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

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

You are splitting hairs by trying to make me look wrong.

You look wrong because you are wrong, generally. Sometimes, you write something that is correct, but most of the time, not so.

You and everyone else know what I mean by now.

Not really because you often obfuscate contradictions with vagueness and the wrong selection of technical terms. For example, see below.

Light is light, true, but the light that strikes an object is not taking on that wavelength/frequency

Oh LORDIE! Two problems here. (1) Wavelength and frequency and TWO SEPARATE THINGS. You can't keep running around in the thread using "wavelength/frequency" as a concept and expect everything you say to be universally true for each instance you do so. In this particular instance, wavelength DOES change with the medium that light travels in: glass, water, air, etc. Frequency does not. (2) Now you are using the word "that" as a referent to something you haven't brought up and so it is vague. For all appearances, it looks like you think the medium has a wavelength that is being discussed. That wouldn't make sense as an antecedent and so a valid interpretation is missing due to your ambiguity.

and traveling in delayed time to the eye. That's why I said photons travel with an intrinsic property of their own before and after striking matter.

They do, but it is not wavelength because as light travels through different media, both the speed and wavelength change.

A photon always has a wavelength before it strikes an object, because its wavelength is an intrinsic property determined by its energy and frequency, not by any interaction with matter.

This is false: the wavelength of light is intrinsically linked to its frequency, but its actual value in space is determined by the medium it occupies. You cannot define the wavelength of a photon in a medium without accounting for the medium's refractive index (n). The equations are as follows:

First, the frequency (f) is fixed by the source:
f = c / lambda_vac

Where c is the speed of light in a vacuum and lambda_vac is the vacuum wavelength.

When that light enters a medium with a refractive index n, the wavelength lambda_n becomes:
lambda_n = lambda_vac / n

Because n is a property of the medium (extrinsic to the photon), the wavelength lambda changes as the light moves from a vacuum (or air) into glass or water (for examples). Therefore, wavelength is not an intrinsic property; it is a product of the photon's interaction with the medium.

 

[DBT]

No rational explanation has been given. Plenty of the opposite though, explanations that make no sense.

 

[peacegirl]

You are splitting hairs by trying to make me look wrong.

You look wrong because you are wrong, generally. Sometimes, you write something that is correct, but most of the time, not so.

You and everyone else know what I mean by now.

Not really because you often obfuscate contradictions with vagueness and the wrong selection of technical terms. For example, see below.

The object's reflection is the same whether it travels through space/time or not. Call it what you will, that isn't even the issue. The issue is whether that reflective light reveals or brings.

Light is light, true, but the light that strikes an object is not taking on that wavelength/frequency

Oh LORDIE! Two problems here. (1) Wavelength and frequency and TWO SEPARATE THINGS. You can't keep running around in the thread using "wavelength/frequency" as a concept and expect everything you say to be universally true for each instance you do so. In this particular instance, wavelength DOES change with the medium that light travels in: glass, water, air, etc. Frequency does not. (2) Now you are using the word "that" as a referent to something you haven't brought up and so it is vague. For all appearances, it looks like you think the medium has a wavelength that is being discussed. That wouldn't make sense as an antecedent and so a valid interpretation is missing due to your ambiguity.

None of this alters the soundness of the claim. You are focused on the conclusion regarding light without paying attention to its first premise. Conclusions come after, not before a proof. If I used the wrong term, sorry, but it doesn't change the point that whatever is seen in delayed time is seen in real time. The only difference is that we would be seeing the world in the present, not the past. Let's focus on that, not a detail that is a distraction.
-------------------------------------

When light passes through a medium, its wavelength changes, but its frequency remains constant.

This happens because the frequency of a light wave is determined solely by the source that produced it. Once a wave is generated, the number of wave crests passing a point per second (the frequency) does not change as it moves from one medium to another scienceinsights.org+1.

The speed of light, however, depends on the optical properties of the medium (such as its refractive index). In a denser medium, light slows down, and in a less dense medium, it speeds up

and traveling in delayed time to the eye. That's why I said photons travel with an intrinsic property of their own before and after striking matter.

They do, but it is not wavelength because as light travels through different media, both the speed and wavelength change.

Got it. Thank you for the info, but it's still a distraction.

