A Revolution in Thought: Part Two

[LadyShea]

If we see instantly as per Lessans, if efferent vision were true, we would be able to see a supernova much, much, much sooner than we could detect the light photons or the neutrinos from that supernova. Because photons and neutrinos have to travel to our detectors to be detected. The difference between seeing the supernova and detecting the neutrinos or photons would be decades at minimum.

That doesn't happen. What does happen is that we see the supernova and detect the photons at the same time, and the neutrinos within a short time, hours.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You can't explain the empirical evidence that clearly refutes your point of view, that in fact is the "absolute proof" Lessans demanded, so you refuse to discuss it...that's weaseling. That's dogmatism. That's being blinded by your faith. You can see supernova from "home". You can view the Hubble images from "home". The neutrino and photon detectors are here at "home". Evidence is evidence, and empirical observations are empirical observations. Your baseless differentiation is moving the goalposts

Lessans ideas on light and sight are absolutely proven to be false and wrong.

This is not dogmatism. Viewing images from home is not the problem; it's being able to interpret what we're actually seeing.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

WHO IS ARGUING WITH THIS?

YOU ARE, STOOPID!

You claimed there was no demonstration of light speed measurement and delayed-time seeing right here on on little ol' earth! And the above is the very demonstration of that which, according to you, does not exist! So if you aren't fucking arguing with this, then you agree that Lessans was wrong!

Wow, boy howdy, are you stoopid!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

If we see instantly as per Lessans, if efferent vision were true, we would be able to see a supernova much, much, much sooner than we could detect the light photons or the neutrinos from that supernova. Because photons and neutrinos have to travel to our detectors to be detected. The difference between seeing the supernova and detecting the neutrinos or photons would be decades at minimum.

That doesn't happen. What does happen is that we see the supernova and detect the photons at the same time, and the neutrinos within a short time, hours.

Neutrinos travel at a speed close to that of the speed of light, so it's no surprise that when we detect one, we detect the other, but this doesn't negate the claim of efferent vision. I never said photons don't travel.

What exactly happens to a star about to go supernova?

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This is not dogmatism. Viewing images from home is not the problem; it's being able to interpret what we're actually seeing.

What's to interpret? There are stars, galaxies, nebulae, supernova etc.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

This doesn't even address the issue! Didn't Lessans say that light travels at 186,000 miles a second? You don't remember because you didn't read the book. The speed of light has nothing to do with how the brain works in relation to the eyes.

Of course I read the book! How the fuck do you think I learned about the dumb bell's claims, such as that we will all fall in love with our partner's genitals and have the best damn spaghetti and meatballs of all time every Monday night?

Boy, howdy, are you fucking stupid! Did you fucking READ the passage you now say you aren't arguing with? It does more than establish the speed of light -- it establishes that we don't see in real time. That is the fucking point that always whooshes right over your tiny head. The speed of light, and delayed-time seeing, are linked by necessity. That is what the fast-flickering lantern experiment shows, fool! Not JUST that light travels at a finite speed.

Yes, we know your buffoon of a father wrote that light travels at a finite rate of speed, while also maintaining that we see in real time. That is because he, like you, failed to grasp the elementary and experimentally proven fact that finite light speed entails delayed-time seeing. And he failed to grasp this because he was fucking stupid.

Like you!

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Neutrinos travel at a speed very close to the speed of light, so it's no surprise that when we would detect both in close proximity if that light came from the same source. It still doesn't answer the question of efferent vision.

The question is when do we see it vs. when do we detect the particles and photons. Pretty simple.

If we see instantly as per Lessans, if efferent vision were true, we would be able to see a supernova much, much, much sooner than we could detect the light photons or the neutrinos from that supernova

You already agreed yesterday that we would see the supernova instantly, at the time it happened, and need not await the arrival of the photons to see it.

You are now weaseling via backpedaling.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

She doesn't (or is not willing to) understand how Fizeau's experiment would fail to work if we saw in real time.

See this quote, stupid? You're missing the rather gob-smackingly obvious fact that if we saw in real time, the fucking experiment would not work! Since it DOES work, it proves we don't see in real time!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

YOU ARE, STOOPID!

You claimed there was no demonstration of light speed measurement and delayed-time seeing right here on on little ol' earth! And the above is the very demonstration of that which, according to you, does not exist! So if you aren't fucking arguing with this, then you agree that Lessans was wrong!

Wow, boy howdy, are you stoopid!

I never said we can't measure light speed. The Lone Ranger gave an example early in the thread.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

The question is when do we see it vs. when do we detect the particles and photons. Pretty simple.

If we see instantly as per Lessans, if efferent vision were true, we would be able to see a supernova much, much, much sooner than we could detect the light photons or the neutrinos from that supernova

You already agreed yesterday that we would see the supernova instantly, at the time it happened, and need not await the arrival of the photons to see it.

