When I say distance is a factor, obviously what we see has distance (we are seeing the moon at a distance), but distance does not relate to light traveling the distance to reach the eye.
Did the light at the eye travel to get there or not?
Yes, I am saying that although light travels, the fact that the eye is efferent allows the wavelength to be at the eye instantly as we turn our gaze to said object as long as it's bright enough. You just keep thinking that it's impossible because there is a gap since light hasn't gotten to Earth yet, but that is not required when we're seeing the actual object within our field of view. I will never get through to you Spacemonkey, so I don't even know why I try.
You haven't clarified. Are you arguing for option 1 or option 2 below? Please clarify.
1) Are you saying that the wavelength can be there without the photons being there?
2) Or are you saying that the photons (of which wavelength is a measurable property) can be there without having traveled to get there?
Which is it?
If I start a discussion on my facebook or twitter page, I will block you.
Or I could find a proxy to post for me.
I know your writing, so it won't help. I'll just block them.
When I say distance is a factor, obviously what we see has distance (we are seeing the moon at a distance), but distance does not relate to light traveling the distance to reach the eye.
Did the light at the eye travel to get there or not?
Yes, I am saying that although light travels, the fact that the eye is efferent allows the wavelength to be at the eye instantly as we turn our gaze to said object as long as it's bright enough. You just keep thinking that it's impossible because there is a gap since light hasn't gotten to Earth yet, but that is not required when we're seeing the actual object within our field of view. I will never get through to you Spacemonkey, so I don't even know why I try.
You haven't clarified. Are you arguing for option 1 or option 2 below? Please clarify.
1) Are you saying that the wavelength can be there without the photons being there?
No Spacemonkey. I'm not saying that.
2) Or are you saying that the photons (of which wavelength is a measurable property) can be there without having traveled to get there?
Which is it?
I'm saying that travel time is not a factor when the object is within one's field of view. As I explained many times, the wavelength that allows for sight is instantly at the retina if the light is bright enough, which is necessary for sight. The object also has to be large enough, which is also necessary for sight. This is necessary in either account. The only difference is that one says we interpret the image due to light, which is independent of the object once it starts its journey to your eye, and the other says the object is necessary for sight and that light is a condition ONLY; it does not bring the wavelength through space/time. I don't know how to prove to you that this account is absolutely possible.
This will go on and on and on ad infinitum. You can be angry at Lessans and me for the rest of your life, and it won't solve a thing. The only way this will be resolved is when scientists take this claim seriously and do more experiments with this claim in mind. BTW, you are using these small errors to condemn him on the "bigger one" to try to convince yourself and others that he was wrong. This is sneaky and disingenuous and doesn't prove a thing! >:(
It will go on as long as you keep lying and evading, instead of facing up to the fact that light can't be somewhere before it gets there.
What you are saying displays an angry person who is upset that his entire worldview is collapsing. I hope people can see through you Spacemonkey. All you are doing is condemning Lessans for no other reason that you disagree with him based on what you have based your entire life on, literally. But your disagreement doesn't prove you right. That's the key point here, and it will not go away just because you personally don't like his claim.
More projection and evasion. Try being honest for once. Try facing up to the fact that photons prove you wrong.
Photons don't prove me wrong. :cheese:
TRENDS IN PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE
Unearthed Lessans Manuscript Declares Sun to be Giant Taco Powered by Rat Farts
CENTER FOR INQUIRY (Internet News Service) -- The sun is a giant taco powered by rat farts, it was disclosed on Wednesday.
The startling revelation came in a Seymour Lessans manuscript recently discovered in an old trunk in a Baltimore billiard hall.
"Scientists have long assumed that the sun is a celestial fusion reactor," said E. Mota Khan, a message-board analyst with the RAND Corporation. "It was believed that the sun, a main-sequence star, generates energy by nuclear fusion of hydrogen nuclei into helium, releasing photons in the process. In its core, the sun was believed to have fused 620 million metric tons of hydrogen each second. Now we know better. Scientists were well-meaning, but they got it wrong. After all, everyone makes mistakes."
