Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #9076  
Old 04-28-2012, 03:07 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
You are not mentally competent. You need help.
This is correct. She is off her rocker.

The question is, are we ourselves on our rockers? Why are we enabling her mental illness and her rank dishonesty by continuing to indulge her persecution complex in an utterly pointless discussion?

Just think about it: She yet again repeats her claim that light-speed finiteness cannot be measured on earth. Even if that were true, it would be irrelevant. But it isn't true. How many times -- how many! -- has she been given the link to the discussion of the experiment, first done hundreds of years ago, that establishes light speed finiteness right here on earth? And then she comes back, derper that she is, :derp: to repeat her stupid claim all over again, with her spotless tiny mind.

Last edited by davidm; 04-28-2012 at 03:21 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9077  
Old 04-28-2012, 03:20 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Absolute proof

All it takes is one picture -- one! -- to completely refute all The Buffoon's claims about light and sight. :giggle:
Reply With Quote
  #9078  
Old 04-28-2012, 03:40 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Hey, peacegirl, you claimed you were open to questions. When are you going to answer this one?

Quote:

Explain why we use delayed-time seeing to calculate trajectories of spacecraft to Mars and other planets, why Hubble takes images of the universe in delayed time, and why we see the moons of Jupiter and all other bodies in delayed time!


:derp:

Well?

WHAT IS THE ANSWER?
Reply With Quote
  #9079  
Old 04-28-2012, 03:45 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
You are not mentally competent. You need help.
This is correct. She is off her rocker.

The question is, are we ourselves on our rockers? Why are we enabling her mental illness and her rank dishonesty by continuing to indulge her persecution complex in an utterly pointless discussion?

Just think about it: She yet again repeats her claim that light-speed finiteness cannot be measured on earth.
Dear god, give me strength to deal with this know it all. I never said such a thing. I said that never has an object been out of one's field of view. Everyone keeps using the inverse square law as if this proves that light is bringing us the image, but that doesn't answer the question.

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
Even if that were true, it would be irrelevant. But it isn't true. How many times -- how many! -- has she been given the link to the discussion of the experiment, first done hundreds of years ago, that establishes light speed finiteness right here on earth? And then she comes back, derper that she is, :derp: to repeat her stupid claim all over again, with her spotless tiny mind.
Who is arguing over the speed of light? This isn't even part of the conversation. This is a strawman if I ever saw one. :fuming:
Reply With Quote
  #9080  
Old 04-28-2012, 03:48 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
The following post is a completely unanswered bumped post from the other thread from the last time you tried to claim your question had never been adequately answered:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Not at all. I'm saying it seems quite strange that the only time resolution occurs is when an actual piece of matter is in range.
Then you haven't understood the explanation. We just explained exactly why an image of that piece of matter cannot be resolved beyond a certain range. There's nothing strange about it at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
It does not make sense logically that there would be no image detected when someone steps slightly out of range if the pattern of light is in a direct in line with the sensor.
Again, that is exactly what was just explained to you, and it makes perfect sense. What part do you not understand?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Thank you for explaining how sensors work and why red shows up, but you still have not answered the simple question as to why objects (substance) must be in view for the reflected light to be detected.
You are conflating two different points. One is the claim that an object can be in direct line of sight and still be too far away to be seen. That is what has just been explained. The other is that an object cannot be seen at all unless that object is still in existence and within a certain range at the time light from it is arriving at the eye/detector. That is not true and therefore does not need explaining.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You keep explaining how detectors work, which is all well and good, but they don't work at all if there if the object is not present. I've said this all along.

All things being equal, if a person is not within visible range, the strongest sensor would still not pick up or detect an image if that individual is literally a few steps back that put that person out of range.
That is simply not true, and is directly disproven by the Hubble telescope. The object has to be within a certain range at the time light leaves it for an image of it to be resolved, but that object need not still be within that range or even still exist at the time that light arrives at the detector. Our explanation does not have to explain this latter 'fact' because it is not a fact. It is your own unsupported claim. You can't argue that our explanation is inadequate because it can't explain your own made up 'facts'. You might as well claim that afferent vision is an inadequate model because it can't explain real-time vision.
Bump.

