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

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

No you didn't.

Yes, I did.

You made a statement.

I have made statements, sure, but those are explanations and logical arguments directly attached to the empirical evidence and proofs I have submitted to this thread.

You didn't show me any proof that we see an object or event at different times depending on our location.

I certainly did. I showed that two spacecraft located vast distances apart detect the exact same solar flare at different times. These time differences are completely consistent with the time it takes light to travel at its finite speed from the flare to each separate craft.

The photons these digital sensors are detecting are precisely the same photons that would strike a human eye if a person were standing at those exact locations. There is no physical difference in how a sensor and an eye operate here: photoreceptors can only interact with the photons that are physically present at the eye after traveling through space.

I am not talking about light being used as a measurement for technology. That's a different story.

It isn't a different story. Physics doesn't work one way for technology and a completely different way for human biology.

Furthermore, you don't even need technology to prove this. Others in this thread have already brought up Fizeau's Wheel. This completely disproves the idea of real-time sight, with or without modern digital sensors.

 

[DBT]

And what we do see is based on the light that was emitted or reflected by the objects in our environment, which entails travel time between the objects and the eyes and brain for processing and representing as vision.

Which means that the authors claim is wrong.

You’re rejecting the whole claim because you won’t allow yourself to see that there is no violation of physics. Light travels at 186,000 miles a second but light that is reflected off an object (the wavelength/frequency) does not become the pattern that takes on a life of its own. The object’s reflection is constantly being replaced with new photons but we are seeing that object now. If the object changes its characteristics, we will see this change instantly, not in delayed time. You keep thinking in terms of traveling (reflected) light that brings the past to us through space/time, which is why you’re unable to visualize how this works or that it even can work. I know this is hard. I hope you don’t give up.

We only see the object changing because it is either emitting or reflecting light. Without the light, we see nothing. Pitch black.

Quite simply, we don't see objects without light. The eyes detect light. That is their function. Easily testable, go into a dark room, flip the light switch......

Our eyes detect light. There is no gap between the light that is at our eyes and the object seen.

The light that is "at our eyes" travelled from the object to the eyes, and that entails distance and time.

There is no way around it.

That’s where you’re wrong! Light is always traveling but the image is not.

There is no travelling image. Light conveys information that the eyes convert into nerve impulses which the visual cortex processes and uses to generate mental imagery in the form of sight. We see the world around us through the means of this process.

The visual cortex processes what the eyes see. There is no dispute here, but the mental imagery is not true vision. It is a negative that shows up like in a camera. Does this not make you question the entire theory behind delayed vision? I know that this theory has gotten a foothold in the world of physics, and for Lessans to dispute this is almost an effort in futility because it's blasphemous. I hope that people here will see that he was not wrong in his observations.

Sight, what we see, is based on information acquired by the eyes when they detect light and transmit information to the brain. That is it. That is the mechanism, the means of vision, there is nothing else, there is nothing separate at work.

You are in a dark room, you see nothing, you flip the light switch and you can see. You can see because the eyes detect light and the brain makes sense of it.

Where in the world does turning on a lightbulb in a dark room prove his claim wrong? Show me.

The eyes detect the light that is emitted by the source and reflected from the walls and objects in the room. The light was never at the eye instantly. It takes time for light to travel from the source and the objects in the room to the eyes and brain.....which is a matter of time and distance, which means the authors claim is wrong.

 

[pood]

Furthermore, you don't even need technology to prove this. Others in this thread have already brought up Fizeau's Wheel. This completely disproves the idea of real-time sight, with or without modern digital sensors.

SHE brought up the Fizeau wheel in this thread. But people introduced it to her 15 years ago. It decisively disproves her real-time seeing — along with countless other disproofs.

So I have to wonder, why did she bring it up? Apparently because she was pretending that I had asked her how to measure the speed of light.

But that was NOT what I was asking her — and she knows this. I was asking her how it would possible to measure a finite speed of light IF we saw in real time. And you CANNOT do that — if we saw instantly, the only conclusion would be that the speed of light is infinite, and not c.

 

[peacegirl]

No you didn't.

Yes, I did.

You made a statement.

I have made statements, sure, but those are explanations and logical arguments directly attached to the empirical evidence and proofs I have submitted to this thread.

And so are my explanations and logical arguments directly attached to the empirical evidence and proofs. There is no absolute proof that we see in delayed time due to the finite speed of light.

You didn't show me any proof that we see an object or event at different times depending on our location.

I certainly did. I showed that two spacecraft located vast distances apart detect the exact same solar flare at different times. These time differences are completely consistent with the time it takes light to travel at its finite speed from the flare to each separate craft..

I would think that in order to see a flare almost instantly, it would have to meet the requirements of brightness and distance.

Can Two Spacecraft See a Solar Flare Almost Instantly?​

Yes — in principle, two spacecraft orbiting the Sun can detect a solar flare almost instantly if they are close enough in distance and the flare is bright enough, even if one is much closer to the Sun than the other.

Why “almost instantly” is possible
A solar flare is an intense burst of electromagnetic radiation (visible light, ultraviolet, X-rays, and more) from the Sun’s surface. This radiation travels outward at the speed of light (about 300,000 km/s). If two spacecraft are within a few minutes’ light-travel time of each other, they can see the flare’s light almost simultaneously. For example, if one spacecraft is at 0.1 AU (about 15 million km) from the Sun and the other at 0.3 AU (about 45 million km), the light from the flare will reach them in roughly 50 seconds — a fraction of a minute, not a day.

Real-world examples
NASA’s Parker Solar Probe, which orbits the Sun much closer than Earth, can detect flares and coronal mass ejections (CMEs) in real time from its vantage point. When a flare occurs, its instruments can capture the event within seconds of the Sun, and if another spacecraft is nearby, it can also detect the same flare almost immediately Science Mission Directorate+1.

In 2024, scientists combined data from Solar Orbiter (orbiting the Sun) and Solar Dynamics Observatory (orbiting Earth) to track a massive solar active region for 94 days, showing how spacecraft at different distances can complement each other in monitoring solar events ScienceDaily.

Limitations

• Distance matters: If the spacecraft are far apart (e.g., one at Mercury’s orbit and one at Jupiter’s), the light travel time could be minutes to hours, so “almost instantly” only applies to relatively nearby orbits.
• Detection vs. imaging: While the light can arrive almost instantly, the spacecraft may not “see” the flare until their instruments process the data, which takes time.
• Event type: Very weak flares may not be detectable at all, especially from a spacecraft farther away.

Bottom line
If two spacecraft are within a few minutes’ light-travel distance of each other, they can detect a solar flare almost instantly. This is why missions like Parker Solar Probe and Solar Orbiter are so valuable — they can provide near-simultaneous observations of the Sun from different angles, greatly improving our ability to study and forecast space weather Science Mission Directorate+2.

The photons these digital sensors are detecting are precisely the same photons that would strike a human eye if a person were standing at those exact locations. There is no physical difference in how a sensor and an eye operate here: photoreceptors can only interact with the photons that are physically present at the eye after traveling through space.

I am not talking about light being used as a measurement for technology. That's a different story.

It isn't a different story. Physics doesn't work one way for technology and a completely different way for human biology.

I agree because the conclusion drawn regarding light was the result of his understanding of the biological process of vision.

Furthermore, you don't even need technology to prove this. Others in this thread have already brought up Fizeau's Wheel. This completely disproves the idea of real-time sight, with or without modern digital sensors.

It does no such thing Don2. The speed of light is not even at issue. He was very clear about that. You obviously think the inference that we would just be seeing the ships coming in hundreds of years in the past is correct, which Lessans disputes.

Our scientists, becoming enthralled over the discovery that light travels approximately 186,000 miles a second and taking for granted that five senses were equally scientific, made the statement (which my friend referred to and still exists in our encyclopedias) that if we could sit on the star Rigel with a very powerful telescope focused on the earth, we would just be able to see the ships of Columbus reaching America for the very first time. A former science teacher who taught this to her students as if it were an absolute fact responded, “I am sure Columbus would just be arriving; are you trying to tell me that this is not a scientific fact?”

 

[DBT]

It takes a measurable amount of time to send signals back and forth to rovers on mars, etc. Which of course includes light. We see the planet as it was when the light was reflected from its surface. We see Mars as it was then, not now.

 

[pood]

No you didn't.

Yes, I did.

You made a statement.

I have made statements, sure, but those are explanations and logical arguments directly attached to the empirical evidence and proofs I have submitted to this thread.

And so are my explanations and logical arguments directly attached to the empirical evidence and proofs. There is no absolute proof that we see in delayed time due to the finite speed of light.

You didn't show me any proof that we see an object or event at different times depending on our location.

I certainly did. I showed that two spacecraft located vast distances apart detect the exact same solar flare at different times. These time differences are completely consistent with the time it takes light to travel at its finite speed from the flare to each separate craft.

A flare may take time to be picked up by the spacecraft until the particles.

Can Two Spacecraft See a Solar Flare Almost Instantly?​

Yes — in principle, two spacecraft orbiting the Sun can detect a solar flare almost instantly if they are close enough in distance and the flare is bright enough, even if one is much closer to the Sun than the other.

Why “almost instantly” is possible
A solar flare is an intense burst of electromagnetic radiation (visible light, ultraviolet, X-rays, and more) from the Sun’s surface. This radiation travels outward at the speed of light (about 300,000 km/s). If two spacecraft are within a few minutes’ light-travel time of each other, they can see the flare’s light almost simultaneously. For example, if one spacecraft is at 0.1 AU (about 15 million km) from the Sun and the other at 0.3 AU (about 45 million km), the light from the flare will reach them in roughly 50 seconds — a fraction of a minute, not a day.

Real-world examples
NASA’s Parker Solar Probe, which orbits the Sun much closer than Earth, can detect flares and coronal mass ejections (CMEs) in real time from its vantage point. When a flare occurs, its instruments can capture the event within seconds of the Sun, and if another spacecraft is nearby, it can also detect the same flare almost immediately Science Mission Directorate+1.

In 2024, scientists combined data from Solar Orbiter (orbiting the Sun) and Solar Dynamics Observatory (orbiting Earth) to track a massive solar active region for 94 days, showing how spacecraft at different distances can complement each other in monitoring solar events ScienceDaily.

Limitations

• Distance matters: If the spacecraft are far apart (e.g., one at Mercury’s orbit and one at Jupiter’s), the light travel time could be minutes to hours, so “almost instantly” only applies to relatively nearby orbits.
• Detection vs. imaging: While the light can arrive almost instantly, the spacecraft may not “see” the flare until their instruments process the data, which takes time.
• Event type: Very weak flares may not be detectable at all, especially from a spacecraft farther away.

Bottom line
If two spacecraft are within a few minutes’ light-travel distance of each other, they can detect a solar flare almost instantly. This is why missions like Parker Solar Probe and Solar Orbiter are so valuable — they can provide near-simultaneous observations of the Sun from different angles, greatly improving our ability to study and forecast space weather Science Mission Directorate+2.

The photons these digital sensors are detecting are precisely the same photons that would strike a human eye if a person were standing at those exact locations. There is no physical difference in how a sensor and an eye operate here: photoreceptors can only interact with the photons that are physically present at the eye after traveling through space.

I am not talking about light being used as a measurement for technology. That's a different story.

It isn't a different story. Physics doesn't work one way for technology and a completely different way for human biology.

I agree because the conclusion drawn regarding light was the result of his understanding of the biological process of vision.

Furthermore, you don't even need technology to prove this. Others in this thread have already brought up Fizeau's Wheel. This completely disproves the idea of real-time sight, with or without modern digital sensors.

It does no such thing Don2. The speed of light is not even at issue. He was very clear about that. You obviously think the inference that we would just be seeing the ships coming in hundreds of years in the past is correct, which Lessans disputes.

Our scientists, becoming enthralled over the discovery that light travels approximately 186,000 miles a second and taking for granted that five senses were equally scientific, made the statement (which my friend referred to and still exists in our encyclopedias) that if we could sit on the star Rigel with a very powerful telescope focused on the earth, we would just be able to see the ships of Columbus reaching America for the very first time. A former science teacher who taught this to her students as if it were an absolute fact responded, “I am sure Columbus would just be arriving; are you trying to tell me that this is not a scientific fact?”

Are you really so clueless that you fail to understand that what you just posted completely disagrees with real-time seeing and completely agrees with what we have been telling you?

Did you somehow miss this, for example?

• Distance matters: If the spacecraft are far apart (e.g., one at Mercury’s orbit and one at Jupiter’s), the light travel time could be minutes to hours, so “almost instantly” only applies to relatively nearby orbits.