A revolution in thought

[Vivisectus]

I have no idea how celestial objects out there coordinate their movements such that the circumstantial evidence that we see in delayed time appears foolproof. All I know is that Lessans' observations are just as poignant. If you would keep an open mind and try to understand the circumstances under which he came to these conclusions, you might take a second look instead of mocking him because you think his claims sound ridiculous. Sounds can be deceiving. Unfortunately, I cannot give you what you want. That's why there's no point in continuing the discussion. Only more empirical testing which takes into consideration his claims, will it prove him right or wrong.

Amazing. So, you believe that

A: Moons around various planets are sped up up and slowed by a mysterious force in such a way that from earth, and only from earth, we see them come around their planets at the exact same time as we we expect them to appear if there is a delay in sight caused my the speed of light. Were we to observe the moons of Io from, say, Mars, we would get an entirely different result. Had Romer been a martian, he would have gotten a radically different result for his calculation of the speed of light.

So this leads us to a further conclusion: this mysterious force is centered on earth. While from any other place in the Universe Romer would have been completely wrong, here on Earth he got a pretty accurate result that matches measurements of the speed of done here on earth with more sophisticated means.

B: Probes and spacecraft are somehow pushed off course by another mysterious force. Not only does this force always push the probes far enough to end up in the place where we can see the distant planet, but also always pushes it in the direction of the planet we were originally aiming for! So somehow the force knows what we are trying to do, and helps our probes along.

If sight were instant, we should miss by a smaller factor for objects that are close by, and by far larger factors for objects that are further out. This does not happen: a mysterious unknown force knows what we are aiming at and corrects the trajectory to a greater extent for objects that are far away, and to a lesser extent for objects that are close by.

All I know is that Lessans' observations are just as poignant.

These observations are never mentioned. He mentions THAT it is so, and he mentions dog-sight and infant sight, but apart from that I never saw one. What are these "observations"? What was observed? How did they lead to the conclusion that sight is instant?

If you would keep an open mind and try to understand the circumstances under which he came to these conclusions,

I have just kept an open mind: I have imagined what things would be like if what you said were true, and extrapolated. The conclusions I reach are bizarre indeed. How do you explain them? It would seem that in order for the book to be correct about sight, something truly bizarre must be going on.

So what were the circumstances under which he reached these conclusions?

You keep hinting at them but you never quite seem to explain them. All the reasons to believe it presented in the book that I can discover are dog sight and infant sight. Scientific consensus on both is that the position taken in the book is a common misconception, and even if you do not accept the evidence that says this is so, it is still compatible with the accepted theory of sight.

Unfortunately, I cannot give you what you want. That's why there's no point in continuing the discussion. Only more empirical testing which takes into consideration his claims, will it prove him right or wrong.

But we have just seen empirical tests that prove he must be wrong: we have seen that in order for the book to be correct, impossible things need to be true. Objects fired from earth must be pushed off course towards the object they are intended to hit even though they are aimed wrong. Not only should we miss, we should miss by greater factors for more distant objects and smaller ones from close ones. We don't. Distant planets speed up and slow down, apparently for the sole purpose of making it seem like there is a delay in sight that corresponds to the speed of light.

To top it off: all these observations reinforce each other. The delay we observe in Io has a factor that is the same as the one by which we aim next to the planet we try to hit with our probe: the speed of light, if we assume there is a delay in sight. And this works - every time.

[Vivisectus]

Double poast

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

If you use the term "conduit" as a bridge or condition, then it is not gobbledygook. 'A condition of' is not the same thing as 'a cause of.'

Conditions still require explanations. How is light a condition of sight, what does it do that facilitates seeing? How does it influence, affect, or determine, modify, or limit sight?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Conditions still require explanations. How is light a condition of sight, what does it do that facilitates seeing? How does it influence, affect, or determine, modify, or limit sight?

