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

[peacegirl]

You can believe whatever you want. You still haven't shown me that dogs recognize their master from a computer screen or in human form without any other cues. They should be able to if the image is traveling to their eye.

As we have explained to a million times, images don’t travel to the eye. Light does. The image is formed in the brain. Why are you changing the subject from Io and the special theory of relativity? I have demonstrated to you that the findings in both cases would be impossible if we saw without a light delay.

It really doesn't disprove Lessans' observations. Lightning would be seen in different frames of reference because it's not matter; it's electricity. IOW, it's not an object. Do you understand why this doesn't apply?

Lightning has the physicai properties of matter/energy. Matter can be converted to energy. Energy can be converted to matter. Matter and energy are interchangeable.

That's not what I read. They said they are working on it, but regardless, for the purposes of this thread it's not important because the example showed lightning which is electromagnetic energy.

https://www.science.org/content/article/presto-light-creates-matter

It doesn’t matter what it is. We can't see, feel, taste or smell anything before our senses acquire the information and the brain processes it, and that is a sequence of events that takes time.

You keep bringing this up. This is not what he is referring to. We are talking about delayed sight versus real time sight, not processing. There is a difference between these two mechanisms. If it is established finally that we see in real time, no one is going to say that processing the information means there is a processing delay that keeps delayed vision in place.

 

[pood]

You can believe whatever you want. You still haven't shown me that dogs recognize their master from a computer screen or in human form without any other cues. They should be able to if the image is traveling to their eye.

As we have explained to a million times, images don’t travel to the eye. Light does. The image is formed in the brain. Why are you changing the subject from Io and the special theory of relativity? I have demonstrated to you that the findings in both cases would be impossible if we saw without a light delay.

It really doesn't disprove Lessans' observations. Lightning would be seen in different frames of reference because it's not matter; it's electricity. IOW, it's not an object. Do you understand why this doesn't apply?

Lightning has the physicai properties of matter/energy. Matter can be converted to energy. Energy can be converted to matter. Matter and energy are interchangeable.

That's not what I read. They said they are working on it, but regardless, for the purposes of this thread it's not important because the example showed lightning which is electromagnetic energy.

https://www.science.org/content/article/presto-light-creates-matter

Peacegirl, for heaven sake, did you even read the article that you linked??

 

[pood]

There are no nerve endings that receive the stimulus, which is the first clue.

Nerve endings that receive stimulus in the eyes.

 

[pood]

Sight takes place for the first time when a sufficient accumulation of sense experience such as hearing, taste, touch, and smell — these are doorways in — awakensWha the brain so that the child can look through them at what exists around him.

OK. So, when a child sees the stars, is it the sound, taste, texture, or smell of them that lets him know they are there?

What are you talking about bilby? When a baby is born, he cannot focus his eyes until there is a desire to see due to the other senses stimulating this desire. This is exactly why READING THE ENTIRE CHAPTER is the only way you will be able to understand his full explanation. Without it, you're just guessing what he means.

Except we did read it, and went over it with you at FF, including with the biologist The Lone Ranger. The author’s claim about a baby’s eyes is false. Notice once again, moreover, that he never attempts to demonstrate or provide evidence for this claim. He merely asserts it. And it’s false.

 

[peacegirl]

It really doesn't disprove Lessans' observations. Lightning would be seen in different frames of reference because it's not matter; it's electricity. IOW, it's not an object. Do you understand why this doesn't apply?

No, I do not understand why this does’t apply, because there is nothing to understand. It is nonsense.

Light is an electromagnetic wave. We do not see light. We see the things light illumines.

In the case of Einstein’s train gedanken, the person on the ground sees the back and front of the train illumined and the air between the train and her eyes illumined simultaneously. The person on the train sees the front of the train and the back of the train and the air between them illumined sequentially. This is proof we do not see in real time. If we did, the train observer and the ground observer would agree when the lightning struck.

