A revolution in thought

[davidm]

*BUMP AGAIN FOR PEACEGIRL* Answer the questions, please.

Originally Posted by davidm

I see. So even you can no longer hand-wave away the contradictions in Lessans' book, and the contradiction between what you state and what he wrote. Well done! You are finally conceding that it's all bollocks.

[davidm]

*Bump for peacegirl*

Originally Posted by ceptimus

I told you, Peacegirl, we've landed a probe on Titan, a moon of Saturn. The probe was aimed using our notions of seeing - that is to say we allowed for the fact that we see Titan where it was about NINETY MINUTES AGO.

Now if you were right about real time seeing, then the probe would have missed Titan completely. But it didn't, it entered Titan's atmosphere exactly as designed and sent back video of its descent and for a while after it touched down.

How do you explain this? I bet you can't.

HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS, PEACEGIRL? ALL of our space program is based on delayed-seeing. NONE of our planetary probes would reach their targets if real-time seeing were correct.

HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

How can light 'arrive' if it has not traveled?

It can't. Light travels and light arrives unless we're looking at an object or image through a lens. Then light becomes a mirror image on the lens. BTW, Lessans was absolutely right in his observation regarding seeing the Sun instantly before the light arrives 8 minutes later. I hope my explanation will help people better understand why this is true.

If sight is efferent, the sun being turned on would be seen instantly because it would be in our field of vision, therefore light would be striking the lens. Once again, you have to picture everything within that space. A candle in the dark would be viewed in the same way that the moon in the dark would be viewed. We can interpret the difference, but the lens cannot. Furthermore, Lessans said nothing about light not being at the eye. I'll post this excerpt again for those who didn't have a chance to read it.

Decline and Fall of All Evil: Chapter Four: Words, Not Reality pp. 119-121

Our scientists, becoming enthralled over the discovery that light
travels approximately 186,000 miles a second and taking for granted
that 5 senses was equally scientific, made the statement (which my
friend referred to) and still exists in our encyclopedias that if we could
sit on the star Rigel with a very powerful telescope focused on the
earth we would just be able to see the ships of Columbus reaching
America for the very first time. A former science teacher who taught
this to her students as if it were an absolute fact responded, “I am sure
Columbus would just be arriving; are you trying to tell me that this is
not a scientific fact?”

Again my reply was, “Are you positive because you were told this,
or positive because you, yourself, saw the relations revealing this
truth? And if you are still positive, will you put your right hand on
the chopping block to show me how positive you really are?”

“I am not that positive, but this is what I was taught.”

Once again certain facts have been confused and all the reasoning
except for light traveling at a high rate of speed are completely
fallacious. Scientists made the assumption that since the eyes are a
sense organ it followed that light must reflect an electric image of
everything it touches which then travels through space and is received
by the brain through the eyes. What they tried to make us believe is
that if it takes 8 minutes for the light from the sun to reach us it
would take hundreds of years for the reflection of Columbus to reach
Rigel, even with a powerful telescope. But why would they need a
telescope? Let me show you how confused these scientists are.

They reasoned that since it takes longer for the sound from an
airplane to reach us when 15,000 feet away than when 5000; and
since it takes longer for light to reach us the farther it is away when
starting its journey, light and sound must function alike in other
respects — which is false — although it is true that the farther away
we are from the source of sound the fainter it becomes, as light
becomes dimmer when its source is farther away. If the sound from
a plane even though we can’t see it on a clear day will tell us it is in
the sky, why can’t we see the plane if an image is being reflected
towards the eye on the waves of light?

The answer is very simple. An
image is not being reflected. We cannot see the plane simply because
the distance reduced its size to where it was impossible to see it with
the naked eye, but we could see it with a telescope. We can’t see
bacteria either with the naked eye, but we can through a microscope.
The actual reason we are able to see the moon is because there is
enough light present and it is large enough to be seen. The
explanation as to why the sun looks to be the size of the moon —
although much larger — is because it is much much farther away,
which is the reason it would look like a star to someone living on a
planet the distance of Rigel.