A photon always has a wavelength before it strikes an object, because its wavelength is an intrinsic property determined by its energy and frequency, not by any interaction with matter.

This is false: the wavelength of light is intrinsically linked to its frequency, but its actual value in space is determined by the medium it occupies. You cannot define the wavelength of a photon in a medium without accounting for the medium's refractive index (n). The equations are as follows:

First, the frequency (f) is fixed by the source:
f = c / lambda_vac

Where c is the speed of light in a vacuum and lambda_vac is the vacuum wavelength.

When that light enters a medium with a refractive index n, the wavelength lambda_n becomes:
lambda_n = lambda_vac / n

Because n is a property of the medium (extrinsic to the photon), the wavelength lambda changes as the light moves from a vacuum (or air) into glass or water (for examples). Therefore, wavelength is not an intrinsic property; it is a product of the photon's interaction with the medium.

I meant that a photon has an intrinsic wavelength in a vacuum, but it is essential to understand that even though the wavelength changes (not the frequency) depending on the medium it goes through does not in any way disprove the claim that whatever is seen in delayed time is seen in real time. Nothing changes other than the tense that goes from past to present. This supports his claim.

https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=2cdb...XZlbGluZyt0aHJvdWdoK2MmZm9ybT1DU0JSQU5E&ntb=1
Does a Photon’s Wavelength Change Permanently When It Interacts with Matter?

When light (a photon) strikes matter and changes its wavelength, that change is temporary and depends on the interaction type. The key point is that frequency (and thus the photon’s “intrinsic” energy) remains constant unless the photon is absorbed and re‑emitted or its energy is altered in some other way British Columbia/Yukon Open Authoring Platform+1.

Why the Wavelength Changes in a Medium​

In a transparent medium like glass or water, light slows down because it interacts with the atoms. The speed in the medium is v=c/n, where n is the index of refraction. Since c=fλ (frequency × wavelength = speed), if v decreases and f stays the same, the wavelength λn in the medium becomes shorter than in vacuum British Columbia/Yukon Open Authoring Platform+1. This is a wave effect — the photon’s frequency is unchanged, but the wave “fits” into the medium’s structure with a shorter wavelength.

When the Wavelength Returns to Vacuum Value​

If the light exits the medium back into vacuum, the speed returns to c and the wavelength reverts to its original vacuum value. The photon’s frequency is unchanged, so the wavelength in vacuum is the same as before the interaction British Columbia/Yukon Open Authoring Platform.

Non‑Linear or Absorptive Interactions​

If the interaction is absorptive (e.g., the photon is absorbed by an atom and re‑emitted at a different frequency), the wavelength change is permanent for that photon. In this case, the photon’s energy is altered, and it will continue with the new frequency/wavelength in vacuum. This is how spectroscopy works — matter can absorb and emit light at specific wavelengths Science Mission Directorate.

 

[bilby]

It was explained. It must have either gone over your head, or you didn't understand the claim or why it matters.

That's not an answer to this very simple question:

3a) Therefore there is a space between me and the Moon
We agree on this part:

... there is space between you and the moon.

3b) that must be crossed

Do you agree? If not, why not?

Does that space need to be crossed, or not? - That's a "Yes" or "No" question.

If not, why not? - First answer the question; Then explain why or why not. Without trying to weasel out by claiming that you already did; We are starting over from very simple basics. We are not talking about the how, at all; Just about what happens at the simplest possible level.

 

[peacegirl]

It was explained. It must have either gone over your head, or you didn't understand the claim or why it matters.

That's not an answer to this very simple question:

3a) Therefore there is a space between me and the Moon
We agree on this part:

... there is space between you and the moon.

3b) that must be crossed

Do you agree? If not, why not?

Does that space need to be crossed, or not? - That's a "Yes" or "No" question.

If the astronauts are traveling to the Moon, of course, there has to be a space to be crossed. We also know there is space when we look at the Moon, but that doesn't mean we are seeing the Moon 1.3 seconds later versus seeing the Moon in real time.

If not, why not? - First answer the question; Then explain why or why not. Without trying to weasel out by claiming that you already did; We are starting over from very simple basics. We are not talking about the how, at all; Just about what happens at the simplest possible level.

