Who said it would take 8.5 seconds to see your neighbor? You mean minutes?peacegirl, That is true. You would see the Sun before you would see each other. This would occur because the requirements would have been met for seeing the sun but not met for seeing your neighbor. Again, you have no understanding as to why this would be true so it might sound funny to you but that doesn't make it false.Well, that remains to be seen, the same applies to you. The only requirements for seeing my neighbor is that the light of the sun strikes him at nearly the same time it strikes me; a) depending who stands closer to the sun at that moment. If my neighbor stands between me and the sun, its light would strike him before it strikes me. Thus the only object without light on my side would register on my eyes at exactly the same time as I observe the dark silhoutte when I see the light from the sun in my eyes. This difference would be measured in nano seconds. b) If he were to stand at an angle from the sun, I would see my neighbor's reflected light at nearly the exact time, again depending on who the sun strikes first. It is possible that the angle of reflection would create a greater distance for the light to travel as compared to a straight line light In any case that would be measured in nano seconds. c) if I am standing between him and the sun, but looking backwards to my neighbor, my neighbor would see my silhoutte before I see his reflection back to me from the same light. Again, this delay would be measured in nano seconds. d) light does slow down in a medium, such as in water or in the interior of a sun. It may take a photon from the interior of the sun a 1000 years to reach the surface of the sun. This delay is not caused by a slowing down of the photon ("c"), but trillions of other particles in its way prevent it from traveling in a straight line. But once at the surface the total time for that photon to reach the earth is but 8 1/2 minutes. e) it takes but nano seconds for that photon to penetrate our atmosphere (another medium) So where on earth did Lessans come up with the notion that I cannot see my neighbor until 8 1/2 minutes after I see the sun? The photons I see as light coming from the sun is the same light that reflects off my neighbor. The reverse is true also for my neighbor. 8 1/2 minutes is the time it takes for photons (light) traveling from the sun to register on our eyes and reflect off me as well as everything in my field of vision. Any measurable delay in time would be counted in nano seconds. From wiki,A nanosecond is equal to 1000 picoseconds or 11000 microsecond. Because the next SI unit is 1000 times larger, times of 10−8 and 10−7 seconds are typically expressed as tens or hundreds of nanoseconds.andLight travels approximately 29.98 centimeters in 1 nanosecond. This is equivalent to 11.8 inches, leading some to refer to a nanosecond as a "light-foot"12" per nano second should sound familiar, now do the math how long it would take for you to see the reflected light from your neigbor standing 8.5' from you. Explain to me why it should take 8.5 seconds to see my neighbor? btw, below is a list of different wave lengths of "light" all traveling @ "c", penetrating to the earth's surface or being absorbed by the earth's atmosphere. Notice the small band in the middle makes up our visible spectrum (white light).
The light didn't have to travel to get there.
Light travels David.:coolsmile: Apparently, it travels. It just doesn't have to travel to get anywhere! :lol: Of course it does. Light takes 81/2 minutes to get to earth, so it does travel. Don't try to turn this into something it's not. It won't work this time. It takes the light eight and a half minutes to get to the earth, so the light travels. Agreed! So: please explain for the first time how, if it takes light eight and a half minutes to travel to the earth when God turns on the sun at noon, people see the sun instantly (according to you and Lessans) when the light from the sun will not have arrived on earth for eight and a half minutes? :lol: We have engaged in a bit of time travel into the past, where the very subject was already debated at great length. From Wiki,
Early history[edit] Empedocles (c. 490–430 BC) was the first to claim that light has a finite speed.[103] He maintained that light was something in motion, and therefore must take some time to travelIt must be said that Lessans' theories has some early supporters. Of course this was some 2300 hundred years in the past.
Aristotle argued, to the contrary, that "light is due to the presence of something, but it is not a movement".and while,
Early Islamic philosophers initially agreed with the Aristotelian view that light had no speed of travelThey were refuted by,
Euclid and Ptolemy advanced Empedocles' emission theory of vision, where light is emitted from the eye, thus enabling sight. Based on that theory, Heron of Alexandria argued that the speed of light must be infinite because distant objects such as stars appear immediately upon opening the eyes.and finally,
. In 1021, Alhazen (Ibn al-Haytham) published the Book of Optics, in which he presented a series of arguments dismissing the emission theory of vision in favour of the now accepted intromission theory, in which light moves from an object into the eyehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_light#Early_history Of course this all happened long before Lessans and we were born and consequently "if we don't learn from the past, we are bound to repeat it". New discovery?
The only thing it may have an impact on is how long it will take for this knowledge to be thoroughly investigated.And what would the test be?
The light didn't have to travel to get there.
