A revolution in thought

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I've already explained this, and it doesn't seem to penetrate. In this model light itself is not responsible for bringing the image as it travels through space/time. If the object is within optical range because it is close enough or large enough, and it is bright enough, we will see it which means the light (or nonabsorbed photons) are instantly at the sensor since we would be unable to see the object otherwise. Light does not bring the image to the sensor across millions of miles of space/time, but instead reveals the object in real time when the lens are pointed at the actual object, not the light. Distance and time do not factor in, although light is always traveling. That is why we would see the Sun turned on at noon but we would not yet see each other for another 81/2 minutes.

I made no mention of images. My question was exclusively about light. The question remains: how can light be instantly at the sensor? What mechanism allows this to occur?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Clarification: He writes:

The difference is that the sound is being carried to our eardrums
whereas there is no picture traveling from an object on the waves of
light to impinge on our optic nerve.

Of course there is no picture traveling from an object on the waves of light. This is simply Lessans' misunderstanding of the what the standard model does claim. And he did write "nothing is impinging on the optic nerve" and "there is absolutely nothing in the external world that travels from an object and impinges on the optic nerve". He wrote those words and you quoted him doing so, all the while claiming that he did not do so and that davidm is misquoting him. In what way was davidm misquoting him?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What happened is that you made a silly comment about extending brightness, thought better of it, and went back and deleted the content, dishonestly typing 'duplicate' in place of that comment. You then TOLD US that this is what you'd done, saying you'd 'taken that post out' because the words you had used were confusing. No mention of duplicates. It was only when we pointed out that using the term 'duplicate' in this manner is dishonest and deceptive that you tried to pass it off as an editing error resulting in duplication.

I feel obligated to point out that I was the one who initially pointed out peacegirl's deceptive act which is now under discussion. Failing to give me credit for my bold and courageous pointing out of peacegirl's dishonest and deceptive act is dishonest and deceptive on your part. You owe me an apology. I may, or may not, refuse to engage you in further discussion unless and until you apologize. Spacemonkey, you have been warned. Ignore this warning at your peril.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I feel obligated to point out that I was the one who initially pointed out peacegirl's deceptive act which is now under discussion. Failing to give me credit for my bold and courageous pointing out of peacegirl's dishonest and deceptive act is dishonest and deceptive on your part. You owe me an apology. I may, or may not, refuse to engage you in further discussion unless and until you apologize. Spacemonkey, you have been warned. Ignore this warning at your peril.

I apologize most unreservedly. My use of the term 'we' instead of 'the great and honorable Angakuk' was indeed a shameless and despicable attempt to share in the infinite glory of your most courageous and astute observation regarding Peacegirl's dishonest act. I can only throw myself at your mercy and beg forgiveness for this unforgivable crime against humanity. May the impersonal laws of nature have mercy upon my pronoun-using and therefore immortal soul.

[davidm]

Angakuk's discovery lies locked behind the door marked "Peacegirl is a batshit-crazy liar." Years ago Angakuk called Will Durant on the phone and told him about his magnificent discovery, but he blew Angakuk off, telling him to take it to John Hopkins University. He did, to no avail. That's when Angakuk discovered that no one gives a shit about this nonsense except Peacegirl and a few die-hard interlocutors at , some of whom, like me, are just currently a bit bored and looking for perverse amusement.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know what I know, and you can't change it.

peacegirl, if there is one and only one thing you have made abundantly clear, this would be it.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

I made no mention of images. My question was exclusively about light. The question remains: how can light be instantly at the sensor? What mechanism allows this to occur?

Of course there is no picture traveling from an object on the waves of light. This is simply Lessans' misunderstanding of the what the standard model does claim. And he did write "nothing is impinging on the optic nerve" and "there is absolutely nothing in the external world that travels from an object and impinges on the optic nerve". He wrote those words and you quoted him doing so, all the while claiming that he did not do so and that davidm is misquoting him. In what way was davidm misquoting him?

Because light is impinging (he said nothing, other than light), but no image or picture is impinging on the optic nerve. And you know what I mean by this. Don't start playing semantic games with me at this late date.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Angakuk's discovery lies locked behind the door marked "Peacegirl is a batshit-crazy liar." Years ago Angakuk called Will Durant on the phone and told him about his magnificent discovery, but he blew Angakuk off, telling him to take it to John Hopkins University. He did, to no avail. That's when Angakuk discovered that no one gives a shit about this nonsense except Peacegirl and a few die-hard interlocutors at , some of whom, like me, are just currently a bit bored and looking for perverse amusement.

You won't win David, and I think you know it deep down!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Then you were lying when you claimed that you were unable to edit the post, and you were lying about the creation of a second post being the reason for your use of the term 'duplicate'. Deliberately removing post content because of a confusing word is not the same as removing a duplicated post.

