A revolution in thought

[specious_reasons]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's not true Specious. You are basing your ideas on what you believe to be true, but science has not tested efferent vision based on Lessans' claims. You can't say that something isn't true without a careful analysis and testing, and this has never been done.

Actually, no. You've been informed multiple times that the question of efferent vs. afferent vision was a legitimate scientific question at one point in time. Experimental tests proved that light detection is the mechanism by which we see, well over 100 years before Lessans even entertained the notion.

Every experiment ever conducted on vision has upheld the scientific model of vision, in contrast to Lessans ideas.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

How many times do I have to repeat myself?

You can repeat yourself from now until the sun swells into a red giant and devours the earth, and you will still be wrong. Endless repetition of a mistake does not make the mistake right.

This question that you hold so dear will be answered in time, with more empirical testing. You don't like to wait, but you're going to have to in order to learn the truth.

The question was first answered centuries ago, in the moons of Jupiter experiment explained ad nauseum to you, and the answer has been the same ever since, in untold numbers of experiments and a vast aggolmeration of technology all solidly based on delayed-time seeing. The latest disproof of your father's nonsense was the successful landing of Curiosity on Mars, which would have been impossible if Lessans were right and science wrong. Look at you ignore this. Don't you ever tire of parading your transparent dishonesty?

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I hope that, in the name of science, more empirical testing can be done. I can't do this myself, so I am depending scientists to take this knowledge seriously.

Of course you can test Lessans' claim for yourself. It's a very simple experiment, and will cost less than $100.00 in materials.

Go to Wal-Mart or some such place and buy a cheap astronomical telescope or a good pair of binoculars, and a stopwatch.

Take the telescope outside on a clear night when Earth and Jupiter are at their closest and point it at Jupiter. If you don't like Jupiter, you could use Saturn as your test-planet. If you invest in a better telescope, you could use Uranus or even Neptune. Record the times that the planet's moons are eclipsed by the planet.

Repeat the experiment exactly six months later, when the separation between Earth and your target planet is about 186,000,000 miles greater. See if the change in distance affects when we see the moons being eclipsed.

If we see in "real time," the change in distance won't have any effect on when we see the moons being eclipsed. If we don't see in "real time," the finite speed of light will impose a 17-minute difference.

Be sure to report your results. You have no excuses; any reasonably intelligent third-grader could perform the experiment and understand the results.

[Vivisectus]

But we have just done an empirical test: we fired a spacecraft at a place where we expected it to be if sight was not instant and Lessans was wrong.

If Lessans was right, it should have missed. Mars has a small diameter: it is only about 6800 KM across. It moves at 86854.19 KM/hour an hour, and it was 15 light minutes away when Curiosity landed.

So, we aimed it 21713 KM in front of where we could observe it with a telescope (or even the naked eye) at the time of the landing - more than 3 times it's diameter.

We did not aim it at the place where we knew we would be able to observe Mars optically, but where we assumed Mars was going to be, If the delay between the event and us being able to see it is exactly as long as it takes light to travel from there to here.

And yet we managed to hit a target area of about 200 x 200 KM, while we should have missed by at least 21000 KM if Lessans was right.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by The Lone Ranger

Of course you can test Lessans' claim for yourself. It's a very simple experiment, and will cost less than $100.00 in materials.

Go to Wal-Mart or some such place and buy a cheap astronomical telescope or a good pair of binoculars, and a stopwatch.

Take the telescope outside on a clear night when Earth and Jupiter are at their closest and point it at Jupiter. If you don't like Jupiter, you could use Saturn as your test-planet. If you invest in a better telescope, you could use Uranus or even Neptune. Record the times that the planet's moons are eclipsed by the planet.

Repeat the experiment exactly six months later, when the separation between Earth and your target planet is about 186,000,000 miles greater. See if the change in distance affects when we see the moons being eclipsed.

If we see in "real time," the change in distance won't have any effect on when we see the moons being eclipsed. If we don't see in "real time," the finite speed of light will impose a 17-minute difference.

Be sure to report your results. You have no excuses; any reasonably intelligent third-grader could perform the experiment and understand the results.

