“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"

[pood]

Peacegirl, your model makes many, MANY testable predictions. Bilby offered an ingenious one, just above. Your model flunks his test, as it flunks all tests.

 

[pood]

Bilby’s test is one we never thought of at FF!

He is pointing out that basically, from our point of view, the sun IS “turned on” every day, but not at noon. It is “turned on” at sunrise!

And completely fails to corroborate what the author predicts!

 

[peacegirl]

I already explained that it doesn't GET anywhere implying that travel is involved.

Travel is unavoidable. We are here; The Sun is 150,000,000km away. For one to influence the other in any way, something has to cross that distance; The information that the Sun is there has to get from the Sun to our brains somehow.

No information can travel faster than 299792.458km/s. The claim that we see the Sun instantly, and not as it was eight and a half minutes ago, is mathematically identical to claiming that the information crossed the distance between the Sun and our brains faster than 299792.458km/s - in fact, it is a claim that information travelled at infinite speed.

We can show that this does not happen. You don't have to take anybody's word for it; It's incredibly easy to test it for yourself.

When we see the sunset, the light from the Sun is also illuminating the objects nearby. But if we were seeing those objects only after the eight and a half minutes needed for that light to arrive, but seeing the Sun in real time, then the light would still be illuminating our surroundings eight minutes after the last of the Sun's disk had fallen below the horizon.

Actually, we would not see the objects illuminated only after 8.5 minutes because the light from the Sun is here on Earth (it's been here for approximately 4.5 billion years), and although it is constantly emitting new photons that replace old ones, it doesn't change that light is here and is keeping us alive. I only offered a thought experiment to try to explain efferent vision and why we would see the Sun turned on before we would see each other. It doesn't take 8.5 minutes to arrive now that light is here. It's only when the Earth rotates on its axis do we see the morning come and daylight fade depending on where we live on the planet.

Similarly, at sunrise, we would see the Sun well above the horizon*, before the first of the direct sunlight arrived to illuminate our surroundings. This is a prediction that is made by your model, and it is easy to test.

No it isn't. We see whatever objects that are in our environment due to light's presence, and in this case, we would see our immediate surroundings, although dim at first, and gradually getting brighter. The Sun is not seen yet because the Earth is still rotating to where the Sun finally comes over the horizon a minute or two later. This doesn't do anything to discredit his observations.

Anyone can observe it to be false. No special equipment, and no qualifications, accreditations, or memberships are needed; Anyone can test it for themselves.

And anyone who does, will see that the direct light from the sun illuminates our surroundings at the same time that we first see its disk rise above the horizon. We see the Sun after the exact same delay required to see its light illuminate our surroundings. Therefore your model cannot be right.

We see the illumination of our surroundings first, as the Earth rotates on its axis. The disk rises above the horizon soon after it begins to illuminate our surroundings because we are not seeing the Sun 8.5 minutes later, as it is now written.

The time it takes for the Sun to rise over the horizon varies by location and time of year. Generally, it can take anywhere from 128 to 142 seconds at the equator, depending on the latitude. For example, at the equinoxes, the sunrise can be as quick as 128 seconds, while at the solstices, it can take up to 142 seconds.

How long does a sunrise or sunset take?

From the time that the sun appears on the horizon, or meets it on its setting, to the time that it is fully visible, or no longer visible on its setting, how much time passes? Secondly, is there a ...

astronomy.stackexchange.com

Your claims:

1) That we see the Sun instantly,

Only if its within our field of view. If it is not within our field of view, we would only see it as it rises above the horizon.

but
2) That our surroundings are not visible until the photons complete their eight and a half minute journey,

Again, this does not mean that we only can see our surroundings after 8.5 minutes. The Sun's light is here on Earth, just on the other side at night as the Earth spins on its axis, so when morning comes, it just means that the Earth has now rotated to where the sun's light is now on our side. Although the Sun's photons are continually traveling to Earth, this does not mean that it takes another 8.5 minutes to see morning.

The Earth's rotation causes day and night by spinning on its axis, which takes approximately 24 hours. As the Earth rotates, different parts of the planet are exposed to sunlight, creating daylight for those areas, while the parts facing away from the Sun experience night. This cycle of light and darkness occurs because the Earth turns, allowing various locations to move in and out of the Sun's light.
https://www.tutorchase.com/answers/igcse/physics/how-does-earth-s-rotation-affect-day-and-night-cycles

...cannot both be true. If they were, we would not see direct sunlight illuminate our surroundings until the Sun was some two degrees (four times it's own diameter) above the horizon.




* The Sun appears to travel it's own apparent diameter in about two minutes, so it would be seen to be four times it's own diameter above the horizon before the light illuminated our surroundings.

