#38451  
Old 07-21-2014, 12:00 PM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
Posts: VCI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
...we would see it virtually instantly...
What the heck happened for you to suddenly start up with this 'virtually' instantly and 'nanoseconds'? You're just making this up, you know?
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-21-2014), LadyShea (07-21-2014)
  #38452  
Old 07-21-2014, 12:37 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The Sun emits light; it doesn't strike an object which causes the inverse square law to occur.
Seriously, what are you talking about? You're babbling completely incoherently. The inverse square law is a property of geometry, and light 'striking an object' has nothing to do with it.
All I'm trying to say is that we would not be able to get an image from a light source that is so far away because there would be no resolution. Thanks for correcting me.

inverse square law: The intensity of light observed from a source of constant intrinsic luminosity falls off as the square of the distance from the object.
But there is actual math involved in determining what is "too far away" to be resolved. The higher the intensity at the source, the higher the intensity at various distances away.

And on the other end of this mechanism, receptors vary in their sensitivity, so some can resolve an image with less intense light than others.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-21-2014)
  #38453  
Old 07-21-2014, 12:41 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Again, I am not talking about seeing distant galaxies because this is just pure light which travels and strikes our telescopes in delayed time.
But telescopes have lenses! Don't they cause the allowance of this mechanism? :lol:

Anyway, Lessans clearly said we see everything in real time, including distant stars and galaxies.

Quote:
I'm only talking about things in the environment that are made up of matter which light reveals
The matter that makes up stars and the Sun is not "revealed" by light. We cannot see their matter. If they were not emitting visible light we wouldn't be able to see them at all. I return you to the existence of black holes...which contain a great amount of matter. Some observed black holes are orbited by multiple stars, which should cast enough light to "reveal" any nearby matter, yet they do not reveal the black hole.

Last edited by LadyShea; 07-21-2014 at 01:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-21-2014)
  #38454  
Old 07-21-2014, 12:55 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
...we would see it virtually instantly...
What the heck happened for you to suddenly start up with this 'virtually' instantly and 'nanoseconds'? You're just making this up, you know?
No I'm not. His claim still stands because the image (the information) is not reflected. This only means that it doesn't travel over long distances to strike the eye and then get decoded in the brain. It is obvious that light is the bridge or condition for sight. Please don't turn his claim into a joke because it's not a joke.
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"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
  #38455  
Old 07-21-2014, 12:58 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
His claim still stands because the image (the information) is not reflected.
And once again this is a silly, useless, strawman claim because nobody thinks images or information are reflected.

Optics notes that light is reflected, that's it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
This only means that it doesn't travel over long distances to strike the eye
Does "it" refer to light? Light absolutely can travel over long distances and light absolutely does strike the eye.
Reply With Quote
  #38456  
Old 07-21-2014, 01:03 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

See the equations? This one is from NASA

Reply With Quote
  #38457  
Old 07-21-2014, 01:10 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Again, I am not talking about seeing distant galaxies because this is just pure light which travels and strikes our telescopes in delayed time.
But telescopes have lenses! Don't they cause the allowance of this mechanism? :lol:
Right, but they are receiving light that has traveled just like we would receive light 81/2 minutes after the Sun was turned on. This is the side of the highway that you and Spacemonkey are on. You are not paying attention to the other side that does not conflict with your side.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Anyway, Lessans clearly said we see everything in real time, including distant stars and galaxies.
Of course, we would see the light in real time, but the light is traveling so it does follow that we are seeing light that came from a galaxy which existed at an earlier time, if this is a known property of light (i.e., that it travels forever unless it converts to another type of energy). We don't flip flop from seeing in real time to not seeing in real time. We either see in real time or we don't.