Why wouldn't we see a change in distance six months later? Obviously, there has been a change but to conclude that we see the moons of Jupiter's in delayed time is not conclusive. It feels airtight but it is circumstantial. I don't want to get into this again because it's not even his most important discovery, yet no one will let go of this topic even for a second.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But we have just done an empirical test: we fired a spacecraft at a place where we expected it to be if sight was not instant and Lessans was wrong.

If Lessans was right, it should have missed. Mars has a small diameter: it is only about 6800 KM across. It moves at 86854.19 KM/hour an hour, and it was 15 light minutes away when Curiosity landed.

So, we aimed it 21713 KM in front of where we could observe it with a telescope (or even the naked eye) at the time of the landing - more than 3 times it's diameter.

We did not aim it at the place where we knew we would be able to observe Mars optically, but where we assumed Mars was going to be, If the delay between the event and us being able to see it is exactly as long as it takes light to travel from there to here.

And yet we managed to hit a target area of about 200 x 200 KM, while we should have missed by at least 21000 KM if Lessans was right.

How many times has the example of sending spacecraft to Mars been explained to her? I wonder if she even comprehends the irony of her returning here, just after we landed yet another craft on Mars, with brilliant, pinpoint success, and did so while employing precisely the delayed-time seeing that Lessans' rejected?

This example of landing a craft on Mars is such an iron-clad disproof of real-time seeing that she cannnot fail to comprehend it. Of course it's one of many dozens, if not hundreds, similar proofs we have explained to her. She must comprehend it; a child could do so. Therefore her persistence in promoting real-time seeing, which is ruled out be experiment, must be a species of sheer dishonesty. She hopes to make money off her father's nonsense, like any typical huckster.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

Why wouldn't we see a change in distance six months later? Obviously, there has been a change but to conclude that we see the moons of Jupiter's in delayed time is not conclusive. It feels airtight but it is circumstantial. I don't want to get into this again because it's not even his most important discovery, yet no one will let go of this topic even for a second.

Nah, of course you don't want to get into it again, but sure enough, every time you post here, it will be brought up and your nose will be rubbed in it, in reality.

Why wouldn't we see a change in distance six months later? I don't know, you tell us. It's your (and Lessan's) theory. Here, I'll explain for you: if we saw in real time, as Lessans claimed, we could not discern a change in distance via seeing, because real-time seeing means, by definition, that we see everything in the universe at once! The fact that we must wait longer to see something that has moved farther from us, disproves real-time seeing by the very definition of real-time seeing. Doh!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Nah, of course you don't want to get into it again, but sure enough, every time you post here, it will be brought up and your nose will be rubbed in it, in reality.

Why wouldn't we see a change in distance six months later? I don't know, you tell us. It's your (and Lessan's) theory. Here, I'll explain for you: if we saw in real time, as Lessans claimed, we could not discern a change in distance via seeing, because real-time seeing means, by definition, that we see everything in the universe at once! The fact that we must wait longer to see something that has moved farther from us, disproves real-time seeing by the very definition of real-time seeing. Doh!

It does mean that we see everything in real time, but that does not mean that we can't calculate a position of a planet due to the time it takes for light to travel. You have it all mixed up.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

How many times has the example of sending spacecraft to Mars been explained to her? I wonder if she even comprehends the irony of her returning here, just after we landed yet another craft on Mars, with brilliant, pinpoint success, and did so while employing precisely the delayed-time seeing that Lessans' rejected?

This example of landing a craft on Mars is such an iron-clad disproof of real-time seeing that she cannnot fail to comprehend it. Of course it's one of many dozens, if not hundreds, similar proofs we have explained to her. She must comprehend it; a child could do so. Therefore her persistence in promoting real-time seeing, which is ruled out be experiment, must be a species of sheer dishonesty. She hopes to make money off her father's nonsense, like any typical huckster.

That is exactly why you are not going to be invited to the forum, although I know if you could ever put aside your prejudices for a second, you might actually change your tune.

[Vivisectus]

That forum full of people who are only allowed to agree with Lessans is going to be pretty lonely.