It is true that the object has to be in range at the time the light responsible for the image hits the surface of the object. Dispersion and resolution explains quite adequately on the afferent account how this works and why this is the case.

It is not true that this object has to still be within range at the later time when this light strikes the detector. That is not any kind of fact, and therefore does not stand in need of explanation. It is not any kind of inadequacy on the part of afferent vision that it does not explain this.
What does it say about your mental condition that you dropped the topic right after I posted this and never addressed these answers to your allegedly unanswered question, and yet that you are now once again repeating the same question this post answers while insisting that your question has never been adequately answered?
As much as I want to answer your question, you're going to have to change your tactics, or I'm putting on ignore. I am sick of you calling me mentally challenged.
Reply With Quote
  #9081  
Old 04-28-2012, 03:50 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

You have been given multiple detailed explanations regarding optics; including resolution, detector size, composition and configuration, and the inverse square law. Your inability to understand the physics is your problem, not a problem with optics, not a problem with the observations or evidence.

This is the strawman
Quote:
Everyone keeps using the inverse square law as if this proves that light is bringing us the image, but that doesn't answer the question.
The inverse square law is only part of the explanations you've been given.
Reply With Quote
  #9082  
Old 04-28-2012, 03:52 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
The following post is a completely unanswered bumped post from the other thread from the last time you tried to claim your question had never been adequately answered:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Not at all. I'm saying it seems quite strange that the only time resolution occurs is when an actual piece of matter is in range.
Then you haven't understood the explanation. We just explained exactly why an image of that piece of matter cannot be resolved beyond a certain range. There's nothing strange about it at all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
It does not make sense logically that there would be no image detected when someone steps slightly out of range if the pattern of light is in a direct in line with the sensor.
Again, that is exactly what was just explained to you, and it makes perfect sense. What part do you not understand?

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Thank you for explaining how sensors work and why red shows up, but you still have not answered the simple question as to why objects (substance) must be in view for the reflected light to be detected.
You are conflating two different points. One is the claim that an object can be in direct line of sight and still be too far away to be seen. That is what has just been explained. The other is that an object cannot be seen at all unless that object is still in existence and within a certain range at the time light from it is arriving at the eye/detector. That is not true and therefore does not need explaining.

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
You keep explaining how detectors work, which is all well and good, but they don't work at all if there if the object is not present. I've said this all along.

All things being equal, if a person is not within visible range, the strongest sensor would still not pick up or detect an image if that individual is literally a few steps back that put that person out of range.
That is simply not true, and is directly disproven by the Hubble telescope. The object has to be within a certain range at the time light leaves it for an image of it to be resolved, but that object need not still be within that range or even still exist at the time that light arrives at the detector. Our explanation does not have to explain this latter 'fact' because it is not a fact. It is your own unsupported claim. You can't argue that our explanation is inadequate because it can't explain your own made up 'facts'. You might as well claim that afferent vision is an inadequate model because it can't explain real-time vision.
Bump.

It is true that the object has to be in range at the time the light responsible for the image hits the surface of the object. Dispersion and resolution explains quite adequately on the afferent account how this works and why this is the case.

It is not true that this object has to still be within range at the later time when this light strikes the detector. That is not any kind of fact, and therefore does not stand in need of explanation. It is not any kind of inadequacy on the part of afferent vision that it does not explain this.
What does it say about your mental condition that you dropped the topic right after I posted this and never addressed these answers to your allegedly unanswered question, and yet that you are now once again repeating the same question this post answers while insisting that your question has never been adequately answered?
As much as I want to answer your question, you're going to have to change your tactics, or I'm putting on ignore. I am sick of you calling me mentally challenged.
:weasel: :weasel: :weasel:

You don't want to answer the question, or you would have done so when it was originally posed to you. Do you ever take any responsibility for your own actions?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (04-29-2012), Spacemonkey (04-29-2012)
  #9083  
Old 04-28-2012, 03:54 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

If we see instantly as per Lessans, if efferent vision were true, we would be able to see a supernova much, much, much sooner than we could detect the light photons or the neutrinos from that supernova. Because photons and neutrinos have to travel to our detectors to be detected. The difference between seeing the supernova and detecting the neutrinos or photons would be decades at minimum.