Light travels David.:coolsmile: Apparently, it travels. It just doesn't have to travel to get anywhere! :lol: Of course it does. Light takes 81/2 minutes to get to earth, so it does travel. Don't try to turn this into something it's not. It won't work this time. It takes the light eight and a half minutes to get to the earth, so the light travels. Agreed! So: please explain for the first time how, if it takes light eight and a half minutes to travel to the earth when God turns on the sun at noon, people see the sun instantly (according to you and Lessans) when the light from the sun will not have arrived on earth for eight and a half minutes? :lol: The Sun is made up of matter David. We are not seeing light because light is not made up of matter. Light is a necessary condition for sight. Without light we cannot see anything. The fact that we can see the Sun before its light has arrived on earth is due to EFFERENT VISION, which eliminates time and distance as factors, as long as the object is within our optical range. The light being reflected (which is necessary for sight) will be at the eye (call it what you will; mirror image, instant vision, etc.) because of this phenomenon. If the object is not bright enough, there will be no photons at the eye, just as in the afferent account. If the object isn't large enough, there will be no photons at the retina, just as in the afferent account. The only difference is that the one version says there is a delay in seeing the image, and the other says there is not. The meaning behind this finding is more important than the finding itself.
The only thing it may have an impact on is how long it will take for this knowledge to be thoroughly investigated.And what would the test be? He gave some of his observations in the book that could be a starting point for further investigation. I hope these observations aren't ignored as being fruitless because they are anything but.
Peacegirl, I am not going to discuss light and sight with you again. You’ve learned absolutely nothing after being taught by actual scientists for nearly four years at FF, and before that at iidb. People have schooled you on your ignorant statements more times than anyone cares to count. And here you are, making the exact same wrong statements all over again. You were indoctrinated by your father, who was a clown and a buffoon. All you do is make him, and yourself, laughingstocks by pressing on with your futile quest to do … whatever it is you are trying to do. All you are doing, and all you ever will do, is make you and your father look stupid. If that’s your goal, you do achieve that much every time you post on this topic.
Peacegirl explains “sucked-up" and “non-sucked-up" light] :coolsmile:I don't think I was the first one to use "sucked up light". It sounds so silly, I am actually laughing. I was trying to answer the photon question in a way that made sense to Spacemonkey, but I realized that this is not only going to confuse people more, but this is not how proof is going to be established. It has to come from understanding the eye, not light. Light does what it does, and the scientists are correct regarding its properties. What they are not correct about is how the eyes function, which is what this claim is all about. The eye and light are part and parcel to the same system, you can't understand the eye without considering light, since that is how information is delivered to the brain through the eye. Claiming that the eye operates independent of traveling light is just unrealistic and demonstrates that Lessans didn't understand vision at all, and anyone who tries to foist this theory on others, is just demonstrating their lack of understanding.
The only thing it may have an impact on is how long it will take for this knowledge to be thoroughly investigated.Vision has been investigated for many years and some have investigated with the idea of proving that the current afferent theory is incorrect. So far every test and experiment has verified that vision is afferent in the way it works. There is literally, very little that has not been tried to disprove the current afferent theory of vision. If you or Lessans have some other test that can be preformed, propose it and I'm sure someone will try it on the hope that they can become famous and respected in science.
Peacegirl, I am not going to discuss light and sight with you again.You promise?
You’ve learned absolutely nothing after being taught by actual scientists for nearly four years at FF, and before that at iidb. People have schooled you on your ignorant statements more times than anyone cares to count. And here you are, making the exact same wrong statements all over again. You were indoctrinated by your father, who was a clown and a buffoon. All you do is make him, and yourself, laughingstocks by pressing on with your futile quest to do … whatever it is you are trying to do. All you are doing, and all you ever will do, is make you and your father look stupid. If that’s your goal, you do achieve that much every time you post on this topic.I could care less what you say David, a person who believes in wormholes and time machines. Puff, be gone! :lol:
Pec, I answered on your posting] about Swartz here]. Too many photons here...OK, just realized that post of yours was in a different thread. For some reason I was thinking it was some pages back in this thread. I have given a partial response, with more to come. Do you want to do this discussion exclusively over there? I can practically guarantee that this thread will be permanently mucked up with peacegirl's light and sight idiocy, to the detriment of any meaningful discussion on free will and determnism.
