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

[DBT]

"Our scientists, becoming enthralled over the discovery that light travels approximately 186,000 miles a second ...

Once again, certain facts have been confused, and all the reasoning except for light traveling at a high rate of speed is completely fallacious."

These are Lessans' own words. He is clearly saying that he agrees that "light travels approximately 186,000 miles a second", though he disputes all other claims from "our scientists" about light and vision.

Correct.

We have demonstrated by a simple test that the light from the Sun casts a shadow that points directly towards where the Sun was when that light left it. Lessans agrees that this light arrives here 8.5 minutes after it left the Sun, crossing 93 million miles at 186,000 miles a second.

The Sun does cast a shadow but not necessarily after 8.5 minutes.

But we know that the Sun is now actually two degrees away from that spot - because the Earth has rotated two degrees in the 8.5 minutes since that light departed from the Sun.

What if the Earth's rotation in that 2 degrees has nothing to do with the 8.5 minutes the light departed from the Sun? Is it not possible that this is a conclusion drawn that earth's movement by 2 degrees and seeing the Sun are not due to the departure of light from the Sun at all? What if the Earth moved only one degree? Would it still take 8.5 minutes?

4 minutes

how long does it take to see a shadow on a sundial if the Sun moves one degree from the previous degree?​

The time it takes to see a shadow on a sundial as the Sun moves one degree from the previous degree is 4 minutes. This is because the Sun takes 4 minutes to cover one degree of the sky. The sundial's shadow will move across the hour lines at a consistent rate, allowing users to estimate the time of day based on the position of the shadow.

Border Sundials

IF we see the Sun in "real time", then it will appear two degrees away from the direction the shadow points.

We could see the sun in real time and the Sun still be seen two degrees away from that spot as the Earth rotates without it being the result of an 8.5 minute delay.

Does it? @peacegirl, did you check for yourself? I don't want you to take my word for it.

If it does - if we are seeing the shadow in delayed time (as Lessans says we will); And we are seeing the Sun in real time (as Lessans says we do), then both of his claims are consistent with reality.

Why do you keep saying this when I told you this is not what Lessans said?

But if it doesn't - If the Sun appears exactly in line with the shadow - then at least one of his claims is wrong.

That wasn't his claim, so you are being disingenuous to keep saying it was.

The light radiated from the sun 8.5 minutes ago is casting shadows here and now.

 

[peacegirl]

"Our scientists, becoming enthralled over the discovery that light travels approximately 186,000 miles a second ...

Once again, certain facts have been confused, and all the reasoning except for light traveling at a high rate of speed is completely fallacious."

These are Lessans' own words. He is clearly saying that he agrees that "light travels approximately 186,000 miles a second", though he disputes all other claims from "our scientists" about light and vision.

Correct.

We have demonstrated by a simple test that the light from the Sun casts a shadow that points directly towards where the Sun was when that light left it. Lessans agrees that this light arrives here 8.5 minutes after it left the Sun, crossing 93 million miles at 186,000 miles a second.

The Sun does cast a shadow but not necessarily after 8.5 minutes.

But we know that the Sun is now actually two degrees away from that spot - because the Earth has rotated two degrees in the 8.5 minutes since that light departed from the Sun.

What if the Earth's rotation in that 2 degrees has nothing to do with the 8.5 minutes the light departed from the Sun? Is it not possible that this is a conclusion drawn that earth's movement by 2 degrees and seeing the Sun are not due to the departure of light from the Sun at all? What if the Earth moved only one degree? Would it still take 8.5 minutes?

4 minutes

how long does it take to see a shadow on a sundial if the Sun moves one degree from the previous degree?​

The time it takes to see a shadow on a sundial as the Sun moves one degree from the previous degree is 4 minutes. This is because the Sun takes 4 minutes to cover one degree of the sky. The sundial's shadow will move across the hour lines at a consistent rate, allowing users to estimate the time of day based on the position of the shadow.
Border Sundials

IF we see the Sun in "real time", then it will appear two degrees away from the direction the shadow points.

We could see the sun in real time and the Sun still be seen two degrees away from that spot as the Earth rotates without it being the result of an 8.5 minute delay.