That doesn't happen. What does happen is that we see the supernova and detect the photons at the same time, and the neutrinos within a short time, hours.
Reply With Quote
  #9084  
Old 04-28-2012, 04:05 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Response?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I have never ever weaseled.
:weasel: :weasel: :weasel: :weasel: :weasel: :weasel: :weasel: :weasel:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
How do the photons get there?
They travel...
Also...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
1) Where are the unabsorbed photons 0.0001sec after they have hit the object? [Insert answer here]
Are they about 30 meters away from the object and traveling away from it? [Yes or No]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
2) Where were the photons (which are at the film comprising the mirror image when the photograph is taken) 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken? [Insert answer here]
Are they about 30 meters away from the camera film and traveling towards it? [Yes or No]
:weasel: :weasel: :weasel: :weasel: :weasel: :weasel: :weasel: :weasel:
It doesn't matter where the photons are. The issue is whether the eyes are efferent. If they are, then there is no time involved because we're looking directly at the object through the light. It doesn't work the other way around Spacemonkey. That's all I'm going to say on this question. I still want an apology.
You answered using "eyes" and "looking" (which the brain does according to Lessans) and the questions only concerned cameras/film.

It matters where the photons are when discussing photography and cameras, because the photons must be in direct physical contact with the camera film.
Reply With Quote
  #9085  
Old 04-28-2012, 04:36 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
You have been given multiple detailed explanations regarding optics; including resolution, detector size, composition and configuration, and the inverse square law. Your inability to understand the physics is your problem, not a problem with optics, not a problem with the observations or evidence.

This is the strawman
Quote:
Everyone keeps using the inverse square law as if this proves that light is bringing us the image, but that doesn't answer the question.
The inverse square law is only part of the explanations you've been given.
I already addressed this issue LadyShea. And you think you are any less emotionally involved in being right, than me? What a joke this is.
Reply With Quote
  #9086  
Old 04-28-2012, 04:37 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
If we see instantly as per Lessans, if efferent vision were true, we would be able to see a supernova much, much, much sooner than we could detect the light photons or the neutrinos from that supernova. Because photons and neutrinos have to travel to our detectors to be detected. The difference between seeing the supernova and detecting the neutrinos or photons would be decades at minimum.

That doesn't happen. What does happen is that we see the supernova and detect the photons at the same time, and the neutrinos within a short time, hours.
Why are you not paying attention? I refuse to discuss results from outer space, until they can be resolved at home. I'm sorry if you think that this is impossible because light travels too fast, which is a distraction, as far as I'm concerned. I believe part of the problem is that the premise that signals from light are interpreted in the brain, is taken for granted. Do you see the problem I have? I can't get past square one, and you think you're an open-minded group? :(
Reply With Quote
  #9087  
Old 04-28-2012, 04:41 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
You have been given multiple detailed explanations regarding optics; including resolution, detector size, composition and configuration, and the inverse square law. Your inability to understand the physics is your problem, not a problem with optics, not a problem with the observations or evidence.

This is the strawman
Quote:
Everyone keeps using the inverse square law as if this proves that light is bringing us the image, but that doesn't answer the question.
The inverse square law is only part of the explanations you've been given.
I already addressed this issue LadyShea.
No you didn't "address" it, you weaseled. You keep referring only to the inverse square law as if that is the entirety of the explanations you've been give when it's not.
Reply With Quote
  #9088  
Old 04-28-2012, 04:44 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
If we see instantly as per Lessans, if efferent vision were true, we would be able to see a supernova much, much, much sooner than we could detect the light photons or the neutrinos from that supernova. Because photons and neutrinos have to travel to our detectors to be detected. The difference between seeing the supernova and detecting the neutrinos or photons would be decades at minimum.

That doesn't happen. What does happen is that we see the supernova and detect the photons at the same time, and the neutrinos within a short time, hours.
Why are you not paying attention? I refuse to discuss results from outer space, until they can be resolved at home. (
You can't explain the empirical evidence that clearly refutes your point of view, that in fact is the "absolute proof" Lessans demanded, so you refuse to discuss it...that's weaseling. That's dogmatism. That's being blinded by your faith. You can see supernova from "home". You can view the Hubble images from "home". The neutrino and photon detectors are here at "home". Evidence is evidence, and empirical observations are empirical observations. Your baseless differentiation is moving the goalposts

Lessans ideas on light and sight are absolutely proven to be false and wrong.

