peacegirl learns, from an astrophysicist, that distance isn’t calculated using the inverse square law.] :lol:I hope you're laughing now because you won't laugh for long. That is the truth David. This kind of reaction is similar to anyone who has gone against the grain of what was believed to be true, but turned out to be false. You're just another one of those people and I have no control over how long it will take for scientists to prove Lessans right. In the meantime, laugh all you want. The last laugh will be on me. :lol: It has also been pointed out to Peacegirl that scientists have been doing experiments and tests that disprove Lessans ideas for at least a century, but she still holds out that all the previous tests and experiments were flawed and new tests will prove Lessans correct, but she has yet to propose a test that would do that. And every time she does state some fact that would prove her wrong, she moves the goal posts, when the facts are actually presented. A case in point was artificial eyes, she first stated that if they could be developed it would prove efferent vision wrong, but when it was pointed out that medical science had already developed them, she made up some additional requirements.Distance isn't calculated using the inverse square law, you raving loon.This stuff is cracking me up! :lol:
peacegirl learns, from an astrophysicist, that distance isn’t calculated using the inverse square law.] :lol:I hope you're laughing now because you won't laugh for long. That is the truth David. This kind of reaction is similar to anyone who has gone against the grain of what was believed to be true, but turned out to be false. You're just another one of those people and I have no control over how long it will take for scientists to prove Lessans right. In the meantime, laugh all you want. The last laugh will be on me. :lol: It has also been pointed out to Peacegirl that scientists have been doing experiments and tests that disprove Lessans ideas for at least a century, but she still holds out that all the previous tests and experiments were flawed and new tests will prove Lessans correct, but she has yet to propose a test that would do that. And every time she does state some fact that would prove her wrong, she moves the goal posts, when the facts are actually presented. A case in point was artificial eyes, she first stated that if they could be developed it would prove efferent vision wrong, but when it was pointed out that medical science had already developed them, she made up some additional requirements. I have a security light which automatically turns on when it detects movement in my driveway. A perfect example of afferent and efferent functions in an artificial object. A sensor and a subsequent command to turn on the light.Distance isn't calculated using the inverse square law, you raving loon.This stuff is cracking me up! :lol:
I think I have solved peacegirl’s problem with understanding the properties of light. I should have seen this long before now.
She believes that “intensity of brightness” affects the speed of propagation of light, i.e. intense (emitted) “pure white” light travels faster than reflected (less intense) at different wavelengths than “white light”. To Peacegirl this translates into me seeing the sun 8 1/2 minutes before its light is reflected from my neighbor into my eyes and is the crux of the matter in her mind.
Complicated stuff that, and of course entirely wrong.
Let me reverse the scenario. Does my neighbor see the sun 8 1/2 minutes before its light reflects off me into his eyes?
If so, that would mean we both see each other 8 1/2 minutes after we have both observed the sun(light) 8 1/2 minutes before.
Let me reverse the scenario. Does my neighbor see the sun 8 1/2 minutes before its light reflects off me into his eyes? If so, that would mean we both see each other 8 1/2 minutes after we have both observed the sun(light) 8 1/2 minutes before.Yes, that's pretty much what her father said, and she believes everything he ever said.
You're right. Radiant light is the intensity of light. Reflected light is the light that travels after striking an object.Peacegirl, what kind of light strikes an object, and doesn't travel but is still light?
PEACEGIRL CLASSICS
Classic posts by peacegirl and others from the peacegirl era (2011-2014) at the Freethought-Forum
You stupid cow…]
:lol:
Peacegirl invokes Occham’s Razor.]
:coolsmile:
Ok, as amusing as this is, I’m going to stop, as I’d like to return to discussing stuff with Stephen, GdB and others on free will and determinism.
God, this old FF stuff is simply hilarious! It’s comedy gold! :lol:
On page 614 (still early in the Peacegirl Era) Spacemonkey attempts to explain the highly technical terms “bounce” and “reflect” to peacegirl – unavailingly, alas!
Did the light at the retina at 12 o'clock travel to get there? Where did it travel from? And how long did its traveling take?Spacemonkey, this is your ignorance on the subject of vision. You may know all about photons and how they get there, but you have no understanding as to why this direction in vision allows real time seeing. Why don't you go to science forums where everyone agrees that we see in delayed time. You'll be much happier. You're right, I am quite ignorant as to how efferent vision is supposed to be possible. That's why I'm asking you about it. Apparently you're at least equally ignorant, as you haven't been able to answer. So I'll ask you again: Did the light at the retina at 12 o'clock travel to get there? Where did it travel from? And how long did its traveling take?
The light didn't have to travel to get there.
Light travels David.:coolsmile: Apparently, it travels. It just doesn't have to travel to get anywhere! :lol: Of course it does. Light takes 81/2 minutes to get to earth, so it does travel. Don't try to turn this into something it's not. It won't work this time. Did the light at the retina at 12 o'clock take 8 1/2 min to get there?
What do you mean I don't understand?He means you don't understand. What part of that eludes you? :lol:
The light didn't have to travel to get there.