The sun, Khan astutely observed, "is instead a giant taco powered by rat farts. We know this because Seymour Lessans said so. He was a humble man, and if he had ever been wrong, he would have said so. Since he never said that he was wrong, he must have been right."
At press time, Lessans' daughter, peacegirl, was frantically recalibrating her online posts to defend the notion that the sun is a giant taco powered by rat farts. "Oh, noooooo, Spacemonkey," she recently posted. "The sun is a giant taco powered by rat farts. You can't see this undeniable knowledge because you have a mental block and a vendetta against my father because he has overturned your precious world view."
Shut up David. Your vengeance is showing its ugly face. Remember, what you say will be left to posterity. It will be a happy day for me when Lessans is vindicated and people look at you with pity.
TRENDS IN PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE
Unearthed Lessans Manuscript Declares Sun to be Giant Taco Powered by Rat Farts
CENTER FOR INQUIRY (Internet News Service) -- The sun is a giant taco powered by rat farts, it was disclosed on Wednesday.
The startling revelation came in a Seymour Lessans manuscript recently discovered in an old trunk in a Baltimore billiard hall.
"Scientists have long assumed that the sun is a celestial fusion reactor," said E. Mota Khan, a message-board analyst with the RAND Corporation. "It was believed that the sun, a main-sequence star, generates energy by nuclear fusion of hydrogen nuclei into helium, releasing photons in the process. In its core, the sun was believed to have fused 620 million metric tons of hydrogen each second. Now we know better. Scientists were well-meaning, but they got it wrong. After all, everyone makes mistakes."
The sun, Khan astutely observed, "is instead a giant taco powered by rat farts. We know this because Seymour Lessans said so. He was a humble man, and if he had ever been wrong, he would have said so. Since he never said that he was wrong, he must have been right."
At press time, Lessans' daughter, peacegirl, was frantically recalibrating her online posts to defend the notion that the sun is a giant taco powered by rat farts. "Oh, noooooo, Spacemonkey," she recently posted. "The sun is a giant taco powered by rat farts. You can't see this undeniable knowledge because you have a mental block and a vendetta against my father because he has overturned your precious world view."
Shut up David. Your vengeance is showing its ugly face. Remember, what you say will be left to posterity. It will be a happy day for me when Lessans is vindicated and people look at you with pity.
:lol:
I'm saying that travel time is not a factor when the object is within one's field of view. As I explained many times, the wavelength that allows for sight is instantly at the retina if the light is bright enough, which is necessary for sight.
:lol:
Do you see, everyone? This is as she "explained" many times! Next she'll be "explaining" how the sun is giant taco powered by rat farts!
:lol:
TRENDS IN PHILOSOPHY AND SCIENCE
Unearthed Lessans Manuscript Declares Sun to be Giant Taco Powered by Rat Farts
CENTER FOR INQUIRY (Internet News Service) -- The sun is a giant taco powered by rat farts, it was disclosed on Wednesday.
The startling revelation came in a Seymour Lessans manuscript recently discovered in an old trunk in a Baltimore billiard hall.
"Scientists have long assumed that the sun is a celestial fusion reactor," said E. Mota Khan, a message-board analyst with the RAND Corporation. "It was believed that the sun, a main-sequence star, generates energy by nuclear fusion of hydrogen nuclei into helium, releasing photons in the process. In its core, the sun was believed to have fused 620 million metric tons of hydrogen each second. Now we know better. Scientists were well-meaning, but they got it wrong. After all, everyone makes mistakes."
The sun, Khan astutely observed, "is instead a giant taco powered by rat farts. We know this because Seymour Lessans said so. He was a humble man, and if he had ever been wrong, he would have said so. Since he never said that he was wrong, he must have been right."
