A revolution in thought

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

6,000 years is not really all that long of a time.

It's longer than most people have been around, and certainly long enough to learn to behave. Perhaps Oct 23rd was not a good day to be born.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by Dumbass

Like I said, it all depends. Hubble deep field saw galaxies that were just coming into view, so this must have been pure light.

"Just coming into view"? Do you even know what you are saying? Those galaxies have been there for billions of years and have been in view for just as long. It's only now that we have an instrument powerful enough to pick up the light and form an image. These galaxies didn't "Just come into view" because we looked. You really say some stupid things.

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Perhaps Oct 23rd was not a good day to be born.

Watch it there, thedoc! Oct. 23rd is Mrs. Angakuk's birthday.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Dragar, you're not right. I'm sorry to tell you this. Proportion is what counts, not distance and time. The Sun in proportion to the viewer is the same as the proportion of the candle to the viewer. It's just on a smaller scale.

No peacegirl, you're not right. I'm sorry to tell you this, but the candle in proportion to the viewer is the same as the proportion of the Sun to the viewer. It's just on a larger scale. Therefore since it takes 8 minutes to see the sun, it takes 8 minutes to see the candle.

Your logic is fun!

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Think what you want Dragar, what will be will be and only time will tell who was right. It's interesting to observe that you didn't answer the post in an honest way. I did answer you correctly. Laser light is concentrated light. This came from a laser expert. Of course you would never admit that I was right about anything!

This came from a children's website. Saying a laser is 'concentrated' light is barely passable as an explanation to children because it's frankly not true - though maybe enough to pass on the concept of light intensity to children. You have about the level of understanding of a child, so it's hardly a wonder you're pushing this website so hard...

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

It's also worth pointing out -- again -- that the Moon is hardly the only object whose distance we can determine by shining light on it and timing how long it takes to see the reflected light.

As I just mentioned, we wouldn't be able to see the reflected light in half that time because the flash of light is too far away to be picked up by a telescope.

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

And every single time we do this, we see the reflected light as if we see in delayed time, contradicting Lessans' claims.

No it doesn't contradict his claims. Do you see the problem here?

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Yet again, the Universe conspires to convince us that we see in delayed time.

What is it about the Earth that the whole Universe is conspiring against us so?

It's not about the universe conspiring. It's about a mistaken idea which originated a long time ago, and from there it wasn't hard to make all the experiments appear airtight. Do you actually believe dogs can recognize features from a picture? If you do, you are being affected by confirmation bias. The tests are far from reliable.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

The Universe is an enormously big bully.

Where real time vision has anything to do with being the center of the universe, I haven't a clue.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

I first linked peacegirl to this page probably two years ago. Of course she didn't read it, or promptly forgot/disregarded it just as soon as she discovered it proved Lessans wrong.

Bold-face mine.

They've been doing this stuff for more than half a century, peacegirl, and every time Lessans' claims are refuted by this simple experiemnt.

Are you suggesting that NASA and other parties are LYING about this? If not, what ARE you suggesting?

I'm saying that no telescope could pick up a flash from a laser beam that far away. This doesn't even meet the conditions of efferent vision so how could anyone see it? One of the conditions is that the light source or object is large enough to be within optical range (which the laser is not) of the lens, so how could the flash be seen? We see the Sun because it's large size relative to the viewer meets the conditions; a laser on the moon does not.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

This came from a children's website. Saying a laser is 'concentrated' light is barely passable as an explanation to children because it's frankly not true - though maybe enough to pass on the concept of light intensity to children. You have about the level of understanding of a child, so it's hardly a wonder you're pushing this website so hard...

That was not a children's website. I'm not pushing this website; it came from a laser expert who builds lasers and he was showing what atoms do in the laser tube. He may have tried to explain the concept in a way that could be understood by children because he couldn't assume what knowledge people had, but that's a good thing.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That was not a children's website.

The heading of the section you linked me said "Over 11s" and it had references to the curriculum at the bottom of the article!

