A revolution in thought - Page 494

davidm · #**12326** 10-14-2011, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

So, peacegirl, here is what you said:

Quote:

In order for a camera to work, light has to be striking the lens.

So the light has to be striking the lens. Now according to Lessans, if God were to turn on the sun at noon, we would see the sun immediately, but we would not see the neighbor standing next to us for eight and a half minutes.

So here is the scenario.

1. God turns on the sun at noon.

2. Your neighbor has a camera pointed at the sun.

3. The light has to be striking the lens, according to you, for the camera to take a picture of the sun.

4. However, according to Lessans, even though we would see the sun immediately, when God turned it on, we would not see our neighbor for eight and a half minutes. So the light is not striking the neighbor until that much time has passed. If the light is not striking the neighbor, it’s also not striking the camera.

5. You now say that we take pictures in real time, just like seeing in real time. But you also say that the light has to be at the lens of the camera, in order to take a picture. But according to Lessans, the light will not be at the camera for eight and a half minutes, because that is how long it will take for the light to reach your neighbor, who is holding the camera. So the camera, according to Lessans, cannot take pictures in real time.

Therefore, you have contradicted your father’s claims. It behooves you to return to your original position, which was that while we see in real time, the camera takes pictures in delayed time. If you don’t return to your original position, you are in disagreement with Lessans.

However, if you do return to your original position — that we see in real time, but cameras take pictures in delayed time — this position is wholly refuted by the fact that what we see, and the images made by cameras, are the same. That would be impossible if we saw in real time but took pictures in delayed time.

So either you are making a claim that contradicts plainly observed reality, or you are making a claim that contradicts Lessans.

Which is it, peacegirl? We’re dying to know. :popcorn:

By the way, you can't wriggle out of this jam by dismissing Lessans' claim here as "merely hypothetical." This just shows you don't know the meaning of "hypothesis." He is a making a claim of the fashion that: Assuming what I say is true, if x occuirs, we should expect y to happen. If y does not happen, then what Lessans says about the world is untrue. Since y does not happen, Lessans is wrong.

David, with all do respect, do you have OCD? :sadcheer:

Oh, my goodness. Has there been any better example of Peacegirl's OPS (obsessive projection syndrome)?

:lol:

Wow, you are a dumb bell.

Answer the questions, peacegirl.

peacegirl · #**12327** 10-14-2011, 08:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They are verifiable, but not according to your rules which are based on your preconceived ideas of how light works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans was not refuting the speed of light, or the basics of how light works. He was disputing one thing only; that we see a delayed version of reality.

Please compare and contrast. Are you disputing the rules of how light works, or not? Make up your mind.

In peacegirls world the photon doesn't carry any image information. She doesn't understand optics and ray trace diagrams. If she did then this approach might be productive with peacegirl. But you have to realize that she doesn't posses a function brain. It is more like a mess of jello. It's a wonder she appears as coherent as she does. So explaining how the world works to her is futile. Think of peacegirl as being stuck in a massive loop but with massive logic failure as well.

RADIOLAB - Loops

Natural.atheist, your responses are worse than Davidm's, and that's saying somethin. I really feel bad that your posts will be ignored, but there's nothing else I can think of to make you change the way you respond. I am not saying to accept what I say at face value, but I am saying you need to express any argument you have in a nice way. If you can't do that, it is your loss because I won't be reading your posts. :sadcheer:

P.S. This radio lab is supposed to discredit Lessans claims? Isn't that the purpose of the link? I could not find anything that proved Lessans was wrong. So now it is up to you to prove your theory, not me? I am not going to be put to task for something that someone made up. Sorry.

davidm · #**12328** 10-14-2011, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

On brighter news, just seven more pages to the Page 500 Parteh! :unrevel:

You are good for something David. I hope you know I'm playing with you.

That being said, could you please make a party that goes on for at four days instead of one? I need time to regroup. My energizer battery is running low.

Peacegirl, what you need to do, in all honesty, is see a psychiatrist. You are not mentally well, and your obsessive-compulsive devotion to this stomach-turning tommyrot, a devotion to utter nonsense that has eaten up literally years of your life, betokens a tragic ending for you.

davidm · #**12329** 10-14-2011, 08:06 PM

*bump* for peacegirl.

Answer for the questions, please, and stop your dishonet evasions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

So, peacegirl, here is what you said:

Quote:

In order for a camera to work, light has to be striking the lens.