Does it? @peacegirl, did you check for yourself? I don't want you to take my word for it.

If it does - if we are seeing the shadow in delayed time (as Lessans says we will); And we are seeing the Sun in real time (as Lessans says we do), then both of his claims are consistent with reality.

Why do you keep saying this when I told you this is not what Lessans said?

But if it doesn't - If the Sun appears exactly in line with the shadow - then at least one of his claims is wrong.

That wasn't his claim, so you are being disingenuous to keep saying it was.

The light radiated from the sun 8.5 minutes ago is casting shadows here and now.

Not if Lessans was right in that it is not delayed light that is allowing us to see the shadow.

 

[bilby]

"Our scientists, becoming enthralled over the discovery that light travels approximately 186,000 miles a second ...

Once again, certain facts have been confused, and all the reasoning except for light traveling at a high rate of speed is completely fallacious."

These are Lessans' own words. He is clearly saying that he agrees that "light travels approximately 186,000 miles a second", though he disputes all other claims from "our scientists" about light and vision.

Correct.

We have demonstrated by a simple test that the light from the Sun casts a shadow that points directly towards where the Sun was when that light left it. Lessans agrees that this light arrives here 8.5 minutes after it left the Sun, crossing 93 million miles at 186,000 miles a second.

The Sun does cast a shadow but not necessarily after 8.5 minutes.

Yes, necessarily after 8.5 minutes. The shadow is just the bit of ground the light can't get to because the post is in the way. If the light isn't travelling past the post, there's no way for a shadow to form at all.

But we know that the Sun is now actually two degrees away from that spot - because the Earth has rotated two degrees in the 8.5 minutes since that light departed from the Sun.

What if the Earth's rotation in that 2 degrees has nothing to do with the 8.5 minutes the light departed from the Sun?

The Earth rotates 360° in 24 hours. Simple arithmetic tells us that that's 2.125° in 8.5 minutes.

Is it not possible that this is a conclusion drawn that earth's movement by 2 degrees and seeing the Sun are not due to the departure of light from the Sun at all?

That's right, it's not possible. But if you think it is, please feel free to explain how, giving a explicit and precise step-by-step description that anyone can follow.

What if the Earth moved only one degree? Would it still take 8.5 minutes?

Not unless a day was 48 hours long.

4 minutes

how long does it take to see a shadow on a sundial if the Sun moves one degree from the previous degree?​

The time it takes to see a shadow on a sundial as the Sun moves one degree from the previous degree is 4 minutes. This is because the Sun takes 4 minutes to cover one degree of the sky. The sundial's shadow will move across the hour lines at a consistent rate, allowing users to estimate the time of day based on the position of the shadow.
Border Sundials

IF we see the Sun in "real time", then it will appear two degrees away from the direction the shadow points.

We could see the sun in real time and the Sun still be seen two degrees away from that spot as the Earth rotates without it being the result of an 8.5 minute delay.

Not if the Earth keeps turning at the 24 hours per day rate of rotation we all know it has.

Does it? @peacegirl, did you check for yourself? I don't want you to take my word for it.

If it does - if we are seeing the shadow in delayed time (as Lessans says we will); And we are seeing the Sun in real time (as Lessans says we do), then both of his claims are consistent with reality.

Why do you keep saying this when I told you this is not what Lessans said?

Because it is what he said, regardless of what you tell me. I even quoted it.

But if it doesn't - If the Sun appears exactly in line with the shadow - then at least one of his claims is wrong.

That wasn't his claim, so you are being disingenuous to keep saying it was.

It was his claim; I can read.

 

[bilby]

There’s so much confusion here: The light would be at the shadow at the same time we would see the Sun as long as the wavelength was within our field of view.

FTFY




You had a period which should have been a colon.

Think of seeing the object in real time because the mirror image is at our retina instantly. So instead of this wavelength traveling through space and time ad infinitum, it is right there in real time as the lens of our eyes, telescope, or camera focus on the object itself, not the light. Does that help?