What a dishonest idiot you are. You just Google for anything you think supports you, rather than trying to actually figure out what's true. You didn't even read it, you just pasted it. Do you even give a damn about what you write?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

As I just mentioned, we wouldn't be able to see the reflected light in half that time because the flash of light is too far away to be picked up by a telescope.

And yet the telescope does pick it up, and we see it in delayed time exactly as afferent vision predicts.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm saying that no telescope could pick up a flash from a laser beam that far away.

And yet it can and does do exactly that. Sucks to be you, Dingbat!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We detect light when it strikes the telescope. We can't detect light that far away, so when it first gets reflected off of the reflector we wouldn't see the flash.

But we do detect it, that's the whole point of laser lunar ranging!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But we do detect it, that's the whole point of laser lunar ranging!

This doesn't mean what you think it does. We register that the light has arrived based on radio waves, which doesn't contradict anything because we know light travels, but show me the evidence that we see the flash of light in delayed time. I'm really curious.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But we do detect it, that's the whole point of laser lunar ranging!

What gibberish is up your sleeve now? Lunar ranging? Explain this LadyShea so you can be the winner and badmouth Lessans. You are a novice acting like a pro. It's disgusting because it's not real. This is about your pride, nothing more. If it wasn't, why would even be in this thread? I don't get it. For you to say early on that this knowledge is crap is very revealing. You can't even begin to be objective.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This doesn't mean what you think it does. We register that the light has arrived based on radio waves, which doesn't contradict anything because we know light travels, but show me the evidence that we see the flash of light in delayed time. I'm really curious.

Where did you get radio waves?

The optical receiver, with a lens and sensor just like a camera, detects the flash of light in 2.6 seconds. You have already acknowledged that some cameras can detect things we can't see with our eyes (like infrared cameras) and have maintained they do so in real time.

Why would this optical receiver, with the same all important lens!, work differently than any other camera and detect in delayed time?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've never even attempted to argue that point because that's what science tells us. I am not here to dispute anything other than delayed vision based on the afferent account of sight.

You are a bald faced liar. You argued that light didn't travel independently of its source for quite a while.

Originally Posted by peacegirl July 2013

There was another post where I said photons are light. I brought up photons because they are believed to have the pattern of the object they bounced off of, and as long as science holds this position, there is no way they will take this claim seriously because they believe it violates physics. Photons are compared to drops of water that travel independently from their source, or they are seen as artifacts from some other time in history. Now if science holds this position, everything I say will look like total nonsense. My question is why are people still here? Are they here just to see how far I will go to twist things to make things fit into a worldview that I can't seem to let go of? I guess that's it. Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought

Originally Posted by peacegirl June 2012

I don't want to bring up the word photon because you're treating it like a drop of water that separates from the larger body of water, but this is not how it happens when it comes to sight.

Originally Posted by peacegirl May 2012

you cannot talk about light apart from the object

Originally Posted by peacegirl October 2011

If there's no source because it doesn't exist anymore (such as an event from the past), there can be no collection of light that forms into an image. You seem to think that light from that source can travel along while the source is no longer present. You keep bringing up examples of hoses and fires and rivers that are supposed to be analogous, but they aren't.

Originally Posted by peacegirl October 2011

You are treating photons as if they are independent of the object and they travel along a path that reaches the lens in the order in which they arrived.

You talked about embers and remnants and all sorts of things. The most direct assertion was this one

Originally Posted by peacegirl August 2011

Not if the ray of light is dependent on the star for its very existence. Light apart from a light source cannot exist.

Do I need to keep going or do you retract your lie that you've never attempted to argue that point?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This doesn't mean what you think it does. We register that the light has arrived based on radio waves...

No, we don't. Radio waves are not involved, Dingbat.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What gibberish is up your sleeve now? Lunar ranging?

Yes, that would be the topic you've been discussing for the last 3 days.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's true Spacemonkey...

Do you really not see the problem with the above response?