What’s going to happen, I think, is that Spacemonkey and Breakup will keep discussing this topic, because they are entertained by it. But they, I, and many others know that if the goal is to teach peacegirl anything and free of her delusions, it’s a hopeless undertaking. Trying to teach peacegirl about reality is like trying to teach a pig to sing: it wastes your time, and annoys the pig.
peacegirl, Who said it would take 8.5 seconds to see your neighbor? You mean minutes?I gave you the benefit of doubt. Oops, rereading my post I also discovered I misplaced a few commas. My bad. The longer you say it takes, the more wrong you would be. But tell me peacegirl, if the sun were turned on @ noon, when would you feel the warmth of the sunlight? Would that be instantaneous or would you have to wait 8 1/2 minutes?
peacegirl, I'm not making a fool of myself except to people who are ignorant as to why this claim is accurate. I am persistent because I am sure Lessans was right and he will, one day, be posthumously honored for his major contribution to humanity.Again, I'll give you the benefit of doubt and keep an open mind about the FW issue, as it concerns a philosophical viewpoint and that is not my forte. But, if your description of his expertise in the field of physics is correct, I can guarantee that Lessans will never be considered a giant in that area. What he proposes is NOT NEW. In fact it was debated some 2000 years ago and discarded. Moreover, all subsequent discoveries about the electro magnetic laws and functions of the universe DO IN FACT negate Lessans' claims of instantaneous vision at any distance. WHAT WE SEE IS ALWAYS IN THE PAST. WHAT WE THINK WE SEE IS IN THE PRESENT.
I refer you back to my post on teaching a pig to sing. You are wasting your time, and annoying … etc. People have been down this road with her for years. She had the attention of a biologist and two physicists at FF. The biologist wrote her a 30-page paper explaining light and sight to the atomic level. She did not read it, repeatedly sneered at her intellectual betters, and then turned tail and came here, where she spouts the same inane bullshit that has spouted on the Internet for over a decade. Do as you like, of course, and if it floats your boat to talk to someone who is immune to reason, facts, evidence, and even basic logic, then have at it.peacegirl, I'm not making a fool of myself except to people who are ignorant as to why this claim is accurate. I am persistent because I am sure Lessans was right and he will, one day, be posthumously honored for his major contribution to humanity.Again, I'll give you the benefit of doubt and keep an open mind about the FW issue, as it concerns a philosophical viewpoint and that is not my forte. But, if your description of his expertise in the field of physics is correct, I can guarantee that Lessans will never be considered a giant in that area. What he proposes is NOT NEW. In fact it was debated some 2000 years ago and discarded. Moreover, all subsequent discoveries about the electro magnetic laws and functions of the universe DO IN FACT negate Lessans' claims of instantaneous vision at any distance. WHAT WE SEE IS ALWAYS IN THE PAST. WHAT WE THINK WE SEE IS IN THE PRESENT.
The way I explained it is confusing but even with the confusion it has merit.Tell us more about the merit of a theory that requires light to be somewhere before it's had time to get there. That's what you don't understand Spacemonkey. The eyes, being efferent get the same photons instantly on the retina in the same way they would if light traveled to the eye in the afferent account of vision... Two problems there. Firstly, the photons don't get there instantly in the afferent account, so saying they get there in the same way on the efferent account makes no sense. Secondly, on the afferent account they get there by traveling there which takes time, so you can't say they get there in the same way on the efferent account while also denying that they traveled there and denying that time was involved. So where did these photons at the retina at 12pm come from and how did they get there? You have yet to answer, and it cannot be the same way as the afferent account.
What's going to happen, I think, is that Spacemonkey and Breakup will keep discussing this topic, because they are entertained by it. But they, I, and many others know that if the goal is to teach peacegirl anything and free of her delusions, it's a hopeless undertaking. Trying to teach peacegirl about reality is like trying to teach a pig to sing: it wastes your time, and annoys the pig.Well, obviously peacegirl's arguments are coming from a sincerely held belief and desire to make this a better world. I can empathize with that emotion and I am trying to steer her away from the (irrelevant) scientific woo and make her concentrate only on the humanist aspects of her posits. That is the intent of this forum.
Yes we are on a discussion board...Then start discussing, instead of whining and complaining that you're being harassed whenever someone asks you a question. Not someone...YOUUUUUU!! I REFUSE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT PHOTONS. IT DOESN'T WORK AND IT ONLY SERVES TO CONFUSE. YOU ARE BARKING UP THE WRONG TREE SPACEMONKEY, AND YOU ARE BLIND TO SEE IT. LOL @ CAPSLOCK HISSYFIT. I know it doesn't work. That's the point. Efferent vision cannot be made to work because it requires flatly impossible things of photons. You know this, hence your evasion. You do have an option here though. You could try being honest and reasonable. For instance, you could have shown some basic integrity by answering the rest of my post instead of only the first sentence. See below: If the wavelength is there then so is the light. Where did this light at the retina come from, and how did it get there? So give us your alternative. How did the photons at the eye get there if they didn’t travel there? No, it is not consistent. Either all photons travel, or some of them don’t. You can’t have it both ways. And you’ve just here claimed that distance is not dependent upon distance. How retarded is that? Do you have any idea what you are even saying?