So the light has to be striking the lens. Now according to Lessans, if God were to turn on the sun at noon, we would see the sun immediately, but we would not see the neighbor standing next to us for eight and a half minutes.

So here is the scenario.

1. God turns on the sun at noon.

2. Your neighbor has a camera pointed at the sun.

3. The light has to be striking the lens, according to you, for the camera to take a picture of the sun.

4. However, according to Lessans, even though we would see the sun immediately, when God turned it on, we would not see our neighbor for eight and a half minutes. So the light is not striking the neighbor until that much time has passed. If the light is not striking the neighbor, it’s also not striking the camera.

5. You now say that we take pictures in real time, just like seeing in real time. But you also say that the light has to be at the lens of the camera, in order to take a picture. But according to Lessans, the light will not be at the camera for eight and a half minutes, because that is how long it will take for the light to reach your neighbor, who is holding the camera. So the camera, according to Lessans, cannot take pictures in real time.

Therefore, you have contradicted your father’s claims. It behooves you to return to your original position, which was that while we see in real time, the camera takes pictures in delayed time. If you don’t return to your original position, you are in disagreement with Lessans.

However, if you do return to your original position — that we see in real time, but cameras take pictures in delayed time — this position is wholly refuted by the fact that what we see, and the images made by cameras, are the same. That would be impossible if we saw in real time but took pictures in delayed time.

So either you are making a claim that contradicts plainly observed reality, or you are making a claim that contradicts Lessans.

Which is it, peacegirl? We’re dying to know. :popcorn:

By the way, you can't wriggle out of this jam by dismissing Lessans' claim here as "merely hypothetical." This just shows you don't know the meaning of "hypothesis." He is a making a claim of the fashion that: Assuming what I say is true, if x occuirs, we should expect y to happen. If y does not happen, then what Lessans says about the world is untrue. Since y does not happen, Lessans is wrong.

peacegirl · #**12330** 10-14-2011, 08:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

So, peacegirl, here is what you said:

Quote:

In order for a camera to work, light has to be striking the lens.

So the light has to be striking the lens. Now according to Lessans, if God were to turn on the sun at noon, we would see the sun immediately, but we would not see the neighbor standing next to us for eight and a half minutes.

So here is the scenario.

1. God turns on the sun at noon.

2. Your neighbor has a camera pointed at the sun.

3. The light has to be striking the lens, according to you, for the camera to take a picture of the sun.

4. However, according to Lessans, even though we would see the sun immediately, when God turned it on, we would not see our neighbor for eight and a half minutes. So the light is not striking the neighbor until that much time has passed. If the light is not striking the neighbor, it’s also not striking the camera.

5. You now say that we take pictures in real time, just like seeing in real time. But you also say that the light has to be at the lens of the camera, in order to take a picture. But according to Lessans, the light will not be at the camera for eight and a half minutes, because that is how long it will take for the light to reach your neighbor, who is holding the camera. So the camera, according to Lessans, cannot take pictures in real time.

Therefore, you have contradicted your father’s claims. It behooves you to return to your original position, which was that while we see in real time, the camera takes pictures in delayed time. If you don’t return to your original position, you are in disagreement with Lessans.

However, if you do return to your original position — that we see in real time, but cameras take pictures in delayed time — this position is wholly refuted by the fact that what we see, and the images made by cameras, are the same. That would be impossible if we saw in real time but took pictures in delayed time.

So either you are making a claim that contradicts plainly observed reality, or you are making a claim that contradicts Lessans.

Which is it, peacegirl? We’re dying to know. :popcorn:

By the way, you can't wriggle out of this jam by dismissing Lessans' claim here as "merely hypothetical." This just shows you don't know the meaning of "hypothesis." He is a making a claim of the fashion that: Assuming what I say is true, if x occuirs, we should expect y to happen. If y does not happen, then what Lessans says about the world is untrue. Since y does not happen, Lessans is wrong.

David, with all do respect, do you have OCD? :sadcheer:

Oh, my goodness. Has there been any better example of Peacegirl's OPS (obsessive projection syndrome)?

:lol:

Wow, you are a dumb bell.

Answer the questions, peacegirl.