Quote:
I'm only talking about things in the environment that are made up of matter which light reveals
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
The matter that makes up stars and the Sun is not "revealed" by light. We cannot see their matter.
We see events that are occurring on the Sun due to the interaction that is going on between helium, hydrogen, plasma, and other nuclear reactions. We are seeing all of these interactions in real time if our telescopes are powerful enough to see them. Again, the object (the Sun), the lens, and enough light allow real time observation to take place.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
If they were not emitting visible light we wouldn't be able to see them at all. I return you to the existence of black holes...which contain a great amount of matter. Some observed black holes are orbited by multiple stars, which should cast enough light to "reveal" any nearby matter, yet they do not reveal the black hole directly.
I am not disputing that the Sun has to emit visible light to see it, but it does not take 81/2 minutes in the hypothetical example of the Sun being turned on at noon. It would take nanoseconds (the bridge between light and the object) to resolve the image on a sensor or photoreceptor where we would not resolve any image in the light that has traveled 93 million miles because the image would be out of optical range. We would only receive full spectrum light. I know this sounds confusing, but if you analyze it, it really isn't as confusing as you think.
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"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
  #38458  
Old 07-21-2014, 01:14 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Again, I am not talking about seeing distant galaxies because this is just pure light which travels and strikes our telescopes in delayed time.
But telescopes have lenses! Don't they cause the allowance of this mechanism? :lol:
Right, but they are receiving light that has traveled just like we would receive light 81/2 minutes after the Sun was turned on. This is the side of the highway that you and Spacemonkey are on. You are not paying attention to the other side that does not conflict with your side.
But you said camera lenses allow instantaneous interaction without the light traveling to the camera, why not telescope lenses?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-21-2014)
  #38459  
Old 07-21-2014, 01:19 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Again, I am not talking about seeing distant galaxies because this is just pure light which travels and strikes our telescopes in delayed time.
But telescopes have lenses! Don't they cause the allowance of this mechanism? :lol:
Right, but they are receiving light that has traveled just like we would receive light 81/2 minutes after the Sun was turned on. This is the side of the highway that you and Spacemonkey are on. You are not paying attention to the other side that does not conflict with your side.
But you said camera lenses allow instantaneous interaction without the light traveling to the camera, why not telescope lenses?
There has to be interaction between light and the object, but it does not follow that the farther away it is, the longer it will take to receive the image. That's what Lessans was disputing. Obviously, there has to be a bridge to seeing the external world, which is why Lessans said light is a necessary condition, but he was trying to distinguish this from the image or information being sent and received in the light and decoded in the brain. Nothing in your refutation makes his claim implausible. His claims still holds.
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"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
  #38460  
Old 07-21-2014, 01:25 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
See the equations? This one is from NASA

I've seen this graphic. What are you trying to disprove in my argument?
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"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
  #38461  
Old 07-21-2014, 01:26 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Anyway, Lessans clearly said we see everything in real time, including distant stars and galaxies.
Of course, we would see the light in real time, but the light is traveling so it does follow that we are seeing light that came from a galaxy which existed at an earlier time, if this is a known property of light (i.e., that it travels forever unless it converts to another type of energy).[/quote]
If we are seeing in real time, that means we do not have to wait for the light to travel to our location, it's what you've been arguing and definitely what Lessans claim was. You are now claiming the opposite of what he did.
Quote:
We don't flip flop from seeing in real time to not seeing in real time. We either see in real time or we don't.
Then we don't, because you just said we have to wait for traveling light to reach us from distant galaxies, but Lessans said we would see everything without waiting for the traveling light to arrive. That was what his Sun on at noon scenario was all about!
Quote:
Quote:
I'm only talking about things in the environment that are made up of matter which light reveals
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
The matter that makes up stars and the Sun is not "revealed" by light. We cannot see their matter.
We see events that are occurring on the Sun due to the interaction that is going on between helium, hydrogen, plasma, and other nuclear reactions. We are seeing all of these interactions in real time if our telescopes are powerful enough to see them. Again, the object (the Sun), the lens, and enough light allow real time observation to take place.
We see events that are occurring? So you can see the nuclear reactions? Really? So what are we seeing when we see a flame? Or not seeing it in the case of invisible flames? What are we seeing with a rainbow? TV screen?

We have been through this a million times. If your claim is back to "we see matter not light" then you truly have nothing to offer by way of a coherent mechanism or model.

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
If they were not emitting visible light we wouldn't be able to see them at all. I return you to the existence of black holes...which contain a great amount of matter. Some observed black holes are orbited by multiple stars, which should cast enough light to "reveal" any nearby matter, yet they do not reveal the black hole directly.
I am not disputing that the Sun has to emit visible light to see it, but it does not take 81/2 minutes in the hypothetical example of the Sun being turned on at noon. It would take nanoseconds (the bridge between light and the object) to resolve the image on a sensor or photoreceptor where we would not resolve any image 93 million miles away because it would be out of optical range. We would only receive full spectrum light. I know this sounds confusing, but if you analyze it, it really isn't as confusing as you think.
So now we see the light and not the "revealed" matter? You just flip flopped in this one post!
Reply With Quote
  #38462  
Old 07-21-2014, 01:28 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
News Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
His claim still stands because the image (the information) is not reflected.
And once again this is a silly, useless, strawman claim because nobody thinks images or information are reflected.