That makes sense because it shows that the frame of reference between being on the ground and being on a moving train allows us to see the lightning differently at the same time. This is no surprise really. In fact, it makes sense. Whether we see lightning simultaneously or sequentially demonstrates that depending on our frame of reference where one is stationary and one is moving changes what we see. Both people are obviously seeing the lightning differently as it strikes. It still does not prove what you think it does: that matter reflects light such that it travels over hundreds of years to reach the eye.

Yes, peacegirl, it does prove it. You keep telling everyone that we see everything instantly, that if God turned on the sun at noon we would see it instantly, even though it takes the light eight minutes to reach the eye. If this were true, everyone, in every reference frame, would see everything instantly, and all agree on what they saw and what time it happened. The relativity of simultaneity proves that this is not the case. From the relativity of simultaneity we also get time dilation, which would be impossible in a world of real-time seeing. We went over this with you again and again at FF. Your cellphone has a GPS. Every time you use your phone for directions or to find the location of something, you are refuting your author’s claims.This is because the GPS in your phone must account for both gravitational and relativistic time dilation. But time dilation would not happen in a world of real-time seeing.

I’m not going to argue with you because you believe time is a dimension that can contract and dilate. Einstein said so. There is no way we will ever meet on grounds that we can agree upon, so let’s leave this subject for now. I know you won’t.

 

[steve_bank]

peacegirl

There has been a lot of lengthy posts, if you would humor me please state clearly in your own words exactly what you mean by real time versus delayed sight.

Real time sight is a,b,c...
Delayed sight is d,e,f...

Don'trfefer me to yuur author, in your own words.

 

[peacegirl]

peacegirl

There has been a lot of lengthy posts, if you would humor me please state clearly in your own words exactly what you mean by real time versus delayed sight.

No

Real time sight is a,b,c...
Delayed sight is d,e,f...

Don'trfefer me to yuur author, in your own words.

No

 

[steve_bank]

I'm still curious as to how instant vision, 'light at the eye,' is supposed to work. Because if Lessan also argued for determinism, and he is not contradicting himself, his 'light at the eye' proposition must have a physical, determinist explanation.

He shows that we see in the present. How does this relate to determinism? His demonstration regarding determinism showed that antecedent events are what we use to help us make decisions. But these antecedents that already happened don't cause the present. They are contained in our memories that are then remembered to help us make the best possible decisions based on the information we have. This is what separates Lessans' definition from the standard definition because nothing from the past causes us to do anything since the past doesn't exist. How can something that doesn't exist cause an effect? He was clarifying terms to make them more accurate.

It is true that nothing in the past can cause what occurs in the present, for all we ever have is the present; the past and future are only words that describe a deceptive relation. Consequently, determinism was faced with an almost impossible task because it assumed that heredity and environment caused man to choose evil, and the proponents of free will believed the opposite, that man was not caused or compelled; he did it of his own accord; he wanted to do it; he didn’t have to. The term ‘free will’ contains an assumption or fallacy, for it implies that if man is not caused or compelled to do anything against his will, it must be preferred of his own free will. This is one of those logical, not mathematical, conclusions. The expression, ‘I did it of my own free will’ is perfectly correct when it is understood to mean ‘I did it because I wanted to; nothing compelled or caused me to do it since I could have acted otherwise had I desired.’ This expression was necessarily misinterpreted because of the general ignorance that prevailed, for although it is correct in the sense that a person did something because he wanted to, this in no way indicates that his will is free. In fact, I shall use the expression ‘of my own free will’ frequently myself, which only means ‘of my own desire.’ Are you beginning to see how words have deceived everyone?

That doesn't make sense, because if determinism is true, the past shapes the present and the present shapes the future, where past states become the present state of the world, where information in the form of light (or anything else) must have antecedents and behave according to the laws of physics.

I didn't say the past doesn't shape the present. I said the past doesn't exist except as a part of our memory, which we use to make decisions every time we contemplate. Memory is a large part of our identity and why people are so afraid of losing it.

