Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
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
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
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
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
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. |
Don't be ridiculous. The questions were so simple a five-year old could understand them. And they are the same questions you danced around for weeks in the other thread before I even posted them here in this one. What is your excuse for still not being able to answer them? Do you still not understand them?
And if you don't want to be called a liar,
then stop lying! Stop saying you never changed your answers when I can quote you doing so! Stop denying that you ever said or agreed to things when I can quote you doing exactly that! Or, when I show you doing so, just admit you were wrong! Why is it so hard for you to be honest in this way?
And I would love to hear your reasoning! Specifically, I would like to hear your reasoning concerning how cameras can take photographs using light sensitive film and lenses even when there is
no light at all at the camera. If you don't think they can then please say so, and explain your reasoning for saying they could. I would also like to hear your reasoning concerning what interacts with the film at the camera, and how whatever it is that does so got there.