A revolution in thought

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Light coming from a star is delayed, just like light coming from the Sun would be delayed by 8 1/2 minutes if it was just turned on. No one is disputing this.

Right, which means that in the case of the sun, for example, we have to wait 8.5 minutes for the light to reach our eyes, which means we are seeing an image of the sun as it was 8.5 minutes in the past. The farther away the object, the farther into the past we see. In the case of the Andromeda galaxy, it takes light 2.5 million years to reach our eyes. So, when we see the galaxy, we are seeing an image of it as it was 2.5 million years ago.

Have you finally got it? This elementary subject that people have been teaching you for 15 years on the Internet, which kindergartners can grasp in about one minute?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Right, which means that in the case of the sun, for example, we have to wait 8.5 minutes for the light to reach our eyes, which means we are seeing an image of the sun as it was 8.5 minutes in the past. The farther away the object, the farther into the past we see. In the case of the Andromeda galaxy, it takes light 2.5 million years to reach our eyes. So, when we see the galaxy, we are seeing an image of it as it was 2.5 million years ago.

Have you finally got it? This elementary subject that people have been teaching you for 15 years on the Internet, which kindergartners can grasp in about one minute?

You're missing his entire observation. You win the oscar for stupidity!

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're missing his entire observation. You win the oscar for stupidity!

No, he's telling you yet again why Lessans is wrong -- Lessans' ideas contradict observed reality.

The eyes are a sense organ, and they detect light. This is a simple fact that you cannot bring yourself to understand.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Of course you are. I never said anything about red and blue objects or information. You just made that shit up.

Why would your own answers give a false picture? The only assumption involved in my questions is one you have agreed with—that you need light at the film/retina when the Sun is first ignited.

Let's see how these perform as answers to my questions...

You need photons at the camera film or retina when the Sun is first ignited.
1. Are they traveling photons?
PG: I already agreed that light travels [Yes?]
2. Did they come from the Sun?
PG: Light comes from the Sun [Yes?]
3. Did they get to the film/retina by traveling?
PG: Light is at the film but not due to travel time [No?]
PG: Light cannot be at the Sun and at the eye instantaneously as if by magic [Huh?]
4. Did they travel at the speed of light?
PG: Light travels at a finite speed [Yes?]
5. Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?
PG: Light cannot leave the Sun before it is ignited [No?]

None of these responses actually answer what was asked. In your previous set you skipped Q2. In this one you failed to answer Q3. In almost every case you have answered about light generically rather than about the specific photons I asked about. All I can do is try to interpret your responses as best as I can, as I have done above.

So you now have light at the retina at 12:00 which came from the Sun, which is traveling light yet somehow didn't get from the Sun to the film/retina by traveling, and which never left the Sun until at or after 12:00. So...

6. If these photons which are now at the film/retina (i.e. at 12:00) came from the Sun, and could not have left the Sun before 12:00, when were they last at the Sun? Hell, when could they ever have been at the Sun? (Name a time when these photons were at the Sun)

7. What traveling did this traveling light do, if it didn't travel to where it now is from where it once was? How can they be traveling photons if they haven't traveled from their source to their present location? (Name a time when these photons were traveling or specify a distance they have traveled)

None of this is even remotely relevant to what I am asking you about, which concerns ONLY the location and behaviour of photons at different times in your account. I am not interested in information, optical range, or mirror images. I just want you to explain how these photons from the Sun ended up at the retina without traveling the distance at light speed and getting there 8min after leaving the Sun, as your answers still have them relocating by 90 million miles in zero time without traveling, despite being traveling photons.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are these your answers (in bold), Peacegirl? If not, let me know which ones to change. If so, please answer the clarifying follow-up questions (1b-5b) below...

You need photons at the camera film or retina when the Sun is first ignited.
1. Are they traveling photons? Yes
2. Did they come from the Sun? Yes
3. Did they get to the film/retina by traveling? No
4. Did they travel at the speed of light? Yes
5. Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited? No

1b. What traveling have they done?
2b. When were they last (or ever) at the Sun?
3b. How did they get from the Sun to the film/retina?
4b. What distance have they traveled at light speed, and how long did it take?
5b. When did they leave the Sun?

Bump.

