A revolution in thought

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Regardless of whether light is emitted or reflected, the point still holds that we see the Sun in real time.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, that point doesn't hold. It has turned out to be completely impossible.

You are utterly wrong Spacemonkey. It comes down to "may the best man win".

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's interesting to note that we don't see a reflection of the Sun on water. We see light that has arrived and is being reflected off of the water, but no image of the actual Sun.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Are you now deliberately saying stupid things?

That's a mirror image of which I have spoken, but when the Sun is below the horizon we only get light. Why? Because the Sun is out of our field of view.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

All you are doing is recycling refuted talking points. You have not offered any third option. Nor is any third option consistent with your answer that the photons at the film or retina traveled there. Your box metaphor fails for the same reason as your newly ignited Sun example. It hasn't helped you at all, for in neither case can you explain how light can be at the retina before it has had time to travel there. Blabbing meaninglessly about 'closed systems' is weaseling. Blabbing about the eyes and brain is weaseling, given that you need to explain cameras too. Reverting yet again to your moronic strawman about images traveling though space-time is incredibly stupid weaseling. As long as the light you need at the eyes traveled there from the Sun at light speed, real-time vision will not be possible, for it cannot get from the Sun to the eyes in less than 8min.

You are the one that is blabbing about light having the information from photons after traveling 93 million miles, as if light could still give us an image to be interpreted at all. Dispersion, remember? The nonabsorbed photons would be totally dispersed long before it reached Earth.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are utterly wrong Spacemonkey. It comes down to "may the best man win".

You're an idiot. Your account still requires light to be at the retina 8min before it can possibly get there. That makes it impossible.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's a mirror image of which I have spoken, but when the Sun is below the horizon we only get light. Why? Because the Sun is out of our field of view.

What does that have to do with your stupid claim that we can't see a reflection of the Sun in water? Why would anyone expect to see that when the Sun is still below the horizon??

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You are the one that is blabbing about light having the information from photons after traveling 93 million miles, as if light could still give us an image to be interpreted at all.

No I'm not. I've repeatedly told you that my objection has NOTHING to do with where the information is, and concerns only where the LIGHT is and how it got there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Dispersion, remember?

I remember explaining it to you, and you lying about having understood what I explained.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The nonabsorbed photons would be totally dispersed long before it reached Earth.

Why? Dispersion concerns the intensity of arriving light, and sunlight obviously arrives at the Earth with plenty of intensity.

[Dragar]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why? Because the Sun is out of our field of view.

No, it's because the atmosphere scatters the light, rather than working like a mirror.

A mirror is something you can't explain without recourse to our explanation of vision, remember? You're forced to talk about patterns of light bouncing off mirrors, rather than your father's wild claims.

For someone trying to explain how vision works, you sure fail at knowing anything about it!

[davidm]

Wow! Three brand new idiotic claims in one day! You are outdoing yourself, peacegirl! Today we "learned" from our "teacher" that the sun is the only source of light in the galaxy! We also "learned" that we cannot see the reflection of the sun in water! And now we have "learned" that it would be impossible to see the sun on the afferent account, because all the photons from it would be too dispersed to be visible after traveling 93 million miles!

Oh, well, a quick lookup of an astronomy site reveals that every single second, the sun emits 4.2 x 10 to the power of 44 photons in the visible spectrum! I'm pretty sure that's such a shitbag large number that there is no name for it!

Peacegirl has constantly thrown around "inverse square law" as if she understood it. It therefore should be easy for her to show how many photons in the visible spectrum arrive on the earth from the sun every second, by calculating the number released and how they fall off on the inverse square law. Hint: a whole fucking shitload will arrive on earth! Which is why we can see the sun!

Goddamn, peaegirl, you are just coruscatingly stupid. And that's a complex apropos pun!

[thedoc]

Peacegirl, since you are reading my posts again, how about this one?

Originally Posted by thedoc

Peacegirl, if you are going to accuse me of something I didn't do, you could at least do me the courtesy of reading and responding to my posts that I do make. FYI that was your claim, not mine, I tried to explain that it was not true.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's a mirror image of which I have spoken, but when the Sun is below the horizon we only get light. Why? Because the Sun is out of our field of view.

Moving the goalposts? Your original statement said nothing about the Sun being below the horizon.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Right, but these faraway stars do not provide the light that powers everything on Earth.

Moving the goalposts? Your original said nothing about power, only light, and there is certainly light from other sources than the Sun. Stars at night, and Earth's electric lights at night, or where the Sun doesn't reach, (caves or tunnels, or inside buildings).