Light simply being 'at the eye' contradicts determinism and the laws of physics.

I don't think it does and I'm not quite sure if it even contradicts Einstein's relativity because the author never said light is not finite and it is obvious that if there is a different frame of reference, we might see the light at different times because it would arrive at a different interval,

Light has to be there for anything to be seen. If light hasn't arrived, we would not be able to see what is around us but the confusion is that light is a requirement, not a cause. It is very hard to see this truth when you are talking about light arriving and seeing what exists around us. It is obvious that without light, we could not see, but you are concluding that travel time of light proves that we see the past. This is false, sorry. Again, I'm so tired of defending him. If you feel he's wrong, then so be it. You can move on to another thread. Who would stay at a thread they feel is totally wrong? What a waste of time that would be.

Yes peacegirl, that’s the point! There is a difference in detecting the light because of relative motion. If we saw instantly, it would make NO DIFFERENCE what the relative motion was, or how far away we are from the light source.

It would make a difference because of our perception due to different frames, not because of delayed light.

Everyone would see the same thing, because we would be seeing events INSTANTLY. Like the moons of Jupiter example, special relativity conclusively rules out real-time seeing.

I know special relativity rules it out, but you cannot understand his perspective coming from the present theory of delayed time and sight. You will easily throw his claim out if you do it this way.

It's more than 'a present theory.' It is observed and tested fact. The speed of light has been measured.

A scientific theory is not arbitrary, but a narrative that explains a set of facts.

The narrative may be altered if new information comes along, yet the facts remain: light does in fact have a speed,

Correct.

and what we see is in fact delayed by the distance travelled.

No. The speed of light is what they say it is. Asserting the thing that is being refuted is wasted bandwidth.

The speed of light is known by experiment to be not subject to receiver motion. All inertial frames will sureness the same C. C does not dend on the speed of the objct trasmitting light.

Shoot a bullet from a moving car in the line of travel and the velocity of the bullet is that of the car plus the exit velocity from the gun.

Fire a laser from a moving car and C remains constant.

What you are referring to is that the numerical value of C and the dimensions are set, which is true. In Systems International velocity is meters per second. C is 299,792,458 meters per second.

However the dimensions and values of C are set, C is constant velocity regardless of inetialframes.

Two space ships are traveling in the same line at different velocities. A laser pulse passes both ships. The velocity of the laser pulse looks the same to both ships.

BTW, in electronics the speed of light is routinely measured every day.

 

[pood]

It really doesn't disprove Lessans' observations. Lightning would be seen in different frames of reference because it's not matter; it's electricity. IOW, it's not an object. Do you understand why this doesn't apply?

No, I do not understand why this does’t apply, because there is nothing to understand. It is nonsense.

Light is an electromagnetic wave. We do not see light. We see the things light illumines.

In the case of Einstein’s train gedanken, the person on the ground sees the back and front of the train illumined and the air between the train and her eyes illumined simultaneously. The person on the train sees the front of the train and the back of the train and the air between them illumined sequentially. This is proof we do not see in real time. If we did, the train observer and the ground observer would agree when the lightning struck.

That makes sense because it shows that the frame of reference between being on the ground and being on a moving train allows us to see the lightning differently at the same time. This is no surprise really. In fact, it makes sense. Whether we see lightning simultaneously or sequentially demonstrates that depending on our frame of reference where one is stationary and one is moving changes what we see. Both people are obviously seeing the lightning differently as it strikes. It still does not prove what you think it does: that matter reflects light such that it travels over hundreds of years to reach the eye.

Yes, peacegirl, it does prove it. You keep telling everyone that we see everything instantly, that if God turned on the sun at noon we would see it instantly, even though it takes the light eight minutes to reach the eye. If this were true, everyone, in every reference frame, would see everything instantly, and all agree on what they saw and what time it happened. The relativity of simultaneity proves that this is not the case. From the relativity of simultaneity we also get time dilation, which would be impossible in a world of real-time seeing. We went over this with you again and again at FF. Your cellphone has a GPS. Every time you use your phone for directions or to find the location of something, you are refuting your author’s claims.This is because the GPS in your phone must account for both gravitational and relativistic time dilation. But time dilation would not happen in a world of real-time seeing.