Not true. Just because we don't see the Sun above the horizon before we begin to get some illumination, does not mean it takes another 8.5 minutes to see the Sun coming over the horizon. Remember, if Lessans was right, we are not seeing a virtual image of the Sun which would be a delay. We are seeing it come over the horizon in real time. It only takes the rotation of the Earth depending on our location as to whether it would be night or day. It would be reverse if we live on the opposite side of the Earth. You know all this. The only thing that's causing confusion is this 8.5 minutes that you thought would have to arrive each time.

 

[DBT]

He has his own evidence, which is supported. How can you know when you didn't read that chapter? You should read it and then dispute his observations, not before. But you will have to buy the book for $1.95.

If he has evidence, it should be verifiable, something that anyone can examine.

As it stands, there is no way around the fact of the speed of light and the time it takes to travel from the source to the eye.

For the hundredth time, the speed of light is not being disputed.

This is something that has been verified by countless experiments. The laser reflector left on the moon, for instance, is still being used to measure the distance of the moon by how long it takes light to get to the moon and back.

The mars rovers have a lag in communication, as do the Voyager space probes that left the solar system, etc, etc.

All of which falsifies any notion of light at the eye/instant vision.

There is a lag because the light is being transmitted through a video that is converted. This is not what he’s referring to. People are so up in arms that they won’t take the time to hear him out. This is intellectual snobbery!!

No, that's not it. The lag varies regardless of the equipment used to detect the radio signals or the light reflecting off the laser reflector that was left on the moon . The reason for that is clearly related to speed and distance. The further away an object is, the longer it takes for signals to travel. Something like 22 hours for a signal to travel to Voyager1, the Moon and back ranges from 2.4 to 2.7 seconds, etc.

There is no disagreement here.

Then you must agree that light at the eye/instant vision is false.

You can't agree that it takes time for light to travel from the object to the eye, yet insist that we inexplicably bypass this process and have instant vision.

 

[pood]

I already explained that it doesn't GET anywhere implying that travel is involved.

Travel is unavoidable. We are here; The Sun is 150,000,000km away. For one to influence the other in any way, something has to cross that distance; The information that the Sun is there has to get from the Sun to our brains somehow.

No information can travel faster than 299792.458km/s. The claim that we see the Sun instantly, and not as it was eight and a half minutes ago, is mathematically identical to claiming that the information crossed the distance between the Sun and our brains faster than 299792.458km/s - in fact, it is a claim that information travelled at infinite speed.

We can show that this does not happen. You don't have to take anybody's word for it; It's incredibly easy to test it for yourself.

When we see the sunset, the light from the Sun is also illuminating the objects nearby. But if we were seeing those objects only after the eight and a half minutes needed for that light to arrive, but seeing the Sun in real time, then the light would still be illuminating our surroundings eight minutes after the last of the Sun's disk had fallen below the horizon.

Actually, we would not see the objects illuminated only after 8.5 minutes because the light from the Sun is here. It doesn't take 8.5 minutes to arrive.

You have been telling us that we would see the sun instantly, but not anyone or anything else for 8.5 minutes because it takes the light 8.5 minutes to arrive. Are you now changing your story again?

 

[peacegirl]

People have read the stuff about light and sight and it’s wrong, peacegirl. I doubt anyone will waste anymore time yet again explaining why.

It isn't wrong just because you say it is.

It’s not because I say it is wrong, but because the evidence shows that is wrong. See bilby’s post just above, for example.

He didn't prove anything. He just got confused about the thought experiment and believed that light has to arrive for 8.5 minutes for sunrise to occur, hence there would be a contradiction. But there is no contradiction.

 

[peacegirl]

Peacegirl, your model makes many, MANY testable predictions. Bilby offered an ingenious one, just above. Your model flunks his test, as it flunks all tests.

It did not flunk. I know you wanted it to.

 

[pood]

People have read the stuff about light and sight and it’s wrong, peacegirl. I doubt anyone will waste anymore time yet again explaining why.

It isn't wrong just because you say it is.

It’s not because I say it is wrong, but because the evidence shows that is wrong. See bilby’s post just above, for example.

He didn't prove anything. He just got confused about the thought experiment and believed that light has to arrive for 8.5 minutes for sunrise to occur, hence there would be a contradiction. But there is no contradiction.

No, peacegirl. He tested your author’s claim that we would see the sun immediately, but nothing else for 8.5 minutes. Sunrise disproves the author’s claim.

 

[pood]

Please address this:

Similarly, at sunrise, we would see the Sun well above the horizon*, before the first of the direct sunlight arrived to illuminate our surroundings. This is a prediction that is made by your model, and it is easy to test. Anyone can observe it to be false. No special equipment, and no qualifications, accreditations, or memberships are needed; Anyone can test it for themselves.

This simple test proves Lessans wrong, every single morning.