At press time, Lessans' daughter, peacegirl, was frantically recalibrating her online posts to defend the notion that the sun is a giant taco powered by rat farts. "Oh, noooooo, Spacemonkey," she recently posted. "The sun is a giant taco powered by rat farts. You can't see this undeniable knowledge because you have a mental block and a vendetta against my father because he has overturned your precious world view."
Shut up David. Your vengeance is showing its ugly face. Remember, what you say will be left to posterity. It will be a happy day for me when Lessans is vindicated and people look at you with pity.
:lol:
Laugh all you want NOW because the last laugh won't be yours. :lol:
Calling it obvious doesn't make it any less wrong.
It really is the no brainer of philosophy. The controversy over this has nothing to do with the facts. People imagine they lose power worth wanting if it's the luck of the draw who gets to do what. That's understandable we are in a pretty crap situation I'm afraid. But we only have to look around at all the suffering people go through to know that, there is no magic escape or those people would take it and make better choices.
But having bitten the bullet on that we do have the opportunity to be fairer and kinder if we drop the nasty fiction that people have libertarian free will.
We are controlled by circumstances beyond our control. This is the undeniable fact. Well you can deny it by getting into a semantic battle. But that's just word games. The puppet strings are there assuming (standard) determinism The puppet analogy is bad in that it leaves out the machinery inside our heads and because there is no one on the end of the strings.
But the strings are there and to do otherwise they would have had to tug us in a different direction.
It's very unkind to deny this. So I'm in a restaurant with a bean allergy and I order the steak. Someone else with a bean allergy orders beans and gets ill. I think what an idiot he could have chosen steak he deserves his suffering I have no sympathy he brought it upon himself.
This way of thinking is bullshit. He was tugged by his causal strings. He might not have been, it might have been me. Sheer fluke it wasn't me.
Denial of this is really quite nasty. And because it's nasty I'd be surprised if it doesn't make us nasty.
It makes us nasty for sure, and very very arrogant.
When I say distance is a factor, obviously what we see has distance (we are seeing the moon at a distance), but distance does not relate to light traveling the distance to reach the eye.
Did the light at the eye travel to get there or not?
Yes, I am saying that although light travels, the fact that the eye is efferent allows the wavelength to be at the eye instantly as we turn our gaze to said object as long as it's bright enough. You just keep thinking that it's impossible because there is a gap since light hasn't gotten to Earth yet, but that is not required when we're seeing the actual object within our field of view. I will never get through to you Spacemonkey, so I don't even know why I try.
You haven't clarified. Are you arguing for option 1 or option 2 below? Please clarify.
1) Are you saying that the wavelength can be there without the photons being there?
No Spacemonkey. I'm not saying that.
2) Or are you saying that the photons (of which wavelength is a measurable property) can be there without having traveled to get there?
Which is it?
I'm saying that travel time is not a factor when the object is within one's field of view. As I explained many times, the wavelength that allows for sight is instantly at the retina if the light is bright enough, which is necessary for sight. The object also has to be large enough, which is also necessary for sight. This is necessary in either account. The only difference is that one says we interpret the image due to light, which is independent of the object once it starts its journey to your eye, and the other says the object is necessary for sight and that light is a condition ONLY; it does not bring the wavelength through space/time.
I don't know how to prove to you that this account is absolutely possible.
In other words, you don't know what you are talking about. There is a measurable distance from the eye to any object you look at, efferent vision cannot negate that distance, no matter what you claim. All your claims about the wavelength being at the retina, but the photons are not, is nonsense, do you even realize how silly this all is? Any sane person is going to see exactly what you are saying, and laugh at you for saying it. Since Lessans was wrong about light and sight, as well as several other things in the book, he's probably wrong about free will. At least the way he tried to prove it. And he's probably wrong about everything else he wrote in the book that can't be empirically proven to be wrong, and most of the book can be empirically proven to be wrong. Lessans screwed up big time in his book, and you just refuse to see it. Well, they say that
Love is Blind, and you are the proof of that.