Last edited by LadyShea; 04-28-2012 at 05:06 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9089  
Old 04-28-2012, 04:46 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
"We" can't do that

Because 'We' don't have FTL travel so cannot get 520 light years away in time to see the light from Columbus discovering the new world. However 'IF' there were beings with the capability to gather and focus enough light from that event 'They' could be watching Columbus landing right now, provided there are no obstructions and they are in the right direction. Does anyone know if that was a cloudy day, because that would spoil everything.
Reply With Quote
  #9090  
Old 04-28-2012, 04:46 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post

Why are you not paying attention? I refuse to discuss results from outer space, until they can be resolved at home. I'm sorry if you think that this is impossible because light travels too fast, which is a distraction, as far as I'm concerned.
:lol: You are so contemptible.

The speed of light and delayed time seeing has been resolved "at home" here on earth, you little weasel. How many times have you been given this link? Go to "Fast-flickering lanterns," liar.
Reply With Quote
  #9091  
Old 04-28-2012, 04:49 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Notice that, hundreds of pages ago, The Lone Ranger and several others patiently explained to her the measurement of the speed of light right here on earth, using fast-flickering lanterns described in the link above. I myself have given her that link at least a dozen times. And she has the temerity to pretend that none of that ever happened.

:lol:
Reply With Quote
  #9092  
Old 04-28-2012, 05:01 PM
thedoc's Avatar
thedoc thedoc is offline
I'm Deplorable.
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Posts: XMMCCCXCVI
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Notice that, hundreds of pages ago, The Lone Ranger and several others patiently explained to her the measurement of the speed of light right here on earth, using fast-flickering lanterns described in the link above. I myself have given her that link at least a dozen times. And she has the temerity to pretend that none of that ever happened.

:lol:

Did you expect any less of her?
Reply With Quote
  #9093  
Old 04-28-2012, 05:09 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXV
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Here, shit nozzle (thanks to Maturin! :thankee:), in case you missed it from the link I have given you dozens of times, is the proof both of the speed of light and delayed time seeing right here on earth:

Quote:
We can see, though, that if the two lanterns are ten miles apart, the time lag is of order one-ten thousandth of a second, and it is difficult to see how to arrange that. This technical problem was solved in France about 1850 by two rivals, Fizeau and Foucault, using slightly different techniques. In Fizeau’s apparatus, a beam of light shone between the teeth of a rapidly rotating toothed wheel, so the “lantern” was constantly being covered and uncovered. Instead of a second lantern far away, Fizeau simply had a mirror, reflecting the beam back, where it passed a second time between the teeth of the wheel. The idea was, the blip of light that went out through one gap between teeth would only make it back through the same gap if the teeth had not had time to move over significantly during the round trip time to the far away mirror. It was not difficult to make a wheel with a hundred teeth, and to rotate it hundreds of times a second, so the time for a tooth to move over could be arranged to be a fraction of one ten thousandth of a second. The method worked. Foucault’s method was based on the same general idea, but instead of a toothed wheel, he shone the beam on to a rotating mirror. At one point in the mirror’s rotation, the reflected beam fell on a distant mirror, which reflected it right back to the rotating mirror, which meanwhile had turned through a small angle. After this second reflection from the rotating mirror, the position of the beam was carefully measured. This made it possible to figure out how far the mirror had turned during the time it took the light to make the round trip to the distant mirror, and since the rate of rotation of the mirror was known, the speed of light could be figured out. These techniques gave the speed of light with an accuracy of about 1,000 miles per second.
Reply With Quote
  #9094  
Old 04-28-2012, 05:55 PM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default To all those who try to use reason with peacegirl