I just answered you. If the brain is looking through the eyes, as a window to the outside world, then light is doing nothing other than revealing, not bringing. It is a bridge that allows us to see; it doesn't strike, bounce off, and take the object's reflection with it through space/time. We all know light is essential, but in this version of sight, there is no travel time at all. I think this is where there is a breakdown in understanding. I could repeat this same account a hundred times, and I am not sure if it will ever sink in. Scientists believe we are not looking at the object at all; we are receiving the raw material that has to be reconstructed in the brain. If this is where you begin your analysis, you will never understand his claim. According to Lessans, reflected light does not travel independently of the source. We can see the source, object, or event as long as light hasn't dispersed (the inverse square law) to where it is no longer visible. Telescopes cannot gather light to magnify an object if the object is no longer within view. This is the complete opposite of what scientists claim. It's no wonder you don't get it. If you believe that light travels forever and ever with a particular wavelength/frequency in a vacuum, then it would not be far-fetched to believe that if we were on the star Rigel, we would just be seeing Columbus discovering America. But if light reveals what is going on in the present (in real time), the idea that light from centuries ago could travel through space/time and end up on our telescopes or eyes is complete science fiction. But you won't entertain the idea because in your mind, I'm just someone whom you're trying to expose as a fraud.

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Written to peacegirl:

But we are not talking about the same thing when it comes to the eyes, which is the ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM, because the finite speed of light has nothing to do with it.

The finite speed of light has EVERYTHING to do with this.

How did we measure a finite speed for light in the first place, if we see in real time?

Got an answer for that yet?

Of course not!

To put this another way and in the context of Fizeau, how did Fizeau measure the amount of time it took photons to reach his eye over the distance of the experiment if the photons were reaching his eye instantly?

 

[peacegirl]

Written to peacegirl:

But we are not talking about the same thing when it comes to the eyes, which is the ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM, because the finite speed of light has nothing to do with it.

The finite speed of light has EVERYTHING to do with this.

How did we measure a finite speed for light in the first place, if we see in real time?

Got an answer for that yet?

Of course not!

To put this another way and in the context of Fizeau, how did Fizeau measure the amount of time it took photons to reach his eye over the distance of the experiment if the photons were reaching his eye instantly?

The photons were not reaching his eye instantly. The words "reach" and "instant" are misleading and sound like magic. He was watching the experiment in real time while measuring the speed of light. Light travels; no one is denying that. To reiterate, Fizeau was watching the wheel spin in real time, even though light was traveling to the mirror and back at a finite speed and capable of being measured. There is no way anyone could use this example to prove the direction we see, whether afferent or efferent, because light travels so fast. Lessans purposely gave the hypothetical example to show why we would see the Sun turned on first and each other, 8.5 minutes later, for that very reason.

CHAPTER FOUR: WORDS, NOT REALITY

p, 116 To paraphrase this another way, if you could sit upon the star Rigel with a telescope powerful enough to see me writing this very moment, you would see me at the exact same time that a person sitting right next to me would, which brings us to another very interesting point. If I couldn’t see you standing right next to me because we were living in total darkness since the sun had not yet been turned on, but God was scheduled to flip the switch at 12 noon, we would be able to see the sun instantly — at that very moment — although we would not be able to see each other for 8 minutes afterwards. The sun at 12 noon would look exactly like a large star, the only difference being that in 8 minutes we would have light with which to see each other, but the stars are so far away that their light diminishes before it gets to us.

 

[DBT]

The 'direction we see' is not controversial.

The eye has evolved to detect light and transmit information to the brain. Light has travel time between its source and the eyes and brain.

That is the so called 'direction.'

 

[peacegirl]

The 'direction we see' is not controversial.

The eye has evolved to detect light and transmit information to the brain. Light has travel time between its source and the eyes and brain.

That is the so called 'direction.'

The eyes DO detect light, and information IS transmitted to the brain in both accounts, so it’s a moot point you’re making.

 

[bilby]

It was explained. It must have either gone over your head, or you didn't understand the claim or why it matters.

That's not an answer to this very simple question:

3a) Therefore there is a space between me and the Moon
We agree on this part:

... there is space between you and the moon.