David, why do you have to call me names? I don't get it. It weakens your argument because anyone who has a legitimate argument proves it by the facts, not by anger. And anger is all that I see.

peacegirl · #**12331** 10-14-2011, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

So, peacegirl, here is what you said:

Quote:

In order for a camera to work, light has to be striking the lens.

So the light has to be striking the lens. Now according to Lessans, if God were to turn on the sun at noon, we would see the sun immediately, but we would not see the neighbor standing next to us for eight and a half minutes.

So here is the scenario.

1. God turns on the sun at noon.

2. Your neighbor has a camera pointed at the sun.

3. The light has to be striking the lens, according to you, for the camera to take a picture of the sun.

4. However, according to Lessans, even though we would see the sun immediately, when God turned it on, we would not see our neighbor for eight and a half minutes. So the light is not striking the neighbor until that much time has passed. If the light is not striking the neighbor, it’s also not striking the camera.

5. You now say that we take pictures in real time, just like seeing in real time. But you also say that the light has to be at the lens of the camera, in order to take a picture. But according to Lessans, the light will not be at the camera for eight and a half minutes, because that is how long it will take for the light to reach your neighbor, who is holding the camera. So the camera, according to Lessans, cannot take pictures in real time.

Therefore, you have contradicted your father’s claims. It behooves you to return to your original position, which was that while we see in real time, the camera takes pictures in delayed time. If you don’t return to your original position, you are in disagreement with Lessans.

However, if you do return to your original position — that we see in real time, but cameras take pictures in delayed time — this position is wholly refuted by the fact that what we see, and the images made by cameras, are the same. That would be impossible if we saw in real time but took pictures in delayed time.

So either you are making a claim that contradicts plainly observed reality, or you are making a claim that contradicts Lessans.

Which is it, peacegirl? We’re dying to know. :popcorn:

By the way, you can't wriggle out of this jam by dismissing Lessans' claim here as "merely hypothetical." This just shows you don't know the meaning of "hypothesis." He is a making a claim of the fashion that: Assuming what I say is true, if x occuirs, we should expect y to happen. If y does not happen, then what Lessans says about the world is untrue. Since y does not happen, Lessans is wrong.

If you don't stop these false accusations, I am going to delete you which will be horrible for me because, believe it or not, I like you. I just think you are having a hard time with this information. But I will not be subjected to tactics that are cold hearted. These disgusting tactics that would literally throw me under a bus would make it appear as if you are right and I am wrong, but this is not true if Lessans is right. Is that what you want just so you can be the one to claim that you are the winner? This is not about winning; this is about the truth.

specious_reasons · #**12332** 10-14-2011, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Natural.atheist, your responses are worse than Davidm's, and that's saying somethin.

Stephen Maturin has dropped to 3rd place now.
:loser2:

Stephen Maturin · #**12333** 10-14-2011, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Peacegirl, what you need to do, in all honesty, is see a psychiatrist.

Lessans said that psychiatrists need to have their heads examined. Therefore, it is true.

LadyShea · #**12334** 10-14-2011, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

but this is not true if Lessans is right

if Lessans was right he was right...that's just a circular argument you keep making as if it means something.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This radio lab is supposed to discredit Lessans claims? Isn't that the purpose of the link?

The link was illustrating the loop he says you are in

Quote:

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

Think of peacegirl as being stuck in a massive loop but with massive logic failure as well.

LadyShea · #**12335** 10-14-2011, 08:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

So, peacegirl, here is what you said:

Quote:

In order for a camera to work, light has to be striking the lens.

So the light has to be striking the lens. Now according to Lessans, if God were to turn on the sun at noon, we would see the sun immediately, but we would not see the neighbor standing next to us for eight and a half minutes.

So here is the scenario.

1. God turns on the sun at noon.

2. Your neighbor has a camera pointed at the sun.

3. The light has to be striking the lens, according to you, for the camera to take a picture of the sun.

4. However, according to Lessans, even though we would see the sun immediately, when God turned it on, we would not see our neighbor for eight and a half minutes. So the light is not striking the neighbor until that much time has passed. If the light is not striking the neighbor, it’s also not striking the camera.

5. You now say that we take pictures in real time, just like seeing in real time. But you also say that the light has to be at the lens of the camera, in order to take a picture. But according to Lessans, the light will not be at the camera for eight and a half minutes, because that is how long it will take for the light to reach your neighbor, who is holding the camera. So the camera, according to Lessans, cannot take pictures in real time.

