A revolution in thought - Page 477

davidm · #**11901** 10-08-2011, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can you say photons are not their own light source? They are producing light. It's like a battery pack. Yes, it got its energy from another source, but the battery now contains it's own energy which can be used to turn things on. :popcorn:

It's charming in a retarded sort of way that after writing the incoherent bilge above she puts a "popcorn" smilie after it, suggesting she thinks that she made some big point and is daring anyone to rebut it. :lol:

LadyShea · #**11902** 10-08-2011, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You need to set up the exact experiment, peacegirl. Every aspect of it. Do you remember the inverse square law and how it will affect the experiment? Do you know what the angular size is is so you know what size lens you would need? Does such a lens exist?

This is not hard to set up. I don't need some special lens. All I would have to do is have someone go far enough that he would be out of direct view of a standard digital or film camera. It would have to be a clear day with no obstructions that could cause the light to be dispersed, absorbed, or deflected. If we are getting the image from the photons bouncing off of this person, it should show up on the lens. If it shows nothing, what does that tell us? I would then tell the person to come into view of the camera's field of view. If one of the pictures shows nothing, and one shows the image of the person, there is a discrepancy that should not be present.

You have no understanding of how light works or how cameras work. Yes, you would have to have a special lens to enable to camera to collect enough light reflected off the object to decode into an image.

Inverse square law. And subtended angles. And the laws of perspective.

Now you're weaseling.

No, I am not. You don't understand all the factors. Do you even understand WHY something far away is not in "view"?

Dragar · #**11903** 10-08-2011, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus

If we had efferent vision, why would anyone need to wear spectacles? :chin:

Ceptimus, we still need to have our refractive errors corrected if the light isn't focusing on the right spot. This has no bearing on whether the eyes are efferent, although many people think it does because I've been asked this question numerous times.

On the other hand, many experiments have been done to test how fast last travels. Christiaan Huygens got a good measurement for the speed (about 25% off) as early as the late 17th C. Do you have no reply for the huge number of times we have looked at how fast light travels, and finds it travels at a finite speed?

peacegirl · #**11904** 10-08-2011, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You need to set up the exact experiment, peacegirl. Every aspect of it. Do you remember the inverse square law and how it will affect the experiment? Do you know what the angular size is is so you know what size lens you would need? Does such a lens exist?

This is not hard to set up. I don't need some special lens. All I would have to do is have someone go far enough that he would be out of direct view of a standard digital or film camera. It would have to be a clear day with no obstructions that could cause the light to be dispersed, absorbed, or deflected. If we are getting the image from the photons bouncing off of this person, it should show up on the lens. If it shows nothing, what does that tell us? I would then tell the person to come into view of the camera's field of view. If one of the pictures shows nothing, and one shows the image of the person, there is a discrepancy that should not be present.

You have no understanding of how light works or how cameras work. Yes, you would have to have a special lens to enable to camera to collect enough light reflected off the object to decode into an image.

Inverse square law. And subtended angles. And the laws of perspective.

Now you're weaseling.

No, I am not. You don't understand all the factors. Do you even understand WHY something far away is not in "view"?

Then explain it LadyShea. I'll try to be as patient as I can.

peacegirl · #**11905** 10-08-2011, 04:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus

If we had efferent vision, why would anyone need to wear spectacles? :chin:

Ceptimus, we still need to have our refractive errors corrected if the light isn't focusing on the right spot. This has no bearing on whether the eyes are efferent, although many people think it does because I've been asked this question numerous times.

On the other hand, many experiments have been done to test how fast last travels. Christiaan Huygens got a good measurement for the speed (about 25% off) as early as the late 17th C. Do you have no reply for the huge number of times we have looked at how fast light travels, and finds it travels at a finite speed?

This has absolutely nothing to do with the speed at which light travels Dragar.

peacegirl · #**11906** 10-08-2011, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You need to set up the exact experiment, peacegirl. Every aspect of it. Do you remember the inverse square law and how it will affect the experiment? Do you know what the angular size is is so you know what size lens you would need? Does such a lens exist?

This is not hard to set up. I don't need some special lens. All I would have to do is have someone go far enough that he would be out of direct view of a standard digital or film camera. It would have to be a clear day with no obstructions that could cause the light to be dispersed, absorbed, or deflected. If we are getting the image from the photons bouncing off of this person, it should show up on the lens. If it shows nothing, what does that tell us? I would then tell the person to come into view of the camera's field of view. If one of the pictures shows nothing, and one shows the image of the person, there is a discrepancy that should not be present.