[But]

HubbleSite - WFC3

Wide Field Camera 3, or WFC3, brought new depth and range to Hubble upon its installation in 2009 and has provided many of Hubble's most iconic recent images. Its vision encompasses near-infrared light, visible light, and near-ultraviolet radiation. It has studied everything from star formation in the near and distant universe to galaxies in the most remote regions of the cosmos.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not making shit up Spacemonkey.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Of course you are. I never said anything about red and blue objects or information. You just made that shit up.

Don't tell me you never used red and blue in your examples.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And you're not going to railroad me, like some kind of prosecutor, into answering yes or no when that gives a false picture.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why would your own answers give a false picture? The only assumption involved in my questions is one you have agreed with—that you need light at the film/retina when the Sun is first ignited.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already agreed that light travels; that light comes from the Sun; that light cannot be at the Sun and at the eye instantaneously as if by magic; that light travels at a finite speed; and that light cannot leave the Sun before it is ignited.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Let's see how these perform as answers to my questions...

You need photons at the camera film or retina when the Sun is first ignited.
1. Are they traveling photons?
PG: I already agreed that light travels [Yes?]
2. Did they come from the Sun?
PG: Light comes from the Sun [Yes?]
3. Did they get to the film/retina by traveling?
PG: Light is at the film but not due to travel time [No?]
PG: Light cannot be at the Sun and at the eye instantaneously as if by magic [Huh?]
4. Did they travel at the speed of light?
PG: Light travels at a finite speed [Yes?]
5. Can they leave the Sun before it is ignited?
PG: Light cannot leave the Sun before it is ignited [No?]

None of these responses actually answer what was asked. In your previous set you skipped Q2. In this one you failed to answer Q3. In almost every case you have answered about light generically rather than about the specific photons I asked about. All I can do is try to interpret your responses as best as I can, as I have done above.

So you now have light at the retina at 12:00 which came from the Sun, which is traveling light yet somehow didn't get from the Sun to the film/retina by traveling, and which never left the Sun until at or after 12:00. So...

How fast does a lighted candle at 12:00 reach a person standing at the other side of a room? I know you don't like this comparison, but it's applicable.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

6. If these photons which are now at the film/retina (i.e. at 12:00) came from the Sun, and could not have left the Sun before 12:00, when were they last at the Sun? Hell, when could they ever have been at the Sun? (Name a time when these photons were at the Sun)

If the eyes are efferent, travel time would be similar to the candle. It would not take 8 1/2 minutes to arrive.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

7. What traveling did this traveling light do, if it didn't travel to where it now is from where it once was? How can they be traveling photons if they haven't traveled from their source to their present location? (Name a time when these photons were traveling or specify a distance they have traveled)

You need to think about the candle because that is exactly the speed at which the light from any object that meets the requirements of brightness and size would be at your retina. That is, of course, assuming the eyes are efferent. It would be nonsensical if the eyes were afferent.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

But you are failing to understand that the information from the object is not being reflected in the light. We are seeing the real object due to light's presence because we're already within the optical range of the object. The light is just a mirror image (for lack of a better analogy) that is showing up on the retina. Travel time has no bearing on this account.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

None of this is even remotely relevant to what I am asking you about, which concerns ONLY the location and behaviour of photons at different times in your account. I am not interested in information, optical range, or mirror images. I just want you to explain how these photons from the Sun ended up at the retina without traveling the distance at light speed and getting there 8min after leaving the Sun, as your answers still have them relocating by 90 million miles in zero time without traveling, despite being traveling photons.

I know that none of my answers will be adequate. I'm sorry. I have tried but you will continue to tell me that light cannot be at the eye unless it has traveled to Earth, and that takes 81/2 minutes. I will say one last time that if the object is bright enough where it can be seen (no matter how far away it is), the light will be at the retina due to the way the eyes function. The only way Lessans will be taken seriously is if his analysis is carefully investigated by people who are truly interested and are not quick to throw his findings out the window. I know his claim sounds like a violation of physics based on your understanding of light. I don't believe there are any violations. I know you are sincerely trying to figure this out. I don't think you would be here this long if you weren't, but I don't think I can explain it any better.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How fast does a lighted candle at 12:00 reach a person standing at the other side of a room? I know you don't like this comparison, but it's applicable.

