A revolution in thought

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry if you don't like how I explain it, but isn't that what resolution is about? If there is nothing to resolve because the reflected light is no longer capable of producing an image on the film, that means there will be no image, only white light. That's all I meant.

It's not a matter of not liking it. You are making things up and talking completely incoherent nonsense that shows you have no idea what the words you are using actually mean. You are also flat-out lying about having answered my questions when you have not.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Wow ... just wow!

She really says the most astonishingly stupid things without batting an eye, doesn't she?

I agree that this discussion has gotten very confusing; that's because I am having to answer questions that I never thought about because that was not how he came to his findings. I know that this claim does not violate the laws of physics nor does it change the properties of light. I'm not giving up on this account just because I can't answer every single question to everyone's satisfaction. But for now I really do need a break. This discussion has gone on far too long.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It's not a matter of not liking it. You are making things up and talking completely incoherent nonsense that shows you have no idea what the words you are using actually mean. You are also flat-out lying about having answered my questions when you have not.

I don't know what to say Spacemonkey. I don't know how to answer your questions which is an attempt to make this account implausible. But it's not implausible. For now, it's time for a break. We will never resolve this dispute any time soon. If no one wants to discuss his first discovery, especially when the world is in such turmoil, then I will have to move on.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know what to say Spacemonkey.

Something honest would be a start.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know how to answer your questions...

I know you don't. But you could try. Lying about having answered them is not acceptable.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But it's not implausible.

Of course it is. You need light at the film before it can possibly get there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

For now, it's time for a break.

After another hard day's work of lying, evading, and weaseling! Daddy would be so proud.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We will never resolve this dispute any time soon. If no one wants to discuss his first discovery, especially at this time in history when the world is in turmoil, then I will have to move on.

You're not capable of leaving, remember?

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see where I'm violating any laws of spectroscopy because the properties of light remain the same.

Spectroscopy pertains to the dispersion of an object's light into its component colors (i.e. energies). By performing this dissection and analysis of an object's light, astronomers can infer the physical properties of that object (such as temperature, mass, luminosity and composition).

http://loke.as.arizona.edu/~ckulesa/...opy_intro.html

The point is that the light is analyzed into its component colors. Its spectrum. That's exactly how we can determine the spectrum of light coming from distant stars.
The statement "there is no way scientists can prove through observation that the light being reflected from a distant object is traveling with a partial spectrum or a full spectrum of light" is completely false.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Where is the slew of problems? All I said is that by the time light gets to Earth the wavelengths will be so far apart (the inverse square law) that we will not get an image because there will be no resolution. I didn't mean to say that light doesn't travel with particular wavelengths. I am not changing the properties of light. So no, I am not retracting anything I said in regard to that.

You are so disconnected from reality, I don't know where to begin. Photons will not be far apart by the time they arrive from the Sun to the Earth. There are 913 trillion X 1 trillion for every 4 square inches of surface on the Earth per second, hardly a great deal of separation for the photons, and easily enough for the eye/brain to form an image.

[LadyShea]

If no one wants to discuss his first discovery

You disengaged from a whole second thread about the first "discovery", and said you didn't want to discuss it anymore. Now you want to return to it?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry if you don't like how I explain it, but isn't that what resolution is about? If there is nothing to resolve because the reflected light is no longer capable of producing an image on the film, that means there will be no image, only white light. That's all I meant.

Reflected light will always be capable of forming an image, the Hubble deep field proves that even very defuse light from millions of years ago can still form an image. Old light is not white, as shown by the Hubble images that are formed from old colored light, light of different frequencies do form images of different colors.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You disengaged from a whole second thread about the first "discovery", and said you didn't want to discuss it anymore. Now you want to return to it?

Just another one of her standard weaseling tactics. No matter what topic she's on, she'll evade questions and objections by insisting that she really wants to discuss something else.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by davidm

She really says the most astonishingly stupid things without batting an eye, doesn't she?

You can see her eyes while she types? Damn you're good, do you have efferent vision?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Except that a few weeks ago you agreed that "uncalculable" numbers of photons from the sun fall on the earth every second! "Uncalculable" was your own word. Do you now wish to argue that we can't see the sun even if uncalculable numbers of photons fall on the earth from the sun, every second?

And yet, as I noted earlier, one photon from a source is sufficient to get a response from the retina, and only five to nine photons within 100 ms is necessary for the brain to register an image!

You don't even care that you routinely contradict yourself, do you? Intellectual slob that you are, you throw out all sorts of nonsense, much if it self-contradictory, and then whine and mewl and demand to be taken seriously!

[Stephen Maturin]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know that this claim does not violate the laws of physics nor does it change the properties of light.

But you know nothing about the laws of physics or the properties of light. As always, you're engaging in argumentum ad make-it-up-and-launch-it-from-your-shitter.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not giving up on this account ...

Yes, we know. Giving up the account would involve admitting that Seymour was wrong, and that would obliterate the very cornerstone of your existence.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

just because I can't answer every single question to everyone's satisfaction.

You have yet to answer even one question to anyone's satisfaction. Your failure here is as complete as it was with any attempts you might have made to be a productive member of society.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But for now I really do need a break.

Being a prevaricating sack of shit on the Internet for twelve hours a day is hard work! Too bad you won't channel that effort into gainful employment.

Oh wait, I forgot -- employment is beneath you. A Lessans shouldn't have to work for a living, because God has chosen your family to be the saviors of humankind. The world owes you a living.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This discussion has gone on far too long.