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's a pretty strong one considering you are part of a religious order. I'm sure this would create conflict for you if you were taught that God gave man free will.

You don't know that, you only assume that Angakuk is a part of an order that you know the beliefs that are held, but in fact you know nothing about his beliefs or what he preaches to his congregation, you only assume. And you know what happens when you ass-u-me.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You're an idiot. Your account still requires light to be at the retina 8min before it can possibly get there. That makes it impossible.

No, and stop calling me names when you're at a loss of what to say. If we saw an object in space, we would already be in optical range or else we wouldn't be able to see the object, which means the light IS ALREADY AT THE RETINA OR FILM! This is not magic. You are assuming the light would have to travel to Earth first, which is simply wrong.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's a mirror image of which I have spoken, but when the Sun is below the horizon we only get light. Why? Because the Sun is out of our field of view.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What does that have to do with your stupid claim that we can't see a reflection of the Sun in water? Why would anyone expect to see that when the Sun is still below the horizon??

I meant to add that if a mirror was across from the Sun which was below the horizon, we would see the light being reflected from the mirror just like we would see any object closer to us. In other words, we would see the Sun without a noticeable delay.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

Peacegirl, since you are reading my posts again, how about this one?

I said I thought it was you. I didn't say for sure that it was you. I said if an object was slightly out of range but the light was in a straight line to the person, that person should be able to see the object from the light itself, which doesn't happen. The person responding (maybe it wasn't you) said that the light would be traveling to fast for the object to be seen. That wouldn't make sense.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by thedoc

You don't know that, you only assume that Angakuk is a part of an order that you know the beliefs that are held, but in fact you know nothing about his beliefs or what he preaches to his congregation, you only assume. And you know what happens when you ass-u-me.

Well if he is a Christian minister, I can almost guarantee that the belief in free will is taken for granted. Maybe deep down he's not sure (especially after listening to this thread), but free will is something that Christianity, as well most religions of the world, teach. In fact, it's one of the foundational principles.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Wow! Three brand new idiotic claims in one day! You are outdoing yourself, peacegirl! Today we "learned" from our "teacher" that the sun is the only source of light in the galaxy!

And I immediately corrected that. I meant to say that it was the only star that gives Earth the sustenance we need to live.

Originally Posted by davidm

We also "learned" that we cannot see the reflection of the sun in water!

I also added to that statement which clarifies what I meant to say.

Originally Posted by davidm

And now we have "learned" that it would be impossible to see the sun on the afferent account, because all the photons from it would be too dispersed to be visible after traveling 93 million miles!

Oh, well, a quick lookup of an astronomy site reveals that every single second, the sun emits 4.2 x 10 to the power of 44 photons in the visible spectrum! I'm pretty sure that's such a shitbag large number that there is no name for it!

What does that have to do with dispersion?

Originally Posted by davidm

Peacegirl has constantly thrown around "inverse square law" as if she understood it. It therefore should be easy for her to show how many photons in the visible spectrum arrive on the earth from the sun every second, by calculating the number released and how they fall off on the inverse square law. Hint: a whole fucking shitload will arrive on earth! Which is why we can see the sun!

It has no relevance that many photons arrive on Earth. What a dodge! Of course a shitload will arrive, but there will be no information in that light that would allow us to see an image of the Sun. It would be full spectrum daylight.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I retracted that statement, but I am still disputing the belief that images are created from traveling or delayed light.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You selected traveling light as your answer. Then you rejected it. Then you retracted your rejection and selected it again, but still refused to address the reasoning showing why this option will not work for you.

I did not select it again. I said photons travel. I already addressed the reasoning.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The full spectrum is not being reflected...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

So tell us all again about how you are not contradicting yourself, lol.

I retracted that statement. I said full spectrum light does not get reflected, but that doesn't mean that the photons travel 93 million miles and are received by the eyes which then have to be transduced into impulses which then have to be decoded into an image by the brain in delayed time.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...which is why there are nonabsorbed photons at the eye when we're looking at the object.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You haven't explained how those non-absorbed photons got from the Sun to the eye in zero time, and yet also got there by traveling. That is flatly contradictory.

I didn't say zero time. I said the same time it would take us to see a lighted candle. It's the same principle because distance and time are not factors in this account.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

These nonabsorbed photons are not traveling 93 million miles to reach us.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Flip-flopping again? Didn't you just insist on your selection of traveling photons as your answer? Also, where did you get that figure of 93,000 miles from, lol?

