Bumping some posts that got ignored
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I thought there were certain properties that give us clues as to the age of a star that don't have anything to do with the delay in light. Why can't the stars we see be their real age, not as they were, but as they are now?
|
If you started with that assumption, you would find that galaxies steadily became younger the further away from us they are, with the Earth at the center of the universe, at its oldest point.
Yet another absurdity Lessans' silly claims result in. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
|
What does it take for you to get this? Gathered light from light years in that past to produce an exact image that is not there does not exist, therefore no image will show up.
|
Quote:
|
Right, but the equipment can gather light from the distant past, but not enough light to ever see a past event, EVERRRRR. Don't you think by now we would get a glimmer of this somewhere? We have never received light that has been gathers to give us an image of an event (take your pick) that doesn't exist in the present.
|
Hubble Deep Field Images disprove these claims. What does it take for you to get that? I've shown them to you dozens of times. They are available as a video online. You can see them for yourself. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
I don't see where I'm shoehorning efferent vision into holes. I don't have to; it goes in quite easily.  |
Quote:
|
Have you ever thought that there may be an explanation that does not require any force to push and pull planets, satellites, and space probes to create the illusion of delayed sight? Couldn't there be an explanation that no one has considered, which is where Lessans comes in?
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dragar
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
The light is obviously at the wall. We are able to see it because it's within optical range, which means that the photons are at the retina.
|
Doubleplus good!  |
There is nothing screwy about this. |
"The light is obviously at the wall. The photons are at the retina." |
Light from a laser is not the same thing as a photon. |
Einstein won a Nobel prize for showing the opposite, you know?
But go on, tell us more about how light isn't photons. |
I don't see where there is any conflict. |
Light is the same as photons. Meanwhile you said the opposite. That's your conflict. Are you trolling now? |