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

[pood]

Here s one for you Pg

It takes a photon approximately 10,000 to 170,000 years (with some estimates up to 1 million years) to travel from the Sun's core to its surface. While light travels at, the extreme density of the Sun forces photons to constantly scatter and absorb, creating a slow "random walk" to the surface.

One of Eisenstein's revolutionary discoveries, gravity affects light. It was one of the demonstrations of relativity.

I’m not sure where this disproves rest-time seeing. Please explain.

The point is AE's revolutionary ideas initially rejected were proven by experiment.

Lessans offered no such proof or evidence. He observed and undecided, heretofore it is true without question.

Polar opposites.

He describes how the brain works and the reason why he came to this conclusion. If you refuse to look, that's not my problem.

He did not describe how the brain works or the reason he came to his conclusion. He knew nothing about how the brain works or about light or sight. He even described light as made of “molecules.” This was not someone who knew what he was talking about.

 

[peacegirl]

Here s one for you Pg

It takes a photon approximately 10,000 to 170,000 years (with some estimates up to 1 million years) to travel from the Sun's core to its surface. While light travels at, the extreme density of the Sun forces photons to constantly scatter and absorb, creating a slow "random walk" to the surface.

One of Eisenstein's revolutionary discoveries, gravity affects light. It was one of the demonstrations of relativity.

I’m not sure where this disproves rest-time seeing. Please explain.

The point is AE's revolutionary ideas initially rejected were proven by experiment.

Lessans offered no such proof or evidence. He observed and undecided, heretofore it is true without question.

Polar opposites.

He describes how the brain works and the reason why he came to this conclusion. If you refuse to look, that's not my problem.

He did not describe how the brain works or the reason he came to his conclusion.

Yes he did. It must have gone right over your head.

He knew nothing about how the brain works or about light or sight. He even described light as made of “molecules.”

You're pulling out all the stops to make him look bad, but it won't work. He was not an astronomer. He used the wrong vocabulary, but his concepts were not wrong.

This was not someone who knew what he was talking about.

Oh, but he did know. And I should listen to you when you say that bees can recognize their beekeepers from a lineup? Who are you kidding?

 

[bilby]

I'm not disputing that there is a discrepancy between the EM spectrum.

...and?

You do know that the concept "between" demands a plural, right?

I mean, I know that making sense doesn't appeal to you, but this here is just taking the piss.

 

[pood]

@peacegirl claims seeing instantly has nothing to do with distance or time. Really!

Yet she admits light travels about 186,000 miles per second. But she says we see in real time, with no delay.

So I ask again — she has never even tried to answer the question — How did we measure the speed of light at all, if we see in real time? If we saw in real time, we’d have to conclude that the velocity of light was infinite!

Velocity is calculated as distance over time. Therefore to calculate any velocity there must be a delay from to source to reception.

Now consider Fred. Fred has a car. He has a destination in mind — a parking lot sixty miles due east.

Fred starts his car and travels due east. Fred’s car has something called a speedometer — it tells him how fast he is traveling.

Let’s say Fred’s speedometer hangs steady at about 60. What does that mean? He is traveling 60 miles an hour!

See? Distance over time. Another way to put this is that he is traveling one mile per minute.

Of course this is an average, since Fred’s velocity is not inertial. There will be starts and stops, slowing down, speeding up, etc.

Fred gets to the parking lot in one hour. It’s the parking lot to a big-box store filled with useless crap that Fred intends to buy, but that is irrelevant to the issue it hand. (It just means that Fred is a big dummy.)

How should we analyze this situation according to peacegirl?

From point of view of the parking lot, Fred was there instantly, even though it took him an hour to get there.

Right!

OMG, this is not about Fred getting anywhere instantly. You're completely lost!

It’s called an analogy. The example is exactly analogous to what your writer is claiming.

 

[pood]

@peacegirl, how is it possible for light to be at the eye instantly even while you admit it takes light time to get to the eye?

 

[pood]

@peacegirl, how did we measure the speed of light in the first place, if we see in real time with no delay for light to arrive?

 

[pood]

@peacegirl, how is it possible for Fred to be at the parking lot instantly even while it took him an hour to get there?

 

[peacegirl]

I'm not disputing that there is a discrepancy between the EM spectrum.

...and?

There is no discrepancy between the EM spectrum and that we see in real time. My bad.

You do know that the concept "between" demands a plural, right?

I mean, I know that making sense doesn't appeal to you, but this here is just taking the piss.

 

[peacegirl]

@peacegirl, how did we measure the speed of light in the first place, if we see in real time with no delay for light to arrive?

How can you say that Lessans denied the speed of light or the experiments that helped them to determine what the speed was? You're completely off track.

 

[peacegirl]

@peacegirl, how is it possible for Fred to be at the parking lot instantly even while it took him an hour to get there?

You can't be serious, Pood. This is not teleportation. Is this as far as we've gotten in all this time?

 

[bilby]

Of course, I'm going to repeat his claims because people are trying to prove him wrong. This is what anyone would do if the present scientific explanation has flaws that haven't been brought to the forefront.

Nope. What a sane person would do, rather than just repeat the same tired shit over and over, would be to specifically address only the flaws that they believe they have identified, and to engage in meaningful dialogue to determine whether those apparent flaws actually do exist, and whether and how their alternative explanation has fewer, and/or less significant flaws.

Only idiots need to constantly repeat stuff that everyone has already seen. And only people who are arguing in bad faith claim that their ideas are being rejected, not because they are wrong, but because they have not been read or listened to.

A genuine discussion looks like:

• I think A.
• Well, A is wrong, because B.
• Ah, but B is mistaken. C shows this, therefore A.
• Well I tested C via D, and you can do likewise - D shows that C is incorrect.
• You're right! B may be mistaken after all. I must agree with you that A is a real possibility.

