Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #9126  
Old 04-28-2012, 10:59 PM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
All the early experiments that measured the speed of light used people looking at light sources, using their eyes, to make the measurements.
Of course they used their eyes, but it still doesn't tell us what the brain was doing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceptimus
For distant objects, like the moons of Jupiter, people looked at the moons (through a telescope). For the experiments here on earth, people were looking at a target illuminated by an electric light bulb, and they were looking through the teeth of a rapidly rotating toothed wheel.
I get that, but they are vastly different experiments. Seeing a target illuminated gives us a premise measurement of the speed of light. The moons of Jupiter experiment is another story because there is an assumption that the moons are images coming from light. But there's no way to prove this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cetimus
In all these experiments, if the people had instantly seen the objects they were looking at, as you claim, then they would have been unable to measure the speed of light (or to put it another way, they would have measured that light travelled at infinite speed). But they didn't. They measured a speed of about 300,000,000 metres per second and in the process demonstrated that we do not see in real time.
The ability to see in real time does not negate our ability to measure light when it lands on a target. But you're assuming that when light bounces off of objects it is taking with it a particular pattern, and that pattern is being interpreted as an image in the brain. That's the fallacy, according to Lessans.

Furthermore, seeing in real time has nothing to do with infinite speed. This comment makes me realize that there is no one on this thread that even has a clue as to why the brain, looking through the eyes, as a window, would allow us to see in real time without violating the laws of physics. The fact that the speed of light is finite doesn't have anything to do with our ability to see in real time. That's why I told Spacemonkey I don't want to answer anymore questions regarding photons traveling since it doesn't even relate.
What in the blue hell are you babbling about, you little imbecile?

It's VERY OBVIOUS that if we saw in REAL TIME, the experiment of the flash-flickeirng lanterns would not work. Because it DOES work, we don't see in real time! End of story, derper! :derp:

I don't think you even know what real-time seeing means. Goddamn, but you are dumb.
Reply With Quote
  #9127  
Old 04-29-2012, 12:09 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
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.
I am presenting you with the evidence of your own mental illness. The question you are saying you want to answer concerns your own delusional behavior of constantly returning to an 'unanswered' question that has been repeatedly answered. Our answers to your question are correct and will not be changing. So your own behavior is clear evidence of your cognitive impairment. A sane person would not keep asking the same question in the hope of a different answer, when the only reason they have for rejecting the answers given is that those answers do not explain invented facts which no-one else believes to be true.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #9128  
Old 04-29-2012, 12:15 AM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

The shocking aspect of trying to communicate with a mentally ill person is that they behave mentally ill. There is no point in it. All you can do is try to get them help. You can not reason them to mental health, and they may be too far gone to be helped.

peacegirl could very well have a form of schizophrenia.
Reply With Quote
  #9129  
Old 04-29-2012, 12:17 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
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.
Here's another example of your mental illness. You are again returning to the claim that there can be a mirror image at a location where light has not travelled to. Yet when pressed you will admit that this mirror image consists of photons, that photons always travel, and that these photons therefore travelled to get to wherever they are. I know you will do this because we've been through the exact same exchange a thousand times already. But your mind is broken, and your faith compels you to repeat this same loop over and over again.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (04-29-2012)
  #9130  
Old 04-29-2012, 12:17 AM
davidm's Avatar
davidm davidm is offline
Spiffiest wanger
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: MXCXXII
Blog Entries: 3
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

peacegirl, we shine a laser at the moon. Do we see its reflection off the moon instantaneously or with a time delay? If we see it with a time delay we are seeing the moon as it was slightly in the past. Slightly in this case because the moon is very close in celestial terms.

The experiment has been done numerous times and we see it with a delay, meaning we see the illuminated spot of the moon as it was very slightly in the past. Real time seeing is therefore false.

End of story. Lessans, meet fork -- again! :D

Why you persist with this nuttery is beyond me. You really need help.
Reply With Quote
  #9131  
Old 04-29-2012, 12:29 AM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
That's why I told Spacemonkey I don't want to answer anymore questions regarding photons traveling since it doesn't even relate.
And you've just completely ignored repeated explanations of why you are wrong about that. Your own model posits travelling photons, yet you cannot produce any coherent and consistent account of the position and location at different times of such photons compatible with real-time photography. That alone is a conclusive refutation of efferent vision, no matter how much you would like to ignore it.

