Go Back   Freethought Forum > The Marketplace > Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #9376  
Old 05-01-2012, 04:54 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

Quote:
Originally Posted by thedoc View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
I propose we move the discussion to radio eyes and suchlike. :yup:
I believe that I read or heard once the eyes on Earth evolved to respond to the 'visible' part of the spectrum because that was the strongest part of the spectrum that reached the Earths surface. Perhaps eyes that evolve on other planets that receive different parts of the spectrum will respond the those parts of the spectrum. It would depend on where the eyes evolve to determine what is responded to.
That's right, but the question is whether life could evolve at all under different spectrums more strongly reaching a planet. If a planet is most strongly hit with gamma rays, could eyes or life at all arise and evolve?

This is an interesting topic, and hopefully we can veer off from the Lessans BS and focus on stuff like this. :yup:
Reply With Quote
  #9377  
Old 05-01-2012, 09:15 AM
Angakuk's Avatar
Angakuk Angakuk is offline
NeoTillichian Hierophant & Partisan Hack
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Iowa
Gender: Male
Posts: MXCCCLXXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

You are a dreamer to think so, david. Maybe even delusional.
__________________
Old Pain In The Ass says: I am on a mission from God to comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable; to bring faith to the doubtful and doubt to the faithful. :shakebible:
Reply With Quote
  #9378  
Old 05-01-2012, 12:18 PM
But's Avatar
But But is offline
This is the title that appears beneath your name on your posts.
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: MVDCCCLXXIII
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by But View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Otherwise, according to Arthur C. Clarke anyway, our eyes could see radio light if they were several million times larger than they are.
No, that doesn't work. It's not just a matter of size. The radio waves won't trigger the chemicals in the retina, no matter how big the eyes are.
But this assumes that the chemicals in eyes evolved to be millions of times our size would be the same chemicals in our eyes, or work in the same way. What is the justification for this? Are you saying that no evolved organism could see radio light? If not, why not?
You're weaselling. :D You mixed up necessary and sufficient conditions. He meant that to see radio waves, your eyes would have to be much larger, not that if your eyes were larger, you could see radio waves. I don't think I agree and I don't know which design he had in mind, because there are radio receivers today that are much smaller than a human eye.
Reply With Quote
  #9379  
Old 05-01-2012, 12:48 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 Angakuk View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Human Benchmark - Reaction Time Test

I averaged 262 milliseconds, and I am slow

No way could it take me a full second and quarter to click a button
216 milliseconds here, slowpoke.
I am slow! I also practiced trying to stop this clock at 1 second. I got to 1:080

Online Stopwatch
Reply With Quote
  #9380  
Old 05-01-2012, 01:12 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 Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Don't be stupid. Response times in psychology are regularly accurately measured to within tens of milliseconds. There is nothing even remotely difficult about determining when a spot becomes visible. The difference between 1.25 and 2.5 seconds is huge and easily measurable. You don't have to stop and ask the person what they can see. The observer can be the one doing the timing.
I'd like to see an animation of this. I can't imagine this being possible, or accurate.
Better than an animation, try this:

Human Benchmark - Reaction Time Test
Bump.
It would be very difficult to distinguish the exact point at which the spot on the moon was seen, even if someone had the best reaction time unless the frame could be stopped in midstream, otherwise there could easily be a false positive when light is traveling 186,000 miles a second. In sixth grade, they did an experiment, and I had the fastest reflexes in the class, but I don't think I could accurately identify the moment I see the spot.
Reply With Quote
  #9381  
Old 05-01-2012, 01:25 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 naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I don't get out that often, even though I do some of the things you mentioned. I never discuss the book outside of the internet, which makes this communication quite different although unfortunately it's turned into a circus.
My guess is that sometime in the past you have talked to friends and acquaintances about Lessans and you learned people's reaction to it. So you don't do it anymore because people do not usually shit in their own beds.
Not at all. I have to weigh the cost/benefit because it consumes too much energy and time even if they are extremely interested. I need to reach people who can be instrumental, not just anyone I meet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by natural.atheist
You somehow think the internet is anonymous and that nothing can be traced back to you but you have since learned better. People here know your name, the names of your family, where you live, where your family lives. You do not understand that what you are doing is not only mentally dangerous to you but can come back and hurt you and your family. You are being very reckless, selfish and thoughtless.
I am doing nothing to hurt anyone. It's very easy to target someone in this society. There are plenty of celebrities and authors that are vulnerable just because they are in the public eye. What should I do, not share this discovery out of fear?
Reply With Quote
  #9382  
Old 05-01-2012, 01:32 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 davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
peacegirl is mentally ill and socially isolated by her own admission, and no one is doing her any good by pursuing this.
David, I thought you left already! What are you waiting for???? :doh:
I'm not going to debate your father's nonsense with you any longer. There is nothing to debate. His book is a load of sociopathic, scientifically illiterate, misogynistic, homophobic, self-aggrandizing crap. Your father was a bad man.
You are absolutely off your rocker David. I loved my father. He taught me so much. He was a non-judgmental man (unlike you) who supported me in every way. His experience and wisdom gave me strength to deal with people like you! :sadcheer:

Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm
I feel what happened here is that this cruel man indoctrinated you with this horror show since childhood. And here you are, talking to a bunch of strangers on the Internet who think you are nuts, and this is your own self-described "socialization."

Just think about how sad that is, peacegirl.
It's not sad at all. I have a health condition that doesn't allow me to expend a lot of energy. This has taught me to focus on what is most important (i.e., getting this work compiled), and let go of the rest.

Last edited by peacegirl; 05-01-2012 at 04:07 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9383  
Old 05-01-2012, 01:37 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
[
That's right, but the question is whether life could evolve at all under different spectrums more strongly reaching a planet. If a planet is most strongly hit with gamma rays, could eyes or life at all arise and evolve?
:yup:

The big qualifier is "Life as we know it", and as has been demonstrated here on Earth, life can develope and thrive in many different conditions.
Reply With Quote
  #9384  
Old 05-01-2012, 01:46 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 But View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by But View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Otherwise, according to Arthur C. Clarke anyway, our eyes could see radio light if they were several million times larger than they are.
No, that doesn't work. It's not just a matter of size. The radio waves won't trigger the chemicals in the retina, no matter how big the eyes are.
But this assumes that the chemicals in eyes evolved to be millions of times our size would be the same chemicals in our eyes, or work in the same way. What is the justification for this? Are you saying that no evolved organism could see radio light? If not, why not?
You're weaselling. :D You mixed up necessary and sufficient conditions. He meant that to see radio waves, your eyes would have to be much larger, not that if your eyes were larger, you could see radio waves. I don't think I agree and I don't know which design he had in mind, because there are radio receivers today that are much smaller than a human eye.
I think that Clark was thinking in terms of the wavelength but the size of the receiver isn't dependent on the wavelength, but the larger receiver is more sensitive to fainter signals.
Reply With Quote
  #9385  
Old 05-01-2012, 01:48 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 Angakuk View Post
You are a dreamer to think so, david. Maybe even delusional.

Perhaps he will turn out to be as entertaining as Peacegirl.
Reply With Quote
  #9386  
Old 05-01-2012, 01:51 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
What should I do, not share this discovery out of fear?

That would be a very considerate and sensable thing to do.
Reply With Quote
  #9387  
Old 05-01-2012, 01:53 PM
naturalist.atheist naturalist.atheist is offline
Reality Adventurer
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: VMMCXXX
Images: 7
Default Re: A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
I don't get out that often, even though I do some of the things you mentioned. I never discuss the book outside of the internet, which makes this communication quite different although unfortunately it's turned into a circus.
My guess is that sometime in the past you have talked to friends and acquaintances about Lessans and you learned people's reaction to it. So you don't do it anymore because people do not usually shit in their own beds.
Not at all. I have to weigh the cost/benefit because it consumes too much energy and time even if they are extremely interested. I need to reach people who can be instrumental, not just anyone I meet.
So how many instrumental people have you met on the internet in the last decade? How many have you met on FF?
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (05-01-2012)
  #9388  
Old 05-01-2012, 02:04 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spacemonkey View Post
Don't be stupid. Response times in psychology are regularly accurately measured to within tens of milliseconds. There is nothing even remotely difficult about determining when a spot becomes visible. The difference between 1.25 and 2.5 seconds is huge and easily measurable. You don't have to stop and ask the person what they can see. The observer can be the one doing the timing.
I'd like to see an animation of this. I can't imagine this being possible, or accurate.
Better than an animation, try this:

Human Benchmark - Reaction Time Test
Bump.
It would be very difficult to distinguish the exact point at which the spot on the moon was seen, even if someone had the best reaction time unless the frame could be stopped in midstream, otherwise there could easily be a false positive when light is traveling 186,000 miles a second. In sixth grade, they did an experiment, and I had the fastest reflexes in the class, but I don't think I could accurately identify the moment I see the spot.

Can you react in under 1.25 seconds consistently on the test? That's all that's needed. Did you try the above linked reaction time test yourself? I never even got close to 1.25 and I am slow
Reply With Quote
  #9389  
Old 05-01-2012, 02:20 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
I have a health condition that doesn't allow me to use my energy wastefully, which is why I was able to focus on this work and get it completed.
You also have a mental condition that doesn't allow you to process evidence against Lessans' claims, or to retain the information you are presented with.
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
  #9390  
Old 05-01-2012, 02:28 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
It would be very difficult to distinguish the exact point at which the spot on the moon was seen, even if someone had the best reaction time unless the frame could be stopped in midstream, otherwise there could easily be a false positive when light is traveling 186,000 miles a second. In sixth grade, they did an experiment, and I had the fastest reflexes in the class, but I don't think I could accurately identify the moment I see the spot.
Don't be absurd. There's nothing difficult about seeing the light on the moon when it becomes visible. If there were a high probability of false positives, then results would be all over the place instead of consistently at 2.5sec. How many more ridiculous excuses do you think you can come up with? First scientists can't measure the difference between 1.25 and 2.5sec. Now scientists can't tell when they are seeing a light. What's next? Scientists can't correctly identify the moon as a target, and may be accidentally aiming their lasers at random comets that just happen to be exactly twice as far away as the moon?
__________________
video meliora proboque, deteriora sequor
Reply With Quote
Thanks, from:
LadyShea (05-01-2012)
  #9391  
Old 05-01-2012, 02:38 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 But View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by But View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Otherwise, according to Arthur C. Clarke anyway, our eyes could see radio light if they were several million times larger than they are.
No, that doesn't work. It's not just a matter of size. The radio waves won't trigger the chemicals in the retina, no matter how big the eyes are.
But this assumes that the chemicals in eyes evolved to be millions of times our size would be the same chemicals in our eyes, or work in the same way. What is the justification for this? Are you saying that no evolved organism could see radio light? If not, why not?
You're weaselling. :D You mixed up necessary and sufficient conditions. He meant that to see radio waves, your eyes would have to be much larger, not that if your eyes were larger, you could see radio waves. I don't think I agree and I don't know which design he had in mind, because there are radio receivers today that are much smaller than a human eye.
No, I just worded it wrong. I didn't mean he was suggesting that OUR eyes, if millions of times larger, would see radio waves; just that eyes that could see radio waves would need to be much larger than our own. And of course, it's absurd to suggest that "our" eyes could be millions of times larger and we would still be humans; "we" would obviously be very different in that case. As to the necessary or sufficient size that eyes would actually need to see in the radio spectrum, I certainly don't know; I'm just mentioning what Clarke said.
Reply With Quote
  #9392  
Old 05-01-2012, 02:52 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
It would be very difficult to distinguish the exact point at which the spot on the moon was seen, even if someone had the best reaction time unless the frame could be stopped in midstream, otherwise there could easily be a false positive when light is traveling 186,000 miles a second. In sixth grade, they did an experiment, and I had the fastest reflexes in the class, but I don't think I could accurately identify the moment I see the spot.
Don't be absurd. There's nothing difficult about seeing the light on the moon when it becomes visible. If there were a high probability of false positives, then results would be all over the place instead of consistently at 2.5sec. How many more ridiculous excuses do you think you can come up with? First scientists can't measure the difference between 1.25 and 2.5sec. Now scientists can't tell when they are seeing a light. What's next? Scientists can't correctly identify the moon as a target, and may be accidentally aiming their lasers at random comets that just happen to be exactly twice as far away as the moon?
It's not ridiculous at all when the fundamental belief system supports the premise Spacemonkey. How can you compare real science with faulty science. I already said that it's rare in science that a mistake could be made, so why are you resorting to defending scientists when there is nothing to defend because I never said they aren't exact in their calculations. The only mistake they made was believing the eyes worked like the other senses, which is an understandable mistake. Why can't you even entertain the possibility that a mistake was made. I get worried that people's egos are so big, they can't handle it.
Reply With Quote
  #9393  
Old 05-01-2012, 02:53 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
I have a health condition that doesn't allow me to use my energy wastefully, which is why I was able to focus on this work and get it completed.
You also have a mental condition that doesn't allow you to process evidence against Lessans' claims, or to retain the information you are presented with.
Now you're getting outright nasty, and if you keep this up don't expect any communication between us.
Reply With Quote
  #9394  
Old 05-01-2012, 03:02 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
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
It would be very difficult to distinguish the exact point at which the spot on the moon was seen, even if someone had the best reaction time unless the frame could be stopped in midstream, otherwise there could easily be a false positive when light is traveling 186,000 miles a second. In sixth grade, they did an experiment, and I had the fastest reflexes in the class, but I don't think I could accurately identify the moment I see the spot.
Don't be absurd. There's nothing difficult about seeing the light on the moon when it becomes visible. If there were a high probability of false positives, then results would be all over the place instead of consistently at 2.5sec. How many more ridiculous excuses do you think you can come up with? First scientists can't measure the difference between 1.25 and 2.5sec. Now scientists can't tell when they are seeing a light. What's next? Scientists can't correctly identify the moon as a target, and may be accidentally aiming their lasers at random comets that just happen to be exactly twice as far away as the moon?
It's not ridiculous at all when the fundamental belief system supports the premise Spacemonkey. How can you compare real science with faulty science. I already said that it's rare in science that a mistake could be made, so why are you resorting to defending scientists when there is nothing to defend because I never said they aren't exact in their calculations. The only mistake they made was believing the eyes worked like the other senses, which is an understandable mistake. Why can't you even entertain the possibility that a mistake was made. I get worried that people's egos are so big, they can't handle it.
Weasel. You are purposefully missing the point.

If Lessans were correct that we can see something without the light having to reach our eyes, every able bodied and able minded observer (doing their very best to be as accurate as possible) of the laser on the moon would stop the clock at under 2.5 seconds every time. There may be slight differences, in milliseconds, due to reaction time, but the average would not get to past 2.5 seconds.

That doesn't happen
Reply With Quote
  #9395  
Old 05-01-2012, 03:08 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

Another obvious point you are purposefully missing

Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Hey, peacegirl, did you miss this? :popcorn:


Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by davidm View Post
Hey, ass hat, why, when we send a radio transmission to Rovers on Mars, do we have to wait for the return message to come to us exactly in accord with the speed of light? Which means DELAYED, as in "delayed seeing." You do realize that the radio spectrum is LIGHT, yeah? Or no? If we had eyes as big as radio telescopes, we could SEE radio light.
Why do you keep going back to this when I am not disputing that radio waves travel, and I'm not disputing that light travels. What I am disputing is afferent vision, which means that the visible spectrum works with the brain and eyes differently. And if you call me this name one more time, just one, don't expect me to answer anymore of your stupid posts.
:lol:

You're not disputing that light travels! And so now let's go back to the supernova example.

According to YOU, if a star goes supernova, we would see that INSTANTLY, even if the star were 500 light years away! That is YOUR claim!

You also say that light travels, at a finite rate of speed, as well as neutrinos! Great!

This means, ACCORDING TO YOU, that if a star 500 light years away went supernova, we would see this RIGHT NOW on earth. But, ACCORDING TO YOU, we would have to wait 500 years for the photons and the neutrinos given off by the explosion to arrive on earth, since you are not disputing that photons travel, and travel at a finite rate of speed. Right?

So: you say that if a star 500 light years away went supernova, we would see it NOW on earth, but we would have to wait 500 years to register its photons and neutrinos.

IS THAT YOUR CLAIM, PEACEGIRL? YES OR NO?
I said there is a definite connection between the timing of neutrinos and photons, but the problem still exists as to how old these Supernova are, and whether we are seeing just an image from light, or whether we're seeing the real thing.

It doesn't matter how old it is. If the supernova was only one light year away (which would kill us all, but just for illustrative purposes), and, if we see in real time, then we would see the supernova 1 year earlier than we could detect the photons and neutrinos.

The further away the supernova, the longer the delay from visually seeing the supernova to when the photons and neutrinos could be detected.

You act like this is complicated. What part is confusing to you? What could you possibly mean by "the real thing"?
Reply With Quote
  #9396  
Old 05-01-2012, 03:11 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

We don't even need humans to do this experiment. We have clocks that are accurate to one second within 20 millions years. We know exactly how long it takes the pulse of light to make the round trip, AND, of course, we know that we don't actually SEE the light until it returns from the moon -- proving that real-time seeing is wrong. This entire discussion, as always, is flatly ridiculous. It stems from Lessans' monstrously laughable claim that while the speed of light is finite, we see in real time.

We don't see in real time, as the moon/laser example (along with hundreds of other tests) conclusively proves. peacegirl knows this. She knows it perfectly well. It's therefore a sham discussion. Although she knows that we're right, her messianic obsession with The Great Man Lessans refuses to permit her to concede the truth that she knows: that his claims were not just false, they were gob-smackingly ridiculous.
Reply With Quote
  #9397  
Old 05-01-2012, 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

repeat

Last edited by peacegirl; 05-01-2012 at 10:36 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #9398  
Old 05-01-2012, 03:53 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:
we know that we don't actually SEE the light until it returns from the moon
david, peacegirl acknowledges that photons take time to travel, and that detecting instruments are subject to that travel time, but she maintains that we do not need those photons to travel to our eyes to see something. We can see it instantly regardless of where traveling photons are located. So instantly seeing eyes/brains, or cameras, must be a part of the experiment to refute her point.

So, hey peacegirl, cameras take photos in real time too, right? No need for returning photons? So, if a video camera with a timer was triggered when the laser was turned on, then it would pick up the light on the moon in real time, right, at 1.25 seconds rather than 2.5 seconds. Is this correct? I can't find any inconsistency with your or Lessans statement in this.

So, anyone know of a video of this particular observation?
Reply With Quote
  #9399  
Old 05-01-2012, 03:54 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
Why can't you even entertain the possibility that a mistake was made.

I get worried that people's egos are so big, they can't handle it.
As has been stated here many times, Scientists are always 'entertaining the possibility that a mistake was made', and are looking for those mistakes to correct them. No scientist, worthy of the name, just accepts that existing theory is absolutely correct, that was one of Lessans fictions.

The only 'Ego's' on this thread that are too big are those of Peacegirl and Lessans, I included Lessans because Peacegirl seems to have inherited it and is carrying it along.
Reply With Quote
  #9400  
Old 05-01-2012, 03:56 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
We don't even need humans to do this experiment. We have clocks that are accurate to one second within 20 millions years. We know exactly how long it takes the pulse of light to make the round trip, AND, of course, we know that we don't actually SEE the light until it returns from the moon -- proving that real-time seeing is wrong. This entire discussion, as always, is flatly ridiculous. It stems from Lessans' monstrously laughable claim that while the speed of light is finite, we see in real time.

We don't see in real time, as the moon/laser example (along with hundreds of other tests) conclusively proves. peacegirl knows this. She knows it perfectly well. It's therefore a sham discussion. Although she knows that we're right, her messianic obsession with The Great Man Lessans refuses to permit her to concede the truth that she knows: that his claims were not just false, they were gob-smackingly ridiculous.
Oh my god, you are now saying we don't need humans to do this experiment, when it is the eyes of humans that this discussion is about? I really believe it is you that you are fighting with, not me. You are trying to convince yourself that your investment of time and energy has been worth it, which explains why you are so defensive.
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 08:26 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Page generated in 1.38988 seconds with 14 queries