A dumb faith "discussion" looks like:

• I think A.
• Well, A is wrong, because B.
• Ah, but B is mistaken, because I think A.
• But B isn't mistaken. I tested B via C, and you can do likewise - C shows that B is well founded, yet you seem to have nothing to support A.
• Ah, but C must be mistaken, because I think A. Look, my book clearly says A.
• Well. then your book is wrong, because C and B clearly refute A, as do D, E, and F.
• I think A. Look, my book clearly says A.
• But B, C and D. Also, E. And you are ignoring F, G and H as well.
• I think A. Look, my book clearly says A.

...continue ad infinitum

 

[bilby]

@peacegirl, how did we measure the speed of light in the first place, if we see in real time with no delay for light to arrive?

How can you say that Lessans denied the speed of light or the experiments that helped them to determine what the speed was? You're completely off track.

He didn't deny these things. He just completely ignored them.

Either he was too stupid to grasp that these things contradict his later claims; Or he hoped that his audience would be too stupid to grasp that these things contradict his later claims.

 

[pood]

@peacegirl, how did we measure the speed of light in the first place, if we see in real time with no delay for light to arrive?

How can you say that Lessans denied the speed of light or the experiments that helped them to determine what the speed was? You're completely off track.

Because we can’t measure the speed of light if we saw with no time delay. Even a kindergartner could understand this.

 

[pood]

@peacegirl, how is it possible for Fred to be at the parking lot instantly even while it took him an hour to get there?

You can't be serious, Pood. This is not teleportation. Is this as far as we've gotten in all this time?

You can’t be serious peacegirl. How is it possible for light to be at the eye instantly even though, as you concede, it takes light time to get to the eye? Is this as far as we’ve gotten In all this time?

 

[pood]

Rather, of course, we COULD measure the speed of light if we saw with no time delay.

The speed would be infinite.

But Lessans agrees the speed is about 186,000 miles per second.

How did we arrive at the number, if we saw instantly?

 

[peacegirl]

Of course, I'm going to repeat his claims because people are trying to prove him wrong. This is what anyone would do if the present scientific explanation has flaws that haven't been brought to the forefront.

Nope. What a sane person would do, rather than just repeat the same tired shit over and over, would be to specifically address only the flaws that they believe they have identified, and to engage in meaningful dialogue to determine whether those apparent flaws actually do exist, and whether and how their alternative explanation has fewer, and/or less significant flaws.

I've done that. The only flaw is with the idea that the object's wavelength/frequency (IMAGE) travels to the brain rather than the brain looking through the eye to see the object itself. That's it.

Only idiots need to constantly repeat stuff that everyone has already seen. And only people who are arguing in bad faith claim that their ideas are being rejected, not because they are wrong, but because they have not been read or listened to.

A genuine discussion looks like:

• I think A.
• Well, A is wrong, because B.
• Ah, but B is mistaken. C shows this, therefore A.
• Well I tested C via D, and you can do likewise - D shows that C is incorrect.
• You're right! B may be mistaken after all. I must agree with you that A is a real possibility.

I don't need to prove why science got it wrong; I only need to prove why Lessans got it right.

A dumb faith "discussion" looks like:

• I think A.
• Well, A is wrong, because B.
• Ah, but B is mistaken, because I think A.

OMG, that's not what I am doing.

• But B isn't mistaken. I tested B via C, and you can do likewise - C shows that B is well founded, yet you seem to have nothing to support A.
• Ah, but C must be mistaken, because I think A. Look, my book clearly says A.
• Well. then your book is wrong, because C and B clearly refute A, as do D, E, and F.
• I think A. Look, my book clearly says A.
• But B, C and D. Also, E. And you are ignoring F, G and H as well.
• I think A. Look, my book clearly says A.

...continue ad infinitum

Please stop. This is circular reasoning at its worst, and not what I'm doing.

 

[peacegirl]

@peacegirl, how is it possible for Fred to be at the parking lot instantly even while it took him an hour to get there?

You can't be serious, Pood. This is not teleportation. Is this as far as we've gotten in all this time?

You can’t be serious peacegirl. How is it possible for light to be at the eye instantly even though, as you concede, it takes light time to get to the eye? Is this as far as we’ve gotten In all this time?

Because we aren't waiting for light to arrive. It's there as a consequence of our being able to see the object, not the other way around.

 

[peacegirl]

Rather, of course, we COULD measure the speed of light if we saw with no time delay.

The speed would be infinite.

But Lessans agrees the speed is about 186,000 miles per second.

How did we arrive at the number, if we saw instantly?

This is a category error. You are talking about the speed of light, while I am talking about the brain and eyes. They are two different areas of discussion.

 

[peacegirl]

@peacegirl, how did we measure the speed of light in the first place, if we see in real time with no delay for light to arrive?

How can you say that Lessans denied the speed of light or the experiments that helped them to determine what the speed was? You're completely off track.

He didn't deny these things. He just completely ignored them.

Either he was too stupid to grasp that these things contradict his later claims; Or he hoped that his audience would be too stupid to grasp that these things contradict his later claims.

You are so wrong, it's pathetic. He didn't ignore anything. He knew what he was talking about!

 

[peacegirl]

@peacegirl, how did we measure the speed of light in the first place, if we see in real time with no delay for light to arrive?

How can you say that Lessans denied the speed of light or the experiments that helped them to determine what the speed was? You're completely off track.

Because we can’t measure the speed of light if we saw with no time delay. Even a kindergartner could understand this.

Many applications are dependent on knowing the speed of light. But this has NOTHING to do with the speed of light. It has ONLY to do with efferent VISION.