Optics notes that light is reflected, that's it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
This only means that it doesn't travel over long distances to strike the eye
Does "it" refer to light? Light absolutely can travel over long distances and light absolutely does strike the eye.
I'm not disputing that light travels over long distances and that light strikes the eye, but this does not prove that we receive and decode images from that light.
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"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
  #38463  
Old 07-21-2014, 01:29 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: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Still waiting...
be back soon, but you know what my answers will be.
Still waiting...
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #38464  
Old 07-21-2014, 01:31 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The Sun emits light; it doesn't strike an object which causes the inverse square law to occur.
Seriously, what are you talking about? You're babbling completely incoherently. The inverse square law is a property of geometry, and light 'striking an object' has nothing to do with it.
All I'm trying to say is that we would not be able to get an image from a light source that is so far away because there would be no resolution. Thanks for correcting me.

inverse square law: The intensity of light observed from a source of constant intrinsic luminosity falls off as the square of the distance from the object.
But there is actual math involved in determining what is "too far away" to be resolved. The higher the intensity at the source, the higher the intensity at various distances away.

And on the other end of this mechanism, receptors vary in their sensitivity, so some can resolve an image with less intense light than others.
Show me the math.
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"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
  #38465  
Old 07-21-2014, 01:35 PM
Artemis Entreri's Avatar
Artemis Entreri Artemis Entreri is offline
Phallic Philanthropist
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Mobile
Gender: Male
Posts: MCDXXII
Images: 6
Default Re: A revolution in thought

I think she started using the nanosecond thing after it was pointed out that even when discussing the candle that the light would still take nanoseconds to hit the eye, light travels at approximately 1 foot per nanosecond.
She conceded that but then said that the light from the sun would take the same amount of time.
Makes sense, I mean I can walk from my mailbox to my house in 10 seconds so obviously I can walk from my house to Cincinnati in the same time
__________________
Why am I naked and sticky?... Did I miss something fun?

Last edited by Artemis Entreri; 07-21-2014 at 01:42 PM. Reason: had to correct, speed = distance/time, not time/distance
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-21-2014), Spacemonkey (07-21-2014)
  #38466  
Old 07-21-2014, 01:38 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Again, I am not talking about seeing distant galaxies because this is just pure light which travels and strikes our telescopes in delayed time.
But telescopes have lenses! Don't they cause the allowance of this mechanism? :lol:
Right, but they are receiving light that has traveled just like we would receive light 81/2 minutes after the Sun was turned on. This is the side of the highway that you and Spacemonkey are on. You are not paying attention to the other side that does not conflict with your side.
But you said camera lenses allow instantaneous interaction without the light traveling to the camera, why not telescope lenses?
There has to be interaction between light and the object, but it does not follow that the farther away it is, the longer it will take to receive the image. That's what Lessans was disputing. Obviously, there has to be a bridge to seeing the external world, which is why Lessans said light is a necessary condition, but he was trying to distinguish this from the image or information being sent and received in the light and decoded in the brain. Nothing in your refutation makes his claim implausible. His claims still holds.
This is completely inconsistent.

Your claims have been that a camera on Earth could photograph the newly ignited Sun at noon, and not have to wait 8.5 minutes for the photons to arrive. You said this interaction at a distance (93 million miles in this case) is allowed by lenses. Then you said "Right, but they (lenses) are receiving light that has traveled just like we would receive light 81/2 minutes after the Sun was turned on." So which is it? When would camera film, or a sensor, receive light if the Sun was turned on at noon?

So when we photograph Andromeda, do we photograph it as it was 2.5 million years ago (how long it took that light to arrive) or as it is right now?



