#12101  
Old 10-11-2011, 07:13 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XVMMCCCLVII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Couldn't it be as simple as the farther away something is from the earth's axis (due to seasonal changes), the longer it will take to orbit, which would account for the longer time to see the eclipse? Just a thought, so don't get crazy on me. :sadcheer:
I suppose this could work as an explanation if the object in question were orbiting Earth. You do know, don't you, that Jupiter and its moons are not orbiting Earth?
As Io travels in its slightly elliptical orbit...

http://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/...Object=Jupiter

Reply With Quote
  #12102  
Old 10-11-2011, 07:19 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXCCCXLI
Images: 58
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
I really couldn't tell you what she thought at this point.
I have learned to translate somewhat
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Dragar (10-11-2011)
  #12103  
Old 10-11-2011, 07:19 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XVMMCCCLVII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vivisectus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Even if we are seeing remnants from the past, we are seeing them in real time if Lessans is right.
Ermm.. if we see "remnants from the past" then Lessans is wrong, because we do not see instantly or directly. Lessans states that we somehow have a direct experience of an object as it is, - that we do not detect the visual spectrum of electromagnetic radiation, and interpret that as images.

This is demonstrably not the case, as has now been repeatedly shown in great detail.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
How can photons not be emitting light for a telescope to detect them?
:lolhog:

Photons are light.
Because light is a condition of sight, we are able to detect colors in the same way as we would if we were interpreting signals. Lessans never said we do not detect the visual spectrum of electromagnetic radiation due to the properties of light.
Reply With Quote
  #12104  
Old 10-11-2011, 07:30 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XVMMCCCLVII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
It's not the speed of the light. That's why we don't see a picture if the OBJECT OR IMAGE is one centimeter out of the line of sight. Why is everyone handwaving this away? :chin:
Because it's wrong. The object has to HAVE BEEN in the line of sight AT THE MOMENT the photons we see from it were emitted. But the object could very well have moved out of the line of sight, or the object could even have ceased to exist by the time we see it.
Then what's wrong with doing an experiment where we know an object is right in the line of sight, but just out of view? Shouldn't we still get an image on the lens of a camera if light is carrying that image?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceptimus
For example, in a total solar eclipse, when the last sliver of sun can still be seen just before totality, the sun has already been totally obscured. Light takes about 1.3 seconds to travel from the moon, so we see the moon in the position it was 1.3 seconds ago.

There is no doubt at all that we do this - when we send rockets to land or pass close by other planets or their moons, the rockets would all miss their targets if we didn't aim the rockets allowing for the fact that the targets are all in front of their apparent positions.

The scientists are smart enough to say, 'We see Jupiter's moon Io there, but we know that light from IO has taken 43 minutes to travel to us so Io will really have moved on and be there at this moment.'

Because we see Io as it was, and in the position it was, 43 minutes ago, we can sometimes be still observing Io when we know that it has actually moved out of our line of sight, behind Jupiter.
That's the theory.
Reply With Quote
  #12105  
Old 10-11-2011, 07:34 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXCCCXLI
Images: 58
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Then what's wrong with doing an experiment where we know an object is right in the line of sight, but just out of view?
Because "out of view" has meaning in optics, because there is a specific scientific reason something is "out of view" and that must be addressed for the object to be seen or photographed.

Quote:
Shouldn't we still get an image on the lens of a camera if light is carrying that image?
With specialized equipment, like space telescope mounted CCDs, we do.
Reply With Quote
  #12106  
Old 10-11-2011, 07:35 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XVMMCCCLVII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
That last paragraph is particularly bizarre.

We know we can use the light to make images. But in in Lessan's world, what we see should not match what is recorded on, say, a CCD, since the latter is information carried by light (which took time to reach us), while the former is what we see (and hence took no time to reach us).

What a weird way of trying to view the world.
A light source can project images onto a CCD. There's no conflict here.
Reply With Quote
  #12107  
Old 10-11-2011, 07:38 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXCCCXLI
Images: 58
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceptimus
For example, in a total solar eclipse, when the last sliver of sun can still be seen just before totality, the sun has already been totally obscured. Light takes about 1.3 seconds to travel from the moon, so we see the moon in the position it was 1.3 seconds ago.

There is no doubt at all that we do this - when we send rockets to land or pass close by other planets or their moons, the rockets would all miss their targets if we didn't aim the rockets allowing for the fact that the targets are all in front of their apparent positions.

The scientists are smart enough to say, 'We see Jupiter's moon Io there, but we know that light from IO has taken 43 minutes to travel to us so Io will really have moved on and be there at this moment.'

Because we see Io as it was, and in the position it was, 43 minutes ago, we can sometimes be still observing Io when we know that it has actually moved out of our line of sight, behind Jupiter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
That's the theory.
No, that has been observed numerous times, and as was pointed out, we have launched unmanned spacecraft that made it to the outer reaches of our solar system without crashing into moons and planets because we knew this.
Reply With Quote
  #12108  
Old 10-11-2011, 07:40 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XVMMCCCLVII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Then what's wrong with doing an experiment where we know an object is right in the line of sight, but just out of view?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Because "out of view" has meaning in optics, because there is a specific scientific reason something is "out of view" and that must be addressed for the object to be seen or photographed.
Then address it. Tell me what the scientific reason is that an "out of view" image would not be picked up if it was in a direct line with the lens of the eye or a camera?

Quote:
Shouldn't we still get an image on the lens of a camera if light is carrying that image?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
With specialized equipment, like space telescope mounted CCDs, we do.
That sounds like a cop out. I don't need a space telescope for a homegrown experiment.
Reply With Quote
  #12109  
Old 10-11-2011, 07:41 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXCCCXLI
Images: 58
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
That last paragraph is particularly bizarre.

We know we can use the light to make images. But in in Lessan's world, what we see should not match what is recorded on, say, a CCD, since the latter is information carried by light (which took time to reach us), while the former is what we see (and hence took no time to reach us).

What a weird way of trying to view the world.
A light source can project images onto a CCD. There's no conflict here.
No, you do not understand how a CCD works
Reply With Quote
  #12110  
Old 10-11-2011, 07:42 PM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six adorable dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The only hill in Oxford
Gender: Male
Posts: MVCCCLXXXVI
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
That last paragraph is particularly bizarre.

We know we can use the light to make images. But in in Lessan's world, what we see should not match what is recorded on, say, a CCD, since the latter is information carried by light (which took time to reach us), while the former is what we see (and hence took no time to reach us).

What a weird way of trying to view the world.
A light source can project images onto a CCD. There's no conflict here.
Yes, there is. If we see according to how Lessans thought, we should see things instantly. But we know that light has a finite speed. So our images from light should be of the past, while what we see is the present. Those are two different things.

So why are they not different?
__________________
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:
LadyShea (10-11-2011)
  #12111  
Old 10-11-2011, 07:45 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XVMMCCCLVII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceptimus
For example, in a total solar eclipse, when the last sliver of sun can still be seen just before totality, the sun has already been totally obscured. Light takes about 1.3 seconds to travel from the moon, so we see the moon in the position it was 1.3 seconds ago.

There is no doubt at all that we do this - when we send rockets to land or pass close by other planets or their moons, the rockets would all miss their targets if we didn't aim the rockets allowing for the fact that the targets are all in front of their apparent positions.

The scientists are smart enough to say, 'We see Jupiter's moon Io there, but we know that light from IO has taken 43 minutes to travel to us so Io will really have moved on and be there at this moment.'

Because we see Io as it was, and in the position it was, 43 minutes ago, we can sometimes be still observing Io when we know that it has actually moved out of our line of sight, behind Jupiter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
That's the theory.
No, that has been observed numerous times, and as was pointed out, we have launched unmanned spacecraft that made it to the outer reaches of our solar system without crashing into moons and planets because we knew this.
We might miss a target if we're not seeing the object in real time, but crashing into moons and planets, I seriously doubt it.
Reply With Quote
  #12112  
Old 10-11-2011, 07:48 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXCCCXLI
Images: 58
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Then what's wrong with doing an experiment where we know an object is right in the line of sight, but just out of view?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Because "out of view" has meaning in optics, because there is a specific scientific reason something is "out of view" and that must be addressed for the object to be seen or photographed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Then address it. Tell me what the scientific reason is that an "out of view" image would not be picked up if it was in a direct line with the lens of the eye or a camera?
I gave you links to the science of photography and I gave you the branch of science you need to read up on, which is optics. If you want to continue to be ineducable and purposefully ignorant then don't study it.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Shouldn't we still get an image on the lens of a camera if light is carrying that image?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
With specialized equipment, like space telescope mounted CCDs, we do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
That sounds like a cop out. I don't need a space telescope for my experiment.
Your experiment will fail because you are ignorant, yet you will insist it failed because you are correct.

Remain an idiot, peacegirl if it makes you feel better about life. It doesn't matter to me that the only spokesperson for Lessans ideas seems mentally ill and possibly stupid.
Reply With Quote
  #12113  
Old 10-11-2011, 07:52 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XVMMCCCLVII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
That last paragraph is particularly bizarre.

We know we can use the light to make images. But in in Lessan's world, what we see should not match what is recorded on, say, a CCD, since the latter is information carried by light (which took time to reach us), while the former is what we see (and hence took no time to reach us).

What a weird way of trying to view the world.
A light source can project images onto a CCD. There's no conflict here.
Yes, there is. If we see according to how Lessans thought, we should see things instantly. But we know that light has a finite speed. So our images from light should be of the past, while what we see is the present. Those are two different things.

So why don't they?
Dragar, this has been the topic of conversation for hundreds of pages with no resolution. The question still remains: Are we seeing the past due to the finite speed of light, or are we seeing the present due to light being a condition of sight?

Last edited by peacegirl; 10-11-2011 at 10:25 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #12114  
Old 10-11-2011, 07:55 PM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six adorable dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The only hill in Oxford
Gender: Male
Posts: MVCCCLXXXVI
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
That last paragraph is particularly bizarre.

We know we can use the light to make images. But in in Lessan's world, what we see should not match what is recorded on, say, a CCD, since the latter is information carried by light (which took time to reach us), while the former is what we see (and hence took no time to reach us).

What a weird way of trying to view the world.
A light source can project images onto a CCD. There's no conflict here.
Yes, there is. If we see according to how Lessans thought, we should see things instantly. But we know that light has a finite speed. So our images from light should be of the past, while what we see is the present. Those are two different things.

So why don't they?
Dragar, this has been the topic of conversation for hundreds of pages with no resolution [in my opinion]. The question still remains: Are we seeing the past due to the finite speed of light, or are we seeing the present due to light being a condition of sight?
That's just a dodge.

If Lessans is right, then what we see (being instantaneous) is different to images constructed from light (which is not instantaneous) using a CCD (for example).

But when we compare these two things, in reality they are not different. Why?
__________________
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
  #12115  
Old 10-11-2011, 08:00 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XVMMCCCLVII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Then what's wrong with doing an experiment where we know an object is right in the line of sight, but just out of view?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Because "out of view" has meaning in optics, because there is a specific scientific reason something is "out of view" and that must be addressed for the object to be seen or photographed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Then address it. Tell me what the scientific reason is that an "out of view" image would not be picked up if it was in a direct line with the lens of the eye or a camera?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
I gave you links to the science of photography and I gave you the branch of science you need to read up on, which is optics. If you want to continue to be ineducable and purposefully ignorant then don't study it.
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Shouldn't we still get an image on the lens of a camera if light is carrying that image?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
With specialized equipment, like space telescope mounted CCDs, we do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
That sounds like a cop out. I don't need a space telescope for my experiment.
Your experiment will fail because you are ignorant, yet you will insist it failed because you are correct.
Ignorant about what? You are trying to find something to make my experiment faulty.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Remain an idiot, peacegirl if it makes you feel better about life. It doesn't matter to me that the only spokesperson for Lessans ideas seems mentally ill and possibly stupid.
I must have missed the link. I am trying to catch up. You must feel cornered if you are now joining the ranks of your fellow groupies. This discussion is not going to be resolved here, but if it makes you feel better to call me names because it reduces your cognitive/dissonance regarding your worldview, then at least you know where it's coming from.