I mean 93 million. Another Yes, photons travel and light would appear but no information that could be decoded due to the inverse square law.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

We would get no image at all after this great distance because the nonabsorbed photons would be too dispersed.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Why would they be too dispersed? You claimed you understood my explanation of dispersion. Obviously you were not being honest, as you haven't understood a thing.

I think I understand it. I don't think the math adds up. We're talking about 93 million miles to receive an image of the Sun when we're already out of optical range? I meant the inverse square law, not dispersed. Sorry to confuse you.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Rather, we get full spectrum light...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

How can we get full spectrum light when you just insisted that the full spectrum is not being reflected? And why are you talking about reflection at all, when (as we have explained to you countless times) the newly ignited Sun example does not involve reflection at all?

Full spectrum light isn't being reflected when we're in optical range because the light is revealing the object, but as the light disperses full spectrum light continues its path to Earth. That's exactly why he said the image isn't reflected; the object is revealed which means that even though we see the object in real time, full spectrum light continues to travel. When the faraway object is too far to be seen, we get white light on our telescopes, not an image that would reveal matter. You are making a huge assumption that the partial light spectrum bounces and travels through space/time forever and ever until it strikes another object. That's the big fallacy.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The problem when the object is so close to us is the illusion that it's the light that is bringing the information from a faraway object to us which is then decoded as an image in the brain, when that's not the case at all.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

For the millionth time, your present problem has NOTHING TO DO with whether or not the arriving light bring information. Your present problem is that you still cannot explain how ANY LIGHT AT ALL can get to where you need it 8min before it has had time to get there.

It's not a present problem. All light is traveling and ALL light is located somewhere, but we don't have to wait for arriving light to intersect with that light. IF WE SEE THE OBJECT, the light would already be at our eyes just like it would be at our eyes watching someone light a candle. You are making distance and time a major factor because you are assuming that light has to be striking the retina on earth, when it doesn't have to do. There is still a physical interaction between light and the retina, or light and a camera, but you are failing to understand the reason why.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I told you that photons travel...

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Sure. And then a few minutes later you insisted that they don't.

Spacemonkey, stop it, you're playing games with me. I said that photons travel but I still maintain that the nonabsorbed photons do not travel over long distances where you would get an image because the photons would have already been dispersed. This does not violate the laws of physics.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

...but they don't have to travel 81/2 minutes in this account.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey"

If they traveled from the Sun, and traveled at the speed of light, then they cannot possibly be at the film or retina until 8min after the Sun has been ignited.

All you're doing is repeating the same faulty logic. Now if you said a plant will receive light from the Sun which takes 81/2 minutes to get there, you would be right.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That is how long it takes to travel that distance. If they travel then they are not there instantly. And if they are there instantly then they have not got there by traveling.

You still don't get it, do you?

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You see the Sun in the same time frame you would see a candle when it was first lit.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You will see a 10m distant candle one thirty-millionth of a second after it is lit, because that is how long it takes light to get from the candle to your eyes. The Sun is 15 billion times further away, so to see it just as quickly would require light to travel 15 billion times faster than the speed of light. You can't explain how vision could be real-time for either the candle or the Sun, for in both cases you need light to be at the retina before it has had time to get there.

It seems like you haven't understood a thing I've said. You definitely have a block. The fact that you can't even understand why, as we're looking out at the actual object, it would put our eyes or camera in the field of view of the object, is very revealing (no pun intended). You are too committed to your worldview, just as you are too committed to even begin to understand Lessans' observations regarding determinism. Stay a compatibilist, and believe that the eyes are a sense organ. I am not invested in changing your mind.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

What does power have to do with anything we were talking about??

Just the fact that the Sun emits the light that we need to survive and to see. The light coming from stars won't let us see anything on Earth.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I explained it already, and I explained it again today. I wonder how many more times it will take.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Liar. You have NOT explained where the light at the film or retina came from and how it got there.

Yes I have.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I explained it but you don't like the words I use to help you along, so you ignore me.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Liar. I have not ignored you at all. I have directly addressed all you have said. And you have yet to explain anything. You cannot say that the light at the retina both traveled there and gets there instantly. Travel is not instantaneous. Instantaneous relocation is called 'teleportation', not 'travel'.

You have ignored my metaphors, so it's no wonder you fail.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I just spent an entire hour answering YOUR posts.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

No, you just wasted an hour weaseling and contradicting yourself.

I think it's quite the opposite.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I gave you my explanation but you will not consider why the brain and eyes have everything to do with what we see and the true function of light.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

You haven't explained what the brain and eyes do, and you need to explain photography too which does not involve brains or eyes.