And I do not have to prove the requirements to you. He explained his reasoning, and his perceptions are way above your ability to grasp, so unfortunately you are left out of the loop. I do not mean this derogatorily, but when someone explains very clearly what they see (i.e., I see a person walking toward me) and you don't believe it and require proof which cannot be given because the incident is gone, makes you an unbeliever. This is not to be taken as an exact analogy, but it does give insight into people who will not be open minded enough to even consider the possibility that a claim is right. I can't do more, so please LadyShea, go your merry way. I wish you the best. I have no hard feelings.

[Vivisectus]

Indeed: where Peacegirl is concerned, her father can just say it is so, and that is enough. He does not need to be rational, logical or provide any evidence whatever.

I am glad you realize that. Now you can work on step number two: realizing the rest of the world does not share your private father-worshipping religion.

[Vivisectus]

Double poast again!

Although I would still like to know about the mysterious force whose sole purpose seems to be to make it seem like there is a delay in sight based on the speed of light.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Conditions still require explanations. How is light a condition of sight, what does it do that facilitates seeing? How does it influence, affect, or determine, modify, or limit sight?

I don't think you understand what a condition even means. Nevermind. This has gotten old.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Amazing. So, you believe that

A: Moons around various planets are sped up up and slowed by a mysterious force in such a way that from earth, and only from earth, we see them come around their planets at the exact same time as we we expect them to appear if there is a delay in sight caused my the speed of light. Were we to observe the moons of Io from, say, Mars, we would get an entirely different result. Had Romer been a martian, he would have gotten a radically different result for his calculation of the speed of light.

So this leads us to a further conclusion: this mysterious force is centered on earth. While from any other place in the Universe Romer would have been completely wrong, here on Earth he got a pretty accurate result that matches measurements of the speed of done here on earth with more sophisticated means.

B: Probes and spacecraft are somehow pushed off course by another mysterious force. Not only does this force always push the probes far enough to end up in the place where we can see the distant planet, but also always pushes it in the direction of the planet we were originally aiming for! So somehow the force knows what we are trying to do, and helps our probes along.

If sight were instant, we should miss by a smaller factor for objects that are close by, and by far larger factors for objects that are further out. This does not happen: a mysterious unknown force knows what we are aiming at and corrects the trajectory to a greater extent for objects that are far away, and to a lesser extent for objects that are close by.

These observations are never mentioned. He mentions THAT it is so, and he mentions dog-sight and infant sight, but apart from that I never saw one. What are these "observations"? What was observed? How did they lead to the conclusion that sight is instant?

I have just kept an open mind: I have imagined what things would be like if what you said were true, and extrapolated. The conclusions I reach are bizarre indeed. How do you explain them? It would seem that in order for the book to be correct about sight, something truly bizarre must be going on.

So what were the circumstances under which he reached these conclusions?

You keep hinting at them but you never quite seem to explain them. All the reasons to believe it presented in the book that I can discover are dog sight and infant sight. Scientific consensus on both is that the position taken in the book is a common misconception, and even if you do not accept the evidence that says this is so, it is still compatible with the accepted theory of sight.

But we have just seen empirical tests that prove he must be wrong: we have seen that in order for the book to be correct, impossible things need to be true. Objects fired from earth must be pushed off course towards the object they are intended to hit even though they are aimed wrong. Not only should we miss, we should miss by greater factors for more distant objects and smaller ones from close ones. We don't. Distant planets speed up and slow down, apparently for the sole purpose of making it seem like there is a delay in sight that corresponds to the speed of light.

To top it off: all these observations reinforce each other. The delay we observe in Io has a factor that is the same as the one by which we aim next to the planet we try to hit with our probe: the speed of light, if we assume there is a delay in sight. And this works - every time.

If you think science has it right, fine. I don't. I don't buy that objects have to be pushed off course towards the object they are intended to hit just because the calculations are not precise. Distant planets do not have to speed up or slow down; there could be another explanation which you aren't willing to consider.

[Vivisectus]

If you think science has it right, fine. I don't. I don't buy that objects have to be pushed off course towards the object they are intended to hit just because the calculations are not precise. Distant planets do not have to speed up or slow down; there could be another explanation which you aren't willing to consider.

First off - good on you for finally realizing science and the book are two very, VERY different things! There may be hope for you yet.