No, it doesn't. If no time is needed for the image to get to our retinas, then the speed of light is infinity. Which is a perfectly good conclusion, as long as you are happy to agree that Lessans was wrong when he said:

"Our scientists, becoming enthralled over the discovery that light travels approximately 186,000 miles a second ...​

Once again, certain facts have been confused, and all the reasoning except for light traveling at a high rate of speed is completely fallacious."​

Of course, if you cannot accept that he was wrong about anything, you are in deep trouble; Because his claims are contradictory.

 

[peacegirl]

There’s so much confusion here: The light would be at the shadow at the same time we would see the Sun as long as the wavelength was within our field of view.

FTFY




You had a period which should have been a colon.

Think of seeing the object in real time because the mirror image is at our retina instantly. So instead of this wavelength traveling through space and time ad infinitum, it is right there in real time as the lens of our eyes, telescope, or camera focus on the object itself, not the light. Does that help?

No, it doesn't. If no time is needed for the image to get to our retinas, then the speed of light is infinity. Which is a perfectly good conclusion, as long as you are happy to agree that Lessans was wrong when he said:

You are still referring to the finite speed of light when he wasn't talking about speed at all.

"Our scientists, becoming enthralled over the discovery that light travels approximately 186,000 miles a second ...​

Once again, certain facts have been confused, and all the reasoning except for light traveling at a high rate of speed is completely fallacious."​

Of course, if you cannot accept that he was wrong about anything, you are in deep trouble; Because his claims are contradictory.

They are not contradictory. You are making them appear that way (purposely or not) by continually saying that he said something he didn't.

 

[pood]

There’s so much confusion here: The light would be at the shadow at the same time we would see the Sun as long as the wavelength was within our field of view.

FTFY




You had a period which should have been a colon.

Think of seeing the object in real time because the mirror image is at our retina instantly. So instead of this wavelength traveling through space and time ad infinitum, it is right there in real time as the lens of our eyes, telescope, or camera focus on the object itself, not the light. Does that help?

No.

 

[peacegirl]

There’s so much confusion here: The light would be at the shadow at the same time we would see the Sun as long as the wavelength was within our field of view.

FTFY




You had a period which should have been a colon.

Think of seeing the object in real time because the mirror image is at our retina instantly. So instead of this wavelength traveling through space and time ad infinitum, it is right there in real time as the lens of our eyes, telescope, or camera focus on the object itself, not the light. Does that help?

No.

Says Pood.

 

[DBT]

Says Physics. Says the physical properties of light, speed and distance. Our eyes detect light, we see light, we see the light that was radiated or reflected from an object.

 

[pood]

There’s so much confusion here: The light would be at the shadow at the same time we would see the Sun as long as the wavelength was within our field of view.

FTFY




You had a period which should have been a colon.

Think of seeing the object in real time because the mirror image is at our retina instantly. So instead of this wavelength traveling through space and time ad infinitum, it is right there in real time as the lens of our eyes, telescope, or camera focus on the object itself, not the light. Does that help?

No.

Says Pood.

No, peacegirl, says reality. We here are simply doing you the courtesy of informing you about what reality says.

For example, let’s look at this little gem you just wrote — this gem of gibberish.

What mirror image, peacegirl? And what mirror? What do mirrors and mirror images have to do with your so-called model, which you do not actually have?

And again: light travels through space, and HAS a wavelength.

Lenses do not focus on objects. They focus light (not ON light). That is all they do. This was explained to you a bazillion times at FF.

And, even though you didn’t say it here, let me again remind you that when your author claims scientists say images are carried on “wings of light,” scientists do NOT say that, so he has set up a strawman. Light only carries patterns of information. IMAGES are formed in the brain, and interpreted there. If there were no eyes and brains in the universe, there would be no images anywhere.

 

[bilby]

There’s so much confusion here: The light would be at the shadow at the same time we would see the Sun as long as the wavelength was within our field of view.

FTFY




You had a period which should have been a colon.

Think of seeing the object in real time because the mirror image is at our retina instantly. So instead of this wavelength traveling through space and time ad infinitum, it is right there in real time as the lens of our eyes, telescope, or camera focus on the object itself, not the light. Does that help?

No.