Light travels David.:coolsmile: Apparently, it travels. It just doesn't have to travel to get anywhere! :lol: Of course it does. Light takes 81/2 minutes to get to earth, so it does travel. Don't try to turn this into something it's not. It won't work this time. It takes the light eight and a half minutes to get to the earth, so the light travels. Agreed! So: please explain for the first time how, if it takes light eight and a half minutes to travel to the earth when God turns on the sun at noon, people see the sun instantly (according to you and Lessans) when the light from the sun will not have arrived on earth for eight and a half minutes? :lol:
The light didn't have to travel to get there.
Light travels David.:coolsmile: Apparently, it travels. It just doesn't have to travel to get anywhere! :lol: Of course it does. Light takes 81/2 minutes to get to earth, so it does travel. Don't try to turn this into something it's not. It won't work this time. It takes the light eight and a half minutes to get to the earth, so the light travels. Agreed! So: please explain for the first time how, if it takes light eight and a half minutes to travel to the earth when God turns on the sun at noon, people see the sun instantly (according to you and Lessans) when the light from the sun will not have arrived on earth for eight and a half minutes? :lol: We have engaged in a bit of time travel into the past, where the very subject was already debated at great length. From Wiki,
Early history[edit] Empedocles (c. 490–430 BC) was the first to claim that light has a finite speed.[103] He maintained that light was something in motion, and therefore must take some time to travelIt must be said that Lessans' theories has some early supporters. Of course this was some 2300 hundred years in the past.
Aristotle argued, to the contrary, that "light is due to the presence of something, but it is not a movement".and while,
Early Islamic philosophers initially agreed with the Aristotelian view that light had no speed of travelThey were refuted by,
Euclid and Ptolemy advanced Empedocles' emission theory of vision, where light is emitted from the eye, thus enabling sight. Based on that theory, Heron of Alexandria argued that the speed of light must be infinite because distant objects such as stars appear immediately upon opening the eyes.and finally,
. In 1021, Alhazen (Ibn al-Haytham) published the Book of Optics, in which he presented a series of arguments dismissing the emission theory of vision in favour of the now accepted intromission theory, in which light moves from an object into the eyehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Early_history Of course this all happened long before Lessans and we were born and consequently "if we don't learn from the past, we are bound to repeat it". New discovery?
Did the light at the retina at 12 o'clock travel to get there? Where did it travel from? And how long did its traveling take?Spacemonkey, this is your ignorance on the subject of vision. You may know all about photons and how they get there, but you have no understanding as to why this direction in vision allows real time seeing. Why don't you go to science forums where everyone agrees that we see in delayed time. You'll be much happier. You're right, I am quite ignorant as to how efferent vision is supposed to be possible. That's why I'm asking you about it. Apparently you're at least equally ignorant, as you haven't been able to answer. So I'll ask you again: Did the light at the retina at 12 o'clock travel to get there? Where did it travel from? And how long did its traveling take? This is completely irrelevant Spacemonkey, and I won't let you interrogate me again this way. We're talking about the reversal of how the eyes work. If they work in the way Lessans believed due to his astute observations, then it follows we would be able to see objects as they are, not as they were.
I think I have solved peacegirl's problem with understanding the properties of light. I should have seen this long before now. She believes that "intensity of brightness" affects the speed of propagation of light, i.e. intense (emitted) "pure white" light travels faster than reflected (less intense) at different wavelengths than "white light". To Peacegirl this translates into me seeing the sun 8 1/2 minutes before its light is reflected from my neighbor into my eyes and is the crux of the matter in her mind. Complicated stuff that, and of course entirely wrong. Let me reverse the scenario. Does my neighbor see the sun 8 1/2 minutes before its light reflects off me into his eyes? If so, that would mean we both see each other 8 1/2 minutes after we have both observed the sun(light) 8 1/2 minutes before.That is true. You would see the Sun before you would see each other. This would occur because the requirements would have been met for seeing the sun but not met for seeing your neighbor. Again, you have no understanding as to why this would be true so it might sound funny to you but that doesn't make it false.
Did the light at the retina at 12 o'clock travel to get there? Where did it travel from? And how long did its traveling take?Spacemonkey, this is your ignorance on the subject of vision. You may know all about photons and how they get there, but you have no understanding as to why this direction in vision allows real time seeing. Why don't you go to science forums where everyone agrees that we see in delayed time. You'll be much happier. You're right, I am quite ignorant as to how efferent vision is supposed to be possible. That's why I'm asking you about it. Apparently you're at least equally ignorant, as you haven't been able to answer. So I'll ask you again: Did the light at the retina at 12 o'clock travel to get there? Where did it travel from? And how long did its traveling take? This is completely irrelevant Spacemonkey, and I won't let you interrogate me again this way. We're talking about the reversal of how the eyes work. If they work in the way Lessans believed due to his astute observations, then it follows we would be able to see objects as they are, not as they were. So it's not relevant how efferent vision could possibly work? It's not relevant how the photons YOU claim will be at the retina could possibly have gotten there? Do you have an alternative definition of 'relevant' that you'd like to share with us?