You have no understanding of how light works or how cameras work. Yes, you would have to have a special lens to enable to camera to collect enough light reflected off the object to decode into an image.

Inverse square law. And subtended angles. And the laws of perspective.

Now you're weaseling.

No, I am not. You don't understand all the factors. Do you even understand WHY something far away is not in "view"?

Then tell me what the factors are, and why an image beyond the scope of the camera cannot be seen if reflective light is carrying that image to the lens?

Dragar · #**11907** 10-08-2011, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by ceptimus

If we had efferent vision, why would anyone need to wear spectacles? :chin:

Ceptimus, we still need to have our refractive errors corrected if the light isn't focusing on the right spot. This has no bearing on whether the eyes are efferent, although many people think it does because I've been asked this question numerous times.

On the other hand, many experiments have been done to test how fast last travels. Christiaan Huygens got a good measurement for the speed (about 25% off) as early as the late 17th C. Do you have no reply for the huge number of times we have looked at how fast light travels, and finds it travels at a finite speed?

This has absolutely nothing to do with the speed at which light travels Dragar.

Oh, so you do actually think light travels at a finite speed? If so, good - we can move on.

peacegirl · #**11908** 10-08-2011, 04:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can you say photons are not their own light source? They are producing light. It's like a battery pack. Yes, it got its energy from another source, but the battery now contains it's own energy which can be used to turn things on. :popcorn:

It's charming in a retarded sort of way that after writing the incoherent bilge above she puts a "popcorn" smilie after it, suggesting she thinks that she made some big point and is daring anyone to rebut it. :lol:

Actually, it IS a big point coming from your perspective.

LadyShea · #**11909** 10-08-2011, 04:14 PM

You have not made any sense in the last 50 pages, or indicated to me that you understand anything about light or cameras or "view" or images.

Your "experiment" idea simply proves your lack of understanding.

Do you or do you not understand why something far away is not in view of a camera? Do you or do you not understand why different lenses are needed for cameras to correct and adjust for distances and light conditions?

davidm · #**11910** 10-08-2011, 04:14 PM

Even Stupid Seymour said that light traveled at a finite speed. Then he opened mouth, inserted foot and came up with the following logically impossible conclusion: That if God turned on the sun at noon people would see it immediately, but not see their neighbors for eight and a half minutes!

:lol:

davidm · #**11911** 10-08-2011, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How can you say photons are not their own light source? They are producing light. It's like a battery pack. Yes, it got its energy from another source, but the battery now contains it's own energy which can be used to turn things on. :popcorn:

It's charming in a retarded sort of way that after writing the incoherent bilge above she puts a "popcorn" smilie after it, suggesting she thinks that she made some big point and is daring anyone to rebut it. :lol:

Actually, it IS a big point coming from your perspective.

Explain your bilge above, peacegirl, we're all dying for further elucidation from Her Royal Highness! Tell us about the "molecules" of light, and how you think they behave! :lol:

More details, please!

LadyShea · #**11912** 10-08-2011, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You need to set up the exact experiment, peacegirl. Every aspect of it. Do you remember the inverse square law and how it will affect the experiment? Do you know what the angular size is is so you know what size lens you would need? Does such a lens exist?

This is not hard to set up. I don't need some special lens. All I would have to do is have someone go far enough that he would be out of direct view of a standard digital or film camera. It would have to be a clear day with no obstructions that could cause the light to be dispersed, absorbed, or deflected. If we are getting the image from the photons bouncing off of this person, it should show up on the lens. If it shows nothing, what does that tell us? I would then tell the person to come into view of the camera's field of view. If one of the pictures shows nothing, and one shows the image of the person, there is a discrepancy that should not be present.

You have no understanding of how light works or how cameras work. Yes, you would have to have a special lens to enable to camera to collect enough light reflected off the object to decode into an image.

Inverse square law. And subtended angles. And the laws of perspective.

Now you're weaseling.

No, I am not. You don't understand all the factors. Do you even understand WHY something far away is not in "view"?

Then explain it LadyShea. I'll try to be as patient as I can.

LOL. I gave you all the terms you need to know so you can look it up and learn for yourself. I am not going to spoon feed it to you more than I already have.

How do you think you can set up a valid experiment if you don't understand all the factors involved?

Dragar · #**11913** 10-08-2011, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Even Stupid Seymour said that light traveled at a finite speed. Then he opened mouth, inserted foot and came up with the following logically impossible conclusion: That if God turned on the sun at noon people would see it immediately, but not see their neighbors for eight and a half minutes!

:lol:

peacegirl, does this book of yours actually make this claim? That if God turned the Sun 'on', people would notice it immediately?