You are now weaseling via backpedaling.

I'm not backpedaling. There's just a lot of confusion. We would see a Supernova explode in real time just as we would see the Sun explode in real time, if they met the requirements of efferent vision. That doesn't mean photons can't break away from a distant Supernova and travel. I even posted a link about this. But you can't make a leap from this to "we would see Columbus discovering America" because the image or pattern of that event is still travelling out there somewhere.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said we can't measure light speed. The Lone Ranger gave an example early in the thread.

Oh, lord, are REALLY this stupid, or are you just pretending? I mean, srsly!

How could we measure the speed of light, if we see all light instantaneously as real-time seeing predicts, idiot?

The reason we can measure the speed of light at all is because we don't see in real time. I guess that annoying little fact zipped right over your little head!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Of course I read the book! How the fuck do you think I learned about the dumb bell's claims, such as that we will all fall in love with our partner's genitals and have the best damn spaghetti and meatballs of all time every Monday night?

You did not read the book David. You flipped through it and grabbed certain sentences that would sound funny if taken out of context. You did a good job! It's because of you that I would never post the book online again!

Originally Posted by davidm

Boy, howdy, are you fucking stupid! Did you fucking READ the passage you now say you aren't arguing with? It does more than establish the speed of light -- it establishes that we don't see in real time. That is the fucking point that always whooshes right over your tiny head. The speed of light, and delayed-time seeing, are linked by necessity. That is what the fast-flickering lantern experiment shows, fool! Not JUST that light travels at a finite speed.

Just because we can measure the speed of light by measuring a delay does not mean we see the real world in delayed time.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Oh, lord, are REALLY this stupid, or are you just pretending? I mean, srsly!

How could we measure the speed of light, if we see all light instantaneously as real-time seeing predicts, idiot?

The reason we can measure the speed of light at all is because we don't see in real time. I guess that annoying little fact zipped right over your little head!

The speed of light can be measured, but this has nothing to do with how the eyes work. That's why I said more empirical testing has to be done on the brain and eyes, not on light.

[ceptimus]

All the early experiments that measured the speed of light used people looking at light sources, using their eyes, to make the measurements.

For distant objects, like the moons of Jupiter, people looked at the moons (through a telescope). For the experiments here on earth, people were looking at a target illuminated by an electric light bulb, and they were looking through the teeth of a rapidly rotating toothed wheel.

In all these experiments, if the people had instantly seen the objects they were looking at, as you claim, then they would have been unable to measure the speed of light (or to put it another way, they would have measured that light travelled at infinite speed). But they didn't. They measured a speed of about 300,000,000 metres per second and in the process demonstrated that we do not see in real time.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You did not read the book David. You flipped through it and grabbed certain sentences that would sound funny if taken out of context. You did a good job! It's because of you that I would never post the book online again!

No one can say I never did the Internets a big favor! I R winnah!

Just because we can measure the speed of light by measuring a delay does not mean we see the real world in delayed time.

Read what ceptimus just wrote, you little fool!

Delayed seeing is the only way we have to measure the speed of light.

You do not even understand what real-time seeing entails. Neither did the buffoon Lessans. If we saw in real-time, we would have no way of telling how fast photons travel and we we would have to (correctly) adjudge them to be traveling infinitely fast. That you cannot see this necessary connection between measuring light speed and delayed seeing is nothing short of breathtaking.

[davidm]

Here, peacegirl, let me quote this for you, just so you don't miss it. See how nice I am?

Originally Posted by ceptimus

All the early experiments that measured the speed of light used people looking at light sources, using their eyes, to make the measurements.

For distant objects, like the moons of Jupiter, people looked at the moons (through a telescope). For the experiments here on earth, people were looking at a target illuminated by an electric light bulb, and they were looking through the teeth of a rapidly rotating toothed wheel.

In all these experiments, if the people had instantly seen the objects they were looking at, as you claim, then they would have been unable to measure the speed of light (or to put it another way, they would have measured that light travelled at infinite speed). But they didn't. They measured a speed of about 300,000,000 metres per second and in the process demonstrated that we do not see in real time.

[davidm]

Hey, peacegirl, here's a question for you -- not that this hasn't been asked before, too!

If we shined a laser at the moon to illuminate a certain spot on it, would see see that illuminated spot (a) instantaneously, or (b) with a time delay? Notice that if you answer (b) it means, necessarily, that we are seeing that illuminated part of the moon as it was in the past.

Now, then, peacegirl, what is your answer? Take you time! I'm sure this is toughie. A little hint, though: this experiment has been done numerous times over the last fifty years, so we already know the answer!