I didn't say I was unable to edit it. I said I was unable to edit the post without it creating a new post.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, I'm not. The present issue has NOTHING to do with images or where they come from, and concerns ONLY how light can get to be where you need it in your account. Every time you start going on about images you are WEASELING and EVADING the problem.

No, it doesn't. You still have a completely magical and unexplained 93 million mile change in the location of light which you are refusing to address.

Because you have yet to tell us how it could get there without traveling. Light cannot be somewhere before it gets there. Nothing can. That is pure insanity.

Yet we have. Again, YOU are the one refusing to analyze it - just as you are refusing to address my analysis.

So now the light DOES travel from the Sun to the camera film on Earth?

Our only block is that everything you say on this topic is flatly contradictory and nonsensical. That has everything to do with the falseness of your claim.

Ironically, YOU are still the one refusing to take this seriously. Doing so requires that you actually face up to and address objections instead of blindly dismissing them and weaseling out of answering questions.

No matter what you say will never change the fact that there is no problem with this claim. I will not face up to an objection that doesn't even apply. I didn't say light travels from the Sun to the camera film on Earth. I said that light continues to travel 81/2 minutes even though we could see the Sun instantly. Now you're lying. And finally, the issue at hand has EVERYTHING to do with images or nonabsorbed light. That is the entire debate. It is believed light bounces off of an object and travels through space/time. Sorry Spacemonkey but we will never see any event from the past, because there is no light that could ever bring a past image to our eyes since it doesn't exist.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say I was unable to edit it. I said I was unable to edit the post without it creating a new post.

That's a lie. No new post was created, as evidenced by the fact that there is now and has only ever been ONE post. Why do you keep lying like this?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No matter what you say will never change the fact that there is no problem with this claim.

There is still a massive problem with your claim. You are still positing a 93 million mile change in the location of light that you cannot explain. Not only can you not explain it, but you also reject all possible options and refuse to even discuss the topic.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will not face up to an objection that doesn't even apply.

But it does apply. As long as you maintain that the photons will be there at the film, and that they came from the Sun, you are left with a change in location that needs explaining. Pretending that it does not apply isn't honest.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say light travels from the Sun to the camera film on Earth.

Yeah you did: "All you do is go right back to light traveling from point A to point B (which it does)..."

'A' was the Sun and 'B' was the film on Earth.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said that light continues to travel 81/2 minutes even though we could see the Sun instantly. Now you're lying.

No lie. See your own words above. Note also that my point was framed as a question. Note also that the light cannot be at the film while it is also still engaged in its 8 & 1/2 min voyage from the Sun to the Earth. That is putting the same light in two different places again, which is batshit insane.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And finally, the issue at hand has EVERYTHING to do with images or nonabsorbed light. That is the entire debate.

Nope. The issue at hand, and which you have been evading for YEARS, is how the light at the camera film got there from the Sun. Will you ever address this, or do you plan on lying and weaseling for another 5 years?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sorry Spacemonkey but we will never see any event from the past, because there is no light that could ever bring a past image to our eyes since it doesn't exist.

Strawman. We are not even talking about the images. The present issue concerns only light and its location in your model. Stop weaseling and start answering. How did the light get from the Sun to the camera film?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That's a lie. No new post was created, as evidenced by the fact that there is now and has only ever been ONE post. Why do you keep lying like this?

There was a new post created so I deleted the original. I don't care whether you think I'm a liar or not. This is what happened.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

There is still a massive problem with your claim. You are still positing a 93 million mile change in the location of light that you cannot explain. Not only can you not explain it, but you also reject all possible options and refuse to even discuss the topic.

No Spacemonkey, there is no massive problem with this claim. You are the one that is failing to understand why efferent vision explains how light becomes a condition, not a cause. It does nothing to bring images (nonabsorbed light) through space/time; so even if light is traveling 186,000 miles a second, we do not receive and interpret signals from this light that are decoded into images.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I will not face up to an objection that doesn't even apply.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

But it does apply. As long as you maintain that the photons will be there at the film, and that they came from the Sun, you are left with a change in location that needs explaining. Pretending that it does not apply isn't honest.

Wrong. Distance is immaterial in this account for good reason. The object could be 10 million miles away but if it meets the conditions of brightness and size, we would be able to see it in real time whether it was through a telescope, the naked eye, or a camera.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say light travels from the Sun to the camera film on Earth.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Yeah you did: "All you do is go right back to light traveling from point A to point B (which it does)..."

That's what you do, go right back to light traveling from point A to point B (the afferent account of light and sight). This has nothing to do with the explanation given.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

'A' was the Sun and 'B' was the film on Earth.