How is this different from the experiments I talked about with torches? We know in that case that it would take time to see the torch turned on. So we know that if God turned the Sun on, it would take eight minutes. What makes turning the Sun on different to turning on a torch?

LadyShea · #**11914** 10-08-2011, 04:23 PM

Because according to Lessans we see instantly, we do not need the reflected or emitted light to reach our eyes, because our brain is looking out through them. As long as the object is large enough, bright enough, and close enough to be seen.

Basically we see what we can see when we can see it.

And yes, if God turned the sun on at noon, we would see the sun immediately, but have to wait 8 minutes for the light to reach us to illuminate the guy standing next to us to see him.

davidm · #**11915** 10-08-2011, 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

Even Stupid Seymour said that light traveled at a finite speed. Then he opened mouth, inserted foot and came up with the following logically impossible conclusion: That if God turned on the sun at noon people would see it immediately, but not see their neighbors for eight and a half minutes!

:lol:

peacegirl, does this book of yours actually make this claim? That if God turned the Sun 'on', people would notice it immediately?

How is this different from the experiments I talked about with torches? We know in that case that it would take time to see the torch turned on. So we know that if God turned the Sun on, it would take eight minutes. What makes turning the Sun on different to turning on a torch?

That's exactly what the book says, along with concommitant claim that we would also see the moon immediately (even though it is reflected sunlight!), but we would not see our neighbors next to us for eight and a half minutes! I don't think anyone could make a more obviously incorrect and utterly illogical claim if he tried!

God turns on the sun and -- what? We instantly see a big ball of light in the sky, and the moon, and nothing else at all? Just those two lights in a sea of blackness, until eight and a half minutes pass? :lol:

Monkeys typing randomly at keyboards would write more sensible stuff.

Dragar · #**11916** 10-08-2011, 04:31 PM

Well, I would like peacegirl to explain why that description of the world is different to all our experiments.

You can test that principle yourself with no fancy electronics. You can do the experiment with your eyes. Huygens did it just like that (albeit with a telescope and the moons of Jupiter, but that's nothing more than a pair of glasses and a very distant sun suddenly being turned on).

peacegirl · #**11917** 10-08-2011, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You have not made any sense in the last 50 pages, or indicated to me that you understand anything about light or cameras or "view" or images.

Your "experiment" idea simply proves your lack of understanding.

Do you or do you not understand why something far away is not in view of a camera? Do you or do you not understand why different lenses are needed for cameras to correct and adjust for distances and light conditions?

I already said I would have a professional photographer make sure that the lens he uses are adjusted for the distance (approximately one mile) and the light conditions, which would be daylight.

peacegirl · #**11918** 10-08-2011, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Well, I would like peacegirl to explain why that description of the world is different to all our experiments.

You can test that principle yourself with no fancy electronics. You can do the experiment with your eyes. Huygens did it just like that (albeit with a telescope and the moons of Jupiter, but that's nothing more than a pair of glasses and a very distant sun suddenly being turned on).

Did you not hear me Dragar? I said to forget that one excerpt. You are not doing that, so I refuse to talk to you.

Dragar · #**11919** 10-08-2011, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Well, I would like peacegirl to explain why that description of the world is different to all our experiments.

You can test that principle yourself with no fancy electronics. You can do the experiment with your eyes. Huygens did it just like that (albeit with a telescope and the moons of Jupiter, but that's nothing more than a pair of glasses and a very distant sun suddenly being turned on).

Did you not hear me Dragar? I said to forget that one excerpt. You are not doing that, so I refuse to talk to you.

I didn't hear you, no. I haven't studied this thread terribly much. I just noticed someone was claiming the speed of light was infinite, and thought I'd explain why we know, very simply, that can't be so.

But now I see you are saying to 'forget' that excerpt. Okay, but I hope you remove it from the book if you want us all to forget it (and especially since it is wrong). We can move on to some other excerpt that contradicts this basic observation of the world.

Does anyone have any suggestions?

LadyShea · #**11920** 10-08-2011, 04:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't like your interrogation, and I refuse to get caught up in it. You have absolutely no understanding of what Lessans is claiming, or why, yet you act like you are God's gift to science.

I have hit a sore spot, huh?

I understand what Lessans was trying to say about light and sight, and I understand the consequences of it. You are the one that doesn't understand how his claims don't fit with reality.

And I am far from God's gift to science, I just have a good enough grasp of the basics to see the problems with your ideas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl's edit

I don't like your interrogation, and I refuse to answer you as if I am wrong by virtue of your ridiculous questions. You have absolutely no understanding of what Lessans is claiming, or why, yet you act like you are God's gift to science.