This proves conclusively that the
distance between someone looking, and the object seen, has no
relation to time because the images are not traveling toward the optic
nerve on waves of light, therefore it takes no time to see the moon,
the sun, and the distant stars. To paraphrase this another way; if you
could sit upon the star Rigel with a telescope powerful enough to see
me writing this very moment, you would see me at the exact same
time that a person sitting right next to me would — which brings us
to another very interesting point. If I couldn’t see you standing right
next to me because we were living in total darkness since the sun had
not yet been turned on but God was scheduled to flip the switch at 12
noon, we would be able to see the sun instantly — at that very
moment — although we would not be able to see each other for 8
minutes afterwards. The sun at 12 noon would look exactly like a
large star; the only difference being that in 8 minutes we would have
light with which to see each other, but the stars are so far away that
their light diminishes before it gets to us.

Upon hearing this
explanation, someone asked, “If we don’t need light around us to see
the stars, would we need light around us to see the sun turned on at
12 noon?” Once the light is here it remains here because the photons
of light emitted by the constant energy of the sun surround us. When
the earth rotates on its axis so the section on which we live is in
darkness, this only means the photons of light are on the other side.
When our rotation allows the sun to smile on us again this does not
mean that it takes another eight minutes for this light to reach us
because these photons are already present. If the sun were to explode
while we were looking at it we would see it the instant it happened, not
8 minutes later. We are able to see the moon, the sun, the distant
stars, etc., not because the one is 3 seconds away, the other 8 minutes
away, and the last many light years away, but simply because these
objects are large enough to be seen at their great distance when
enough light is present.

This fallacy has come into existence because
the eyes were considered a sense organ, like the ears. Since it takes
longer for the sound from an airplane to reach our ears when it is a
thousand feet away than when five thousand, it was assumed that the
same thing occurred with the object sending a picture of itself on the
waves of light. If it was possible to transmit a television picture from
the earth to a planet as far away as the star Rigel, it is true that the
people living there would be seeing the ships of Columbus coming into
America for the first time because the picture would be in the process
of being transmitted through space at a certain rate of speed. But
objects do not send out pictures that travel through space and impinge
on the optic nerve. We see objects directly by looking at them and it
takes the same length of time to see an airplane, the moon, the sun,
or distant stars.

To sum this up — just as we have often observed
that a marching band is out of step to the beat when seen from a
distance because the sound reaches our ears after a step has been
taken, so likewise, if we could see someone talking on the moon via a
telescope and hear his voice on radio we would see his lips move
instantly but not hear the corresponding sound for approximately 3
seconds later due to the fact that the sound of his voice is traveling
186,000 miles a second, but our gaze is not, nor is it an electric
image of his lips impinging on our optic nerve after traversing this
distance.

[davidm]

*BUMP FOR PEACEGIRL* The questions are really piling up! When are you going to answer them?

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then you are denying the basics of how light works. There is no such thing as light that doesn't travel. Light consists of photons which travel at given speed. So if you are saying that the film reacts to the wavelengths of something at the camera which has not travelled or taken time to get there, then you are not talking about light. You are either completely redefining what light is, or you are talking about something completely different. Light travels. Light takes time to arrive anywhere it gets to. These are the basics of light which you have now completely rejected.

You've now claimed light can be present somewhere without having travelled to get there. That raises more questions:

1. How do you reconcile this with your previous claim not to be rejecting the rules of light?

2. Where did that blue light come from, if it didn't travel to get there?

3. And what is that 'light'? Does it consist of photons, or something else?

[davidm]

Oh, look, copypasta from the Big Book of Stupid.