Guest House Paradiso in 5 Seconds - YouTube

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've never met anyone as stubborn as you are.

Except The Lone Ranger, Spacemonkey, Dragar, DavidM, But, Vivisectus, Stephen Maturin, thedoc, (everybody I have forgotten), not to mention many others on other fora...

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

<crickets>

You haven't even bothered to confirm that these Yes/No interpretations of your responses are accurate. What the hell...?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How fast does a lighted candle at 12:00 reach a person standing at the other side of a room? I know you don't like this comparison, but it's applicable.

This has nothing at all to do with what I am asking you. READ the bloody questions. ANSWER what they actually ask you. A candle is seen near instantaneously ONLY because light traveling at light speed will cover a short distance very quickly. The distance involved in the scenario you are being asked about is not short at all. So no, this is not even remotely applicable.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If the eyes are efferent, travel time would be similar to the candle. It would not take 8 1/2 minutes to arrive.

I didn't even ask you about travel time! READ the bloody question! I asked you to name a time when the photons at the film/retina (at noon) could have been located at the Sun which is where you said they came from. Name a time!

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You need to think about the candle because that is exactly the speed at which the light from any object that meets the requirements of brightness and size would be at your retina. That is, of course, assuming the eyes are efferent. It would be nonsensical if the eyes were afferent.

Also not what I asked you! READ the damn question! ANSWER what is asked! You said the photons at the film/retina (at noon) are traveling photons that didn't travel from their source to their present location. So what traveling have they done?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know that none of my answers will be adequate...

So stop deliberately giving me inadequate non-answers, and start answering what I have actually asked you!

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How fast does a lighted candle at 12:00 reach a person standing at the other side of a room? I know you don't like this comparison, but it's applicable.

That is easily calculated: for ease of calculation, assume the candle is 3 meters away. We know the velocity of light is 3 x 10^8 m/s. Then the travel time of the candle's photons is:

(3 meters)/(3 x 10^8 m/s) = 10^-8 s = 10 nanoseconds.

You can do the same calculation for the sun:

The distance to the sun is on average 1.496×10^8 km = 1.496×10^11 m.

That makes for the travel time of the photons from the sun:

(1.496 × 10^11 m)/(3 x 10^8) = 0.499 x 10^3 s = 4.99 x 10^2 s = 499 s = 8 minutes and 19 seconds.

How get these photons at the eye in no time? How can we see the sun, when the photons are not at our eyes yet?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

[I]I know that none of my answers will be adequate.

Exactly. They are physically inadequate. They mean nothing, when reality is concerned.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know his claim sounds like a violation of physics based on your understanding of light.

It doesn't seem so: this claim is a violation of physics. We know how the cones and the rods work, how photons produce electrical signals when they hit the chemicals in the retina, and that these photons have travelled from the light source to the eye. That is extremely fast for small distances, like a candle in a room, but at distances of millions of kilometres the time plays a considerable role.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't believe there are any violations.

Then your belief is wrong. Believe me...

[GdB]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You're missing his entire observation. You win the oscar for stupidity!

You are missing the complete body of established physics.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by GdB

You are missing the complete body of established physics.

Actually I'm not. Your thinking is so predictable because it's based on what you've been taught, that I cannot reach you. Anything that contradicts established science is going to have to tough it out, which ironically takes TIME. I want to add here that your compatibilist beliefs are full of holes, but you are steadfast that this is the only way to deal with accountability. No one is interested in his first discovery which shows me they either don't believe he has a discovery, or they have no interest in how we can establish peace on earth through invariable laws. I am assuming the former.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You haven't even bothered to confirm that these Yes/No interpretations of your responses are accurate. What the hell...?

This has nothing at all to do with what I am asking you. READ the bloody questions. ANSWER what they actually ask you. A candle is seen near instantaneously ONLY because light traveling at light speed will cover a short distance very quickly. The distance involved in the scenario you are being asked about is not short at all. So no, this is not even remotely applicable.

I didn't even ask you about travel time! READ the bloody question! I asked you to name a time when the photons at the film/retina (at noon) could have been located at the Sun which is where you said they came from. Name a time!

Also not what I asked you! READ the damn question! ANSWER what is asked! You said the photons at the film/retina (at noon) are traveling photons that didn't travel from their source to their present location. So what traveling have they done?