3b) that must be crossed

Do you agree? If not, why not?

Does that space need to be crossed, or not? - That's a "Yes" or "No" question.

If the astronauts are traveling to the Moon, of course, there has to be a space to be crossed.

What fucking astronauts?? Stop changing the subject, and just answer the question.

We also know there is space when we look at the Moon, but that doesn't mean we are seeing the Moon 1.3 seconds later versus seeing the Moon in real time.

But there is a space, that needs to be crossed by something, in order for us to see the Moon, right?

If not, why not? - First answer the question; Then explain why or why not. Without trying to weasel out by claiming that you already did; We are starting over from very simple basics. We are not talking about the how, at all; Just about what happens at the simplest possible level.

I just answered you.

No, you made a wild diversion into talking about astronauts. Can you please try to stick to the topic?

If the brain is looking through the eyes, as a window to the outside world, then light is doing nothing other than revealing, not bringing.

OK. Then how is the gap crossed?

There is a gap.

How is it crossed, bearing in mind that I can see the Moon without becoming an astronaut?

Simple question.

It is a bridge that allows us to see; it doesn't strike, bounce off, and take the object's reflection with it through space/time.

I don't give a crap what you say doesn't happen. I want you to understand that something that does happen is that the gap is crossed.

We all know light is essential, but in this version of sight, there is no travel time at all. I think this is where there is a breakdown in understanding.

I think your abject failure to concentrate on a simple question, and your determination to bring in pointless and irrelevant distractions (astronauts? Where did they come from??) is where there is a breakdown in understanding.

I could repeat this same account a hundred times, and I am not sure if it will ever sink in.

Indeed, you can distract yourself as much as you want, and never start thinking ablut some simple basic facts. That way, you can avoid ever understanding anything.

Scientists believe we are not looking at the object at all; we are receiving the raw material that has to be reconstructed in the brain.

That's utter bollocks, and a distraction from a very simple question.

If this is where you begin your analysis, you will never understand his claim.

Well, it's a good thing that's not where I begin my analysis. My analysis begins with:
1) I can see the Moon;

According to Lessans, reflected light does not travel independently of the source. We can see the source, object, or event as long as light hasn't dispersed (the inverse square law) to where it is no longer visible. Telescopes cannot gather light to magnify an object if the object is no longer within view. This is the complete opposite of what scientists claim. It's no wonder you don't get it. If you believe that light travels forever and ever with a particular wavelength/frequency in a vacuum, then it would not be far-fetched to believe that if we were on the star Rigel, we would just be seeing Columbus discovering America. But if light reveals what is going on in the present (in real time), the idea that light from centuries ago could travel through space/time and end up on our telescopes or eyes is complete science fiction. But you won't entertain the idea because in your mind, I'm just someone whom you're trying to expose as a fraud.

No, I won't entertain the idea because you are jumping to step 9,756, and have yet to fully address step 3b.

Let's try again; This time, no astronauts, no "according to", no light, no Rigel.

There's a gap between me and the Moon. I can see the Moon. So the gap must be crossed by something. Yes, or no?

 

[DBT]

The 'direction we see' is not controversial.

The eye has evolved to detect light and transmit information to the brain. Light has travel time between its source and the eyes and brain.

That is the so called 'direction.'

The eyes DO detect light, and information IS transmitted to the brain in both accounts, so it’s a moot point you’re making.

Your 'light at the eye/instant vision' claim is falsified by how sight demonstrably works.

 

[peacegirl]

It was explained. It must have either gone over your head, or you didn't understand the claim or why it matters.

That's not an answer to this very simple question:

3a) Therefore there is a space between me and the Moon
We agree on this part:

... there is space between you and the moon.

3b) that must be crossed

Do you agree? If not, why not?

Does that space need to be crossed, or not? - That's a "Yes" or "No" question.

If the astronauts are traveling to the Moon, of course, there has to be a space to be crossed.

What fucking astronauts?? Stop changing the subject, and just answer the question.

That was a perfectly appropriate answer, bilby.

We also know there is space when we look at the Moon, but that doesn't mean we are seeing the Moon 1.3 seconds later versus seeing the Moon in real time.

But there is a space, that needs to be crossed by something, in order for us to see the Moon, right?