And you'll keep having the same discussion for the rest of your Dickensian nightmare of a life. As always, Daddy Dingleberry was wrong -- stupidity is real. Wanna know what it looks like? Check yourself out in a mirror sometime, if you can stand it.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

All I said is that by the time light gets to Earth the wavelengths or nonabsorbed photons will be so far apart (the inverse square law) that we will not get an image. I didn't say that light doesn't travel with particular wavelengths and if I did say that I was wrong. I am not changing the properties of light which you keep accusing me of. So no, I am not retracting anything I said in regard to that.

No, that is not "all you said"...and you know it, liar.

You claimed over and over again that only full spectrum light travels, and that partial spectrum light does not travel and is not reflected. You tried to pull the claim back a few times, with waffling and weaseling, but always returned to that position.

[LadyShea]

nm

[Stephen Maturin]

show spoiler

[davidm]

[davidm]

Remember she said she gave up on Twitter after a short time, deciding it wasn't the right medium?

"Seymour Lessans," still tweeting as of yesterday.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

The point is that the light is analyzed into its component colors. Its spectrum. That's exactly how we can determine the spectrum of light coming from distant stars.
The statement "there is no way scientists can prove through observation that the light being reflected from a distant object is traveling with a partial spectrum or a full spectrum of light" is completely false.

But, I am not disputing this. What I am disputing is that they can observe whether the light that has been reflected off of an object travels millions of miles as a partial spectrum and doesn't change until it strikes another object. By the time the light would get here it would be unresolvable because the light would have dissipated. I didn't say light would stop traveling.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Remember she said she gave up on Twitter after a short time, deciding it wasn't the right medium?

"Seymour Lessans," still tweeting as of yesterday.

You're right. Guess why? This thread isn't going to help me and I got an email from, of all things, a website that is run by a guy named David. Because I already used his website, he was giving me 30 free tweets. So why shouldn't I use them?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said the photon that left the Sun did not arrive. It was already absorbed by my eye. Only photons that did not interact with film or the retina made it to Earth at which time they would strike an object and be absorbed or reflected.

No-one asked you about those photons. My questions remain completely unanswered.


Please answer my questions about THESE photons (the ones at the camera film on Earth at 12:00 when the Sun is first ignited), and without mentioning or reverting to any other different photons.

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?

Don't commit the postman's mistake by talking about different photons from those which are at the retina at 12:00. Don't even mention any photons other than those I have asked about. If you get to the end of the questions and realize the photons you are talking about are not the ones at the film at 12:00, then you have fucked up again and have failed to actually answer what was asked.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But, I am not disputing this. What I am disputing is that they can observe whether the light that has been reflected off of an object travels millions of miles as a partial spectrum and doesn't change until it strikes another object. By the time the light would get here it would be unresolvable because the light would have dissipated. I didn't say light would stop traveling.

How would it change? Change in what way?

If we can detect it, then it is not too far away...remember your adage, if we can see it, it can be seen!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Because I answered you Spacemonkey. I said the photon that left the Sun did not arrive. It was already absorbed by my eye. Even though my eye is on Earth I am getting a mirror image of the faraway object, which does not require photons to travel to Earth for me to see this object. And only photons that did not interact with film or my eye made it to Earth at which time they will strike an object and be absorbed or reflected.

Now you have light photons being physically located three places at once, 1. At the source 2. in the "mirror image" and 3. being absorbed by the eye.

Light photons cannot be somewhere without traveling there. They cannot be absorbed by your eye before reaching Earth. They do not duplicate themselves into a mirror image.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You disengaged from a whole second thread about the first "discovery", and said you didn't want to discuss it anymore. Now you want to return to it?

I want to return to it because it's so important, but not if you think that your reasoning as to determinism being a modal fallacy is valid. I am trying to show that it's not a modal fallacy because no one is predicting (I am not referring to the standard definition which has caused a lot of confusion) which choice is going to be made. Obviously, it is not necessary that a person has to choose what I predict. I do not know all of the factors that go into a particular choice, so I wouldn't be able to make an accurate prediction. This has nothing to do with the fact that what we do choose is out of absolutely necessity because once it is chosen, it could not have been otherwise. To say that it could have been otherwise if the conditions were different is true, but the conditions were not different, so this was the choice that had to be made. I will not accept David, you, or Spacemonkey calling this an assertion, which is an accusation that is based on ignorance. That will stop me from continuing for sure.

[LadyShea]

I want to return to it because it's so important, but not if you think that your reasoning as to determinism being a modal fallacy

Determinism isn't a modal fallacy, Lessans used a modal fallacy in his explanation and you continued to use fallacious reasoning.

I am trying to show people that it's not a modal fallacy because no one is predicting (in this preposition) which choice is going to be made.

Prediction isn't the problem.

This has nothing to do with the fact that what we do choose is out of absolutely necessity because once it is chosen, it could not have been otherwise.

Necessity cannot be determined after the fact, as this allows you to simply declare all choices as necessary ones without demonstrating necessity. That is fallacious reasoning. It's also deceptive and weaselly.

I will not accept David, you, or Spacemonkey calling this an assertion, and ending the discussion before it begins. That will stop me from continuing for sure.

As presented, it is an assertion.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I want to return to it because it's so important, but not if you think that your reasoning as to determinism being a modal fallacy is valid. I am trying to show that it's not a modal fallacy because no one is predicting (I am not referring to the standard definition which has caused a lot of confusion) which choice is going to be made. Obviously, it is not necessary that a person has to choose what I predict. I do not know all of the factors that go into a particular choice, so I wouldn't be able to make an accurate prediction. This has nothing to do with the fact that what we do choose is out of absolutely necessity because once it is chosen, it could not have been otherwise. To say that it could have been otherwise if the conditions were different is true, but the conditions were not different, so this was the choice that had to be made. I will not accept David, you, or Spacemonkey calling this an assertion, which is an accusation that is based on ignorance. That will stop me from continuing for sure.

It's an assertion.