I’m not going to argue with you because you believe time is a dimension that can contract and dilate. Einstein said so. There is no way we will ever meet on grounds that we can agree upon, so let’s leave this subject for now. I know you won’t.

It’s not because Einstein said it. It’s because it’s true. Einstein was just the first to discover it is true. It has been experimentally demonstrated countless different times and ways. As I just told you, the GPS device in your phone is designed to take into account gravitational and relativistic time dilation. And yes, time is a dimension. Einstein demonstrated that we live in a four dimensional universe, three dimensions of space and one of time. Finally, do you really not understand that matter and energy are the same thing, in two different apparent forms? And that you can convert one to the other? Have you never heard of E=mc²?

 

[steve_bank]

peacegirl

There has been a lot of lengthy posts, if you would humor me please state clearly in your own words exactly what you mean by real time versus delayed sight.

No

Real time sight is a,b,c...
Delayed sight is d,e,f...

Don'trfefer me to yuur author, in your own words.

No

Okey dokey.

You have a strong belief in the work of a long dead author. You promote it on the net and you said you approached people with the book looking for interest. You were rejected and expressed anger.

You derive meaning and identity from the belief, and when your identity is challenged you feel threatened.

An old cliche. Philosopher know yourself, or before you fix the world fix yourself.

Personal and group identities challenged is a major cause of conflict.

Nothing profound, I observed it over years of debate with Christians on the forum. Christians have a strong belief in a long dead Jew and beve global Chrtnity will make things right.

The form is always the same, content varies.

 

[pood]

peacegirl

There has been a lot of lengthy posts, if you would humor me please state clearly in your own words exactly what you mean by real time versus delayed sight.

No

Real time sight is a,b,c...
Delayed sight is d,e,f...

Don'trfefer me to yuur author, in your own words.

No

That certainly is an informative response.

 

[pood]

4D spacetime

I might add, as a historical footnote of interest, the writer H.G. Wells, several years before Einstein, posited time as the fourth dimension in his grand novel The Time Machine. He just did not derive relativity theory from it. But Wells pointed out the obvious fact that you cannot have an instantaneous cube. In addition to length, width, and height (three spatial dimensions) a cube, and anything else, must have duration. That means time is a dimension by the very definition of the word. Einstein’s insight was to fuse all four dimensions into spacetime.

 

[peacegirl]

How Roemer calculated the speed of light via Jupiter eclipsing Io.

It has nothing to do with any elliptical orbits. All orbits are elliptical. It has to do with the fact it takes longer for the eclipse to be detected the farther away earth is from Jupiter. Earth’s distance from other planets is always changing. Roemer not only was able to approximately calculate the speed of light, it was proof positive that we do not see in real time.

If orbits were elliptical and not round, the light would take longer or shorter to reach earth depending on where the moon was in its orbit.

Yes, peacegirl, if orbits were elliptical OR if they were circular it would take longer or shorter for the light to reach our eye so that we could see! That’s the whole point.

Huh? What's the whole point? The conclusion drawn is not conclusive. It's amazing how one belief stacks upon another for confirmation bias. It's hard to overcome and it may be impossible for Lessans.

Look at the picture in the linked page. E1 earth is closer to J1 Jupiter than E2 earth is to J2 Jupiter. Thus the light from J2 must travel a greater distance to E2, than the light from J1 must travel to E1. If we see everything instantly, as you keep telling us. this difference in distance would make NO DIFFERENCE. But there IS a difference! This is proof positive that we do not see in real time, but in delayed time. Edited to add: notice that the orbits are depicted as circular, even though they are actually elliptical. But circular or elliptical make no difference.

What do you mean it makes no difference? It makes a difference as far as the timing of io being seen.