There IS a space that we see whether in delayed OR real time. This is what YOU'RE MISSING.

If not, why not? - First answer the question; Then explain why or why not. Without trying to weasel out by claiming that you already did; We are starting over from very simple basics. We are not talking about the how, at all; Just about what happens at the simplest possible level.

I just answered you.

No, you made a wild diversion into talking about astronauts. Can you please try to stick to the topic?

I am sticking to the topic. It was not a wild diversion.

If the brain is looking through the eyes, as a window to the outside world, then light is doing nothing other than revealing, not bringing.

OK. Then how is the gap crossed?

Through space and time.

There is a gap.

How is it crossed, bearing in mind that I can see the Moon without becoming an astronaut?

Simple question.

You're not going to conflate these two different phenomena and expect me to sit by and say nothing.

It is a bridge that allows us to see; it doesn't strike, bounce off, and take the object's reflection with it through space/time.

I don't give a crap what you say doesn't happen. I want you to understand that something that does happen is that the gap is crossed.

Your intimidation is not helpful.

We all know light is essential, but in this version of sight, there is no travel time at all. I think this is where there is a breakdown in understanding.

I think your abject failure to concentrate on a simple question, and your determination to bring in pointless and irrelevant distractions (astronauts? Where did they come from??) is where there is a breakdown in understanding.

It was not an irrelevant distraction regarding astronauts. It was a relevant example that it takes time to go from one place to another whether it is terrestrial or celestial.

I could repeat this same account a hundred times, and I am not sure if it will ever sink in.

Indeed, you can distract yourself as much as you want, and never start thinking ablut some simple basic facts. That way, you can avoid ever understanding anything.

Scientists believe we are not looking at the object at all; we are receiving the raw material that has to be reconstructed in the brain.

That's utter bollocks, and a distraction from a very simple question.

It's not bollocks.

If this is where you begin your analysis, you will never understand his claim.

Well, it's a good thing that's not where I begin my analysis. My analysis begins with:
1) I can see the Moon;

This doesn't change a thing. You're missing the entire concept. You seem to think that because I can see the moon, and there is space between the moon and me, real-time vision can't be true since light travels at a finite speed. Explaining this is much harder than I ever imagined it would be.

According to Lessans, reflected light does not travel independently of the source. We can see the source, object, or event as long as light hasn't dispersed (the inverse square law) to where it is no longer visible. Telescopes cannot gather light to magnify an object if the object is no longer within view. This is the complete opposite of what scientists claim. It's no wonder you don't get it. If you believe that light travels forever and ever with a particular wavelength/frequency in a vacuum, then it would not be far-fetched to believe that if we were on the star Rigel, we would just be seeing Columbus discovering America. But if light reveals what is going on in the present (in real time), the idea that light from centuries ago could travel through space/time and end up on our telescopes or eyes is complete science fiction. But you won't entertain the idea because in your mind, I'm just someone whom you're trying to expose as a fraud.

No, I won't entertain the idea because you are jumping to step 9,756, and have yet to fully address step 3b.

Let's try again; This time, no astronauts, no "according to", no light, no Rigel.

There's a gap between me and the Moon. I can see the Moon. So the gap must be crossed by something. Yes, or no?

You're conflating again. A gap must be crossed if we are physically traveling. But if we are looking at the Moon, and if he was right about the eyes, the gap does not have to be crossed because we're not traveling; we are looking. When we look at the Moon, we know it's not around the corner. That's why I brought up the fact that photons travel with their own intrinsic properties but do not bounce off objects, taking that new pattern (reflection) across space/time. I can feel your exasperation and contempt, but that isn't going to change what I say.

 

[pood]

You're conflating again. A gap must be crossed if we are physically traveling. But if we are looking at the Moon, and if he was right about the eyes,

He was not right about the eyes. What he and you say is not even a coherent claim.

the gap does not have to be crossed because we're not traveling; we are looking.

Of course we are not traveling! Did you imagine someone was saying that in order to see the sun, we must travel to it??

Rather, the LIGHT is traveling, from the sun to our eyes. Since it takes the light just under 8.5 minutes to reach our eyes, we are always seeing the sun as it was some 8.5 minutes in the past.

Case closed.

 

[peacegirl]

You're conflating again. A gap must be crossed if we are physically traveling. But if we are looking at the Moon, and if he was right about the eyes,

He was not right about the eyes. What he and you say is not even a coherent claim.

Saying this does not prove you right. It’s just an assertion based on a belief that is being destroyed.

the gap does not have to be crossed because we're not traveling; we are looking.

Of course we are not traveling! Did you imagine someone was saying that in order to see the sun, we must travel to it??

Rather, the LIGHT is traveling, from the sun to our eyes. Since it takes the light just under 8.5 minutes to reach our eyes, we are always seeing the sun as it was some 8.5 minutes in the past.

Case closed.

No Pood. You are my nemesis but that’s okay knowing that you are trying to understand, which takes an open mind that very few people have. Thank you!.

 

[pood]

You're conflating again. A gap must be crossed if we are physically traveling. But if we are looking at the Moon, and if he was right about the eyes,

He was not right about the eyes. What he and you say is not even a coherent claim.

Saying this does not prove you right. It’s just an assertion based on a belief that is being destroyed.

Looking in the mirror again?

the gap does not have to be crossed because we're not traveling; we are looking.

Of course we are not traveling! Did you imagine someone was saying that in order to see the sun, we must travel to it??

Rather, the LIGHT is traveling, from the sun to our eyes. Since it takes the light just under 8.5 minutes to reach our eyes, we are always seeing the sun as it was some 8.5 minutes in the past.

Case closed.

No Pood. You are my nemesis but that’s okay knowing that you are trying to understand, which takes an open mind that very few people have. Thank you!.

I already understand perfectly well. You have no idea what you are talking about.

I do think it is sad and pathetic that anyone would waste his or her life on such obvious nonsense.

 

[peacegirl]

The details may be different but it certainly applies to this thread.

 

[peacegirl]

The 'direction we see' is not controversial.

The eye has evolved to detect light and transmit information to the brain. Light has travel time between its source and the eyes and brain.

That is the so called 'direction.'

The eyes DO detect light, and information IS transmitted to the brain in both accounts, so it’s a moot point you’re making.

Your 'light at the eye/instant vision' claim is falsified by how sight demonstrably works.

Saying this 1000 more times doesn't make your falsification any more true.

 

[peacegirl]

You're conflating again. A gap must be crossed if we are physically traveling. But if we are looking at the Moon, and if he was right about the eyes,

He was not right about the eyes. What he and you say is not even a coherent claim.

Saying this does not prove you right. It’s just an assertion based on a belief that is being destroyed.

Looking in the mirror again?

the gap does not have to be crossed because we're not traveling; we are looking.

Of course we are not traveling! Did you imagine someone was saying that in order to see the sun, we must travel to it??

Rather, the LIGHT is traveling, from the sun to our eyes. Since it takes the light just under 8.5 minutes to reach our eyes, we are always seeing the sun as it was some 8.5 minutes in the past.

Case closed.

No Pood. You are my nemesis but that’s okay knowing that you are trying to understand, which takes an open mind that very few people have. Thank you!.

I already understand perfectly well. You have no idea what you are talking about.

I do think it is sad and pathetic that anyone would waste his or her life on such obvious nonsense.

So why are you wasting the time that you are telling me not to waste? It doesn't get more ironic than this!

 

[pood]

So why are you wasting the time that you are telling me not to waste? It doesn't get more ironic than this!

You are really asking me this? But according to you, I am wasting my time here because I am compelled of my own free will to do so!

In actuality, this all just amuses me.

 

[peacegirl]

So why are you wasting the time that you are telling me not to waste? It doesn't get more ironic than this!

You are really asking me this? But according to you, I am wasting my time here because I am compelled of my own free will to do so!

You are compelled of your own free will; "free will" meaning that you are not here against your will, which some people think determinism implies.

In actuality, this all just amuses me.

After all these years, you still don't understand what he meant by "compelled of your own free will," which only means "of your own desire." You are here in this thread because you want to be here. IOW, it gives you greater satisfaction to be here than not to be here, since it is impossible to move in the direction that offers you less satisfaction after weighing the pros and cons. I just wonder WHY it gives you greater satisfaction to be here when you consider it a waste of time! Do you even know?