No, that is your interpretation of what happens. I said nothing about light striking a camera after the light travels to Earth.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I said that light continues to travel 81/2 minutes even though we could see the Sun instantly. Now you're lying.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No lie. See your own words above. Note also that my point was framed as a question. Note also that the light cannot be at the film while it is also still engaged in its 8 & 1/2 min voyage from the Sun to the Earth. That is putting the same light in two different places again, which is batshit insane.

No it is not putting light at two different places. The same light that allows us to see the object IS the same light that continues to travel to Earth. There is no stationary light, light that has teleported, or light that came from nowhere.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And finally, the issue at hand has EVERYTHING to do with images or nonabsorbed light. That is the entire debate.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Nope. The issue at hand, and which you have been evading for YEARS, is how the light at the camera film got there from the Sun. Will you ever address this, or do you plan on lying and weaseling for another 5 years?

And you keep avoiding this entire account. You have no understanding as to why this account changes the function of light without violating the laws of physics, just like you can't grasp why compatibilism is just a weaselly way to justify blameworthiness in a deterministic framework. And you can't even see what you're doing. You are blind.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Sorry Spacemonkey but we will never see any event from the past, because there is no light that could ever bring a past image to our eyes since it doesn't exist.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Strawman. We are not even talking about the images. The present issue concerns only light and its location in your model. Stop weaseling and start answering. How did the light get from the Sun to the camera film?

No no no Spacemonkey. I clarified this. I said that we wouldn't see any light if light hasn't gotten here yet. I am only referring to substance or matter that is differentiated from photons. The entire issue at hand revolves around the belief that we would see a past event based on the theoretical model that exists today. We would never ever see Columbus discovering America (or any other event that is made up of matter) if the event was no longer existing because there is no such light that could ever bring a past event to a telescope, camera, or eye since it doesn't exist in space/time anywhere in the universe.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There was a new post created so I deleted the original. I don't care whether you think I'm a liar or not. This is what happened.

No, Peacegirl. That obviously did not happen. You cannot delete actual posts. You can only edit their content. So if you had created a new post while editing there would now be two posts. There are not now two posts. There has only ever been one post. So you should stop lying about it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Spacemonkey, there is no massive problem with this claim. You are the one that is failing to understand why efferent vision explains how light becomes a condition, not a cause. It does nothing to bring images (nonabsorbed light) through space/time; so even if light is traveling 186,000 miles a second, we do not receive and interpret signals from this light that are decoded into images.

You are weaseling again. We are not saying anything about interpreting signals or light bringing images. The present issue is ONLY that of how the light you need at the camera film could have gotten there from the Sun. That still remains a massive problem for your account and you keep dishonestly refusing to address it.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Wrong. Distance is immaterial in this account for good reason. The object could be 10 million miles away but if it meets the conditions of brightness and size, we would be able to see it in real time whether it was through a telescope, the naked eye, or a camera.

You cannot take a photograph in real time unless the photons are at the camera film, and you still cannot explain how those photons manage this 93 million mile change in location from the Sun to the film. Until you do, your account is not at all plausible.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what you do, go right back to light traveling from point A to point B (the afferent account of light and sight). This has nothing to do with the explanation given.

I'm quoting YOUR WORDS, dummy - where YOU said that the light does travel from the Sun (A) to the camera film on Earth (B).

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, that is your interpretation of what happens. I said nothing about light striking a camera after the light travels to Earth.

Yes, you did. I just quoted you saying that. Here it is again: "All you do is go right back to light traveling from point A [the Sun] to point B [the camera film] (which it does)..."

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No it is not putting light at two different places. The same light that allows us to see the object IS the same light that continues to travel to Earth. There is no stationary light, light that has teleported, or light that came from nowhere.

We were talking about the light at the camera film. That light cannot also be traveling the 8 & 1/2 minutes to the film when it is also already at the film. So how did that light at the film get there?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And you keep avoiding this entire account. You have no understanding as to why this account changes the function of light without violating the laws of physics, just like you can't grasp why compatibilism is just a weaselly way to justify blameworthiness in a deterministic framework. And you can't even see what you're doing. You are blind.

You really are pathetically desperate to change the subject, aren't you? And I am not avoiding your account. I am directly addressing it by showing you where it falls apart.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No no no Spacemonkey. I clarified this. I said that we wouldn't see any light if light hasn't gotten here yet. I am only referring to substance or matter that is differentiated from photons. The entire issue at hand revolves around the belief that we would see a past event based on the theoretical model that exists today. We would never ever see Columbus discovering America (or any other event that is made up of matter) if the event was no longer existing because there is no such light that could ever bring a past event to a telescope, camera, or eye since it doesn't exist in space/time anywhere in the universe.

You haven't clarified anything. To take a photograph of the newly ignited Sun in real time, you need photons at the camera film on Earth. But as you know perfectly well, THERE IS NO POSSIBLE WAY FOR YOU TO GET THEM THERE. You still can't explain where they could have come from or how they could have gotten there.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bump.

Bump.