[davidm]

To put it in a nutshell, peacegirl either cannot see, or pretends not to be able to see, that delayed-time seeing is a necessary precondition of being able to measure light speed at all. This is why her father's claim that light travels at a finite rate of speed but that we see instantly has all along been logically self-contradictory nonsense. And yet she continues to waste her time on something so obviously bogus that a kindergartener could understand that it's bogus.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I'm not backpedaling. There's just a lot of confusion. We would see a Supernova explode in real time just as we would see the Sun explode in real time, if they met the requirements of efferent vision.

The only confused person is you. This is simple math and cannot be refuted.

If we see a supernova instantly as it happens, without any delay at all
and
Photons and neutrinos produced by that supernova must travel the distance at/near the speed of light before they can be detected on Earth
then
We would see the supernova much, much earlier, decades earlier at the very least, than we could detect the photons and neutrinos produced by that supernova

[LadyShea]

But you can't make a leap from this to "we would see Columbus discovering America" because the image or pattern of that event is still travelling out there somewhere

Lessans is the only person, apparently, to ever to have made the strawman claim about seeing Columbus. Nobody here, and no scientific literature, mentions any such prediction or makes that claim. So, we aren't making any leaps to that.

However, the only way to see that event would be, as I previously stated, to have a powerful telescope 520 light years away pointed in the right direction at the right moment to intersect those photons from that event.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Um, no, not "our" telescopes. A telescope would need to be 520 light years away in space, incredibly powerful to resolve such detail, and in direct line with the traveling photons, with no obstacles, like planets, in the way to detect that event.

"We" can't do that

Also need to add, again, that you and Lessans are the only people I have ever heard claim that this is some widely held belief. He claimed it was in "encyclopedias", I think he was full of shit. You can't produce any encyclopedic citation for that.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Also need to add, again, that you and Lessans are the only people I have ever heard claim that this is some widely held belief.

It seems that Lessans made up stuff in order to disprove it and enhance his credability, unfortunately the made up stuff was all bogus and instead of increasing his credability he destroyed it. Many Years ago I read another author who did the same thing, claiming a widely held belief and then disproving it, the ploy only made me aware of his dishonesty.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by ceptimus

All the early experiments that measured the speed of light used people looking at light sources, using their eyes, to make the measurements.

Of course they used their eyes, but it still doesn't tell us what the brain was doing.

Originally Posted by Ceptimus

For distant objects, like the moons of Jupiter, people looked at the moons (through a telescope). For the experiments here on earth, people were looking at a target illuminated by an electric light bulb, and they were looking through the teeth of a rapidly rotating toothed wheel.

I get that, but they are vastly different experiments. Seeing a target illuminated gives us a premise measurement of the speed of light. The moons of Jupiter experiment is another story because there is an assumption that the moons are images coming from light. But there's no way to prove this.

Originally Posted by Cetimus

In all these experiments, if the people had instantly seen the objects they were looking at, as you claim, then they would have been unable to measure the speed of light (or to put it another way, they would have measured that light travelled at infinite speed). But they didn't. They measured a speed of about 300,000,000 metres per second and in the process demonstrated that we do not see in real time.

The ability to see in real time does not negate our ability to measure light when it lands on a target. But you're assuming that when light bounces off of objects it is taking with it a particular pattern, and that pattern is being interpreted as an image in the brain. That's the fallacy, according to Lessans.

Furthermore, seeing in real time has nothing to do with infinite speed. This comment makes me realize that there is no one on this thread that even has a clue as to why the brain, looking through the eyes, as a window, would allow us to see in real time without violating the laws of physics. The fact that the speed of light is finite doesn't have anything to do with our ability to see in real time. That's why I told Spacemonkey I don't want to answer anymore questions regarding photons traveling since it doesn't even relate.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Lessans is the only person, apparently, to ever to have made the strawman claim about seeing Columbus. Nobody here, and no scientific literature, mentions any such prediction or makes that claim. So, we aren't making any leaps to that.

It was a hypothetical example LadyShea.

Originally Posted by LadyShea

However, the only way to see that event would be, as I previously stated, to have a powerful telescope 520 light years away pointed in the right direction at the right moment to intersect those photons from that event.

Regardless of how powerful a telescope would have to be, if all the conditions were right, scientists believe that we would be able to see a past event such as Columbus discovering America, which is what Lessans disputed.

[davidm]

*Bump*

Originally Posted by davidm

Hey, peacegirl, here's a question for you -- not that this hasn't been asked before, too!

If we shined a laser at the moon to illuminate a certain spot on it, would see see that illuminated spot (a) instantaneously, or (b) with a time delay? Notice that if you answer (b) it means, necessarily, that we are seeing that illuminated part of the moon as it was in the past.

Now, then, peacegirl, what is your answer? Take you time! I'm sure this is toughie. A little hint, though: this experiment has been done numerous times over the last fifty years, so we already know the answer!