ARE YOU CRAZY?
Reply With Quote
  #9095  
Old 04-28-2012, 06:29 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Response?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I have never ever weaseled.
:weasel: :weasel: :weasel: :weasel: :weasel: :weasel: :weasel: :weasel:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
How do the photons get there?
They travel...
Also...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
1) Where are the unabsorbed photons 0.0001sec after they have hit the object? [Insert answer here]
Are they about 30 meters away from the object and traveling away from it? [Yes or No]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
2) Where were the photons (which are at the film comprising the mirror image when the photograph is taken) 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken? [Insert answer here]
Are they about 30 meters away from the camera film and traveling towards it? [Yes or No]
:weasel: :weasel: :weasel: :weasel: :weasel: :weasel: :weasel: :weasel:
It doesn't matter where the photons are. The issue is whether the eyes are efferent. If they are, then there is no time involved because we're looking directly at the object through the light. It doesn't work the other way around Spacemonkey. That's all I'm going to say on this question. I still want an apology.
You answered using "eyes" and "looking" (which the brain does according to Lessans) and the questions only concerned cameras/film.

It matters where the photons are when discussing photography and cameras, because the photons must be in direct physical contact with the camera film.
You still are missing why there is a mirror image without light having to travel to Earth, and why a mirror image shows up on a camera the same way even though cameras don't have a brain.
Reply With Quote
  #9096  
Old 04-28-2012, 06:30 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Here, shit nozzle (thanks to Maturin! :thankee:), in case you missed it from the link I have given you dozens of times, is the proof both of the speed of light and delayed time seeing right here on earth:

Quote:
We can see, though, that if the two lanterns are ten miles apart, the time lag is of order one-ten thousandth of a second, and it is difficult to see how to arrange that. This technical problem was solved in France about 1850 by two rivals, Fizeau and Foucault, using slightly different techniques. In Fizeau’s apparatus, a beam of light shone between the teeth of a rapidly rotating toothed wheel, so the “lantern” was constantly being covered and uncovered. Instead of a second lantern far away, Fizeau simply had a mirror, reflecting the beam back, where it passed a second time between the teeth of the wheel. The idea was, the blip of light that went out through one gap between teeth would only make it back through the same gap if the teeth had not had time to move over significantly during the round trip time to the far away mirror. It was not difficult to make a wheel with a hundred teeth, and to rotate it hundreds of times a second, so the time for a tooth to move over could be arranged to be a fraction of one ten thousandth of a second. The method worked. Foucault’s method was based on the same general idea, but instead of a toothed wheel, he shone the beam on to a rotating mirror. At one point in the mirror’s rotation, the reflected beam fell on a distant mirror, which reflected it right back to the rotating mirror, which meanwhile had turned through a small angle. After this second reflection from the rotating mirror, the position of the beam was carefully measured. This made it possible to figure out how far the mirror had turned during the time it took the light to make the round trip to the distant mirror, and since the rate of rotation of the mirror was known, the speed of light could be figured out. These techniques gave the speed of light with an accuracy of about 1,000 miles per second.
WHO IS ARGUING WITH THIS?
Reply With Quote
  #9097  
Old 04-28-2012, 06:34 PM
peacegirl's Avatar
peacegirl peacegirl is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: U.S.A.
Gender: Female
Posts: XXMVCDXXXIV
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post

Why are you not paying attention? I refuse to discuss results from outer space, until they can be resolved at home. I'm sorry if you think that this is impossible because light travels too fast, which is a distraction, as far as I'm concerned.
:lol: You are so contemptible.

The speed of light and delayed time seeing has been resolved "at home" here on earth, you little weasel. How many times have you been given this link? Go to "Fast-flickering lanterns," liar.
This doesn't even address the issue! Didn't Lessans say that light travels at 186,000 miles a second? You don't remember because you didn't read the book. The speed of light has nothing to do with how the brain works in relation to the eyes.
Reply With Quote
  #9098  
Old 04-28-2012, 06:39 PM
specious_reasons's Avatar
specious_reasons specious_reasons is offline
here to bore you with pictures
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: VCCCXXVII
Images: 8
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Here, shit nozzle (thanks to Maturin! :thankee:), in case you missed it from the link I have given you dozens of times, is the proof both of the speed of light and delayed time seeing right here on earth:

Quote:
We can see, though, that if the two lanterns are ten miles apart, the time lag is of order one-ten thousandth of a second, and it is difficult to see how to arrange that. This technical problem was solved in France about 1850 by two rivals, Fizeau and Foucault, using slightly different techniques. In Fizeau’s apparatus, a beam of light shone between the teeth of a rapidly rotating toothed wheel, so the “lantern” was constantly being covered and uncovered. Instead of a second lantern far away, Fizeau simply had a mirror, reflecting the beam back, where it passed a second time between the teeth of the wheel. The idea was, the blip of light that went out through one gap between teeth would only make it back through the same gap if the teeth had not had time to move over significantly during the round trip time to the far away mirror. It was not difficult to make a wheel with a hundred teeth, and to rotate it hundreds of times a second, so the time for a tooth to move over could be arranged to be a fraction of one ten thousandth of a second. The method worked. Foucault’s method was based on the same general idea, but instead of a toothed wheel, he shone the beam on to a rotating mirror. At one point in the mirror’s rotation, the reflected beam fell on a distant mirror, which reflected it right back to the rotating mirror, which meanwhile had turned through a small angle. After this second reflection from the rotating mirror, the position of the beam was carefully measured. This made it possible to figure out how far the mirror had turned during the time it took the light to make the round trip to the distant mirror, and since the rate of rotation of the mirror was known, the speed of light could be figured out. These techniques gave the speed of light with an accuracy of about 1,000 miles per second.
She doesn't (or is not willing to) understand how Fizeau's experiment would fail to work if we saw in real time.

Since it contains buzzwords such as "mirrors," she will come up with a demented explanation based on her failed understanding of reflections and how they somehow prove real time seeing, and how she's sure there's some sort of mistake in the experiment that the scientists just didn't know about until Lessans came along.
__________________
ta-
DAVE!!!
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
davidm (04-28-2012), LadyShea (04-28-2012)
  #9099  
Old 04-28-2012, 06:41 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Response?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I have never ever weaseled.
:weasel: :weasel: :weasel: :weasel: :weasel: :weasel: :weasel: :weasel:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
How do the photons get there?
They travel...
Also...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
1) Where are the unabsorbed photons 0.0001sec after they have hit the object? [Insert answer here]
Are they about 30 meters away from the object and traveling away from it? [Yes or No]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
2) Where were the photons (which are at the film comprising the mirror image when the photograph is taken) 0.0001sec before the photograph was taken? [Insert answer here]
Are they about 30 meters away from the camera film and traveling towards it? [Yes or No]
:weasel: :weasel: :weasel: :weasel: :weasel: :weasel: :weasel: :weasel:
It doesn't matter where the photons are. The issue is whether the eyes are efferent. If they are, then there is no time involved because we're looking directly at the object through the light. It doesn't work the other way around Spacemonkey. That's all I'm going to say on this question. I still want an apology.
You answered using "eyes" and "looking" (which the brain does according to Lessans) and the questions only concerned cameras/film.

It matters where the photons are when discussing photography and cameras, because the photons must be in direct physical contact with the camera film.
You still are missing why there is a mirror image without light having to travel to Earth, and why a mirror image shows up on a camera the same way even though cameras don't have a brain.
LOL, you haven't explained "why" nor have you explained "how". You've yet to come up with a possible physical mechanism or even composition or location.

Magical Mirror Images! That's what you're going with? Magic?
Reply With Quote
  #9100  
Old 04-28-2012, 06:45 PM
LadyShea's Avatar
LadyShea LadyShea is offline
I said it, so I feel it, dick
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Here
Posts: XXXMDCCCXCVII
Images: 41
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post

Why are you not paying attention? I refuse to discuss results from outer space, until they can be resolved at home. I'm sorry if you think that this is impossible because light travels too fast, which is a distraction, as far as I'm concerned.
:lol: You are so contemptible.

The speed of light and delayed time seeing has been resolved "at home" here on earth, you little weasel. How many times have you been given this link? Go to "Fast-flickering lanterns," liar.
This doesn't even address the issue! Didn't Lessans say that light travels at 186,000 miles a second? You don't remember because you didn't read the book. The speed of light has nothing to do with how the brain works in relation to the eyes.
The experimental results and empirical observations would have been completely different if we saw in real time.

Delayed time seeing was verified along with the speed of light.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
davidm (04-28-2012)
Reply

  Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

 

All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:16 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.04439 seconds with 14 queries