From peacegirl's voluminous writings on the topic of light and sight, I believe we now have the tools in place to explicate this discovery. Allow me to do so. Spacemonkey and others get confused because they constantly come at this from the afferent account, which scientists assume to be true, but this is the very account that Lessans disputed. Under the efferent account, the brain looks out through the windows of the eyes, and projects slides onto an undeniable screen of substance. Because of this, if God turned on the sun at noon, then the wavelength would immediately be at the retina, where it would form a mirror image in a closed system. We see that this is true because of the inverse square law. Of course it would still take the photons eight and a half minutes to reach the earth so that we could see our neighbors, but this is because there is a difference between (N) photons and ( P ) photons. Consequently, we see that the scientific account in which images are carried on wings of light to the eye cannot be correct, since nothing impinges on the optic nerve, owing to the fact that the eye is not a sense organ. Under the efferent account, objects are reflected by light, which means that we see the object itself. As a result, there is no distance between the object and the eye, though of course the light travels until it diminishes and peters out because of a lack of energy. It must be remembered that to be seen, an object must be big enough, and bright enough, to be seen. From this we may conclude that no object can be seen, which is not within our optical range. But if an object is big enough and bright enough to be seen, then we will see it with no time delay because in the efferent account, distance does not matter. In conclusion, then, under this account, once all the conditions for sight are met, voila, we see. It is important to remember that light is a condition, and not a cause, of sight.This is the funniest thing I've heard yet. You sure do know how to twist things to make me look ridiculous... None of it is twisted. These are all exactly what YOU have said. They are reproduced more or less verbatim from your own posts. So if it looks ridiculous guess whose fault that is? Not Pec's!
You have twisted everything he wrote...None of this is what Lessans said! It's all what YOU wrote. So if there is any twisting going on, it's yours!
No, it is not inconsistent when you are viewing it from the new understanding of vision. Light has to be at the object for us to see it [in the efferent version). It does not have to travel to Earth first because we are not getting the image from the light which would require travel time. We are seeing the object itself. The light is at the eye...That is inconsistent. How can light be at the eye on Earth if it has not yet traveled to Earth? How can it be there before it has had time to get there?
You are all failing to grasp even the most basic understanding of this account.Then so are you. We are all failing to grasp how light is meant to be somewhere before it can get there.
You can laugh all you want...We will. Because the things you keep saying are unbelievably stupid.
From peacegirl's voluminous writings on the topic of light and sight, I believe we now have the tools in place to explicate this discovery. Allow me to do so. Spacemonkey and others get confused because they constantly come at this from the afferent account, which scientists assume to be true, but this is the very account that Lessans disputed. Under the efferent account, the brain looks out through the windows of the eyes, and projects slides onto an undeniable screen of substance. Because of this, if God turned on the sun at noon, then the wavelength would immediately be at the retina, where it would form a mirror image in a closed system. We see that this is true because of the inverse square law. Of course it would still take the photons eight and a half minutes to reach the earth so that we could see our neighbors, but this is because there is a difference between (N) photons and ( P ) photons. Consequently, we see that the scientific account in which images are carried on wings of light to the eye cannot be correct, since nothing impinges on the optic nerve, owing to the fact that the eye is not a sense organ. Under the efferent account, objects are reflected by light, which means that we see the object itself. As a result, there is no distance between the object and the eye, though of course the light travels until it diminishes and peters out because of a lack of energy. It must be remembered that to be seen, an object must be big enough, and bright enough, to be seen. From this we may conclude that no object can be seen, which is not within our optical range. But if an object is big enough and bright enough to be seen, then we will see it with no time delay because in the efferent account, distance does not matter. In conclusion, then, under this account, once all the conditions for sight are met, voila, we see. It is important to remember that light is a condition, and not a cause, of sight.This is the funniest thing I've heard yet. You sure do know how to twist things to make me look ridiculous... None of it is twisted. These are all exactly what YOU have said. They are reproduced more or less verbatim from your own posts. So if it looks ridiculous guess whose fault that is? Not Pec's!
You have twisted everything he wrote...None of this is what Lessans said! It's all what YOU wrote. So if there is any twisting going on, it's yours! It really is amazing, isn't it? Everything I wrote there, was written by her! It's practically verbatim. And she says it makes her look ridiculous! So, you now agree that your own arguments make you look ridiculous, peacegirl? :lol: