View Single Post
  #3606  
Old 01-03-2012, 04:44 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDLXXX
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Noooo Spacemonkey. I never said that the frequency of the light at the camera (when the photograph is taken) determines the color of the photograph produced on the film.
Yes you did. Liar. Right here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
1. What is it that interacts with the film in a camera to determine the color of the resulting image?

Light

2. Where is whatever it is which does this (when it interacts)?

At the film.

3. Which properties of whatever it is that does this will determine the color of the resulting image?

The wavelengths...
Pants on fire.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You are trying to separate the frequency at the camera from the frequency at the object. But in efferent vision, the frequency at the camera is the same frequency at the object.
And I'm asking you questions designed to establish how this is possible and why they could never be different. You are not answering those questions. You are instead lying to me about not having said what you've said, and not having changed your answers when you have.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
THERE IS NO TRAVEL TIME DUE TO THE FACT THAT ALL WE NEED FOR A PHOTOGRAPH TO BE TAKEN IS LIGHT AT THE OBJECT.
Light sensitive film cannot chemically react with light that isn't there at the camera. This is a fact. And any light actually present at the camera travelled to get there, and therefore has a travel time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I see the problem, but you have to have the patience to carefully examine this knowledge before rushing to judgment and telling me it's flawed.
You don't see the problem. You don't comprehend what you are replying to or even what you are saying. And I don't need to investigate further to know that what you are presently saying is insanely wrong.
I already told you that the way the question was phrased made it difficult for me to know exactly what you were asking. Don't call me a liar Spacemonkey, or the jig is up, and it will be your loss. I'm not going to put up with someone who is calling me names and yet wanting to hear my reasoning. I can ignore NA and thedoc, but not someone who I am in directly conversation with.
Reply With Quote
 
Page generated in 0.16607 seconds with 10 queries