My questions aren't ridiculous. They are in direct response to your claims regarding setting up a valid experiment.

I explained you need to understand the factors involved in an experiment in order to create an experiment, and you freak out.

Who seems to be wrong in that case?

LadyShea · #**11921** 10-08-2011, 04:43 PM

Why yes Dragar, I have a suggestion. She said this hypothetical was "correct"

Quote:

To paraphrase this another way; if you could sit upon the star Rigel with a telescope powerful enough to see me writing this very moment, you would see me at the exact same time that a person sitting right next to me would

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality p. 120

This indicates he didn't understand that time was relative, and that instantaneous seeing could cover even 800 light years

davidm · #**11922** 10-08-2011, 04:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Well, I would like peacegirl to explain why that description of the world is different to all our experiments.

You can test that principle yourself with no fancy electronics. You can do the experiment with your eyes. Huygens did it just like that (albeit with a telescope and the moons of Jupiter, but that's nothing more than a pair of glasses and a very distant sun suddenly being turned on).

Did you not hear me Dragar? I said to forget that one excerpt. You are not doing that, so I refuse to talk to you.

I didn't hear you, no. I haven't studied this thread terribly much. I just noticed someone was claiming the speed of light was infinite, and thought I'd explain why we know, very simply, that can't be so.

But now I see you are saying to 'forget' that excerpt. Okay, but I hope you remove it from the book if it is wrong. We can move on to some other excerpt that contradicts this basic observation of the world.

Does anyone have any suggestions?

Yes, we can move on the excerpts where Lessans claimed that light was made of "molecules," which peacegirl later altered to "photons," while insisting that it was impossible for her to alter one jot or tittle of the sacred text.

We can talk about the excerpt in which Lessans claimed that when Columbus landed in the New World, if an astronomer on distant Rigel were looking at the earth through a powerful enough telescope, he would see Columbus landing in real time, BUT if a TV picture of Columbus landing were broadcast, it would take 900 some years to reach the astronomer on Rigel! That excerpt was good for a belly laugh, let me tell you. :lol:

Or we can talk about how Seymour claims that when the photons from the sun arrive on earth, they are waiting there to "smile on you" while you sleep on the unlighted side of the earth. It appears he thought that the molecules of light were like gas molecules, just sort of floating about waiting for you to wake up so they can say "Good morning!" Of course all those other trillions of photons generated every second by the sun are coming down and colliding with the ones that stopped at the earth, creating a huge pileup of photons, and by the time you wake the temperature on earth would be about the same as that of the sun, and so you'd die instantly.

:freakout:

Dragar · #**11923** 10-08-2011, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by davidm

We can talk about the excerpt in which Lessans claimed that when Columbus landed in the New World, if an astronomer on distant Rigel were looking at the earth through a powerful enough telescope, he would see Columbus landing in real time, BUT if a TV picture of Columbus landing were broadcast, it would take 900 some years to reach the astronomer on Rigel!

I think this is a good one, because we can very simply talk about this.

peacegirl, did Lessans really write this? That if an astronomer were watching Earth, he would see Columbus landing in the New World at the exact same time it happened, with no delay?

Dragar · #**11924** 10-08-2011, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why yes Dragar, I have a suggestion. She said this hypothetical was "correct"

Quote:

To paraphrase this another way; if you could sit upon the star Rigel with a telescope powerful enough to see me writing this very moment, you would see me at the exact same time that a person sitting right next to me would

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality p. 120

This indicates he didn't understand that time was relative, and that instantaneous seeing could cover even 800 light years

I think this is also a good one. I will lump them together. Though do note that this doesn't really require 'time is relative' to come into it (that requires the speed of light being identical for all observers, no matter their motion). All this is about is that light takes time to travel from place to place.

LadyShea · #**11925** 10-08-2011, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dragar

Quote:

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Why yes Dragar, I have a suggestion. She said this hypothetical was "correct"

Quote:

To paraphrase this another way; if you could sit upon the star Rigel with a telescope powerful enough to see me writing this very moment, you would see me at the exact same time that a person sitting right next to me would

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality p. 120

This indicates he didn't understand that time was relative, and that instantaneous seeing could cover even 800 light years

I think this is also a good one. I will lump them together. Though do note that this doesn't really require 'time is relative' to come into it (that requires the speed of light being identical for all observers, no matter their motion). All this is about is that light takes time to travel from place to place.

Well, Lessans instantaneous seeing means that light travel time and distance are not factors in sight.

Isn't time relativity related to light travel time and distance?

She also doesn't believe time exists, FWIW, she is a Presentist