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

[bilby]

It is the light that supposedly brings to the eye the wavelength/frequency that turns into an image in the brain. Without that wavelength/frequency, the brain could not turn that light into an image of the object. Again, that wavelength/frequency bounces off the object, taking that wavelength/frequency with it through space/time, according to the present belief.

Literally NOBODY believes that at present, nor has believed that at any time in the past, nor is likely to believe it at any time in the future.

You are arguing against your crazy fantasies. And your alternative is a crazy fantasy.

There's nothing sane in your position.

If my position is not sane, then explain what I'm missing at present that no one believes.

Nobody believes this:

"It is the light that supposedly brings to the eye the wavelength/frequency that turns into an image in the brain. Without that wavelength/frequency, the brain could not turn that light into an image of the object. Again, that wavelength/frequency bounces off the object, taking that wavelength/frequency with it through space/time".

Every part of this is absurd, and literally nobody has ever held it to be true.

Light HAS wavelengths/frequencies. They are properties of light, NOT of objects.

Nothing "turns into an image in the brain". Light is turned into an image on the retina, by the action of the lens and cornea focussing incoming light. The brain merely interprets the nerve impulses that the retina makes in response to that image.

 

[pood]

Hey, peacegirl, remember this? It was first presented to you at least 15 years ago!

There is nothing here that conflicts with real-time vision because the speed of light has nothing to do with his claim. Back to the drawing board.

Sure there is. If he saw Io in real time, the discreapancy he noted could not have existed; Io would be seen at the same predicted point in its orbit regardless of how far from Earth it was.

Um, @peacegirl??

To reiterate the key point: It CANNOT be the case both that we see in real time, AND that light has a finite velocity that we can measure. The two claims are logically incompatible.

So, tell us, as so far you have not:

How did we measure the speed of light in the first place, if we see in real time, without a light delay?

Assplain that to us!

 

[steve_bank]

PG

All I can go by is what he wrote and what you say. Subjective interpretation of observation is not proof or evidnce.

He may have beenn cap[able, but obviously lacked the foundation in science required to actually elaborate.

It is not impossible, but difficult to write professionally in science and do analysis without some formal higher education.

In media therr are some good writers on science, and a lot of bad ones.

I pworked with a guy who had a BA in pysics who did circuit board layout at a company I worked at. He got his degree and taught prep school for a while. Then he drifted around for a while and ended up at the company working in manufacturing doing assembly.
He wrid hi9s way up to cirtcuit bao9rd layopuit a skied [osition.

He wanted to be seen as peer to te engineers and was always getting in peoples' faces. He annoyed everyone, he had some math and science but lacked any knowledge in engineering

Her had creativity, imagination, and was a good problem solver. But he lacked the foundation he needed to do electronics engineering and was not interested in learning.

H would try and pose an idea but did not have the knowledge to do it. A lot of the time his ideas were nonsense.

It really bothered him. He got in my face saying he knew more math than I would ever know. I put up with him because I appreciate creativity and he did a good job I could rely on.

 

[steve_bank]

To be pedantic C is numerically defined in free space vacuum. Defined numerically to make SI units consistent.

The principle is light travels at a sped not subject to relative motion, it the same speed across all inertial frames. Moving aircraft mounted RADAR would not work without that.

 

[steve_bank]

An event on Mars and on Earth may occur at he exact same moment, but to us the event on Mars happened in our past due to the delay. Delayed visbke light or radio.

It does not mean we are somehow traveling back in time.

 

[peacegirl]

Hey, peacegirl, remember this? It was first presented to you at least 15 years ago!

There is nothing here that conflicts with real-time vision because the speed of light has nothing to do with his claim. Back to the drawing board.

Sure there is. If he saw Io in real time, the discreapancy he noted could not have existed; Io would be seen at the same predicted point in its orbit regardless of how far from Earth it was.

Jupiter's Io experiment is considered to be the only interpretation possible. But if Lessans is right (and I say "if" for your benefit), then there may be another reason for the delay that has nothing to do with the speed of light.