The time differential in detecting the light conclusively rules out real-time seeing, because if we saw in real time, there would be no differential at all, regardless of whether the orbits were circular or elliptical.

I don't agree. What I am saying is that there are other causes than seeing Jupiter's io in delayed time. We will have to agree to disagree, which is the status quo.

 

[pood]

How Roemer calculated the speed of light via Jupiter eclipsing Io.

It has nothing to do with any elliptical orbits. All orbits are elliptical. It has to do with the fact it takes longer for the eclipse to be detected the farther away earth is from Jupiter. Earth’s distance from other planets is always changing. Roemer not only was able to approximately calculate the speed of light, it was proof positive that we do not see in real time.

If orbits were elliptical and not round, the light would take longer or shorter to reach earth depending on where the moon was in its orbit.

Yes, peacegirl, if orbits were elliptical OR if they were circular it would take longer or shorter for the light to reach our eye so that we could see! That’s the whole point.

Huh? What's the whole point? The conclusion drawn is not conclusive. It's amazing how one belief stacks upon another for confirmation bias. It's hard to overcome and it may be impossible for Lessans.

Look at the picture in the linked page. E1 earth is closer to J1 Jupiter than E2 earth is to J2 Jupiter. Thus the light from J2 must travel a greater distance to E2, than the light from J1 must travel to E1. If we see everything instantly, as you keep telling us. this difference in distance would make NO DIFFERENCE. But there IS a difference! This is proof positive that we do not see in real time, but in delayed time. Edited to add: notice that the orbits are depicted as circular, even though they are actually elliptical. But circular or elliptical make no difference.

What do you mean it makes no difference? It makes a difference as far as the timing of io being seen.

The time differential in detecting the light conclusively rules out real-time seeing, because if we saw in real time, there would be no differential at all, regardless of whether the orbits were circular or elliptical.

I don't agree. What I am saying is that there are other causes than seeing Jupiter's io in delayed time. We will have to agree to disagree, which is the status quo.

Peacegirl, look at the diagram in the link. Even a kindergartner could understand it, and what it means. It means when earth is farther away from Jupiter and Io it takes a longer tine for the light to reach our eyes to enable us to see what is going on, thus completely ruling out real-time seeing. Your astonishing display of willful ignorance on these matters is the worst I have ever seen, even worse than that of young-earth creationists.

 

[peacegirl]

How Roemer calculated the speed of light via Jupiter eclipsing Io.

It has nothing to do with any elliptical orbits. All orbits are elliptical. It has to do with the fact it takes longer for the eclipse to be detected the farther away earth is from Jupiter. Earth’s distance from other planets is always changing. Roemer not only was able to approximately calculate the speed of light, it was proof positive that we do not see in real time.

If orbits were elliptical and not round, the light would take longer or shorter to reach earth depending on where the moon was in its orbit.

Yes, peacegirl, if orbits were elliptical OR if they were circular it would take longer or shorter for the light to reach our eye so that we could see! That’s the whole point.

Huh? What's the whole point? The conclusion drawn is not conclusive. It's amazing how one belief stacks upon another for confirmation bias. It's hard to overcome and it may be impossible for Lessans.

Look at the picture in the linked page. E1 earth is closer to J1 Jupiter than E2 earth is to J2 Jupiter. Thus the light from J2 must travel a greater distance to E2, than the light from J1 must travel to E1. If we see everything instantly, as you keep telling us. this difference in distance would make NO DIFFERENCE. But there IS a difference! This is proof positive that we do not see in real time, but in delayed time. Edited to add: notice that the orbits are depicted as circular, even though they are actually elliptical. But circular or elliptical make no difference.

What do you mean it makes no difference? It makes a difference as far as the timing of io being seen.

The time differential in detecting the light conclusively rules out real-time seeing, because if we saw in real time, there would be no differential at all, regardless of whether the orbits were circular or elliptical.

I don't agree. What I am saying is that there are other causes than seeing Jupiter's io in delayed time. We will have to agree to disagree, which is the status quo.

