Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Once again, I follow the evidence when it comes to factual claims. You have none.
|
Factual claims is the elephant in the room. You cannot make what we are disputing fact, so as not to give any attention to the idea that the premise is wrong. Talk about circular, you are amazingly good at it, which makes you convince yourself that you know what you're talking about, when this is the furthest from the truth. |
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
You have gone irrational in your snit. But, perhaps my terminology was confusing. So lets change factual claims to claims of fact as that is what was meant by the term.
|
I don't see the difference between a factual claim and a claim of fact. Aren't they both synonymous? |
No, I think I used a confusing term. In "factual claim" the word factual describes the claim....meaning that the claim itself is proven factual.
Claim of fact doesn't describe the word claim, so could be used without that claim having yet been proven factual.
If I am making a claim of fact, I am merely claiming that something is a fact...I may be wrong
If I make a factual claim, then the claim is already proven or known to be a fact.
Quote:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Lessans and you have made claims of fact...you claim efferent vision is fact. Science makes claims of fact as well, that vision is the result of light being used to create images in the brain via afferent processes.
When anyone makes claims of fact, I follow the evidence. You have none, science has a lot.
|
So tell me, how can the largest telescope ever gather enough light from a past event to ever get an image when that light has dispersed beyond the point of resolution?
|
The light detector is what determines the point of resolution.
Some equipment, like the Hubble, can store the information from the gathered light, and continue exposure to gather more and more light from the exact same place, over long periods of time. It took
1 million minutes of light gathering, aimed at a specific pinpoint in space, for enough light to be gathered to create the Deep Field images.