You are not mentally well, Peacegirl. When we say this we are not trying to insult you out of frustration or anger. Can you at least acknowledge that we really are genuinely concerned about your mental health? The evidence for your cognitive impairment is just as conclusive and overwhelming as the evidence against Lessans' claims. But you won't honestly face up to either problem.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (04-29-2012)
  #9132  
Old 04-29-2012, 12:57 AM
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:
But you're assuming that when light bounces off of objects it is taking with it a particular pattern
Nobody assumes that nor thinks that, as has been explained to you countless times. This is a strawman.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Spacemonkey (04-29-2012)
  #9133  
Old 04-29-2012, 12:59 AM
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
Quote:
But you can't make a leap from this to "we would see Columbus discovering America" because the image or pattern of that event is still travelling out there somewhere
Lessans is the only person, apparently, to ever to have made the strawman claim about seeing Columbus. Nobody here, and no scientific literature, mentions any such prediction or makes that claim. So, we aren't making any leaps to that.
It was a hypothetical example LadyShea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
However, the only way to see that event would be, as I previously stated, to have a powerful telescope 520 light years away pointed in the right direction at the right moment to intersect those photons from that event.
Regardless of how powerful a telescope would have to be, if all the conditions were right, scientists believe that we would be able to see a past event such as Columbus discovering America, which is what Lessans disputed.
As it is not at all empirically testable he couldn't have offered a more useless hypothetical.

Why do you insist on using something so stupid and useless and unable to support your point?
Reply With Quote
  #9134  
Old 04-29-2012, 01:08 AM
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 peacegirl View Post
scientists believe that we would be able to see a past event such as Columbus discovering America, which is what Lessans disputed.

And Lessans was wrong, and what the scientists believe is correct, given the proper conditions.
Reply With Quote
  #9135  
Old 04-29-2012, 12:12 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by ceptimus View Post
All the early experiments that measured the speed of light used people looking at light sources, using their eyes, to make the measurements.
Of course they used their eyes, but it still doesn't tell us what the brain was doing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceptimus
For distant objects, like the moons of Jupiter, people looked at the moons (through a telescope). For the experiments here on earth, people were looking at a target illuminated by an electric light bulb, and they were looking through the teeth of a rapidly rotating toothed wheel.
I get that, but they are vastly different experiments. Seeing a target illuminated gives us a premise measurement of the speed of light. The moons of Jupiter experiment is another story because there is an assumption that the moons are images coming from light. But there's no way to prove this.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cetimus
In all these experiments, if the people had instantly seen the objects they were looking at, as you claim, then they would have been unable to measure the speed of light (or to put it another way, they would have measured that light travelled at infinite speed). But they didn't. They measured a speed of about 300,000,000 metres per second and in the process demonstrated that we do not see in real time.
The ability to see in real time does not negate our ability to measure light when it lands on a target. But you're assuming that when light bounces off of objects it is taking with it a particular pattern, and that pattern is being interpreted as an image in the brain. That's the fallacy, according to Lessans.

Furthermore, seeing in real time has nothing to do with infinite speed. This comment makes me realize that there is no one on this thread that even has a clue as to why the brain, looking through the eyes, as a window, would allow us to see in real time without violating the laws of physics. The fact that the speed of light is finite doesn't have anything to do with our ability to see in real time. That's why I told Spacemonkey I don't want to answer anymore questions regarding photons traveling since it doesn't even relate.
What in the blue hell are you babbling about, you little imbecile?

It's VERY OBVIOUS that if we saw in REAL TIME, the experiment of the flash-flickeirng lanterns would not work. Because it DOES work, we don't see in real time! End of story, derper! :derp:

I don't think you even know what real-time seeing means. Goddamn, but you are dumb.
No, it's not the end of story! I know you wish you could hand wave this thread away, but you can't. :popcorn:
Reply With Quote
  #9136  
Old 04-29-2012, 12:17 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
Quote:
But you're assuming that when light bounces off of objects it is taking with it a particular pattern
Nobody assumes that nor thinks that, as has been explained to you countless times. This is a strawman.
It is not a strawman LadyShea. How many times has it been explained that light is absorbed and (N) reflected, and the reflected light travels independently with the pattern of the object, even when the object is no longer present?
Reply With Quote
  #9137  
Old 04-29-2012, 12:19 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
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.
Here's another example of your mental illness. You are again returning to the claim that there can be a mirror image at a location where light has not travelled to. Yet when pressed you will admit that this mirror image consists of photons, that photons always travel, and that these photons therefore travelled to get to wherever they are. I know you will do this because we've been through the exact same exchange a thousand times already. But your mind is broken, and your faith compels you to repeat this same loop over and over again.
Why do you want to talk to a mentally ill person? Find someone who is not mentally ill, and talk to them. You'll be a lot happier. :yup:
Reply With Quote
  #9138  
Old 04-29-2012, 12:24 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
But you can't make a leap from this to "we would see Columbus discovering America" because the image or pattern of that event is still travelling out there somewhere
Lessans is the only person, apparently, to ever to have made the strawman claim about seeing Columbus. Nobody here, and no scientific literature, mentions any such prediction or makes that claim. So, we aren't making any leaps to that.
It was a hypothetical example LadyShea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
However, the only way to see that event would be, as I previously stated, to have a powerful telescope 520 light years away pointed in the right direction at the right moment to intersect those photons from that event.
Regardless of how powerful a telescope would have to be, if all the conditions were right, scientists believe that we would be able to see a past event such as Columbus discovering America, which is what Lessans disputed.
As it is not at all empirically testable he couldn't have offered a more useless hypothetical.

Why do you insist on using something so stupid and useless and unable to support your point?
He was using this as an example, so people could understand what he was talking about.
Reply With Quote
  #9139  
Old 04-29-2012, 12:25 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
peacegirl, we shine a laser at the moon. Do we see its reflection off the moon instantaneously or with a time delay? If we see it with a time delay we are seeing the moon as it was slightly in the past. Slightly in this case because the moon is very close in celestial terms.

The experiment has been done numerous times and we see it with a delay, meaning we see the illuminated spot of the moon as it was very slightly in the past. Real time seeing is therefore false.

End of story. Lessans, meet fork -- again! :D

Why you persist with this nuttery is beyond me. You really need help.
Show me the proof that we see the moon in delayed time.
Reply With Quote
  #9140  
Old 04-29-2012, 12:30 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 Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey
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.
I am presenting you with the evidence of your own mental illness. The question you are saying you want to answer concerns your own delusional behavior of constantly returning to an 'unanswered' question that has been repeatedly answered. Our answers to your question are correct and will not be changing. So your own behavior is clear evidence of your cognitive impairment. A sane person would not keep asking the same question in the hope of a different answer, when the only reason they have for rejecting the answers given is that those answers do not explain invented facts which no-one else believes to be true.
It has not been answered to my satisfaction, therefore I will continue to ask the question and posit a different answer that I believe is more accurate. So now you think you're Freud? :lmao: :laugh:
Reply With Quote
  #9141  
Old 04-29-2012, 12:32 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
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.
This is not dogmatism. Viewing images from home is not the problem; it's being able to interpret what we're actually seeing.
What's to interpret? There are stars, galaxies, nebulae, supernova etc.
I guess you have lost sight of the point of this discussion.
Reply With Quote
  #9142  
Old 04-29-2012, 12:38 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

You did not read the book David. You flipped through it and grabbed certain sentences that would sound funny if taken out of context. You did a good job! It's because of you that I would never post the book online again!
No one can say I never did the Internets a big favor! I R winnah! :winner:

Quote:

Just because we can measure the speed of light by measuring a delay does not mean we see the real world in delayed time.
Read what ceptimus just wrote, you little fool!

Delayed seeing is the only way we have to measure the speed of light.

You do not even understand what real-time seeing entails. Neither did the buffoon Lessans. If we saw in real-time, we would have no way of telling how fast photons travel and we we would have to (correctly) adjudge them to be traveling infinitely fast. That you cannot see this necessary connection between measuring light speed and delayed seeing is nothing short of breathtaking.
It is incorrect that if we saw in real-time, we would have no way of telling how fast photons travel. If there's a target that we can measure, there is nothing about efferent vision that would prevent us from seeing this. The only thing Lessans was claiming was the light does not enter the brain and get interpreted as normal vision. You are talking about two different things.
Reply With Quote
  #9143  
Old 04-29-2012, 12:41 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
Hey, peacegirl, here's a question for you -- not that this hasn't been asked before, too!

If we shined a laser at the moon to illuminate a certain spot on it, would see see that illuminated spot (a) instantaneously, or (b) with a time delay? Notice that if you answer (b) it means, necessarily, that we are seeing that illuminated part of the moon as it was in the past.

Now, then, peacegirl, what is your answer? Take you time! I'm sure this is toughie. A little hint, though: this experiment has been done numerous times over the last fifty years, so we already know the answer! :lol:
There would be a delay depending on how long it takes for the laser to reach the spot on the moon in order to illuminate it.
Reply With Quote
  #9144  
Old 04-29-2012, 01:16 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
I am presenting you with the evidence of your own mental illness. The question you are saying you want to answer concerns your own delusional behavior of constantly returning to an 'unanswered' question that has been repeatedly answered. Our answers to your question are correct and will not be changing. So your own behavior is clear evidence of your cognitive impairment. A sane person would not keep asking the same question in the hope of a different answer, when the only reason they have for rejecting the answers given is that those answers do not explain invented facts which no-one else believes to be true.
It has not been answered to my satisfaction, therefore I will continue to ask the question and posit a different answer that I believe is more accurate. So now you think you're Freud? :lmao: :laugh:
Why on Earth would you persist in repeatedy asking us the same question when the only answer you will accept is your own?

Could anyone ask for clearer evidence of your mental illness?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #9145  
Old 04-29-2012, 01:21 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
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.
Here's another example of your mental illness. You are again returning to the claim that there can be a mirror image at a location where light has not travelled to. Yet when pressed you will admit that this mirror image consists of photons, that photons always travel, and that these photons therefore travelled to get to wherever they are. I know you will do this because we've been through the exact same exchange a thousand times already. But your mind is broken, and your faith compels you to repeat this same loop over and over again.
Why do you want to talk to a mentally ill person? Find someone who is not mentally ill, and talk to them. You'll be a lot happier. :yup:
You're asking me a question which I've already answered. I've told you why I'm here. You certainly can't dispute the obvious fact that the above is evidence of your broken mind. Why else would you keep returning to the refuted and contradictory claim that there can be a mirror image at a location that didn't have to travel to get there, and yet which consists of photons which did have to travel to get there? Face it Peacegirl, you are completely out to lunch. Seek help. What you are doing here is not healthy at all.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #9146  
Old 04-29-2012, 01:25 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 peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Hey, peacegirl, here's a question for you -- not that this hasn't been asked before, too!

If we shined a laser at the moon to illuminate a certain spot on it, would see see that illuminated spot (a) instantaneously, or (b) with a time delay? Notice that if you answer (b) it means, necessarily, that we are seeing that illuminated part of the moon as it was in the past.

Now, then, peacegirl, what is your answer? Take you time! I'm sure this is toughie. A little hint, though: this experiment has been done numerous times over the last fifty years, so we already know the answer! :lol:
There would be a delay depending on how long it takes for the laser to reach the spot on the moon in order to illuminate it.

And the time it takes corosponds to the total time for the 'round trip' not just the 'one way' trip of the light reaching the Moon. So in reality the light must travel to the Moon and illuminate the spot, which is then big enough and bright enough to be seen, but the observer does not see it till the light has been reflected and travels back to the observers eye. So the delay is the total 2 way trip, not just the one way trip. Efferent vision is disproved and false, we see in delayed time 'afferently'.
-
FYI, the distance to the Moon has been accurately measured, so there is no question there, and the speed of light has been accurately measured, so again there is no question. The brain looking through the eyes, does not change the distance to the moon or the speed of light, these are known quantities and the math is simple enough, even for you to do.
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
Angakuk (04-29-2012), Spacemonkey (04-29-2012)
  #9147  
Old 04-29-2012, 01:30 PM
Spacemonkey's Avatar
Spacemonkey Spacemonkey is offline
I'll be benched for a week if I keep these shenanigans up.
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: VMCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
How many times has it been explained that light is absorbed and (N) reflected, and the reflected light travels independently with the pattern of the object, even when the object is no longer present?
Not once. Go back and read through the last 24hrs worth of posts and see if you can find which part of the above statement is incorrect. It was explained to you very recently.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (04-29-2012)
  #9148  
Old 04-29-2012, 02:15 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
Quote:
But you're assuming that when light bounces off of objects it is taking with it a particular pattern
Nobody assumes that nor thinks that, as has been explained to you countless times. This is a strawman.
It is not a strawman LadyShea. How many times has it been explained that light is absorbed and (N) reflected, and the reflected light travels independently with the pattern of the object, even when the object is no longer present?
There is no "pattern of the object" traveling "with" anything. The pattern is not a separate entity to be carried by or travel alongside or in or on the light.
Reply With Quote
  #9149  
Old 04-29-2012, 02:29 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
But you can't make a leap from this to "we would see Columbus discovering America" because the image or pattern of that event is still travelling out there somewhere
Lessans is the only person, apparently, to ever to have made the strawman claim about seeing Columbus. Nobody here, and no scientific literature, mentions any such prediction or makes that claim. So, we aren't making any leaps to that.
It was a hypothetical example LadyShea.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
However, the only way to see that event would be, as I previously stated, to have a powerful telescope 520 light years away pointed in the right direction at the right moment to intersect those photons from that event.
Regardless of how powerful a telescope would have to be, if all the conditions were right, scientists believe that we would be able to see a past event such as Columbus discovering America, which is what Lessans disputed.
As it is not at all empirically testable he couldn't have offered a more useless hypothetical.

Why do you insist on using something so stupid and useless and unable to support your point?
He was using this as an example, so people could understand what he was talking about.
And you continue to use it, even though it is not useful?
Reply With Quote
  #9150  
Old 04-29-2012, 02:39 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

Oops
Reply With Quote
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 09:18 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 2.31054 seconds with 16 queries