Therefore, you have contradicted your father’s claims. It behooves you to return to your original position, which was that while we see in real time, the camera takes pictures in delayed time. If you don’t return to your original position, you are in disagreement with Lessans.

However, if you do return to your original position — that we see in real time, but cameras take pictures in delayed time — this position is wholly refuted by the fact that what we see, and the images made by cameras, are the same. That would be impossible if we saw in real time but took pictures in delayed time.

So either you are making a claim that contradicts plainly observed reality, or you are making a claim that contradicts Lessans.

Which is it, peacegirl? We’re dying to know. :popcorn:

By the way, you can't wriggle out of this jam by dismissing Lessans' claim here as "merely hypothetical." This just shows you don't know the meaning of "hypothesis." He is a making a claim of the fashion that: Assuming what I say is true, if x occuirs, we should expect y to happen. If y does not happen, then what Lessans says about the world is untrue. Since y does not happen, Lessans is wrong.

If you don't stop these false accusations, I am going to delete you which will be horrible for me because, believe it or not, I like you. I just think you are having a hard time with this information. But I will not be subjected to tactics that are cold hearted. These disgusting tactics that would literally throw me under a bus would make it appear as if you are right and I am wrong, but this is not true if Lessans is right. Is that what you want just so you can be the one to claim that you are the winner? This is not about winning; this is about the truth.

He followed all your arguments to their logical conclusions and posed them to you as questions.

He is not making false accusations, using cold hearted tactics, throwing you under a bus*, nor being disgusting.

You're getting histrionic and persecution complexed again.

*I don't think that idiom means what you think it means, because it's not really appropriate in that context

davidm · #**12336** 10-14-2011, 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

So, peacegirl, here is what you said:

Quote:

In order for a camera to work, light has to be striking the lens.

So the light has to be striking the lens. Now according to Lessans, if God were to turn on the sun at noon, we would see the sun immediately, but we would not see the neighbor standing next to us for eight and a half minutes.

So here is the scenario.

1. God turns on the sun at noon.

2. Your neighbor has a camera pointed at the sun.

3. The light has to be striking the lens, according to you, for the camera to take a picture of the sun.

4. However, according to Lessans, even though we would see the sun immediately, when God turned it on, we would not see our neighbor for eight and a half minutes. So the light is not striking the neighbor until that much time has passed. If the light is not striking the neighbor, it’s also not striking the camera.

5. You now say that we take pictures in real time, just like seeing in real time. But you also say that the light has to be at the lens of the camera, in order to take a picture. But according to Lessans, the light will not be at the camera for eight and a half minutes, because that is how long it will take for the light to reach your neighbor, who is holding the camera. So the camera, according to Lessans, cannot take pictures in real time.

Therefore, you have contradicted your father’s claims. It behooves you to return to your original position, which was that while we see in real time, the camera takes pictures in delayed time. If you don’t return to your original position, you are in disagreement with Lessans.

However, if you do return to your original position — that we see in real time, but cameras take pictures in delayed time — this position is wholly refuted by the fact that what we see, and the images made by cameras, are the same. That would be impossible if we saw in real time but took pictures in delayed time.

So either you are making a claim that contradicts plainly observed reality, or you are making a claim that contradicts Lessans.

Which is it, peacegirl? We’re dying to know. :popcorn:

By the way, you can't wriggle out of this jam by dismissing Lessans' claim here as "merely hypothetical." This just shows you don't know the meaning of "hypothesis." He is a making a claim of the fashion that: Assuming what I say is true, if x occuirs, we should expect y to happen. If y does not happen, then what Lessans says about the world is untrue. Since y does not happen, Lessans is wrong.

If you don't stop these false accusations, I am going to delete you which will be horrible for me because, believe it or not, I like you. I just think you are having a hard time with this information. But I will not be subjected to tactics that are cold hearted. These disgusting tactics that would literally throw me under a bus would make it appear as if you are right and I am wrong, but this is not true if Lessans is right. Is that what you want just so you can be the one to claim that you are the winner? This is not about winning; this is about the truth.

Answer the questions put to you above and stop your dishonest weaseling evasions, peacegirl.

davidm · #**12337** 10-14-2011, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He followed all your arguments to their logical conclusions and posed them to you as questions.