Originally Posted by Seymour the Stupid

If I couldn’t see you standing right
next to me because we were living in total darkness since the sun had
not yet been turned on but God was scheduled to flip the switch at 12
noon, we would be able to see the sun instantly — at that very
moment — although we would not be able to see each other for 8
minutes afterwards. The sun at 12 noon would look exactly like a
large star; the only difference being that in 8 minutes we would have
light with which to see each other, but the stars are so far away that
their light diminishes before it gets to us.

See my post just bumped, peacegirl, investigating the implications of Seymour's stupid claim. Can't answer my questions, can you, peacegirl?

[davidm]

Thanks for posting that again, peacegirl. I had somewhat lost track of the sheer magnitude of Lessans' idiocy; this is a good refresher!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

*Bump for peacegirl*

HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS, PEACEGIRL? ALL of our space program is based on delayed-seeing. NONE of our planetary probes would reach their targets if real-time seeing were correct.

HOW DO YOU EXPLAIN THAT?

You keep saying that but it's not true David. The mathematical calculations that get our planetary probes to their targets is correct, and these calculations are based on the speed of light. I told you that I am not in any disagreement with how fast light travels or how we use this information to calculate where our targets are.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Oh, look, copypasta from the Big Book of Stupid.

See my post just bumped, peacegirl, investigating the implications of Seymour's stupid claim. Can't answer my questions, can you, peacegirl?

You won't stop arguing with me because you are perceiving sight as afferent. Until you can visualize what I'm talking about, your rebuttals will continue.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The light that is seen on a lens is not traveling for the 100th time. If it was, you would be right.

No.

No.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then you are denying the basics of how light works. There is no such thing as light that doesn't travel. Light consists of photons which travel at given speed. So if you are saying that the film reacts to the wavelengths of something at the camera which has not travelled or taken time to get there, then you are not talking about light. You are either completely redefining what light is, or you are talking about something completely different. Light travels. Light takes time to arrive anywhere it gets to. These are the basics of light which you have now completely rejected.

You've now claimed light can be present somewhere without having travelled to get there. That raises more questions:

1. How do you reconcile this with your previous claim not to be rejecting the rules of light?

I don't see where I am not following the rules of light. Light is in a constant stream. When I said that it's already there, I was talking about the constant stream of photons that are already there, such as the Sun's rays.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

2. Where did that blue light come from, if it didn't travel to get there?

It did travel, and if that is the color of the ball at the time a camera is focused on it, that is the color that will be seen on the lens.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

3. And what is that 'light'? Does it consist of photons, or something else?

Photons or packets of "light" energy. Spacemonkey, are you trying to make me look stupid?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't see where I am not following the rules of light. Light is in a constant stream. When I said that it's already there, I was talking about the constant stream of photons that are already there, such as the Sun's rays.

It did travel, and if that is the color of the ball at the time a camera is focused on it, that is the color that will be seen on the lens.

You've just reversed your position yet again, Peacegirl! We are talking about the blue light present at the camera at T1 (the time the ball changes from red to blue) and interacting with the film to produce your real-time blue image. First you quite clearly claimed that light did not travel to get there:

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No.

No.

Now you are saying it did travel to get there. That means we have to go back to the previous set of questions and you will have to answer those all over again:

[These questions concern the different states both at T1 (the time of the color change), and at T-1 (one moment before T1), when the object has not yet changed color and is still red.]

1. Did the blue light present at the camera at T1 take time to arrive?

2. Did the blue light present at the camera at T1 travel from the object to the camera?

3. If your answer is yes to (1) and (2), then where was that light at T-1?

4. What color was that light at T-1?

5. What color was that light when it was first reflected or emitted by the object?

[Vivisectus]

[quote]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It can't. Light travels and light arrives unless we're looking at an object or image through a lens. Then light becomes a mirror image on the lens. BTW, Lessans was absolutely right in his observation regarding seeing the Sun instantly before the light arrives 8 minutes later. I hope my explanation will help people better understand why this is true.