Imagine you've just got up in the morning, and check the mail only to meet the postman delivering a letter to you from Japan. Wow, you exclaim, how did this letter get here all the way from Japan? Mail from Japan has been shutdown for the past two weeks!

Well, the postman explains, this morning when mail from Japan resumed, a person in Japan went to the post office to drop it off. The letter was taken to Narita airport and placed on a plane which flies to the US, taking around 14hrs, where the letter was dropped off and taken to a mail sorting facility where it was then dispatched to its labelled address, and should arrive here sometime tomorrow or the day after that.

A little confused, you ask: Do you mean this letter I'm now holding in my hand will arrive tomorrow? Oh no, the postman explains. I was telling you about a completely different letter that hasn't arrived yet. Okay, so how did this letter get here, you ask. The postman looks away guiltily and shuffles his feet. What do you mean, he says, I just told you.

Please tell me what is wrong with the postman's explanation. I'm sure you can figure it out. Don't respond with anything about light or vision. Stick to the story.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, the same photon arrived on Earth that left the Sun 81/2 minutes ago. It's not teleporting and it's not in two places at once.

Is that photon also one of the ones at the film when the Sun is first ignited? If not, then it ISN'T the same photon as any that my questions asked you about, is it?


You need photons at the camera film when the Sun is first ignited.

Are they traveling photons?

Did they come from the Sun?

Did they get to the film by traveling?

Did they travel at the speed of light?

Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How in the world does this account put the Sun inside people's eyes?

That was in response to YOUR comment here: "...this account changes everything. It puts the Sun in the same physical space as your eyes..." Yes, I know. That was just you saying something stupid that you didn't really mean.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're right; that photon has no use to me...

Then that should be the end of your magical lenses nonsense, as you've agreed that a lens can only affect light that is of no use to you and which arrives 8min AFTER you need us to be able to see the Sun.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, it's not necessarily the light I need at the film when I'm looking efferently at the object. That light may have already reached Earth...

You said you have always maintained that ALL light travels.

1. Does that include the light you need at the film on Earth when the Sun is first ignited? [Y/N]

2. Did that light travel from the Sun to get there? [Y/N]

3. If so, how long did it take to complete the journey? [insert duration]

4. And when did it leave the Sun? [insert time relative to Sun's ignition]

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

What gibberish is up your sleeve now? Lunar ranging? Explain this LadyShea so you can be the winner and badmouth Lessans.

Lunar laser ranging is what they call sending laser pulses to the retroreflector on the moon and receiving it back...it's been the topic of discussion for several days now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_L...ing_experiment

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

But we do detect it, that's the whole point of laser lunar ranging!

This doesn't mean what you think it does. We register that the light has arrived when that light has gotten close enough to be within optical range of the telescope, which doesn't contradict anything that was said.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This doesn't mean what you think it does. We register that the light has arrived when that light has gotten close enough to be within optical range of the telescope, which doesn't contradict anything that was said.

Is the optical range zero, Dingbat?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lunar laser ranging is what they call sending laser pulses to the retroreflector on the moon and receiving it back...it's been the topic of discussion for several days now.

Lunar Laser Ranging experiment - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm not talking about measuring lunar pulses, I'm talking about what we see. Do you even know the difference or are you that stubborn just to be right?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This doesn't mean what you think it does. We register that the light has arrived when that light has gotten close enough to be within optical range of the telescope, which doesn't contradict anything that was said.

The receivers detect the light at 2.6 seconds, exactly the time it takes light to travel to the moon and back. Lessans said everything is detected in real time, you said anything with a lens collects light in real time. So why is the laser light detection delayed?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not talking about measuring lunar pulses, I'm talking about what we see. Do you even know the difference or are you that stubborn to just ignore me?

I have not been talking about eyes at all for months, only cameras, because you kept using the brain as a weasel.

You have maintained that cameras and telescopes (anything with a lens) work the same way as eyes, and admitted that they can detect things we can't see with our eyes. You said it is still in real time.

So where is the difference, now?