“Revolution in Thought: A new look at determinism and free will"
- Thread starter peacegirl
- Start date
pood
Contributor
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2021
- Messages
- 9,266
- Basic Beliefs
- agnostic
They have been described to you too many times FOR YEARS — indeed, decades. You’ve been hopscotching from message board to message board at least since around 2000, and intelligent people always refute your nonsense.
peacegirl
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2024
- Messages
- 3,816
- Gender
- Female
- Basic Beliefs
- I believe in determinism which is the basis of my worldview
No Pood,
Nothing in all these years have proved him wrong. Try again.As I have said countless times, this proves NOTHING. What it has taught me is that it's going to be a lot harder for the knowledge regarding the eyes to be accepted because of the long-held belief that delayed light is the only way sight can occur. Read my bold part again because this is exactly what Lessans predicted.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just as my first discovery was not that man’s will is not free but the knowledge revealed by opening that door for a thorough investigation, so likewise, my second discovery is not that man does not have five senses but what significant knowledge lies hidden behind this door. Many years later, we have an additional problem that is more difficult to overcome because this fallacious observation has graduated dogmatically into what is considered genuine knowledge, for it is actually taught in school as an absolute fact, and our professors, doctors, etc. would be ready to take up arms, so to speak, against anyone who would dare oppose what they have come to believe is the truth without even hearing or wanting to hear any evidence to the contrary. I am very aware that if I am not careful, the resentment of these people will nail me to a cross, and they would do it in the name of justice and truth. However, it appears that they will not be given the opportunity because the very moment the will of God is perceived and understood, man is given no alternative as to what direction he must travel, which is away from condemning someone who has uncovered a falsehood. The real truth is that there are thousands upon thousands of differences existing in the external world, but when words do not describe these differences accurately, we are then seeing a distorted version of what exists — as with free will.
peacegirl
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2024
- Messages
- 3,816
- Gender
- Female
- Basic Beliefs
- I believe in determinism which is the basis of my worldview
You're an idiot for calling him an idiot. The irony!!!!!!!
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Sounds like foreplay to me.
peacegirl
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2024
- Messages
- 3,816
- Gender
- Female
- Basic Beliefs
- I believe in determinism which is the basis of my worldview
Through light, as a condition, not a cause. Why don't you read my posts. You refuse to think in terms of his claim of efferent vision, not afferent.
That is because the light emanating from those stars hasn't reached us because the stars are too far away. This supports his claim.
They aren't insufficient.
You are looking at the wrong thing. The object's existence and the detail of its appearance are there to be seen, depending on how far away it is and how strong our telescopes are. This has nothing to do with "getting over here." You are missing the entire concept.
It's necessary because light illuminates the world for us to see it. It does not bring the world to our brains to be reconstructed as an image.
In this account, we would not be able to see the OBJECT without light being at our eyes instantly. It's not the other way around where we would see the light after it has traveled through time and space. A mirror image is close enough in its analogy to explain why travel time is excluded.
Efferent vision has nothing to do with duration, time, or space. It does not violate physics. It has only to do with how the brain works by looking through the eyes, which allows us to see the present, not the past. I know this is hard for you to conceive. This is why you need to understand what brought the author to this conclusion. It didn't come out of thin air.
Because they are seeing the same scene in real time, which supports the author's claim. I will repeat this excerpt again. Maybe you'll get it eventually.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We are able to see the moon, the sun, the distant stars, etc., not because one is 3 seconds away, the other 8 minutes away, and the last many light-years away, but simply because these objects are large enough to be seen at their great distance when enough light is present. This fallacy has come into existence because the eyes were considered a sense organ, like the ears. Since it takes less time for the sound from an airplane to reach our ears when it is a thousand feet away than when it is five thousand, it was assumed that the same thing occurred with the object sending a picture of itself on the waves of light. If it were possible to transmit a television picture from the Earth to a planet as far away as the star Rigel, it is true that the people living there would be seeing the ships of Columbus coming into America for the first time because the picture would be in the process of being transmitted through space at a certain rate of speed. But objects do not send out pictures that travel through space and impinge on the optic nerve. We see objects directly by looking at them, and it takes the same length of time to see an airplane, the moon, the sun, or distant stars.