If sight is efferent, the sun being turned on would be seen instantly because it would be in our field of vision, therefore light would be striking the lens. Once again, you have to picture everything within that space. A candle in the dark would be viewed in the same way that the moon in the dark would be viewed. We can interpret the difference, but the lens cannot. Furthermore, Lessans said nothing about light not being at the eye. I'll post this excerpt again for those who didn't have a chance to read it.

This makes so little sense I am sure even you would realize this when you read it back. Light does not travel when looked at through a lens, but does arrive at that lens instantly somehow to turn into a mirror image? And this seems a reasonable response to you?

Are you on drugs or something?

[Vivisectus]

Apart from this I feel you should answer Freemonkeys questions. You say that you are interested in the truth - here is a chance to find out. Are you really, or are you lying and unwilling to accept truth if you do not like it?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You won't stop arguing with me because you are perceiving sight as afferent. Until you can visualize what I'm talking about, your rebuttals will continue.

No, peacegirl, this won't wash.

I have descirbed Lessans' own claims. He claimed that if God turned on the sun at noon, people would see the sun immediately, but not see their neighbors standing next to them for eight and a half minutes. You just reposted it yourself. That's what he said.

You also switched your original story, and claimed that light has to be at the camera, for a picture to be recorded.

I asked you what happens if the neighbor is holding a camera when the sun is turned on. According to Lessans, the light won't be at the camera for eight and a half minutes. That is what HE SAID, peacegirl.

This means Lessans is claiming we see in real time, but photos are taken in delayed time.

This means that either (1) you disagree with Lessans and maintain that we take pictures in real time as well as see in real time; or (2) you disagree with reality. Because if we saw in real time but took pictures in delayed time, the pictures, and what we see, would fail to match. But they DO match.

You are sunk again!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by naturalist.atheist

This is a good example of peacegirls mental dysfunction. She understands that information about the world is some how going towards the brain, but she doesn't understand that this is a fundamentally "afferent" [inward] process. I don't think she has a good grasp of boundaries and directions.

Another aspect of her dysfunction is her levels-of-explanation error resulting from a complete inability to comprehend the nature of reductive explanation. She will follow a detailed explanation of afferent vision right up until the point where signals reach the brain, only to claim that this is when the brain must additionally "look out" to see things. It's the same thing going on when she accepts that light photons are quantized packets of electromagnetic energy, but then says they must also be containing and/or emitting their own light.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Are you on drugs or something?

This woman is flat-out nuts. She is so far gone in her loony indoctrination that she cannot even tell when she is contradicting herself or contradicting Lessans. She doesn't even have a first-grade understanding of physics, and will say anything that pops into her empty head. I suggest cutting off her oxygen supply and ignoring her.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

It's the same thing going on when she accepts that light photons are quantized packets of electromagnetic energy, but then says they must also be containing and/or emitting their own light.

I don't think she has the slightest clue what "quantized packets of electromagnetic energy" means. Nor does she care.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You've now claimed light can be present somewhere without having travelled to get there. That raises more questions:

1. How do you reconcile this with your previous claim not to be rejecting the rules of light?

I don't see where I am not following the rules of light. Light is in a constant stream. When I said that it's already there, I was talking about the constant stream of photons that are already there, such as the Sun's rays.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

2. Where did that blue light come from, if it didn't travel to get there?

The change in color will affect the light's wavelength as we're looking at it, and that is the color we will see. If the ball is blue, that is the color that will be seen on the lens instantly.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You've just reversed your position yet again, Peacegirl! We are talking about the blue light present at the camera at T1 (the time the ball changes from red to blue) and interacting with the film to produce your real-time blue image. First you quite clearly claimed that light did not travel to get there:

I shouldn't have used the word "travel." No wonder you got mixed up. Sorry.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

1. Did the blue light present at the camera at T1 take time to arrive?

No.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

2. Did the blue light present at the camera at T1 travel from the object to the camera?

No.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Now you are saying it did travel to get there. That means we have to go back to the previous set of questions and you will have to answer those all over again:

No, the blue does not travel along with the light, although light does travel.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

These questions concern the different states both at T1 (the time of the color change), and at T-1 (one moment before T1), when the object has not yet changed color and is still red.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

1. Did the blue light present at the camera at T1 take time to arrive?

The light took time to arrive from the Sun. In other words, the light from the Sun is constantly shining, therefore the photons are constantly being renewed. Those photons are whitish in color when all the colors in the visual spectrum come together. Light is the medium that allows us to see the external world in real time. Whatever we are looking at we will see due to light's properties of absorption and reflection. The blue light, therefore, did not take time to arrive. It is there for us to see as long as the object is reflecting that light and the object (or image) is within our visual field of view.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

2. Did the blue light present at the camera at T1 travel from the object to the camera?

No. The photons are always traveling, but the wavelength that allows us to see blue does not travel along with the neutral colored photons. The blue in the ball can be seen because of light's properties of reflection and absorption and our ability to see those objects in color is due to the cones in our retina that the brain looks through, as a window.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

3. If your answer is yes to (1) and (2), then where was that light at T-1?

My answer was no.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

4. What color was that light at T-1?

The ball was blue. The light was neutral. You keep talking about light, and I'm saying you need to focus on the object, not the light.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

5. What color was that light when it was first reflected or emitted by the object?

Red.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You keep saying that but it's not true David. The mathematical calculations that get our planetary probes to their targets is correct, and these calculations are based on the speed of light. I told you that I am not in any disagreement with how fast light travels or how we use this information to calculate where our targets are.

If this were correct, then when we contact our rovers on Mars, and look at Mars through a telescope, then the position of Mars in the sky, and the source of the radio beacon, would fail to match. One would be real time, one would be delayed time. But, they do match, peacegirl, and the same problem sinks all efforts to decouple how we navigate our spaceships from real-time seeing.

You are really a nut job.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, the blue does not travel along with the light, although light does travel.

No. The photons continue to travel, but the blue does not travel along with the photons. It is part of the object and we see it we see that color in real time because of light's property of reflection and absorption.

Now you're flip-flopping again on the very first set of questions about what it is that interacts with the film!

You agreed that it was the wavelength (i.e. color) of the light present at the camera which interacts with the film and determines the color of the resulting image. For a real-time image, that light must be blue. The blueness is not separable from the light. The blueness is a property of that light - it is its wavelength. You agreed that the color of the resulting photographic image is determined by the properties of the light present at the camera. If the light travels to get there, then so do the properties of that very same light. The photons are the blue light, so there is no question of whether or not the blue light might or might not travel along with them!

Your present answers are inconsistent with your original answers to my very first set of questions. So I guess we go back to those once again:

1. What is it that causally interacts with the film to determine the color of the (allegedly real-time) photographic image?

2. Where is whatever it is that so interacts with the film?

3. What properties of this determine the color of the resulting image?

[Vivisectus]

Oh come on even you must see how everything you just said contradicts itself and makes no sense whatever. Really now, Peacegirl. This is beyond ludicrous.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The ball was blue. The light was neutral. You keep talking about light, and I'm saying you need to focus on the object, not the light.

Again, this is inconsistent with your answers about what it is that interacts with the film to create a real-time image. You agreed that it was the properties of the light present at the camera which does this. That means the light is not neutral. Your present answers suggest that you instead now view the wavelengths/color/properties of the light as completely irrelevant (or even non-existent), and that it is simply the color of the object which magically reaches through space instantaneously to directly interact with the film without having to be in contact with it.

[Vivisectus]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I shouldn't have used the word "travel." No wonder you got mixed up. Sorry.

No.

No, the blue does not travel along with the light, although light does travel.