But I would like to point out that in fact, I am considering your point of view: that "something else is going on". It is not really an explanation: as usual, neither you nor your father seem to think they are necessary.

According to you, sight is instant, and the many observations that point to this not being the case must be caused by this "something else".

I am merely pointing out what this "something else" would have to entail.

For instance: we can see that Io appears at different times when we look at Jupiter. This can mean that there is a delay in sight caused by the speed of light, or it can be caused by the moon spinning around the planet at variable speeds. I do not see what else could be going on - unless you are willing to entertain the idea that Jupiter expands and shrinks by a significant factor because of unknown reasons, making the orbit that Io needs to go through longer and shorter? If so, for some strange reason we cannot see this change in size.

Please let me know if there is any other explanation you can think of.

What could speed up and slow down a moon? How can it be that this variable speed matches what we would expect to see if sight was delayed by the speed of light when we observe the moon from earth?

How come moons around other planets show the same effect... only this time, the speeding up and slowing down is different, to such a degree that again it matches what we would expect to see if sight was delayed by sight and we observed it from earth?

Somehow, the amount of speeding up and slowing down (or the expanding and shrinking of the planets, should we decide to go with that one) is determined by their distance from earth, according to a constant factor: the speed of light!

So, in order for "something else to be going on", two things need to be true:

a: An unknown, mysterious force that is focused on or emanates from earth is exerting monumental amounts of energy on the universe around it
b: This force manipulates moons and planets more, the further away from earth they are, and less, the closer to earth they are. The net effect is always to create observations of earth that are indistinguishable from those we would expect if sight were delayed by the speed of light.

At the same time, this same force pushes any probes we fire into space off course so that in stead of missing the planet (which they should, as we did not aim them at where we can see them) they hit them exactly, every time.

And all this we can conclude because Lessans observed.... what again?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

First off - good on you for finally realizing science and the book are two very, VERY different things! There may be hope for you yet.

But I would like to point out that in fact, I am considering your point of view: that "something else is going on". It is not really an explanation: as usual, neither you nor your father seem to think they are necessary.

According to you, sight is instant, and the many observations that point to this not being the case must be caused by this "something else".

I am merely pointing out what this "something else" would have to entail.

For instance: we can see that Io appears at different times when we look at Jupiter. This can mean that there is a delay in sight caused by the speed of light, or it can be caused by the moon spinning around the planet at variable speeds. I do not see what else could be going on - unless you are willing to entertain the idea that Jupiter expands and shrinks by a significant factor because of unknown reasons, making the orbit that Io needs to go through longer and shorter? If so, for some strange reason we cannot see this change in size.

Please let me know if there is any other explanation you can think of.

What could speed up and slow down a moon? How can it be that this variable speed matches what we would expect to see if sight was delayed by the speed of light when we observe the moon from earth?

How come moons around other planets show the same effect... only this time, the speeding up and slowing down is different, to such a degree that again it matches what we would expect to see if sight was delayed by sight and we observed it from earth?

Somehow, the amount of speeding up and slowing down (or the expanding and shrinking of the planets, should we decide to go with that one) is determined by their distance from earth, according to a constant factor: the speed of light!

So, in order for "something else to be going on", two things need to be true:

a: An unknown, mysterious force that is focused on or emanates from earth is exerting monumental amounts of energy on the universe around it
b: This force manipulates moons and planets more, the further away from earth they are, and less, the closer to earth they are. The net effect is always to create observations of earth that are indistinguishable from those we would expect if sight were delayed by the speed of light.

At the same time, this same force pushes any probes we fire into space off course so that in stead of missing the planet (which they should, as we did not aim them at where we can see them) they hit them exactly, every time.

And all this we can conclude because Lessans observed.... what again?

It appears there is no other explanation other than delayed light. All I can say is that I believe Lessans is right because I believe his observations are right. What's the point of arguing over this Vivisectus? It's not going to get us anywhere.

[Vivisectus]

You are the one who came here to proselytize this idea - I am merely responding to your claims.

What were his observations regarding sight, which you believe to be right?