So stop deliberately giving me inadequate non-answers, and start answering what I have actually asked you!

Yes, photons travel which means it takes time for them to get to a destination. You are trying to get me to agree with you that his claim therefore violates the laws of physics. I don't agree that his claim regarding efferent vision violates anything, so I'm calling it quits. In fact, I don't know how I was suckered into discussing this topic again. Even though this dispute will never be resolved here, you will not lose sleep over it so don't worry your little head.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Yes, photons travel which means it takes time for them to get to a destination. You are trying to get me to agree with you that his claim therefore violates the laws of physics. I don't agree that his claim regarding efferent vision violates anything, so I'm calling it quits.

This isn't a matter of opinion, it's a fact. When you're saying that a photon that's not absorbed by the object is instantly at the retina, you're contradicting the tested laws of physics that say that nothing of the kind happens.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

This isn't a matter of opinion, it's a fact. When you're saying that a photon that's not absorbed by the object is instantly at the retina, you're contradicting the tested laws of physics that say that nothing of the kind happens.

I don't believe there is a contradiction. No one is denying that light travels but you are not understanding why efferent vision would allow real time vision to occur without there being any violation. But... this conversation is going nowhere fast. You know this as well as I. I realize I cannot answer all of your questions regarding the moons of Jupiter, etc., but this does not automatically disprove his claim. Based on what he observed regarding how we acquire language, he saw something very different than the established view. I can't defend his claim anymore than I already have. It will require more investigation. One thing is for sure; hand-waving his observations away because they don't jive with your understanding of how the physical world works will not bring us any closer to the truth.

p. 112 Even today, we are still in agreement regarding a
fallacious observation about the brain and its relation to the eyes.
Those who will consider the possibility that you might have a discovery
reveal their confusion by trying to nullify any value to it with this
comment as was made to me, “What difference does it make what we
call them as a group, this isn’t going to change what we are. Whether
we call them 5 senses, or 4 senses and a pair of eyes is certainly not
going to change them in any way.” However, if man doesn’t really
have five senses, isn’t it obvious that just as long as we think otherwise
we will be prevented from discovering those things that depend on this
knowledge for their discovery? Consequently, it does make a
difference what we call them.

Just as my first discovery was not that
man’s will is not free but the knowledge revealed by opening that door
for a thorough investigation, so likewise my second discovery is not
that man does not have five senses but what significant knowledge lies
hidden behind this door. Many years later we have an additional
problem which is more difficult to overcome because this fallacious
observation has graduated dogmatically into what is considered
genuine knowledge, for it is actually taught in school as an absolute
fact, and our professors, doctors, etc. would be ready to take up arms,
so to speak, against anyone who would dare oppose what they have
come to believe is the truth without even hearing, or wanting to hear
any evidence to the contrary.

I am very aware that if I am not careful
the resentment of these people will nail me to a cross, and they would
do it in the name of justice and truth. However, it appears that they
will not be given the opportunity because the very moment the will of
God is perceived and understood, man is given no alternative as to
what direction he must travel — which is away from condemning
someone who has uncovered a falsehood. The real truth is that there
are thousands upon thousands of differences existing in the external
world, but when words do not describe these differences accurately we
are then seeing a distorted version of what exists — as with free will.

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't believe there is a contradiction. No one is denying that light travels but you are not understanding why efferent vision would allow real time vision to occur without there being any violation.

The "why" part isn't important. It contradicts at least relativity and Maxwell's equations.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

The "why" part isn't important. It contradicts at least relativity and Maxwell's equations.

It might contradict certain interpretations that lead to some outrageous conclusions.

[peacegirl]

This article explains the kinds of online tactics that have been used to ruin people's careers and reputation. Sound familiar?

ACADEMIC FREEDOM, MOBBING, TACTICS
AN ONLINE MOBBING
AUGUST 13, 2014 BRIAN MARTIN

Tom Flanagan was mobbed online. His experience provides several sorts of lessons.

Tom Flanagan, a Canadian political scientist, worked for 45 years at the University of Calgary. He became a prominent public figure, appearing on television and writing columns for newspapers and magazines. He also had experience in the political system, having served as campaign manager for several politicians seeking office.