Remember, what you say will be left to posterity. It will be a happy day for me when Lessans is vindicated and people look at you with pity.
I'm sure David is happy that his words will be here for a long time, so that people can see how correct he was.
Don't hold your breath waiting for that day, it'll never happen.
Remember, what you say will be left to posterity. It will be a happy day for me when Lessans is vindicated and people look at you with pity.
I'm sure David is happy that his words will be here for a long time, so that people can see how correct he was.
Don't hold your breath waiting for that day, it'll never happen.
Your posts indicate that you never understand this knowledge; you just thought you did. You cannot compare your intellectual capacity to Lessans, which is why your ignorance is so blatantly obvious. This brazenness of yours will one day come back to bite you in the ass.
Your posts indicate that you never understand this knowledge; you just thought you did. You cannot compare your intellectual capacity to Lessans, which is why your ignorance is so blatantly obvious. This brazenness of yours will one day come back to bite you in the ass.
I am very glad that my intellectual capacity doesn't compare to Lessans, I would never want to be that dim. It's a good thing for Lessans that it doesn't take a great deal of education to shoot pool. At least he was good at something.
As far as the ideas in Lessans book, yes, I'm glad that I don't agree with them, I wouldn't want to appear that dumb.
This brazenness of yours will one day come back to bite you in the ass.
My skepticism has certainly served me well, so far, in the things that really matter.
Your posts indicate that you never understand this knowledge; you just thought you did. You cannot compare your intellectual capacity to Lessans, which is why your ignorance is so blatantly obvious. This brazenness of yours will one day come back to bite you in the ass.
I am very glad that my intellectual capacity doesn't compare to Lessans, I would never want to be that dim. It's a good thing for Lessans that it doesn't take a great deal of education to shoot pool. At least he was good at something.
As far as the ideas in Lessans book, yes, I'm glad that I don't agree with them, I wouldn't want to appear that dumb.
Unbelievable!! You have gall to say the things you're saying.
I wonder if peacegirl is unable to say other than what she says, because her argument is compelled in the direction of greater satisfaction, such as approval from her father, which is an admirable motivation. Of course that does not make her (or her father’s) statements true, just that they are sincere.
What intrigues me is that the fear of discovering her father was wrong prevents her from seriously researching the issue, as that would compel her to act in a direction of lesser satisfaction of disapproval (or disappointment) from her father.
Can we blame her because she does not act from FW?
Peacegirl, photons travel as waves, regardless of intensity. A photon only becomes visible energy when its “wave function” is collapsed by observation. Traveling photons are the lightwaves (and their frequencies) and when those wave frequencies are in our visible range (of the electromagnetic spectrum) we observe the photon-wave as light containing the visible image of the emitter or the reflector. There is no difference if we look at the sun, the moon, our neighbor or just the difused light on a hazy day, everything that is illuminated by daylight is due to photons traveling from the sun (as waves).
In the test of Einstein’s Theory of Relativity, it was demonstrated that we can see the light of a distant star (the image of the star), even as it is still hidden by our sun and not in the direct line-of-sight, just as he had predicted.
THAT TESTED AND PROVEN DISCOVERY IS WHAT CHANGED PHYSICS FOREVER.
Now you come along and claim Einstein was wrong even as it was proven he was right. Please, try to “will” yourself to do some research on the behavior of photons. Use my sincere advice as an antecedent, indulge my sincere desire to assist in your quest for “knowledge”.
Can we blame her because she does not act from FW?
How could she do otherwise? This is the crux of the matter. If we take determinism seriously then the answer is a chain of cause and effect stretching back to the initial conditions of the universe could have been appropriately different so that she would have done.
There is an absurdity to blame under such conditions. But moral disapproval itself is an input into the environment that can do good sometimes.
