A revolution in thought

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

When you light a candle, there is instant luminosity that lights up a room, correct?

No, that is not correct. It simply appears to be instantaneous because the time lapse is so small. The time lapse is so small because light moves really fast.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no logic here.

Truer words were never spoken.

[Angakuk]

It occurs to me that if the sun were turned on at noon not only would we not see the sun instantly, we would also not see it 81/2 minutes later. What we would see, after a time lapse of 81/2 minutes, is the light coming from the sun. When we look at the sun all we see is its light. The same with stars. It is not that there is no material substance emitting the light. It is simply that all we can see, with the naked eye, is the light that is coming from the the object.

Q: What does the sun look like?
A: It looks like a disk of light.

P.S. I almost wrote "ball of light", but when we look at the sun it doesn't really look spherical. It looks flat and circular, like a disk.

[davidm]

If I've done my own math correctly, light travels 982,080,000 feet in one second. That's nine-hundred-eighty-two-MILLION, eighty thousand feet in one second. Capice, peacegirl?

So figure out how long it would take light to travel two feet, posting a candle lighted two feet from your eyes. It's not instantaneous, it just seems that way.

I actually can't believe I am writing this to an adult person. She really thinks seeing a candle is instantaneous!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nooooo, you're wrong. If what you were saying were true, then why is it when we move a candle slightly out of optical range, do we not see it if the light is travelling directly towards us?

you supposedly understand optics and the properties of light...yet you ask this question?

You cannot say the light is moving too fast because it would then be too fast to see the candle when it's much closer to our eyes.

Again how can you say your model doesn't violate optics when you don't even understand optics well enough to keep from saying something this stupid?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No one is saying that. This entire model has gone right over your head.

:

you are saying that every time you say light photons are physically located inside a camera, or at the retina at noon if the Sun is newly turned on at noon

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Hi Lone Ranger, how are you? It's been awhile since you've posted. Yes, it's true that cameras don't have lenses but whatever is used to detect light would work in the same way. It doesn't change the principle. Pinhole cameras don't have lenses but the object is still in view, which creates a photograph (or mirror image) on the back of the camera.

Solar panels and plant leaves physically interact with light in the exact same way camera film or a sensor does (in that physical contact and the same location are required), and you insisted, explicitly, that lenses made the difference between these and cameras. If a lens is not the key factor, what is? Why would a lensless camera interact with light instantly in the newly ignited Sun scenario, but neither a leaf or solar panel would?

Originally Posted by peacegirl
You are not clarifying anything; you are making it more confusing because vision and cameras have lenses. If efferent vision is true (which I believe it is), the lens is pointing to something in the real world, not just light. This causes an interaction because distance is not involved.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I just noticed this for the first time, because as I've mentioned, I don't actually read her posts anymore, but just pick up bits and pieces of her drivel from others' quotes, as I just did here.

You're not saying that, eh?

According to you, when the sun is turned on at noon, the photons are instantly at the retinas on earth. Is that your position, or not?

Also according to you, it takes the photons some eight minutes to travel to the earth. Is that your position, or not?

Of course you're repeatedly stated both propositions above, arguing they are both true. It logically follows from the above that you maintain that the light is instantly at the eye even though it takes eight minutes to travel to the eye -- an elementary violation of the law of noncontradiction!

At one point you even said: "I know it's difficult to understand how the light can be at the eye without traveling to the eye first." That may be a slight paraphrase, as I can't be arsed to dig up the exact quote at the moment. However, I'd be perfectly happy to do so, and rub your nose in it!

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry to say but we cannot see anything resembling matter in the Hubble deep field. We see images of light which give us some information about the galaxy from which the light originated, but the photons themselves are full spectrum light; the kind of light we see when it turns morning here on Earth.

Wrong! The photons received by the Hubble telescope are not "Full Spectrum", there is no such thing. Each photon is of a frequency that corresponds to the color of the source that emitted it, or the object that reflected it. THERE IS NO PHOTON OF WHITE LIGHT OR FULL SPECTRUM", that is just another lessans/Peacegirl fiction. White light is made up of a spectrum of all the colors but there is no "White Photon" nor is there a "Black Photon". And almost all spectra have gaps that correspond to the elements that make up the source or the object, only a source without impurities could emit full spectrum light, and I'm not sure that is even possible? In the morning we do not see full spectrum light, there are always gaps that correspond to the elements of the sun or the object that has reflected the light.

FYI, I believe that green leaves reflect green light, thus the color, and absorb red and other colors of light to do the photosynthesis. I believe the red light, especially, is of higher energy.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I have used every analogy I could think of, and you still have no idea what I'm even talking about.

Every analogy you have used has been flawed, and they show only that you still have no idea what you are talking about.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There's nothing I can say that will ever convince you that he was onto something.

Agreed. Because what he says is impossible.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

And there's nothing that will convince you that free will and determinism are not compatible; there's no shred of compatibility no matter what definition of free will you use.

Another sad and pathetic attempt to change the subject.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's why talking to you is fruitless. Only when these discoveries are recognized by science will you concede that you were wrong this whole time on both counts.

As long as your account remains contradictory and impossible, I won't believe it no matter who is endorsing it.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nooooo, you're wrong.

No, I'm not. Neither light nor its brightness can be anywhere before the light itself has had time to get there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If what you were saying were true, then why is it when we move a candle slightly out of optical range, do we not see it if the light is traveling directly towards us?

Because the further away something is, the less intense will be the light arriving from it. Imagine you are at the center of a light bulb, emitting light equally in all directions. Someone now holds a golf ball right up against the bulb, blocking most of your vision. A fairly large proportion of the total light being emitted is hitting the golf ball, as from your perspective the golf ball fills up most of your view. As the golf ball is moved further and further away from you, it appears to get smaller and smaller, filling up less and less space in your field of view. That means, with light being emitted equally in all directions, less and less of the total light being emitted is leaving the bulb in a direction that will still hit the golf ball. This is dispersion. Now imagine you are on the golf ball looking back at the light bulb. Eventually, as the bulb gets further and further away, there will be so little light leaving the bulb and traveling in a direction that will still hit the golf ball, that you will no longer be able to see the bulb. All this is standard optics.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You cannot say the light is moving too fast...

No-one says that.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you had paid attention you would have at least understood the analogy. How fast does it take for us to see a candle when it is first lit?

Your analogy doesn't work. You will see a lit candle as soon as the light from the candle has had time to reach your eyes. If the candle is say 10 meters away, this will be 1/29,991,000th of a second after it is lit. That is to say the light could have traveled that distance thirty million times in a second.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We can see the candle instantly because it is a closed system so the light is already at our eyes.

Calling it a 'closed system' doesn't explain anything. These are just empty words.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Remember, if we can see the object (the candle), we're already in optical range. By the same token, if you can dare to imagine (I know this is hard for you) that the Sun and our eyes are just a bigger room, and we turn on the Sun, we would see it instantly the same way we see a candle instantly.

But we do not see the candle instantly. We see it after 1/29,991,000th of a second. If the room is say 15 billion times longer than our above 10m room (equivalent to the distance between the Sun and the Earth), it will take 15 billion times longer to see it. That equates to a bit over 8 minutes.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If we can see the object (the Sun), we would already be in optical range because the light is already at our eyes.

If the light is already there, then where did it come from? And how did it get there?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm sorry to say but we cannot see anything resembling matter in the Hubble deep field.

I'm quite happy to say that we do indeed see images of actual galaxies composed of matter, and these images are formed by Hubble using only the arriving light from objects that are beyond our visual range - which is exactly what you have repeatedly claimed to be impossible.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We see images of light...

No, we see images of galaxies. These images are formed by the light arriving from them, but then that is true of EVERYTHING we ever see or photograph.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There are other ways to prove that we see in real time besides this.

Really? Odd then that you've been hiding these proofs for so many years. Why don't you present some of them?

[Spacemonkey]

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.)

Bump.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

No, that is not correct. It simply appears to be instantaneous because the time lapse is so small. The time lapse is so small because light moves really fast.

The point is it's a closed system. If the Sun is equivalent to the candle because it's also a closed system, then the time lapse between the time the Sun is turned on and the moment we see it couldn't even be measured.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

There is no logic here.

Originally Posted by Angakuk

Truer words were never spoken.

You're right because logic can be invalid.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

I just noticed this for the first time, because as I've mentioned, I don't actually read her posts anymore, but just pick up bits and pieces of her drivel from others' quotes, as I just did here.

You're not saying that, eh?

According to you, when the sun is turned on at noon, the photons are instantly at the retinas on earth. Is that your position, or not?

That's not my position. It obviously takes 81/2 minutes, but it doesn't take 81/2 minutes for light to be at the camera, even though the camera is on Earth due to the fact that the information from the object that allows us to see does not get sent through space/time. You don't get this part.

Originally Posted by davidm

Also according to you, it takes the photons some eight minutes to travel to the earth. Is that your position, or not?

It is my position but you're not understanding why there is no contradiction when what we see efferently involves no time. If it did, it would be contradictory.

Originally Posted by davidm

Of course you're repeatedly stated both propositions above, arguing they are both true. It logically follows from the above that you maintain that the light is instantly at the eye even though it takes eight minutes to travel to the eye -- an elementary violation of the law of noncontradiction!

That's because there is no travel time. We're seeing the object because the light is bright enough to allow this.

Originally Posted by davidm

At one point you even said: "I know it's difficult to understand how the light can be at the eye without traveling to the eye first." That may be a slight paraphrase, as I can't be arsed to dig up the exact quote at the moment. However, I'd be perfectly happy to do so, and rub your nose in it!

Rub my nose in it all you want because I know what I said. I understand why it's difficult to think in terms of this model after believing that photons travel and we receive the information in that light. But if light is a condition of sight then scientists have been on the wrong track.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It obviously takes 81/2 minutes, but it doesn't take 81/2 minutes for light to be at the camera, even though the camera is on Earth

That's right, it takes 8 1/2 minutes for the light to reach the camera, but it doesn't take 8 1/2 minutes for light to reach the camera! Until everyone else understands this, no progress will be made!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not my position. It obviously takes 81/2 minutes but it doesn't take 81/2 minutes for light to be at the camera, even though the camera is on Earth

Since when is that not your position? How many countless times have you said the light photons will be at the retina instantly, at the same time the Sun is turned on?

You are being dishonest.

From 6/28

The light is at the eye but it has not yet arrived on Earth.

Photons do not have to reach Earth for the light to be at the retina.

From 6/24

there needs to be light at the retina, but the light does not have to travel 8 minutes to connect with the eye

From 6/17

The camera and the retina work the same in both cases but you're having a hard time understanding how the light could be at the sensor without the light traveling to Earth.

From 6/4

You don't understand efferent vision and why the requirements necessary would allow light to be at the eye without the light from the Sun having to travel 8 minutes to reach Earth.

Originally Posted by peacegiel

due to the fact that the information from the object that allows us to see does not get sent through space/time. You don't get this part.

How can we "get" anything you say when you keep flip flopping, and using new terms in idiosyncratic ways? Now you are on about "information" instead of images or non-absorbed photons. Please define "information" as you are using it, so we can be on the same page.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Angakuk

It occurs to me that if the sun were turned on at noon not only would we not see the sun instantly, we would also not see it 81/2 minutes later. What we would see, after a time lapse of 81/2 minutes, is the light coming from the sun. When we look at the sun all we see is its light. The same with stars. It is not that there is no material substance emitting the light. It is simply that all we can see, with the naked eye, is the light that is coming from the the object.

Q: What does the sun look like?
A: It looks like a disk of light.

P.S. I almost wrote "ball of light", but when we look at the sun it doesn't really look spherical. It looks flat and circular, like a disk.

What's your point Angakuk? We see the Sun and it appears the shape of a disc.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Since when is that not your position? How many countless times have you said the light photons will be at the retina instantly, at the same time the Sun is turned on?

You are being dishonest.

From 6/28

From 6/24

From 6/17

From 6/4

How can we "get" anything you say when you keep flip flopping, and using new terms in idiosyncratic ways? Now you are on about "information" instead of images or non-absorbed photons. Please define "information" as you are using it, so we can be on the same page.

Thank you for collecting all of my posts, I mean that sincerely because it took effort to do this. But it doesn't prove what you think it does LadyShea. It proves that I am consistent with my words and that there is rhyme to my reason.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The point is it's a closed system. If the Sun is equivalent to the candle because it's also a closed system

The term closed system has no explanatory power in this context, therefore nobody understands why you keep using it. Can you describe the system, in detail?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Thank you for collecting all of my posts, I mean that sincerely because it took effort to do this. But it doesn't prove what you think it does LadyShea. It proves that I am consistent with my words and that there is rhyme to my reason.

Um, no your quotes show a contradiction with what you said today. That's a flip flop, a bald faced lie if you will.

So, if the Sun was turned on at noon, would there be light photons at the retina at noon? Yes or no?

And it's little effort to collect quotes since I know how to use the search function

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nooooo, you're wrong. If what you were saying were true, then why is it when we move a candle slightly out of optical range, do we not see it if the light is travelling directly towards us?