The orbit of Io around Jupiter is not directly influenced by Jupiter's angle toward the Sun. Instead, the gravitational interactions with the other Galilean moons, Europa and Ganymede, cause Io's orbit to be slightly eccentric. This slight eccentricity is due to the gravitational pull of these other moons, which causes Io to experience tidal heating and volcanic activity. The tidal heating is a result of the friction generated within Io's interior as it is pulled between Jupiter and the other two Galilean moons. This process creates enough energy to drive the volcanic activity that makes Io the most volcanically active moon in the solar system.
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=180c...cGl0ZXIvanVwaXRlci1tb29ucy9pby9mYWN0cy8&ntb=1
NASA+5
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=180c...cGl0ZXIvanVwaXRlci1tb29ucy9pby9mYWN0cy8&ntb=1
It also brings into question whether the speed of light, based on his computations, was accurate.

On the Rømer experiments and the speed of light

In 1676, Rømer determined that the speed of light must be finite. His experiment consisted on observing the eclipses of Io, one of Jupiter's moons, by Jupiter itself. He timed these eclipses over a

physics.stackexchange.com

.

 

[peacegirl]

An event on Mars and on Earth may occur at he exact same moment, but to us the event on Mars happened in our past due to the delay. Delayed visbke light or radio.

It does not mean we are somehow traveling back in time.

No, but it would mean we are seeing galaxies from light-years in the past, which, if false, would disrupt the thinking that uses this as a first premise. I think that's why people are so up in arms. Or it could be that special relativity may not mean what everyone takes for granted is true, in that time is a dimension, like space, that can take us back or forward in a block universe.

 

[pood]

Hey, peacegirl, remember this? It was first presented to you at least 15 years ago!

There is nothing here that conflicts with real-time vision because the speed of light has nothing to do with his claim. Back to the drawing board.

Sure there is. If he saw Io in real time, the discreapancy he noted could not have existed; Io would be seen at the same predicted point in its orbit regardless of how far from Earth it was.

Jupiter's Io experiment is considered to be the only interpretation possible. But if Lessans is right (and I say "if" for your benefit), then there may be another reason for the delay that has nothing to do with the speed of light.

The orbit of Io around Jupiter is not directly influenced by Jupiter's angle toward the Sun. Instead, the gravitational interactions with the other Galilean moons, Europa and Ganymede, cause Io's orbit to be slightly eccentric. This slight eccentricity is due to the gravitational pull of these other moons, which causes Io to experience tidal heating and volcanic activity. The tidal heating is a result of the friction generated within Io's interior as it is pulled between Jupiter and the other two Galilean moons. This process creates enough energy to drive the volcanic activity that makes Io the most volcanically active moon in the solar system.
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=180c...cGl0ZXIvanVwaXRlci1tb29ucy9pby9mYWN0cy8&ntb=1
NASA+5
https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=180c...cGl0ZXIvanVwaXRlci1tb29ucy9pby9mYWN0cy8&ntb=1
It also brings into question whether the speed of light, based on his computations, was accurate.

On the Rømer experiments and the speed of light

In 1676, Rømer determined that the speed of light must be finite. His experiment consisted on observing the eclipses of Io, one of Jupiter's moons, by Jupiter itself. He timed these eclipses over a

physics.stackexchange.com

.

Why are you even posting this? Do you think it helps your position? It does not.

 

[pood]

How did we measure the speed of light in the first place, if we see in real time, without a light delay?

 

[peacegirl]

Pg
That is a pretty good map of light traveling and the present belief as to how sight works, but nothing in that diagram explains how the eyes work. There is no proof that nerve signals reach the brain and become images, which is the main argument.

Rods and cones on retina connected to nerves, nerves running to a region of the brain. Signals on the optic nerves run one way, eye to brain.Rods ad cones cones convert photons to electrons. You might just as well argue against photosynthesis in plants

We know damage in the area of the brain where optic nerves go causes vision problems.

I am not debating any of this. Every part of the eye is necessary for sight. The only difference is the mechanism of how these structures are used in light of real-time vision. It doesn't remove them. Every part of the eye and brain is essential, including memory.

I had a temporary speech aphasia from a subdural hematoma. Fluid acculturation put pressure on the speech enter of my brain.

You can search for specific studies. Fairly old news.