To sum this up, just as we have often observed that a marching band is out of step with the beat when seen from a distance because the sound reaches our ears after a step has been taken, so likewise, if we could see someone talking on the moon via a telescope and hear his voice on the radio, we would see his lips move instantly but not hear the corresponding sound for approximately 3 seconds later due to the fact that the sound of his voice is traveling 186,000 miles a second, but our gaze is not, nor is it an electric image of his lips impinging on our optic nerve after traversing this distance. Because Aristotle assumed the eyes functioned like the other four, and the scientific community assumed he was right, it made all their reasoning fit what appeared to be undeniable. According to their thinking, how else was it possible for knowledge to reach us through our eyes when they were compelled to believe that man had five senses? Were they given any choice? Let me prove in another way that the eyes are not a sense organ.
pood
Contributor
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2021
- Messages
- 9,266
- Basic Beliefs
- agnostic
What kind of idiocy is this?
The SOUND of his voice is traveling 186,000 miles a second?? Not, it is not — sound travels much slower — nor does sound travel through outer space.
Radio is LIGHT. The image of lips moving and the radio working would be fully in sync, both showing stuff as they were in the past.
peacegirl
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2024
- Messages
- 3,816
- Gender
- Female
- Basic Beliefs
- I believe in determinism which is the basis of my worldview
We would be seeing him before hearing him.
You completely missed his point that IF we could see someone talking on the moon via a telescope and hear his voice on the radio. It was hypothetical to get people to understand that we would see the person before we would hear his voice.
That is incorrect. We would see a person via a telescope in real time before hearing him on a radio, which is delayed.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Our scientists, becoming enthralled over the discovery that light travels approximately 186,000 miles a second and taking for granted that five senses were equally scientific, made the statement (which my friend referred to and still exists in our encyclopedias) that if we could sit on the star Rigel with a very powerful telescope focused on the earth, we would just be able to see the ships of Columbus reaching America for the very first time. A former science teacher who taught this to her students as if it were an absolute fact responded, “I am sure Columbus would just be arriving; are you trying to tell me that this is not a scientific fact?”
Again, my reply was, “Are you positive because you were told this, or positive because you, yourself, saw the relations revealing this truth? And if you are still positive, will you put your right hand on the chopping block to show me how positive you really are?”
“I am not that positive, but this is what I was taught.”
Once again, certain facts have been confused, and all the reasoning except for light traveling at a high rate of speed is completely fallacious. Scientists made the assumption that since the eyes are a sense organ, it followed that light must reflect an electric image of everything it touches, which then travels through space and is received by the brain through the eyes. What they tried to make us believe is that if it takes 8 minutes for the light from the sun to reach us, it would take hundreds of years for the reflection of Columbus to reach Rigel, even with a powerful telescope. But why would they need a telescope?
They reasoned that since it takes longer for the sound from an airplane to reach us when 15,000 feet away than when 5000; and since it takes longer for light to reach us the farther it is away when starting its journey, light and sound must function alike in other respects, which is false, although it is true that the farther away we are from the source of sound, the fainter it becomes, as light becomes dimmer when its source is farther away. If the sound from a plane, even though we can’t see it on a clear day, tells us it is in the sky, why can’t we see the plane if an image is being reflected towards the eye on the waves of light? The answer is very simple. An image is not being reflected. We cannot see the plane simply because the distance reduced its size to where it was impossible to see it with the naked eye, but we could see it with a telescope. We can’t see bacteria either with the naked eye, but we can through a microscope. The actual reason we are able to see the moon is because there is enough light present, and it is large enough to be seen. The explanation as to why the sun looks to be the size of the moon, although much larger, is because it is much much farther away, which is the reason it would look like a star to someone living on a planet at the distance of Rigel. This proves conclusively that the distance between someone looking and the object seen has no relation to time because the images are not traveling toward the optic nerve on waves of light; therefore, it takes no time to see the moon, the sun, and the distant stars.
Last edited:
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 42,350
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
Lessans was clearly batshit nutso insane.
None of this makes a shred of sense, none of it holds up to the slightest scrutiny, none of it would help explain anything even if it were somehow true, and almost every part of it can be shown to be nonsense by simple experiments a child could carry out.
And there are plenty of stars that are further away, that we can see with the naked eye. So how the fuck could the light from these more distant stars have reached us, while the less distant (but dimmer) stars are "too far away"?
Take Proxima Centaurii as an example. The only star closer to us than Proxima is the Sun. Literally every other star is further away; Most of them VASTLY further away.
It is too dim to see with the naked eye - it has an apparent magnitude of about 11, but it's a very large and bright object indeed.
Proxima masses around 2.4x1029kg, or about 30,000 times the mass of planet Earth, so you couldn't fit it in your pocket.
It has a luminosity of about 1.91 x 1021W, which is around a hundred million times the total power used by humans on Earth - if every single bit of electricity, gas, coal, hydropower, nuclear energy, wind power and solar power we generate worldwide today were put into one huge lightsource, that light source would be a one hundred millionth of the luminosity of Proxima.