The light took time to arrive from the Sun. In other words, the light from the Sun is constantly shining, therefore the photons are constantly being renewed. Those photons are whitish in color when all the colors in the visual spectrum come together. Light is the medium that allows us to see the external world in real time. Whatever we are looking at we will see due to light's properties of absorption and reflection. The blue light, therefore, did not take time to arrive. It is there for us to see as long as the object is reflecting that light and the object (or image) is within our visual field of view.

No. The photons are always traveling, but the blue ball (nor the blue light) does not travel along with the photons. The blue ball can be seen because of light's properties of reflection and absorption.

My answer was no.

The ball was blue. The light was neutral. You keep talking about light, and I'm saying you need to focus on the object, not the light.

Red.

Quoted to preserve it from retrofitting. Let us review.

So light merely needs to be at the camera for this camera to somehow, through merely detecting light and it's qualities, detect the qualities of the object, not of the light that is striking it.

This is achieved by means unknown.

So the light that reaches the camera mysteriously turns blue even though the object emitting it was red at the time it emitted that light.

Whatever made the light change must have travelled faster than light - because the camera is designed to do nothing else than detect what kind of light is hitting the sensor.

So - through means unknown, and means that are in conflict with the current thinking on physics, the light knows to turn a different color when it hits the sensor?

Or... just maybe... there is a delay in sight as there is in hearing? A delay we have observed over and over ever since the 1600's? That is critical in how radar works, GPS systems, that we have observed directly when we sent probes to far away planets in our solar system... you name it!

Can you really not see it?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

No, peacegirl, this won't wash.

I have descirbed Lessans' own claims. He claimed that if God turned on the sun at noon, people would see the sun immediately, but not see their neighbors standing next to them for eight and a half minutes. You just reposted it yourself. That's what he said.

You also switched your original story, and claimed that light has to be at the camera, for a picture to be recorded.

I asked you what happens if the neighbor is holding a camera when the sun is turned on. According to Lessans, the light won't be at the camera for eight and a half minutes. That is what HE SAID, peacegirl.

This means Lessans is claiming we see in real time, but photos are taken in delayed time.

This means that either (1) you disagree with Lessans and maintain that we take pictures in real time as well as see in real time; or (2) you disagree with reality. Because if we saw in real time but took pictures in delayed time, the pictures, and what we see, would fail to match. But they DO match.

You are sunk again!

You're 200 pages behind. Why don't you get with the program already instead of rehashing the same old story, which you believe proves Lessans wrong. I already explained exactly why we would see the Sun turned on instantly. It's the same reason we would see anything instantly in the external world. Because as the lens looks at the object, the light is reflecting a mirror image on the lens INSTANTLY. You're all washed up David.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're 200 pages behind. Why don't you get with the program already instead of rehashing the same old story, which you believe proves Lessans wrong. I already explained exactly why we would see the Sun turned on instantly. It's the same reason we would see anything instantly in the external world. Because as the lens looks at the object, the light is reflecting a mirror image on the lens INSTANTLY. You're all washed up David.

Let's review again, peacegirl:

I have descirbed Lessans' own claims. He claimed that if God turned on the sun at noon, people would see the sun immediately, but not see their neighbors standing next to them for eight and a half minutes. You just reposted it yourself. That's what he said.

You also switched your original story, and claimed that light has to be at the camera, for a picture to be recorded.

I asked you what happens if the neighbor is holding a camera when the sun is turned on. According to Lessans, the light won't be at the camera for eight and a half minutes. That is what HE SAID, peacegirl.

This means Lessans is claiming we see in real time, but photos are taken in delayed time.

This means that either (1) you disagree with Lessans and maintain that we take pictures in real time as well as see in real time; or (2) you disagree with reality. Because if we saw in real time but took pictures in delayed time, the pictures, and what we see, would fail to match. But they DO match.

Which is it, peacegirl? Do you disagree with Lessans, or with observed reality?

Answer the question!

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Can you really not see it?

No, she can't. She really is mentally ill, I'm afraid.