Originally Posted by LadyShea

you supposedly understand optics and the properties of light...yet you ask this question?

Of course I do, and you can't answer it. You cannot tell me that light from a candle cannot travel to my eyes if it's one millimeter out of range. You are the one that is in total denial. You won't even consider the fact that being in optical range does not involve light traveling through space/time, yet you will continue to attack this claim to make it look as if Lessans is the one with the problem. Isn't that amazing?

You cannot say the light is moving too fast because it would then be too fast to see the candle when it's much closer to our eyes.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Again how can you say your model doesn't violate optics when you don't even understand optics well enough to keep from saying something this stupid?

Nope, it's not stupid at all. You just won't accept that what I'm saying makes absolute sense. It's foreign to you because of the length of time you've believed that light itself causes sight as it crosses millions of miles through space/time and just happens to land on our eyes. If you think about it, it's ludricrous but you trust science so you find ways to justify your belief. Isn't that what fundies do? You and Spacemonkey are losers in this debate.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

you supposedly understand optics and the properties of light...yet you ask this question?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Of course I do, and you can't answer it. You cannot tell me that light from a candle cannot travel to my eyes if it's one millimeter out of range.

Spacemonkey already answered it, it's been answered many times in the past*, and if you understand optics then you should know the answer.

*
Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought
Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought
Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought
Freethought Forum - View Single Post - A revolution in thought

You are the one that is the fundie because you are in denial.

LOL, in denial about what?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Nope, it's not stupid at all. You just won't accept that what I'm saying makes sense. You and Spacemonkey are losers in this debate.

LOL, keep telling yourself that. If you understood optics, you would never have made that comment.

[LadyShea]

Below is post from 2012, when you used that stupid "too fast to see" and were also questioning seeing things from a distance if light is traveling.

You are making the same mistakes about optics now that you did 2 years ago.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Do you not remember asking this question a thousand times already? Do you not remember having it answered for you a thousand times already? Why do you not learn? From only a month ago:

(Plus no-one has EVER told you that "the light reflected off of this person would be traveling so fast it would pass right over us". You just made that up. Again.)

[LadyShea]

Bump

Originally Posted by LadyShea

What does that even mean?

When we look at or photograph the stars or Sun are we seeing or photographing light, or an "image of the real world"? If light only, how can we see them (photograph them*) in real time, without waiting for the light to reach us, as Lessans explicitly stated? If they are an "image of the real world", then what differentiates them from the Hubble images that are from light photons only?

*your addition, Lessans mentioned nothing of photograpy

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I thought digital cameras (which is basically what Hubble is) worked exactly the same way as eyes on accounta lenses? If eyes and other cameras "pick up images" in efferent vision, why not the Hubble?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

LOL. Your audacity never ceases to amaze.

Wrong! We do not see the candle instantly! This is where your idiotic "analogy" falls completely to pieces.

After all this time, you still do not know how fast light travels, do you? It travels so fast that if a beam of light could orbit the earth, it would go entirely around the earth more than seven times in a single second. That's pretty goddamned fast! So when we light a candle, it only seems as if we see it instantly, because the light travels to our eyes so quickly at such a close range. But, we don't. We are seeing the candle as it was some minuscule time in the past.

And, this is wrong for the reasons stated above. The candle light is NOT "already at our eyes." It takes time to reach our eyes. One could even give the exact increment of time by simply doing the math. A candle two feet away is lit. How long does it take the light to reach our eyes?

And there is your childlike "reasoning" again. "We can see the candle if we can see the candle" is your mantra. Boy, that's deep! I mean, boy, that's derp!

If we can see the candle, it's because the light from the candle has arrived at our eyes, meaning we are seeing the candle sometime as it was in the past. Period. End of story.

No David, you are assuming that we're seeing the candle in delayed time. Not in the efferent account, and not in a closed system, so doing that math means nothing because you are coming from a mistaken premise. I am not disagreeing with you that light travels, but this only serves to support my position because although we need light to see, light doesn't cause sight. If efferent vision is true (which you haven't even begun to investigate; you're no scientist that's for sure), then that means size and brightness is what counts, not time and distance. As I mentioned, you are still coming from this fallacious premise, which is going to prove you wrong every single time. If Lessans is right (which I believe he is), then seeing the Sun when it's first turned on would be as fast as seeing a candle when it's first lit. We are just dealing with a bigger space (or box), but so is the Sun a bigger object, so the principle remains exactly the same.