Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Peacegirl, O great Teacher, could you please address the following post? Thanks ever so much in advance for your no-doubt persuasive explanation! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
And I don't see how measuring the time light travels to a spot on the moon and back again proves that we see afferently.
|
Because the scientists doing the experiment are looking 'with their eyes', and if they saw 'efferently' they would see the illuminated spot on the Moon 1.25 seconds after the light was projected to the moon, but they do not see it till 2.5 seconds after the light is projected to the moon because that is the time it takes for the light to get there and be reflected back to their eyes, so they are seeing 'afferently'. |
|
How can they test this when there is only seconds in between? It's almost impossible. They can't stop the light at 1.25 seconds and ask if the spot can be seen. By the time they ask the question the light is already back to Earth, so of course they would say it takes 2.5 seconds to see the spot, which would confirm what they already believe to be true. |
What the hell are you talking about, peacegirl? Do you even know? Would you honestly have us believe, in a world of atomic clocks, that one can't tell the difference between 1.25 seconds and 2.5 seconds? Just how fucking stupid are you, anyway? Do you own a watch or a clock, peacegirl? Do you mean to say you can't tell the difference between 1.25 seconds and 2.50 seconds?
Laugh Out Loud. |
peacegirl doesn't know what to do with the second hand. Nor has she ever been taught the trick of timing seconds by counting in thousands.