I most certainly have explained why it doesn't matter whether it's a camera or the eyes; if Lessans is right then light will be at both.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I corrected that in the last post. I still dispute the idea that light is interpreted in the brain as an image.

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

That has nothing to do with the problem you are still weaseling out of addressing.

It's all related.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Of course it's true, dingbat. If the photons you need at the retina travel to get there, then they cannot also be there instantaneously, because travel takes time.

Oh my goodness! You are now officially on probation. The sooner you apologize, the faster I'll invite you back, otherwise, we're done.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what someone said a long time ago when I discussed being in a field where the light travels in a straight line. I think it was thedoc who said the reason we wouldn't be able to see the image is because the light is traveling too fast.

Peacegirl, if you are going to accuse me of something I didn't do, you could at least do me the courtesy of reading and responding to my posts that I do make. FYI that was your claim, not mine, I tried to explain that it was not true.[/QUOTE][/QUOTE]

I said I thought it was you. I didn't say for sure that it was you. The person responding (maybe it wasn't you) said that the light would be traveling to fast for the object to be seen. That wouldn't make sense.[/QUOTE]


It was you who said it first. The discussion was on the speed of light, and you said that light would be traveling too fast to see, that was your statement.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Dragar

No, it's because the atmosphere scatters the light, rather than working like a mirror.

Interesting.

Originally Posted by Dragar

A mirror is something you can't explain without recourse to our explanation of vision, remember? You're forced to talk about patterns of light bouncing off mirrors, rather than your father's wild claims.

But there's no conflict talking about patterns of light bouncing of mirrors. I don't know where you've been?

Originally Posted by Dragar

For someone trying to explain how vision works, you sure fail at knowing anything about it!

Maybe I haven't learned all of the technical terms, but I know enough to figure out how to reconcile my father's claim with the laws of physics.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's what someone said a long time ago when I discussed being in a field where the light travels in a straight line. I think it was thedoc who said the reason we wouldn't be able to see the image is because the light is traveling too fast.

Originally Posted by thedoc

Peacegirl, if you are going to accuse me of something I didn't do, you could at least do me the courtesy of reading and responding to my posts that I do make. FYI that was your claim, not mine, I tried to explain that it was not true.

I said I thought it was you. I didn't say for sure that it was you. The person responding (maybe it wasn't you) said that the light would be traveling to fast for the object to be seen. That wouldn't make sense.

Originally Posted by thedoc

It was you who said it first. The discussion was on the speed of light, and you said that light would be traveling too fast to see, that was your statement.

I don't think so because I was asking the question, so why would I be answering myself?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I know that Angakuk, but you're not following me at all.

You know what?

Is there a delay (however small) between seeing the candle's flame and seeing the actual candle?

[Angakuk]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It's a pretty strong one considering you are part of a religious order. I'm sure this would create conflict for you if you were taught that God gave man free will.

I suppose that it might, if that was what I had been taught.

Martin Luther: On the Bondage of the Will

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Well if he is a Christian minister, I can almost guarantee that the belief in free will is taken for granted. Maybe deep down he's not sure (especially after listening to this thread), but free will is something that Christianity, as well most religions of the world, teach. In fact, it's one of the foundational principles.

A big part of your problem is that you don't know enough to even know what it is that you don't know. This ignorance is clearly not limited to you knowledge of biology and physics or any of the other subjects you pontificate upon.

Here is a little primer for you on the debate over free will in Christianity and other religions as well. Educate yourself.

Free Will in Theology

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

No, and stop calling me names when you're at a loss of what to say. If we saw an object in space, we would already be in optical range or else we wouldn't be able to see the object, which means the light IS ALREADY AT THE RETINA OR FILM! This is not magic. You are assuming the light would have to travel to Earth first, which is simply wrong.

You are still simply asserting that the light will be there because you need it to be. You aren't actually explaining where it came from or how it got there. You are also contradicting yourself again by denying that it traveled there.

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I meant to add that if a mirror was across from the Sun which was below the horizon, we would see the light being reflected from the mirror just like we would see any object closer to us. In other words, we would see the Sun without a noticeable delay.

What does that have to do with anything? It also doesn't work, for your own account of mirrors relied upon light traveling to the mirror from the object, which again takes time to occur. As the Sun is millions of miles away that delay will be noticeable.

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

The person responding (maybe it wasn't you) said that the light would be traveling to fast for the object to be seen. That wouldn't make sense.

YOU are the only person who ever made that claim. LadyShea has even reproduced the posts to show you this. You really should have learned by now not to trust your memory when it comes to what you have or have not previously said.