Says Pood.

Says Physics. Says the physical properties of light, speed and distance. Our eyes detect light, we see light, we see the light that was radiated or reflected from an object.

Says @peacegirl:

Light travels, and there is a finite speed that has been measured definitively.

Light travels, and we can only see what the light reveals when it hits a surface.

Light in this context reveals the object. It is a necessary condition of sight.

He was very clear that before we can see, light must be present, therefore if the world was dark because the Sun was just turned on, we could not see each other for 8 minutes

 

[DBT]

So many contradictions.

 

[peacegirl]

Says Physics. Says the physical properties of light, speed and distance. Our eyes detect light, we see light, we see the light that was radiated or reflected from an object.

You keep going right back to the physics of light, which is not even what he was disputing. You are failing to understand that there is no travel time only because of how the brain and eyes work in unison, nothing else. The eyes are the window of the brain, not the other way around. Without light being at the retina and transmitted to the optic nerve and visual cortex, we would not be able to integrate what we see with our experiences. Nothing changes in that respect DBT.

 

[DBT]

Says Physics. Says the physical properties of light, speed and distance. Our eyes detect light, we see light, we see the light that was radiated or reflected from an object.

You keep going right back to the physics of light, which is not even what he was disputing. You are failing to understand that there is no travel time only because of how the brain and eyes work in unison, nothing else. The eyes are the window of the brain, not the other way around. Without light being at the retina and transmitted to the optic nerve and visual cortex, we would not be able to integrate what we see with our experiences. Nothing changes in that respect DBT.

The nature of light and how the eyes detect light and brain works in processing information and generating vision is the very reason why 'instant vision/light at the eye' is impossible.

 

[peacegirl]

There’s so much confusion here: The light would be at the shadow at the same time we would see the Sun as long as the wavelength was within our field of view.

FTFY




You had a period which should have been a colon.

Think of seeing the object in real time because the mirror image is at our retina instantly. So instead of this wavelength traveling through space and time ad infinitum, it is right there in real time as the lens of our eyes, telescope, or camera focus on the object itself, not the light. Does that help?

No.

Says Pood.

No, peacegirl, says reality. We here are simply doing you the courtesy of informing you about what reality says.

For example, let’s look at this little gem you just wrote — this gem of gibberish.

What mirror image, peacegirl? And what mirror? What do mirrors and mirror images have to do with your so-called model, which you do not actually have?

If we are looking at the real object, then in efferent vision the wavelength from that object would be at the eye just like in a mirror image. No image (or wavelength) in the traveling light. How many times have I explained this to you.

And again: light travels through space, and HAS a wavelength.

Lenses do not focus on objects. They focus light (not ON light). That is all they do. This was explained to you a bazillion times at FF.

Right, lenses focus the light once the light which comes from the object's absorptive and reflective properties. But when the word reflection is used, it does not mean light bounces off of objects taking the wavelength with it through space and time.

And, even though you didn’t say it here, let me again remind you that when your author claims scientists say images are carried on “wings of light,” scientists do NOT say that, so he has set up a strawman. Light only carries patterns of information. IMAGES are formed in the brain, and interpreted there. If there were no eyes and brains in the universe, there would be no images anywhere.

No one would see any images of anything, not even in pictures, but there would still be objects in the external world but no one would see them either.

There’s so much confusion here: The light would be at the shadow at the same time we would see the Sun as long as the wavelength was within our field of view.

FTFY




You had a period which should have been a colon.

Think of seeing the object in real time because the mirror image is at our retina instantly. So instead of this wavelength traveling through space and time ad infinitum, it is right there in real time as the lens of our eyes, telescope, or camera focus on the object itself, not the light. Does that help?

No.

Says Pood.

No, peacegirl, says reality. We here are simply doing you the courtesy of informing you about what reality says.

For example, let’s look at this little gem you just wrote — this gem of gibberish.

What mirror image, peacegirl? And what mirror? What do mirrors and mirror images have to do with your so-called model, which you do not actually have?

I was using this analogy to help people visualize how it would be possible for the wavelength of said object to be at the retina with no time delay.

pictures of mirror images of a landscape over water - Bing

Intelligent search from Bing makes it easier to quickly find what you’re looking for and rewards you.

www.bing.com

And again: light travels through space, and HAS a wavelength.

Lenses do not focus on objects. They focus light (not ON light). That is all they do. This was explained to you a bazillion times at FF.

Okay. But that doesn't change anything.

And, even though you didn’t say it here, let me again remind you that when your author claims scientists say images are carried on “wings of light,” scientists do NOT say that, so he has set up a strawman. Light only carries patterns of information. IMAGES are formed in the brain, and interpreted there. If there were no eyes and brains in the universe, there would be no images anywhere.

That is why I always am careful to add, "light travels with the wavelength". Saying light carries the image is just a shortcut. Where have you been? If there were no eyes and brain, objects in the external world would still exist. There would just be no one to see them.

 

[peacegirl]

Says Physics. Says the physical properties of light, speed and distance. Our eyes detect light, we see light, we see the light that was radiated or reflected from an object.

You keep going right back to the physics of light, which is not even what he was disputing. You are failing to understand that there is no travel time only because of how the brain and eyes work in unison, nothing else. The eyes are the window of the brain, not the other way around. Without light being at the retina and transmitted to the optic nerve and visual cortex, we would not be able to integrate what we see with our experiences. Nothing changes in that respect DBT.

The nature of light and how the eyes detect light and brain works in processing information and generating vision is the very reason why 'instant vision/light at the eye' is impossible.

I disagree and I really hope you will one day read this chapter: Words, Not Reality. It may allow you to see more clearly how the brain and eyes work according to efferent vision, and why it is possible to see in real time and still be able to process information. The connection between the eyes, the retina, the optic nerve, and the brain would still be intact.

 

[peacegirl]

There’s so much confusion here: The light would be at the shadow at the same time we would see the Sun as long as the wavelength was within our field of view.

FTFY




You had a period which should have been a colon.

Think of seeing the object in real time because the mirror image is at our retina instantly. So instead of this wavelength traveling through space and time ad infinitum, it is right there in real time as the lens of our eyes, telescope, or camera focus on the object itself, not the light. Does that help?

No.

Says Pood.

Says Physics. Says the physical properties of light, speed and distance. Our eyes detect light, we see light, we see the light that was radiated or reflected from an object.

Says @peacegirl:

We don't see the light from an object. We see the object due to light's presence.

Light travels, and there is a finite speed that has been measured definitively.

Yes, that's true.

Light travels, and we can only see what the light reveals when it hits a surface.

That was my error. Light travels, that is true, but we are not seeing the light as an image when it hits the surface. We are seeing the object when the rotation of the earth is on our side of the planet where a shadow would then appear.

Light in this context reveals the object. It is a necessary condition of sight.

That is true. We could not see anything without light.

He was very clear that before we can see, light must be present, therefore if the world was dark because the Sun was just turned on, we could not see each other for 8 minutes

That is also true. We would see the Sun turned on because it met the requirements of luminosity and size before we would see each other (even though the Sun was 93 million miles away) because light wouldn't have gotten to Earth yet, in which case it would not have met the requirements for sight since there would be no light in which to see each other until 8.5 minutes later.

 

[DBT]

The sun is luminous because it emits EMR/Light. If it did not, it would not be luminous and we would not see it.
That light that is emitted from the sun, the very same light that makes the sun luminous, takes 8.5 minutes to reach earth to be detected by our eyes and converted to vision by our brain and we see the sun.

 

[bilby]

But when the word reflection is used, it does not mean light bounces off of objects

Er... That is exactly what it means.

 

[peacegirl]

But when the word reflection is used, it does not mean light bounces off of objects

Er... That is exactly what it means.

Sorry but light does not bounce. You can think what you want.

 

[peacegirl]

The sun is luminous because it emits EMR/Light. If it did not, it would not be luminous and we would not see it.
That light that is emitted from the sun, the very same light that makes the sun luminous, takes 8.5 minutes to reach earth to be detected by our eyes and converted to vision by our brain and we see the sun.

Repetition doesn’t make you anymore right than the first time you said it.