I can understand that. Anything that interferes with a particular part of the brain, due to a lack of blood supply, would cause a serious problem. Thank goodness yours was resolved.

Imaging the brain's response to visual stimuli involves techniques like functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and electroencephalography (EEG) to map activation in the visual cortex and higher-order areas. Visual stimuli typically trigger responses in the primary visual cortex (V1), moving through areas V2-V4 for feature detection (color, orientation) and into the ventral stream for object recognition.

MRI can show which areas of the brain are invoked for different kinds of stimulus.

I watched a neuroscientist talk about an experiment. He ran MRIs on theists while contemplating god and paraying to see which areas of the brain increased activity.

It's really fascinating what neuroscience is learning about the brain, but so far, nothing has pinpointed a location in the brain where images are formed in delayed time.

 

[steve_bank]

An event on Mars and on Earth may occur at he exact same moment, but to us the event on Mars happened in our past due to the delay. Delayed visbke light or radio.

It does not mean we are somehow traveling back in time.

No, but it would mean we are seeing galaxies from light-years in the past, which, if false, would disrupt the thinking that uses this as a first premise. I think that's why people are so up in arms. Or it could be that special relativity may not mean what everyone takes for granted is true, in that time is a dimension, like space, that can take us back or forward in a block universe.

You arr not getting it. Relativity and quantum mechanics were a radical shift in thinking in both science and philosophy about reality.

In the day epic changes.

 

[peacegirl]

How did we measure the speed of light in the first place, if we see in real time, without a light delay?

Because light travels, Pood. I am not disputing that light travels at a finite speed.

Fizeau's measurement of the speed of light in air - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[peacegirl]

An event on Mars and on Earth may occur at he exact same moment, but to us the event on Mars happened in our past due to the delay. Delayed visbke light or radio.

It does not mean we are somehow traveling back in time.

No, but it would mean we are seeing galaxies from light-years in the past, which, if false, would disrupt the thinking that uses this as a first premise. I think that's why people are so up in arms. Or it could be that special relativity may not mean what everyone takes for granted is true, in that time is a dimension, like space, that can take us back or forward in a block universe.

You arr not getting it. Relativity and quantum mechanics were a radical shift in thinking in both science and philosophy about reality.

In the day epic changes.

If time is not a dimension, we may see the results of an application using lightspeed, but time itself cannot be relative if it is just a measurement of change.

 

[steve_bank]

Pg
That is a pretty good map of light traveling and the present belief as to how sight works, but nothing in that diagram explains how the eyes work. There is no proof that nerve signals reach the brain and become images, which is the main argument.

Rods and cones on retina connected to nerves, nerves running to a region of the brain. Signals on the optic nerves run one way, eye to brain.Rods ad cones cones convert photons to electrons. You might just as well argue against photosynthesis in plants

We know damage in the area of the brain where optic nerves go causes vision problems.

I am not debating any of this. Every part of the eye is necessary for sight. The only difference is the mechanism of how these structures are used in light of real-time vision. It doesn't remove them. Every part of the eye and brain is essential, including memory.

I had a temporary speech aphasia from a subdural hematoma. Fluid acculturation put pressure on the speech enter of my brain.

You can search for specific studies. Fairly old news.

I can understand that. Anything that interferes with a particular part of the brain, due to a lack of blood supply, would cause a serious problem. Thank goodness yours was resolved.

Imaging the brain's response to visual stimuli involves techniques like functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and electroencephalography (EEG) to map activation in the visual cortex and higher-order areas. Visual stimuli typically trigger responses in the primary visual cortex (V1), moving through areas V2-V4 for feature detection (color, orientation) and into the ventral stream for object recognition.

MRI can show which areas of the brain are invoked for different kinds of stimulus.

I watched a neuroscientist talk about an experiment. He ran MRIs on theists while contemplating god and paraying to see which areas of the brain increased activity.

It's really fascinating what neuroscience is learning about the brain, but so far, nothing has pinpointed a location in the brain where images are formed in delayed time.

You are arguing from an apriori assumption Lessans is right without evidence.

Visual images are foamed tin the visual cortex. Your chronic argument that science does not explain vision is patently false. It does not add credence to your claims.

It is like a Creationist argument.

 

[steve_bank]

An event on Mars and on Earth may occur at he exact same moment, but to us the event on Mars happened in our past due to the delay. Delayed visbke light or radio.

It does not mean we are somehow traveling back in time.

No, but it would mean we are seeing galaxies from light-years in the past, which, if false, would disrupt the thinking that uses this as a first premise. I think that's why people are so up in arms. Or it could be that special relativity may not mean what everyone takes for granted is true, in that time is a dimension, like space, that can take us back or forward in a block universe.

You arr not getting it. Relativity and quantum mechanics were a radical shift in thinking in both science and philosophy about reality.

In the day epic changes.

If time is not a dimension, we may see the results of an application using lightspeed, but time itself cannot be relative if it is just a measurement of change.

Sientficaly tie is ticks on a clock.

Time/clocks are used to jnesure rates of change.

The uverse is cringing. When we say time travel we mean going back to a prior state of the inverse.

 

[steve_bank]

How did we measure the speed of light in the first place, if we see in real time, without a light delay?

Because light travels, Pood. I am not disputing that light travels at a finite speed.

Fizeau's measurement of the speed of light in air - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Michelson–Morley experiment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[bilby]

Hey, peacegirl, remember this? It was first presented to you at least 15 years ago!

There is nothing here that conflicts with real-time vision because the speed of light has nothing to do with his claim. Back to the drawing board.

Sure there is. If he saw Io in real time, the discreapancy he noted could not have existed; Io would be seen at the same predicted point in its orbit regardless of how far from Earth it was.

Jupiter's Io experiment is considered to be the only interpretation possible. But if Lessans is right (and I say "if" for your benefit), then there may be another reason for the delay that has nothing to do with the speed of light.

If there is another reason for the delay, then that "other reason" exists regardless of how wrong Lessans might be.

And equally, IF that reason exists, it should be easily measurable; We are talking about a discrepancy of some seventeen minutes over six months here. And it would not be expected to just coincidentally match up with every other way we have of measuring lightspeed (including such things as observations of Saturn's moons or Mars's, which display the exact same phenomenon).

Tidal effects are truly irrelevant here. Io is tidally locked, so the effect on orbital period is small, despite the eccentricity and seismological impacts which are notable and in the latter case, very impressive.

Worse still for your case, the orbital eccentricity of Io is now very precisely known, and when the variations in orbital period this causes are accounted for, the estimate of lightspeed we derive is even more accurate - allowing for these effects does not undermine the result, but rather gives it more support.

It also brings into question whether the speed of light, based on his computations, was accurate.
.

No, it really doesn't. It is known to have been fairly inaccurate, though it was in the right ballpark; And the reasons for that are not only well known, but are given in the article @pood provided, and that is linked in the very first post in the quote-chain (above).

Of course, Roemer was the FIRST to use this technique, but was far from the last, and further observations using far better equipment than was available in the C17th have been made, confirming that his methodology was sound.

You are falling into your well worn rut of taking something you know nothing about, asking Bing a loaded question about it, and then misinterpreting the answer (which you don't seem to have read, or at least don't seem to have understood) as support for your beliefs.

That this is a spectacularly poor way to find out anything about anything, should be obvious to anyone with a primary school level grasp of science; So I am not surprised that you are utterly and pathetically unaware of just how dumb you are being when you do it.

 

[bilby]

An event on Mars and on Earth may occur at he exact same moment, but to us the event on Mars happened in our past due to the delay. Delayed visbke light or radio.

It does not mean we are somehow traveling back in time.

No, but it would mean we are seeing galaxies from light-years in the past, which, if false, would disrupt the thinking that uses this as a first premise. I think that's why people are so up in arms.

Jesus H. Tapdancing Christ on a Motorbike, that's a serious lack of humility you have there.

Most of the people who routinely use the fact of delayed seeing in their daily working lives have never even heard of Lessans, and wouldn't care two shits for his nonsensical first premise even if they had.

Your paranoia here is entirely predicated upon the false belief that people care deeply about your crackpot dad's dumb notions.

There are what, four people on an obscure discussion board who care enough to engage with you at all on the subject. Out of eight billion humans. And they are only here for one simple reason:

 

[peacegirl]

It is incumbent upon me to distinguish between the word "image" (the light that is reflected off the object)

The light that is recflected off the object is not an image.

and photons (packets of electromagnetic energy) that travel through space/time,

That - That right there - is the light that is reflected off the object.

or you will never understand this concept.

You are the one failing to understand. An image is not just light; it is the pattern of light that exists in the focal plane of a lens. The light at that plane is in the exact same pattern as the light as it reflected off the object, due to the simple fact that light travels at constant speed in a given medium, and in a straight line.

That is true, but what is happening is more easily seen when we look at celestial objects. It is assumed that light strikes an object where the pattern (the reflection of that object) goes on forever, but this is not what occurs. Light from the object fades or is not seen at all if it doesn't meet the requirements (size, proximity, and brightness). We can see the object as long as the pattern makes contact with the retina or a telescope. IOW, we see the object because it is there to be seen. The light does not bring the pattern of the object over space/time without the object being in our field of view. Photons travel through space/time without a pattern. They are electromagnetic packets of energy, and when they strike an object, we see the object due to its unique absorptive and reflective properties. Light becomes a necessary condition of sight, but it doesn't bring the external world to our eyes in delayed time. It reveals the world to us in real time.

 

[peacegirl]

Hey, peacegirl, remember this? It was first presented to you at least 15 years ago!

There is nothing here that conflicts with real-time vision because the speed of light has nothing to do with his claim. Back to the drawing board.

Sure there is. If he saw Io in real time, the discreapancy he noted could not have existed; Io would be seen at the same predicted point in its orbit regardless of how far from Earth it was.

Jupiter's Io experiment is considered to be the only interpretation possible. But if Lessans is right (and I say "if" for your benefit), then there may be another reason for the delay that has nothing to do with the speed of light.

If there is another reason for the delay, then that "other reason" exists regardless of how wrong Lessans might be.

And equally, IF that reason exists, it should be easily measurable; We are talking about a discrepancy of some seventeen minutes over six months here. And it would not be expected to just coincidentally match up with every other way we have of measuring lightspeed (including such things as observations of Saturn's moons or Mars's, which display the exact same phenomenon).

Tidal effects are truly irrelevant here. Io is tidally locked, so the effect on orbital period is small, despite the eccentricity and seismological impacts which are notable and in the latter case, very impressive.

Worse still for your case, the orbital eccentricity of Io is now very precisely known, and when the variations in orbital period this causes are accounted for, the estimate of lightspeed we derive is even more accurate - allowing for these effects does not undermine the result, but rather gives it more support.

It also brings into question whether the speed of light, based on his computations, was accurate.
.

No, it really doesn't. It is known to have been fairly inaccurate, though it was in the right ballpark; And the reasons for that are not only well known, but are given in the article @pood provided, and that is linked in the very first post in the quote-chain (above).

Of course, Roemer was the FIRST to use this technique, but was far from the last, and further observations using far better equipment than was available in the C17th have been made, confirming that his methodology was sound.

You are falling into your well worn rut of taking something you know nothing about, asking Bing a loaded question about it, and then misinterpreting the answer (which you don't seem to have read, or at least don't seem to have understood) as support for your beliefs.

That this is a spectacularly poor way to find out anything about anything, should be obvious to anyone with a primary school level grasp of science; So I am not surprised that you are utterly and pathetically unaware of just how dumb you are being when you do it.

I'm not trying to ask Bing a loaded question and then misinterpret the answer. I am trying to work through the claim of afferent vision in light of Lessans' claim. He made this claim from a different angle entirely. If he was right about his observations (which you have not disproved), I shouldn't have to prove that certain astronomical calculations are false. That wasn't his job either. I have said over and over that he was not an astronomer, but, again, that doesn't automatically make his observations inaccurate. That is why I said it's a category error because he is discussing how the brain and eyes work, and everyone else is discussing how light works. His claim does not violate physics or the speed of light. No one seems interested in understanding his observations or his reasoning therefrom. They just want to claim that he is wrong so they claim that they are right. They both can't be right. The verdict is still out whether you think so or not.