This new portrait of the Andromeda Galaxy, or M31, was taken with the Subaru Telescope's new high-resolution imaging camera, the Hyper-Suprime Cam (HSC).
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-21-2014)
  #38467  
Old 07-21-2014, 01:43 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Anyway, Lessans clearly said we see everything in real time, including distant stars and galaxies.
Of course, we would see the light in real time, but the light is traveling so it does follow that we are seeing light that came from a galaxy which existed at an earlier time, if this is a known property of light (i.e., that it travels forever unless it converts to another type of energy).
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
If we are seeing in real time, that means we do not have to wait for the light to travel to our location, it's what you've been arguing and definitely what Lessans claim was. You are now claiming the opposite of what he did.
NO LadyShea, you are all confused. If we are seeing in real time, that doesn't mean we don't see something that has traveled from A to B, and that we are seeing it before it has gotten here. So we would be seeing light that has traveled which has taken time. But this is not the same thing as seeing matter in real time, which does not take the time for light to travel to reach us because we are not decoding anything from the light. :doh::doh:

Quote:
We don't flip flop from seeing in real time to not seeing in real time. We either see in real time or we don't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Then we don't, because you just said we have to wait for traveling light to reach us from distant galaxies, but Lessans said we would see everything without waiting for the traveling light to arrive. That was what his Sun on at noon scenario was all about!
You're confused LadyShea. I can't see light from the Sun until it arrives 8 1/2 minutes later, but I can see the Sun turned on because it doesn't follow the same principle. The Sun is actually seen in real time (barring a nanosecond) due to the fact that it does meet the requirements of efferent vision. Light that hasn't arrived does not meet any requirements because there is nothing that is being revealed. That's why we would get full spectrum light.

Quote:
I'm only talking about things in the environment that are made up of matter which light reveals
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
The matter that makes up stars and the Sun is not "revealed" by light. We cannot see their matter.
Quote:
We see events that are occurring on the Sun due to the interaction that is going on between helium, hydrogen, plasma, and other nuclear reactions. We are seeing all of these interactions in real time if our telescopes are powerful enough to see them. Again, the object (the Sun), the lens, and enough light allow real time observation to take place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
We see events that are occurring? So you can see the nuclear reactions? Really? So what are we seeing when we see a flame? Or not seeing it in the case of invisible flames? What are we seeing with a rainbow? TV screen?
I didn't say we could see all reactions, but we see the results of fusion because these reactions are made up of matter, and matter can be seen under the right conditions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
We have been through this a million times. If your claim is back to "we see matter not light" then you truly have nothing to offer by way of a coherent mechanism or model.
Not true at all. What can we see other than the interaction between light and matter; even rainbows and sunsets have to do with the interaction between our atmosphere (matter) and light that is the great revealer. :yup:

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
If they were not emitting visible light we wouldn't be able to see them at all. I return you to the existence of black holes...which contain a great amount of matter. Some observed black holes are orbited by multiple stars, which should cast enough light to "reveal" any nearby matter, yet they do not reveal the black hole directly.
I am not disputing that the Sun has to emit visible light to see it, but it does not take 81/2 minutes in the hypothetical example of the Sun being turned on at noon. It would take nanoseconds (the bridge between light and the object) to resolve the image on a sensor or photoreceptor where we would not resolve any image 93 million miles away because it would be out of optical range. We would only receive full spectrum light. I know this sounds confusing, but if you analyze it, it really isn't as confusing as you think.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
So now we see the light and not the "revealed" matter? You just flip flopped in this one post!
Of course LadyShea. I have said that it would take 81/2 minutes for the light to reach Earth, and without this light we couldn't see each other or anything on Earth, but revealing the Sun when it is first turned on does not require us to have light on Earth because the Sun isn't on Earth. :doh:: Remember, light only has to be coming from the object in this account and if you analyze it carefully you will see that it doesn't violate the laws of physics because in this account distance and therefore time are not factors.
__________________
https://www.declineandfallofallevil....3-CHAPTERS.pdf

https://www.declineandfallofallevil.com/ebook/


"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
  #38468  
Old 07-21-2014, 01:59 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
See the equations? This one is from NASA

I've seen this graphic. What are you trying to disprove in my argument?
This "shows you the math" involved, the strength of the source light is one variable, the size of the sphere another. That speaks to the output (intensity) of the light being emitted.