Along the way, Flanagan made some enemies. Much of his research related to First Nations and their claims over land, and he took a position contrary to activists in the area. Flanagan’s political leanings might be characterised as conservative: he had managed campaigns for conservative politicians.

On 27 February 2013, Flanagan gave a talk at the University of Lethbridge. Unknown to him, some First Nation activists attended and planned to use the talk to discredit him. They secretly recorded his talk and asked him a question about an extraneous topic, about which he had once made a passing comment: child pornography.

In the several hours it took Flanagan to drive home the next morning, a social media storm blew up, leaving his reputation in tatters. An extract of his talk, out of context, had been posted on YouTube with the misleading tagline “Tom Flanagan okay with child pornography.” Before long, he was widely denounced, including by Canada’s prime minister, Stephen Harper, for whom Flanagan had once been campaign manager, by the premier of Alberta, and by numerous mainstream media outlets, with front-page stories.

MacDougall tweet
A hostile tweet

Flanagan soon lost many of the connections he had built up over the years. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation cancelled his contract and his own university put out a weak-kneed media release.

Several things about this storm of protest especially annoyed Flanagan. First, he had only made passing comments about child pornography; it wasn’t a topic he had carefully investigated. Second, he had been speaking to an academic audience, in his teacher role in which he tried to stimulate thinking about the topic, but his enemies had treated it as a political opportunity to catch him out and discredit him.

Third, his views on child pornography had been seriously misrepresented. He opposed child pornography, and had only said that penalties for merely viewing it (in Canada, a minimum of several months in prison) might be too stiff. Fourth, those who denounced him and his views had not waited to hear Flanagan’s perspective before rushing to make public comment.

Vulnerability to online mobbing

Mobbing is collective bullying. It’s when a group of people combine to attack a target by abuse, undermining, sidelining, defaming and otherwise causing harm to a person’s morale and reputation.

cont. at: An online mobbing | Brian's comments

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It might contradict certain interpretations that lead to some outrageous conclusions.

Nonsense. It contradicts the tested laws of physics, which say that photons move at the speed of light and they don't appear anywhere else instantly. Period.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by But

Nonsense. It contradicts the tested laws of physics, which say that photons move at the speed of light and they don't appear anywhere else instantly. Period.

I agree with that. There is no teleportation or magic involved. Photons travel, but they don't bounce off the object and reflect the information (the nonabsorbed frequency/wavelength) to the retina over long distances. We are able to see the object due to it having met the requirements of efferent vision. This can occur even though light hasn't reach Earth in the hypothetical example he gave. That is why he said we can see the Sun at 12 noon before it reaches Earth at 12:08. I know this doesn't make sense to you. It seems counter-intuitive and against all of the known laws of physics. Actually, nothing drastic changes. Technology still works in the same way. We may even see light from galaxies that have traveled great distances over time but I don't believe we would be able to see Columbus discovering America in that light. I need a break from this conversation as it's never going to get anywhere and the most important of his discoveries is being completely ignored.

[Stephen Maturin]

A self-described internet nutter discusses the many ways in which peacegirl has gone awry:

The material presented on [peacegirl's idiot] site and in a few lucky forum threads is one long flame-out of such intensity that it fully obscures whatever idea-monster it is protecting from examination. "…don’t be too hasty in using what you have been taught as a standard to judge what has not even been revealed to you yet… …it is a refusal even to open our eyes to examine the evidence that is plainly in view… …Skepticism alone is not the primary problem… The main problem is the pride"… …break through this sound barrier of learned ignorance and reach those who will be able to extract the pure, unadulterated… critical mass will be reached… public pressure… deafening roar… Now be honest with yourselves; do you really know, or only think you know? … …soon to be revealed which permit you to see this miracle… 'I have a dream' said Dr. Martin Luther King… …wrath of the establishment because it threatens the status quo… … like to ask you the following questions. Do you prefer war… …the Golden Age of man…"

Nhoj Morley | FUN with THE TRIOOOON SCHEME | The Art of Internet Nutting

[But]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I agree with that. There is no teleportation or magic involved. Photons travel, but they don't bounce off the object and reflect the information (the nonabsorbed frequency/wavelength) to the retina over long distances.

Yes, they do. That's what the known and tested laws of physics say. Also, the laws of physics say that those photons don't turn up at the retina before they have traveled there. Period.