another object would be further delayed. No matter what the distance between an object and the viewer, it would take a nanosecond to be within optical range if the object was large enough and bright enough to be seen otherwise we would be out of optical range because the object would be too far away or too dim therefore not meeting the requirements.
If I recall correctly it was Lessans who said that if the Sun was turned on we would see it instantly. Instantly, not a nanosecond later. Are you now disavowing Lessans' claim?
I get that and I concede. But this still does not prove that we see images in delayed time (i.e., 81/2 minutes) Angakuk. To support what Lessans said, it is true that if the light wasn't at our eyes instantly, we would not be able to see the Sun. There is nothing that you're saying that disproves Lessans' claims; none whatsoever.
__________________
If there are risks, there must be options.

"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
  #38398  
Old 07-20-2014, 01:36 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
It has EVERYTHING to do with whether the light is comprised of nonabsorbed photons or the full spectrum. I don't know what your problem is but this is integral to the issue we're discussing.
It has nothing at all to do with what I'm asking you about. There is no absorption or reflection in the newly ignited Sun example, and the only light involved is full spectrum.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (07-20-2014)
  #38399  
Old 07-20-2014, 01:43 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCXL
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Where is the evidence (you are always asking me for evidence, so now I'm asking you) that Jesus was the Son of God?
Firstly, where have I made such a claim? Please quote the post in which you think I made the claim. Secondly, if I were to make such a claim I would certainly not claim that it was scientific, mathematical or undeniable. It would instead be in the nature a faith statement and, as such, no empirical evidence would be required.
It's not about you personally making the claim Angakuk; it's about the collective claim that Jesus was the embodiment of God.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk
Thirdly, you have repeatedly said that there is evidence that supports your claims regarding efferent vision. It is therefore incumbent upon you to produce such evidence and subject it to critical inquiry. To date you have failed to do so.
I don't agree. There is evidence to support his claims. Do you even know what his reasoning was?
__________________
If there are risks, there must be options.

"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill

Last edited by peacegirl; 07-20-2014 at 09:54 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #38400  
Old 07-20-2014, 01:48 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMMMCXL
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
It has EVERYTHING to do with whether the light is comprised of nonabsorbed photons or the full spectrum. I don't know what your problem is but this is integral to the issue we're discussing.
It has nothing at all to do with what I'm asking you about. There is no absorption or reflection in the newly ignited Sun example, and the only light involved is full spectrum.
So what are you saying Spacemonkey? How in the world can light reveal the Sun without it revealing matter? Photons can't reveal themselves, can they? The Sun is made up of matter. Do you agree? If you have a different take on this, please let me know.
__________________
If there are risks, there must be options.

"The further a society drifts from the truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." George Orwell

"The fatal tendency of mankind to leave off thinking about a thing
which is no longer doubtful is the cause of half their errors" -- John Stuart Mill
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 9 (0 members and 9 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.21276 seconds with 14 queries