Last edited by peacegirl; 10-11-2011 at 09:59 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #12116  
Old 10-11-2011, 08:08 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XVMMCCCLVII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
That last paragraph is particularly bizarre.

We know we can use the light to make images. But in in Lessan's world, what we see should not match what is recorded on, say, a CCD, since the latter is information carried by light (which took time to reach us), while the former is what we see (and hence took no time to reach us).

What a weird way of trying to view the world.
A light source can project images onto a CCD. There's no conflict here.
Yes, there is. If we see according to how Lessans thought, we should see things instantly. But we know that light has a finite speed. So our images from light should be of the past, while what we see is the present. Those are two different things.

So why don't they?
Dragar, this has been the topic of conversation for hundreds of pages with no resolution [in my opinion]. The question still remains: Are we seeing the past due to the finite speed of light, or are we seeing the present due to light being a condition of sight?
That's just a dodge.

If Lessans is right, then what we see (being instantaneous) is different to images constructed from light (which is not instantaneous) using a CCD (for example).

But when we compare these two things, in reality they are not different. Why?
I'm not dodging anything. I'm saying that in order for an image to show up on a lens, there must be an object or light source present. A photon can be independent of its source (e.g., photons separating from the photosphere), but this is not the same thing as carrying [I know light is not actually carrying the image, so don't accuse me of creating a strawman] the image of the past to the present day.
Reply With Quote
  #12117  
Old 10-11-2011, 08:15 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXCCCXLI
Images: 58
Default Re: A revolution in thought

I gave you the link to the science of photography twice and I used the words optics, angle of view, subtended angles, etc. multiple times, and I posted an image of the Pinwheel Galaxy at least three times and asked you if it is an "exact image"; you could have searched the terms or at least did some Wiki jumping to educate yourself but instead you act like all this is handwaving. You didn't even read the Lone Rangers essay on sight.

I am frustrated because you refuse to lift a finger to attempt to understand what people are saying to you.

You grew up being spoon fed the truth according to Lessans and thinking eating pudding is proof and now expect people to be able to condense hundreds of years of acquired knowledge into a couple pages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You must feel cornered if you are now joining the ranks of your fellow groupies. This discussion is not going to be resolved here, but if it makes you feel better to call me names because it reduces your consonance/dissonance regarding your worldview, then at least you know where it's coming from.
This is total projection. I don't feel cornered, I feel like I am talking to a child who insists a mule is a horsey because he/she can't comprehend the differences yet and only sees the superficial similarities.
Reply With Quote
  #12118  
Old 10-11-2011, 08:23 PM
Dragar's Avatar
Dragar Dragar is offline
Now in six adorable dimensions!
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The only hill in Oxford
Gender: Male
Posts: MVCCCLXXXVI
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar View Post
That last paragraph is particularly bizarre.

We know we can use the light to make images. But in in Lessan's world, what we see should not match what is recorded on, say, a CCD, since the latter is information carried by light (which took time to reach us), while the former is what we see (and hence took no time to reach us).

What a weird way of trying to view the world.
A light source can project images onto a CCD. There's no conflict here.
Yes, there is. If we see according to how Lessans thought, we should see things instantly. But we know that light has a finite speed. So our images from light should be of the past, while what we see is the present. Those are two different things.