This shows why your arguments about "too far away to resolve" and the inverse square law are invalid, as these terms are relative to the intensity of the source light and the sensitivity of the receptor.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The Sun emits light; it doesn't strike an object which causes the inverse square law to occur.
Seriously, what are you talking about? You're babbling completely incoherently. The inverse square law is a property of geometry, and light 'striking an object' has nothing to do with it.
All I'm trying to say is that we would not be able to get an image from a light source that is so far away because there would be no resolution. Thanks for correcting me.

inverse square law: The intensity of light observed from a source of constant intrinsic luminosity falls off as the square of the distance from the object.
But there is actual math involved in determining what is "too far away" to be resolved. The higher the intensity at the source, the higher the intensity at various distances away.

And on the other end of this mechanism, receptors vary in their sensitivity, so some can resolve an image with less intense light than others.
Show me the math.
Reply With Quote
  #38469  
Old 07-21-2014, 02:04 PM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
Posts: VCI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
The Sun is actually seen in real time (barring a nanosecond)...
So strange. So now we don't see in realtime, we see things in 'real time barring a nanosecond'!
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-21-2014), LadyShea (07-21-2014)
  #38470  
Old 07-21-2014, 02:05 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
His claim still stands because the image (the information) is not reflected.
And once again this is a silly, useless, strawman claim because nobody thinks images or information are reflected.

Optics notes that light is reflected, that's it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
This only means that it doesn't travel over long distances to strike the eye
Does "it" refer to light? Light absolutely can travel over long distances and light absolutely does strike the eye.
I'm not disputing that light travels over long distances and that light strikes the eye, but this does not prove that we receive and decode images from that light.
I'm not trying to prove that, I am simply refuting the arguments you actually made.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-21-2014), Dragar (07-21-2014)
  #38471  
Old 07-21-2014, 02:17 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Bump
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
it doesn't matter whether we're talking about the eyes or a camera because both the eyes and a camera are on Earth and they both have lenses that allow this mechanism to work.
What exactly do lenses do, or what property do they posses that allows this?
Seriously, you are ascribing superpowers to this


If I put 2 pieces of photosensitive paper on the ground next to each other, then put a pair of eyeglasses on one piece, then turn on the Sun, would the paper with the lenses sitting on it interact with the light immediately while the paper without lenses must wait 8.5 minutes?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Dragar (07-21-2014)
  #38472  
Old 07-21-2014, 02:19 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I have said that it would take 81/2 minutes for the light to reach Earth, and without this light we couldn't see each other or anything on Earth
And camera film on Earth couldn't physically interact with light that is not on Earth because it hasn't yet reached Earth.

You have yet to address this problem at all.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-21-2014), Dragar (07-21-2014)
  #38473  
Old 07-21-2014, 02:20 PM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Cotswolds
Gender: Male
Posts: VCI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Arguing like peacegirl 101

1. Make an insane claim! ("We see in realtime!")
2. Support with obviously false statement ("The image is reflected and carried by light!")
3. When your obviously false statement is refuted, respond with: "That may be true, but it doesn't mean [insane claim] is false!"
__________________
The miracle of the appropriateness of the language of mathematics for the formulation of the laws of physics is a wonderful gift which we neither understand nor deserve. -Eugene Wigner
Reply With Quote
  #38474  
Old 07-21-2014, 02:21 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: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Still waiting...
be back soon, but you know what my answers will be.
Why would you say that only to then return and not provide any answers??

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?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #38475  
Old 07-21-2014, 02:34 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I am not disputing that the Sun has to emit visible light to see it, but it does not take 81/2 minutes in the hypothetical example of the Sun being turned on at noon. It would take nanoseconds (the bridge between light and the object) to resolve the image on a sensor or photoreceptor where we would not resolve any image in the light that has traveled 93 million miles because the image would be out of optical range. We would only receive full spectrum light. I know this sounds confusing, but if you analyze it, it really isn't as confusing as you think.

It's really not confusing, it's just unrealistic and impossible, It doesn't happen that way. You have stated your claims and it is easy to understand them even though you have offered no evidence or support. The problem is that what you say happens, doesn't, except in Lessans and your imaginations. What you claim happens, doesn't happen at all.
__________________
The highest form of ignorance is when you reject something you don’t know anything about. Wayne Dyer
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (07-21-2014)
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 8 (0 members and 8 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 01:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 0.30080 seconds with 14 queries