This is exactly right. I took what Lessans said and what peacegirl has said in this thread, and followed their arguments to their logical conclusions. peacegirl, you can throw a hissy fit and evade the logical conclusions all you want, but I will keep pointing them out to you. Your position has been demonstrated to be hopeless.

Oh, and peacegirl? What about the moons of Jupiter?

davidm · #**12338** 10-14-2011, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Peacegirl, what you need to do, in all honesty, is see a psychiatrist.

Lessans said that psychiatrists need to have their heads examined. Therefore, it is true.

But who will examine the heads of psychiatrists if not other psychiatrists? :sadcheer:

It seems we are in yet another closed loop.

davidm · #**12339** 10-14-2011, 08:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just think you are having a hard time with this information.

Which information would that be, peacegirl? The information in my post showing either that you disgaree with Lessans, or disagree with empirical reality? Yes, I am having a "hard time" with this; do help me out, please! :popcorn:

Stephen Maturin · #**12340** 10-14-2011, 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

But who will examine the heads of psychiatrists if not other psychiatrists? :sadcheer:

It seems we are in yet another closed loop.

Yessir. It's kinda like how in the Golden Age there will be lawmakers but no laws.

peacegirl · #**12341** 10-14-2011, 09:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen Maturin

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Peacegirl, what you need to do, in all honesty, is see a psychiatrist.

Lessans said that psychiatrists need to have their heads examined. Therefore, it is true.

But who will examine the heads of psychiatrists if not other psychiatrists? :sadcheer:

It seems we are in yet another closed loop.

If you're that smart, you know what he meant. And if you didn't, why are you trying to tell people what you yourself can't explain? :doh:

peacegirl · #**12342** 10-14-2011, 09:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He followed all your arguments to their logical conclusions and posed them to you as questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

This is exactly right. I took what Lessans said and what peacegirl has said in this thread, and followed their arguments to their logical conclusions. peacegirl, you can throw a hissy fit and evade the logical conclusions all you want, but I will keep pointing them out to you. Your position has been demonstrated to be hopeless.

Oh, and peacegirl? What about the moons of Jupiter?

You think that the moons of jupiter prove Lesans wrong and you want it to be a constant reminder. I get it davidm. But you are completely wrong. Your reasoning is so warped I can't even respond except to say that the moons of jupiter thought experiment does not in any way discredit Lessans' claim. I don't care how angry you get. I can get just as angry. See... :fuming:

davidm · #**12343** 10-14-2011, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

He followed all your arguments to their logical conclusions and posed them to you as questions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

This is exactly right. I took what Lessans said and what peacegirl has said in this thread, and followed their arguments to their logical conclusions. peacegirl, you can throw a hissy fit and evade the logical conclusions all you want, but I will keep pointing them out to you. Your position has been demonstrated to be hopeless.

Oh, and peacegirl? What about the moons of Jupiter?

You think that the moons of jupiter prove Lesans wrong and you want it to be a constant reminder. I get it davidm. But you are completely wrong. Your reasoning is so warped I can't even respond except to say that the moons of jupiter thought experiment does not in any way discredit Lessans' claim. I don't care how angry you get. I can get just as angry. See... :fuming:

Giving up, are we, peacegirl?

er, why doesn't it discredit Big Old Dumbo, peacegirl? :popcorn:

Oh, and the "moons of Jupiter thought experiment" is NOT a "thought experiement." It an empirical demonstration of 1. the finite speed of light, and 2. the impossibility of real-time seeing. So, yes, it decisively rules out your Deluded Daddy's claims, and makes you look like a whining, churlish fool to post as you do above.

Dragar · #**12344** 10-14-2011, 09:53 PM

A compilation of some unanswered points.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

peacegirl, you have misunderstood Vivisectus point.

He is asking, why when we see a red object, are the photons we are receiving always red? An object may change colour in the time between the photons being emitted, and reaching us. In this case, we should see the object as it actually is - and the frequency of the photons should have no bearing on what colour we see the object to be.

However, this is never the case. We always see an object to be the same colour as the photons we receive from it, even if an object has changed colour in the time between the photons being emitted and arriving at us.