[Spacemonkey]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

It appears there is no other explanation other than delayed light. All I can say is that I believe Lessans is right because I believe his observations are right. What's the point of arguing over this Vivisectus? It's not going to get us anywhere.

Lessans was right because he was right, so something else must be going on there!

Where were those mirror image photons (now at the retina) 0.0001sec before the Sun was ignited?

Are you going to claim again that these photons which never traveled to the retina on Earth were previously traveling to the retina on Earth (before they had even been emitted from the Sun)?

Or are you just going to weasel and evade again?

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

Amazing. So, you believe that

A: Moons around various planets are sped up up and slowed by a mysterious force in such a way that from earth, and only from earth, we see them come around their planets at the exact same time as we we expect them to appear if there is a delay in sight caused my the speed of light. Were we to observe the moons of Io from, say, Mars, we would get an entirely different result. Had Romer been a martian, he would have gotten a radically different result for his calculation of the speed of light.

So this leads us to a further conclusion: this mysterious force is centered on earth. While from any other place in the Universe Romer would have been completely wrong, here on Earth he got a pretty accurate result that matches measurements of the speed of done here on earth with more sophisticated means.

B: Probes and spacecraft are somehow pushed off course by another mysterious force. Not only does this force always push the probes far enough to end up in the place where we can see the distant planet, but also always pushes it in the direction of the planet we were originally aiming for! So somehow the force knows what we are trying to do, and helps our probes along.

If sight were instant, we should miss by a smaller factor for objects that are close by, and by far larger factors for objects that are further out. This does not happen: a mysterious unknown force knows what we are aiming at and corrects the trajectory to a greater extent for objects that are far away, and to a lesser extent for objects that are close by.

These observations are never mentioned. He mentions THAT it is so, and he mentions dog-sight and infant sight, but apart from that I never saw one. What are these "observations"? What was observed? How did they lead to the conclusion that sight is instant?

I have just kept an open mind: I have imagined what things would be like if what you said were true, and extrapolated. The conclusions I reach are bizarre indeed. How do you explain them? It would seem that in order for the book to be correct about sight, something truly bizarre must be going on.

So what were the circumstances under which he reached these conclusions?

You keep hinting at them but you never quite seem to explain them. All the reasons to believe it presented in the book that I can discover are dog sight and infant sight. Scientific consensus on both is that the position taken in the book is a common misconception, and even if you do not accept the evidence that says this is so, it is still compatible with the accepted theory of sight.

Added to previous post:

I have gone over them time and time again. I basically printed the whole chapter for your convenience. Do you remember anything that he explained about how the brain works in relation to the eyes?

Unfortunately, I cannot give you what you want. That's why there's no point in continuing the discussion. Only more empirical testing which takes into consideration his claims, will it prove him right or wrong.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

But we have just seen empirical tests that prove he must be wrong: we have seen that in order for the book to be correct, impossible things need to be true. Objects fired from earth must be pushed off course towards the object they are intended to hit even though they are aimed wrong. Not only should we miss, we should miss by greater factors for more distant objects and smaller ones from close ones. We don't. Distant planets speed up and slow down, apparently for the sole purpose of making it seem like there is a delay in sight that corresponds to the speed of light.

What impossible things need to be true? I don't know how they calculate the trajectory to distant planets, but before you assume that time/light delay is the only factor that can account for landing accurately, I would think again.

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

To top it off: all these observations reinforce each other. The delay we observe in Io has a factor that is the same as the one by which we aim next to the planet we try to hit with our probe: the speed of light, if we assume there is a delay in sight. And this works - every time.

Like I said, Lessans is coming from an entirely different position but his observations are just as accurate. So who is right? Both can't be right.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Spacemonkey

Lessans was right because he was right, so something else must be going on there!

Where were those mirror image photons (now at the retina) 0.0001sec before the Sun was ignited?

Are you going to claim again that these photons which never traveled to the retina on Earth were previously traveling to the retina on Earth (before they had even been emitted from the Sun)?

Or are you just going to weasel and evade again?