If size and luminosity were the only criteria, Proxima would be easily visible. But they aren't, and it isn't.
By interstellar standards, it's close by. If the reason we didn't see it were in fact "because the light emanating from those stars hasn't reached us because the stars are too far away", then we would not be able to see ANY stars at night; They are ALL further away than Proxima.
Your ad-hoc nonsense "reason" is shown to be false. It directly implies something that we can easiliy check for ourselves:
But we CAN see stars in the night sky. So your claim that the reason we cannot see Proxima is "because the light emanating from those stars hasn't reached us because the stars are too far away" must be FALSE.
The only way you could possibly have entertained it to begin with, is because you know nothing at all about the stars.
Lessans' entire position is believable ONLY to someone who is culpably ignorant of almost everything there is to know about reality, at every level. You would literally need to know bupkis in order to give his words the slightest credence.
He was a crank.
None of this makes a shred of sense, none of it holds up to the slightest scrutiny, none of it would help explain anything even if it were somehow true, and almost every part of it can be shown to be nonsense by simple experiments a child could carry out.
The only reason we know those stars exist is because the light emanating from them has reached us. How else could we know they exist?
And there are plenty of stars that are further away, that we can see with the naked eye. So how the fuck could the light from these more distant stars have reached us, while the less distant (but dimmer) stars are "too far away"?
Take Proxima Centaurii as an example. The only star closer to us than Proxima is the Sun. Literally every other star is further away; Most of them VASTLY further away.
It is too dim to see with the naked eye - it has an apparent magnitude of about 11, but it's a very large and bright object indeed.
Proxima masses around 2.4x1029kg, or about 30,000 times the mass of planet Earth, so you couldn't fit it in your pocket.
It has a luminosity of about 1.91 x 1021W, which is around a hundred million times the total power used by humans on Earth - if every single bit of electricity, gas, coal, hydropower, nuclear energy, wind power and solar power we generate worldwide today were put into one huge lightsource, that light source would be a one hundred millionth of the luminosity of Proxima.
If size and luminosity were the only criteria, Proxima would be easily visible. But they aren't, and it isn't.
By interstellar standards, it's close by. If the reason we didn't see it were in fact "because the light emanating from those stars hasn't reached us because the stars are too far away", then we would not be able to see ANY stars at night; They are ALL further away than Proxima.
Your ad-hoc nonsense "reason" is shown to be false. It directly implies something that we can easiliy check for ourselves:
Proxima is too far away to be seen
Proxima is the closest star (other than the Sun)
Therefore all stars are too far away to be seen
Therefore we cannot see any stars at night
But we CAN see stars in the night sky. So your claim that the reason we cannot see Proxima is "because the light emanating from those stars hasn't reached us because the stars are too far away" must be FALSE.
The only way you could possibly have entertained it to begin with, is because you know nothing at all about the stars.
Lessans' entire position is believable ONLY to someone who is culpably ignorant of almost everything there is to know about reality, at every level. You would literally need to know bupkis in order to give his words the slightest credence.
He was a crank.
Last edited:
pood
Contributor
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2021
- Messages
- 9,266
- Basic Beliefs
- agnostic
We would be seeing him before hearing him.
No. We would not. We would see and hear him at the same time, after a short time for the light to travel from the moon. Radio IS light. Do you understand this simple thing?
No. We would not.
Wrong. Radio IS light. We see nothing through a telescope in real time. And radio, being light, is not in real time either.
Last edited:
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Pg read this link
en.wikipedia.org
To resolve physical features using EM radiation the wavelength has to be small to the size of the object's features.
It is puzzling that you accept sound and hearing is delayed but reject light and vision is delayed.
The idea that we don't see stars by light because they are too far away is strange. We identify different star types by the colors of light the stars emit, spectroscopy.
There are stars too dim to see with the naked eye.
Imagine distant stars as tiny spherical light bulbs admitting equally in all directions. This is called a theoretical isotropic radiator.
As the light radiates there is an exuding spherical surface. As the surface expands and travels away from the star the energy density goes down. The total number of photons crisscross the sphere remains he same. the photons/(square meter) go down.
In the models a photon does not exist at rest. When created it starts movng and eds when absorbed.
So far as we know distance and time traveled does not affect photons. At least from our perspective.
What it looks like from the photon's perspective at C is a matter of relativity and I would have to do some reading.
Electromagnetic spectrum - Wikipedia
l
To resolve physical features using EM radiation the wavelength has to be small to the size of the object's features.
It is puzzling that you accept sound and hearing is delayed but reject light and vision is delayed.
The idea that we don't see stars by light because they are too far away is strange. We identify different star types by the colors of light the stars emit, spectroscopy.
There are stars too dim to see with the naked eye.
Imagine distant stars as tiny spherical light bulbs admitting equally in all directions. This is called a theoretical isotropic radiator.
As the light radiates there is an exuding spherical surface. As the surface expands and travels away from the star the energy density goes down. The total number of photons crisscross the sphere remains he same. the photons/(square meter) go down.
In the models a photon does not exist at rest. When created it starts movng and eds when absorbed.
So far as we know distance and time traveled does not affect photons. At least from our perspective.
What it looks like from the photon's perspective at C is a matter of relativity and I would have to do some reading.
peacegirl
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2024
- Messages
- 3,816
- Gender
- Female
- Basic Beliefs
- I believe in determinism which is the basis of my worldview
You're wrong. You've shown me your examples and they prove nothing.
We would see any star that is visible because of light, but not because of light reaching us. Stars are made of matter, and all matter works in the same way, whether it's a star or the moon.
Because they are huge.
It's not about the light reaching us. The less distant stars, but dimmer, don't have the luminosity that the more distant stars have because they are smaller and will be more difficult to see. I'm not sure where you think this disproves his claim. Size, brightness, and distance all come into play.
These other stars in the night sky may be far away, but much larger.
Here is one answer: Of the estimated 100 billion stars in our galaxy (1.2 billion currently mapped), only about 2000 are visible to the naked eye. As @john notes, the only reasons we see these 2000 stars is because they are either 1) fairly close to us, or 2) extremely large stars. Alpha Centauri (which we can see) is about the size of our sun. Proxima is much smaller.
– user21
Why are nearby stars like Proxima Centauri and Barnard's star not visible to the naked eye?
Proxima Centauri is the closest star to the earth other than the sun yet it isn't visible to the naked eye, but stars that are further away are easily found in the night sky. Why is that?
peacegirl
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2024
- Messages
- 3,816
- Gender
- Female
- Basic Beliefs
- I believe in determinism which is the basis of my worldview
The ability to observe solar flare light with a telescope before radio waves reach Earth is due to the Sun's photosphere being the lowest observable layer of the solar atmosphere, which is relatively bright compared to the rest of the Sun's surface. This allows telescopes to detect the light emitted during a solar flare, even before the radio waves have reached Earth.Perhaps peacegirl would like to explain why we see in real time, but that radio is delayed, given that RADIO IS LIGHT.
NASA
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
Proxima Centauri is small and dim so we can't see it but can see bigger and brighter stars farther away.
Is there supposed to be a mystery here?
I can't see a dim small flashlight but I can see a bigger brighter flashlight farther away.
So what?
Is there supposed to be a mystery here?
I can't see a dim small flashlight but I can see a bigger brighter flashlight farther away.
So what?
steve_bank
Diabetic retinopathy and poor eyesight. Typos ...
It has nothing to do with instant vision.The ability to observe solar flare light with a telescope before radio waves reach Earth is due to the Sun's photosphere being the lowest observable layer of the solar atmosphere, which is relatively bright compared to the rest of the Sun's surface. This allows telescopes to detect the light emitted during a solar flare, even before the radio waves have reached Earth.Perhaps peacegirl would like to explain why we see in real time, but that radio is delayed, given that RADIO IS LIGHT.
NASA
bilby
Fair dinkum thinkum
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2007
- Messages
- 42,350
- Gender
- He/Him
- Basic Beliefs
- Strong Atheist
So the size and luminosity are NOT, as @peacegirl claims, the only criteria for vision.
Distance, contrary to her claims, is also important.
The reason it is important is because light travels, at finite speed, and we cannot see objects until the light from them arrives. Therefore instant vision is impossible.
peacegirl
Veteran Member
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2024
- Messages
- 3,816
- Gender
- Female
- Basic Beliefs
- I believe in determinism which is the basis of my worldview
It shows a discrepancy between a telescope detecting light from a flare before the time it takes for radio waves reach Earth.It has nothing to do with instant vision.The ability to observe solar flare light with a telescope before radio waves reach Earth is due to the Sun's photosphere being the lowest observable layer of the solar atmosphere, which is relatively bright compared to the rest of the Sun's surface. This allows telescopes to detect the light emitted during a solar flare, even before the radio waves have reached Earth.Perhaps peacegirl would like to explain why we see in real time, but that radio is delayed, given that RADIO IS LIGHT.
NASA