For example, a supernovae is when a star explodes a great distance away. The colour of light it emits changes dramatically when this happens. According to you, we should see the star's colour change instantly, with the light of a new colour only reaching us many years later. However, this is not what we see. The light reaching us is of a new colour at the same time we see the star change colour. This is not what Lessans predicts - ruling out instant vision of distant objects - and it suggests we see (if nothing else) at the same speed as light.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

They are verifiable, but not according to your rules which are based on your preconceived ideas of how light works.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Lessans was not refuting the speed of light, or the basics of how light works. He was disputing one thing only; that we see a delayed version of reality.

Please compare and contrast. Are you disputing the rules of how light works, or not? Make up your mind.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

peacegirl, why do we detect light from distant planets coming from the same position in the sky that we see them?

If we see them in real time, then photons shouldn't come from where we see the planet. But they do.

Plus, the moons of Jupiter corresponds to an actual observation. Not a thought experiment, peacegirl. You can't just ignore it.

davidm · #**12345** 10-14-2011, 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Plus, the moons of Jupiter corresponds to an actual observation. Not a thought experiment, peacegirl. You can't just ignore it.

Of course she can. She just wrote:

Quote:

You think that the moons of jupiter prove Lesans wrong and you want it to be a constant reminder. I get it davidm. But you are completely wrong. Your reasoning is so warped I can't even respond except to say that the moons of jupiter thought experiment does not in any way discredit Lessans' claim. I don't care how angry you get. I can get just as angry. See...

And there you have it! :lol:

Spacemonkey · #**12346** 10-14-2011, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

1. What is it that causally interacts with the film to determine the color of the (allegedly real-time) photgraphic image?

Light.

2. Where is whatever it is that so interacts with the film?

At the lens. I'm really not sure if that's the answer you are looking for, because I'm not sure if I understood you correctly.

3. What properties of this determine the color of the resulting image?

The wavelengths.

Thank you. Now let's follow through on the implications of this. At time T1 the ball is blue, and film in the camera is forming a real-time blue image on the basis of the wavelength of the blue light present at the lens/camera, correct?

Next question: How did that blue light get there?

Light travels. So at time T-1 (a moment before T1) that light was presumably still blue and had not quite reached the lens/camera, and yet the ball at T-1 was red. So where did that blue light come from?

I hope you're not going to avoid this, Peacegirl.

davidm · #**12347** 10-14-2011, 11:06 PM

peacegirl, why do you continue to avoid this?

From the linked article:

Quote:

The first real measurement of the speed of light came about half a century later, in 1676, by a Danish astronomer, Ole Römer, working at the Paris Observatory. He had made a systematic study of Io, one of the moons of Jupiter, which was eclipsed by Jupiter at regular intervals, as Io went around Jupiter in a circular orbit at a steady rate. Actually, Römer found, for several months the eclipses lagged more and more behind the expected time, but then they began to pick up again. In September 1676,he correctly predicted that an eclipse on November 9 would be 10 minutes behind schedule. This was indeed the case, to the surprise of his skeptical colleagues at the Royal Observatory in Paris. Two weeks later, he told them what was happening: as the Earth and Jupiter moved in their orbits, the distance between them varied. The light from Io (actually reflected sunlight, of course) took time to reach the earth, and took the longest time when the earth was furthest away. When the Earth was furthest from Jupiter, there was an extra distance for light to travel equal to the diameter of the Earth’s orbit compared with the point of closest approach. The observed eclipses were furthest behind the predicted times when the earth was furthest from Jupiter.

And there is the empirical refutation of Lessans’ claims about real-time seeing. The above observations (not a “thought experiment”) show that the speed of light is finite, that we do indeed see light and that real-time seeing is impossible. So Lessans is shown to be wrong in his claims.

Surely you are not going to continue to avoid the above, are you, peacegirl? People will think you dishonest if you do.

peacegirl · #**12348** 10-14-2011, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

*bump* for peacegirl.

Answer for the questions, please, and stop your dishonet evasions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

So, peacegirl, here is what you said:

Quote:

In order for a camera to work, light has to be striking the lens.

So the light has to be striking the lens. Now according to Lessans, if God were to turn on the sun at noon, we would see the sun immediately, but we would not see the neighbor standing next to us for eight and a half minutes.

So here is the scenario.

1. God turns on the sun at noon.

2. Your neighbor has a camera pointed at the sun.

3. The light has to be striking the lens, according to you, for the camera to take a picture of the sun.

4. However, according to Lessans, even though we would see the sun immediately, when God turned it on, we would not see our neighbor for eight and a half minutes. So the light is not striking the neighbor until that much time has passed. If the light is not striking the neighbor, it’s also not striking the camera.