You're missing the entire concept again. You are not thinking in terms of efferent vision at all. If we are able to see an object (in this case the Sun; we're working this backwards), the light is already at the eye or we could not see said object. Our gaze is already in the optical range which allows a mirror image of exactly what we are seeing to show up on the retina instantly.

[peacegirl]

Originally Posted by Vivisectus

You are the one who came here to proselytize this idea - I am merely responding to your claims.

What were his observations regarding sight, which you believe to be right?

You should be able to recite his observations by heart after two years of discussion.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't know how they calculate the trajectory to distant planets, but before you assume that time/light delay is the only factor that can account for landing accurately, I would think again.

Peacegirl, you admit that you do not know how they calculate a trajectory, but you are ready to say that the delay in observation due to the speed of light is incorrect. You are correct the delay is not the only factor, but it is a very important one. Funny, - (I can't believe she said that!)

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

You should be able to recite his observations by heart after two years of discussion.

It would be wonderful if anyone could recite Lessans observations, but none have been revealed, not by you or Lessans in the book. He claims to have made them, but does not reveal them, only his conclusions from them

[But]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

Conditions still require explanations. How is light a condition of sight, what does it do that facilitates seeing? How does it influence, affect, or determine, modify, or limit sight?

Are you serious?

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

we're working this backwards.

And this was Lessans whole problem, he came up with a scenario that he liked and then invented conditions that he thought would lead to those ends. Unfortunatelly most of what he came up with is pure fantasy and totally at odds with reality, and what is known about physics, psychology, and several other established disciplines of knowledge.

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by But

Are you serious?

Sorry, as it was addressed to peacegirl I assumed the qualifier "in the efferent vision model"

[LadyShea]

Originally Posted by peacegirl

I don't think you understand what a condition even means. Nevermind. This has gotten old.

I know exactly what a condition is, and I used the defining terms in my question.

Do you know what a condition is?

[LadyShea]

And I do not have to prove the requirements to you. He explained his reasoning, and his perceptions are way above your ability to grasp, so unfortunately you are left out of the loop. I do not mean this derogatorily, but when someone explains very clearly what they see (i.e., I see a person walking toward me) and you don't believe it and require proof which cannot be given because the incident is gone, makes you an unbeliever. This is not to be taken as an exact analogy, but it does give insight into people who will not be open minded enough to even consider the possibility that a claim is right. I can't do more, so please LadyShea, go your merry way. I wish you the best. I have no hard feelings.

You don't have to do anything. If you want Lessans ideas to be seen as possible or plausible you should want to explain them in a way that does not require a change in physics or impossibilities though.

The rest of your post is just histrionic weaseling.

[LadyShea]

And I do not have to prove the requirements to you. He explained his reasoning, and his perceptions are way above your ability to grasp, so unfortunately you are left out of the loop. I do not mean this derogatorily, but when someone explains very clearly what they see (i.e., I see a person walking toward me) and you don't believe it and require proof which cannot be given because the incident is gone, makes you an unbeliever. This is not to be taken as an exact analogy, but it does give insight into people who will not be open minded enough to even consider the possibility that a claim is right. I can't do more, so please LadyShea, go your merry way. I wish you the best. I have no hard feelings.

You don't have to do anything. If you want Lessans ideas to be seen as possible or plausible you should want to explain them in a way that does not require a change in physics or impossibilities though.

The rest of your post is just histrionic weaseling.

[thedoc]

Originally Posted by LadyShea

You don't have to do anything. If you want Lessans ideas to be seen as possible or plausible you should want to explain them in a way that does not require a change in physics or impossibilities though.

The rest of your post is just histrionic weaseling.

For Emphasis?

[The Lone Ranger]

So, to boil it down, our choices are twofold:

1. Virtually everything we know about physics, astronomy, visual anatomy, and neural physiology is wrong. Furthermore, the entire Universe is somehow conspiring to create the illusion that we here on Earth -- and only we here on Earth -- see in delayed time.
   
   
2. Lessans' wholly unsupported claims are correct.

I sure know which choice I think is more likely to be the correct one.