[The Lone Ranger]

Pesky reality. So inconvenient, isn't it peacegirl?

[Vivisectus]

Why wouldn't we see a change in distance six months later? Obviously, there has been a change but to conclude that we see the moons of Jupiter's in delayed time is not conclusive. It feels airtight but it is circumstantial. I don't want to get into this again because it's not even his most important discovery, yet no one will let go of this topic even for a second.

It is conclusive according to the scientific meaning of the term: IE it explains what we see, you can make accurate predictions based on it which are then confirmed, and there are no known observations that contradict it.

Your definition of "conclusive" seems to be "It fits with what I want to believe".

What are your explanations for the moons of jupiter, and the mars landing?

[peacegirl]

repeat

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

I am pointing out the obvious and stating a fact. My motive is to do just that. You talked about your website being designed over a year ago.

Added to previous post:

But I wasn't ready a year ago. That's why I was spending so much time here. I had to go through the entire book because this is the last time I'm resubmitting it. Now that my book is in the printers, and the mp3 is finished being edited (although there are still a couple of distortions that couldn't be corrected; remember, he recorded this in the 1970's using a plain old tape recorder), I can now focus on my website.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It does mean that we see everything in real time, but that does not mean that we can't calculate a position of a planet due to the time it takes for light to travel. You have it all mixed up.

Oh, my, all your charming traits on display as usual: willful ignorance, pathological dishonesty and projection (see bolded part above).

The above quote of yours is a consequence of believing in something absurd. However, I don’t believe for a moment that you fail to recognize the absurdity of what you are claiming.

You are claiming that while the speed of light is finite, and can be measured, we also see in real time: i.e., instantaneously.

This is an absurd claim. But let’s imagine for a second it were true. If this were true, it would mean that in order to measure the finite speed of light, we would have to do so by some means other than purely visual.

And this is where your idiotic claims collapse. In the case of the moons of Jupiter, and all the other examples we have given you, the finite speed of light is measured purely by visual means.


This would be IMPOSSIBLE if Lessans were correct. If Lessans were correct, we would see objects, both sources of light and sources of reflected light, instantaneously, no matter how far away they were, no matter how much they changed their position.

This means that, if we relied on sight alone to try to measure the speed of light, we would measure it to be infinitely fast. If it really were true that we see in real time, but that light propagates at a finite rate of speed, then we would have to devise some other means besides the purely visual to measure the velocity of light. Relying on sight alone, we would measure the speed of light to be infinitely fast.

Since all the examples of measuring the speed of light that we have given you rely upon the purely visual, this is a direct test of Lessans’ claims. Lessans’ claims predict that by sight alone, we would have to conclude that the speed of light is infinite; that is what real-time seeing means.

It’s the same principle involved in the Fizeau Wheel , which we have gone over ad nauseum with you. The Fizeau Wheel experiment, as described below, relies on sight alone to measure the velocity of light; if we saw in real-time, the results of the experiment, described below, could not possibly occur. Therefore, the moons of Jupiter, the Fizeau wheel, and all the other examples we have given you, since they measure the speed of light purely by visual means, prove that real-time seeing is wrong.

You cannot fail to understand such kindergarten-level facts. Hence your wilfull denial of these facts is dishonesty, pure and simple.

In 1849, French physicist Armand Fizeau developed a device known as the Fizeau wheel in order to measure the speed of light. This instrument consists of a rotating toothed wheel through which a beam of light is passed. The light is then reflected by a distant mirror, which reflects it back to the wheel. When the rotation speed is low, the light beam returns quickly enough so as to pass through the same opening through which it was transmitted. As the rotation speed increases, the light is blocked because the wheel has advanced one-half the distance between openings. Further increasing the speed, the wheel advances the entire distance between openings, and the beam again passes through. Knowing all the dimensions involved and the speeds at which the light beam passed or didn't pass, Fizeau could calculate the speed of light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

Too bad you were never able to answer a single one of them, then.

Like this: How did the rover Curiosity get to Mars, peacegirl? NASA calculated its trajectory according to delayed-time seeing of the reflected light of Mars. If Lessans were right, the rover would have missed its target by thousands of miles. But, it made a pinpoint perfect landing, based on caclucaltions that Silly Seymour contested.

How do you expalain that?

Oh, wait. That is one of the hundreds of questions you claim to be "grateful" for, yet never even came close to answering, and never will.

I never said scientists can't determine a planet's position by calculating a trajectory using light.

[naturalist.atheist]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

That's how it appears. It is very easy for an experiment of this size and type to confirm what everyone already believes is an absolute fact.

Your delusion isn't even poetic. It's just absurdly stupid. It makes everyone see your life as a very sad thing. Peacegirl, you should get help. You don't have to die leaving the world with this memory of you.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Actually, no. You've been informed multiple times that the question of efferent vs. afferent vision was a legitimate scientific question at one point in time. Experimental tests proved that light detection is the mechanism by which we see, well over 100 years before Lessans even entertained the notion.

Every experiment ever conducted on vision has upheld the scientific model of vision, in contrast to Lessans ideas.

Where in the world did Lessans ever say that light was not the mechanism by which we see. The only difference is the direction in which we see, but this does not negate the fact that light must be present.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I never said scientists can't determine a planet's position by calculating a trajectory using light.

That's EXACTLY what you have been saying, though it is possible you really have no idea what you are talking about.


Shall we really go over this tiresome twaddle again, a point so obvious that a kindergartner could grasp it?

There is rocket on the launch pad aimed for Mars. Mars is in the sky, a red dot shining via reflected light.

According to Lessans, the location of Mars in the sky, as seen from earth and the launch pad, is where it actually is.

Science says otherwise. Science says that red dot of light in the sky is where Mars was, some twenty minutes earlier. It is no longer actaully there.

NASA must compute the trajectory of the craft to Mars. They either must compute it according to Lessans' claim, that the dot of light in the sky is where Mars actually is, OR they must compute the trajectory according to the claims of science, which is that the dot in the sky is where Mars WAS, but not where it actually IS.

These calculations are mutually inconsistent. Only one of them can be correct: Either Lessans is correct, or science is correct. Only one of these caluclations will ACTULLY get you to Mars. If one of them works, the other will not, of necessity.

NASA uses science, not Lessans.

Ergo, Lessans was wrong.

Q.E.D.

[peacegirl]

[quote=davidm;1082423]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It does mean that we see everything in real time, but that does not mean that we can't calculate a position of a planet due to the time it takes for light to travel. You have it all mixed up.

Originally Posted by davidm

Oh, my, all your charming traits on display as usual: willful ignorance, pathological dishonesty and projection (see bolded part above).

The above quote of yours is a consequence of believing in something absurd. However, I don’t believe for a moment that you fail to recognize the absurdity of what you are claiming.

You are claiming that while the speed of light is finite, and can be measured, we also see in real time: i.e., instantaneously.

That is not absurd unless you're trying to make it sound that way. Lessans agreed that light travels at 186,000 miles a second, but the rest of your analysis is wrong because you conclude that in order to see light must first reach Earth. Lessans was trying to show that light only needs to be surrounding the object for the eyes to see said object. This is all due to efferent vision; the ability of the brain to look through the eyes as a window (for those who have not been following this conversation).

Originally Posted by davidm

This is an absurd claim. But let’s imagine for a second it were true. If this were true, it would mean that in order to measure the finite speed of light, we would have to do so by some means other than purely visual.

And this is where your idiotic claims collapse. In the case of the moons of Jupiter, and all the other examples we have given you, the finite speed of light is measured purely by visual means.

This would be IMPOSSIBLE if Lessans were correct. If Lessans were correct, we would see objects, both sources of light and sources of reflected light, instantaneously, no matter how far away they were, no matter how much they changed their position.

This means that, if we relied on sight alone to try to measure the speed of light, we would measure it to be infinitely fast. If it really were true that we see in real time, but that light propagates at a finite rate of speed, then we would have to devise some other means besides the purely visual to measure the velocity of light. Relying on sight alone, we would measure the speed of light to be infinitely fast.