Peacegirl, look at the diagram in the link. Even a kindergartner could understand it, and what it means. It means when earth is farther away from Jupiter and Io it takes a longer tine for the light to reach our eyes to enable us to see what is going on, thus completely ruling out real-time seeing. Your astonishing display of willful ignorance on these matters is the worst I have ever seen, even worse than that of young-earth creationists.

This is not willful ignorance. It's a conclusion that is not as airtight as you may believe. I'm not going to argue with you. All I can do is show you his observations and reasoning thereof. If you don't agree, then don't agree. It's really okay although his observations would have a major impact on how we see each other, which will be delayed unfortunately.

The moon could show itself at different times of the year to be slower than normal without it being caused by delayed light. We could be seeing the moon as it is in real time without any contradiction.

 

[peacegirl]

You can believe whatever you want. You still haven't shown me that dogs recognize their master from a computer screen or in human form without any other cues. They should be able to if the image is traveling to their eye.

As we have explained to a million times, images don’t travel to the eye. Light does. The image is formed in the brain. Why are you changing the subject from Io and the special theory of relativity? I have demonstrated to you that the findings in both cases would be impossible if we saw without a light delay.

It really doesn't disprove Lessans' observations. Lightning would be seen in different frames of reference because it's not matter; it's electricity. IOW, it's not an object. Do you understand why this doesn't apply?

Lightning has the physicai properties of matter/energy. Matter can be converted to energy. Energy can be converted to matter. Matter and energy are interchangeable.

That's not what I read. They said they are working on it, but regardless, for the purposes of this thread it's not important because the example showed lightning which is electromagnetic energy.

https://www.science.org/content/article/presto-light-creates-matter

Peacegirl, for heaven sake, did you even read the article that you linked??

For the purposes of this thread (so as not to go off the beaten track), lightning is pure electricity. We see lightning when it strikes not as mass, but as electrostatic discharges. This is the real deal, not an experiment where light collides with other light to create mass. Even if that works, it doesn't change how lightning works in nature. When it strikes, we see it as it is in real time before we hear thunder but not because of how fast light travels but because of real time vision, where thunder takes time to reach the ear.

If we are watching the sky, we see the lightning before we hear the thunder. That is because light travels much faster than sound waves. We can estimate the distance of the lightning by counting how many seconds it takes until we hear the thunder. It takes approximately 5 seconds for the sound to travel 1 mile. If the thunder follows the lightning almost instantly, you know the lightning is too close for comfort!


Making matter

Past experiments have transformed light into matter, but all these required the additional presence of massive, high-energy particles, or required more than seven photons to create a pair of electrons and positrons, "clearly a more complex process," Pike said.

Turning Light into Matter May Soon Be Possible

Scientists may soon create matter entirely from light, using technology that is already available to complete a quest 80 years in the making.

www.livescience.com

 

[peacegirl]

How Roemer calculated the speed of light via Jupiter eclipsing Io.

It has nothing to do with any elliptical orbits. All orbits are elliptical. It has to do with the fact it takes longer for the eclipse to be detected the farther away earth is from Jupiter. Earth’s distance from other planets is always changing. Roemer not only was able to approximately calculate the speed of light, it was proof positive that we do not see in real time.

If orbits were elliptical and not round, the light would take longer or shorter to reach earth depending on where the moon was in its orbit.

Yes, peacegirl, if orbits were elliptical OR if they were circular it would take longer or shorter for the light to reach our eye so that we could see! That’s the whole point.

Huh? What's the whole point? The conclusion drawn is not conclusive. It's amazing how one belief stacks upon another for confirmation bias. It's hard to overcome and it may be impossible for Lessans.

Look at the picture in the linked page. E1 earth is closer to J1 Jupiter than E2 earth is to J2 Jupiter. Thus the light from J2 must travel a greater distance to E2, than the light from J1 must travel to E1. If we see everything iThe time differential in detecting the light conclusively rules out real-time seeing, because if we saw in real time, there would be no differential at all, regardless of whether the orbits were circular or elliptical.