5. You now say that we take pictures in real time, just like seeing in real time. But you also say that the light has to be at the lens of the camera, in order to take a picture. But according to Lessans, the light will not be at the camera for eight and a half minutes, because that is how long it will take for the light to reach your neighbor, who is holding the camera. So the camera, according to Lessans, cannot take pictures in real time.

Therefore, you have contradicted your father’s claims. It behooves you to return to your original position, which was that while we see in real time, the camera takes pictures in delayed time. If you don’t return to your original position, you are in disagreement with Lessans.

However, if you do return to your original position — that we see in real time, but cameras take pictures in delayed time — this position is wholly refuted by the fact that what we see, and the images made by cameras, are the same. That would be impossible if we saw in real time but took pictures in delayed time.

So either you are making a claim that contradicts plainly observed reality, or you are making a claim that contradicts Lessans.

Which is it, peacegirl? We’re dying to know. :popcorn:

By the way, you can't wriggle out of this jam by dismissing Lessans' claim here as "merely hypothetical." This just shows you don't know the meaning of "hypothesis." He is a making a claim of the fashion that: Assuming what I say is true, if x occuirs, we should expect y to happen. If y does not happen, then what Lessans says about the world is untrue. Since y does not happen, Lessans is wrong.

Regardless of whether whether light has to reach the eye in order to see, or it doesn't, does not erase the [possible] truth of efferent vision. You are trying to discredit him based on this one paragraph, and I'm not going to let you do it. :sadcheer:

Just maybe they were furthest behind the predicted eclipses because of a miscalculation. All I am saying is that in order to prove something true it needs to be replicated. It's very convenient to make all other experiments confirm the original hypothesis.

peacegirl · #**12349** 10-14-2011, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

peacegirl, why do you continue to avoid this?

From the linked article:

Quote:

The first real measurement of the speed of light came about half a century later, in 1676, by a Danish astronomer, Ole Römer, working at the Paris Observatory. He had made a systematic study of Io, one of the moons of Jupiter, which was eclipsed by Jupiter at regular intervals, as Io went around Jupiter in a circular orbit at a steady rate. Actually, Römer found, for several months the eclipses lagged more and more behind the expected time, but then they began to pick up again. In September 1676,he correctly predicted that an eclipse on November 9 would be 10 minutes behind schedule. This was indeed the case, to the surprise of his skeptical colleagues at the Royal Observatory in Paris. Two weeks later, he told them what was happening: as the Earth and Jupiter moved in their orbits, the distance between them varied. The light from Io (actually reflected sunlight, of course) took time to reach the earth, and took the longest time when the earth was furthest away. When the Earth was furthest from Jupiter, there was an extra distance for light to travel equal to the diameter of the Earth’s orbit compared with the point of closest approach. The observed eclipses were furthest behind the predicted times when the earth was furthest from Jupiter.

And there is the empirical refutation of Lessans’ claims about real-time seeing. The above observations (not a “thought experiment”) show that the speed of light is finite, that we do indeed see light and that real-time seeing is impossible. So Lessans is shown to be wrong in his claims.

Surely you are not going to continue to avoid the above, are you, peacegirl? People will think you dishonest if you do.

When something is further away, it takes longer to reach the same point than it does when it takes a shorter amount of time to reach that same point. Therefore, couldn't this be the explanation for why it took longer to see the eclipse? I am really not that interested in whether you could even consider the possibility of there being another explanation because I doubt you can.

Spacemonkey · #**12350** 10-14-2011, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

1. What is it that causally interacts with the film to determine the color of the (allegedly real-time) photgraphic image?

Light.

2. Where is whatever it is that so interacts with the film?

At the lens. I'm really not sure if that's the answer you are looking for, because I'm not sure if I understood you correctly.

3. What properties of this determine the color of the resulting image?

The wavelengths.

Thank you. Now let's follow through on the implications of this. At time T1 the ball is blue, and film in the camera is forming a real-time blue image on the basis of the wavelength of the blue light present at the lens/camera, correct?

Next question: How did that blue light get there?

Light travels. So at time T-1 (a moment before T1) that light was presumably still blue and had not quite reached the lens/camera, and yet the ball at T-1 was red. So where did that blue light come from?

I hope you're not going to avoid this, Peacegirl.