That is unfounded. Lessans never disputed the fact that light travels at a certain rate of speed, but this does not in any way conflict with his claim that we see in real time.

Originally Posted by davidm

Since all the examples of measuring the speed of light that we have given you rely upon the purely visual, this is a direct test of Lessans’ claims. Lessans’ claims predict that by sight alone, we would have to conclude that the speed of light is infinite; that is what real-time seeing means.

It’s the same principle involved in the Fizeau Wheel , which we have gone over ad nauseum with you. The Fizeau Wheel experiment, as described below, relies on sight alone to measure the velocity of light; if we saw in real-time, the results of the experiment, described below, could not possibly occur. Therefore, the moons of Jupiter, the Fizeau wheel, and all the other examples we have given you, since they measure the speed of light purely by visual means, prove that real-time seeing is wrong.

You cannot fail to understand such kindergarten-level facts. Hence your wilfull denial of these facts is dishonesty, pure and simple.

No David, this does not mean that Fizeau's experiment is wrong, or that light would travel infinitely fast. Light travels at a finite speed, therefore we would see the effects of light on the wheel visually, but this has nothing to do with seeing images from the past that supposedly are being carried along through time and space ad infinitum.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

You can repeat yourself from now until the sun swells into a red giant and devours the earth, and you will still be wrong. Endless repetition of a mistake does not make the mistake right.

The question was first answered centuries ago, in the moons of Jupiter experiment explained ad nauseum to you, and the answer has been the same ever since, in untold numbers of experiments and a vast aggolmeration of technology all solidly based on delayed-time seeing. The latest disproof of your father's nonsense was the successful landing of Curiosity on Mars, which would have been impossible if Lessans were right and science wrong. Look at you ignore this. Don't you ever tire of parading your transparent dishonesty?

I'm not ignoring anything. We don't see objects until they come into our field of view. This involves time obviously because it takes time for an object to entire our visual field, but it is the actual object we are seeing, not light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by davidm

That's EXACTLY what you have been saying, though it is possible you really have no idea what you are talking about.


Shall we really go over this tiresome twaddle again, a point so obvious that a kindergartner could grasp it?

There is rocket on the launch pad aimed for Mars. Mars is in the sky, a red dot shining via reflected light.

According to Lessans, the location of Mars in the sky, as seen from earth and the launch pad, is where it actually is.

Science says otherwise. Science says that red dot of light in the sky is where Mars was, some twenty minutes earlier. It is no longer actaully there.

NASA must compute the trajectory of the craft to Mars. They either must compute it according to Lessans' claim, that the dot of light in the sky is where Mars actually is, OR they must compute the trajectory according to the claims of science, which is that the dot in the sky is where Mars WAS, but not where it actually IS.

These calculations are mutually inconsistent. Only one of them can be correct: Either Lessans is correct, or science is correct. Only one of these caluclations will ACTULLY get you to Mars. If one of them works, the other will not, of necessity.

NASA uses science, not Lessans.

Ergo, Lessans was wrong.

Q.E.D.

I've said this before, computing the light/time delay may not actually be the smoking gun that you so strongly believe proves Lessans wrong.

[The Lone Ranger]

What's amazing is that, for Lessans' fantasy of "real-time seeing" to be correct, literally the entire Universe -- from relatively nearby planets (heck, to measurable events here on Earth), to quasars more than 10 billion light-years distant -- must be conspiring to create the seamless illusion that we see in delayed time.

It's the ultimate conspiracy theory.

But peacegirl thinks that we are the ones who're being unreasonable!

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by specious_reasons

Actually, no. You've been informed multiple times that the question of efferent vs. afferent vision was a legitimate scientific question at one point in time. Experimental tests proved that light detection is the mechanism by which we see, well over 100 years before Lessans even entertained the notion.

Every experiment ever conducted on vision has upheld the scientific model of vision, in contrast to Lessans ideas.

I'm not sure what experimental tests you're referring to, that have proved light detection (which I am not even debating) translates to seeing in delayed time.

[The Lone Ranger]

So, how do you think we detect light, if not by seeing it?