[Spacemonkey]

Bumping this quite conclusive and completely unaddressed refutation of Lessans.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Let's try this another way, Peacegirl. Let's start by assuming that the photons at the film/retina came from the Sun.

Assumption #1: The photons at the film/retina came from the Sun.

Now lets define traveling and teleporting. Traveling is getting from A to B by passing through all intervening points. Teleporting is getting from A to B without passing through all intervening points. Clearly these are jointly exhaustive - if you get from A to B you must do so either by passing through the intervening points or by not passing through them. So...

Conclusion #1: If the photons came from the Sun then they either traveled there or teleported there.

Now you insist that they neither traveled there nor teleported, so we can conclude via modus tollens (If A then B, not B, therefore not A) that these photons cannot have come from the Sun.

Assumption #2: The photons at the film/retina did not travel or teleport there.

Conclusion #2: The photons at the film/retina did not come from the Sun.

So now the million-dollar question: Where the fuck did these photons come from? We can note also that the exact same reasoning as above will still apply for any location other than the Sun - as long as the photons are getting from A to B, they have to either travel there or teleport there - so we can know that...

Conclusion #3: The photons at the film/retina did not get there from anywhere else.

That leaves two remaining possibilities: (i) These photons were always there, i.e. sitting stationary at the film/retina surface; or (ii) They did not previously exist, and instead came into existence at the film/retina. But of course neither of these are plausible either, as photons cannot be stationary, and they do not pop into existence in our eyes or on film. But unless you accept one of these options we are forced to conclude that...

Conclusion #4: Assumption #2 was bollocks.

Basically, what we have proven is that you have only four options for the photons at the film/retina:

(i) Traveling photons.
(ii) Teleporting photons.
(iii) Stationary photons.
(iv) Newly existing photons.

So which is it going to be? (Remember, weaseling and fake-conceding are not honest responses.)

[LadyShea]

Because light is impinging (he said nothing, other than light), but no image or picture is impinging on the optic nerve.

nobody ever said anything about images or pictures impinging so what is this supposed to address, refute, illustrate or explain?

All optics says is that light strikes the retina. Light...not images, not pictures.

Originally Posted by Lessans

...there is absolutely nothing in the external world that travels from an object and impinges on the optic nerve...

Light does

Originally Posted by Lessans

there is no picture traveling from an object on the waves of
light to impinge on our optic nerve.

Correct, because light travels and strikes our eyes, pictures do not.

He clearly misunderstood the standard model of sight peacegirl.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, Peacegirl. That obviously did not happen. You cannot delete actual posts. You can only edit their content. So if you had created a new post while editing there would now be two posts. There are not now two posts. There has only ever been one post. So you should stop lying about it.

No Spacemonkey, you are wrong again. The post itself may have not been deleted but the content was, which is why I wrote posted Duplicate.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

nobody ever said anything about images or pictures impinging so what is this supposed to address, refute, illustrate or explain?

All optics says is that light strikes the retina. Light...not images, not pictures.

LadyShea, I refuse to discuss this with you because you are using semantics to argue your point. I already said that images or pictures are synonymous with nonabsorbed photons.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Bumping this quite conclusive and completely unaddressed refutation of Lessans.

You are out the door Spacemonkey. I don't know if your attitude will ever bring you back to Earth (no pun intended). Sorry, but this conversation is not working and I don't want to waste more time. I have to let you go. Your accusations are more fertilizer for my strong desire to let the truth be known. Keep feeding it, but I don't want to argue with you anymore because you are a broken record. You have taken no time whatsoever to understand this model; all you are doing is defending your own! Nageli said that the core of Mendel's presentation was flawed. And guess what? He is now the father of genetics and Nageli is a footnote. Just think about this without arguing some minor point which is just a diversionary tactic, as you know all too well.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I didn't say I was unable to edit it. I said I was unable to edit the post without it creating a new post.

That's obviously and demonstrably not the case, since you edited the post successfully to remove the original wording and replace it with the word duplicate.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

LadyShea, I refuse to discuss this with you because you are using semantics to argue your point. I already said that images or pictures are synonymous with nonabsorbed photons.

Synonyms, huh? Great, since "image/picture" is a synonym for "nonabsorbed photons" and "nonabsrobed photons" is a synonym for "light", we can rewrite your sentence thusly:

Because light is impinging (he said nothing, other than light), but no image or picture light is impinging on the optic nerve.

You just made your own sentence completely contradictory.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No Spacemonkey, you are wrong again. The post itself may have not been deleted but the content was, which is why I wrote posted Duplicate.

That's right. You deleted the content and typed 'duplicate' even though no second post was ever made. (If it had been then it would still be there.) That was the lie - calling something a duplicate when it was not.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I already said that images or pictures are synonymous with nonabsorbed photons.

But that is wrong. They are not synonymous. They are not even close.