So why don't they?
Dragar, this has been the topic of conversation for hundreds of pages with no resolution [in my opinion]. The question still remains: Are we seeing the past due to the finite speed of light, or are we seeing the present due to light being a condition of sight?
That's just a dodge.

If Lessans is right, then what we see (being instantaneous) is different to images constructed from light (which is not instantaneous) using a CCD (for example).

But when we compare these two things, in reality they are not different. Why?
I'm not dodging anything. I'm saying that in order for an image to show up, there must be an object or an light source present. A photon can be independent of its source, but for the light to be able to create a past image of an event or scene, is what is being disputed.
No, peacegirl. Light cannot provide instantaneous information about the present state of its source, having taken a finite time to reach us. That is even worse than light moving instantly.

If that idea were correct, we could never take an image, using light, of the Sun at dawn, peeking over the horizon. Recall that when light first reaches the CCD (for example) from the Sun (having taken eight minutes, remember), then the Sun would no longer be peeking over the horizon - it would have risen eight minutes ago. Our first images constructed from light from the Sun should show it eight minutes over the horizon, never just peeking over. Pictures of the Sun when at dawn (i.e. when we first see it), using light (which arrives after we first see it - light takes time, seeing doesn't, remember?), would be impossible.

So, now what? Is it now the case we cannot use light to form any images at all? Or that we can make images of the sun using light, before its light has reached us? Or does light now travel instantaneously? Or something else?
__________________
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

Last edited by Dragar; 10-11-2011 at 08:45 PM.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (10-11-2011)
  #12119  
Old 10-11-2011, 08:25 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXCCCXLI
Images: 58
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Oh and the term is cognitive dissonance.
Reply With Quote
  #12120  
Old 10-11-2011, 08:26 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
So confused PG doesn't know what to say
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VCCCXLV
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
He wrote that. Don't make me have to go searching through his books to find it. :(
No, he didn't. Lessans never claimed that light has to be present at the eyes for vision to be possible. That is YOUR claim.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
I'm still waiting on your answer as to what properties of what (and where) determine the color of a real-time photograph.

What properties determine the color of a photographic image?

If properties of light, then WHERE is the light whose properties determine this?

If properties of light AT THE CAMERA, then how can light of color matching a newly changed object be at the camera instantaneously to interact with the film?

Stop falling back on faith and avoidance. Follow through and deal with the logical implications of your own claims.
The logical implications are very clear. If efferent vision is true, then cameras work similarly. Although they don't have a brain, they work very much the same as the lens of the eye and the retina. You have to look at it from this perspective, which you're not doing. It would mean the camera's lens focuses on the object from which the mirror image is instantly seen due to light. Yes, the red photon was ahead of the blue, but that is not what is being captured by the lens.
So the lens isn't capturing the light travelling from the object to the camera? Then what is it doing? And you still aren't answering the questions I asked! Why is that, Peacegirl? Why can't you tell me what properties of what (and where) are interacting with the film in a camera to determine the color of the resulting photographic image?

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

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

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


For me, it is the specific wavelengths of the light present at the camera. You agreed, then disagreed, and now refuse to answer the question.
Reply With Quote
  #12121  
Old 10-11-2011, 08:46 PM
ceptimus's Avatar
ceptimus ceptimus is offline
puzzler
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: UK
Posts: XMMCCCXXII
Images: 28
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Peacegirl, scientists managed to soft land a probe on Titan, one of Saturn's moons, on January 14th, 2005.

The light (and radio waves) from Titan take about an hour and a half to reach Earth. The scientists aimed the probe at where they knew Titan to be, allowing for this 90 minute delay.

Titan's diameter is about 3,200 miles and it orbits Saturn at a speed of about three-and-a-half miles per second, so in the time light takes to reach us, it moves 18,900 miles - that's nearly six times its diameter.