I don't agree. What I am saying is that there are other causes than seeing Jupiter's io in delayed time. We will have to agree to disagree, which is the status quo.

Peacegirl, look at the diagram in the link. Even a kindergartner could understand it, and what it means. It means when earth is farther away from Jupiter and Io it takes a longer tine for the light to reach our eyes to enable us to see what is going on, thus completely ruling out real-time seeing. Your astonishing display of willful ignorance on these matters is the worst I have ever seen, even worse than that of young-earth creationists.

What can I say? I believe Lessans was right not because daddy said so but because it makes sense. You still haven't understood anything because you're too busy trying to dispute it, so you have no room to talk.

 

[steve_bank]

Peacegirl

When yiu look at look at videos and links in your quest to prove what it is you are trying to prove, keep in mind a lot of it on the net is pseudo science, scifi speculation, or speculation on what MAY be possible.

Speculation goes on all the time in science. In the news there is a continuous stream of reporting on what is presented as a break through or astounding discovery, while it is not. A lot of media hype to fill air time.

You are unable to say what you mean by delayed light and real time seeing.That discredits you and yiur claims.

Over tall the threads I have not seen a clear definition of what you are trying to prove.

The onus is on you for clarity and details.

 

[pood]

The moon could show itself at different times of the year to be slower than normal without it being caused by delayed light. We could be seeing the moon as it is in real time without any contradiction.

If we saw in real-tine, we would notice the slowdown immediately. Instead, we only notice things when the light reaches our eyes, which always takes time.

 

[pood]

You can believe whatever you want. You still haven't shown me that dogs recognize their master from a computer screen or in human form without any other cues. They should be able to if the image is traveling to their eye.

As we have explained to a million times, images don’t travel to the eye. Light does. The image is formed in the brain. Why are you changing the subject from Io and the special theory of relativity? I have demonstrated to you that the findings in both cases would be impossible if we saw without a light delay.

It really doesn't disprove Lessans' observations. Lightning would be seen in different frames of reference because it's not matter; it's electricity. IOW, it's not an object. Do you understand why this doesn't apply?

Lightning has the physicai properties of matter/energy. Matter can be converted to energy. Energy can be converted to matter. Matter and energy are interchangeable.

That's not what I read. They said they are working on it, but regardless, for the purposes of this thread it's not important because the example showed lightning which is electromagnetic energy.

https://www.science.org/content/article/presto-light-creates-matter

Peacegirl, for heaven sake, did you even read the article that you linked??

For the purposes of this thread (so as not to go off the beaten track), lightning is pure electricity. We see lightning when it strikes not as mass, but as electrostatic discharges. This is the real deal, not an experiment where light collides with other light to create mass. Even if that works, it doesn't change how lightning works in nature. When it strikes, we see it as it is in real time before we hear thunder but not because of how fast light travels but because of real time vision, where thunder takes time to reach the ear.

If we are watching the sky, we see the lightning before we hear the thunder. That is because light travels much faster than sound waves. We can estimate the distance of the lightning by counting how many seconds it takes until we hear the thunder. It takes approximately 5 seconds for the sound to travel 1 mile. If the thunder follows the lightning almost instantly, you know the lightning is too close for comfort!


Making matter

Past experiments have transformed light into matter, but all these required the additional presence of massive, high-energy particles, or required more than seven photons to create a pair of electrons and positrons, "clearly a more complex process," Pike said.

Turning Light into Matter May Soon Be Possible

Scientists may soon create matter entirely from light, using technology that is already available to complete a quest 80 years in the making.

www.livescience.com

Peaceful, don’t you read your own links, or watch your videos? Did you notice where it says “That is because light travels must faster than sound waves”? It means there is a short delay in seeing the lightning, a longer delay in hearing the thunder.

Which, by the way, directly contradicts your writer, who said we hear the sound of a plane before we see the plane.