So sometimes it can be justified. But very often not. So why do we do it when there is no good reason to do it? Because we feel it's deserved. But then we're back to the absurd notion that blame can be deserved, when for a person to have done what they should have done they'd have needed a different chain of cause and effect stretching back to before they were born.
1) Are you saying that the wavelength can be there without the photons being there?
No Spacemonkey. I'm not saying that.
So if you are claiming that the wavelength can be there at the retina before the photons have had time to travel to it, and you concede that the wavelength cannot be there without the photons also being there, then are you saying the photons at the retina got there by some means other than traveling there from the Sun? Is this what you are saying? (Yes or No!)
Can we blame her because she does not act from FW?
How could she do otherwise? This is the crux of the matter. If we take determinism seriously then the answer is a chain of cause and effect stretching back to the initial conditions of the universe could have been appropriately different so that she would have done.
There is an absurdity to blame under such conditions. But moral disapproval itself is an input into the environment that can do good sometimes.
So sometimes it can be justified. But very often not. So why do we do it when there is no good reason to do it? Because we feel it's deserved. But then we're back to the absurd notion that blame can be deserved, when for a person to have done what they should have done they'd have needed a different chain of cause and effect stretching back to before they were born.
Yes, I understand the principle involved. However, the entire scientific world has studied the properties of light since the dawn of man also and by trial and error have eventually discovered the actual properties and behaviors of photons. That should also be considered as antecedents in a deterministic chronology, especially in the area of science and physics in particular.
GR and QM are no longer unsubstantiated hypotheses open to falsification, this is consensus Theory (a description of a Law of Nature) and is used with unfailing success in tens of thousands of practical applications.
The refusal to accept the consensus conclusions of the best minds mankind has produced and still argue against that which is demonstrably true (proven antecedents) seems contrary to the definition of Determinism. It seems a willful refusal to accept any and all demonstrable facts known to the scientific community.
How can one ignore currents facts and skip a century of knowledge and be in any way confident that what one proposes
is a new revelatory discovery, no matter how satisfying this argument seems to the poster's psyche, especially when this discovery is not new at all, but was first proposed some 2000 years ago? How can one even argue that the properties of the eye has anything to do with particle physics?
![]()
I wonder if peacegirl is unable to say other than what she says, because her argument is compelled in the direction of greater satisfaction, such as approval from her father, which is an admirable motivation. Of course that does not make her (or her father's) statements true, just that they are sincere.
What intrigues me is that the fear of discovering her father was wrong prevents her from seriously researching the issue, as that would compel her to act in a direction of lesser satisfaction of disapproval (or disappointment) from her father.
Can we blame her because she does not act from FW?
Peacegirl, photons travel as waves, regardless of intensity. A photon only becomes visible energy when its "wave function" is collapsed by observation. Traveling photons are the lightwaves (and their frequencies) and when those wave frequencies are in our visible range (of the electromagnetic spectrum) we observe the photon-wave as light containing the visible image of the emitter or the reflector. There is no difference if we look at the sun, the moon, our neighbor or just the difused light on a hazy day, everything that is illuminated by daylight is due to photons traveling from the sun (as waves).
In the test of Einstein's Theory of Relativity, it was demonstrated that we can see the light of a distant star (the image of the star), even as it is still hidden by our sun and not in the direct line-of-sight, just as he had predicted.
THAT TESTED AND PROVEN DISCOVERY IS WHAT CHANGED PHYSICS FOREVER.
Now you come along and claim Einstein was wrong even as it was proven he was right. Please, try to "will" yourself to do some research on the behavior of photons. Use my sincere advice as an antecedent, indulge my sincere desire to assist in your quest for "knowledge".
That doesn't change the fact that the star exists, and is just in a position where we can see its image even though it is not in direct sight. That happens also when we look in the mirror. We are not looking directly at the object, but the object is still present. If the object was gone, we would not be able to see an image.