If the scientists had believed Lessans and aimed the probe at where Titan is seen, the probe would have missed Titan by six diameters - that's like aiming at a dartboard and hitting the floor, or ceiling.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
davidm (10-11-2011), Dragar (10-11-2011), LadyShea (10-11-2011), Spacemonkey (10-11-2011), Stephen Maturin (10-12-2011)
  #12122  
Old 10-11-2011, 09:01 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMDCCLXXXVI
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You must feel cornered if you are now joining the ranks of your fellow groupies. This discussion is not going to be resolved here, but if it makes you feel better to call me names because it reduces your consonance/dissonance regarding your worldview, then at least you know where it's coming from.
:lol:

Oh, yes, peacegirl, we all feel cornered by the wonderfully sublime idiocy of you and your buffoon of a father.

:awesome:

Hey, peacegirl, what about

THE MOONS OF JUPITER?

What we actually observe with respect to those moon is impossible if Lessans were right. Hence, Leassans was wrong -- and a buffoon to boot.
__________________
Muahaha!



:muahaha:
Reply With Quote
  #12123  
Old 10-11-2011, 09:03 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Condemned to wander the corridors of a drivel maze
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: VMMDCCLXXXVI
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Hey, peacegirl:

Quote:
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
Peacegirl, scientists managed to soft land a probe on Titan, one of Saturn's moons, on January 14th, 2005.

The light (and radio waves) from Titan take about an hour and a half to reach Earth. The scientists aimed the probe at where they knew Titan to be, allowing for this 90 minute delay.

Titan's diameter is about 3,200 miles and it orbits Saturn at a speed of about three-and-a-half miles per second, so in the time light takes to reach us, it moves 18,900 miles - that's nearly six times its diameter.

If the scientists had believed Lessans and aimed the probe at where Titan is seen, the probe would have missed Titan by six diameters - that's like aiming at a dartboard and hitting the floor, or ceiling.
Now what?

:lol:
__________________
Muahaha!



:muahaha:
Reply With Quote
  #12124  
Old 10-11-2011, 09:40 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXCCCXLI
Images: 58
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
A light source can project images onto a CCD
How?
Reply With Quote
  #12125  
Old 10-11-2011, 10:08 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XVMMCCCLVII
Default Re: A revolution in thought

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
I gave you the link to the science of photography twice and I used the words optics, angle of view, subtended angles, etc. multiple times, and I posted an image of the Pinwheel Galaxy at least three times and asked you if it is an "exact image"; you could have searched the terms or at least did some Wiki jumping to educate yourself but instead you act like all this is handwaving. You didn't even read the Lone Rangers essay on sight.

I am frustrated because you refuse to lift a finger to attempt to understand what people are saying to you.
I have lifted a finger. Just because I didn't see the links you provided in the last couple of pages because I started on this page first (which isn't the best idea, I realize that), doesn't mean I have not tried to understand what people are explaining. It is also true that I am doing my best to see if what they are saying renders efferent vision impossible. So far I haven't seen that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
You grew up being spoon fed the truth according to Lessans and thinking eating pudding is proof and now expect people to be able to condense hundreds of years of acquired knowledge into a couple pages.
Why are you being condescending again? The saying, "The proof of the pudding is in the eating" is absolutely true. That's all about the empirical evidence. Maybe you didn't understand what that idiom meant.
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
You must feel cornered if you are now joining the ranks of your fellow groupies. This discussion is not going to be resolved here, but if it makes you feel better to call me names because it reduces your cognitive/dissonance regarding your worldview, then at least you know where it's coming from.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
This is total projection. I don't feel cornered, I feel like I am talking to a child who insists a mule is a horsey because he/she can't comprehend the differences yet and only sees the superficial similarities.
LadyShea, this is not a projection. You never called me names before. What am I suppose to think other than you're beginning to imitate what everyone else is saying.
Reply With Quote
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 2 (0 members and 2 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 06:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.03793 seconds with 13 queries