This would occur because the requirements would have been met for seeing the sun but not met for seeing your neighbor. Again, you have no understanding as to why this would be true so it might sound funny to you but that doesn't make it false.The requirements for vision are that light is either emitted from or reflected from an object, and travels to the eye. Your instant vision (efferent vision) is false, because vision doesn't work that way. This has been tested and demonstrated for years, Lessans was just ignorant of how light and vision worked.
peacegirl, That is true. You would see the Sun before you would see each other. This would occur because the requirements would have been met for seeing the sun but not met for seeing your neighbor. Again, you have no understanding as to why this would be true so it might sound funny to you but that doesn't make it false.Well, that remains to be seen, the same applies to you. The only requirements for seeing my neighbor is that the light of the sun strikes him at nearly the same time it strikes me; a) depending who stands closer to the sun at that moment. If my neighbor stands between me and the sun, its light would strike him before it strikes me. Thus the only object without light on my side would register on my eyes at exactly the same time as I observe the dark silhoutte when I see the light from the sun in my eyes. This difference would be measured in nano seconds. b) If he were to stand at an angle from the sun, I would see my neighbor's reflected light at nearly the exact time, again depending on who the sun strikes first. It is possible that the angle of reflection would create a greater distance for the light to travel as compared to a straight line light In any case that would be measured in nano seconds. c) if I am standing between him and the sun, but looking backwards to my neighbor, my neighbor would see my silhoutte before I see his reflection back to me from the same light. Again, this delay would be measured in nano seconds. d) light does slow down in a medium, such as in water or in the interior of a sun. It may take a photon from the interior of the sun a 1000 years to reach the surface of the sun. This delay is not caused by a slowing down of the photon ("c"), but trillions of other particles in its way prevent it from traveling in a straight line. But once at the surface the total time for that photon to reach the earth is but 8 1/2 minutes. e) it takes but nano seconds for that photon to penetrate our atmosphere (another medium) So where on earth did Lessans come up with the notion that I cannot see my neighbor until 8 1/2 minutes after I see the sun? The photons I see as light coming from the sun is the same light that reflects off my neighbor. The reverse is true also for my neighbor. 8 1/2 minutes is the time it takes for photons (light) traveling from the sun to register on our eyes and reflect off me as well as everything in my field of vision. Any measurable delay in time would be counted in nano seconds. From wiki,
A nanosecond is equal to 1000 picoseconds or 11000 microsecond. Because the next SI unit is 1000 times larger, times of 10−8 and 10−7 seconds are typically expressed as tens or hundreds of nanoseconds.and
Light travels approximately 29.98 centimeters in 1 nanosecond. This is equivalent to 11.8 inches, leading some to refer to a nanosecond as a "light-foot"12" per nano second should sound familiar, now do the math how long it would take for you to see the reflected light from your neigbor standing 8.5' from you. Explain to me why it should take 8.5 seconds to see my neighbor? btw, below is a list of different wave lengths of "light" all traveling @ "c", penetrating to the earth's surface or being absorbed by the earth's atmosphere. Notice the small band in the middle makes up our visible spectrum (white light).
Did the light at the retina at 12 o'clock travel to get there? Where did it travel from? And how long did its traveling take?Spacemonkey, this is your ignorance on the subject of vision. You may know all about photons and how they get there, but you have no understanding as to why this direction in vision allows real time seeing. Why don't you go to science forums where everyone agrees that we see in delayed time. You'll be much happier. You're right, I am quite ignorant as to how efferent vision is supposed to be possible. That's why I'm asking you about it. Apparently you're at least equally ignorant, as you haven't been able to answer. So I'll ask you again: Did the light at the retina at 12 o'clock travel to get there? Where did it travel from? And how long did its traveling take? This is completely irrelevant Spacemonkey, and I won't let you interrogate me again this way. We're talking about the reversal of how the eyes work. If they work in the way Lessans believed due to his astute observations, then it follows we would be able to see objects as they are, not as they were. So it's not relevant how efferent vision could possibly work? It's not relevant how the photons YOU claim will be at the retina could possibly have gotten there? Do you have an alternative definition of 'relevant' that you'd like to share with us? No, I don't have to have an alternative definition. The word is used correctly in the way I'm using it. Photons traveling are not relevant Spacemonkey. The proof that is necessary to confirm Lessans' hunch (call it whatever you want) will be from understanding the eye, not light.
So it's not relevant how efferent vision could possibly work? It's not relevant how the photons YOU claim will be at the retina could possibly have gotten there? Do you have an alternative definition of 'relevant' that you'd like to share with us?No, I don't have to have an alternative definition. The word is used correctly in the way I'm using it. Photons traveling are not relevant Spacemonkey. The proof that is necessary to confirm Lessans' hunch (call it whatever you want) will be from understanding the eye, not light. It's relevant because it proves efferent vision to be impossible. That's why you refuse to face up to the problem. You need photons to be at the retina before they have had time to get there. It doesn't matter what else you think may prove him right, as the photon problem has already proved him incontrovertibly wrong. Game over. You lose.