 

[pood]

If the author’s model were right, in the morning we would see the sun’s fiery red disc break the horizon line, and the ground would be — dark.

We’d watch the sun rise for 8.5 minutes. The ground would still be dark.

At 8,5 minutes, the sun would be some 3 degrees above the horizon — a noticeable distance. Only then would the ground light up.

Peacegirl. We do not see this. Obviously.

 

[DBT]

People have read the stuff about light and sight and it’s wrong, peacegirl. I doubt anyone will waste anymore time yet again explaining why.

It isn't wrong just because you say it is.

It’s not because I say it is wrong, but because the evidence shows that is wrong. See bilby’s post just above, for example.

He didn't prove anything. He just got confused about the thought experiment and believed that light has to arrive for 8.5 minutes for sunrise to occur, hence there would be a contradiction. But there is no contradiction.

We don't need to wait, we see the sunlight that has taken eight minutes to reach us. If the sun flares, or whatever, we see it happen eight minutes after the event.

 

[peacegirl]

People have read the stuff about light and sight and it’s wrong, peacegirl. I doubt anyone will waste anymore time yet again explaining why.

It isn't wrong just because you say it is.

It’s not because I say it is wrong, but because the evidence shows that is wrong. See bilby’s post just above, for example.

He didn't prove anything. He just got confused about the thought experiment and believed that light has to arrive for 8.5 minutes for sunrise to occur, hence there would be a contradiction. But there is no contradiction.

No, peacegirl. He tested your author’s claim that we would see the sun immediately, but nothing else for 8.5 minutes. Sunrise disproves the author’s claim.

It does not, not at all.

 

[peacegirl]

If the author’s model were right, in the morning we would see the sun’s fiery red disc break the horizon line, and the ground would be — dark.

We’d watch the sun rise for 8.5 minutes. The ground would still be dark.

At 8,5 minutes, the sun would be some 3 degrees above the horizon — a noticeable distance. Only then would the ground light up.

Peacegirl. We do not see this. Obviously.

You completely failed to read why this would not be the case.

 

[peacegirl]

People have read the stuff about light and sight and it’s wrong, peacegirl. I doubt anyone will waste anymore time yet again explaining why.

It isn't wrong just because you say it is.

It’s not because I say it is wrong, but because the evidence shows that is wrong. See bilby’s post just above, for example.

He didn't prove anything. He just got confused about the thought experiment and believed that light has to arrive for 8.5 minutes for sunrise to occur, hence there would be a contradiction. But there is no contradiction.

We don't need to wait, we see the sunlight that has taken eight minutes to reach us. If the sun flares, or whatever, we see it happen eight minutes after the event.

You can't disprove his version of sight this way. To just repeat the very thing being disputed doesn't fly. Sorry DBT.

 

[DBT]

People have read the stuff about light and sight and it’s wrong, peacegirl. I doubt anyone will waste anymore time yet again explaining why.

It isn't wrong just because you say it is.

It’s not because I say it is wrong, but because the evidence shows that is wrong. See bilby’s post just above, for example.

He didn't prove anything. He just got confused about the thought experiment and believed that light has to arrive for 8.5 minutes for sunrise to occur, hence there would be a contradiction. But there is no contradiction.

We don't need to wait, we see the sunlight that has taken eight minutes to reach us. If the sun flares, or whatever, we see it happen eight minutes after the event.

You can't disprove his version of sight this way. To just repeat the very thing being disputed doesn't fly. Sorry DBT.

You have no explanation for instance vision, something that bypasses the physical principles of light transmission and acquisition.

You invoke magic and insist that it's true.

It's not the way the physical world works.

 

[bilby]

People have read the stuff about light and sight and it’s wrong, peacegirl. I doubt anyone will waste anymore time yet again explaining why.

It isn't wrong just because you say it is.

It’s not because I say it is wrong, but because the evidence shows that is wrong. See bilby’s post just above, for example.

He didn't prove anything.

Yes, I did.

He just got confused

Someone is confused. It's not me.

about the thought experiment and believed that light has to arrive for 8.5 minutes for sunrise to occur, hence there would be a contradiction.

Well, that's what you told us.

But there is no contradiction.

There certainly is.

Standing facing the rising Sun, I see the Sun itself, just touching the horizon. According to you, that's where the Sun is NOW. But also according to you, its light will not illuminate the objects around me for another eight and a half minutes. By the time those objects are out of the shadow of the Earth, and able to be hit by the photons from the Sun, the Sun will be four diameters above the horizon.

According to you, that's where we will see it when the light arrives - where it is NOW, four diameters higher in the sky.

I say we will see it on the horizon, where it was eight minutes ago, when the light that's illuminating our surroundings left it on their long journey. Because we don't see the Sun, nor it's effects, in real time.

If you were right, and the time required to see the Sun were different from the time required to see its light illuminate our surroundings, then we could not possibly see what we do, in fact, see - that the appearance of the Sun above the horizon happens at the same time that our surroundings are illuminated by sunlight.

 

[peacegirl]

People have read the stuff about light and sight and it’s wrong, peacegirl. I doubt anyone will waste anymore time yet again explaining why.

It isn't wrong just because you say it is.

It’s not because I say it is wrong, but because the evidence shows that is wrong. See bilby’s post just above, for example.

He didn't prove anything. He just got confused about the thought experiment and believed that light has to arrive for 8.5 minutes for sunrise to occur, hence there would be a contradiction. But there is no contradiction.

We don't need to wait, we see the sunlight that has taken eight minutes to reach us. If the sun flares, or whatever, we see it happen eight minutes after the event.

You can't disprove his version of sight this way. To just repeat the very thing being disputed doesn't fly. Sorry DBT.

You have no explanation for instance vision, something that bypasses the physical principles of light transmission and acquisition.

You invoke magic and insist that it's true.

It's not the way the physical world works.

You obviously haven't understood what his observations were, so how can you dispute them in any fair way? You are coming from a position of afferent vision, that is logical, but that doesn't make it necessarily true.

 

[DBT]

People have read the stuff about light and sight and it’s wrong, peacegirl. I doubt anyone will waste anymore time yet again explaining why.

It isn't wrong just because you say it is.

It’s not because I say it is wrong, but because the evidence shows that is wrong. See bilby’s post just above, for example.

He didn't prove anything. He just got confused about the thought experiment and believed that light has to arrive for 8.5 minutes for sunrise to occur, hence there would be a contradiction. But there is no contradiction.

We don't need to wait, we see the sunlight that has taken eight minutes to reach us. If the sun flares, or whatever, we see it happen eight minutes after the event.

You can't disprove his version of sight this way. To just repeat the very thing being disputed doesn't fly. Sorry DBT.

You have no explanation for instance vision, something that bypasses the physical principles of light transmission and acquisition.

You invoke magic and insist that it's true.

It's not the way the physical world works.

You obviously haven't understood what his observations were, so how can you dispute them in any fair way? You are coming from a position of afferent vision, that is logical, but that doesn't make it necessarily true.

It's not a matter of understanding something that contradicts the very fabric of the universe. Instant vision isn't possible. There is no way for it to work.

If you want to explain how it can, please do that.

 

[peacegirl]

People have read the stuff about light and sight and it’s wrong, peacegirl. I doubt anyone will waste anymore time yet again explaining why.

It isn't wrong just because you say it is.

It’s not because I say it is wrong, but because the evidence shows that is wrong. See bilby’s post just above, for example.

He didn't prove anything. He just got confused about the thought experiment and believed that light has to arrive for 8.5 minutes for sunrise to occur, hence there would be a contradiction. But there is no contradiction.

F
We don't need to wait, we see the sunlight that has taken eight minutes to reach us. If the sun flares, or whatever, we see it happen eight minutes after the event.

You can't disprove his version of sight this way. To just repeat the very thing being disputed doesn't fly. Sorry DBT.

You have no explanation for instance vision, something that bypasses the physical principles of light transmission and acquisition.

You invoke magic and insist that it's true.

It's not the way the physical world works.

You obviously haven't understood what his observations were, so how can you dispute them in any fair way? You are coming from a position of afferent vision, that is logical, but that doesn't make it necessarily true.

It's not a matter of understanding something that contradicts the very fabric of the universe. Instant vision isn't possible. There is no way for it to work.

If you want to explain how it can, please do that.

All I can do is suggest that you read Chapter Four to understand his observations and reasoning. I do think you would also get a lot out of how the two-sided equation (the discovery) can change our world for the better. You will need to put the author's name (Seymour Lessans) in the search bar at Amazon, which will allow the book to show up. In the U.S. the ebook is selling for $1.95. You can always return it if within a reasonable amount of time if you feel the book has no value.

 

[pood]

People have read the stuff about light and sight and it’s wrong, peacegirl. I doubt anyone will waste anymore time yet again explaining why.

It isn't wrong just because you say it is.

It’s not because I say it is wrong, but because the evidence shows that is wrong. See bilby’s post just above, for example.

He didn't prove anything. He just got confused about the thought experiment and believed that light has to arrive for 8.5 minutes for sunrise to occur, hence there would be a contradiction. But there is no contradiction.

No, peacegirl. He tested your author’s claim that we would see the sun immediately, but nothing else for 8.5 minutes. Sunrise disproves the author’s claim.

It does not, not at all.

Of course it does. Stop pretending to be be obtuse.

Your model predicts that when the sun comes up, we would see it in the sky for 8.5 minutes before the ground lights up.

Instead, we see the sun rise, and the ground light up, at the same time.

Your fable is finished.